tvc184

AND…. the fail to ID law that I mentioned is Texas law. Under Texas law, if you are not driving or you’re not under arrest, you do not have to identify yourself to the police. In approximately half of the states, if lawfully detained, you do have to identify yourself to the police or you are committing a crime.

I can do nothing but speculate but I suspect that any fail to ID was before any arrest. Up until two years ago, the only time you absolutely had to identify yourself to the police was if you’re actually under arrest. Of course, if you were driving, you had to present a drivers license or identify yourself, but you could not be arrested for failure to ID. If a driver refuse to give his identification, the police had to do what I called the Texas two-step. They had to arrest the driver for a valid charge like an expired license registration and then demand an ID after the arrest. A couple of years ago, the state finally changed that law and put failure to ID on the driver of a vehicle. I am kind of curious if they actually saw him driving or was he in a truck that was parked? If the police were just randomly patrolling and noticed the expired registration sticker, but did not see who was driving, could they lawfully demand his ID? Again, with knowing absolutely nothing of what actually happened, I could see a situation where it was possibly an unlawful arrest and all charges could be dropped against the Bpd officer. I would hope that the arresting officer actually knew what he was doing and probably so however, I’m not always that confident.

Like almost any other job, he could be fired for violating any policy violation. It’s not quite an at-will job because there has to be cause. In an at-will job a person can be terminated for almost any reason. In his case there has to a reason. An arrest is not likely a valid reason (not proven guilty) for termination but convictions or toss in things like conduct unbecoming of a police officer and it could be. These are just traffic citations though. Was it an expired license plate, an open container and not presenting a driver’s license? Strangely enough, the license and expired plate are always arrest-able offenses but the open container is not if in your county. I suspect that he could get as little as a written reprimand (which is not public by law) or a suspension without pay like maybe 3 to 7 days. That would be public. I am fairly certain that the Beaumont police are under state civil service laws. All police punishments are public information however state civil service law only recognizes a suspension as punishment. Verbal or written reprimands are not considered punishment. So could he be terminated? Sure. It will have to hold up to the scrutiny of an outside arbitrator though if they have the same grievance process that we have. So the officer’s lawyer and the city can go to one of the arbitration organizations and agree on an arbitrator to come in and hear the case. In our contract the arbitrator has to come from out of state. It is kind of like a court because each side can ask questions and call witnesses who are placed under oath.Also, if it is like ours, the arbitrator’s decision is final as it’s binding arbitration. I really have a hard time imagining that an outside arbitrator would look at three traffic citations and determine that is a valid reason to terminate a police officer. What we do not know and probably will never know, is if any officer has any history of policy violations unless it was a suspension. This officer might have a spotless record.

That was almost certainly for being a jerk if the news reports are correct. If the police had a reason to detain him for a violation such as expired registration, he has to identify himself. The report says that he was arrested for failing to identify himself. it was only a couple of traffic citations. Geez, identify yourself, sign the ticket and move on.

Yep, that’s why I said it was all nonsense. Of course he could get the Martha Stewart prosecution. Stewart was accused of insider trading and they couldn’t prove it but she stupidly did not remain silent and lied to the FBI. So she is now a convicted felon for obstruction of justice or whatever they call it.

There is no third party. The term third party is an idiom for any number of parties who are not Republicans or Democrats. I think common ones are the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, etc. The Dems and GOP stop them how? Those parties typically put up candidates. There simply isn’t this claimed third party and there is virtually no support for any of them. The absolute most that a third-party could do is to win maybe two states and deny anyone from getting the required 270 electoral college votes. That would throw it to the house of representatives. That is where the Constitution steps in. The House of Representatives chooses the next president. What third party, with zero members of the House, is going to win any election? The Democrats and Republicans don’t have to stop this magical third-party. Again, first off no third-party actually exists. Secondly, the most that another candidate could do is win a handful of votes and throw the election for the House. So yes, the Constitution stops any so called third party from the presidency.

What third party was ever a threat and what rules are changed? The Constitution stops any third party (which there isn’t really one). The biggest threat to third parties is third parties.

Bravo!! Until you read history and realize that it was Thomas Jefferson, who was the first person to help usher in the two political parties system by creating the Democrat-Republican Party. The Federalists had grouped together to form the Federalist Party and Jefferson wanted a party in opposition. So the guy who didn’t submit to the whole party system was the major player in creating the current two party system and was elected as president as a Democrat-Republican Party candidate. We all understand what he likely meant. People want to feel independent. “Nobody tells me how to vote including a political party!!”. That’s great and mostly true but if a person doesn’t find a bunch of mostly like minded people, he will be stranded alone on an island.

Hopefully he will choose the best treatment option out of the ones available. Prayers for a full recovery. 🙏🏿

I think that it’s all nonsense but in this supercharged political climate, I wouldn’t doubt anything.

This is from the CNN article with national data from the USDA: The USDA reported last week that a dozen large white-shell eggs now cost $3.30 on average, down a whopping 69 cents from a week before.

My grandfather used to have a few Mallards and we ate them quite a bit when I was young.

Not where I shop.

