tvc184

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.

I have used a mix like Bisquick (but thinned) as a topping for a pot pie and also Pillsbury crescent rolls.

I will toss in, just because the police have said the roommates or others in the home are not suspected of the crime, don’t be so sure that the police have eliminated them. Maybe… but a public statement of an unsolved crime isn’t always the final outcome.

I have fought for my life including having a gun to the side of my head during the fight. I never made a sound that I know of. I was too busy to think how to get out of a really bad situation. When you start screaming it is probably over for you because you have now given up and screaming is all that is left. Basically you have gone into pure panic mode (which absolutely exists) and that may be your only response left. We have probably all seen crazy or horrific videos of shooting, stabbing, car crashes, etc. and it sometimes amazes me that there are a few people who will just stand and scream or maybe run and scream. I think for possibly a majority of people, screaming isn’t what they will do but everyone responds differently. I agree that a lack of screaming is not an automatic piece of evidence that there is some sort of coverup or bogus alibi from others on scene. That can’t be discounted however. Either scenario is possible. Let’s play everybody’s favorite game, what if. What if the victims didn’t scream? What if they did but (and remembering intoxication may have been involved): 1. All bedroom doors (including the persons not killed) were shut, knocking out about 90% of the sound. 2. The perpetrator(s) shut the victim’s door, then put his/her hand over the victim’s mouth. 3. The perpetrator used a pillow. 4. The people not killed were truly that intoxicated. I have seen people so intoxicated that they had a cigarette in their hand and it had burned them and they did not wake up. 5. The people not killed had the television on while in an intoxicated state. 6. The people not killed had ear buds in listening to music. 7. And so on. After reading hundreds, if not thousands of threads about crimes or suspicious circumstances, I am usually in wonder on how people are drawing their conclusions or (usually) assumptions. Most times there is nothing in a news article to back up their stance. They might be 100% correct however there is nothing known publicly that shows the claim or assumption. Even more interesting is how a complete assumption by one person will be repeated by another and then become “fact”. It is at times accompanied by, “Well I read…..”. Yes you did. You read an opinion by a person that had no clue but then justified it by saying you read it. Then your statement gets repeated…. In this forum over the years I have seen conclusions on big news incidents locally. I will go back try to read about the incident from different news media outlets. Many times I can’t find a single bit of information backing up a claim. I have gone off on a tangent but I agree with the FBI agent (as an example, I am assuming you read jt ), not screaming (or I will add, not hearing any) doesn’t prove anything.

The other side is hysterical. To deny or pass it off as spin is… hysterical and hypocritical. The obviously hypocritical part is that you didn’t explain why I am wrong, you simply said it was a cop-out. You did what you accused. So I give about a 10 paragraph answer and you can only say, it’s a cop-out? Your TDS has skewed your ability to reason. Let’s look at what I said, not rehashing the explanation but the format. It started with, I am “guessing” what Trump meant. Reasoning ability would see that as “maybe” this happened. Maybe you could look up maybe in the dictionary. I wasn’t endorsing his tweet but looking at possible answers. After discussing an actual case (which I am reasonably confident you will ignore), I ended with Trump “might” have been referring to the case and being returned to office, which is not in the Constitution. If you read the actual tweet “maybe” you could comprehend it. Again, you would have to research the definition of “maybe”. It is irrelevant but I don’t support Trump. I am for DeSantis at this point and have been since the last election. Trump will be divisive and hurt the GOP campaign. …… and you have TDS.

