When I read the headline "4-foot long rat snake causes disorder at the (Harris County) courthouse" I didn't pay it much mind. In fact, I said to myself "wow, some short lawyer must have acted a fool!" To my surprise they really did mean a literal snake. Or, one could say, "why all the fuss? There are even bigger snakes walking in and out that courthouse every day!"
Feel free to insert your own lawyer jokes.
Sorry Harris County Lawyer, I couldn't pass this one up.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Springer! Springer! Springer! Springer!
On what should have been a quiet Sunday afternoon, police were called to a West Houston home. A 17-year old male punched out a window with his bare hand. He then picked up a knife and started "tearing up the house." When officers arrived they cuffed him and put him in the car. When asked what the problem was, he simply snapped. He wants to get out of his house. He is sick of his mother (natural) and step mother's lifestyle. See folks, his natural mother, and step mother are bisexual, and having sex with each other. Whoa!!!!!!!! Now, I'm a 'live and let live' kind of guy. However, if one has children, and wants to "get their freak on." They really do need to consider the impact their lifestyle will have on their children.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Does The Chronicle Think Code Pink Cares?
With recent articles, one may think that Cindy Sheehan is the new editor for the Houston Chronicle. If you click today's home page, you will find an article about what to do today. Underneath that, is a camera icon with pictures of Memorial Day observances. When you get to picture 12, you find a code pink member with a picture of an Iraqi civilian. Either the chronicle is brain dead, or like minded. I guarantee you, code pink is no lover of the U.S. military. There "observance" in Hermann Park will more than likely blame the military for the deaths of the civilians it holds pictures of. For some of code pink's activities, click here.
Kind of scary if you ask me. They seem to hate America and its military, yet bask in the protections granted by the Constitution. What other country would tolerate an organization such as this?
Kind of scary if you ask me. They seem to hate America and its military, yet bask in the protections granted by the Constitution. What other country would tolerate an organization such as this?
Chronicle's Eye for the Killer Guys
Check out these two articles from today's Houston Chronicle;
This article talks about the shift away from the death penalty. In part I agree with it. Over the years the media has been taking up the cause of convicted murderers to try to make the impression that nobody deserves to die for their crimes. As I mentioned in a previous post, the general public does not like being forced to make tough decisions and if given a lighter alternative will do so. While many people can still handle the task, there are the few who cannot and look for the easy explanation given by lawyers. In a death penalty case, all 12 have to agree, all it takes is one imbecile. The article goes on to cite past cases, yet (as usual) try to paint a picture different from reality;
"When Edward John Benavides escaped death after shooting a Pasadena police officer in a 1993 drug raid, the mechanics of the raid itself became an issue: A lingering possibility was that Benavides, suddenly roused from sleep, may not have known exactly what was going on when he started firing."
First of all, the officer's name was Leslie Ian Early. Next point the chronicle fails to mention is that the drug house was fortified. So Benavides knew damn well what was going on in that house. Officer Early was the point man in the raid. It sounds like the Chronicle is eager to buy into the defense. It doesn't matter that this was a fortified drug house or that he ignored the repeated shouts of "police" as they entered the house.
"Man Nhu Truong got a life sentence for killing an off-duty sheriff's deputy at a wedding in 1996, lawyers pointed immediately to the unusual absence of a criminal record or history of violence."
Harris County Sheriff's Deputy Michael Eng was working an extra job at a restaurant. Truong was drunk and told to leave. Deputy Eng walked to the bathroom when Truong followed him and shot him dead. Truong also shot another officer. Yet, jurors thought his life was worth saving.
The article also cites the case of Alex Adams. "He had been arrested during a drug sweep at an apartment complex and was handcuffed to another prisoner when he shot Vasquez with a pistol he had concealed in bandages. His sentence angered the jury foreman, who said several jurors spared Adams because of a difficult childhood, immaturity and low IQ."
