Is this justice???

[wes4dbt]

I was curious how this case would turn out. https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/...181400954.html

Not sure how I feel about it. I'm all for police officer accountability. But then there has also got to be some responsibility put on the person resisting arrest and the danger to the officers.

If she actually shot him just because he was trying to get away, then the verdict makes sense. But if it was a true accident then it seems to harsh. I guess only she knows for sure. I guess my biggest concern is we might try to make up for past injustices by over prosecuting officers. I don't know that this is the case here. But I do think more accountability is necessary. This case seems hard to judge what is the proper punishment.

[dday9]

I will preface this post by claiming that I am a person who is very critical of police and acknowledge that I have a very large prejudice against the police and more broadly the state.

What makes this verdict difficult for me is that if you compare it to other, more recent events, then it seems like this is an over-correction. Sort of like in the NFL when the referees don't call a blatant penalty and then make it up on the next play.

This does not seem like a situation of an overzealous police officer that is abusing their position of power. This seems like a situation where the young man was clearly resisting and the officer made a tragic mistake.

To me, there are three reasons why someone is forced into the criminal justice system: to be rehabilitated, to be punished, and/or to be excluded from society. I think that this is a situation where it is clear that the state will be "punishing" the officer for her mistake. I don't think we can judge if justice is served until we see the sentencing.

It looks like Minnesota has mandatory minimum sentencing for 1st and 2nd degree manslaughter, though I could be wrong. If there is a mandatory minimum then I'd say that justice is most likely not going to served, it would likely be overkill for the situation. But if I'm wrong and there is no mandatory minimum sentence then I think justice would be served if she gets 1-2.5 years and the family is allowed to sue the police department for monetary compensation for their loss.

[Niya]

I feel it for her if this was an honest mistake. Nevertheless, I feel that justice was served here. It must be made very clear that a human life is too valuable to be so careless.

[Elroy]

I'll tell ya', I'm a (modern day) Yellow Dog Democrat, but this one is far from black-and-white for me. If you watch all the videos and learn all the facts you can about both of them, this one is tough. I'm a bit shocked that it wasn't a hung jury.

I'm not saying that this is a direct analogy, but ... if I'm driving and start sliding on ice and jump the curb and kill someone (human life and all), should I spend 5 years in prison? Should I go to prison at all? Did I commit a crime?

But, I should probably back away from this discussion before I get too worked up, being a public forum and all.

[Steve R Jones]

Rumor has it she'll get fifteen years...

I am/was/still deciding that I'm a big time friend of the Police.... I spent eight years doing volunteer work for my local PD back in Texas... While I was there, the City had their first "Killed in the Line of Duty Officer." He was on the swat team and was the first guy through the door. So yes, I have a new found respect for what they do....BUT!

I've recently gotten hooked on watching First Amendment Auditor type of videos. A lot of these videos show the worst of the worst when it comes to Officers.... Many of the Auditors could be a lot better...but when the cops get upset and beat up someone that wasn't doing anything illegal... that's another story.

[wes4dbt]

Rumor has it she'll get fifteen years...

I am/was/still deciding that I'm a big time friend of the Police.... I spent eight years doing volunteer work for my local PD back in Texas... While I was there, the City had their first "Killed in the Line of Duty Officer." He was on the swat team and was the first guy through the door. So yes, I have a new found respect for what they do....BUT!

I've recently gotten hooked on watching First Amendment Auditor type of videos. A lot of these videos show the worst of the worst when it comes to Officers.... Many of the Auditors could be a lot better...but when the cops get upset and beat up someone that wasn't doing anything illegal... that's another story.

Yeah, that's what makes this case so unclear. Intentional or unintentional? Maybe that's not the real question, even if it's unintentional, does a police officer have an obligation to not make that mistake. As I said originally, I'm not sure what to think.

btw - I support the police and most are true public servants but I also think that to often the bad officers have been given a free pass. I'm not even sure there are that many "bad" officers, sometimes it just feels like some are poorly trained or just shouldn't have been accepted in the first place.

