tvc184

They are absolutely necessary but you got a love attorneys and their rationale for court. I mean that is what they get paid to do but sometimes it is interesting. Her attorney said when Britney spoke, the world listened…. and it was amazing. Huh???

Not really.

Omg… the Facebook lawyers!!! 🤦🏻‍♂️

Their stuff is so funny and several times a year I see people post their webpage and believe that is a true article. The way they write their articles, it is like an actual maybe a story.

When I saw the title I thought, this has got to be a BB story. YEP!!!

Yes, we could what if all kinds of scenarios. What if he said, yes I have a bill of sale here for 50 cars and they’re going to be trucked back to South Carolina? Here is a number you can call to confirm. Having worked in that position I would suspect it did not quite go like that. Of course the guy can shut his mouth and not answer any questions whatsoever and he has that right. My guess is that he opened his mouth and they easily were able to prove or suspected that he was lying. I have made some of my best arrest by people who agree to talk and it is not usually hard to prove that someone is lying even the side of the street. If there are two people and they agree to talk it is so simple to discover a lie, it’s almost like cheating. I was riding with a couple of Beaumont PD officers one time and they made an interdiction stop. A white male with Georgia license plates was heading eastbound in a pick up. The pick up was registered in his name. He agreed to talk and he gave some story about he left a week ago to go visit a friend in Houston and he was on the way back home. Then they start asking what his friends name was and all of a sudden he did not remember. They asked him where the friend lived so they can send Houston PD by the check and he did not remember that either. The officers would take turns talking to him while he was outside of his truck. He would talk freely with a little nervousness but every time an officer got near the tailgate he would lock up stiff as a board and shut up. It was almost comical. Walk a few feet away and he would loosen up and start talking again. Then the big question, do you mind us looking around your truck? The answer was no, I don’t mind. One of the officers looked under the truck and saw that the spare tire was brand new. It had no mud on it whatsoever and looked like it had just been mounted the day before. So then the follow up question. How long have you had this truck? He might’ve said two or three years. Have you had any flats? No. Are all of your tires original including a spare? Yes. Hmmmm…… Well……. The officer took the spare out from under the truck and rolled it down the side of the shoulder. For some reason it rolled faster at some spots and slower at some spots like there was something heavy inside. Then the tire was bounced a few times and we noticed part of the tire was more stiff in the other parts. The pickup was take him to the city garage about 3 miles away. The spare tire was opened and 6 kilos of marijuana popped out. If a person opens his mouth he decides to lie, it is not usually very hard to figure it out. At the Police Academy I have a allowed two cadets to go outside and make up any story that they wished. The premise was that they had just robbed someplace but they had time to get their stories together. I would give them as much time as I needed to make up the story. They could even write it down on paper if they wanted to. I would then bring one back in the class and question him. I would then have him leave the class and bring the other person in and question him in front of the other cadets. It was almost comical how quickly it was discovered that they were lying. It is because you cannot anticipate all the questions that will be asked. A person has the right to remain silent. If he gives up that write anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law. I suspect in this case and going by the article, the guy decided he would talk, probably believing he could give a reasonable explanation to whatever they ask.

Some or most of it is but it has to be obtained through another channel. Using the FBI/police computer is a crime. When I used to work for Lamar Port Arthur, they would want me to run the license plate of people who would receive citations for parking on the campus. I could not provide it. They were a government agency since they were in public school and they could go down to the Jefferson County tax office and requested and would receive it for free through them.

I worked highway interdiction. I’ve never made a single drug arrest from a tip in that position. I and my partner at one time made what I believe was the largest crack cocaine seizure and some cash (not the biggest) in Jefferson County. Of course that was about 25 years ago. Since the police probably stop about one out of every 500 or less, every time they get tied up with any arrest, it is safe to say several people drove past them with more drugs and money.

