tvc184

I read every word of the case from SCOTUS and the article. I also read you limited comments. What did I miss?

I will also note, I think the article you cited tried to imply that red flag laws were in play in this case. If you read down another paragraph or two they actually cite the SCOTUS ruling where it says this case does not have anything to do with red flag. Here is a quote from the article you posted... “Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues.”

Guns was the reason for the illegal entry but not the reason for the ruling. It could have been anything like a prescription medicine in his name. It was a community caretaker case, not a gun case. It was not a red flag law case It was a SCOTUS ruling in Cady in the early 70’s (and other cases such as Brigham City) that ruled that the police did not only look to stop crimes but to “protect” and “serve” without the need to be solving a crime. Let’s say a cop sees a house on fire and runs in and finds a woman unconscious from smoke and he drags her out, saving her life. Illegal? After all, he entered a home without a warrant. Now let’s say that he saw something while saving her life that was a crime. Illegally obtained evidence? I think not. The officer while making a warrantless entry, saw evidence in a crime but he entered under the community caretaker doctrine. At question is why the entry was made. In this case the officers didn’t enter to save him but to take his guns from some potential future issue. If that was allowed, the police could seize almost anything at any time and just say it was for your protection in the future. That is nonsense but that is kind of what these officers did. In a concurring opinion, Justice Alito said specifically, this case does not address red flag laws which might come before the Court later. Justice Thomas who wrote the ruling also said that it has been established that the police can enter homes without a warrant as long as exigent circumstances exist to justify it such as in Brigham City v. Stuart. In these cases there is a reasonable belief (like my example of a house fire) of an immediate entry to save someone. In this case today, thee police did not enter to try to save anyone. In fact the man voluntarily went to the hospital to be checked out, ending any exigent circumstances before the police made entry. Actually have they made the entry while he was still there, there was a better chance it it would be seen as lawful So I will stick with my statement. This has absolutely nothing to do with guns in itself but an illegal entry without the emergency need to do so. It has nothing to do with red flag laws and the Court ruling actually mentioned that fact. Anything contrary to that it’s just wishful thinking and political spin. It is like when the police make a traffic stop for speeding and end up shooting and killing the driver. At issue is why the guy was killed such as reaching for a weapon, not that he was speeding earlier.

That was not the ruling. It really had nothing to do with guns. Entry into a home without a warrant was unconstitutional.... which has already had unanimous or nearly so rulings. There are court cases of “community caretaker” which still stands as well as confiscation of almost anything without a warrant. It is location at issue, not the item or seizure.

Not my civil service test. It is set by the state and is the same score I required almost 40 years ago.

You are correct on civil service tests, however..... other criteria are taken into account that may include race. Hidden Figures was a great movie. I didn’t learn about Evers, King and others, because I was alive during their “history”. History class didn’t teach current events. I actually met, took pictures with and got a book signed by one of the original Tuskegee Airmen while at the Air and Space Museum in Washington DC. I told him what a true honor it was to meet him.

House Bill 1927 passed in the Texas House a couple of weeks ago. It was sent to the Senate and today it passed there also. The Senate made four amendments to the bill so it will have to go to a joint conference to see ya both sides can agree on the amendments. The amendments that I read would not be a radical so I think it will eventually pass. The governor has said that he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk. There is probably about a 90% chance that Texas law will now change to allow open or concealed carry of handguns with no license. From what I read of the law, a business can still post a trespassing sign and for bed entry. The license to carry classes will still be given because it will allow you to carry in about 30 other states concealed and it will allow you to purchase firearms without a background check.

When Gary Gilmore was executed in Utah after the US Supreme Court allowed the reinstating of the death penalty, he was executed by firing squad. There was actually a pretty good movie about that starring Tommy Lee Jones as Gary Gilmore. I think it is called Executioner’s Song. Way before the days of the Internet so I am not sure if I can find an article, the opponents of the death penalty said that no police officers would knowingly volunteer to be on the firing squad. Under Utah law any peace officer could apply and names would be drawn like a lottery. Opponents said that an officer would be disgraced and would not show his face in public (or something like that) as wanting to be on the firing squad. On the day of the applications if I remember correctly, there was a line of police officers that went around the block, waiting their turn to see if they could be on the firing squad.

