tvc184

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.

I would not be surprised if there’s more out there and even the father missed some if he kept looking. Again, how can you tell? Was it completely hidden in a clump of grass and an animal later moved it? There are about 100 What Ifs It’s a crappy situation but how do you remedy it when you just don’t know?

I think that the chief had no choice but to respond like that. To say anything else would be crude. What else can you say? We can understand the feelings from the family however this is a complete unknown. It is not like they can reconstruct the bodies on the side of the road and see what parts may or may not be missing. Are they looking for two pieces of body parts? 12? There simply is no way to know and how big are those pieces? If there was some chart when you arrived on scene and it said, there are eight pieces of human body scattered in various locations and the smallest is approximately one inch square, we would have something to go by. When I say this is a complete unknown, it is a complete unknown. It was about 30 years ago and I was not working at that scene fortunately, but we were working a shooting did not find an entire body until the next day. It was late at night and he ran maybe 100 feet and fell into some heavy bushes. The person that shot wasn’t sure if he hit the guy, which way the guy ran, how far he ran, if he fell, kept going, etc. It is easy to criticize when you have no clue what you’re even looking for.

Okay, a Black transgender female illegal alien Hispanic Walmart greeter says…..

😂😂 Touche’

Straw man? I see a lot of straw man arguments in this and other forums. Giving the analogy that you can fire a Walmart employee for bad mouthing Walmart just like you can kick her off of the Olympic team is not a straw man.

Yep. Everybody has a right to protest in “almost” any manner that they wish and to be free from government interference. That free from interference does not apply to private organizations, companies, individuals, etc. I said almost any manner because they were always “fighting words” that could be held as unlawful as noted in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. The right of freedom of speech, religion, assembly and the press comes with imitations.

I was working one night but did not go to the scene and will not mention the location but we had such a horrific accident. A vehicle left the roadway at a very high rate of speed and hit several trees. Talking to the officers who responded, they were body parts all over including like a piece of a foot. The way it was described, it was like some I had hit a guy’s foot about 3 inches behind the toes with an axe. This partial foot flew several feet away from the vehicle or what was left of the vehicle. We had a motorcycle chase one night that I was involved in and the motorcycle hit a police car head on. The patrol car was stopped in the middle of Gulfway Drive and the suspect was looking over his shoulder at the cars chasing and did not notice the patrol car until it was too late. He laid the bike down but slammed into the car and his arm bones went into the radiator. After EMS left, we found a piece of his radius or ulna at the scene of the accident. I have found an eyeball in high grass in a fatal accident about 30 feet away from where the body landed. I could recount a few more that I have personally seen but I could understand why you might not find all body parts, especially small ones. I understand that the family gets upset but nobody intentionally ignored a piece of a body. From the pictures of this accident, it was worse than any I have personally seen and that is saying something.

If I understand article, she agreed to the conservatorship because of her mental health issues. According to the article it appears that she still has them. The way the article describes her court statement, she went on some rambling diatribe with a bunch of profanity and changing thought processes frequently. This is like a mock statement by Spears to prove she is capable of taking care of herself… ”I am okay, you know, like… I cry a lot, am depressed… and y’all are a bunch of $&8/ €>¥+s!! If you had seen what I saw, uhhh, the fish are biting in Lake Tahoe but I am not allowed to get pregnant… so, uhhh , like…. I am fine but you stupid, uhhh…, when I cry you know, it isn’t all day but ….”. Yes, you are okay Britney, what could be wrong?

Nope. We get told, not asked.

Yep, one of the many regulars. Preacher, Captain Barlow, Kenneth Carney……

1. Nobody has said that she (or anyone) could not protest any way she wishes. 2. This might sound like a strange concept but don’t old white people have the same right to protest or express their opinion? Just like I have seen it said from the opposite side of the aisle many times, words and actions have consequences. Recently a police officer made a video mocking LeBron James. He was terminated. I suspect some of the same people supporting this woman were the ones calling for his termination. He was on a team and this woman is on the team. They both represent someone. It would be mighty hypocritical to believe that officer should be terminated for a joke against a public figure but the woman representing the country turn her back on the flag of that country.

It is my personal opinion that she is simply selfish. Not because she is turning her back on the flag, which is political. The question I asked and I think I have the answer was, why does she want to represent a country and a flag what she appears to hate so much? She wants to take the bow. She wants everyone to look at her and her accomplishment. That is fine on an individual stage however in the Olympics, you were representing your country, period. Look at George Foreman, raised about 90 miles from us in Houston. He was raised in the fifth Ward which didn’t have the best reputation. Before he was born, the ward was called the bloody fifth. Wikipedia says that George foreman claimed he had a “troubled youth”. He dropped out of school at 15 years old and became a mugger. So he was probably committing felonies and robbing people for his money. When he was 16 Foreman saw an add for the Job Corps and signed up. He made the decision to change his life. He gained a couple of working skills and got his GED. He later took up boxing. Most people at least roughly probably know his story. But….. this troubled youth from a bad neighborhood went on to represent his country in the Olympics. When he won his final match in the Olympics that allowed him to win the gold medal, he walked around the ring waving the same American flag that this girl is turning her back on. In a later interview he said I wish I would’ve had two flags. Look at Chloe Kim. Her parents came from South Korea and the winter Olympics were in South Korea. When she blew away the competition to win the gold medal, is she protest? Did she hold up the flag of South Korea where she was at and that was her heritage and where her parents were from? No. She immediately held up the American flag which was probably bigger than she was. So yes, Berry wants the stage of the Olympics and wants everyone to look at her. That is understandable but she is still there to represent her country and she does not wish to do so. She needs to drop out of the Olympics and stick with professional athletics what she can take that individual bow if that is what she so desires.

Low life piece of…. She has a right to protest anything she wishes but I believe the Olympic committee should have the right to kick her off the team and should. If she does not like what America stands for along with the flag that represents it, why is she going to the Olympics to represent the USA? Hey, if you don’t want to represent, fine with me. Go somewhere else.

I have a couple of good ones but they break the rules of the forum.