tvc184

19–14 KWP halftime

Kickoff out of endzone. Nederland ball with 0:36

Just before half, KWP 19-14. KWP went for the two-point conversion after missing a kick PAT and did not make it.

Nederland gets to kickoff from KWP 45 After personal foul on Touchdown. kwp completes 67 touchdown pass

At 0:49 in half, Nederland 14-13

Touchdown keeper for Nederland

4:37 in half, KWP 13-7

Nederland return kickoff to own 36.

KWP 13-7 after miss PAT

Touchdown pass for KWP

KWP punts and Nederland roughs the kicker.

KWP ball on own 21 7-7

Nederland goes on 4-13 from KWP 28 and Scramble comes up short.

End of 1, 7-7.

0:41 in 1, 7-7

KWP goes on 4-1 and Nederland gets turn over on downs

The qb runs well, there are 2-3 other wide receivers that are pretty good but they have been hampered all year by the qb not getting them the ball, many times overthrowing. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link and Nederland‘s weakest link is the passing game. It is not weak due to the wide receivers however. Early in the year the running game was not bad, maybe average but now the defense can just stack the line. imo….

High pass intercepted. KWP ball

They look to be using Fuselier from the backfield so far.

Thank you. In another forum a guy kind of confronted me on his real world versus a movie set, which I think matters. He, like some people in this forum, was of the mindset that if you pointed a firearm, you were automatically guilty. I was thinking of a response and remembered another part of Texas law on defenses to prosecution. Sec. 8.02. MISTAKE OF FACT. (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense. (b) Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed. It potentially could exonerate Baldwin depending on how movies are made and depending on state law. You can see in (a) that if a person formed a reasonable belief that would negate culpability, it is a defense of prosecution. In (b), even if it does not fit the most serious crime, you might be charged with a lower crime if that culpable mental state could be proven. I have asked this several times in different forums but again, what is normally done on a movie set? It very well might matter. If actors are often handed guns and they are not required to check them to see if it has dummy or live rounds, that would seem to fit (a). Would it be a reasonable belief by an actor who maybe hundreds of times done or seen other actors handed a gun and they do not check them because they believe an expert has cleared the weapon. In such a scenario I believe it would definitely fit (a) as to a reasonable belief. Even if a person used (b), that could reduce a murder charge in Texas down to Criminal Negligent Homicide which can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor with as little as one day in jail or a fine only.

The school certainly should handle such problems. I don’t ever recall seeing a police officer at a school ever. ”Should handle” is the problem however. What do you do with the students who may want to learn at least enough to be able to get a job when they get out of high school? Do you say oh well, you happen to go to a crappy public school or do you call in someone else like the police to try to gain control? Maybe they could try something like this…

I have been kind of keeping up with it but there are so many comments other than from his relatives that it’s hard to find about his condition. After I posted a few days ago, he had a couple of setbacks search as a bacterial lung infection. He was treated at that time and from what I could gather responded well. It took a couple of days for him to start coming out of the induced coma. What I read yesterday was that he had become conscious but was having expected mental or neurologic issues. I don’t want to use their terminology but it sounds like he was fighting to regain consciousness The family member posted that the doctor said this is what is to be expected and it could last for a few days to weeks or months but if I remember correctly, it is unlikely to be permanent. From what I gathered, he is on the road to recovery but barring any other setbacks, it will just take a while with an unknown timeframe.

These experts show a part of the problem in discussing this case. You have one Harvard law professor that says you have to show intent to criminally charge Baldwin and another who says intent is not required. The Harvard law professor is an idiot but is listed as an expert. I guess that’s true if you’re teaching at Harvard law but I’m wondering about that answer. I would assume that every state and I know Texas does, has a law that does not require intent to commit death. In the press conference today it said what I have said all along, they were rehearsing a scene. I am going to guess that part of that scene had Baldwin looking toward the camera and firing a shot for dramatic effect. Unfortunately he was mistakenly handed what was supposed to be an unloaded gun or a gun with a blank charge but was in fact loaded with a live round. So the question of the culpable mental state will probably come down to the definition of reckless or the definition of criminal negligence in New Mexico or whatever way they choose to describe how things happen. It is called Mens Rea which I think is Latin for “guilty mind”. Like always I will use Texas law as an example. Here is the definition quoted about criminal negligence. It is not just negligence which almost any accident is, it is criminal in nature. A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint. You really kind of have to note where is says deviate from standard care of an ordinary person….. under the circumstances…. as viewed from the actors standpoint. It is kind of interesting that Texas uses the word “actor” to mean criminal. That is what I have been trying to explain. You have to put yourself in the position that the person is in that situation. I don’t care what someone would have done deer hunting and I don’t care what somebody would do at the shooting range or the Police Academy. This was on a movies set where actors are probably very likely to be handed guns and never check them. We can argue whether they should or not but that is a different issue than the law. It has to be viewed from the actor’s standpoint. That is not my interpretation, that is a quote from Texas law. Is New Mexico law any different? I’m sure it is similar but the wording might leave open more possibilities. Maybe I’ll look it up later. And I kind of consider myself an expert. Maybe they will quote me… 😂

I watched that 20+ minute press conference. All they said was the standard, we have ruled nothing out which should be the correct answer. When you have not finished your investigation, how can you rule out something?

United States Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and Sarah Huckabee Sanders had the same qualities.