tvc184

No, no, no!
Getting rid of the police and makings drugs legal fixes most problems. Everyone knows it is the cop’s fault that drug users steal, kill and trash neighborhoods. Leave the drug addicts to themselves and not all but most problems will go away. The situation certainly will never get worse.
Portland, San Francisco and coming soon to a neighborhood nearby….

Okay,  change the law.
 I have said that many times including in this thread. 

No, no, no!
Getting rid of the police and makings drugs legal fixes most problems. Everyone knows it is the cop’s fault that drug users steal, kill and trash neighborhoods. Leave the drug addicts to themselves and not all but most problems will go away. The situation certainly will never get worse.
Portland, San Francisco and coming soon to a neighborhood nearby….

Civil asset forfeiture is one of those ideas that started out sounding good but has been radically abused by the way the law is written. It is much like red light cameras but on a mega scale.
What they do is take a situation that would be unconstitutional or statutorily unlawful. Then they make lawful by calling it civil instead of criminal. 
There is a huge difference between civil and criminal. Under criminal law the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden in a civil case is a preponderance of the evidence or roughly, anything more than 50%.
As an example, to convict a person of running a red light, there would have to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt and he would have the right to face his accuser. They know that would be impossible under criminal law so they call it a civil penalty. Basically they are suing your vehicle for damages for running the red light. Caveat: Texas outlawed traffic violation cameras a few years ago. Other states still use them. 
I see nothing wrong with the state seizing assets gained in a crime. If a guy is selling drugs and has $250,000 in money that can be proven to be made from illegal drug sales, he should not be able to do two years in jail and then get out and keep it.
 The problem is the burden of proof. They can say that you have no means to make that much money like a 24 year old guy working for $15 an hour and living paycheck to paycheck but is carrying $40,000 around in his car. That obviously looks wrong and a jury might agree. But there is no need by the civil forfeiture law to show any link to a criminal activity. It is assumed. Apparently they can say that “this doesn’t look right” and that’s enough.
Obviously that is wrong.

Not particularly the attempted murder. But just this situation in general. 
How dare the parents allow the son to play with a weapon around his younger sister. What if he missed the suspect and hit his lil sis? He could've shot her eye out. I could see a CPS investigation of the family.
Let's not forget about the victim... I mean suspect. This guy apparently has some problems that could be curtailed... literally.

There are two word combinations in law that are huge. Maybe huge would be an understatement. Those combinations are and/or and may/shall. It is not just in law-enforcement but for law in general.
Mostly to your question is may/shall. Most law enforcement/police actions fall under “may” which means optional or discretionary. A very limited few say “shall” which is translated as mandatory.
An example is making an arrest without a warrant. There is a whole list of justifications for arresting a person without a warrant under Texas law such as “may arrest” for any crime witnessed. They “may arrest” for family (domestic) violence even if they did not witness it. They “may arrest” for a felony even if they did not witness it and it is in immediate/fresh pursuit. They “may arrest” a person, interfering with another person trying to make an emergency phone call even if they did not witness it.
If a child is missing or a runaway, the officer shall immediately make a report and immediately enter the person into the national FBI computer database or NCIC.
If an adult is missing and endangered, the police shall make a report and enter the person into the same NCIC computer data base, within two hours. Not only is there no option that the police “may” wait for a person to be missing for 24 hours before they make a report, the law  is mandatory that a missing person must be entered into the computer within those two hours. If an officer says that a person has to be missing for 24 hours before they make a report, that is a violation of the law and the officer can be held responsible and sued.
There are extremely recent mandatory actions by the police, most likely prompted by the George Floyd incident. I believe one is to render aid to any person who may be injured during an arrest or use of force by the police. The other is to step in and intervened if they witnessed another officer committing a violation of a person’s rights.
If you want to cut it short and without explanation, out of hundreds of pages of laws and thousands of laws or requirements, the police SHALL;
Shall make a report of a 1. claimed assault, 2. a possible domestic violence or 3. identity theft.
Shall document traffic stops.
Shall make an arrest for the violation of a Protective Order, witnessed by the officer.
Shall make a police report and enter a child into the national database immediately and if an adult, within two hours.
Shall render aid for any action taken by an officer and Shall, intervener if another officer is witnessed violating a person’s rights.
Edit for auto correct gibberish. Like it changed a person’s rights to the price is right…  
and other words that didn’t make sense. 
 
