tvc184

[Hidden Content]

Probably a lot of Nederland Bulldog fans from the Reservation tonight.

It kind of makes you think that they may be leaning toward modifying maybe even doing away with Roe v. Wade.

I thought you were supposed to have three days of water, non-perishable food items and the ability to evacuate if needed. Now I see that all you need is a Covid vaccine and you are prepared for hurricane season. Such a great leader….

….. and you can save some time in your life by not having to check this forum to see if you’re obligated to respond to what interests other people. 😂 I’m glad you have your life back.

Yeah, tpyo. Thinks.

Looks like Dog most his next series deal.

Brian Laundrie found…? [Hidden Content]

So what do you think about Biden when he says you’re not black unless you vote for him?

They already have a place. It is called the average neighborhood.

A passenger jet (not sure if it is a commuter airline or private jet) with 21 people on board crash not long ago. It appears as though everyone survived and only one person claimed injury. I always get tickled with is reporters and their intelligent or logical conclusion. I am assuming that all of them have gone to college. I know it is a broad brush but still… I was watching the live video from the link below. Just looking at the scene and try to draw a logical conclusion, it appears as though the jet ran off the runway. It left skidmarks basically from the end of the runway maybe a couple of hundred yards to a fence and a tree line. It continued on for a good distance after that and came to a rest. The reporter commented, we really can’t tell but the plane must’ve been flying very low and that’s what caused it to hit a fence (that she earlier said might be the 5 to 8 feet high). Lady, if it was flying low, it would not have skidded into the fence. Then she added, I’m not a pilot so I really don’t know what happened. Well I am a pilot and I don’t know what happened either. 😀 [Hidden Content]

OMG!!! How could you use the word “normal” in a situation like this? 🤔 😜 That implies that the other person you were talking to is not normal and if you were implying that the person was not normal you were then……. Haha…. What a world we have created.

I understand that response from the government. Hopefully by now most people know what the saying means or in what seems like the word of the day, the trope. I mean for decorum, you would not want the person saying what it really means. If this is true, the thing that I get out of it is, there must’ve been enough of an issue for them to come out with the order. Were government employees walking around saying, Let’s Go Brandon? If so, that is hilarious.

It’s a shame that people made a choice based on tweets about the opposition.

That is one of the keys to a good investigating officer and certainly some don’t have it, maybe even a majority. If an officer asks a question and never asks a follow-up question(s), he/she just as well be a secretary. Hand the witness a piece of the paper with a basic questions and tell them to fill in the blanks. For example, let’s say a witness is half a block away from this scene. The witness sees a door open and a woman comes out and then makes an assumption on the cause. That may be a natural thing to do as your mind sometimes comes to an immediate conclusion. So the witness tells the investigating officer, I saw a woman thrown for my car. Should that be accepted as what happened or as what the witness saw? What should be the follow-up questions if any? How about….. Did you see the car door come open and the woman come out or just looked up in time to see a woman on the road with the vehicle door open? What is the vehicle moving or just sitting there? If it was moving, was it swerving around as if there was a struggle going on inside the car? Could you tell if the victim put her hands out to try to brace herself after coming out such as a person would normally do if she fell or was pushed or did the woman go head first like a dive? Could you see any movement inside of the vehicle through the back window like hands moving around like a shove or some kind of a fight? Maybe some you could come up with more questions. If I was actually at the scene and depending on how some of those questions were answered, that might lead to others. Another key however is also to not lead a witness. Many people will simply agree with what they were told or you might change the persons opinion on what he saw. that is also why you never interview one witness in front of another. The officer should ask, not give. Yes or no questions are usually, but not always, the wrong way to go. That sounds more like a leading question a lawyer might use at a trial.… 😀 Like an officer should never ask, “So the car was swerving around like there was a fight going on and you saw the person shoved out, right?”.

I will say when an eye witness testimony is good however. It is not looking at a person saying yeah, that’s him. When an officer is speaking with a witness who is not looking at a suspect, and gives a very detailed description, it is pretty important and usually accurate. For example many times and officer will be speaking with a witness and another officer in the area will detain a person. If the author of speaking with a witness gives a detailed description of the suspect and it matches the one being detained, it is fairly significant and reliable. I am not talking about saying, the man was 5’9” with a medium build. I mean when they say some thing like, he is very tall and over 6 foot, very skinny, has a red and white horizontal stripe shirt, a tattoo of the letters AB on the right side of his neck and had blue tennis shoes with the red laces. If all of that matches, in my mind, we’ve got the right guy. Especially if he detained him in the vicinity of the crime which basically puts him at the scene. It kills the alibi such as, I was visiting my cousin in Louisiana and he will sign a statement saying so. Even then it takes something else to convict however it does not take much more, in my opinion.

