Liberal stupidity in the ILLEGAL Immigration debate

Because of the anniversary of the tragedy of the 19 illegal immigrants who died here in Victoria and the current frakas over Arizona's new immigration law, there have been quite a few outspoken comments, Speak outs, and Letters to the Editor concerning immigration and the Arizona law in particular.

Almost without fail, those who are against it completely FAIL when it comes to their arguments.

Here are a few examples;

Yes, I do agree that the immigration bill should be for all races, not just the
Hispanic folks coming in from Mexico.
Femio, Cuero

No, I don't think that there should be an immigration law. I think that y'all just need to stop being racist and take care of your own problems. Illegals are human beings; stop being racists.
Martha, Victoria

I am totally against the immigration law in Arizona. I do not think that Texas should pass one. I am of Hispanic descent, and my family has been here since 1806.
If I need proper legal documentation showing that I am here, then everyone should, because everyone is technically an immigrant in this country.
Lori, Victoria

If all of the people who lived in the United States were of the same race, there would be some validation on Arizona's immigration law.
But this country consists of people from different countries and races.
So when law officials target a certain people or race, they are really breaking the law instead of enforcing it.
John, Victoria

You get the picture? Most of them center around one thing and one thing only.
R.A.C.E.
And any law, measure, or other means of enforcing border security is met with one cry. "YOU ARE A RACIST!"

there are two points that I will bring up that will put the total lie to their claims.

First off... NONE of these idiots have ever read the Arizona law that they are speaking out against.
1) Targetting Hispanics from Mexico.
ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE in the body of the law does the Arizona law target hispanics. It never even mentions them. It is against ANYONE who is illegally entering the country. Granted, since Arizona borders mexico, the vast majority of the illegals are Mexican but that is beside the point. The law works just the same against anyone who is trying to cross over illegally even if they were little green E.T.s from Mars!
So each and every claim of racism is bogus. False. done out of either ignorance and stupidity, or worse... in full knowledge that there is no racism yet using it as a fear tactic against others. Typical Liberal tactic.

2) Police pulling everyone over just because of their skin.
As I noted in point 1, the law does not specify any particular race. But this takes it a bit further. Just because a person is hispanic does not allow an officer to pull them over to check their citizenship papers. They first must have PROBABLE CAUSE to suspect they are illegal. Simply being hispanic DOES NOT QUALIFY as probable cause. This puts the lie to the other main claims the anti-immigration law reform morons spout off. That they are going to get pulled over and forced to prove they are Americans just because they are hispanic.

Lori in Victoria brings up another arguement typical of the idiots. Pushing the whole definition of immigrant beyond the scope of the law in a futile effort to denigrate the law and what it is attempting to do. Trying to claim that we are ALL immigrants. Sorry Lori but that boat don't float. My great great great great great great great great grandparents may have been immigrants. That does NOT mean that I am an immigrant.
Nor does it mean that my great8 grandparents came here ILLEGALLY.

Which brings me to a question I would dearly love for one of these morons to answer for me.

WHAT PART OF "ILLEGAL" IMMIGRATION DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!?!?!?!?!?!

The Advocate's Editorial

The Advocate Editorial Board is calling for a Public Spokesperson for the Victoria Police Department. Their new Editorial is called "The community has a right to know"

I don't disagree. I guess my argument is to the degree that I agree.
(If that makes any sense)

By it's very nature, Effective Law Enforcement requires a bit of privileged information, secrecy, and privacy. You don't what the criminals to know what you know. Nor do you want victim's information to be made public. If the Victim wants it made public the victim him/herself can contact the media.

The Advocate, and a vocal amount of Advocate.com users are being very outspoken about a recent abduction and escape by a person from our local H.E.B. parking lot.
The story printed by the Advocate has little in the way of details. The people are clamoring for more. I understand their want and to a degree their need to know more.

Our local police department (at least on the level of the average cop on the street) I cannot speak for Upper Management) Just those who I know who work the streets, Have a very low regard for the Advocate in general. The reporting is often low quality and several of their reporters cannot correctly quote a person to save their life! The biggest culprit of that was one Leslie Wilber who was assigned the police/accident beat. IT was so bad that officers started refusing to cooperate with her. She could go open records request the case but they themselves would not talk with her.

Though many have complained about her, Chris Cobler, the Advocate Editor refused to acknowledge the problem and banned from post (myself included) those who spoke up on the matter (Advocate can brook no criticism).

