tvc184

The stock market is doing great.    I am not sure how that helps the people that need help but after 6 years, people finally have to buy big tickets items. No matter how bad the economy gets, it will always recover and things have to be replaced. This isn't Cuba where those big items have to last 40 years. 

  Maybe... but does it really matter? What does a pattern prove?   There is a reason that you can't bring up prior history in a criminal trial. Because you were speeding several times in the past and paid for citations (admission of guilt) so I can give you a speeding ticket today solely on history. If a guy is a convicted felon that doesn't mean an officer can shoot him without further cause because of prior history shows that he had a violent demeanor. An officer that was punished internally doesn't mean that he can't lawfully use force to defend himself.    What matters is what happened at the moment in question. Prior history might tend to show cause for people looking for a "reason" that something happened but it doesn't mean that a person is always right or wrong. That is also a reason that criminal charges do not require a "motive". The only issue is that the crime was committed and why is not an issue except at the punishment phase of a trial after guilt is established.     What about from the opposing viewpoint? Most often brought up is bad history but if an officer or anyone else shoots someone and he has no history, does that then mean that he is right? I have 31 years in law enforcement and haven't had any disciplinary suspensions for any cause much less use of force. Does that mean that if I kill someone that is a two time convicted violent felon that I am automatically right because I have a "good history" and he has a "bad" one?   That is why I could care less what Trayvon Martin had for a history. What I cared about was proof that Zimmerman killed him without cause. There was none.    Whether this officer had a checkered past or not does not mean that he is guilty of anything. What if the kid was a habitual criminal even at that young age and was accused of several crimes and convicted in juvenile court? Is that evidence that the officer is justified?    About the only thing I care about in the area of history is a possible understanding of the person's thought process because we like to speculate on those kinds of things. In my opinion it is meaningless at the moment in question however it might give us that "ahhhh...." moment later.    Ahhhhh... THAT'S why he did that crime.    EDIT: "haven't had any disciplinary suspensions"

I notice that the mother made the routine statement in many of these incidents, he "was trying to get his life back together".    Of course this was after he was expelled from school and she was "urging him" to join the Job Corps. 

  I am sure they will but I highly doubt it will add anything. Eye witness testimony is some of the worst evidence out there. That is especially true on cases where shots are being fired and people are generally getting the heck out of the area. Many times they think they see something but the physical evidence does not match the testimony. 

  I guess if an officer has a gun drawn on him, he needs to call time out, activate the camera on his uniform (if he has one) and then go back the the gunfight.... after he swings his arm in a big circle signalling roll the clock. 

  What if the other witnesses at the scene back up the officer's side of events.... which the physical evidence already appears to back up. 

This is like beating a dead horse but it is still simple. When the police tell you to stop then stop. When the police tell you that you are under arrest, the only legal answer is "okay" and submit to the arrest. When the police say stop resisting, it means stop resisting. When you charge an officer, attempt to pull your weapon, attempt to grab his weapon, point what even looks like a weapon or are fighting and start to get the upper hand, prepare to have it ended negatively in the officer's favor.    All of this nonsense would stop as soon as people stop resisting lawful authority. Of course that will not happen but therein lies the answer. 

The reports say that the deceased pull a gun and it was found at the scene. Unless there is evidence that the police planted the gun, case closed. Don't fight or pull weapons on the police. I am assuming that there are segments of the community that believe the police should just allow themselves to be victims.

  They throw gasoline the fire.     An estimated 600 people are killed by the police each year and there are about 15 thousand homicides. There is no story in that many events if there is no controversy. 

If someone is lucky enough to have parents that will support him/her while in college, great. I wish that I would have.   ************************   As far as crime and self defense, I could for the most part care less what maturity a person has any more than I am worried about any mental illness at the point of attack.    Dylan Klebold that shot up Columbine HS and killed so many people was 17. He was also mentally ill. Does anyone really care at that point the shooting starts? Eric Harris was 18...... for less than two week.    Trying to prevent such incident is the best case scenario and this country has for the most part horrible treatment options for the mentally ill unless they have great insurance. Once a person starts attacking the issues of age, mental stability or maturity are meaningless and surviving or preventing serious injury is the only thing that matters. 

As usual reading is not your strong point. I said to prosecute them all which is direct disagreement with the DA.

I am too but there is a good chance that it will pass.

    We have been there locally also. Having been working during an officer involved shoot/fatality and seen the outright lies told, it is not always a sure thing to push the issue. If someone wants to riot with practically no information because they don't get the results they want, what happens when you go after the people that lied when testifying against an officer?    We all saw Michael Brown's father incite a riot during a fit of rage but is there no wonder that charges have not been filed? He is likely to get away with it out of sympathy for the family or out of fear of more riots, even when the crime is on video.    Let's say that you have a witness that swears under oath and signs a document that claims a guy was shot three times in the back. After he signs it, he is told that there are no shots in the back per the autopsy and he changes his story in another sworn document saying that he did not see the shots in the back. By doing that he has admitted to perjury or obstruction of justice in two signed statements.     There is supposedly a white female witness (#40) that claimed that Michael Brown charged at Wilson.... but later changed her story to say that it was just what she "heard" or something to that effect. I say prosecute her.... but at the same time prosecute the ones that changed their story the other way.   Of course that will not happen. The DA is ready to move on and that might be the best course of action at this point. The fact that he knows that some people lied but is not pushing it any farther is not really shocking and like I said, I have seen the same locally. 

