tvc184

I am surprised that the article did not bring up what has become a mantra of the media lately, Texas passes law to allow carry of handguns without a license. The law hasn’t gone into affect yet and in fact has not even been signed but the articles continue to say blah blah blah......

Yeah, we rolled up with the bodies still on the beach. I had forgot about that. It was a terrible situation. Those calls make me the feel the sickest. One person has decided that if he/she (usually he but not always) can’t live with someone/get visitation rights /whatever or is breaking up with someone, no one will live sometimes including the significant other, children, other family or friends. I don’t know if there is such a thing as one more terrible than another but one type is where a guy will not kill the wife but will kill their children and then himself to make the woman suffer the loss the rest of her life. One such case, not local, made case law all the way to the US Supreme Court. In Caste Rock v. Gonzales case, a man had visitation rights with his children in a separation but only with pre-arranged visits. He abducted his 3 children and his wife called the police. She urged them to look for the children but they said the father might return them later so she should just wait. The man murdered all 3 children and then drove to the police station with their bodies in the car. He got in a shoot out with the police. They shot and killed him and then found the 3 dead small children. The woman sued out of the 14th amendment saying that she was not given due process. The trial judge threw out the lawsuit and said there is no constitutional right to police protection. The federal 10th Circuit Court reinstated the lawsuit saying that the police violated her rights by not providing protection (that would sure open an expensive can of worms. Every person that was a victim of any kind of crime whatsoever, could sue the police and claim that their rights were were violated). It went to the US Supreme Court were they ruled 7-2 that in order to deny you due process, there had to be some kind of process toward you or a state law mandatory benefit from the police. The gist of the ruling that is taught in every Police Academy and many follow up classes, the police do not constitutionally owe you any protection. They brought up in that ruling, if state law specifically gives the police a duty to do something, then you can sue if they fail to do so. That falls on state law or constitution but not the US Constitution. I have seen such lawsuits in Texas. There are very few mandatory actions by the police in Texas however they do exist. One such example is domestic violence, called family violence in Texas. The police have a mandatory duty to make a police report, the duty to give information to the victim such as how to go about getting a protective order or the location of a shelter and if the victim gets a protective order (often called incorrectly a restraining order) and that order is violated in front of the police, it is a mandatory arrest. Another example is entering a runaway child into the national computer immediately or within two hours of a report that the child is missing.

The women got paid more. If there was any disparity in pay, it would be against the men.

That reminds me of another joke... A 60-year-old, 70-year-old and 80-year-old men were sitting around arguing one day on what age was worst to reach when getting old. The 60 year old said, I get up at 6 every morning and go to the bathroom but I stand there for several minutes but and it just trickles and almost nothing comes out. The 70 year old said, that’s nothing. I get up at 7am and have to go poop but I sit there for 20 minutes and nothing happens. The 80-year-old man said, y’all have it easy. To which the 60-year-old said, you can’t go urinate in the morning either? The 80-year-old man said, sure, at 6am it comes like a flood. The 70-year-old then said, oh so you can’t go poop either? The 80-year-old said, sure, at 7am it is like the gates open and you can’t stop it. So the 60 and 70-year-old men asked, then what’s the problem? The 80-year-old man replied, “you don’t wake up until 8”.

A prescription of Tamsulosin might help tremendously.

That reminds me of a joke… A couple in their 70s were watching TV late one night and the old lady told her husband, why don’t you go to the kitchen and get me some ice cream, I want chocolate. The old man got up to go but she said you’d better write it down because you have such a bad memory. He got mad at her and said old woman, you are the one with the bad memory and off he went. About 3 minutes later he yelled back at her from the kitchen, “how did you want those eggs?”. She yelled back, “I told you, over easy!!”.

