Post New

Yesterday, Terran Green was pulled over in a traffic stop by a Harris County Sheriff. Terran shot the officer in the face and drove off. Massive manhunt ensues, today Mr Green was found barricaded in a home in Houston. Here is a clip from a local news report,

Authorities believe that Terran Green, 34, was barricaded inside a house at the location when shots were fired. Two deputies -- one with the United States Marshals Service and one with HCSO -- were shot, according to Gonzalez. They're believed to have suffered non-life-threatening injuries and were taken to HCA Houston Healthcare Kingwood hospital. Gonzalez said they were each hit once and they were likely graze wounds.

This clip doesn't mention a third officer who was shot twice in the chest but his body armor saved him. All three were taken to the hospital. The officer shot in the face yesterday is in serious but stable condition.

BTW, there is standoff going on right now and Mr Greem may surrender or go down fighting, remains to be seen.

Here is another little news snip about Mr Green,

Terran Green's background includes a criminal history dating back to 2007. He's been charged with evading arrest, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and also faced theft and drug charges, according to records. He served time in prison at least three times. The warrant that was out for his arrest was for failure to appear in court.

Last night news reported he had eight felony convictions, served prison time three times, and here is the best part, he was out on bond for three different felonies. What judge granted this guy his first bond given his record, then amazingly some judge granted two more bond releases after that.

Also, Mr. Green being an eight time felon was breaking the law by even possessing a gun, so there you have it, criminals don't obey gun laws. Whoda thunkit!

Also, Mr. Green being an eight time felon was breaking the law by even possessing a gun, so there you have it, criminals don't obey gun laws. Whoda thunkit!

Thank god we live in a nation where despotic the fascist tyrannical leftist courts cannot deprive anybody their god-given rights to have guns.

bighairymike: Also, Mr. Green being an eight time felon was breaking the law by even possessing a gun...

Actually, Texas allows felons to own guns under certain conditions (the fact that the gun owner is still open to federal charges for gun possession doesn't seem to faze Texas).

BTW, where do you get your news, specifically this: "eight felony convictions...judge granted this guy his first bond given his record, then amazingly some judge granted two more bond releases"?

And I think albaby1 already explained bond to you (or someone else) in another thread.


https://www.craiggreeninglaw.com/can-convicted-fel....

BTW, where do you get your news, specifically this: "eight felony convictions...judge granted this guy his first bond given his record, then amazingly some judge granted two more bond releases"? - co

====================

In this case KPRC channel 2 news. This is the local NBC affiliate in Houston so not Fox, sorry.

bighairymike: In this case KPRC channel 2 news. This is the local NBC affiliate in Houston so not Fox, sorry.

Well, their reporting doesn't seem to match yours: https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2023/08/1...

Also, Mr. Green being an eight time felon was breaking the law by even possessing a gun, so there you have it, criminals don't obey gun laws. Whoda thunkit!


You're missing the point'which is.... If there were sensible national gun laws mandating appropriate restrictions (and their enforcement) on gun availability and possession many many fewer criminals would be able to get their hands on guns.

Also, Mr. Green being an eight time felon was breaking the law by even possessing a gun, so there you have it, criminals don't obey gun laws. Whoda thunkit!

Somewhere between when I was 15 and 20 years old the country a group of folks started paying for a legal history scholars to write scholarly articles creating gun rights that didn't exist in our nation, laws that protected manufacturers from any reckoning with societal harm (even when the manufacturers recognized the societal harm), altering the historical meaning of words to fit the narrative, and we've created this mythic past where we were all self-reliant pioneer gunslingers until magically civilization appeared and then we all toted guns forever until the terrible east coast snotty arrogant liberals showed up trying to take all our guns away.

Nowadays we niche market small pink guns to women. The public becomes convinced that the Federal government is going to invade or the sh!t hits the fan is imminent and they must be armed to the teeth and ready for the zombie apocalypse. Keep up those perishable skills. And somehow all our bigotry, fear, and anger combined with the painful crushing of the American dream to deliver us to Trumpian characters, fomenting chaos - stand ready like the minute men - CIVIL WAR! It's not happening fast enough so let's speed it up!

How was this crime avoidable?

