tvc184

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.

Yes. I have seen enough comments from people reading the news articles and some claim this is all about race. Yesterday I watched an MSNBC Producer and commentator on the show, The Young Turks, admit that she thought Rittenhouse chased down the first guy and shot him. Now with a video from the trail, she has seen that it was Rittenhouse running for his life and the convicted sex offender chasing him down. Oop….. But I wonder where she got this bogus information to begin with? Gee, could it be from the news media is not reporting there facts? You have a white guy who is accused of shooting three white guys and he has charges brought by a white district attorney, defended by white lawyers in front of a white judge… And it’s all about race? There are so many claims that Rittenhouse illegally possessed the firearm (he was a couple of months too young) or he lived out of state or he could’ve been somewhere else and somehow any of that negates the right of self defense AND should cause murder charges to be brought. HUH? Actually there is some validity to race game. Let’s play my favorite game, what if. So let’s make this about race. What if a young black female in Wisconsin is walking in an area of town that is not so good. She is doing nothing wrong and is simply walking home. A convicted sex offender attacks her, trying to sexually assault and maybe kill her. The young woman pulls a handgun out of her purse and shoots and kills a guy. It is clearly a case of lawful self-defense. However… The young woman is 21 years old but did not get a concealed handgun license. In Wisconsin you can carry openly but can only conceal if you have a license. In other words, she could’ve had it in a holster on the outside of her purse or worn it in a holster attached are jeans or something similar and it would be legal. Unfortunately she stuck it inside her purse. That is a crime in Wisconsin and even though she is lawfully in her right of self-defense the DA charges her with murder not because in self-defense was unlawful but because she illegally possess a handgun. So now this woman who actually defended her life against a sexual predator, is facing life in prison. And… Like Rittenhouse, she was a part of town she shouldn’t have been in. Yes it was legal and she has a right to come and go but it was not the smartest thing in the world. For that reason, let’s charge her with Murder. Some of the same people who are complaining about Rittenhouse would almost certainly have a different opinion. Far from being put on trial for murder, she would be seen as a roll model of a young black woman standing up for herself. If the DA brought charges against her with the facts as I have described, there would be large protests outside of the court room and they might turn into riots. How many people doubt that would be true? People from the left would be claiming that maybe she does have some charges for concealing a handgun (or maybe not even then) but you can’t translate that into murder charges. You can’t say that she did not make a wise choice in where she walked so she deserves to go to prison for life….. yet that is exactly what some of the same people are saying about Kyle Rittenhouse. So maybe some peoples’ opinion it was about race. I feel like many of the people who are now happy that Kyle Rittenhouse is being charged with murder would have an exact opposite opinion if it was as my what if scenario. I also think that people who are defending Rittenhouse, would also defend this theoretical black female and not want her in prison for killing a violent sex offender and defending her own life.

Judge you? 😂 I have read that also that he is a convicted felon. If that’s true, with the video and his admission under oath, if he is not prosecuted, that is a miscarriage of justice.

OK, I just looked up Wisconsin firearm law and it does require a license from Wisconsin or a reciprocal state to carry concealed. If the guy that Rittenhouse shot does not have a concealed carry license, he committed a crime. I believe in his testimony he said he accidentally pointed at Rittenhouse. That leads me to 3 conclusions. 1. he probably admitted to a crime while on the witness stand. 2. he lied under oath (which can’t be proven 3. I am sure he intentionally pointed at Rittenhouse meaning that he likely committed aggravated assault and a felony which is why he said that he accidentally did so while under oath. Let’s see, you were chasing a guy with a rifle and you see him fall down, you know that you have a pistol in your hand and you run up to this guy who is now laying on his back and you pointed at him… But it was an accident. If that is true, why did you run up on Rittenhouse with a pistol in your hand while Rittenhouse is holding a rifle? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I have not looked up this part of the Wisconsin law but I read a comment that in Wisconsin you can open carry a firearm but not concealed. The guy that got shot by Rittenhouse had a handgun and I don’t think it was exposed until he got on top of Rittenhouse and pointed it at him. That would mean the so-called victim was guilty of a crime and instead of Rittenhouse being indicted for shooting him. It should have been that guy that was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon…. Assuming the comment I read about Wisconsin firearm laws was true. Prosecutorial misconduct?

I know what they are going to try to do. With 2 first with murder charges, who really cares about an aggravated assault? I think they’re closing argument it’s going to be that we are stuck with the witnesses we were given but that does not negate the first to murder charges. I took time to read just a little bit of Wisconsin self-defense law last night. It is similar to Texas law in that it says a reasonable belief by the person using self-defense. It does not matter so much what happened but what was your thought process and would a person in your position think that it was reasonable. Hopefully the defense attorney is smart enough to use the prosecution case against them. The prosecution has spent time trying to portray Rittenhouse as an inexperienced kid. Instead of hurting him, I think that plays into his reasonable belief. It would be much easier to make the case against a trained police officer or maybe member of the military to say, they have had training and know exactly what they were doing. There is no reason for them to panic. Here you have a scared 17-year-old kid who is you by your own case, claimed as inexperienced but you want him prosecuted as if he was a trained swat team member. In other words, what is the reasonable belief of a trained shooter or self defense expert as opposed to the reasonably inexperienced 17-year-old?

Case closed!!!

Thanks for asking. 😀

That is true and maybe unfortunately, there is no requirement to back up our opinions.