tvc184

All lives do not really matter. Innocent lives matter and everyone is not innocent. The black lives matter movement is based on the premise that blacks are killed solely for racial purposes. Lawful executions, war, lawful self defense, etc., should not be even considered in any of the discussions of which lives matter.

With no information at all on the case, the usual way the defense will attack the case is the officer's probable cause for the detention and eventually the arrest. If an officer cannot justify a detention enough to convince a judge, the entire case will be thrown out for unlawfully obtained evidence. If the information on the probable cause is sufficient enough (which is typical) that a defense attorney knows that he is about 99.5% chance to lose a motion to suppress the evidence, the plea deals will start. Even if it gets to a suppression of evidence hearing, if the judge rules that the evidence will be allowed into court, the case usually ends. At that point and before a jury hears the case, a judge has said that the officers acted properly in his/her opinion and will allow a jury to find that the substance found on her person was lawfully obtained. That for sure will almost always result in a plea deal because most of the time no one wants to face a jury that might not have any sympathy and "throw the book" at the defendant and give something like 50 years in prison with no probation. Of course a jury might feel sympathy and give a 5 year sentence probated. The problem for the defendant is that do you wish to roll the dice and take that risk which can mean basically being given a second chance (probation) or decades in prison. Most will opt for the plea deal even if it involves some jail time in lieu of making a jury mad.

10 years probation if she pleads guilty. Probation is tough and she will likely break it if she continues to do stupid stuff. It is extremely restrictive and costs a lot of money to the probationer.

Woohoo.... saw his 757 fly over the house about an hour ago.........

Poor thing. I watched it live today and had to turn it. It is hard to watch someone with so few brain cells trying to be a spokesman for a cause (even a losing one) and is spitting out gibberish she was told to say or read off of forums while having absolutely no clue.

I always been interested in the "thought police" aspect of life. I have had it happen a few times but one time in particular stands out. I was driving in my patrol car minding my own business and not looking for anything since I was the supervisor on duty and had plenty of paperwork waiting for me at the station. As I was driving I saw a large stack of tree trimmings that someone had stacked on the side of the roadway in order for the trash pickup. Some of it was actually about three feet onto the roadway. As I neared it a car coming from the opposite direction swerved to miss that stuff but swerved into my lane. I literally had to go off of the road any party into a ditch to keep from being hit head on. Hmmmm........ I did the same thing almost anyone else would have done had they been in my position in a marked patrol unit. I did a U-turn and stopped the guy. I never got him out of the car and only asked for his driver's license and insurance. He had neither. As I was issuing him a citation, mama and daddy saw what was happening and stopped. Apparently he lived nearby and they were going somewhere and saw me speaking to their son. The woman quickly came to my side of the road and wanted to know what the heck was going on. The father stood literally in the middle of the road with cars passing by. I was fairly blunt to him to get out of the roadway and if he wanted to talk to step to the side of the road. He got mad and back in his car but mama kept it going. The conversation went something like: Mama/ "You always stop him". Me/ "I have no clue who your son is and have never seen him before". Mama/ "But you people always stop him". Me/ "I have no clue what you are talking about but if you say so. I work with more than 120 officers". Mama/ "Why are you searching him and checking out his passenger?" Me/ "Huh? I am not searching him and in fact he is still sitting in the car. I have not even asked for his passenger's name although to do so is fairly routine police work and not illegal". Then she lowers the boom on me... Mama/ "But you want to do it". It went on from there but although I have never questioned him about anything other than a license, insurance and why he swerved into my lane instead of lawfully allowing me to pass since the obstruction was in his lane. He said that he didn't know and even though his mother was starting to make me mad, I gave him warnings for fail to stay in his lane until safe and for no insurance and only gave him one citation for no driver's license. Basically I saved him about $350. But mama left complaining saying that I was profiling and even though I didn't question him in depth, didn't identify his passenger and didn't search him or get him out of the car (which would have been completely legal), she "knew what I was thinking". I see much of the same rationale going on today. You didn't do anything to me but you had secret thoughts of it.

I think that you are 100% correct. I will go as far as saying that even many people that routinely vote Democratic are somewhat conservative on national security/military and economy. That is how Reagan won his landslides and the term came about, Reagan Democrats. That was where the generally Democratic white blue collar worker that voted with his union broke ranks and sided with Reagan and in the 1984 election he won by a stunning 17 million popular votes.

