tvc184

I'm going to lose sleep because an editor at GQ has an opinion? Some people must lose sleep easily if that is their level of interest.

It all goes by percentages and how you look at them as you say. About 13% of the population is black. The FBI considers Hispanic as an ethnicity and not a race so most of what we call Hispanics are white although obviously a person can be a black Hispanic. The FBI generally (or always) lists race as Black, White, Asian, Other or Unknown. It varies from year to year but from what I can gather from the FBI annual UCR statistics, blacks commit roughly half of the murders in the USA. Other violent crimes have similar stats with some being even higher. Examples are like in 2013, 56% of arrests for robberies where black. That deals directly with police contacts with people. The more contacts you have, especially for violent crimes, the more likely you have a chance for violence between an officer and citizen. Obviously the most contentious contact is an arrest where you are taking a person's liberty completely away with handcuffs and restrained usually in the back of a vehicle. For that reason, arrests are the most likely situation for violence from either the police are the person being arrested. While whites are shot and killed by the police more, are the deaths equal to their population? The answer is no. I think that recently blacks have been about 30-35% of the people killed by the police which is 200-300% higher than their population. So are they over represented? Again, how do you look at it in total? If blacks are committing 50% of murders and 56% of robberies (both some of the most violent crimes), does that mean the officers come into contact with blacks under violent circumstances more so than other races by population? It appears to me to be the case. I added up the officers killed in the of duty from 2008-2013. If my math was correct, 40% of all officers killed where killed by blacks. Almost no women killed officers so really about 7% of the population (black/males) killed almost half all officers killed. Again, violent confrontations between officers and blacks tend to happen at a much higher rate than their population represents both in number of deaths from both officers and the accused. So how do we look at "more likely"? It is by population or simply total numbers? I believe that more whites (including Hispanics) are killed by the police than are blacks. Are whites more likely to be killed than blacks by percentage of the population? No. Blacks are likely killed at about 200-300% higher than their population. Is that due to what appears to be stats that show that they are more likely to be involved in violent crime and arrests for those crimes? That is open to debate but I believe that some people want to look at the number killed by law enforcement and then ignore the police contacts for violent crimes. Then the want to ignore the number of officers killed. I tend to think they go hand in hand. I normally get my figures from going to what I consider the source, FBI stats. They are never complete however they likely represent the most reliable percentages. The stuff above is simply stats. People can make of them what they wish but I can see where the statement made on the radio could be correct according to interpretation or opinion. That always comes around to my chicken or the egg debate. Which comes first?

What could he see? It all appeared to be on video. Now if he saw the trooper get her in the back of the car off camera and slap her around or something like that, he needs to come in and give a statement and if they will not look at it, go outside like to the Rangers and file a report for Official Oppression against the officer. Why come out with an accusation several months later? Why not step in either to help the officer so more force would not be needed or to stop the trooper for doing anything else? It all sounds fishy on the claims from an officer. More than likely it is an opinion from an officer (if there even was one) that didn't agree with what was done. Not agreeing does not make it illegal. Ordering her out of the car was legal. Putting his hands on her to get her out when she refused was legal. Arresting her for not putting on a turn signal within 100' of a turn is legal.

They showed up in Port Arthur about 20 years ago for a rally. There were about 5 members of the media and one other person attending. They planned on about a 90 minute rally and after a few minutes packed up their equipment and left as there was no audience. Like none unless you count a single person.

Any idea what the silly accusations means to the case? It was all on audio and video. What does another officer have to say that will refute what was seen and heard? This isn't like something that happened in an alley and it is a head said/she said case. If there was an officer witness, why didn't he step in either to assist the officer or if he saw something wrong. Particularly if he saw something illegal as this article and his statement implies. So we have an officer saying, I saw the whole thing and it was wrong.... but I never got involved. Ooookay.............

You would have assaulted someone for no reason because from the evidence, that appears to be what Martin did?

Who has said no equal rights for women? Who has said send the blacks back? The wall is already in place but not complete. It is to keep out criminals that we coincidentally put thousands of armed police officers on that same border. The wall or fence would simply make it easier and safer for the officers. I have never heard any politician running for office saying to get Muslims out. You know that it is all nonsense. That is okay but many people hear such obvious nonsense and believe that it is true because an unknown person claimed it was so.

No because we are not in a perfect world. What percentage of police shootings do you believe are clearly against the law? Do you think we have officers out there that joined or continue to work for the opportunity to kill someone?

Then why even investigate it? If you want to accuse someone of breaking the law with absolutely no evidence, feel free. I can accuse anyone as long as no evidence is needed. That appears to be a favorite tactic of the current anti-police accusations. We have no evidence but they are officers so they must be wrong............

