tvc184

How did you come to that conclusion? I think most seizures should be illegal unless based on very good evidence. If you read my comments above I said I don’t know if they had a valid reason to seize the money. I also said that if they can’t prove it, needs to be returned and be done with it and not held indefinitely. But I can tell a BS story when I hear it…… The guy’s story was BS.

I am not disagreeing with your anger at the government. Innocent until proven guilty does not mean property cannot be seized and that doesn’t mean you cannot be arrested. Heck, you can be indicted by grand jury and be stuck in jail on $1 million bond for murder and you were still not guilty. This guy was not arrested and his money was not forfeited. Similar to a search of a person or a vehicle without a warrant (warrants are not typically needed to search people or vehicles with probable cause), it is a kind of now or never situation. Let’s say the police thought that he was using the money for something illegal but they let him drive away with the money and they will look into it further. They get a warrant and look at his cell phone information and find out that it was going to be used a drug deal. So now they call him and say hey, we just found out that money is likely to be use for drugs so please bring it back to us. RIGHT!!! It is the same as making a traffic stop on a vehicle and the police have probable cause that there are drugs in the car. What are the police going to do, tell the driver that they will be back in two hours with a warrant and please wait for us. When the police come up on something that may be stolen, may be a crime, may be evidence, may be contraband, have probable cause to arrest or search… there usually is no time for an investigation and later warrants. The police need to either do it immediately or in most cases, simply forget about it because they’re about to let all of the evidence go.

For a traffic charge. What does that have to do with them not arresting him? 1. Cop sees what he believes is a violation of the law. 2. Cop stops the person/driver and speaks with him. 3. During the conversation the driver has the right not to answer questions but voluntarily tells the cop that he is carrying almost $90,000. 4. The guy gives us a story as to why he is carrying that large sum of money. 5. The original cop’s supervisor shows up and for reasons unknown to us, decides that the money was either illegally gained or was about to be used for a crime. 6. After the seizure of the money, the driver is allowed to go about his way. 7. The state asked the federal government to file a seizure under their law, thinking that the money was to be used in a crime for reasons unknown to us. 8. The federal government had to return the money because they could not prove that the money was going to be used illegally.

They did not arrest him.

I don’t think I said it had to make sense to them. I said they can seize evidence or a property with reasonable suspicion. That is, what would a reasonable person believe knowing what the officer knows at that time? But to use your word, if it does not make sense, does that make it a reasonable belief? If you left Beaumont and went west on IH10 heading toward Houston and the police stopped you and asked where you were going and you told them you were heading toward New York, does that make sense? Would it make a reasonable person and believe something is not right here? Like I said, I don’t know what happened and can only tell you what the law is. Did they have a good reason to seize the money? I don’t have a clue and that slanted article sure doesn’t talk about it.

Reasonable suspicion is required for a seizure. Since I don’t know what that suspicion was, I can only tell you what the law is. I understand that that is a political website and they are putting out what they want you to know. Maybe it is 100% true, but… it is a one-sided story. I think he was doing something illegal but I also believe it takes evidence to continue. Without reading the entire case and hopefully with at least audio recording, who really knows? He might have changed his story two or three times, he might’ve been unbelievably nervous, they might’ve found evidence on him they didn’t match what he was telling them, etc. Just mere suspicion from the article, I think his excuse for carrying the money was nonsense.

That is merely terminology. They did not adopt the money, they adopted the civil case from the state police.

If the government can prove that money came from a crime, I have no problem with them keeping it. The law should say that there has to be evidence other than just it is a large sum of money. There should also be a time frame placed on it. I think the guy’s story is full of crap however if they can’t prove it, the government must move on and return it. It’s like you might be committing a crime but they can’t prove it so they can’t hold you in jail until they can figure out something to charge you with. And just on a personal belief, I think he was on his way to buy drugs, illegal guns or something else.

if I understand this correctly, a woman reported that she was robbed at gunpoint. The suspects took her pickup and HPD jumped them a short time later. The pursuit ended in an apartment complex and officers began chasing five suspects on foot. Part or possibly all of them might have been armed. Other units assisted in the potential shoot out but one of the responding units ran over and killed a pedestrian. [Hidden Content]

I read that on Klein’s website or if not here, somewhere on Facebook. I was personally against those when they were looking into it. It was not the police department that had them installed but the city of Port Arthur, I think through the recommendation of the Pleasure Island Commission. I might be able to find out if they are working.

