tvc184

  Yes, the title seems completely bogus and is meant to skew the law's intent. Sensationalism at its finest.   Hard to believe, right? 

  Which has very little or nothing to do with this proposed law. 

  We have a couple of openings for dispatcher and for police officers.  ;)

It really just adds teeth to an existing law of interfering. It does not prohibit recording. It only prohibits people closing in on officers. It is only 25 feet so less than 10 yards. We routinely push people back at least that far anyway whether recording or not. With the new craze of videoing everything, people are getting within arms reach of the police and everyone else and shoving cameras in their faces. That makes for a dangerous situation for the police trying to conduct business.

    With my duty handgun and with a rest like shooting prone? Maybe 8 out of 10. Certainly not combat shooting like 5 shots in 3 seconds from the holster.    Here is the folly of some of the thinking however. Who said the guy was trying to make a head shot? The suspect could have been trying for a body shot which would make more sense and missed by 18 inches. In fact shooting at night makes a person tend to shoot high which would make more sense if the guy aimed at just a big area and hit in the upper shoulder and head.    For all we know, the guy also might have been shooting over the officer's heads (he thought) just to scare them and accidentally shot low because he was a terrible shot, not a great shot.    Everyone seems to be looking at where the bullets hit and want to think it was a world class marksman. Maybe the guy missed by two feet in one direction or the other.   If the two officers hit were standing next to each other, it is hard to believe that it was shots at someone else and the bullets just accidentally landed inches from each other from 120 yards away, if that in fact was where they came from .   With a 4" barrel (approx. 6" sight radius) and 120 yards away and the guy fired the gun with the barrel 1" away from where the first shot was fired, he would have missed by about  45 feet. Possible to hit that close on a lucky shot? Sure. Likely? I would put about a 100 to 1 odds against it on a bet.   

  It depends on the elements of crimes in MO and what the evidence is at the moment. Charges can be upgraded or reduced as further information comes in. Often in such a case the police and/or DA will take a charge that they know works legally so it justifies an arrest and holding a person in jail or out on bail and then investigate further.    It is often crimes that are frequently called lesser included offenses. For example if a person shoots and kills another person, it is definitely an assault (called battery in some states), it is definitely aggravated assault or assault with a deadly weapon, it is also attempted murder, etc. Sometimes it is best to go with what the police/DA "know" that they can prove initially and then move on while the person is being held on a known and provable charge.    Again, it may also deal with how the laws are written and as an example, in TX an Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon is a 2nd Degree felony and equal to Attempted Murder. It is sometimes easier to prove the "assault" since "intent" is not required. While the Att Murder sounds worse, in court it may be a harder crime to prove and for no higher amount of a penalty. 

From my experience from taking confessions from simple theft to murder, they will almost always admit to the entire incident..... except that they will almost always deny the real reason or try to make the officer "understand" what "really" happened. They give themselves an out while not denying the accusation. Like, I am not a bad guy but I...........   "Yes I killed her..... but it was only because I thought that she ......".   "Yes I had sex with that under aged girl but she told me that......".    "Yes I shot the officers but I was not......."

The only information about officers not being targeted was by the suspect that was arrested. Go figure.   "Uhhh..... I wasn't firing at officers. I was shooting at other people and the bullets just happened to miraculously hit two officers in close proximity to each other. It was simply a mistake and there was no way that I am guilty of shooting at officers....."   "Trust me" 

I don't know. I do not think you are a police officer and yet I see no shortage of opinions on how they think coming from you. I guess that rationale only works one way, right?

Okay, I've got it now. In the mind of big girl treason was committed. Since that has nothing to do with the law then big girl can convict them in her mind.

  I know that you missed it posted in the previous response so here is the law on treason.    Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.   I see no place where it uses the word "betray". It does say "levies war" and give "aid and comfort" to an enemy. I know that facts don't go over very well with you but perhaps for once you could actually read the law in question and explain how the senators "levies(d) war" or gave "aid and comfort" to an enemy. 

