Home » Threat against DA investigated » Unverified Comments

Comments


  • Dig...again, you offer such stable insight where tired insults abounds much (despite your example). Thank you!

    Come on people, let the waters rest, if only for one day(?).

    June 29, 2008 at 6:32 p.m.
  • There sure seems to be a lot less traffic on these DA-realted threads on the weekends. I guess all of the employees from the DA's office don't yet have home access to the internet.

    June 29, 2008 at 5:13 p.m.
  • I realize that this might not be the appropriate blog for what I am going to bring up here, but I found this to be an interesting read considering all of the drama taking place in Victoria.

    In the July 2008 issue of Readers Digest, there is an article titled "Trial by Media", written by colomist Michael Crowley. He is issued in every Readers Digest under "Outrageous".

    I looked for an online version of this to put a link here, but could not manage to find one.

    Anyway, this article is about how "presumed guilty" has more entertainment value than "presumed innocent", and how people just assume people guilty because the media says so.

    Now, I am not placing blame on our local media (Advocate and New 25), by any means, but when people see IT or read IT, they tend to believe IT. I feel like the local media has done a great job on trying to report this on going circus side show that has been taking place.

    With that said, I will say that I have my own opinions as to this entire saga. I am not a Tyler fan (I am sure I have made that clear in prior posts). I do believe that Tyler started out with good intentions, but managed to get side tracked somewhere along the way with dislike for the police department.

    So, if anyone is interested in the read, then go out and get the new copy of Readers Digest.

    Like I said, I know it was a little off topic, but I thought you might be interested in reading it.

    June 28, 2008 at 2:51 p.m.
  • Friends!, Victorians!, bloggers!, lend me your time! This is lengthy, but hopefuly it will open a few eyes.....and minds!

    "Much of the harm in the world is done by people who think they are doing good.

    We all recognize the value in knowing things that are true. That's why we go to school, ask questions, read the newspapers, and investigate things we don't understand. It is clear that knowledge is valuable.

    But suppose we think we know something bu we are wrong? How often do we believe things that aren't true? While we are frequently concerned about what we don't know, we may forget to be concerned about things we think we know that are actually false. How serious can it be when people believe things that aren't really true?

    Consider World War II. The Nazis believed they were a superior race that was entitled to rule the world. They were wrong. If they had not had this wrong belief, they would not have caused the deaths of huge numbers of people, both in battle and in death camps. No doubt some who supported the Nazis were simply malicious individuals. But the great majority undoubtedly believed that their cause was just. Without the support of these "good" people - people raising families, people working for a living, but people who believed something terribly false - the Nazis would never have risen to power. One of the ugliest periods of human history would simply not have happened. People believing something that wasn't true had a terrible price.

    The Japanese in World War II also believed they had the right to rule over their neighbors. They were wrong. They were good, hard working people with a high sense of honor and family loyalty and a belief that was false. As a result there was massive loss of life in the war in the Pacific and Asia.

    In Salem, Massachusetts in 1692 women were executed for witchcraft. The good, honest people of Salem were trying to get rid of an evil they believed was destructive to their community. While their actions were tragically wrong, they truly believed at the time that they were right.

    On September 11, 2001, 19 Islamic extremists hijacked four airliners and used them to destroy the World Trade Center in New York City and part of the Pentagon, killing about 3000 people. These hijackers were so sure that this action was approved by God that they were willing to face certain death. I don't think any real god approved of this action. It seems clear that these men believed something false and killed many people (including themselves) because of that belief.

    We modern Americans don't have this problem, do we? Surely we don't believe false things, at least not anything important. Of course we do. Every political controversy in which there are sincere believers on both sides represents such a case. Every one of us is bound to be wrong in at least some of these cases.

    We have wars. People on both sides think they are right. Obviously, at least one side is wrong. Not many people are willing to risk their lives fighting a war if they don't thing they are accomplishing something worthwhile. Normally leaders on both sides have to convince the soldiers and populace that their side is good and the enemy is evil in order to get them to fight. Even the people on the wrong side are usually so utterly and totally convinced of their rightness that they are willing to die and kill others for that belief. Avoiding such a war does not require knowing the actual truth. Simply recognizing the possibility of being wrong could prevent many people from taking such extreme measures.

