tvc184

I have yet to read any facts or even what is reported to be facts other than an officer shot someone and a 15 year old child is dead. Not that it matters what I think but....... 1. A 15 year old child was needlessly killed. He is an innocent victim no matter what happened. 2. Was the vehicle driving away or toward the officer? The chief changed the "facts" but said the car was not in reverse but was moving forward. Okay, but what gear he was in might mean nothing. Was he driving forward toward or away from the officer? 3. What is the time span from the shots fired on scene and the officer opening fire? 4. What was the distance between the officer and the vehicle that he fired into? 5. Did the officer see muzzle flashes in the vicinity of the vehicle whether it was heading toward or away from him? In the late 80's in San Bernardino, CA an officer responded to an armed person on school grounds late at night or early in the morning. As the officer was walking around the school he saw a man with a gun that turned toward the officer and fired. The officer saw the flash of light and returned fire, killing a teenager. No problem..... except it was some people playing Laser Tag. The officer killed a kid with a toy that likely had no idea the officer was there other than to think it was one of his friends playing the game. No, it isn't the same scenario but in a way it is. It is perception. What did a officer reasonably believe? The SCOTUS has set the standard of viewing such incidents from the eyes of an officer responding to a situation. It is not viewed from the eyes of a person in his living room or in a judge's chambers a few months later. The ruling (Graham v. Connor) said that such uses of force are to be viewed from an officer responding to a possible violent situation and not from the totality of circumstances as we might later find. It was a unanimous ruling. In a recent case the SCOTUS (2014 Plumhoff v. Rickard) a unanimous Court found that an officer could not be sued for firing into a car and killing not only the driver but an innocent passenger. Note again that it was a unanimous ruling. In 2007 in Scott v. Harris the SCOTUS ruled in an 8-1 decision that ramming a car off the roadway in a chase and causing a person to be a quadriplegic was not an unlawful use of force. In 2015 in another 8-1 ruling the SCOTUS said that a Texas DPS trooper was entitled to qualified immunity from even a lawsuit after he fired into a fleeing car and killed the driver. At the time the trooper was on top of an overpass and was in no danger from being struck. He had just been ordered not to shoot by his supervisor but he opened fire anyway. In all of these cases the SCOTUS has ruled that a decision must be based on what an officer sees and what he reasonably believes. In these decisions we have an innocent person killed and an officer disobeying a direct order. In 9-0 and 8-1 rulings the officers were cleared. When we often have 5-4 and 6-3 split decisions all the time from the SCOTUS, in these four police cases on use of force there were 34 votes in favor of the officers and 2 against. That is overwhelming. While none of these is the same scenario as in Balch Springs, the point is that you cannot simply say a person that was unarmed/not a threat/innocent automatically makes the officer wrong. These were civil suits where the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt such as it is for a criminal conviction but a burden of a preponderance of the evidence or roughly more than 50%. There is a good likelihood that this officer will be convicted although maybe not for Murder. I can envision Manslaughter or Criminally Negligent Homicide. But who knows, maybe the "facts" will show enough for a Murder conviction. If so, great. We still have seen nothing publicly released that show what happened other than the aforementioned a 15 year old is dead and an officer fired the shot. Maybe the officer has a history of stupid decisions and this one rises to Murder and he needs to get a life sentence. Maybe he was responding to a legally defensible situation and will be cleared by a jury. If anyone can actually report any known "facts", please point out the source.

Is any of that really in the bill or are you merely repeating the daily Democratic talking points?

I have a couple of thoughts to ponder. I heard Chuck Schumer complain that the GOP passed the bill with no Democratic support. NEWSFLASH CHUCK!!. The Dems passed Obamacare without a single GOP vote. Nancy Pelosi was complaining that they were bringing back a dead issue. NEWSFLASH NANCY!!. It took the Dems almost a year and a half to pass Obamacare and then they had to bribe several Democrats at the end to vote for it with pork projects for those states. They act like if the GOP can't pass it in a month, it should be over. The complaints are from the same people that incessantly repeated the mantra of, "you can keep your doctor and keep your insurance". It was all an outright lie. It was not even close to the truth and the cost is way more than the CBO claimed. These same people now want you to trust them when they want you not to believe the GOP and the costs. I guess it would be better if the Dems said, "We outright lied to fool you and the GOP is doing the same so don't fall for it". Back to your rants...........

