tvc184

She should have never been charged. The guy that claimed he was assaulted should have been charged with obstructing traffic and criminal mischief/ and vandalism. This was nothing but a witchhunt and an appeasement.

Mine was a drowned child also, actually two who went under together. When we found them they were still holding onto each other. The things we see…….

If they have the evidence to make that charge stick and do not plea-bargain it down, there are only two outcomes by law. Life without the possibility of parole or death.

The woman that transported the dead child from Houston to Jasper has charges of Tampering With Evidence changed to Capital Murder. [Hidden Content]

it is an absolutely correct decision and/or it is absolutely a stupid decision. I think it sucks but maybe I understand the rationale. It seems to me that you should get the best people together and everybody do whatever activity it is, and whoever comes out in the top three gets to move on. That is one way to do it. That apparently is not what they go by at least for the high jumpers. The US Olympic committee has apparently set a standard. You have all season to make that standard. If you have never overcome that arbitrary standard during the season, the Olympic trials are a “last chance” to prove you’re worth it. So if A jumped 6’6” three months ago and B has never cleared 6’5”’ this season, B can come to the trials as a last chance. B might have been better today at the trials but has never done better than A did in the last few months. I have not read all of that but it seems like the Olympic committee has come up with a magic number. If you beat that magic number sometime in the last year, you qualify. McPherson did not beat that number and had one last chance to do so and did not. Do they do that for other track and field events? Is there 100 m dash minimum of 10.0 seconds? So if a guy ran a 9.75 six months ago but hasn’t broken 10.3 since then, does he go over a guy who ran 10.1 at the trials? If that’s the rules going in and they are the same for everybody, then you go by the rules. I think most people would rather see, who won when you got them all together head to head.

My partner one time shot and killed a guy by 10 feet in front of me. The guy had a knife and was coming toward us but stopped. He looked at me and I spoke to him and then he turned toward my partner who shot him. There were a couple of other officers on scene and anyone of us could’ve shot at any time prior to that and it would have been lawful. The hesitation is real and the officer that pulled the trigger made absolutely the correct decision. It is not even debatable in my opinion. I sometimes think back about that situation and wish I would have shot earlier and I’m so glad that I did not. I am happy with the outcome and torn by the decision not to shoot earlier. I am the one that took the officer, who was forced to take a life, to the police station to begin the investigation. I remained composed and professional like my experience and training had taught. I can’t tell you that I didn’t have tears in my eyes though. Everyone handles it differently but it can be life altering and certainly does something to you one way or the other.

And just in case someone actually wants to see the law that I was talking about (and maybe wants to go argue with people on Facebook 😂😂😂), for your viewing pleasure: CHAPTER 9 (COVERS SELF DEFENSE) SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

I always talk about the what if scenarios but your comment made me think of another. What if… I have read so many comments about the guy had a knife or may have so it had to be self-defense and blah blah blah. but what if… Let’s say the guy did pull a knife, maybe in self-defense, maybe not. Let’s say the guy with a gun did not have it with him. He has the right to stand his ground (maybe) but what if he disengaged from the encounter, went to his car good distance away and then returned with a gun and shot the victim? Does self-defense or stand your ground mean you can go to another location and get a deadly weapon and return to kill a person when you were far enough away that you were no longer in danger? I can see a situation similar to that. What is the victim felt like he was about to be assaulted? What did he pulled out a knife as a threat just to keep the other guy away? The shooter left then he returned with a gun and shot the guy out of anger. I would call that murder. The Texas Penal Code actually addresses that issue. It says it is lawful to display a deadly weapon and not be considered aggravated assault (a threat while displaying a deadly weapon) if they displaying was in self-defense and the intent was to create the apprehension they deadly force would be used if needed. Basically the law says if you have to pull your weapon, it is lawful to do so if a reasonable person in your position would have done the same thing. Still without having any clue what happened, I can see cases where the guy that pulled a knife, even if he pulled it first, did so lawfully and the guy that got a gun and shot him committed a crime.

Hesitation depends on the circumstances. Is someone is coming at you with a knife and getting close? Sure, that was a fairly easy decision. I have been faced with life and death decisions with a gun in my hand many times. Some of those times I could have lawfully (in my opinion) killed a person. I hesitated several times and although I am fairly certain I would have been cleared, I’m glad that I did not kill someone. I have also pulled the trigger on someone. Sometimes it was a clear choice but most of the times it is not. The only time I have pulled a trigger pointing at someone, about one second before I pulled the trigger I did not know I was going to shoot.

