tvc184

I believe the US Supreme Court case of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez has already settled that issue. In a 7-2 decision they said that you cannot sue a city or Police Department for failure to act unless there’s a specific law that requires that action. I believe an example would be under Texas law where almost every legal arrest is voluntary or discretionary by the police. There are almost no mandatory arrests however there are a couple such a violation of a protective order. A protective order which some people mistakenly call a restraining order, is an order by a judge telling someone not to approach somebody, speak with them, make threats, etc.. Usually it is used in situations such as domestic violence. Typically such an order will come after for example a man beats up his girlfriend. If a judge issued such a protective order and a police officer in Texas witness a violation of that order, it is a mandatory arrest. Where this happened the state law just like Texas, is an open carry state for rifles. There is no such thing as a mandatory arrest in that case because the rifle is legal. Even if it was not legal, there would need to be a law that says the police have to arrest everyone they see with a rifle. The lawsuit makes the accusation of a conspiracy. I believe for such a lawsuit to be successful they are going to have to prove that the police made a deal with certain people to carry rifles and go out and take care of certain individuals. I highly doubt that the police made some kind of a back room deal with people on the street. I think this is a deep pockets case. The lawsuit was filed in hopes that the city will simply settle out of court, even if the law exonerate them, to not have to pay for a lengthy court fight.

Amy time you think the world cannot get any crazier……

Who in here has ever said that Trump would be reinstated? We can read silly Internet rumors on all kinds of topics. I do not know a single person that has ever mentioned this in person or on any forum. In fact if I ask any of my friends about Trump being reinstated, to a person they would probably say… Huh?

It looks like the authors and editors are a couple of Asians, maybe a couple of people for the Middle Eastern or other cultures. It looks like some think tank organization 501(c)3 and has the goal of bringing people together and other lofty ideals.

I just read a lengthy and interesting article about cultural appropriation. According to implications of the article, if you like Elvis Presley music, you are guilty of cultural appropriation. In fact Elvis himself is guilty. If you open a pizza restaurant and you are not from Italy or of Italian heritage, you are guilty of the same. Want to make and sell gumbo? Not so fast. Since the etymology of gumbo is believed to come from the African word for okra, unless you are Black you should not cook gumbo to sell or you are guilty of cultural appropriation. Do you like turquoise jewelry? According to the article if you buy from anyone other than a Native American, you’re guilty of cultural appropriation. Like I said, it is interesting…..

And the word Indian not offensive. It is not a racial slur.

I realize it’s a previous chief and said so. Either chief it’s just one man’s opinion. Obviously I’m entitled to my opinion. Otherwise you might as well shut down the forum. I don’t think the PNG people care about the Cleveland Indian‘s or anyone else. If they decide to change, great but that will be their choice, not because of political pressure in my opinion. I obviously cannot speak for the people from Port Neches and Groves but I think they would keep the name Indians merely out of anti political correctness, in your eye type of response. Maybe some people are tired of touchy-feely.

Nothing will improve until the people in charge come to the realization that people from other races or ethnicities or the police are not the problem. Actually I think they have come to that realization but they have convinced the masses otherwise. If a Hispanic guy kills another Hispanic rival gang member in a drive-by shooting, it is because there was slavery in the United States over 150 years ago? It is because there is a white president? It is because of any police officers of any race? The blame game will continue because there is a profit to be made even if that profit is just a political agenda or fame.

Accepted it a little more? A person can keep their mouth shut and accept something. Didn’t the previous chief do something like travel to PNG and present them with an official document? If so that does not sound like acceptance. That sounds more like a blessing. Secondly, I generally don’t like PNG as an arch rival of Nederland. I am not talking about the people from there. I still support 100% the naming of their mascot Indians or at their discretion something else if they wish. Next, the latest chief that overturned what the last chief did has no bearing except one man’s opinion. PNG is not called the Cherokees. They are called the Indians. The current chief of the Cherokee tribe is entitled to his opinion. The people from PNG are entitled to theirs and that includes the naming of their mascot the generic term Indian.