I am not sure if people and the media know or do not care that the mayor and council members have no authority over anything in the city in the day to day operations. The city council appoints/hires four people. They hire the city judge, city secretary, city attorney and city manager. The city manager is the overall head of the operations of the city. The city council votes on funding and therefore tax rates and where money is to be spent but they cannot interfere with the day to day operations of the city. They can run investigations and they can fire a city manager if they think he isn't performing to their expectations. The city charter (basically a constitution for the city) lays out the powers of the mayor and council. Any charter change has to be voted on by the citizens in an election. The mayor in PA is one of 9 votes on the council. The job of mayor is to be the chairman of the council meetings and if they need an official representative of the city (such as an award, testifying in front of another government committee, etc.) and act as a liaison from the council to the city manager. The only real authority of a mayor is in a declared emergency like a hurricane. In that case the mayor becomes almost a dictator and has the right to act on behalf of the council and issue declarations. That lasts only until the specified time as the declared emergency exists. I think during Hurricane Rita it was 10 or 14 days. This is some of the city charter of PA. Section 6. - Mayor Duties.The Mayor shall have the following duties: (a). The Mayor shall preside at meetings of the Council and shall vote on all matters coming before the Council, but shall have no veto power. (b). The Mayor shall be recognized as the official head of the City and shall perform the following functions: (1). Represent the City at all ceremonial functions. (2). Accept service of civil process in judicial actions. (3). Serve as liaison between the Council and the City Government acting always through the City Manager. (4). See that the City Manager enforces the laws of the State of Texas and the ordinances of the City of Port Arthur. (5). Perform such other duties consistent with his office and this Charter, as may be imposed by the Council. Section 8. - Interference in Personnel Matters.Neither the Council nor any of its members shall instruct or request the City Manager or any of his subordinates to appoint or to remove from office or employment of any person except with respect to those offices which are to be filled by appointment by the Council under the provisions of this Charter. Except for the purpose of inquiry and investigation the Council, either individually or collectively, shall deal with the administrative service of the City solely through the City Manager and shall not give orders to any of the Manager's subordinates either publicly or privately. The intent of this provision is to allow the City Manager to express his own independent judgment in the selection of the personnel of his administration and to administer the affairs of the City free from interference of the Council. You can see that the mayor is largely a figurehead (and that is not only in PA) so when a lawsuit is served, the mayor is likely the one to get it in hand as the city "representative". I like the interference part of the charter where it says they can ask for an investigation (like almost any governing body) but cannot directly interfere. I have seen on more than one occasion where this section was brought up to a city council member who tried to interfere in a police matter while it was ongoing. They can feel free to contact the city manager who they hire and have him contact the chief of police (who the city manager hires) and go through the chain of command but they cannot directly interfere, as it should be. The point is that the mayor nor any other city council member has anything directly to do with this situation. Of course they have to fund the repairs and appropriated that work to install the current system to begin with. They day to day operations of that equipment and the employees that oversee it is in the hands of the city manager. All cities do not function that way and some have a mayor strong instead of a city manager strong form of government. I think in Jefferson County all of the five cities operate like PA in that the mayor does not hire and fired the police and fire chiefs and other department heads. That is in the hands of the city manager that they hired to manage the city. In some cities the mayor has that authority and I think Jasper may be one for a small city and Houston for a large city.

Another KBMT hit job. "Doomsday scenario".

I saw the sound bites. Where is the accused racism?