Mysteriously now Leslie is gone. There is a new girl on her beat and from what I gather is doing a good job though she is new and makes some errors between what she reports and what officers told her. It's a learning experience though. She'll learn.
Or become like Leslie.

I give all this back story to set this up.
I don't think this editorial is all that much about the abduction case as it is an attack on local PD and their strained relation with the Advocate reporters.
Take this for example:

We understand not naming the victim in this attempted kidnapping, but we're not
sure about not naming the location or the victim's gender. After all, the
perpetrator certainly knows the location and that police are investigating the
crime. We doubt he would go back to that place.

The Advocate knows full well were it took place though they (the Advocate) did not mention it in their article. Advocate had reporters on scene interviewing people who were there, The H.E.B. parking lot on Rio Grande.

Advocate failed to mention it, though there were plenty of clues as to where it was in the article. As one poster responding to others asking where stated: "How many locations on Rio Grande would you be putting groceries in your car?"

A couple of years back, I don't remember exactly when but it was around the same time as the Citizen's Hospital property fiasco with City Attorney Smith and the City Councils vote (or failure to Vote) on the sale of it (or purchase of it). During this time there was a call by to POLICE DEPARTMENT to have a single point of contact, a media spokesperson. The Police were concerned because of the poor reporting and misquotes that regularly happened in the paper.

The Victoria Advocate was AGAINST just such a thing. They wanted to get their information straight from the officers on scene. they resented the allegations police were making concerning reporters like Leslie Wilber.

Now they are all for the spokesperson. Things that make you go "Hmmm..."

We wonder why publication of the location of this attempted kidnapping
couldn't be publicized for the benefit of residents here. Often times, residents
can come to the aid of police in such investigations. We do believe in community
policing.

Mr. Cobler if you are listening, The police believe in community policing as well. The problem is in how you vs the police define community policing. Your Idea (and much of the outspoken people on the Advocate.com site) is in reality, civilians getting in the way of investigations. The Police idea of community policing is if any persons have information regarding the crime, they can contact the police.

Two comments in the article get more at the heart of what the Advocate is thinking. And it ties in with the recent topic concerning the switch to digital (and encrypted) radios for the City police, EMS, and Fire.

We are concerned about not getting information from law enforcement about
criminal cases.

We understand to a degree, but we worry that at some time in the future we will
report a crime in the newspaper that is two weeks old. The public has a right to
know what is going on in the community and in an expedient manner.

Chief Ure has already stated to the Advocate that they have no intention of cutting the media out of the loop once the switchover comes and current scanners become useless. The problem is the Advocate expects everything to be handed to them on a silver platter rather than doing the legwork themselves. I have had several dealings with one of their "Star" reporters, Gabe Semenza. My personal opinion of him is that he wants you to literally GIVE him the story rather than he investigate it.


Advocate,
Stop trying to rile the public against the police. You did that with your editorial campaign against the encryption. And as I stated, you did the public a disservice as well as endangered officers lives. How in the hell you sleep at night I will never know.
We have enough boneheaded cop-haters and conspiracy nut jobs that think the police as a whole (not individuals) are nothing more than a gang of criminals themselves hellbent on taking away all rights. We don't need self serving idiots like your editors riling them up of giving them more cannon-fodder.

Tyler Loses Appeal!

In today's advocate it was reported that Tyler has lost the appeal to be reinstated as the prosecutor against Ure.

This story along with many others, proves one of two outcomes are true. Neither outcome is good for Tyler. He is either a) incompetent, or b) vengeful.
Personally I think it is both A and B.

I have long said that Tyler has/had no intention of every actually letting this get to trial. All this amounts to is a smear campaign to destroy Ure's reputation. Tyler has no evidence and is hiding behind a wall of false secrecy in the Grand Jury Testimony. I say false secrecy because if Tyler wanted, those records could be unsealed because the person the secrecy is meant to protect WANTS them unsealed (Ure). All along the delays have been at the hands of Tyler. Not Ure's lawyer.

The appeals court ruling said when the state prosecutes an appeal but does not file a brief, appellate courts hold that the state's failure to file a brief constitutes abandonment of the appeal.

Tyler's lawyer, Ruth Kollman, gave all sorts of excuses as to why the brief was not filed.

