tvc184

I am saying that the GPS doesn’t show the exact house or location in the map program. GPS can ping the nearest tower from a cell phone which is probably 98% of calls. I have seen many times a person call 911 but can’t give an exact location and the tower might show the call coming from about a five square block area. The officers didn’t kick a door, they knocked. If someone knocks on your door, do you open the door without looking outside with a gun in hand? What if the officer was just on patrol and saw an interior light on inside the homeowner’s car and wanted to have the person come out and see if the car had been broken into. I have done that on several occasions. I would hate to think if the homeowner opened the door with a pistol in his hand pointing toward me.

Houses aren’t identified on GPS while responding to calls. A single digit typo by a dispatcher will completely change the location.

A horrible deal but… The police are sent on an always dangerous domestic dispute call. The officers knock on the door and announce themselves as the police. Getting no response, they repeat the process. Again with no response, they ask the dispatcher to confirm the address and also to call the homeowner and have one step outside. The homeowner finally opens the door with a gun in hand and is shot and killed by the police, They were at the wrong address. How many of the people reading this forum, hear a knock on the door and throw the door open with gun in hand? [Hidden Content]

This short video on YouTube came out a few days ago. These two defense attorneys discuss a case of a man who has an Apple Airtag in his truck which was later stolen. He was able to track down the stolen truck and tried to recover it himself, and ended up killing the thief. He is claiming self defense, not the recovery of property. In the video though, one of the defense attorneys mentions the Texas “shoot a man in the back for your wallet law”. Then they go on to mention it has to be fresh like an in progress crime and not track the person down later (which isn’t the claim of the guy recovering his truck). I just thought it was interesting that we discussed it and now this video from two Texas defense attorneys who I believe specialize in self defense claims, mention the deadly force to protect property law including fleeing with the property. But like before, I don’t feel like having to defend my actions in court even if lawful. [Hidden Content]

Any time you make the police the enemy and reduce policing, particularly in neighborhoods, the results will not be good. Major cities do exactly that.

Perception? PA is a large city in physical size and the police are usually (but not always) busy and a lot more busy per officer. A quick look at the crime stats shows why you might not see officers more visible in PA. A city like Lumberton is more compact so if two officers spend a couple of hours a day on two main thoroughfares, they are easy to see often. PA has 4 times the population as Lumberton but has 6 times more square miles. So when with the same number of officers per capita, they have more miles per officer to cover. Then there is the frequency of certain calls which require multiple officers. At its peak like Friday and Saturday evening shift, there might be 11-12 marked patrol units in PA but you might not see them often. On day and night shifts, probably 9 units. Those officers are likely on calls, a majority of which are in neighborhoods so unless you are in the housing areas, they likely won’t be seen. As far as frequencies, look at the FBI stats on robberies for example. Lumberton shows an average of 3 per year. With 4 times the population, PA should average 12 per year, right? Nope, try 400. Let’s see 12 vs 400….. You aren’t as likely to get away with speeding in Lumberton because that is a big deal. You might never get a speeding ticket in PA. The officers are not as inclined to run radar when they aren’t busy but much of the time it isn’t even an option. They are simply doing something else. Lumberton has 1.3 officers per 1.,000 people. PA has 2.3 so almost twice as many per capita…. Yet you might not see them as often. I could cut all that down to, PA officers (like Beaumont or Orange) are busy answering calls for service. Lumberton officers are not as busy and running radar. Then, making traffic stops on main streets (such as Lumberton) obviously attracts attention with the emergency lights. And since I tossed in Beaumont and Orange… Look at burglaries which is commonly called a break in. Someone breaks into a business at night or a home or garage. It could be as little as going into an unlocked garage and stealing a bicycle but it’s an entry crime of going into a building or residence that is not open to the public to steal, assault or commit another felony. In other words, a serious crime. The FBI rates crimes per 100,000 people. So for burglaries per 100,000 people in the last 10 years it averages about: Lumberton-300 Beaumont-1,100 Port Arthur-1,100 Orange-1,100