No. Merely running an ID will not return out-of-state convictions or records or even in Texas however a routine check on a drivers license will show traffic citations within the last few years. There has to be a specific reason to run a persons criminal history. Any officer can request it however he has to tell the dispatcher at that moment why it is being run and that reason has to be logged into the FBI database immediately. The officer that at time is pretty much locked into his reasoning so if he lies, he is committing a crime and the FBI has the evidence. There are several reasons that we can run such as the suspect in an active criminal investigation, a detention such as a traffic stop or a criminal activity is suspected, criminal histories to a person applying for the police department, etc. I can assure you that you do not want to be running your ex girlfriend’s current boyfriend to see what kind of record he has and get caught. I would not want to go to prison to find out who is dating who. It is also a crime to divulge criminal history to someone other than the police and if you sell the information, it is a felony in Texas. For example if someone that I know says I’ll give you $20 if you tell me if this guy has been arrested and I use the FBI database, if I get caught I might as well get ready for the big house.

I started to post my response but I will use your post as a nexus and yes you are probably correct, it sure did not help him. Money laundering is a crime. Money laundering under Texas law is to possess money with intent to commit a crime or were the proceeds from a crime. The man in the article was arrested for money laundering. He was not taken into custody for possession of money or the money was not seized for a civil forfeiture. To justify an arrest and a seizure of money for evidence the officers had to have probable cause which is under the 4A to the United States Constitution. Probable cause is a reasonable belief by a person of caution, who knows the facts that the officer knows at the time of the arrest or search, that will lead the person to believe that a crime it’s probably happening or has happened. So what do we know about this case going strictly by the article? Will these facts make a reasonable person believe that a crime has likely happened or about to happen? Probable cause is a looking at the totality of the circumstances and not any single item which in itself might be legal. 1. A traffic stop was made IH10. 2. The driver was from South Carolina so at least several hundred miles from home. 3. The article says the officer spoke with him and he gave indications that something was up. I’m going to speculate that he was overly nervous or simply gave an answer that made absolutely no sense. Either of the situations might not mean much alone however I can give inference that a crime has been committed. This is especially true if you’re caught in a lie. 4. Due to these indications a narcotics dog was brought to the scene. 5. The dog alerted on the vehicle meaning it is very likely there were drugs for in the vehicle or had recently been in the vehicle. 6. A search of the vehicle with probable cause let’s do the discovery of almost $1 million in cash. 7. A check of the man’s record shows that he has not only been arrested but been convicted for drug charges, possibly selling drugs. We do not know what the guy said that tipped the officers off that something was up but I’m sure it will be on camera. Also unlike the sidewalk lawyers on Facebook, a warrant is not needed to search a vehicle on the roadway. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that waiting for a warrant on the side of the road was unreasonable so a warrant was not needed for a vehicle. The 4A to the Constitution guarantees the right against “unreasonable” searches and seizures. They have ruled that is not unreasonable to search it vehicle without a warrant. A warrant might take two or more hours and it would be unreasonable to believe the suspect will still be sitting there waiting for the cop two hours later. So the officers very likely had probable cause to make the stop, the search and ultimately arrest the suspect. It was not a single fact that the guy had cash on him. Out of curiosity and honesty, with the seven things that I just listed, how many people believe this guy was just riding down the road with almost $1 million cash or if he had just made a drug transaction or was in route to a drug transaction?

Go to Facebook if you want to see some comedy on this story. I did not realize there were so many lawyers in this area.

Yes It is the government’s job to prove it and beyond a reasonable doubt. He was charged with a crime and arrested, not a civil forfeiture.

Yes professional courtesy does still exist however breaks still exist across the board. I stopped a guy one night going 85 miles an hour in a 35 mile an hour zone on a motorcycle about 2 AM. There was no one in the vicinity and he quickly pulled over. I told him to slow down and he almost passed out. If I am going to give a person I don’t know a break for 50 miles an hour over the speed limit, why would I give another police officer a citation for going 15 miles an hour over? I stopped at car one night speeding and then it went through a red light at about 30 miles an hour. By the time I pull the car over a few blocks away, it was pulling into the back of the hospital. It was a doctor on the way to an emergency so she was naturally in a hurry. The law on speeding actually allows doctors going to an emergency the ability to speed as if an emergency vehicle without receiving a citation just as it does for police officers. It does not give them the authority to run red lights and especially at 30 miles an hour. I did not write her a citation out of professional courtesy. It was early in the morning and there was no traffic and she could see that it was clear. Should I have written her a citation? I am sure there are people that are angry that I allowed her to go with a warning while they might have received a citation in the same situation. With discretion, that’s just the way it is. Like in your situation, I and most other officers simply handle the problem at the same if given the chance. For every person arrested or given a citation they are probably 15 others that were given a break.

