tvc184

You are correct but….. The difference being that vaping is a free enterprise. This country, the free market/free enterprise in general was what spurred most of development in history. If someone can figure out a way to build an electric cigarette that works, is safe, economical and people willing to buy, awesome. That free enterprise is a far cry from the federal government taking trillions of dollars and forcing you to use a product which they are forcing to be created without free market constraints. There is a huge incentive for people to come up with an economic alternative to fossil fuels. Even if you could come close to matching the average price of a gasoline vehicle, imagine the money you can make (rivaling Elon Musk) if you could come out with a $30,000 electric car that is driven completely on solar power, even if it is cloudy, which would give you basically unlimited mileage for free. How are we charging stations, no additional load to the power grid, etc. What you put the purchase price of a car on the table, short of maintenance the car will not cost you anything for the next 20 years. at the current cost of gasoline, the vehicle would basically be free within a year. You couldn’t produce enough of them as people would be beating the path for the better mousetrap. I doubt that electric cigarettes and their improvements happened because the federal government was spending many billions of dollars forcing companies to produce them.

With all the crime and shootings going on in and around schools, they might be good to plug a bullet hole.

I arrested a guy for burglary doing the same thing. I don’t remember how many years he was sentenced to but was looking at a 20 year maximum. I was training a rookie officer and we got a call of a garage being broken into at about 3:30pm in the summer. The rookie was driving and we saw a guy mowing grass in the same area. For some reason it looked strange to me but he was just mowing grass. Then I started giving rapid fore directions to my partner which she didn’t understand. The one sided conversation went something like…. “Stop the car!! Get out and grab the guy mowing grass!… Hurry, hurry!!”. Standard rookie response…. “Huh…. What… ?”. Standard training officer response…. “Don’t ask questions, get him!”. It took a few seconds to figure out why I was confused but knew the guy was committing a felony. He was on his first cut after starting the mower. But…. he started at the sidewalk and was mowing straight into the middle of the yard. Basically he divided the yard in half with a push mower. I have mowed a yard a few million times and never made my first cut straight into tall grass. I always started by going around the outside and working my way in. This guy saw us coming and as an alibi, pull started the mower and started cutting. The problem is that he was going down the sidewalk and had no time to start where a person would typically start. The San Augustine grass was about 5” high (family was on vacation) and he dove straight into it. We handcuffed him immediately (obviously my decision) and I don’t remember if I or the rookie checked the garage but yep, the lock was pried off. The difference between a veteran officer and a rookie….. She went on to be a training officer herself and has been in detectives for a out 20 years with about 34 years on the job so far. No doubt learning what I was teaching.

I am hoping for a positive ruling on “shall not be infringed”. Talk about head exploding….

I read cases as part of my career but also even outside of my chosen profession, I read cases, sometimes amicus briefs, prior rulings and oral arguments. The only point of that is that from what I understand, typically after oral arguments, the justices decide in private of their decision. A decision might be released a couple of months later but it didn’t take several weeks to come to a decision. So from my understanding these cases might be concluded shortly after the case is presented. The Chief Justice then assigns the official response to a justice including himself. That might take quite a while to draft. Other justices can write a concurring decision or a dissent or join together for either. Apparently this case was decided a while back like normal but is not yet official. Could it change or could it be a well crafted hoax? Sure but I suspect someone (law clerk?) got his/her hands on it and could not wait. If it was actually leaked, true and just a guess then a law clerk for Sotomayor, Kagan or Breyer. From the document that I saw, it was a photo copy and not electronically taken. That tends to make me feel more it is more likely real because data is easier to track. To simply use a copy machine and later upload it on some public server would make it harder (but likely not impossible) track the leak. On the other hand it could be completely fake but the scam artist has the same idea that I mentioned and used the photo copy appearance to further the ruse…..

I said it in the other thread but now we have MDS.

In addition to TDS we now have to add MDS.

That is putting it mildly. Binary: Consisting of two parts. Except for a very rare birth defect, babies are born with either male genitalia or female genitalia. Non-binary is that there are three or more options. It isn’t “binary” or two options? I wish one of the woke people would define what the third, fourth and fifth types of genitalia are.