I might have brought this up in this forum before but it is a situation I was involved with in the aftermath of Hurricane/Tropical Storm Harvey. We had an injured prisoner in custody and we were investigating how he was injured. The emergency room doctor was preparing transportation to another hospital because of the prisoner’s medical condition. That was an issue because he was in custody for a felony. All we needed for our record was, why was he being taken from our custody. It did not need to be a detailed breakdown of the prisoner’s medical records, treatment, prognosis, etc., but simply an answer of what was wrong. Did he have a broken bone, did he have a serious illness, etc.? I was a lieutenant and the ranking commander at the time. The emergency room doctor simply refused to tell us what was happening because he thought it was a HIPAA violation. So the supervisor on scene at the hospital who is also a lieutenant, called me while I was at the police station. I already had the answer saved on my desktop at my work computer and printed it off. When I got to the hospital I introduced myself to the doctor and ask if we could talk in private for a moment. He said sure and we went into an unoccupied treatment room. I told him that we needed to know why we were releasing the prisoner and all we needed was a brief description like I discussed before. I told him do not answer until I gave you some information because I know you were concerned about privacy. I then asked him a question something like ….. Is all you know about HIPAA from about a one day class in medical school were all they said was HIPAA HIPAA HIPAA, you’ll be sued and go to jail. I thought it was a funny question but he said, yes that was about it. So I gave him about a 10 second version of the law verbally but then showed him the federal government response on the document I had. You could see that it came from the Health and Human Services website. I told the doctor please read this information and make your own decision. About 30 seconds later he told me the answer…. then he asked if he could keep the document I gave him. Absolutely. The doctor thanked me in a very sincere way. He told me that he was scared about violating the HIPAA law (which he should be) and he had policeman in his face telling him that he had to give the information. The poor guy did not know which way to turn. I walked out from the room and went to the other officers and told them the answer. My whole interaction with the doctor probably lasted less than two minutes. The other Lieutenant was kind of like, what the heck? We were telling him for about half an hour that he had to blah blah blah… I said yeah, that was the problem. I just walked in, smiled and showed him the law and let him make the decision and it was almost immediate. The point is that HIPAA is between doctors and their patients’ privacy but even then there are some exceptions. Talking about a person’s medical condition is not a violation of the law unless it is with a person involved in healthcare. Even then there are certain limited circumstances where you can get medical information without the person’s consent, mostly through law enforcement investigations.

Yep.

Things are not simply illegal. Nothing is illegal unless a law says it is. HIPAA covers doctor and patient relationships. HIPAA does not cover private people or companies. It breaks no law for your employer to ask why you are sick and not coming to work or if you have had the Covid vaccine. It absolutely breaks the law if your employer calls your doctor and your doctor tells him. A healthcare professional cannot disclose (most of the time but even that is not absolute) your medical records with anyone without your consent. If a relative of yours tells me that you had some medical procedure, there is no violation of any HIPAA law. If your relative got it from a healthcare professional or your relative is that healthcare professional, that would be a violation. So this person tells me about your medical history and I get on this forum and make a comment like I hate what happened to you and you got this procedure. I hope it works out OK. Again, that is not a HIPAA violation. If you find out your neighbor has Covid and you go tell your other neighbor, guess what, there is no HIPAA violation. I repeat this over and over in person and on forums, HIPAA must be one of the most misunderstood laws ever. This is directly from the federal government Health and Human Services website. The link to this page is below the quote. “In general, the HIPAA Rules do not apply to employers or employment records. HIPAA only applies to HIPAA covered entities – health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses – and, to some extent, to their business associates. If an employer asks an employee to provide proof that they have been vaccinated, that is not a HIPAA violation, and employees may decide whether to provide that information to their employer.” [Hidden Content]

I think it is a HIPAA violation to ask what vaccine someone has taken. I know that is completely false but I love reading that on various forums. I like the comments such as, if your employer asks you to take the vaccine, he is violating HIPAA and you can sue. That has to be the most misunderstood law ever and people draw it like a gun. “You can’t talk about that!! HIPAA!!”

