tvc184

There are all kinds of excuses and names for such people as Lt. Col. West, that side with "them".

That is it entirely. The claim of it isn't a crime is a political straw man. It was not about a criminal act of not sending help when the battle started. That is a judgment call of the commander in chief/president. Not having enough personnel on hand for protection of the State Department personnel and ambassador was a judgment call between the head of the State Department, Hillary Clinton and the commander in chief. There is no law that I have ever heard of that demands the president or secretary of state act. Those, again, are judgment calls. The problem is not a legal duty to act but the outrageous attempt at the cover up of that failure. With the election pending, they were afraid that it was close enough that any big mistake (like Benghazi) would alter the election. Hillary even went public, cheering the arrest of the film maker and made public statements that the US government had nothing to do with the film.... that she now claims was of no consequence. She stood as the caskets were brought back, standing in front of them and claimed the attack was about a film. Susan Rice was sent forward for the weekend shows as the spokesman again stating that it was a spontaneous attack and precipitated by a film. Now they say that there was no such claim of a film being responsible and that they knew immediately it was a terror attack. Why the claim of the film then? Again, we all know why. It is because they tried to spin it away from blame but not a criminal act by the Obama administration and Clinton's failure to protect her people. Was that a crime by Hillary? Not that I can see but her supporters love to cry out, "She committed no crime!!!". In that limited issue, it is probably true. But to stick on that thought is to know that it is a straw man argument. She and other members of the administration got caught in lies to the public in order to try and hang on to an election. Now the erasing of the emails, running a private server, not turning over all documents including email to the government on her separation from the service and other such issues likely are crimes and with Obama in office and if Hillary succeeds him, she will never be charged.

It isn't a national news story. Even if it was noteworthy (which it isn't)..... 1. No one died. 2. A good guy shot and stopped the bad guy. 3. There is no political agenda. NOW with that in mind.... If someone ever says Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown, we should all be saying, "who are they?". Those should never have been national news stories either. For any explanation, see #3 above.

That is a mighty broad brush. I have on several occasions said that officers were wrong. In the case of Captain Robert Arnold, I said that he was legally correct when it happened or at the very least as much as could be proven. The officer had the authority to make the arrest even while off duty (in fact TX law gives anyone the authority to make the same arrest) and if a guy tried to take his gun then Arnold likely had the lawful right of self defense. I read many of the witness statements and they seemed to back up Arnold's version of the incident. The officer's race doesn't change any of that. If someone thinks the officer was wrong based on race or the dead guy's race or service as a Marine then they are hypocrites at the very least.