[Elroy]

Ok, I'll stick my neck out and say a bit more.

Ok, I'm certainly not an advocate for "defund the police". But sure, I could get behind lots of re-training, or even (through a well thought out process) make them all re-apply for their jobs with more rigorous hire criteria. But I don't think I want to live in a society without police.

Having said all that, here's what I'm afraid of ... with this verdict, are police officers just going to quit doing their job? Say, they make a speeding stop and the guy starts giving them a hard time ... are they just going to say "get going fella, I don't want to mess with you" instead of doing due diligence? Are they just going to drag their feet (taking longer to respond to needed situations) to avoid having to get into a potential shoot-out situation? That's all pretty scary to me.

Am I somehow looking at this all wrong?

[Steve R Jones]

A lot of people are starting to question the sanity of the Daunte Wright deal... He had a tail light out AND an air freshener hanging from his mirror.... Now he's dead... A citation in the mail could have done the trick.

On the other hand, he had warrants outstanding... Had he NOT try to flee from THREE Officers - he'd be a live. Who tries to flee from three armed officers?

[Shaggy Hiker]

One issue I always come back to is: I wouldn't want to be a police officer.

They occasionally get to do good things, they occasionally get to help people, but they also get to see people at their worst...a whole lot. That has got to twist you, over time. Who would want to do that job? It may be one of those things where a lot of people who want the job are the kinds of people we don't want in the job. A lot likely fail the requirements, but some do get through. I know at least one person who became a police officer, but his whole life leading up to that suggested he wasn't the kind of person you'd want to have a badge.

There are a few careers where, if you want it, you probably shouldn't have it. The police seem like one, to me. On the other hand, some people join the force because of family, or some positive interaction in their youth, or things like that. It still seems like a job that will twist you, over time.

[Steve R Jones]

The scary part are cops that were bullied as a kid and look for paybacks with the gun and badge.

I did an 8 hour ride along a few years ago. I did 2 to 10pm on a Friday. Here's a short list of things we did:

1. Helped stranded motorist that broke down in the middle of the Interstate.
2. Went to a large drug bust (after the fact) and hauled in a prisoner.
3. Went to two separate fender benders. These tied us up for an hour each. Ridiculous waste of time.
4. Setup radar trap in school zone. Officer said he was shocked we that he wrote 5 speeding tickets. He normally gets people talking on phones.

5. Went to a real simple fender bender. Little old lady rear ended another guy... She was all but hysterical and probably too old to drive.... We spent 20 minutes and followed her home to make sure she was safe....And that was in a different City... Have to say it made my little heart go pitter patter to see the cop help her like this.

On a related note, most of the cops I've met really and truly want to solve crimes. But, 95% of their patrol time is controlled by 9-1-1 calls that come in...

[wes4dbt]

One issue I always come back to is: I wouldn't want to be a police officer.

Me either. I'd be a terrible officer. I don't possess the right personality or communication skills. I'm grateful for the people that take on this responsibility. Well, most of them.

[TysonLPrice]

I'm not saying that this is a direct analogy, but ... if I'm driving and start sliding on ice and jump the curb and kill someone (human life and all), should I spend 5 years in prison? Should I go to prison at all? Did I commit a crime?

Accident...yes. But, hypothetically, why were you driving in those conditions? Were you going too fast? Were you tuning the radio when you started sliding?

My point is it was an accident and it would be tragic if someone was killed. But if that person died under circumstances you created, even with good intentions, then you can be held responsible. That is what the jury has to decide based on the charges brought. Now that decision has been made and the law needs to be applied. No matter how sorry she is.

Here is that scenario going way too far though...this guy got 110 years in prison for failed brakes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...-truck-driver/

There is a sub story about the prosecution but my point is that is taking manslaughter too far. But I guess they were locked into that sentencing.