If that is what people want for their neighborhood, okay. Don’t talk, don’t cooperate. But then the complaints come out that it is someone else’s fault. The city, the police, the mayor or whoever, won’t protect the community. The answer, a simple, no, you won’t protect yourselves. The city can offer the manpower and the county can prosecute but only if a witness steps forward or someone drops a dime on an anonymous phone call. When I was in community policing as an assignment, I would tell every one of the more than a dozen community groups in our city, your neighborhood can absolutely be as peaceful as you want it. The problem is you have to actually want it and not just say the words, I wish I could sleep at night. The problem is not the criminals. The problem is the people living there, who are not willing to lift a finger to stop it. Most of the time that lifting of a finger is simply placing a phone call. Community policing started in Port Arthur from an informal group of Black men who started it on their own. A few friends got together and said we are tired of this crap in our small neighborhood. I think all of them were military veterans and most or maybe all had been to Vietnam. They did not ask for permission, they simply started walking as a group and confronting dope dealers hanging out. After a while they approached the police department and asked for help. The chief called for a meeting with them I and other officers volunteered to be involved. That group of men called themselves AAMAN (we pronounced it “uh-manh”)/African American Men Against Narcotics. They alone kicked off what would later have a very successful run of community policing. We applied and got a federal grant to specifically hire 9 officers to run the program of community groups. That program was later ended as I guess political climates changed with money spent elsewhere and new priorities popped up but the 3 year federally paid program lasted about 15 years and was fairly successful. The point being, a neighborhood can have as quiet of a neighborhood as they want. As Officer Malone (Sean Connery) told Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) a couple of times in the Untouchables…. “What are you prepared to do?”. Many people aren’t prepared to do anything except complain.

Can’t get anything past y’all!! Y’all are all over it. Except the law…. 🙃 Sec. 545.101. TURNING AT INTERSECTION. (b) To make a left turn at an intersection, an operator shall: (1) approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to a vehicle moving in the direction of the vehicle; and (2) after entering the intersection, turn left, leaving the intersection so as to arrive in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of the vehicle on the roadway being entered. A right turn must be made into the right most lane and as close to the curb as practicable as noted earlier. The left turn however, can be into any lane in that direction. As it states, a lane lawfully available in that direction. So if 2,3 or 4 lanes, any are legal. Usually …. Remember earlier, I mention that sometimes they’re a very specific laws. There is the one law that says if there’s a sign saying left lane for passing only, that is correct. There is another law however that says if you’re driving slower than the traffic at that location and time, you need to move to the right hand lane and get out of the way. So even with no sign, you still can’t legally block traffic. So the general rule is, if there’s more than one left-hand lane available, you can turn into any of them. That is the answer I was looking for in the situation I gave. There are two other circumstances where that is not valid. Usually they are at the same location but may not be. There are some intersections that have a traffic sign with an arrow showing that the left-hand lane must turn into the near lane. If that is true, typically it is because more than one lane has the option to turn left. At many intersections there are two left turn lanes. At other intersections there are actually stripes on the road that indicate turning lanes. Usually there are stripes on the road and the left turn sign at the same time. So the general left turn law says that you could move into any lane in that direction but if there’s a sign or road markings that indicate you are restricted to a particular lane, you must do so. An example I can think of is in Beaumont if a person is going east on College St. and turning left or north onto 11th St. at the traffic light. There are two left turn lanes and there’s both a sign and stripes on the road that indicate the left most turning lane must turn into the near lane on 11th St. About 10 years ago, I was a supervisor on the evening shift, and a guy called and complained on a police officer. He had gotten a citation for the exact situation where he turned into the second/center left hand lane and the officer wrote him a citation for not turning into the near left headlight. There were no sign or lane markings. Oops… This happened about 30 minutes earlier so I called the officer to the station and accused him of nothing but ask him the situation. He gave me the exact same story as the man complaining. He said I saw a guy turning left, he had on his blinker but he turned wide into the second lane, not the near lane. So I threw the ball back in his court and asked him if he knew what the law was and he said sure, you have to turn into the near left-hand lane. I pulled out the book and showed him the same law that I posted above. Oops. Then there was his question, now what? I said the first thing you’re going to do is dismiss that citation. You can’t even change it to a warning because there is no crime. Secondly, I am going to call the guy and tell him the citation is dismissed and we apologize. After that, you better hope he does not get a lawyer. Then I hit him with the big one. What if the guy had refused to sign the citation? You would’ve handcuffed him and brought him to the county jail and towed his vehicle. Now he has been booked into the County Jail and his vehicle impounded on the crime that does not exist. Oops. The guy was not happy, but he did not pursue it further including no complaint to internal affairs. I documented it per our policy in case it came up later.

A vehicle pulls up to a stop sign. It is on a typical two-way road like in a residential neighborhood. The driver is going to time left though and is turning onto a 6 lane road (3 in each direction, common in this area). Examples might be coming off of a residential street onto certain sections of College Street in Beaumont or Gulfway Drive in Port Arthur. With three lanes going into each direction, which left-hand lane(s) are lawful to turn into? Basically, what is a legal left turn at an intersection?

