CardinalBacker

No, you're obligated to flee.... if you can't flee, then you need to comply.... and if the robber gets hurt, you're in trouble.

Maybe at coaching, but that's a really broad statement. I mean, y'all did drop down and only manage fourth in your district. We dropped down and missed the playoffs... but then again, there aren't any teams like WOS or Silsbee in your district, so...... Maybe both of our coaches are "really good dudes." I say that we make that the new "code" for a crappy coach. "He's a really good dude."

The writeup sounds so unbelievable that I really think it's probably just somebody's interpretation of the thought process behind her bill... I'd like verification before I jump too high, lol.

Rep Terry Meza (D, Irving) filed HB196 that would criminalize a person's use of a firearm to protect themselves or their property. If the victim had an opportunity to flee (even from their own home) and did not, then they would be charged for injuring a would-be robber or assailant. That's not in dispute. I'm not sure if the "she said" portion is legit and I've been unable to verify it. Has anybody else seen this? In Texas, State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irving) has introduced HB196. Her bill would repeal the state's "castle doctrine." This doctrine allows a homeowner to use deadly force against an armed intruder who breaks into his home. SHE SAID: "I'm not saying that stealing is okay," Meza explained. "All I'm saying is that it doesn't warrant a death penalty. Thieves only carry weapons for self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate. They just want to get their loot and get away. When the resident tries to resist is when people get hurt. If only one side is armed fewer people will be killed." Under the new law the homeowner's obligation is to flee the home at the first sign of intrusion. If fleeing is not possible he must cooperate with the intruder. But if violence breaks out it is the homeowner's responsibility to make sure no one gets hurt. The best way to achieve this is to use the minimum non-lethal force possible because intruders will be able to sue for any injuries they receive at the hands of the homeowner." "In most instances the thief needs the money more than the homeowner does," Meza reasoned. "The homeowner's insurance we reimburse his losses. On balance, the transfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. If my bill can help make this transfer a peaceful one so much the better."

I don't believe that. But I was incorrect. Mutes have only written it.

People just need to be smarter. Wear a mask at the salad bar. Avoid close contact with as many people as you possibly can. Don't go to a funeral unless you're family or a pallbearer. Don't dance with anybody you don't live with. Don't put motel room tv remotes in your mouth. The simple stuff.

It's all circular logic that gets people nowhere. Despite all of the explanations about "er" and "a," at the end of the day, it's only offensive when whitey says it. Nobody has big enough nuts to admit it. It's kinda like the old argument that abortion supporters bring up during abortion debates... Them: "But what about instances of rape and incest?" Me: "Ok, so you're willing to admit that in every instance EXCEPT rape and incest it should be illegal?" Them: "No, that's not what I'm saying." All of the arguments about "a" and "er" are just a smokescreen. White people should be punished if they've ever uttered the word that black people throw around every day. That's what they really believe. And it's why the use of the is still so effective on the playing field. Newsflash.... every single white person on the planet has said it at some point. Any white person that denies that fact is a liar, too. Fight me.

So you have no problem with me (cis/hetero/white male) calling people the “a” version?

Well, I believe that those white players we’re using the “a” version... so you are ok with that? I’m from Texas and I’m pretty sure that I’ve never pronounced the “g” sound at the end of any word that ends in “-ing.” You’re pretending that it’s somehow okay to call somebody a duckin’ idiot, but wrong to call them a ducking idiot, if you catch my drift.... While constantly using the term yourself and demanding that others to be punished for doing the same thing decades ago.

Of course she thinks we should all stay home... her paycheck will keep rolling in regardless. Cut off her salary (since she's not working) and you'd be surprised how quickly her attitude would change.

Shoot.... they need to hire the Football HC/AD from within and then go out and hire a state finalist baseball HC to be an assistant on the baseball team. That's how we roll.

The debate is for another page, I know.... but if your kids use a word every day and then loses their crap when somebody else says it.... that's just poor upbringing on all sides of the table.

