tvc184

The judge DID NOT give him 30 years. There was no punishment phase of the trial and it was about to be argued and then go in front of the jury. During the lunch recess, a plea deal was reached between the DA and the convicted murderer. This is my opinion on that plea deal…… Yes it was a light sentence. I would have likely not accepted the deal as the DA without at least 50 so he would have 25 to do minimum. Of course that is easy for me to say sitting in my house watching it on YouTube. However….. It is always a roll of the dice in front of a jury. A jury with a little sympathy could have given him 10 years and then probated that so he would actually do no time in prison. I watched it live on YouTube and I think there was nine women on the jury. Would that tend to show sympathy? So the DA could accept a 30 year sentence as opposed to risking a potential probation. I think the number of women could have actually worked against him also. That is the roll of the dice. I think I saw four or five black women on the jury. That could be the wildcard either way. The DA might have seen them as having sympathy for the black defendant however….. They and the other women might have had just the opposite effect. There is a reasonable chance that the women either have a relative or a friend who is going through or has gone through abuse just like the murdered woman was claimed to have gone through. Rather than being sympathetic toward the convicted murder, they might have been the ones that wanted to throw the book at him. The murderer, who up until he was found guilty was proclaiming his innocence, as part of the plea deal agreed to file no appeals and the verdict would stand as final along with the sentencing. So the murderer and/or his attorneys looked at that jury and said we might go see if the DA will make an offer. I think I only saw three men on the jury. It is obviously just my opinion but I thought it was great and think it was a black women on the jury who pushed the murderer to accept a plea deal with no appeal possible. He could have still made a plea in from of the jury for a lighter sentence and probation. Rather than seeing them as an easy touch (they could’ve easily held out for a lower sentence), the defense might have seen them as sympathetic toward the victim. So both sides have something to risk by going in front of the jury. Even though they got a conviction, a light sentence with probation would have been a slap in the face to the DA and the victim’s family. Then the murderer could’ve hoped for that light sentence but he also could have had the jury give him 99 years. With both having a lot on the line, they came to that agreement. I have no way of knowing but I suspect and thought it was a great that black women may have been the deciding factor. Their presence on the jury might have been powerful but obviously we will never know.

No, I glanced at it and missed the prescription part.

This officer did not kill Breonna Taylor but he returned fire after a partner was shot. He fired into the apartment where the gun fire was coming from and did not hit anyone but a couple of bullets with him to the neighboring apartment. The officer who shot Breonna Taylor was not charged (correctly) So I think they charged this officer with endangering. Fortunately the jury saw through the charge and acquitted the officer. [Hidden Content]

Probably can if you don’t have a script for it.

I think the keyword there though is “impaired”. If you are impaired then I don’t think a legal prescription helps. I underwent several random drug screens as part of our contract as a police officer. If I had a lawful drugs in my system, as long as it was prescribed, I was okay. Even if lawful however, if I showed up for work impaired, I could be disciplined up to termination. Impaired has the same definition in the law usually as intoxicated.

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the world possibly being on the brink of nuclear Armageddon might seem more serious at this point.

My older brother was a Navy corpsman for 26 years including treating combat casualties. I can assume that I could be able to perform minor surgeries….

Yeah but in local politics, name can sometimes carry a lot of weight. When you have a justice of the peace whose only name recognition is that her husband is an evening news anchor….. It does not mean that they will not be a good judge but people literally vote for a name. I’m not telling you anything you don’t know it just mentioning the obvious. I worked with a police officer who they wanted to go to advanced traffic investigating school to learn to reconstruct fatal accidents.. He said he wanted no part of it and he hates doing math. The commanders’ rationale? The officer’s brother was an accountant for a large company. That makes about as much sense as name recognition.

A definition of job would be required to fully comprehend the importance of your conclusion.

In the tank fatalities that I worked and talking with witnesses at the scene, when one man collapsed, another went in to get him out. He apparently at some point realized the mistake and tried to climb up the ladder to get out but did not make it which was only a few feet. We will never know but in my opinion the second man died as a hero because he probably realize what was happening to the first man. I believe he thought that he could go down to get the man and pulled him up a few feet. The speed at which he was overcome was very quick. Nitrogen is not caustic and is not poisonous in itself. It is not like being in chemical fumes where you can feel it in your lungs, your eyes might burn, etc. Without oxygen you probably collapse in less than five seconds. From the way the firefighters on scene described it to me, going into a pure nitrogen environment is almost like sucking the oxygen out of your body. You are breathing in what is a major component of the atmosphere we live in but there is no oxygen in it to keep you alive. I think in the case that I worked, the second man probably started getting lightheaded within a couple of seconds, realized what was happening and tried to get out but could not make it up the 6-8 foot ladder. I asked the firefighters just for an opinion, had somebody with a breathing apparatus been able to go down immediately and get the men out and immediately start giving oxygen and CPR, would they have recovered I was told that likely yes. The nitrogen does not kill a person but simply keeps your body from getting oxygen because there is none. We always hear that if a person can get oxygen restored within four or five minutes, there is a good chance of survival. Like if a person goes underwater and you were able to get him out immediately, if you could get CPR started and get oxygen into the person, there’s a good chance of survival and maybe without any lasting effects. I am guessing that the problem with that information is that even though your body can survive for a few minutes without oxygen, that does not mean you will be conscious. You might go unconscious within moments and will depend on someone else to restore your oxygen within a very few minutes. That might be some dangerous bit of information because if a person believes he can take a deep breath and go into a compartment and have a couple of minutes to retrieve another person, that could be a fatal mistake. In truth under exertion you might be only able to hold your breath for maybe 20 or 30 seconds. The moment you have to take another breath, you are likely at the point of no return. You had better get out of the compartment within a couple of seconds or you also will go down. We might be able to live for 3 to 5 minutes without oxygen. We can only stay conscious however for 3 to 5 seconds. In my non-medical opinion…..

