tvc184

​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.

You can never tell what a judge or jury will do but SYG will be tough in this case. A simple claim of fear is not enough to justify that (or any) defense. If that was true then you could kill anyone you wish and simply say the magic words, I was in fear. It has to be a reasonable fear supported by evidence. Zimmerman had a bloody nose and more than one injury to the back of his head. I don't think this guy has any injuries, just a claim of fear.

​Yes, guns are evil. They are known to get up and commit crimes completely on their own and we just can't risk that around children.

​She is a natural disaster.

​The hog trick was not "costless". Harmless perhaps.........

The gangsters and idiots feel emboldened since they are coming to realize that the police aren't going to beat the bushes looking for them.

What is shocking is the outright stupidity and embarrassment the DA is to the community and the case. Any justice will be the trial moving out of that area and possibly her being removed by her own actions.

Not insanity legally. He wouldn't be writing of being caught if he thought what he was doing was legal.... which is the standard of not guilty by insanity.

I would depend on how fast he was going through the halls, how close he may have come to someone, etc. The law on Deadly Conduct says that if you "recklessly" place any person in danger of serious injury, it is up to a year in jail. According to his actions, he may have crossed the culpability of being reckless of any serious injuries. We would have to see more video or statements of people but the charge is possible, considering an facts available. The Criminal Mischief seems obvious is you could tell at all that the tires had been on the floor. Even having to wax it could result in up to a $500 fine for a "substantial inconvenience".

​Maybe various charges like Deadly Conduct which carries up to a year in jail. At the very least, if they had to rewax the floors or even mop it, it is Criminal Mischief (vandalism). If the replacement price (cost and labor) comes to $50 or more, it could be up to 6 months in the county jail and/or a $2,000 fine. What do you call "minor"?

Lucky the DA did not take charges.....

  Yes, from the pole where the flag hangs seems very clear. My post was likewise clear.    The pole by itself has no meaning. Now if they have removed the flag or trampled, I could see the issue with symbolism.   It is a cheesy prank and a crime. To try and make it some kind of disrespect to the flag issue is stretching that rubber band beyond the breaking point. 

I understand the flag and saluting it and I always do.   A flag pole?    I have never thought of that as the symbol of the nation. Maybe I am missing something........... 

Local reporter makes national news... by being an idiot. 

I went to basic swat school at Houston PD about 22 years ago. One of the classes that was taught was the police and the media. What was pointed out and it is very true is that the media is going to run a story. They will not wait to get the facts and will always try to beat the next news media to the punch. In other words, they are going to run with some story no matter who it slanders or how much is true. All you have to do is look at Ferguson, Missouri and see the stupidity that comes out of the media before any facts are presented. The point of the class that I attended was that they are going to run with a story almost immediately and that you need to at least get your side out there. Having been directly involved in speaking with the media about a local officer involved shooting, I can guarantee you that some of the stuff that was put out to the public was completely bogus. I have no clue on what the police did in Waco and no body else reading this forum likely does either. Trying to make a judgment merely on the speed of the police putting out a statement is likely to be a folly however. It is common practice in today's policing circles to almost immediately put out a statement when any officer is involved in any kind of critical incident. It has to be that way simply because of the nonsense that is put out to the public and again, we can look at Ferguson Missouri where the media is reporting that witnesses claim that brown had his hands up, and was begging for his life, the police shot him for no reason, etc.

Horrible. Might be a waste of a good piece of wild pig meat. 

  This has almost nothing to do with Obamacare other than another person that wants someone else to pay for his benefits.   Reading the story, he had no insurance. He simply took the risk of not getting sick. A friend persuaded him to get insurance. He did so under a state exchange. He could have gotten any company but he chose to live insurance free. Had he had almost any insurance, he would have likely gotten the same care, possibly better.    This is obviously a great case for MSNBC but they harp on Obamacare like it saved this guy's life but in truth his friend that persuaded him to actually get health care and to go see a doctor is what saved his life, not the US government. 

