tvc184

Yes, 💯 percent in my opinion. One of the key issues that came out almost immediately is that one agent had already taken the pistol. First if the time issue. The second issue is, was the agent who fired the shots aware that the pistol had been removed? Put yourself in the position of the agent who fired the shots. If someone yells GUN!!, where are you going to look? Are you gonna start looking at the hands of the several agents or are you going to be looking at the suspect? I have been there. I was on the porch one time trying to take a man into custody and he started fighting and actually got my partners pistol out of the holster. There were three other officers there besides me. I can promise you that I was not looking at the other officers’ hands. I don’t know what the officer saw and I would like to see any body cam footage but those are sometimes extremely limited in what they show. The burden of proof in court is still, is there proof beyond a reasonable doubt that in this situation, the officer was not in fear and he knew that the suspect no longer had the pistol?

Yes, the totality of circumstances is how you arrive at the question, was the force lawful. You gave a concise answer in my opinion that is 100% correct. Don’t look at just the moment but look at ALL things without a definite time limit. Mic drop…. 💥 The Fifth Circuit literally said… we only looked at the last two seconds. Yes the officer was in grave danger in that two second timeframe so case closed. The Supreme Court said…. Uhhhh, no! But a bit of history. A problem for law enforcement was how to proceed with an anonymous tip. Think of the Crime Stoppers’s program today where an anonymous person can call a recorded line and leave a tip. What can the police do with this anonymous tip where they have no idea if it is true, a rumor or someone that hates someone else and just wants the police to harass that person? One of the major decisions was in 1964 in Aguilar v. Texas. The Supreme Court basically said that hearsay evidence was allowed, but the police had to demonstrate some manner of underlying circumstance that made the tip seem reasonable. An anonymous tip in itself has no reliability and cannot in itself be used as probable cause. In 1969 came Spinelli v. United States. In Spinelli the Supreme Court threw out the evidence from a tip because it was too vague. The FBI had gotten a tip on an illegal gambling operation but without specifics. The Supreme Court then came out with the Aguilar-Spinelli test for reliability. They combined the cases into a two prong test. The first was the basis of knowledge or how did the police know the means that the anonymous tipster got the information. The second part was the veracity of the information. How did the police know that the information was reliable? Sometimes the Aguilar -Spinelli test was called the Two Prongs of Aguilar. It was kind of a complicated set of hoops that the police had to jump through. So the police had to show some basis to believe that the person giving the anonymous tip had actually come across the information (not merely heard a rumor) and what information makes the police believe that the tip is reliable. Fast forward to 1983. The first use of the totality of circumstances was in the landmark Supreme Court case of Illinois v. Gates. A police department in Illinois got an anonymous tip that Mr. and Mrs. Gates were dealing big-time drugs from their home. This was from an anonymous letter to the local police. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that an anonymous tip in itself cannot be used as probable cause because there’s no way to verify the reliability of the tip as discussed in Aguilar-Spinelli. The police in this case went to DEA for help. The anonymous letter gave a detailed description of how the drug transactions happened and of an upcoming drug transaction. I don’t remember the exact details and don’t feel like looking up the case so I will ad lib the details but it’s fairly close to what happened. The tip gave a date on which Mrs. Gates was supposed to drive, I think, to Miami, FL or the hottest location for drugs entering the US at that time (I believe later to be replaced by Houston). She was supposed to pick up a substantial amount of drugs (probably close to half a million dollars in today’s money) and put it in the trunk of the car. A couple of days after she left her home in Illinois, her husband was supposed to fly down and meet her. They would then get in the car and drive back home. The DEA was contacted in FL and they conducted surveillance on the situation. Sure enough, Mr. Gates arrived at the airport as described in the anonymous tip on the date that was stated. He was then followed to a hotel room and spent the night (I think) with his wife. She actually registered the hotel room in her name. I guess back then they were not worried about covering their tracks. The agent got the license plate number of the car Mrs. Gates drove to Florida in and yep, it came back registered to Mr. Gates in Illinois at the address on the anonymous tip. All of this information was given to the police in Illinois. They got a warrant and busted the Gates on their arrival back in Illinois. So the anonymous letter gave the address and the names of the people involved. It gave the date that the woman was supposed to drive to Florida. It gave the date and I think the airline that her husband was supposed to fly down in and meet with his wifer. Police surveillance confirmed that the husband showed up on the date stated in the tip. He then met with his wife at the hotel and the registry showed that it was in her name, the same as in the anonymous tip. They were seen getting in a vehicle, which was registered to Mr. Gates and returned to the same address from the anonymous tip. How could anyone get all of those facts correct unless they had reliable information? But could they get past the Aguilar-Spinelli test? The Supreme Court used all of the information from this anonymous tip to come up with the landmark….. Totality of Circumstances. The somewhat complicated Aguilar-Spinelli test was replaced by the current, totality of circumstances test. So looking at everything we know from an anonymous tip, what makes us believe that it is true enough to rise to the level of probable causes? Here is an very important point. The totality of circumstances is not the result or what they are looking for. The issue is, does the information rise to the level of probable cause? The totality of circumstances is not probable cause and it did not change the definition. It is a method of looking at the information to determine IF Probable Cause exists. Probable cause is generally defined as facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time of a an arrest (or search) that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime is in the progress of being committed or has been committed. So the totality of circumstances does not undermine or add to probable cause. It doesn’t change the definition. It is merely a tool. The standard of justification for an arrest is still probable cause. So under the use of force by police officers, the standard the Supreme Court has set down (like probable cause has a standard) is objective reasonableness in Graham v. Connor. Did the officer act as a reasonable officer would under the same circumstances including “split second” decisions at the time. Barnes did not change that. The standard is still asking the question, how would a reasonable officer act under the same circumstances? The method to answer that question is by looking at what we learned in Gates. Looking at all of the information (totality of circumstances) that the officer had, was his decision objectively reasonable? So in my opinion your conclusion is spot on. Look at all things (totality of circumstances) with no time limit. Please forgive any typos or word usage. That’s a lot to put out on an iPhone…. 😎

