tvc184

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.

Seeing their hands means don't shoot? Until their hands are under control, they are a danger. Seeing the hands means that you can see them reaching for a weapon. Until their hands are actually in handcuffs, people are a danger and even sometimes afterwards.

Do you realize that in the last three elections since Obama won in 2008, the Republicans have gained 68 seats in the House and 13 seats in the Senate or do you always (which I suspect) gloss over the truth? What would be interesting would be to know how a party that is having so much trouble can be beating the other party that I guess that is supposed to have everything together.

Are you saying that people who are not attending are causing problems? I can see the CNN headlines now..... Republicans to blame for riots by staying home and going to work.

This and your prior post will not be well received. Facts tend to slow down conversations.

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.