Saedy mae Jones is goof rat cop calling snitch that lured kids. From families to collect. Kids money. Then trades them off to pedofiles #goofratspinlesscopcallinginforment
Find out if this bitch is a rat for the police department and if she is i would love to know if she waa also a rat for the police in Florida #elizabethpulaski
He is a paid ci do not trust him he will sell u out please listen jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjnnnnmmjjjjjjnnnn #wobblesakajeremyclaus
Defendant Donald John Trump has said on open airways that the woman prosecuting him is "getting killed!" Earlier tonight he told Tucker Carlson "Fani Willis in Atlanta, she's getting killed!" He said that instead of participating in the first Republican Primary Debate in 2023 he'd rather tell his side of things to Tucker Carlson. Part if his side of things are his opinion which includes "Fani Willis in Atlanta, she's getting killed!" which could be an opinion, a less than well wish, or something nobody can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Carlson interviewed Trump using the website formerly known as Twitter. Trump chose talking to Carlson as the preferred alternative to debating opponents whose odds of winning are so small they all show up to debate someone whose time they're not worth. #donaldtrump #faniwillis #tuckercarlson #freespeech
The Fulton County Sheriff's Office (FCSO) has released this mugshot in anticipation of Donald Trump's planned surrender tomorrow. Fulton County Sheriff Patrick Labat has insisted that his office won't treat Trump any different than any other prisoner, but despite his pledge countless journalists report aberrant behavior from his staff lately. Clearly they're doing things differently. Donald Trump will either learn firsthand how damaging having a mugshot can be or he will utilize it to raise more money for his campaign than he would have otherwise. Making money should inspire other defendants to turn their cases into cash cows simply by making a mockery of the system. If he makes enough he'll surely violate his release conditions over and over again, so if you want to see Trump back in jail send him a donation. #donaldtrump #patricklabat #mugshotSnitch. Psy attention. Never goes to jail more then 3 months even with repeated arrests Arrested For:By:Date: Take Vehicle W/O Owner's ConsentSan Diego County SD8/13/2022 Use/Under Influence Controlled SubstanceSan Diego County SD6/26/2020 Receiving Stolen Property - Motor Vehicle Take Vehicle W/O Owner's ConsentSan Diego County SD3/16/2020 Possession of Controlled SubstanceSan Diego County SD8/4/2019 #rat #snitch
Many are calling the terms of Donald Trump's bond in Georgia a "gag order" despite not looking like a gag order at all. Traditional gag orders prohibit people from discussing cases in public at all (https://ift.tt/XI2mvjR). Examples include banning a defendant in a criminal case from talking about the case in public. Such orders typically have more to do with keeping the jury pool from being contaminated than they do with protecting witnesses. The terms of Trump's bond in Georgia contain several speech restrictions but stop short at being a real gag order. SPEECH RESTRICTIONS Judge Scott McAfee has limited Trump's speech by banning him from making any "direct or indirect threats", intimidating witnesses, and communicating with co-defendants. The terms specify social media activity and apply to re-posting other people's content but appears pretty standard beyond that. The re-posting language and vague references to threats or intimidation have created problems in other courts recently sufficient to have an unconstitutional chilling effect on defendants. UNCONSTITUTIONAL CHILLING EFFECT In another recent case, FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried was jailed for free speech after sharing evidence with a journalist. Bankman-Fried has always asserted his First Amendment right to combat the damage his case has done to his reputation by speaking to reporters. Unfortunately, an oath breaker in a robe appears to have jailed him based solely on subjective claims of non-physical intimidation. The chilling effect this will have on defendants until a higher court gets it right is devastating. Defendants can no longer feel free to speak out publicly in their own defense if doing so might open them up to subjective claims from witnesses that the speech made them feel intimidated in some way. Limiting speech to stuff not intended to threaten physical harm or physically intimidate someone is one thing, but nobody deserves to be muzzled just in case some snitch goes crying to the court with fears of what others will think of them if the defendant speaks freely. Defendants have a First Amendment right to criticize anyone who uses the courts against them for choosing of their own free will to do so or assist others with doing so. Such criticism includes things like, "John Doe is a real POS for helping the government in my case, I wish he didn't do that." A statement like that is clearly honest opinion which the First Amendment protects. Some people file charges against their critics solely as a means of recourse against their protected speech. This author had this happen over a decade ago. Someone I was arguing with publicly