I have worked with at least four officers that have lost a career over a DWI. I worked with at least one more that was terminated for public intoxication. I feel bad that they made stupid decisions but have no sympathy for the outcome.

DWI, not DUI 😀

In this case they did not clear all off-campus speech as permissible. The United States Supreme Court in this case ruled very specifically for her situation. She criticize the school rules (which are open to criticism), did not specifically mention her school and it was a private conversation between her and a couple of friends. The school still retains the ability to regulate off-campus speech if it disrupts the school significantly. In this case the school’s evidence of a serious disruption was that students in an algebra class discussed it for five or 10 minutes for two days. I am going to show just a couple of quotes from the actual Supreme Court decision. The opinions afterwards are mine but the quotes are the opinion of the Court Held: While public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome B. L.’s interest in free expression in this case This section shows that the school may have a special interest in regulating off-campus speech. In the phrase “in this case” it shows that is a case by case basis, not always a free speech at any cost ruling nor is off campus free speech unlimited. (2) The circumstances of B. L.’s speech diminish the school’s interest in regulation. B. L.’s posts appeared outside of school hours from a location outside the school. She did not identify the school in her posts or target any member of the school community with vulgar or abusive language. This is the part where it was a generality and did not target any specific person or group in her profanity. Any such action might have upheld the school’s actions but in this case as I have discussed, it was just a general I don’t like school rules but with the F bomb tossed in. That is free speech. Anything more specific likely would not have been. Of course it would still be free speech even if it was specific but the school would likely retain the right to punish her by removing her from a special team. (4) The school’s interest in preventing disruption is not supported by the record, which shows that discussion of the matter took, at most, 5 to 10 minutes of an Algebra class “for just a couple of days” and that some members of the cheerleading team were “upset” about the con- tent of B. L.’s Snapchats. App. 82–83. This alone does not satisfy Tinker’s demanding standards. Pp. 10–11. (5) Likewise, there is little to suggest a substantial interference in, or disruption of, the school’s efforts to maintain cohesion on the school cheerleading squad. This quote from the Supreme Court again goes to the very specific situation being discussed. It again shows that there was no substantial disruption of the ability to maintain authority in the school or the cheerleading squad itself. Merely a person being upset it’s not a violation.That is what the very essence of free speech means, that you can upset other people. The school has an interest in maintaining discipline however such a case is narrow in scope. It really comes down to one or two people or even a few people not liking her post, that is no way constitutes a serious disruption. While this case is clearly the correct decision, free-speech does not allow that you can say anything you want to about your school, a student, a school official, etc., at any time for any reason. As several parts from the Supreme Court decision have stated, the school does have some authority and reasoning for regulating off-campus speech. It however has to be of such a disruptive nature that can be proven for them to take action. Merely saying to heck with school rules but tossing in a little profanity, does not constitute that major disruption. In someways the very ruling itself agrees with Justice Thomas’s dissent. He states that a disruption is wrong and the rest of the court states that it’s wrong but they came to different conclusions on what a major disruption is.

My theme song, Glory Days by Bruce Springsteen. When I was on the swat team up until I was about 45 years old, I would run up to 8 miles a night to stay in shape. I never got into really heavy weights but weighing about 180 pounds, I was bench pressing 250. On one raid at a drug house, I was the ram officer who had to knock the door open. I wore about 35 pounds of body armor and weapons and carried a 72 pound ram two blocks through an alley running to be able to sneak up on the house quickly. Boom, the door came down. After 10 years of doing that I got off the team. That was 20 years ago. Now I am not sure that I can walk two blocks😂😂😂

That is how I got mine.

