tvc184

I like when the police feel compelled to say that they think the shooter is "extremely dangerous". Ya think?

​ Yeah, sea breeze and summer thunderstorms.

Like the claims to support Obama..... A "historic" election. The first time ever that brothers have been president and that three family members have been president. VOTE BUSH!! And I am not for him.... just sayin'...........

There are all kinds of bands of rain/squall lines coming in and have been all day. Anyone may miss them or get strong storms from time to time. Some just passed over.

Named Storm = Ratings. Nothing more than a set of thunderstorms now and will likely remain that way. We get 45-50 mph winds in some summer storms that pass over. This one will rise the tide on the coast near and to the east of landfall.

The National Hurricane Center on their map shows a 100% chance of it being a named storm. Not much room for error on that kind of call.........

That is what I said. You forgot the smiley.

You forgot to put the, "I was just kidding" smiley face after your post.

I suppose it is okay to lie, commit perjury, falsify documents, etc., as long as you have "done a lot of good". I agree........... that "a lot" was correctly used in the statement above and not "alot" or "allot".

As a follow up.... Do any of you nutjobs believe that Guam might capsize or that South Vietnam and North Vietnam are still two different countries living side by side in harmony?

Probably no more believe her opinion on religion (which is at least plausible from a theology standpoint) than believe Democrat Hank Johnson's belief that the island of Guam might capsize due to too many people (which is not possible in any realm and is ludicrous) or Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee saying that the two Vietnams live side by side in harmony and it is a good thing we won the war (which is straight out of lala land). One is a congresswoman from CA which has no bearing on any of us that is not living in CA and was expressing a religious belief that God can punish people. The other two vote on laws that have a bearing on every person living in the USA and beyond and expressed sheer stupidity. I think they are all goofy but make the call on which is worse, the religious zealot that believes everything has a cause or two complete idiots.

Looking at the current forecasts (which are likely meaningless this far out), the most likely landfall for the potential storm is Houston with PA to the east around Matagorda to the west as the next most likely landfall locations. If Houston, we are (like Ike) again on the bad side of the storm. The best hope is little development.

​Reading the NY code, it looks roughly the same as TX. It is worded differently (has more gibberish) but I think the intent is the same as far as an accomplice. Like TX law, the NY law simply says that a person "is criminally responsible for such conduct" when he has the required culpable mental state as is required.

​TX does not have "accomplices". Some states for example might charge a guy in an armed robbery and charge the getaway driver with Accomplice to Aggravated Robbery. That in some areas means a drop of one degree in offense level so it may go from a maximum of 50 years in prison to 20 years. TX makes no such distinction. In TX we can also use the Organized Crime chapter and in the case, you don't charge them with the original crime (for example Murder) but Organized Crime/Murder. The difference is that as an accomplice you had to take part in the office such as a getaway driver or lookout. Under organized crime it can be at what is called an arm's length or wholesale level of involvement. Such as, you got a gun for a guy and he and two other guys pulled that robbery. In that case you could be charged in Organized Crime/Aggravated Robbery. Unlike accomplice laws which sometime reduce the penalty, under TX organized crime laws, it raises the penalty. Breaking into a home in TX is a 2nd Degree Felony or up to 20 years in jail. If it is part of organized crime, it becomes a 1st Degree Felony and up to 99 years in jail. Escape from a prison in TX is a 2nd Degree Felony but taking part in it for organized crime raises it to the 99 year maximum or equal to Murder. In our state, she took part in an arm's length relationship and that makes her available for the enhanced penalty. ALSO.... for organized crime, you are responsible for the highest crime committed. So if you get a gun for Aggravated Robbery and they shoot and kill the store clerk, it would be Organized Crime/Capital Murder which carries life without parole as a minimum.

Although Texas doesn't have accomplices per se, they simply charge the crime to anyone involved. She wouldn't be held as an accomplice to escape, just Escape as if she had broken out of jail. Additionally she could be charged with Organized Crime/Escape (similar to the bikers in Waco) since at least 3 people took part and any additional crime they committed. Organized Crime/ Escape alone is up to 99 years or equal in penalty to Murder. Welcome to Texas.

This is a Dave Chappelle skit, right?

​Therein lies part of the problem. The law is written that the person that an officer detains or arrests has no opinion at that moment in time that matters. You cannot resist or evade a detention or arrest because you feel that you have "done no wrong". In fact laws says that even an "unlawful arrest" is not a defense to prosecution of resisting the officer. The law is and has to be that officer's authority on the street is not open for debate at the roadside. If an officer pulls you over for a traffic violation, you do not get a legal pass not to stop because you don't think you did anything wrong. You can fight the case in traffic court and you can sue the officer if you believe your rights have been violated. Fail to stop in a vehicle and it is a felony and can result with a person being in prison. There are plenty of places to legally protest an officer's actions. During the incident is not one of them.

