tvc184

  You are reading something into my statement that I did not say. I never said anything about the use of deadly force to stop burglary, robbery, sexual assault or arson.    I responded to "looting" which is theft. I also responded to criminal mischief which is vandalism or destruction of property.    Laws are very specific on the names of crimes.    TX is one of the few states (or maybe only) that allows the use of deadly force to stop certain property crimes, some of which may be misdemeanors. That is different than laws that allow the use of deadly force to protect life.    If you have a specific question I will try to answer it but I will stick with my previous statement that said "there is no blanket law allowing the shooting of looters in this state".    When you see someone say, "you can shoot looters", that just isn't true. You can throw "what ifs" into some scenarios that can make it lawful to use deadly force. Simply saying "looters" or "stealing" or "damaging" or "trespassing" won't do it. 

  I had the smoked turkey breast there today.    And yes, the sauce is a bit suspect. 

  As a rule you cannot shoot someone for theft or criminal mischief (vandalism) in the daytime in TX. In the nighttime, theft or criminal mischief can have the lawful use of deadly force to stop it IF it is immediately necessary to stop it and If it is the ONLY WAY to do so or to try and stop it by other means would EXPOSE the person to serious injury or death.  There is no blanket law allowing the shooting of looters in this state. In Maryland? I have no clue. 

Tony's isn't special but it is good for local fare and is pretty consistent. 

Any person has a better chance of winning the lottery (probably twice) than to be murdered by an officer in the line of duty. About 7,000 blacks are murdered by other blacks each year according to FBI stats. While people love to protest on complaints on the use of force, the police have authority to use up to deadly force if you resist or even just flee from officers if you are a danger to the public. Even assuming that 3 times a year a black citizen is murdered by an officer, that means in a decade we would have 30 unlawful deaths in the black community at the hands of the police (which would be a horrific number as 1 is unacceptable) and 70,000 by their neighbors of the same race. Where is the epidemic?

Film away. Just don't interfere and that means stay a good distance away from the officers. There is a bill currently in front of the TX legislature that requires a person to stay at least 30 feet away from officers if using video. It likely will not pass but I wish that it would go further and require people to stay that distance away from officers conducting business whether filming or not. Ten yards away is plenty close enough to get all the video you want. It is dangerous for the officers and not only from the people closing in but they then have to divert attention away from a person detained or being arrested and have to deal with that secondart threat. That takes attention away from the person being detained/arrested which is always a danger. Bullets 13 has witnessed that riding with me when a simple citation for one person (like here sir, please sign this ticket) went to crap that ended in a fight for officers and three people going to jail. That is when a simple situation of signing a citation turns into a use of force incident and when people start getting hurt or killed. There is already a law that says interfering (which can including getting too close) is a crime and carries up to 6 months in jail but the distance if used to make an arrest is discretionary on the officer. Simply telling people they can film all they want but give the officers space seems like a very clear way to handle it.

  This is an example of criminals acting like criminals. It has nothing to do with accomplishing anything except for a chance to act like an idiot and fade into the crowd. 

That was about 5 years ago so I might have a different opinion today.

The last time I ate there I thought that it was average at best. And forget the links.........

Maybe they could also blow up the police station next to it so we can get a new building............ 

From a thread on an officer not shooting a charging suspect (that he should have)  to the election of a black mayor?   Oh well...............    I think a lot has to do with small town politics. I hate it where towns have a mayor in charge so when a new elections comes up, you can get an entire new police and fire chiefs, etc. Most cities in this area employ city managers to run the city. The city council is the budgetary arm of the government and vote on tax rates and how much each department can spend of the taxpayer's money but the day to day operations including the hiring of department heads is done by the manager. It helps to insulate the running of public safety agencies from the whims of a single person because his/her son got a speeding TICKET. The city manager not being elected, can be fired by the council at any time but it takes a majority of the council to back up the manager. Basically a city manager can't play small time politics without the backing of the council but a mayor can do as he/she wishes up until the next election.    So what was the situation in this tiny town? Had the newly elected mayor made comments about getting rid of the police chief who may have been popular and his/her men followed? Had she had run ins with the police in the past and made on or off the record comments about getting even? Did she campaign on getting rid of the PD and contracting with the sheriff office for officers and the city officers simply headed out early?   Way too many questions with no answers from the media except... the mayor is black. Maybe I missed it but I didn't see the race of the officers or the chief.    For all we know, the former mayor who was there for 37 years according to the article, was involved with political kickbacks including the police department. That is entirely plausible since two other departments heads quit which likely had nothing to do with the police. Maybe the new mayor came in under a promise of open records, accountability and cleaning the place up. Of course we don't know because the only investigation by the media appears to be based on the race of the mayor. 

