Texas Cop shoots woman to death inside her own home.

The Post on this thread run the gauntlet, none are bad or good, there merely opinions.
It is impossible to imagine a jury made up of the opinions expressed- they would not be able to reach a consensus, each group might even do harm to the dissenters.

We live in the USA, we can state anything that whirls through our mind without being carried off by the thought police-Thank God!

Large PD Departments are aware there are ‘bad apples,’ within their mist, but their also required to put so many ‘bodies’ on the street. Given time the ‘bad apples’ will be eased out or into a desk job where they do not deal with the public-BUT few large PD Departments have that luxury.
You can’t fire a cop because his superiors think ‘he/she is dangerous, inadequate, not suited for the job you must show cause.

The new hire brings to his/her new job all the opinions they had before becoming a police officer; no academy will change those opinions. It takes a while for these opinions to come to the attention of others.

I have no solution, I have an opinion, locked away-no amount of yammering is going to change my opinion; if I set throughout every day of the trial I would know whether my opinion was correct or incorrect-that is not possible.
Now, I will have to wait for a year, maybe longer to hear what the TV tell me, intermingled with commercials of toilet paper and other slick lies.
 

I hate "spreading" what I do not "know" for sure but........

I have heard some whispers/rumors that some modern-day coppers, when seeing white hair, obvious seniors driving, are looking for cause. This is due to the belief, experience that these drivers might well have some "interesting" medications on their person/in their vehicle ???

I surely hope if true ?, that it is not widespread. The retired guys that i know, scoff it big-time. And say that they [back in the day] would have never done this.
I can only speak for my guys. We never “head-hunted” on anyone or group of people. Sure, we held checkpoints for DUI, and even a few other situations when looking for a suspect, but outside of those few instances, nothing that I am aware.
 
I've never heard anyone suggest that police target seniors where I live. Here, they have plenty of real stuff to worry about and keep them busy, like road rage, gangs, vandals and drug dealers and assorted other bad behavior, so they don't worry much about little old ladies chugging to the grocery store minding their own business.
 

I've never heard anyone suggest that police target seniors where I live. Here, they have plenty of real stuff to worry about and keep them busy, like road rage, gangs, vandals and drug dealers and assorted other bad behavior, so they don't worry much about little old ladies chugging to the grocery store minding their own business.

I think seniors, especially white seniors don't have anything to worry about unless they are doing something egregious. On the other hand black people, especially young black males are routinely profiled by the police. Cops use "selective enforcement" on them. By that I mean if you are an old white dude like me, the chances of being stopped and ticketed for a burned out tag light bulb are pretty slim. But for a young black guy the percentage is off the chart. That's the way cops get away with profiling and still cover their asses.
 
I've never heard anyone suggest that police target seniors where I live. Here, they have plenty of real stuff to worry about and keep them busy, like road rage, gangs, vandals and drug dealers and assorted other bad behavior, so they don't worry much about little old ladies chugging to the grocery store minding their own business.
Butterfly, did you work in a criminal attorney’s office? Were there multiple attorney’s? If they were criminal attorneys, did they ever represent any high profile or serial killers? Just curious. I studied major crimes and even went back to college after I became an Investigator to study constitutional law. (I did not attain any further degree other than my A.D.) Later in my career, I was able to sit in on a podcast that Alan Dershowitz moderated (2006). He did a really good job with explaining some parts of the Constitution, but he was just so very political.
 
Most people have no idea about search and seizure laws. I don't. So , police can do what they want. I think anybody, who has followed just a couple of these police shooting incidents, knows the police defense drill. "He was a big, scary Black man, with what I saw as a weapon in his hand and I was in fear of my life." And, then there's the mysterious body-cam malfunction just as the officer shoots. I don't think we are going to have any change in police actions until we penetrate through that "blue wall".
I was a Certified Psychiatric Nurse. I was watching a police video of the cops encountering someone, who obviously was having some psychotic episode. The cops were yelling at this guy to get on his stomach. Of course, he's not doing it; but it's not that he was consciously ignoring them-he was out of it. The cops are yelling all kinds of orders and getting upset that he's not do what they wanted. They are trying to make this guy comply to some rehearsed method of taking down a "with it" arrestee, so as to protect themselves from harm. This guy is just way too out of it to follow instructions. So after a long time, they taser him and jump on him & cuff him. What stuck out to me was their lack of training in dealing with somebody in a psychotic state. They are yelling at him, giving him complicated orders, and he isn't aware they're in the room. Given my years of experience, they should have tasered him, jumped on him, and cuffed him, as soon as they determined he wasn't responsive to their presence. Really, what else are they going to do? It speaks to the poor training those police got. They should have been able to judge his mental status and effectively deal with it. You should know the difference in someone, who is actively halucinating, and someone who is conciously not obeying orders, .During this video, all I could think of was, please, don't have anything in this guys hands. Mentally ill account for 35% of all arrests in the US.
 