    A common problem that leads to war and other expressions of hatred and persecution is differences in religious beliefs. There are many religions, and most have strict beliefs that are in direct conflict with the beliefs of other religions. Any two religions that are in conflict cannot both be right. Yet all too often the adherents of some religious belief are so convinced of their correctness that they feel justified in killing and persecuting those of other faiths. Even if one of these groups is actually correct, that still means the vast majority of people fighting in religious conflicts were totally convinced they were right when they actually were wrong. Imagine how much human suffering could have been avoided if people simply had the capacity to recognize when they were not sure of particular beliefs!

    While wars and persecution are some of the worst consequences of false beliefs, there are many other ways in which believing what is not true can hurt us.

    Christian Scientists firmly believe that it is wrong to accept medical help in most situations. If they are wrong (as I think they are) they and their children may suffer and die unnecessarily. People have gone to the Philippines believing that "psychic surgeons" there could cure them of serious diseases. As a result they may have neglected medical treatments which could have saved their lives.

    Often it is only our money that we lose, but if you are like me, you'd like to avoid that as well. Politicians may mislead us into supporting programs that waste our money, advertisers may convince us to pay more for a product that is not better, cult leaders may get us to contribute money to false causes, and sincere sounding people (some honest, some con artists) may talk us into investing in losing propositions. We all know people that have made mistakes like these.

    False beliefs about science can delay finding the cures for diseases or new sources of power or lead to bad educational or social policies. Because of this, scientists usually take many precautions to avoid accepting findings that are not sufficiently confirmed. Even so, science has sometimes gone off on wrong paths.

    It can be very difficult to know if a particular thing is true, such as whether a particular religion is true or whether a medicine is effective or whether a politician will do a good job. But it should not be that difficult to recognize when we do not know something. I believe that people can learn that ability, but unfortunately our schools and our culture as a whole do little to help people develop it. If we care about the welfare of humanity, this is something that must change."

    Author: Bob Korn

    June 27, 2008 at 11:38 p.m.
  • I Reserve the Right to Delete Comments by People Who Think They Know What They're Talking About.

    June 27, 2008 at 11:21 p.m.
  • I thought I remeber hearing that DPS approached Tyler after the hiring and asked him not to get rid of Ratcliff as it would disrupt the investigation. Of course, I read that here I'm sure so who knows if it's true or not. I just can't wrap my mind around Tyler risking it all for Ratcliff, granted I don't know the man, it's just common sense.

    June 27, 2008 at 11:16 p.m.
  • Leftthistown: My opinion exactly and very well expressed.

    I had also heard that Ratcliff was not going to run for Sheriff due to his very poor health but was going to support someone, again a reason for Tyler not to take O'Conner's advice. Then when Tyler learned there was an investigation, firing Ratcliff or withdrawing his offer would have compromised the investigation and I am sure would not have been condoned by the DPS.

    June 27, 2008 at 11:09 p.m.
  • I will state again my opinion on this matter as it pertains to Tyler/Ratcliff conspiracy scenario. Ratcliff was sheriff for what 12 years? Elected by the citizens of Victoria county & way before Tyler was ever DA. He was not sheriff when Tyler was elected. He was in charge of the Juvie facility & Tyler had nothing to do with that either. How anyone can blame Tyler for what Ratcliff did or did not do is insane! O'Connor says he warned Tyler against hiring Ratcliff but Tyler may have taken that with a grain of salt as there were rumors afloat that Ratcliff wanted to run for sheriff again & against O'Connor, so Tyler could've seen that warning as sour grapes/wanting to keep Ratcliff out of the public view. Why would Tyler jepordize his family, livelyhood, etc. for some ex-sheriff? It boggles my mind.

    As far as Tyler letting all the criminals free, I read the rejected reports & it seems most 99% were legit. Quite a few of the ones most people are screaming about were dropped by the victims themselves....you know that old saying about horses & water right?

    June 27, 2008 at 10:36 p.m.

  • Dig - I am also interested in seeing this conclude sooner rather than later. Once again, I admire your heightened perception...thank you.

    **still rooting for you Ernie and Co.**

    June 27, 2008 at 9:40 p.m.

  • Excellent point Dig!

    So glad you point out that which is not reported can't possibly be addressed; THUS, "Go Vic-Six, Go!!"

    June 27, 2008 at 9:16 p.m.
  • rainwater, For a threat charge to be investigated someone has to swear out a complaint. Whether it be the state, if it's blantant and serious enough, or the individual who thinks he/she is being threatened.

    Beyond that, please don't bring that Jaynes/Keeling/Drill Team argument in here.

