Texas sound off/uncategorized

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

When did the incident take place in which the "elderly" man in Texas, "that just wanted to be left alone", hauled off and shot (MURDERED) the trooper who pulled him over for a legitimate moving violation? No matter. Moving violations kill people and law officers are trained, FOR GOOD REASON, to check on folks for OTHER violations in an effort to see that the law is upheld. Cohabitation on this planet mandates that we learn to live with one another as "my brother's keeper". Learn to live within the law or work to change it. I support the sheriff, as long as he supports the law, in the "Gray" matter ("What's going on in Texas?). Uninformed folks need to check the facts before they judge, as I'm sure Mr. Norris has done. Law officers are also trained to be curious and cautious. The incident previously mentioned reminds folks why. The above-mentioned trooper also wanted to live his life with his wife and children and "be left alone" but he saw the importance of working to protect the rights of all--UNDER THE LAW. His widow, I know, understood this.

-- caution (zumende@aol.com), November 08, 2000

Answers

I live in Texas and I used to work for the Texas Department of Public Safety. I had a trooper friend, Sammy Long, killed while I listened to it on the two-way radio. Now, that said, the trooper you mention was killed down in Central Texas by the crazy old man something like three months ago. The trooper stopped the old man for not wearing his seat belt. The trooper, who was enforcing the law, which was his job, was enforcing one of those laws enacted by special interest gropus, insurance companies in this case, that was designed for the government to protect us from ourselves. In the Gray case, I think you're probably right. But, I say, let the local sheriff handle the case. He seems to be doing an admirable job. What I do not want to see is for the federal government to decide that they have an interest in this case, as they so often do in situations like this one, and go down there and kill everybody. Kinda like that little thingy down in Waco...

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 08, 2000.

I've been thinking and maybe it was more than three months ago. That's how time goes when you get to be an old fart like me.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 08, 2000.

Very well put, Shooter.

Caution, what exactly is it you want to know about the Gray situation? I have been there a few times and I spent the weekend with them. I think I am qualified to form an opinion as I have no interest in a paycheck from any of it. What facts are you interested in knowing?

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), November 08, 2000.


Let me understand something. First off I read this guy just bit an officer on the ear, so, how do you get murder out of it? I'm not familiar with this case. Now, if he did kill a state tooper then I think he had better hope Bush makes it to the white house, because he won't have a chance in Texas.

-- Richard V.Miller (richard.miller@1st.net), November 08, 2000.

Richard, you got two cases mixed up together. The guy who killed the trooper was not the same as this Gray guy. The biggest crime this guy Gray committed, aside from biting the cop, has to do with child custody.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 08, 2000.


Caution, I'm not even sure where you are going with this diatribe. It is just out of the clear blue, and the old man with mental problems is not a currently developing event. Perhaps you are just confused, or perhaps you are bitter over the possible election results and are just trying to start something up about Bush again. Could you clarify?

-- Green (ratdogs10@yahoo.com), November 08, 2000.

It's the daughter who is in violation of the child custody I think. She's at the farm also w/ the kids, it's reported.

I've been following this at the info wars site. I'm kind of mixed up on this one, as to just what to think. My initial rxn was to get bent outta shape w/ the government. After reading the greys own press releases, I'm wondering how smart a decision it is to put your own tags on your car, turn in your drivers license, ect. I don't claim to have any real knowlege about the laws or constitutionality of these things. Just seems from here, (far away) like provocation of the State, cops, etc. And I wonder how much of that attitude came thru when the troopers pulled those 2 over. How did that effect the exchange that led to the fight/bite.

Doreen, am I all wet here or what? Give me a little input here. John

-- John in S. IN (jsmengel@hotmail.com), November 08, 2000.


No John, you are not all wet. Don't look for much more on this to come out of infowars.com. That's all I am not going to explain why.

The girl and those kids ARE NOT there. If they are, they are invisible and as far as I know no one has been able to accomplish that yet. Joe Gray was set up by Curtis Hartin who was employed by the FBI for 15 years prior to meeting Mr. Gray. The man hasn't been seen since the arrest and illegal detention of Joe Gray...not by anyone in the contact of the Gray family, at any rate.

The Gray's refused to give their SS# and their finger prints for DL's. Why should you have to give an SS# when there IS NO LAW requiring that you have one? Why should you be treated like a criminal and fingerprinted when you have committed no crime and are not under arrest for suspicion of having committed a crime?

