tvc184

He probably ran home after the shooting and had his wife hit him in the head with a baseball bat to try and justify the shooting. 

.......... and Shepard Smith is the king idiot. 

It has been said that starvation is a strong motivator. 
 
I believe that is a very true statement. There has to be some motivation for people to do almost anything. When a person has a place to stay and has food in his stomach, he is less likely in my opinion to go the extra mile to find a job or other means of support. It is much easier to sit back when someone else is paying the bill. 
 
The only point of this article was that the ending of many benefits motivated many more people to start working, maybe at lesser jobs than they left or would have taken if available. If you are not eating or have no roof over your head, how much will you struggle to make ends meet as opposed to having that means brought to your door free of effort or obligation? 
 
The single time that Obama is mentioned in the article (and Democrats not at all) is that he it touting the decrease in the unemployment rate. The article said that no matter your politics, that is a good thing. It points out that it is possible that part of that decrease in unemployment is due to the ending of benefits. 
 
I see that as nothing to do with Obama or politics except making a single point that unemployment benefits may tend to slow recovery rather than speed it up. 
 
It poses this statement, "It’s worth wondering why". 
 
The article appears to be me to be a statement of facts, that unemployment went down after some benefits ended and pondered whether the two are linked. I can't see that as inflammatory or very political and mainly states that it is a valid topic for debate. It certainly wasn't some hammering of Obama who is only mentioned once and the article agreed with him that it is good that unemployment went down no matter which party you support. 

To quote head WOS football coach Cornel Thompson in today's Beaumont Enterprise when talking about his team's performance in the Nederland scrimmage, he stated this:
 
"It's a scrimmage, a practice against strange faces," Thompson said. "Fumbling is unacceptable, but it is a practice. If it was a game, (Lapoint) wouldn't have got that far and he knows that.
 
 
Ahhhh... what does Cornel know about football anyway............

To quote head WOS football coach Cornel Thompson in today's Beaumont Enterprise when talking about his team's performance in the Nederland scrimmage, he stated this:
 
"It's a scrimmage, a practice against strange faces," Thompson said. "Fumbling is unacceptable, but it is a practice. If it was a game, (Lapoint) wouldn't have got that far and he knows that.
 
 
Ahhhh... what does Cornel know about football anyway............

.......... and Shepard Smith is the king idiot. 

I have seen some of the most idiotic statements from Fox reporters and guests. 

Nowhere.

One article said an "exchange" of gunfire. I think that implicates a shootout. 

......... or you could just go ahead and take "the" test, I think next month. 

A lot easier in a confined unit. 
 
On the streets that may be armed and a guy is 6'5" 300........... 

Actually Michael Baden said it was from front to back. It entered near the right eye, existed at the jaw and went into the shoulder. That is not back to front. 

On an interesting note (maybe), when the police are forced to give a statement for an internal investigation (such as a shooting), the officers normally types a notice on the statement that says the officer is being forced to give the statement for internal reasons only and he does not give up his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. It protects officers from being forced to give internal statements that may implicate them and being fired for invoking their constitutional rights.
 
The interesting part? It is called the "Garrity" warning. 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrity_warning

I attended 3 scrimmages yesterday. No score was posted on the stadium scoreboard in any of those scrimmages. Yes, there were TD's scored in all of those scrimmages.
 
Too many things go on in scrimmages that do not happen in real games to even consider a winner or loser.
 
Until team records show wins and losses in scrimmages, it will remain "glorified" practices.
 
Such a stupid topic. :rolleyes:

I would be willing to bet that all shots were fired in less than 2 seconds. 

So the preliminary autopsy results are released and all wounds to Brown were in the front. That kind of negates many of the witnesses that claim Brown was walking away with his hands in the air.
 
Then it shows the round entered near his right eyes but exited at the jaw showing that it was going downward and then it entered a shoulder. Since Brown was facing the officer and standing (according to witnesses), it tends to indicate that Brown's head was down as if he was leaning toward the officer. 
 
The autopsy alone means nothing but now that facts are starting to come out it seems to look quite a bit different than the claimed "eye witnesses". Apparently some of them did not see what they stated and merely claimed to be witnesses or they outright lied. 
 
It does not exonerate the officer as it still comes down to what the justifications were of using that amount of force but it sure shows another angle of the story. According to a report on CNN, Jesse Jackson calls the autopsy report "inflammatory". Why Jesse, because it might back up the officer's claim that Brown was coming back at him? 

When something sensational happens in the news or even when it happens on a personal level, people tend to make up or believe  their own statistics. 
 
A few years ago a guy fled from one of our officers in a vehicle, a felony. He called a couple of hours later to complain on the officer and give his explanation of why he ran (he was still not in custody). The man said that he fled in fear of his life because that officer is well known for beating up and killing people. He followed up with a statement something like, "Everyone knows that". As part of my preliminary investigation as a supervisor, I asked him to name the people that he has killed and beaten up because to my knowledge our department had not gotten a single report or complaint of abuse by the officer and we hadn't been involved in a deadly force situation in several years.... the last being before that officer was hired. The caller then went on to say that I was twisting his words and taking up for the officer. I said quite to the contrary, I have not said a single thing to take up for the officer and ask for his information to start what sounded like a serious investigation. I then told him that to verify that what he said, our entire conversation was on a recorded phone line (and it was). The next thing I heard?
 