Spin that top! CNN headlines said b that Trump’s “fiction” is now true. For “months” Trump has been talking about egg prices. I guess technically it’s true because he’s been an office a little over three months…. 🤣🤣🤣 Egg prices nationwide fell by almost 13%, the largest monthly decline in 41 years. The USDA shows a national average of $3.30 a dozen for large white eggs and down 69¢ in one week. Look at the CNN headlines… Fiction “has suddenly” become reality. 😂😂😂 [Hidden Content]

You bring up a good point. They wrote it anyway? In other words, if it was written and ratified, there was a reason. So let’s look at the at the citizenship clause. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States Note that it does not say that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens. They added the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” Like your question, they wrote it anyway? Was it merely a meaningless afterthought or did it mean something? In the Supreme Court ruling in Elk, they said that the phrase certainly meant something. Basically it was who is your allegiance to or which country were you a part of? John Elk was born in US territory on American soil but since he was part of a recognized Indian Nation, so even though born in the US, was not a citizen. It took an act of Congress, not the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling, to make Native Americans, American. So: 1. Was the phrase about being under the jurisdiction thereof just wasted words or did it have meaning? 2. Why didn’t the clause simply say, “all persons born in the United States are citizens”? That surely would have ended any debate. 3. Looking at the Constitution and the meaning of words, just like you brought up, why did the Supreme Court deny John Elk citizenship? If it was so clear, it should have been an easy ruling for Elk, not against him. 4. If it was so clear cut, why did it take decades later for the US Congress to make Native Americans all Americans as birthright citizens by federal law?

You seem to ignore “the right of the people…. shall not be infringed”. The Second Amendment mentions nothing about the right of the state to have a militia. Then you have to ignore Article III……

He will be out in 3 on parole but at least he will be doing time.

I worked one night but was in the other side of the city. We had a murder over a bologna sandwich. 🥪 Another time I was the first responding officer where a guy shot his brother in the center of the chest after arguing over who was going to get to wear a particular shirt that night. They were maybe 19 and 21 years old. One of them gave the other a shirt that he did not wear anymore. A couple of weeks later they were going out on different dates or different parties or something to that effect. The first brother decided that he wanted the shirt back for his special evening and the other said no, you gave it to me and I’m gonna wear it. After an argument, the first one pulled out the gun and shot his brother in the center of the chest. I thought he was going to die as his eyes were rolled back and he was gasping for air. I’m sure you’ve seen enough of those. Nope, it was a .22 and at the angle the guy was shot, the bullet hit the sternum and slid around under the fat layer around to his side. At St. Mary Hospital they ended up giving him a local and cut the bullet out. Treated and released. I guess where he was shot, he panicked and assumed it was the end, but all that over who was going to look cool that evening…..

Over a game of dominoes….. [Hidden Content]#

Oh yeah, my great grandparents on my mother’s side and great great great grandparents on my father’s were legal immigrants to this country and granted citizenship through naturalization. So I was born in the United States to American citizens, therefore under the jurisdiction of the country.

Because of the Constitution. The term birthright citizenship is not in the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment says born in the United States AND subject to its jurisdiction. In the Supreme Court case of Elk v. Wilkins they ruled that even though Elk was born in US territory, the fact that he was born on a reservation, he was under the jurisdiction of his tribe. He was therefore not a US citizen just because he was born here. The subject to the jurisdiction is the problem. In US v. Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court ruled on a person here lawfully. Wong was born on US soil to parents who were Chinese however they had been granted permanent citizenship. Since the US had granted his parents permanent status in this country, they were now under the jurisdiction of the US. As the Fourteenth Amendment states, a person is a citizen at birth if born in the US AND subject to its jurisdiction. As ruled in Elk, being born here did not even make a Native American a US citizen. It was settled enough that the US Congress under their authority in Article I of the Constitution, passed a law giving all Native Americans born in the US citizenship. So it literally took an act of Congress for them to be citizens. Why? Because the Supreme Court had already ruled that they were not citizens merely by being born on US soil. In my first post I said there was about a 98% of birthright citizenship being confirmed by the Supreme Court but more out of tradition. They are going to throw their collective hands up and say, “oh well, regardless of the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, we don’t want to change tradition”.

The Constitution.

I think the there is obviously a case for no birthright citizenship, especially considering the Supreme Court case of Elk v. Wilkins. Even though John Elk was born in US territory on an Indian reservation, in a 7-2 ruling the Supreme Court said that Elk was not a US citizen. This was because he was born on the reservation and due to treaties, was subject to tribal law, not that of the US. It took an act of Congress in 1924 under their authority in Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration and citizenship, to declare that any Native American was a citizen at birth even though they were subject to tribal law. So after WWI and only 100 years ago, Indians born on a reservation were not Americans at birth. I think however the Supreme Court is about 98% likely to rule in favor of birthright citizenship, more from tradition than fact, much like in Obergefell where on a 5-4 vote they supported same sex marriages.

This was always a helpful video on trying to avoid gators. … [Hidden Content]

The three Mid-County cities (divided only by city limits signs) have a combined population of 48,600 (2022 stats). Beaumont the same year had 112,000. So Beaumont is 2.3 times the population of Mid-County. In five years from 2019-2023 (years final FBI data available) Mid-County had a total of 7 homicides. That multiplied by 2.3 (to compare sizes equally) Beaumont should have had 16 homicides in the same five years. Beaumont didn’t have 16 homicides total. In fact they never had a single year as low as 16. They actually had 94 homicides or just at about a rate of 600% higher. I guess a population of about 50k isn’t up to a big city status yet but about 100k is.