tvc184

The Nederland drive consisted of 45 yards gained on punt exchanges and a 36 yard 3 play drive. PAM ends the quarter with a hard hit 1 yard loss. 2nd quarter coming up.

Nederland makes a few yards and punts. PAM gets a first down and then punts to Nederland 5. Nederland gets ot out of hole with one first down and punts to midfield. PAM misses wide open receiver downfield but ends up with -1 yard on series and punts about 6 yards to Nederland 45. Nederland punts with the highlight of the series being 2 dropped passes for would have been first downs. PAM takes over at own 7. Nederland appears to be winning.... the battle of the punts. PAM ends series with 1 positive yards. Punts to own 36. Nederland with 5 seconds in the quarter ends the punt battle and makes it 7-0.

I believe that it could benefit either. It is according to what they have discussed to get to that point. From the police academy to today (almost 36 years) I have seen people want reasonable suspicion, probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt defined by percentages. There simply is no way to do so. Those are concepts, not math. Typically a judge will simply read the definition that should have already been given to the jury in the charge. Sometimes they will add some explanation but no really detailed. I think this judge told them what I would say and that is it is not beyond all doubt. But how little doubt? As an example, let’s say a witness says they saw a blonde white male running away from a scene. DNA is gathered and it identifies a person that turns out to be a white male who is blonde. So it’s him right? But what if the DNA sample says the odds have someone else having the same DNA would be one in 5 million? Technically there might be 50 or 60 people in this country with DNA they cannot be distinguished from the suspect if that was true. Therefore in an area the size of Houston, there might be one match. What are the odds of it being another white male who is blonde who the prosecution can put In the area of the crime scene? Is it “possible” that it might be another person? Sure it is likely? Sure... at about the odds of winning the lottery but it is not beyond “all” doubt. Is that a reasonable doubt? Probably not but each juror has to make up his own mind. But what if the evidence made you believe there was about a 10% chance of innocence, is that reasonable doubt? In my opinion, absolutely. I have heard (and given) percentages like reasonable suspicion might be about 20%, probable cause might be around 50% (I have heard some explanations say it has to be greater than 50%... so 51%?.... but I disagree) and beyond a reasonable doubt around 98%. You will likely never actually see those in any official writing because it is impossible to define opinions by math and courts won’t do it. So why does it matter in this case? We don’t know which way one or more jurors was leaning to ask the question. Like this scenario above, was a juror saying, I think he is probably guilty but there’s maybe a 15 or 20% chance that he is not. Does 85% sure what he meant guilt? Or perhaps they are about to convict him and one lone juror says that he is not a 100% percent sure of guilt but has a 2% of doubt. Is that “reasonable“?

You negated your own argument. You seem to want a jury of peers but then make it appear that you want legal scholars making the decisions. Those are not peers. The “regular jury” as you call it are the peers. If the state can’t convince a bunch of people that don’t understand legal mumbo jumbo, the defendant walks.

Glad to know that I wasn’t blind.

Nederland went on offense first and ran 20-25 plays in a scrimmage format. Then Lumberton had their turn. They also played a half game like conditions but with no kicking except extra points. Even that didn’t allow a defensive rush. Nederland put up about 3-4 touchdowns combined between scrimmage and game conditions and I don’t remember Lumberton scoring. Nederland had a couple of other deep drives and Lumberton had at least one good drive getting inside the Nederland 30 before shooting themselves in the foot. I don’t know the players numbers from either team so I really can’t name anyone except Nederland’s qb. RB #22 from Nederland had some good runs and showed some pretty good acceleration inside. Receiver #9 looked pretty good. Lumberton has a big tight end that looks like he will a handful for other teams. He seemed like a big part of their offense with short passes over the middle and they can hit him deep. I think it was him that also took an inside handoff maybe going off tackle or like an inside reverse a time or two. He looked big, good hands and apparently they didn’t mind giving him the ball on the line of scrimmage.... assuming that was him but I wasn’t paying attention to numbers. He seemed pretty hard to miss unless they have a clone of him. Both teams did okay and what scrimmages are for, pointing out timing issues and such. A couple of times Lumberton got men open deep in the secondary and overthrew passes. One had a guy deep and the pass really wasn’t that close on what should have been a Raider touchdown. Of course that could happen anytime but it looks like something that can be corrected. Overall Nederland had the upper hand if someone wants to count scores and yardage but Lumberton seemed pretty scappy and swarmed to the ball several times on defense. If anything between the two teams that seems the biggest issue it would be Lumberton needing more work on offense. I think both teams got in some good work for an opening scrimmage.

