tvc184

That is actually a well known way to carry, often called the SOB carry or Small of Back. They make holsters for specifically that purpose. It has probably lost some favor in recent years with the trend being more toward appendix carry. I used to carry a revolver in the SOB position years ago and only on some occasions. I still do on rare occasions for a situation and not as a preferred option.

The Supreme Court does not use the totality of circumstances in determining whether a use of force was justified. In Graham v. Connor, reaffirmed recently in Barnes v. Felix, the Supreme Court rejected the totality of circumstances in the determination of the use of force and use “objectively reasonable” as the standard. The totality of circumstances can give false decisions on the uses of force.

Without a comment I am not sure of the context of those sites. The legal comment on the way it is portrayed in the Excessive Force and the Fourth Amendment article is incorrect in the point that I think it is trying to make, in my opinion. On the other hand, it kind of makes no point except to say that Congress might want to change some laws.

There are several videos. What do you think that they showed and what laws and court decisions apply? Can you know what a lawful use of force is? If you understand the law, both in Supreme Court decisions and the laws on self-defense and you can look at the videos and your opinion is that the officer is wrong, great. Do you know any of that or is it simply emotion that drives your opinion?

Thank you. Long version explaining why or short version? I don’t take the side of officers because they are or were officers. As an example using the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, on a different sports forum when it first hit the news but was reported as self defense with the retired officer being cleared, I said that it was murder and the DA covered it up. I was chastised for my opinion and the thread was removed after it got fairly heated but not by me. I merely noted my opinion based on the law. After it made the news, the state stepped in and took over the case. The action was fairly swift and indictments came in short order. Not only with three people involved convicted and given life sentences, the DA was removed and charges were filed on her. I found out that the thread had been deleted when I went back to copy my original comments which were time stamped. I was going to show that I called a retired police officer a murderer when the story was reporting it is self-defense as determined by the DA. I have arrested two former partners and recommended criminal charges on two coworkers. I have no issue with calling an officer out for being wrong but the emotion goes both ways. There are people who don’t know the law, don’t like the law or make decisions based on of they like or hate the person in question. Another example is the previously discussed officer on trial from Uvalde. The law in many people’s eyes doesn’t seem to matter as the hatred for the outcome does. So the long or short version? 😎

CBP training is six months.

Maybe it has been covered, but I don’t feel like reading through all of these comments… The mantra from the left is that ICE agents are not real law-enforcement or police, which is false and that they are untrained. So here we have proof that ICE has too little training………. wait a minute, that wasn’t ICE. That was the Border Patrol that shof the guy in Minneapolis. Do we remember the CBP, the heroes who were so highly trained that it was them that stepped up and ended the Uvalde shooting. Again, maybe it has been covered but this wasn’t ICE

That is kind of what happened in the Amadou Diallo case. Detective, were going to speak to a person (Amadou Diallo) on the street who fit the description of a sexual assault suspect. They asked him for identification and he ran, running up a stairway and reached into his pocket and pulled out a black pistol while he was running. The closest officer yelled “Gun!” and there was a shot and the officer went down. The other officers returned fire killing Diallo. Except the black pistol was his wallet. The closest officer who yelled gun tripped and accidentally fired his gun. The officers behind him heard the officer yell gun, heard the gunshot and saw the officer go down. It all happened in a couple of seconds. They all were indicted for a second-degree murder and a jury found all of them not guilty, finding it was a reasonable belief under the circumstances.

What has that got to do with anything? He can’t be wrong, he’s an ICU nurse at the VA!! In truth that might be found to be part of his indoctrination. I am not suggesting that he is anything other than honorable. He could however be angry at the federal government by the way that treat veterans as seen by his work with the VA and carried that anti-government stance into attacking federal agents who he believes are part of the problem. I have arrested people from doctors to business owners, police officers, members of the clergy, etc. There aren’t any exempt professions.

Geez…. 😂 A giant welcome mat like your front porch doesn’t sound like accepting people who have entered the country legally. Who can walk up on a front porch? Anyone. Front porches are open to the public. This guy sounds like he wants Texas to be that front porch where anyone can come up for any reason. He could have easily mentioned legal immigration only without mentioning come on up on my front porch. However….. These kinds of snippets are sometimes noted as being true (actual recording) but completely dishonest on intent. It is entirely possible that Talarico said that he was only for legal immigration AND if immigrants comply with federal law, we should welcome them. I doubt it but it is entirely plausible. I don’t know where to go with the tacos, hot sauce and beers comment. That is downright hilarious. 🤣🤣🤣

They are arresting people in Texas. The Texas government however is not refusing to notify the federal government of illegal aliens under arrest nor trying to hide them. The best way to deport people is to notify ICE when such a person is in custody. The person is already safely locked up and there is no need for a street confrontation.

I agree that they should have done more but not being there, I am not sure what. My issue with this case is that I don’t think it was a crime not to act under Texas law.

I still have no clue if the door was unlocked or how they knew one way or the other.

Found not guilty of on all charges. [Hidden Content] In my opinion it was a bogus case to begin with. You can think him as despicable but that isn’t criminal. You can’t charge someone in a crime that doesn’t exist.

It is not illegal to have a buy back. It is against the law to have a government subdivision to be involved. The firearms are not transferred through aN FFL.

Okay. So now your discussion of what rights you would lose is, maybe some skilled attorney can figure it out. I will accept that as, you don’t have an answer. I am against any illegal immigration. If I had the ability, I would stop every single person from crossing the border without permission from the federal government. I am just not sure of how Houston or Harris County unconstitutionally using tax money harms me or you.

He might actually have a good case for the Insurrection Act.

1. I was clearly referring to the rights in the US Constitution. The article that you listed was about the Texas Constitution. 2. Even so and again, what right in the US or Texas Constitutions been denied to you by illegal aliens? In Paxton’s challenge he is bringing up that there is a Texas Constitution section that prohibits using public funds for something that doesn’t help the public. So if the court rules that spending to defend illegal aliens is unconstitutional, they will have to spend the money elsewhere. Do you think that tax money is going to you instead? If not (and it’s obvious not) going to you, how has an illegal alien taken away a right that you were guaranteed in either Constitution? For the sake of argument (I think the legal term is arguendo) let’s say that somehow you would benefit from some tax dollars not going to an illegal alien. What part of either Constitution guarantees that you will receive government money?

What rights are you guaranteed in the Constitution that has been violated by illegal aliens? Your rights to religion? Free speech? Go armed? Have a public trial? Remain silent? Be represented by an attorney? If you get a case to the Supreme Court, what constitutionally guaranteed right are you going to ask them to uphold? Illegal aliens have stopped me from….. what?

None of that answers my question of what crime unless a conspiracy to commit a felony can be proven. So again, what is the crime of paying people to protest? If I pay you $50 to go to a pro Trump rally and hold a sign for two hours that says MAGA, what crime have I committed?

A pardon cannot be for a future crime.

You can expose the payers if you want. What’s the crime though? OMG, it’s the George Soros group! We can prove it! Charge them with…. uhhh….. charge them with…. Let me get back to you.

They might be able to stretch it into some kind of conspiracy but they crime would not be the pay but the plan to commit (at least in Texas) a felony. Merely planning a crime is not in itself a crime. It would have to be proven that 3 or more people got together and planned on committing a felony and at least one person in the conspiracy did an overt act to further the felony. At least under Texas law, saying that I’ll give you $50 if you go stand on the corner with a sign saying whatever I want like the police are there gestapo, is in itself not a crime that I know of.

Is it a crime to pay a person to protest?

Indoctrination is always best when started at a young age.