To the question of clear cut question, I will start out with two quotes from my post: 1. If he is involved in a criminal act by being with others...... 2. Of course the DA has to prove the case...... As to the "just because I'm with a group.... does not make me responsible.... read below. I know the case has to be proven and an arrest doesn't mean much other than an accusation. I am merely mentioning the law as it applies or may apply to this case which most people are not likely aware. TX (like the feds) have organized crime law. In the TX law, a person does not have to actually take part in the crime charged. He only has to have participated in the gang's or combination's (3 or more people of any connection whether they call themselves a gang or not) criminal enterprise at some point. Once you participate willingly in a gang or combination, you can then be charged with any crime committed by the gang or combination. Hence the "organized" part of the law. Not only can you be charged, by being involved in organized crime, the punishment and crime charged goes up one level from the most serious crime committed. As an example, if a person commits a Burglary of a Building (called Breaking and Entering in some states) and in TX that carries a maximum of 2 years in prison under a State Jail Felony. If the crime is committed as part of a gang or combination, it can go to a 3rd Degree Felony or up to 10 years in prison. Anyone that participates in the gang or combination can be sentenced to that maximum EVEN IF they did not take part in the actual crime. That's right folks. Take part in a gang or combination and even if you did not do the actual crime but did take part in other crimes of the gang/combination, you can then be held responsible for the entire group of crimes committed. So did this retired officer shoot someone? It very well may not matter. Does the DA have to prove that he is part of the gang/combination? Sure, every part of a crime has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is an explanation though of how 170+ people are being charged at least originally with Capital Murder. It is under Penal Code 71.02 Engaging In Organized Criminal Activity. By the law, every member of a gang can be charged with the most serious crime even if the member was not there. These are only the ones they grabbed at the scene. I can see a lawful means of jailing every single member of the gang but it likely will not be done. To clarify the "combination" part of that law, this is the Penal Code definition and how far the law reaches. "Combination" means three or more persons who collaborate in carrying on criminal activities although: (1) participants may not know each other's identify; (2) membership in the combination may change from time to time; and (3) participants may stand in a wholesale-retailer or other arm's-length relationship in illicit distribution operations. You can see that the 3 or more people do not even have to know each other to be criminally responsible. The membership in the group may change and you may not know who comes or goes. The participants may only be involved in a arm's length relationship. For example two guys break into several homes and sell the stolen goods to a third guy. Only one of the two guys breaking into the home does the selling so the other guy does not even know the buyer of the stolen goods. That is a combination since it is 3 or more people even though they do not all know each other. Since breaking into homes is a 2nd Degree Felony and carries up to 20 years in prison, under Chapter 71 it can be brought to trial as Organized Crime and be enhanced to a 1st Degree Felony or up to 99 years in prison. Ouch! So.... Is it clear cut? No. The DA will still have to prove membership in the gang, etc. It is a crime and all rules of charging crimes applies. Can you be charged because "some of them" get in a fight? Absolutely. Welcome to gang laws. I mainly wanted to point out that the DA will not have to prove who shot who or if a person even fired shots or stabbed anyone. Merely being part of the gang that did so can result in everyone being charged. I have heard that up to 7 gangs were there. If it cannot be proven that a particular gang was involved in any of the action, I am guessing that charges on them will be dropped. As another example, if there were 30 members of any gang on scene and five of them fired shots, all members can be charged. If another gang had 3 members there and no one can show that they participated in any of the assaults, they will likely be released. Clear as mud?

Nothing to see here, move along. 

    If he is involved in a criminal act by being with others, he is responsible for the acts of everyone and is not entitled to self defense claims. I am not saying that he can't claim it but under TX Chapter 71 Organized Crime (similar to federal RICO statutes) and Chapter 9 Defenses, he needs to have abandoned the activity before it was obvious that he would be caught.    An example of TX Chapter 71 is that if 5 people are involved in crimes, even if one or more are not at the scene of a particular crime, they are all responsible for the most serious crime committed. So if we have a group (does not have to be a "gang") where two guys break into a car (burglary of vehicle), one of them and two of the others break into a home (Burglary of Habitation) and one of the guys that broke into the home but not the car got with the fifth guy and committed an Aggravated (armed) Robbery, they can all be charged with the Aggravated Robbery. Not only that, let's say the most serious crime was the home burglary. That is only a 2nd degree felony. By being involved in organized crime, it goes to the next higher offense or a 1st degree felony, equal to murder in punishment.    In the first scenario of Aggravated Robbery, it carries a 99 year maximum so it cannot be enhanced but any crime less than a 1st degree felony can be enhanced to the next higher crime.    All meaning that assuming this retired officer voluntarily was involved in a gang and the gang (any members) committed a crime, he can likewise be charged. That is why at the moment I think they are all charged as Capital Murder.    In TX murder of more than one person is a capital crime and carries the death sentence or life without parole. So if anyone involved in the incident was part of a crime that killed more than 1 person, then everyone involved can (and in this case have been) charged with the highest crime or Capital Murder.    Of course the DA has to prove the case and people will almost surely cut deals but that is the law that they are going under. If a retired officer was stupid enough to be involved, shame on him and he may very well face the music like everyone else and should.     

  Zimmerman could not have outrun Martin if Zimmerman had been 18. 

Criminally? My first thought was no but I can think of one exception. The one exception is if it is a child 16 years old or younger. There is a law in TX of Making A Firearm Accessible To A Child. That law says it is a crime if a child gains access to a firearm that is loaded and you were criminally negligent in not keeping it secured. That kind of incident would obviously be extremely unlikely but there is that law on the books. It is used but mostly in situations in the home where a child (sometimes a visiting friend) gets his hand on a loaded firearm. Civilly? I am sure that there would be any number of attorneys that would be glad to take the case, especially if you have deep pockets like a good homeowners liability insurance policy.

"You guys"? Who have I called a thug?