I don’t know since I don’t follow Trump but I am guessing that he meant Brunson v. Adams which has been submitted to the Supreme Court. Trump stated along the line of, the Constitution should be scrapped to reinstall him as president. Brunson v. Adams seeks to do something like that. The request for certiorari (review) by the Supreme Court was submitted in October. I see the case where it was submitted on the Supreme Court website but haven’t seen the response if certiorari was granted. Brunson seeks (I think) to remove every Democrat from office due to the accusations of fraud in 2020 and half of the Republicans. Brunson doesn’t bring up the fraud but the fact that Congress didn’t follow the law on January 6. During the certification of the election where fraud was claimed, over 100 congressmen were going to testify that the election might have been fraudulent. According to the law (claimed, I haven’t read it), if such a claim is made, there shall be (obligation) to hold a 10 investigation before certifying the election. I guess basically it requires Congress to hold hearings before the election could then be certified. That would make January 16 as the earliest day to certify the election. Apparently all Democrats and some Republicans voted to certify the election and disregard the law. They could have still certified the election but only after a 10 day delay… which again, didn’t happen. The key in this case, unlike other lawsuits where fraud has to be proven, is that is doesn’t try to prove fraud in court (which has lost) but to follow the law requiring Congress (not a lawsuit) to conduct the required investigation. it is like denying a person a constitutional right. An example is that if you were accused of a crime, you have the right to remain silent and you had the right to an attorney if there is a trial. You might still be convicted however, they cannot take away your rights. This lawsuit is saying that Congress still has the authority to certify but only after the investigation which did not happen. If the Supreme Court accepted the case and if it ruled in favor of Brunson, the result could be that the election certification is voided and therefore remove Biden from the presidency for the unlawful certification. It would also potentially remove all members of Congress who voted for certification. Coincidentally that if the same part of the Constitution that Nancy Pelosi tried against Trump where I believe the Constitution says that if removed from office, a person could not again take office. I am sure that most of us remember the question why Pelosi continued with impeachment after Trump left office. It was to keep him from running again. Now the Supreme Court is being asked to do the same to Pelosi and 350+ others. I am not advocating nor claiming that the Supreme Court will take the case or how they would rule. The case is it there however and may come up for a decision in January. I think that is what Trump might have been referring to when he said the Constitution should be scrapped and he put back in office. TDS however won’t see that angle.

😜🤣😜🤣😜 Too funny!!

A police officer who I worked with was at a public information/community relations school in Houston. I think it was mostly for the police but maybe other spokespersons could attend. It is a school to learn to put out news releases, conduct press conferences, etc. As one of his lessons (basically homework) for the next day he was given a set of facts known to him about a crime scene and he was supposed to write a press release. It may have been like, police called to a report of shots fired. They found a man shot 3 times with a 9mm and blah blah blah…. Lots of details. So as part of his homework, he called me. I wrote a basic press release and sent it him. I left out most of the details of what the police knew. The reason is that the law on statements by a suspect (basically a confession), requires certain rules, most of which is being able to corroborate (I think the wording is establish guilt) the statement. You can’t do that with information that was released to the public. Details such as caliber of a weapon, number if times shot or stabbed, which room, etc. cannot be used. Everybody knows those answers if you out it on the 6 o'clock news. So the next day in class the instructor (of all things, a news reporter) chose my friend’s release to read to the class on what NOT to do. It was read anonymously so as not to single a person out. The reason that it was wrong in the instructor‘s opinion, was because he did not have nearly enough details that were known to the officer writing the press release. My friend later told me that he spoke up in class and identified himself as the author. He the cited the law on statements and why it was unwise (but not illegal) for the police to release certain information until a warrant is obtained (then it is public anyway). He said the instructor put that press release on the table and went to the next one. The instructor didn’t even make a commitment….😂 It isn’t against the law to release most information to the public (except such as the name of a juvenile suspect) but it isn’t always wise either. I guarantee in this case they have clues but aren’t going to release them at this point.

The police have released no clues to protect the investigation.

