tvc184

Maybe this is interesting or maybe it’s not, but…. Texas law does not distinguish between a principal and an accomplice or accessory in a crime like in some (majority?) states. In some states a person can be charged as an accessory/accomplice to a crime. In other words, the accessory isn’t the main actor (criminal). Maybe a getaway driver in a bank robbery is an accessory. The driver never entered the bank, never pointed a gun, never threatened anyone, etc., so he may have a reduced penalty. Where an armed robber might be facing 50 years maximum in prison, the driver (accessory) might be facing only up to 20 years maximum. Texas makes no such distinction. If you took part in the crime, you are charged with the same crime with the same penalty range. Going only by news reports it seems like that Texas law may have resulted in the arrest of the guy who was later released. It seems like shots were fired from a car or someone jumped into a nearby car and fled. If two people were identified by witnesses as being in the vehicle, it might likely lead to having probable cause to make an arrest for both as taking part either as a shooter or driver. I am going to guess that this may have been what happened to the player that AAW was referring to with the scholarship. Maybe he was thought to be driving the vehicle that fled or was in the vehicle when shots were fired OR was merely nearby and a witness thought that the he was seen in or getting into a car. According to a statement by BPD, after the scholarship player was arrested, further information later led them to dropping the arrest. Again just guessing, the believed to be shooter apparently admitted to both driving away and firing shots. Since he may have taken responsibility for the entire situation, that may have led to the dismissing the arrest in the scholarship player. But now is another arrest or warrant? This may be where the Texas law of no accessories might come into play. Did this third guy help the shooter get away from the scene? Did he hand the shooter the gun? L Anyway, all of this is just speculation but I thought maybe Texas law might be interesting in the justification for an arrest and later charges being accepted by the DA (requiring a grand jury indictment if a felony) or the dropping of charges against any person.

According to BPD, Harrel admitted to firing the shots.

The article that I posted has Jean Harrel under arrest for Murder and was a West Brook player. Arrested but later released was Brayren Briscoe. Which one has a scholarship?

An 18 year old Beaumont resident kills another 18 year old in a shooting. [Hidden Content]# According to KFDM. a suspect arrested for murder was listed as a football player for the West Brook Bruins. Looking at MaxPreps a person with the same name is on the 2025-2026 roster as a senior wide receiver.

Politics again. Like perhaps impeaching and removing Trump, after he has left office? The Comey indictment in my opinion is dead on arrival. It’s not because of any interpretation of the message but because there’s no threat, even if it is interpreted in favor of the indictment. Saying that I wished something would happen is not the same as threatening it. Had the seashells be prefaced with: “I will…”, it would be a different story. Is it any different than the Kathy Griffin severed head? Had she posted: “I am going to…”, there would have been a different outcome. It’s silly in this current climate to point out one side and not another however.

No matter what else is coming, for the first time in 12 years, Trump will not be on the ticket. That leaves all kinds of possibilities on both sides if the aisle. Trump has dominated the headlines for over a decade. That is unheard of in American political history.

🤣🤣🤣 Yeah, it’s heck when actual law is bright up! Biased? With your comment, better take a look in the mirror. When looking up bias in the Miriam Webster, dictionary, it shows your SETX Sports icon. Avoiding the question is intriguing however…. 😂😂😂

When has Trump been proven to rape women?

What a rally. Nederland had one hit going into the sixth inning. Nederland rallied for three in the bottom of six and two in the bottom of seven to win it 5-4.

After 6: BH 4 runs on 5 hits and Nederland 3 runs on 5 hits.

It won’t matter. Listening to much of the oral arguments it seems clear that the results will be similar to same sex marriages. How do you enforce it? Where do you go back to in history? And in effect, nothing changes. It will be hailed as breaking ground but it will simply allow what has happened since 1868.

Listening to Brown-Jackson’s logic is hard on the brain. You know, if she was in Japan and stole a wallet then the Japanese police would arrest her but if she had her wallet stolen in Japan, she would expect the police to arrest whoever did it. That’s why we need birthright citizenship. 🤣🤣🤣 I guess when you can’t define what a woman is, that’s about as deep as a person can think.

Does this mean that you will not accept a cabinet position?? 🤣

They didn’t specifically mention the presidency but Sauer in his arguments stated that by 2015 there were like 200 or 500 (I don’t remember the numbers) companies in China whose business it is to send women to the US to have babies and then bring them back to China to be raised by their laws and culture. Then they could return later as they were US citizens at birth. One is the follow up questions for his was something like, is there any evidence of that happening or any numbers of people returning or something to that effect. My follow up might have been, it’s only 11 years since 2015. No one born around then is an adult yet.

That was touched on in the oral arguments.