The totality of circumstances is not a legal standard for determining a decision. The totality of circumstances is the means by which a decision is made. In short it means, did you look at everything. The totality of circumstances means that you have to look at all factors before making a decision. The totality of circumstances is not the decision but how you get there. To judge an officer’s use of force, you can’t simply look at the moment of threat which is something that the Fifth Circuit Court basically invented on their own. That meant, if an officer was in danger at any moment in time, he could lawfully respond to that threat. That is not what the Supreme Court said because the officer could have been committing a crime and that crime may have been the reason that the officer was in danger. For example, what if an officer had unlawfully stopped someone without the required reasonable suspicion? Then he jumped out for no reason and started beating on the person with a baton risking, serious injury or death to the innocent person. The innocent person then took the baton away to try and survive and the officer then shot the innocent person. Obviously at the moment the officer used deadly force, he was in danger. A person had an impact weapon and could seriously injure or kill the officer. That is why the moment of threat in itself doesn’t work. Sure the officer was an extreme danger at that moment but he caused himself to be in the extreme danger by committing a crime. In such cases (actually all cases) the totality of circumstances tells you “how” to arrive at a decision but it is not in itself the legal standard. It simply means to look at the entire situation before rendering an opinion. That standard is in the police use of force is “objective reasonableness” or what would a “reasonable” officer do under the same circumstances. Obviously, if an officer made an unlawful traffic stop like in my example and then jumped out and started using unlawful force, that is not what a reasonable officer would do. That loses in the objective reasonableness standard from Graham v. Connor. Again, how do we arrive at the objective reasonableness (legal) standard? By looking at the entire situation. That entire situation is the totality of circumstances which (again) is not the standard but the means. The totality of circumstances, when judging an officer’s use of force is meaningless without the standard of objective reasonableness. So we use the totality of circumstances to arrive at the Supreme Court legal standard for the use of force….. objective reasonableness. Since you cited the Supreme Court website, here is a quote from that site: “Held: A claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive force during a stop or arrest is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, which requires that the force deployed be objectively reasonable from “the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, 396. The inquiry into the reasonableness of police force requires analyzing the “totality of the circumstances.” We can see from the words of the Supreme Court “Held” that the use of force “requires that the force be objectively reasonable” as ruled in Graham. That if the Supreme Court talking, not me. The Supreme Court goes on to say that we arrive at objectively reasonable by… “analyzing the ‘totality of circumstances’”. So the totality of circumstances which people get fixated on is not the standard for judging the police use of force. That standard is objective reasonableness as determined by looking at the entire incident and not just the last couple of seconds. The Supreme Court in Barnes did not even look at the situation involving Officer Felix and plainly said that they didn’t even look into the situation or answered any questions about the officer initiating the situation. The only conclusion was, look at the entire traffic stop and not merely the moment that shots were fired and determine if the officer’s actions were “reasonable”. The Fifth Circuit heard the case again almost immediately have said, Yep, we looked at the entire thing and came for the same conclusion. The officers’s actions were objectively reasonable.