I wrote a report on it, but from all of the conversations here on the Gray situation I have determined that indeed, if it isn't you yourself being under seige or forced to do things that are against your convictions, no one thinks there is any reason to defend Constitutional or even more appropriately, Natural rights. So I wasn't going to post it here, but someplace where people really are interested in the truth about the situation.

And unlike People magazine or the Dallas News, the Gray's don't only have respect for Chuck Norris and Mel Gibson! What a load of hooey. They have respect for all people, and they don't have a lot of trust in anyone but God.

As for the "mentally disturbed" old guy, what happened is that he was pulled over repeatedly for wearing no seat belt, and knew that the police were not provided for the harassment of motorists, and told them that the next time he was pulled over he was going to shoot whomever pulled him over. This was understood by the officers from what I have garnered about the case, and yet this unfortunate fella pulled the guy over. The old guy got out of his vehicle with his rifle, the officer shot, 4 times I believe, maybe more, through his windshield and missed the old guy (and the investigators can't even find the bullets), the "old guy" raised his rifle and shot the officer in the head. then he called in the incident on the police radio and waited for the other police to arrive. He was sick of being harrassed in his own "living room" so to speak.

I don't condone the man's actions, but I have a respect for the strength of his convictions. The man is 72 and a veteran. I guess he figured he didn't have too much to lose. This happened on the south side of Austin out of city limits. It was a tic over three months ago and there was ZERO national media on it. The officer was 28 and had one child and a wife. Sorry, but I don't remember any of the people's names. Where'd you hear about it, Caution? Also, please answer Green's question.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), November 08, 2000.


Doreen, how would we hold people accountable for their actions on the roads without a positive, quickly identifiable form of ID? How would we keep the drunks off the roads? How would we keep the people who's driving skills are so lacking that they represent a hazard to everyone they encounter on the road? There are too many times that an accident unfolded right in front of me on the highway, that if there were no easily used, positive form of ID, the perpetrator would have escaped being caught. How would we ever catch hit and run drivers? Some laws are in effect because there is NO other way to make people responsible for their actions. Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (annie@1st.net), November 09, 2000.

Why don't we just go ahead and have little chips implanted in us so that we can be made to be completely and utterly civil and obedient to God-verment and just forget that we are supposed to be responsible for our actions at all times, not just when we are operating potentially lethal pieces of equipment? hey, if we did that then there would be NO DOUBT as to the positive identification of everyone even at a distance via satellite and laser technology. I think we'd all be so much better off and everything would run more smoothly because we could just not have to develop any social mores and learn from mistakes or anything because we would be completely and utterly dependent upon the intelligence of those we see fit to elect to control us. It's a grand idea. I don't know how so many of us managed to live to adulthood with out having car seats and bike helmets, knee and elbow pads, or child protective services to come and take away kids from parents that didn't buckle them up properly. I see the error of my ways, and thanks for pointing out to me that it's really in the best interests of all future generations that we just have no rights at all other than the right to work and give it to the God-vernment. Thanks!

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), November 10, 2000.


Doreen, logical, commonsense answers please, don't go off the deep end! Government doesn't have to be EITHER Anarchy or Totalitarianism, but just enough to keep the peace for the greatest good, under the same laws, applied equally. At least that is the interpretation I get from the Constitution. Nobody mentioned chips, or even fingerprinting, just the real reason for DL's. Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (annie@1st.net), November 10, 2000.

All right, maybe that was a little hyperbolic, but it is nontheless a possibility. And I did indeed mention fingerprinting as it is being done here in Texas, and that is part of the problem for the Gray situation. It's a problem for me, too. I will absolutely refuse to put my biometric fingerprint down for a DL. So I spose I will be driving without the permission slip of the State and therefore, a criminal. I think all of the biometric stuff they are coming up with for your "quick accurate" identification is just a way to get people used to giving over control of all of their rights and money to a system based on computing. We "know" computers never glitch. It also brings up a lot of religious objections because, the Bible says, the mark will be in your hand or in the head and with this digital fingerprinting and the retinal scans that are proposed for ATM's it is a worthwhile assertion. A logical progression as well.