That is what I thought when she said she was looking to make them and example. Uhhhh….. why not just enforce the law? Like I said in one of my comments above, if they have appropriate laws to cover the situation and they absolutely should apply. Now I’m thinking there are none and she is trying to stretch it for political reasons. But… maybe they have some thing that covers it. Hopefully the truth will come out. In the Ahmaud Aubery case, I think the indictments did not come immediately because of corruption and friendships. The Rittenhouse indictments did come because of politics. I saw one of her videos where she said something like, I’m a mother so I had to do something. I think that is a pretty stupid statement by prosecutor but she probably has to run for office so she’s a politician also. Now it looks like we’re back to politics again.

In Mayfield‘s case, were the parents involved at all? I don’t think so. Of course I think they also fell into the, not my kid when it first happened. So much depends on the way to state law is written however. for about the last 25 years Texas has had a law that a child under 17 cannot have access to a loaded firearm without supervision. The key under Texas law however is, if the gun is not loaded then there is no crime at least not for access. So you could leave your guns unloaded but leave the ammo nearby and that particular law in Texas would not be violated. Without looking it up at this moment I think the phrase in Texas is, “readily dischargeable”. (Why not just say loaded?) In my opinion at least the way the laws are intended to work is, for you are charged in the crime then you had to be involved in the actual committing of the crime. That does not necessarily mean driving to getaway car in a robbery or pulling the trigger but maybe a friend said that he was going to rob a bank and you went and got a gun for him. There has to be some kind of knowledge that a crime was being committed or something intended to be committed and the person being charged in the crime took some kind of action. Like always, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. I will use conspiracy to commit a crime as an example. There is no such crime as conspiracy by itself but there is the crime of conspiracy to commit ________ (murder, robbery, kidnapping, etc.). There has to be a felony crime attached to it. So three or more people decide they are going to commit an armed robbery. They get together and plan it and decide that one guy who does not have a felony criminal record, can go to a sporting good store and buy a handgun. At that point the crime of Conspiracy To Commit Aggravated Robbery has not occurred because nobody has done anything other than discuss it. The law requires some overt action on the part of at least one of the conspirators. So the next day the guy goes to Academy sporting goods in buys a handgun. At that moment, the crime of Conspiracy/Aggravated Robbery was completed because a person has now done an overt action to forward the felony. Everybody involved in the planning can now be charged with that conspiracy which is one degree lower than the crime intended. Aggravated robbery is a first-degree felony so the conspiracy to commit the robbery would be a second-degree felony or up to 20 years in prison. Even though the other guys did not take part in the purchase of the gun, they took part in the planning of the robbery. The point of that is however, you cannot charge the guy that sold the gun at Academy. Unless he was one of the people involved in the planning, he is not responsible…. although some states are trying to make it civilly responsible. You can charge everybody who is involved in the planning because they had knowledge and took part in the planning. So using Mayfield as an example, did his parents have knowledge or take part? There is nothing that I am aware of that would indicate that. Using that as a comparison, what are the laws in Michigan? Do they have a law that allows you to be charged with a felony committed by someone else when you had no knowledge and did not take part in the planning or the conspiracy? Do they have a law similar to Texas saying it is a crime to allow access to a firearm by juvenile but for the penalty, if a juvenile commits a crime then you are also responsible? Maybe that is true and if that is true, they should be charged. We don’t have to agree with the law but if that is the way it is written, that is within the state’s right. If no such laws exist in Michigan, I think the DA is making the political statement. Her comments in the one article that I read said that she wanted to make an example out of them. That makes me question what she is thinking. Oh yeah, and 17 your son would be an adult and he’s responsible for himself anyway. Even the law on making a firearm accessible to a child is a person who is under 17.

AND…. When I read the OP and the single word comment”thoughts?”, I started to say something like, there is really not enough information. Looking back at my typical long winded response, I am now thinking… There really is not enough information.