Good one.

I doubt the investigators/FBI wanted to find the officers wrong. I think the people that sent them did. Heck, the governor of the state called for an indictment I think the next day after Michael Brown was killed and he knew nothing. Much like Obama, he used it as a political moment without care for justice or any complete knowledge of what happened. The term under the bus is often used and that was done to Officer Wilson had his life and career thrown into turmoil so that some politicians could get a photo op. I don't think that attitude went into the FBI agents that had a job to do. If they would have found wrongdoing they would have documented it. If there was no evidence against the officer then that would be result of the investigation. I believe that they did not go into it with an agenda or wanting to find anything except where the evidence led.

This spring was one of the best in a long time in Sabine Lake. I had friends that were limiting on the LA shoreline fairly quickly. Then the rains hit............ The three big floods back to back to back slammed the lake. It took a while for the water to flood the lake but it finally pushed most of the saltwater out. That pushed the specks toward the jetties and maybe offshore. If you could find them there, you could do fairly well but it did not appear to be consistent. I went two weeks ago to the jetties and then the first rigs. We got nothing at the jetties and about 27 between 3 different rigs. I have had worse days. Back the very next day and we got 60 at the near rig alone. I fish a dock at night in the ship channel and by this time of the year we have been getting good stringers for a few years. I guess due to the freshwater, we have not even seen a fish under the lights until about three weeks ago. Now they are starting to show up. Not great but they are there finally. I am guessing that they are heading back up into the big lake now also. It just looks like those really historical floods slowed the fishing and pushed many or most of the fish out. It also appears that it is finally coming back to normal.

Yes. It is normally in the jury's "charge" which is the instructions from the judge. The charge lists the laws that apply, the definitions that apply and any potential verdict from guilty or not guilty or lesser included charges.

The died in the county jail. The FBI has been investigating her death for a year. Has the FBI been able to uncover any wrongdoing in her death?

Some individuals do but certainly not groups. I get the feeling that some segments of our society go by the phrase "not all cops are bad" like maybe there are a few good ones out there.

I don't think they were ever charged with intent and certain all of the charges brought did not require intent. They even brought charges for illegal arrest... which like the others, was completely bogus. All of the officers also faced charges of "recklessness" in his death. I think most courts (and I know TX) use the "mens rea" (guilty mind) or culpable mental states of intent, knowing, reckless and criminal negligence. These officers could have been convicted of crimes if the prosecution could have only shown "recklessness" in his death. The claim of overcharging is a favorite of television talking heads. When it doesn't go their way... the prosecution "overcharged". While in some cases that may be true, in many states (maybe all of them) a person can be convicted of a "lesser included" charge. For example if charged with murder, a jury might find a person guilty of manslaughter. The prosecution can go with the highest charge and let a jury decide which best fits the evidence. In this case however, all officers were even charged with only recklessly causing death and not intent.

There was no overcharge. There were charges period that were wrong. About the only thing that could be proven as a crime in the entire incident was the driver committed two traffic violations and he could have received citations. The rest was just political grandstanding and Mosby's response today was more of the same. She pushed this case so that she could enhance her career but hopefully it will end her career and the lawsuits filed against her will be successful. With many large cities now opting for a $15 an hour minimum wage for burger flippers, she can still earn a "living wage".

I brought up Martin as evidence of the credibility of NBC. They altered the 911 recording and after being caught, admitted to it. Zimmerman is a real prize but he used lawful force on Martin. Martin attacked him and it cost him his life. Being a nutcase is not illegal, assault is.

I would tend to differ on the opinion of any credibility of NBC and their scams over the years such as the Trayvon Martin case where the falsified evidence but let's not quibble over NBC being caught in a lie. You stated "they disbanded the police department". To prove that, you posted a news article that says the appointed an interim chief. Well for a news flash, Port Arthur now has an interim chief after theirs retired. That is not disbanding the department. Face it, you made a false statement and there is no way to make it better by saying they now have a new chief. I don't think you intentionally lied but only spouted off about something you had no clue about. What is interesting and nothing to do with Ferguson specifically as their fault but after the feds stepped in, Ferguson got Andre Anderson as the interim chief. He was reported in the article that you posted that he could be the permanent chief. Well, until someone started checking on him. This knight in shining armor that came to rescue Ferguson.... well, he has been suspended three times in the past including falsifying government documents. I guess the people at Ferguson are hard to please because after looking into the interim chief's background, found out that he might be less than desirable. So you don't have to ponder whether I am credible, all you need to do is simply read the "evidence" that you posted that refutes your claim of the department being "disbanded".

