tvc184

[Hidden Content] Vdeo possibly released tomorrow.

I will say this only for informational purposes and nothing specifically about this case…. since I don’t know anything. From the article she was arrested for conspiracy. Conspiracy in itself is not a crime. It is conspiracy to commit a particular crime that is an offense. For example Conspiracy to Commit: Burglary or Murder. Conspiracy is a preparatory crime or a crime of planning. In Texas it is only a conspiracy if the crime planned is a felony but in Mississippi where this is, it could also be a misdemeanor also. A conspiracy requires two or more people to plan to commit a crime AND then for at least one person to do an overt act to further that crime. As a what if scenario… What if three people got together and decided to rob a bank? Let’s say they discussed the idea between each other and decided on which bank to rob. Is that a crime? No. During the discussion they mentioned that they need a handgun, a recon of the bank to see if there were any security guards on duty and then to make a decision who was going to do what. Now we are talking specifics details. Has a crime been committed? No. As part of the planning, one of the three guys says he can get a handgun tomorrow because he knows a guy on the street who is trying to sell one. Is that a crime at that point? No. The next day that guy meets up and buys the handgun. Has conspiracy been committed? Yes. All three people who planned to rob the bank have now committed the crime of Conspiracy to Commit/Aggravated Robbery. The reason is that a person has now done an overt act to further the crime. Before it was just words. Now that a person has done something to further that crime, conspiracy has been completed. Another example in the same conspiracy would be if one of the guys went into the bank and made a sketch of where the tellers were, where the doors were and if there was a security guard, where he was usually standing. That would be another example of an overt act in order to further the crime. In this case, as far as I can tell from the article, a couple of guys were accused of committing the kidnapping. The woman and another guy were not charged with the kidnapping but with conspiracy to commit kidnapping. That leads me to believe that the district attorneys thinks he has information that ties the woman to the planning and/or the execution of the kidnapping. Since she did not take a direct part, under Mississippi law, apparently she cannot be charged with the crime itself. They can be charged with conspiracy assuming there is evidence to back up that charge. This is an interesting case because the claimed victim, apparently was giving some money to help start up a marijuana growing operation. I don’t think that is likely to be in dispute. The issue is that when the people wanted their money back, what happened? I believe the suspects are saying that the guy agreed to give them the money and the trip to the bank was just doing business. The claimed victim stated that he was held in a kidnapping and forced to go to the bank. Who do you believe? Is there evidence that either one is telling the truth, remembering that you have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed? Basically, is there any evidence other than one side saying yes, this happened and the other side say, no it didn’t happen. In the article the district attorney says he has an electronic trail proving the crime. That seems to imply that he has emails, text, messages, pinging phones and/or phone call logs. So perhaps this woman may have been involved in the planning like maybe she was able to find out what bank he used, where he might be staying, etc.

If anyone actually reads history anymore, Walter Lord wrote Day of Infamy about the attack on Pearl Harbor. Much like Cornelius Ryan, Lord uses the same technique of interviewing people involved including civilians and family members and details the sequence of events that led up to the attack. This was not merely the preparations by the Japanese but also the political events such as the American embargo on raw materials to Japan for invading China and refusing to end that war. Also like Ryan, it is an easy to read book and not just page after page of technical and boring details. These books are very interesting with the personal stories by the people involved but at the same time giving details that you almost don’t even notice. A made up example (since it has been years since I’ve read the book) might be like: “General Eisenhower had to make the decision on when to give orders to the assault fleet which was comprised of 5,000 craft of all types”. So while talking about General Eisenhower‘s agonizing decision, the number of assault ships could be woven into the story without simply listing data.

I am a semi-expert in WWII and have probably read 40 plus books on it. One of which was The Longest Day by Cornelius Ryan which was a detailed account of Operation Overlord from the reasoning for it, the deceptions by the Allies, the assault, etc. and in researching it, Ryan interviewed many people who were directly involved from both sides of the battle. If anyone watches the great movie by the same name, you will see lines in the movie that came directly from Ryan’s interviews. Ryan also wrote the equally well researched book, also later made into a great movie, A Bridge Too Far about Operation Market-Garden.

Overlord

How many times…. ….. and how many stories? After the Rodney King incident and everybody wanting the video the police, we faced it also. This was in days before body cams and certainly there were no cell phone cameras. It either had to be a VHS or the VHS-C. I pulled a guy over on a traffic stop and unfortunately it was right next where his buddies were on a porch about 30 feet away. It was probably around 1995-ish. The driver’s friends came off of the porch and got too close for me to safely conduct my traffic stop. So I had to split my time watching the driver and his friends who were then a threat to me. That simply wasn’t going to happen. I could have called all available units and would have probably had a substantial response in short order. But… I told them that they needed to back away and let me conduct my business (their actions by law could have resulted in up to 6 months in jail). The response was, we have the right to video, make sure you don’t do something wrong blah blah blah….. My answer was, I was going to conduct my traffic stop no matter what else happened. It was likely going to end up in a citation or maybe a warning. I was not going to do it with them standing over my shoulder and interfering. So they had two options. I calmly told them that I saw they were on the porch about 30 feet away. They could stand on the porch and video everything they wished and in fact, it would be in a better position to be elevated. Then if I did anything wrong, they would have the video and they could also be witnesses. The other option was that I could call over the entire shift and we could handle it that way. Not only did they choose to get back on the porch, they were actually agreeable to it. One of them made some kind of comment like, that makes sense. So they all got on the porch, got their video and I finished my traffic stop in drove away. I think the fact that I was not confrontational with them by pointing my finger and yelling to “get back!”, etc. and explained the issue, they were very agreeable. I have seen plenty of police videos where the officer(s) was legally correct but a different tactic “might” have (it doesn’t always work) yielded a different result. In fairness, I didn’t start out with that wisdom. It took about 3 years before I started figuring out when to change tactics. Now, they teach a required class in “de-escalation”. About 35 years ago we called that “experience”.

