tvc184

It doesn't take a law degree to understand the Penal Code. In fact most lawyers have no clue what is in the Penal Code unless they specialize in a certain area of it or one of the other criminal codes. >>>>>Sec. 19.03. CAPITAL MURDER. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits murder as defined under Section 19.02(b)(1) and: (1) the person murders a peace officer or fireman who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty and who the person knows is a peace officer or fireman; (b) An offense under this section is a capital felony.<<<<< >>>>>Sec. 12.31. CAPITAL FELONY. (a) An individual adjudged guilty of a capital felony in a case in which the state seeks the death penalty shall be punished by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life without parole or by death. An individual adjudged guilty of a capital felony in a case in which the state does not seek the death penalty shall be punished by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for: (1) life, if the individual committed the offense when younger than 18 years of age; or (2) life without parole, if the individual committed the offense when 18 years of age or older.<<<<<

No. In TX it is life without parole or death. Some states do not have the death penalty for any murder.

George Will is a political writer and pundit. He has conservative views that many or most Republicans agree with. If he is angry at the Republican Party, it is not because he has changed his political stripes. He hasn't all of a sudden seen the folly of his ways and is now a socialist or a Democrat (same thing perhaps). He is angry that Trump landed in a perfect storm that got him the nomination. He is resigning to the fact that Hillary is likely to win. He hasn't given up on Republicans or conservatives. The opposite is true and as the article states, he wants them to beat her in four years. Will is just angry as are many of use that a huckster managed to get into the woodpile. I am not sure why that should make liberal or Democrats feel like something has changed. In fact people like Will show that their opinion has not changed but with a celebrity like Trump being able to buy the election means that he will hold his nose during this election. Nothing more.

About half of his nearly 40 minutes was excellent. He should have stopped about the 20 minute mark. Then he felt compelled to say.... we also know that for centuries of racial discrimination, subjugation, slavery, Jim Crow laws didn't simply vanish with lawful integration, MLK, etc. "We know that bias remains". Some have suffered more than others. None of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune and that includes the police. Whites and people of color look at law enforcement differently. If you are black you are more likely to get pulled over, if you are black you are more likely to and blah blah blah. The president actually spoke eloquently and it could be argued that his statements were not off base. I only question making them as a funeral or memorial to officers that were killed in the line of duty and from some accounts, white officers being targeted protected black citizens who were protesting them and it might have cost one or more his life. At a memorial for those brave officers, having their family and close friends in attendance, it should have simply been left at that and not use such a tragedy as an opportunity for a political speech. Obama's words were well chosen and I thought his delivery might have been the best that I have seen. I just think they were misplaced and should have been brought up in another venue. He basically praised the police officers that died and then admonished the rest of us for creating the situation. Again, he is entitled but it should have been left out of a memorial in my opinion.

Stunning, a true recording (the witness did not alter it) did not tell the entire story. Even more stunning was that the officers used legal and necessary force when the sidewalk attorney thinks that it was done for no reason that he could see. I guess he slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night and got his Facebook law degree....

You can post all of your opinion articles that you wish. I can do the same. Let's hear the FBI director under direct questioning under oath last week. Gowdy: "Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received, was that true?" FBI Director Comey: "That's not true, there were small number of portion markings on three of the documents". Gowdy: "Secretary Clinton said I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email, there is no classified material, was that true?" Comey: "There was classified material emailed". Gowdy: "Secretary Clinton said that she just used one device, is that true?" Comey: "She used multiple devices during in the four years of her term as Secretary of State". Gowdy: "Secretary Clinton said that all work related emails were returned to the State Department, was that true?" Comey: "No, we found work emails, thousands that were not returned". Okay, that is the first minute of the above exchange. Gowdy is talking about Clinton's under oath testimony and the FBI Director just stated in the first three questions that she lied. The last time I checked the criminal statutes, lying under oath is a crime whether it be in court, on a sworn statement to the police, in front of a grand jury, in front of Congress, etc. We all know that Clinton did not turn over her emails as required by law and then she lied about it under oath. She then accidentally shredded her hard drives trying to cover it up. But oops.... thousands of the emails were recovered. The FBI Director above stated that there were thousands of emails not returned. He stated that Clinton lied when she stated that her lawyers read each emails, etc. He stated that there were classified documents sent, he stated that the did not use a single device and so on. The Director goes on for several minutes to state over and over again that Clinton's statements were lies. We need no interpretation or opinion article to view the above and see the Director's own words where asked over and over again, when Clinton stated "this", was this "true"? Comey's answer over and over again was, "No". Sure sounds like perjury and/or obstruction of justice to me.