The belief that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, values or principles I believe is a fallacy. Religious? Absolutely. I believe that all countries until fairly recent history were based on faith and sin such as theft, murder, lying, adultery, etc. all had religious roots. But did non-Christian countries have the same beliefs? What distinguishes Christians believing that murder was wrong and Buddhists thinking it was wrong? Were the members of the Continental Congress deeply religious? Almost certainly. They mentioned it in writings. The US until independence was mostly governed by laws of France, Spain and Britain. There was no American law. There wasn’t an independent country of God worshipping people but rather several colonies who had different beliefs but certainly most were Christian. At declared independence and before the Constitution we were still a bunch of independent colonies and nothing like we now claim as a nation. The Boston Massacre in 1770 kind of kicked the call for independence. It really heated up in 1773 with the Boston Tea Party and hit the point of no return on April 19, 1775 with the shot heard ’round the world in Lexington. We however, were still part of Britain. It was over a year later before we even got around to declaring independence and declaring to become a separate country. With the Treaty of Paris in 1783, the war officially ended. There was still no Constitution creating what is our now country. The Constitution get ratified and become law in 1789, 13 years after independence was declared. Then the Bill of Rights almost 3 years later, like a week or two before 1793. So it took almost 20 years from the beginning of the Revolutionary War to the US actually being founded as a federal constitutional government. And why does the history lesson matter? Because in the Treaty of Tripoli in 1793 (and right after the Bill of Rights became law) which was agreed to by George Washington and with unanimous consent of the Senate, in one section stated, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”. So within a few weeks after ratification of the Bill of Rights noting very first freedom of religion, President Washington and the US Senate unanimously approved a treaty that said that the American government was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. To emphasize that, the very first words in the Bill of Rights was not freedom of speech or assembly or the press. Nope, the first words were freedom of religion… started as Congress shall make no law. It would be a disgrace to Christianity that people were told by a country to be that. It trivializes Christianity into a political debate.

What is this Christian value that others don’t have.

Asking when Hunter was in the WH is like asking when Charles Manson murdered people. He was accused of that but was convicted and sentenced the death as part of the conspiracy. That where Hunter fits in.

The 10 Commandments are part of all Abrahamic beliefs or what is sometimes called The Three Great Religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The video, while probably factually correct, is nonsense. For example, an Italian explorer was hired by a Spanish Queen to sail west and he was a Catholic like virtually every person in Italy. So 500 years ago, 300 years before the US Constitution was written, an Italian hired by Spain prayed on his arrival in the Indies and that is proof of Christianity in the US founding? Two countries that ended up having no part in the founding of the US? The guide points out paintings on the wall depicting events from the 1600s? If nothing else from his explanation you might conclude that the US was founded as a Catholic nation. I wonder how that will be perceived by the protestants. Sorry Baptists, this is a Catholic nation! But wait! A president was a preacher! Of course that was 100 years after the founding of the US but let’s ignore that for now. I guess Jimmy Carter is evidence that the nation and the presidents were founded on peach farming. The Founding Fathers were deeply religious…. and rejected relgion as any kind of requirement for laws or office. Were stealing, lying, murdering, etc., mentioned in the 10 Commandments as well as common law through world history? Absolutely. I will bet you find that other kingdoms in Asia and Africa who did not practice Christianity, had the same common laws

This country was not based on Christianity. Certainly the members of the Continental Congress were deeply religious Christians.

Sedition by definition is words or conduct inciting peoplem against the government. Any public protest against any law could be considered sedition but protests are protected speech. Laws at times however have their own definitions of words or phrases which may be contrary to the common dictionary definitions. A quick example is the word “premises” means buildings and land but in certain Texas laws it only means inside of a building. You could be on the grassy area at a school but not be on their premises. By definition? Yes. By law? No. So what is sedition (Seditious Conspiracy) under the US Code (basically the federal government penal code)? It can be as little as 2 people (required for conspiracy) hindering or delaying a government function or seizing property by force that they have no right to…. such as trying to take over federal properties. So now we know that out of hundreds of thousands of people protesting, at least 2 tried to take over a building or hinder a vote. That’s your big deal? It is rarely used but under Texas law, if you participate in a riot then you can be charged with the highest crime committed at the riot. So thousands of people could gather for what started as a peaceful protest but turned violent. The law says that if you retired from the protest which is now violent, you are okay. If you stayed and took part in the riot, you for example could be charged with arson even though you didn’t participate in an arson. So because an assembly of people is there to protest and a majority is there to do it peacefully, it can turn into a crime to simply be there. In fact just being there can result in 6 months in jail. Tidbit: I believe the phrase “being read the riot act”, meaning to really tell someone off or chastise them for acting like idiots, comes from riot laws. Basically a government official (usually law enforcement) will actually read the law and announce that the assembly is now unlawful and to disperse. Does that mean the crowd gathered to take part in felonies? In other words, if hundreds of thousands of people gather but a handful in the crowd (remember that federal sedition law requires only 2) commit a crime, does that mean the crowd was part of some willing act to commit crimes? Does that mean the people protesting were doing so illegally.