Let’s assume like many people say, this is just the flu or another strain. Then the numbers are disguised which is why influenza deaths are way down. Okay. When have we ever had 500,000 flu deaths which typically have 30-40,000 deaths per year? Apparently it makes some people feel better to say this is just the flu.... but killing at about a 1,000% higher rate than seasonal flu.

If the US has had 583 million deaths, we have all died twice.

It isn’t the opinion/joke/statement, it is the ability to link it to a police agency. And yes, department rules but conduct unbecoming has a far reach.

It is absolutely because he put it out to the public in the media. Small talk can I also get you in trouble if someone records your statement and it becomes public. It is called conduct unbecoming or conduct that might shed a bad light on the police agency. Many or most police agencies (and many private companies) have rules they say you could not have a picture on your Facebook page in your uniform. The rules also states that if you’re making political statements or opinions or anything of that nature, you cannot identify the agency that you work for. An officer has a right to free speech but he does not have a right to make his agency look bad. That is why most people in such public professions that want to make political statements, do so under a disguised profile. A Walmart employee has the right to his opinion also. He still can’t wear a Walmart smock on a video and make a comment that makes Walmart look bad without facing consequences which will likely be termination.

It doesn’t matter what you wish to call it. The police cannot make personal opinion comments in while in their department uniform.

Sure. Sarcasm to call out the stupidity of a political view.

They are under individual contracts. Also, a team could probably fire an NFL player legally.... they just don’t want to

Yeah, but you can’t do that in your uniform. I have the right to protest. I do not have the right to protest in my police department’s uniform.

For those of you who remember the new Coke fiasco...

They lost with the new Coke and will now lose with the new Woke.

There is the law but then there is other parts of the law that are attached. It is like self-defense. Technically you murdered a person because you intentionally shot the person and he died. But you cannot simply say that it is murder because there’s another law they says it is not murder if there’s a valid reason. It is a defense to prosecution meaning that if that defense occurs, there is no crime. It is the same thing with causation. Even if you could believe that the officer might have killed him recklessly, under the law if Floyd might have died anyway or the officers actions alone would not have been sufficient, then just like self-defense it is not guilty. All that is required is any reasonable doubt. From the testimony I heard there should definitely be reasonable doubt.

The article does point out some sheer stupidity on the opponents of the proposed law. It brings up the mass shooting in El Paso in 2019 as an example of why the law does not need to be changed. The only problem with bringing up that case in reference to this bill is that it was perpetrated with an AK-47, not a handgun. This law only applies to the carrying a handguns. What does an AK-47 have to do with this law? Absolutely nothing. Well, that is not entirely true. Had this proposed law been in place at that time, perhaps some people might have had a handgun on them and they able to protect themselves.

Yes, I think the deck was stack against him. Law didn’t matter...

