thetragichippy

Yes.
If the reporting officer lied, it is him and not the officer that made a reasonable detention based on information given.
 The main point is, if a reasonable officer would say… this doesn’t sound right…. he is still obligated to draw a reasonable conclusion and not really on information that he should know is wrong. 

The left does not get it.....
I stand with you as far as the LGBTQ community.....
But they are forcing more and more parents to home school or send to private schools......they should take their tax money with them

The left does not get it.....
I stand with you as far as the LGBTQ community.....
But they are forcing more and more parents to home school or send to private schools......they should take their tax money with them

It is the Good Faith Exception.
It works several ways but it is all linked together under the same rationale. One deals with the liability of an officer (civil and criminal) and the other is evidence gathered.
Let’s say that an officer detains a person in Beaumont such as on a traffic stop. A warrant is found on the driver issued out of Houston and it is confirmed by the dispatcher. Obviously the officer in Beaumont can’t tell the guy with the warrant, “I need to drive to Houston to review the warrant and discuss the case with the officer and I’ll be back in about six hours so wait for me”.
 Heck, what if it was from another state? Wait here, I’ll be back in three days…..
The officer serving the warrant in Beaumont is acting under good faith that the originating officer and the judge signing the warrant did their jobs correctly. If the officer in Houston or in another state made a mistake, is it the fault of the officer for making the arrest Beaumont? No. He acted in the good faith that the warrant was valid. If the warrant is later found to not have sufficient probable cause or is faulty in some other manner, it is not the fault of the officer in Beaumont.
If it is not a warrant, the same doctrine applies. If Beaumont PD has a robbery and notifies area agencies of the vehicle and suspect description, can an officer from another agency stop a suspect vehicle? A couple have answered it correctly, yes. But only IF…….
The vehicle or person detained has to reasonably match the information given by the originating agency. If BPD said two White males were seen in a small dark blue vehicle and another agency stops a pickup of any color with Black males…. Uhhhh, no.
By the same reasoning, if BPD puts out information that the suspect vehicle left Beaumont approximately two minutes ago, at 12:05 AM and at 12:09 AM an officer around Orange stops a vehicle that does actually match the description, could the suspect vehicle have driven from Beaumont to Orange in 4 minutes? Again the answer is no. So the officer relying on information from another agency still is required to make a reasonable decision based on the information given. Receiving information from another officer is not carte blanche to start stopping everyone.
Then the issue is, what about evidence found after a good faith detention, arrest or search?
In the scenario I gave earlier, a BPD officer arrests a guy from Houston on a warrant. After what appears to be a lawful arrest, cocaine is found in the man’s pocket. Is it still admissible as evidence? The BPD officer made a lawful traffic stop (for example speeding) and made an arrest on what appeared to be a lawful warrant but it was later on appeal, found to be faulty. The officer in Beaumont clearly didn’t violate the person’s rights and didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment for making an unreasonable search because he had probable cause to believe that he was acting correctly. Is the evidence still valid to be used in court?
I am not sure. From the cases I have seen, it appears as though the US Supreme Court says that it’s okay but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals says it’s not okay. That would make it not okay if either court found it unlawful.
So that is a Good Faith Exception. An officer is allowed to rely on what he believes to be valid information from another officer or from a warrant. That officer, however, still has to rely on a reasonable belief which is called “objective reasonableness”  by the Supreme Court (the same standard for use of force). Objective reasonableness is defined by the Supreme Court  as what a reasonable officer would believe when facing the same circumstances.
 

The guy that jumped from the boat and swam to the co-captains rescue is my hero......
 

A lie is a lie….
 
 

That's enough. Both of yall have broken rules today.

A fun fact if you want to talk about the popular vote - California and New York make up 7,096,710 of the popular vote difference of the overall difference of 7,059,547. 
This is a perfect example of why our founding Fathers came up with the electoral college. They didn't want two states deciding Presidential elections.
Numbers don't lie......