I understand the issue. Like or dislike the bill, I think the comedy or perhaps disgusting part is so many comments are against the governor like he single-handedly decided who pays what. That would be against the law and in fact it was almost unanimous across-the-board and almost every legislator in the the state thought it was a great idea. Republicans, Democrats, men, women, White/Black/Hispanics, Tea Party conservatives..... almost everybody thought this was the way to go..... but it was Abbott’s fault. 😂

Apparently the governor is about to sign SB 202 which is about the TRS or Teacher Retirement System. KFDM posted a news story that I happen to see on Facebook. It names/interviews a teacher from Southeast Texas who is a retiree but now wants to go back to work. That sounds like a great deal. But he blames the governor from likely keeping him from a job. What is the governor about to do that will keep him from working? He is about to sign that bill (apparently) that says..... (drum roll 🥁) if a retired teacher works for a school district, the school district must pay for his retirement benefits that normally come out of the teacher’s check. That’s right folks, the evil governor appears ready to sign a bill that says if you are retired but return to work, the school district has to pick up the percentage of your salary that normally is paid into the system. That means the teacher gets to keep more of his/her own money. Apparently that is a very bad thing. Facebook page is lit up with calling the governor an idiot, not caring, has no clue and so on. I would think that if the public employer had to pay the employees retirement for him/her it would be a good thing. Apparently not if you are governor Abbott. So like I do with most issues, I looked up the bill. It passed 31-0 in the Senate and 143-4 in the House. So with a vote combined of 174–4, it looked like near unanimous support from the Republicans and the Democrats for one end of the state to the other. In a rare bipartisan move, the legislature said that the retiree need to keep more of his/her own money and for that, the governor is an idiot. Therein lies some of the stupidity of some comments about politics. Without any clue about the bill, what it said or who supported it, political lines are drawn by perceived differences in party, class, race or whatever. Here is the article from KFDM. [Hidden Content]

As long as you don’t stand in them....

I pretty much think the same. I can see where it would be a very fun game to play but not to watch. There are other sports that people who are not into it would consider boring and I get that. I like to play golf and sometimes I like to watch golf, when it’s a big tournament and some of the big-name players on on the leaderboard. The fact that someone who does not like golf would think it’s boring, I completely understand. There is very little action. I cannot stand NASCAR. I think it would be like some people watching golf or me watching soccer. If I had the option of watching an entire NASCAR race or changing a flat on someone’s car, I would choose changing the flat. Watching the cars go around the same cycle for an hour is not appealing. An apparently very popular sport with some people loving it. I’m glad that it exist and so many people pleasure from watching. I just think it’s boring. And likewise, I think soccer is boring.

They refused to accept the same offer the men got. They ended up signing a contract which was more than the men got. After refusing the same deal and holding out for a better deal, they ended up making more money than the men and now they claim discrimination. Now the national Democrats are holding up the women’s soccer team as an example of discrimination and unequal pay. Go figure. I think it goes back to the Democratic playbook that no matter what the argument is or what the facts are, you simply claim discrimination. If you oppose their claim, you’re a racist, sexist, homophobe.....

it probably should be June 13, not the 15th. That’s when the actual battle started with the shelling. Just as important is debatable as it was a continued steppingstone. This was unlike the invasion of Normandy where it was the beginning but certainly it was very important. I think the biggest by far accomplishment of the turkey shoot was the forward air bases and allowing to B29’s to basically level Japan. I read a book many years ago (before the Internet) I believe called, A Torch To The Enemy by Martin Caidin. It was about the B 29 bombing campaign over Japan. I cannot remember the exact statistics but basically any city that has at least a 20,000 population in the entire country, was at least 50% destroyed. Many cities were virtually leveled. While people talk about the atomic bomb and destruction, the fire bombing of Tokyo in March 1945 what is the most destructive rate in history. I am going off of memory but I think something like 140,000 people were killed in one night in about 20 square miles of the city was completely destroyed. Well over 1 million people were left homeless. Because the destruction of Japan by air before their surrender was so devastating, the Americans chose a couple of cities to be completely spared. This was for the upcoming atomic bomb raids. They wanted to see the effectiveness of the weapon but could not in most cities because they had already been leveled. That is why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were basically untouched before the atomic bombs. They were preserved as a test case because the rest of my Japan had already been leveled.

Do they know about Pointe du Hoc? Do they know why one of the American landing beaches was called bloody Omaha? Do they know it well over 4,000 American, British and Canadian troops were killed in one day with many thousands of more wounded? Do they know......

