tvc184

The BB does their usual parody… because the Republicans might go along with Biden instead of holding the line. So BB is criticizing the Republicans because they might give in to the Democrat demands. And the left thinks that is a criticism of the Republicans. It is… but only if they cave to the progressives. For those that can’t decipher the intent, it is a comedic way of saying, don’t be stupid and go along with the Biden/Democrat agenda.

Bill Burr has part of one of his comedy routines about the disparity in pay. It is typical Bill Burr profanity laced but it is (like most comedy) completely accurate. Part of his routine was, women failed women’s sports because women don’t watch it but blame men for not watching it. Meanwhile women are watching the Kardashians and the Housewife shows who are making money hand over fist and it’s raining money. Women would rather watch other women tearing each other down than watching women coming together as a team to try and achieve a common goal, with his conclusion…… “The Money Listens” Bill Burr Woman Failed the WNBA on YouTube if someone wants to watch it. Funny if profanity doesn’t offend you but again, all comedy is based on reality.

The go woke, go broke was to show what the title of the thread intended. Out of touch with reality. I don’t care about her politics, her stance on subject, her orientation, or anything else. I said that it’s not about her. The point is that others (who are out of touch) think that it does. I would bet that an overwhelming percentage of the public doesn’t care either…. as noted by a metro area of 5 million people not filling a basketball stadium for the much heralded return. I understand why people did not pack the stadium. Even in a very large city, the game is not important in the least. The coach and others of her ilk, for some reason believes that it does matter. No, the virtue signaling doesn’t. Hence the go woke, go broke comment.

Brittney Griner’s official return to the floor baffles her head coach because it was not a sellout. I didn’t bring this up about Griner. My point is that the WNBA loses millions of dollars a year as it is not popular. It only as a subsidiary of the NBA. If it was a regular business or even a professional sports league that lost millions each year, it would have long since folded. It is about the equivalent of a high school JV football team. At least JV has a purpose. Griner who is obviously a star in the WNBA regardless of her political stance…. but, her coach apparently believed that because she was arrested and in Russia, fans would pack the arena to see her “return”. Part of the coach’s after game comment was, “How was it not a sellout?”. (In the link posted below) That is the out of touch part. I am thinking….. go woke, go broke. The WNBA isn’t losing money because of any agenda. It is losing millions of dollars because it just is not exciting to 99.5% of the public. It is probably subsidized by the NBA just to say there is a women’s league. With that knowledge, the coach thought there should have been an outpouring of support for Griner however. Uhhhhh…….. no. [Hidden Content]

Ask Buddy Garrity or others about street creds

I do think that crime has taken a turn and not for the better. Crime always fluctuates and there are trends that might run for a decade. About 40 years ago, I thought there was more violent crime but we seem to be heading that way again Now it is in the news way more with 24 hour social media so it makes people more aware. I tend to think that there are way more arrests than the public might realize. Even calls for service might be more than the average citizen knows. Counting traffic stops, pedestrians stops and people calling to report robberies, assaults, disturbances, prowlers, fights, vehicle accidents, break-ins, etc., with 10 officers on the street I have seen a single shift have over 100 calls. That is not 100 officers dispatched to but 100 calls for service. Many calls such as a bad accident, a shooting or an arm robbery, might take 6 to 8 officers. So out of 10-12 officers on a shift, on a really busy day maybe 200+ officers will be dispatched. On an average shift on evenings or nights it might be like 100 officers dispatched. Probably 10 years ago I was working the night shift as the only supervisor. Within about 90 minutes we had three major shootings. In the first, two men were shot in the chest after an argument and I honestly thought both were going to die, making it a Capital Murder or death penalty case. A witness thought that the shooter had ran into a house so I secured the perimeter with other officers and was about to call out Swat. After about 10 minutes of sitting on that house, the next shooting came in and that for sure was a murder with one person dead and two other people shot. We had to abandon sitting on the possible suspect. While at the next scene for about 30 minutes, we heard heavy weapons fire by 10 blocks away like an AK47 or AR15 (which is what it turned out to be). In fact, I was the one that reported it to the dispatcher before we started receiving calls. So we had two people who I expected to die at the first scene (both survived) and one for sure dead and two injured at the second scene. They were no officers available for the third scene so I had to send a couple of officers from the murder scene to go check out the third incident. I think they found three people shot with one guy shot through the liver. He was critical, and I think he eventually died later, but I don’t remember. In fact, the officers called for EMS and there were no units available. Some of the victim’s friends threw him in the backseat of a private car while he was pumping out blood started heading for the hospital. While those aren’t average shifts, they are not unheard of and extremely busy shifts are sometimes the norm. I kind of doubt that the public really knows how much really goes on around them.

Street creds.

Debating that several times in this thread alone I have said that forfeiture has been abused? I don’t know what happened in this case is pretty much all that I have said. Apparently everyone else knows all of the details… as reported by a defense attorney who claims to not be involved in the case.

No, no, no! Getting rid of the police and makings drugs legal fixes most problems. Everyone knows it is the cop’s fault that drug users steal, kill and trash neighborhoods. Leave the drug addicts to themselves and not all but most problems will go away. The situation certainly will never get worse. Portland, San Francisco and coming soon to a neighborhood nearby….

Okay, change the law. I have said that many times including in this thread.