In both cases I can see standing back and saying "come on - they didn't mean it". In one, the cop, I agree she should pay for her mistake even though many would say she was just doing her job in a stressful situation. For the the truck driver that sentence is going too far in my opinion.

So I think the jury has to come back with a verdict on the charges, not if the defendant meant it or not. The grand jury usually decides if a jury even sees it in the first place. But sometime it just defies "common sense".

[TysonLPrice]

Yeah, that's what makes this case so unclear. Intentional or unintentional? Maybe that's not the real question, even if it's unintentional, does a police officer have an obligation to not make that mistake. As I said originally, I'm not sure what to think.

btw - I support the police and most are true public servants but I also think that to often the bad officers have been given a free pass. I'm not even sure there are that many "bad" officers, sometimes it just feels like some are poorly trained or just shouldn't have been accepted in the first place.

I'm not going to express an opinion on "bad or good" cops but what really has made a HUGE difference on the perception of policing in this country is cell phones. There is a camera on just about every square inch of of society now. For every outrageous shooting nationalized there were probably hundreds swept under the rug before cellphones. All it took was the cop(s) word and a shooting could be called "justified" and not investigated. Cameras on police vests also shed a light on that and I think improve behavior.

I also support the local police in what is often a very thankless job.

[TysonLPrice]

Just a side post: Not responding to any particular post but just commenting on the thread title "Is This Justice???" there is also the aspect of how "justice" can depend on your position; both socially and economically. If you are white and wealthy your "justice" will be more "favorable" then if you were not. If you are a connected politician you will receive "considerations" as long as it stays out of the news. If you are poor, and especially not white, and are using a public defender, see you in 10 to 20.

[TysonLPrice]

There is a post here that got me thinking and this is a true story that happened within miles of where I live. It was a decade or so ago and I tried to find it before posting but couldn't.

A police officer was directing traffic around a big accident and was killed by a speeding hit-and-run driver. It was a really big deal at the time and there was a large search for damaged vehicles, body shops, and daily news coverage every where across the state.

A few months later a letter was published in the local paper by someone that identified himself as the driver. I'm not sure why the police released it other than last attempts to hope identify the person. At any rate, and this is my point, the driver said it was an accident and he didn't see any point in him going to prison for it. He expressed remorse and sorrow.

So here is my question...would justice have been served with him going to prison? I can see closure for the family, the debt to society and the payment to out social contracts. But if there is true sorrow and regret was he right in setting his own "sentence"? If he is in his own "personal" prison is that justice. I'm just playing the devil's advocate for posting sake.

[wes4dbt]

Here is that scenario going way too far though...this guy got 110 years in prison for failed brakes:

This is an example of over zealous prosecution, IMO. I haven't been following this closely so there may be some aspects I don't know. But the prosecution main evidence was the drive went passed a truck runaway exit. There are many reasons that could have happened, none of which are intentional or disregard public safety. But by the prosecution bringing so many charges against the driver, once he was found guilty, this is what happened. It was a tragic wreck but I don't see how this is justice.

In the police officers case, it may also be the same situation. Was 1st and 2nd degree manslaughter the proper charges?

So here is my question...would justice have been served with him going to prison? I can see closure for the family, the debt to society and the payment to out social contracts. But if there is true sorrow and regret was he right in setting his own "sentence"? If he is in his own "personal" prison is that justice. I'm just playing the devil's advocate for posting sake.

If your asking if it's appropriate for someone to be there own judge and jury, then I'd say no. This person said it was an accident, I doubt he would say he did it on purpose. Even if it was an accident, that doesn't mean he wasn't negligent. Car related homicides have been a legal grey area for a long time. Drunk drivers that kill someone would hardly get punished. I mean after all, he's not a criminal, it was an accident. That has started to change, that truck driver case is an example.