It is hard when you don’t see all of the evidence and just the media and forum comments. Probably most people have at least somewhat determined guilty or not guilty before the first witness based on political opinion, race, profession, group affiliation, knowing the law, etc But here goes.... I don’t think he should have been found guilty from what I have read and going by the law. He is caught up in an emotional event and people want retribution.... but is it the law? Understand if I hear all of the evidence I might feel differently however I am not going to watch the trial nor read the transcript. I have a problem with the law on “causation”. I read their law and it is similar to Texas. There are two parts of causation (what caused the crime). Causation deals with factors causing the results if two or more actions caused for example, a death. One part is if your action by itself was clearly sufficient to cause the death. If so you are guilty whether there was another factor or not. An example is that one guy is choking a victim but you shoot him in the chest and he dies. The jury has to determine if shooting the victim in the chest was clearly sufficient to cause death whether or not the other guy choking him might have also caused death or added to your actions. If the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the gunshot would have killed him, you are guilty. You don’t get away with murder because of another person’s actions since your action was in itself enough to cause the death (I would say in this case probably yes). The other part of causation is for not guilty. IF your actions were clearly insufficient to cause death even in combination with other factors AND the other person’s actions were clearly sufficient to cause death, you are not guilty. An example that I usually give is my friend on patrol one night and saw a guy/victim at an all way flashing light at about 3:00am. One drunk ran into the back of the victim and knocked him into the intersection and the victim flew out of the window. A second drunk ran the red light from another direction and ran over the victim as he tried to get out of the road. Both drunk drivers were guilty because the results would not have happened for one of them alone. The first drunk didn’t kill the victim from the impact but knocked him into the path of the second drunk. The second drunk would have not even hit the victim except he was knocked into the road. Running the red light finished him off. Neither drunk alone clearly caused death so the are both responsible. What does that have to do with Floyd’s death? If Floyd could have died from an overdose without any action from Chauvin AND Chauvin’s actions by itself would not caused death in itself, he should be not guilty. This all has to be proven against Chauvin beyond a reasonable doubt. I think there was plenty of doubt with Floyd’s underlying medical conditions and him ingesting potentially lethal drugs. Floyd could not breathe before Chauvin held him down. So if Floyd “might have died” anyway, there seems to be reasonable doubt. Had this been a local jury between two citizens and not a minority and a police officer, I believe a jury would probably find differently. From the evidence that I have seen, Floyd very well might have died from his own health and actions. If so (and beyond a reasonable doubt that it would not have happened), not guilty.

Assuming that you were correct and the 10th amendment takes care of much of this then states that ban firearms is OK. You can’t say that Texas could make something legal under the 10th amendment but New York cannot make an illegal under the 10th amendment. You cannot have it both ways if that is your basis for an argument. It is like people like the 10th amendment sometimes but do not like it others. The Supreme Court has ruled on at least four occasions that the state has the authority to quarantine and force vaccinations under state policing powers. That is because it is not addressed in the Constitution. All during this Covid to do, I have seen over and over including in this forum that is unconstitutional to force people to wear masks. So which is it? It is disingenuous to say that states can do anything that’s not in the constitution and them turn around and get angry when they do just that. I mean we can disagree about the state decision but how are you going to claim it as unconstitutional? You mention abortion as if it has to be spelled out. Abortion was ruled as a personal liberty under the 14th amendment and a right to privacy. The Constitution has certain restrictions and general rules. It is not specific to what is legal or illegal in most cases. It leaves much of it up to the federal government and the states such as in Article I in the authority to regulate interstate commerce by the US Congress. It does not specifically state what that interstate commerce is. So it is not valid to make the argument that the government cannot require a permit to cross state lines because that is not in the constitution. No it isn’t it is under the general authorities in Article I. And since you want to mention the Constitution, Article III says that if there is any question as to what the Constitution means, the Supreme Court gets to make the decision. The ultimate state rights argument while speaking about the Second Amendment and the 10th amendment, The Texas Constitution roughly mirrors the 2nd Amendment however it says that the state has the authority to set restrictions. So if the 10th amendment defers to the states, the Texas Constitution allows restrictions on carrying a firearms. I am all for removing all or most restrictions on firearms. Simply claiming something is unconstitutional if not a valid argument in court unless you can win it on appeal ultimately in front of the US Supreme Court. Let’s say you go to trial in Texas for unlawfully carrying weapons for a handgun. Prosecution present their case and then passes it off to the defense. Your lawyer stands up and says, “Your honor, the 2nd and 10th amendments. The defense rests”. I suspect you might as well go ahead and wait for your jail time because that is not going to win in court.

It hasn’t happened yet.

Under the law deadly force is probably legal. In today’s political climate, that does not matter. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that it does not matter if there were other less likely lethal options as long as deadly force was one of those lawful options.