tvc184

And here is the story about ABC altering the video to not show Zimmerman‘s injury. This is a quote from that story… “ABC News said "no abrasions or blood can be seen in the video." [Hidden Content] Yet again, a national news outlet has to apologize for falsifying a news story. Again, how many people saw this original report and…

Here is a huge problem with the media. I found the report from 9 years ago from NBC where they admit that the 911 recording was doctored. How many people who heard this new story, still believe that Zimmerman called in on a black guy? I mean Martin was black but Zimmerman never mentioned it in his call until asked by the dispatcher. This is a quote from the following news story…. “Obviously, the editing can hugely prejudice the viewer into thinking that Zimmerman has definitely engaged in racial profiling when he followed Trayvon Martin. The actual transcript doesn't rule out the possibility of racial profiling, but it certainly doesn't confirm it.” Ya think!!?? [Hidden Content]

I will readily concede that a probably immature 17-year-old kid should not have gone into a riot. It does not matter what good intent he may have had to help save businesses by putting out fires, attending to injured people, etc. Like probably 99+% of the people in Kenosha did, he should have stayed home. That does not negate his lawful right of self defense. Zimmerman was in a neighborhood watch. To that extent people patrol and call the police and report suspicious activity. I ran such a neighborhood watch and some people were actually giving police radios to call and suspicious activity. Zimmerman saw a kid who was not recognized in the neighborhood/apartments and called the police. Martin apparently saw that he was being watched and fled on foot. Zimmerman walked quickly (you could hear on the 911 recording) to try to see where Martin ran to. The dispatcher told him to stop and he did so and you can clearly hear it on the recording. He was no longer out of breath and there was no more wind and running noise. Zimmerman told the dispatcher that he was walking back to his truck and was then attacked. There is no evidence to the contrary and in fact the 911 recording refutes the claims that Zimmerman chased down Martin… which would almost be impossible. After the verdict was announced live on television, one jar spoke with the media as the others did not want to. It was an old woman jury and the one lady said, we are really wanted to convict him but there was no evidence to do so. She basically said that they wanted someone held accountable because it was a death. I think the same situation is happening with Rittenhouse where people want somebody held responsible. There were people responsible. It was at the very least the three people that attacked Rittenhouse and tried to kill or seriously injure him. Several claims were made by the media about Zimmerman that were later proven as falls and in a couple of cases, intentionally false. I watched some of the original news reports and quickly noticed that Zimmerman had an injury to the back of his head. That was in a still photograph but on a (if I remember correctly, ABC) news report they covered it up with the ABC logo and change the lighting. It was later stated by the news media as an accident. Then (I believe NBC) played a recording of the 911 call where Zimmerman is reported to have said he was following a black guy. That was false. The news media edited the tape to make it sound like that. In fact Zimmerman never said that he was following a black guy it was only giving a clothing description. The dispatcher then routinely ask, did he see the race of the person and Zimmerman said, he is black. The media edited out the conversation in between and made it appear as though Zimmerman was calling in on a black guy only which he was not. He only answered a direct question from the dispatcher. I believe the producer in that particular incident was terminated. I believe it was CNN that the end came out with a story that Zimmerman had made a racial slur on the 911 recording which was somewhat garbled by the wind or background noise. After making this report, a few days later they brought in an expert in cleaning up garbled recordings and it was found that Zimmerman had not made the racial slur which was claimed. Naturally they issued an apology for their mistake. Besides being terribly irresponsible and possibly civilly liable, the media fans this kind of hatred by what appears to be in this cases an intentional altering or covering up of evidence. Many people see the original report and assume that is the end of the story. In this case we had three national news outlets who are supposed to be respected, who gave false information in some cases, intentionally.

And like the Zimmerman case, this was political and should have never seen the inside of a courtroom.

From the evidence that I saw, Martin attacked Zimmerman. There was no evidence brought that Zimmerman attacked Martin. The 911 recording which I believe is still on YouTube, tells all you need to know without further evidence to the contrary. There was none. of course with speculation we could make up all kinds of scenarios but there was no evidence to back any up. A person does not have to think anything good about George Zimmerman to realize that the original district attorney in the case was correct, there was no evidence of murder beyond a reasonable doubt that overcame self-defense. It took the state and a special prosecutor to come in and announce an indictment without calling a grand jury. In fact Angela Corey made a public statement that she would not bring the case to a grand jury when the actual district attorney of that county had announced that he would bring the case to the graduate the next week. Corey had to quickly move to indict on her word only (allowed in FL) because she knew that the grand jury would likely return a No Bill. Is Zimmerman a good guy and a hero? Not in the least on either count. There is no evidence that Zimmerman harassed or even confronted Martin though. You are allowed that speculation but that is all it is.

