tvc184

By law you can’t, notwithstanding people who think it was justified. Texas used to have a law, as some other states do now, that calls killing a person under sudden passion as Manslaughter. The classic is coming home and finding your wife in bed with a guy and maybe understandably losing your temper. The point being that even being upset is not enough but suddenly coming upon something that sets you off where you otherwise probably wouldn’t have. How many people in the Golden Triangle area file for divorce every month after one or the other party was caught cheating? How many resulted in homicide? That is different than walking in and accidentally catching someone in the act. It doesn’t negate the crime, but people are left with the thought of something like, yeah, I understand that. It gives a jury a chance to say that it’s still wrong but with a lesser penalty. You are correct, it’s still Murder because he intentionally killed someone. In some cases, the person may not have had time to think it out rationally. Quite a while back, Texas removed that law from the books. If you intentionally kill someone, it’s Murder, period or as social media now says, full stop. To (in my opinion) appease people, the changed law said that intentionally killing someone is still Murder even if you were provoked into anger, however….. The law on the penalty for Murder is a First Degree Felony and 5-99 years. IF, after a jury convicts a person of intentionally killing someone, so Murder, but finds that it was under sudden passion, the jury can voluntarily reduce the penalty to a Second Degree Felony or 2-20 years in prison. Of course even for a regular Murder charge, a jury can give a person as little as 5 years. So why the option to reduce it in deliberations to a 20 year maximum as a mitigating factor when a jury can do that without a different law? I think it’s a feel good law although technically under sudden passion a person can receive a 2 year minimum as opposed to a 5 year minimum. I don’t see much of a chance of a jury convicting a person of Murder and then giving a 2 year sentence but sometimes juries are strange. So what does all of that have to do with this case? I can think of two tactics by the defense. I think it’s fairly certain that the kid accused did kill the other. That leaves either sudden passion as a lesser prison sentence or self-defense. Did the deceased initiate an act toward the accused that placed the accused in a reasonable belief that he was in danger of serious bodily injury or death? I haven’t looked at the case lately, but it seems like there was a claim that the now deceased student grab the other guy by the arm or shoved him. Does grabbing a person by the arm or shoving him place the other person in fear of death or serious bodily injury? If that is true then there can sure be a lot of lawful killing going on. Even if a person punches you in the nose, does that lead a reasonable person to believe that he is about to die or suffer a serious bodily injury? Imagine how many kids fought when we were in school. How many would justify deadly force in self defense? I can attempt to think that is how the defense is going to approach this, however. They’re going to say that there was an argument and one student shove the other, so the one that would’ve killed him in “self defense”. Although, in my opinion, it should not work, it will be setting the grounds for asking for a lesser sentence due to sudden passion and probation.

Clearly it should be a conviction but who knows with the politics of the day. I could see him being convicted of Manslaughter as a lesser included offense but it doesn’t really fit the crime although it would in other states. In some states sudden passion is considered Manslaughter or Voluntary Manslaughter (as it was when I started 42 years ago) but Texas has removed that law. There is part of the Murder law in Texas that allows a jury to consider sudden passion as a mitigating factor AFTER the person is convicted of Murder.

[Hidden Content]

I used to say that but apprenticeships and technical certifications or trade schools show that you can finish something. The military is the same. Do people really need English composition, humanities and intro to science classes for most jobs? I would venture to guess that in a majority of jobs, a person who has done 4 years in the military and was honorably discharged (and probably has a learned skill) should rank higher than a person who has English Lit and consumer math with a sheepskin. Looking at google out of curiosity, up to 41% of college grads are not employed in a job that deals with their degree and 52% at least initially take jobs that do not require a degree. I didn’t dig into how many eventually gained employment in jobs that actually require a degree Obviously some jobs should require a certain level of education such as medical doctors, lawyers, school teachers, certified accountants, HR people, perhaps banking, etc. Other than those, I think the need for college is way overblown.

According to the schedule that I saw it is Bridge City and then Lake Charles Barbe.

I used to order them off of Amazon until I found them at HEB on FM365 in Port Arthur. I like most beans but Anasazi are my favorite.

Have you tried the Anasazi beans?

The system runs on plea deals. No person who takes over as DA can throw the book at everyone and bring each accused person to trial. It would take many more courts, judges, jails and prisons.

And apparently so she could sell books….

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.