CLICK!!
 
While that is but a single incident and has no bearing on any other investigation, it shows what I see at work no so infrequently. It is easy to spit out lies, accusations or even believed to be true assumptions. It is quite different to have facts to back them up.  
 
And what about valid abuse complaints? I witnessed abuse by an officer and he was terminated almost immediately and charges were submitted to the DA against the officer. 

When something sensational happens in the news or even when it happens on a personal level, people tend to make up or believe  their own statistics. 
 
A few years ago a guy fled from one of our officers in a vehicle, a felony. He called a couple of hours later to complain on the officer and give his explanation of why he ran (he was still not in custody). The man said that he fled in fear of his life because that officer is well known for beating up and killing people. He followed up with a statement something like, "Everyone knows that". As part of my preliminary investigation as a supervisor, I asked him to name the people that he has killed and beaten up because to my knowledge our department had not gotten a single report or complaint of abuse by the officer and we hadn't been involved in a deadly force situation in several years.... the last being before that officer was hired. The caller then went on to say that I was twisting his words and taking up for the officer. I said quite to the contrary, I have not said a single thing to take up for the officer and ask for his information to start what sounded like a serious investigation. I then told him that to verify that what he said, our entire conversation was on a recorded phone line (and it was). The next thing I heard?
 
CLICK!!
 
While that is but a single incident and has no bearing on any other investigation, it shows what I see at work no so infrequently. It is easy to spit out lies, accusations or even believed to be true assumptions. It is quite different to have facts to back them up.  
 
And what about valid abuse complaints? I witnessed abuse by an officer and he was terminated almost immediately and charges were submitted to the DA against the officer. 

And what is that dangerous path? 
 
I see so much about "where we are headed" in many forums and we are "continually losing our rights". Like many topics, many (or most) of the comments are out of ignorance. 
 
Examples are like a SCOTUS ruling giving some restrictions on police searches of vehicles and we are "losing our rights". I take "losing" as a present day situation and not something that happened generations ago. Yet when we take a look at it, is it true? 
 
I was reading another sports forum (hunting) about a SCOTUS ruling (Gant 2009) and the standard complaints came out. What they don't know if that the police have had almost unrestricted searches of vehicles under exigency that goes back to 1925 in Carroll v. US not long after cars first hit the streets. Move on to Belton v. NY in 1981 that gave officers unlimited wingspan searches of vehicles where the driver was arrested and the vehicle impounded. Almost two generations ago that case said that police could arrest you for not using your turn signal and could search your car. In Gant the SCOTUS stopped that practice and said that the police can only search if there is a reasonable belief that there is evidence in the crime committed so unless the cops can find evidence of not using your blinker under the seat or in the glove box, they cannot search. To make it brief, Gant in 2009 took away police authority that was previously allowed and yet people say that we are "losing our rights". It looks to me like many times the people are having their right reaffirmed, not taken away yet it is easy to say, "we are losing our rights" when the person saying it has no knowledge at all of what is being claimed.
 
That is but a single example but I can name more but that would be for a different thread.
 
So exactly what is this dangerous path? 

Not exactly. 
 
SWAT took a long time to get there. Once they arrived, they have a close in shootout between vehicles and one of them and the other was shot by an officer but also shot himself in the head, committing suicide when he saw he had no way out. 
 
In any case, it took SWAT to be there and the 100 or so patrol officers that responded had no answer for two guys that shot several people including officers. That is the same SWAT that saved the day that people are now saying is too much policing. 
 
A lot of people don't want the cops to have big guns or armored vehicles unless they are being held hostage, then they want the cops to have every tool available. 
 
I spent 10 years on SWAT and they are no more military like today than they were 30 years ago. What we have today is 24 hour news and social media. 

So do I.

Does who called 911 matter?

These tweets are nothing but a smokescreen. There appears to be plenty of evidence that the officer made a lawful stop. That is of no consequence because what happened after the stop is what matters. Did the officer have a legal authority to use deadly force in what he did or was it unjustified? The rest is just fluff.

That is not a typical photo however. I have lots of guns and a bit of cash. I have never been inclined to take such a photo and I doubt that many people reading this forum have done so either. 
 
It means nothing by itself but it tends to show a bit less of the choir boy image that is being portrayed by some of Brown. In some ways it is the reverse of what is being done to the officer involved and to the police in general. It is taking something that in itself means nothing but one side or the other is using it as proof of guilt. 

On a similar case, we had an officer's patrol vehicle shot one night in the windshield. I went to that area and was blocking a road and had stopped a vehicle for something entirely different. Other officers were at the scene a block or so away. 
 
There was some radio traffic but I wasn't paying attention to it as I was dealing with three or four guys that I had detained. Then I saw police units heading my way and heard my badge number on the radio and an officer saying something like, "TVC has them stopped".
 
That is why the units were screaming in my direction. I had inadvertently stopped the suspects in an officer almost being shot. What if I had been in a shootout right there with suspects that may have fired at officers? I did not stop them for that reason. 

So do I.