I hope he does like Sandman and as sues as the crap out of some news outlets. This case was nothing but politics from the first night. The charges should have never been filed. The fact that about 80% of the country was sweating out a not guilty verdict in itself is an outrage. The other 20% either believed the outright fake news stories or for racial or political reasons, wanted an innocent person convicted. I don’t know if it is correct (because I don’t believe everything I read until I see something to back it up) but I read that Kyle Rittenhouse had charges brought against him within 48 hours. Assuming that is a true statement, that is outrageous. The police had not even interviewed all the witnesses by the then and were surely not finished with the investigation but the district attorney for his own reasoning (politics) decided that they did not need to look at the police investigation. Do we need further proof that this was politics? The Kenosha Wisconsin district attorney about a week ago was given the annual award for the best prosecutor in the state of Wisconsin. That’s right folks, the man who oversaw the office that indicted an innocent person, it appears before all of the facts were in, was just awarded prosecutor of the year for the entire state. Go figure. [Hidden Content]

The problem with any of these studies is that we have a virus which probably has a survival rate in excess of 98%. Going back two years and reading peoples’ experiences, it seems that many people have flu like symptoms for two or three days and then recover, sometimes relatively quickly. Anyone with such a result, could see anything as the reasoning for the recovery. A person who does not normally drink milk could’ve had a bowl of cereal with a cup of milk in it and then recovered from Covid. The logical conclusion is there, milk was the answer. If a significant number of people in a Third World country were taking ivermectin and then recovered from Covid… at about 98%…. the ivermectin was a logical conclusion but is it statistically any different? If Covid had a 40% fatality rate and then people taking ivermectin or some other “cure” and the fatality rate dropped to maybe 5%, they would probably be a compelling case for that cure. With the survival rate of Covid so high, I think it would be difficult to prove something works or there’s something does not work. I would lean towards something not working if there was statically very little evidence of a much higher survival rate.

Gloria Allred is a bottom feeder but she obviously knows deep pockets and Russian roulette in this case being a metaphor.

I think it was the prosecution withholding evidence, not the FBI.

Well, it’s Fox News so it probably really didn’t happen. 😂😂😂 According to that article, Biden carried the city by 40%. That 40% when Dropped to a 4% loss by the Democrats within 10 months. There is still a ways to go but at the moment it’s not looking really good for the Democrats in the midterm. I think in Obama‘s first midterm, the Republicans flipped 63 seats in the House. They only need to flip five in the upcoming election to put Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats out to pasture for at least two more years.

OK. You mentioned workplace violence I did not see the tie in. I would have to know further but honestly, I don’t understand how it happens for the police to fire into a moving car when there is not someone hanging out the window of that car shooting at them. Maybe if the police got into a shootout and watched the suspect get into a car and was driving down the road and was still a threat to officers and citizens, maybe. I also believe this might be sympathetic fire. One officer probably made a bad decision and opened fire and then the other two, trusting that the first officer was correct, also opened fire.

I am not sure how this falls under workplace violence. From what I read the police fired into a car which was simply driving down the road and was not involved in any way in the prior incident. Maybe we have different definitions of workplace violence but I call it when somebody does something to a coworker for whatever reason.

Just an update, according to the Port Arthur News, Noah was expected to return home in December but he is doing well enough to return home this coming Sunday or Monday. He is having surgery Friday to replace the piece of skull that was removed to relieve the swelling pressure after the injury. After that, it looks like he will be home for Thanksgiving.

Wasn’t he the first known Covid death in this area? It seems like I remember thinking, oh my gosh we’ve actually had a Covid death, I hope there are not many more.

For one I would not go to someone’s house to buy or sell something. Secondly it would be in a very public place and preferably in one of the safe zones set up by some cities or police departments with video surveillance of the transaction.

