tvc184

    Bail is only to assure that a person returns for trial. I think there is little chance that the officers are going to flee.    From what I have seen in thousands of cases, people with no standing in the community or little to lose will not show up in court and there are probably hundreds (if not thousands) of warrants in currently in Jefferson County from people skipping trial or arraignment. 

  This is the most politically charge arrest that I have ever seen. It is even worse than the Zimmerman case.    Both the mayor and prosecutor made statements that should take them both out of the process. When the prosecutor goes public and says this is for the protesters around the country, she showed that she is a political idiot. She is supposed to be upholding the law because of facts, not to quell riots.    Maybe the facts are there and maybe they aren't (nothing made public says that there is any evidence) but just like the Zimmerman case, the DA chose not to go to a grand jury and almost immediately indict merely on her signature alone. There is a reason that Texas and I think the federal governments require a grand jury to review a case and issue an indictment.    Hopefully these officer's attorneys can get a change of venue and slow down the witch hunt. 

I believe that three of the six officers charged are black including a female.   So much for the claim that diversification will end the run ins between the police and black youths.    Maybe in Baltimore it is female officers and black officers that have the problem since that seems to be what police uses of force are based on in debates. 

  Pretty much. I have never heard these terms after so many years and so many defense classes.  It sounds like someone putting their own description of events like they were bending him over. The only kinds of bending or folding that I know is bending over to tie your boots and folding the flag. I have never heard an officer even behind the scenes and off the record saying something like we folded, bent, used a folding move, etc. 

  That is what I am talking about in the wording of the law and it being specific.   Robbery is a crime of violence. It is someone pulling a gun or knife on you and demanding money or causing you injury. That is not a property crime such a burglary (called breaking and entering in some states) and theft which is just stealing something.    TX law allows the use of deadly force to stop a robbery.    Did someone steal something from you (theft), enter into a home or business (burglary) or pull a weapon on you and demand money?

Under TX law, if someone enters your business without consent with the intent to commit theft, it is burglary. TX law allows the use of deadly force to defend against burglary IF (as determined by a grand jury and if indicted, a criminal jury) it was reasonable that a person in your position could not protect the property by other means or that to do so would expose you to serious bodily injury. If a single unarmed person comes in and is not visibly armed, I think you might have a hard time shooting someone and claiming it was reasonably necessary. If the person is obviously larger, more physically fit, armed or there is more than one, I think a TX grand jury or criminal jury would be very sympathetic to your claim of necessary force. In my opinion.

The last stats I saw on the issue showed that blacks were underrepresented on death row. Look at the known offenders by race and blacks committed slighly more than half of all murders yet are less than half of death row inmates. Even given for slight fluctuations from year to year (slightly over or under 50%) the results are roughly that blacks are on death row at similar rates to the known homicides based on race. I am not sure where a statement of three times more likely to get the death sentence comes from. If blacks commit about half of all murders and are 3 times as likely to be on death row, are they 150% of death row? I read an article on this topic a few years ago. From the stats I read back then, a black was more likley to have the death penalty sought if the victim was white. That doesn't change the numbers as far as death row inmates but it is not (theoretical) justice for black victims. In other words, one race commits about half the murders and occupies about half of death row. That half is mainly for white victims however. The injustice is not how many blacks are on death row but how many black victims of murder will not have the ultimate sentence carried out on their behalf. Maybe that is where the 3 times more likely comes from. The death sentence might be 3 times more likely sought if the victim is white. Of course then you have to toss in the stats that whites are way more likely to be the victim of a murder by blacks that the opposite of blacks being the victim of murder by whites.

  If you shoot someone for coming onto your property (trespassing), you'd better have lots of money and a very good lawyer on speed dial.    It may not help in the final outcome which can be life in prison but at least it will give you a fair trial. 

  Maryland law makes it a crime to carry a concealed switchblade.    Maryland law is a little more confusing to me or as compared to TX law. Running from the police is in TX, Evading Detention but I think in Maryland it goes under the heading of Resisting Arrest or Detention from what I read.    Assuming he ran from the police, that alone would be a crime. Comparing it to TX law, if an officer tells you to stop and you flee, you have committed a crime.    State laws are one thing but the question then sometimes goes to the US Supreme Court to rule on laws and their constitutionality. As to this situation, the USSC ruled in Wardlow v. Illinois in 2000 that "headlong flight" from the police alone is enough to chase and detain the person regardless of any other evidence or information.    That does not necessarily justify an arrest or detention under Maryland law since I am not familiar with their law or with any evidence that the police had. I can say that in TX, if a person flees at the sight of the police and the officer tells the person to stop and he does not, it is the crime of Evading Detention.    I am not defending the officers' actions whether in the initial detention or the force used after it but when you ask about a law that may have been violated, I wanted to point out that the USSC says that fleeing from officers by itself is a valid reason to stop or detain someone. 

  "Bending" is just the Webster dictionary definition of the word. If someone said the officers were bending him, that is just a description of what was happening like they were bending him over backwards. They could probably have said "twisting" him.    I am guessing that you read something like, they were bending him while putting him in the wagon. In almost 32 years I have never heard of any police procedure or use of force (lawful or otherwise) that used any term like bending. 