It is really hard to tell. The article is not exactly well written and not exactly well researched or thought out by the author. Maybe it is like a lot of articles, very little substance but a lot of emotion. I mean at one point they cite some official saying that they followed the kid on video surveillance (after the shooting) and knew everything he did but then followed up with, he had a gun on his person or he had it in a backpack or he had a secreted somewhere else away from the campus. Wow, awesome conclusion… the gun was somewhere. Passages like this leave questions in my mind. “McDonald said James Crumbley bought the gun four days before it was used in the shooting. His son, sophomore Ethan Crumbley, 15, was with him and later posted on social media about the gun, calling it "my new beauty." Jennifer Crumbley also posted about the gun on social media, calling it "his new Christmas present," McDonald said” Did they buy the gun for their son for Christmas present? Did the father post the comment about my new baby or did his son? Was the mother referring to her son when she said it was his new Christmas present? Along the lines of poor reporting, what law are they using to get the warrant? Are they simply using the involuntary manslaughter statute to say they were an accessory? To be an accessory it seems like they would have to have at least some knowledge that the crime was going to be committed. Texas by the way, has no accessory to a crime. Under Texas law you could not be charged as an accessory to a crime. You either took part in it or part in its planning for conspiracy in order to have charges filed. As far as allowing a child access to a weapon, Texas for example has a law that makes it a crime to recklessly allow a person under 17 to get their hands on a loaded weapon. If someone gets injured because of that, it becomes up to a year in jail. Does Michigan have such a law? If they do then I can see charges as a no brainer because it simply fits the statute. That is especially true after the parents were warned of his strange behavior. But if that kind of law does not exist, how are they adding culpability to the parents? This is especially true about me questioning the charges when the prosecutor said something about wanting to make them an example out of the parents. So is she referring to an actual law or she is using a law to try to make a political statement? Again, by reading the article we really can’t tell. This is how CNN cited prosecutor about wanting to make an example… “Addressing reporters, McDonald said she was charging the parents in part to make a point about the responsibility of gun ownership….”. So she is charging them “to make a point”? If I read the article correctly, the mother was sent text messages about her son searching for ammo while at school and she did not respond to the school but responded to her sign with an LOL and you need to learn not to get caught. On another side note, why do people put LOL so much? About 28 years ago when I learned that phrase in an AOL chat room, I understood the need but it. It was a means of showing emotion on the Internet that at the time had no emoji‘s, GIF, memes, etc. It was a way to laugh at your own joke or let everybody know that you were not serious. I swear there are people now that cannot post something or send a text without adding lol. I have seen conversations that goes something like… Honey are you on the way home lol… yes, I just got off work and will stop for gas lol… OK, I have dinner for you when you get here lol… great, I’m hungry lol…. It is like people have been dumbed down by text messaging… roflmao But back to the shooting. It is really hard to tell about the charges because it gives no explanation other than their mother does not have much mentality. Being goofy hardly seems the reason to charge someone with a felony however they might be very specific state laws that absolutely apply to the situation. The long article by CNN naturally does not go into that. Also not anything in particular to do with the shooting but the mother‘s comment to her son after being informed about him looking at purchasing ammo while at school made me think of something else. I have seen it so many times at work, we have all seen it so many times on Internet forums and Facebook threads and some people who may read this comment may also fit in that category. That is the, “not my son” or “not my friend” syndrome.

It is standard Nancy Pelosi. She is either intoxicated, has a bad case of old age forgetfulness, suffering from dementia or some kind of a combination of the three. The Democrats are absolutely better than the Republicans publicly being in lockstep. I don’t know what goes on in the back room and I cannot imagine they are like robots but once they come out of the back room, they are robots. They are given their marching orders from their Speaker and they toe the line in public. For some reason Nancy Pelosi hold the cards. I can’t believe if you got an honest opinion from the little over 200 Democrats in the House, that they would think she is the best spokesman for the party. Of course her job to her party is to get to votes and she has most of the time been able to do that. Technically the third or fourth most powerful person in the government and some people claim it was the most powerful person, as Speaker being able to control all legislation, she cannot string a sentence together. Democrats were worried about mean tweets from Donald Trump and they are de facto leader is almost always incoherent.

If you were hunting or fishing they can check your game bag, ice chest, etc. To go into your house (or tent, etc.) they need a warrant or your consent. I think most of the time they get it with consent because the people feel like they will go in anyway. When you take a confession from someone who is in custody, you have to read the Miranda warning to make sure they know their right to refuse. Currently when you ask for consent, you do not have to inform the person he has a right to refuse. It cannot be coerced however it is pretty much ends at that point. Sometimes there is no different than a police officer asking for consent to search a vehicle on a traffic stop in a person has illegal drugs, weapons or something like that. It’s almost like the people think if they give consent, the officer will go easy on them or won’t search as hard. We have had cases where we knock on someone’s door and say several people have called us and said you’re dealing drugs out of your house. The person can simply shut the door but will usually say, no I am not. Then, do you mind if we search then. No, I don’t mind….

