tvc184

Generally in Texas it is lawful to use force but not deadly force to protect property. Sometimes there is a misunderstanding of the words “force”. A law might say a person can use the force necessary. That is different than deadly force necessary. There are extremely limited reasons to lawfully use deadly force to protect property but they do exist. The nighttime criminal mischief is many times overstated in my opinion. Deadly force is not legal to stop criminal mischief unless “property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means”. (Quoting Texas law) If a person uses deadly force to stop teenagers from throwing toilet paper, that is probably murder. If a person is breaking your windshield wiper, there had better be a high risk of you getting killed by trying to stop him or again, it is probably murder. The law doesn’t talk about speculation either. It goes by what is known to the person at the time who is using the force. For example at 12 year old kid “could” have a pistol and “might” kill you. If 12 your kid is throwing confetti in your yard, you cannot shoot him and say well I thought he might have a pistol. If he produces the pistol, that isa different issue. If you’re 5 foot 110 pound woman and there’s a 6’2” 220 pound man doing something, that might be a reasonable belief. So far protection of property either from theft or criminal mischief the first requirement is it be during the night. The second requirement to make deadly force lawful is that there were not other reasonably means to stop theft or criminal mischief. If you could just yell at someone and scare them away, and that is what is “necessary”. Remember that when a person uses deadly force, that person might be in front of a jury trying to explain why he killed someone in the nighttime for throwing eggs.

Just give me your money……

There is obviously some kind of mental illness going on within the group. “White supremacist” seems to be the answer to any question that comes up. Is like some form of Tourette’s or OCD. Why does a Beaumont city councilman want to bring the Battleship Texas to Beaumont? White supremacy. Why does a substantial percentage of Americans not want to take the Covid vaccine? White supremacy. Why are Bidens poll numbers some of the lowest in history? White supremacy. Why did the Cowboys have about five penalties in the game that kept them from beating San Francisco? White supremacy. And so it goes…

The FBI now says that it is not only a terror attack but was targeting the Jewish community. It only took about 48 hours for what some people claim is the preeminent law-enforcement agency in this country, to figure out what everybody else took about 30 seconds to figure out. I completely understand that you don’t know something until you investigate it thoroughly. With the original statement that there is nothing to indicate the Jewish community was targeted seems rather disingenuous. If they did not want to commit out of political correctness, a better statement would seem to have been, we don’t know yet but it appears to have targeted the Jewish community.

Really just which way the thread will go…..

Watch what happens if it’s not the coach that “the community wants”. It will be another 23 pages of…….

It is likely a cover-up for the administration. I don’t blame administration one bit for this radicalize nut case. No matter who the president was, he would have done what he did. For political purposes however, they don’t want the current administration to look bad because obviously some people will blame them. They also don’t want anyone to think there are issues that threaten the national requiring a response.

I have spent some time studying this subject and I can say with 100% certainty, every head football coach at any level, never held a head coaching position before he was selected the first time.

Which is the intent of the United States Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights. A majority (pure democracy) should not be able to take away your right to an Attorney, your right to remain silent, your right to free speech, etc. Like the saying goes… Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.

I took it as a routine investigation. I mean that when someone is killed, there is always investigation to see what happened, it might be on video with 20 witnesses but you can’t just walk away and say it was justified. Also in a case like this they want to find if anyone else is involved. He does not even have to be a terror attack but just a local crime. It can be a felony for three people to discuss a felony and then at least one person do some overt act to further the crime that is how a conspiracy is made. My best friend at work shot and killed a guy one day while on duty. It was on two different cameras from two different angles they were very clear with audio. Basically a private citizen could have walked up, watched the videos and in three minutes proclaimed the officer not guilty. It was that obvious but… there had to be a thorough independent investigation and a grand jury review to see what would take a couple of minutes to determine. I have no problem with that because to do otherwise would be claimed to be a cover-up. That is how I look at this case. They obviously want to know if there’s someone else out there with help this man first because he would be helping a terrorist and part of the crime and secondly they might be plotting something else. They also want to review the police actions to make sure of what happened. EDIT: So I guess I agree with you, they are looking at it to see if it is justified but that is always. It’s not because this is a special case or that they doubt the officer(s).