Not many people know Adams was suspected of being involved in a murder of a Prairie View A & M student. Adams' arm was in a cast, this was where the pistol was hidden. Apparently his IQ was just high enough to be caught dealing drugs with a hidden pistol. Notice how the real issue is avoided in all of these paragraphs? The real issue being someone murdered a police officer when they were caught doing wrong. Aside from the media (and legislative) attempt to phase out the death penalty, they have been trying to phase out personal responsibility. The only people who are ever held responsible for their actions anymore seem to be police officers (as they should be I might add). Yet, the chronicle and many like-minded folks will look for any reason to explain and murder and (as long as it isn't their own loved ones) suggest that "while it is tragic, there are mitigating circumstances so you should just suck it up and deal with it!"
In the second article, it compares the pains of the wives of HPD Officer Rodney Johnson and the wife of his killer. What I gathered from this article is the widow of Officer Johnson will only have photographs and memories, the killer's wife will still be able to see him. Yet, the Chronicle tries to paint the killer's wife's feelings with a sad brush.
"Joslyn Johnson said the seething anger she managed to staunch before the trial resurfaced the moment she locked eyes with Juan Quintero.
This article talks about the shift away from the death penalty. In part I agree with it. Over the years the media has been taking up the cause of convicted murderers to try to make the impression that nobody deserves to die for their crimes. As I mentioned in a previous post, the general public does not like being forced to make tough decisions and if given a lighter alternative will do so. While many people can still handle the task, there are the few who cannot and look for the easy explanation given by lawyers. In a death penalty case, all 12 have to agree, all it takes is one imbecile. The article goes on to cite past cases, yet (as usual) try to paint a picture different from reality;
"When Edward John Benavides escaped death after shooting a Pasadena police officer in a 1993 drug raid, the mechanics of the raid itself became an issue: A lingering possibility was that Benavides, suddenly roused from sleep, may not have known exactly what was going on when he started firing."
First of all, the officer's name was Leslie Ian Early. Next point the chronicle fails to mention is that the drug house was fortified. So Benavides knew damn well what was going on in that house. Officer Early was the point man in the raid. It sounds like the Chronicle is eager to buy into the defense. It doesn't matter that this was a fortified drug house or that he ignored the repeated shouts of "police" as they entered the house.
"Man Nhu Truong got a life sentence for killing an off-duty sheriff's deputy at a wedding in 1996, lawyers pointed immediately to the unusual absence of a criminal record or history of violence."
Harris County Sheriff's Deputy Michael Eng was working an extra job at a restaurant. Truong was drunk and told to leave. Deputy Eng walked to the bathroom when Truong followed him and shot him dead. Truong also shot another officer. Yet, jurors thought his life was worth saving.
The article also cites the case of Alex Adams. "He had been arrested during a drug sweep at an apartment complex and was handcuffed to another prisoner when he shot Vasquez with a pistol he had concealed in bandages. His sentence angered the jury foreman, who said several jurors spared Adams because of a difficult childhood, immaturity and low IQ."
Not many people know Adams was suspected of being involved in a murder of a Prairie View A & M student. Adams' arm was in a cast, this was where the pistol was hidden. Apparently his IQ was just high enough to be caught dealing drugs with a hidden pistol. Notice how the real issue is avoided in all of these paragraphs? The real issue being someone murdered a police officer when they were caught doing wrong. Aside from the media (and legislative) attempt to phase out the death penalty, they have been trying to phase out personal responsibility. The only people who are ever held responsible for their actions anymore seem to be police officers (as they should be I might add). Yet, the chronicle and many like-minded folks will look for any reason to explain and murder and (as long as it isn't their own loved ones) suggest that "while it is tragic, there are mitigating circumstances so you should just suck it up and deal with it!"
In the second article, it compares the pains of the wives of HPD Officer Rodney Johnson and the wife of his killer. What I gathered from this article is the widow of Officer Johnson will only have photographs and memories, the killer's wife will still be able to see him. Yet, the Chronicle tries to paint the killer's wife's feelings with a sad brush.
"Joslyn Johnson said the seething anger she managed to staunch before the trial resurfaced the moment she locked eyes with Juan Quintero.
"I just wanted to jump over there and choke him," she said.
Theresa Quintero wrestled with different emotions. She wanted to slap the man she married in 1997 but also embrace him."
Then there is this;
"She hugged me several times," Joslyn Johnson said. "She always sounded like she was crying, but she never cracked a tear."That sums it up. If your spouse murdered someone, would you stand by them?