  You are reading something into my statement that I did not say. I never said anything about the use of deadly force to stop burglary, robbery, sexual assault or arson.    I responded to "looting" which is theft. I also responded to criminal mischief which is vandalism or destruction of property.    Laws are very specific on the names of crimes.    TX is one of the few states (or maybe only) that allows the use of deadly force to stop certain property crimes, some of which may be misdemeanors. That is different than laws that allow the use of deadly force to protect life.    If you have a specific question I will try to answer it but I will stick with my previous statement that said "there is no blanket law allowing the shooting of looters in this state".    When you see someone say, "you can shoot looters", that just isn't true. You can throw "what ifs" into some scenarios that can make it lawful to use deadly force. Simply saying "looters" or "stealing" or "damaging" or "trespassing" won't do it. 

  I had the smoked turkey breast there today.    And yes, the sauce is a bit suspect. 

  As a rule you cannot shoot someone for theft or criminal mischief (vandalism) in the daytime in TX. In the nighttime, theft or criminal mischief can have the lawful use of deadly force to stop it IF it is immediately necessary to stop it and If it is the ONLY WAY to do so or to try and stop it by other means would EXPOSE the person to serious injury or death.  There is no blanket law allowing the shooting of looters in this state. In Maryland? I have no clue. 

Tony's isn't special but it is good for local fare and is pretty consistent. 

Any person has a better chance of winning the lottery (probably twice) than to be murdered by an officer in the line of duty. About 7,000 blacks are murdered by other blacks each year according to FBI stats. While people love to protest on complaints on the use of force, the police have authority to use up to deadly force if you resist or even just flee from officers if you are a danger to the public. Even assuming that 3 times a year a black citizen is murdered by an officer, that means in a decade we would have 30 unlawful deaths in the black community at the hands of the police (which would be a horrific number as 1 is unacceptable) and 70,000 by their neighbors of the same race. Where is the epidemic?

Film away. Just don't interfere and that means stay a good distance away from the officers. There is a bill currently in front of the TX legislature that requires a person to stay at least 30 feet away from officers if using video. It likely will not pass but I wish that it would go further and require people to stay that distance away from officers conducting business whether filming or not. Ten yards away is plenty close enough to get all the video you want. It is dangerous for the officers and not only from the people closing in but they then have to divert attention away from a person detained or being arrested and have to deal with that secondart threat. That takes attention away from the person being detained/arrested which is always a danger. Bullets 13 has witnessed that riding with me when a simple citation for one person (like here sir, please sign this ticket) went to crap that ended in a fight for officers and three people going to jail. That is when a simple situation of signing a citation turns into a use of force incident and when people start getting hurt or killed. There is already a law that says interfering (which can including getting too close) is a crime and carries up to 6 months in jail but the distance if used to make an arrest is discretionary on the officer. Simply telling people they can film all they want but give the officers space seems like a very clear way to handle it.

  This is an example of criminals acting like criminals. It has nothing to do with accomplishing anything except for a chance to act like an idiot and fade into the crowd. 

That was about 5 years ago so I might have a different opinion today.

The last time I ate there I thought that it was average at best. And forget the links.........

Maybe they could also blow up the police station next to it so we can get a new building............ 

From a thread on an officer not shooting a charging suspect (that he should have)  to the election of a black mayor?   Oh well...............    I think a lot has to do with small town politics. I hate it where towns have a mayor in charge so when a new elections comes up, you can get an entire new police and fire chiefs, etc. Most cities in this area employ city managers to run the city. The city council is the budgetary arm of the government and vote on tax rates and how much each department can spend of the taxpayer's money but the day to day operations including the hiring of department heads is done by the manager. It helps to insulate the running of public safety agencies from the whims of a single person because his/her son got a speeding TICKET. The city manager not being elected, can be fired by the council at any time but it takes a majority of the council to back up the manager. Basically a city manager can't play small time politics without the backing of the council but a mayor can do as he/she wishes up until the next election.    So what was the situation in this tiny town? Had the newly elected mayor made comments about getting rid of the police chief who may have been popular and his/her men followed? Had she had run ins with the police in the past and made on or off the record comments about getting even? Did she campaign on getting rid of the PD and contracting with the sheriff office for officers and the city officers simply headed out early?   Way too many questions with no answers from the media except... the mayor is black. Maybe I missed it but I didn't see the race of the officers or the chief.    For all we know, the former mayor who was there for 37 years according to the article, was involved with political kickbacks including the police department. That is entirely plausible since two other departments heads quit which likely had nothing to do with the police. Maybe the new mayor came in under a promise of open records, accountability and cleaning the place up. Of course we don't know because the only investigation by the media appears to be based on the race of the mayor. 

  If they had any intelligence they would not have been elected already so I will second your doubts. These weren't a bunch of first term trustees..............

Officer is lining up to be canon fodder........ 

Not much to do in SP.

    Yes or no.   I have never seen policy on when or how to ram a person. It has been done several times in the past however.    Most policies are like mine that say these are policy approved weapons (certain brand handguns, ASP baton, Remington 870 shotgun, certain brand AR-15 rifles, X-26 Taser, OC spray)  and no other items are "approved" (including flashlights) HOWEVER that same policy says that in an emergency, anything can be used as a weapon. So if a guy is on top of and choking you and you can grab a brick and knock him off, that is then an approved weapon under the emergency use policy. A vehicle in such this instance is likely such an incident. Of course it is up to a chief to determine if it is in policy for internal purposes (disciplinary action such as suspension or termination) and up to the DA if it is a lawful use of force.    In my opinion, it is a lawful use of force and beats the heck out of stepping out of a car and challenging him with your own firearm like an old west shootout where both sides get their fair shot at each other.