[Steve R Jones]

"Failure to stop and render aide" laws were written for a reason. And if the person was intoxicated he/she would benefit from not admitting that in the letter. Getting to play the part of Judge and Jury in their own accidental MISTAKE would take some heavy duty thinking....

Speaking of videos.... I saw two real life videos that were part of the local PD training..

First video shows a setting in a store parking lot.... We see what looks like a cop shooting a guy in the back...that was running away.... It was a stomach turning video and your gut reaction is that we just witnessed a murder by a Police Officer. GUILTY is the only verdict...

Second video is the same scene but from a different angle and it started sooner. In this video we see the bad guy raise his gun first and fire it at the Officers head... barley missing it.... Then it shows the officer shooting the guy as he is running away. Job well done comes to mind here.

These videos redefined the old saying about there are always two sides to every story.

[jg.sa]

G'Day Guys

If you search the text on this page I cannot find the No. '26', this is the number of years of experience for this officer

My X worked for Queensland Police and now AFP and she always said once you have 10 years+ experience you are across all the training you received at copper refinery.

So I know how tuff a job it is being a Police Officer.

We have had similar incidents in Oz were a female officer drew glock not taser and a male died !!!

Notice she declared 'Taser Taser Taser' as per her training in the vid.

The only people who are happy with this outcome are the 'lawyers' who get to appeal. In Oz solicitors have a min. hourly rate, so for someone like me with 10 years experience installing legal practice accounting / management systems I really do not like 'lawyers' due to the pressure they put me under to help them make more $$$s while exploiting the legal system and their clients.

[FunkyDexter]

Yes, it's justice. She was convicted of manslaughter, not murder, so her intent to kill does not come into it. At the very least, her negligence cost a human life, that's manslaughter.

On the question of intent, I'm honestly split. Watching the footage she does call taser, taser, taser and her reaction looks very genuine to me. Both of those speak to this being accidental on her part. On the other hand, I really struggle to believe that a 26 year veteran police officer could fail to tell the difference between a taser and a gun (they are deliberately designed to feel different, they have a different weight and grip shape and are carried on the opposite hip). That speaks of a deliberate act to me. So I honestly don't know and wouldn't like to make a call on her intent. However, that indecision does not remove the clear negligence in this case.

Someone mentioned defunding the police. I think that's often miss-understood. nobody (well, apart from a few crackpots) is calling for all funding to be removed from the police to the point where they cease to function. The call is for funding to be reduced and reallocated to more preventative social programmes. It's really just a reallocation of priorities and I think there's merit in that but I actually don't agree with it. I think the impetus should be to de-militarise the police. When you're local police force are deploying military hardware that's indicative of an underlying problem. It encourages bad actors into the service and it alienates them from the people they're supposed to be protecting. But de-militarising will require substantial re-training and that costs money which is why I don't support de-funding even though I think your police force is heavily overfunded. Instead I believe those funds need to be re-allocated internally to support changing priorities and then possibly reduced later once the changes have been effected.

Drunk drivers that kill someone would hardly get punished.

Is that true? It meets the definition of second degree manslaughter and certainly should be prosecuted in my opinion.

[Shaggy Hiker]

she always said once you have 10 years+ experience you are across all the training you received at copper refinery.

And...did you understand her, or just look at her funny? That statement doesn't mean a thing to me.

As for the drunk driving. It used to be not so much a thing. It sure is now.

[dday9]

Is that true? It meets the definition of second degree manslaughter and certainly should be prosecuted in my opinion.

I remember growing up that drunk driving was mostly pushed under the rug. It wasn't until Mothers Against Driving Drunk's campaign started seeing legislative results that you saw stricter prosecution of drunk driving. But vehicular manslaughter was always a mandatory minimum 3 years in Louisiana or 5 years if it is a repeated DUI offense.

This is just what I experienced growing up: driving drunk was mostly fine, but as soon as you killed someone then you were harshly penalized. However, today in 2021 even drunk drivers are severely punished.

