tvc184

Testing…… I was reading a thread in another forum and the fight was, Waving HIPPA rights. I did not but I want to start out saying to begin with, you had two misspellings in your title.

Voice recognition…. And no matter how many times I proofread it, I usually have to go back and make corrections. For some reason it is easier to see once it has been posted. I will leave it for dramatic effect…. 😂

It depends on the person receiving it.

According to Wisconsin law I believe he was committing a misdemeanor because he was under 18 years old. I don’t know if that negates self-defense, it should not but you can never tell with a state law or what a DA will try to convince the jury to believe. If he was committing a crime that caused the attack on him, I believe that probably negates it. Like if he was breaking into someone’s house and they attacked him and he used deadly force, it would be unlawful because he cannot use a deadly force to further a criminal act. On the other hand if he was smoking marijuana which is also a misdemeanor and someone tried to kill him, does he have the right to self defense or would he lose it simple because he’s committing a misdemeanor that has nothing to do with the attack? I believe that him unlawfully carrying a rifle does not negate the right to self-defense but you could never tail about another state.

I am really not sure where people come up with their conclusions. Obviously different states have different laws and different requirements such as should you be required to retreat if it’s possible? I am sure that maybe even a majority of the people commenting have absolutely no clue what their state law says or in this case, the state law where you do not live. Even if they do they make up scenarios in their own mind as to what would be legal and not going by the letter of the law. Yes, this should be entertaining. Hopefully it will be not guilty

Now if they could just figure out a legitimate vaccine that would last as long as this thread……

He is just a pediatric brain surgeon, what does he know……

It’s kind of like seeing a typo and fighting the urge to respond. And I look back at many of my posts and see typos….. I have been commenting on another forum the last couple of days and I think the title of one thread was…. Waving HIPPA rights. I had to fight my emotions to keep from saying, first off, it’s waiving and then, it’s not HIPPA, it’s HIPAA. That was before I even read the thread. 😀

😂😂😂

Juries don’t set precedents but it is an interesting verdict.

This poll was done a year ago when much of the turmoil of defunding the police was really raging or about 3 months after George Floyd died. The narrative pushed by some (perhaps many) is that the minority community doesn’t want the police in their neighborhoods. This Gallup poll shows relatively true same response between black, white and Hispanics. On the question, do you want the same amount of police coverage or more, whites were at 88%, blacks at 81% and Hispanics at 83%. Apparently there’s not this huge divide between the races as the media and some politicians portray. Asians at 72% that had a more significant gap but even then a large majority wanted the police to stay. [Hidden Content]

In City after City the police force has been reduced or in some cases maybe like Baltimore, the police quit being proactive in some areas. I think some officers have a attitude, if you don’t want me in your neighborhood, fine. I believe in most of those cases we have seen a spike in violent crime and sometimes a huge spike. That kind of negates the claim I have seen so many times in various forums, The police do not prevent crime, they only respond to a crime scene after being. If they do not prevent crime, why all of a sudden we are having some significant rises in crime when the police are not there? If they do not prevent crime, why do we have them patrol? Why not just have them park on a street corner somewhere in various parts of the city and wait for a crime to happen?

CK got a deep pockets settlement so I guess you could call that a win. He did not beat the NFL in court and doubt that he could unless he had a recording of two or more owners claiming they were going to stop him from getting a contract. In the deep pocket theory, you sue someone that has a lot of money and make it more expensive for them to win than to settle. For example you could sue the NFL for $100 million for discrimination, then drag it out in court for a decade and cause $25 million in legal fees….. or they could make an offer of $10 million to just drop the whole issue. The NFL can spend $25 million to win and prove their case or they can spend $10 million to say, just go away. It is like, you have no case and we can beat you in court but to beat you will cost twice as much money. Now ask why insurance rates are so high…

This sends to be the premise of the federal lawsuit…. “The lawsuit alleges San Marcos Police chose not to provide the Biden bus with a police escort despite multiple requests, and even refused “to take reasonable steps to protect both Plaintiffs’ safety and their foundational democratic rights.” Maybe their lawyers haven’t read the Supreme Court decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzalez. In CR, it wasn’t feelings or we were scared and you wouldn’t provide a safe space. In CR a woman had a restraining order against her estranged husband. A few weeks later he kidnapped them and the woman called the police and urged them to go find her husband because her children were in danger. The police refused and told her to wait until later to see if he brings them back. He did not bring them back but rather murdered all three children and brought them to the police station. There he died in a shootout with the police. The Supreme Court ruled that there is no constitutional guarantee of police protection. There might be statutory state laws that demand the police respond to a situation but there is nothing in federal law nor the United States Constitution guarantees protection. So let’s see, the murder of three children with the police refusing to look for them is not unconstitutional but having feelings hurt is?

