tvc184

Wait, they used firearms in the shootings?

FN didn’t want Carlson to take the stand. To stop that from happening, they offered to settle for less that half of the suit was asking for. Part of the settlement was to get rid of Carlson.

It’s like a person claiming a gumbo is the best ever. So 20 unbiased people try it out. 8 think it is in fact the best they have ever had. 6 say it might not be the best but it is in the top 5 they have ever eaten. 4 will say it’s a pretty good gumbo. 2 will say it’s nasty and they can’t believe anyone would eat it!! You are in the 2 category…. 😂

Interesting. For a matter of law in these discussions, I might have mentioned it before but there are two supreme courts in Texas. The Texas Supreme Court hears civil cases and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals hears criminal cases. So if you ever read something about a crime in Texas and it says Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), don’t think why don’t they appeal this to the Supreme Court. For crimes in Texas, it is the Supreme Court. ***** Part of the problem with the questions I pose, if you knew all the applicable case laws, statutes and circumstances, you could probably decipher the correct answer. Everything I gave was from an actual case in Texas in Harris County called Gurrola v. State. The CCA ruled in favor of the defendant and ruled it an unlawful detention by the Harris County deputy. Here is the main but not only problem. The justification for a reasonable suspicion detention is facts and circumstances known to the officer, including using his experience, that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime might have been committed or was in the process of being committed and the person detained is linked to that crime. To link the person detained to a crime, it has to be information about a specific crime. It can’t be simply, he looked suspicious. So what crime was the officer possibly witnessing? The CCA said that the deputy could not link a crime to the behavior. Arguing is not against the law. I think the court was saying, we understand the deputy wanted to stop the people and investigate but investigate what? Playing what if… could the deputy have witnessed a valid situation to justify a detention? Certainly but if he did, he didn’t justify it in his arrest affidavit. So what if he heard the argument and a threat was made. A threat in a public place is Disorderly Conduct or a threat could be an assault, assuming a victim wishes to pursue charges. Are maybe they were making such a loud noise it was causing a breach of the peace in the apartment complex. Usually we think of that at night when it’s disturbing people. No matter, if the deputy saw any of that, he did not document it. He cannot come back later and simply say, I forgot to put that. Another issue was the anonymous tip from the guy walking the dog. Anonymous tips are held to be unreliable unless officers with independent observation or investigation can corroborate the tip. In this case, I don’t think it really mattered but it is possible. If the guy’s tip was, here is my name, address and phone number, and I just witnessed a guy telling another that he had a gun on him and would shoot him. THAT would no longer be anonymous and reasonable suspicion to force a detention. Again, if that happened, the deputy did not document it. So in this case, even though something may have possibly risen to the level of suspicion of a particular crime, the deputy did not document it and the evidence was thrown out. About 25 long years ago two of my very best friends today from the police department, arrested a guy with cocaine that he was selling. While they were logging the cocaine into evidence, they ran down the situation to me, explaining how they caught the guy including a short foot chase. It was actually a pretty good bit of police work. I later read their probable cause affidavit and went…. oops. I told them before they get the affidavit notarized and turned in with their paperwork, they need med to put in more information. The story they told me was great but it was not what they put on paper (4 corner rule). They disagreed and thought nothing of it. A week later, one of the officers came to me rather dejected and said the district attorney threw out their arrest due to an unlawful detention. The problem was that what they did was not unlawful. Their problem was not documenting what they told me. The guy who was arrested, probably was telling his buddies, the police illegally detained me and the charges were dropped. No, what the officer did was completely legal… but they did not document their actions. So, we don’t know what the deputy in Harris County actually saw, but what he documented on paper did not justify a lawful detention and the CCA removed the evidence.

Carlson was almost certainly part of the sealed Fox News/Dominion lawsuit settlement.

And yes, it’s a tough one.

Unlawfully….. by who? Put another way, did the officer have reasonable suspicion (the Supreme Court does not require not probable cause as is often claimed) to detain them? Facts as known to the officer and not disputed: 1. Officer is flagged down about a disturbance in an area known for crime. 2. Officer immediately finds the suspected disturbance as noted by the description and location from the witness. 3. With his own eyes the officer sees what appears to be an argument in public. 4. When the people noticed the officer, they all started walking away in different directions, as if to avoid contact with him or possibly have something to hide? Does that rise to reasonable suspicion that a crime “might be” committed and not the much higher standard of probable cause where a crime is “likely or probably” being committed? If reasonable suspicion exists, an officer can lawfully detain a person.

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.