There are hot button issues that people have to settle on or at least that people that pay semi-attention to what is going on. It is like the 2nd Amendment. Many Republicans believe (correctly in my and the SCOTUS opinion) that it is for individual gun rights. It would be hard in my opinion for anyone that has that as a major issue to vote for anyone in the Democratic Party. While there are plenty of gun rights Democrats, as a whole in the US and state congresses, they routinely vote en bloc to take away many gun ownership issues. On the abortion debate, I personally feel that it is wrong but I don't really care. The SCOTUS has already said that it was legal with some state limitations. If for example it came down to a candidate that was pro life but anti-gun, I would have no problem voting against the pro life issue. The 2nd Amendment issue far overcomes in issue I have with abortions. My hot button issues are guns, taxes, foreign relations/military, immigration, balanced budget and wasted money/pandering. The rest is just fluff. I have opinions on each one but I won't cast my vote based on it. If a Democrat ran on open gun rights, lowering taxes while cutting the budget to match, a strong military and closing the border, he/she has my vote. The problem is that in almost all cases, it is a person with an R in front of the name and not a D. Locally or even in state elections that is not always true but by the time you get to the national level, the big parties take over. As far as that goes, I think many local Democrats that hold office could care less about the national party and likely vote Republican in this area when they go privately into the booth. You will never hear them say that but I know a few that are currently sitting in office from the Democratic ticket and I know how they thought before they ran for office. They can't cut their own political throat but they can never convince me that they support the national Democrats.

That comparative score thing that people like to fall back on is meaningless. The reason is that they have different offenses going against different defenses and vice versa. Case in point, Lumberton beats Vidor by more than doubling their score, 28-13. Vidor and Nederland have a very close game which could do either way. Obviously Lumberton should then handle Nederland easily. When Nederland was up 51-7 on Lumberton, that comparative score kind of goes out the window. Or how about Nederland squeezes by Vidor and squeezes by PNG therefore PNG and Vidor should be a dead heat... right? Well, except that Vidor lost that toss up game 50-7. A game against a common foes means absolutely nothing.

Trump is my favorite Republican candidate.... if you don't count Carson, Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina, Christie..............

They were always a non factor.

I fished the Louisiana side of Sabine Lake last Friday up in the bayou and we caught 10 flounder in about 45 minutes but no size to them. The largest might have been 1.5 pounds. We lost a couple more of that size by the boat and another maybe 2 pounds. Plenty of fish but no size.

Fitting the description of a suspect and even being identified by a witness as the suspect has nothing to do with police abuse. The Fourth Amendment is intended to keep the police from intruding on people's lives "for no reason". Back in England before and even after our Revolution, it was common to get a "general warrant". Those general warrants were supported by a magistrate's signature however there was no need for probable cause and only a claim by an official that a person/location needed to be searched. If a person points you out as a suspect, it is not unreasonable to be detained or even arrested. That is hardly the government intruding "for no reason". I have stopped people and held them even at gunpoint but soon after found that it was the wrong person(s) and they were released. Fortunately I did not use any unjustified force based on that probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Now if the police have a valid reason for a detention and overstep their authority by using excessive force, that is entirely different than the justification for the detention to begin with which might have been valid. A completely valid stop can turn into a completely unlawful use of force. Out of curiosity, when did this occur? The reason that I ask is that I was investigating a burglary one time in about 1995 and a woman was blaming me for an incident that happened with her uncle in about 1962. I was in the first grade and it was my fault that her uncle was abused.

What would you complain about? I have been a police officer for more than 30 years. I have responded to many false alarms or reports of situations that turned out to be nothing. How many prowler calls had 3 officers responding only to find that it was a possum on someone's porch. Do you complain on the possum or complain that the police are responding to calls from citizens and the outcome is not known until after the police arrive?

That is asinine. How is it wasted government dollars, as in, the government should not be spending that money? A person reported a crime and the authorities looked for what was reported. The person that created the situation certainly caused a waste but it has nothing to do with government waste unless you simply want the government to stop responding to situations.

Why spend more money fighting what you know will not be approved until hopefully January 2017? They will simply bide their time.

If the officers had lied about the situation and been caught, would they have been fired? I can say almost always, yes. She should be terminated for conduct unbecoming or whatever her school rules allows and I think the officers should sue her for defamation. Not only was she in the roadway, the way she was flapping her arms and moving side to side, I would have thought that I was getting out on some kind of person that was off either mentally or drug/alcohol induced. Besides that, all this talk of flow of traffic and such is gibberish. In TX she has to be on the sidewalk, period. She could have been arrested and hauled off to the county jail no questions asked if they wanted to mess with her. The law simply states that if there is a sidewalk the you cannot walk in or along a roadway and must use the sidewalk. Texas Transportation Code Section 552 Pedestrians Sec. 552.006. USE OF SIDEWALK. (a) A pedestrian may not walk along and on a roadway if an adjacent sidewalk is provided and is accessible to the pedestrian.

