tvc184

If anyone doesn’t know, Dershowitz is a fairly hardcore Democrat. A Harvard law professor, he supported Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. He is in most accounts, a well respected attorney. This is his take on the indictment after reading it. The prosecutor lied on the indictment by omission and could be indicted… but won’t be. Part of the indictment was a statement by Trump which clearly puts his comment in the protection of the First Amendment and free speech. So the prosecutor who signed the affidavit under oath, altered Trump’s statement to make it look different. The prosecutor in the indictment left out where Trump said for the people to protest “peacefully and patriotically” but the prosecutor altered the statement by omitting those key words. The video is about 30 minutes long but watch as least the first 3.5-4 minutes.

I read the entire article. What was the problem?

The article said that they got arrested for the city’s amplified noise ordinance.

It goes into ignorance of the law is no defense to prosecution. A law says, you can use self defense if crime A is happening but not crime B. You use self defense and when the police ask you why, you say that I was defending myself from crime A. Then the police say, crime A never happened, crime B did. Oops! My bad!, isn’t going to help.

I wouldn’t disagree. I might rather a basic law class on constitutional law/case laws, why the Constitution was actually created and the intent of the final result, why and how it sets up the country, especially the policies powers of the Tenth Amendment, etc. Dual sovereignty alone might be (probably) unknown to most people yet we have had a big news story recently in this area that involves dual sovereignty. I would bet money that even for people who are familiar with the case, they might know the outcome but will have no clue as to why. Laws change but how it works doesn’t.

You probably already have it but if not and you want to look up laws, read the entire Penal Code or search, this is most laws in Texas including the Constitution. The search feature is great but like all searches, knowing key words to search helps. If you search “stop” in the Transportation Code, you might get hits in 50 different chapters. Searching a word like “interference” in the Penal Code might give 10 chapters with hits but I can quickly spot Chapter 38 Obstructing Governmental Operations which is what I am usually looking for in the crime Interference With Public Duties (which is a little known but interesting law). On another note, since the legislature ended in May but add on a couple of special sessions, many new laws will go into effect on September 1 and they will not be in the codes [Hidden Content]

It’s not red tape. The issue is not self defense laws but how other laws change the outcome and people’s understanding of those laws. For example, theft plus assault equals robbery. If you slap a person, it’s misdemeanor assault. If you steal a loaf of bread, it’s a misdemeanor theft. If you slap a person while trying to steal bread, it’s a robbery. Robbery can possibly justify deadly force. Stealing bread or slapping someone can’t. So the law on self defense is that you can use deadly force to stop a person escaping with property from a robbery. That’s simple enough and that isn’t red tape. BUT… WAS THE PERSON ACTUALLY COMMITTING A ROBBERY?? The problem is the ignorance (not stupidity) of the public on what are the elements of a particular crime is. It comes from things like people commonly call a theft, a robbery. I have seen people complain like, I was robbed last night. While we were sleeping somebody came in my yard and took one of my wife’s pot plants. The problem is that is isn’t a robbery. It is a theft or the equivalent of a traffic citation. So if a person doesn’t get someone’s long winded explanations and heard, you can use deadly force to stop a robbery, what does that person think? He might think that if he sees a person taking something from his yard, he can come out shooting. Nope. The law is not complicated. A substantial percentage of the people are ignorant of criminal law though.

