Random Thursday Morning Thoughts

Still true. 

---

• I don't know how you could drop your kids off at school yesterday without crying. 
• No one wants to say it, but it is becoming clear that the police response in Uvalde may have left something to be desired.  It didn't help that DPS Director Steve McCraw stammered and contradicted prior DPS spokesmen yesterday at the massive press conference.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• After crashing the truck, the shooter made his way onto the school property and "encountered" an officer. That officer was "wounded" but did not return fire. We know the shooter dropped a backpack at this point. I keep seeing this overhead shot of what looks like blood on the sidewalk and a backpack nearby. I have no idea if that is the scene of the first encounter. 
  
  
  
• We've got some footage of the shooter outside of the school all dressed in black and carrying the rifle. That's a man clearly with bad intentions. 
  
  
  
• He then entered the school and encountered two more officers. They fired and were possibly wounded in an exchange of gunfire. (But even this isn't 100% confirmed.)
• The shooter then makes his way into a classroom, which was connected by an inner door to another classroom, and barricades himself. There he massacres 19 kids and two teachers while police, contrary to what DPS had reported, waited a very, very long time (40 to 60 minutes) to enter the classroom. It sounds like they were gathering and assembling a "swat" like team during that time -- a team which probably was composed primarily of border agents. 
  
  
  
  
  
• Outside, parents yelled at police to enter.  Fox 4 News was even showing video of this this morning.   Edit: Here it is. 
  

• The small Uvalde PD somehow has its own SWAT team. I have no idea where it was.
  
  
  
• Look, this is tough. It might have been split second decisions with split second mistakes. But if there is security footage of all of this, I bet it won't be good. 
• Greg Abbott was horrible in his press conference yesterday in his attempt to try to relay facts. He shocked everyone by saying the shooter "posted on Facebook" (video cued up) 30 minutes before the murders that "I'm going to shoot my grandmother", then had a "second post" of "I shot my grandmother",  and then another one less than 15 minutes before the mass murder of "I'm going to shoot an elementary school."  And while the shooter did say that, it is false that he posted the messages on Facebook. They weren't public posts on Facebook for all to see -- and potentially react to -- but instead were private messages sent to a 15 year old girl in Germany.  All major news agencies ran with the "posted on Facebook" story before Facebook itself issued a press notice that it wasn't true. (The girl in Germany had already come forward with the texts.)
  
  
  
• Abbott also had two other questionable statements during his dog and pony show.
• "It could have been worse."
• What a horrible thing to say and, at this point, I'm not sure that's even true.
• As to whether he will attend the NRA convention, he said he hadn't decided because “I’m living moment to moment right now.”
• Good god. I know 21 people that aren't living moment to moment. 
• Beto interrupted Abbott's press conference after Abbott had concluded his remarks.
  
  
  
• Some critics call it a publicity stunt, and it may very well have been, but he was interrupting a publicity stunt. Every single guy on that stage is clowning us. They know they will never do anything about dead children, but they do this grandiose press conference to create the illusion that they care.
  
  
  
• And they seemed to be more upset and have a greater reaction to Beto than the slaughter of babies. 
• Based upon their deer-in-headlights reaction to an unexpected speaker, I don't think they would handle an active shooter situation very well.
• My favorite part was Abbott's DPS lapdog Steve McCraw sitting on his hands and oddly smacking his lips when it went down. Have I mentioned he makes $299,813 a year?
  
  
  
• After two years of nutcases screaming at school boards over masks and CRT, Beto looked downright reasonable. 
• Ted Cruz has a plan! Have just "one door"!
  
  
  
• Follow the money.  And he's still on the NRA's schedule this weekend.  
  
  
  
• I've always had an interest in front pages. 
  
  
  
• Four days, three purchases. Two AR-15 rifles and 375 rounds of ammo. All right after turning 18 years old.
  
  
  
  
• From Uvalde Police Department's Facebook page:
  
  
  
• Yep. She was one of the victims.
  
