tvc184

My ex mother in law did that about 30 years ago. She made turkey gumbo from leftovers and it was good. She saw it in the internet. Actually it was a few years before the internet became public. 🤣 I had probably a common response of…. HUH?

Many of the cases (almost all) that are taught are not hard to understand and most a semi intelligent middle school student could understand. A lot of times officers try to take shortcuts to save paperwork and time and that gives us case law. Once an officer screws up or even does things correctly (which is many case laws), the appeals courts give us rules to live by, called setting precedent. In the landmark decision of Terry v. Ohio as an example, the Supreme Court gave us the 8-1 ruling that the police are allowed to stop a person who appears to be or about to be committing a crime. It also allows officers to frisk people for weapons. This case from the mid 1960s was written by Detective Martin McFadden. It was a (in my opinion) brilliant piece of police work by a cop that started working around 1925, so old school. Some people think old school means a strong but dumb cop. McFadden showed otherwise. MaFadden explained in his affidavit what he witnessed and using his experience (which he listed), he said that he believed that he was about to witness an armed robbery. He stopped the 4 men about to enter the store, put them on the wall and got I think 3 handguns off of the men. His detailed explanation of why he came to his conclusion stands today as the standard that courts use to determine if an officer had the authority to detain a person. That is reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is about to be or has been committed. It is not probable cause which justifies a forced search or arrest. So in my opinion it is relatively easy to follow the law and case law. If officers mess up then it is likely that they were taking shortcuts or weren’t paying attention in training… or new rulings came out negating what was previously lawful (an example is AZ v. Gant overturning NY v. Belton). There are always gray areas and an officer should document what he saw, heard, smelled, etc., and what conclusions he drew from that. A trial judge will later make a decision on the officer’s actions. An appeals court may later judge the trial judge’s actions/decisions.

Heinous crime….. (not trying to beat a dead horse but hopefully educational) In the mid 1970s police in Arizona raided the home of Mincey for drugs. They had a valid warrant to enter and search. During the entry, Mincey and an officer got in a shootout that killed the officer and seriously injured Mincey. The fact that the officers had a valid warrant is not in question. Neither are the facts that there was the murder of a police officer and that other officers witnessed it. The police never gave up the crime scene that they had witnessed and were lawfully inside. So they called the homicide detectives and they stayed for about 3 days photographing and diagramming. While Mincey was in intensive care, detectives questioned him. He confessed. Mincey was convicted of murdering a police officer. His appeal made it to the Supreme Court. Arizona’s argument was that they were initially there lawfully and the seriousness of the crime scene. Mincey also appealed his confession. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the search of the residence required a warrant. The original warrant was for drugs, not dismantling the place once the search for drugs had ended. Basically they said that the Fourth Amendment didn’t say, you have the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and it involves the police as a victim. As to the confession, Mincey was reported to be semi- conscious so his confession was also thrown out. That vote was 8-1. I am teaching this part of constitutional law at LIT in Beaumont this coming February twice. Once at the basic academy and another time in a mandatory in service training, called core courses. I usually try to emphasize Mincey. A person’s rights don’t end at minor crimes.

