tvc184

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.

I am doing this from memory so…….. That is because for much of Bridge City‘s history, it was not a city. Bridge City was just an unincorporated area much like Orangefield today is just an area. There is no city of Orangefield. In maybe the late 1960s there was talk of Bridge City wanting to become a city. The problem was that the area was in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of Port Arthur. That means that Port Arthur controlled that area and could have annexed what is now Bridge City. Port Arthur agreed to allow Bridge City to incorporate. In the signed agreement/contract, Port author would not give up its ETJ. According to the population of the city, they control a certain amount of land that is adjacent to the city limits. Port Arthur did not cede any of that jurisdiction to Bridge City. Bridge City actually incorporated into an actual city somewhere in the early 1970s. The Entergy plant was within Port Arthur’s ETJ. Port Arthur had the authority to annex Entergy (I think then GSU) at any time just like it could have annexed Bridge City before they allowed them to incorporate as their own city. When cities have commercial businesses within their ETJ, they often sign what is called an in lieu of tax agreement. That is a mutually beneficial agreement not to annex an area. Legally a city cannot tax something that is not within their city jurisdiction. BUT…. when that entity’s fate is within the ETJ of the city, The city holds a trump card because they can simply annex it and get 100% tax evaluation. It benefits the city by not annexing because even though they would get the taxes, they would have to provide city services. It benefits the entity (usually a company/corporation/etc.) because they make a deal for less taxes for a promise not to annex. . An example might be a chemical plant outside of the city. This city has no authority to tax the company for millions of dollars a year but they can annex the chemical plant and then tax. So in lieu of annexation, a city can say, pay us 80-90% what you would owe if we annexed you, and we will promise not to annex you. In a way it might be almost like legal bribery. Look at Motiva which is in the middle of Port Arthur but it is not part of the city. I believe it is the largest production plant in the United States so you could figure what the taxes would be at 100%. I have no idea what they would pay but let’s say it would be $10 million a year. They could make a deal to pay Port Arthur $9 million and save $1 million in taxes. Why is all of that important? Entergy was in Port Arthur’s ETJ and they got something like nearly $1 million a year in lieu of taxes from them. No big deal and everybody is happy (kinda). Well, up until the mid or late 1990s. There was talk in Bridge City about the Entergy plant and the in lieu of taxes that they pay to Port Arthur. The problem was with the agreement that Port Arthur had with Bridge City. Basically there was a contract that the ETJ belong to Port Arthur and that was that. Some people in Bridge City (I don’t remember if it was business leaders, the city Council, the mayor or whoever) started questioning that agreement and started asking why they had no control over it. I believe the Texas legislature was in a session at that time and there was talk of submitting a bill that would undo Port Arthur ETJ, allow Bridge City to have part of it, take away the ability to annex outside of their county (which would kill Port Arthur‘s leverage for an in lieu of taxes agreement) or something to that effect. I don’t remember exactly what the plan was but there was an effort or talk to end Port Arthur’s jurisdiction. Port Arthur ended all of that by moving fairly quickly if I remember correctly, to annexing that area. So….. had Bridge City not made overtures on Entergy, that area would still be an unincorporated area that Port Arthur would have discretionary authority over.

Authorities said the woman found dead Monday on Pleasure Island was categorized as a missing person out of Beaumont. Next of kin was notified Tuesday, and Justice of the Peace Precinct 2 Marc DeRouen identified the victim as Janice Summer Ross, 30……….. Det. Mike Hebert said Port Arthur Police dispatch received a call of a deceased person at approximately 2:18 p.m. Monday. The body was located in the 1000 block of North Levee Road. Police are not releasing many case details in an effort to maintain the investigation’s integrity, including how long Ross had been there and who notified police……….. DeRouen told Port Arthur Newsmedia there wasn’t anything obvious on scene like knife or bullet wounds indicating foul play. [Hidden Content]

Blame that on Bridge City.

We used to always have a two-man patrol unit downtown and a two-man patrol unit it’s Sabine Pass. Those eventually went to one-man units.

