Jump to content

Brisketexan

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    51973
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    302

Posts posted by Brisketexan

  1. 1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

    Tried and true page from the war mongering play book. 

    I mean, at least in the past, they put in some effort.  This is just thumbing their nose at the entire planet -- "fuck you, we don't even need an excuse."

  2. Just now, Not that Bob said:

    I worked in direct care in mental health for 5+ years, and this is the most insightful thing I have read about the current state of mental health care. Brisket, I've read your posts since 360 and this sentence is at the top of your work. 

    Bozo Casanova's thoughts on this are much better and more detailed than mine.  Wish he would show up on this thread.

  3. 20 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

    this is clearly the republican gambit to overturn roe v wade, and it has been festering for the past half decade or so in statehouses as they pass various copycat anti-abortion bills. now that they view that they have a conservative majority on the supreme court, they are pushing their chips in.

    You are right about this.

    But here's the problem with putting all your chips in when you think you have the cards: you can still lose if the other side's hand is better.

    Yeah, "but Gorsuch, but Kavanaugh," I get it.  But really and truly, do we think that they are BOTH going to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?  If not, that's a big problem -- you really only get one shot at trying to completely overturn a landmark case like that.  The Alabama law is an all-in attempt at doing that.  What it may well result in is a SCOTUS decision affirming that Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land.  Once that happens, they anti-abortion game in the courts is over.

    No, there are no guarantees.  The conservative wing might say "fuck it, we've got 5 votes, let's reverse that bitch and be done with it."  But Roberts has shown no inclination to do so, and he has been on the court for several abortion cases when he could have dissented and stated his position in that respect.

    "We're going to tee the question of abortion up for the SCOTUS!"  Okay.   Be careful what you wish for.

    • Like 2
  4. 1 minute ago, RPM said:

    Got links? I'm not arguing with you, I just haven't seen anything that even suggests that was the case. It very well may be. But getting back to the warrant, he couldn't just let her walk. She could have taken care of them and this never would have happened.

    KPRC and KHOU stories online.

    And he doesn't have to just "let her walk."  He can realize that she's agitated as shit -- which happens with crazy people -- and work on coming up with a different time and place to deal with her.  That doesn't mean "next month, at Luby's."  It could simply be "after backup arrives, and after she's safely away from other folks."  And talk to her.  Talk her down.  The goal is to take her into custody peacefully.  Patience is the most important tool in his toolbox, not his authority.;

    • Like 1
  5. 1 hour ago, bernorange said:

    "a thorough investigation", huh?

    Yep.  I mean, isn't that what you call an investigation that leaves bullets in the walls, teeth on the floor, and throwdown "drug baggies" under the sofa?  THOR-OUGH, I tell you.

  6. 24 minutes ago, RPM said:

    No, Brisket. He didn't. I guess he could pick and choose which laws and warrants to enforce, but that's not how it works. You keep bringing mental illness into play. What evidence of mental illness are you using, or is it just a gut feeling?

    Time and place of execution on a warrant is absolutely within an officer's discretion.  Come on, man.

    And from the reports I've read, she was being treated for schizophrenia, and it is REPORTED (note -- remains to be verified) that the officer was familiar with her AND with the fact that she was schizophrenic.

  7. 44 minutes ago, RPM said:

    He had no choice but to arrest her.

    That's not entirely true.  He did have a choice of whether to arrest her then and there, under those circumstances.  Again, if there's a better and safer time and place to take a mentally ill person into custody, that should be what they do.

  8. 3 minutes ago, RPM said:

    FTP is my motto, but I'm having a very hard time finding outrage in this case. If she had taken care of the warrants he wouldn't have tried to arrest her. If she hadn't taken his taser he wouldn't have shot her. She was in full control of her destiny.

    Well, except for the fact that she may not have been in full control of her faculties.  People in active psychosis make bad decisions -- that's kinda the thing with psychosis.

    I think most of us would agree that we don't want cops to shoot crazy people unless it's absolutely necessary to protect the life of someone else.  So, we should approach dealing with crazy people in ways that minimize the risk of creating a situation where a cop needs to shoot a crazy person.  That also means that you begin your interaction with them differently than you would with a rational actor.

  9. 20 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:


    You just described the typical day for every lawyer.

    If what you are eliciting from the court is "yeah, no, you fucking idiot"....you ain't having a good day as a lawyer.  There ARE lawyers who have days like that.  Most of the rest of the bar and the bench shakes their heads when they show up in court.

  10. 16 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

    There is an adage we non-police folk that train in things other than guns use.

    If all you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.