I get that. So, should the police be able to go into your home without a warrant and without probable cause? It is clearly a violation of the Constitution but during the unlawful raid, the police got video evidence of some disgusting crime. Look, the police violated your rights without question but the end it resulted in proof of a heinous crime. Should that be allowed? By what you and 5GallonBucket are saying, that seems perfectly reasonable. It only my opinion but you are willing to give up your rights too easily. Or perhaps those rights only apply to you? The minimum penalty for police misconduct, even if accidental, is loss of any evidence due to that misconduct. When I teach this part of constitutional law in the police academy, the case of US v. Tarry Jackson that is cited in the lesson plan. It isn’t because of it being a landmark decision. It isn’t. If I remember the case without digging out the PowerPoint or lesson plan, the police (I think it was Washington DC Park Police) stopped Jackson for a license plate light out. The police found out by computer that Jackson’s license was suspended and the temporary paper tag on the car didn’t belong to it (gee, that never happens). The police checked the car interior and came up with nothing. So they have a couple of valid but minor charges on Jackson and arrested him. The problem is that the officers really wanted to search the trunk but there was no apparent legal way to get in there. But WAIT!! Since the paper plate didn’t belong on the car, the officers used the Carroll Doctrine (Supreme Court case of Carroll v. US) which ruled that if probable cause existed to search a vehicle, no warrant is needed because it takes too long to get a warrant and if the police came back two hours later, the vehicle would obviously be gone. So the officers needed probable cause to believe that there was evidence of a crime that could be discovered in the trunk. What could that be? The officers dreamed up probable cause that evidence of a crime was in the trunk. As a side note, police are allowed to use personal experience and knowledge to help build probable cause. This is what those officers came up with. We have probable cause to believe that the car “might be” stolen (although a computer check did not show it as stolen) and “if” the car is stolen, it is our (officers’) experience that people often steal cars, put in fake tags and then hide the tags from the stolen car in the trunk. HUHHHHHH??? The appeals court judges said, What The….. Heck! After almost 38 years as an officer and 30 years of teaching, I have never even heard, much less experienced, the gibberish that those officers came up with. But that was what they came up with and wouldn’t you know it, they found a handgun in the trunk which was a felony crime. Oh well, the probable cause might complete nonsense but they managed to solve a felony crime. The importance of using this case in class is not that it is a landmark case. It actually is fairly simple and the trial judge should have simply dismissed the search as being without probable cause. The trial judge didn’t so it went to an appeal where we got the case of US v. Tarry Jackson handed to us. So why teach it? Because of a comment by an appeal court judge in the ruling. "These [Fourth Amendment rights], I protest, are not mere second-class rights but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government." Uncontrolled searches and seizures are the “first” and most “effective” weapons of every arbitrary government. I think in the explanation the ruling brought up the Nuremberg trials after WWII when the Nazis were put on trial. Part of that was that Germany justified the injustices and deprivation of rights based on the outcome of good for the public. If we can just get these undesirables off the streets, we will be a better country. Violating individual rights (most effective weapon in arbitrary government) don’t matter if the outcome is good. That is why we teach it. So again, which rights are you willing to give up if the unlawful act “helps the public” (in the eyes of the government, not yours)? Be a leader. Be there first person on your block to sign away your rights and allow the police to search your car, your person or your home without justification. I can guarantee you that it will help solve crimes. If I could enter any home and search whatever I want or stop any person on the street and do the same, I can absolutely promise that many bad crimes will be discovered or solved. Is that y’alls solution? Or if the police violate your personal rights, should there be a penalty? So reasonable folks, which rights?

Maybe I am posting too much on this topic. Think of this though. The DA has the discretion to accept or dismiss the prosecution of any case. There is no obligation under Texas law to bring charges. The DA can refuse cases at his discretion. With that in mind, the DA is in my experience, usually not willing to push a questionable case. If the police possibly did anything wrong in the DA’s professional opinion (questionable detention, search, documentation, etc.) and that piece of evidence is critical to the case, the DA will likely refuse to prosecute. They aren’t going to dedicate time and resources to a case that in their opinion has questionable evidence. I could argue that the DA might win the case anyway or eventually win it on appeal a couple of years later. In many or most cases that isn’t going to happen. It might be more prudent in their opinion to dismiss the case and move on. With that in mind, this case has been presented to the DA. After reviewing the case, including how all of the evidence was gathered, the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office Juvenile Division determined that the case was not only solid, it had enough evidence to present this case to the Family Court to get the juvenile defendant certified as an adult. They could have very easily allowed the case to remain in the juvenile courts. Apparently the DA believes a good investigation was performed and has moved forward with what they think is a winning case. With all the rules, rights and laws to follow, at this stage it appears that the DA believes the police did a good job. A defense attorney will now get to scrutinize all of the police actions and don’t be surprised if those high school educated officers get their evidence submitted into trial.

That’s because freedom of speech is seen by some as a threat to national security, I mean, the political party in power.

And in a short follow up, yes we the police have to follow rights and laws but in a large majority of cases the police officer with the GED or high school diploma follows those rules and typically wins in court against attorneys with their Doctorate of Jurisprudence and affirmed by perhaps even higher trained judges including on appeals courts up to the Supreme Court.