  If they had any intelligence they would not have been elected already so I will second your doubts. These weren't a bunch of first term trustees..............

Officer is lining up to be canon fodder........ 

Not much to do in SP.

    Yes or no.   I have never seen policy on when or how to ram a person. It has been done several times in the past however.    Most policies are like mine that say these are policy approved weapons (certain brand handguns, ASP baton, Remington 870 shotgun, certain brand AR-15 rifles, X-26 Taser, OC spray)  and no other items are "approved" (including flashlights) HOWEVER that same policy says that in an emergency, anything can be used as a weapon. So if a guy is on top of and choking you and you can grab a brick and knock him off, that is then an approved weapon under the emergency use policy. A vehicle in such this instance is likely such an incident. Of course it is up to a chief to determine if it is in policy for internal purposes (disciplinary action such as suspension or termination) and up to the DA if it is a lawful use of force.    In my opinion, it is a lawful use of force and beats the heck out of stepping out of a car and challenging him with your own firearm like an old west shootout where both sides get their fair shot at each other. 

    Thank God for many witnesses in Ferguson that came in and told the truth even though it did not toe the party line. Thank God that the physical evidence (although admitted grudgingly slow from the federal investigation) showed that the claims were false (including the crime of perjury) that wanted an officer to be guilty. 

That is why in my first post I questioned if he was a friend of the chief. TX at one time had reserve officers/deputies that had a lesser training requirement than full time officers. They have since changed that to having reserves get at least the same academy training hours as any other officer. TX at one time allowed reserve officer to work off duty jobs the same as a full time officer. I believe that now they can only work alone off duty if the work for pay at least 32 hours a week. Some states or areas are notorious for appointing police officers based not on standards but who you know. I escorted a tour group to Louisiana early in my career while I was on duty. We stopped at one city and I spoke to one of the on duty officers. Naturally we talked shop and I asked how many officers the city had. He asked, "full time or reserve?". This city had about 8,000 people but they had about 30 officers... full time. He said they might have up to 200 reserves. Compare that to Nederland with 17,000 people that has about 22 officers and no reserves. Hmmmm.......... I have no idea what Louisiana's requirements are today but 25 years ago, I think they had a bare minimum if any standards. Fortunately in TX a person has to have at least the same minimum training hours as any other licensed officer including annual continuing education. Of course that does not mean that they will always go through a 40 hour a week field training for several months as most agencies require. In this area places like Beaumont and Port Arthur require officers to attend the five month academy and then even though they come out as fully licensed officers they must ride with field training officers for another 5-7 months. The field training officers are basically senior police officers that are chosen by supervisors to act as instructors that ride in the police cars with the rookie officers. The rookie officers are not allowed to act alone and are always with an instructor officer. Counting the academy, it takes about a year of training 40 hours a week to be able to ride in patrol unit alone and act as a officer. In some states unlike TX, I do not believe that they have that minimum standard of at least the same academy hours and continuing education as full time officers. They likely have some standards but it may be like a security guard or a couple of weeks of classroom training and no field training. I am wondering if the 73 year old guy was ever a police officer or was someone that was appointed due to political connections. Some reserve officers are retired police officers with 25 or more years on full time duty and just work as a reserve after retirement just as the military has reserves from people that have done a few years time in active duty. By doing so the retired officers (now reserves) can also keep their police license active. Those kinds of reserves are just like any other full trained officer with many years of experience and are retired but help out a couple of days a month out of boredom or to keep that license active. With all that, what was this 73 year old reserve's experience, if any? Was he a 30 year retired police officer or just a guy the sheriff or chief liked? The agency that used him is obviously in deep trouble but I think it is even deeper if he "bought" a badge. I also suspect that the agency might be ending their reserve officer program. In this area I think that mostly the sheriff's department allows reserve officers but some of the smaller agencies might "hold someone's badge" or call an officer a reserve so that he/she doesn't lose his license. I think that PA, Beaumont and Orange PD's do not allow any reserves. It is my experience that many (most?) full time officers have little respect for reserve officers that have not "done their time" in full time duty. I wonder if firefighters feel the some way toward "vollies"?