I know you are a great big fan of the dirver's license and I understand the desire for safety that moves you to that conclusion. But I contend that unless someone proves themselves unsafe, they have the right to travel. period. Commercial licenses such as the one you have for driving truck are the only licenses anyone should really be required to have. There is provision for that in law. No one had licenses until '33. Then not every state demanded it. It wasn't until the '70's that CDL's came into play, which as I understand it is mostly just a way to collect more revenue.

We are going to disagree on this, Annie. I don't think that licensing everyone for stuff makes someone more responsible. I'm sure the Branch Davidians felt better about getting shot and burned to death because the ATF had licenses for their weapons. As for drunk drivers, they usually catch themselves, and the right way to handle it is to make the punishment for it SO severe that class and access to $$$ is irrelevant. Hit and runs are not uncommon, but it is common to have the one who ran turn themselves in after a day or two because they get convicted by guilt.

Has this society gotten crazy over licensing or not? Do you understand that when you take a license for something you are saying that it is not your right, but the right of the state to give you this "privelege"? Yes, even marriage licenses. It's just a crock o' hooey.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), November 10, 2000.


Doreen, your right, licensing only makes people accountable for their actions as a recourse, as punishment, nothing will make people act responsible. If you do not agree with fingerprinting for a DL, then don't keep one, have someone else obtain a plate for you, and then do nothing to attract the attention of the law enforcement officers (are fingerprints required of everyone, or just felony offenders?). But it makes no sense to wave a red flag in front of the bull's nose, there are better ways to play with the bull! CDL's were started to verify proper compliance to make sure everyone was capable to drive their tanker, triple trailer combination, etc., without killing anyone. The real revenue comes from the highway use taxes, both Federal and State, fuel taxes, and from the plates themselves, all of which follows the truck as an entity, not the driver. CDL's cost is only 36 dollars every 3 years. Hit and run accidents, as well as "road rage" type accidents, and near accidents, are very commonplace, we see at least one such type occurance every day, on the highways, some people are slime!!! I agree it is very easy for licensing to get out of control, we do not keep any type gun that reqires licensing because it is none of their business. When what one person does that infringes one another's pursuit of happiness, then some type of compliance requirement is needed, ie., when I have to deal with the drunk trying run me off the road, then he has overstepped his "freedom", and legal recourse is required. I would not want to have to wait until he has committed this act twice to be caught, he might kill me or several others in the meantime. I don't know all the answers to this delemma, but total elimination of licensing is not the answer. I really appreciate your questions Doreen, we all have to question what goes on in this world to keep everyone from becoming apathetic, and just handing over their rights willingly. I violate lots of laws and goverment requirements, but I keep quiet about it, and do not draw undue attention about it, unless it would be useful to further my cause. As a truck driver, we get around stupid laws all the time!!! The more stupid stuff we have to deal with, the more creative we get! Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (annie@1st.net), November 10, 2000.

Annie, in Texas everyone is fingerprinted when they go for a learners permit or regular drivers' license. I was fingerprinted 31 years ago when I got a license. I stood there with tears in my eyes when they fingerprinted me, and the heifer doing it said, "Don't feel bad, honey. Everyone has to do this." I suppose that in her twisted little mind that made it right. In Texas, you are largely supposed to be guilty of something, you just haven't been caught up with yet. Doreen is right--we did get along just fine without licenses for years and years.

As for the prevention of drunk drivers, I see little evidence that licensing in any form does much good. They just drive without licenses. Nothing will prevent a true drunk from getting to the liquor store as long as he has wheels available or even a horse. I know one guy that lost his license years ago, so he rides a horse to the liquor store. Now, the horse is very well broke and goes where ever the rider steers him, including into traffic. So now what, bust the man for riding a horse without a license? There is always the public intoxication law that could be applied, but he just runs up the bill for the county and they never, ever manage to collect anything from him, so he is just let alone.

Licensing is about control and about revenue. Texas announced a couple of years ago that they thought a lifetime license should be sold. The ploy was to collect a huge amount of money when the driver turned 18 (I think), and then he would be able to just get a new license each year without additional payment. This was challenged in court and shot down as descrimination. The purpose of the proposed law was to raise money.

-- Green (ratdogs10@yahoo.com), November 10, 2000.