Some people call it loopholes. I call it rights. The government can’t violate your rights in the interest of responsibility. A true loophole in my opinion is statutory (enacted by a legislature) law that forgets or makes exceptions for some acts. For example some people (not me) think it is a loophole in the law on how to purchase of a firearm. If you go to a sporting goods store and buy any firearm, you must present a license (such as a Texas license to carry a handgun) to prove that you have already passed a background check or submit to the checking of your background by computer at the point of sale or you are denied the right to purchase that firearm. However…. You could legally buy the same firearm on the street from a total stranger without either of you having ever identified or gotten the name of the other person. You have to pass all kinds of checks and produce valid identification to buy from a store but nothing at all needed for a face to face purchase from an unidentified stranger. That would be what some people call a loophole and in fact the media calls that the gun show loophole. Agree or disagree with that situation, it doesn’t go into the right against unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment) or rights to remain silent and have legal representation (Fifth and Sixth Amendments). Does the government have to follow a bunch of rules called “rights”? Absolutely. Which rights are you personally willing to give up? It wasn’t the politicians that made those rules, it was the Founding Fathers who framed the Constitution. Again, which rights are you willing to sign away so that we can make sure that criminals are caught? I am not willing to give up any of my rights and the fact that the Constitution gives me as a police officer rules to follow doesn’t offend me. I understand the frustration but the rules can’t just apply to the “other guy”. Imo……

That would be correct. I would think it isn’t likely in this case. I watched a YouTube video a few years ago and a lawyer was talking about trials and evidence. I think his position was, you are not found “innocent” in a trial. You might not be found guilty however. I believe his argument went like, if a guy knows his transporting a kilo of heroin under the front seat of a car, he is guilty. No matter what a judge or jury determines or if the matter goes to court at all, he is still guilty of the crime. The crime did not vanish just because it cannot be proven. Then he went into his job as an attorney. Because of abuses in the legal system going back to English common law and statutory law, soon after the Constitution was ratify, we added the Bill of Rights to guarantee certain protections. His job as an attorney is at least partly to make sure all of the rights and other rules/laws are followed. One of the first things attacked or at least looked at by the defense is reasonable suspicion or probable cause, both from the Fourth Amendment under unreasonable searches and seizures. If the government (usually police) did not follow the rules, all evidence discovered “after” the violation, will be excluded from consideration at trial. In this particular case, you asked about the video. The question becomes in court, how did the police or district attorney come by the video? For example, did the police unlawfully detain a person and get the cell phone? If so the cell phone evidence would be excluded because of the unlawful detention. Let’s say the detention and seizing of the phone for evidence was completely lawful but the police then searched the phone later without a warrant. The detention could be upheld as lawful under reasonable suspicion and the seizure of the phone could be found lawful as possibly having evidence…. but the search without a warrant would exclude the video on the phone. So the police acted lawfully in the first two actions (detention and seizure of evidence) but unlawfully in the search of the phone. Therefore the phone search is thrown out. However…. Just to hopefully clarify that evidence is excluded “after” an unlawful action, here is a “what if”. As the scenario I gave, the detention was lawful. Let’s say that the defendant was the one detained and when the police stopped (seized) him, he blurted out “I didn’t mean to hurt the guy that bad and I didn’t get the phone because I couldn’t get it out of his pocket”. After that, the defendant’s phone was seized lawfully. The later unlawful search without a warrant removes the video from his phone but, the detention and blurting of of basically a confession would probably be found as lawful. If a person blurts out a statement without being questioned, it is generally allowed into evidence called a Res Gestae statement. An example of a Res Gestae utterance would be like the police responded to a crowd gathering around a body and the police officers responding made a comment to the crowd, “what happened”. A guy in the crowd then yells out, “I told that guy if he disrespected me I was going to shoot him so I did”. That would most likely be allowed for the officers to repeat in court because it wasn’t from a “custodial interrogation” which would require Miranda. So the simple answer is, yes, there is a legal possibility to exclude the video. I am completely guessing that the video was taken by another person and forwarded to others who later turned it over to the police. That would probably be a lawful obtaining of the video but you can bet that the defense is going to look into how the video was obtained.