As recently as, maybe 25 years ago when a majority white city in Beaumont elected a black mayor and I think reelected him 2 or 3 more times? I know it is not a long time ago but 5 years ago a county that’s about 60% white elected a black female sheriff and the re-elected her? Could it be 9 years ago when state Representative James White from Woodville won (I think 5 times so far) as a black man in a district that is almost 80% white? I think that White it’s not going to run again. Many people are speculating that he will run as a lieutenant governor candidate. If that is true we potentially could have Allen West and James White as a governor and lieutenant governor with both being the first black in those positions and also both Republicans. Go figure. We can each have our own beliefs for our own reasons but I wonder how long the complaint will be, but we cannot get ahead because we are ___________ (fill in the blank). The ones that I just named are examples that came off the top of my head and in this immediate area. Outside of our area we could write volumes but as a single example could it be like Mia Love? Love was born in NYC and not only a black female but born to parents who emigrated from Haiti. But where was she elected 11 years ago? Perhaps in the Democratic stronghold of NYC? Nope, in Sarasota Springs, Utah she was elected to the city council and then mayor in a city that is approximately 90% white. Wait, a black female elected mayor not in a city not with barely has a white majority but one where 9 out of 10 are white? Then she went on to serve two terms in the US House of Representatives from the same district. So I wonder, when?

With quite some time being an understatement.

Beaumont has had a black mayor going back a quarter of a century ago when Beaumont was a majority white. Mouton will be at least the third female mayor. She will be neither the first black mayor nor the first female mayor. We have had a black president and now a woman vice president who is also black. Texas has a black population of about 12% or near the average for the rest of the country. If you count the Republican Party, I’m sure it is a much smaller percentage. A little over a year ago the Texas Republicans elected Allen West as a president of the Texas Republican party. Not only is he black, he is not even a native Texan and only moved to the state about five years ago. Was that two strikes against him? He resigned a couple of weeks ago and many people feel that he did so in order to run for governor next year. If so Mr. West must think that the state with only 12% blacks, will support him as a black non-native Texan as governor. When will some people quit seeing race and sex as a negative?

I can’t believe it!!! What has this done to my….. Wait, I don’t live in Beaumont.

Yes. Over 2 million Texans now carry with the Texas LTC and everybody including a juveniles can carry legally inside of a car as long as it’s concealed. None of that including the Texas LTC, require any training. There is now a four hour class for the Texas LTC however it covers laws such as, you cannot shoot somebody for shoplifting and it is better if you get in an argument, just simply walk away. They can currently be taken online so in a fact, there is no real training of any consequence and there is absolutely no firearms training even under the LTC. I believe there is a misconception that the LTC currently requires a firearms training and it does not. Mayor in Texas carry under that law with no training and people ask how the new law is going to affect people with no training required. The answer is the old law requires no training either.

Yes. Over 2 million Texans now carry with the Texas LTC and everybody including a juveniles can carry legally inside of a car as long as it’s concealed. None of that including the Texas LTC, require any training. There is now a four hour class for the Texas LTC however it covers laws such as, you cannot shoot somebody for shoplifting and it is better if you get in an argument, just simply walk away. They can currently be taken online so in a fact, there is no real training of any consequence and there is absolutely no firearms training even under the LTC. I believe there is a misconception that the LTC currently requires a firearms training and it does not. Mayor in Texas carry under that law with no training and people ask how the new law is going to affect people with no training required. The answer is the old law requires no training either.

Under the new Texas law, you do not have to be a citizen of the US or Texas.. Any person within the state of Texas whether they be the resident of another state or even a legal alien, will benefit from this law. The Texas LTC will still be offered and will give certain privileges that Constitutional carry does not and part of that is carrying in other states which recognize the Texas LTC. Another benefit is being able to carry concealed in certain areas on campus of colleges. Another is not committing a federal felony for picking up a child at a school which is a federal crime unless a person has a state license. It is also the benefit of being able to buy any firearm from a federally licensed dealer, as an example Academy sporting goods, without the need for a background check. Basically if you’re talking about just reciprocity, nothing changes. Texas LTC will still be offered and has those listed benefits and will still be recognized by approximately 20 other states. We actually had reciprocity with other states however several of them have gone to Constitutional carry also. Counting the constitutional carry states and the LTC reciprocity, I think they were about 38 states where you can carry if you have a Texas LTC.