tvc184

This is a Dave Chappelle skit, right?

​Therein lies part of the problem. The law is written that the person that an officer detains or arrests has no opinion at that moment in time that matters. You cannot resist or evade a detention or arrest because you feel that you have "done no wrong". In fact laws says that even an "unlawful arrest" is not a defense to prosecution of resisting the officer. The law is and has to be that officer's authority on the street is not open for debate at the roadside. If an officer pulls you over for a traffic violation, you do not get a legal pass not to stop because you don't think you did anything wrong. You can fight the case in traffic court and you can sue the officer if you believe your rights have been violated. Fail to stop in a vehicle and it is a felony and can result with a person being in prison. There are plenty of places to legally protest an officer's actions. During the incident is not one of them.

​I am sure it will and so will body cams but in about 98+% of the cases it will clear the officer. In either case the decisions made have to be made from the point of view of the officer in the incident, not from a Monday morning quarterback that has a lot of time and no danger to make a calm decision that is not afforded the officer at the scene. Take officers out of it. There have been plenty of civilians that have killed innocent people because they reasonably believed that the person was breaking into their home. Reasonableness has to be sees from the point of view of the person seeing something.

This case (Norris v. Noe 672 F.3rd 1185 (10th cir.2012)) has nothing to do with overturning Graham or misapplying it. In fact that case (which is only at what is essentially at the local level but in the federal system) actually mentions Graham a couple of times in the case and the new standard of "objective reasonableness" cited under Graham. It is just their ruling that when viewed objectively, the officer's use of force was not reasonable.

​ Well, you just changed the topic. You former post that I quoted had to do with the officer drawing his gun. You mentioned a kid with a straw in his mouth and pulling up his pants (in response to bullets13 view on the gun part of it). That of course was from your point of view, not involved in the heat of the incident, from the comfort of your home and from a completely different angle that the officer did not have. The Supreme Court said that your position is not valid in viewing the use of force that an officer uses and they did so unanimously. I was not saying anything about how the officer acted in reference to the entire incident or compared to other officers. I have made no defense in his actions and in fact think that he was wrong. When sitting in judgment of his individuals actions however (such as drawing a firearm), the USSC says that for that particular part of it, you have to see it from the officer's eyes, not yours. As an example it might be easy to see from a different angle that a person's hand behind his back is not reaching for or holding a weapon. That is not the same from a person in front that cannot see what the hand is reaching for or holding. Nice attempt at diverting the post though. It didn't work but nice try.

It is true that this area is great for providing a living.... assuming that you can pass a drug screen or are not a high school dropout that didn't even have enough drive to go back and correct the mistake by getting a GED. There are so many union, chemical plant and construction jobs that we have thousands of people here working from out of this area and many (or most) from out of state. It is almost amazing that we have to "import" thousands of workers when we have double digit unemployment. So good place to earn a living? You bet. The reputation of the area though is pretty much justified when comparing the unemployment rate and the fact that workers cannot be found in the same area and have to be brought in from out of state.

​ ​That is very easy to make such a conclusion.... assuming that you are sitting back at a different angle from a video at a safe distance or in your living room and not a person from a completely different angle that is in the middle of the action and only a second or two away from a person that could kill you. Read the case of Graham v. Connor from 1989. In that case Graham was a completely innocent person that had committed no crime. The police however detained him and in the process thrashed him about a bit and Graham ended up in the hospital. I believe that it was a rare unanimous US Supreme Court that cleared the officers of violating Graham's civil rights in a lawsuit. In fact the decision mentioned you (or people like you) when they said that you have to view uses of force as seen by officers in the heat of the moment in "split second" decisions rather than "20/20 hindsight". In other words, it is easy to view and respond when not in the position of the officer.

​I don't either but I suspect that had that video simply been internal like on an officer's car video and the chief saw it, you would not have seen the same response.

​The police chief was not pleased that he had to answer questions. Assuming that he had a typical police union position, yes he is out of that. That is elected by local police officers and is likely a non-paying position. It is not a job but more like a shift representative. I have been a union vice president and the function of that or the president is to run/chair meetings, pick and head up the bargaining team if in negotiations and to do miscellaneous duties like in my agency picking members for interview boards. Such as when a person goes for a hiring interview, the hiring board is made up of the chief or his designee, one deputy chief, one supervisor and one patrol grade officer (patrolman or detective) as appointed by the union president. Another miscellaneous duty that I performed was when the local civil service board was selecting new books for the sergeant and lieutenant promotional tests, I sat in representation of the union to review the books and give my input into which ones would be best (I actually got a book selected over the objection of the then chief of police and the head of civil service). It is not like a United Steel Workers national president that makes well up into 6 or 7 figures. Police union positions are merely an advice committee or spokesmen of the officers in that particular department. Once he is no longer an officer, he can no longer be a representative.

