tvc184

You might find this interesting on brandishing a weapon (although brandishing is not a legal term in Texas) in self defense instead of firing a warning shot. This is from the Texas Penal Code chapter on self-defense. Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force. I read this as, if you are in a possible deadly force situation and you display a weapon, you are allowed to make a threat to use the weapon if needed. L As it says, if the purpose is to create the apprehension that will shoot if necessary, it is lawful. I am not making a legal suggestion but I always have looked at that section under self defense. I have so many times heard the claim that a handgun license instructor has made a statement like, if you feel the need to draw a weapon, you had better use it or you are in trouble. I have never heard that but I have seen it stated numerous times. If an instructor ever made, such a statement, that would be like saying, it is okay if you draw your handgun and kill a guy in lawful self defense but it’s a crime if you draw your handgun and refused to kill him unless necessary. HUH?? Let’s see, a guy pulls a knife on me and demands my money which is an aggravated robbery. I act like I’m reaching for my wallet but pull my handgun and shoot and kill him and it is completely legal. But if I do the exact same thing and quickly back away and point my handgun and say something like drop the knife, etc.. I command a felony Aggravated Assault by making a threat while displaying a deadly weapon? Uhhhhh……. No. I think that is the exact situation this law on self-defense is referencing. There are several reasons to lawfully use deadly force in Texas. If you were in a situation that allows for that deadly force to be lawfully used, drawing a weapon and threatening to use the lawful deadly force is not a crime. So while firing a warning shot is not specifically lawful and “could potentially carry a legal liability, displaying a weapon and threatening to use lawful deadly force does not appear to be a crime under this section. As that section starts out….. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. So is brandishing a weapon with a threat to use it a crime if the force is justified? Not in my opinion. Remember that in Chapter 9 on self defense, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had no reasonable belief of self defense.

What percentage? I have no statistical data but was directly involved in many arrests. Illegal alien criminals are not deported as a rule. Committing a murder? Robbery or other violent crime such as sexual assault? Sure. Multiple DWI, assaults, thefts, etc? No. Illegal aliens lawfully arrested that are deported is probably less than 5% and probably way less. An arrest is not required for deportation but that is a quick way to be discovered by federal law enforcement. Prior to Obama taking office, it was simple. Local police have no authority to arrest anyone simply for being an illegal alien. If an arrest was made for a state crime however such as DWI, theft, trespassing, assault, etc. a call to an Immigration (now ICE) Special Agent could get an immediate immigration hold placed on the person. I had 3 area agents cell phone numbers if needed. It was rarely used but it was an option to notify Immigration of an arrest of an alien unlawfully in the country. That all ended. I was told that special agents (federal police officers) no longer had the authority to arrest or detain for processing from illegal aliens arrested on state level crimes. They told me that they had to call Washington DC to get permission to enforce the law and it had better be a serious crime. Illegal alien criminals were no longer allowed to be detained even after a lawful arrest. The law says they can be but that isn’t reality. I believe currently even a criminal conviction in court will not result in automatic deportation. The law says it is a lawful deportation but it is a hollow law if not enforced. If you really want to see data, check this site. Notice the number of appearances ordered to immigration court in 2009 and 2010 (when Obama took office) and now. If you don’t want to read a few paragraphs, at least look at the graph. That isn’t all aliens that could have been given notices to appear but those who actually went through the process after Immigration was notified and then decided to act on it. Even that study notes that there is no need for a criminal conviction or even a criminal charge for deportation but it isn’t enforced even in most cases after a conviction. [Hidden Content] If you wish to read this actual federal law you will see that even an attempt to enter the country after deportation is a felony and up to 2 years in prison. How many times have we seen in the news stories like, illegal alien who committed some violent crime has been deported a few times. Well each time that the person reentered it was a crime. While in federal custody for that felony reentry, instead of filing criminal charges, they get a ticket home. The mere fact that they are here is a felony and they are in federal custody. This isn’t some theoretical person that may be here (as you mention knowing some) unlawfully but people actually detained by federal law enforcement. [Hidden Content] So your claim that if they are up to no good, they don’t last long, isn’t true. Even if deported, they can come back (in itself a felony) and nothing is likely to be done.