You didn't ask anything about time frames. You asked what crimes she committed and I listed those that could be seen on camera. Time frames have nothing to do with her crimes. The officer's anger or actions have nothing to do with her crimes. Not that you are likely concerned what the law actual says but.... In Pennsylvania v. Mimms the US Supreme Court says that a driver can be ordered out of a car. While the USSC do not say that refusing to do so was a crime (they don't make law per se), refusing a lawful order by an officer in TX is a crime. Under the Penal Code it is Interference With Public Duties. Part of which states.... "A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law". That is with "criminal negligence" which means that there does not even be any need to show "intent". Clearly when the officer tells her to step out of the car, as the the USSC has upheld as lawful, the officer is performing a public duty granted by law and she refuses. That is a crime. In the video she says "you don't have the right to arrest me", I am assuming for the minor traffic violation of fail to signal intent of turn. The USSC in Atwater v. Lago Vista TX ruled that TX has the lawful right to arrest for minor traffic violations even if the violation itself carries no jail time as punishment but in order for the accused offender to be brought to jail to post bail. She appears to be (and almost certainly is) resisting arrest when the officer is reaching into the car. Under TX law a person cannot resist even a lawful arrest. The place to contest an arrest is in the court, not on the side of the roadway. In fact in this case the officer asked her to sign the citation as a field release and then several times asked her to get out of the car and at one point stated "I am giving a lawful order" which is correct as I have explained on two above USSC rulings. Under TX resisting arrest law is states.... "A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer from effecting an arrest".... and.... "It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful" Merely not liking or agreeing with an arrest is no lawful excuse to resist arrest or fail to comply with an officer's commands. As in almost all cases like this, an officer gives a lawful command and usually several times (which is not required) in order to give the person a chance to submit to lawful authority and not use force. In almost all cases like this, the person wants to make a show and refuses. According to the FBI statistics, about 35,000 people a day are arrested in the USA by the police. Out of all those people, most go to jail for even very serious charges without any use of force needed or given. The USSC has said in many cases that officers can make arrests, can order people out of cars (even passengers), can arrest for minor crimes that don't even carry jail time and can use what the officer believes is reasonable force even if the reason that the officer used that force later turns out to be incorrect. Such a case was Graham v. Connor where the officers stopped a guy for an armed robbery that did not happen. They saw a guy run in and out of a store so quickly they thought it was a robbery. In fact it was a guy having a diabetic crisis and needed sugar (I believe this guy normally drank orange juice for it). When he was stopped he was showing signs on intoxication from the medical issue and not any illegal substance and in that state of mind, resisted the officer's commands. They roughed him up enough to put him in the hospital to be treated and released. So we have a guy that is guilty of nothing. He was in a medical crisis and the police detained and injured him. A very rare unanimous USSC ruled that the officers' actions were lawful because under the circumstances, through their eyes it appeared reasonable. It is always so simple. Comply with the officer's commands and about 99.99% of the time nothing more will happen. Run, resist arrest, fight, refuse to comply with lawful orders and it goes downhill from there. That is why officers, making almost 250,000 per week and we rarely hear of them.

Obviously it is Congress' fault. After all they are the commander in chief over the US military and they control the State Department. Being uneducated as you are, you probably believed that the president was the commander-in-chief of the US military forces and the secretary of state was the head of the State Department. Consider yourself educated now.

I fear that this nation of lions that is led by a sheep is slowly turning into a nation of sheep.

From the video..... Minor traffic offense Assault on a Public Servant Resisting Arrest Interference With Public Duties

Machine guns are not illegal.

Yes, she committed suicide while in jail after she committed a couple of crimes.

A guy beats up his neighbor 10 times giving him busted lips, black eyes, etc. It is always a misdemeanor and he can serve county jail time for up to a year on each incident. He does not lose any gun rights. A woman is mad and pushes her husband (causing no injury) and the guy slaps her one time for the only violence after 20 years of marriage and doesn't even cause a bruise. Because she claims to have "felt pain", he loses his rights to a gun for the rest of his life. Protection or political correctness?

Railroads, a college, a yacht club, a golf course, plenty of industry, lots and lots of water for recreation, a mall..... what is not to love... other than the double digit unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, a high crime rate........... Yes, they "should" have a lot going for it.

I think it was the Duke lacrosse team rape case where the DA was disbarred and charges filed for malicious prosecution, covering up evidence or something like that. I wish the same would happen in this case. I know it is not likely but it would sure be nice. This sure seems like a criminal act by the DA, likely to pad her run for some higher office. They did show some evidence that could have convicted the driver who was acquitted today. I think the DA merely overcharged him. By the evidence shown on video, they could have definitely charged the cop that drove the van with a wide right turn where he didn't turn as close to the curb as possible and at another intersection he didn't come to a complete stop. The judge concluded that these two infractions did exist but the DA charged the officer with depraved indifference homicide when she should have gone after a couple of traffic citations. Just a wee bit overcharged..............

The really bad thing about this case is the additional officers charged other than the driver. If the DA wanted to roll the dice with the driver then maybe. Of course charging someone criminally should not be rolling the dice. It should be a well thought out investigation and it looks like the guy is guilty and not just, "we want someone held responsible". In this case they charged everyone that even had contact with him. Their cause and effect is beyond belief. So here is a scenario. A guy is running out of gas and glides into a service station. He fills up and pays the clerk. Five miles down the road he is texting, crosses the center stripe and kills someone. They then charge the clerk for accessory to criminally negligent homicide. Why? Well, he the clerk hadn't sold the gasoline, the guy would not have killed someone. Therefore the clerk is partly responsible. That is what they did in this case. A couple of cops chase a guy, arrest him and put him in the wagon. He is later killed either by his own actions or maybe even a different officer. In any case his arrest itself or the force used to make the arrest had nothing to do with the death. They charge the officers that arrested him with a homicide or assault and misconduct in some form. Huh?