I was reading the comments in another forum. There was a lot of sympathy for the father and it was a tragic accident and so on. The bottom line is the father assumed that the gun was unloaded from the latest explanation. His negligence in not checking the gun, then pointing it at his daughter and trying to let the hammer down (I think he just pulled the trigger), caused the death of a small child. it seems like people thought that it was unbelievable, horrible and nothing but a tragic accident. Absolutely….. And this was likely from a very experienced hunter and person who had been around guns for 25 or 30 years. Most of those same people want to hang Alec Baldwin for…. not checking the gun, pointing it at someone else……. And this from a guy who probably knows nothing about guns and trusted another person who was supposed to be an expert they said it was empty. Apparently if you’re you are very experienced with firearms but related to the person you killed by doing almost exactly the same thing, it is acceptable, even if it is a small child. Hypocrisy? I am not claiming that everybody feels that way. I just find it odd that some people think that one situation is a horrible tragedy and there is no need for further action. The same person will turn around in another horrible tragedy and be adamant that somebody needs life in prison for the other similar situation.

Game wardens basically have no more authority than any other police officer. They have maybe what some people would consider a detention without reasonable suspicion in that the law says if they see you fishing, they can check your fishing license and your catch. If they see you hunting, they can check your hunting license and what you killed. To that extent they can check your stringer, your ice chest, etc. Maybe some people think that is extraordinary powers. Generally speaking the courts allow this as a highly regulated outdoor activity and not merely going about your business. We often hear that the Game wardens can go into your home and search without a warrant and other such nonsense. In fact the Parks and Wildlife Code specifically states that they do not have such an authority. Here are a couple of pretty important definitions in the authority to search. They are residence and temporary residence. Sec. 12.102. INSPECTION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES. (a) In this section: (1) "Residence" means a person's principal or ordinary home or dwelling place.(2) "Temporary residence" means a place where a person temporarily dwells or seeks shelter. The term does not include a hunting blind. The term does include a: (A) hunting club or lodge; (B) clubhouse; (C) cabin; (D) tent. (E) manufactured home used as a hunting club or lodge; and (F) hotel room, motel room, or room in a boardinghouse used during a hunting trip. These definitions are important in a following subsection that shows the prohibition in reference to these locations and particularly note temporary residence. (d) Nothing in this section authorizes a game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department to conduct a search otherwise authorized by this section: (1) in a person's residence or temporary residence; or (2) on a publicly maintained road or way that is. (A) improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic; (B) open to the public; and (C) distinguishable from a shoulder, berm, or other area not intended for vehicular traffic. Note that they cannot go into a temporary residence to search and that it would includes as specifically listed, a tent. You’ll hear people say that they can go into your Home without a warrant yet here is there a code saying they cannot even go into your tent, hotel room, cabin or anywhere else you used to stay while you were on a hunting trip. I have seen on hunting forums going back many years people saying, the police should just bring a game warden with them because they can do anything. The premise is that if we think there are drugs in a house, simply bring a game warden and we could go in without a warrant. That is pretty laughable. As far as the 14 days, he was doing more than just mouthing off. He was getting in my way by reaching across from n front of my chest with his arm and kind of pushing me back out of the way so I could not make an inspection. He always did it under the guise of trying to hand somebody a mixed drink or a beer. I even told him that if you need a hand this person that is 3 feet to my left a beer, go around me and hand it to him. He made a point of being on the wrong side and having to push me out of the way to make a sale. I gave him warnings that he could not do that and he continued. I even brought him over and showed him his alcohol license which he claimed forbid me from searching but I pointed out the text that said any peace officer can make an inspection. Although we all know that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, I used what is called confirmation. Although I could have simply made a criminal charge the first time he interfered with me, I wanted to give him a chance to correct his actions and also to explain the law to him and in the case of the alcohol license, actually showed him the wording. Doing so two or three times was not good enough for him and he kept telling me that I was wrong and I had no authority. THAT it would cost his bar 14 days of profits and him time in the county jail.

That is civil law, not criminal law that has nothing to do with the powers of arrest.

Ah yes, the Obamacare ruling. I do think that he very likely will rule to keep Roe v. Wade in full effect because of stare decisis but I also think there is a chance that he might side with modifying it. The Mississippi law does not exactly go against part of Roe v. Wade anyway. That decision says that the state cannot restrict abortions at all within the first trimester but the current Mississippi law at 15 weeks prohibiting abortion is outside the first trimester. In the second trimester Roe went by viability standard and potentially some other issues. In the last trimester is take it out right now and abortions period. Planned Parenthood v. Casey actually overturned some parts of Roe already. Sotomayor made one of the most stupid comments by saying that people will think the Court is political. Basically you cannot vote against Roe v. Wade because of politics. Apparently she has not read some of her own decisions if she thinks politics does not enter into it. I agree that it should not but she of all people is being hypocritical to the max.