That is absolutely false. They can be convicted of a crime and the federal government refuses deportation.

The law doesn’t address it. I know that use of force experts advise against it. Since the law doesn’t address warning shots, other laws have to be applied. Firing a firearm on public property is a crime (I think up to 6 months in jail) and that includes the right of way/utility access in front of a house. Cities probably have ordinances against discharging firearms in the city limits and I think state law prohibits discharging a firearm in the city limits automatically if the city has a population of more than 100,000 such as Beaumont. Firing in the direction of a person, vehicle or building is a felony but that is overcome by self defense laws… assuming the self defense was lawful at the time. A DA might not prosecute or the police may not arrest and forward the case but a person is rolling the dice. Of course if you are outside of a city limits and on your own property, discharging a weapon usually isn’t a crime anyway. In such a case unless you are actually firing at the person, in which case you would have to justify it, merely shooting a gun in most situations isn’t likely a crime. In reference to shooting in a city limits with less than a 100,000 population a city ordinance is usually only a class C misdemeanor or basically a traffic citation. A person might get away with a warning shot but it potentially has legal consequences.

He is pandering to free speech. That’s what has you confused. The guy that owns, runs and/or has developed Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity (largest US producer of solar panels), StarLink satellites (which might be how you’re reading this message), The Boring Company (to build underground high speed travel) and Neuralink (hooking brain power to computers) probably isn’t worried about a lot. Musk also dabbles in a few smaller venture companies and projects like real estate. I suppose the woke would call that a disaster I am sure if he gets in a bind, he can always call you on business advice though.

If they would quit just taking the letter next to their name of the party that so embarrassed them and swap the I for am R, it would mean something. All this means is that my party is so bad but I don’t want to make it look like I support them…. but I still do…. just don’t associate me with the Democrats…. which I am.

Her 15 seconds of fame. The woman claimed that she was not offended but then the article goes on for a few paragraphs explaining how she was offended. It is like saying “but” which usually means that you are about to be what you claim you aren’t. I don’t want to be rude but… (I am about to be rude). I don’t want to sound racist, but… (I am about to be racist). In her case, I am not offended… but…. She can feel any way she wishes. That’s not up for debate because it’s her feelings just like I could have my feelings. The way it is presented seems disingenuousness. I am not offended but this is why I was so offended that I blasted it on Facebook… to try and elicit support!!

I was thinking that when I saw the story. A few weeks earlier and Dems would have been fine with it.

A man from Boston, Mass Had two… Never mind.

I don’t think I know better than you. A jury of civilians makes the decision whether a grand jury to indict or a criminal jury if at a trial. That is why I was looking for a different perspective. I think that I know the law that applies. At a trial at the end of testimony, the judge reads the appropriate law to the jury (called judge’s charge or jury charge). The decisions are made from untrained persons, not police, judges or lawyers. I know that state law requires no warning. Supreme Court and other appeals court decisions say that simply because an officer had another option, it doesn’t make the use of deadly force a violation of the Fourth Amendment (which is the issue as an unreasonable seizure). An example is that maybe a Taser could have ended a situation without deadly force. In my opinion the courts have said that it doesn’t matter as long as the use of force would be lawful. Let’s say a person is charging at an officer with a knife and his immediate options are using his hands in self defense or a Taser or firearm as weapons. The officer faced with the threat to his life shoots and kills the person. A use of force expert later after watching videos of the incident determines that the Taser would have stopped the person with 100% chance of working. It doesn’t matter. The Supreme Court’s opinion in such a case is that when the force was used, what would a reasonable officer believe faced with the same situation. They use the term “split-second” decision in a rapidly evolving situation. These are quotes from the Supreme Court decision of Graham v. Connor on the use of force by the police. “The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight”. And….. “With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: "Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers", violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments -- in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving -- about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation”. I think they clearly say that it is easy to sit in a room and take a slow look at something (like an NFL replay in slow motion from different angles) months later. An officer clearly doesn’t have that option and in the opinion of the Supreme Court, the officer’s opinion counts. A couple of points might be interesting in Graham. The first is that the use of force turned out later to be unnecessary. Connor was completely innocent of the reason for the detention. The police injured an innocent person who I believe later had to go to the hospital with a broken bone. Another point in using that force was determined to be lawful by all Supreme Court justices were obvious aware that an innocent person was injured by the police yet unanimously ruled that it was a lawful use of force because of the officers’ reasonable beliefs at that moment in time.