This is going by assumptions. I know some people have heard me say it before but I have been involved in thousands of criminal cases and hundreds of news releases to the media which I wrote or in some cases did on television. My only point in that is we sometimes really have no clue what really happened with what the media reports. That is why I am going by assumptions or what ifs. The police shooting at a car which did not have someone in the car firing back at them is simply wrong. It is likely wrong by self-defense laws and almost certainly wrong by department policy. Department policy is not law however you could be sued and lose qualified immunity if you do not follow policy. In this case, how do you see a car, reported to be a block away from where the shooting happened and simply open fire on it? Where did the police even get the information that this car was involved? With a limited information available, it appears as though the police screwed up big-time. I am struggling with a legal reason to do what they did. I think there is a good chance that criminal charges might be and maybe should be filed. As far as the charges against the two teens, that depends on state law. Some states, including Texas, have a law that is commonly referred to as felony murder. As Texas for an example it is simply under the murder statute and not a separate law. Murder in Texas is to intentionally or knowingly take the life of a person OR (felony Murder) while committing or fleeing from a felony, a person recklessly does an act clearly dangerous to human life and causes of death. In other words it could be a complete accident and still get a murder charge, which is usually an intentional act and not an accident. The only case that comes to mind around here was several years ago when a guy committed a robbery. While driving fast down Twin City Highway in Nederland to get away, he ran a red light and killed I believe a mother and daughter. Obviously he did not want to get in a wreck but his reckless action fleeing from a felony caused death. It might still be Criminally Negligent Homicide or Manslaughter but (depending on what can be proven) without fleeing from a felony. It would be raised up to Murder because the guy was fleeing from a felony. The way Texas law reads, I believe the person has to cause the death. In this case the two teens that were charged, did not directly caused death. I believe that some states have a law that says, if you set a sequence of events in motion that caused the death of another, you could be charged. That would appear to fit the situation here where they did not caused the death but they certainly set the actions in motion. Even if the police unlawfully killed someone, it is obvious that the situation was set up by the two teens shooting at each other. I have not read that particular state law so I’m just not sure if it fits or not. It could because each state has the right to make its own laws but a prosecutor might stretch it particularly for political reasons. So with a limited knowledge we have, I believe the police were clearly wrong and likely should have some criminal charges filed on them. The teens may or may not be correctly charged, according to state law. I know of a similar situation in this area that in my opinion, a police officer shot into a car without legal justification to do so and did not kill anyone but came within inches of killing a small child. That situation, also in my opinion, was brushed under the rug.

I don’t think people that riot generally need a reason why. It is more like if they can find an excuse to get together. I have seen media like CNN and MSNBC have commentators that claim this is about race. That alone should tell you that race is used for any reason, for any excuse, for any action or any complaint. That is not to invalidate all complaints but it’s like the boy that cried wolf. No matter what the discussion, some people can drop the R Bomb and feel the discussion ends.

A few weeks ago at a high school football game, there was a shooting involving a 16 and 18-year-old. They apparently exchanged shots at each other and like always, there were police working security at the football game. Up to a block away there was a family who had been at the football game and was leaving. I don’t know the details of why but it appears as though the police believed somehow this vehicle was involved. Three officers then shot up the vehicle killing an eight year old child and wounding her sister. The prosecutor then indicted the 16 and 18 year old for first-degree murder because they started the chain of events that caused the death of the child. That in some states is called felony murder where you did not commit the actual a murder but you were committing a felony that caused it. So far the police have not been charged with anything. [Hidden Content]

Reading comprehension problems? I said both sides do it. Even then, that was not what my post was about. I clearly said (for a person that has the ability to grasp it ) that there are always people who will stay with a party no matter what happens. Biden is coming close to that, “I don’t care if my president is a child molester and sells secrets to the Russians, I will not vote against him” level. Trump never came close. In fact in 2016 he got 63 million votes and in 2020 he got 81 million votes. 30% more people voted for him in his reelection bid. So…… nobody else has a clue what you’re talking about when you say yeah but you voted for Trump. Except for nasty tweets that apparently hurts the sensibilities of people on the left, Trump has done very little that I disagree with. Except for having crude tweets and having an R by his name, a lot of Democrats would have had no problem with her either. When it comes to Biden, he has lost half of its own base. As far as Trump, the usually leaning blue state of Virginia just used him as their talking point causing the Republicans to win every state wide office and the first governorship for 12 years. You were comparing apples to concrete.

There are always people that will support “their” party like they are supporting their local football team. All sides have them but I believe the Democrats probably have a lot higher percentage. They are a lot better at toeing the party line and not arguing with each other, at least not in public. I think Biden is down to that hard-core, yellow dog democrat base. He could be caught in a murder while molesting a child and being seen fabricating evidence on camera and he will still get a certain percentage of votes. I believe he’s getting close to that percentage.

In started to post the same but from YouTube.

A couple of days ago the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans (which covers Texas it is one step below the Supreme Court), put a halt to a Biden/OSHA vaccine mandate for companies with over 100 employees. here is an opinion article about that ruling. [Hidden Content] IF someone wishes to read the actual legal case from the circuit court, here it is. It is a rather terse or maybe even blistering commentary on the whole idea that OSHA could issue such a mandate. [Hidden Content]

I watched Garland being grill by Ted Cruz and another congressman and if he was not lying, he was sure skirting around the truth.

And in Wisconsin law, like Texas law, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that none of that happened. In other words, if any of your scenarios or statements “might” have been true, then he is not guilty under law. If Rittenhouse might have had a belief that a guy was going to take his gun away and use it on him or if he might have had fear that a skateboard could’ve caused him serious injury (fear of death is not a requirement), he is not guilty. Anything that might have happened is reasonable doubt. A jury would have to come to the conclusion that none of that was reasonably possible.

I always get the opinion that when a case like this comes up, some people want to know who it is and who the victim is so they can decide which way their opinion should lean.