I wonder how many adults, even that kind of know the significance of the day (they know it’s called D-Day), actually know what happened.

If they make rules, and the two kids in question signed contract saying that they would not do what they did, and they do not punish them, then what? To school rules become voluntary? How many comments do we see on here where people say, we need to hold people, students, whoever accountable? If this was anything other than the military, some of the same people protesting would be up in arms with the opposite opinion. Being in the military does not give you a pass or earn special privileges. Actually it should be quite the opposite.

And what just popped up on Facebook on the KBMT website? [Hidden Content] A student in North Carolina was not given his diploma for wearing a Mexican flag. Get ready for it. If you start exempting one person, you are going to have to exempt everyone. Will there be students wearing LBGTQ flags? Support Antifa buttons? Down with Israel banners? MAGA caps?

Should Nederland change the rules? Sure, that’s OK. Maybe they could just recognize them by having them stand or mention it as they’re walking up to get their diploma. However.... In several threads about this topic in different forums, including Facebook, there were mentions of lawsuits. I don’t think there are any grounds to force a school district to have a mandatory policy to allow future members of the military for example, to wear a different recognitions. There might be a double edged sword in the change of policy or a lawsuit to try to sue however. As long as no one complains everything will be OK. The allowing of certain recognitions outside of school functions could bring problems though. Due to my interest and my job I have read many lawsuits over the years from both state and federal courts. I am talking about cases that went on to appeal all the way up to the US Supreme Court, the federal circuit courts or of the state appeals courts. The problem arises from discrimination such as under the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment under “equal protection”. Here could be the potential problem. If the members of the military are a certified school function such as a junior ROTC then I do not think it will be an issue. If it is something they did outside of the school, it could cause issues if someone wishes to sue. This case a question brings up exactly that point because apparently one kid got the same punishment for wearing a Mexican flag the same way the military guys wore the sashes. At that point you get into freedom of expression issues and when you do, you cannot limit or in most cases cannot limit one person’s right over the other. There can be limits for threats or some vulgar language, etc. from what I have seen. If a person says I wish to show my future in the military that has nothing to do with the school, can you then deny a person to say, I wish to show which country I came from or which political party I support? An easy example would be if a school district said you could wear a vote Democrat button to graduation but could not wear a vote Republican button (equal protection). That would be an obvious discrimination. There are in federal laws in place to ban discrimination due to sex, race, national origin, ethnicity, religion of age. If the same rules apply across-the-board, it is usually not discrimination. It is like the current issue with the masks and a private business. A private business has the right to set whatever rule they want to as long as the rule does not discriminate. It is OK to say everyone must wear a mask however they cannot say Muslims must wear a mask or people with weaves in their hair must wear one. I was reading a case from California that went to a federal Court on appeal. A woman firefighter complained that a male firefighter in her unit was reading some kind of sexually oriented magazine like Playboy. He was not showing the pictures or that anyone could see and was merely reading it in his bunk. There was no claim of him making noises or any kind of lewd comments that would create a hostile work environment. It just offended the woman firefighter that she knew what he was reading. The fire department had a policy that when the firefighter’s duties for the day has been done, he/she could read non-work related material. I know that my Police Department generally bans reading for entertainment purposes and restricts reading to duty reading related. Firefighters have a somewhat different job where they might be on duty for 24 or 48 hours and have in many cases less restrictions. So the fire department (I think LA or San Diego) told the male firefighter do not read the girly magazines. Poof!! Here comes the lawsuit. The male firefighter won his case. He was being discriminated against due to his sex and the government/fire department was improperly restricting what could be read. If I remember the decision correctly, the department could restrict reading to duty related or they can allow non-duty related but if they did, it had to be open. The fire department did not by policy get to approve what was read if it was not duty related. Can you imagine if the fire department said you can read Christian literature but you cannot read about Judaism? That in a fact is what they did against the male firefighter. So my question is, if a school district allows the representation of something outside of a school function, can then limit what is allowed? Now if no one complains, they could do anything that they wish. There was a US Supreme Court ruling that says you will not have a prayer over the public address system such as as at a high school football game. We all know there is some school districts that continue to do this against that ruling. Why is that allowed? Because nobody has filed a claim. Once someone does, it will be an easy lawsuit to win, possibly with monetary damages. I see there are claims that Lumberton and others allow such representation for a non-school function or opinion (the military sash example). If someone wishes to file a lawsuit, and I can guarantee somewhere someone will, what will be the outcome?

