tvc184

Maybe it’s code for crappy weather on the way.

Now there’s something we can agree on.

Terrible news.

Wrong thread perhaps?

I watched it. Utter nonsense and political, not factual statements. One lawyer says, don’t look at this case (doesn’t like the facts?) but let’s look at it as a whole. Really? He wants to convict Yanez due to other cases. Let’s just convict someone to appease the masses maybe. Judge Hatchett then outright lies and claims her speculation is fact. She made statements that she wants to help her civil case but isn’t backed up by any known fact. An interesting video of opinions, almost none of which can be backed up.

And of the two counties that the city Yanez worked for was located, had a black population of less than 8% in one county and less than 9% in the other. Going by population only, there should have been one black on thr jury. I wouldn’t care if there were all minority jurors. The facts seem clear that there was nothing that showed proof beyond any reasonable doubt.

It is actually slightly over represented however we cannot cut people in half.

Maybe those are the open minded people that you claim for the Democrats. Once they open their minds, they left the home party.

There is absolutely nothing broad and open minded about Democrats as a party and as a whole. Individuals might be but not collectively. The “open minded” party will not even allow a conservative to speak on a college campus where people claim that free thought is encouraged. The open minded Democratic party is a myth.

Go for it. Keep looking for some emotional backup. When facts and evidence doesn’t side with an opinion, such relief is often sought out. Maybe the minorities on the jury felt bullied. Like the lone juror in the Zimmerman case that spoke publicly, we wanted to find him guilty but we followed the law and the evidence was not there. She admitted being prejudice toward Zimmerman but could not find evidence to back up a guilty verdict.

The guy is a cad, was probably a schoolyard bully and never has the sense of when to shut his mouth. I hated Trump in the primaries, never thought he would get the nomination, much less the general election win. Apparently way more people across the country thought the same thing I did than the political pundits and pollsters realized. With his faults, Trump was less likely to drag the country further down the drain than Hillary. The people that thought Hillary would win in a record landslide discounted that with all his faults Trump was seen by many a better option. The Democrat’s lone savior from a historical landslide the other way was that Trump got the nomination. That is the only thing that kept it close in popular vote.

Awesome. My facts (not opinion) are backed up by a jury of 12 people that unanimously came to the same conclusion after they saw hours of evidence and had the law explained to them by a judge. Fortunately for the officer, wishful thinking isn’t evidence.

The last officer involved shooting in my department two years ago, the officer fired 7 shots in about 2.5 seconds. This officer took about the same time frame. This isn’t Hollywood.

So when you find out that everything the officer did was lawful, now the narrative is, police shouldn’t write citations. Got it. Oh yeah, the officer was trying to solve a real crime and a violent one at that.

The guy had brake lights out. There is no excuse needed. It is called probable cause. Officers need no description when a crime is witnessed.

A robbery happens a day or two earlier. Officers are given a general description. Part of that description includes a female accomplice and color of vehicle. Officer spots a similar colored vehicle and a man that generally fits the description and he has a woman with him. It is called a hunch. It gives no lawful authority for a detention. BUT.... brake lights out give not only reasonable suspicion but probable cause. even if the officer is using the traffic violation to check out something else. (Whren v. US- US Supreme Court) Since the officer doesn’t know if this is really the suspect and may be innocent citizen, he doesn’t approach with gun drawn in felony traffic stop mode. He strikes up almost casual coversation with driver and in all likelihood just wants name. Why? Photo lineup. Several photos are shown to clerk in the robbery with driver being one of them. It is routine police work. Driver says I have a firearm on me. Officer says don’t pull it out and if you listen closely, it sounds like the driver says I have to pull it out. Officer’s statements were, “Don’t reach it though.. don’t pull it out! Don’t pull it out!!” Officers flinches to the rear as he draws and opens fire. We will never know why the driver reached for the gun and sounds like he said I have to pull it out.

The words “don’t move”give no legal self defenses options. The words “don’t move” followed by a person reaching, do.

I watched the video. I can see where the jury found the officer not guilty.

The ruling had nothing to do with the Redskins. You've got to get past the fake news headlines

I have never thought of a Bill of Rights case as being petty but to each his own.

First Amendment cases are petty issues?

I think all of the computer models are a joke. They are a brief snapshot in time for conditions that might exist at that moment only. Although some are crazier than others, I have seen no computer model that consistently shows wherr a storm will land at more than maybe 48 hours out and then only maybe.

I am saying that if you have two John Smiths living in Beaumont and one is black and the other is white, it might be easy to see which is which on the background if there is an issue. Almost everything in law-enforcement is broken up by race and sex. If you were trying to find an ulterior motive for the question, I don't believe it's there. We say black, white, Hispanic, Asian, male and female so much that is hard to listen to cops off duty talking about the any situation without everybody that they are talking about being identified by race or sex when the reality you have nothing to do with a story.

Plessy was a case about civil rights from the 1800s. Yes that was overtired. So was Dred Scott from before the Civil War. Then you mentioned Gates which set a new precedent alright but strangely since what we are talking about, gave the police more authority. Yes a new precedent is always possible. In this case I think it will be unlikely for a long time in the future. In any case we are stuck with the laws at hand, not what might happen 50 years from now. Why do I think that? Look at some fairly recent cases (not like your 1800's example). . In Plumhoff v. Ricksrd The police shot into a car that was fleeing. They not only killed the driver but they completely innocent passenger. In a lawsuit the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a unanimous verdict that the police officers did not display on a lawful use of force. That was in 2014. From just a few weeks ago in 2017, we have another unanimous verdict frim the Supreme Court. In Los Angeles v. Mendez The police went into a backyard on an unverified tip looking for a wanted person. They unlawfully entered a shack and confronted a man and woman who were living there. The man was not the suspect. The man had a BB gun in his hand and the police shot both the man and woman. Even though the officers created the situation and even though they had made illegal entry, the unanimous Courts said the use of force was justified. In 2015 Texas DPS trooper Mullenix shot and killed a man during a high-speed chase. He got on top of an overpass and fired into the oncoming car that was not threatening him after being given an order by his supervisor not to do so. The trooper said I'm going to disable the car and instead shot and killed the driver. In an 8-1 ruling the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the trooper. Mullenix v. Luna. I listed three cases from the last three years. In rulings on officer use of force in those cases the combine verdicts were all in favor of the officers in a combined vote of 25-1. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms the Supreme Court said that officers can get the driver out of a vehicle without cause. In Maryland v. Wilson they ruled the same thing for the passengers in a vehicle even though the passengers were not lawfully stopped and just happened to be there. I have found that the Supreme Court of the United States can be fairly restrictive with allowing officers to search, particularly in homes, without having probable cause and a warrant. They have had some fairly recent rulings that have changed the reasoning and lawfullness of a search without a warrant. They have become more restrictive to what officers are allowed to do. I agree with those decisions. When it comes to self-defense however I have seen no indication that the Supreme Court will become more restrictive and you can probably see from the rulings that I just listed that is quite the opposite. When officers are on scene of an incident they have to be completely in control even if the incident is of their own making.

Out of all this talk about the shooting ..... How about those two police officers that from news reports, ran across open ground to engage the suspect. They likely had only handguns against a rifle. In combat that is a terrible mismatch that should not be undertaken however these two dedicated police officers did just that. They could have sought cover behind the dugout, called for help and be the last line of defense for the people around them. To do so would not be cowardly. Those officers did not take that option. They went into the fight completely out gunned. What likely would have been double digit fatalities, including those police officers, turned out to only have one death… the suspect. With overwhelming odds against them they ran toward the fight. That was an unbelievable display of courage and call to duty. Thank you my brother and sister.