As crazy as the things are in the world right now with many things making no sense whatsoever, this is just another straw on the camel’s back. The desire from the left to stifle any opposition should be scary to everyone. The very founding of this country listed in the first amendment was a ability to speak your mind. I don’t have to like what you are saying but unless you are threatening to kill someone or cause some other breach of the peace , like the classic yelling fire in a movie theater, you should have the right to say it. People on the left are having a meltdown like Dorothy just threw a bucket of water on them because the other side is allowed to express an opinion.

I don’t know if it is pathetic or hilarious or simply brainwashed that people that has some of them going off the deep end with Musk buying Twitter. To put it in simple terms, they are either mad that free-speech is allowed or they have no clue how repressive they have been with anybody that is not a robot. I have seen in this forum and several others, liberals, Democrats, etc. complaining of a conservative echo chamber. Have they looked in the mirror with Twitter? Talk about an echo chamber. It is like 50 million people get in there and repeat mantras like orange man bad, Republicans want dirty water, etc. but if a person says, “No we don’t”. in response we get….. HORRIBLE COMMENT!!! That person should be thrown off Twitter as he is trying to overthrow the country!! Many on the left are going out of their minds saying that this now opens the door for hate speech…. while not caring that much of what they call hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. BLM marches in the street chanting the police must die now and “pigs in a blanket, fry like bacon!!”. That is protected according to them and is not inciting violence or hate speech. If you respond by saying BLM is putting out hate speech, THAT is hate speech according to many on the left. How dare you criticize our sjw cause!? Again, I don’t know whether to think it is comical or pathetic or just downright disgusting.

That reminds me of a case of a drive by shooting I worked. My best friend of the Police Department actually rolled up as shots were being fired. He was actually about three blocks away and saw the smoke in the air and then saw the car speeding away. They were a various rounds fired but one of the weapons was a .45 pistol carrying ball ammo. One round went through the asbestos siding, the 1” 4” wooden wall underneath, the drywall/sheet rock after that, two layers of drywall going into the hall, two layers of drywall into a bedroom and came to rest in a wooden headboard. So the round end up going through the siding on the house, a 1”x4”, five sheets of drywall and embedded into a probably oak headboard on a bed.

Asking if the county is going to pay your legal fees makes me wonder…. The county is the one prosecuting, they sure are going to pay your legal fees. As far as the attorney thing, it depends on your opinion. it would always be beneficial to have an attorney present when you talk to the police after you shoot someone. I say if you talk to the police because if you don’t talk, and you absolutely have the right to remain silent, you are likely going to jail and/or prison. The law says if you intentionally shoot someone, it is murder. So the police come to your house and there’s a dead guy in your living room. The law says that is murder. Chapter 9 of the Penal Code however says that they are justification for doing so. In my opinion it is going to be hard to claim a justification of self defense without claiming the justification which means you have to give some kind of statement. The state does not have to negate self-defense unless you bring up evidence at a trial. As far as the claim of thousands of dollars, I doubt that unless it goes to trial. In my career I have been to a few self-defense shootings and the ones I can think of off the top of my head, the shooter did not go to jail. To my knowledge the shooter did not hire an attorney and the district attorney presented a case to a grand jury who returned a No Bill. With no indictment, the case was closed. A lot probably depends on the circumstances and maybe the county.A lot probably depends on the circumstances and maybe the county. If a guy kicks in your door at 2 AM, especially if you don’t know who it is, it is likely the case will go no further. The police will investigate and the DA will look into it but I would have a hard time believing any charges would be brought. If you are arguing with your neighbor in the front yard and for some reason it goes to a deadly for situation, you might be completely justified but it might be a little more complicated without a lot of witnesses and without a clear-cut reasoning for deadly force.

Some of the rest replies on Facebook are hilarious and most of them have to be from someone upset about Elon Musk.

Why does an insult have to be racist, homophobic, misogynistic, sexist, etc.? If I am mad at my neighbor and he is a white male heterosexual senior citizen, what am I if I call him a no good ¥0^€% ¥{}[<£& and a $&#^€!!? Why does anger necessarily have to be labeled as anything other than just anger?

