tvc184

A rifle ban is generally nonsense to stopping these incidents. Way back in 1991 I was speaking as a police officer at one of the service groups like maybe the Lion's Club at their monthly lunch and meeting. At the end of my 10 minute presentation I asked for any questions (and there is always questions for the police). The only question that I took (as it took up all of my time) was from a guy that wanted to know about banning certain long guns. He specifically brought up a couple of incidents with rifles or shotguns and one that I remember was the San Ysidro, CA McDonald's. In that case a guy used a handgun but also an Uzi sub machine gun (although I think it was a semi-auto version) and a shotgun. At the time it was the deadliest shooting in US history. The guy's idea way back more than 30 years ago was that we need to get rid of those evil long guns. I did not expect the question but I did have an answer. I told then that for most such shootings, the long guns were "scary" looking but were a joke for speed. At those ranges of up close and personal, a handgun might be much deadlier. The reason is that with a handgun you could carry magazines with almost 20 rounds and they could be reloaded much faster by an untrained person. In that meeting I predicted that some day a guy with a handgun only would slaughter a lot of people with something like a Glock where a person could carry 15 or 20 magazines in his blue jean pockets and reload in about two seconds. That is 400 rounds of ammo in his pockets. Some of the response was something like.... "Really??". About a month so later, we had the Killeen Luby's shooting. In that case a guy with only handguns (one was the 9mm Glock) killed 23 innocent people and wounded 27 more. At that moment in time it was the deadliest shooting in US history. Hmmm... called that one? Also, this shooting took a couple of minutes, not three hours as the recent Orlando shooting. That was the deadliest until Virginia Tech where 33 were killed. His weapons? A Glock and a .22 pistol. Hmmm.... the two deadliest shootings in US history were from handguns and in very short time frames. In VT the campus police were on scene and the shooter had to do his dirty work quickly. Handguns allow a person to carry a lot of ammo that is much easier to handle, much quicker to reload and much easier to conceal until the shooting starts. Of course we have since had Sandy Hook which famously was with an AR-15. Here is the deal though, that same incident would have been just as deadly with a handgun and maybe deadlier. Why? To carry that many rifle rounds it takes relatively huge magazines that are much harder to carry and use. They weigh much more. In Sandy Hook he shot children at point blank range. To think that a 9mm pistol would be less deadly to the head or heart is ridiculous. Like I said with reloading (less than 3 seconds unpracticed and a good person can do it in roughly a 1 second), it might be deadlier. In fact that renders the magazine capacity as an equally stupid crime deterrent. For example, if we cut magazines to the typical 10 rounds (as non high capacity), here is how much it would slow a person down. At short ranges I can get off about 15 rounds on target in maybe 8 seconds. Take two seconds to reload another 15 round magazine and 8 more seconds to empty the handgun again and I have expended 30 rounds on target in 18 seconds. If I had to reload twice by using 10 round magazines to hamper me, it would take about 20 seconds to shoot the same 30 rounds on target with the same number of rounds. WOOHOO!!, the lower capacity magazine made me take 2 more seconds to complete my crime. Great stuff huh? The long guns have a huge advantage. They can reach out and touch someone. An AR-15 might be able to kill reasonably well at 200-300 yards. That is a HUGE advantage over a handgun which might have an effective range for most people of 15-25 yards. In these shooting incidents however, the shootings aren't happening at 300 yards. They are happening feet away. Stand in the middle of a room with a pistol and unless the room is more than 50 yards wide (mighty big room), everyone that you see is in a fairly easy kill range. So while these big scary rifles are being used as the evil in order to justify gun control, to think that it will stop anything at all is silly. Of course most people right now including most of the left wing liberal Democrats are saying, "We aren't against handguns (which is an outright lie) and only the evil AR-15 style weapons". That is merely a scare tactic to swing public opinion. Anyone that doesn't say that the same guy in Orlando couldn't have killed 50 people in less time than the incident took with any of several handguns used for home self defense is either a liar or has very little knowledge of firearms. Like Killeen and VT showed us, we can have huge numbers of victims in only a couple of minutes with handguns that you can buy over the counter at Academy. And a single guy in the nightclub in Orlando coming from behind the shooter could have ended this horrific crime in seconds at a huge saving in innocent lives. Of course the club was likely a gun free zone. See how well that worked out...............