provoked me into replying with a death threat. All of a sudden my criticisms of that person were used to show that I was a danger simply because I clearly intended to keep talking. It was like, "wink wink you're honor keeping him in pretrial detention is the only way to stop him from verbally attacking witnesses." I eventually had some supervised release conditions which included not speaking about people and deleting things I'd said which were true. The moral of the story seemed to be that if you want to shut me up just harass me until I do something about it and cry to the cops. Then you're a "victim" who feels "intimidated" by me exposing everything I find out as a result of you pressing charges. I eventually violated the censorship conditions largely to discourage the practice as counter-productive because if I'm in jail I can't remove anything and I will continue to say what I wish. Trump needs to prepare himself for jail. This means he needs to prearrange ways to speak in direct violation of jail rules. I recommend hiring at least one lawyer whose job it will be to smuggle statements out of jail and handle business calls over the phone. The lawyer will need to be well paid to break the rules but that shouldn't be a problem for someone as resourceful as Trump. SECTION 230 The Supreme Court recently hinted that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act likely shields social media users from legal liability for links they share. This issue came up shortly before Trump shared a link to another website featuring an image of him holding a baseball bat next to a picture of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg (see https://ift.tt/UHqdaDW). Talking heads were quick to accuse Trump of physically threatening Bragg as if he'd created the image when in fact he merely shared a link to another website. A couple months earlier SCOTUS Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked a litigant, "Lets say I retweet an ISIS video ... On your theory, am I aiding and abetting? And does the statute protect me, or does my putting the thumbs-up on it create new content?" The other side argued that she should be liable for creating new content by intentionally retweeting the video but the court ultimately decided against that party. If the court's majority feels the same way the New Hampshire Supreme Court felt a few years ago (https://ift.tt/DFMgHOE) then she would not be liable for retweeting ISIS videos. She would not be liable because the court considered someone who retweets to be providing other people with a service by sharing other peoples content. If she would not be liable for the content under Section 230 then how could Trump be liable for doing the same thing with other people's content? If Donald Trump shares a link to someone else's content which a witness in the case calls "intimidating" does that violate the terms of his release? I don't see how it legally could if Trump is not legally considered to be the content creator at all. Will the government have to prove that Trump intended to threaten the witness or would it simply be enough to say that a reasonable person in the witness' shoes would have felt intimidated by Trump sharing the content? To charge him with a new crime intent would be required but we are talking about release conditions which tend to have a much lower bar. In many cases pretrial release is revoked for minor things in the name of protecting proceedings. In that situation someone in Trump's position could find himself is tough spot where he wants to protect his reputation by speaking out but feels intimidated by the threat of incarceration should his words also happen to result in complaints of intimidation from witnesses. CONCLUSION Donald Trump is not currently subject to a "gag order" in the true sense of the term but does face new liabilities should the judge consider his speech threatening or intimidating at all. The gray area is too big to put reasonable defendants on notice of where the line is. #donaldtrump #scottmcafee #faniwillis #alvinbragg
Green Bay Certified Informant #1922 Justin Spees set up and made 3 controlled buys on Brad Pearce and Snitched on his Wife Becky Spees. Link to the Facebook dedicated with the paperwork #greenbay #ci #justinspees #wisconsin #
THE FIRE COMPANY AND EMT'S ARE RUNNING COIN TEL PRO (AKA) GANG STALKING ON VICTIMS IN ASHLAND PA.THEY THINK THIS IF FUNNY TARGETING THEM WITH CELL PHONE TOWERS,GROUND RADAR,USING A HAILSTORM DEVICE TO LISTEN TO THERE CALLS AND TEXTS AND HAVING THEM STALKED WHEREVER THEY GO AND TRACKING THEM WITH A CELL PHONE TOWER,THESE VICTIMS ARE TARGETED WITH LIGHTS,HORNS AND WHISTLES FROM THESE PEOPLE 24/7 365 DAYS A YEAR.THE VICTIMS ARE FOLLOWED 24/7 365 WITH CARS AND TRUCKS WITH BLACKED OUT WINDOWS FOR BEING OUTSPOKEN ABOUT A PENNSYLVANIA STATE TROOPER.THEY HAVE PEOPLE REPORT THERE WHEREABOUTS 24/7 365 DAYS A YEAR.THEY WANT THESE TARGETS TO COMMIT SUICIDE.THEY SLANDERED THERE TARGETS,STALK,HARASS TRY TO INTIMIDATE AND VIOLATE THERE CIVIL RIGHTS 24/7 365 DAYS A YEAR THEY EVEN TORTURE THERE TARGETS PETS.THESE PEOPLE ARE EVIL AND WILL GO TO HELL FOR THE SINS THEY HAVE COMMITED AND I WILL BE WAITING FOR EACH ONE OF THEM. #cointelpro#gangstalking#stalking#surveillence#celltowerJANELLE MOYER SNITCH,RAT,FINK,SQUEELER,INFORANT,NARC,STALKER,BITCH,HOMEGROWN TERRORIST,COP SUCKER ETC!!! #janellemoyer