I don’t think they freeze will be his undoing if anything. It will be the mask mandate which was completely legal but too many people claimed otherwise. Others that might acknowledge that it was legal, didn’t agree with it.

Also note that the Texas law, a claim of self-defense has to be proven as not true beyond a reasonable doubt. When self-defense is claimed, it adds another element to what the prosecutor has to approve. Basically a person does not have to prove self-defense for it to be legal. The DA has to prove that it was not legal.

Way too many what ifs on this one. Did the victim reach for a knife after the guy pulled a gun on him as a last resort? Did he pull a knife, get out of the car and to take a step toward the shooter who then fired as a last resort for himself? Did the shooter walk all the way across a long parking lot toward the victim with the pistol displayed? Were threats made by either or both? Did the victim get shot several feet away and manage to stagger back to his car before he fell which is why he was at that location? From my experience, when it is clear-cut self-defense or at least it appears to be, the police normally do not make an arrest. In a case like this kind it does not necessarily mean guilty. Not because we all know the law says so but when in doubt, an arrest might be appropriate. The police might be kind of like, we are not real sure so we are going to go ahead arrest this guy. The legal standards for an arrest for murder is only that you intentionally or knowingly killed another person. Any issue of self-defense by law says it can be brought up in court. Basically you could have video and 20 eye witnesses showing it is clearly self-defense in a situation and the police can still legally arrest you. A DA might decide not to prosecute and a grand jury might decide not to indict but an arrest is completely legal. I have only a suspicion that witnesses tipped the scale in favor of an arrest at this time.

Yes, just like the recent case in Silsbee. You cannot willingly go into an action that breaks the law and then when it turns bad for you, claim self-defense… in most cases. Now if you abandon the encounter completely and in the process the other person later retaliates, you would likely have a good legal defense. Of course a lawyer will argue for the defendant’s self-defense. That is the lawyer’s job. I am really going by how I read the law and how I applied it for investigating and filing cases for almost 4 decades. In a trial, both sides will present their case to the jury. After the trial and after both sides make their closing arguments, the judge will read the charge to the jury. Part of that charge will be the applicable law. It will be up to the jury to determine if a criminal act can be proven and/or if a defense was legal under the way the law is written.

I think they both are. Having a Texas governor posturing for a national run is almost a given.

It is very tough to beat an incumbent, period. Merely being better is not enough. The people have to be angry at the incumbent. Allen West will likely be a very strong challenger but, will conservative voters of Texas angry enough at Abbott to vote against him? There is a fairly vocal group Republicans and conservatives that are adamantly against the governor. It all stems from the mask mandate. I don’t think they have anywhere near a majority however. Abbott has been making very popular moves since then with conservatives such as denying the legislature their pay for walking out, signing the constitutional carry law (and other gun or anti federal government laws) and his rhetoric about the border. West is a popular person in his own right and for several years appears to be very conservative. If Abbott was not running, for example he decided to try to be a senator or some other position, West would probably win in a landslide. I just don’t think the stars will line up for him at this moment in time. He will probably make a strong run but…. It is hard to take down an incumbent. I would lean toward voting for West at this moment and I am not against Abbott. I just think that West will be a stronger voice in that position for Texas.

With that thought process you’ve already negated the whole poll. They have George HW Bush 8 slots ahead of his son George W. Bush. The senior Bush lost 10 million votes in his failed reelection bid whereas W. gained 12 million votes in his successful reelection. Thanks for pointing out the folly in these “historians”.

In a sort of humorous way, you have to love that a lot of women say that a woman can do anything a man can do. Heck, you can’t even be the prettiest woman anymore. Men have even taken that away…..

Unlike popular advice, I’m going to spend it all in one place.

Sounds more like a drugged criminal than a dumb criminal.

