tvc184

   No.

  No, outlaw bikers are not skin heads.    It is like comparing birds and horses. They are both warm blooded animals but are hardly alike. 

  Another straw man. It is easy to call someone out and say, "WELL LOOK AT HIS CRIMINAL RECORD".    But who in this forum has made him out to be an innocent person? Who has ever said that he had no criminal record or was some model citizen which seems to be what you are implying. 

The feds decide. Several local agencies have lots of this federal equipment. I know that we have things such as gasoline trucks where we can store several thousand gallons of gasoline for emergencies like during hurricanes. I think that the helicopters that the Jefferson County sheriffs department flies where once military equipment. What is available and the quantity is not unlimited. The federal government decides what is surplus or what they no longer will likely need and rather then destroy it or keep paying to store it, they offer it to the local police agencies. They set the rules on what can be had, by whom and in what amounts.

They aren't really involved. The Federal government has hundreds or thousands of storerooms with equipment just sitting there. There is probably still equipment stored from as far back as the Korean War. For many years the federal government has had a program to allow local and county governments to use this equipment. What it does is say the local tax payers money. The taxpayers have all ready paid for all of this equipment from federal taxes. Allowing local governments to use the already purchased and stored equipment just save the locals money. None of the equipment is anything that cannot be purchased over-the-counter. The federal government is not involved in the local policing when the equipment is given. It just allows the saving of money to use stuff that is already bought and paid for instead of buying new stuff. This is just a move by the president to pander to his core constituents. He has almost no control over a local law-enforcement whether they accept the equipment or not. This is just a move to make it look like he is stepping in and doing something when in truth it is almost meaningless.

Why does anyone run?   The person running thinks that he/she has the best answer for what he/she perceives as the best direction for the country.    What that is might be up for debate and if the person running is being honest but as to the "why", I think the sentence above has the answer.  

  Almost everyone changes in the job. Sometimes for the good and sometimes maybe not.    When you see what is out there on a daily basis and have to do what the job requires, it gives you a different perspective. It definitely makes a change in a person. 

  This thread was started back in early January. I just went back and reread the posts and have not found a single person that has defended Zimmerman.    What are you talking about or are you just making up straw man arguments? 

  Not talked into but it isn't that hard to get people looking. When they actually ride in a patrol unit and see what really happens, it changes a lot of opinions.    I know that you have some experience as a first responder seeing officers up close and know that most of the horror stories are not very accurate. I think a majority of officer either have family in it or a friend or went on a few rides. For many people once they see it up close, they are way more interested.    Then others like you, go on to be a banker.  :D

The flag burner has the First Amendment right to protest.    The other people have the First Amendment right to counter protest.    The police are stuck in the middle to try and keep people from being injured.   It seems like everything worked out well with the flag burner losing the day by being outnumbered by the pro USA crowd by about 700-1. No one was injured and both sides exercised their rights.    Great to be in the USA. 

The WBC holds signs in protest. One church with about 10 members holds signs and shouts slogans. The other group is slaughtering people worldwide by the hundreds or thousands and supported by many more of their group in spirit and money. Just how many Christians are supporting the KKK or WBC?

  Why is that so far fetched? Wasn't it a movie trailer that caused the Benghazi consulate attacks?    Or so said our current national security advisor.............. 

  If you believe the information that Kelly had on her program, the police detectives that looked into the case said that the knife was in fact illegal. If that is true, the DA (head of the criminal justice in Baltimore) is either an outright liar or has no clue what she is talking about when filing of criminal charges. Of course if that is true, she has then committed the same crime she accused the officers of, making a false arrest.    If that knife is illegal as has been reported, I wonder if she will ask for a special prosecutor to come in and indict her. Her case against at least some of the officers was a false arrest. Now with the shoe on the other foot...........    Maybe just like Trayvon Martin, just like Michael Brown and just like Eric Garner, when you start looking into the actual facts, the claims start unraveling. Will the same happen here? We don't know yet but some scholarly legal opinions such as from Alan Dershowitz say that some or most of the charges are bogus. 

It is called, "The buck stops there!".   The mayor and police chief are in charge and yet claim to have no clue what is going on in their department. They set the rules, they do the hiring, they set the discipline, they set the training and they are the management..... but it is the fault of someone else.    Now they ask another government agency to come in and tell them if they are screwing up.    It is called pass the buck, I am not responsible, things went to crap under my leadership and I need to blame someone else, I am black and so is my police chief and a majority of our department but I need to blame it on racism, etc.    The lack of leadership by the mayor is almost beyond the pale. 

Lazy self righteous cop that needs to read up on case law perhaps?

I don't disagree but I honestly believe that it was those days also. I think that times have changed and we see a lot more and more is permissible on what teenagers can do today however I don't think parents 50 years ago were telling much more than what is being told today. It was still learned on the streets but the streets were different. We did not have the government to cover our butt if a pregnancy happened or if a disease occurred. We also didn't have the federal babysitter covering the unwanted children either. Therein lies the difference, not the parenting. In my opinion.

WTG BPD!! This is a potential death penalty case or at the least, life without parole.

  Yep, it worked so well in that rural TX county.   We aren't talking inner city Dallas where people might tend to say, "figures".    Looking at the results, apparently the ranchers in that area weren't doing much teaching to their kids. In fact according to the article, neither was the school district that only taught abstinence.    I see no problems in a science class with telling teenage children, if you have sex, this is what may result and it does not end at pregnancy. It is not taking over parenting. Whether to have sex or sexual morals is an issue for the family but I suspect that has never truly happened going back to the "good ol' days". I graduated high school over 40 years ago and if people think that we weren't having sex....................... 