 
 
 
.

There are two word combinations in law that are huge. Maybe huge would be an understatement. Those combinations are and/or and may/shall. It is not just in law-enforcement but for law in general.
Mostly to your question is may/shall. Most law enforcement/police actions fall under “may” which means optional or discretionary. A very limited few say “shall” which is translated as mandatory.
An example is making an arrest without a warrant. There is a whole list of justifications for arresting a person without a warrant under Texas law such as “may arrest” for any crime witnessed. They “may arrest” for family (domestic) violence even if they did not witness it. They “may arrest” for a felony even if they did not witness it and it is in immediate/fresh pursuit. They “may arrest” a person, interfering with another person trying to make an emergency phone call even if they did not witness it.
If a child is missing or a runaway, the officer shall immediately make a report and immediately enter the person into the national FBI computer database or NCIC.
If an adult is missing and endangered, the police shall make a report and enter the person into the same NCIC computer data base, within two hours. Not only is there no option that the police “may” wait for a person to be missing for 24 hours before they make a report, the law  is mandatory that a missing person must be entered into the computer within those two hours. If an officer says that a person has to be missing for 24 hours before they make a report, that is a violation of the law and the officer can be held responsible and sued.
There are extremely recent mandatory actions by the police, most likely prompted by the George Floyd incident. I believe one is to render aid to any person who may be injured during an arrest or use of force by the police. The other is to step in and intervened if they witnessed another officer committing a violation of a person’s rights.
If you want to cut it short and without explanation, out of hundreds of pages of laws and thousands of laws or requirements, the police SHALL;
Shall make a report of a 1. claimed assault, 2. a possible domestic violence or 3. identity theft.
Shall document traffic stops.
Shall make an arrest for the violation of a Protective Order, witnessed by the officer.
Shall make a police report and enter a child into the national database immediately and if an adult, within two hours.
Shall render aid for any action taken by an officer and Shall, intervener if another officer is witnessed violating a person’s rights.
Edit for auto correct gibberish. Like it changed a person’s rights to the price is right…  
and other words that didn’t make sense. 
 
 
 
 
.

… while his 8 year old sister was being kidnapped. According to the police, the suspect when arrested had visible wounds.
 
From the article:
Michigan State Police said in a news release that the 8-year-old girl was in her backyard when the alleged assailant came out of the woods, grabbed her and covered her mouth. Authorities said the girl’s brother, 13, hit the alleged attacker in the head and chest using a slingshot.
Police later arrested the 17-year-old based on another family member’s description….

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up

Yes, that would be a welcome shock. Maybe the people in her state are getting tired of the lies. 

“Easier said than done for xxxx most though.”
Fixed it for you. 

Things that make you go hmmmm….
 Buy a gun and a month later maybe you don’t like it and sell it in a private sale.
Cash….
 The biggest problem that people have is we can’t stop talking.
 And the classic, I will tell you but don’t tell anyone.   
 
My old Cajun boss (Ollie The Mover), who had a bunch a Yogi Berra type sayings that are classic. Something has to jog  my memory to recall any of them but this is one of those times.
About keeping a secret he would say: “Don’t tell but if you tell, tell the one you tell not to tell”. 

Things that make you go hmmmm….
 Buy a gun and a month later maybe you don’t like it and sell it in a private sale.
Cash….
 The biggest problem that people have is we can’t stop talking.
 And the classic, I will tell you but don’t tell anyone.   
 