That is a bunch of nonsense. It has no bearing on the case. In fact what he claims was said, is said all the time. Let's see, the other officer claims that the trooper said something like, I am not sure what I am booking her for. Yep, that is often the case when you can file several charges on a person and have to decide which is the best or how many charges you might stack on a person. Texas law allows for the arrest of any offense except speeding or open container in a vehicle. Having a burned out license plate light is grounds for an arrest even if you did not know it was out. Pull up to a stop sign and then decide to turn and put on your blinker? That can result in a lawful arrest for failure to signal a turn with 100 feet before the turn. The US Supreme Court in Atwater v. Lago Vista was a Texas case over the arrest of a woman and taking her to jail over a seat belt violation. The SC basically said, "Oh well". In this case Bland was seen in a traffic violation and was told that she was under arrest. That is a lawful arrest. She then resisted arrest (all on camera). She appears to have struck the officer. She did commit the crime of Interference With Public Duties. For an officer to say he doesn't know which charges to file on a person is common. Should he file all lawful charges? Some of them? The most serious? The minimum? I would venture to say that the officer who is supposed to have reported hearing those words, has done exactly the same thing. Assuming the officer's claims are entirely correct, what does it mean to the traffic stop which was on video and audio recording? You can see the crimes easily except for the original traffic stop. Now if this officer wanted to testify that the trooper said something like, "I never saw her fail to signal intent of a turn and made it up", that would be of some substance. To hear an officer say he doesn't know what to book her on probably happens several times a day. The officer's claim testimony as told in the article offers nothing to do with the Bland arrest.

Call a congressional representative or maybe a member of your city council. I am sure they will get up at 3:00AM and come to the rescue.

More straw man argument with the "passion" given by Democrats. "We feel your pain!!". With tears in her eyes Obama claims her daughters NOW believe a woman can be president. Give me a break. Nope, until the smartest woman in the country came along, no one believed a woman could even be the president. And if you believe that, I just acquired the Washington Monument and am willing to let it go cheap. Make me an offer......... Then it goes on that Hillary did not get angry or disillusioned after losing in 2008... well, not after she met with Obama and he agreed to name her Secretary of State if she would endorse him at the convention. Oh well, little details. But wait, Michelle has more. She knows that Hillary has never quit anything "in her life". How does she know that? Well, just trust Michelle, she knows.... what a speech writer told her. "I want a president who will teach our children that everyone in the country matters". That might be the biggest straw man of all but there are so many to choose from. What a bunch of fluff and gibberish. Yep, since her husband has been in office over 7 years, I thought that would already have been accomplished. To be sure, all of the speakers have someone write and/or assist in editing. There is fluff from almost everyone to some extent. Obama was no different than the rest. She had a very impassioned delivery style and had women crying ... but said practically nothing. What is unfortunate is that someone will think this really shows something and it shows nothing. Our founding fathers wanted freedom, each child wants to matter..... and other profound statements that no one would argue with. No substance is apparently great to be a "great speech". All we need is some tears and a few straw men in there and it will be legendary. And Trump doesn't offer much in the way of details either. I talk in almost every election how the Dems talk in fluff and feelings and put forth nothing and now the Republicans have someone who is doing the same.

As I mentioned above, BLM is a political movement or organization. Students on the school's time should not be involved. The police are not a political group or movement. If a school wanted to wear a green stripe to honor the the US military, I think it would be great. The Tea Party, BLM, John Birch Society, etc. are completely political and have no business in this manner. You are compared oranges and rocks.

Police officers are not another "movement". What if there was some tragic event and a few firefighters in a community were killed and the team decided to wear a red stripe for a year. Are firefighters a "movement" or is it just honoring someone? I don't think high school kids should be involved in politics while on a sports field. They shouldn't be wearing colors to support a political stance.

It shouldn't take a doctorate degree to know that saying I back up the police doesn't mean, "I back up all cops and even the racists ones". If we are doing that then we should remove any support for teachers and educators? We have recently seen in Beaumont some of those people sentenced for felonies. I have also seen some fairly crude racist remarks by educators. Should we not support them? I have also seen plenty of support for the military yet we have had some terror and racists acts by certain of them. I guess any mention of supporting the military should be called into question. Anyone that says "I support teachers/police/military/etc." isn't saying "I support all _______" no matter what. Last season the Lamar Port Arthur Seahawks basketball team did their annual poster with members of the Port Arthur Police Department. I guess that means the LSC-PA administration is all racists since they allowed the team to be photographed with those evil cops. I believe that sometimes people have to go out of their way to find controversy.