    The point is, sometimes your problem is a nail and you should be great with a hammer, but more often than not it might be a nitting issue and you need a needle or a bolt issue and you need a wrench.

    What that translates to is for self defense you need a tool chest of abilities. Few cops have them or don't opt to determine the proper issue and/or tool type if they do.

     

    What I wish more folks would realize is just because you SPECIALIZE in one thing, that doesn't mean that way is the only way to solve problems.  In fact, you better serve your client/patient/citizens when you can consider and utilize all the options.

    I'm a fighting lawyer....but I solve a lot of problems for my clients by negotiation, the political process, even the legislative process.  Define your goal (for a cop, it should be "take this person into custody"), and then consider all of the possible ways that you can achieve that goal.

    A doctor may be a great surgeon, but he's a great doctor if he looks at a patient's problem and goal, and evaluates medical/non-surgical solutions.

    A cop may be a badass, and a crack shot, but he's a great cop if he gets through his career having successfully navigated challenging situations without ever firing his weapon.  Hell, for self-defense, in most situations the BEST path is "retreat to a safe distance."  

    Good post, BurntEyes.

    • Like 2
  11. 53 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Be interesting to see how this would have shaken out had the cop been unarmed. That is an interesting thought experiment for all of these shootings. Ask if the public would have been greatly endangered had the cop not been emboldened to engage with arms. 

    Excellent point.  When you show up at a fight, and you bring a gun, you know what it just became?  A gunfight.

    Figuring out how to get people in custody safely -- even if it takes time, and the person is disrespecting your authority and whatnot -- should be the highest, most praise-worthy skill out there.  If she is a known schizophrenic, having an episode, the BEST path is to make sure others are safe (tell them to go inside and close their doors), and call for backup and work on talking her into peaceful custody.

    I'm not saying that's what the law obligates you to do.  It's not.  But it's what any notion of smart and decent policy obligates you to do.

    • Like 2
  12. I'm no friend of police use of deadly force.

    BUT....she wasn't pregnant.  She did have warrants out for her.

    What this case stands for is another example of how shitty it is that law enforcement is our first line of mental health care.  She was schizophrenic.  People in psychosis make bad decisions -- that's kinda the thing with psychosis.  Yes, she fought back against an armed cop and tried to hurt him.  That is the kind of thing that can get you shot.

    The intersection of armed law enforcement and people in a state of psychosis is often a bad outcome waiting to happen.

  13. I'd be curious to see the briefing, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Article XI Section 5 problem was that it created an unconstitutional debt (that is, it created the liability, but didn't fund it):

    Quote

    and no debt shall ever be created by any city, unless at the same time provision be made to assess and collect annually a sufficient sum to pay the interest thereon and creating a sinking fund of at least two per cent.

    If someone has the cliffs notes, I'd prefer to read that.

  14. 18 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

    Pics of said Norwegian?

    Yeah, nope.

    But you can ask GOLL, he's seen her.  She's a knockout.  Her friends are pretty cool, too, and her parents are way cool.  We're learning to party with the Norwegians, and we're getting good at it (age-adjusted, of course).

  15. And watching what happens here....pay attention to the hydraulics.  There are lots of complaints in Texas about dams contributing to flooding because they "purposefully opened their floodgates" during massive flood events.  The alternative to that is to just let the dam overtop (which dams with actual gates really aren't designed for), and overtopping of dams can result in things like....this.  Imagine that with a dam holding back 50X that amount of water.  

  16. Pain CAN be a tool in negotiation.

    But you know what an important part of that calculus is?  Pain tolerance.

    Threaten to slap a wuss, and he'll yield.  But when you threaten to slap Dalton....

    tenor.gif?itemid=12372618

    well, then....your strategy of inflicting pain till the other side yields might have a flaw.

    Whose pain-tolerance is higher?  Authoritarian China, or soft-ass USA?

    • Like 1
  17. 12 minutes ago, South Austin said:

    As I recall, Brisket, you're a lawyer, so you'll appreciate that we see Professor Stanley Johansson there quite a bit.  If fact, we celebrated the win over TCU last fall with him in the bar area, and I got a celebratory picture with my kids and him.

    Yeah, he's also a family friend.  We actually visited at a funeral a couple of months ago, and found out that he and his wife know the Norwegian anthem and such (we have a Norwegian student with us, and they chatted a good bit).  We're actually having a Norwegian Constitution Day party this Friday, was thinking of inviting them.

    I love Stanley Jo.  Which made it even more entertaining a couple of summers ago, when I got to cross-examine him as a hostile expert witness at a temporary injunction hearing.  That was fun.

×
×
  • Create New...