That is what I was talking about. Usually if a am making something for the first time, I follow a known recipe almost exactly. I might then tweak it or experiment with it later. With this CG I used about 3 different ones in a kind of mix and match and didn’t measure anything.

Absolutely. Not only can be left out but not allowed by law or appeals court decisions.

You guessed it boys and girls, it is racist. According to a CNN article, they don’t use the term racist but go to length to show it more negatively effects people of color. CRT teaches that if you are born without a certain number of melanin pigments then you are a racist at birth. Then we recently learned that math was inherently racist. Please ignore that NASA might not have gotten rockets off the ground had it not been for many Black female math geniuses (maybe they didn’t get the memo). Next comes the clocks. Who knew that POC were negatively impacted by getting an extra hour of sleep in the fall? All we have to do is look at this from researcher Chandra Jackson…. “As for the inequities seen in sleep health, it’s not that White adults don’t also experience a lack of sleep and its health consequences – but people of color appear to disproportionately experience them more, and that’s believed to be largely due to social systems in the United States”. So we can clearly see that largely due to our social system, DST disproportionately affects POC. After doing further studies on these topics I feel that oxygen will be discovered to favor people with less pigmentation in their epidermis. [Hidden Content]

Yeah, that’s it. But I wrote so much in the new thread…. 🥲

I do a lot of cooking. Sometimes it is just to cook. I have cooked dinner many times for my shift at work including dispatchers, usually completely at my expense. Gumbo, chili, beans (usually Anasazi) and rice, Budae Jjigae (Korean Army Stew), Butter Chicken (Indian dish almost like Tikka Masala), Chinese BBQ (Char Siu), Pozole (rojo), shredded BBQ pork (pulled pork but not several hours of smoking) for sandwiches, Spaghetti, Zuppa Tuscana, Hot and Sour Soup, Thai green (or red, yellow, etc.) curry, Mongolian Beef (one of my wife’s favorites), Chicken and Dumplings, Mapo Tofu, Apple Dumplings (perhaps the greatest dessert ever) and so one. But…… The reason that I thought about this thread however, was that with all the different cultures and foods that I cook, I have never made Carne Guisada which is my favorite Mexican food. There was a thread on here quite a while back where a couple of us discussed Carne Guisada and which restaurants had a good version of it. Today I broke down and made it for the first time. There are mixes/seasoning you can buy such as Fiesta brand where you can just toss in some meat and water or broth and a certain amount of the seasoning. I think HEB has a version of it. I have heard that it is very good. I got adventurous and made it mostly from scratch. I say mostly because I didn’t make my own chili powder just like when I am making Butter Chicken I don’t make my own Garam Masala although I have seen recipes for it. The dênouement is, it turned out great. It is so stupidly easy that it makes me mad that I have not made it before. It is a lot easier than Pozole. That’s it I made Carne Guisada for the first time and I remembered the prior thread but couldn’t find it. 🤪

I believe most of us kind of thought that was coming. He now moves over to big boy jail and is likely facing up to 20 years or up to 99 years, according to the evidence. I hope they go for prison time but if indicted for Aggravated Robbery (99 years max, depending on injuries and attempted theft), it would probably be an easy plea bargain to drop it to Robbery (20 years max). The DA has the option to go to trial and go for the maximum sentence in front of a jury. They could also offer like 5 years and he would have the possibly be out in a couple of years on parole. So before he is 20, he would potentially be out but have a major violent felony permanently attached to him. If he continues, the next sentence won’t be so gentle. The DA could even offer 10 years and possibly out in 5. According to the evidence that can be brought to trial and shown to a jury, he and his attorney might be seriously interested in a plea. Of course he could roll the dice and take his chances with a jury and hope the horribly violent video doesn’t get him a major hit from a jury. Everything depends on what evidence can be brought to trial. Video? Confession? Witness statements? Medical records? If the DA has a solid case, the defendant better have a good attorney and hope for a good offer. Heck, the DA might even go for probation. With the new DA (DA Elect Kieth Giblin)?taking office in January, who knows?