Then you are not on the same page with Aggie or me. I will vote for whoever we nominate that is the Republican......
No one, I repeat no one is a destroying our democracy,,,,,,,Elections have been contested since the 1800 (Lincoln's in 1860 is a great example) and yet here we are......2023
"destroying our democracy" is only a Democratic talking point. "if President Trump is elected it will destroy our democracy"....Really?  If he is elected by the proper electoral votes per the constitution that will destroy our democracy? If he challenged the results and can't prove it, and leaves office, that is a threat to democracy?  To me, that is Democracy hard at work doing what our founding fathers intended........
So stop it with the CNN  talking points

Then you are not on the same page with Aggie or me. I will vote for whoever we nominate that is the Republican......
No one, I repeat no one is a destroying our democracy,,,,,,,Elections have been contested since the 1800 (Lincoln's in 1860 is a great example) and yet here we are......2023
"destroying our democracy" is only a Democratic talking point. "if President Trump is elected it will destroy our democracy"....Really?  If he is elected by the proper electoral votes per the constitution that will destroy our democracy? If he challenged the results and can't prove it, and leaves office, that is a threat to democracy?  To me, that is Democracy hard at work doing what our founding fathers intended........
So stop it with the CNN  talking points

His writing is exemplary.
It probably wasn’t hard to draw his conclusions unfortunately. 
 There is something even more unfortunate however. It is that no matter how much sense his statement makes, it will fall into the laps of a smug group of individuals who have already shown that they don’t see him as an asset or an example of their district but rather a thorn in their side.   
If I read his statement correctly, when he was contesting the grade he was denied and filed a public records request and it showed there were over 5,500 internal emails about him. When I was in high school, I would be shocked to find that my name was mentioned over 5,000 times even if counting personal conversations out of my presence between friends and enemies combined.
 The guy hopefully has a bright future. If he does, some of those same school board members will be crowing about how good BISD is and he is an example. When that potential Wikipedia article mentions that he graduated from Westbrook at BISD, the same group that did him wrong, will be high-fiving and patting each other on the back for the recognition of his success. 

 

Betting on your choice does not show support, voting for your choice shows support. As you know, you live in Texas, YOUR States vote will be Trump, and that’s where your vote counts. So we know at least 38 electoral votes will come from Texas😎

😭

First, I'm not a betting man but to take that bet would be placing my trust in the American people making the right choice, in that I have no confidence and surely wouldn't chance money on them.
I'll vote for the best candidate, just like I always do and just like I did in 2020.
And there is absolutely no disputing that, I, and many others were right, they were wrong, just look around.
 

I like everything I’ve heard from Ramaswamy so for. He seems like a sharp guy with vision and strong constitutional beliefs. We shall see. 

This is the fun part.....The closest to Trump is Desantis at 15%....I really like Ramaswamy and he is almost 7% ....One of the few that does not rag on Trump.
You can't win the primary talking negative about Trump, you need his base.  DeSantis was polling in the low 30% in Feb 2023.......He started talking about Trump and his percent dropped in half........Ramaswamy is talking about his vision.....and could very well be Trumps VP in election.

He thinks Trump lost by some crazy amount.......It was a few thousand votes in a few states.....
He picked up several million votes from 2016 to 2020, yet CB thinks it's impossible to pick up 60K more in 2024......Now lets add in the fact that Bidens disapproval is at 54.7%, the economy stinks, gas prices rising again.......According to an average of polls in 538, Trump does better than DeSantis.....will that change? To be determined 
 

This is the fun part.....The closest to Trump is Desantis at 15%....I really like Ramaswamy and he is almost 7% ....One of the few that does not rag on Trump.
You can't win the primary talking negative about Trump, you need his base.  DeSantis was polling in the low 30% in Feb 2023.......He started talking about Trump and his percent dropped in half........Ramaswamy is talking about his vision.....and could very well be Trumps VP in election.

