tvc184

You mean we wish it was a law called the 2A. All rights have restrictions. I think there should be very little if any restrictions are on personal firearms but the US Constitution Article III says otherwise.

Reality. This bill comes up every legislature. I would say that due to the national democratic party pushing to get rid of guns (even though people in forums like this claim that it is false), I believe the sentiment this year might give it a better chance of passing. More of a thumb in the eye of the DNC.....

The other issue is, do you try the case in public before any potential trial? Where are the actual rights of the accused?

There is a balancing act and both sides have good points. There is the desire (not right) to know what the government is doing. I see comments such as, it is my tax dollars so you have to tell me! Uhhhhh.... no you don’t.

There is a balancing act and both sides have good points. There is the desire (not right) to know what the government is doing. I see comments such as, it is my tax dollars so you have to tell me! Uhhhhh.... no you don’t.

I am assuming that even though we might have taken civics in school, many or most people aren’t aware of the process or at how many steps a proposed law can be killed. The media compounds the problem by putting out stories on bills, some of which have 0% chance of becoming law. Usually we will get things like, marijuana bill filled in Texas House and it will generate 1,000 comments like finally! About time!! God intended this law! and so on. The truth is that the committee chairman will not even allow it to be discussed, much less come up for a vote in committee which is the first of at least 5 votes with potentially 7 or more needed.

Better not count those chickens before they hatch.... There is a good chance that the lieutenant governor will not let it come up for a vote. He has killed it before and has again expressed concern for the bill.

But you could have an least quoted my response to you and not bullets-3... 😂

That just means the FBI is also investigating the case. I have been investigated by the FBI for civil rights violations in the jail. This was about 30 years ago and fortunately there were cameras. In another similar case but not by the FBI, I had a complaint of abuse filed by a prisoner while being brought into the jail. Again the camera exonerated me. The prisoner got out of the car and purposely fell on his own kneecap, crushing it on the concrete. Not knowing that it was on camera, he blamed me for crippling him. We don’t have to go too far back to the Michael Brown case and the claimed hands up, don’t shoot. The FBI spent several million dollars in a year to agree with the DA who said almost immediately that the shooting was lawful. Well, the FBI did not find it was lawful. According to the then US Attorney General, they just could not prove the case.

I believe it is against North Carolina law to release that video. I bring this up in various forums from time to time but freedom of information depends on the laws in that particular state. Texas has fairly restrictive freedom of information laws. There are some things that must be released, some things that have an option to be released but cannot be demanded and some things that absolutely cannot be released. I believe in North Carolina they need an order from a judge in order to make something public.

Found it on YouTube. Again, you could start in about the 2:30 mark...

This video shows how a Lego can be used to load pistol rounds.... but look at the background at around the 2:35-2:40 mark. [Hidden Content] For those with Facebook.

I honestly don’t know how they arrived at a murder charge when the state has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer intended to kill Floyd. I didn’t look at all of the testimony but I don’t know how the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Floyd would not had died without the officer applying anything. It was like, yes Floyd had a heart condition and yes he had taken a potentially fatal drug and yes he was struggling to breath before the officer held him down but trust us, the officer’s actions is what killed him. Had this not being a racial incident and a police officer against a minority and with the same set of circumstances, I don’t believe it would be anywhere near a murder conviction. I have testified in murder cases, have spent time in detectives filing such cases and most of the time the DA would not even take something like this in my opinion.

The opposition in the article talks about denying competition. How does a male competing as a male deny competition? It then goes on to talk about competing with peers. Yeah, your peers aren’t females that have way less testosterone.

....and women.

I love the thought of it with the law has no legal standing as far as federal law.

I subscribe to his YouTube channel.

If you have not seen it, this is the entire video…

Most officers are that accurate from that range. The speed with which the officer acted is why impressive that he shooting. .... and that shooting had nothing to do with being a sniper. The precision shooting of a sniper with a rifle, usually as a very long range has very little to do with manipulating a handgun and close range.

Here you go...

