tvc184

If you want to help end corruption in the US Congress, two simple law would help a lot. They won't ever pass though. One would be like many or most states and have a balanced budget amendment. You can spend money on pet projects unless the money is in hand. The other would be like TX and a bill has a single issue. It can't be like the US Congress where riders are allowed. It is like a bill that is passed to aid the people in a disaster area in Florida after a hurricane............ and a rider to study the sex habits of the Asian Tiger Mosquitos in CA. That is currently how you close votes with legal bribes. But..... Congress that loves that ability so it will not tale place.

No they did not. Where do you get this stuff or is it "what you heard"? The PD was not disbanded. The DOJ made them change this use of force policy, required more training for officers, required body cams and even required pay raises. The DOJ also required changes to the city court and they way the collect fines and issue warrants.

I will say this about the Oklahoma shooting, the officer taking the shots was mentally prepared for that incident. He had to go in and save his partner, take the guy out and it was he that got the other officer out of harms way, recovered her gun and then kept the suspect at gun point although he was already gone. I have witness police shootings up close and seen many others in videos shown internally. It is one thing to be able to shoot and an entirely different thing to be thinking when it is all going down and afterwards with the adrenaline dump. Great job by that officer.

Speaking of police shootings, this recent one from Oklahoma hopefully is not controversial but this unarmed man was shot by an officer. The suspect was crazy and like all fights with the police, the unarmed man is usually on inches away from an officer's gun. This is a wild one.

I think these throw the bums out, both sides need to be flushed and Congress has horrible ratings are meaningless. Representatives are not unpopular. The opposition is unpopular. Since Congress is divided enough to pretty much block each other, nothing gets done. That doesn't mean that San Francisco doesn't love Nancy Pelosi or that north Houston doesn't like Ted Poe. People in those districts might say, "I hate Congress" but in the next breath say, "I love my congressman". Let's run by just a few numbers in Texas in the last election in 2014 and see how unpopular Congress is with some of these Republican led districts. Ted Poe wins District 2 with almost 70% of the vote. In 1 Louie Gohmert gets almost 80% of the vote. Yep, lots of hate there. In 3 Sam Johnson gets 82%, 5 wins with 85%, 8 with Kevin Brady with right at 90% (ouch).. but wait, we have some close ones. Districts 6 and 7 get just over 60% votes for the Republicans (a 20% wins looks "close" compared to other districts). Even the Democrats had a few high number districts but not as many as the Republicans but in those districts, they appear to be satisfied with their representatives. The point is that people don't like representatives that vote differently from them. They claim to hate Congress but they like 50% of it and hate the other 50% so nothing gets done. Term limits while it seems enticing, might not do any good. When Kevin Brady wins in this region of the state by 90% and is forced out, do you think the people in his district are going to vote for a Nancy Pelosi candidate? Not in a million years. You can force every person out of Congress every term but what will change? Will the uber-ultra-about to fall of the left side of the Earth people in San Francisco going to be voting for change by picking a Ted Poe like person? Again, not in a million years. So what would we accomplish? An far left wing Democrat is replaced with a far left wing Democrat. Yep, that will shake things up.

I think it is in that category but probably A Change Is Gonna Come by Sam Cooke. It is not only a great song, the meaning is pretty deep.

60's.

Ride of the Valkyries sounds like .... Victory!!

I don't know if they were justified but I have seen nothing that proves they were not.

And you have seen such a claim where? Yet another straw man argument.

Yes, likely. I did not see any video of the shooting and do not know why he fired. Do you? Please share the video with us. I know that you are very used to rendering a verdict with no evidence. Speculation is great but it is just that, speculation or an opinion. I am speculating based on 33 years as a police officer. Having been on duty when it happened and worked with people that have done the exact same thing, It is my opinion based on that experience that it is likely that he fired the weapon by mistake. If he did so, he is very much wrong for accidentally firing a round. If he fired with good cause (and I certainly didn't see any) then he was not wrong. The problem is that we can only guess. But I will stick with my opinion of, he is likely wrong without knowing any more.

Let's see, the media is talking about open carry, the NRA wants us to buy guns, cops are shooting people that created the situation, crazy people can get guns and some want in on the action. Exactly what does that jumble of thoughts mean? I might add, I went shopping last week, a friend of mine went fishing, Popeye's ended their 5 piece boneless wing deal locally and there were some car accidents in Beaumont.

Old story. Why do you think this is big news with the "Well look" comment?