    The Cuban Missile Crisis was about command of the US armed forces of which the president is the commander in chief per the Constitution. Congress had no say in that matter. It would have been wrong for anyone to step in and act in place of the commander in chief and try to override his blockade of Cuba. I see that as having no comparison in this issue and a lousy analogy.   The same Constitution says that the president is the commander in chief also says that he can make a treaty with "advise and consent" of the Senate and only after a 2/3's majority. It does not say only "consent" after a deal is made. Several senators in this case sent a letter stating US law under the Constitution which also in Article II says that such treaties will be made with "advise" on the Senate.   So please explain how a group of senators that represent the government of the US and by the Constitution are allowed to give "advise and consent" to any international treaties, is violating the law by merely stating the law/Constitution?   Since I know that you probably will not look up anything (other than political articles), here are some resources for you.   This is the law (called the Logan Act) under 18 USC 953 Private Correspondence with Foreign Governments:   Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.   This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.     Please explain how stating the Constitution by 47 senators violates the above law.   Next is the oft cited by you, the case of US v. Curtis-Wright Export. That case was not about the Logan Act being discussed but a conspiracy to provide arms to a country that a joint resolution of Congress gave the president to enforce and provided criminal penalties. The Court issued 14 points from the ruling and one of those points was (#9) that the president is the “sole organ” of the federal government in this case. This was in this case being considered when the people indicted argued that the president did not have the authority which is this case was a “joint resolution of Congress”. So in this ruling the “sole organ” was to enforce a congressional resolution, not a treaty. Again, this was a conspiracy case of selling arms to a foreign country that the US Congress and president deemed to be illegal. That congressional act gave the president authority to regulate arms. Again, it had nothing to do with the Logan Act of which there has never been a prosecution in more than 200 years of the law.   So this case seems to argue the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim. You are arguing that the president alone is the issue when this case is a ruling involving not the president but the president acting on a congressional law/resolution. In other words, dual authority in this conspiracy case. Yet again, this case is not a Logan Act case but about the president's sole authority to enforce an act of Congress (Whoever sells any arms or munitions of war in violation of section 1 shall, on conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding $10,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both.) to prohibit the sale of arms leading up to WWII. You take a case that is not of the issue at hand (the Logan Act) and cite one of 14 points taken out of context and use that as evidence that the Logan Act was violated?     As far as your claim of treason, this is the law under 18 USC 2381.   Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.   I agree that Congress or an American citizen owes allegiance to the US. Now to your treason charge. Did the 47 senators “wage war” against the US? Did they give “aid and comfort” to an enemy (usually defined as a country that we have declared war on but we will skip that for now), that being Iran?   I don't see how publicly stating the Constitution is waging war. I don't think telling Iran the law is giving them aid and/or comfort. Actually it is quite the opposite.   So I would love to hear your explanation on your claim that the 47 senators waged war on the US to support a congressional declaration of war or gave aid and comfort to Iran.

  If they think Powell committed a felony, indict him.   I don't think using private email is a violation as long as the email is turned over the government. For some reason Hillary by her own admission held onto 50,000+ emails that she was required to turn over to the government two years ago by law.    It is not the use of private email that is the violation but the law saying that she was to sign a document on leaving the service and guaranteeing that all documents including emails were turned over when she left. Two years later that was not done.    What does that have to do with Colin Powell (other than wishful thinking) and why should Hillary get a pass for what seems clearly is a felony because Powell used private email. As far as I know no one has said that Powell hid his emails that he made from a private account but again, if someone can show that he committed a felony, indict him and take it to court.    Now if Hillary claims to never have signed the affidavit swearing that she turned over all documents as required, that brings up another question. Why was she allowed to leave and violate the law on signing the affidavit to turn over all documents?