Looking at the Facebook comments are either hilarious or sad according to how you look at it. Comments such as, the officer should have tried to talk her down. In the middle of a knife swing? Or, she called 911 so you can’t shoot her. I could list about 100 more examples but that is stupidity at its finest. But I know that people like to play the what if game. So what if it was a white female try to stab A black female? If the officer did nothing, what would the narrative be? Here is my opinion only going to Texas law. 1. it does not matter who called 911. 2. There is no way for the officer to know who made the call or any other circumstances such as bullying (which doesn’t justify stabbing) before his arrival. 3. Presented with these circumstances, there is simply no time for de-escalation or talking anyone down as has been suggested. The person is in the middle of an attack. 4. Under Texas law, any person could have shot and killed the girl with the knife in her hand. All that is required to protect another person, even a person that is not known to you, is a reasonable belief that had you been in the same situation, deadly force would have been justified. So a person can put themselves in the position of the girl against the car who is trying to fend off the knife attack. 5. Age has no relevance in the justified use of deadly force. 6. I see no way anyone can say the officer made a mistake looking at the facts that he saw however, even if the officer might have been technically wrong if some people‘s opinion, it would still be justified under the law. The Texas law on self-defense (for anyone) or the use of force by police officer, is a reasonable belief. 7. The United States Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor said that in viewing force by a police officer, you must place yourself in the position of that officer having to make a split second decision. In Graham the officers used force against a guy who they believe may have just committed an armed robbery and was resisting. As it turned out the person was completely innocent and was having a diabetic crisis. A UNANIMOUS Supreme Court found that the officers use of force was justified even against the innocent person because they had a reason to believe that he was resisting arrest from an armed robbery. They had no way of knowing that he was going into insulin shock and actually needed treatment. In that ruling the Supreme Court said that you have to look through the eyes of the officer who had to make a split second decision and not one made several months later in a judge’s chambers when there is time to look at all the facts. That is why if a person shoots a man in self defense coming at him with a gun and it later turns out that the gun was a toy, it is still justified. The facts are that the person using self-defense was in no danger but there was a reasonable belief of danger when presented with the situation. 8. Also under Texas law, if you claim self-defense or defense of another person, you do not have to prove that self-defense was needed. The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the self-defense or defense of another was not needed.

There is a lot that I will never forget.

I know it is but one instance as an example but Bullets13 was doing a ride along with me on patrol one day. We went to a loud disturbance that had happened more than once and the neighbors were complaining. Due to the size of the disturbance/crowd and the repeated nature of the call, 5-6 officers showed up including me. We did everything we could to peaceably quiet things down and try to do so without making any arrests. The officers were going to write one man a citation for disorderly conduct (disturbing the peace) and going to let the rest of them go. That’s it, please sign this citation and we are out of here. Nope, it broke out into a fight, resisting arrest and officers being assaulted. I was hit several times by a female who was trying to keep me from arresting her father who ran into the garage, possibly to grab a weapon. I just shove her away and did not arrest her but she could have faced time in jail or possibly even prison. Then as we thought we had things calmed down I believe with only one arrest after that big fight and disturbance, it started again with claims of racism by the police. One guy then charged at the officers who were trying to leave when he wanted to confront them. He was taken to the ground and arrested. That brought out more verbal claims of racism by the police. As soon as I got back in the car Bullets13 talked about how the police caused none of that and I don’t want to speak for him but he probably felt the police handled it fairly well considering we were being threatened, had people resist arrest, fleeing from arrests and in a couple of cases like me, assaulted... yet we were the bad guys. I can assure you that we could have used a lot more force lawfully and taken a lot a lot more people to jail. I know it is been one situation and it does not exonerate officers that make stupid mistakes. These kinds of things happen every day however because people think they know the law when they do not or they feel that once they are in a group they will not be held accountable with the relative safety of numbers.

... And the problem is that they don’t know the law or the rules. If the police used the lawful use of force that they are authorized to use every day, many more people would be injured or killed. I am fairly certain that most police officers who put in a 25 or 30 year career could have lawfully shot more than one person. I can think of three or four times at least that I could have shot someone and would have been cleared of any wrongdoing. I could name plenty of laws that people routinely say that do not exist or misunderstand. All you have to do is watch YouTube for some of the most bogus legal advice available.