As we discussed in the last thread, the state generally can't just take away your liberties based on an accusation of a crime - even if you have a past criminal record. Most states have laws preventing that from happening. So if we turn to Texas law, we find Article 17.028 of the Texas Penal Code governing bail decisions, which provides:

* * *

"(b) In setting bail under this article, the magistrate shall impose the least restrictive conditions, if any, and the personal bond or cash or surety bond necessary to reasonably ensure the defendant's appearance in court as required and the safety of the community, law enforcement, and the victim of the alleged offense.

(c) In each criminal case, unless specifically provided by other law, there is a rebuttable presumption that bail, conditions of release, or both bail and conditions of release are sufficient to reasonably ensure the defendant's appearance in court as required and the safety of the community, law enforcement, and the victim of the alleged offense."

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR....

* * *

Emphasis added. The general principle behind these statutes (and most other penal codes) is that the state can't impose the penalty for a crime (imprisonment) before a determination of guilt on that crime (the trial) has taken place. This is a generally conservative principle - conservatives are suspicious of the exercise of governmental power, and there are few governmental powers greater than the power to imprison at the barrel of a gun anyone physically present within their state.

Obviously, the facts as reported in the news snippets are incomplete - we don't know what specific crimes the defendant was accused of before being given pre-trial release, nor the specifics of his past criminal proceedings. But if the defendant had a prior consistent record of showing up to court and not committing further crimes while on bond during his prior pre-trial releases, it's pretty unlikely that the magistrate would have had any legal authority to order his detention on the current charges.

bighairymike: In this case KPRC channel 2 news. This is the local NBC affiliate in Houston so not Fox, sorry.

Well, their reporting doesn't seem to match yours: https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2023/08/1... - CO

---------------

My reporting was based on what a local reported said during live coverage the first day afyer the first officer was shot in the face.

If that doesn't comport with the written report in subsequent news, that doesn't change the fact the perp was a well documented scumbag and should not have been out on bond. Sheesh.

If that doesn't comport with the written report in subsequent news, that doesn't change the fact the perp was a well documented scumbag and should not have been out on bond. Sheesh.

Ah, yes - the "well documented scumbag" exception to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments.

Obviously, the facts as reported in the news snippets are incomplete - we don't know what specific crimes the defendant was accused of before being given pre-trial release, nor the specifics of his past criminal proceedings. But if the defendant had a prior consistent record of showing up to court and not committing further crimes while on bond during his prior pre-trial releases, it's pretty unlikely that the magistrate would have had any legal authority to order his detention on the current charges. - albaby

---------------

Some laws are in obvious need of changing. Like the free for all shoplifting created by the under $950 rule. Another one should revise bail regulations to protect the public from career criminals. Eight felony conviction and three stints in prison should be enough to deny bail even if he claims he is now a Sunday school teacher. It seems the rights of the poor misunderstood career criminals are superior to the rights of law abiding citizens to be protected from these predators.

<that doesn't change the fact the perp was a well documented scumbag and should not have been out on bond. Sheesh.> ~Dope

I know right, how does this happen?...

1 rape
91 criminal charges
26 sexual assault allegations
6 bankruptcies
5 draft deferments
4 indictments
2 impeachments
2X loser of the popular vote
2 failed marriages
1 convicted organization
1 fake university shut down
1 fake charity shut down
$1 billion business loss in a single year
$25 million fraud settlement
$2 million charity abuse judgment

Still walking the streets...

If that doesn't comport with the written report in subsequent news, that doesn't change the fact the perp was a well documented scumbag and should not have been out on bond. Sheesh.

Ah, yes - the "well documented scumbag" exception to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. - albaby

-----------------

I am sometimes awestruck by the liberal mindset when it comes to protecting innocent civilians from predatory criminals.

Here is from your earlier post,

"(b) In setting bail under this article, the magistrate shall impose the least restrictive conditions, if any, and the personal bond or cash or surety bond necessary to reasonably ensure the defendant's appearance in court as required and the safety of the community, law enforcement, and the victim of the alleged offense.

Eight felonies and three trips to TDC should satisfy the "safety of the community" criteria. It seems just so damn obvious.

Eight felonies and three trips to TDC should satisfy the "safety of the community" criteria. It seems just so damn obvious.

No, it's not. I think you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of bail and pre-trial detention.

