tvc184

Yesterday I heard that it has a faster incubation period. Maybe three days instead of 7 -10 days. Assuming that is true, it seems to be better because you won’t walk around for a week and a half not knowing if you will get it or spread it. Once you become exposed you will know almost within a few hours if you get it and are contagious.

Certainly. We have codes to get around the firewall. Each supervisor with access has his/her own password so it can be tracked.

I guess that they have not had time to train the social workers to take care of all these issues……..

…. hence the problem with working for a politician / elected official.

build back better bbb Just sayin’…..

It was extremely stupid comments. Maybe that’s what the judge was thinking but it does not make sense. It appears that the 17-year-old went into a felony (I am assuming) drug deal armed and with the intent to protect his illegal assets if needed. He basically went into that drug deal ready to kill and did. Except for his age, in some states I believe he might be eligible for the death penalty or life without parole. With that, this judge decided that he’s a bright kid with a great future and gave him probation. Insanity….

I am assuming that’s a jab at IMWT

You can use the force necessary to recover your property. You can trespass to recover property.

I can only make a guess by Texas law. I think it would still be murder. Remember the three Port Neches kids and the kid from Silsbee a couple of months ago. Apparently the three were trying to sell some marijuana and they picked up the kid from Silsbee to make the deal. Both sides had at least one gun each and somehow they got in a shoot out in the car. If I remember correctly, the story from the three was it they were selling marijuana and the other kid tried to rob them after meeting under the agreement of buying it. Basically a dope dealer robbing a dope deal which is not unusual. I think all three were indicted for murder. It is plausible that their story was correct that they were there to sell drugs and had no intention on any violence. Texas law says that you cannot be committing a crime or provoke the encounter and then claim self-defense. If two drug dealers meet in an alley and get in a shoot out, the loser is usually dead and the winner goes to prison for murder. There is a part of that Texas law that says if you provoke the encounter, you can again claim self-defense but you have to “abandon the encounter” or “clearly”’ state your intent to abandon the encounter. So a 17-year-old is selling marijuana. The 15-year-old grabs it and runs. The 17-year-old chases down the 15 year old to complete the deal (crime) by getting his money or get his marijuana back. I don’t think he gets to claim self-defense at that point. Then your question was, if the 15-year-old started getting the best of him did the 17 year old get to claim self-defense? Answer is yes….. IF he abandoned the encounter or if he clearly stated to the 15 year old and him what he’s no more part of it and try to leave. If they 15 year old continues at that point, yes by Texas law I believe he would get to claim self-defense. I mean you can always claim it but will it stand up in court in front of a jury? If we are going to what if, what if the 15 year old intended to buy the marijuana and not steal it? What is the 17 year old said give me $20 and when the 15 year old pulls out a wad of cash, the 17 year old in pulls the blade and says now give me all of it, thereby committing an aggravated robbery? The 15 year old runs not to steal the marijuana but flees for his life. There is a good chance that the 15-year-old was only committing a misdemeanor crime of possessing marijuana and it was a 17 year old who later told his own version (which is why I think they take away the right of self-defense if you are committing a crime) of events to make it look like he was somehow the victim. As baddog said, if you went into the fight and bit off more than you can chew, you don’t get to stab the person (claim self-defense). While it is certainly plausible that the 15-year-old instigated the incident, I don’t think the 17-year-old gets to make a self-defense claim unless he chased a 15-year-old kid down but after getting his butt kicked, tried to abandon the encounter and get away himself and the 15 year old continued with the assault. In any case a jury almost always will have to make that call with the evidence presented and the applicable law. I think it is murder, I think the state of Illinois knew that and charged him with first-degree murder accordingly and the judge is an idiot. By the news story, it seemed like the judge was almost praising him as being an upstanding and bright young kid who just got caught up in a bad situation. Like the question people often ask, if the 15 year was the judge’s son, would he think the 17-year-old was a bright young kid and just made a mistake?

Pretty much that is correct in my opinion. A black eye and bloody nose doesn’t justify deadly force no matter who started it.

The left side of the aisle are a bunch of crybabies. They get on the national stage and talk about inclusion and working together but their actions behind the scene tell a completely different story.

Race gets political points and gets clicks in the media. In this case the race of neither the police officer nor the victims is relevant to anything. It is a fact of whatever race they were but it is not relevant to the incident.

I would not take that bet.

News media…. I read a couple of variations of this. One gave the account that the deceased was fighting the suspect after stealing the marijuana. The way it sounded but did not specifically say, it was like a 15-year-old beat up the 17 year old in order to steal the marijuana. Another media article said he grab the marijuana and fled and was chase down and stabbed by the suspect. That goes to extremely different situations, depending on which one is correct. I tend to believe that the 15-year-old fled and was chased by the 17-year-old. I believe the media that reported the fight, left out the “little tidbit” of the chase. Huge? Uhhhh…. yeah! Let’s go with the assumption that the 15 year old stolen marijuana and then using his wrestling skills, jumped on the 17 year old and started thrashing him pretty good. That would not only seem to lessen the responsibility of a 17-year-old, it might actually absolve him of guilt. It might be a pure case of self-defense during a robbery. I have actually want these kinds of cases. If one guy goes to sell a $10 blunt and during the sale the buyer pulls a gun and takes the blunt and the seller’s money, we call that aggravated robbery. If the 17-year-old was committing a crime by selling the weed and when he lost a little bit of his profit, chase down that Juvenile thief and began stabbing him, that is clearly way different. I should be first-degree murder which is exactly what he was charged with. I think that judge’s comments are disgusting. He said the 17 year old murderer was is a bright kid with a bright future. HUH?? Yeah, the bright kid as the judge claims, just pleaded guilty to murdering a child in a bad drug deal. Bright kid with a bright future? In Chicago? He now has street creds and will eventually be leading an organize crime organization. Either this was purely self-defense even though he was selling a little bit of marijuana and he should’ve been cleared of murder or it was first-degree murder and he should be in prison. The reason his name was not given is because in Illinois, he is a juvenile. He could have been tried as an adult but I guess this bright kid needed a break..