The officer was likely wrong but I think looking at the situation, he accidentally fired. He should have never had his finger on the trigger (which is the way it is trained). I will bet that the guy really wasn't shot directly in the leg but he caught some ricochet off of the roadway because the officer wasn't aiming when he fired, which makes me even more believe that he accidentally fired or as it is called an accidental discharge or negligent discharge. I have a hard time believing that an officer with a rifle (I think) from a few yards missed by several feet. The rifle is capable of a head shot out to about 200 yards without even using a scope. Even with a handgun he should not have missed that far.

When a person is making an issue about a Yugoslavian born woman giving a speech written by someone else that turns out to be a Democrat, they must not have many issues to go on.

There is absolutely no evidence of that and the physical evidence tells a different story.

Yes. He was never pursuing Martin. The little fat guy can hardly pursue an 18 year old kid. Had it been a race, Martin would be crossing the 100 while Zimmerman was back at the 50. Zimmerman followed Martin to keep an eye on him. He stopped when told to by the dispatcher. That can clearly be heard on the recording. Also, the dispatcher is a civilian employee that has no legal authority to tell you anything. What a dispatcher said is meaningless however in this case, Zimmerman complied. But that is just going by what is on the recording.

I doubt even now. BG probably saw outtakes from MSNBC or CNN. I have severe reservations that any of the convention was actually watched live.

Actually you said, "They couldn't get a president elected. They are falling apart" in response to winning Congress. I never saw a time frame, however....... I only presented facts. I supposed when Reagan and G H W Bush won 3 elections back to back, for 12 years the Democrats were falling apart? Want Congress thrown in? From 1933 to 1995 only two congresses (4 years) had the Republicans controlling it completely. During that 62 year time frame, the Democrats held the entire Congress for 54 years and 4 years of shared control. During those 54 years of complete Democratic control of Congress, The Republicans won the presidency 9 times. Taking out FDR during WWII, the Democrats have won 5. Even with FDR included, they tied. Let's see, 54 years in control but wouldn't win the White House for 36 years. Yep, the Democrats were falling apart. Your rationale, like always, is nonsensical.

Your description, while almost certainly false, sounds like justification for the use of deadly force.

Apparently you didn't listen to the 911 recording.

I think people need to lay off the Lime-A-Ritas late at night...............

Martin was killed in self defense according to the jury that heard the evidence.

And 7 of the last 12 presidents have been Republican. It goes back and forth and always will. No laws can be passed without Congress and the Republicans have been in or complete control for all but about 16 of the last 20 years. As we just found out for those that missed civics in school, even the president cannot get a Supreme Court justice on the Court without the Senate and stomping your feet in anger does nothing. The president's only real power is head of the military without consent of Congress.

And there will never be such a change in the law. Even politicians aren't that stupid and all the way up to the Supreme Court judges almost always side with officers when it comes to safety. The officers claim almost certainly is that the guy was reaching toward a weapon after being told to stop. A video from many feet away showing very little of anything except the suspect struggling is the evidence that some people need to prove the officers had no reasonable fear. I know that you are aware of that but your post is convenient to answer it. Some such cases that I am speaking of from the US Supreme Court are: There is Terry v. Ohio where officers can detain and frisk people not for probable cause but merely for reasonable suspicion. Graham v. Connor where officers caused injury to a man having a diabetic crisis who was completely innocent but officers had to make a "split second" decision to use force. Even though it was a medical issue causing the officers to believe that they guy was resisting arrest, the officers had a reasonable belief of resistance and the force was lawful. Pennsylvania v. Mimms where officers can get the driver out of a car. Maryland v. Wilson where and officer can get the passengers out of a car. Scott v. Harris where officers in a high speed chased rammed a guy and ran him off of the roadway, rendering him a quadriplegic and the Court ruled it was a lawful use of deadly force. Plumhoff v. Rickard where officers fired into a stopped vehicle after a chase and killed not only the driver but the innocent passenger. The Court ruled that was a lawful use of deadly force giving the officers qualified immunity. In a very recent Supreme Court case (Mullenix v. Luna) from November 2015 which was from Texas, they ruled 8-1 that a DPS trooper that shot a man from an overpass with a high power rifle, killing him during a high speed chase was lawful. And so on............... When it is not secure and the police have to make split second decisions, the courts and laws are usually on their side. The best single answer is to stop fleeing or resisting arrest but that has been said many times and is ignored because it places the responsibility on the person violating the law. Officer's use of force needs to be reviewed and especially when deadly force is used. The laws necessarily give the officers who are bound by law to take offenders into custody the authority to use reasonable force in the eyes of the officer and not a family member of the person the force was used on.