The bill removes from office any chief of police or sheriff who even adopts a policy that interferes with immigration laws. That applies to some local law enforcement agencies that seem to have such policies. It also provides civil penalties of up to $25,500 for each occurrence.

There is no new healthcare act. There is a bill that has yet to be decided and has not even begun debate in the Senate. Obamacare is still the law of the land.... unfortunately.

Just like the local case of the security guard shooting into the car in Port Arthur while thinking he was witnessing a robbery. It would be lawful to stop a robbery by using deadly force. Unfortunately, blasting indiscriminately into a vehicle he caused the death of a woman who is not involved. I wonder about the thought process of firing into a vehicle in such cases. If a person is actively and continually try to run over you, I understand shooting at the driver. That does not seem to be the case in the security guard in Port Arthur or the officer in Balch Springs.

I would be lying if I said I understood that.

My response wasn't to you but to the article you posted. It is what us sometimes a standard of poor reporting or did the chief give vague information?

Maybe it is just poor reporting or the chief didn't explain it. The article seems to say that the car was not going in reverse, it was driving forward. That tells me almost nothing but what gear the car was in. Was it driving "forward" toward the officer or away? I could care less what gear the car was in but it matters quite a bit which way it was moving.

The Constitution is probably bad for the country. It is almost certainly good for crime and criminals. Being good for the country wasn't why it was drafted however. It was written for individual rights and freedoms, not for what was good for the country.

It may have been legal depending on what happened but I doubt (and have a hard time believing) that it was necessary.

There is a huge difference between being accused and actually arrested or charged. I can accuse anyone of anything with no proof at all. An arrest implies probable cause at the very least which is around a 50% or greater appearance of being true What a discussion that case was. I got blistered for saying that she had no grounds for a valid lawsuit. I even got angry private messages. The courts agreed with me (since I rendered a decision first ). I had no opinion on the assault case but only on the school's authority to remove her from the team.

What was the arrest for? A person can be arrested for not using a turn signal so it could be anything from a traffic citation to Capital Murder. The police have to notify the school in all class B misdemeanor (slghtly more serious than a traffic ticket) and above arrests but schools only have to take action on certain arrests. Merely saying a student was arrested in itself is almost meaningless.

I did not realize it was a benchpress contest. Yep, the gorilla would win And I never thought the gorilla would be standing at arms length and let the bear slash him. The gorilla would charge him but unless he gets the bear in a Full Nelson, it won't matter.

I think for that airline, if you can safely walk off the plane after landing, you have to call the entire thing an enjoyable experience.

Just more NT click bait............

I found an article on it. It says that a decision is looming and many people suspect that no charges will be filed even by the US Justice Dept. From only the evidence that I saw on video, that would be the proper response. I am sure there is other evidence that has not been made public but the burden is on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers acted improperly and I didn't see that from the video. The article notes that several laws have been proposed in LA due to this incident. I was surprised to find that they are now recommending at least 400 classroom hours for a basic police license. That was the TX requirement over 30 years ago. LIT locally teaches about 700 classroom hours for a basic license. That law proposal also looks to have at least 20 hours annually for updates. Again, TX has had that in place for decades with mandatory updates on new laws every legislative session and many more hours of additional training for more advanced police licenses similar to college degrees. For college you have associate, bachelor, master and doctorate degrees. Police have basic, intermediate, advanced and master licenses. A master police license with 1,200 hours of training takes 20 years to attain. It can be sooner with more schooling but it is not easy to obtain. Apparently LA has no such requirements of annual training or not nearly as extensive. (I have over 3,000 hours of classroom training and probably over 5,000 total training) That is a good thing for LA and it looks like most police departments, at least the chiefs and some unions, are backing up the requirements. Welcome LA to the 1980's..... [Hidden Content]

I cannot find any article on it.