    Thanks,
    Ernie

    June 27, 2008 at 7:20 p.m.
  • Ok. Yeah, you're right STXGuy. Knee-jerk reaction to this news I'd heard on the radio while making my rounds this morning. Got home for lunch to read the whole article and my first reaction was... well, you know.

    I'm sorry. I don't take threats against anyone's person or property lightly. It's just that, although I didn't see the post in question here, I think it'd be a considerable stretch to be able to consider it anything to be taken even remotely seriously.

    Showing poor judgement, yes. In bad taste, probably - although not nearly as bad as that dancing thing. But threatening? Since I didn't see the post I suppose I'll have to wait and see what DPS and the prosecution make of it.

    Still, GWB is gonna be excited to hear this news. I'm sure he'll love knowing he can sic the FBI on every political cartoonist this side of Mars.

    Ernie

    June 27, 2008 at 6:33 p.m.
  • Digaltldpr......Couldn't have said it better ourselves. Kuddos.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:35 p.m.
  • Thanks for the headline suggestions. We can't change the print version, but we did go ahead and change the online version. To be clear, our print headlines automatically route to the Web. That's not necessarily the best practice because people read online differently from print when you can see the full page at once. We don't, though, have someone dedicated to writing online headlines.

    Our desk editor who wrote the headline truly did not intend to suggest the DA had threatened anyone. For those who see bias in everything we do on this story, there appears to be no persuading them otherwise. The bottom line on the story is we released the information about this particular person and tried to let our readers and users know about the situation.

    It is a fascinating issue raising questions about what constitutes an online threat, how far online privacy extends, and how exaggerated our local political situation has become. I encourage people to focus on all of this rather than the headline.

    I don't know how to say this any other way: The newspaper has nothing to gain by making the district attorney look good or bad. Our editorial board, like everyone else, has opinions about what's happening, but there's no plot here. We're as interested as everyone else in getting all of the facts out.

    If the indicted officials are convicted in the upcoming trials and the DA was completely right on all counts, that would be a huge story and played as such. The newspaper has nothing to gain or lose regardless of how the news plays out. We exist to report the news, not control it.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:33 p.m.
  • Luminary and Dig...you are talking to a brick wall. The Advocate has taken an editorial stance against the DA, and, despite what Mr. Cobler asserts, they are using, and will continue to use, the front page and the headlines to advance their position.
    It's not very ethical but, as we all know, journalistic ethics isn't Mr. Cobler's strong suit.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:55 p.m.
  • you the man Dig

    June 27, 2008 at 2:11 p.m.
  • Ernie...I don't think the Department of Public Safety is kidding about it.
    It's unfortunate that you think there is humor in it.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:08 p.m.
  • You have *got* to be kidding....

    I suppose decorum dictates my stifling my opinion of this nonse....err, effort.

    Lovely weather we're having isn't it? Wonder if the fish are biting.

    Cap'n Kodax

    BWAHAHAHA... err... ahem.

    June 27, 2008 at 1:59 p.m.
  • Thank you Chris, keep up the good work.

    As for those of you who do not live in Victoria, come on, do you really have a say in what is going on?

    As for the threat that was made—public officials know that when they take office they will unfortunately be subject to stupid acts, comments and other stuff. The President of the United States is subject to that daily, all threats must be investigated. No matter how stupid or small they may seem.

    Did Tyler really think that when all this came out that it was not possible to happen to him? Come on, we know that each one of who are not in the public eye are susceptible to threats. I could walk down the street and someone not like it and make a threat. Just a thought

    As for spitting in someone’s face yes that can be construed as a violent act. The previous poster was correct you do not know who has HIV/AIDS or not. But do we have to take it to the extreme that we have? NO everyone has a right to their opinion and that is that.

    Now as for attacking the creditability of the Victoria 6 why can’t well enough be left alone. At least they are trying to stand up for what they believe in. You may or may not agree with them. As for me well I have said before that I did not vote for Tyler and I stand by that.

    All this started because a former sheriff was INDITED for molesting a child, the current DA’s OFFICE MANAGER. Not to change the subject but I wonder what else O’Connor can solve that RATCLIFF could not. Wonder how many more cold cases will be solved by O’Connor? HMMMMM wonder if that is why Tyler is acting out like he is he knows that RATCLIFF did not do his job.

    Again I will say thank you to Chris Cobler, Ernie Cash, and Scott Hanson. Keep up the good work.

    June 27, 2008 at 1:57 p.m.