Yep. Assuming it was justified, making no judgment since I have no clue what actually happened….. Hopefully it won’t cost anything or won’t cost much. The police department might turn the completed investigation over to the DA and a No Bill will follow from the grand jury. Case closed. To show how this might play out and how important the facts or what can be proven are…. There are several ways this could have taken place. I am going to give couple of situations and my conclusion about this case… which might have nothing to do with what actually happened. This is also why speculation might be fun and interesting in a forum but the outcome might be completely different from what people believe it should be on either side. Remembering that deadly force to prevent the theft of property can only be used if the property was taken in a Robber/Aggravated Robbery, Burglary or a theft during the nighttime. Then toss in the other requirements of a reasonable belief by the shooter that the property would not likely be recovered, etc. These will all assume that deadly force was used. It also might be looked upon as a warning on how close situations are where one might be justified and the other might send you to prison for life. 1. A guy sees someone stealing his car and as the person drives away. It is just a theft (called Unauthorized Use of Vehicle). Unjustified. 2. A guy I see someone stealing his car and runs to stop him. The car thief then tells the owner, if you try to stop me, I’m gonna beat you like a red-headed step child. He then tries to drive away. The threat of injury made the Theft into Robbery. Justified. 3. I guy enters a car trying to steal it. He sees the owner coming out and runs to get away and leaves the car but grabs a cell phone off the seat. It is only two misdemeanors, Burglary of Vehicle and Theft. Unjustified. 4. The exact same scenario as number 3 but as the thief turns to run away with a cell phone, he runs into a 70 year old woman, knocking her down and causing a small scratch on her elbow. Recklessly running into the woman while getting away with property and causing injury to a person or 65 years of age or older, it became Aggravated Robbery (up to 99 years in prison). Probably Justified. 5. The same scenario as number 4 however after taking a couple of steps, the thief throws down the cell phone where the owner can clearly see it. He then runs into the 70 year old woman and causes the minor injury. Once the thief, abandon the property, it is no longer a Robbery or Aggravated Robbery (by age) since he is no longer trying to maintain control over the property when he made the threat or caused the injury. He has committed the two misdemeanors as previously mentioned and the additional crime of Injury to an Elderly Individual (a felony) but those are not among the only four crimes justifying deadly force for property. Unjustified. Anyone see how close one situation is to the other? In one he dropped the cell phone and the other he kept it. In one he did not run into anyone recklessly and then the other he did. In one he drove away with the car but in another, he made a threat to kick a guy’s butt before driving away. On the one hand, it is fairly easy to say, I have no sympathy for a thief. I have sympathy for his family because they did not cause it. On the other hand, in an emotional situation of you being the victim of a crime, shooting might be justified yet a small change in the situation/facts might cause you years in prison and your family left wondering what to do.

If that’s you criteria, Nederland would be the 6th largest city in Wyoming. 😂

I don’t think those are even towns or cities as Texas calls them..

I asked that in the other thread… is Beaumont a small town?

And it certainly is not a dumb question. The Facebook lawyers have about 12 different answers though. 🤪 Yes… Witnesses, statements, a statement by the person accused, video or photographs, fingerprints or anything else will determine the outcome. Just for a point of law and I would not want to be there, you do not have to prove self-defense. If you make a claim of self-defense and bring up any evidence allowed into court to support that claim, the state (DA) then has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense. It is called a defense to prosecution.

There are so many what if questions. A single sentence can change a justified shooting into Murder or vice versa. The law is specific in what crimes justify deadly force in order to recover property if the suspect is actually fleeing with the property. Those crimes are Burglary (breaking into a residence or building), Robbery, Aggravated Robbery and Theft if the theft occurs in the nighttime. Those four crimes alone, justify deadly force to stop a person from getting away with property. It is not to be confused with other crimes where deadly force could be used to stop the crime from being committed such as Arson or Sexual Assault. I am talking just running or driving away with the property. For example, if somebody steals your kid’s bicycle from the front yard in the daylight and there are no other facts (like he threatened to kill you), can you lawfully use deadly force to get the bicycle back? In my opinion and the way I read the law, absolutely not. That would likely be Murder. So while we are playing what if, what if you chase him and as you get close to him and he still has the bicycle, he pulls a pocket knife out and threatens to kill you? At that point the misdemeanor Theft during the daylight, just became an Aggravated Robbery. Aggravated Robbery is one of the four specific crimes that possibly justify the use of deadly force to get property back….. IF… IF, you reasonably believed that the property could not reasonably be recovered by other means OR…. an attempt to get the property back would expose you to an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. That is the problem with making blanket statements but if you want to get on Facebook, get ready for the blanket statements. So not legal advice but generally what the law appears to say to me about using deadly force only to protect property after doing it for 38 years… IF a person is committing one of the four specifically mentioned crimes AND IF the person is escaping with property AND IF a person reasonably appears that he would get away without recovering the property OR IF attempting to recover, the property, would expose you to serious injury or death…. Then it is likely justified. All of the AND and AND IF situations must be covered. They are not mutually exclusive. 1. 4 crimes and, 2. escaping with property and, 3. not reasonably likely to recover the property by other means or, The recovery would expose you to serious injury or death. Clear as mud? We could probably sit here and think up of 100 different situation.