In both an affidavit Kollman filed on April 6 and in her response, Kollman outlined her reasons for not filing her brief by the Jan. 20 deadline, citing pre-existing client commitments, a trial schedule and the onset of a severe illness.

All good excuses for not filing by whatever deadline there was but for this...

It continued, "The state's brief was more than six months overdue when this court remanded the cause to the trial court for a hearing on the prosecution of the appeal. The court gave the state multiple opportunities to file its brief, but the state did not."

The state's motion to consolidate their case with the court's appellate cause was ruled moot and dismissed as well.

So even after the deadline passed, six more months and many opportunities to file went by as well. I'm sure Ms. Kollman could have found some time during that period to file a simple brief.
Incompetent? or intentionally throwing the case because he has no evidence and is mearly dragging Ure's name through the mud of public opinion? You decide.

Why was Tyler trying to consolidate the cases even though he pretty much knew the case was going to get thrown out because they would not file the required brief? If the cases were consolidated, they would have all been thrown out together. Tyler knows he has taken this as far as he can and wants it to go away now. He wants it to go away but look as though he was still fighting for it and others (the so called Good ol' Boy Network) tied his hands. Having all three cases dumped together would have wrapped things up neat and tidy for him. Now he has to figure out how to still look as if he is trying to prosecute (persecute?) Buentello and Smith while getting them to go away individually as well.

The last part of this article contains a quote from Chief of police Bruce Ure;

"Hopefully, now, the District Attorney will unseal my
grand jury testimony. This should be done immediately. Steve Tyler has the
absolute authority to do so, or he can unfortunately keep it sealed for
self-serving purposes. The unsealing is the only way that the public has a
chance at understanding what really happened."

The proof of Ure's Guilt/Innocence is within his GJ testimony. Ure wants it unsealed because it will prove his innocence to all involved and show the world that Tyler is on a vindictive witch-hunt against the man who bruised his (Tyler's) sizable ego. Tyler claims to want it unsealed because the proof of Ure's guilt is there. Thing is... Tyler does have the power to get the records unsealed, especially when the person the seal is to protect wants it done. He has avoided doing so while acting as though he wants it precisely because the proof is against Tyler.

Come election time,
"Deborah Branch, Do you solemnly swear..."

There are a few comments so far and this is TYPICAL of the pro-Tyler crowds competency and intelligence:

fiercegossip
Wow. Bold comments from the chief, seeing as HIS attorneys were
the ones that sealed the records from the trial.

The records that Ure was speaking of was GRAND JURY TESTIMONY.
This testimony was for the Grand Jury indictment against Tyler's former Chief of Staff, Michael Ratcliff. Ratcliff was indicted on multiple accounts of sexual assault on a minor. These records are automatically sealed as part of the Grand Jury secrecy. If this moron who calls himself fiercegossip thinks that Ure's lawyers had anything to do with the sealing of GJ testimony in a seperate case he is sadly mistaken.

Another poster points this very thing out to him and fiercegossip responds with this bit of insight;

fiercegossip
Actually, I'm not confused at all. Right before Chief Ure's case
was supposed to go to a jury, Judge Cheshire allowed Mr. Cagle to put Steve
Tyler on the stand in open court for TWO DAYS to try to prove whether or not Mr.
Tyler was a witness to this case. There is a court record of Mr. Tyler being
examined for hours, outlining all the evidence he has against Chief Ure. Judge
Cheshire ruled Tyler was not an essential witness and that Tyler could prosecute
the case. It wasn't until after Cheshire recused himself that Judge Williams
reversed that decision and granted Chief Ure's motions to dismiss the case and
SEAL THE RECORD.

If Chief Ure wants the world to see what evidence Mr.
Tyler has, there's a sealed public record of it sitting at the courthouse filled
with two days of his attorney interrogating Steve Tyler about every detail of
the case. So, Chief Ure, why don't YOU release the record???

You cannot have a PUBLIC TRIAL if the evidence is sealed from the PUBLIC.

Besides... Fierce gossip is factually wrong. Ure was not referring to the sealing of his case on dismissal. He was in fact referring to his GJ testimony during the Ratcliff indictment.

"Hopefully, now, the District Attorney will unseal my
grand jury testimony. This
should be done immediately. Steve Tyler has the
absolute authority to do so, or
he can unfortunately keep it sealed for
self-serving purposes. The unsealing is
the only way that the public has a
chance at understanding what really
happened," the chief
said.

