tvc184

But it wasn’t Bogart. BD loses 1/2 a point…

Can’t answer that one without google. I think I remember on the American charts the Beatles holding all top 5 spots at one time.

I have a relative who was acting like it was the end of democracy. Oh my gosh, this has really turned Congress on its head kind of stuff. When I brought up that this is nothing but a comical media side show, the response was that I didn’t understand, the government was going to shut down because the spending ceiling resolutions would not pass, laws would cease to be enacted (a good thing) and blah blah…. It was pure Chicken Little nonsense. No Henny Penny, the sky is not falling and Foxy Woxy is leading you into a trap.

Again, a spirited debate confuses Democrats.

Should have used Google….. 🙃

And speaking of badge numbers…. About 4 years after I started, we finally got a computer system and started issuing permanent badge numbers beginning with 110 and progressing by seniority. Originally the numbers 96-99 were reserved for the command staff. The 96, 97 and 98 were division commanders and 99 was the chief. Those were not permanent badge numbers but just a means of knowing who was doing the talking. My permanent badge number picked by seniority? 184… which is coincidentally part of my screen name. So my original unit number 84 eventually became my permanent badge number of 184. When a few years later we got semi-permanent locker and mailbox numbers after I left detectives, I was assigned 84. And when was I hired? January, 1984 or…. 1/84.

I also remember Car 54, Where Are You? It was the first place that I remember seeing Herman Munster when he was just Officer Muldoon. When I first started on patrol we didn’t have badge numbers and only went by our unit number. I was assigned to Car 84. 🙂 🙃 And they probably never knew where I was….

So the new Speaker has been in office for less than 12 hours and you have been able to deduce that he is much worse?

There is no charge of fleeing from a crime scene that I have seen. I have said in other threads….. maybe he is a felon, maybe he has a warrant his arrest (even misdemeanor), is out on bail and not supposed to possess a handgun as a condition of bail, etc.

Apparently (I didn't see it) the shooter could be in trouble, not for the shooting but the aftermath. Supposedly the shooter got people’s money back and started handing it out before he fled. If true, that could potentially open him up to criminal charges for tampering with evidence. He could be cleared by a grand jury by self defense yet be indicted for what happened afterwards.

Now that the show is over, we can get on with the gridlock between the GOP House and the Democrat Senate.

This has been discussed quite a bit in other forums and on Facebook. A guy goes into a Houston restaurant, waving a fake pistol around in an apparent robbery…. [Hidden Content]

Intoxicated?

I don’t think religion is relevant. I do think the national media is relevant on what they want to make into a major news story. For example, George Zimmerman kills Trayvon Martin. No matter a person’s opinion on right or wrong, it was just a local homicide. The media didn’t make it just news, it was international news for over a year. That was purely a media driven story. Michael Brown was killed by a police officer after attacking the officer and after he committed a robbery. A couple of people a day are killed by the police somewhere in this country. Why was that case international news for over a year? The media inflamed the public on that case and the DOJ spent millions of dollars on what was a local incident. After a year of investigating, the federal prosecutors came to the same conclusion that the local prosecutors were able to do in two weeks. Religion? It isn’t relevant in my opinion but the media seems very selective on what they make into a national or international news story. I would think most people would be more interested in a woman being hacked to death than one guy shooting another and claiming self defense.

He got what he wanted out of her. He got his Black female nominee to help boost him over the top. She is no longer needed and now Yesterday’s news.

If you think a majority of the public even knows what the Speaker of the House is and then toss in authority, I believe you are terribly mistaken. No matter who wins in 2024, you’re giving way more credit to the average public than exists. I would bet you could not get 25% of adults to explain the electoral college. The voting population almost certainly has no clue what the Republicans are arguing about but only know that they are arguing. Obviously on an Internet forum a person can Google the answer and appear to be intelligent in response. Stop any person on the street and ask those questions and see what response you get. I would even go as far as just say that a majority of college students currently enrolled have no clue who was most recently the Speaker. Go to Facebook and look at some of the local issues with crime and arrests and look at the comments. The comments are comical. In fact, a few people in this forum, who I happen to know their names, post on Facebook in those threads.

The normal every day American probably doesn’t even know what is happening or what it means. They likely think that some kind of law is being debated and have no clue what the Speaker is or what importance the position has without googling for an answer. *** Average American: Haha…. it is funny what is happening! Question: So what is happening? Average American: I don’t know but it’s funny. Question: They are debating on who should be the Speaker. What does the Speaker do? Average American: I don’t have a clue. I think it may be a person who repeats the day’s activities in the Senate.

It’s a debate. That’s what has the Democrats confused.

I think here we have an admission that at least 200 House Republicans are “respectable conservatives”.