  • SoTX... "And as far as the cases that Tyler did not take....is there any proof that any one of them was a good case anyway?"... WHAT THE!?!?!

    soTx - initially, I thought you to be of sound mind (at times), and even one of intelligence - however, I stand corrected by your statement above. Absolute ignorance!

    The cases "thrown out" have been bundled together and labeled "incomplete" for PD had been advised to not sign such a 'loaded' waiver (advised by an attorney, able to read-between-the-lines of another attorney's technical jargon) which turns out to be beneficial ONLY to tyler; ultimately as an "out" for the DA.

    ...It is really NOT okay for Law Enforcement to be unwilling to take responsibility in their investigative reports... I expect each officer to be held accountable for their documentation. BUT, this is not Tyler's beef, if you will. The mere fact that VPD would not bow to stevie's control-hungry request, is the fuel behind his fire.

    June 27, 2008 at 1:40 p.m.
  • Sorry to burst your bubble SouthTexas but I do not have "inside information"

    I am logging off before I get subpoena'd or indicted!!
    (JUST JOKING)

    June 27, 2008 at 12:51 p.m.
  • I agree today's A1 headline could have been better. Bear in mind, though, that headline writers have limited space at the top of A1. We use subheads to elaborate and clarify. The subhead on this particular article was: "DPS looks into Advocate Web post that refers to burning Tyler's car."

    If someone has a suggestion for a main headline that uses the same number of characters as "DA threat investigated," I'd be interested to hear it. All three are key words to the story. The challenge here is you can't just add words until you're satisfied; it's sort of like doing a crossword puzzle.

    Chris

    June 27, 2008 at 12:47 p.m.
  • Justme.....Do you have information that has not been made pubilc? What exactly did Tyler try to "sweep under the rug"? Do you have proof? Please educate the uninformed.

    And as far as the cases that Tyler did not take....is there any proof that any one of them was a good case anyway? Tyler did take some cases, isn't that right? Why are you not questioning the fact that Law Enforcement was not willing to fill out the requested form, which merely states they take responsibility for their own investigation, and they were the one's responsible for cases not taken.

    It is really okay for Law Enforcement to be unwilling to take responsibility in writing for their investigation?

    June 27, 2008 at 12:30 p.m.
  • Funny post JD... even funnier Bighorn!

    Maybe VIcAd should re-run the article tomorow as an upate and call it:

    "THREAT AGAINST DA REGARDING MUSTANG IS BEING INVESTIGTED BY AGENCY OUTSIDE VICTORIA"

    To fairley01 --
    First of all you do not live in this town so I doubt that you really know what's going on...This whole rift started when Tyler tried to sweep something under the rug when it was discovered that his friend, the former sheriff, had a hidden agenda and none of the agents under indictment cared to lift the rug.

    June 27, 2008 at 12:13 p.m.
  • To spit or not to spit, that is the question...

    June 27, 2008 at 11:44 a.m.
  • I would not recommend spitting at any body part of anyone.
    Unless of course, you don't mind being punched in the mouth (although recommend aiming elsewhere, knuckles vs teeth=broke hand).
    If using chaw, please turn away respecfully and spit on your own self.

    June 27, 2008 at 11:40 a.m.
  • SoTX...

    "...Tyler's actions as an obsessive compulsive devotion to carrying out the letter of the law. Hardly a bad thing when it comes to arresting criminals..."

    "...a compulsion for carrying out the law and abiding by the penal code..."

    -??- Since when did allowing rapists/molesters and hundreds of other actual 'Criminal Act' cases be "thrown out", constitute as upholding the law???

    tyler enthralls himself against these 4 officials - all the while, the crimes (already committed) against the general public, continue to go unaddressed??????????

    June 27, 2008 at 11:39 a.m.
  • Well, I don't see why this is an issue with people... I recanted and recognized that my saying so was at the very least "uncivilized" and "unlady-like" behavior. And now I do know that it can be construed as violence... I will not say it again. Neither Tyler nor Hanson has anything to worry about from me.

    As far as the subject of this forum, no, I do not think that the suggestion of violence against Tyler was in the least bit funny. I do not believe that all of the anti-Tyler group would find any act of violence toward anyone funny. Do I believe that the investigation is a waste of time and money? No. Do I believe that the investigation is going to lead to anti-Tyler identities being turned over to the DA so that he can "go after" them? No. There was a serious threat of violence made against a man - a person - who happens to be a County Prosecutor, and it warrants an investigation.... If the threat had been made against Sailor or Ernie Cash, it would warrant an investigation....

