tvc184

But the state through the DA or US Attorney makes the decision, not a police officer.

Civil asset forfeiture is one of those ideas that started out sounding good but has been radically abused by the way the law is written. It is much like red light cameras but on a mega scale. What they do is take a situation that would be unconstitutional or statutorily unlawful. Then they make lawful by calling it civil instead of criminal. There is a huge difference between civil and criminal. Under criminal law the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden in a civil case is a preponderance of the evidence or roughly, anything more than 50%. As an example, to convict a person of running a red light, there would have to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt and he would have the right to face his accuser. They know that would be impossible under criminal law so they call it a civil penalty. Basically they are suing your vehicle for damages for running the red light. Caveat: Texas outlawed traffic violation cameras a few years ago. Other states still use them. I see nothing wrong with the state seizing assets gained in a crime. If a guy is selling drugs and has $250,000 in money that can be proven to be made from illegal drug sales, he should not be able to do two years in jail and then get out and keep it. The problem is the burden of proof. They can say that you have no means to make that much money like a 24 year old guy working for $15 an hour and living paycheck to paycheck but is carrying $40,000 around in his car. That obviously looks wrong and a jury might agree. But there is no need by the civil forfeiture law to show any link to a criminal activity. It is assumed. Apparently they can say that “this doesn’t look right” and that’s enough. Obviously that is wrong.

That makes sense. That is why I was wondering.

???

There are two word combinations in law that are huge. Maybe huge would be an understatement. Those combinations are and/or and may/shall. It is not just in law-enforcement but for law in general. Mostly to your question is may/shall. Most law enforcement/police actions fall under “may” which means optional or discretionary. A very limited few say “shall” which is translated as mandatory. An example is making an arrest without a warrant. There is a whole list of justifications for arresting a person without a warrant under Texas law such as “may arrest” for any crime witnessed. They “may arrest” for family (domestic) violence even if they did not witness it. They “may arrest” for a felony even if they did not witness it and it is in immediate/fresh pursuit. They “may arrest” a person, interfering with another person trying to make an emergency phone call even if they did not witness it. If a child is missing or a runaway, the officer shall immediately make a report and immediately enter the person into the national FBI computer database or NCIC. If an adult is missing and endangered, the police shall make a report and enter the person into the same NCIC computer data base, within two hours. Not only is there no option that the police “may” wait for a person to be missing for 24 hours before they make a report, the law is mandatory that a missing person must be entered into the computer within those two hours. If an officer says that a person has to be missing for 24 hours before they make a report, that is a violation of the law and the officer can be held responsible and sued. There are extremely recent mandatory actions by the police, most likely prompted by the George Floyd incident. I believe one is to render aid to any person who may be injured during an arrest or use of force by the police. The other is to step in and intervened if they witnessed another officer committing a violation of a person’s rights. If you want to cut it short and without explanation, out of hundreds of pages of laws and thousands of laws or requirements, the police SHALL; Shall make a report of a 1. claimed assault, 2. a possible domestic violence or 3. identity theft. Shall document traffic stops. Shall make an arrest for the violation of a Protective Order, witnessed by the officer. Shall make a police report and enter a child into the national database immediately and if an adult, within two hours. Shall render aid for any action taken by an officer and Shall, intervener if another officer is witnessed violating a person’s rights. Edit for auto correct gibberish. Like it changed a person’s rights to the price is right… and other words that didn’t make sense. .

… while his 8 year old sister was being kidnapped. According to the police, the suspect when arrested had visible wounds. From the article: Michigan State Police said in a news release that the 8-year-old girl was in her backyard when the alleged assailant came out of the woods, grabbed her and covered her mouth. Authorities said the girl’s brother, 13, hit the alleged attacker in the head and chest using a slingshot. Police later arrested the 17-year-old based on another family member’s description…. [Hidden Content]

Maybe. Some will, some won’t. Most actions in law enforcement are discretionary. The law generally doesn’t require actions on the part of the police. There are a few limited examples of a required action but very few. Even some of those were added fairly recently.

Yes, that would be a welcome shock. Maybe the people in her state are getting tired of the lies.

One of my favorite, when we would talk about a guy that no matter what you did, saw, met, etc., he has done better or his uncle, brother or first cousin twice remove did. I went to school with a guy like that. You could be fishing with him and catch a 6 pound bass and he would toss in, “that ain’t nothing, my brother in law caught an 8 pounder last week on 6 pound test line”. Or talking about something in law enforcement and someone will throw in, “you’re wrong because my next door neighbor has a cousin in Kansas and he goes to church with a cop who said… blah blah”. Ollie called that…. The man that seen the man that seen the man that seen the bear”.

Yogi-isms. or mine… Ollie-isms.

“Easier said than done for xxxx most though.” Fixed it for you.

Things that make you go hmmmm…. Buy a gun and a month later maybe you don’t like it and sell it in a private sale. Cash…. The biggest problem that people have is we can’t stop talking. And the classic, I will tell you but don’t tell anyone. My old Cajun boss (Ollie The Mover), who had a bunch a Yogi Berra type sayings that are classic. Something has to jog my memory to recall any of them but this is one of those times. About keeping a secret he would say: “Don’t tell but if you tell, tell the one you tell not to tell”.

I would rather see opinions.