Now in Texas when you buy your fishing license they ask for your social security number. However, I read in the newspaper that you don't have to give it. So, the last two times I got my fishing license when they asked for my social security number I declined to give it. One clerk said it would be a big deal if I refused but it wasn't after I called his boss to the counter. The next time I declined to provide it the clerk said "OK". That was it. I haven't had a social security card since 1972 but I do have a number, of course. I just never give it out without a fight unless there's a real reason, like for my employer or something legitimate like that.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 10, 2000.


Green, A readily available means of positive ID, wouldn't nesessarily have to be a license or SS number, but accessable nationwide instantly, enables me to instantly report obivously impared drivers of all kinds, to the highway patrol. Every truck driver out there has a CB radio, and the inclination to use it to remove immediately, impaired drivers that we see. Often not long after the report is made via CB radio, we see a highway patrol car pulling them over. I wonder how many lives we have saved by doing this. Without a license to go by, none of this would be possible. If the person is innocent, they are one their way in minutes, if guilty of being impaired, they are removed from the highway, saving lives of innocent people. Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (annie@1st.net), November 10, 2000.

I agree with Doreens comments on fingerprinting and SSN;fingerprinting carries such a "criminal" stigma and is naturally offensive. As for SSN (which seems to be requested for anything,anymore,) isn't it unconsitutional to require the SSN as a form of identification???

-- Beth Weber (talmidim88@hotmail.com), November 10, 2000.

It is against federal law to request a social security card or number for identification.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 10, 2000.

Hey, The government has already started utilizing DNA for Identification. 1st. They required rapist and child molesters to submit, (which is ok in my book) 2nd. They have expanded this to cover other crimes. (which is ok in my book) 3rd. Some states are requiring DNA if you are arrested for misdemeaner's ,Hummm now this means some places if your arrested for civil disobedience or spitting on sidewalks or George Bush's DUI. I'm not so sure these trival crimes warrant DNA fingerprinting. 4th. Some states now want DNA without probable cause and I believe it was New York that was trying to get a law passed where they could get it from traffic stops. I'll have to go search for the article. What I'm getting at is, slowly the government is going to cram DNA figerprinting down our throats. They'll offer programs free to unsuspecting parents whom are paranoid about the perverts in the world, where their children can be DNA fingerprinted so if ever their children come up missing they,ll have a better way of identifing them. It would be fine if that were just the case but we all know what Uncle Sam is going to do with all that data. Think about how easy it would be to get a swab out of a new borns mouth at birth from the hospital. You'll never even know and the hospitals and doctors will probably get paid well for this service. Think about it! I see it comming in our Life time. As far as chips, the military uses them in some of their elite forces now.

-- Richard V. Miller (richard.miller@1st.net), November 10, 2000.

Fishing license,NO! Hunting license, NO! Marriage license, NO! They are just ways to provide revenues to the government. I think my 10 year old like's your idea of No driver's license. I don't think I like that idea however of having to buy him a car. Gee thanks guys that's all he's talking about. I believe that since I was born to this planet that every thing hereon is for my use or entertainment, free of all restrictions as long as I don't impose upon my neighbor. I don't believe that any government,or person should be allowed to stop me from enjoying my natural liberties. I also don't believe that any goverment or person has aright to domain any part of the earth for his,her's or their benefit. It's not right that a new born must enter upon treaded waters, it's like having to buy your way into civilization and starting from zero. It will always get worse and the greedy will find other ways to extract money and character from you. If they keep placing requirements on you, then you will always be beaten down and kept in check. After all, isn't that what power is all about? It's a tuff issue with me but yes, I do think in today's world one should have a driver's license. However I don't think that any one deserves to die for not having one. I don't even think it warrants jail time for not having one, I do think the police are way out of bounds when it comes to enforcing some of these chicken shit laws!

-- Richard V. Miller (richard.miller@1st.net), November 10, 2000.

Richard, since you are the parent and your son is not at the age of majority, guess what? You control his operation of ANYTHING other than his mind. You are the parent, not the State.

I am "really" curious to know where the progenitor of this thread has slunk off to. Anyone else want to make guesses as to who it was that started the attack on Texas? I have a theory. I'd like to say that it's proper ettiquete to return to a thread that you have started and to answer the questions asked of you. Otherwise you are an insurrectionist and not taking responsibility for your actions. That would be such a childish thing to do. Also cowardly.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), November 10, 2000.


Well, the thread probably just took off way over their head;you think?

-- Beth Weber (talmidim88@hotmail.com), November 15, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