tvc184

I think it was the Duke lacrosse team rape case where the DA was disbarred and charges filed for malicious prosecution, covering up evidence or something like that. I wish the same would happen in this case. I know it is not likely but it would sure be nice. This sure seems like a criminal act by the DA, likely to pad her run for some higher office. They did show some evidence that could have convicted the driver who was acquitted today. I think the DA merely overcharged him. By the evidence shown on video, they could have definitely charged the cop that drove the van with a wide right turn where he didn't turn as close to the curb as possible and at another intersection he didn't come to a complete stop. The judge concluded that these two infractions did exist but the DA charged the officer with depraved indifference homicide when she should have gone after a couple of traffic citations. Just a wee bit overcharged..............

The really bad thing about this case is the additional officers charged other than the driver. If the DA wanted to roll the dice with the driver then maybe. Of course charging someone criminally should not be rolling the dice. It should be a well thought out investigation and it looks like the guy is guilty and not just, "we want someone held responsible". In this case they charged everyone that even had contact with him. Their cause and effect is beyond belief. So here is a scenario. A guy is running out of gas and glides into a service station. He fills up and pays the clerk. Five miles down the road he is texting, crosses the center stripe and kills someone. They then charge the clerk for accessory to criminally negligent homicide. Why? Well, he the clerk hadn't sold the gasoline, the guy would not have killed someone. Therefore the clerk is partly responsible. That is what they did in this case. A couple of cops chase a guy, arrest him and put him in the wagon. He is later killed either by his own actions or maybe even a different officer. In any case his arrest itself or the force used to make the arrest had nothing to do with the death. They charge the officers that arrested him with a homicide or assault and misconduct in some form. Huh?

Just like the Zimmerman case, this was purely political and not criminal. I am not saying that there should not be a criminal investigation. I just know that there's no evidence to show wrongdoing in either case. Even the judge today blasted the prosecution saying that there was no evidence brought to show any crime. It is not whether you agree or disagree with the evidence, there was none. You can only go on what you can prove and the evidence was never there to start with. Had these not been a high-profile cases and just a local incident, then no indictments would have ever been return.

If almost every gun used in a shooting in Chicago (or anywhere) is already illegal to possess, how are any more gun laws going to help at all. If you already have a gun illegally, how do we make it "more" illegal? I can never figure out the anti-gun rationale. Let's see, you are committing a crime that may carry life in prison or the death penalty but it will stop you from committing that horrendous crime by..... making the gun itself illegal and attaching a small penalty to it. That is akin to saying that I will not murder someone today because it might cause me to get a speeding ticket.

They ruin a lot of good movies with the chick flick nonsense. Examples are Pearl Harbor and Midway. Two historical movies if not ruined, nearly so or pushed to the point of gagging. Examples of how not to toss completely bogus love scenes (as in not even real people) into otherwise historical movies would be The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far and Patton. Even fiction based on fact such as Saving Private Ryan don't need a love story. A place where it is acceptable in a historic movie is like Titanic where the love story IS the story and the historical setting was simply to enhance the plot and making it like a Greek tragedy. In my opinion.

A couple of legislative sessions ago the Dems called the GOP the "party of no". I guess we can call the Dems the "party of tantrums" or maybe just "Team Tantrum". They can go sit on the floor and cry. Right after Obama took office, the GOP was trying to stop Obamacare and were using legal rules within Congress to win for their side. Elijah Cummings was on one of the news networks saying something like, "You need to realize that we won the election. We get our way. " Now Cummings is one of them on the floor protesting. Wait, doesn't he know that the Republicans won the House in the last election? Isn't that the way it works with the winning party controlling the vote or does that only apply when the Dems are in control? Cummings is the epitome of hypocrisy. He whined about stalling the vote within the rules and then takes part to do the same thing but by breaking the rules. Yep, tantrum seems to fit nicely.

Whether there is security either by hired guards or off duty police officers is up to the venue. In this case there was an off duty police officer on scene and he engaged the terrorist almost immediately. That caused the guy to retreated into the club and take hostages. That began a long standoff. A hostage situation is way different that an active shooter. For example, the Sandy Hook shooting incident lasted about 5 minutes. The Orlando incident took more than 3 hours. The bad guy was not killing people for 3 hours. If he had been an active shooter, the police would have moved in and taken him out. When people are willing to negotiate, the police try not to push the issue and in most hostage negotiations the people are released. The police also thought that he might have a bomb and parts of one were thought to be found. I think it turned out to be a battery out of a smoke detector. I don't think the shooter had anything to do with club or being security. I believe that he was once a guard almost a decade ago.

I Think we are talking about a least the 1900s.

You are 100% correct, it is political. We agree on something When hundreds of minorities get gunned down we hear almost nothing. I am not the politician whining about a terrorist incident when ignoring many times as many people shot weekly but it doesn't fit the current agenda.

I don't watch Hannity. Perhaps you can tell me what he says. I know this is a newsflash for you but Hannity is not a political party.

I saw today that there was another mass shooting this weekend. In that incident 43 people were shot and 13 have died. Wait, that was last weekend in Chicago, the city with the strictest gun laws. I wonder how many in that terror attack used an AR-15 or AK-47. Wait again, the Democrats led by Obama and Lynch said that handguns aren't the problem and we need to stop the evil black rifles. Some people simply can't see through the smoke screen.

Sure. They already have one entire political party believing anything that is said.