If there was ever the classic fox guarding the henhouse, this is it. The guy who was investigating Trump for colluding with Russia, was colluding with Russia.

Insurrection!!

I was working an off duty job at a housing complex maybe 10 years ago. I was with a very young officer with probably one year of experience. The apartment complex had a curfew for all tenants and guests. Although we cannot legally enforce apartment rules, someone hanging out could possibly give rise to a reasonable suspicion that they were trespassing and not actually visiting someone. Legally that could give us the reason to lawfully detain them and start investigating. My young partner saw a group of maybe 4 teenagers or early 20s people earlier in the night about 1 AM hanging out in the complex and started yelling at them. Get out of here, blah blah blah. They mumbled some crap and slowly ambled away. Maybe a half an hour later, we saw them again. I pulled up near them, smiled and asked, do y’all really want me to get out of my truck (Ford Expedition patrol unit)? No sir, we’re leaving…. We never saw them again on any night and we worked out there every weekend for extra money. As soon as they walked away that night, my partner started pumping his fists and going “Yeah!”. He asked me, how did you do that? He yelled at them and told them to leave and they mouthed off and came back. I smiled and barely said anything and they were like, yes sir and thank you sir. I said it was command presence. They saw you ranting and raving and kind of laughed among themselves. They thought you were just trying to show bravado while being a young officer. They looked at me and thought, I think we had better leave right now. They looked at me and probably came to the rationalization that they didn’t want me out of the patrol unit. On the other hand, they were more than ready to challenge your authority because it looks like you won’t back up what you were saying. I’m not kidding about the way that young officer acted. He was like a kid in a candy store and excited. The officer asked how he could do that and I said it was easy, keep paying attention to the senior officers. Watch how they act around people as opposed to the young officers like him. A teaching moment…..

Do I suspect that the administration will now determine that the recordings are classified. McCarthy won’t be able to claim they were secured by his Vette….. Nahhhhh ….. won’t happen. 🤔

I don’t suggest this but the public that witnesses a theft can stop it. I have seen videos lately of store employees not stopping a thief because their company will fire them but the videos show citizens jumping in and doing it. That only is this legal in Texas, it will more than likely will increase the criminal penalty significantly. Texas has a specific law that says anyone can arrest for a theft that is reasonably believed. If the thief who the citizen was trying to stop slapped him across the cheek, it then becomes robbery with a maximum of 20 years in prison. Here is an example. If a guy picks up a $90 drill and walks out of the store, it is a class C misdemeanor or the equivalent of a traffic citation. It carries no jail time and a fine only of $500 or less. If a citizen stepped in to try to stop the thief and the thief caused any pain to the citizen like a slap, it is robbery. If the thief threatens the citizen who is trying to stop him, even if he does not hit the citizen, it is still robbery because of the threat. Under that exact same scenario and if the citizen happens to be 65 years or older, the C misdemeanor theft becomes Aggravated Robbery and carries up to a 99 year prison sentence. So a fine of a couple of hundred dollars could now be life in prison under Texas law.

Yep, it isn’t the law unless we are talking litigation. It is companies who would rather give up property than face a lawsuit for entering a criminal. Certainly a state legislature could pass a law that would ban such lawsuits. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that. It is not a lack of criminal law or catching the person or the DA prosecuting.

[Hidden Content]

Billie Jo Spears’ brother was a teacher at Nederland High School and a couple of times she put on show for us. [Hidden Content]

Oh…… Billie Jo Spears

In thought Tracy Byrd.

Ok. That I agree with. The only problem that I had with the bill was that it did not go for enough.

Sick bill or the act? The bill seems appropriate.