The case filed by Fulton County DA Fani Willis should be removed to federal court because that is the appropriate forum when charges are brought against current or former federal officials for acts committed on the clock. There are a couple reasons for this. First, the removal statute which governs cases against federal officials; Second, judicial economy and the spirit of double jeopardy. Removal Statute Mark Meadows has already filed a motion to remove the case against him to federal court (see PDF uploaded above). Meadows relies on 28 U.S.C. 1442 (https://ift.tt/xiUNWyv) and 1455 (https://ift.tt/vj9BlLF). Those statutes permit the removal of any civil or criminal proceeding to federal court when the defendant is a current or former federal official and the allegations stem from the performance of his official duties. Some might look at that last sentence and think, "breaking the law is not an official duty." They might be technically correct is a general sense but not a legal one. When a federal official breaks the law while on the clock their conduct is almost always considered to have been conducted under color of federal law. This author has personal experience in this area of the law. Several years ago I sued the United States for battery by federal officers at the United States Penitentiary in Victorville, California. I briefly considered filing my case in state court in San Bernardino County but instead decided to file cases under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (https://ift.tt/YkWid4b) and the Federal Tort Claims Act (https://ift.tt/ZkiIQ1q). The Bivens lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the individual officers. The FTCA lawsuit was filed in the District or Oregon where I live. The FTCA allows you to sue the federal government for batteries committed by their employees in the course of their duties even though battery is illegal and you can file it anywhere in the country. I eventually settled the FTCA claim for $10,000 after discovery produced inconclusive video evidence. If my case were a criminal prosecution then the appropriate forum would have been federal court in California. Donald Trump and his associates were federal officials, so the appropriate mechanism for prosecution them should be federal charges under 18 U.S.C. 241 (https://ift.tt/V8GMPfp) for conspiracy to deprive people of their voting rights. Dual Sovereignty and Double Jeopardy Some might wonder how the federal government could prosecute Trump for the allegations out of Georgia without violating the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The answer to that is dual sovereignty. The federal government and the state of Georgia are two separate distinct sovereignties with their own similar yet technically different laws. Under dual sovereignty no state conviction can attach jeopardy to charges in federal court even if the charges stem from the same alleged behavior. Technically, Donald Trump could be acquitted in Georgia and then prosecuted federally for the same conduct. (See https://ift.tt/OfpBoyk). This author has been on the receiving end of this area of the law. Over a decade ago I was arrested on state charges and my bail was "enhanced" to $1,000,000 after which the U.S. Marshals put a hold on me based on a criminal complaint (not an indictment) filed by the FBI. I remained in jail for months before being indicted federally, the state charges were dismissed, and I was held without bail due to there being no bail in the federal system. My first reaction was, "how can they charge me for the same conduct twice without violating double jeopardy?" My lawyers explained dual sovereignty to me and how winning a state trial wouldn't have any bearing on the federal charges. Fortunately, federal prosecutors are usually too worried about the state messing up their case somehow, so state charges are almost always dismissed when federal charges are brought. The opposite is also true sometimes. When I was in trouble I met someone who won a federal trial for allegedly beating up a gay couple because of their sexual orientation. His federal trials ended in hung juries because he claimed to be gay himself and argued that his motive was not their sexual orientation. He was subsequently convicted of assault in state court and sentenced to state prison. I suspect the feds in Georgia of being ready to take over this case. They probably want to wait a little while and see how Trump reacts before finally intervening. Fani Willis (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1gqpSzS0A0) is likely aware of this which is why she refused to comment when asked if she had been in contact with Special Counsel Jack Smith. The statute of limitations is five years so Smith has plenty of time, but will likely want to bring the case to trial before the election next year. Smith seems to have just enough time to give Team Trump enough rope to hang themselves before officially announcing his involvement. Conclusion Federal court is the appropriate forum for charges brought against current or former federal officials for acts committed on the clock. Dual sovereignty does not technically violate double jeopardy so the feds are likely lurking already. #donaldtrump #faniwillis #markmeadows #jacksmith