It is because the Democratic national party is corrupt. I am not talking about, “they all do it”. They might all line their pockets with lobbyist money and make backroom stock deals. I am talking about being in collusion with the media to stifle opposition. I am talking about pushing for voting rights for people who aren’t Americans as a means of getting a stranglehold on elections. This is a replay of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the socialist takeo…. it is just more subtle so as not to alarm the masses. Musk is not a conservative. He leans liberal or even progressive. He can see the destructive nature of what is happening however.

The same blonde woman is driving down the road by herself and gets stopped by a blonde woman cop. The cop walks up and tells the blonde woman driver that she is speeding and she needs to see her drivers license. The blonde woman driver asked, what does a drivers license look like? The blonde woman cop said it has your face on it. So the driver digs around a while longer and finds a small mirror and looks at it and sure enough, there’s her face. So the blonde woman driver hands the mirror to the blonde woman cop who responds…. ”Why didn’t you tell me you were a police officer?”

In the article it says that Johnson was arrested for “felony murder”. That leaves me with a ……. huh?? There is no such thing as a misdemeanor murder. But…. Within the Murder law in the Texas Penal Code (Sec. 19.02) there is a way to commit Murder without intent. Typically Murder is intentionally or knowingly taking another person’s life. That is fairly straight forward. There was another part added a few years ago that said if while committing or fleeing from another felony, a person kills someone by committing an act clearly dangerous to human life, it is Murder. An example is running a red light while trying to get away from a robbery, causing an accident that killed someone. That would still be PC 19.02 Murder but what is often called felony murder or killing someone (not intentionally) during or fleeing from a felony. So….. was this just a media mistake by using the term felony murder, perhaps unknowingly, that meant something different than what he was actually arrested for? It seems to me that if he shot the guy in the back of the head, that would simply be Murder or intentionally or knowingly taking another person’s life. There would be no accident while committing another felony. On another note, on a Facebook thread it was mentioned by someone that would likely be in a position to know or have contacts who may know, that the deceased may have been shot several times in the back of the head. If true that might tend to negate a claim of self defense.

There seems to be a lot of coincidences happening.

…. and legal with shall issue license in 21 other states. So in 46 states you can carry if you want to. Even Texas CC only did away with the $8 a year license and the 4 hour school.

Sure

Actually I wasn’t discussing pro or con assisted suicide. I was talking about the fact that he intentionally broke the law. He had to be charged or they effectively end the law. Scenario: Any hot topic law State: We absolutely will not pass such a law. (Gambling, Assisted Suicide, Marijuana, etc.) Person Objecting In Public Statement: I don’t care about your stinking law, I am going to start by (opening a casino, start killing people, open a store front open air marijuana store, etc.) State: Okay, we will not enforce that law then. If you could negate any law simply by making a public statement against or for any law and then doing it, there would be no laws. THAT is only what I meant about agree/disagree. I was pointing out that you said he should not have been charged and I think the state had absolutely had no choice but to charge him. To do otherwise would be a de facto repeal of their own law. I am neither for nor against assistant suicide. It is a rare topic where I am not sure of my opinion.

I was going to bring up a version of that. Many people (including me) said that Carter was happy because he was no longer seen as the worst president once Obama was concluded. Now Carter has dropped to number 3…… He is moving down fast in the rankings.

Agree or disagree, I understand the assisted suicide debate. Kevorkian should have been charged and needed be charged. His response was, I don’t like the law so I am going to help kill a person.

If they are terminal, what it the difference? Let’s see, he probably was going to die on Saturday but was in so much pain that he accidentally overdosed and died on Wednesday!! He was accidentally robbed out of up to 72 hours more of painful life!!!

We had one in Port Acres many years ago where neighbors were arguing over a mailbox location…. on public land. One neighbor shot and killed two who were putting the mailbox back out. Another was over a bologna sandwich. Another, where I was the lead officer, was arguing over a shirt to wear and one brother shot another. He lived however. All the others died.