If the city and county uphold the ICE warrants like they should, none of this would happen. There would be no need to apprehend people in the streets as they are likely already in custody. Imagine a system or a violent criminal is in the county jail and the federal government has a hold on them and the powers that be want to hurry up and get the violent criminal back out on the street again quickly….. so they can escape federal warrants. It’s the movie Idiocrasy playing out in real life.

That is 100% false. It is not a true standard, and Barnes did not say that either. The standard has been objective reasonableness, and Barnes only reaffirm that. I have read multiple opinions, including the one you posted, where people apparently are only reading headlines, which are written by other people who did not read the case.

Beaumont stepping up their game…. [Hidden Content]

No.

That is actually a well known way to carry, often called the SOB carry or Small of Back. They make holsters for specifically that purpose. It has probably lost some favor in recent years with the trend being more toward appendix carry. I used to carry a revolver in the SOB position years ago and only on some occasions. I still do on rare occasions for a situation and not as a preferred option.

The Supreme Court does not use the totality of circumstances in determining whether a use of force was justified. In Graham v. Connor, reaffirmed recently in Barnes v. Felix, the Supreme Court rejected the totality of circumstances in the determination of the use of force and use “objectively reasonable” as the standard. The totality of circumstances can give false decisions on the uses of force.

Without a comment I am not sure of the context of those sites. The legal comment on the way it is portrayed in the Excessive Force and the Fourth Amendment article is incorrect in the point that I think it is trying to make, in my opinion. On the other hand, it kind of makes no point except to say that Congress might want to change some laws.

There are several videos. What do you think that they showed and what laws and court decisions apply? Can you know what a lawful use of force is? If you understand the law, both in Supreme Court decisions and the laws on self-defense and you can look at the videos and your opinion is that the officer is wrong, great. Do you know any of that or is it simply emotion that drives your opinion?

Thank you. Long version explaining why or short version? I don’t take the side of officers because they are or were officers. As an example using the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, on a different sports forum when it first hit the news but was reported as self defense with the retired officer being cleared, I said that it was murder and the DA covered it up. I was chastised for my opinion and the thread was removed after it got fairly heated but not by me. I merely noted my opinion based on the law. After it made the news, the state stepped in and took over the case. The action was fairly swift and indictments came in short order. Not only with three people involved convicted and given life sentences, the DA was removed and charges were filed on her. I found out that the thread had been deleted when I went back to copy my original comments which were time stamped. I was going to show that I called a retired police officer a murderer when the story was reporting it is self-defense as determined by the DA. I have arrested two former partners and recommended criminal charges on two coworkers. I have no issue with calling an officer out for being wrong but the emotion goes both ways. There are people who don’t know the law, don’t like the law or make decisions based on of they like or hate the person in question. Another example is the previously discussed officer on trial from Uvalde. The law in many people’s eyes doesn’t seem to matter as the hatred for the outcome does. So the long or short version? 😎

CBP training is six months.