The claim of treason is ridiculous. All a person has to do is look up the law on treason and see how stupid the claim is. To make it short, treason requires waging war against the US or giving aid and comfort to enemies.    The Logan Act claim is another joke. There has never been a prosecution for it and it is likely unconstitutionally vague in any case. The very title of the Logan Act in the US Code is Private Correspondence with Foreign Governments.    I supposed that some think that the US Congress is "private correspondence".    The letter sent to Iran only states US law and Constitution. If stating the law is a crime, then there sure must be a lot of criminals out there. Had part of Congress tried to carry on separate negotiations it might have some valid point but the senators merely stating the law is hardly a violation of the Private Correspondence with Foreign Governments law. 

You sure that isn't The Onion?

  I agree with you just about 100% in judging each person as an individual and not part of a group. I never say anything about the low information voters nonsense or post from political websites. I usually stay out of the conversations for the most part but at times feel the opportunity to post in reference to the "you people" comments such as Tee made above.    It is kind of odd however to see you to complain about people talking about party affiliation or other grouping when you are at the moment posting in a forum called Political Forum. That is akin to complaining about people in the baseball forum asking about which pitchers are going to be the best this year.    Kind of like, "You people over in the "political" forum.... quit talking about politics!".   :D

  Facts:   The Democrats have not been in control of the US Congress for more than 4 years.   Gas prices are not controlled by the government and at the moment they have risen about 40 cents a gallon in the last three weeks.    The unemployment rate might be down on paper but people employed is not up significantly. The people looking for work simply quit looking for work. If you are out of a job and looking for work you are unemployed. If you still out of a job and give up you are not unemployed. Such is government statistics.   

    Not really a shock no matter the outcome of anything else. The chief being an at will employee (unlike many patrol officers) is usually the first to go in any controversy because he is retained and paid by the city council which coincidentally are politicians and will have to again run for office. Chiefs are almost always sacrificial lambs bearing no evidence as to what has really occurred. 

    That is correct. All it takes is reasonable suspicion of a crime and in the case of jaywalking (which in itself is not really a law in most places but a generic term meaning pedestrian violations) it goes beyond reasonable suspicion and all the way to probable cause. Of course realistically in many times it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt but by our system even videoing it is not proof until it goes to court. 

  Actually the report said 95%.

It is called scapegoats.    The city manager is HIRED by the council who then look at his requests for money/budget and oversee where the money is made and where it is spent. The CM is basically the day to day operations manager of the city and does the bidding of the city council. Now the same city council that HIRED him is acting shocked at where the money came from that they voted on (I am assuming the issue is with traffic citation money) and how it was spent?    Right.... and I have the Liberty Bell for sale, cheap.    The CM is cannon fodder for the federal government to try and limit any further involvement.    Anyone that doesn't believe that many or most small cities get much of their money from traffic citations is living under a rock. I don't agree with it but that is simply how most of them work. They figure traffic citations into their budget just like property and sales taxes.    Also, all city courts that I am aware of operate separately from the police department including their budget and who makes their rules. Most of the many officers that I know do not particularly like their city courts. Although there might have been problems with the CM or city court, they usually have little or nothing to do with the police department and many times the police departments are at odds with the other two city government departments.    To try and say the police department is somehow tainted by the CM or the city court is a stretch unless they can find some kind of collusion. The federal government looks into the police department and find what they think is massive trouble in the city court and they are blaming it on the police.    Is the federal government going to try and force out the elected officials that set the rules, tone and do the hiring for the CM and municipal judge? 

That is roughly the equivalent of the Democratic Party pledging allegiance to MSNBC.

    Stockman got only 19% of the vote and there is always the "vote the bums out crowd" no matter who is on the ticket. We always get the Ron Paul libertarians that make a bunch of noise but have very little real backing.    The person that many think of as the consummate conservative, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, got just over 61% of the vote in her last election for Senate and Cornyn got only 2% less at 59% in 2014. In fact Cornyn upped his percentage from the previous election when he won with 55% of the vote. I don't see Cornyn being in any trouble unless he has some serious faux pas like an indictment. 

I really thought that it was great that the president felt compelled to continue his agenda by almost apologizing publicly for no indictment or in the way he tried to put it, Officer Wilson got away with this one in a loophole of the law. He should have apologized to Wilson but that is obviously beyond him. 

What was in the emails?