The headline would be more accurate if it said “Team A allegedly calls Team B a name that Team B calls themselves all of the time. Riot ensued.” Here’s the deal... we all appreciate good trash talk. If there’s a magic word that causes your opponent to lose focus and possibly even cause them to hurt themselves (unsportsmanlikes, DQs, etc.), why wouldn’t you use it? It’s comical because it’s just a word and it has no power except the power that the “victim” gives the speaker. It’s a by product of teaching your kids that a word’s offensiveness can be determine by the color of the speaker’s skin. If the word was offensive, you’d be offended when ANYBODY used it.

Nah... kid looked Hispanic. They run hot.

A. Wasn’t a ref B. Wasn’t the kid’s third consecutive infraction after a single play I can’t believe that we live in an era where a shortage of available officials is literally threatening our ability to have games and you guys are saying that we need to decrease the penalties teams face when their players feloniously assault officials on the field of play. Not much surprises me anymore, but this does. I understand that the school was informed that the UIL was going to disqualify them, so the school pulled the plug first. No lie... if I’m the super or on the board and the TEAM does something so bad that it’s literally on every news source in America, I’m pulling the plug, too.

Mecca.

I think this kid took a punch at an opposing player on two of those occasions, but I honestly don’t remember. Definitely didn’t attack a ref, though.

That “someone in the stands” wasn’t a player who just got two unsportmanlikes before attacking the ref who flagged him... so your example is not even close to be relevant. The kid wasn’t even arrested... just escorted from the field, not in handcuffs. Whatever else happened later. Like I said... I would have no problem with the refs disqualifying the whole team and ending the game after the assault. Everybody keeps saying that any punishment that affects the rest of the team is unjust when the kid just caused two penalties that affected the whole team. If the team receives 15 for the first, 15 and a disqualification for the second, why should the team get a pass on the third (criminal) act?

It’s the basic continuance of force. 1. unsportsmanlike... whole team loses 15 yards, automatic first down. 2. Second unsportmanlike... whole team loses 15 yards, player is disqualified. 3. Attacks ref.... no penalty according to you guys, because that wouldn’t be fair to the whole team. I still that a disqualification for the whole team would have been justified. To answer your question, I would have no problem if my senior kid’s season was ended because some knucklehead teammate had this meltdown. Everybody here knows that those kids are all accountable to each other... or they’re supposed to be. This kid cost those kids’ season, just like if he’d somehow played while ineligible.

No, but they don’t get to keep the money, either.

It absolutely does. It's a team sport, and when one of us messes up, we all pay the penalty. When those two kids in San Antone wrecked the ref in 2015, both of them were suspended from school for 75 days, lost UIL eligibility. The UIL declined to reinstate one for 2016 (I think the other graduated or quituated) and finally reinstated the other kid for 2017. Their coach even permanently lost his teaching certificate. Granted, that coach may or may not have directed those kids to attack, but in this case where the kid has an obviously well-documented history of violently attacking officials..... You have to make a statement. We might even see stronger penalties from the UIL before this is over with. When you jump offsides, you don't get set back five, your whole team does. This kid cost his team 15, then another 15 and a personal disqualification. THEN he attacked the ref. I wouldn't have had a problem with an entire team disqualification at that point in the game. Make a strong stand and nip this behavior in the bud. It's a shame... the kid is a standout at the 6A level. It's literally on every news source in America today. Maybe he can still walk on at East Mississippi Community College.

Well, it's just the natural progression of things. If he'd jumped offsides, he'd have cost his team five yards. Unnecessary Roughness? Fifteen yards. 2nd unsportsmanlike? An additional 15 and disqualification for that player. THEN attack a ref? Disqualify the team. I AM glad that the school took it upon themselves to self-police before the UIL got around to it. I distinctly remember coach Dubois kicking an All-District player off of our team on '15 that had managed to get himself ejected from 3 games in one season. He just didn't belong on the team... just like this kid apparently didn't, either.

I think his career should be done, just like LeGarette Blount from Oregon.

I honestly thought that one wasn't illegal. It just looked like momentum carried him through the hit.

It's those heavy doses of Vitamin S. I wonder if this will be mentioned in a few years when somebody ends up having to shoot this kid?