Maybe it has been covered, but I don’t feel like reading through all of these comments… The mantra from the left is that ICE agents are not real law-enforcement or police, which is false and that they are untrained. So here we have proof that ICE has too little training………. wait a minute, that wasn’t ICE. That was the Border Patrol that shof the guy in Minneapolis. Do we remember the CBP, the heroes who were so highly trained that it was them that stepped up and ended the Uvalde shooting. Again, maybe it has been covered but this wasn’t ICE

That is kind of what happened in the Amadou Diallo case. Detective, were going to speak to a person (Amadou Diallo) on the street who fit the description of a sexual assault suspect. They asked him for identification and he ran, running up a stairway and reached into his pocket and pulled out a black pistol while he was running. The closest officer yelled “Gun!” and there was a shot and the officer went down. The other officers returned fire killing Diallo. Except the black pistol was his wallet. The closest officer who yelled gun tripped and accidentally fired his gun. The officers behind him heard the officer yell gun, heard the gunshot and saw the officer go down. It all happened in a couple of seconds. They all were indicted for a second-degree murder and a jury found all of them not guilty, finding it was a reasonable belief under the circumstances.

What has that got to do with anything? He can’t be wrong, he’s an ICU nurse at the VA!! In truth that might be found to be part of his indoctrination. I am not suggesting that he is anything other than honorable. He could however be angry at the federal government by the way that treat veterans as seen by his work with the VA and carried that anti-government stance into attacking federal agents who he believes are part of the problem. I have arrested people from doctors to business owners, police officers, members of the clergy, etc. There aren’t any exempt professions.

Geez…. 😂 A giant welcome mat like your front porch doesn’t sound like accepting people who have entered the country legally. Who can walk up on a front porch? Anyone. Front porches are open to the public. This guy sounds like he wants Texas to be that front porch where anyone can come up for any reason. He could have easily mentioned legal immigration only without mentioning come on up on my front porch. However….. These kinds of snippets are sometimes noted as being true (actual recording) but completely dishonest on intent. It is entirely possible that Talarico said that he was only for legal immigration AND if immigrants comply with federal law, we should welcome them. I doubt it but it is entirely plausible. I don’t know where to go with the tacos, hot sauce and beers comment. That is downright hilarious. 🤣🤣🤣

They are arresting people in Texas. The Texas government however is not refusing to notify the federal government of illegal aliens under arrest nor trying to hide them. The best way to deport people is to notify ICE when such a person is in custody. The person is already safely locked up and there is no need for a street confrontation.

I agree that they should have done more but not being there, I am not sure what. My issue with this case is that I don’t think it was a crime not to act under Texas law.

I still have no clue if the door was unlocked or how they knew one way or the other.

Found not guilty of on all charges. [Hidden Content] In my opinion it was a bogus case to begin with. You can think him as despicable but that isn’t criminal. You can’t charge someone in a crime that doesn’t exist.

It is not illegal to have a buy back. It is against the law to have a government subdivision to be involved. The firearms are not transferred through aN FFL.

Okay. So now your discussion of what rights you would lose is, maybe some skilled attorney can figure it out. I will accept that as, you don’t have an answer. I am against any illegal immigration. If I had the ability, I would stop every single person from crossing the border without permission from the federal government. I am just not sure of how Houston or Harris County unconstitutionally using tax money harms me or you.

He might actually have a good case for the Insurrection Act.

1. I was clearly referring to the rights in the US Constitution. The article that you listed was about the Texas Constitution. 2. Even so and again, what right in the US or Texas Constitutions been denied to you by illegal aliens? In Paxton’s challenge he is bringing up that there is a Texas Constitution section that prohibits using public funds for something that doesn’t help the public. So if the court rules that spending to defend illegal aliens is unconstitutional, they will have to spend the money elsewhere. Do you think that tax money is going to you instead? If not (and it’s obvious not) going to you, how has an illegal alien taken away a right that you were guaranteed in either Constitution? For the sake of argument (I think the legal term is arguendo) let’s say that somehow you would benefit from some tax dollars not going to an illegal alien. What part of either Constitution guarantees that you will receive government money?