tvc184

On the waking up in the hospital theme…. Another guy was visiting a friend in the hospital with all kinds of injuries like he had been in a bad car accident. His friend asked him, what happened? The guy in the hospital said, I don’t know. I was at the fair with my 55 year old wife. We were walking in the arena area and came across the Reserve Grand Champion bull. They had a sign next to it, saying that it was used to breed 150 times last year. My wife looked at me kind of angry and asked, “do you see how many times he did it last year?”. Then we got to the Grand Champion and a sign said that he was used for stud service 250 times last year. Again she commented and I said, “Yeah but I bet it wasn’t the same old cow”. That’s the last thing I remembered……

I never remember what jokes I have posted, so on the bar theme…. I woke up in the hospital with a broken arm, all kinds of bandages and a friend was in the room with me. He asked what happened. I told him that I don’t know. I was in a bar and saw two pretty large women together. I move down to chat with them since there weren’t many people there. I noticed that they had a pretty strong accent so I asked them, “Are you two girls fromEngland”. One of them said, “Wales”. I said, “Okay, are you two whales fromEngland”. That’s the last thing I remembered…..

They “aren’t all bad” type statements are disingenuous at best. An overwhelming majority of officers aren’t bad. You just won’t hear about them. It doesn’t make the news.

Let the riots begin!

You do not need income in order to file a tax return or to get money “back” that you did not pay in.

Notwithstanding that I don’t like the idea of a same percentage flat tax…. I find it funny that “tax experts” warn about this plan. I will translate: This plan, WHICH WOULD END “MY” CAREER…. is a bad deal! You people need to keep a system in place where it requires an expert (me) to even understand it and charge you big bucks. Conflict of interest on an opinion?

[Hidden Content] Vdeo possibly released tomorrow.

I will say this only for informational purposes and nothing specifically about this case…. since I don’t know anything. From the article she was arrested for conspiracy. Conspiracy in itself is not a crime. It is conspiracy to commit a particular crime that is an offense. For example Conspiracy to Commit: Burglary or Murder. Conspiracy is a preparatory crime or a crime of planning. In Texas it is only a conspiracy if the crime planned is a felony but in Mississippi where this is, it could also be a misdemeanor also. A conspiracy requires two or more people to plan to commit a crime AND then for at least one person to do an overt act to further that crime. As a what if scenario… What if three people got together and decided to rob a bank? Let’s say they discussed the idea between each other and decided on which bank to rob. Is that a crime? No. During the discussion they mentioned that they need a handgun, a recon of the bank to see if there were any security guards on duty and then to make a decision who was going to do what. Now we are talking specifics details. Has a crime been committed? No. As part of the planning, one of the three guys says he can get a handgun tomorrow because he knows a guy on the street who is trying to sell one. Is that a crime at that point? No. The next day that guy meets up and buys the handgun. Has conspiracy been committed? Yes. All three people who planned to rob the bank have now committed the crime of Conspiracy to Commit/Aggravated Robbery. The reason is that a person has now done an overt act to further the crime. Before it was just words. Now that a person has done something to further that crime, conspiracy has been completed. Another example in the same conspiracy would be if one of the guys went into the bank and made a sketch of where the tellers were, where the doors were and if there was a security guard, where he was usually standing. That would be another example of an overt act in order to further the crime. In this case, as far as I can tell from the article, a couple of guys were accused of committing the kidnapping. The woman and another guy were not charged with the kidnapping but with conspiracy to commit kidnapping. That leads me to believe that the district attorneys thinks he has information that ties the woman to the planning and/or the execution of the kidnapping. Since she did not take a direct part, under Mississippi law, apparently she cannot be charged with the crime itself. They can be charged with conspiracy assuming there is evidence to back up that charge. This is an interesting case because the claimed victim, apparently was giving some money to help start up a marijuana growing operation. I don’t think that is likely to be in dispute. The issue is that when the people wanted their money back, what happened? I believe the suspects are saying that the guy agreed to give them the money and the trip to the bank was just doing business. The claimed victim stated that he was held in a kidnapping and forced to go to the bank. Who do you believe? Is there evidence that either one is telling the truth, remembering that you have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed? Basically, is there any evidence other than one side saying yes, this happened and the other side say, no it didn’t happen. In the article the district attorney says he has an electronic trail proving the crime. That seems to imply that he has emails, text, messages, pinging phones and/or phone call logs. So perhaps this woman may have been involved in the planning like maybe she was able to find out what bank he used, where he might be staying, etc.