Occupy Democrats... now there is an unbiased website. But let's move on....... Gates is hardly a partisan Republican. He is a lifelong member of the military and CIA. He was chosen for various defense posts due to his experience but not only by Republicans but also Democrats such as Obama. He never ran or was elected to any public office. Secondly, the title to the article is a scam. The only time it says in the entire article that it could have happened to him... is in the title. Nowhere in the article does it show Gates saying anything like, "That could have happened to me". It is simply an outright lie and the article itself lists no evidence of him saying that. I guess the author can read minds and can tell what Gates meant to say. The article goes on to spin the Clinton email scandal as a non-issue with the statement, "the irrefutable evidence that Clinton did not knowingly send or receive classified information". That doesn't go along with the FBI director's testimony to the House a couple of days ago. To be sure, the author has the right to state any opinion that he wishes. His "irrefutable evidence" is his statement alone and pure opinion not shared by the head of the FBI. The author is entitled to his opinion but that is all it is. It is hardly fact.

Out in the parking lot.

No it was not. It was not a speech. His deliver was great because it was a memorial and a testimonial to the fallen officers. Obama made a speech.

Who cleared the officers? The prosecuting attorneys and/or the grand jury whether they were county, state or federal and in some cases, some combination of them. Does clearing mean that officers followed the law? No. It means the prosecuting attorney and/or grand jury did not feel that there was sufficient evidence to bring to a trial or get a conviction. Is that different than the standard for anyone else in a criminal accusation? No. That is the same standard for all criminal accusations.

I must be having a gray moment.

People arrested do have more rights than those not under arrest or at least for practical purposes. Also, if you are not in custody and an officer in TX asks you anything, you can refuse including your name and there is no criminal penalty. In other words you cannot lawfully be arrested for remaining silent even if not under arrest. If you are under arrest you must give your name, address and date of birth but nothing else. Failure to do so can result in another criminal charge.

Instant celebrity and some kind of validation that she is now somehow significant in her opinion.

So we have people protesting based solely on the rantings of an internet junkie who loves broadcasting herself when much of what she said may be a lie. Hmmmm..... Kind of reminds us of Ferguson? I know that we still don't know what the truth is. If we defend the police we are just taking sides based on nothing but a race. If we defend the woman we are being thoughtful and responding to her legitimate complaint. It is interesting from the claim of looking at both sides argument.

......... but are ignored when the results aren't to a person's liking.

Well we read the original post differently then. I read it and answered it under the premise that politicians cannot solve our problems. They can't. Whether someone wants to attach a biblical reasoning to it or not is an individual choice. All political disagreements or social unrest are not sins. If one group wants to let states run all education and one group wants the federal government to step in, what sin are we talking about? If someone thinks we need better roads and another doesn't want to spend the money, again what sin are we talking about and why would God care? In fact when it comes to sins and politics there is actually little disagreement. You saw the word God and felt compelled to preach the Bible. That is great if you wish however I did not take the question nor did I respond as to why there is sin. The only theology that I mentioned is that we are people of free will. And no, politicians will never make everyone believe the same thing and that even goes for equally religious Christians of the same denomination. You answered the question to your beliefs about, "Why is there sin". I never noticed that in the original post nor did I attempt to answer it so there is no theological error.

