Rez

Aren’t you just describing the current bathrooms?

I understand that -- I'm just throwing in my two cents. I hope it didn't seem like I was attacking you.

I don't give cops any leeway. The Constitution always trumps their feelings. In any official interaction between law enforcement and a citizen, the cop has a gun to your head, whether the gun is drawn or not. They don't get to abuse my rights simply because they get nervous or angry. We, as citizens, trade a little bit of our freedom to law enforcement in the name of safety and protection. In exchange, law enforcement is permitted to use force to secure its objectives, including and especially deadly force. I can't use deadly force against cops, and it would be extremely hard to prove to a jury that a person was using deadly force against a cop in self-defense. So cops have all the power in relation to the person they are stopping. In a routine traffic stop, you might find yourself billy clubbed , or killed, over a cop's misunderstanding. There are plenty of video-recorded examples of citizens being gunned down for absolutely no reason, simply because the cop got scared. I don't care if they get scared, at least as far as my attitude toward them not murdering people goes. So I don't give them any leeway at all, and none of us should. They are to be held to a far higher standard than the rest of us, because their failure to rise to that standard is often deadly. If that is too stressful or too difficult, or too Constitutionally limited, they need to choose a different career. That being said, I am a strong supporter of law enforcement in general, and fully respect many of those who choose to pursue it -- It is an honorable profession. However, I reject any tendency to treat them as if they are above the law because their job is hard. A lot of jobs are hard, but that doesn't mean they get to be trigger-happy over it.

Some thoughts: The video guy is "involved," but he did not, by taking the video alone, participate in furtherance of a crime. Taking a video of anything, as you know, is protected free speech, unless there is some statute saying you can't do so (such as in areas that contain sensitive national security information). If there was evidence that the video guy had entered into a conspiracy with the other two there would be a reason to indict him (as you have noted). But the video by itself does not evince his intention to further a crime. All of the evidence made available to the public indicates that he and the other two thought they were in the process of a lawful citizen's arrest. The video is only evidence of his intention to record the event. I'm worried that charging this guy will discourage private citizens from taking videos of crimes. The video he took is crucial, valuable evidence, without which the world would have to rely on only the testimony of the shooter. In other words, there would have been no charges without the video. So we are charging a guy for providing the only evidence upon which the state's case is based, evidence which he voluntarily turned over. I'm not trying to paint him as a saint. But I am arguing for an extremely liberal approach to the right to film public events. We need people to do so. My gut feeling is that the fewer videos that are taken of events like this, the more it benefits either one of two groups to the detriment of the public: (1) criminals and (2) public officials who wish to hide things. We should encourage people to take such videos. All of that aside, I think he is being charged, not for taking the video, but for "moving" his car in a way that blocked Arbery. I have some concerns with that. If the citizen's arrest law was triggered, moving the car in a way to block Arbery to further that arrest was arguably a lawful action. However, even if the arrest law was not triggered, it is extremely difficult to tell from the video that he did anything at all, so I think the prosecution is grasping at straws. My guess is they are using this charge to get the video guy to spill on the other two in exchange for leniency. Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, the Georgia citizen's arrest law does not require that the citizen doing the arrest "witness" the crime. See Ga. Code 17-4-60. It is sufficient if the crime occur within the citizen's immediate knowledge. The question then becomes what qualifies as a "crime" within "immediate knowledge?" In this case, there had been multiple reports of trespassing (and apparently reports of theft) and Arbery was seen sprinting out of the house (as well as being caught on video multiple times). Importantly, if the suspected crime is a felony, the citizen doesn't even need to have "immediate knowledge." Where the crime is a felony, it is sufficient only to have "reasonable and probable grounds for suspicion." Burglary is a felony in Georgia. The important thing is that the citizen doesn't need to know that the person suspected of the crime has committed a felony. So when citizens see a guy sprinting out of a home that was not his, and had been caught on video multiple times in that dwelling that was not his, it was at a minimum reasonable for the neighbors to suspect that the felony of burglary had been committed, thus triggering a citizen's arrest under Georgia law. And, even if burglary were not the crime, trespassing is a crime, and they had "immediate knowledge" of it. Under both types of crime presented in the statute, the citizen's arrest law was triggered, or it is at least reasonable to argue that it was. That being said, I think the Georgia citizen's arrest law is stupid. Citizen's arrest laws in general are mind-numbingly stupid. They should only exist as a protection against a charge of kidnapping or false imprisonment in cases where citizens seize a person out of necessity where the crime is grave and has been committed in their presence, to protect life, or in other serious circumstances where the urgency of the moment requires private citizens to take action by holding another person. They should not exist as a proactive open door to citizens to take the law into their own hands, particularly where there is no immediate threat or urgency, as was the case in Georgia. Citizens arrest laws as written invite the profound stupidity we've witnessed in Georgia, where any dummy thinks the law allows him to turn into Batman. The problem is, the law actually says you can be Batman, without providing any guidance or limitation as to how such action should be taken (For example: Can you use a gun? How long can you hold the person? What force is appropriate?). So among the people we should blame are stupid legislators writing stupid laws, the effects of which will never accrue to them but cause untold damage down the road.