Completely out of curiosity from a different perspective, what if the officer had never given any warning and shot the moment he saw the guy slice the pie or take a what appeared to be a classic barricade/cover position?

Why possibly premature?

Which is what I said….

I am not upset Griner was released. I think the charges were probably true and she is guilty. But if America can get its citizens released from a foreign prison, okay. The way and why it happened is the bad part. The administration wanted Griner because of how many boxes she (or them) could check. I think that she is a whiny woke person who hates what this country because of her brainwashed opinions. But while them (her) political stance is stupid in my opinion, 10 years in hard labor is a bad deal for a vape cartridge no matter if it is the laws of that country. If someone in this forum had a relative that was sentenced to 5 years of hard labor for throwing an aluminum can out of a car (littering) in Singapore, I wouldn’t expect them to say, oh well, it’s the law in that country. Am I bent out of shape like many people because she was released? No. Do I think it was a bad deal and her being a Black, female, LGBTQ identified, kneel for the Star Spangled Banner-American hating woke them person was a key factor? Absolutely. We set a weak precedent and gave up too much for a political ploy. That however, is not Griner’s fault. She was just an unwilling international pawn.

She isn’t doing anything other than saying I am still on the same team but too embarrassed to claim them.

I doubt that they will nominate a Republican. After that, they aren’t left with many or any options.

He is deceased.

I don’t disagree with the polls. Like most polls, I don’t think they fudge the numbers but ask the wrong questions or they are intentionally leading. In a poll such as this, the questions should be, what is your opinion but then, why? Why does either side want a candidate to run or not run? Of the 37% of Republicans who don’t want Trump to run (I am in that category), is it because they didn’t like the results of his decisions or is it because they know he is more likely to lose than another candidate such as DeSantis? Did the 37% not lit the idea of a wall? The tax break? Low gas prices? Meeting with Kim Jong Eun? Exactly what is it that the 37% don’t like? I think that a majority of them have issues with him winning, not his results. I agree with that stance. Of the 57% of Democrats that don’t want Biden to run, is it because they don’t think he can win or is it because they don’t like the results that they see? Let’s be honest, I think a majority of the public, no matter political thinking, thinks that Biden is a train wreck. For the Democrats I think a lot of the 57% is not about the chances of losing but that he is so incompetent. But… the poll doesn’t show why, just the final result. Again, I don’t disagree with the numbers like the pollsters lied. The poll should be for Republicans, Democrats and independents, after the first question of “do you want your guy to run….”, the follow up should be a multiple choice, why? Such as: A. I like his leadership but don’t think he can win. B. I don’t like what he is doing /did? Note that independents (whatever those are) who really have no candidate so supposedly don’t have “their guy right or wrong”, dislike Biden at an almost 10% higher rate. A final thought about how much does your chosen desire based on personality or results. For the people of any party, it is the same question, why don’t you want him to run? If for example DeSantis got the nomination and did almost the exact same thing as Trump but obviously more well spoken and not prone to outlandish comments, would they support him? Would the rank and file Republicans support opening the American oil production? Shutting down the border? Cutting more taxes? Would Democrats want (who do they have?) another person but who has a free for all policy so the border? Continues to shut down American oil production? Wants to force people (if he had the authority) to get multiple vaccinations? Loves what he has done with the economy? I don’t doubt the results of this article. In my opinion the Republicans don’t want Trump because he is more likely to lose but their beliefs aren’t much different. The Democrats in my opinion hate what is happening and don’t like Biden’s policies. Another person doing the same is not a good option. All of this can be summed up with, Biden’s leadership sucks. It isn’t his personality that is the issue. Trump’s policies led to lower taxes, low gasoline prices, a booming economy and no threats of wars…. but he is Trump. His personality is his liability, not his decisions (other than his tweets). Maybe the poll could be reduced to: If any person in your desired party can guarantee a win but he/she has to keep the exact same policies as either Biden or Trump, are you for that candidate? For independents, if any person of your choice (even a third party) would win but is forced to do exactly the same as Trump or Biden, whose policies do you favor?? I think you would find that independents think Biden’s leadership is horrible. Trump’s narcissism is horrible.