This may or may not be interesting to some people. I thought about this when talking about incidents in Orange County and Port Arthur. It is about police jurisdiction in Texas. Neither the Texas Penal Code nor the Code of Criminal Procedures (CCP) (which lists the authority to arrest) distinguishes between on and off duty peace officers. It states in what situations a peace officer has the authority to make an arrest but makes no other distinction. That is why people often say that Texas peace officers are on duty 24 hours a day. The law is not stated in those words but the Texas law does not note any kind of difference. The authority to make an arrest by a Texas peace officer is continuous. The CCP under authority to arrest without a warrant (Chapter 14) extends to outside the officer’s jurisdiction except class C traffic charges (basic citations like speeding, running stop sign , etc.) which authority is only “if the offense is committed in the county or counties in which the municipality employing the peace officer is located”. So the CCP gives the authority to arrest as anywhere except for traffic citations which is limited to anywhere in the county that the officer works. Port Arthur has jurisdiction then for traffic citations anywhere in Jefferson or Orange County. If a citation (or arrest) is made in those situations, the officer who is outside of his city has to issue the citation to the proper county precinct. For example a Port Arthur officer can issue a traffic citation in Bridge City but has to issue it in the jurisdiction of the Orange County Justice of the Peace for that precinct. An even further distance example is for instance if a Port Arthur officer was driving through Little Cypress to speak with a witness about something and saw somebody run a stop sign. The officer has the authority to issue a citation to that person or even make an arrest and bring the person to the Orange County jail. The CCP also says that if a business serves the public it “may not prohibit or otherwise restrict a peace officer or special investigator from carrying on the establishment's premises a weapon that the peace officer or special investigator is otherwise authorized to carry, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator (a special investigator under Texas law is a federal agent such as FBI, DEA, etc.) is engaged in the actual discharge of the officer's or investigator's duties while carrying the weapon”. Note that it is regardless if the officer is engaged to an actual discharge of duty. That is basically saying off duty. The NFL a few years ago made a rule that firearms were prohibited in their stadiums by anyone except for an on duty police officer. But…. that does not apply in Texas as officers have 24 hour arrest authority anywhere in the state and that specific law that I quoted above which says it is against the law to stop them from entering. So off duty Texas peace officers can watch Dallas Cowboys or Houston Texans football games while carrying their off-duty handgun. To my knowledge that is the only NFL stadiums in the country where a police officers can carry their weapons off duty. The stadiums have a special point of entry at one of the entrance gates where on duty officers hired to work the event check the credentials of the off duty officer and note where the officer will be sitting. I have also done that at Minute Maid stadium for MLB. So….. in Texas pretty much a cop is a cop no matter when or where. Game wardens, city police, county sheriffs and deputies, constables and deputies, school district police, DA investigator, fire department arson investigators, etc., are all listed as Peace Officers and even though they are hired to do a specific job, they have overall police powers. It is not that way in all states which sometimes distinguish between on and off duty, jurisdiction and what laws they can enforce. In Texas as an example a Texas game warden can make a traffic stop just as if he was a city police officer or a DPS trooper and make an arrest for DWI. City officer can likewise go into an alcohol licensed premises and enforce Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission laws just as if he was state TABC agent. In fact I was inspecting a bar one time and the bartender got in my way and told me to stop. He said that I did not have the authority to make the inspection since I was not a TABC agent. I explained the law to him and said I was not going to interfere with his business but I was going to make my inspection. Twice more he interfered with my inspection so I arrested him on the spot. TABC suspended the bar’s alcohol license for 14 days (think of the money they lost) and the bartender received 14 days in the county jail for the interference. Interesting? Not interesting? I do not always agree with the laws just as much as anyone else but I think the way that it functions is interesting.

The man who rarely speaks, just spoke volumes.

I think Stare Decisis will be the sticking point.

I have made calls in that area and I have supervised officers who have made calls in that area. I could see a situation where Orange County was requested to respond as a closer unit in a serious situation. PAPD many times has responded to emergency calls outside of the city. That is normal. A few years ago I and other officers responded to a Jefferson County jurisdiction call of two or three people shot on the beach. The First ground units to get there were PA. That is routine for police officers. Fairly recently like within the last year, I had an officer stop a DWI driver in Orange County but outside of the city of Port Arthur. The police agency that had jurisdiction over that area refused to help. I had the officer go ahead and make the arrest and transport the driver to the Orange County jail and file charges over there since it was their jurisdiction. I think PA did annex part of the Gulf of Mexico. Some of that went to appeals court and I can’t remember if it was state court or a federal court.

Unfortunately they got caught up in the mess created by Bridge City. Their land was between Port Arthur city limits and the Entergy plant. I have made calls over there in that area when someone called the police so I know they get police service. I’m not sure what else they would be asking for.