Eyewitness testimony can be completely unreliable and again as I said, a witness might not be lying. In fact they probably absolutely think they are telling the truth.

Well if she was pushed it had to be a homicide. If the victim was conscious enough to give a statement, that might make a difference. It said there are several witnesses but what exactly did they witness? After talking with thousands of witnesses while working for the same police department, I can tell you that what witnesses think they see is not always true. That doesn’t mean they lie, they just come to a conclusion that they think is logical that may not be true or even possible to get some circumstances. As an example, I was working a vehicle accident one day several years ago. One vehicle left the roadway on a curve and hit a street sign causing damage to the car and destroying the sign. The driver’s excuse was that he was runoff the road by another vehicle. I was looking at the evidence and scratching my head thinking, this does not all add up but let me look further. There were two “witnesses” at a car wash next to where the accident happened. Both claimed to witness the accident. When I separated them and ask their story each said something like, I was washing my car when I heard of screech and then a collision and I turned to look…… At that point I would stop the interview and simply tell them OK thanks, you did not witness the accident. That made them mad that I would not take their statements. The fact is if they heard a noise such as tires squealing, then a collision and THEN turned to look, at best all they saw was the aftermath. By their own statements they did not witness anything that led up to the accident. I don’t think they intentionally lied, they just never saw what they thought they saw. They heard a noise and looked up a short time later and saw a vehicle in the middle of the street. If you want the conclusion, a passenger in the car called me over to the side and said the driver was driving too fast around the curve and lost control. He said there was no other vehicle. So the two witnesses that wanted to back up the driver’s story that he was run off the road, not only saw nothing, they were absolutely wrong. Has the justice of the peace made a ruling on the cause of death yet? Too many questions with no answers at this point in time.

Australia has gone nuts

And on this deal, I do not know what happened. I am not saying that the officer it right or wrong because I don’t know the circumstances. The news headlines like most times are sensationalism even if not true. I doubt the officer told her you were under arrest for not violating hospital policy. I would have to look at the laws in that state however…. Knowing that each state has different laws but many are similar. Texas has a law called implied consent. That means if the police want to draw your blood after a DWI or an accident where someone may be killed, they can take your blood without your consent if you are unconscious. Implied consent state law says that if you get behind the wheel in a public place, you have already consented to the taking of your blood. You could verbally take that away however if you are unconscious, the law stands. If you cannot verbally tell the officer that you do not consent, they can take the blood. A United States Supreme Court case from 1966 (If think, Schmerber v. CA) said if the police have probable cause And a person refused blood, they can take it without a warrant. That is because of the emergency circumstance that alcohol in your blood does not stay for very long and if it takes two or three hours to get a warrant, the police would lose the evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that it was not an unreasonable search under the circumstances. A few years ago in McNeely v. Missouri, the Supreme Court somewhat overturned that previous case. In McNeely they roughly said that due to technology, it will not take so long to get a warrant so the automatic emergency circumstance was taken away. Pretty much if you’re taking of blood without a warrant, you have to show that no judge was available to sign that warrant within a reasonable time. So legally implied consent still stands however McNeely forces the officer to attempt to get a warrant. I think in this area it is almost always successful in obtaining a warrant. In the case of this video from what little we could see, it seems the officer was trying to have blood drawn but the nurse refused because she said it was against her policy. Again, that is not a lawful arrest charge. They also apparently arrested her for some manner of refusing to take the blood or perhaps interfering with someone else taking the blood. Again, without the facts we cannot tell. The title appears to me to be sensationalism however. Maybe not, who knows. Maybe the officer did do something stupid like say I’m arresting you for not violating your own policy. From the video it appears as though he is a detective with some experience so I would hope that is not true. Stranger things have happened however