The objectivity isn’t lost on me. Maybe if you look in the mirror? You have no objectivity whatsoever. You know that no matter what, this is wrong. I see nothing wrong with that stance at all but you’re making an argument as if it if worthy of discussion whereas you don’t think there is. That isn’t looking at it through an objective lens. Every single time I see one of these cases debated, you can almost count the seconds before someone will say, if I want to carry many thousands of dollars in bundles around with me…. That is utter nonsense. It isn’t simply being not smart. In this case the guy didn’t not say he was just riding around. He claimed to be heading to buy a truck. To any reasonable person that certainly seems like he had a seller that he was going to talk to. Their claim is also that it is “their life savings” so they can’t afford to lose it. Yeah, so he is riding around with it just because? The burden of proof does lie with the state. The trial to see if they meet that burden starts Monday. I am assuming that they deposit it but I don’t know. While I have handled many thousands of dollars in cash, I have never asked for the disposition of it. I have said this several times, in several forums and in personal discussions. I think that asset forfeiture laws need to be rewritten with a higher burden of proof of a criminal activity. I am curious what evidence they are going to present Monday. If they have none then I hope they get interest on the money return ed and the county having to pay damages. I don’t particularly like the Harris County DA Office.

Perhaps. He is taking it to court because the DA thinks that she can prevail and show by the preponderance of evidence that the money was used in a crime or was going to be used in a crime. Let’s play our favorite game show, what if. What if….. the driver told the officer it was his life savings and his bank account was empty. What if they subpoenaed his banking records and found out that the account he drew the $42,000 from, had another $250,000 in it? So now you have him caught in a lie making it look like he is covering up for something. The subpoena further showed that he has taken or deposited $10,000 or more several times in the last few months. According to the news article, the guy said he was on the way to buy a used truck (I think). Okay, give us the name of the person you were going to buy the truck from and we will check it out and if it’s true, we will give you your money back. Oh… you don’t know who you were going to give over the $42,000 to? Were you just riding around with $42,000 in two taped up bundles hoping to find somebody that would sell a truck? Why did you just get a cashier’s check? Was it a cash deal so as to avoid you and the other guy paying tax? What if they subpoenaed his phone records and it showed him texting someone just before he left Louisiana saying I’m on the way to Houston to pick up the 2 kilos. A check of the number from the text came back to a convicted drug dealer? On the other, Harris County might walk into the courtroom on Monday and announce that investigation has been dismissed and he can have his money back. I don’t have a clue but it seems like we will soon find out

When they have drugs in their pocket, any amount, but the DA won’t take it. The last time I was involved with it, I believe it was $10,000. Going back about 30 years, if we caught a street crack dealer with about 30 rocks of cocaine and $800 in his pocket, we would seize it. Later, they started getting more selective in what they would do and it was taking too much time. So I think the standard now is $10,000 but I could be wrong.

What did I say that even suggested guilty before proven innocent? I said it appears as though he will be judged by a jury of his peers. He didn’t give up and wants his day in court. He will get it.

If they can actually link it to a crime, yes. If I understand right, it is going to a trial so I’m assuming in front of a Jury. If they can convince a jury that it was illegally used money, then, yes.

If it was against the Fourth Amendment it seems like it would have been overturned a long ago but what do I know?

So you know what evidence they have?

Terrible news. I noticed that his daily posts seemed to stop like a couple of weeks ago. What an enlightening person who always added his age learned wisdom with humility and humor. Thanks for your service to out country. RIP

I do find this guy’s story as extremely suspicious but suspicion is not evidence.

Did you skip the part about the investigation afterwards? We seized televisions without making an arrest as we didn’t have enough evidence but it sure seemed like it. As I said from my first dissertation onward, it is abused (in my first sentence) if it is not linked with evidence to a crime. Every crime can’t be proven at the side of the roadway. If your intent was to note that apparently (because we don’t know) they haven’t linked the money to a crime so it should have been returned, I agree.

Yes, we don’t know any evidence or details. His story seems far fetched however there needs to be evidence against him other than the cash itself. No matter if he is wrong, there still needs to be evidence to support the allegations.

Ask the DA. The police do not file charges. They do not only act after an arrest. My partner and I stopped a vehicle one time on the traffic charge about 30 years ago. The driver had just gotten out of prison for burglary, breaking into homes. He had five televisions in the backseat of his car. Who carries five television sets around? We have no criminal charges on him however, we seized televisions. We turned it over to detectives and I believe they found one or two of them could be proven to be stolen. Should the victims get their televisions back? Should the guy have charges filed on him or revoke his parole? Should the police turn a blind eye while trying to get your property back? I suppose, if we could not approve it on the side of the road and charged him with a crime at that moment, we should’ve simply drove away and let him keep what I’m almost positive were five stolen televisions. We could after further investigation, link him to crimes involving at least some of the televisions. That is a significant difference but the fact is that we seized property with charging any crime at the time.

Sure, and that is where police involvement ends. Do you want them to ignore what may be a felony in progress?

Because the fire department isn’t in an adversarial position. Who is going to be mad, the house? The slab that’s left? You are comparing apples to liquid nitrogen.

My biggest forfeiture was $6,000 and a vehicle. The guy pleaded guilty to drug possession in federal court and had over half a pound of crack cocaine on him at the time.