I don’t lose a lot of sleep when I see in the news that a criminal has been killed… in most cases. But… in a very narrow opinion, if we routinely killed shoplifters, it would have no bearing on mass shooters. In fact it could potentially increase them. Most of them probably have no criminal record anyway. The problem is their goal in most cases is to die or certainly risk death for perverted glory in their sick minds. For whatever reason they are angry at the world or a person at a company or a group of people and most want to die but in their anger want to bring people with them. It is just my opinion but that is why most of them are almost never wounded and taken into custody by the police. They either die at the same or or taken into custody at another location but not during the active shooting. The ones that do not want to die, for some reason want to live in their own mind for their glory either by convincing themselves they did a great thing (like Dylann Roof) or maybe by fame in the media. I think many of them, once the police have arrived on scene, kill themselves. They don’t want to take the risk of being wounded by the police but not dying and therefore forced to be made a spectacle of. I think some of them believe their last bit of payback to the world is killing themselves thereby keeping other peoples from gaining vengeance. I think probably most people feel the same way as you (and I) do with extreme frustration with the amount of stupidity and crime happening. Maybe a majority of people, when they read of such an incident of a criminal being shot and killed, want to break into a little bit of Queen with, Another One Bites The Dust. I just don’t think it will have any impact on mass shootings. If anything it might emboldened them with an almost assured suicide by cop.

Awesome! Two blessings and great family members to carry it forward.

When you were beaten, it is time to quit. Martin attacked Zimmerman, not the other way around.

I am not taking issue with your response or analogy…. But, there is no evidence that Zimmerman chased anyone. Actually quite to the contrary. I guess it is the same but with Zimmerman, the chaser was killed and not the chasee. 👌

It is hard for me to tell in this forum whether someone is being sarcastic or serious. I will go with this being sarcasm for now as that is some of the most nonsensical stuff I have ever read.

They are exactly the same. Because you might agree with one and not the other, it does not change the fact that if a person thinks he can make money by selling something illegal, he will do so. It is silly to think that someone is willing to commit a crime of selling (not using) an illegal item but will only do so if it is marijuana. In this case you had a 17-year-old kid trying to make easy money and when he did not make that easy money, he murdered a 15 year old. Is it your premise a 17-year-old who is willing to commit a felony and then murder a child when he could not complete that felony, would not be a criminal except for marijuana being illegal? The same 17 year old would not have sold something else illegal for easy money? THAT, is the kool-Aid.

I might be 100% wrong but I would bet that he drew his gun for whatever reason and when putting it back in the holster, had his finger on the trigger.

Texas probably has the most open laws on using deadly force including sometimes for theft. Shooting a shoplifter in the back in daylight is not one of them.

Yes, that’s Murder.

Whether marijuana should be legal or not would have changed anything. Maybe the dead kid would not have been there but another person would have been there in his place buying something else illegal. Just like in the days of prohibition, when Al Capone and other gang leaders we’re selling alcohol because it was illegal and they use the illegal product to make a lot of money. When alcohol became legal, did the mafia go away and quit committing crimes? Did they all go out to get respectable jobs? The obvious answer is no but the next question is, why? Because they are criminals and will use whatever crime is available to make their money. Prostitution? Gun running? Selling of other drugs that are illegal? Even the selling of marijuana in Colorado where it is legal, is a felony if you don’t have a store and pay the tax. Only certain people in Colorado are allowed to sell. I can guarantee they’re still illegal sales of marijuana in Colorado where the possession of it is legal. it is interesting that you list tobacco. Want an example? In New York City there was a high tax for regular cigarettes. That is why some people (criminals) drive across the bridge to New Jersey and buy cigarettes and return to sell the loosies on the streets of New York. That is how Eric Garner died of a heart attack in a struggle with police who are arresting him not for selling cocaine, not an illegal gun and not marijuana but a cigarette that you could buy over the counter at any convenient store in this country. It was no different than rum runners going across the border with Canada and returning with alcohol. Wait, I thought cigarettes were legal everywhere in this country, How could somebody die fighting the police for selling a cigarette? A person who is willing to commit a felony by selling marijuana, is not all of a sudden going to be a model and upstanding citizen because marijuana becomes legal. He will just change it to selling PCP, cocaine, guns or in the case of Eric Garner, a Marlboro cigarette. Where does the rationale come in believing that felons are only felons because of something like marijuana being illegal. Like a person is going to say gee, I don’t mind going to prison for selling a little bit of marijuana but I sure don’t want to go to prison for selling a gun or cocaine.

Rather than continue to defund the police, the San Francisco mayor now calls for refunding police and for “aggressive policing”. The mayor has said that the allowed lawlessness that has taken control of the city has to stop. Shocking right? Stripping the police of their powers and taking them off of the streets and replacing them with social workers apparently hasn’t worked out quite like planned. Many people have stated that defunding the police will come with consequences. San Francisco, Austin, New York City, Baltimore and other places have shown us exactly what will happen. San Francisco might be the worst case. When the government takes away much of the incentive to work by banning evictions, giving away “free” money and encouraging people to stay on the government payroll with a crisis that they created, is it any wonder that there are millions of unfilled jobs yet high unemployment? When the same government removes criminal penalties, allows lawlessness with riots and daylight looting such as in San Francisco, is it any wonder that without consequences, some (many?) people will take advantage? [Hidden Content]