The TSA was created after 9/11 because before that, private (sometimes minimum wage type jobs) companies handled airport security as independently hired by airlines. The belief was that actual law enforcement that was trained in detaining and investigating would be better than what in reality was not much more than mall cops. To the TSA screeners were born. The problem is that they aren't cops (I am talking about the Security Officers or TSO's) and are the same people as before under private security but now with a better salary and benefits. The original TSO's had white uniforms but they were changed to blue uniforms to make them look like police officers.... to the complaint of some police agencies. The federal government has stepped in and created a new position that appears to be little better than the old ones under private security.... but at a much greater cost to the taxpayers. I don't blame the people that take those higher paying jobs and benefits or their lack of training. The way the system was set up, like many federal programs, is bloated and likely concentrates in the wrong areas, probably from political correctness.

You can never tell what a judge or jury will do but SYG will be tough in this case. A simple claim of fear is not enough to justify that (or any) defense. If that was true then you could kill anyone you wish and simply say the magic words, I was in fear. It has to be a reasonable fear supported by evidence. Zimmerman had a bloody nose and more than one injury to the back of his head. I don't think this guy has any injuries, just a claim of fear.

​Yes, guns are evil. They are known to get up and commit crimes completely on their own and we just can't risk that around children.

​She is a natural disaster.

​The hog trick was not "costless". Harmless perhaps.........

The gangsters and idiots feel emboldened since they are coming to realize that the police aren't going to beat the bushes looking for them.

What is shocking is the outright stupidity and embarrassment the DA is to the community and the case. Any justice will be the trial moving out of that area and possibly her being removed by her own actions.

Not insanity legally. He wouldn't be writing of being caught if he thought what he was doing was legal.... which is the standard of not guilty by insanity.

I would depend on how fast he was going through the halls, how close he may have come to someone, etc. The law on Deadly Conduct says that if you "recklessly" place any person in danger of serious injury, it is up to a year in jail. According to his actions, he may have crossed the culpability of being reckless of any serious injuries. We would have to see more video or statements of people but the charge is possible, considering an facts available. The Criminal Mischief seems obvious is you could tell at all that the tires had been on the floor. Even having to wax it could result in up to a $500 fine for a "substantial inconvenience".

​Maybe various charges like Deadly Conduct which carries up to a year in jail. At the very least, if they had to rewax the floors or even mop it, it is Criminal Mischief (vandalism). If the replacement price (cost and labor) comes to $50 or more, it could be up to 6 months in the county jail and/or a $2,000 fine. What do you call "minor"?

Lucky the DA did not take charges.....

  Yes, from the pole where the flag hangs seems very clear. My post was likewise clear.    The pole by itself has no meaning. Now if they have removed the flag or trampled, I could see the issue with symbolism.   It is a cheesy prank and a crime. To try and make it some kind of disrespect to the flag issue is stretching that rubber band beyond the breaking point. 

I understand the flag and saluting it and I always do.   A flag pole?    I have never thought of that as the symbol of the nation. Maybe I am missing something........... 

Local reporter makes national news... by being an idiot. 

I went to basic swat school at Houston PD about 22 years ago. One of the classes that was taught was the police and the media. What was pointed out and it is very true is that the media is going to run a story. They will not wait to get the facts and will always try to beat the next news media to the punch. In other words, they are going to run with some story no matter who it slanders or how much is true. All you have to do is look at Ferguson, Missouri and see the stupidity that comes out of the media before any facts are presented. The point of the class that I attended was that they are going to run with a story almost immediately and that you need to at least get your side out there. Having been directly involved in speaking with the media about a local officer involved shooting, I can guarantee you that some of the stuff that was put out to the public was completely bogus. I have no clue on what the police did in Waco and no body else reading this forum likely does either. Trying to make a judgment merely on the speed of the police putting out a statement is likely to be a folly however. It is common practice in today's policing circles to almost immediately put out a statement when any officer is involved in any kind of critical incident. It has to be that way simply because of the nonsense that is put out to the public and again, we can look at Ferguson Missouri where the media is reporting that witnesses claim that brown had his hands up, and was begging for his life, the police shot him for no reason, etc.

Horrible. Might be a waste of a good piece of wild pig meat.