This is a half hour video but an interesting watch considering your latest topic….. [Hidden Content]

It should be apparent that a segment of society doesn’t like free speech at all. With the Musk acquisition of Twitter it has become more blatant with the attempts at justifying censorship. Of course they don’t call it censorship. Most comments that I have seen start out with something like, we are for free speech!!…. but…. Then the statement goes into the justification for not having free speech. The justification brings up hate speech or falsehoods or even a Department of Homeland Security- Disinformation Board. The fact that the federal government and the president had brought up a department or board to decide what you should see or hear, should scare the heck out of everyone.

I think Biden is big time compromised.

Musk is like a kid in a candy store. I will bet that he walks around chuckling every day. I mentioned it above, but watching some of his videos are hilarious. Him trolling Bill Gates was great. The more people whine, the more fun he has.

[Hidden Content]

I have watched quite a few Musk short videos that pop up on my Facebook feed. The guy is a freaking riot. He is entertaining to say the least.

I don’t disagree with your premise but…. (and “but” almost always means, it is what I claim it isn’t so I will say it anyway ) Yes homosexuals might be “openly” living in sin but how many of the clergy are doing sinful things? Noticing the speck of sawdust in my eye while ignoring the plank in yours doesn’t count just for sex. I can assure you that in my dealings in police work (and on occasion personal knowledge) with members of the clergy were certainly not unheard of. Do I personally want to attend a church being led by someone that I don’t agree with? No but that is a personal choice. Are there other churches led by people that are also committing sins? You betcha!! One is just more blatantly open and maybe more disgusting as it certainly makes some people squeamish.

I don’t feel like doing a lot of research but I kept an eye on the polls leading up to the election. A lot of predictions are based on trends from prior elections and not just raw data. An example might be that the Democrat candidate got X% in the same poll (such as Gallup) in the last election. So maybe Gallup had the Democrat candidate up by 15% but he/she won by 10%. The Democrat candidate still won but the poll was skewed in favor of the Democrat. Let’s say that that same trend from the same poll showed the same bias but the last 4 elections. Generally speaking it would be easy to conclude that the polling company almost always overestimates the Democrats by 5%. So if the same poll showed the Democrat up by 3% it would be an easy conclusion that the Republican might be ahead. Polls in politics are like football polls. It is interesting but doesn’t count for anything other than discussion. Look at the coronation of Hillary Clinton that the Dems were so sure to win. So if most major polls showed a trend toward the Republicans in this election, considering prior comparison polls, did the Republicans underperform or were the opinion polls just wrong… or did a last minute lie tip the scales such as Biden and Clyburn saying that Democracy would end up like Nazi Germany…. with a majority of the public not even understanding what he was saying but it must be bad. That leads to this thread and Trump. Trump was a hinderance to the Republicans!! Or was he….. No Republican incumbent senator lost. From what I have read, Trump gave Zeldin in NY his complete endorsement against Hochul. Hochul won so Trump hurt Zeldin? In the 2018 NY governor’s race, Republican candidate got 36% of the vote in what is a very liberal state. In 2010 the Republican candidate got 33% and in 2014 they didn’t even hold a primary. In this election Zeldin got 47% of the vote. Was it a repudiation of Trump or did the Trump endorsement give Zeldin a fighting chance. Let’s see, the last 3 NY gubernatorial elections for the Republicans resulted in 33%, no primary and 36%…. then 47% after a Trump endorsement. That is often the flaw in looking at one result without analyzing the cause of the result. Hochul won so therefore Trump hurt Zeldin…. Hmmm….. I suppose if you ignore the prior two decades of Democratic wins by up to almost 2 to 1 margins. I guess the Democrat and anti Trump Republicans would have you believe that the Democrats are so bad that if Trump had stayed on the sidelines, the Republicans would have annihilated them. Perhaps that is true but for that conclusion you have to admit how very bad the Democrats are right now.

He can claim all he wants. Political parties are private businesses, unlike elections. The DNC admitted after the 2016 election that it was rigged for Hillary to win the primary. Oh well…….

Vote harvesting is criminal. Is your suggestion that Republicans resort to crimes to counteract the other side?