It is that way because it is hard in an appeals case to address every one of 100 different variables. The courts are reluctant to issue Bright-Line Rules although they do in some cases. In BLR they issue a, this is the rule and that’s that!! Typically cases are based at the local level (trial court) and depend on phrases such as totality of the circumstances, beyond a reasonable doubt, reasonable suspicion and objective reasonableness. Those are for a jury or a judge to determine. That is why we typically have 12 jurors on felony cases and they all have to agree on guilt. At some point humans have to make the determination and we generally err on the side of caution. In most cases that is the problem with BLR. There are simply too many variables to issue a hard and fast rules in most cases. Even three strike rules which might seem fair for some people, might be very unfair. In Texas for example, any three prior theft convictions can be tried as a felony. So a person at 17 years old might be caught stealing something for $2. Later that year he does the same thing. When he turns 18 he had again gets caught stealing something for a couple of dollars. Then for the next 40 years he realizes the stupidity of his teenage years and leads a productive life. He breaks no laws whatsoever. He does not even get a speeding ticket. Then in a moment of stupidity in his late 50s, he takes a pack of gum from the convenient store. Does this guy deserve 10 years in prison for that pack of gum? While some people might say, he should have known the law, does the punishment fit the crime? That is a problem with hard and fast rules. Even though the law allows Texas to file a felony case, would a DA do so in such a case and if so, would a jury sentence a person to the maximum for a pack of gum? Compare that to a 30 year old being convicted of 15 misdemeanor thefts but the DA has allowed a plea deal for the misdemeanor. Finally tired of these $1,500 thefts (less than $2,500 in TX is a misdemeanor), the DA uses that same three strike rule. This guy steals the same pack of gum but has stolen over $30,000 worth of property in the last few years but has never been caught taking something over that $2,500 threshold for a felony. Same punishment deserved? I will give an example of a BLR. If you invoke your right to remain silent or your right to an attorney after being arrested, the Supreme Court has stated, not so long ago, that the right does not remain forever. In other words if you get arrested and say you want an attorney, the Police cannot legally ask you questions and in fact cannot even ask you if you change your mind. If five years later the police ask you, do you want to talk about that crime from five years ago and you confess, is that legal? After all, you told them you wanted an attorney. The Supreme Court has issued a BLR that if you have been out of jail for 14 days, your invoking of your rights goes away. It is not like you can say I wish to speak with an attorney when you’re 18 years old and then when you are 50 the police still can’t talk to you. In that case the Supreme Court came up with a BLR of 14 days. Even in the discussion of the rule (if I remember correctly) The Supreme Court said we have to give the police something to work with. So they came up with the arbitrary rule of 14 days saying that after 14 days from being released, the personnel basically returned to normal life. The basic shock of the arrest is over. That is an ironclad rule or a BLR. Let’s say you go to jail and you invoke your right to remain silent and then get out seven days later. The day you get out the police come to talk to you and you sign a full confession. That will be thrown out unless your attorney was present and they got permission from him to ask (which will not happen). There is no debate on whether you were aware of what you were doing, etc. The Supreme Court set a rule that you have to wait 14 days before you can speak with a person again and that is that. So yes there are places for a hard and fast rules however much is left up to human discretion within certain parameters. The appeals court and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States, sets those guidelines that we go by. in my opinion..

Historians. Hahaha!!! Let’s refresh our memory. Obama in his first election and apparently some people thought he was the Messiah, got 69 million votes. His popularity waned and he got 65 million votes in his reelection, one of only two presidents in history ever to lose votes in a reelection campaign. So we move on to the 2016 election of Trump got 63 million votes. In his reelection bid he got 74 million votes or 5 million more votes than Obama did in his best run. In fact Trump’s vote total increased by an astonishing 11 million votes. Yes Biden supposedly won but how do you do ignore that Trump after what the “historians” claim is a failed presidency, increased his vote totals by 11 million votes? Until the possibly manufactured Covid crisis, Trump had one of the most significant economy increases in history, the lowest black unemployment in history, etc. Exactly what criteria are these claim historians determining the best president throughout history? Did Covid according to the historians, make him a bad president?

Another unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court the session was US v. Palomar-Santiago. In 1990 Palomar was given permanent resident status in the USA. 1991 however he was convicted of a felony DUI and deported under the law because it was considered at that time an aggravated felony and a crime of violence. A couple of years later an appeals court ruled that felony DUI should not be considered an aggravated offense under the immigration laws. Palomar later return to the United States without applying for a re-entry. Once you have been deported that is a felony. He was then indicted for illegal reentry. His appeal of the indictment for re-entry was that the reason he was deported was later found to be unlawful. Here is the problem. The USA immigration law says that you’re such a case, the person has to file an appeal and prove three things. That is not a court opinion, that is statutory law. In other words he had a ride to file an appeal but he did not and just re-entered without permission. His lawyer being said, yes but the reason he was deported was invalid so we don’t have to follow the law. The unanimous Supreme Court said no, the law is the law and there’s a proper way to do it and you did not do it properly. Palomar made an illegal reentry without filing the proper paperwork and then the 9th Circuit simply said he didn’t have to follow the law because of a prior ruling that DUI was not aggravated. Again the Supreme Court said no the law still stands and he has to follow the law.