[TysonLPrice]

I remember growing up that drunk driving was mostly pushed under the rug. It wasn't until Mothers Against Driving Drunk's campaign started seeing legislative results that you saw stricter prosecution of drunk driving. But vehicular manslaughter was always a mandatory minimum 3 years in Louisiana or 5 years if it is a repeated DUI offense.

This is just what I experienced growing up: driving drunk was mostly fine, but as soon as you killed someone then you were harshly penalized. However, today in 2021 even drunk drivers are severely punished.

It was around 1976 or so and I got pulled over for speeding and it was obvious I was drinking. The cop made me lock up the car and gave me a ride home.

[wes4dbt]

Yes, it's justice. She was convicted of manslaughter, not murder, so her intent to kill does not come into it. At the very least, her negligence cost a human life, that's manslaughter.

That's an over simplification. It ignores the different degrees of manslaughter and the difference in sentences.

[wes4dbt]

On the question of intent, I'm honestly split. Watching the footage she does call taser, taser, taser and her reaction looks very genuine to me. Both of those speak to this being accidental on her part. On the other hand, I really struggle to believe that a 26 year veteran police officer could fail to tell the difference between a taser and a gun (they are deliberately designed to feel different, they have a different weight and grip shape and are carried on the opposite hip). That speaks of a deliberate act to me. So I honestly don't know and wouldn't like to make a call on her intent. However, that indecision does not remove the clear negligence in this case.

Yeah I also feel it's a very hard call. High stress can effect you dramatically(it definitely effected my ability to feel, it was 5mins after I was in a fight, I was driving my car before I noticed that my thumb was pointing in the wrong direction) but it does seem strange she didn't know the difference between the feel of a taser and a gun. But that does seem more reasonable than in the heat of the moment she concocted a plan to yell taser, taser, taser and then knowingly shoot him. But obviously the jury disagrees. Or maybe they feel a person in her position is not allowed to make that mistake. Something made them believe it was 1st degree manslaughter.

[wes4dbt]

I remember growing up that drunk driving was mostly pushed under the rug. It wasn't until Mothers Against Driving Drunk's campaign started seeing legislative results that you saw stricter prosecution of drunk driving. But vehicular manslaughter was always a mandatory minimum 3 years in Louisiana or 5 years if it is a repeated DUI offense.

This is just what I experienced growing up: driving drunk was mostly fine, but as soon as you killed someone then you were harshly penalized. However, today in 2021 even drunk drivers are severely punished.

I'm not sure what the mandatory vehicular manslaughter laws were in the past here in Ca. But they were weakly enforced, still even getting 3yrs and your out in 18months seems pretty minimal for killing someone. MADD has brought this injustice into public view and probably is the major reason for the changes to the laws and attitudes.

[Steve R Jones]

MADD's National Head Quarters is in my Home Town. (Irving Texas)

I talked to an attorney once who had a Pilot from a major airlines as a client.... His DUI case had been pushed out so far it was five years before the trial. The original cop was long gone and the District Attorney was certain the Pilot would get off... But since MADD's HQ was so close by - they had to go to trial anyway and waste tax dollars...

But all in all - I like MADD.

[FunkyDexter]

driving drunk was mostly fine, but as soon as you killed someone then you were harshly penalized

That sounds similar to the UK in the 70s and 80s. Prosecutions started tightening up after that and have continued to do so. Now we take driving while texting seriously which is a far healthier situation I think.

It ignores the different degrees of manslaughter and the difference in sentences.

