tvc184

There not.......besides a police officer can use reasonable force to secure a suspect. What is reasonable force to a guy on PCP? You got part of what I was going to say. NEWFLASH: The police are allowed to use force against people that are resisting arrest, even an unlawful arrest. I've been in many fights while taking people into custody. Hitting people with the hands, feet or baton is not the illegal use of force. Every fight looks brutal. How do you fight someone and make it look like a ballet? The issue in this case as in all cases, was the force reasonable under the circumstances. Looking at the autopsy results, I don't see anywhere that injuries are consistent with a "beating". If they hit him, so what? I would have been hitting him also if he was resisting. People that are on the outside looking at someone getting hit always claim that someone was beaten. Add to the fact there there was more than one officer, it always looks bad. Here is another newsflash, the police don't have to fight fair. If there is one guy resisting arrest, the police don't need to send in one guy at a time. This is not television wrestling where points are score and there are rules. It is called, getting the guy in handcuffs. Now if the police overstepped the bounds of being reasonable like if they hit him and he was not fleeing or resisting or if they continued to hit him after he was subdued, then they were wrong. Nothing from the autopsy indicates that. Maybe these "witnesses" saw something different than what was discovered during the autopsy. Knowing about such witnesses in a fatal police shooting, I have seen that some people can talk a good story but when asked to put their story on paper under oath for the police or the FBI (and risk perjury or obstruction of justice charges), they seem to fade away. Rather than hide any witnesses, they need to step forward and be heard. Any takers on odds of that happening?

More like pretty stupid. I've seen a lot worse videos on tape and this one only lasted a few seconds. It was like they were preprogrammed to hit the guy. No one checked if he was actually resisting for a few seconds. Idiots.

The adrenaline effect of the chase. Got to watch the pursuit mentality. The sirens screaming and the close calls with other traffic get the adrenaline pumping pretty hard. People get hit on pursuits where they would not be in almost the exact same situations but without the chase.

Failed to mention a small part of it huh? Where is the video?

I look at it like this. Every man is someone's son. Every woman is someone's daughter. Most of the time (but not always) if something tragic happens, it is heartbreaking to the family. No matter the cause, it is still a terrible thing. Is it upsetting to the family? Most of the time the answer is yes. Surely the person's stupidity may have caused his own death and maybe the person was not a productive member of society (and may in fact have been a burden) but the family still grieves. So let's get that out of the way, we all know that it is tragic and some of us on this board may have a friend or family member that has met an untimely death due to his/her own decisions. Most of the time, people make their own course in life. Many times, the course dictates how you will be seen by others and sometimes, how you will meet your end. People that are outside of the circle of family or friends might not see the pain but we know that it exists. While it is easy to feel sympathy for the family left behind, it is not so easy to feel sympathy for the person that made his own bed. Think of a person is shot and killed by the police while he is holding a hostage or worse, after he has killed a hostage. Does his family still grieve? Surely in most cases. That doesn't mean that he public will have much empathy in the dead guy's demise. In fact, many members of the public may revel in the fact that the guy that committed murder, has met his own such fate. I don't see how it is rude or crude to feel that way. Look at the people in the news each year that are caught after kidnapping, raping and killing a child. Do we feel like we can't talk about him because he was someone's son or that we shouldn't ridicule the person for such stupid decisions because he had a family? Are we not happy (most of us) when such people get the death sentence? Yes, the person probably has family. Yes, they probably feel terrible about him being executed. That doesn't mean that the public shouldn't talk about it or feel good at the ultimate end. So if a guy goes out and does drugs and causes his own death, so be it. If I go nuts next week and rob a bank and the police shoot and kill me, then I got what I had coming. My parents might be devastated at the news but many people will say that it saved the taxpayers money and I got what I deserved..... and they would be correct. ....and I really don't think my parents would be reading bulletin boards and forums to see what other people felt like.

That makes a lot more sense for both schools rather than Lufkin. Good change.

Well, I was 2/3's right.

IH10 to Beltway 8, north to IH45, west on 105 out of Conroe. If you don't get caught in rush hour traffic on the beltway, it should go fairly quickly.

I think that you are correct but it depends on how someone defines "Top Job". It is the winningest program or a well funded programs with good facilities, good pay scale for the head coach and community support? While some schools like Newton have a great tradition, how many top coaches in the state are going to beat down Newton's door when the job comes open? Some smaller school coaches looking to move up or an assistant looking for his first head coaching job are likelihoods. PNG has been not bad lately but not great either but look what they can bring in for applications when a job opening comes up. I think that the community, facilities and money have more to do with what a head coach is looking for rather than a winning past.

