tvc184

In a way I think they have already become the norm. As WOSdrummer99 said, it is a classic battle between good and evil. The main problem today is that the evil has been made main stream. Now it seems fashionable to side with evil for political reasons. This isn’t about HS football though and it just happened to be the venue for this incident. Society is the problem. I have posted many times in several forums, when you lock down the schools, a person intent on evil will simply change his target or find another way to hit the same target.

High school football games have been shot up in mass shootings forever? I kind of feel like even in the “old days” when we had three television channels, and they went off air at midnight, if several people would be shot at a high school football game, we would have heard about it.

That may be true but why would separatist be banned? (and I know it wasn’t your comment )

That’s it. It is either misunderstood or intentionally misleading to call this fights. It is violent crime, period and should be dealt with as such. It appears from the WB video, if it is authentic, at least one and possibly more students could be facing several felony charges up to 99 years in prison, according to what injures and other actions may be involved. I have read that the kid was possibly lured into the restroom. Let’s go out on a limb here and say that at least two other students, along with the one that did the beating, were involved in someway in setting this up. That means no matter the felony, it would be one degree higher under organized crime. If the kids suffered serious, bodily injury, and they stole something such as a cell phone or wallet as has been claimed, it is a first-degree felony not of a 5-99 year possible sentence but (I think and we’ll look it up later) it goes to 25-99.

The problem in my opinion is that many or maybe most of these “fights” aren’t fights. That is a cop out and a convenient explanation. They are assaults, sex assaults, robberies, probably kidnappings, etc. Everybody knows and has said that fights at school have been around since there were schools. How many times did I hear at school, meet me at the bicycle rack after third period or what became popular for a time, let’s meet behind the church. That was across the street from the school and not on school property so we thought we were exempt from consequences. But the theme was the same. A couple of guys had a score to settle and they did, often not a spur of the moment burst of testosterone but a planned event with the aforementioned, meet me at…… Luring kids into a restroom for a robbery, having a pre planned beat down of a timid kid by a gang of bullies is not part of, “there have always been fights”. So yeah, covid might have played a part if it was just tempers flaring. I don’t buy it though. Kids were in school together for 9 years and being out of school for a year all of a sudden they don’t know how to act? Sometimes? Sure. But again, this isn’t tempers running high. If it is a result of covid, shouldn’t every school be suffering the same consequences? There are two major emotional or logical motivating factors in behavior. Those are incentives and consequences. Incentives. Why do some people go to college? Why do some people volunteer for overtime? Why do some people choose one profession over another? It is the personal desire to achieve money, status, a desired profession and so on. Most of the time it is a combination of the and other factors. Consequences. If it were not for laws, social status, etc, and if there were no consequences, would any of us act differently? If Texas retains the 5 speckled trout limit but then says, we will no longer all out game wardens to enforce that law, how many otherwise upstanding people would always stop at legal but unenforced limit? If the speed limits remained the same but the police were told to no longer in force them, how many people would speed or how high would they go? When you take away incentives to work, is there any shock that many people won’t work? When you take away consequences, is there any shock that bad behavior increases, sometimes dramatically? I believe that some people will always be bums. They existed long before any welfare system came into play. I believe that there will always be and has been criminals no matter how severe the law. But what are the percentages? We have probably all heard the 10-80-10 (15-70-15, 20-60-20, etc) management concept. It is like 10% of the people will always do the right thing, 10% will always do the wrong thing but the 80% in the middle will go which way they are led. Which way has our country (and the world ) been led on incentives and consequences?

Sometimes I think it may be required by law. I am not familiar with the state and federal laws on student admissions but like the police, sometimes a school administrators hands might be tired. I don’t know that and maybe someone in the school administration will speak up. I mean, look at Illinois, where they are about to start a new law where some rapists and murderer suspects will be allowed to walk the streets, being released on their own recognizance. There a time when it is not the officials’ fault, but the elected legislators who cannot be sued

We have a growing pattern but this girl’s story isn’t part of it. The Safe T act is pure Democratic insanity. First they called the police out of high crime areas such as in Baltimore and Minneapolis and are they shocked that crime soared. Next they defunded and still trying to defund the police and are shocked that crime has soared. Now in Illinois they are going to completely eliminate cash bail. You will see no more…. bail was set at $10,000 for felony drug sales. A person will either be held in jail to await trial or simply be released. Even for violent crimes, a judge had to hold a hearing to determine if the person needs to be held until trial or simply released. So for the crimes of kidnapping, 2nd degree murder (probably without premeditation such as killing somebody in a bar fight), robbery, drug induced homicide, burglary (breaking into someone’s home), assault with serious injuries, etc., a judge has to have a hearing to determine if there are other circumstances (other than the murder, kidnapping, felony assault, breaking into people’s homes, etc that they committed) that would make him/her think that the person is a danger. So…… if you kidnap or murder someone, that doesn’t automatically mean you are a threat to the public. Gee, what can go wrong? The country has seen and is about to really see what happens when you make the police out to be the bad guy and criminals as victims of being misunderstood. Every time something stupid happens such as in the last few years (federal judges don’t know what different sexes are, criminals don’t need to be held in jail, it is okay for teachers to discuss with 8 year old children the pros and cons of having a sex change, some people are born racist by skin color, etc) and you think, nothing will be worse than this…. but then we have things like the Safe T act that leaves us thinking, what next?