    As to the headline of this article.... let's pick our battles.... what's more important? The wording of the headline or the fact that someone crossed the line?

    June 27, 2008 at 11:37 a.m.
  • Some of you people really need to grow up.

    June 27, 2008 at 11:30 a.m.

  • Hold the headlines!!!

    Let me retract - Spitting is not a 'criminal act', though it envokes a 'violent act' nonetheless.

    June 27, 2008 at 11:24 a.m.

  • darlins...not against you, but your question is provoking, in and of itself.

    I am no expert in "cause and/or effect" beyond common sense, but I believe the 'criminal act' would come seconds after the spitting - in the form of a 'physical assault' - from someone who did not invite the spitter's actions...

    ...just one possibility.

    June 27, 2008 at 11:22 a.m.
  • Darlin....spitting is considered a violent act in this day and age when one does not know who has HIV and who does not.

    June 27, 2008 at 11:21 a.m.
  • What did I mean by it? Luminary, you aren't stupid... why are you acting stupid?

    I MEANT to spit in his face IF the allegations levied against him were PROVEN TRUE..... i.e., making disparaging remarks against victims, and all the other allegations. To date, I've not seen positive proof that these are true. Nor have I seen positive proof that the allegations are mere fabrications by Sailor and his group. But according to you Luminary.... it'd be ok for me to spit in Mr. Hanson's face, hm? That'd be ok. Spitting, to my legally challenged mind, isn't considered a violent act.... so why are you making a big deal over it? Mr. Tyler all but admitted that he reads these posts.... therefore, one can assume that he has read where I've admitted to saying it, and I don't guess he sees me as a serious threat, otherwise, the law would be knocking upon the door of my humble abode. Not to mention the fact that if the comment was in violation of the Advocate's policy, it would have been deleted last month when the remark was made. GET OVER IT LUMINARY AND DIG!

    June 27, 2008 at 11:18 a.m.
  • I have stated this before, but perhaps it should be stated again.

    In almost every city there is conflict between the D.A. and law enforcement on some issues. All you have do is watch the CSI programs or Law and Order Episodes on T.V. This phenomena is so common that even T.V. series pick up and present it in their programming.

    The reason for these conflicts is obvious. The D.A. is charged with following the letter of the law in prosecuting his case. If everything is not perfect then mean and evil criminals will be turned loose to act again. The D.A. learns through experience....cases in the past where evidence is not up to par are lost and criminals do harm again.

    Law enforcement on the other side sees first hand the criminal at work. They are faced every day with the horrible acts these people commit. They want to get the bad guy off the street, and sometime because of their enthusiasm they do not provide the D.A. with what he needs to get a conviction. When a bad guy gets out of jail and acts again, Law Enforcement feels their hard work has been for naught. They blame the D.A. for not making a good case. The D.A. blames law enforcement for not giving him the evidence needed to make a good case. Sometimes there is fault on both sides and sometimes not.

    What I don't understand is why in this case everyone assumes that Tyler had no reason to refuse cases. Perhaps he had tried every other avenue and his requirement of the form was a last ditch effort on his part to get the evidence he needs to make a case.

    I have heard all the explanations from law enforcement and none of them hold air much less water. "There are only a few D.A.'s who require such a form." Well perhaps Victoria is not your average town....perhaps it is needed here and not needed in other cases.....or perhaps other D.A.'s are not so driven to get every conviction possible.

    Is anyone investigating law enforcement? The documents we were provided with proved only that Tyler was letting Law Enforcement know what part of their charges would not fly according to the penal code.

    Personally I want a D.A. and Law Enforcement leadership who are trying to get the bad guy off my street!!!! They need to work together; but how is that possible when Law Enforcement can see no fault and refuses to accept responsibility for their investigations.

    Again this is a matter of training and experience, however Egos get in the way....a perfect example of which is our Sheriff's "Bedroll Stomp" and Chief Ure sticking his nose in a DPS investigation when it was not his job.

    What about Tyler's ego? Somehow I see Tyler's actions more as an obsessive compulsive devotion to carrying out the letter of the law. Hardly a bad thing when it comes to arresting criminals. After reading his resume and noting his experience which is very impressive, I can see that his background might lend itself to such a compulsion for carrying out the law and abiding by the penal code.

    The Victoria Six are only making the problem worse and promoting more discord within the system. I found their document a bunch of heresay and "he said" "she said".