What percentage of the public is actually "mentally deranged"?    How many spree killings do we have every year? Maybe 10 perpetrators out of 300+ million people.

I have four thoughts/questions about Trump and his opinion on Bush.   1. When is Trump ever happy?   2. Why is he so worried about a guy that only has said that he is studying about getting an exploratory committee?   3. Who cares what Trump thinks?   4. I don't particularly like Bush either but would Trump rather another term of Obama or perhaps Hillary if it came down to another Bush vs. Clinton?

Hillary Clinton - SMH   Joe Biden - Really SMH   Howard Dean - LMAO while really SMH

Oh yeah, about the laughing (and it was more like smiling and an outright laugh). I have been to many very sad funerals and seen people smile or make some comments while about to speak. It is a defense mechanism that most of have built it. 

I think the only hoax is the hoax theories themselves. Not because someone could not fake something but the scope. How do you get hundreds or thousands of people to go along with it, no one has proven it with all of those involved and no one has come forward.    People cannot keep secrets, period. Let's say you get 100 people in a room that say you can trust them and tell them that they have to keep a secret.  Then let them in on some "big news" but it is mandatory to keep quiet. See how long it takes before someone talks.    That is why I know that the OJ Simpson trial got the wrong verdict. Much of the defense was based a police conspiracy and planted evidence. Now more than 20 years later, no one has come forward with a blockbuster book that would be made into a multi-million dollar movie about the inside police corruption where several people got together on the fly to come up with a scheme to disregard a brutal murder and blame it on a former athlete. I sure wish I had such information because you could bet that I would be coming forward and laughing all the way to the bank.    Now we need to know how to get hundreds of parents that actually had children at Sandy Hook to keep quiet since those killed were their children's friends and neighbors? It is not like bodies found in a desert and we don't know where they lived or who their friends were. It would be easy to make up untraceable names. Maybe the conspiracy theorists claim that Sandy Hook never existed as a school and the entire town was built as part of the conspiracy. How about the couple of non-fatal wounded people? Did they volunteer to be shot as part of the deal because they are still alive...... or maybe they never existed and the police, EMS units and hospital staff was also part of the conspiracy. It had to be pretty far reaching because it was investigated by the Connecticut AG's office and I am sure that was reviewed by elected state congressmen. I guess the locals across the state (like your local congressman) are now involved in the cover up. But wait...............   I just can't see it. A single death or two or some remote incident? Sure, that would be possible and even then it might unravel over time. To do it involved so many people from so many walks of life from so many opposing viewpoints and jobs seems way over the top and in my opinion impossible. Now I could believe in a mini-conspiracy like covering up some of the results. Let's say the incident really happened and Lanza did shoot up the school but some cops or other officials covered up certain elements for their own personal gain or beliefs. To think the Boston bombing or Sandy Hook never happened is almost unbelievable. And what would be gained from them? If it was merely to be anti-gun or something like that, you would not need such an elaborate scheme to sway public sympathy. Hey, maybe that's the key. It would be so elaborate that no one could ever suspect a faked event..............

  I am assuming that (geez... yet again) your are ignoring that the police in this case never saw a guy with a gun in the case you cited and it took two weeks to investigate and find who it was. It was a two week incident, not a 5 second incident.   Also, although the person that reported the kid with the gun said that it might be (not confirmed) a BB gun, it was never relayed to the responding officers.    That sounds more like a dispatcher problem than an officer problem. But... I know details get in the way of reality. Carry on.

  After reading three different websites including Wikipedia I only see two arrests for Barkely and none for resisting arrest. One was for assault after he was hit with a glass and responded and another for DUI.    In fact after his last arrest and according to the police officers from the Wikipedia article......, "Gilbert police noted Barkley was cooperative and respectful during the entire incident, adding that he was treated no differently than anyone arrested on DUI charges".    Then he pleaded guilty to DUI and was sentenced to three days in jail and a $2,000 fine.    But (yet again), those are just facts.    Feel free to make up yet more of your own............. 

    Really? Did you actually read the article or did you (typically) stop at the headlines.   Let me paraphrase the case for you as it was reported. Officers heard what they thought was a BB gun. They did not see someone firing on them so there was nobody to return fire at. The suspect was located inside of an apartment, not on the street attacking an officer.    In fact (you'll love this one), the arrest was made two weeks after the incident. That's right, it took two weeks to get enough evidence to find out for sure who was shooting in the direction of the officers. I guess you think they should have kicked the door down and shot him because he was white?    Reading is FUNdamental. You should try it out. 

Not only is there no proof, in some of the cases even proof won't do it because of the statute of limitations. Each state sets its own limitations on prosecutions and they may have long been expired. 

I watched Obama's press secretary yesterday. He was asked about claims of war crimes for enhanced interrogation. The follow up was that Obama's big claim to fame militarily is drone strikes but they have killed 600-900 innocent children. How did that stack up to scaring people and keeping them awake.   He babbled about how bad the enemy was and that they "try" to get good intel to limit innocent people getting killed but he never could answer the questions posed.    I find it interesting in light of recent protests where the cries were of, "black lives matter too". Well apparently innocent Muslim children do not matter and/or scaring people is a war crime but killing innocent children is not.    Things that make you go hmmm........   I personally support the strikes but it is interesting the claims of war crimes for one president where no one was killed but apparently that does not count for innocents being killed by the next president. 

  Hey, it works in the movies.