Calm discussion? I believe that many people believe that there is systemic racism in police work. I think that complete nonsense. Systemic would mean something like a department condones such actions or covers it up or in other words, the system is the culprit. I find that a difficult pill to swallow. If something fairly minor like any officer is found uttering racial slurs, even at the police station behind closed doors where others are not supposed to hear (even another officer that might be offended), he will almost certainly be punished. I am not saying that two cops might not have a conversation that might offend someone and say what they want but if any person complains then there will be heck to pay. Out of almost a million police officers, can you find a true racist? Probably but you will have to dig. I find it very hard to believe in places like Beaumont, Port Arthur and Orange white officers (which is almost exclusively when it is used) would want to work around people that they despise by skin color. Is there prejudice rather than racism? I am fairly certain of it. As a police supervisor I get a lot of complaints from a lot of different people for a lot of different reasons. Almost none are for physical abuse. According to the FBI UCR stats almost 35,000 people a day are arrested and this area certainly sees its share yet we have almost no complaints of abuse. Of course deadly force is always in the spotlight and it should be when someone dies but this area (Golden Triangle) alone has thousands of arrests a year, most are on police video and many I am sure are recorded elsewhere and yet we see almost no incidents. That ones that do happen are almost always initiated by the suspect. I find that people across the board have very little idea what the laws are in various situations. They spit out the words unconstitutional or brutality or abuse as much as they do racism and know even less about it. Sure everyone knows that it is against the law to assault someone, to take another person's money or to possession unlawful drugs. What they are clueless about in the law is not the criminal laws themselves but criminal procedure. To some extent I find that officers also have some lack of knowledge in that area however they generally know what allows them to use force, make entries without warrants, etc. All you have to do is watch the news program of your choice and you can get filled with gibberish. You will hear such things (heard it many times) that the police need probable cause to detain you. That is not true and it only take "reasonable suspicion" according to the US Supreme Court almost 50 years ago. I still hear lawyers on Fox, CNN, etc., say that probable cause is needed. Nonsense. Heck, the police don't even need reasonable suspicion if they simply do not tell you words like "stop" or "come here" which are considered detentions under the Fourth Amendment. If the officers sees you walking and calmly says, "do you mind talking to me" or "can I talk to you for a moment" and you stop, you are not being detained at all and have by your actions "consented" to stopping. The officer needs nothing to justify any more than two guys in line at a grocery store talking to each other. For uses of force that often come to the media attention, again there is a huge gap in the law and knowledge of it by the public. In the case of Wardlow v. IL in 2000 (fairly recent case) the USSC said that looking at the police and running in itself was "reasonable suspicion". Wardlow was standing around and the police even testified that he was doing nothing suspicious. He noticed the cops and then turned and started running away. The USSC said that you have the right to "go about one's business" free from interference from the government (usually the police) but looking at cops and moving quickly away was not "going about one's business". In this case the police chased and tackled Wardlow and he claimed his rights were violated. The police found an illegal gun on him. The USSC did not agree that his rights were violated. The case itself is not that big of a deal however people today would argue that running by itself is not suspicious. Again, it is lack of knowledge that most officers have that the public has access to but generally does not care to understand unless they are watching the news or knows someone that is arrested. In uses of force it is the same. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms the USSC said that the police could get a driver out of a vehicle. In Maryland v. Wilson they said that the police could get the passengers out also with no reasonable suspicion needed. The fact that traffic stops are dangerous to officers gives them the limited authority to get people out if they wish so as to keep an eye on them. In the Sandra Bland case I saw people writing that an officer could not remove the driver. While he made a lawful arrest anyway, he did not need to do so in order to remove her for his safety. There was the video of the man where the police busted his window on the passenger's side of a vehicle and drug him out that went viral. Again I saw, the police can't do that. I would say that most state's laws as backed up by the USSC say (again) otherwise. The passenger needs to comply. In most cases if the officer has the authority to detain, arrest or search, you must submit to the action. Resistance in any form opens the officer up to uses of force. That force must be reasonable considering the circumstances. If a guy pushes an officer it is not grounds to use deadly force. If the guy tries to take an officers weapons, it likely is lawful to use deadly force to stop him...... as we saw in the Captain Arnold case in Orange where the off duty officer shot the guy he claimed reached for his gun. A fight or use of force by the police need not be fair and the police can use any amount of force that is needed to overcome that resistance. The question then becomes how much force is needed or is "reasonable" under the circumstances. In Orange we found out that just reaching for a gun was enough for the grand jury to no bill the officer. I can't remember that case name that I am thinking of but the police having a lesser force option are not required to use that lesser force as long as the greater force was lawful. For example a guy is standing 15 feet away with a knife and refuses to drop it and the police shoot him. Was it possible for the police to use a Taser or pepper spray instead of a gun? Maybe. The Court says that it does not matter what the officer may have done lesser as long as the greater force was justified and a guy threatening an officer with a knife a few feet away likely will be ruled as a lawful use of deadly force. Merely saying that a Taser might have worked does not negate the use of deadly force. In the Baton Rouge case I saw many comments in different forums where people said the police "could have" used different physical force or maybe used a Taser (again since the first time did not work) or pepper, etc. That does not matter as long as deadly force was reasonable. Of course some people will never believe that the police can lawfully use force in such as case but don't be shocked if the officers are cleared. If the guy has a gun and has a hand free that might be struggling for it, an officer on the ground in a fight with the guy who is unlawfully resisting arrest will likely be seen as in reasonable fear of serious injury and deadly force will likely be lawful. It always goes back to, stop resisting arrest but that apparently falls on deaf ears. I could go on for pages but you can probably see where the ignorance is used to show police misconduct where there may be none. I am not saying that there is not misconduct because there is. I have seen many police videos where the officer was not justified. I have worked with officers that were fired and had a hand in two of them getting fired. On one of them it was my word almost alone that got an officer terminated almost immediately for abuse. In fact he was sent home half way through his shift and never returned. There are many others though that are claimed as abuse or unlawful when the law allows the action. Much of what I have seen that is claimed to be murder or an unlawful use of force simply is not by law and it has been backed up in court rulings and jury decisions. An example is the Michael Brown case where I know the US Attorney General want to go public and proclaim that he got the bad officer and was a hero but the facts did not back up that wish. As much as many people wanted the hands up don't shoot nonsense to be true, in fact it was all a lie. As to your specific case of Philando Castile, it could go either way. A lot will depend on the officer's audio where it can be found what really happened and not the woman that thinks she is an internet sensation. If what I have seen in the last day is true, part of her story is unraveling. I think ABC News was told by her that there was no mention of a gun but in her "live shot" she claimed that Castile told the officer that he had a gun and had a license. That alone would be huge in the case. Of course we really do not know what happened but the officer is already convicted in the eyes of many people just like Darren Wilson was in the Micheal Brown shooting. Even the US DOJ could not find any wrongdoing to bring an indictment yet there are still people claiming that Michael Brown was murdered. The after the fact video by Castile's girlfriend will probably have very little to do with the investigation in reality if the officer had good audio of the stop. In both the Baton Rouge and MN cases the officers might be indicted but I will lean toward no criminal charges simply because of laws and court rulings. Since we really have no clue as to what really happened in either case since we only know the outcome, anything that we think will be a guess. It would be better to guess by law and not by emotion.

