I think the endorsement by the Victoria Police Officer's Association actually might have hurt Deborah Branch because it gave a false sense that she might be willing to allow VPD acceptions to the law when presenting cases. Those who follow Branch's case history would have seen that with or without the VPD endorsement she would never give them a pass or go easy on their cases. Nor would she have ever hired Ratcliffe and protected him the way Tyler did. Victoria made a terrible mistake if they gave Tyler their votes because they thought Branch was a "play nice" kinda prosecutor...that couldn't be farther from the truth and she would not have wasted taxpayer money...unlike Tyler. In 4 years, if Tyler has wasted more more taxpayer dollars on behaving more like a defense attorney than a prosecutor I can only hope voters will hold him accountable. Better yet, in the future, if he does it at all, the public needs to get him removed from office.
Pozzi was the lesser of two evils and that's pretty sad that we limit ourselves to those choices. One thing Ocker proved is that there are a lot of voters that will rally to vote against Pozzi to bring about change. I hope Judge Pozzi sits up and pays attention to what the voting public actually said when voting for Ocker....Pozzi your public has spoken....do right by the people first before all else or you will get voted out of office next go round! We gave you 4 more years to straighten up and fly right because we know you have it in you, if you choose it. Be wise and give yourself and this county longevity....and just a thought....maybe start the term off right by cutting Joyce Dean so you are finally in charge of running the county governement instead of her overpaid ...!
waywardwind... You make a good point, but the way Subsection (2) of Texas Penal Code Section 29.02 (Robbery) reads is "intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death." If the teller stated that she was in fear of imminent injury or death if she did not comply with the suspect's demand for money, the elements of Robbery are satisfied and that is the proper charge. I think it's reasonable to believe that most tellers presented with that scenario would be in fear of imminent bodily injury at a minimum. Agree?
John123...thanks for speaking up. Some bloggers on here are absolutely clueless, and some of these comments I will not even dignify with a response. There are plenty people who like to log on here throw stones at the SO and/or PD by drawing conclusions after reading a barely half-cooked article. There was a LOT more to this story than just a suspected load of illegals.
If folks want to write comments on heresay, stew on this....it has been said that the Director of Administrative Services for the county, as well as the County Judge, are getting 30% raises. This comes on the heels of other county employees, including those deputies sweating in the 100 degree heat off of FM 616 today, having their benefits cut and paying more for their health insurance. The county is facing nearly a $1 million shortfall and we're giving raises like that? Perhaps the "Watchdog" can sniff around that story...
Anyone have any idea why there's a $475,000 deficit? The county is self-insured and pays Boon-Chapman to manage the program. The county's health insurance plan has consistently lessened benefits and raised premiums for years. It's only a matter of time before the health insurance becomes a big enough issue that long-tenured, well-trained, valued employees will move on because of the high premiums and limited coverages.
Are there any business professionals out there who can answer this: Wouldn't it behoove the county's employees and make the commissioners better stewards of the taxpayer's money to have a group policy with Blue Cross Blue Shield or comparable company?
I know quite a few people that work for government entities smaller than the County of Victoria, and they have excellent health care benefits....and their plan isn't going broke. I'm just a frustrated taxpayer trying to understand this situation. Feedback anyone?
southtexasguy: As far as this particular case is concerned, I believe its six of one half dozen of another as to whether or not it would have made a difference if the prosecution or defense brought up the problems. I'm simply saying that this case may have provided the definitive opportunity for the PD to be discredited. The case has drawn a great deal of public attention and the timing is ideal. I am not on anyone's "side" because I don't know all the details. I'm just a thinker, and like you I am anxious to hear Ure's comments.
I already know my comment will stir the pot, but that's part of the fun!
Could this be some leftover fallout from the DA's Office vs PD? The prosecutor was trying to publicly discredit VPD during this case, and judging by the remarks I've seen on here, he succeeded. The prosecutor was the one exploiting "mistakes" made by the PD. I'm not saying the PD conducted a perfect investigation, but when errors are addressed in certain ways (especially when addressed by someone on your "own team") they can appear worse than they really are.
Perhaps this was done to taint public opinion of the PD shortly before the upcoming trials involving the city officials. Sounds like an effective strategy, huh? Don't let yourself fall into their trap; remain open-minded! Not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it is something to think about...