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Intown Suite Profiling....
A while back I was having a conversation with an officer. He told me he likes to drive through the parking lot of Intown Suites. An officer can get some good arrests out of there. I thought of that conversation when I read this story. A man and woman had been living at the Intown Suites on Hwy 6 for a year with a dead baby in the freezer. To think, I've driven past that place hundreds of time in the past year. I remember the officer saying "ain't nobody who stays at those Intown Suites any good!" Looks like he was right.
Friday, May 23, 2008
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
That is a prevalent expression in the law profession. Police officers are given discretion in many scenarios for a reason. Not all situations call for arrest. For example, officers find a man in a bank who appears to be pretty drunk. He lives about a block away. The officer recognizes the man from a recent news story. His daughter was disciplined by her mother (his wife) so she took a knife and stabbed her to death. With his wife dead, and his daughter in prison, obviously, this man is in pain. The officer cannot bring himself to arrest the man for public intoxication. So, the officer arranges for the man to get home (true story).
Now, Justices of the Peace get many cases where the law dictates what must occur. However, sometimes discretion is a good tool. In this case, a Fort Bend JP did not take eviction cases around Christmas time. After the new year, the cases could be filed again. Yet, a landlord wanted to make an eviction around Christmas time and was told to return after New Year. Instead he filed a complaint with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. In return, the JP got admonished. I imagine the Commission felt the same way I do and the admonishment was the lowest form of punishment they could give. However, the JP "....has instructed his staff to accept all eviction cases, no matter when they are requested." I would imagine that this would be great in his next campaign. He took a hit from the Commission for his constituents. Although officially this is punishment, there is a silver lining. Plus, his office will accept the cases, however due to "backlog" they may not be served until after the New Year. Yet still, I wish this article would have named the land lord who made the complaint.
Now, Justices of the Peace get many cases where the law dictates what must occur. However, sometimes discretion is a good tool. In this case, a Fort Bend JP did not take eviction cases around Christmas time. After the new year, the cases could be filed again. Yet, a landlord wanted to make an eviction around Christmas time and was told to return after New Year. Instead he filed a complaint with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. In return, the JP got admonished. I imagine the Commission felt the same way I do and the admonishment was the lowest form of punishment they could give. However, the JP "....has instructed his staff to accept all eviction cases, no matter when they are requested." I would imagine that this would be great in his next campaign. He took a hit from the Commission for his constituents. Although officially this is punishment, there is a silver lining. Plus, his office will accept the cases, however due to "backlog" they may not be served until after the New Year. Yet still, I wish this article would have named the land lord who made the complaint.
Randall Kallinen, The Man of Smoke and Mirrors
The Chronicle's story
KPRC's story
I was surprised that this investigation is still ongoing yet the suit is already filed. Usually, the civil suits are served once the investigation is complete. Yet, for some reason, Roland Carnaby's widow and her ACLU lawyer Randall Kallinen can't wait to get to court. For anyone who may forget, Randall Kallinen was (or he may still be, I don't know) the director of the ACLU for this area. Contrary to perception, the ACLU is no friend to the taxpayer or the law abiding citizen and certainly hate the police. Kallinen is shouting that Houston Police violated their own policies during this chase. Well, taken in with the whole situation, my answer is "so what?" Mr. Kallenin does what all lawyers do, only tell you part of the story that suits them. The last thing lawyers like Kallenin want is for the public to know the whole story and make up their own minds. Let me address his grievances and point out the flaws in his logic;
Mr. Kallenin says that a couple of weeks prior, "HPD revised its chase policy. It states, in part, that officers should weigh a variety of factors before initiating a chase."One (of the factors) is what was the original crime that was committed? Here it was speeding."
Does that mean the officer cannot chase or is it saying the officer has to take that into consideration? Remember, this guy claimed he was a CIA agent. In this day and age of "war on terror" police need to investigate this. He was stopped for speeding, but it became another issue entirely when Carnaby made the claim of being a federal agent. Also, Mr. Kallenin is hoping the smoke and mirror act will shield the fact that Carnaby started the whole thing by taking off from police. Now, ACLU believes that people have a right to run from the police, and lie to them. The ACLU have argued that citizens making false misconduct complaints against officers is free speech and should not face consequences. So, with this in mind I hope you have an idea where Mr. Kallenin is coming from. So, with this logic, guy wants to run from the police, hey, no problemo!