I've said it before and I will stick with it. Anyone that believes that Obama is not going to increase taxes dramatically on the middle class also believes that Elvis is alive and the moon is made of green cheese.... but it won't be on income taxes, just as he promised. The middle class keeps Coca Cola, Marlboro, Exxon-Mobile and Domino's Pizza in business. Does Bill Gates care if colas go up 15cents a can? Does he buy many anyway? Does Al Gore care if his SUV costs another $20 to fill it up and does that $20 deplete his weekly income? Will Obama care if pizzas go up $2 each in delivery charges? I doubt that with his personal chef, he is sending out for a late night Papa John's deluxe. There is no way to increase the USA budget spending by $1.5 trillion dollars and not raise taxes on everyone. So who is it going to hurt the most? So what if Bill Gates pays 60% of his income in taxes? He will only make $400,000,000 a year instead of an even billion? Wow, bet that hurts him to only make $400 million after taxes. Yep, we will get change. The blind foolishly believe that with the passing of his mighty hand, Obama will make the rich as common people and the poor will rise out of the projects and take their rightful place in society. .... and I have that land to sell at the beach, just as soon as the tide goes out.

Apparently Tasers and PCP don't mix well.

I believe in the case with the steroids, it was a rumor and rumors are not allowed about players, coaches, etc. Once it hit the news and the police went public with the names, it was allowed.

..... but apparently can't play golf.

$$$$$$$$ The insurance game. It is better to pay $10,000 in hush money than to spend $40,000 proving your innocence. Lawsuits can take many thousands of dollars simply in the preliminary stages before anything ever gets close to a courtroom. By the time you pay attorney fees, private investigator fees, legal processes and the hours spent in depositions, it can run into quite a tab. So a lawyer or firm will file a suit, ask for a large amount of money (or undetermined) and make the defendant risk losing six figures or more, let's say a request for $500,000 in damages and lost wages, etc. Obviously the city won't roll over and pay that. Now to fight it and prove no responsibility (or even potentially lose, no matter the facts) it might take the example of $40,000 in legal fees. Why not simply settle out of court for a fraction of the original lawsuit, maybe $10,000 or up to $30,000? The city and their insurance (who will have a huge bearing on the litigation since they will be paying probably at least half) would rather make the financial decision of paying less than it would cost to defend their actions. They could "win" a lawsuit for $40,000 in legal fees or pay a lesser amount and claim no responsibility. That is the lawsuit and insurance game. Make it so expensive to win that it is better to pay a ransom of a lesser amount. I am sure that some deal will be worked out where a lawsuit will be filed, the lawyers behind the scenes will work out a deal and the family will get some much smaller sum of money. They will claim victory and vindication and the city will save the taxpayers money by settling for less than it would cost to win.

I believe that eventually you will simply from the continued outcry from "victims". The Taser is a pain compliance defense tool. It is the same as OC (pepper) spray and a baton. People in custody have died from those applications of pain also and some in just fighting with the police with no weapons used. Apparently when the heart is stressed due to some kinds of intoxication, added stress can push it over the edge. There was the case of Nathaniel Jones in Cincinnati a few years ago. The guy was overweight and had taken PCP and cocaine. During a fight with the police, he died. The police used Pepper Spray on him and the autopsy stated that the stress of the fight and the spray caused his death. Also from that autopsy, it said that Jones had several "lethal" health problems and that the "struggle" caused his death. It was not that he was beaten to death and not that OC spray is lethal in itself but simply that a person that was overweight like Jones was and taking some potentially lethal drugs, the fight pushed him over the edge. The activists in the area blamed the OC spray. They demanded that the police buy Tasers in order to quickly subdue a person fighting and get away from the long lasting effects of the OC. Taser pain goes away immediately (I've been shocked with it three times). In that case, the OC was made to be the culprit. So while I would not be shocked to think that Tasers will eventually be regulated as some kind of deadly force, I don't see how it will help. Remember, a Taser is an alternative to deadly force. If you place a Taser in the same category of a pistol (which making it deadly force would do) then what would be the point of using a Taser and simply opt for the pistol instead? Tasers have saved many lives and very many injuries to both citizens and the police. I am sure that it will eventually be taken away and we will mainly go back to baton strikes to subdue people. I guess they will feel that is progress.

What I find that is interesting is his mother's comments in the Beaumont Enterprise. She is quoted as saying that she doesn't care what was in his body, it didn't cause his death and only the cops did. That shows her entire intent in this process. No matter the medical facts, no matter the circumstances, no matter what actually happened.... only that the cops can be shown to be at fault and that nothing that her son did could have contributed to his own death. It looks to me as if a person died entirely of his own actions and the family is attempting to take his self induced accidental death and trying to turn him into a martyr at the expense of the police and to the monetary benefit of the family.

And the next generation will be the gr-gr-grandfather...then the next will be the gr-gr-gr-grandfather, then the next...... No matter how many generations you look at (and it has been about 7 generations or almost 150 years ago), when do you move on? 200 years? 300?

Everytime that I have fished a bass tournament it was a two man team and two people maximum per boat. It is a team stringer.

Due to demographics, I don't think you will hear anyone claim that 90% of LaMarque are racists.

Here is your problem or your crutch DV, you assume that anytime anyone says anything against another person and the person happens to be black, then that must be the cause. Obama hasn't caught nearly the flak (yet) that Bill Clinton ended up catching. Was it because Clinton was.... what? He wasn't black so that can't be it. Maybe it was because he was from Arkansas... yeah, that's it. The people that don't like Obama is because they don't like spending even more tax money on bailouts (they didn't like it under Bush either), they don't like the cutting of military programs, they don't like his anti-gun stance, etc. Put a white guy in the same place (like Clinton) and you will get the same responses..... and did.

