tvc184

In this case, which no one has touched…..????

Yes on all the above…. 😂 The Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Mimms (driver) and Maryland v. Wilson (passengers) that there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment by ordering the driver or passenger(s) out of a vehicle with no justification whatsoever. But, the Supreme Court doesn’t make criminal law so what happens if a person refuses? and then depends on state law. Texas has a law that says if you, even with criminal negligence interfere with a duty or authority of a police officer, is a crime called Interference With Public Duties, part of which says: (a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with: (1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law; In Carroll v. US (1925 from a traffic stop for moonshine during Prohibition) the Supreme Court ruled that there is no need for a warrant to search a readily mobile vehicle IF probable cause exists. They ruled that there is no time to get a warrant and expect the vehicle to be there two hours later when the police return with a warrant. A judge would later review the search if anything was seized to rule if a warrant would have been issued with the same facts. Basically the police must still file an affidavit for a warrant but they can do it after the search and if a judge does not agree, any evidence found will be thrown out. Then in US v. Ross (1982) the Supreme Court again reaffirmed Carroll. In CA v. Acevedo (1991) the Supreme Court ruled that if probable cause existed, the police can search the entire vehicle including any closed containers. The CA Supreme Court had overturned a conviction of Acevedo on the grounds that the police needed to get a warrant to search a container because a container could be seized from the vehicle and put into police evidence thereby negating the emergency of a vehicle leaving before the police returned with a warrant. The Supreme Court basically said…. What….. are you stupid California? In Maryland v. Dyson (1999) the Supreme Court ruled that even though the police knew that Dyson might’ve had drugs in the vehicle 14 hours earlier and had plenty of time to get a warrant, it was still not needed. The police got a credible tip that Dyson was carrying drugs but they did not find him for 14 hours. The lower court said that the police should have gotten a warrant since they had time. So from 1925 onward, the US Supreme Court has ruled that there basically is no such thing as a warrant requirement to search a readily mobile vehicle. Other courts, as noted, over the years have added, but what if the police knew earlier or what about a container. The USSC has always slapped them down with, look, we already told you way back in 1925, if the police have probable cause, as later reviewed by a judge, they can search. So if you see a YouTube or Facebook lawyer say (not a real lawyer and there are some good ones for example on YouTube, but the Facebook law degrees-“I heard”), if the police don’t have a warrant they can’t search your vehicle with probable cause….. contact a real attorney. Certainly an attorney will contest the reasonable suspicion of a traffic stop and then the probable cause for the search but not that the USSC doesn’t allow it.

An officer is on patrolin what is called a high crime neighborhood. He is approaching a housing project where many calls such as disturbances, assaults and shootings have occurred. As he nearest the complex, a man walking his dog flags the officer down and says in the parking lot of the apartments there are four or five people standing around a car and there appears to be some kind of disturbance. The officer says thanks and drives toward the apartment parking lot. The unknown man with a dog then walks away. As the officer turns into the parking lot, just like the witness told him, there were five people standing around a car and they were pointing fingers at each other like there is an argument happening. On seeing the police officer, they all turned and walked away in different directions. The officer thinking he is witnessing a disturbance in public, tells a couple of them to stop and they comply with the officers commands. Since there appears to be some kind of an argument where people are mad and since he is out numbered, the officer is worried about his safety (I would be) and frisks them for weapons. He finds a gun on one of them and arrest him for unlawful carrying a weapon. He then finds cocaine on the guy after the arrest for a weapon in what is considered a lawful search incident to arrest. Once that person is under arrest, an officer also has legal authority to search that person completely before bringing him into the jail. No problem? Unlawful? Comments?

Another? An officer pulls over a person. While speaking to the driver, the officer orders him out of the car but the driver says no. He then refuses to get out of the vehicle and tells the officer to get a warrant. Now what?

No takers?

This from one website: Three changes aimed at shortening Division I and II college football games and reducing the number of plays per contest next season were approved by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel, the NCAA announced Friday. The NCAA’s own website said it is to better manage the game to cut down on plays. It never mentions the NFL that I could find.

The intent is to speed up the college game. They probably have much more capable officiating crews. Is there a problem with high school games running long? Toss in that college has 15 minute quarters but high school only 12 minutes. The college game is the equivalent of 5 12 minute periods. I just don’t see where there is the need to speed up a high school game.

We are losing our younger customers. Putting a mentally ill trans female ought to fix that!!! After all, a person that represents about 1/50 of 1% of the adult public should do it…. A company should fire someone with such marketing stupidity and then fire the person about that who approved it.

I don’t drink much, maybe a six pack a month. When I am feeling wild, maybe two. I have almost always bought Michelob Ultra for maybe 40 years. Last night I bought my first Yuengling. I have had their Light and Flight before. I am big into boycotts but this one? Yep. I don’t like the idea of picking up a can with the image of a freak, nearly 30 year old male, pretending to be a prepubescent female. He can do what he wants and AB can do what they want but to put this guy on a pedestal like some kind of hero to society and then plaster his image on their product for the masses, is both sick and stupid in my opinion. When I think of the word Woke, this is the kind of example that comes to mind.