Last edited:
Most people have no idea about search and seizure laws. I don't. So , police can do what they want. I think anybody, who has followed just a couple of these police shooting incidents, knows the police defense drill. "He was a big, scary Black man, with what I saw as a weapon in his hand and I was in fear of my life." And, then there's the mysterious body-cam malfunction just as the officer shoots. I don't think we are going to have any change in police actions until we penetrate through that "blue wall".
I was a Certified Psychiatric Nurse. I was watching a police video of the cops encountering someone, who obviously was having some psychotic episode. The cops were yelling at this guy to get on his stomach. Of course, he's not doing it; but it's not that he was consciously ignoring them-he was out of it. The cops are yelling all kinds of orders and getting upset that he's not do what they wanted. They are trying to make this guy comply to some rehearsed method of taking down a "with it" arrestee, so as to protect themselves from harm. This guy is just way too out of it to follow instructions. So after a long time, they taser him and jump on him & cuff him. What stuck out to me was their lack of training in dealing with somebody in a psychotic state. They are yelling at him, giving him complicated orders, and he isn't aware they're in the room. Given my years of experience, they should have tasered him, jumped on him, and cuffed him, as soon as they determined he wasn't responsive to their presence. Really, what else are they going to do? It speaks to the poor training those police got. They should have been able to judge his mental status and effectively deal with it. You should know the difference in someone, who is actively halucinating, and someone who is conciously not obeying orders, .During this video, all I could think of was, please, don't have anything in this guys hands. Mentally ill account for 35% of all arrests in the US.

This is a case that really enrages me ebery time I think about it. 😡

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cop-acquitted-in-beanbag-gun-death-of-95-year-old-vet/
 
I'm not sure, do the London "Bobbies" wear guns now, as a routine? I know years ago they didn't. If I knew a cop didn't have a gun, I'd still run like hell, but I don't think run out of luck. I don't think it would end up as a him or me thing. It's amazing how just taking one gun out of the picture deescalates the situation.
 
Most people have no idea about search and seizure laws. I don't. So , police can do what they want.

Trust me, it can be complicated for a layman (which I am). Here is a brief legal history.

The main uniformity is the 4th Amendment, incorporated through the 14th AM, to apply to the States in 1949 in Wolf v. Colorado. The Exclusionary Rule was made applicable to the states in 1961 in Mapp v. Ohio.

One of the most important seminal 4th AM cases was Terry v. Ohio 1968. When you hear the phrase "Terry Stop" if falls under that decisional law case. These were a few of the cases I learned about during my College Criminal law courses. Traffic stops these days are generally referred to as Terry stops.

States are permitted pursuant to their own Constitution's S&S provisions to not permit what the 4th AM permits (less stringent standards).

Another seminal case was Atwater v. Texas, in which USSC ruled it does not offend the 4th AM to effect a full custodial arrest for an offense punishable by a FINE only. Now, in Ohio, our SC has ruled this is not permissible under our Constitutions S&S clause, Article 1 sec. 14, with a few exceptions, one being the offender refuses to sign the Citation. In Ohio that non jailable offense is referred to as a Minor Misdemeanor.

A few facts:

An officer acing under the 4thAM, can order a passenger out of the car without probable cause (Pennsylvania v. Mimms) and the passenger (Maryland v. Wilson).

You see on TV where the police say they are taking someone in for questioning/investigative detention but they are not under arrest! If the person detained is taken in against their will, as an actual undisputed fact, that IS an arrest and must be based on Probable Cause, not just Reasonable Suspicion under Terry.

If an officer issues you a citation, and all is normal, they can NOT search your car as "Incident to Citation" as opposed to "Incident to Arrest".

There was a case in Ohio were a citation victim moved to have his charge dismissed, due to the fact the Officer was not wearing his Hat when he issued it. He claimed it was not a "Distinctive Uniform" under the law. The courts ruled such a slight variance was not enough to uphold his dismissal request.


Yes, most don't know the enormous volumes of settled law/case law, that is why they comply threatened with arrest if they don't. If they are not sure if the order is UNconstitutional, they risk a valid arrest. But some like these so called "Sovereign Citizen's" think under the law they don't even need a license to drive. One video on youtube, this clown spoofs on and on about it and, among other cites, cites an 1843 (I think) law dictionary definition of "Carriage" and applies it to modern day motor vehicles to claim no license is needed to drive. That gives you an idea of the whackies out there.
 
I'm not sure, do the London "Bobbies" wear guns now, as a routine? I know years ago they didn't. If I knew a cop didn't have a gun, I'd still run like hell, but I don't think run out of luck. I don't think it would end up as a him or me thing. It's amazing how just taking one gun out of the picture deescalates the situation.
No they don't....
 


Back
Top