If anyone actually reads history anymore, Walter Lord wrote Day of Infamy about the attack on Pearl Harbor. Much like Cornelius Ryan, Lord uses the same technique of interviewing people involved including civilians and family members and details the sequence of events that led up to the attack. This was not merely the preparations by the Japanese but also the political events such as the American embargo on raw materials to Japan for invading China and refusing to end that war. Also like Ryan, it is an easy to read book and not just page after page of technical and boring details. These books are very interesting with the personal stories by the people involved but at the same time giving details that you almost don’t even notice. A made up example (since it has been years since I’ve read the book) might be like: “General Eisenhower had to make the decision on when to give orders to the assault fleet which was comprised of 5,000 craft of all types”. So while talking about General Eisenhower‘s agonizing decision, the number of assault ships could be woven into the story without simply listing data.

I am a semi-expert in WWII and have probably read 40 plus books on it. One of which was The Longest Day by Cornelius Ryan which was a detailed account of Operation Overlord from the reasoning for it, the deceptions by the Allies, the assault, etc. and in researching it, Ryan interviewed many people who were directly involved from both sides of the battle. If anyone watches the great movie by the same name, you will see lines in the movie that came directly from Ryan’s interviews. Ryan also wrote the equally well researched book, also later made into a great movie, A Bridge Too Far about Operation Market-Garden.

Overlord

How many times…. ….. and how many stories? After the Rodney King incident and everybody wanting the video the police, we faced it also. This was in days before body cams and certainly there were no cell phone cameras. It either had to be a VHS or the VHS-C. I pulled a guy over on a traffic stop and unfortunately it was right next where his buddies were on a porch about 30 feet away. It was probably around 1995-ish. The driver’s friends came off of the porch and got too close for me to safely conduct my traffic stop. So I had to split my time watching the driver and his friends who were then a threat to me. That simply wasn’t going to happen. I could have called all available units and would have probably had a substantial response in short order. But… I told them that they needed to back away and let me conduct my business (their actions by law could have resulted in up to 6 months in jail). The response was, we have the right to video, make sure you don’t do something wrong blah blah blah….. My answer was, I was going to conduct my traffic stop no matter what else happened. It was likely going to end up in a citation or maybe a warning. I was not going to do it with them standing over my shoulder and interfering. So they had two options. I calmly told them that I saw they were on the porch about 30 feet away. They could stand on the porch and video everything they wished and in fact, it would be in a better position to be elevated. Then if I did anything wrong, they would have the video and they could also be witnesses. The other option was that I could call over the entire shift and we could handle it that way. Not only did they choose to get back on the porch, they were actually agreeable to it. One of them made some kind of comment like, that makes sense. So they all got on the porch, got their video and I finished my traffic stop in drove away. I think the fact that I was not confrontational with them by pointing my finger and yelling to “get back!”, etc. and explained the issue, they were very agreeable. I have seen plenty of police videos where the officer(s) was legally correct but a different tactic “might” have (it doesn’t always work) yielded a different result. In fairness, I didn’t start out with that wisdom. It took about 3 years before I started figuring out when to change tactics. Now, they teach a required class in “de-escalation”. About 35 years ago we called that “experience”.

If there was ever the classic fox guarding the henhouse, this is it. The guy who was investigating Trump for colluding with Russia, was colluding with Russia.

Insurrection!!

I was working an off duty job at a housing complex maybe 10 years ago. I was with a very young officer with probably one year of experience. The apartment complex had a curfew for all tenants and guests. Although we cannot legally enforce apartment rules, someone hanging out could possibly give rise to a reasonable suspicion that they were trespassing and not actually visiting someone. Legally that could give us the reason to lawfully detain them and start investigating. My young partner saw a group of maybe 4 teenagers or early 20s people earlier in the night about 1 AM hanging out in the complex and started yelling at them. Get out of here, blah blah blah. They mumbled some crap and slowly ambled away. Maybe a half an hour later, we saw them again. I pulled up near them, smiled and asked, do y’all really want me to get out of my truck (Ford Expedition patrol unit)? No sir, we’re leaving…. We never saw them again on any night and we worked out there every weekend for extra money. As soon as they walked away that night, my partner started pumping his fists and going “Yeah!”. He asked me, how did you do that? He yelled at them and told them to leave and they mouthed off and came back. I smiled and barely said anything and they were like, yes sir and thank you sir. I said it was command presence. They saw you ranting and raving and kind of laughed among themselves. They thought you were just trying to show bravado while being a young officer. They looked at me and thought, I think we had better leave right now. They looked at me and probably came to the rationalization that they didn’t want me out of the patrol unit. On the other hand, they were more than ready to challenge your authority because it looks like you won’t back up what you were saying. I’m not kidding about the way that young officer acted. He was like a kid in a candy store and excited. The officer asked how he could do that and I said it was easy, keep paying attention to the senior officers. Watch how they act around people as opposed to the young officers like him. A teaching moment…..