And for now (fingers crossed it won’t happen), Pelosi is next in line after Harris. Sure, we all know the Constitution and if Harris became the president, she could then choose her vice president which would have to be approved by the Senate and the House similar to a Supreme Court nominee except both houses would vote and not just the Senate. Pelosi would then go back to #3 in line. Hopefully that dynamic changes in 7 weeks. Here is a “what if” that might scare Democrats. If the Republicans pick up only 1 seat in the Senate, they will have control if they all vote together. No nominee can be approved without at least some Republican support. If they can flip 4 seats in the House, the Speaker of the House, with complete control of ALL legislation, would be a Republican. The biggest “what if”….. If both scenarios happen (or even one actually) and Biden leaves office for whatever reason, the Republican Speaker of the House would be #2 in line for the presidency until both houses of Congress agrees on the Vice President nominee. So the Republicans would have to approve of any Harris nominee (or if she left office first, any Biden nominee) as vice president or a Republican would be next in line. It kind of gives a different view of the current Democrat, who needs you or bipartisanship stance. I would bet they now will all of a sudden want to reach across the aisle.

Sure, the DA could probably have not agreed to the guilty plea which was likely a deal. She had a choice not to confess. She had the choice to a trial by jury but pleaded guilty. The judge had the choice of not showing leniency. And so on…..

What appears to be facts: She was a runaway and was living in apartments in the hallways, etc. She claims to have been kidnapped and forced into prostitution. Maybe true, maybe not. Her guy/pimp/abductor was wrong in any case and if alive, should be put into prison for many years. From the articles I have read, including this one, it is her alibi as told only by her. Uhhhh…. He forced me into this. She confessed to the murder, saying that the man was asleep. When she got up to kill him, she likely could have walked away. Her own statement was that she got up, got a knife and stabbed him 30 times, sometimes in the groin area. That makes it sound like anger instead of self defense. Understandable? Probably but it is hardly like he was attacking her and she grabbed a knife and it got out of hand. She could have taken her case to a trial but chose to plead guilty. Although confessing to and charged with Murder, she was allowed to plead guilty to two lesser charges. Instead of sentencing her to prison, the judge gave her probation only and then for only five years. As the judge noted, while being held in juvenile detention she had issues with violating the rules. She apparently doesn’t work and play well with others. Iowa law calls for any guilty verdict in a death to also carry a mandatory minimum of $150,000 restitution to the family of the deceased. The judge gave her the absolute minimum under the law. 1. She chose to run away. 2. She chose to sleep among adults and possibly to let men abuse her to survive. 3. She claimed that one man in particular was her captor. 4. She claimed that she waited until he was asleep and confessed to murdering him instead of trying to leave. 5. She could have taken it to a jury but chose to plead guilty for only five years probation where the judge appears to have sentenced her as lightly as the law allows. I have read hundreds of comments on Facebook where the system is broken, the judge was corrupt, they charged her while she defended herself, etc. Do we really know what happened? No since we can’t read the case file. Her attorney certainly did. I read the applicable Alabama law and it doesn’t appear that she was a valid self defense claim. Her own confession said that she was not being attacked. I read the law of mandatory compensation for the dead guy’s family. It seems the judge took all of that into consideration and gave her the bare minimum allowed. EDIT: Tpyo only.

Wrong. It shows how brilliant the Democrats are. A man is distraught as he comes home and sees his house full engulfed in flames and the fire department desperately trying to put it out. As he falls to the ground and starts crying in despair, Kamala Harris walks up, pats the man on the shoulder and tells him not to worry, his house is not burning to the ground. The man jumps to his feet and walks away smiling while saying, “Thank you!! For a minute I thought I was in a horrible situation”. Utterly brilliant in front of the correct audience.

Yeah, kids were fighting in school 200 years ago. I think this is different in recent years where people gang up and commit aggravated assault or robbery. Sometimes it is probably race based. I never saw any fight that wasn’t 1 on 1.

Absolutely but you have to love the irony. The Indians need to forfeit to the Indians because they are Indians.

should be 92.5 fm.