There's no dodging the history of slavery, land grabs and conquests. Anyone that portrays it as a one race venture however, is ignoring the truth. All have partaken in the feast.

I'm sure that I could do a google search and come up with some examples of Africans taking land. But I will leave you with this about Africans and the taking of something. When slave trade was big business, it wasn't white people going into Africa and trekking cross country capturing slaves. It was other Africans. Worried about land? How about people's lives? Black Africans captured and sold other black Africans for money. As despicable as slavery is, it was not a completely white venture but a collaboration between black tribal chiefs in Africa who captured and sold slaves for money to the (mostly) whites. Who is the most guilty party? Is it the people that bought slaves (many of whom were black themselves) or was it the people that went into the regions to capture them and turn them into slaves to be sold for profit? While looking it up, I found quite interestingly, the first black African that was declared legally a slave in a court in what is now the USA was in 1654. A man named John Casor went to court in the Virginia colony and was declared the legal property for life of Anthony Johnson. Who was Anthony Johnson? He was a free black man.

Yep, we bullied our way in and took some land. As I said in another post, every piece of land ever owned by any person or the government was taken by somebody that lived on or used the land. Every group of people and every race did it. Heck, even the American Indians did it to each other. So what's the big deal? That is the very way countries were formed from mere collections of huts, then cities and then countries. So yes, you are correct. The Constitution does guarantee liberty for everyone. I see no slaves today. The fact is that many people back then knew slavery was abhorring, it was the law of the land in this part of England, of which we were a part at the time of the Revolutionary War. It is true that many people let it go because of political expedience. They may never have gotten the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution passed if they drew a line in the sand and said no slaves. If there had been no slaves, then there may have been no country. The Constitution that did not free everyone immediately, eventually did. The Constitution did not create slavery nor did it condone slavery. It did leave slavery in place that was here long before the Constitution was ever thought up, before any war of indepence was ever contemplated and within 74 years of its signing, the country fought the Civil War that ended slavery. The United States of America (not counting the Confederate States) lost 140,000 soldiers killed during the Civil War. The USA lost more people in a battle to free the slaves than in World War I, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War combined. Think about that for a minute.

Truthful like how? Do you mean that politicians will spin things their way or maybe they will not tell the parts that they don't want you to hear? Yeah, maybe. A couple of Democratic backers in this forum have spent time blasting Bush for being untruthful (not proven, just blasting). So is that the answer? They all do it. Being politically truthful as in, I will only say what I want you to hear, is one thing. Covering up evidence is another. Pelosi was one of the ringleaders in calling for investigations and jail time for many Republicans not only for waterboarding but for suggesting it or knowing about it. After all to some extent, she is correct that it is against federal law to know of a felony and not report it. She claims that the waterboarding was a felony torture crime. Great stuff Nancy.. call for all of those evil Republicans to be jailed. The only problem for her now that she has called for jail time for anyone that knew... it looks like she knew. If that is true (and it is sure getting deep for her), it leads to two things that I can think of. First, it makes her a criminal and available for prosecution and prison time. Second, it makes her an extreme hypocrite. Anyone want to bet that soon she will come out with some statement like waterboarding was not a crime after all, now that she has looked into it or something similar to deflect the heat away from her? While I fully expect politicians to spin things their way or dodge questions or talk all around the answers without saying anything, I don't expect them to outright lie and/or commit crimes. Richard Nixon was not a bad president. He won (even during the Watergate scandal) by two of the largest electoral landslides in history. He opened up trade and a more peaceful existence with China and ended the Vietnam War. I have never seen where it was shown that he orchestrated the Watergate breakin but he sure as heck covered it up once it was discovered that it was his employees that did it. That made him a felon, not for the fact that he told them to break in but for the fact that he lied to cover up what he knew. The Democrats and many Republicans didn't let him off of the hook and forced him to resign or be impeached and removed from office. Well it appears as though Queen Nancy just got caught with her hand in the same cookie jar. With a Democratic Congress and President, I don't expect much in the way of actual charges against her. The President won't appoint a special and independent prosecutor (or if he does, it will shock me). I do think the heat "might" get bad enough for her to lose her Speaker of the House position but that is yet to be seen. The way the Democrats usually circle the wagons, they might cover for her long enough to hope that a bigger faux pas is on the horizon to take the heat off of her. For her sake, it had better come fast as the Obama administration through CIA Director Panetta has come out and said that she is not telling the truth. Heaven forbid if the Democrats caught a leading Republican in a lie right now. They would be on it like a bunch of rabid dogs. The clock is ticking Nancy. I'll bet she isn't sleeping well tonight.

A very good showing by Vidor. They came in as the fourth place team and took on a heavily favored BH and took then to game 3. With 4 innings left in the series it was all tied up. Then Vidor gets slammed by the BH bats and still fights back to take the game another inning after being down 10-0. Pretty good stuff in my book. The best team won and will move on but a very young Vidor team at least made them work for it before BH pulled it out the last few innings. Good job by Kyle Green and his Pirates.