I worked a scene like that at a tank in Port Arthur about 10 years on a barge. About 25 years ago I was at a swat training day and we were training with the Coast Guard. We were practicing assaulting a ship with active shooters on board. At one point we were going down a ladder on the ship and when the first officer got to the bottom of the ladder, a CG instructor tapped him on the shoulder and said you are down. So the second officer quickly moved down the ladder to the door to cover the fallen officer as if he had been shot. The instructor tapped him and said now you are down. I was the third officer in this stack and I started pushing my team backwards at that point and retreating up the ladder. The Coast Guard instructor asked me what the heck I was doing. I said I don’t know what just happened but I know I’m not going down that ladder. I heard no shots and saw no blood yet there were officers falling. The scenario was that there was a gas leak which is absolutely possible on a ship or to go into an enclosed container with nitrogen, some other gas or chemical or even a rusty room could kill you. That was the lesson. Don’t rush to your death when you see people start going down.

Nederland comes back from 8 down in the 3rd.

Nederland 64-63 final

0.03 Nederland at the line

Timeout Nederland 0.05 63-63

Timeout Angleton 0.09 Nederland 63-61

0:50 61-61

2:00 59-58 Angleton

2:20 Angleton 59-55

6:00 left, Angleton 50-46

I don’t think the governor has any say so in property taxes. Most of Texas tax problems are a lack of an income tax. Much of the public pays basically nothing in taxes if they don’t own property. Of course the argument is that property taxes are passed on somewhere down the line like if you rent a house, you are paying taxes to the owner because he is charging you extra. Does anyone believe that if we got rid of all property taxes next week, rent would go down $1? If all property taxes are passed on, why not just do away with all sales tax, gasoline tax, etc., and just raise our property taxes? Shouldn’t that be the rational solution if all property taxes are passed on to someone else? Of course not but for every dollar you do away with from property tax, you have to raise another dollar somewhere else. How is anyone going to help secure the border if: 1. The United States Constitution only allows the federal Congress to make rules for immigration enforcement? Arizona tried that and it was struck down by the Supreme Court. 2. Texas could put billions of dollars to put more fencing and personnel to at least turn the people crossing back toward federal authorities even though the State has no authority to take them into custody. That however will likely cause a huge increase in taxes. While the governor is a head executive of the state and technically is in charge of the military, he cannot spend money that is not authorized by the Texas Congress. If Prather for example says, I’m going to spend $2 billion next month securing the border, where is he going to get it? New property taxes? I honestly think that he would do a decent job and it certainly would not offend me if he or West or Huffines was the next governor. Out of the four major candidates, I trust Huffines the least because of his outrageous claims. I know he’s not telling the truth, he knows he’s not telling the truth but at least make it somewhat believable.

Yes, Robert E. Lee did “exactly” the same thing as George Washington. Washington was a colonel in the British army but then joined the rebels. He was a traitor to his country. Had the British won the Revolutionary War, would Washington be a villain or a hero to freedom lovers?

I don’t agree with but completely understand that the West hasn’t been here long enough argument. If that is what someone believes then that is a valid point. We aren’t required to justify our vote. By the same token I have seen comments in other forums that wish Ron DeSantis would leave Florida and become the Texas governor next week and he has never lived here. Apparently they are more concerned with political opinion than residency. I don’t agree with West’s opinion on his wife’s arrest but he was backing up his wife. Had the same exact situation happened but for somebody he did not know, he would likely made a statement like, let all the facts come out before we make an accusation. I have never agreed with any person including any politician’s opinion 100% of the time. If you can find such a person that agrees with me (not anyone else) 100% of the time, please let me know. I actually thought I might have been for a Huffines until I heard a couple of his radio commercials. I understand politics but geez…… he could have just as well said that he would make Texas secede from the union, declare everyone a millionaire at the state expense and nobody has to work again and we will all be eating that rainbow stew. Would those stupid claims make him a bad governor? Probably not but even I have my limit on how much a person can lie to my face. I believe 100% that Trump was going to build the wall if he could find the funding… and did. I equally felt with 100% certainty that Mexico was not going to pay for it. The first part was reality and the second part was political bravado. I always believe I can tell the difference.

I see comments similar to that repeated over and over in almost every thread and in every forum. And….. “both sides say it”. They are all crooks…. Their base supports them no matter what….. They are playing politics just like the other side…. My guy is stupid but so is yours…. That means what as far as a conversation or debate? As an example in the current politics of Texas, gun laws. In the last few legislatures and in particular this last one, the Republican party has pushed for much more gun rights. Virtually every Republican voted in favor of each of those bills and virtually every Democrat voted against them. Abbott who some Republicans claim is a rino, signed every one of them including one which would overturn federal law (which in itself is unlawful and unconstitutional) by making silencers legal without having to go through the federal process. People can call him whatever they wish but he signed every bill that I’m in favor of. So is there a point of noting that politics is politics? Both sides are playing on the same field but which outcome do you support?

I haven’t voted yet, probably today but will for West. Looking at people’s reactions however is what gives me little faith in Abbott being beaten in a runoff. West is a carpetbagger, Huffines is a used car salesman and Prather is a comedian doing it as a joke. For the most part, this appears to be the first and second choices of the people who would not be voting for Abbott in the primary. West supporters: West/Abbott Huffines supporters: Huffines/Abbott Pfather supporters: Prather/Abbott And honestly, I am not against Abbott. I just like West more. I would like my Chihuahua as a better option than Beto.