tvc184

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.

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.