If you really want to know..... There are a couple of ways to run an accident scene. It depends on city/county ordinances and police department policy. Generally there are two distinct ways to handle accident scenes. For most cities the police simply ask you for a wrecker preference. If you have one and that wrecker is permitted by the city to pick up at accident scenes in the city, that is your wrecker. But..... what if the person does not know a wrecker, the person is not able to give one (unconscious) or the traffic congestion is so bad like on a busy highway that the police need to clear the roadway immediately? It is that is the issue then there are those two distinct ways to handle accident scenes. The first way by many cities (and I think all in Jefferson County) is to call for a non-preference wrecker. Usually a city will enact an ordinance regulating accident scenes. Part of that ordinance will be that wrecker rotation list where each permitted wrecker gets equal turns to pick up at accident scenes. The first time the police call, wrecker A will get the tow. The next time it will be wrecker B, then C and so on. When the list is completed, it will start over in rotation. That way there is no favoritism by the city/police and everyone gets the same number of calls. The benefit for the city is controlling who can pick up, what standards they have to meet, have some sort of price control to protect citizens and to keep wreckers from racing to a wreck scene. The one draw back is that it might take that wrecker almost half an hour to get there since there is no need to race to the scene. Of course the accident scene may be there that long anyway and in that case it is a moot point. If it is a minor fender bender and the cop is finished with the accident in 15 minutes (rarely), then he might be stuck waiting for 10 minutes for the rotation wrecker. The other main way is usually done by DPS and the sheriff department who generally work outside of the city limits. They run the "first on scene" or time call method. Basically whoever shows up at the scene can get the tow. The troopers or deputies normally put out a call for wreckers on the radio and the wrecker drivers listen on the scanner. The trooper or deputy might put a 10 or 15 minute clock on it. I think that they may even have the dispatcher call the time when it is over. When the time ends, however many wreckers that have made it to the scene will toss a chip or business card in the hat. One (or more if needed) will be drawn and the winner gets the tow. That is why on the weekend you will see several wreckers parked at a central location. They hang out together and all drive to the scene together and racing is not an issue. That also applies to an arrest scene or any time a wrecker is needed.. So when you see a bunch of wreckers at a DWI arrest or accident scene, they are all tossing their card in the hat and hope to be drawn. That winner will get the tow and the rest will go stage somewhere and wait for the next call. I know that in the city, when we call for "first on scene" due to a bad traffic jam and an increased risk of further accidents, we really mean first on scene. The moment we see a wrecker pulling up, that wrecker gets the tow. When you are see all those wreckers for one or two cars, you are most of the time outside of the city limits. If you wanted to know.............

First, the O'Reilly piece says that the Second Amendment clearly says that the government has the right to regulate militias. That is clearly bogus. I would like someone to point out where it says that. Secondly, so what? It appears that the OP believes some kind of huge meaning because a generally conservative commentator believes that some weapons should be banned. Woohoo....!! For every O'Reilly out there, I wonder how many gun totin', union member, Democrat votin', rednecks out there who would never vote Republican, are the ones with the bumper stickers that say, "From my cold dead hands!".

I do not believe that child molesters get a lesser sentence. That is a wild misconception that is said about a lot of crimes and is usually based on a single incident. First off, non-violent drug crimes generally get probation automatically on a first offense. That alone is not true for child molesters. Even more telling, many drug offenses are given pretrial diversion meaning that they do not even get probation. They are given a warning and kind of an unofficial probation like situation through the DA without ever going to court. If the person does not comply with the "diversion", the DA will then file a "real" criminal case and that will go to trial or a guilty plea. Probation from a guilty plea at the very least requires you to stand in front of a judge and proclaim your guilt in an open session of court. I have never seen that offered to a child molester. That is just on the face of it. There are many other factors that come into play such as, how much evidence is there in a molesting case? Many times there is very limited evidence. It "may" be enough to convict a person or a jury might not agree with it and let the guy go as not guilty because they believed the evidence was not beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is worse, a guilty plea admitting to the crime and facing years of probation (and any slip up will result in a felony conviction and prison) or a person walking free that may have been guilty? Other times there are factors such as the victim and/or parent does not want the child to testify in court. In our system you have the right to face your accuser. While video can be shown of a child being interviewed, in some cases the child can be compelled to testify unless the rules of trial have changed since I was in detectives. Some people simply do not want their 14 year old having to be grilled on the witness stand and are willing to accept a plea. So much is done behind the scenes that if a person is no involved in a particular case (and I did child victim crimes in detectives), they really have no clue as to the evidence or the chances of a guilty verdict. It is not like the DA is saying, "We will give this child rapist probation (like we are condoning it) but give this non-violent drug user several years in jail". For the level of offense, I find that drug abusers often get some of the most lenient sentences. I often see claims of these huge sentences for drug users and for the most part it is simply bogus. I have seen claims on local forums of simple marijuana possession cases jamming up our prison system. The truth is that unless you have a fairly significant amount of marijuana on you, it will always be a misdemeanor and a person cannot be sentenced to prison for a misdemeanor. You can be convicted 10 times for marijuana possession and still you will never be sentenced to these claimed "long sentences". The law simply does not allow that enhancement. Actually 3 misdemeanor thefts can be enhanced to a felony but 25 misdemeanor drug offenses are still a misdemeanor. I still here the claims like, "My friend was busted with a joint and got 10 years". That is pure nonsense. Maybe your friend was on probation for armed (aggravated) robbery and the joint got the probation revoked and the prison sentence imposed..... for the robbery. Drug sellers suffer a worse fate. If a person gets caught selling and gets probation and then violates probation and serves a short sentence and then gets convicted again (now for multiple felonies) and gets a longer sentence, people claim that is a single drug users that was non-violent. Even in that case the truth is that it was a seller that was convicted 3 or more times.