I don't think it does. The difference between 1st and 2nd degree manslaughter is whether there was an intent to cause harm (so first degree applies if you get into a fight and accidentally kill someone whereas second degree applies if you fed someone some bad fugu). I think that clearly applies in this case as, at the very least, she was trying to taser him. I believe the only defence that would drop it to second degree would be if she was doing it in defence of herself or (as a police officer) others and I don't think that applies here as there was nobody in imminent danger. The most you be able to squeeze out of this would be to drop it from first to second if you apply that defence VERY liberally (i.e. argue that the danger didn't have to be imminent and he might have hurt someone had he been allowed to drive away) but it's not going to avoid second degree manslaughter at the very least. Some level of manslaughter charge is going to apply and I think the case that it shouldn't be first degree is very hard to make.

[wes4dbt]

I don't think it does. The difference between 1st and 2nd degree manslaughter is whether there was an intent to cause harm (so first degree applies if you get into a fight and accidentally kill someone whereas second degree applies if you fed someone some bad fugu). I think that clearly applies in this case as, at the very least, she was trying to taser him. I believe the only defence that would drop it to second degree would be if she was doing it in defence of herself or (as a police officer) others and I don't think that applies here as there was nobody in imminent danger. The most you be able to squeeze out of this would be to drop it from first to second if you apply that defence VERY liberally (i.e. argue that the danger didn't have to be imminent and he might have hurt someone had he been allowed to drive away) but it's not going to avoid second degree manslaughter at the very least. Some level of manslaughter charge is going to apply and I think the case that it shouldn't be first degree is very hard to make.

You believe that 1st degree manslaughter a fair verdict, maybe 2nd degree but it's a fine line so your OK with either. That's a fair enough opinion.

[wes4dbt]

MADD's National Head Quarters is in my Home Town. (Irving Texas)

That's interesting. Texas had a reputation of being very liberal when it came to drinking and driving. Wasn't it legal to actually be drinking while driving up until the 80's or 90's. Or is that just urban legend? went to visit my dad once when he was living in Texas but he lived in a dry county. Which was amazing considering his drinking habits. But the county line as 10min away where there was a drive thru liquor store, just pull up and they would come out and take your order. lol

[TysonLPrice]

That's interesting. Texas had a reputation of being very liberal when it came to drinking and driving. Wasn't it legal to actually be drinking while driving up until the 80's or 90's. Or is that just urban legend? went to visit my dad once when he was living in Texas but he lived in a dry county. Which was amazing considering his drinking habits. But the county line as 10min away where there was a drive thru liquor store, just pull up and they would come out and take your order. lol

That reminds me of a joke I heard when living in the deep south...what is the difference between a Baptist and a deep water Baptist? The deep water Baptist drives to the next county for booze.

[wes4dbt]

I don't think it does. The difference between 1st and 2nd degree manslaughter is whether there was an intent to cause harm (so first degree applies if you get into a fight and accidentally kill someone whereas second degree applies if you fed someone some bad fugu). I think that clearly applies in this case as, at the very least, she was trying to taser him. I believe the only defence that would drop it to second degree would be if she was doing it in defence of herself or (as a police officer) others and I don't think that applies here as there was nobody in imminent danger. The most you be able to squeeze out of this would be to drop it from first to second if you apply that defence VERY liberally (i.e. argue that the danger didn't have to be imminent and he might have hurt someone had he been allowed to drive away) but it's not going to avoid second degree manslaughter at the very least. Some level of manslaughter charge is going to apply and I think the case that it shouldn't be first degree is very hard to make.

I think when is it legally justified to use force, like a taser, is a hard topic to define. Your view seems to be "imminent danger" is required. Otherwise is you taser someone and they die, that's manslaughter. But imminent danger is also hard to define clearly. If a bank robber (who tossed his gun away) is resisting arrest and trying to flee or someone caught with a ounce of cocaine flees, is tasering them Ok? Is that imminent danger?

This traffic stop doesn't raise to the level of imminent danger. But the opposing views can swing to "just don't resist arrest". This seemly lack of clarity puts police officers and the public in a dangerous situation.

Glad I'm not a cop or criminal.

Edit: I'm bored so I thought I'd drone on some more on this subject.