Defendants in criminal cases need every tool at their disposal when facing the government with their backs against the wall. Defendant Donald Trump is no different than any other defendant in that regard. Often one underutilized tool available to defendants is the First Amendment which grants every American the irrevocable right to criticize government officials and those that help them. Treading on that right would do more harm than good in this case. SELF INCRIMINATION Typically the decision not to utilize the First Amendment as part of a criminal defense is made by the defendant following advice from counsel. Lawyers generally do not want their client speaking freely about the case in public simply because anything said can and will be used in court. There are some cases such as this one when the client has conflicting interests which supersede the outcome of the case. Still, clients often face a rocky working relationship with their lawyers who're almost always reluctant participants in their clients' public activities. If Judge Chutkan truly hates Trump as much as Trump says she does then she might want to consider letting him say whatever he wants. Not only will his statements be used against him in court, but he might also cost himself some votes. MARTYRDOM Gagging Donald Trump under the circumstances risks making him a martyr. That is especially true if Trump gets jailed just for exercising his First Amendment rights while on pretrial release. Trump is already calling her court a kangaroo court with a predetermined outcome because we are living in a third world country. To prove him wrong she must allow him to speak his mind. Just trying to shut him up under these circumstances would vindicate a lot of what Trump has been saying in the eyes of his base. It would make it look as if he must have something really important to say because he wouldn't be gagged otherwise. It would be much better for Judge Chutkan's image as well as the electoral process to simply allow Trump to speak out about his case however he chooses with limited restrictions related to sensitive information pertaining to people (ex: address, phone number, etc.). Often that is what happens in federal cases. Defendants are restricted from sharing sensitive stuff but are otherwise free to incriminate themselves in public as they wish. The last thing this country needs is a major candidate for office being able to say that he cannot fully discuss issues due to a judge whose donated to his opposition threatening to have him kidnapped if he says stuff. It would be much better for the judge to take a hands off approach to his public comments even if they're critical of witnesses. PUBLIC CRITICISM IMPORTANT One emerging problem in recent years has been efforts to shield witnesses from being criticized for their testimony. This author found that out all too well after speaking out against alleged "victims" in cases involving me. I consider such people snitches who deserve to be publicly criticized just as much those they're using the system against. All too often the defendant finds his name in the news while other participants remain nameless. One goal of this website was to offset that a little by letting people post names of people who provide support to the government. Such people almost always complain to police and prosecutors thus confirming their snitch status. Prosecutors often forward such complaints to judges with requests that a defendant be muzzled simply to spare their assets the emotional distress of their conduct being publicly exposed. Prosecutors feel that in the internet age the First Amendment is too effective a tool for defendants because exercising that right has deterrence potential for anyone else who might try giving the government information about them. In the event that any judge punishes any defendant for speaking out against his accusers in public that judge proves their own incompetence by disregarding the Constitution. Such treacherous oath breakers cannot be tolerated. There are way more important things to worry about in society than the outcome of any one court case. Judges seem to think the efficient running of their court paramount to more important things like making sure nobody's rights are violated. Judicial economy often favors ordering defendants not to do anything which could make a witness uncomfortable or make the case drag on like pissing an endless stream of admissible statements about witnesses, prosecutors, police, etc. This author was once under an unconstitutional gag order as a pretrial confinement condition which technically prohibited me from having anything to do with this website and from disseminating the home address of any judge to any person for any reason. It was issued after I sent a letter to the judge at home requesting that he recuse himself from my case. In the letter I let him know that I'd been passing his address out to fellow detainees like Halloween candy. It is not often that a federal judge recuses himself but that was enough, I got a new judge, and a better outcome despite flagrantly violating the prior judge's order as much as possible. The key difference between Trump's situation and mine is the