I used to love chess until I found out that I really had no clue what I was doing. I learned which way to pieces moved when I was about five years old and played with my father at that age. All the way to high school I could easily be a random person that “knew how” to play chess, which was (like me) how the pieces moved. Then I found out there were named strategies and named attacks. That’s when I basically gave it up. Now we have the Internet but 50 years ago I did not feel like reading several books and playing enough games to learn how to be really good at it. I did beat the high school chess champion one time. I played my typical, I know which way our pieces moved and I tried to anticipate his next move. After I won he kind of laughed and said I had the most difficult method to beat. That was the random, I have no clue what I’m doing but smart enough to anticipate. He had taken years to learn to counteract certain strategies and that all goes out the window when the other person has no strategy. 😂

Not liking the law is a right. It follows the Constitution however in particular Article III.

The US Supreme Court says otherwise.

Clickbait?

The hits just keep on comin’!!! [Hidden Content]

I have to do some more digging because the story just broke I think. I have found it on a couple of websites but not a major new source yet. If it is true it is outrageous. According to the story a democratic congressman from Pennsylvania has authored a bill that will prohibit any ammunition purchases without a photo ID. [Hidden Content]

Noise canceling ear buds with your favorite YouTube, movie or music channels.

As SM said, no unless you’re raising them, probably under a permit, for food. Wild animals are not livestock. This is the Texas Penal Code definition of livestock: (5) "Livestock animal" means:(A) cattle, sheep, swine, goats, ratites, or poultry commonly raised for human consumption; (B) a horse, pony, mule, donkey, or hinny; (C) native or nonnative hoofstock raised under agriculture practices; or (D) native or nonnative fowl commonly raised under agricultural practices.

And just for informational purposes in reference to wild or feral cats and dogs being protected even though they have no owner and may be on your property, The law says it is unlawful to kill an animal without consent of the owner or to torture the animal. The question becomes, what is an animal? This is a quote from the Texas Penal Code in reference to cruelty to non-livestock animals: "Animal" means a domesticated living creature, including any stray or feral cat or dog, and a wild living creature previously captured. “Including any stray or feral”’is significant

It is a felony to kill a cat or a dog if it is not yours without the consent of the owner. If it is a wild animal (feral), it has no owner and is a felony. As B13 stated, you can kill an animal in self-defense or if it is attacking your livestock. I believe you would have a hard time trying to say you killed a cat in self-defense. If a Rottweiler, Doberman, Chow, etc., was attacking a person, I am sure It would justify shooting it. So if you shoot that wild neighborhood cat sleeping on top of your car with a pellet gun and get caught and prosecuted, you could potentially do time in prison. In my opinion and knowing Texas law.

Let’s see, I’m a convicted felon so I’m going to drive on a public street and shoot a dog. He gets a two for one deal there. It is a felony to shoot the dog and then another felony for processing the firearm to begin with.

All rights are the same whether under arrest or not. You do not have less rights when you’re not in custody or more rights when you are. The rights listed under Miranda do not appear because of an arrest. You have the same rights as Miranda sitting there making this post. Those are from the 5A and 6A and say that you have the right to attorney and you have the right to remain silent. The only thing that an arrest does is it requires the police to tell you that you have those rights if you were in custody AND being interrogated. There is no court ruling that requires the reading of Miranda after an arrest. It only requires the Miranda warning if an officer intends to question the arrested person about a crime. Even if a person states that he wishes to remain silent and/or wishes to speak with an attorney, that goes away after 14 days after the person has gotten out of jail. So you have the same Miranda rights reading this forum but a police officer does not have to tell you that because he is not questioning you while you’re in custody. Questioning a person about a crime does not require Miranda. Having a person in custody does not require Miranda. Questioning a person while he is in custody does require Miranda or as we teach it, during custodial interrogation. As far as the motto it is… a motto. It is a general purpose for the police and not a direct order or law. There are very few laws that require any police officer to do anything. It means there are very few laws that require an officer to act. Probably the most important four words in criminal law are and/or and may/shall. The and and or are important either in a single sentence or at the end of a list because it tells you if any one of those items stands alone or if it requires all of the above. An example is that some laws will say a person commits a crime if he does A, B and C. In that case you would have to prove a person did A and B and C or no crime happened. If the law says a person commits a crime if he does A, B or C, it means that any one of those requirements stands alone. If you could only prove B, it is a crime. I think a majority a criminal law at some point has the word and or the word or in the statue. The other critical words are may and shall. When a law says the word “may” it means that the officer’s actions are voluntary or discretionary. When it says “shall”, it means that the officer has no choice. There are very few shall act in law-enforcement or criminal law.