tvc184

Every time there is something in the news people always say "There is more to the story". Obviously there is always more to the story. The police investigation might be dozens of pages long. To the media they release what is basically a synopsis. Usually people make that statement however, implying that something is being hidden or something is sinister. I write new releases every month. There is rarely anything strange to report but since news releases are intentionally vague, people tend to think that something is up.

I have no clue about trials in that state however I have viewed this video blown up and in slow-motion. It is clearly a justified use of force and it is almost not even debatable. I would not want to be in those officer's shoes in any situation and certainly not in this political climate.

i never said that is what it is all about. That is all they end up being because citizen review boards cannot indict or fire by law. So you have a board that does what?

If we are caught on or off duty with a handgun not registered to at the department, we will be disciplined up to termination. That's one of the actual valid reason's listed when the captain in Orange was terminated for shooting the guy while off duty at the car parts store. Even though the DA found no criminal fault, he violated the policy by not having a registered handgun even while off duty. There already is a civilian review board. It is called the grand jury. The other civilian review board is a civil jury as anyone can file a lawsuit. when there is a complaint against a doctor then doctors sit in judgment. When complaints are against judges then judges sit in judgment, as an example when a local justice of the peace was filed on locally, the TX Supreme Court sat in review of the case.... and removed him from office. Every place that I have ever read about that has a citizen review board (like Austin, TX), the board is merely to share information as they have no legal authority to indict or terminate officers. It is a feel good information exchange.

iI would be willing to bet that criminals are way more afraid of armed home owners than they are of a death penalty.

That is a lame argument that is continually brought up. It is not "punishment" when deadly force is used. It is self defense. Look at another story in the news today where the local kid was killed for breaking into the home. Well burglary is not punishable by death either yet this will likely show to be justified not under punishment but under self defense.

I did not read the comments but I have seen them before. It is just that people are fed up with the criminal activity going on and sometimes rejoice when the bad guy gets killed. It is horrible for the family of the deceased but if somebody did go into somebody's home with a mask on in the early morning hours then you can almost guarantee if a homeowner had a chance he would kill the intruder. Yes it is rude for people to comment publicly and celebrate a 16-year-old child being killed. However what was this child record? Had this being a 30-year-old person with a long the criminal record and possibly some violent crime then almost everybody would be thinking the same thing. That is that the world just got rid of a very bad person. based solely on age, people are upset about this incident. Children and young adults make stupid mistakes. They are not a whole lot of angels out there that have never done anything wrong. Minor property crimes is one thing but breaking into a home during the nighttime with a mask on leave me to believe that this was not a very good person no matter what age. I believe there will be a substantial percentage of the population they believe the same thing and will say good riddance.

Community review boards are usually pushed by someone with an axe to grind and an anti-cop agenda. Why not have a citizens review board for all jobs? Ferguson Missouri is a perfect example. I can almost guarantee that Eric Holder and the US DOJ wanted to find Officer Wilson at fault. They spent months and hundreds of thousands of dollars to come to the same conclusion that the local DA did almost immediately. Yet there are people that believe that a 10 person citizens review board with almost no knowledge of the law can come to a different conclusion. They are probably correct. That is because their conclusion would be based on desire and not facts.

I will quote this from the Fourteenth Amendment/Section 1. It has been used to overturn several laws and is sometimes called the "equal protection" amendment, meaning that everyone has to have the same protections and privileges. >>>>Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.<<<< Now we have a law the has one rule for police officers and one rule "for everyone else". Does that match the Fourteenth Amendments requirement for "equal protection"? Not in my opinion. It apparently does not even include all government employees, only police officers. I guess it depends on which argument a person is trying to make because I continually hear the bogus, "you can indict a ham sandwich". Well if you can indict a sandwich, why not a police officer? In fact officers are indicted and some are serving prison time. The article (assuming that it is correct) claims that this was in response to no indictments in Ferguson and New York. Hmmm.... I guess the author Holly Mitchell has reviewed all of the evidence in both of those cases and has rendered her verdict which differs from the actual jurors. In truth Ms. Mitchell has probably not seen any of the evidence but is merely responding to her belief that if a white officer kills a black person then the officer is guilty and we can't trust the evidence. Facts are no good and wishful thinking and mob rule are the way to go. Hopefully some state or federal judge will step in and put a halt to this very soon and then an appeal can overturn it. I sure doesn't seem constitutional to me where we can set aside one set of people based only on a job and have a completely different set of rules for a criminal charges.

Except for the current media feeding frenzy, this should be little more than a local news story. Armed man of any race attacks people and is killed by the police. Story ends.

In some states probation officers are peace officers and therefore have the full authority of all other peace/police officers. That would mean that they would have to go through a police academy. TX has no such status for probation officers. They could by law grant them CHL status like judges or district attorneys and exempt them from carrying in prohibited places. They would not be trained and would have no arrest authority but could defend themselves.

Spending more money that you are taking in is a conscious choice. It doesn't matter if you are the CFO of a Fortune 500 company or a person living paycheck to paycheck. You don't need some kind of track record in business to know that if you make $100 a week and spend $150 a week, then each week you will go another $50 in the hole. Businesses sell goods and services in order to make a profit. Governments cannot make a profit and only take money from others and provide a service. It is like me telling LumRaiderFan that I am going to mow the grass and charge what I like. What if LRF doesn't want the grass mowed? Oh well, the government has decided what is best and you will pay the bill. That is not any business model. The issue of government spending is what they spend it on and how much they are going to force others to pay. Social issues are sometimes everything. What matter is it if you are a great business person but feel so strongly about giving welfare that you do not care about how much you go in the hole?

I would tend to agree more if it was, "run the government like a household".

Not really. While it sounds good, the government is not a business and cannot be run like one. It is a great catch phrase however.

I would vote on the one that I agree with. I think the fiscal managing is a foolish issue. I believe that the sometimes mantra of "running the government like a business" is bogus.

Kinda .. but...... Due to Bobbitt (in my opinion), this perpetrator realized that merely tossing it out the window might lead to a reattachment and a future career in the video industry.

That was why I was wondering about if it was a newly built center.

EPA Evidence Prevaricating Agency

Got to love those German remakes............

Yep, the chief is a politician. It looks like he made deputy chief about 9-10 years into his career (since he served as deputy chief, assistant chief and interim chief and was named chief at only 16 years). That is a politician that has likely put very little time in on the streets and a lot of time in the chief's back pocket and backstabbing any competition. He will and probably has thrown anyone out there to save his butt and make him look like the hero. I could be wrong but seeing such a rapid rise in such a large department, I doubt it.

I just heard a statement by the chief and it was some of the biggest bunch of caca that I have read. "Cascading consequences"? Pure gibberish for the media. I think they need to fire the chief.

The standard is if a reasonable officer would feel the need to use deadly force. Most times in the past, a felon advancing on an officer with a drawn handgun is most of the time seen as justified in my experience. There is no need to have the person be a threat of death, a point which is almost always glossed over or ignored by the press. There is no statute that requires a person to fear death in order to justify deadly force. There has to be a fear of serious bodily injury which can be a broken bone. If an in shape athlete is advancing toward you while committing a felony and appears to be crazed on drugs, would anyone be in fear or injury? That is the question of law that will be before the grand jury.

I am not sure that they can if what is out there turns out to be even partly true. She might actually be in some deep troublems.........

If they need someone to be a guinea pig, I can take a few tubs for free to test it for safety.

BB is putting out information that it will be back in stores in mid-September so maybe another four weeks or so.