Accomplices?

Trump rally in Conroe on January 29…….

The funniest jokes are based on the truth. This is absolutely based on the truth. When they add “just”….. Bend over and get ready….

WAIT, this is not open for a public vote by people who don’t live in the district? There is always something new to learn……

This ruling just overturned the stay issued by the Sixth Circuit. It stops the mandate immediately however, I believe this sends it back to the circuit court for a full hearing and ruling and not just a stay. Remember that the circuit court did not hear a full case in court, they just issued a temporary order overturning the Fifth Circuit rule to the contrary. If the circuit court in Ohio upholds the OSHA mandate, the Supreme Court will likely then grant review (certiorari) and issue a final ruling. In that case there will be a final decision that the OSHA mandate was unlawful. If the Sixth Circuit overturns The mandate at that level, it will probably end as unlawful because the Supreme Court within deny review and let the lower court order stand. There are two ways in effect that the Supreme Court can make a ruling. One is to hear a case and then come to a decision. The other is to simply refuse to hear the case. In that situation whatever happened previously, stands. If the Supreme Court does not grant review of the lower court case ruling, it basically agrees that there is no point in hearing the case.

The United States Supreme Court just struck down the OSHA vaccine mandate.

It is not that the other side “would” have done the same. The other side “did” do the same. The Republicans did nothing until the Democrats removed the filibuster to get federal judges approved. They were warned by McConnell, if they change the rules, it would come back to haunt them. The Democrats changed the rules but later did not like the result. They assumed that Hillary would win and then it would be no problem.

I am sure the Facebook fact checkers came in and declared her as putting out false information.….

Yep. Freedom of information act does not mean you can walk into a government agency and walk out with the information. Any person can ask for required paperwork, recording, etc., (everything is not open to discovery) but the government entity has 10 days to respond.

School at any level doesn’t make a person intelligent. School gives a person knowledge. It is like the difference between ignorance and stupidity.

I think that was B13’s intent on this page. Not necessarily specifically Crime but anything local. I know crime could keep it busy…..

To maybe explain it further; states do not enforce federal law, the federal government does. That is why you have federal special agents such as FBI, DEA, ATFetc., and the United States Attorney offices. The federals prosecute what they want under their law and the state prosecutes what it wants under state law. One does not generally cross into the other. If Colorado does not want to prosecute people under Colorado state law for possession of marijuana, great. The federal government still retains the right under their law to prosecute. In most cases, as a state police officer I cannot enforce federal laws and federal agents cannot enforce state laws. An FBI agent has no authority in Texas to pull you over for speeding yet I can pull you over for a license plate light out at night and put you in jail and tow your car. It is not because a state police officer has more authority than a federal agent but he simply enforcing the laws of his state whereas the federal agent is enforcing the laws of the United States. That is the dual sovereignty. So….. The federal law says that we have an income tax and you will pay it. The state police do not enforce that as it is not a state law. The federal government has the authority to enforce that laws. The state of Texas has no authority to tell its citizens, don’t pay attention to federal law. Clear as mud?

No. It is not even in the same ballpark. Both the state and federal governments independently have the right to make criminal and civil laws. The supremacy clause of the Constitution only comes into play if a federal law says basically “you will comply with this”. Both governments have the right independently to prosecute or sue. It is called dual sovereignty.

Yep, it is good to be the king.

I don’t think legally there is a difference. Politically there is. I have not taken the vaccine and do not plan on it. I think that it certainly is effective to some extent and it also poses a danger to many people. I am more worried about the danger it poses to people regardless of how effective it may be. But I don’t see where that negates federal authority. I do think what OSHA did is unconstitutional and or doesn’t follow federal law. I just don’t think under the constitution you can separate statutory authority whether under OSHA or income tax under Article VI.