This case might get the sympathy vote from people who are tired of crime. Although they do not directly say it, almost anything is acceptable, regardless of the law, if the bad guy is put away either in prison or by death. To that I mean that many people will overlook what maybe a violation of the law as long as the person that they support wins. I have seen numerous comments of people that have no idea what the law says but are willing to send money for this guy‘s defense. There was a case in the news maybe 8 to 10 years ago. A guy had his home broken into maybe once or twice or something like that. Maybe it was just a neighbor’s home, I don’t really remember. He set up cameras in his home to catch who may be breaking into homes. Sure enough, a teenage boy and girl broke into, I think his basement. He waited for them to come inside and I think the boy came first. The homeowner shot him and I think the kid fell on the steps walking up to the house from the basement. This kid did not make any threats and was unarmed. Shooting him during a burglary might have been lawful at the moment. I think the homeowner’s cameras was running and he recorded himself taunting the the teenage felon and then shot him in the head and killed him. He waited for a few minutes to see if anyone else entered and the girl came inside through the window to see what was happening. Again the homeowner shot her and then started making fun of her and shot and killed her also. The point being that using deadly force to stop, a burglary, might have been lawful in his state. The problem is that once they were down, he finished them off as it was clear by his own recording that that is what he did. They were clearly no longer a threat. If I remember correctly, I think the guy was convicted of murder on both counts. I know people are making the issue in this situation that you can’t really tell by the camera. Let’s assume for the sake of argument, that there was a different camera with a completely different angle and it clearly showed that the robber had dropped the gun and was not moving. Under any rational thought, he was clearly no longer a threat. Assuming that was true, how many people would vote to let the guy go in what would be murder because the other guy was committing a felony? How many people think the guy that killed the two teenagers breaking into his home was justified, even though they were clearly no longer a threat? In other words, do you get to empty your magazine and kill them, even when the incident is over, because they were committing a felony?

I don’t disagree. I have seen enough occasions where the robber panicked and shot people or killed witnesses. If I am the victim of a robbery, I am worried about the weapon he is carrying, not the cash. An example is an executed prisoner from Port Arthur. He robbed a store, shot the clerk and if I remember correctly, left but then came back and shot the two witnesses in the head. So when you hear…. but he was going to leave….. [Hidden Content]

When people see the entire video, they typically seem kind of shocked. It is then that they understand what people are talking about. Like I have said (and most people), it doesn’t bother me that a robber was killed. If the shooter put 4 or more rounds into his back and he died from those wounds, oh well. No matter, it is still wrong to shoot a person after he is clearly out of the fight.

[Hidden Content]

Extra shots don’t really matter in my opinion if they are part of stopping a threat. If you give me three seconds from the holster at about 5 yards, I can probably get about 10 rounds on target. A person going back and watching a slow motion video in hindsight, could say, after the seventh shot the guy appeared to be going down. Maybe… but I can’t react that fast. But if the guy goes down after those 10 shots and is clearly no longer a threat, should I be able to pause about 3 seconds and then walk up and shoot the guy the head… you know, just to make sure? The law is that you can shoot to end the threat. That is why you will always hear the police say, I am not shooting to kill, I am shooting to end the threat. If a guy is coming at me with a knife and I shoot him a couple of times and he drops it and makes no effort to pick it up, should I lawfully be able to go ahead and just kill him because of what he did before? If the guy was a threat to me and I lawfully stop him with deadly force and EMS gets there in time, saves his life and he gets to go to trial later, great. If they don’t, the bad guy made his own bed. I saw some lawyers on YouTube mentioning the autopsy and discussing whether the robber was already dead. Do you want to see the full video?

By the letter of the law it appears that the shooter might have broken a couple of laws. On an emotional basis I think a majority of the public would think that there is no issue with the robber causing his own death therefore any actions by the shooter to be justified. I think that the grand jury, being made up from the public, might no bill this case for that reason in a form of jury nullification. Kind of like, technically he should not have fired that last shot but…… The “other side” wants to letter of the law upheld regardless. Well…. at least for this instance. When the shoe is on the other foot, they will likely want discretion. Imagine if a Black guy shot and killed a White guy in the same situation. I am sure that some of the same people who want the shooter in this current case to be indicted, would want the case dismissed if the rolls were reversed. In many respects it is much like the political discussions on this website. “I want THE LAW FOLLOWED!”…. unless. Such as, Trump had classified documents in his home that the FBI was aware of but he refused to turn them in under executive privilege but was negotiating for return anyway. The left including people in this forum, demanded that Trump be held accountable, probably even with jail time. When it turns out that the current Democratic president had the same kinds of files in three locations, some of which were likely not secured and the FBI did not know about it… nothing to see here, move along. I have said it many times in these discussions. When someone wants to make an example of a person from the other side, he better get ready because someone on his side will soon be found doing something worse. So in this case, should the grand jury go by the letter of the law of “immediately necessary” or should the grand jury go by the old Texas saying, some people need killin’? I believe that the people supporting this guy either have a misunderstanding of the law and think you can shoot to your heart’s content or they know that technically the guy violated the law but the robber caused his own death so, oh well. Then I think people on the other side demand absolutely the letter of the law be upheld, because…. a White guy killed a minority. I suspect that if you swap the circumstances, both opinions would change. I believe that it will be hard to get an indictment from a Texas grand jury, even in Harris County. A lot will likely depend on how the DA presents the case.

Your confusion is understandable. An insect flying at 35mph will cover the 50 yards in 2.90 seconds. An insect flying at 25mph would cover that distance in 4.01 seconds. Without anticipating a accurate speed test, it would be difficult for a person being surprised by a beetle to take note of the 1.11 second time difference. 🙃