My old Cajun boss (Ollie The Mover), who had a bunch a Yogi Berra type sayings that are classic. Something has to jog  my memory to recall any of them but this is one of those times.
About keeping a secret he would say: “Don’t tell but if you tell, tell the one you tell not to tell”. 

I am just stating the law. 🙃
If you speed and get away with it, then you got away with it. If you commit a felony and get away with it, then you got away with it.
Here is what at times comes back to bite people in the butt. Playing my favorite game, what if…… 
An officer pulls a guy over for speeding and while talking to him at the window noticed that he has a holster handgun. The officer comments that it is a nice gun and he has one just like it.
So Mr. Friendly Driver says, “Yeah, my brother just bought it for me yesterday. I was stuck at work and they had a sale so he went down and bought it for me”.
You are now on camera admitting that your brother committed a felony.
There was actually a case that went all the way up to the US Supreme Court. It wasn’t a traffic stop but like a traffic stop, was an accidental discovery. The police found a gun in a guy’s possession which was legal at the time because he was not a convicted felon. Unfortunately for him, he had the sales receipt and it had the original purchaser’s name on it and it was his nephew. The nephew was a former police officer and could get guns lawfully at a discount. When the nephew heard that his uncle wanted a new gun, offered to get it at his police discount. Both men could legally purchase a firearm at a licensed dealer. The police were able to track the sale to the former police officer and he was convicted of a felony. The nephew appealed to the Supreme Court and said, but we both can lawfully possess firearms. The Supreme Court said…. Oh well.
So the Nephew is now a convicted felon. 
People love to talk, tell all of their friends what is happening, what they did and more times than not, getting on social media and proclaiming what a great day they had, and what they did. 
On a side note, social media is one of the great tools of modern law-enforcement.  Many times the police don’t need a reason to question somebody, they can just get on their social media page.

… or a routine traffic stop.
For the most part, I could care less what people do.  
But if they get caught……
 

I would rather see opinions. 

Tvc184 you have taken me to school these last few weeks Thank you

There are two types of crosswalks, marked (A) and unmarked (B). Unmarked crosswalks are extended lines from sidewalks. So if a sidewalk ends at the street AND then continues on the opposite side of the street, that is an unmarked crosswalk. 
Or as it is described in the Transportation Code:
(2) "Crosswalk" means:
(A) the portion of a roadway, including an intersection, designated as a pedestrian crossing by surface markings, including lines; or
(B) the portion of a roadway at an intersection that is within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway.
So if a driver is coming upon an intersection with a stop sign AND there are sidewalks on both sides of the road, that is the same as a painted crosswalk and the law requires a person to stop before the sidewalk.
If a driver is at an intersection and has, for example, a left turn green arrow, the driver can lawfully turn left. The driver however has to yield right of way to any pedestrian in a crosswalk or any oncoming traffic from the opposite direction. The green turning arrow allows a person to lawfully turn but that person must give way to any vehicle or pedestrian.

Marked or unmarked? I believe there are several types.
I know there are marked ones like you see at an an intersection with lines marking the area to cross. There are some like I have seen near MD Anderson in the Houston Medical district that are in the middle of a street (not relegated to an intersection in other words) and then there are some that may be unmarked, but they are still crosswalks nevertheless. I'm sure there may be others, but I know the ones above exist.

It is all useless against an attacker with time to plan. According to the article, the median age of school shooters is 16. That means that they couldn’t legally buy a gun even from an individual, yet they did. Hmmmm…. it’s like when they were about to commit Capital Murder, the laws seemed like no deterrent.
You answer was clearly the correct assessment.  If no rifle, a shotgun. Then a handgun. Then a Molotov cocktail thrown into a couple of rooms.