    Ernie expresses that public officials need to be held to a standard and we should expect good work from them. I most assuredly agree, however, in this case I see more fault on the side of Law Enforcement leadership than I do the D.A. And please note the word "Leadership". The cop on the beat puts up with unbelievable harassment, stress and has a job that can never be appreciated enough. However when leadership does nothing to promote good relations between L.E. and the D.A. and takes constructive criticism as a personal attack, the people who get the benefit are the criminals and the ones to pay the price are the victims.

    June 27, 2008 at 11:17 a.m.
  • For those who are concerned about who reported the violation, I can tell you that I did...and perhaps others as well (that I don't know). I can say that I don't work for the DA, I don't live in Victoria County, and I am not affiliated with any of this mess.
    What I can say is, as soon as I saw the post, I reported it as a violation because I construed it as a threat aimed directly at Mr. Tyler. A unique vehicle owned by a public official, outside of a discernable building, can only be interpreted as such.
    I have some experience with Protective Services and I can tell you that if something like that had been posted about one of the people I have worked for, Federal Investigators would be involved immediately.
    Just food for thought for all of those who feel that Mr. Tyler reported it as a way of going after someone who threatened him.

    June 27, 2008 at 11:13 a.m.
  • I agree that this post was out of line....There is a big difference in having a laugh and going out to purposely harm someone, no matter what your view point is. No matter your stance on the issues, I think you are WAY out of line to purposely try and inflict physical harm or damge to someone's property because of it. Talk about taking WAY to big of a vested interest in it.

    As a taxpayer though I would love to know just how much all this has cost so far and continues to cost us. It seems like this is a bad sitcom and every week we get some sort of new spin off that just goes to cost us more and more. Reminds me of kids arguing in a sandbox, then one gets mad and leaves and fights with another over the swing set. WHEN IS IT GOING TO END????

    June 27, 2008 at 11:03 a.m.
  • well, dig, since you brought it up, I did make the remark that I would spit in Steven Tyler's face.... the REST of that remark was: "If it is PROVEN, to me, beyond a doubt, that Mr. Tyler was guilty of the actions toward victims of sexual abuse that the Victoria Ten have alleged, then I would be first in line to spit in his face." TomC called me down for the statement. I then remarked that if I found out that the allegations against Tyler were fabricated simply to discredit him, that I would spit into the face of Scott Hanson, aka Sailor. Again, TomC pointed out that it was not appropriate to be saying anything like that against anyone. Therefore, I recanted my statement and asked if burning either or's picture in effigy would be permissible. I don't think, at this point in time, Mr. Tyler or Mr. Hanson are worried about me spitting upon them or burning their image in effigy. Mr. Tyler isn't worried, because he doesn't believe the allegations levied against him have merit.... Mr. Hanson isn't worried because he does believe the allegations will prove him to be correct. I don't think I have to fear an investigation by the DPS or the DA's office.Having explained that, let me add: I did not see the post which is now the subject of this investigation. But from what has been described by the article, then it is something that probably needs to be investigated. I don't have to agree with Tyler's policies, or believe him to be as pure as the driven snow to say that no one deserves to be the target of that type of violence. So I think that it is the proper course of action for the DPS to investigate this incident. Violence isn't the answer to anything...If I had seen the post, I probably would have found it offensive and reported it myself.
    But I'd like to know, Dig, since when is spitting considered a violent act????

    June 27, 2008 at 10:59 a.m.
  • As "Stang' enthusiast, I happened to click onto On-the-Scene when I saw the mustang. No where did I see a threat to anyone all though I didn't know whose car it belongs to. What I saw was an empty car parked in a parking lot with other car(s) near it. There was no one driving a parked car. I also viewed the YouTube video. There was no video of a burning car. It was a pop/country singer singing. I thought the song was about a guy done wrong by his girl, as best as I could understand. This ain't my type of music but my daughter said it is a popular song. I duno. My take on the song is that the dude's car burned out of jelousy. What is next? Next thing you know, "Mustang Sally" will be construed to be wicked attempt at who knows what! Ride Sally Ride.

    June 27, 2008 at 10:51 a.m.
  • If someone posted a picture of me and my car and a video about burning the same type of car to the ground...I would be concerned. There are some nut cases in this town and even though the poster might have meant to be funny (which I doubt), he could plant a seed that someone else would cultivate.

    Most of the stuff on here is just plain old B.S....people blowing off steam. But the post in question, in my opinion, definitely went way over the line and was indeed a threat..no doubt. I cannot believe Tyler has a vendetta against anyone who speaks out in disagreement with his actions....however when you make threatening statements....threaten physical harm and destruction of property....then you should be called on the carpet.