Movies are about as subjective as food. I like older movies not because they are old but because I have seen them, like them and can watch them again and again and still like them. Some of my current favorite movies that are on Netflix are Von Ryan's Express, Bridge On The River Kwai, Full Metal Jacket, Saints and Soldiers, Braveheart, The 300 Spartans (1962 version, not "300"), TAPS, The Wild Geese (awesome movie if you've never seen it with an all star cast), The Right Stuff, Forrest Gump, Young Mr. Lincoln, Jurassic Park III, Twelve O'Clock High and The Longest Day (maybe my favorite movie).

Do it in front of me and I might opt to simply write a citation. The other lawful options are jail or a warning b

Like profanity, it is always a good trump card. An example is when an argument gets heated and a person finally loses it and degrades to, "Well you are a &#@ *(#%^!!!". It is like the final, "OH YEAH??!!". It doesn't mean that race can never be an issue. It only in my opinion means that it is too easy to throw out. "You did/said this because I am a _______________ (fill in the blank with your race, sex, ethnicity, orientation). All other arguments are then expected to cease. I always liked, "You've never walked in my shoes". The person saying that does not want you to respond the same way. The argument appears to be, you have no idea what I am thinking and why but I know everything you are thinking and why.

Comparing apples and rocks? Some parents always have and always will not be bad parents. The problem is that even the best parent is not watching a child every single moment. It is like texting when people look at "just for a few seconds" and someone gets killed. Anyone that tells me that they have never taken their eyes off of their child for a few seconds while in the public is either a liar or delusional. With all that, I cannot imagine a zoo with a gorilla enclosure/cage where a child can get into it and apparently fairly easily and quickly. That has nothing to do with bad parenting.

One of my biggest rants is people driving in the left lane on the highway, blocking traffic. If I was big on writing citations, that would be my favorite. Get the heck out of the way.

The US Constitution perhaps. Less than 5% of this country are Asians. Should the 95+% of everyone else be able to vote them not being able to get jobs since they are in such a minority? The entire premise of the Constitution is rights of everyone equally and not the majority. The "majority" argument never works on such a rights question and it should not. A lot of people tend to cite constitutional rights until it goes against one of their beliefs..... then it is majority rules.

Do any locally have crosses on them?

If most Democratic leaders had their way, only the police would have guns. Handgun Inc., now called the Brady Campaign had as an original charter to remove "all" handguns from private ownership. They and their beliefs are openly supported by most Democrats. Yes I believe that the Democratic leadership wants to end the Second Amendment. Attacks on the Second Amendment and gun control came long before talk radio was even thought of. Using the dreaded NRA as an example, they were founded almost 150 years ago, shortly after the Civil War and have been in legislation actionand gun rights for more than 80 years. This is not a new fight and talk radio isn't the big mouthpiece for it. They are only a convenient excuse.

That is very true. It is also very true that Obama is very selective on his praise and outrage and most of it appears based on race or party affiliation.

Change we can believe in. I can't wait until an all boys volleyball team wins district and 22-5A. They can't even tell them to go play on a boys team because there is no boys team. In the name of equality and how we feel on any given day, an all boys team could win girl districts. And so the insanity continues........ And yes, it is hilarious.

Can? Yes. Will? Not likely if no interest by family. If I could tell you what I know from being inside of the system and seeing moral (not criminal) corruption, you might be very surprised, stunned or disgusted.

It has been about 25 years ago but I made a call one night of a family disturbance. What I found was a 25-year-old guy and his 13-year-old girlfriend (with child) living in her parents home with their consent. He had gotten her pregant when she was 12.