Newsletter
Newsletter
I think the endorsement by the Victoria Police Officer's Association actually might have hurt Deborah Branch because it gave a false sense that she might be willing to allow VPD acceptions to the law when presenting cases. Those who follow Branch's case history would have seen that with or without the VPD endorsement she would never give them a pass or go easy on their cases. Nor would she have ever hired Ratcliffe and protected him the way Tyler did. Victoria made a terrible mistake if they gave Tyler their votes because they thought Branch was a "play nice" kinda prosecutor...that couldn't be farther from the truth and she would not have wasted taxpayer money...unlike Tyler. In 4 years, if Tyler has wasted more more taxpayer dollars on behaving more like a defense attorney than a prosecutor I can only hope voters will hold him accountable. Better yet, in the future, if he does it at all, the public needs to get him removed from office.
Flag this comment
Pozzi was the lesser of two evils and that's pretty sad that we limit ourselves to those choices. One thing Ocker proved is that there are a lot of voters that will rally to vote against Pozzi to bring about change. I hope Judge Pozzi sits up and pays attention to what the voting public actually said when voting for Ocker....Pozzi your public has spoken....do right by the people first before all else or you will get voted out of office next go round! We gave you 4 more years to straighten up and fly right because we know you have it in you, if you choose it. Be wise and give yourself and this county longevity....and just a thought....maybe start the term off right by cutting Joyce Dean so you are finally in charge of running the county governement instead of her overpaid ...!
Flag this comment
I believe the deal is sealed on this one. This is from the Corporate Press Releases page of Caterpillar's website:
http://www.cat.com/cda/files/2432949/...
Flag this comment
waywardwind...
You make a good point, but the way Subsection (2) of Texas Penal Code Section 29.02 (Robbery) reads is "intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death." If the teller stated that she was in fear of imminent injury or death if she did not comply with the suspect's demand for money, the elements of Robbery are satisfied and that is the proper charge. I think it's reasonable to believe that most tellers presented with that scenario would be in fear of imminent bodily injury at a minimum. Agree?
Flag this comment
This comment was removed by the user.
Flag this comment
John123...thanks for speaking up. Some bloggers on here are absolutely clueless, and some of these comments I will not even dignify with a response. There are plenty people who like to log on here throw stones at the SO and/or PD by drawing conclusions after reading a barely half-cooked article. There was a LOT more to this story than just a suspected load of illegals.
If folks want to write comments on heresay, stew on this....it has been said that the Director of Administrative Services for the county, as well as the County Judge, are getting 30% raises. This comes on the heels of other county employees, including those deputies sweating in the 100 degree heat off of FM 616 today, having their benefits cut and paying more for their health insurance. The county is facing nearly a $1 million shortfall and we're giving raises like that? Perhaps the "Watchdog" can sniff around that story...
Flag this comment
SmarteePantz:
My guess would be that the remaining 130 are retirees.
Flag this comment
Anyone have any idea why there's a $475,000 deficit? The county is self-insured and pays Boon-Chapman to manage the program. The county's health insurance plan has consistently lessened benefits and raised premiums for years. It's only a matter of time before the health insurance becomes a big enough issue that long-tenured, well-trained, valued employees will move on because of the high premiums and limited coverages.
Are there any business professionals out there who can answer this: Wouldn't it behoove the county's employees and make the commissioners better stewards of the taxpayer's money to have a group policy with Blue Cross Blue Shield or comparable company?
I know quite a few people that work for government entities smaller than the County of Victoria, and they have excellent health care benefits....and their plan isn't going broke. I'm just a frustrated taxpayer trying to understand this situation. Feedback anyone?
Flag this comment
southtexasguy: As far as this particular case is concerned, I believe its six of one half dozen of another as to whether or not it would have made a difference if the prosecution or defense brought up the problems. I'm simply saying that this case may have provided the definitive opportunity for the PD to be discredited. The case has drawn a great deal of public attention and the timing is ideal. I am not on anyone's "side" because I don't know all the details. I'm just a thinker, and like you I am anxious to hear Ure's comments.
Flag this comment
I already know my comment will stir the pot, but that's part of the fun!
Could this be some leftover fallout from the DA's Office vs PD? The prosecutor was trying to publicly discredit VPD during this case, and judging by the remarks I've seen on here, he succeeded. The prosecutor was the one exploiting "mistakes" made by the PD. I'm not saying the PD conducted a perfect investigation, but when errors are addressed in certain ways (especially when addressed by someone on your "own team") they can appear worse than they really are.
Perhaps this was done to taint public opinion of the PD shortly before the upcoming trials involving the city officials. Sounds like an effective strategy, huh? Don't let yourself fall into their trap; remain open-minded! Not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it is something to think about...
Flag this comment