He also cites HPD policy about establishing verbal communications with subjects on 'high risk' stops. How do we know that wasn't already happening. Were the officers shouting commands? To lawyers like Kallenin it doesn't matter. From their perspective, the inmates are running the asylum. If police were to adopt procedures written by them, nothing would get done. The bottom line here is that one man is responsible for this whole scenario. His name was Roland Carnaby. He made the decision to speed. He then said he was a CIA agent. He then made the decision to lead police on a high speed chase across the city of Houston. He made the decision not to comply and surrender, but to instead make a furtive movement (that if he really was the police as one of his friends later claimed) known to illicit a response from a police officer. This is just another self-proclaimed "crusade" of Randall Kallinen against the police. I would also like my dear readers to remember, just because a policy is violated, doesn't mean the law was violated. Polices cannot dictate actions in every single situation. They are guidelines to follow that account for most routine scenarios. However, when the scenario goes from routine to uncharted territory, officers have to make split second decisions that will be reviewed by police-hating lawyers like Kallenin who needs to read up on Graham v. Conner.
KPRC's story
I was surprised that this investigation is still ongoing yet the suit is already filed. Usually, the civil suits are served once the investigation is complete. Yet, for some reason, Roland Carnaby's widow and her ACLU lawyer Randall Kallinen can't wait to get to court. For anyone who may forget, Randall Kallinen was (or he may still be, I don't know) the director of the ACLU for this area. Contrary to perception, the ACLU is no friend to the taxpayer or the law abiding citizen and certainly hate the police. Kallinen is shouting that Houston Police violated their own policies during this chase. Well, taken in with the whole situation, my answer is "so what?" Mr. Kallenin does what all lawyers do, only tell you part of the story that suits them. The last thing lawyers like Kallenin want is for the public to know the whole story and make up their own minds. Let me address his grievances and point out the flaws in his logic;
Mr. Kallenin says that a couple of weeks prior, "HPD revised its chase policy. It states, in part, that officers should weigh a variety of factors before initiating a chase."One (of the factors) is what was the original crime that was committed? Here it was speeding."
Does that mean the officer cannot chase or is it saying the officer has to take that into consideration? Remember, this guy claimed he was a CIA agent. In this day and age of "war on terror" police need to investigate this. He was stopped for speeding, but it became another issue entirely when Carnaby made the claim of being a federal agent. Also, Mr. Kallenin is hoping the smoke and mirror act will shield the fact that Carnaby started the whole thing by taking off from police. Now, ACLU believes that people have a right to run from the police, and lie to them. The ACLU have argued that citizens making false misconduct complaints against officers is free speech and should not face consequences. So, with this in mind I hope you have an idea where Mr. Kallenin is coming from. So, with this logic, guy wants to run from the police, hey, no problemo!
He also cites HPD policy about establishing verbal communications with subjects on 'high risk' stops. How do we know that wasn't already happening. Were the officers shouting commands? To lawyers like Kallenin it doesn't matter. From their perspective, the inmates are running the asylum. If police were to adopt procedures written by them, nothing would get done. The bottom line here is that one man is responsible for this whole scenario. His name was Roland Carnaby. He made the decision to speed. He then said he was a CIA agent. He then made the decision to lead police on a high speed chase across the city of Houston. He made the decision not to comply and surrender, but to instead make a furtive movement (that if he really was the police as one of his friends later claimed) known to illicit a response from a police officer. This is just another self-proclaimed "crusade" of Randall Kallinen against the police. I would also like my dear readers to remember, just because a policy is violated, doesn't mean the law was violated. Polices cannot dictate actions in every single situation. They are guidelines to follow that account for most routine scenarios. However, when the scenario goes from routine to uncharted territory, officers have to make split second decisions that will be reviewed by police-hating lawyers like Kallenin who needs to read up on Graham v. Conner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