  
  
• Before the Miami Heat game last night and after the moment of silence, the PA Announcer urged voters to call the Senate switchboard and to vote to "make changes at the ballot box." (Video) The crowd roared.
  
  
  
• I'm on the verge of conceding the United States is not on a sustainable path. 

Random Wednesday Morning Thoughts

Sandy Hook was not exactly 10 years ago. December 14, 2012 to be exact. But you get the point. 

---

• Again, indeed.
  
  
  
• At least 19 dead children. 2 dead teachers. And nothing will change.  I've said it before: If 20 dead children at Sandy Hook didn't give America a wake up call, nothing will. And, sadly, this won't either. 
• DPS said this morning the dead children were all in the same 4th grade classroom. I'm sick. 
• DPS also said this morning that it was an AR-15 "style" weapon used by the 18 year old shooter. He bought two of them on his 18th birthday according to his now deleted Instagram account. It was easy. That weapon of death should sound familiar. It's always an AR-15.
  


• Well armed, the teenage killer fought his way into the school.  Credit to the DPS spokesman for being so candid with Anderson Cooper last night. 
  
• Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, and Greg Abbott are scheduled to be there, too.
  
  
   
  

  
• They should be playing and laughing today. Instead their parents are shopping for little coffins.  
• Xavier Lopez, 10
  
  
  
• Oh, there's more. Many more. Don't look away.
• Mekenna Lee Elrod, 10.
  
  
  
  
• Uziyah Garcia, 10
  
  
  
• Nevaeh Bravo, 4th grader
  
  
  
• Amerie Jo Garza, 10
  
  
  
  
  
• Maite Yuleana Rodriguez, 10
  
  
  
• Ellie Garcia, 4th Grader
  
  
  
• Tess Mata, 4th Grader
  
  
  
• Annabelle Guadalupe Rodriguez, 10
  
  
  
• Alithia Ramirez, 10
  
  
  
• Jayce Carmelo Luevanos, 10
  
  
  
• Jailah Nicole Silguero, 11
  
  
  
• Miranda Mathis, 11
  
  
  
• Elijah Cruz Torres, 10
  
  
  
• Alexandria “Lexi” Aniyah Rubio, 10
  
  
  
• Jose Flores, 10
  
  
  
• Rogelio Torres, 10. Difference maker.
  
  
  
• Eva Mireles, 4th grade teacher
  
  
  
• Irma Garcia, 4th grade teacher
  
  
  

Nothing else matters today.

Random Tuesday Morning Thoughts

Are schools still doing the "Every 15 Minutes" program? That pic was from Bridgeport's version 10 years ago. 

---

•  In addition to the run-offs in Texas, the Georgia primaries are today.
• Incumbent Gov. Kemp, who refused to overturn the 2020 vote, should win over Trump recruited opponent David Perdue.  (Mike Pence was in town campaigning for Kemp last night.) 
  
  
  
• Incumbent Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, who refused to overturn the 2020 vote by refusing to "find 11,780 votes", should win over a Trump recruited challenger.
• Senate candidate and former football star Herschel Walker, who lied about graduating from the University of Georgia and is dogged by domestic abuse allegations, is expected to win because stuff like that doesn't matter any more. 
  
  
  
• Wise County may have the worst Congressional representative we've ever had in Ronny Jackson. First the Inspector General of the Department of Defense found that he made sexual comments, drank alcohol and took Ambien while working as White House physician,  then the January 6th Committee wants to talk to him about why the Oath Keepers were looking for him to protect him him during the attack on the Capitol, and now we have a new ethics investigation. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• That's what I guessed was behind the three deaths. 
  
  
  
• This will be built at the corner of the North Dallas Tollway and Highway 380. 
  
  
  
• Dear Jack in the Box in Decatur: It's about time you get that sign fixed. That bugs me.  
  