According to the article, he made $40 million being akin to a slave. He was able to come and go anywhere he wanted and could afford to buy just about anything he wanted….. but they made sure he was the right guy beforehand. AND…. it was all voluntary. He was not forced to play football in high school, he could’ve turned down a scholarship for college, he could’ve turned down millions for the NFL and walked away to do something else non-slave like. I wonder if any slaves from the mid-1800s would consider trading places with him. Yes, I assume according to him, everything is slavery. If you go for a routine job interview, they are probably trying to determine who is best just like the NFL. So I guess technically he is correct. Almost everything we do can in some way be compared to slavery. Well, at least with a couple of big exceptions…. it is all voluntary and compensated. I don’t think it is true but it seems that CK has a skewed view of what slavery was.

I was just reading on the Facebook page, he apparently still has a feeding tube but is starting to eat regular food. Yesterday they brought him food from Floyd’s and think he will be off of the feeding tube soon.

Technically the school could be within their authority but it is a very narrow exception. The Supreme Court has ruled that’s such speech how to create a “substantial disruption” in classes. Way back in the mid-1960s, the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines School District in a 7-2 decision that wearing black arm bands in class in protest of the Vietnam war was protected speech Under the First Amendment. Interestingly a similar case came up in front of the Supreme Court as this Buna case just four months ago. If I remember the case, a cheerleader was on their JV squad and tried out for the varsity squad. She did not make the squad and she made an off campus and off school time post (I will clean up the language) something like… screw school, screw cheerleading, screw everything. In response the school district kicked her off at the JV squad. She sued school district and in their defense they stated that she called a substantial disruption in classes. As evidence they brought testimony that a couple of classes discussed her for a few minutes. The Supreme Court in and 8-1 decision stated that discussing the cheerleader for a few minutes and in some classes does not constitute a substantial disruption of the school. Like in most cases they don’t define what that is. Would that require riots at the school? Many students walking out of class in protest? I don’t know because issues such as this are on a case by case basis. The Supreme Court gives guidance for the lower courts to follow. Sometimes they give very distinct answers, which are called Bright Line Rules, which must be followed but those are extremely rare. This is not one of those cases. So for Buna ISD to be able to take any kind of action at all, they need to be able to document a “substantial disruption” in school and having some students or parents not liking it does not even come close to feeling that description, in my opinion. The very essence of the first amendment is making comments that people don’t like. Otherwise it would not be needed.

It does seem like they put an eight-year-old child in charge of a candy store.

That’s why I put my closing statement about understanding the comparison. I suspect that if it was a bunch of Muslim cheerleaders and they had scripture from the Quran, the support would not be as much, if at all.

It kind of is but… I think the cheerleaders are on the wrong side of a Supreme Court ruling that has been made already. While seeing football players going through a sign does not convert you to being a Christian or any other religion, a person not wearing a mask might cause you to a serious illness or death. While the premise might be the same that if it’s OK to break one law, it’s OK to break another, what is the effect on other people? Under Texas law, a person who trespasses but does not cause an injury is a criminal and so is the person that commits a murder during an arm robbery. There is hardly a comparison however. It is kind of a strawman argument. I do get the comparison though. If you were one of the people they complain about a mask order around the governor’s directive yet support some cheerleaders that appear to have violated the United States Supreme Court decision, seems hypocritical. It is kind of like the people that are for the right to have an abortion at any stage yet against the death penalty. It is kind of illogic.

KWP 35-22

On 3-9 for KWP runs and Nederland holds. Timeout by Nederland at 2:13 Nederland ball at Nederland 31 after block in the back

KWP 35-22, timeout Nederland at 2:24

Scramble for 1-10 on 4-10 play. Intercepted by KWP in endzone

4:39