It was a view I was starting to enjoy more and more.
Driving to work along Stockdale Highway and glancing over at the Park at Riverwalk.
The peaceful looking ponds (when people aren't swimming in them), the walking/bike paths, picnic areas and the ampitheatre.
Well, the ampitheatre before the start of construction on the new Target. Thank goodness the powers that be decided to scratch plans for the upscale shops and put in a Target or some other big box retailer.
The view of the ampitheatre is now blocked as you drive past the main entrance headed east on Stockdale.
You get a brief glimpse of it before BJ's, then the other Castle and Cooke dome building obscures the ampitheatre, until you pass Changs.
You can look back and see the backside of the structure, until of course they finish putting in the other businesses on the eastside of the complex.
I understand that this was the plan (or the revision of the original plan) for the area, but I grew fond of the ampitheatre and the grassy knoll as a selling point to draw people into the park.
Soon the view will be gone, unless you pull into the parking lot.
Brighthouse might want to rethink the sponsorship, since their sign will soon be obscured by progress.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Officer Involved Shooting, Again...
I've said it before, so I'll save the speech about obeying a police officer.
If a member of law enforcement is pointing their gun at you, ordering you to drop something, or get down, or hop on one leg, I'm doing it whether I understand why or not.
As of Tuesday morning, the BPD is investigating three officer involved shootings in three days.
Yes, three times someone did something in a threatening manner to cause an officer to pull their service revolver.
One person had a knife, another a gun and a third allegedly tried to run down an officer with his truck.
One was shot and killed, another wounded and a third was not hit by gunfire but later arrested. He's the lucky one.
But it's the reaction from some witnesses that baffles me.
In the case of the person wielding, not one, but two knifes, a witness told ABC23 he was concerned about collateral damage. The officer fired four shots, hitting the suspect twice.
The witness was worried about the other two bullets hitting bystanders. Fair enough. There have been plenty of instances over the years where innocent people have been hit by errant gunfire. Fortunately, no one else was injured.
Keep in mind, Officer Hinzo did NOT fire her weapon when the suspect threw the hunting knife in her direction. She ordered him to the ground as he pulled out a SECOND knife and unfolded it. Only after he began advancing towards her did she fire at him.
Another witness told us they never would have called police if they knew it was going to end in a shooting. Really?! Maybe Officer Hinzo should have tangled with the knife-wielding man using a taser, police baton or other type of non-lethal option. And, exactly what type of scenario do you believe warrants an officer shooting a suspect?
Police officials say they don't stop to try and consider a suspects mental condition when they are in possession of a weapon.
During a similar story I reported on nearly 10 years ago, a senior officer said this when it comes to confronting a suspect holding a weapon. If an officer shoots, he will keep shooting until the threat is neutralized. Does everyone understand?!
In another situation over the weekend, a boyfriend is trying to gain access to his girlfriend's home. There's reports of abuse. The guy shows up in her backyard HOLDING A GUN when he's confronted by a police officer who orders him to drop it. The man reportedly points the gun towards the officer and he's shot and killed.
What would you have an officer do in this situation? Let the person go free until a non-lethal alternative presents itself? Perhaps the officer should potentially sacrifice their life trying to physically disarm the suspect?
It's all so easy to quarterback after the fact, but put yourself in their shoes for a minute, if you dare.
This morning, a suspicious person is at a local apartment complex and when approached by an officer, tries to run him over with his truck. The officer fires a couple shots in self-defense. The suspect gets away and is eventually pulled over and taken into custody.
I hope this isn't a trend that we will see continue in 2009.
If a member of law enforcement is pointing their gun at you, ordering you to drop something, or get down, or hop on one leg, I'm doing it whether I understand why or not.
As of Tuesday morning, the BPD is investigating three officer involved shootings in three days.
Yes, three times someone did something in a threatening manner to cause an officer to pull their service revolver.
One person had a knife, another a gun and a third allegedly tried to run down an officer with his truck.
One was shot and killed, another wounded and a third was not hit by gunfire but later arrested. He's the lucky one.
But it's the reaction from some witnesses that baffles me.
In the case of the person wielding, not one, but two knifes, a witness told ABC23 he was concerned about collateral damage. The officer fired four shots, hitting the suspect twice.
The witness was worried about the other two bullets hitting bystanders. Fair enough. There have been plenty of instances over the years where innocent people have been hit by errant gunfire. Fortunately, no one else was injured.
Keep in mind, Officer Hinzo did NOT fire her weapon when the suspect threw the hunting knife in her direction. She ordered him to the ground as he pulled out a SECOND knife and unfolded it. Only after he began advancing towards her did she fire at him.