It is pathetic that there are police officers in school to "keep the peace". They are not there for security from outside but for security from within. I can't imagine anyone over 45 years old having been to school where uniformed police officers roamed the halls when they were in school. School districts have lost control over their own campus. It comes from everyone being a victim, everyone gets a trophy, no one is responsible for behavior, no discipline allowed, etc. When I went to school, we didn't need standardized testing. If you failed to make the required grades, you didn't move on. There were no social promotions. If you didn't graduate high school... then you didn't graduate. There was no call for, "My child has gone to school for 12 years so you cannot deny me the chance to blow an air horn and shout when he crosses the stage to get an empty folder!! I don't care if he missed 40 days a year, can't spell his own name, can't read at over a 4th grade level and can only do simply math if you give him a calculator, he deserves to be counted as a high school graduate!". Therein lies the reason for standardized testing. Therein lies the reason for armed police officers roaming the halls and being called in to class room disturbances that teachers used to handle. Therein lies the reason that police officers are coming into conflict with students and treating them like criminals (which they are) when it should be school districts handling their own problems. It should be that the district issues discipline and if that does not work it should end up in kicking children out of school. Of course then, he won't get to walk across the stage and let momma blow an air horn and stand up and dance because her baby is now a high school graduate. I find it a massive failure in school districts and repulsive that police officers that are carrying steel batons, Tasers, firearms, wearing body armor and learn tactics meant to take out violent armed criminals are now coming into direct contact with children. What do they expect will happen from time to time from such an environment? The officers that overreact are responsible for their own actions but we probably should look at the cause in the first place. What next, the US Army or US Marine Corp in schools? Don't hold your breath waiting for any improvement or the schools and all of their employees being held responsible.

It just means that when things get bad enough, even the media snow jobs cannot cover it up.

That means that when Obama won a super majority of both houses of Congress on his coattails, he would by your logic keep it. That logic ended only two years later when Republicans took back the House with a stunning 63 seats changing hands and 6 in the Senate. Then in the next mid-terms, the Republicans gained an almost as stunning 9 seats in the Senate and yet another 13 in the House. Apparently some people are changing their minds and what is reported or debated on is having some influence. I can guarantee that about 35% of the public will always vote Democrat and a like number will always vote Republican. What changes is the other 30% that switches back and forth and also who shows up at the polls no matter who they are for.

You are correct, they aren't the same. What is also correct is that if you allow one group to do it under protection of the Constitution, you have to allow all groups to do it and that means atheists, satanists, Muslims, etc. The entire point of the Constitution is so that majority does not rule over individual rights.

There was a case locally in the news a few months ago and it was on audio but not video. Actually the video was running but the officers were inside of an apartment. Hearing the exchange, I am almost positive the officers were wrong in that particular case. I saw many social media comments on both sides of that incident. I saw a lot of cop haters that were simply saying things that were not legally correct. The ol', "An officer cannot blah blah", etc. Sorry, yes he can. The oddest part about it was the police defenders in that case were just as bad. "He is a good guy..." or "The suspect was a liar.." or "The suspect was only looking for money...", etc. Maybe all of that is true however, from what I heard, the officers on scene were legally wrong and made an unlawful arrest and possibly unjustified force. It is like a political argument where people are drawing sides based on who they like the most. Kind of like my party is better than your party or Nederland is better than PNG because it is my hometown. There is no rational basis for it and it almost like choosing a favorite color. None of that should enter law enforcement. Bullets has ridden with me enough to know that I do not defend officers that I think or in many case, know are wrong. Some things just cannot be justified. The part that I don't like is that all officer mistakes or maybe most of them are not worthy of criminal charges or termination. Then the other side wants to make the suspects into a hero like the Michael Brown case. Brown committed at least two felonies and was shot charging an officer. Groups like black lives matter have made him out to be a hero and all officers as villains. That even after both the state and federal governments found no wrong doing on the part of the officer and obvious criminal acts by Brown. Even assuming the facts changed and the shooting of Brown was unjustified, he was still a felon. That is the part that I have a hard time with. If one officer makes a mistake then all officers are bad but if a felon is arrested, shot or struck while not complying with police orders which are very likely lawful, he is a hero.