Let's stipulate (for simplicity) that the defendant is a "well documented scumbag," based on his prior convictions and prison terms. Certainly a fair label. But the government isn't allowed to just lock someone up for being a well-documented scumbag. He was a well documented scumbag the day before his recent arrest (for which he was given pre-trial release), and the government had no right to imprison him before that recent arrest. We don't have precautionary or prophylactic prison sentences. Even well documented scumbags are fully entitled to liberty - even though it's "so damn obvious" that letting well documented scumbags roam around increases the risk of crime. Some folks might wish we could lock up people just because they're well documented scumbags, but that's not how our society or constitution is set up.

That doesn't change when he's arrested for the ninth time. He's presumed to be innocent of those charges. The judge is certainly allowed to take into account the defendant's past criminal record, but he's not allowed to use the fact of this charge as an excuse to deprive someone of their basic rights. If the recent charges don't make this guy any more of a danger to the "safety of the community" than he was before, the judge can't use bail for these charges as an excuse to imprison someone that wasn't imprisonable before. Charges aren't supposed to be an instrument for taking bad guys off the street - convictions are.

It's just fascinating to me that conservatives get into a huge lather about the idea that the Second Amendment exists to protect us against government tyranny, and then overlook that half of the Bill of Rights (the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments) primarily protect us against the criminal justice power of the government. That's where the risk of tyranny was seen to be by the Founders - that's the power they really worried about in setting out the BoR. It's the most significant, and terrifying, power we give to the government - the power to deprive people of nearly every liberty they have (even life) under the criminal justice system.

It's just fascinating to me that conservatives get into a huge lather about the idea that the Second Amendment exists to protect us against government tyranny, and then overlook that half of the Bill of Rights (the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments) primarily protect us against the criminal justice power of the government. - albaby

-------------------
We are talking about the treatment of career criminals here, not the rights of law abiding gun owners.

The presumption of innocence is a good thing. But to my way of thinking, with each felony conviction your presumption of innocence becomes a little more tarnished and at some point you lose (or should lose) your right to bail. Maybe that is not how the law presently is but if so it should be changed.

Judges should have the discretion to protect the public from established criminal predators even if the current charge is for a DUI. The word is discretion. They could still let him out on bail but that is way better than current laws which require him to let him out on bail.

DUI's are another too frequent example we hear about where some innocent family is wiped out by some guy driving drunk who has four or five prior DUI convictions. Maybe if he was still in jail waiting on trial for DUI #4, he would not have had the opportunity to commit DUI # where the family is killed Or Maybe that would not have saved the family but it is worth a try. And I don't care nearly as much about the rights of the driver in DUI #5 as I do about the innocent family he killed.

The governments primary obligation is the safety of citizens and releasing violent career criminals back on the street just as fast as possible works in opposition to that.

It's just fascinating to me that conservatives get into a huge lather about the idea that the Second Amendment exists to protect us against government tyranny, and then overlook that half of the Bill of Rights (the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments) primarily protect us against the criminal justice power of the government.

And it's equally fascinating that the left is willing to presume that all lawful gun owners are future criminals and place restriction after restriction on their rights..a.ll the while simultaneously reducing sentences and/or refusing to prosecute people who commit actual crimes.

I'm a big fan of 3 strikes laws: get convicted of 3 felonies and you're gone.

Judges should have the discretion to protect the public from established criminal predators even if the current charge is for a DUI. The word is discretion. They could still let him out on bail but that is way better than current laws which require him to let him out on bail.

Certainly one could argue for that, but that's not how rights really work. Once they're discretionary, they're not really rights any more. They're privileges.

I think you're assuming that if you give the state the ability to lock certain people up before they've been convicted of a crime, they're going to do that against a category of people you would be fine with ("established criminal predators") rather than a category you'd hate to see them use ("conservatives," or "gun owners," or "folks that criticize the judicial system"). That's why we don't give the state the discretion to decide that some people are to be treated under the assumption that they are innocent of the current charges and not others. Everyone's entitled to be treated as if they have only been accused of a crime, and not yet convicted.

DUI's are another too frequent example we hear about where some innocent family is wiped out by some guy driving drunk who has four or five prior DUI convictions. Maybe if he was still in jail waiting on trial for DUI #4, he would not have had the opportunity to commit DUI #5 where the family is killed Or Maybe that would not have saved the family but it is worth a try.