Politicians (or anyone else) can never fix mankind's ills until politicians can make us all think alike. I think that I have a fair good grasp of the situation and believe that will never happen. Our situation is man's doing and not God's unless God intentionally creates turmoil. We are all people of free will. If a person is a believer in God but does not believe that we are all on our own to make decisions (free will), that negates any responsibility for our sins. If God is in all control or does not exist, mankind will never come into agreement. It doesn't matter about politicians. Mankind had disagreements and all sorts of crime long before there were established government. Doing away with all politics tomorrow will end nothing and in fact would likely make it worse.

Has the media hound girlfriend's story (looking for her 15 minutes of fame) now changed or are the fringe media reports wrong?

Unless they caught an officer trying to cover something up like falsifying a report or have some video of an officer getting in a extra shot on someone already in custody and no longer resisting, the whole thing is a scam by a prosecutor for personal reasons. There should be one more prosecution and a huge lawsuit. That would be against at least the head of the prosecution.

There are two general ways to do police work. There is proactive and there is reactive. In proactive you actively look for crimes that have happened or are about to happen. You look for suspicious situations or at people that appear to be doing something criminal. In reactive you simply wait for people to call the police. People call because of a fight in a park, they heard shots fired or they saw an accident. The police will always respond to a reactive situation from a caller. In situations like Baltimore it would not be very shocking if some officers' eyesight was not quite as sharp as it once was. When the city leaders try to throw them under the bus, don't be surprised if they don't get near the road.

Claiming that someone isn't looking at both sides is often like the pot calling the kettle black. I can quote law word for word on some issues and it be completed ignored by someone because it completely kills their stance. Looking at both sides usually means, you need to have my point of view or you are wrong.

I'd bet that it has happened at least to some extent. You can dispatch an officer to a call and make him go. You can tell what his eyes might miss as he becomes a little less observant while on patrol.

I don't know i it is true but I read some media reports that said crime was up significantly after the Baltimore riots and police arrests were down. That seems to go hand in hand and I believe that it is certain possible that officer simply quit patrolling. The Baltimore officers would likely respond to all calls as normal if a person calls the police. I am sure that some of them quit looking quite as closely at things that might have looked suspicious to them before the riots.

I am assuming that you mean Black's Law Dictionary?