Loretta Lynch perhaps? President Obama? "I pledge allegiance to XXXX!!" Loretta Lynch: "We have redacted the word ISIS so where we have blanks in the transcript, it is the word ISIS that we don't want you to see". Now the president's press secretary just now is blaming it completely on the DOJ.... AKA, headed up by Loretta Lynch. I see, so it's the cop's fault. The police (FBI) decided that the people that know the word ISIS was used, have made the decision not to release it? Right..... and I just took possession of the Golden Gate Bridge and am willing to release it for a reasonable offer.

This is almost comical. I heard Loretta Lynch say that they are deleting the pledge so that we can't hear him make the pledge that she is saying that he made and it gives him a voice to claim his allegiance. Huh? They have already told us that he pledged allegiance to ISIS. We already have seen Representative James Clyburn from SC publicly claim that this was nothing but a gun issue and had nothing at all to do with terrorism. So who are they protecting, the public or Democratic congressmen who have publicly made stupid statement?

The police are only minutes away when seconds count.

What I have seen is that tolerance, like complaints of the good ol' boy system, only applies to the other guy. No one likes the good ol' boy system........ until he is the good ol' boy. Everyone wants tolerance.... from the other side. The Dems seem to play this to the max. It is not that their beliefs are any different in those areas. They however try to claim the high moral ground but live by the mantra, "Don't do as I do, do as I say".

Reagan said "machine gun". Machine guns are already banned unless you have been through a federal investigation and have a federal stamp that must be on you when you possess the machine gun.

I think that survival plan is the........ "I hope this well planned attack ends and he runs out of bullets before he gets to me".

Anyone could have stopped this. A weapon would make it easier. It comes from people being sheep. They will cower on the floor simply waiting to die while watching people next to them killed but too afraid to defend themselves. If only half a dozen people out of more than 100 had rushed him, even if waiting for him to reload, this would have saved dozens of lives. Again, a gun or even a knife would have made it easier. Anytime a single person holds more than 100 at bay, it is only because they allow it. The federal government and others (and we are teaching it locally) is run, hide, fight. If you are cornered or in a position where escape is not possible and you will likely be found, you fight. You fight with any weapon that you can get your hands on even like a fire extinguisher. Spray it in his eyes or use the canister as a club. A gun, again, simply makes it easier. Anyone that says a person with a gun could not have stopped is either lying for a political argument or has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. An example is flight United 93 that went down in PA. Once they realized what was happening and that this was not simply a hostage/hijacking situation, they attacked the bad guys and took the plane over. Obviously it forced the jet to the ground but they were able to keep the armed bad guys from their intent. They also likely saved the lives of many other people (just like attacking in Orlando would have done) who were on the ground. People are alive today because some passengers on United 93 did not cower and simply await their death. Had this been an active shooter or had there been enough time to regain control of the plane, they would have been successful and even less lives lost. You want another example? Less than a year ago three US citizens along with a couple of Europeans attacked a Muslim terrorist on a train when the guy pulled a rifle and started shooting. These guys refused to be victims and refused to allow the carnage to even start. They attacked and ended the terror attack. How? They refused to sit and wait for their turn to die. Even the British citizen that helped said that you either sit and wait for your turn to die or you stand up and charge. And yes, if I am caught in an active shooter situation, I will attack. Hopefully there will be more people willing to save their own lives and if so, the chances of success are extremely high. Simply waiting to be shot in the back of the head doesn't seem like much of an option to me. If I was armed (and I always am), he'd better take me out first because if his attention is on any other person, it will end right then.

1. Handouts. 2. See #1. That is where most urban areas are concentrated.

Great, you quoted from an opinion article from consortiumnews? I could quote all kinds of opinion articles on anyone. Any original thoughts or simply copy and paste a slanted opinion?

Correct, no one has to attack us. They do what they want around the world, including here, as they have no fear. Russia is pushing influence everywhere with no fear of a renewed cold war as we have a president that is a coward. You don't have to beat up the bully but you'd better make him believe that he will pay the price if he gets out of line. There is almost no country in the world that thinks Obama will lead this nation into any war no matter how much needed or just. Teddy Roosevelt said "Speak softly but carry a big stick". Obama's policy is "Apologize and give away the stick".

I think a lot of that will change with the next administration, even if it is Hillary. It won't be as much with her as it will with Trump but the Whiner In Chief will be gone and the next president will give less credibility to the slugs that feel empowered to come out from under their rocks. The slugs and thugs have always been there. Mostly they have stayed in the shadows but this "most transparent" presidency has given them a voice that they did not have previously and I think that they will lose some of that voice in a few months. I doubt that even Hillary will go on a world apology tour.

I just looked at the FBI files on types of weapons used, I looked at TX in 2010 (since I had that saved and didn't have to run another search). In 2010 rifles of all types (not just the dreaded AR-15 and AK-47 types) resulted in 34 murders. Personal weapons of hands/feet/fists/etc resulted in 109 murders. Hmmmm..... hands and feet killed 3 times as many people as rifles. I have no clue but I would bet that if we broke that down into "assault" rifles, it would be something like 3 - 109. Knives were responsible for 202 murders. Yeah, banning "assault" rifles will solve our problems. Not much murder without those.

I was reading a comment on Facebook about this situation. A guy said that if a person trying to help the situation by taking out the bad guy and had an AR 15, he would have blasted away with it in a wild shootout trying to kill the bad guy and would have maybe killed another hundred innocent people. Such is the rationale of the idiots. I guess it is like, I want to kill the bad guy so I'm going to shoot all over the room and take out a bunch of innocents. Maybe somewhere in my spraying around I will get the bad guy if I'm lucky. Therefore his conclusion was that no one other than the police could have stopped this situation. A firearm in self-defense would never work without it being just as deadly to innocent people as the bad guy. Ooookay......