Yes on fishing…… 👍🏼 I don’t specifically remember them having any security but they have tried various things over the year so they might have had for a short time. That has always been PAPD‘s responsibility however it is so far detached that they don’t see much Patrol. To drive to the end of the north levee and then to the state line and back is more than half an hour round trip. That does not count doing any kind of action, stopping any traffic, stopping at any businesses, etc. That is merely a drive from one end to the island to the other and back to the bridge. If a patrol car in the area gets a call at the causeway, which does happen, it can be almost a 20 mile round-trip unless the officer is already on the island. That area is under the patrol section of the downtown unit. Usually one patrol officer has from Stillwell Boulevard to Highway 82 and then Pleasure Island to the state line. Without stripping the rest of the city for patrol coverage and to hire a single police officer three shifts a day and seven days a week they would have to increase the police force by six officers. Counting salary, benefits, patrol vehicle, fuel etc. it would cost to city over $1 million a year. I do believe that they have a camera system installed that takes pictures of every vehicle that drives onto the island. I am sure they are going through the records right now.

Uh huhhhh….

.:: or at least any that I can pass on publicly

I am trying to get some details but no luck so far.

The way you’re asking, deadly force is usually not off of the table. I guess technically it might never be completely off the table under certain circumstances. In one scenario it seems like it would not be allowed but I guess technically even then it could. For example a man goes into a store with a gun and he’s committing an armed robbery. By Texas law anyone can use deadly force to stop that robbery in progress if it was reasonably necessary. The robber in that situation does not have the right to use self-defense and if he kills someone during that robbery, it is capital murder and death penalty eligible. In other words, he cannot pull a gun on you and when you pull a gun in self defense, he has no right to self-defense. But… What if the robber surrenders, throws down his gun and lays on the floor so you can make a citizen arrest? In anger you run up and start kicking him in the head and risk killing or seriously injuring him. Would he have a right to self-defense at that time since he has surrendered? I believe so. Texas law on self-defense says that you cannot resist arrest from a police officer even for an unlawful arrest however, you can resist arrest if the officer is using more force than is necessary and the suspect did not offer resistance. The law in Texas generally says that you cannot resist arrest no matter what, even it the arrest is unlawful (made without probable cause), unless… for example the officer says you’re under arrest and you say sure, turn around and put your hands behind your back and he walks up and starts beating you in the head with a baton. He is now using deadly force against you when you offered no resistance and you have the right to defend yourself. I have seen cases where people used force and sometimes even killed an officer and it was ruled justified. So, never say never. In the situation that you ask about, removing a trespasser, like all cases in depends. in my opinion, playing the What If game…. What if you order a man off of your lawn and be voluntarily leaves? Can you run up and start beating on him? My opinion no. He has offered no resistance and he’s leaving like you ordered. By the same reasoning, the man is voluntarily leaving and you run up behind him and try the stab him with a knife. Can he use deadly force to protect himself? I believe so. For trespassing in Chapter 9 of the Penal Code it says you’re allowed to use force to remove a trespasser. That means that your use of force is legal if necessary to remove the trespass. He is breaking the law by trespassing and has no self-defense claim to assault you. So the guy is trespassing and you grab him by the arm, pin it behind his back and start to shove him off of your property. He then pulls a gun and in my opinion he’s not justified because he is the one committing the crime of trespassing and you are using legal force to remove him. Can you then defend yourself with deadly force? I think almost assuredly, yes. At that point the scenario changes. You’re not using deadly force to remove a trespasser, you are using deadly force to protect yourself which is a different section of the chapter. The use of force against trespassing has ended and now you’re under that different section which is a threat upon your life. I guess in the purest technical sense, you could never use deadly force to stop a trespasser however the trespasser might unlawfully escalate it and you are no longer under the section of the force for trespassing but under the different section of defense of a person. Clear as mud? I could make it a lot shorter by saying that if under the law you’re legally using force in self-defense and the other person tries to kill you, you are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself. Whether you’re using that legal force to protect your property from trespassing, yourself from assault or even another person from assault (all justified in Chapter 9), the guilty person committing the crime generally has no such right.

I would meet at Buc-ee’s just for an excuse for a beaver nuggets. Let’s see, I live in Nederland and the other person lives in Beaumont and we need to make a deal. Let’s drive to Buc ee’s in Baytown….. 😂😂😂 I noticed when people have stuff for sale online and I always think, why would I waste my time with that? Some of the stuff that is for sale I would either donate, find a friend that wants it or throw it in the trash. 🗑 Maybe they are just hurting that much for money and need something for Ramen noodles to eat for a week. If I was not in dire straits however, I would never bother selling something at that kind of price, period.