Do I suspect that the administration will now determine that the recordings are classified. McCarthy won’t be able to claim they were secured by his Vette….. Nahhhhh ….. won’t happen. 🤔

I don’t suggest this but the public that witnesses a theft can stop it. I have seen videos lately of store employees not stopping a thief because their company will fire them but the videos show citizens jumping in and doing it. That only is this legal in Texas, it will more than likely will increase the criminal penalty significantly. Texas has a specific law that says anyone can arrest for a theft that is reasonably believed. If the thief who the citizen was trying to stop slapped him across the cheek, it then becomes robbery with a maximum of 20 years in prison. Here is an example. If a guy picks up a $90 drill and walks out of the store, it is a class C misdemeanor or the equivalent of a traffic citation. It carries no jail time and a fine only of $500 or less. If a citizen stepped in to try to stop the thief and the thief caused any pain to the citizen like a slap, it is robbery. If the thief threatens the citizen who is trying to stop him, even if he does not hit the citizen, it is still robbery because of the threat. Under that exact same scenario and if the citizen happens to be 65 years or older, the C misdemeanor theft becomes Aggravated Robbery and carries up to a 99 year prison sentence. So a fine of a couple of hundred dollars could now be life in prison under Texas law.

Yep, it isn’t the law unless we are talking litigation. It is companies who would rather give up property than face a lawsuit for entering a criminal. Certainly a state legislature could pass a law that would ban such lawsuits. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that. It is not a lack of criminal law or catching the person or the DA prosecuting.

[Hidden Content]

Billie Jo Spears’ brother was a teacher at Nederland High School and a couple of times she put on show for us. [Hidden Content]

Oh…… Billie Jo Spears

In thought Tracy Byrd.

Ok. That I agree with. The only problem that I had with the bill was that it did not go for enough.

Sick bill or the act? The bill seems appropriate.

This case might get the sympathy vote from people who are tired of crime. Although they do not directly say it, almost anything is acceptable, regardless of the law, if the bad guy is put away either in prison or by death. To that I mean that many people will overlook what maybe a violation of the law as long as the person that they support wins. I have seen numerous comments of people that have no idea what the law says but are willing to send money for this guy‘s defense. There was a case in the news maybe 8 to 10 years ago. A guy had his home broken into maybe once or twice or something like that. Maybe it was just a neighbor’s home, I don’t really remember. He set up cameras in his home to catch who may be breaking into homes. Sure enough, a teenage boy and girl broke into, I think his basement. He waited for them to come inside and I think the boy came first. The homeowner shot him and I think the kid fell on the steps walking up to the house from the basement. This kid did not make any threats and was unarmed. Shooting him during a burglary might have been lawful at the moment. I think the homeowner’s cameras was running and he recorded himself taunting the the teenage felon and then shot him in the head and killed him. He waited for a few minutes to see if anyone else entered and the girl came inside through the window to see what was happening. Again the homeowner shot her and then started making fun of her and shot and killed her also. The point being that using deadly force to stop, a burglary, might have been lawful in his state. The problem is that once they were down, he finished them off as it was clear by his own recording that that is what he did. They were clearly no longer a threat. If I remember correctly, I think the guy was convicted of murder on both counts. I know people are making the issue in this situation that you can’t really tell by the camera. Let’s assume for the sake of argument, that there was a different camera with a completely different angle and it clearly showed that the robber had dropped the gun and was not moving. Under any rational thought, he was clearly no longer a threat. Assuming that was true, how many people would vote to let the guy go in what would be murder because the other guy was committing a felony? How many people think the guy that killed the two teenagers breaking into his home was justified, even though they were clearly no longer a threat? In other words, do you get to empty your magazine and kill them, even when the incident is over, because they were committing a felony?