I agree with your sentiment that we should look for solid evidence of a person's background an intentions before drawing conclusions about their motivations. My disagreement is in the highlighted portion above. I can't think of a single scenario where a person's skin color, all other things being equal, is sufficient indication that a person is up to no good. The example you provide applies equally to any skin color. If you see anyone slow rolling in an area known to be a place to replenish one's supply of drugs and prostitutes, it is reasonable to assume they might be there for such things, but they might also be lost, or particularly interested in the scenery, or having a heart attack, or a million other things that might cause someone to drive slowly. I know I'm splitting hairs, but your statement requires hair-splitting. The fact that would make you think someone is looking for illegal activities by slow rolling is that they are slow rolling in that specific place, not the skin color of the person slow rolling. Unless Simmons Dr in Orange is closed to non-whites?

It will be a picture of a mud puddle, in a stirring reminder of and honor to the stadium's deeply rooted traditions. In the center will be placed a commemorative golden sprinkler, which will ceremonially water the turf before every game.

If Vidor comes up with a defense that can defend the pass consistently, they have a chance to go deep in 4a this year. I think it is extremely difficult for Vidor to prep a pass defense because they can't simulate a strong pass offense in practice. So it's an uphill battle. The players can do it if someone will teach them.

The strange thing is the number of teenagers who have even been seriously affected by covid is close to zero. I’m not sure any have died. They likely have a greater risk of dying playing football than dying from covid. They certainly have a greater risk dying driving to practice than they do of dying from covid. And by the fall it is likely that much of the herd immunity we need to achieve will have happened. We need to protect the elderly (who are almost exclusively the only ones who need protecting), but we can do so without imprisoning an entire generation of children.

If you turn a corner and a guy has a gun and seems to want to use it on you, your only (slim) chance of survival is taking it away. Without expressing an opinion about the overall situation, I think Ahmed did what any reasonable person would/should do. If someone comes at me with a gun and they are only a few steps from me I'm assuming they are going to use it on me and I will spend what will probably be my last moments on earth trying to take that gun away.

I read "Roughnecks" about 20 years. Fiction. Aimed more at high school kids than adults. I remember it as a good read. The whole story is a first-person view of a high school football star's thoughts in the last few days leading up to the state championship in Louisiana. [Hidden Content]

I read "Bleachers" years ago. It starts out as a good read, but it follows the plot of "Varsity Blues" so much its an entirely unoriginal book. I enjoyed the writing though -- Like all John Grisham books, the story is presented very well. But if you haven't seen "Varsity Blues," it's a relatively short book with a pretty good football story.

What is this “defense” you speak of?

I forgot about FB Marshall -- Call it PTSD after they ran us into the ground two years in a row. I also forgot about Huntsville. Unless there is a drastic drop-off, I see no reason both won't be solid this year. Huntsville was more vulnerable last year than the year before, so I don't know what direction they are trending. And FB Marshall is missing their Big 2, but they had a Fast 22 -- Unless it becomes legal to blitz before the ball is snapped, it will be hard for any of us to slow that team down. Even the guy running the flag down the track in front of the fans was faster than everyone on the PNG team. Tier 1: FB Marshall, Marshall, and A&M Consolidated, Tier 2: Hunstville. Tier 3 and down is everyone else, in whatever order you want. Barbers Hill, Crosby, PNG, and Nederland should be near the top of Tier 3. Barbers Hill had an extremely balanced, complete team last year. I don't know what they bring back, but they are going in an upward direction. I know they lost their star offensive lineman. He made a huge difference. Their QB last year was fundamentally good, but not flashy, world-ending great. Nederland was young last year and will probably have six to eight starters back on both sides. PNG brings back a lot of big pieces -- If the QB/WR connection can improve, and if the defense continues its year-to-year improvement we've seen the last two seasons, we are going to make some noise. Crosby started to look dangerous halfway through the season, but they aren't the Crosby of 2012-2013 anymore -- I don't know what that means they are becoming. They are in their second year with a new coach and system and all indications are that they are going to be, at a minimum, a solid team with a dark-horse high ceiling. I'm sure I'm leaving some region 3 powers off, but I'm not familiar with any other teams. Texas City used to be quite good -- They seem to have dropped off lately, so I think they are something of a dark horse.

For Region 3: I’d expect Marshall and A&M Consolidated to be at the top. Crosby looks like they are heading in an upward direction, but there is a lot left to prove there. Barbers Hill lost some key players, but I think they should be considered at least the favorite in their district, with hopes to win the region. Nederland and PNG are going to be in the thick of it. PNG and Crosby are dark horses, in my opinion. I don’t know anything about where Texas City is these days.

Knock on wood. I can't even imagine dealing with a hurricane in the coronavirus context. What a mess.

Anyone know who PNG is bringing back, other than Bost? And any good underclassmen coming up?

PNG won state in baseball

Mine hasn’t - I’ve never watched one. They just seem to be universally loved.

Everyone is hallmark guy, even those who don’t know it yet.

Absolutely.

Who has Wimberley played? Silsbee has played West Orange twice, Newton, Nederland, PNG. Granted, Silsbee went 2-5 against that group, and Nederland and PNG didn’t exactly have their very best years, but the competition explains why Silsbee’s stats might be a little depressed relative to Wimberley’s. Silsbee has played big schools and where they didn’t play big schools they played very good teams. Even with the weak district competition, Silsbee has faced a tough season.

That’s not an easy district.

It’s all that physical speed

I enjoyed their commentary. Even with the bias. I like their tone and attitude.

Anyone else having trouble with Texanlive? Trying to watch and website seems to be having problems.