Christianity and Islam have the same 10 commandments given by Moses.

My ex mother in law did that about 30 years ago. She made turkey gumbo from leftovers and it was good. She saw it in the internet. Actually it was a few years before the internet became public. 🤣 I had probably a common response of…. HUH?

Many of the cases (almost all) that are taught are not hard to understand and most a semi intelligent middle school student could understand. A lot of times officers try to take shortcuts to save paperwork and time and that gives us case law. Once an officer screws up or even does things correctly (which is many case laws), the appeals courts give us rules to live by, called setting precedent. In the landmark decision of Terry v. Ohio as an example, the Supreme Court gave us the 8-1 ruling that the police are allowed to stop a person who appears to be or about to be committing a crime. It also allows officers to frisk people for weapons. This case from the mid 1960s was written by Detective Martin McFadden. It was a (in my opinion) brilliant piece of police work by a cop that started working around 1925, so old school. Some people think old school means a strong but dumb cop. McFadden showed otherwise. MaFadden explained in his affidavit what he witnessed and using his experience (which he listed), he said that he believed that he was about to witness an armed robbery. He stopped the 4 men about to enter the store, put them on the wall and got I think 3 handguns off of the men. His detailed explanation of why he came to his conclusion stands today as the standard that courts use to determine if an officer had the authority to detain a person. That is reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is about to be or has been committed. It is not probable cause which justifies a forced search or arrest. So in my opinion it is relatively easy to follow the law and case law. If officers mess up then it is likely that they were taking shortcuts or weren’t paying attention in training… or new rulings came out negating what was previously lawful (an example is AZ v. Gant overturning NY v. Belton). There are always gray areas and an officer should document what he saw, heard, smelled, etc., and what conclusions he drew from that. A trial judge will later make a decision on the officer’s actions. An appeals court may later judge the trial judge’s actions/decisions.

Heinous crime….. (not trying to beat a dead horse but hopefully educational) In the mid 1970s police in Arizona raided the home of Mincey for drugs. They had a valid warrant to enter and search. During the entry, Mincey and an officer got in a shootout that killed the officer and seriously injured Mincey. The fact that the officers had a valid warrant is not in question. Neither are the facts that there was the murder of a police officer and that other officers witnessed it. The police never gave up the crime scene that they had witnessed and were lawfully inside. So they called the homicide detectives and they stayed for about 3 days photographing and diagramming. While Mincey was in intensive care, detectives questioned him. He confessed. Mincey was convicted of murdering a police officer. His appeal made it to the Supreme Court. Arizona’s argument was that they were initially there lawfully and the seriousness of the crime scene. Mincey also appealed his confession. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the search of the residence required a warrant. The original warrant was for drugs, not dismantling the place once the search for drugs had ended. Basically they said that the Fourth Amendment didn’t say, you have the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and it involves the police as a victim. As to the confession, Mincey was reported to be semi- conscious so his confession was also thrown out. That vote was 8-1. I am teaching this part of constitutional law at LIT in Beaumont this coming February twice. Once at the basic academy and another time in a mandatory in service training, called core courses. I usually try to emphasize Mincey. A person’s rights don’t end at minor crimes.