Nope. It’s because almost no one makes a legal right turn. This is a legal right turn. Sec. 545.101. TURNING AT INTERSECTION. (a) To make a right turn at an intersection, an operator shall make both the approach and the turn as closely as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. There are two requirements: 1. Approach “as closely as practicable” to the curb. 2. Make the turn “as closely as practicable” to the curb. People practically always swing wide to the left to turn right. Then they almost always either turn partly into the next leave or nearly so. Especially small vehicles can turn from about 2 feet from the curb to about 1.5-2 feet from the curb. An 18 wheeler might have to swing several feet out in order to complete the right turn. That is lawful whereas if it was a Honda Accord it would be a crime. There is no set distance in the law because each vehicle is of a different size and type and turns differently. The second reason that the police can usually find to stop a person if they’re really looking is using the turn signal. Not only ignoring the signals altogether but not using it within 100 feet of the turn. On approach to the turn, they will then put on the turn indicator or maybe more commonly, after they are stopped. At that point it is too late. I find humor when a new vehicle law is being debated in the Texas legislature, which is currently in session, and people on social media make a comment like, they are just making a new law to give the police more legal reasons to the stop someone. Really? For one that is almost too ludicrous for a comment however, secondly, if a police officer can’t usually find a reason to make a random traffic stop, he/she needs to turn in the badge.

You are absolutely correct. It is a crime of driving with wrong tags. A point about such stops, a targeted stop is not profiling. Policies and laws typically state that profiling is not looking for a specific description. That is almost the exact opposite of profiling. If you want to say that the officer is lying, then say he is lying. Is that wrong? Maybe yes and maybe no. It depends on what the lie was and why. If I wanted a lawful reason to pull someone over, I would not need to make up some silly story that can be easily checked about looking for a vehicle. All that I would have to do is follow you until you make your first turn, and almost certainly if you make a right turn. While typing this about traffic stops, it comes to mind where I pointed guns at people and put them face down in the pavement in a felony traffic stop…. and it was the wrong vehicles.

It depends on the state. In Texas a school district is a separate and autonomous government entity. In some states the city likely controls the schools within the city. To say that it doesn’t happen here might have nothing to do with New York City, Oakland, CA, etc.

The F250 profile?

A few years back there was a rash of violent crimes including murder, in PA. The community had enough! We are gathering to do something. So they held a rally at a football stadium. A few hundred people gathered, spoke of the evils of violence and how it was destroying communities. Then they prayed. And in the next weeks there was continued violent crimes. Unfortunately the violent criminals in the community weren’t at the rally. I don’t blame people for coming together and praying. Unfortunately that is where it ends probably 98% of the time. A week later a person who was at the rally might have witnessed a violent crime but now has kept quiet. If the victim lived, the police are told by the victim to not investigate it. It’s in the news all the time… KFDM was told by the police that the victim doesn’t want to press charges. Case closed! Then the community gets together and wonders why it hasn’t stopped. A simple look in the mirror might tell the answer.

The officer told me that the DA accepted manslaughter charges against both DWI drivers. I have no idea about the outcomes. Nothing in the law (obviously) goes by, it just seems reasonable or emotionally we feel that more people should be responsible. Anybody that looks at Facebook could look at any new stories and you could almost count the seconds sticking by before somebody will say, well a parent should be charged also or neighbor who knew about it should be charged or blah, blah blah. To do so there has to be a specific law allowing it. The state cannot do it, just because. I gave my cheat sheet law on Causation a couple of comments back. That is the law in the situation that allows such prosecutions. Sec. 6.04. CAUSATION: CONDUCT AND RESULTS. (a) A person is criminally responsible if the result would not have occurred but for his conduct, operating either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor clearly insufficient. (b) A person is nevertheless criminally responsible for causing a result if the only difference between what actually occurred and what he desired, contemplated, or risked is that: (1) a different offense was committed; or (2) a different person or property was injured, harmed, or otherwise affected. We can see in (a) that a person can be charged, even with a concurrent cause that he didn’t create. It would not have occurred without his conduct. so in the case of the second car that ran over the guy, would the victim have died had that second driver not run the red light while intoxicated? Seemingly the obvious answer is no. Had the second guy not run the red light, the victim, most likely would not be dead. Then let’s take the first driver. He almost certainly did not kill the victim but had it not been for his drunk driving actions but n knocking the victim into the road, would the victim have died? Again, the answer is almost certainly no. Of course a lawyer can try to argue the point and that’s what lawyers do. The point is though that there is a law in place that says if your conduct causes a result, even if it’s with another cause, you might be criminally liable.

CHEAT CODE This Penal Code section might help decipher my last comment/questions. Sec. 6.04. CAUSATION: CONDUCT AND RESULTS. (a) A person is criminally responsible if the result would not have occurred but for his conduct, operating either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor clearly insufficient. (b) A person is nevertheless criminally responsible for causing a result if the only difference between what actually occurred and what he desired, contemplated, or risked is that: (1) a different offense was committed; or (2) a different person or property was injured, harmed, or otherwise affected.