I thought the Saturn V rocket was the most powerful machine ever built before this…. but I have not looked it up.

The sarcasm is….

After reading an article from yesterday on KBMT… Let’s say a person displays a handgun in self-defense. The person however does not use the handgun. The article says that to display a weapon only is “considered deadly force”. In Texas law, displaying a deadly weapon and making a threat is Aggravated Assault and carries up to 20 years in prison. Can a person lawfully present/display a deadly weapon but not use it? As the saying goes, if you pull a gun, you had better use it.

I think Musk is the ultimate entrepreneur. He is trying to build the better mousetrap (EV) so the world will beat a path to his door. He knows that people have been convinced to buy EVs and is providing what people are willing to pay for.

NEWSFLASH: All charges against Alec Baldwin dropped. One of the rare occasions where Big girl agreed with me. The DA could have saved a lot of money and time had they just consulted me first….

Yes. You can watch about a 10 minute YouTube video of multiple NASA(and formerly NACA) test rockets exploding on the pad or soon after liftoff. Certainly they wanted a completely successful flight but flying true for several minutes probably more than accomplished their testing goals.

As a point from some of the silly sarcastic comments, it is plausible that the guy had no clue it was the police. That is criminally irrelevant in self defense. The question that will be asked is if the officers reasonably thought they were facing possible serious injury or death. If a guy squares off at a person in a two handed shooting stance (shown on video) from 10-15 feet away, is it reasonable to be in fear of serious injury or death? A person in another sports forum that I participate in asked, did the guy just crack the door to peak out and the police shot him. I am assuming that he was implying that the police acted to hastily and shot at an opening door. I posted a photo I screenshot from the released video of the man with a completely opened door and the gun raised. I never saw a response. I assume that wasn’t the answer some people were hoping for.

The only thing more to the story is why the guy chose his actions. We will probably never know. Everything else except what was going through his mind is on camera.

Your continued ask him supposition is nonsense. The guy caused his own demise so he can’t be asked. Bringing it up multiple times doesn’t change his actions.

If you think they were screaming and beating then you either didn’t watch the videos or are easily scared by knocking. Your straw man (a true straw man) of “armed to the teeth” is nonsense. He could not have known that whoever was knocking was armed. How can he claim a defense of your family of someone armed to the teeth when he didn’t know who or what is on the other side of the door? If a person was in fear, why would any rational person open the door completely and step into that doorway? I guess anything is possible but the law says “reasonable” and a jury, if such a case sent to court, would determine what is reasonable. Even the Supreme Court addressing what is reasonable in Graham v. Connor, where the police broke the foot of a completely innocent man who was having a medical crisis, unanimously ruled that the police didn’t violate Graham’s rights. Graham was acting irrationally due to insulin shock but the police didn’t know that and only acted on what they witnessed, even though try were completely wrong. Again, a unanimous Supreme Court said that the police must make “split second” decisions and looking back at it at a more calm time in hindsight is not valid.

Yes, the man’s actions were irrational, unprovoked and probably a crime although that is irrelevant at this point. Looking at the last few days and a few incidents of innocent people being gunned down by homeowners, you might be correct.

In response to his unprovoked pointing a gun at them from 15 feet away.

There are plenty of police Computer Aided Dispatch/CAD programs. They have to match security including FBI protocols including each individual vehicle computer and tablet. If you have friends who will to donate $500,00 - $1,000,000 for programming, secure operating system which has to link with a secure body cam system, I’m sure a city would appreciate it. It isn’t like building a database and putting it on a dell computer and plugging it into a vehicle. Finding an address isn’t hard but mostly it’s done the old fashioned way, by driving to a block and start looking at addresses… in many cases while trying to be safe and maybe unseen. The officers in this case appeared to have parked at the correct location but went to the wrong side of the street. I think the address was 5308 and an officer saw 5305 which in the dark probably looked the same. What if the guy’s daughter had called the police and the man did not know about it? The police could’ve then been at the correct house and likely had the exact same result. Why would a step out of his house and start pointing a gun without a valid reason? And no matter how someone tries to spin it, there was no valid reason for the man to do what he did.

I should have been a TV cop. DNA results don’t take 6 months… Your computer tells you if you are at the wrong house… Witnesses usually cooperate…

I said access to it. Police calls aren’t dispatched on iPhones. I showed you what a typical call looks like on the computer screen. It doesn’t use a map and there is not a voice saying you’re arriving in two more houses on the right. If you can look at this and show us where the location is, please educate us. 3581-23 331 1201 7St 1757 Dist I have a couple of drones that will land within a couple of inches from where they took off and will do it on its own if the battery gets low or I lose contact with it. A lot of good that does in a patrol unit……

The only hard part about technology is getting a city/county to decide what there priorities are and where they want to spend the money. It usually isn’t the police until something big happens and public pressure gets it done. Body cameras existed years before they were mandated in most states. If not, most police agencies still probably would not have them. All of the technology in the world won’t help if you can’t access it.