The latest poll from the Washington Post and ABC News. To say that they lean left would be an understatement. I don’t think anyone would call them right wing.
Polls are a snapshot in time. Will it change with a jury verdict in a lawsuit? 
But father moment….
Biden approval rating is 36%.
Who do you trust more on the economy?   
Trump 54%   
Biden 36%
Mental shsrpness to be president?  
Trump 54%   
Biden 32%
Physical condition to serve?  
Trump 64%   
Biden 33%
If election held today, would vote or likely vote for?  
Trump 45% (36%/9%)   
Biden 32% (32%/0%)
There is a long way to go but this is not good news for Biden. You can disbelieve a left leaning poll if you wish and even if it’s true, it could certainly change next week. I would say your premise that Biden is starting out with a huge lead is a pie in the sky wishful thinking at best. 
 

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  

Money grab. 

The latest poll from the Washington Post and ABC News. To say that they lean left would be an understatement. I don’t think anyone would call them right wing.
Polls are a snapshot in time. Will it change with a jury verdict in a lawsuit? 
But father moment….
Biden approval rating is 36%.
Who do you trust more on the economy?   
Trump 54%   
Biden 36%
Mental shsrpness to be president?  
Trump 54%   
Biden 32%
Physical condition to serve?  
Trump 64%   
Biden 33%
If election held today, would vote or likely vote for?  
Trump 45% (36%/9%)   
Biden 32% (32%/0%)
There is a long way to go but this is not good news for Biden. You can disbelieve a left leaning poll if you wish and even if it’s true, it could certainly change next week. I would say your premise that Biden is starting out with a huge lead is a pie in the sky wishful thinking at best. 
 

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  

Someone's looking for attention, probably hasn't been able to find a Trump hit piece lately.

Under your scenario…
You are indicted for OC-Agg Assault and facing 99 years. They have you stealing a handgun and selling the gun to a 17 year old. That is two state jail felonies with a maximum of two years on each count. Through your attorney they offer to accept guilty pleas in the crimes you actually committed but no deferred adjudication probation and you will testify in court that you sold the gun to one of the suspects and he told you what he was going to do.
Or… they will not drop the Aggravated Assault charge but will allow you to plea guilty with a guaranteed sentence of 5 years (minimum for 1st degree felony) and the same testimony deal.
Or… the same deal but a 10 year sentence and parole eligible at 5 years.
To not take an agreed upon plea, you risk life in prison or up to 99 years, both of which can receive parole in 30 years.
 The worst plea deal I made up would probably have you home in five years…. You could risk 30 for parole.
If it looked like a solid case against you, would you accept any of those deals?
But we don’t even know what they really have on anybody. It is interesting to think of what may happen. Some of these later arrests might even have nothing to do with the shooting and just incidental crimes they ran into. Like while investigating where somebody might have gotten a gun, they inadvertently ran across a guy with a stolen credit card, which is a minor felony.
 
And I highly doubt that they would offer immunity but anything is certainly possible. 

Obviously I have no clue at all about this serious incident…. 
Let’s go out on a limb and say some of the people arrested are low level players like in my Organized  Crime examples. Like maybe they were not the actual shooters or the getaway driver but have been involved in other more minor crimes with a group.  Maybe they made a phone call to let people know that the party was underway.
 Whatever…..
Because of the organized crime law however, the people that may not have actually took part in the shooting itself might be facing up to 99 years in prison. Do anyone think that through a lawyer, they might give up the right to remain silent and cooperate in prosecution in lieu of reduced charges? 

Go to a firearms counter at a big box sporting goods store and listen. 🤣
I have heard things that are completely wrong. I am not talking like an opinion like brand A is better than B. I am talking about wrong.
 Even a young person at a specialty counter was expected to have some basic knowledge of the product. Not so much any more.
I think I have told this story before, but a few years ago I was at Subway sandwich with my partner at work. He ordered a 6 inch sandwich and I ordered a 12 inch sandwich. The conversation went like this:   
I would like a 12 inch on white bread.
We don’t have that.
OK give me a 12 inch wheat.
We don’t have that.
OK, what do you have?
We have white, wheat, jalapeño cheese…
OK, give me the 12 inch white.
We don’t have that. Sir, all we have is 6 inch and foot long sandwiches. We don’t have 12 inch bread.
My mistake, give me the foot-long white.