simple fact that Trump is not a pretrial detainee. I was always like, "what are you going to do? I'm already in jail." Although I did start complying with conductions upon my release. I was fortunate due to the stink I raised that people didn't try to shut me up too much while on supervision. One in that position must prove themselves capable of sticking to their guns despite being in jail to truly establish themselves as a credible nemesis. If Judge Chutkan gags Donald Trump will he stick to his guns or will he cower at the thought of jail? If he sticks to his guns can he manage to run his campaign from a jail cell? If he can manage his campaign from his jail cell kind of like I managed this site from mine he could present himself as a political prisoner kind of like a white Nelson Mandela. TROUBLE IN PARADISE? According to public records, Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan is a 61 year old resident of Washington D.C. She is currently married to former judge Peter Arno Krauthamer (https://ift.tt/cRN86kA) which is how I was able to find her information. The feds have tried really hard over the past couple of years to bury information about federal judges online. They've gone a far as scrubbing public records databases of most things mentioning them at all but sometimes they still miss stuff. In this case a background check of Peter Arno Krauthamer produced a recent likely current address on Shepherd Street which Krauthamer appears to have purchased in his name a couple years ago. The same background check lists his previous residence as a nearby home on Upshur Street just 450 feet away. The most recent owner of the Upshur Street property is listed as Tanya Chutkan. Why Mr. Krauthamer bought a new house is anyone's guess. Was he cheating on Judge Chutkan, was Judge Chutkan cheating on him, did they just grow apart with age, did they buy a second house for guests, is it a real estate investment, or is there some other explanation? I doubt the defendant is the only person with an adulterous history in this case. Unfortunately, I do not have a basis to accuse either of these judges of anything at this time. I also have decided not to post the house numbers but might reconsider depending on how the case goes. If it ever reaches a point where I become afraid of being censored by the government just for being accused of a crime and there are enough similarities in which I could see a future court trample on my rights citing precedent from U.S. v. Trump, I might feel I have few other choices but to reconsider this decision. Hopefully that will never happen. For now I want to give Judge Chutkan a chance to run the case right. If you want to use that information for peaceful purposes you can try finding it yourself it really is not hard. CONCLUSION Trampling on the First Amendment is not worth it just to get that Donald guy. #tanyachutkan #donaldtrump #peterkrauthamer #censorship #freespeech
Delaney also known as Lakin Bennett, be aware of this person she is a child predator and neglects children and her self. This person is 22 years old and talks to minors, dates them, a watches minors get undressed or walks in on them and wont get out of the room while they're naked. She fakes mental health disabilities, and uses her mental health as an excuse to not get a job or to shower regularly or to do any hygiene. She fakes being trans and makes fun of the trans community. Delaney does not listen to any adults and thinks that they can live on their own and live off the state. Delaney is a rapist, has raped multiple people in her lifetime, she is also known as a cheater and a pathological liar. They will steal things from you and make you think they lost it. She will touch you without your consent, she acts like a 5 year old to get out of doing things. Keep your children, wifes And husbands away from this person! She is also known as a cop caller and lies to the cops to try to get you arrested. Blows people up and harasses people until he gets what he wants, also throws tantrums to get what he wants. #pedo#childneglecter#stalker#child#rapist#fakementalhealth#cheat
Special Counsel Jack Smith's efforts to gag Donald Trump is a major trigger for this author. I've been a federal defendant in the past and have had my First Amendment rights trampled on in the name of protecting judicial proceedings. The same was true when I was a plaintiff in federal court. I sincerely hope that defendant Donald Trump sticks to his guns and doesn't let some lame in a robe tell him what to say. In my cases I wanted to use the proceedings to boost my own profile and promote websites of mine. The goal being to hopefully make prosecuting me for the purpose of harming those websites have the opposite effect by boosting the sites. That would have been the case had I not been denied pretrial release and my own people hadn't stabbed me in the back. Despite this I was eventually able to use my last case to promote this website in direct defiance of court orders. The orders at the time were that as a pretrial confinement condition I couldn't have anything to do with this website. My response was to keep running it from detention. Eventually I got time served and was allowed to run the site while on supervised release. Donald Trump seems to be