  
  
• Warning. Nerdy legal stuff. Stay with me here. I'm trying to do a Supreme Court explainer.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Yesterday the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence of two men. For the sake of simplicity, I'll just refer to it as one case involving a guy named Ramirez.  
• This is important. The rules for appeals in death penalty cases in general are this: 
• (1) You have State Action #1 where you have on appeal "straight up" to the appellate courts in the state where you were convicted at trial where the lawyer normally argues about trial errors, then . . .
• (2) once that is over and there was no success, you have State Action #2 called the "post conviction habeas action" can be brought in state court again. This is normally where an ineffective assistance of counsel is normally brought -- that is, a claim that the defense lawyer during the first trial was very, very bad. You've got a right to bring in new evidence of bad lawyering (for example, failure to present mitigating evidence or, worse, evidence that he defendant was actually innocent), and after that . . .  
• (3) if you lose the state habeas action, you can file a different post conviction habeas action in federal court, I'll call it Federal Action #3, saying the state court got its review of the state court post conviction habeas Action #2 wrong. 
• So there is a #1 state court direct appeal, a #2 state habeas action, and a #3 federal  habeas action. 
• This case will involve the the third one: the federal court post conviction habeas and what can happen in it. And this is important, too: Ramirez had three different lawyers in all three proceedings. 
• In the case decided yesterday, Ramirez had followed those rules and in action #3 (the federal habeas action) he had said the state court had wrongly held against him when it decided his action #2 (the state habeas) where he had alleged ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Got that? He had urged in federal district court that the state got it wrong in Action #2 when it found that the he did not receive ineffective assistance at trial. Moreover, and this is the key, he had brought in new evidence in federal district court that showed how the lawyer at trial screwed up.  That is, he had in fact presented new evidence of ineffective assistance in federal court in action #3 that a different lawyer had failed to bring up in the state habeas action #2. 
• The Supreme Court was asked to decide that question: In the federal habeas action #3, can the defendants do just that, to-wit: bring in new evidence of ineffective assistance that should have been brought up in the state court habeas action #2?
• The Supreme Court said no. You are stuck with the record of any evidence of ineffective assistance that was brought up in state action #2, the state court habeas. You cannot bring in more evidence in action #3, the federal habeas action.
• But wait, doesn't that mean that if a defendant actual had two bad lawyers, ineffective at trial AND ineffective assistance in state habeas action #2 for not bringing in evidence about how bad the trial lawyer was, that he's screwed? That is, you can be entitled to a new trial if you have an ineffective trial lawyer but not if you have an ineffective state habeas action #2 lawyer who failed to bring in evidence that the trial lawyer was ineffective? Yep, that's what the Supreme Court said.  
• But why that result? You can read the opinion but your eyes will start glaze over because that's what's hard about reading Supreme Court opinions. They always go off into some meandering prose which make you (1) think you no longer understand what the case is all about, or (2) want to scream "Get to the point!"
• The problem is "the point" is generally very underwhelming. And here was the meat of it from Justice Thomas (no surprise) which basically reveals his love affair with the states over the federal government.
  
  
  
• Unwavering respect? An affront to the State? Puhleeeze. It's just "states' rights" in a different form. Anyone care about just getting it right? 
• But there was a hidden shocker in a footnote.  The defendant had a back up plan. He had anticipated the Supreme Court might rule that no new evidence can be presented in federal court in action #3, so he argued a well established rule that says the State had lost their chance to complain about it. That is, Ramirez said that when he introduced new evidence of ineffective assistance at the federal district court, the State failed to object. The government thought it was ok.  So under well established rules, the State should have "forfeited" the exact claim they made before the Supreme Court that new evidence should not have been presented. It's called the forfeiture doctrine. So let's see how the Supreme Court handled that. Oh, my!: 
  
  
  
• So the bottom line is that the defendant is stuck with bad lawyers whose mistakes resulted in a death sentence, but if the State has bad lawyers who didn't object to the new evidence at the federal district court level, then the Supreme Court will "forgive" that mistake. 
• Sorry about the legal stuff. It sucks me in once I get started.