Oh and read article 2.135. The department must notify that they cannot afford such equipment? I'm not sure it's a bunch of legal jargon.JK LOL. Keep reading.
... about marring the name of law enforcement, I don't have to. Open your eyes. Port Lavaca is the most corrupt town around. Every citizen in town says so. Victoria used to be the same way until Sheriff O'Conner took office. It took a few lawsuits to get that rolling though. It's only fact.
I believe that the cameras being installed in the police cars is a local policy and that is because of the grant money that is promised for the installation of those cameras since each local entity is required to adopt and "legislate" a policy. Im going to check with the local police tomorrow or monday. I'll see what they have to say. I do believe every city in Texas has adopted a policy. At least every city that wants that grant money.
...And I don't think people swallow narcotics regularly when they get stopped, John. Did they swllow the marijauna. LOL Like the movie Super Troopers, maybe next time they'll make them eat the whole bag. They weren't charged with possession of controlled substance ie: methyldeoxymethamphetamine (MDMA or extasy)were they? Did I spell it right? Probably because there wasn't any in the car at the time of arrest. But where did the police chief get it? The evidence room? I think we need some kind of accountability for the drugs in the evidence room.
You're right its libel. My mistake. I couldn't sleep last night knowing I spelled it wrong.
Yes the law was inacted in 2002 and it goes for every stop. The police are violating the law when the cameras are not on. Usually because they are doing something out of protocol deliberately. It was originally for racial profiling.
I have been witness to events in Port Lavaca that the police and others involved with them and their fake justice system have done that have broken nearly every law and amendment to the Constitution (as well as article 3 of the Constitution) that I could think of including: kidnapping for coersion purposes, drug dealing, drug buying, blackmail, conspiracy, tampering with evidence, assault, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, racketeering, maybe prostitution (depending how you look at it), extortion, especially perjury, and so many other things that I don't have time to type them. I am a Communication major (two semesters left) and this isn't lible because I do have direct knowledge of all of these things except of course murder, but: someone, and I would say a reliable source, (an attorney) did tell me who was responsible for deaths that have autopsies pending that will all be ruled overdoses unless someone does something about it.
Did you mean lible or liable? If you ment lible, its not. I have direct knowledge. If you mean liable then yes they are going to be liable for the death. They'll be liable because at no time before the subject is searched, and searched thoroughly, are they ever allowed to get out of the sight of someone. Also the cameras, by law, have to be rolling on every stop as a result of the racial profiling laws that went into effect in 2002. As soon as the subject is in the jail, they are strip searched. This being said, at no point was either subject witnessed eating drugs and therefore it was probably impossible to do under constant supervision, unless they are masters at slight of hand tricks. Maybe these people also had direct knowledge of some kind of illegal activity, like I do, that the police are involved in. Perhaps drugs? I think we need to get Anderson Cooper down here in Texas again to do a follow up on small town crruption.
I find it funny that there was an article written about in the Victoria Advocate but no mention of it in the Port Lavaca Wave, the city where it actually took place. Sounds like someone didn't want the story to get out. A death in the Calhoun County jail isn't worthy of note in the local paper? Hmmmm?
It sounds like a cover up to me already from the start.
Newsletter
Oh and read article 2.135. The department must notify that they cannot afford such equipment? I'm not sure it's a bunch of legal jargon.JK LOL. Keep reading.
... about marring the name of law enforcement, I don't have to. Open your eyes. Port Lavaca is the most corrupt town around. Every citizen in town says so. Victoria used to be the same way until Sheriff O'Conner took office. It took a few lawsuits to get that rolling though. It's only fact.
I believe that the cameras being installed in the police cars is a local policy and that is because of the grant money that is promised for the installation of those cameras since each local entity is required to adopt and "legislate" a policy. Im going to check with the local police tomorrow or monday. I'll see what they have to say. I do believe every city in Texas has adopted a policy. At least every city that wants that grant money.
...And I don't think people swallow narcotics regularly when they get stopped, John. Did they swllow the marijauna. LOL Like the movie Super Troopers, maybe next time they'll make them eat the whole bag. They weren't charged with possession of controlled substance ie: methyldeoxymethamphetamine (MDMA or extasy)were they? Did I spell it right? Probably because there wasn't any in the car at the time of arrest. But where did the police chief get it? The evidence room? I think we need some kind of accountability for the drugs in the evidence room.
You're right its libel. My mistake. I couldn't sleep last night knowing I spelled it wrong.
Yes the law was inacted in 2002 and it goes for every stop. The police are violating the law when the cameras are not on. Usually because they are doing something out of protocol deliberately. It was originally for racial profiling.
I have been witness to events in Port Lavaca that the police and others involved with them and their fake justice system have done that have broken nearly every law and amendment to the Constitution (as well as article 3 of the Constitution) that I could think of including: kidnapping for coersion purposes, drug dealing, drug buying, blackmail, conspiracy, tampering with evidence, assault, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, racketeering, maybe prostitution (depending how you look at it), extortion, especially perjury, and so many other things that I don't have time to type them. I am a Communication major (two semesters left) and this isn't lible because I do have direct knowledge of all of these things except of course murder, but: someone, and I would say a reliable source, (an attorney) did tell me who was responsible for deaths that have autopsies pending that will all be ruled overdoses unless someone does something about it.
Did you mean lible or liable? If you ment lible, its not. I have direct knowledge. If you mean liable then yes they are going to be liable for the death. They'll be liable because at no time before the subject is searched, and searched thoroughly, are they ever allowed to get out of the sight of someone. Also the cameras, by law, have to be rolling on every stop as a result of the racial profiling laws that went into effect in 2002. As soon as the subject is in the jail, they are strip searched. This being said, at no point was either subject witnessed eating drugs and therefore it was probably impossible to do under constant supervision, unless they are masters at slight of hand tricks. Maybe these people also had direct knowledge of some kind of illegal activity, like I do, that the police are involved in. Perhaps drugs? I think we need to get Anderson Cooper down here in Texas again to do a follow up on small town crruption.
I find it funny that there was an article written about in the Victoria Advocate but no mention of it in the Port Lavaca Wave, the city where it actually took place. Sounds like someone didn't want the story to get out. A death in the Calhoun County jail isn't worthy of note in the local paper? Hmmmm?
It sounds like a cover up to me already from the start.