We used to dispatch many/most police calls in 10 codes. We were supposed to transition away from 10 codes a couple of decades ago but a few still linger. With my badge number… “184 10-17, in reference to 10-15 with possible 10-32” Now it would be… “184 speak to John Smith in reference to a disturbance with a person, possibly armed with a knife” What mostly changed is that the types of calls or most no longer in code. Like 10-10/Fight, 10-15/Distbance, etc. although a 10-50/Vehicle accident is still common. If you told one of our officers today to check on a 10-15 with possible 10-10, you would probably just as well be speaking Japanese. Codes that my agency (and all police agencies are different in codes, policy and culture) still uses to make it short, sweet and with no ambiguity are like 10-32 (supposed to mean armed person but most often a firearm) or 10–18 (quickly as possible). If an officer says I need EMS 10-18, it means a person needs medical assistance 5 minutes ago. When the football player Hamlin went down last night on Monday Night Football, that would be EMS 10-18. If it is in reference to the officer himself it typically means I am in deep trouble like Help 10-18 or I need backup 10-18…. usually accompanied by his/her voice going up an octave or two. 9-11 demonstrated the problem with codes as multiple agencies were talking in code probably without realizing that there are several different codes including 10 codes. Some agencies use the words like Code or Signal such as Signal Zero or Code 4 to differentiate from 10 codes. My department has a 5 code for a call disposition with 5 always being the first number like 518 or 521. It means nothing to anyone else. A 518 is short for, see report or, I am writing a report in reference to my call such as robbery, burglary, etc. A 521 means, settled or…. I dealt with these two idiots and I got them to calm down with no more intervention needed. Back when codes first came out (1930s) and most police agencies could only talk to themselves, it really didn’t matter what a code meant. When I retired 18 months ago I had something like 64 radio channels to speak to any fire department, police department, chemical plant emergency operations, etc. in this area.

Wouldn’t Nancy Grace be a joy to life with? She is full of it about half the time and vindictive. She hit a couple of good points though. I think the comment the suspect is reported to have said about anyone else being arrested was just part of the game. She is correct (or possibly) about location of any DNA. It is like fingerprints at a crime scene. Anyone who has ever walked between cars in a parking lot has probably left their DNA and fingerprints at some locations. It is like a school getting broken into and a student’s fingerprints are on the teacher’s desk. With 80-100 students a day, if the print belonged to any of them, so what? I lifted some fingerprints from a classroom but they were inside of a locked cabinet. The teacher left the keys in her desk so a student might have found it. Fingerprints on the teacher’s desk might mean nothing. Those same fingerprints inside of a locked location that no one is supposed to have access to might mean everything.

Another Ted Bundy….. Which also begs the question, was the stunning criminal act his first or will they start finding bodies. I think it may be hard to pattern these killers but I thought many/most of them built up into these types of crimes. They didn’t go from zero to 100 in a single incident but anything is possible. Smaller acts of violence, like starting on animals and slowly building up.

Motive is almost always the most interesting part of such a case. It just isn’t a requirement for a conviction. It would be very hard to make great movies if we never got into motives. I see a lot of Facebook lawyers make statements like, if he committed the crime then what was his motive? I don’t know, he didn’t get his Frosted Flakes today? And you could be correct about a knife. Any gun might have the potential to be traced, even if purchased on the street.

Being a criminologist might have been his downfall. 🙃 I have a book by Dr. George Kirkham… somewhere, Signal Zero. It would be in my language, “officer needs assistance”. Every part of the country or even individual agencies have their own code. It is the ultimate call for help to assist an officer in trouble, potentially in danger of serious injury or death. I have responded to many such calls and made a few myself. But who is George Kirkham? He was basically a police hating PhD in criminology at Florida State University. His doctorate was from the generally thought to be anti-government, anti-authority UC-Berkeley. Like a lot of criminologists (but certainly not all), he had no experience in much of his field of expertise and his knowledge of the subject was taught by professors…. who also had no direct knowledge of what they were teaching. It was academics who had learned from other academics who had learned from….. Police officers also go to college and some of Dr. Kirkham’s students were police officers. Some of them told him that much of his conclusions and lessons were full of crap. One of them eventually challenged him to go to the police academy and ride patrol. He approached the dean of his college department who endorsed the idea. He convinced a sheriff, I believe in Jacksonville, Florida, to let him go to the police Academy on the weekends. He finally got his commission and went on patrol in one of the worst part of town. Signal Zero was part of his experiences. Cases like, in his first couple of days he had to deal with a drunk in a bar. He was going to show the veteran hard core cop how words could diffuse the situation and there was no need for a show of force, much less put your hands on someone. While he was within a few moments on the ground screaming for help, his partner stepped in or something to that effect. I think he said something like, I kept hearing someone screaming and then realized it was him. It was supposed to be a one summer experiment for a couple of nights a week. It ended up being years spent on patrol at a couple of different agencies. He was still a professor and he still taught class but now he saw the issues from the other side. I remember reading a comment by him that much of what he had written in his academic career, and much of what he was teaching in many cases was not true. But wait, he had a PhD in criminology as taught by PhDs in criminology. So Dr. Kirkham wrote more books and produced police training films. Much of the backlash that he received from (now we would call woke) students who didn’t want to hear his police experiences and other professors who saw him as I guess a sellout or a brainwashed person who should no longer be teaching. I assume that no one is going to track down any of Dr. Kirkham’s books or articles so here is a 60 Minutes piece on him done almost 50 years ago. Like Dr. Kirkham found out, reading books by people who were taught by people who wrote books who never actually applied it, may not always have the correct answers.

It obviously could have nothing to do with it but that would be one heck of a coincidence. I would like to see how the put together the case but that might never be known except at trial. A motive is usually meaningless at trial but it might help close things up for a jury. You never know what a juror will rationalize. Jilted boyfriend where he wanted to kill his ex plus the guy that stole her and the others were unfortunate to be at the wrong place and time? Psycho serial killer? Similar to a school mass murderer but he didn’t want to get caught so he could do it again? A fantasy of outsmarting law enforcement (which I think might be common in serial killers).