    Remember folks Tyler has a family. I don't know the man, never met the man, though I like what I have seen him do. He follows the letter of the law, and holds even the powerful elite's feet to the judicial fire. I have heard from others that Tyler is truly a "Family Man." And remember, at the start of all this there were some instances of his wife actually being harassed at her job, teaching school.....can you imagine, going to the school to call out Tyler's wife, in front of children and other teachers. That was inappropriate.

    Now....to the headline for this article. The Advocate does it again. Now Chris....read this headline...."DA Threat Investigated". I opened the paper and truly expected to rea d about Tyler threatening someone and there being an investigation into his actions. What was wrong with "Threat Against DA Investigated." Sorry, I don't buy that innocent stance you have taken on other headlines that were out of line. My God a Freshman Journalism Major would have seen this headline as grossly misleading.

    And WooHoo, your silly fears about being attacked by Tyler are totally unfounded. However, honestly I will not miss your posts.

    June 27, 2008 at 10:43 a.m.
  • romonak...the DA is not threatening anyone with criminal charges. It is the Department of Public Safety, state investigators, that are responsible for the inquiry.

    June 27, 2008 at 10:39 a.m.
  • Slippery slope, VicAd. Is the paper prepared to testify against libel/slander civil charges from a variety of posters on their website?

    Does anyone else see this coming from the subject(s) of the past few months soap opera?

    I'm not exactly a Tyler supporter, and have a difficult time believing the piss poor judgement displayed by the majority of elected officials in Victoria. To say nothing of the behavior of the hired ones.

    But THIS is TOTAL BS! Does Tyler really plan on wasting time and money persuing every moronic thing posted on the internet? Whats next? DNA testing regarding the bathroom wall? Slander? An investigation of my cat's bowel movements on the neighbors lawn? Trepassing?

    June 27, 2008 at 10:39 a.m.
  • I wonder if Tyler will accept a case, where he is the victim and requires justice?

    June 27, 2008 at 10:38 a.m.
  • Okay, it is being investigated as a "Terrorist Threat"...let's look at the code for a minute, SHALL WE?

    § 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an
    offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to
    any person or property with intent to:
    (1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an
    official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
    (2) place any person in fear of imminent serious
    bodily injury;
    (3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a
    building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has
    access, place of employment or occupation, aircraft, automobile, or
    other form of conveyance, or other public place;
    (4) cause impairment or interruption of public
    communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power
    supply or other public service;
    (5) place the public or a substantial group of the
    public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
    (6) influence the conduct or activities of a branch or
    agency of the federal government, the state, or a political
    subdivision of the state.

    The post was a JOKE. It was made over the internet and was NOT a direct threat. If the "victim" in this case were anyone other than Steve Tyler this would just be one of the many cases thrown out. The video of where Tyler's car is...SO WHAT? Everyone in Victoria knows where he works. And did the poster actually say he/she was going to burn his car? As I recall no.

    June 27, 2008 at 10:24 a.m.
  • oh my lord, lol...this is hilarious! now he is threatening the citizens with criminal charges should they do anything that could be perceived as a "threat".

    the whole deal was meant to be funny...i bet if tyler could figure out a way that the "strip tease" video could be seen as criminal he would be seeking out that person too.

    it's just amazing. no one is safe anymore with him in this town.

    June 27, 2008 at 10:17 a.m.
  • "The newspaper’s ethics board"
    WOW - THIS IS GETTING SERIOUS

    June 27, 2008 at 10:08 a.m.
  • I've been following this story for some time. I don't live in your community, but I have relatives there. It seems to me that a small faction of people disagree with the DA and are very vocal about it. Further, I believe that a Grand Jury felt that enough evidence existed to call a few to the carpet. Now the "disgruntled" are threatening the DA. Shame on you people in Victoria. You elected Mr. Tyler and now he is trying to do the job you elected him to do. It is not the job of the Police Chief, the Mayor or their minions to second guess the DA. If they are innocent of messing around outside of their positions, that will be determined by 12 of their peers. If they are not innocent, let the chips fall where they may. Meanwhile, the threats and the nastiness needs to stop. Victorians are letting a small group of nasty, disgruntled net-rats with nothing better to do give them a bad name. It is pretty well known that there are a few people who have received privileges from former DA's and apparently that has now been stopped by the current office holder. Consequently, those formerly privileged are now squawking because Mr. Tyler is not treating them as they feel they should be treated. Personally, I applaud Mr. Tyler for not bowing to the few.