Here is that law on the duties of the DA in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Art. 2.01. DUTIES OF DISTRICT ATTORNEYS. Each district attorney shall represent the State in all criminal cases in the district courts of his district and in appeals therefrom, except in cases where he has been, before his election, employed adversely. When any criminal proceeding is had before an examining court in his district or before a judge upon habeas corpus, and he is notified of the same, and is at the time within his district, he shall represent the State therein, unless prevented by other official duties. It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done. They shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused.

Of course in all cases, it is the opinion of the DA that counts and what he might or might not push. The law is the same everywhere in the state however a DA has discretion on when he applies it. The TX law says that the DA's job is "not" to seek convictions but see that justice is done. "Justice" can be in the eye of the beholder. I have seen cases where the DA refused to file charges in a rural county when in a place like Dallas or Harris County would almost certainly get an indictment. In the rural county the DA might think, "The ol' boy needed killin'". One such case was the guy a couple of years ago that killed the guy he caught sexually assaulting his small child. The guy had stopped and was running away but the father beat him to death with his fist. The DA basically said, "Oh well". By the letter of the law, just like the case that we were discussing, it was probably manslaughter. In NY the DA was likely correct that the law does not allow retaliation. In south Texas............. I wouldn't want to risk my freedom on a sympathetic DA in a small county when the law says otherwise however.

In my opinion, no you can't "point" a firearm. The problem is that pointing a firearm in itself is a crime and there is no justification for deadly force for trespassing. The law does very specifically say that you can produce a weapon to try to scare a person and the production of it with that intent only, does not in itself constitute deadly force. That law says "the threat of force" is okay as long as the "force" is "justified" by Chapter 9. It goes on to say that the "production" of the weapon is okay.... but it is right after it says that the threat of force is okay if the force itself is justified. To me the production of a weapon means showing it, not pointing it. That doesn't mean that you cannot point a weapon as long as the use of it in that situation would be justified. For example if a guy is standing there with a club and threatening you, you would likely be justified in using deadly force. In that case pointing a gun would be justified as a threat because using the gun would also be justified. Since trespass never gives authority to use deadly force, I would be hesitant to point a firearm at someone. Now that doesn't mean that you cannot point the weapon for another reason. Let's play what if and say that he is trespassing but when you tell him to leave, he balls up his fists and comes at you and he is about 6" taller and 50 pounds heavier. A DA or grand jury might side with you saying that the trespass doesn't justify the use of deadly force but a guy big enough to stomp you and is coming at you does. It all depends on what the circumstances are at that moment. Also remember that in Texas, you can have a firearm openly carried on your own property anyway. Just tell a guy to leave and don't wave the gun around... but let him see you holding it. No crime in being armed on your property or property under your control. In any case, this is that law. Make your judgment accordingly. Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

The problem is that you can be politically incorrect without disparaging everyone. Illegal alien is seen as politically incorrect by some. Those kinds of people want to call illegal aliens something mellow and cuddly sounding like undocumented person. Trump isn't seen as bad for saying illegal aliens and that attracts many voters for not toeing some kind of line where no one is offended. Trumps problem would be calling them something like stupid Mexicans. While I haven't heard him use that term .... yet ..... that is the kinds of things he says that negates the attraction of incorrectness.

This has been going on. If a guy with a knife charges a cop, some are advocating that we talk softly to the attacker and show him the folly of his ways...... instead of shouting, "DROP THE KNIFE!!". As an old police saying goes about many issues police officers face, "I cannot solve in five minutes what it took you years to create".

I would like to ask this about gun free zones, background checks, carrying concealed with a license, etc., from the true believers. If a person is going to do a Capital Murder where he can get the death sentence in some states, life in prison in the rest and in the case or terror attacks or nut jobs, expects to either be killed at the scene or commit suicide, what law will stop that? Let's see..... if I carry this gun on the way to my attack, I can get 5 years in prison... maybe. More than likely it will be probation for a first offense. On the other hand, if the police do not stop me in the next five minutes as I drive to my victim's place of business, I will kill as many people as I can before the police kill me or I kill myself. Where is the rationale? I will not commit my planned mass slaughter because I am worried about probation or a little jail time? That is ludicrous. No law that says you can't carry a gun will stop an attacker that is about to violate a much worse law and not care about his consequences. That only thing that such laws stop is innocent people the right to defend themselves.

Trump might be able to win easily if he would just shut his mouth. That is as likely as me being drafted into the NBA this summer.

True that.

I think that would only matter if the Obama administration found out the gorilla was trying to use the girl's restroom on a day when he felt feminine.