I get that. So, should the police be able to go into your home without a warrant and without probable cause? It is clearly a violation of the Constitution but during the unlawful raid, the police got video evidence of some disgusting crime. Look, the police violated your rights without question but the end it resulted in proof of a heinous crime. Should that be allowed? By what you and 5GallonBucket are saying, that seems perfectly reasonable. It only my opinion but you are willing to give up your rights too easily. Or perhaps those rights only apply to you? The minimum penalty for police misconduct, even if accidental, is loss of any evidence due to that misconduct. When I teach this part of constitutional law in the police academy, the case of US v. Tarry Jackson that is cited in the lesson plan. It isn’t because of it being a landmark decision. It isn’t. If I remember the case without digging out the PowerPoint or lesson plan, the police (I think it was Washington DC Park Police) stopped Jackson for a license plate light out. The police found out by computer that Jackson’s license was suspended and the temporary paper tag on the car didn’t belong to it (gee, that never happens). The police checked the car interior and came up with nothing. So they have a couple of valid but minor charges on Jackson and arrested him. The problem is that the officers really wanted to search the trunk but there was no apparent legal way to get in there. But WAIT!! Since the paper plate didn’t belong on the car, the officers used the Carroll Doctrine (Supreme Court case of Carroll v. US) which ruled that if probable cause existed to search a vehicle, no warrant is needed because it takes too long to get a warrant and if the police came back two hours later, the vehicle would obviously be gone. So the officers needed probable cause to believe that there was evidence of a crime that could be discovered in the trunk. What could that be? The officers dreamed up probable cause that evidence of a crime was in the trunk. As a side note, police are allowed to use personal experience and knowledge to help build probable cause. This is what those officers came up with. We have probable cause to believe that the car “might be” stolen (although a computer check did not show it as stolen) and “if” the car is stolen, it is our (officers’) experience that people often steal cars, put in fake tags and then hide the tags from the stolen car in the trunk. HUHHHHHH??? The appeals court judges said, What The….. Heck! After almost 38 years as an officer and 30 years of teaching, I have never even heard, much less experienced, the gibberish that those officers came up with. But that was what they came up with and wouldn’t you know it, they found a handgun in the trunk which was a felony crime. Oh well, the probable cause might complete nonsense but they managed to solve a felony crime. The importance of using this case in class is not that it is a landmark case. It actually is fairly simple and the trial judge should have simply dismissed the search as being without probable cause. The trial judge didn’t so it went to an appeal where we got the case of US v. Tarry Jackson handed to us. So why teach it? Because of a comment by an appeal court judge in the ruling. "These [Fourth Amendment rights], I protest, are not mere second-class rights but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government." Uncontrolled searches and seizures are the “first” and most “effective” weapons of every arbitrary government. I think in the explanation the ruling brought up the Nuremberg trials after WWII when the Nazis were put on trial. Part of that was that Germany justified the injustices and deprivation of rights based on the outcome of good for the public. If we can just get these undesirables off the streets, we will be a better country. Violating individual rights (most effective weapon in arbitrary government) don’t matter if the outcome is good. That is why we teach it. So again, which rights are you willing to give up if the unlawful act “helps the public” (in the eyes of the government, not yours)? Be a leader. Be there first person on your block to sign away your rights and allow the police to search your car, your person or your home without justification. I can guarantee you that it will help solve crimes. If I could enter any home and search whatever I want or stop any person on the street and do the same, I can absolutely promise that many bad crimes will be discovered or solved. Is that y’alls solution? Or if the police violate your personal rights, should there be a penalty? So reasonable folks, which rights?

Maybe I am posting too much on this topic. Think of this though. The DA has the discretion to accept or dismiss the prosecution of any case. There is no obligation under Texas law to bring charges. The DA can refuse cases at his discretion. With that in mind, the DA is in my experience, usually not willing to push a questionable case. If the police possibly did anything wrong in the DA’s professional opinion (questionable detention, search, documentation, etc.) and that piece of evidence is critical to the case, the DA will likely refuse to prosecute. They aren’t going to dedicate time and resources to a case that in their opinion has questionable evidence. I could argue that the DA might win the case anyway or eventually win it on appeal a couple of years later. In many or most cases that isn’t going to happen. It might be more prudent in their opinion to dismiss the case and move on. With that in mind, this case has been presented to the DA. After reviewing the case, including how all of the evidence was gathered, the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office Juvenile Division determined that the case was not only solid, it had enough evidence to present this case to the Family Court to get the juvenile defendant certified as an adult. They could have very easily allowed the case to remain in the juvenile courts. Apparently the DA believes a good investigation was performed and has moved forward with what they think is a winning case. With all the rules, rights and laws to follow, at this stage it appears that the DA believes the police did a good job. A defense attorney will now get to scrutinize all of the police actions and don’t be surprised if those high school educated officers get their evidence submitted into trial.

That’s because freedom of speech is seen by some as a threat to national security, I mean, the political party in power.

And in a short follow up, yes we the police have to follow rights and laws but in a large majority of cases the police officer with the GED or high school diploma follows those rules and typically wins in court against attorneys with their Doctorate of Jurisprudence and affirmed by perhaps even higher trained judges including on appeals courts up to the Supreme Court.