Just like the Zimmerman case, this was purely political and not criminal. I am not saying that there should not be a criminal investigation. I just know that there's no evidence to show wrongdoing in either case. Even the judge today blasted the prosecution saying that there was no evidence brought to show any crime. It is not whether you agree or disagree with the evidence, there was none. You can only go on what you can prove and the evidence was never there to start with. Had these not been a high-profile cases and just a local incident, then no indictments would have ever been return.

If almost every gun used in a shooting in Chicago (or anywhere) is already illegal to possess, how are any more gun laws going to help at all. If you already have a gun illegally, how do we make it "more" illegal? I can never figure out the anti-gun rationale. Let's see, you are committing a crime that may carry life in prison or the death penalty but it will stop you from committing that horrendous crime by..... making the gun itself illegal and attaching a small penalty to it. That is akin to saying that I will not murder someone today because it might cause me to get a speeding ticket.

They ruin a lot of good movies with the chick flick nonsense. Examples are Pearl Harbor and Midway. Two historical movies if not ruined, nearly so or pushed to the point of gagging. Examples of how not to toss completely bogus love scenes (as in not even real people) into otherwise historical movies would be The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far and Patton. Even fiction based on fact such as Saving Private Ryan don't need a love story. A place where it is acceptable in a historic movie is like Titanic where the love story IS the story and the historical setting was simply to enhance the plot and making it like a Greek tragedy. In my opinion.

A couple of legislative sessions ago the Dems called the GOP the "party of no". I guess we can call the Dems the "party of tantrums" or maybe just "Team Tantrum". They can go sit on the floor and cry. Right after Obama took office, the GOP was trying to stop Obamacare and were using legal rules within Congress to win for their side. Elijah Cummings was on one of the news networks saying something like, "You need to realize that we won the election. We get our way. " Now Cummings is one of them on the floor protesting. Wait, doesn't he know that the Republicans won the House in the last election? Isn't that the way it works with the winning party controlling the vote or does that only apply when the Dems are in control? Cummings is the epitome of hypocrisy. He whined about stalling the vote within the rules and then takes part to do the same thing but by breaking the rules. Yep, tantrum seems to fit nicely.

Whether there is security either by hired guards or off duty police officers is up to the venue. In this case there was an off duty police officer on scene and he engaged the terrorist almost immediately. That caused the guy to retreated into the club and take hostages. That began a long standoff. A hostage situation is way different that an active shooter. For example, the Sandy Hook shooting incident lasted about 5 minutes. The Orlando incident took more than 3 hours. The bad guy was not killing people for 3 hours. If he had been an active shooter, the police would have moved in and taken him out. When people are willing to negotiate, the police try not to push the issue and in most hostage negotiations the people are released. The police also thought that he might have a bomb and parts of one were thought to be found. I think it turned out to be a battery out of a smoke detector. I don't think the shooter had anything to do with club or being security. I believe that he was once a guard almost a decade ago.

I Think we are talking about a least the 1900s.

You are 100% correct, it is political. We agree on something When hundreds of minorities get gunned down we hear almost nothing. I am not the politician whining about a terrorist incident when ignoring many times as many people shot weekly but it doesn't fit the current agenda.

I don't watch Hannity. Perhaps you can tell me what he says. I know this is a newsflash for you but Hannity is not a political party.

I saw today that there was another mass shooting this weekend. In that incident 43 people were shot and 13 have died. Wait, that was last weekend in Chicago, the city with the strictest gun laws. I wonder how many in that terror attack used an AR-15 or AK-47. Wait again, the Democrats led by Obama and Lynch said that handguns aren't the problem and we need to stop the evil black rifles. Some people simply can't see through the smoke screen.

Sure. They already have one entire political party believing anything that is said.