At most I see 2nd degree manslaughter. I see no intent, a taser is consider non lethal and I think it was an accident. At the least, she should loose her job and a settlement in civil court. But that just an opinion

The big issue to me is putting an office in prison for 15yrs because of an accident. I had no problem with the Floyd verdict, he might not have meant to kill him but he was using excessive force and it wasn't by accident. I worry where this type of verdict leads. If an unarmed suspect tries to resist arrest and during the struggle dies, for what ever reason (heart attack, falls and hits his head, gets hit by a bus.....) and that's manslaughter, I don't see how the police are going to be able to make arrests or want to. Why risk going to jail.

[TysonLPrice]

Glad I'm not a cop or criminal.

If you are a cop at least you get paid...because crime doesn't.

[Steve R Jones]

That's interesting. Texas had a reputation of being very liberal when it came to drinking and driving. Wasn't it legal to actually be drinking while driving up until the 80's or 90's. Or is that just urban legend? went to visit my dad once when he was living in Texas but he lived in a dry county. Which was amazing considering his drinking habits. But the county line as 10min away where there was a drive thru liquor store, just pull up and they would come out and take your order. lol

Texas has been a RED/Conservative State forever. It is rather lax on gun control but has an extremely high Death Penalty rate....

Good old Irving still doesn't sell beer or wine at stores...only restaurants. But the Dallas border is too, just a few minutes away.... Many of us cut our teeth via the drive thru Hamburger joints that carried beer out to the car.

[dday9]

Many of us cut our teeth via the drive thru Hamburger joints that carried beer out to the car.

The market provides

[Shaggy Hiker]

That reminds me of a joke I heard when living in the deep south...what is the difference between a Baptist and a deep water Baptist? The deep water Baptist drives to the next county for booze.

Out here, we collided all our Baptists with Anabaptists, which emitted a Methodist and two Mormons. Particle physics is weird, but religious particle physics is even weirder.

[Shaggy Hiker]

In New Hampshire there's a liquor store in a rest stop between the lanes of the interstate that comes up from Massachusetts. They have higher taxes...we had the willingness, and ability, to sell them liquor on the interstate.

[wes4dbt]

Texas has been a RED/Conservative State forever.

Not as much as you might think. Texas had a Democratic Governor from 1874 - 1987. 113 straight years. The Republicans have been in office since 1995. The presidential vote in 2020 was 52 to 48%. Funny how things cycle.

[dday9]

Louisiana was a Democrat stronghold for years. Famously we had a convicted felon (Edwin Edwards - D, for fraud) and a former KKK grand wizard (David Duke - R) in a race for governor. The unofficial slogan was “vote for the lizard, not the wizard.”

Then in the early 2000s it became a Republican stronghold. Now we have a Democrat governor and Republican state legislature.

Odd how that it cycles like that.

[Steve R Jones]

Not as much as you might think. Texas had a Democratic Governor from 1874 - 1987. 113 straight years. The Republicans have been in office since 1995. The presidential vote in 2020 was 52 to 48%. Funny how things cycle.

I lived there for 65 years. And the last few decades I've been a BLUE kind of guy.

I used to tell my dad all the time that if they legalized POT that all the Baptists could have the streets to their churches paved in gold.

[techgnome]

Not as much as you might think. Texas had a Democratic Governor from 1874 - 1987. 113 straight years. The Republicans have been in office since 1995. The presidential vote in 2020 was 52 to 48%. Funny how things cycle.

That's actually not saying much ... the political landscape used to be very different ... Political Polarity has shifted ... there was a time though Republicans were liberal (Lincoln was a Republican) and Democrats were extremely conservative. Something happened in the 50's & 60's that caused a fundamental shift in base and the polarity of the two parties shifted and pretty much reversed. Now Republicans are the conservative group while Democrats became liberalized. The early 80's is probably the last time the two parties were closest to each other.

-tg