It kind of gives a perspective of what the police face when speaking to "witnesses".    Hands up, don't shoot never happened but I am sure there are several signed documents in possession of the police in Missouri that say that or something similar. "Sure, I saw it!"....... but I really didn't.   Some of the problem is that at times the people actually believe what they are seeing. Their eyes see one thing and they draw a conclusion that is plausible but may not be at all what happened. They then fill in the blanks with the unknown and report it as fact. 

I would like to say congratulations and much respect to the police officer that was facing overwhelming odds and came out on top, potentially saving many lives. For a person with a lone handgun to face multiple opponents with high capacity rifles and come out on top would have been almost like the Texians winning at the Alamo.    I suspect there was a lot of courage, a lot of training mentally and physically for that day and a desire to present his life as a bargain against those of innocent people. 

By law, they did destroy property or caused monetary damages.    I thought that I saw in a news article that the school would take care of it under school rules. If it will be handled internally, why would the PD even be involved?    Of course the news media is not well known for correct or more likely, complete reporting so the truth could be different than appears in print. 

They will likely continue to win unless someone takes it to the federal system in which case it will likely be thrown out under case law precedents. We are talking about local judges elected by the population of the people where he/she is making a decision.    It is almost like asking a school principal if he/she agrees with the decisions that he/she made in his own school... knowing that if he goes against the rules, he will likely be out of a job. 

Note that (a) is about all illegal weapons (illegal knife, handgun, club) and (a-1) deals only with handguns. It is "an offense" under (a-1) if and it lists the crimes. So you reverse it to see what is legal if that makes sense. Such as... it is an offense if the handgun is (1) plain view. That means that it is "not a crime" if it is concealed. The law is kind of stated the opposite of the way people discuss it. The law doesn't say "it is legal if concealed, not committing a crime, etc. Laws generally say what the crimes is, not what is legal.    The reason I bring that up is that people are looking for what is "legal" and they skip down to (a-1) and simply see the words "plain view" and their mind is on the "what is legal?" question. I have had people argue with me that they read the law and saw it was legal IF in plain view. I have to point out that the law lists what is a crime, please reread.   Then (a-1)(2) goes into the parts about committing other crimes (like Boating While Intoxicated, Possession of Marijuana, etc.), being able to legally own the firearm to begin with and not a member of a criminal street gang.    § 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.   (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not: (1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or (2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.   (a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which: (1) the handgun is in plain view; or (2) the person is: (A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating; (B ) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or (C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

A boat under a change in the law a couple of years ago is the same as a vehicle. No CHL needed. It must be concealed, you cannot be committing another crime (like BWI) and you must already have the right to possess the handgun (not convicted felon). Texas Penal Code 46.02 UCW

A terrorist is a criminal, period. It doesn't matter if he is in a group of people flying a plane into a building killing thousands of people or a lone person shooting a single person because of a political opinion.    Speeding and DWI are both traffic crimes and both can and do kill.    Things are not always the same however just because they are grouped together.    Honestly, how many people have been killed by people protesting abortions? Who is likely to be killed by such an attack?    Looking at Wikipedia as a source, in the last quarter of a century, 8 people have been murdered due to abortions. The attacks were targeted and not random people for the sake of terror. All of the victims worked at the abortion clinics.     In the last 33 years, an additional 11 people have been wounded or kidnapped. Let's see, in more than 3 decades we have not quite 20 known victims killed or wounded by abortion clinic attacks. That is an average of a single victim every year and a half.    None of them bombed a mall full of people in order to call attention to the cause. No one kidnapped planes and flew them into buildings. No one threw hand grenades into a bus full of random people. None of them took over a cruise ship and threw people in wheel chairs overboard.    When the abortion clinic attacks have happened, I have seen almost no one support the killings from the Christian religion. The abortion terrorists are an anomaly just like the Westboro Baptist Church. Yeah, they exist but they are minuscule in percentages and have no support in the mainstream. When an abortion doctor is killed you will not see Christians in this country taking to the streets and cheering like their team just won the Super Bowl. You will more likely see disgust and condemnation.    That is not the same as the Muslim terrorists that we have seen and will continue to seen. They are targeting people totally at random, killing many including women and children and no one is safe including people of their own religion. They kill for the sake of killing. They aren't killing an abortion clinic to doctor to save an unborn child's life.    When some of the more horrific Muslim terror attacks happen, you will see thousands of like minded people in the streets around the globe cheering the events. When I see such a response, it sure seems to be to be more than 0.01% of the religion. I have seen religious and national leaders in Muslim majority nations take the the podiums to cheer mass killings and to encourage others. I have yet to see that in an abortion clinic attack in this country.    Yes, they are all criminals. An 18 year old kid that steals a candy bar and a person that commits and armed robbery are both criminals that committed theft by various means. I would hardly call them the same.    Approximately (again Wikipedia) 75% of this nation is Christian or Jewish. Only 0.6% are Muslims. What are the odds of being killed in a terror attack from the less than 1% as compared to 75% based solely on religion? And remember that the people being targeted by abortion clinic attacks are likely attacking people of their own religion. They aren't attacking Muslim or Jewish doctors.    A terrorist is a criminal, period.  I think a lot of people in this country are wary of future attacks from Muslims and have some level of fear due to that threat. I doubt many people in this country walk  around being worried about being killed by a Christian terrorists for any reason. When a religion in this country has more than 220 million followers but the members of another religion with less than 1.8 million people can strike more fear in the hearts of the average person, there might be smoke where that fire is. For that reason I suspect that a majority of Americans have a hard time comparing them and seeing them as equal.   And for a comparison and a possible claim of it being just a different religion is why there is the distrust or hatred of Muslims, about as many people are Buddhists in this country as there are Muslims. I don't think many Christians or Jews (or even a single person) are worried about being attacked by Buddhist terrorists.