doing what I was trying to do all along. He is doing a brilliant job of it so far. I frequently point out his successes to my own people as what they should have been doing back when I told them to do the same things. The First Amendment protects the right of defendants in criminal cases to speak publicly against those prosecuting them including prosecutors, judges, and snitches. Even if that speech is intended to deter others from pursuing them in court by publicly humiliating the other side that speech is protected by the First Amendment as long as it is not a true threat of bodily harm. Victimhood culture has become an epidemic in recent years which puts everyone's right to free speech at risk the second they're charged with a crime. Suddenly people you could speak out against as much as you'd like are in a position where they can ask a judge to silence you just because a grand jury found cause to charge you with a crime. Prosecutors then argue that your speech must be silenced to protect the "victim" from feeling intimidated. As a result, people are forced to choose between exposing the truth and staying out of jail. A more clear violation of the Constitution is hard to find. In my first case that was the entire objective. Someone stalked me until I responded with a death threat and I was locked up as a means of shutting me up. Then I was banned from operating that business while on supervision because had my directions from jail been followed I would have had the upper hand the entire time. They would have gotten a conviction but to accomplish their primary objective they would have had to compromise. They could have still issued orders but they would not have accomplished much. At the end of the day people would have viewed my case as an example of someone not to pursue charges against but instead the opposite became the case for a little while. Bad for Victims This type of censorship typically has the most adverse impact on defendants but it can also be bad for victims. When I successfully sued the federal government for using excessive force on me at USP Victorville I was banned from uploading video evidence on the grounds that any footage showing the inside of a federal prison was a security risk. The footage clearly showed me being perfectly fine, guards blocking the cameras, and me emerging injured. Conclusion If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen! Nobody is required to turn done the heat so that you feel comfortable staying in the kitchen. The same is true of criminal cases. If you don't want to worry about the person you snitch on humiliating you in response keep your mouth shut. Cases such as this one might create some bad law for the time being just to perpetuate the illusion of everyone being required to save their arguments for court but eventually higher courts will get things right or people will realize the government has become overbearing to the point of losing any claim of legitimacy and replace it. #jacksmith #donaldtrump #freespeech #truthsocial #gagorder
Julie Armstrong has been working for Corey Mitchell since they started an intimate relationship back in 2019. With the help of her accomplice Liberty Buchanan she sets up multiple dealers around Southeast Missouri by sending Buchanan to them as a middleman. Armstrong's whereabouts are unknown due to her being in protective custody at this time. #jarmstrongsnitch
THIS NASTY ASS DISEASED INFESTED TRASH IS STR8 POLICE!!!!! I SEEN PREVIOUS STUFF THAT WAS ON TOPIX HAD GOTTEN TAKEN DOWN. SHE STEALS EVERYTHING SPREADS HE LEGS FOR ANYONE WITH A SHOT AND SPREADS HER DISEASES AROUND EVERYWHERE. SHE LEAVES BLOOD SHE SQUIRTS OUTTA HER NEEDLES EVERYWHERE. AND SHES SNITCHED OUT SO MANY PPL SHE EVEN TOLD ALL THE BUSINESS ABOUT THE TRAP HOUSE OLD MAN WAS NICE ENOUGH TO LET HER LIVE IN AND HER SISTER LADONNA JUST AS BAD. BEWARE YALL SHES A REAL SNAKE TRUE DEFINITION OF TRASH BUT THEN AGAIN THERE MAMA RAISED THEM BOTH TO BE LIKE HER.... #tristarichardson
Texarkana, Arkansas Police Officer Telvin Wilson was arrested recently for showing up at a house hoping to meet an underage girl but instead met the Texarkana, Texas police. Texarkana is a city on the border of Texas and Arkansas both of which have their own police departments. Wilson is an officer with the Arkansas department but was busted in Texarkana, Texas where he lives. Wilson is still technically an officer but media reports indicate he might be fired soon. Firing someone who shows up trying screw what he thinks is an underage girl would send a better message than plans to fire him eventually. Somebody might want to get on that one. According to public records, Telvin Tydray Wilson is a 31 year old resident of Texarkana, Texas. The department spotlighted Wilson as a their token black guy back in February for black history month. According to that Facebook post (https://ift.tt/NjImUJP) Wilson grew up in Texarkana, Texas before attending Central Arkansas University and East Texas Baptist University where he graduated with a radiology degree. Radiology is the practice of taking x-rays, so it is not clear how his educational background qualified him to be a police officer. He must have received some other type of training before joining the force in 2016. #telvinwilson #sexoffenders