It is like talking in the phone while driving. You can talk to a person in the car with you and be perfectly aware of your surroundings. Talking on the phone changes that dynamic. Even on a classic landline phone, watch people‘s eyes while they are talking. They might be staring up in space or looking straight ahead but not seeing anything. Once you have that phone in your hand, it becomes about 90% of your concentration point. People riding in golf carts, ATVs, etc. are driving on a roadway as if they were driving on a golf course or in someone’s yard. They simply are not paying as much attention. Bicycles on the other hand, are almost exclusively ridden on the road and you know that if you’re riding in the middle of the roadway, particularly at an intersection, you were facing danger. Even children perceive that. It is not that they cannot make mistakes and obviously children get killed on bicycles but they are aware that they are not a motor vehicle. There are probably 500 times more bicycles with children on the roads (at least) than there are children driving golf carts and ATVs on the road yet what are the likelihood of making a bad mistake with one compared to the other? Even with hundreds of more times kids on bicycles, how many times do we hear serious injuries on them as compared to one of the “toy” vehicles? Like talking on the phone even when sitting at a desk, in my opinion it is the mindset of the person and not whether one is inherently more dangerous than the other. With your example of driving a car on the road before you have a license, even 14 years old is well aware of the difference of a car and a bicycle. I just think that children driving ATVs and golf carts are not thinking the same way they would when with driving a car. Those off road vehicles are just a bicycle by other means.

This topic has been beaten to death but I find this interesting. Apparently another Indian group (Indigenous People’s Movement) has complained about the PNG mascot, the Indians. As part of their protest, they call on all opponents of PNG to forfeit their games. I guess they think PNG going 10-0 and winning district is a punishment. But here is the reason I am posting this. It lists all of PNG opponents this year such as Beaumont United, Nederland, WOS and…….. Santa Fe. Santa Fe you ask?? Yes, the Santa Fe INDIANS need to forfeit to the PNG INDIANS because PNG uses Indians. I am not sure if people can read the Beaumont Enterprise pages whatever Subscription. [Hidden Content]

I am glad that PNG, like Nederland, has a dedicated station. I have listened on many occasions. But, their announcers I think are borderline comical to the point (like you say) of being annoying. I don’t think there is any ill intent at all. They seem cheerful, never derogatory to the other team and really push for their team. They probably do a better job than I ever could. But …… 😀

Mandatory…. IF it is prosecuted as such. For example…. It has been a while since I looked up the penalties but a habitual violator (three strikes on any felonies except a state jail felony which is basically an enhanced misdemeanor) carries a 25 year minimum sentence. As an example, a guy is intoxicated, runs a stop sign and hits another vehicle. It causes a broken foot on the other driver but nothing life threatening. That is Intoxication Assault and a third degree felony or a 2-10 sentence. BUT, a few years ago he was convicted of using his 70 year old grandmother’s credit card and on another occasion, got caught with a single rock of cocaine and convicted. So he was caught in two fairly low key felonies (no injuries or even threats to anyone) non-violent felonies. All the cases carried the 2-10 year sentence. Since the guy previously used his grandmother’s credit card without permission and since he got caught with a rock of cocaine, for the broken foot in a DWI accident he is now facing 25-99 as a habitual violator. Even Murder has a 5-99 penalty so in this case the broken foot in an accident actually carries a stiffer of penalty than Murder. That is an extremely powerful tool for prosecutors. So let’s play the plea bargain what if game. We (DA) will let you plead guilty to intoxication assault and 10 years in prison as the maximum sentence. You can potentially get out on parole in about two years. OR……. you can go to trial and face a jury and they can give you a 25 year minimum and up to 99 years. So if you are the accused and reasonably certain of a conviction, do you accept the maximum sentence and get out two years or do you face with jury that might give you up to 99? Therefore, while there are a mandatory sentencing guidelines for a three strike felony, whether a DA makes a plea deal or not can mean everything. So 2-10 or 25-99? That is why you see stories like a guy that has eight felony convictions but is walking the streets. So to your question, are there mandatory for three felonies convictions? Absolutely!! Are these potential life sentences prosecuted to the max? Absolutely……. not.

But at the same time they have people with multiple DWIs and no prison time. It makes for a quick guilty plea bargain. The suspect can risk a felony conviction and prison time or plea guilty to a misdemeanor for a month in the county jail…. to be served on weekends. Let’s see, which would I choose……

I have read discussions and have seen a few videos and they are all over the place as to legalities. But…….. Several have said that a president, while he’s in the office, can authorize, declassify or whatever with any documents that he wishes. Some (or maybe all) of it is done by executive order and the only way that the executive order can be overturned, is for the current president to undo what the last president did. Since it is not enacted law, it can be changed basically at the whim of the current president. Almost everyone that spoke about this subject agreed that Biden would have to approve the seizure of the documents.

There is a reason that you have to be at least 16 years old to get a drivers license and then only if you took driver’s ed. Everybody knows that but for some reason when it’s a cute vehicle like an ATV or a golf cart, all of a sudden the 12-year-old knows as much as a 30-year-old.

I will add, it obviously depends on what happened and what can be proven. What if the 12 year old unknowingly took the keys and without any person’s consent or even knowledge? What is an adult allowed the children to use the ATV in the yard but they thought it would be fun to sneak onto the road for a few seconds? To many “what ifs”.

In my opinion, yes and realistically, almost without question. Whether the DA will pursue charges is a different matter. In my experience a DA will often let the parents slide, probably out of sympathy.

I inadvertently ran into McGuire that year while working as a police officer at another game on a Saturday. He seemed like an extremely humble young man. I have no clue about him other than that one chance encounter but it was enough to make me remember it 30 years later.

Game, MHS 42-21