"my grand jury testimony"

Hear that? Mr. not-so-fierce-and-full-of-gossip.
Morons... I swear.

Danged if you Do danged if you don't

One any article involving accidents we usually get these kind of responses when a ticket is not issued;

Carpenter
My son got a ticket for cutting in front of someone, but the last
couple of days, people have caused accidents and are not issued tickets?? Even
after the officer said they were in the wrong???!!!
Go figure. These
officers must be directed from the higher ups, to write tickets or not, under
certain situations..
Wish I had that luck last year....

cobraden
If a motorist is clearly at fault for causing an accident why does
this town's PD not issue a citation? Is there something the public should know
about this under-handed practice so that they can plan their accidents
accordingly? Dripping with contempt.

Concerning issuing or not issuing tickets. This is an area of officer discretion. I asked an officer why he would give a ticket in one instance and not another. This is what he stated to me.

In general officers do not ticket the "at fault" vehicle of an accident because of two reasons. 1) The accident is often punishment itself, and 2) The officer often has not actually WITNESSED the accident.

Yes they can determine at fault via traffic investigation but they still would have to testify to the ticket in court to what they themselves did not witness.

Now why then would an officer write a ticket? To the officer I questioned, it has to do with HOW the accident occured. If it was a simple mistake, Then no ticket, the accident is bad enough. If it was due to sheer uncaring negligence or reckless endangerment, then the "at fault" gets a ticket in addition to the accident.

As an illustrative example:
If you did not see that stop sign until the last second because of an inadvertent distraction and hit another car... No ticket but you are "At Fault"

But if you were driving recklessly and weaving in and out of traffic and blowing through several stop signs and lights and then hit a car.. Not only are you "At fault" but you are also getting the ticket.

cobraden's comment is typical of the local cop-haters we have here. Had the officer involved issued a ticket, cobraden would have been complaining about officers being "revenooers" out to make money by writing tickets.

DA Tyler "Oops I did it Again"

Victoria Texas' District Attorney is again in the news concerning his Office Manager/Chief of Staff.

Victoria Advocate Article:
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2010/may/08/gs_tyler_eyre_050910_94631/?news&local-news

Tyler's Chief of Staff position under Ratcliff
was (according to Tyler) an overglorified Office Manager. Ratcliff had zero access to case files or victims identification. He was hired so Tyler could "keep an eye on him" during the investigation.

Yet dozens of cases were discovered with Ratcliff's signature on them. Tyler appointed Ratcliff to be his representative at Hope Of South Texas (Victim's advocacy group) and to review the Catholic Diocese of Victoria's policy on handling child sex abuse cases.

This SAME POSITION Under Sam Eyre seems now to be just the opposite.
To quote Tyler: "He was hired as an experienced law enforcement officer."
And... "he couldn't move Eyre to another position because each job in his office requires specific skills."

So which is it Mr. Tyler?
Is your Chief of staff just an officer manager with no access to case files, or a law enforcement position not suited to other office manager type work?

You have either lying to us now, or you lied to us about Ratcliff.
Which is it?
Victoria deserves to know!

The problem with lying Mr. Tyler, is that it becomes more and more difficult to keep your lies straight and sooner or later you are caught.

Oh and another thing for the folks of Victoria to ponder.
Tyler held up the Buchanek case as an example of how terrible the Victoria police department is and yet Tyler has nothing but praise for one of the Victoria Police officers who was directly involved with the case. Think about that for a sec.

TYLER: "I'm not going to willy-nilly get rid of an employee and destroy his chances of future employment."

Yet Carlos Echeverry, who was found not guilty, REPEAT NOT GUILTY, by jury trial, has been hounded by Tyler. Tyler even after losing the case against Echeverry has pursued getting TCLEOSE to pull Echeverry's Texas Peace Officer's License.

TYLER: "Eyre can no longer do investigative work because the job could land him on the witness stand. Doing so would leave Eyre vulnerable to cross-examination about his role in the civil lawsuit."

Sound familiar folks?
It should!
Anyone remember months of Tyler's refusal to recuse himself from the trial of his previous office manager? No conflict of interest he says in the face of blatant conflict of interest.
And later with the trials against the four city officials and employees where he was named as a witness yet refused to step aside?

Tyler is a disgrace to the legal profession. His Ego is larger than the state of Texas. Tyler needs to go.

I may be a Conservative, But Deborah Branch, the Democratic candidate has my vote.