Another witness told us they never would have called police if they knew it was going to end in a shooting. Really?! Maybe Officer Hinzo should have tangled with the knife-wielding man using a taser, police baton or other type of non-lethal option. And, exactly what type of scenario do you believe warrants an officer shooting a suspect?
Police officials say they don't stop to try and consider a suspects mental condition when they are in possession of a weapon.
During a similar story I reported on nearly 10 years ago, a senior officer said this when it comes to confronting a suspect holding a weapon. If an officer shoots, he will keep shooting until the threat is neutralized. Does everyone understand?!
In another situation over the weekend, a boyfriend is trying to gain access to his girlfriend's home. There's reports of abuse. The guy shows up in her backyard HOLDING A GUN when he's confronted by a police officer who orders him to drop it. The man reportedly points the gun towards the officer and he's shot and killed.
What would you have an officer do in this situation? Let the person go free until a non-lethal alternative presents itself? Perhaps the officer should potentially sacrifice their life trying to physically disarm the suspect?
It's all so easy to quarterback after the fact, but put yourself in their shoes for a minute, if you dare.
This morning, a suspicious person is at a local apartment complex and when approached by an officer, tries to run him over with his truck. The officer fires a couple shots in self-defense. The suspect gets away and is eventually pulled over and taken into custody.
I hope this isn't a trend that we will see continue in 2009.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Pile on the Pork
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we in a recession?? An economic slowdown?? A financial funk?!!!
With that in mind, and the current debacle that has swallowed up jobs and retirement funds around the nation, why in the world would our elected representatives do something like this:
Congress is sending President Barack Obama a massive bill funding domestic programs and awarding lawmakers their cherished pet projects after more than a week of partisan debate.
Senators passed the measure by voice vote after voting 62-35 to shut down debate. The White House says Obama will sign the bill. It finishes up last year's budget business, which stalled as Democrats feuded with former President George W. Bush. The huge bill encountered unexpected difficulty in the wake of Obama's economic stimulus bill and a budget plan forecasting a $1.8 trillion deficit for the current budget year.
I know that I'm not privy to a lot of the wheeling and dealings in Washington, but how do you justify more than 400 million dollars in pork spending when Nancy Pelosi is talking about a 2nd stimulus package, while the first one is still being passed out?!
Please, help me understand!!
The AP update is somewhat humorous in recounting the huge bill encountered "unexpected difficulty". Really?!! From who, the Republicans?!
Does it really matter...
The GOP has no leverage to do anything in Washington, but sit on the sidelines and watch as the Democratic Party leads the bailout recovery. Even the symbolic vote has already lost it's luster.
I'm just stunned that with the economy still teetering on the brink of collapse, ANYONE in Washington can still think about pet projects and pork.
I'm not naive enough to believe that the financial mess was somehow going to lead to a pork-free diet for lawmakers, but I can dream!!
With that in mind, and the current debacle that has swallowed up jobs and retirement funds around the nation, why in the world would our elected representatives do something like this:
Congress is sending President Barack Obama a massive bill funding domestic programs and awarding lawmakers their cherished pet projects after more than a week of partisan debate.
Senators passed the measure by voice vote after voting 62-35 to shut down debate. The White House says Obama will sign the bill. It finishes up last year's budget business, which stalled as Democrats feuded with former President George W. Bush. The huge bill encountered unexpected difficulty in the wake of Obama's economic stimulus bill and a budget plan forecasting a $1.8 trillion deficit for the current budget year.
I know that I'm not privy to a lot of the wheeling and dealings in Washington, but how do you justify more than 400 million dollars in pork spending when Nancy Pelosi is talking about a 2nd stimulus package, while the first one is still being passed out?!
Please, help me understand!!
The AP update is somewhat humorous in recounting the huge bill encountered "unexpected difficulty". Really?!! From who, the Republicans?!
Does it really matter...
The GOP has no leverage to do anything in Washington, but sit on the sidelines and watch as the Democratic Party leads the bailout recovery. Even the symbolic vote has already lost it's luster.
I'm just stunned that with the economy still teetering on the brink of collapse, ANYONE in Washington can still think about pet projects and pork.
I'm not naive enough to believe that the financial mess was somehow going to lead to a pork-free diet for lawmakers, but I can dream!!
Back On Line!!!
The blog is working... it's working again!!!
It's been a difficult couple of weeks trying to figure out what's wrong with this blog (aside from some of my thoughts, apparently).
Everything appears to be up and running again, so here we go.......
It's been a difficult couple of weeks trying to figure out what's wrong with this blog (aside from some of my thoughts, apparently).
Everything appears to be up and running again, so here we go.......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