    Now, if the PD will follow suit and treat everyone the same,
    perhaps Victoria can get on with establishing a justice system that is indeed "just"

    June 27, 2008 at 10:05 a.m.
  • ...for the record...Tyler,

    I am NOT shaking in "My Blue Suede Shoes"!

    June 27, 2008 at 9:41 a.m.

  • Oh, Poppycock!! steve t. is just a man, feeling the heat of the whole situation.

    The poster had a bad choice in song and definitely should not have used tyler's picture (video clip).

    Future song suggestions: "Fly Me To The Moon" (Me = tyler) or "Unforgettable" (both Sinatra hits), as Tyler's continual moves of 'an untouchable' are casting a shameless shadow over Victoria.

    June 27, 2008 at 9:38 a.m.
  • Podunk - the uniform issue will never make it in this town. It's been tried before and failed. The school board knows that uniforms won't combat the bigger issues. But as far as making it hard to pick up your kids... well, that depends on what you mean. But I don't think this is the proper forum to get into that.

    June 27, 2008 at 9:28 a.m.
  • I'm sure that whoever posted that link thought it was funny at the time. I wonder if he or she is laughing now. Do you think that Mr. Tyler is reading the posts himself or does he have someone in his office that reads them and alerts him to anything nefarious?

    June 27, 2008 at 8:51 a.m.
  • Sailor, is your e-mail address posted somewhere on this site?

    June 27, 2008 at 8:27 a.m.
  • Sailor, I don't know who you are. How would I contact you?

    June 27, 2008 at 8:24 a.m.
  • You know, I had seen that link when it was posted. I guess its all in the eye of the beholder...I never interpeted it as a threat. I guess I thought who ever posted the the picture was lucky enough to find a song about Mustangs.

    June 27, 2008 at 8:13 a.m.
  • Hold on to your pocketbook, Bundy. Sailor is recruiting.

    June 27, 2008 at 7:56 a.m.
  • Thanks for the interpretation, Sailor. That was exactly what I meant. I will be meeting with our school board later today to see what we can do about the lack of reading comprehension in this town.
    The threat was also not made against Tyler's family. Let's stop blowing this up.

    June 27, 2008 at 7:48 a.m.
  • Holy Cow! What an embarassment! I believe our good DA has stripped a gear and gone off the deep end. Chasing down idle threats off the internet?

    I can't wait for this to get added to the petition. Or for the next local election.

    June 27, 2008 at 7:41 a.m.
  • Hey Bundy, you said that reading these boards is a "pathetic waste of time".......so what would you do if there was a threat upon your life, family or porperty?

    June 27, 2008 at 7:40 a.m.
  • Sometimes my posts get deleted. I have a life and I am not going to jail for Tyler. I'm not posting here anymore. Please, let's elect someone else for DA. That is my final request.

    June 27, 2008 at 7:36 a.m.
  • Well, I guess this puts to rest all of the speculation that Tyler himself is one of the posters on this site. He came right out and admitted that he reads the boards. This is such a pathetic waste of time. Even if they trace it back to a person's house, how can they prove that someone else wasn't on that computer?

    June 27, 2008 at 7:29 a.m.
  • The Advocate ethics board "decided to comply" with the subpoena. That's very noble of them. The law abiding public appreciates the newspaper's willingness to cooperate with a criminal investigation. It doesn't have a very good track record on that.
    Justmerighthere...many people have posted their opinions about Tyler. This one individual, however, crossed the line. It's this one individual that's the focus. You are taking this way out of proportion. If you have nothing to hide...if you have not crossed that line...if your posts have not been threatening.....why would anyone care who you are?  You are just expressing an opinion.  This individual is being investigated for more than just expressing an opinion.
    Finally, IF there was an ATTEMPT by the DA to find out who other people (other than this one individual)  were, don't you think our fine,local, unbiased newspaper would splash that across the front page headlines, be writing editorials condemning the DA, and claiming "harassment and intimidation"?

    June 27, 2008 at 5:18 a.m.
  • the internet is serious business :)

    June 27, 2008 at 1:55 a.m.
  • Wow I am the first post and this story has been here for over 3 hours!!! People feelin intimidated by Tyler now??
    He is just doing this to show that he can find out who we are!!! Well I have nothing to hide and this does not change the way I feel about getting rid of him!!! See if my post gets deleted tomorrow!

    June 27, 2008 at 1:32 a.m.