I've got it. You have no clue as to your claims being true (zero chance of conviction because he threw a punch) but personal experience let you assume the facts. That was all that I was getting it in the first place. I wanted to know if you actually had any knowledge of what happened and this guy was unfairly targeted or you were merely putting out an opinion. It is not a matter of being worked up. I thought you actually knew what happened the way you were commenting and I wanted to know what happened.

Not only policy but state law.

First off, it will not likely go in front of a judge but a jury. Some juries aren't very sympathetic to a bunch of drunks and in fact may be prejudiced against such action. Guilt isn't debated in living rooms but by jurors sitting alone in a room and they come from the general public, not a debating forum. I have seen such rationale in citations that I have written such as for loud music. I guess some might have the theory that a jury member has teenage kids and might therefore have sympathy for not hammering a kid for such action. I testified in front of such a jury and saw a kid get hit with almost $1,000 in fines and costs from a jury. You say that it is not about stomping a defenseless person but that seems exactly what it is about. I asked you what information that you had as to the "single blow" statement that you made. Your only response was a witness statement. It again seems that you are basing your "single judge" result on that single hit. My question to you again is, was there a single hit by the student in question and did that supposed single hit have anything to do with the results? If so he might be in a bunch of trouble and might need to find your judge who would never convict him on your witnesses credible testimony that you read somewhere. If it is true that he only hit the victim one time and it had nothing to do with the outcome, he should have never been charged and if so, hopefully will not be indicted. I am just always curious on internet debates where claims are made because someone read what another person said about what someone else said. Do you actually know for a fact that the student charged in this case hit the victim one time and it was not in any way involved in the outcome? I would love to hear such facts if anyone has them. I suspect it may be nothing more than wishful thinking. My only thinking is that whoever is responsible be held accountable and if this student isn't one of them, he has all charges dropped immediately. Oh yeah, that "one" hit is still likely an assault which carries up to a year in jail.

I am not done disputing anything since I know absolutely nothing about the incident. Having been involved in thousands of investigations however, I am surprised that the investigators released the information on what witnesses said. Where can I read the statement released by the police?

You say that you have a problem with head kicking and stomping a defenseless person. That is what makes the aggravated assault under Texas law. For all of the people involved in this incident, the DA office and sheriffs office appears to have singled out 4 people as being the one involved in this act of assaulting a person who was defenseless. It was not everyone who threw a punch or who was involved in the overall melee. I have no clue of any of it other than one person was seriously injured. The logical question would be to ask if the student in question was one of the persons that took part and if there is video or if there are credible witnesses that say he took part in your description of kicking a man when he was down. You claim to have knowledge that all he did was "threw a punch". If that is correct then you are likely also correct in that he will not be convicted of the assault.... and should be. If there are credible witnesses or if there is video of this student taking part in kicking and stomping a man who was defenseless, he will likely be convicted of the assault.... and should be. My question for you would be, how do you know he only threw a punch?

Nope, the judge appears to have completely ignored the Education Code which is the prevailing law.

I believe that Van Jones is correct or nearly so. It is a typical way of taking a fact and skewing it to make it look like something different. I read a CNN article on the pipeline and those numbers. It used the same figures but then went on to explain them. The 35 permanent jobs is to run the pipeline itself. That is, the actual flowing of the oil through the pipeline. This will be like at the point origination and pump stations along the way. No, the pipeline itself will not create 42,000 new jobs. That would be a worker approximately every 175 feet of an underground pipe line. So Van Jones and others are correct. It does not take a different worker every 175 feet of an underground pipeline to keep it flowing. Duhhh..... Oh yeah, the CNN article does mention the 42,000 jobs. Jobs will be created but they will not be standing on the pipeline. They will be in production, transportation, services provided, etc. So yes, the pipeline will only create 35 new jobs for people staring at the pipeline to make sure it's not leaking and to man pump stations along the way. Yes that will be an additional 42,000 jobs created by the same pipeline by the product that runs through it. Jones and others choose to ignore the 42,000 jobs and focus on the actual "pipeline" jobs and hope (successfully it appears) that some people will be too stupid to believe that million barrels of oil will create 35 jobs.