He appeared to be having an argument with and then made threats to use deadly on an imaginary person(s). Then he shot at the imaginary person. Unfortunately, the guy clearly had mental issues whether drug induced or some kind of psychological crisis. Maybe they should have sent some social workers or maybe city council members to the call from the defund the police communities. I am sure they could have diffused the situation and the guy would not have perceived the social workers as an imaginary threat.

Police got a shots fired and a guy having mental issues was shooting into his own house. As soon as the police arrived they shot him. Social media comments on a site I looked at were calling it murder.

Justified?

That article is a hoot. This is the Brett Kavanaugh hearing all over again. He tried to kiss me 35 years ago when he was intoxicated so he’s a rapist!!

This old saying applies: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you don’t see it, hear it or are not aware of it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist or didn’t happen. I was working an apartment security off duty job a few years ago with a partner. It was late at night like about 10pm. We heard a gunshot that sounded like it was a few blocks south of where we were. About a minute later a call was dispatched after a person called 911 hearing the gunshot. It is a fairly routine call usually with no information other than it was somewhere within 10 blocks. About 99% of the time it results in the officer not finding anything. There isn’t really anything to go on other than, “I heard shots a good way off north of here”. Within a couple of minutes an officer was reporting that people in the area said that they heard no shots. So that means it was a fake call, right? No evidence, case closed. Like usual, nothing was found. On hearing an officer say that it might be a fake call, my partner and I reported on the radio that we heard the shot. Officers continued searching the area came upon the guy who fired the shot. Oops! He was outside looking around when officers found him. The man had caught somebody trying to break in his car and had fired a warning shot. The police now had a description and actually caught the guy who is breaking into the car. So citizens didn’t hear it therefore it didn’t happen. Officers didn’t find anything so it didn’t happen. What “didn’t happen” turned out to be a real crime with a shot being fired and a suspect apprehended. So why didn’t “witnesses” who were closer than me not hear a shot that I heard? I have no clue. Wind direction? Structures between us? They were playing loud music? Talking loud and not paying attention? We will never know but it happened. Had my partner and I not heard it, causing officers to keep searching, it would have gone down as another likely fake call. The person calling 911 could be accused committing a crime by calling in a false report. Because of circumstances it turned out completely different. The fake call turned out to be real. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. How many comments have we seen in all forums including this one where people draw conclusions based on reports in the media and other forum members posting, “I heard”. That is why I often throw into my comment, IF this happened or if the news reports are correct or if the witnesses didn’t make a mistake…… The shots fired call is an example of a completely false conclusion by witnesses and police officers also. We can understand why the conclusions were made… they just turned out to be wrong.

That is a news media term that kind of originated with the Olympic bomber suspect Richard Jewell who was a security officer there. Itv has no real bearing in law enforcement. He reported the suspicions package at the Atlanta Olympics. The police (I think FBI but not sure) made a statement about a “suspect” (I think was the wording) and someone (some police agency) identified him. Well….. it turns out that he was a hero and tried to clear the area but was blasted in the media as the suspect in the bombing. The media and parts of the investigation made Jewell out to be a wanna be police officer who planted the device and then reported it to look like a hero. It turned out that he was the good guy but now having his reputation potentially ruined. He did later become a police officer. I had never heard the term person of interest before then and now only hear that. To police talking to each other, I haven’t heard anything other than suspect or possibly actor (in the Penal Code, actor means suspect). A person of interest, most of the time unnamed, is a term to let the public know that the police are suspicious about a person. It is likely used to prevent lawsuits and false accusations or defamation. Therefore there is no requirement. If the media asks if the police have any leads, they might say they are looking at a person of interest. Legally there is no such thing that I have ever heard of. The legal standards are reasonable suspicion (detain), probable cause (force a search or arrest) and proof beyond a reasonable doubt (convict).

If the had probable cause they likely would have made an arrest. Extreme suspicion, currently checking out alibis and other investigations would almost certainly not been made public. I am not suggesting that they are involved and they probably aren’t. I just think that if they are even suspicious of them, we aren’t going to know about it yet.