In an 8-1 decision The Supreme Court ruled in Mahanoy School District v. Levy that off-campus actions by a student (cheerleader candidate) not on school time or at a school function, did not give the school authority to take action. Basically the First Amendment protects a student away from school. But like the last case I noted, not so fast. On the face of it it looks like a very clear ruling that anything you do away from school on your own time, the school has no authority. But when you read the case that is not what it said. In this case the girl did not make the cheerleading squad and made a Snapchat comment to a friend in a private conversation, said screw the school, screw cheerleading, screw softball, etc…. Except she use the F bomb in place of “screw”. I think she was on the JV cheerleading team, did not make the varsity and the school kicked her off the JV team because of those comments. In the 8 - 1 decision the Supreme Court said that they violated her rights. Again on the face of it it looks like you could make any comment you wish away from school. But then you read the actual decision. In this case the Supreme Court noted that she did not make any threats, no racial slurs, did not directly name any person or even the school. It was just a general of a comment about to screw this and screw that. They ruled that I was absolutely her First Amendment rights and the school had no authority to punish her because of that. It did not negate the school’s ability to punish a person however in such a case. The court simply drew a very narrow authority. If the comment would have named the school or made racial slurs or threatened anyone AND call say significant disruption of school activities, the school might still hold the authority to take action against her. In the actual trial the school brought up that in algebra class her comments were discussed for 5 to 10 minutes for a couple of days and that was it. So the schools significant disruption in school function was one class discussing something for a few minutes and then moving on. That is absolutely a bogus excuse for a significant disruption. The school also brought up that one girl was offended by the comments. That is the very essence of the First Amendment, you can upset people. While this is completely the correct ruling in this situation, the Court very clearly left the option for a school to take action against someone even for an off-campus comment but it had to be significant in disruption of a school function.

They were a couple of unanimous decisions lately. Being in law-enforcement I really noticed Lange v. CA. What I find really interesting in this one is that I don’t think it says what people think it says. In a very brief statement of what happened, the police tried to stop a guy for a couple of traffic citations and he drove into his garage. They followed him into the garage and issued him a couple of citations. Was that unconstitutional? The interesting part from my opinion since I have read hundreds of cases, the Supreme Court sometimes issues a very narrow ruling and people think that is a final say in all cases. Many time it’s just guidance and very seldom is a bright line rule. It has long been thought that anytime the police are in a pursuit, it is automatically an emergency circumstance, in the past that has pretty much been through. An emergency or exigent circumstance generally relieves the police the requirement to get a warrant (that is an interesting discussion in itself and in such forums as this, I find a lot of people have no clue about court cases and warrants not being needed). In this case the court issued a 9-0 decision, overturning the case… but did not exactly say that the police were wrong. They pretty much said, there are reasons you can follow someone into a home even for a misdemeanor and that 9th circuit did not answer those questions. They simply fell back to the ruling that a pursuit is automatically an emergency. So we are sending it back down to the 9th circuit to determine if it fits our decision. I think that some people will see this decision and say that the police cannot pursue you into a home for a misdemeanor but that is absolutely not what they said. They said the court has to make a determination because it is not always an “emergency”, what are the facts in each particular case. Then there is the issue that in California a citation is not considered a crime but an “infraction” whereas in a state like Texas, a citation is an arrestable offense just as if it was capital murder.

On many topics, in many forums and from many political views extreme right to extreme left I have seen this comment. I have never seen a single person ever claim that someone does not have a right to protest. That is a perfect example of a straw man argument. “Well she the right!!”. Yes and I have never seen anyone say otherwise. No, turning your back on the flag in protest is not the most American thing you can do. If that premise is true, then being an atheist is the most American thing you can do. Why? Because you have that same First Amendment right to have or not have any religion. Let’s imagine a person saying, “I think anyone who believes in God is an idiot and you might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy!”. Our response should be, “Wow, that is the most American thing I have ever heard. This man upheld two of his First Amendment rights in one sentence”? So when someone says, I think North Korea is awesome and we also should go to a dictatorship. Anyone that does not agree should be punished by having their entire family placed in prison just like in North Korea, even if the rest of the family does not agree. PAMFAM…. Man that’s the most American thing….. Uhhhh, no it’s not.