  It means that unlike wishful thinking and innuendo there is actually evidence and not merely political agendas. 

What does any of that have to do with discrimination under the law?

Training?   Poor carry policy or none at all?   73 year old "reserve"?   Why was he even there? Friend of the chief perhaps.........   I have no clue without knowing further but what a screw up. Was his Taser carried on the same side as his handgun? Was he trained at all in it or simply given one?   We carry the Taser on the opposite side as our handgun so that an officer has to intentionally reach across his body to draw it so there is no mistake. Ours are also yellow that it can easily be seen as a Taser and not a handgun. I saw a video from a few years ago where an officer shot a guy in the back seat of a patrol car that was kicking around or something and she thought that she was going to stun him into compliance but drew her Glock (which was right above the Taser which was also black) and shot the guy. It is complete stupidity to place two weapons that look alike next to each other to be used in the heat of battle. Did that happen here? Again, no clue but what a stupid and unforgivable mistake.    It is almost more disgusting than the SC incident. 

    You are going off the deep end trying to rationalize prejudice.    Cops profiling?    Can't tell a crook?   Someone said you can't use your eyes?   You can tell a gay couple when they walk in and ask you to bake a cake for two women or two men. Great, it is out in the open. But what if you know that a guy that shops in a store has been convicted of theft or any other crime and is current suspected of others. You "know" that as a fact. Do you refuse them? What about a person that you know is having an affair and committing adultery. What if a guy comes into a store and asks for a birthday card for his girlfriend.... but asks you to keep it quiet because he doesn't want his wife to find out. Now that he has admitted adultery do you deny the sale?   Or again, do you fall back on what you can see?    It is like this, the law prohibits discrimination. You can have any religious belief that you wish or you can have none at all. That is your right. Your rights end at denying other people their rights.    People are defending IN and a law allowing discrimination on religious beliefs but the govern that signed it said that was not the intent and it is being misread. They are also in the process of changing that law to make it even more clear. We still have people defending a law that does not exist and does not allow discrimination based on religion and still claiming that it is some kind of religious victory. 

  So your sinning has ended?    Apparently you are now Christ like and are now infallible. Either that are they should refuse you service as a continuing sinner. 

  So it is "looks" that is the problem, not the sin. If you can't visually tell that someone is sinning at the moment, I can only presume by your statement that it is okay.    Apparently the people that discriminate based on religion only do so when the appearance is not liked.    I've get it. 

I have no problem with homosexuality being a sin in the Bible. I am just wondering if those that refuse service based on sexual transgressions from the Bible will also ban adulterers, people who have stolen anything, those that have lusted for or coveted anything from someone else, have given false witness, etc. I am assuming that they draw the sin line at one specific issue. ALL SINNERS WELCOME except homosexuals. It sounds a bit like Matthew 7:3 where Jesus spoke of pointing out a speck of sawdust in your neighbor's eye while ignoring the log in yours. Or perhaps it was when in John 8:7 Jesus spoke if the wonan sentenced to death by stoning, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I think there are a lot of stone holders and sawdust pointers in the crowd that demands strictly adherence to the Bible as a means of rejecting public commerce (discimination) when it comes to one sin but completely ignores the rest. The Klan hides behind the Bible as their claim to their righteous indignation toward blacks. I wonder if that is likewise acceptable discrimination based on their view of the Bible or freedom of religion.

I never knew there was any other barbecue than Patillos until I was about 18 years old. It was the only place that I have ever eaten links until I was maybe 30 years old.