And if he was given a very long prison term for DUI #3, he also would not have been able to commit DUI #5. Or DUI #4. In this hypothetical, the driver was a danger to society the day before he was arrested for DUI #4 as he was the day after. There's a reason, though, we don't say "Hey, let's just go out and lock up for six months without charges or trial everyone who has three past DUI convictions" - even though that would be likely, statistically, to prevent a few DUI deaths. Either that extra six months of jail time should be part of their third conviction, or it has to wait until they are convicted of another crime - you don't just imprison people without a conviction because you think it will make you safer.

If you think people who have demonstrated a propensity for criminal offenses should be locked away to protect the public, that's perfectly constitutional. That's the very heart of "three strikes" laws, or sentence escalators for prior criminal conduct. Once you have determined that someone is an "established criminal predator," you can certainly take action to keep them off the streets. The point is that you get them off the streets based on a conviction, not based on a charge.

Again, that's the fundamental basis behind having a due process right to a trial - we limit the government's ability to lock you in prison based on some government official's pointing a finger at you. It's the conviction, not the allegation, that gives the government the power to lock you away.

Albaby

<<Judges should have the discretion to protect the public from established criminal predators even if the current charge is for a DUI. The word is discretion. They could still let him out on bail but that is way better than current laws which require him to let him out on bail.<<

Certainly one could argue for that, but that's not how rights really work. Once they're discretionary, they're not really rights any more. They're privileges. - albaby

-----------------------

OK. Then when does this apply if eight felonies is insufficient (the bolded part)?

In setting bail under this article, the magistrate shall impose the least restrictive conditions, if any, and the personal bond or cash or surety bond necessary to reasonably ensure the defendant's appearance in court as required and the safety of the community, law enforcement, and the victim of the alleged offense.

Then when does this apply if eight felonies is insufficient (the bolded part)?

Maybe if he had ever actually hurt someone.

I was able to find a media description of his rap sheet:

* * *

Terran Green has a criminal history that dates back to June of 2007 when he was arrested and charged for evading arrest with a motor vehicle, twice, and theft.

In December of 2011, Terran Green was charged with possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, twice.

Terran Green was then arrested in Dec. 2017 for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

He was out on a $5,000 bond after being charged with assault with a deadly weapon and felon in possession of a firearm in March of 2023.

https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2023/08/1...

* * *

Three things about that list. First, those are all charges of criminal activity that didn't result in anyone being injured (assault is the charge when you scare someone with a weapon but don't hurt them). Second, those are charges, not convictions - the media has reported that he spent time in prison, but we don't know for what. And third, those crimes were committed in three incidents across sixteen years at the time it came to set bond earlier this year.

That's not the rap sheet of a "established criminal predator." You have an 18-year-old who stole something and racked up extra counts when he ran from the cops, got busted for dealing pot, and then had an assault charge about six years after his pot bust (assuming he was convicted of all those charges). Certainly a bad criminal record, but not one that a judge can (or should) look at and say, "unless I jail him prior to trial, there's no way he goes even a few months without hurting someone." With only one violent prior? It's pretty likely that the prosecution didn't even contest bail.

If there were sensible national gun laws mandating appropriate restrictions (and their enforcement) on gun availability and possession many many fewer criminals would be able to get their hands on guns.

Why haven't the gun lobbyists pushed for such laws?
Certainly the memberships would welcome 'appropriate restrictions.'

You're missing the point'which is.... If there were sensible national gun laws mandating appropriate restrictions (and their enforcement) on gun availability and possession many many fewer criminals would be able to get their hands on guns.

One of our problems is that we are awash with guns in the USA. Gangs scour parking lots for guns. Straw buyers help feed gun pipelines from the south to the north. 400,000 stolen guns cross the border into Mexico every year and that doesn't dent the amount of guns in the USA. We have more guns than people in the USA.

Most of our murders and violence come from pistols. A good chunk of the pistols used in violence are stolen out of cars. So if we can make it harder to get the weapons that way, they will move to other methods to get guns, and make money. The right believes that any compromise on guns will lead to gun confiscation. Right or wrong - no compromise. But you can get them to agree to gun safety, and they aren't averse to gun safes at home and in cars, they just want instant access.

I can talk gun safes, biometric bedside safes, potential car gun safes and not get a rabid anti liberal reaction. But I talk tax credits for poor folk installing gun safes at home and in cars and liberals get upset - not right wingers.