​I am sure it will and so will body cams but in about 98+% of the cases it will clear the officer. In either case the decisions made have to be made from the point of view of the officer in the incident, not from a Monday morning quarterback that has a lot of time and no danger to make a calm decision that is not afforded the officer at the scene. Take officers out of it. There have been plenty of civilians that have killed innocent people because they reasonably believed that the person was breaking into their home. Reasonableness has to be sees from the point of view of the person seeing something.

This case (Norris v. Noe 672 F.3rd 1185 (10th cir.2012)) has nothing to do with overturning Graham or misapplying it. In fact that case (which is only at what is essentially at the local level but in the federal system) actually mentions Graham a couple of times in the case and the new standard of "objective reasonableness" cited under Graham. It is just their ruling that when viewed objectively, the officer's use of force was not reasonable.

​ Well, you just changed the topic. You former post that I quoted had to do with the officer drawing his gun. You mentioned a kid with a straw in his mouth and pulling up his pants (in response to bullets13 view on the gun part of it). That of course was from your point of view, not involved in the heat of the incident, from the comfort of your home and from a completely different angle that the officer did not have. The Supreme Court said that your position is not valid in viewing the use of force that an officer uses and they did so unanimously. I was not saying anything about how the officer acted in reference to the entire incident or compared to other officers. I have made no defense in his actions and in fact think that he was wrong. When sitting in judgment of his individuals actions however (such as drawing a firearm), the USSC says that for that particular part of it, you have to see it from the officer's eyes, not yours. As an example it might be easy to see from a different angle that a person's hand behind his back is not reaching for or holding a weapon. That is not the same from a person in front that cannot see what the hand is reaching for or holding. Nice attempt at diverting the post though. It didn't work but nice try.

It is true that this area is great for providing a living.... assuming that you can pass a drug screen or are not a high school dropout that didn't even have enough drive to go back and correct the mistake by getting a GED. There are so many union, chemical plant and construction jobs that we have thousands of people here working from out of this area and many (or most) from out of state. It is almost amazing that we have to "import" thousands of workers when we have double digit unemployment. So good place to earn a living? You bet. The reputation of the area though is pretty much justified when comparing the unemployment rate and the fact that workers cannot be found in the same area and have to be brought in from out of state.

​ ​That is very easy to make such a conclusion.... assuming that you are sitting back at a different angle from a video at a safe distance or in your living room and not a person from a completely different angle that is in the middle of the action and only a second or two away from a person that could kill you. Read the case of Graham v. Connor from 1989. In that case Graham was a completely innocent person that had committed no crime. The police however detained him and in the process thrashed him about a bit and Graham ended up in the hospital. I believe that it was a rare unanimous US Supreme Court that cleared the officers of violating Graham's civil rights in a lawsuit. In fact the decision mentioned you (or people like you) when they said that you have to view uses of force as seen by officers in the heat of the moment in "split second" decisions rather than "20/20 hindsight". In other words, it is easy to view and respond when not in the position of the officer.

​I don't either but I suspect that had that video simply been internal like on an officer's car video and the chief saw it, you would not have seen the same response.

​The police chief was not pleased that he had to answer questions. Assuming that he had a typical police union position, yes he is out of that. That is elected by local police officers and is likely a non-paying position. It is not a job but more like a shift representative. I have been a union vice president and the function of that or the president is to run/chair meetings, pick and head up the bargaining team if in negotiations and to do miscellaneous duties like in my agency picking members for interview boards. Such as when a person goes for a hiring interview, the hiring board is made up of the chief or his designee, one deputy chief, one supervisor and one patrol grade officer (patrolman or detective) as appointed by the union president. Another miscellaneous duty that I performed was when the local civil service board was selecting new books for the sergeant and lieutenant promotional tests, I sat in representation of the union to review the books and give my input into which ones would be best (I actually got a book selected over the objection of the then chief of police and the head of civil service). It is not like a United Steel Workers national president that makes well up into 6 or 7 figures. Police union positions are merely an advice committee or spokesmen of the officers in that particular department. Once he is no longer an officer, he can no longer be a representative.

The TSA was created after 9/11 because before that, private (sometimes minimum wage type jobs) companies handled airport security as independently hired by airlines. The belief was that actual law enforcement that was trained in detaining and investigating would be better than what in reality was not much more than mall cops. To the TSA screeners were born. The problem is that they aren't cops (I am talking about the Security Officers or TSO's) and are the same people as before under private security but now with a better salary and benefits. The original TSO's had white uniforms but they were changed to blue uniforms to make them look like police officers.... to the complaint of some police agencies. The federal government has stepped in and created a new position that appears to be little better than the old ones under private security.... but at a much greater cost to the taxpayers. I don't blame the people that take those higher paying jobs and benefits or their lack of training. The way the system was set up, like many federal programs, is bloated and likely concentrates in the wrong areas, probably from political correctness.