The most accurate polls out there currently have Biden beating DeSantis by 6 points......and there is no argument? Really?  
You taking out facts to argue your case does not work on me. This is the same method you tried to use when I pointed out 56K votes decide the election......

Yeah, I was thinking 5-15 and maybe other issues.. you can’t sell sno-cones and coach!
If 16 - 5 with a playoff appearance? Can you please schedule to sell your cones between classes and on weekends?

To your point.

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

I would not be that confident in him.....if you were convicted of murder, would you want this guy on your side?   From 2010 to 2015, Smith served under Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder, leading the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section. The Obama Administration set in motion Democrats’ Coup against Trump from Day One of his presidency. (Excerpt from Lee Smith’s book, October 2019, “The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History”).   Among his more notable corruption cases, Smith prosecuted the former governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell, a Republican. Although Smith scored a conviction against McDonnell, the case was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 decision. The Court observed that “there is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.” (Politico, 6/27/16). The High Court also rebuked Smith and warned that “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers.”   Smith prosecuted and convicted former Democrat vice presidential nominee John Edwards. “By not losing on any of the six felony counts for which he was being tried, John Edwards won the biggest victory of his political and legal life . . . A mistrial on five counts and an acquittal on one resulted in a clear -- if not complete -- legal vindication and a likely fatal setback for federal prosecutors seeking to convict the former U.S. senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee for allegedly violating the Federal Election Campaign Act.” (U.S. News, June 1, 2012).   Smith prosecuted Democrat Bob Menendez on public corruption charges. The case ended in a mistrial. “The way this case started was wrong, the way it was investigated was wrong, the way it was prosecuted was wrong, and the way it was tried was wrong as well,” Menendez said outside the courtroom at the time.” (Washington Examiner, 6/5/23).   Smith prosecuted Arizona congressman Rick Renzi on corruption charges, which the Supreme Court upheld. Renzi was later pardoned by former President Trump. Renzi declared that he had been “wrongly convicted by a Department of Justice that engaged in witness tampering, illegal wiretapping, and gross prosecutorial misconduct.” (Washington Examiner, 6/5/23).

I would not be that confident in him.....if you were convicted of murder, would you want this guy on your side?   From 2010 to 2015, Smith served under Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder, leading the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section. The Obama Administration set in motion Democrats’ Coup against Trump from Day One of his presidency. (Excerpt from Lee Smith’s book, October 2019, “The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History”).   Among his more notable corruption cases, Smith prosecuted the former governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell, a Republican. Although Smith scored a conviction against McDonnell, the case was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 decision. The Court observed that “there is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.” (Politico, 6/27/16). The High Court also rebuked Smith and warned that “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers.”   Smith prosecuted and convicted former Democrat vice presidential nominee John Edwards. “By not losing on any of the six felony counts for which he was being tried, John Edwards won the biggest victory of his political and legal life . . . A mistrial on five counts and an acquittal on one resulted in a clear -- if not complete -- legal vindication and a likely fatal setback for federal prosecutors seeking to convict the former U.S. senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee for allegedly violating the Federal Election Campaign Act.” (U.S. News, June 1, 2012).   Smith prosecuted Democrat Bob Menendez on public corruption charges. The case ended in a mistrial. “The way this case started was wrong, the way it was investigated was wrong, the way it was prosecuted was wrong, and the way it was tried was wrong as well,” Menendez said outside the courtroom at the time.” (Washington Examiner, 6/5/23).   Smith prosecuted Arizona congressman Rick Renzi on corruption charges, which the Supreme Court upheld. Renzi was later pardoned by former President Trump. Renzi declared that he had been “wrongly convicted by a Department of Justice that engaged in witness tampering, illegal wiretapping, and gross prosecutorial misconduct.” (Washington Examiner, 6/5/23).

The Republican party is not "your party".......if it was, you would let "democracy" run its course and see if he is the nominee and if so, vote for Trump because "your party" nominated him.
Vote or write in anyone else and you voted for the Democratic nominee