tvc184

    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?

From Bandidos to Trayvon Martin. There has to be a link in there somewhere......

In my opinion he is not what I call a thug but you can call someone anything you want. I have dealt with Zimmerman about 1,000 times in my career. He isn't walking around beating people up and if he gets in a scrap will likely get his butt kicked. He is just a nuisance.

Yes. It was not manufactured for locals, has already been paid for and is now collecting dust in a warehouse. My department has an armored vehicle that was purchased by our city. It was built on order and not government surplus at a cost to local taxpayers of (I think) $250,000. It has been used several times to rescue people or peacefully end armed incidents. It is not a tank as is often claimed in the news. It would have saved the taxpayers a quarter million dollars had we been able to get the same think from surplus. The point is that we can still purchase the same equipment but will have to pay for something again that is equal to something sitting storage that will likely never be used or not until another president comes in and lifts the ban on certain completely legal to own items.

   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.......................