Thanks. I could be wrong but I always assume that laws that affect most people in day-to-day lives are interesting. In the many times I have spoken to the public or taught classes, there are always more questions than I have time to answer. A few weeks ago I helped my former partner teach a class at the Citizen Police Academy over active shooters. Naturally other questions come up besides the main topic and probably half of the time we spent discussing the thousand other law-enforcement issues.

An accident is considered. Ignorance of the law is not. That is why we have culpable mental states such as intent. On Form 4473 so as not to trick people, in Bold print it states: Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring any firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. There are plenty of laws that I don’t agree with. I started this thread to inform people of laws or legal concepts that they may not be aware of. People can make their own decisions.

I am just stating the law. 🙃 If you speed and get away with it, then you got away with it. If you commit a felony and get away with it, then you got away with it. Here is what at times comes back to bite people in the butt. Playing my favorite game, what if…… An officer pulls a guy over for speeding and while talking to him at the window noticed that he has a holster handgun. The officer comments that it is a nice gun and he has one just like it. So Mr. Friendly Driver says, “Yeah, my brother just bought it for me yesterday. I was stuck at work and they had a sale so he went down and bought it for me”. You are now on camera admitting that your brother committed a felony. There was actually a case that went all the way up to the US Supreme Court. It wasn’t a traffic stop but like a traffic stop, was an accidental discovery. The police found a gun in a guy’s possession which was legal at the time because he was not a convicted felon. Unfortunately for him, he had the sales receipt and it had the original purchaser’s name on it and it was his nephew. The nephew was a former police officer and could get guns lawfully at a discount. When the nephew heard that his uncle wanted a new gun, offered to get it at his police discount. Both men could legally purchase a firearm at a licensed dealer. The police were able to track the sale to the former police officer and he was convicted of a felony. The nephew appealed to the Supreme Court and said, but we both can lawfully possess firearms. The Supreme Court said…. Oh well. So the Nephew is now a convicted felon. People love to talk, tell all of their friends what is happening, what they did and more times than not, getting on social media and proclaiming what a great day they had, and what they did. On a side note, social media is one of the great tools of modern law-enforcement. Many times the police don’t need a reason to question somebody, they can just get on their social media page. … or a routine traffic stop. For the most part, I could care less what people do. But if they get caught……

Absolutely no problem. If you don’t get caught….

It would be a felony under federal law to purchase the firearm from a licensed dealer if the intent of the purchase was for another person. It doesn’t matter if the other person could legally purchase the firearm. It is legal to purchase a firearm with intent to give it as an actual gift to another person who can legally possess the firearm. That means no money changed hands. So if you want to buy your brother a firearm as a gift because it’s his birthday, Christmas or just because you like him, it is legal. If your brother says buy it for me, because I don’t have time, it is a crime. The reason is on Form 4473 that you must complete to buy a firearm at a federally licensed dealer such a good at a sporting good store, it asks if you are purchasing the firearm for another person. If you are buying a firearm as a gift, you are the actual purchaser unlike if money changes hands. It is yours until you intend to give it away as a bonafide gift.

Your brother who is 30 years old, has never been arrested, was not dishonorably discharged from the military, etc., wants a new gun. He has absolutely nothing that will stop him from legally purchasing a firearm. Academy is running a sale on the gun he wants and it ends today but he will not get off of work in time. You are also of age to buy the firearm and he asks if you can buy it for him and he will pay you back tomorrow. Basically, both of you can legally possess and buy firearms. Can you lawfully purchased the firearm for him?

There are two types of crosswalks, marked (A) and unmarked (B). Unmarked crosswalks are extended lines from sidewalks. So if a sidewalk ends at the street AND then continues on the opposite side of the street, that is an unmarked crosswalk. Or as it is described in the Transportation Code: (2) "Crosswalk" means: (A) the portion of a roadway, including an intersection, designated as a pedestrian crossing by surface markings, including lines; or (B) the portion of a roadway at an intersection that is within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway. So if a driver is coming upon an intersection with a stop sign AND there are sidewalks on both sides of the road, that is the same as a painted crosswalk and the law requires a person to stop before the sidewalk. If a driver is at an intersection and has, for example, a left turn green arrow, the driver can lawfully turn left. The driver however has to yield right of way to any pedestrian in a crosswalk or any oncoming traffic from the opposite direction. The green turning arrow allows a person to lawfully turn but that person must give way to any vehicle or pedestrian.

Did anyone watch that news conference that ended a short while ago? I don’t think “Brutal” covers it….

I know this is Fox News but watch this less that 9 minute video about Biden’s interview on MSNBC

OH…. NO KIDDING!? Maybe that’s why I said it was only a point of law noting that each state has different laws and it was for a future discussion. Just trolling or is your reading comprehension and reasoning perception lacking?

Only a point of law for a future discussion and noting that every state has its own laws…. not in Texas.

It is all useless against an attacker with time to plan. According to the article, the median age of school shooters is 16. That means that they couldn’t legally buy a gun even from an individual, yet they did. Hmmmm…. it’s like when they were about to commit Capital Murder, the laws seemed like no deterrent. You answer was clearly the correct assessment. If no rifle, a shotgun. Then a handgun. Then a Molotov cocktail thrown into a couple of rooms.