It was one or the other because I see the time of the 911 call was about 5:15 PM. It is getting very dark in the woods about that time. The likely scenarios are that she was hunting nearby and he stupidly fired or because it was getting dark, they were getting out of the blind to head for the car or camp and something went wrong. I am usually adamant about unloading my firearm when moving around like getting in and out of a blind. I might walk with it loaded, particularly in the dark. I almost always at least open the bolt before I move.

That is akin to a sexy woman walking down a lonely street at night, is asking to be sexually assaulted. To some extent that true. I get the idea that some people do things that are not smart. That does not make them on the wrong side of the law however. I am making no prediction how this will come out except I think there are politics involved but… Once a person makes an illegal threat and the object of the threat is not violating a law, it is that other person who has the right to self-defense and to stand his ground.

Going only by the video, it looks like murder to me. This was in Texas. If the husband was trespassing, the homeowner/boyfriend has the right to tell him to get off of the property and can use force to remove him. Deadly force however is not allowed to remove a trespasser in Texas. Pointing a gun at someone or threatening them with a gun when there is no lawful authority to do so is a crime. It looks to me like the boyfriend coming out with a gun is a crime. If it is a crime, that negates the ability to claim self-defense in Texas. And this is part of the wording copied from section 9.31 of the Texas Penal Code under self-defense. “(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone;” You can see that you can’t claim self defense is you: (1) Provoke the incident (2) Be violating any law except a traffic citation and (3) It can’t be in response to verbal provocation. Texas law lists two kinds of force. It can be force or it can be deadly force. If “force” only is allowed it will simply say that. The law will say something like, a person may “use force if”….. In other situation it will use the phrase that a person may use “ force or deadly force“. This is the section of Texas law on using force against a trespasser. ”Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.” You can remove the person by force by using the amount of force you believe is necessary. It does not use the term deadly force. I don’t know how many times I have seen people claim that you can shoot somebody for trespassing in your yard. I have never seen any such provision in Texas or any other state law. I’ve been to many calls over the years where a person was trespassing on a store property. This was after management told the person to leave and the person either refused or returned later. Apparently under some peoples’ opinion, the manager could pull out a pistol and killed a person for trespassing. Uhhhhhhh…….. no. There may be more evidence like maybe their husband called the boyfriend and said I’m on the way over to the house and I’ll have a pistol on me and I will kill you. So maybe he made a terroristic threat or a threat to kill the boyfriend. That can certainly change the outcome. Just going by the video, I don’t understand under Texas law what allows you to threaten a person with a firearm because you’re mad or because they are trespassing. What will the district attorney or grand jury do? Who can tell? I did not read the article listed in the OP but read two or three other articles how about this incident. I think it said that the boyfriend was a relative of a judge or something like that. I am thinking, uh oh, here we go with another Ahmaud Arbery like a situation where the district attorney was indicted by the state police for covering up evidence that tended to show guilt by a former (I believe retired) police officer in that same county. Going just by the video, it appears in my opinion to be murder. I would not hold my breath waiting for that outcome in Lubbock Texas however.

I am sorry to report that Ben passed away not long ago.

I would be. That’s why I said never say never. 😀 I am pretty sure that you know but I don’t go anywhere where I might come in contact with another human without being armed. About 30 years ago I was playing tennis at the YMCA in Port Arthur with another officer. We were running around quite a bit, I was lunging for balls and play pretty aggressively. At about the time we finished the other officer told me, I think it’s the first time I’ve ever seen you without a gun. I then lifted up my T-shirt and showed him the .380 that I had strapped inside my shorts. His reaction was like… WHAT!? You played all that tennis with a gun on you? Yep…

Next they will change “convicted felon” to “pillar of the community” or “politician”.

And now with the newly discovered South Africa variant……

I cannot agree with this! It’s “threw” in, not “through” in. Back to semi-seriousness……. There are two ways a robbery goes down in a case like this. One is the seller claims to be selling something like a gun or maybe even something illegal like drugs. The buyer shows up with $1000 and is met with a gun to the face and he is robbed. Unlike robbing a random guy on the street who may or may not have money, in this case you know he’s agreed to have the money in hand. The other way is the buyer is the robbery suspect. You are selling something he wants such as a gun or maybe even something illegal like drugs. The only thing is that he is not bringing money but instead bringing a gun to make the deal. So when you produce the merchandise and ask for the cash, you get a gun to the face and off he goes with your merchandise. Never say never but I am guessing that someone is not going to show up at your house with intent to grab the washer and dryer and flee. If I was ever going to make a deal at home, that would probably be it.