I have told a story some time in the past but it seems kind of appropriate for this. After I got off work on the evening shift, my best friend was working the night shift. He was on a traffic stop at a 3 way flashing red light. It was a T intersection and usually at midnight it changes from cycling red and green to all flashing red. While my friend was conducting the traffic at that intersection, he witnessed a fatal accident. The innocent victim was stopped at the light and a drunk driver hit him from behind. It did not kill him but not wearing his seatbelt, he came out of the vehicle. As he was trying to get to his feet to walk out of the roadway, a second drunk driver coming from another direction, ran the red light and killed him. A couple of points. Neither driver alone killed him. The second drunk driver would have never killed him had the first one knock knock him out of the car. Basically the victim flew in front of his vehicle. The first drunk driver knocked the guy out of the car but that did not kill him. Also, the victim was not wearing his seatbelt. So now what? Is either driver responsible because neither one actually alone caused the death. Then, had the guy been in his seatbelt as required by law, none of this would’ve likely happened other than one DWI from the first impact. The second truck driver probably would have driven past the same and nothing would’ve happened to him. For anyone? Does anyone get charged with the death when neither person’s actions killed the victim? What about the fact that had the victim been wearing a seatbelt, this likely would not have occurred? Charges? No charges? If so, on who and why (sticking with this thread)?

She came to a stop. Once the following trucks hits his brakes to avoid her, does her other actions matter? No. Her initial intentional act created the situation. The fact that she got out of her car later has no bearing.

I suppose you could write a driver a $200 maximum citation for fail to control speed if so inclined. This woman faced 20 years in prison and cut a plea deal for 5 years. So one person is convicted of a homicide and one gets a ticket. More to your point, yes anyone who commits a crime “could” be charged. In this particular case no because I believe the driver was killed.

He was likely on a fishing expedition…. AKA; looking for a DWI, drugs, etc. I never liked to get that close. It seems ridiculous to me and I am searching for a good reason and can’t come up with one at the moment. On the slamming on brakes, I was working one day when a woman in Port Arthur brake checked a guy in an Entergy truck and he stopped in time. The pickup behind the Entergy truck didn’t. It cost her a five year prison sentence. If a person intentionally commits an act like brake checking, that person will likely be held criminally responsible for an results including in this case, a homicide. [Hidden Content]

Yeah, he may have been 100% legally correct but foolish. I have seen some foolish actions (and maybe done a couple 🤔) by officers in my time. Most were technically legal but stupid. That’s when you tell the officer, you got lucky. And yes, certainly traffic laws do not apply to police officers and it is stated specifically in the law. Driving in the left lane where prohibited, on the shoulder which is generally prohibited and speeding while on patrol have laws that say it is permissible. Also parking in a fire lane for example. Emergency response requirements by the police are different than other emergency vehicles.

You can do whatever you want. 🤔 A folly is believing that because a person knows a law on a particular topic, it somehow equals all laws on that topic. An example I have used in the past, I have seen people in a couple of different forums say that the police can do nothing to you for driving in the left lane if there is no sign forbidding it. They are absolutely correct!! Well, assuming a person is only asking about that particular law that in chapter 544 on signs. However…. there was another traffic law in a different chapter that says: Sec. 545.051. DRIVING ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROADWAY. (b) An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the operator is: (1) passing another vehicle; or (2) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. Oh there is a different law about lanes? Like one that could get me arrested and my vehicle towed? That is not what I saw on Facebook! This law doesn’t mention speed limits. I have often heard the comment and as long as I’m going the speed limit I can drive anywhere I wish. Ooookay… This law says if you’re going slower than the other vehicles at that time and place, get out of the way. Basically, if people are passing you on the right, you are probably violating a lane law. But that was just for an example. So roll the dice and try your gambit. Caveat: The above is intended for humor however the laws cited are actual laws.

That would work…. Up until he arrested you for obstructing a passageway.

Who knows? Maybe going to an emergency call and didn’t want to use his emergency equipment. Police are exempt from using siren and/or lights when responding to an emergency and speed limits at any time while on patrol whereas other vehicles are not. There wasn’t much you could do if you were stuck in traffic. Or maybe he had a bad day…..

Reading on another forum… Apparently, the police did not recommend charges. The former district attorney did not prosecute. At that point you would think he was cleared and normally that is true. In comes a new DA who makes it a point to push the case where the defendant has already been cleared. Certainly that is legal but has it really done that way? Once the case has been investigated and the accused person should cleared, unless new evidence comes up, it is considered closed. If those things are true, that the police did not recommend charges and the former DA did not seek charges, it appears this is nothing but a political indictment. It is the same as with the George Zimmerman and the Kyle Rittenhouse prosecutions. The evidence simply did not back up convictions on those charges yet in the big media cases, the prosecution went forward against the evidence. The US DOJ did the same in the Michael Brown, “hands up don’t shoot” false accusations but fortunately even they could not come up with enough evidence to go forward.