They get their diplomas, they were earned. They simply don’t give them the piece of paper that night but hold it for a few days in kind of a, “we told you so”. It is a punishment of inconvenience.

A federal judge has ruled that the California ban on various assault weapons and magazines is unconstitutional. He brings up the obvious point that more people are killed with hands, feet and knives than with all types of rifles combined, much less whatever they deem as assault rifles. I. the judges opinion, true military weapons such as bazookas, artillery, machine guns, etc., can be banned but not what millions of Americans use in sporting activities and home defense. This will obviously go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California where the judge’s ruling will probably be overturned. The next step will be the Supreme Court of the United States. [Hidden Content]

That’s why I get (or got) the big money. 😀

It can easily be made a racial incident if no arrest has yet been made. All you have to do is flip the script and say, if a black man had killed a white child, he would have been arrested at the scene. A black man kills a black child in the police don’t care. And if the ATV driver turned out to be white… It is unlikely that any suit against the city of Beaumont or the police department would be successful. There is no constitutional right of protection by the police. The US Supreme Court in Castle Rock v. Gonzales in a 7-2 decision said that unless there is a specific state law requiring a police action, they have no constitutional grounds for a lawsuit. Two of the biggest words in law enforcement are “may” and “shall”. May it discretionary it means that a person or the police can act legally but it’s not required to. Shall means that an action will take place or a law will be violated. There are some but very few requirements on the police in Texas and actually in most states. Most laws say that a policeman “may” for example, make a report, make an arrest, investigate an accident, etc. With no required mandatory traffic enforcement under Texas law and no United States Constitution requirement to protect, I doubt that lawsuit lawsuit would be successful. If that was true then every person ever injured in a traffic accident could successfully sue the city or the state. I can think of at least a couple of criminal charges they could possibly be filed against the driver of the ATV. It is not much of a criminal charge but there is one called reckless driving that says if a person is driving recklessly in a public place, it is a crime. I think it only carries up to 30 days in jail. With this accident happened is definitely a public place. Assuming it happened on the roadway, is a crime to drive an ATV on the roadway because Beaumont does not have an ordinance allowing golf carts or certain ATVs on the roadway. In Either situation, I would think it would be easy to prove that the ATV driver acted recklessly because he has driven a vehicle in an area that is deemed not safe be it the road or a prohibited area. But....... To recklessly kill a child, it is the felony crime of Injury to a Child. Also the crime of Aggravated Assault can be to recklessly cause serious bodily injury or death. Again, I think they could probably make the case even if the child ran in front of the ATV driver who is operating that vehicle in an area that is deemed to be unsafe.

It’s from the Fourth Amendment under an unreasonable seizure. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unlawful to use deadly force for a crime it is not using or threatening to use deadly force. I don’t know that I disagree with that. In Texas using a credit card without permission is a felony. If a 16-year-old kid uses a stolen credit card to buy $10 worth of gas, should I be able to shoot him (as a police officer) in the back to stop him? In my opinion I should not. Arson might be a bad example because in arson you could always say that it might seriously injure or kill someone in or near a building. When it is clearly a non-violent crime however, I don’t think the police should be able to shoot people, especially in the back. For apprehending a violent criminal, that is absolutely a different issue.

Which part?

In some cases, yes. For the police it is lawful to shoot someone running away who has committed a violent crime and there’s a further danger to the community or the officer. For a citizen under Texas law, deadly force is justified in stopping someone from escaping with property from a burglary, robbery or theft during the night time if there is a reasonable belief that the property would not be recovered by other means or would endanger of the person trying to cover the property. The use of deadly force to recover such property is absolutely not authorized for a police officer.

In Texas, stopping an arson in progress is justification for using deadly force as is theft in the nighttime.... but not for the police unless it is directly endangering someone’s life.