As we can imagine, the 17-year-old being shot in Beaumont has caused quite a stir on the Facebook forums. As the usual routine, there are complete misstatements of the law on both sides of the equation. This kind of goes into the thread I started about laws but were there any justifications to use deadly force? Of course, the problem is, we really don’t know what happened. For my two cents, it could be completely justified or it could be completely unjustified and murder. I wish I had the facts of the case….

Does Beaumont qualify as a small town? I see people asking on Facebook…..

I worked at that event with the Secret Service. Specifically I had to guard Hillary Clinton’s car.

That doesn’t have anything to do with any other genre. It is a comparison of lyrics. It’s also called an analogy. For example… A guy sings a country song and at some point the lyrics say, “don’t mess with me or I’ll hurt you”. Someone who listens to rap is outraged at such violent lyrics. At the same time we find out that his favorite rap song has a verse that says, “don’t mess with me or I’ll hurt you”. That is selective outrage. Every person absolutely has the ability and right to be selectively outraged. We are just calling it for what it is.

Who said it had anything to do with hip-hop?

Good thing I never mentioned dictating feelings. All I said was that there is almost no way that someone saw that video and went, OMG! A guy was lyched there 100 years ago. That would mean that someone was actively looking at different aspects of the video and doing a Google searches to try to find a reason to be offended.

Bob was at the top of his chosen profession. To a lot of extent, he is from a passing era in sports writing. Few sportswriters and editors have had the excellent longevity and following of Bob West. How many people work for a single newspaper for almost 5 decades? He called ‘em like he saw ‘em. A few times I definitely would not agree on his perspective on an issue or player but the proof of his skill was that I always came back to read what he had to say on his next article. He definitely has left a legacy of events that he has been involved with from roasts, to celebrity golf events, to contests and I believe that he was instrumental in creating and bringing the Bum Phillips Trophy to Mid-County Madness which I think was thought up by members of his staff. I had spoken to West on a couple of occasions, mostly from working security at events. I have known his wife Genie for probably about 40 years from her work as a nurse at St. Mary Hospital and me being a police officer. The likes of Bob West don’t come along often in a lifetime. Condolences to his family and friends.

That again, is reaching for an answer. Who watched that video for the first time and immediately said, oh my gosh, that is a courthouse where a person was lynched 100 years ago. Likely no one Who would recognize it? Probably a better question would be, who did the research to find something in the video to be offended by? Why would anyone try to google something in the background in a song? Was this courthouse some well known symbol of racism? If so, why was Hannah Montana mostly filmed not only in that city, Columbia, TN, but at least one scene shot at the very same courthouse? Maybe Mikey Cyrus was pushing a hidden agenda on racism in front of that apparently well known symbol of hate…. that no one would recognize unless they were told to do so. If a person are looking for that nail, he will find it. Not that I would expect most people to view this 34 minute clip from Candace Owens. If a person is so inclined, scroll to the 8 minute mark and see Hannah Montana coming out of the same courthouse. Then go to around the 15 minute mark and look at some of the lyrics of current top 40 music.

Extremely selective outrage.

What a great appeal tactic. My argument was so good that you are compelled to believe me! The court needs to order you to believe me! The court says…. uhhhhh, no.

It’s called looking for something to be offended by.

Only if you are a hammer looking for a nail…. I have already said it, but if this was a rap song, it would be hailed as brilliant.