There may be more things we can agree on, but that seems to be one area where we have potential agreement. Even my MAGA brother agrees.

The governments primary obligation is the safety of citizens

shameless thread hijacking: the mutual admiration and support of anti-abortion and ammosexual forces is poignant.


....The governments primary obligation is the safety of citizens ....unless you are a pregnant female, in which case if you have a problem and die, that's god's will.

DopeLie: And it's equally fascinating that the left is willing to presume that all lawful gun owners are future criminals

I get your frustration, Mike. I really do. But as albaby has explained, the Founders -rightly- were concerned about government infringing on liberties of the people. That's why we have a presumption of innocence, no matter what a person's history is. So, while I -as an individual- think Trump (for example) is guilty as hell of pretty much everything he's been indicted for, he's not going to jail until he is convicted of at least one of those crimes. Because the state simply can't do that. And I'm OK with that, even if a bit frustrated.

I don't recall now who said it, but I grew up with a quote ringing in my ears: "better one hundred guilty men go free, than one innocent man go to prison". Our Founders seem to have taken that to heart with the BoR. The price we sometimes pay is that people do get hurt by bad people because the bar for imprisoning them is very high. That also protects you and me, should either of us ever be accused of a crime.

We are somewhat unique in the world in this regard. I believe in some countries you have to prove you innocence (and not even authoritarian countries). I prefer our system, even if bad guys can end up going free (either pre-trial, or through acquittal).

I get your frustration, Mike. I really do. But as albaby has explained, the Founders -rightly- were concerned about government infringing on liberties of the people. That's why we have a presumption of innocence, no matter what a person's history is. - 1pg

I get that and agree there is a good reason for that. But it is frustrating. If you or I were accused of a violent crime, I think it is clear we deserve the benefit of the doubt more than some twenty year career criminal with multiple convictions for inflicting serious bodily damage and has now been arrested for another such violent crime. That is all I am saying. Temper the presumption of innocence somehow or at least give judges the option.



I don't recall now who said it, but I grew up with a quote ringing in my ears: "better one hundred guilty men go free, than one innocent man go to prison". Our Founders seem to have taken that to heart with the BoR. - 1pg

Is society better served if those 100 guilty parties go on to commit another 1,000 crimes including battery, rape or murder of 100 innocent citizens? And I am not saying, treat the accused as guilty but rather protect the public by detaining them until their trial. Speeding up the criminal process would help too.

Speaking of the Bill of Rights, we have learned these rights are not absolute, eg regulations on gun ownership, the right to vote being stripped from convicted felons, the yelling fire in a theater example concerning freedom of speech, and the latest stripping people of their right to attend church due to the covid emergency. So why can't the presumption of innocence be suspended until trial for someone whose record includes five, ten, twenty (you pick a number) of convictions for violent crimes AND has been charged with yet another violent crime, or as I have said at least give the judge the option to do so.

The system is imperfect, but just go live in a different country for a while that doesn't have these protections, or they exist only on paper. But don't FAFO, just watch. There's an Australian who's been in jail over 10 years in the Philippines and hasn't been brought to trial. They've had hearings, but no trial. If I wasn't convinced he was guilty I'd really feel sorry for him. I kept squeaky clean in the Philippines. I didn't want to be on the inside depending on people outside to look out for me and bring me real food. Due process - at least you get to plea bargain if you're poor. Right to an atty, speedy trial, presumption of innocence, confront witnesses - all those become precious when you don't have them. And the prisons are terrible - ours aren't the best, but we aren't the worst.

Speaking of the Bill of Rights, we have learned these rights are not absolute,

Who is we? Are you pretending here Mike? How can you grow up in the USA and not know they aren't absolute. All rights exist in tension with other rights (Albaby quot - tipping hat) :) . Every once in a while we actually learn about someone who got into the system, was never tried for years and died in jail - or something similar. But they're usually black Mike, so we don't have to worry as much, do we?

Every once in a while we actually learn about someone who got into the system, was never tried for years and died in jail - or something similar. - Lapsody

And much more frequently we hear about some innocent citizen being beaten or killed by some criminal with ten convictions for serious violent crimes who is presently out on bail for a similar violent offense.

But they're usually black Mike, so we don't have to worry as much, do we?

Nothing to with it, and you are better than that to make such an accusation.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.