Violating hospital policy is definitely not a crime. however had you violated their policy and they told you to leave and you didn’t, you would be breaking the Texas law of Criminal Trespass. If a cop walked up and said you are under arrest for violating hospital policy and actually arrested you, he would be violating your rights. It would be an unlawful arrest. Over many years, I would go into a business and there would be some kind of disturbance. The manager on scene would in many cases say I want this person off of my property. At that point the discussion is over. If a customer causing the disturbance does not leave, he will be arrested for trespassing. It would not be for the disturbance but for not leaving when told. I always tried to give them plenty of notice and explain the law. The customer would often try to plea his case that he was right and the manager was wrong in the argument. Maybe the business did not honor a sale or something. It doesn’t matter who would win the argument. The person in charge of the property wanted him to leave and at that point he has to leave. The whole point of that is, I could not arrest the customer for arguing or basically anything else (assuming during the argument the customer did not commit another crime such as threaten the manager or commit Disorderly Conduct) but once the person in control of the property tells you to leave, you legally must leave. Until you refuse to leave, there is no crime. Some people simply will not listen and will be arrested. It was a video going around maybe a year ago about the woman who was arrested in Galveston County for trespassing at a bank. The bank asked her to leave for not wearing a mask and she refused, demanding her right not to wear a mask. That is fine but you would not be arrested for not wearing the mask but for trespassing when asked to leave. Then all the anti-mask or anti mandate people said it was a violation of her rights and blah blah blah. It doesn’t matter what you believe about the lawfulness of mandates. The owner of a property told you to leave and the debate is over. I can assure you that if you would have visited when told not to, the police would have very likely been called. The officer responding probably would not have cared about any argument and would simply ask the person in charge, do you want this person off of your property and will you agree to filing charges? If the answer was yes, you would probably be given a warning at that moment and given the opportunity to leave. The bad thing about trespass warnings, they can be indefinite. It is not like it’s a one time deal. Once you have been told you are not allowed on the property, if you return a year later you can have charges filed on you. One more war story. Four or five years ago I was working the Black Friday sale at a Walmart. I was a supervisor over the security for Black Friday for several years. We practically never had any problems because Walmart after a couple of fiasco‘s around the country, along with other stores, changed their tactics. They would do things like put an item of electronics on one side of the store and another item of electronics on the other. People could not gather up at one location. The people wanting a computer on sale would be on one side and the people wanting a TV would be on the other and the people wanting an Apple Watch would be somewhere else. This kept 200 people from clustering in one location such as electronics. Every year however, you could bet that if there was any disturbance it would be at the towels. That’s right folks, I still don’t understand why but if there will be disturbances or fights it will be at the towels on sale. Also on Black Friday, they do it during the regular business day so people don’t rush when they unlock the doors. You can go shop but the items on sale are wrapped up in plastic and at a certain time such as 6PM, the plastic will be taken off by store personnel. Probably 20 minutes before the sale started that year, I was called by a manager to the… You guessed it, towels. A woman who had been first in line, maybe for an hour or more, decided that she would lay on the towel and spread her arms around them and partially blocked the aisle. The manager asked her not to be spread eagle on the towels and to simply step back. She refused. After a discussion naturally, the police working security were called. Again, it was simple. Ma’am you have to step back away from the towels. The sale starts in a few minutes, you will be first in line and get the first choice and I will stand here if I need to. She again refused and said you cannot tell me what to do. Uhhhh…. Yes, the manager can. So after explaining the law and again giving her an opportunity to stay, she refused and laid across the towels. At that point like I have said before, the discussion was over. You’ll either leave the store at this moment or you will go to jail for trespassing and likely be given a warning never to return to Walmart. She left the store. She might’ve been saying something like this is illegal and I might speak to a lawyer but I don’t remember any specifics. I remember that she was not happy however she was given more than one opportunity to be number one in line and to step back out of the aisle and she refused. She knew her rights!! Oh yeah, we did not give her a trespass warning. She could’ve come back the next day and it would’ve been fine. I applaud the management for being reasonable and just ending the disturbance at that moment without taking a more drastic measure.

Policy is not the law.

And I am glad to see the original prosecutor was also indicted.

I hope they get a fair jury… then come back with a guilty verdict.

From his webpage, yesterday they tested him breathing without oxygen and using room air. I think he did better than expected and was able to breathe on his own however they put him back on oxygen to keep from stressing him. Yesterday he also showed response such as moving his toes on command. He was doing well enough today that they took him off of oxygen completely and also off of sedation.