More fake news? Lets look at the article as 100% fact The “minority” of whites according to the article will have more than twice the number of the next..... well, not really race. The claimed minority of white people will have more than twice the number of Hispanics.... which isn’t a race. In fact a large percentage (probably a majority) of Hispanics are caucasion or white. Blacks according to the article will be statistically identical as they are today, gainibg nothing. In fact many blacks of Spanish mix/descent are in the Hispanic column also. So many of the blacks are also included in the Hispanic ethnicity (not race). So according to the article, in 2045 whites will have 1/10th of 1% less than all other races and ethnicities combined, some of white are...... uhh.... white.... and more than twice the number of the next group, which isn’t a race and includes whites... and so whites are “the minority”. Oooookay....... Yep, fake news or at least headlines.

Great news and welcome back.

Great news again!!

What is truly shocking is that it was a 5-4 vote. The bimbo justice Sotomayor is a pure idiot and chose personal feelings over the law.

Yes, theft is terrible. Theft from children is worse. But as gun owners we make the same argument. It isn’t the gun but the person. If a person is willing to commit mass murder for which there is significant chance if death at the scene or the death penalty later, what is another law or rule going to do? I think that two signatures is reasonable and my union does that. It might give a person a bit of pause and rethink the issue. A person who is addicted to gambling and willing to risk prison time to keep it up? I am not sure that anything will stop that except getting caught.

Absolutely...... but if I was willing to steal $70,000, don’t you think that I could justforge the other person’s signature? I am not sure that any law can stop a criminal. The only thing that stops a person from a theft crime is honesty or fear of paying a penalty. Once the crime has been committed then the law only provides a punishment and no deterrent at that point.

..... pun intended!

Reading comprehension and the ability to reason are essential in this case. The OP talks about a lack of discipline, tolerance for perversion, etc., as being a driving force in today’s school. When I was 8 years old my father would have me walk to a convenience store about two blocks from my house. When I got there I would buy a box of .22 short bullets for 25 cents. Then my father and I would go to the canal near my house and shoot at turtles and snakes and things floating in the water etc. Sometimes I would do the same thing but he was not with me. So here is a young child allowed to buy bullets and walk on a public roadway with a rifle. No one bothered, no one called the police, no one challenge anything and just excepted that as life. The point is that anyone could have a firearm and anyone could buy bullets yet we had no mass murders and probably nowhere near the violence of today. There were no gang shootings, people did not have fear to live in a city for being shot randomly, etc. We drove around town with shotguns and rifles exposed in the back of our trucks window racks. We sometimes brought them to school. People did not call the police and we were in no fear of people breaking into our pickup trucks in a parking lot just to get their hands on any gun that was seen. In fact there was almost no need because you can simply buy one. So what has changed? Why could a small child get his hands on a firearm and buy his own ammunition and yet there was no fear in society? It isn’t the number of guns that is the problem. It is not the access to guns that is the problem because they are much more restricted now than when I was growing up. Not all but much of the problem is exposed in the OP. Everybody gets a trophy, no one gets their feelings hurt, you get to walk across the stage and get a diploma even though there is no way you will ever earn one, and other such nonsense of tolerance and no punishment for bad behavior is much of the issue It isn’t access to guns that is remotely the issue in American society today

Absolutely. I have said it many times in many forums. Trump is a schoolyard bully. He sufferers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He can serve out his term and then be re-elected or he can resign or be impeached and then removed from office tomorrow, making Mike Pence the president. Either way, Hillary Clinton is not nor ever will be the president. That is all that more than 50% of Trump voters ever wanted and they got their wish. The left is completely obsessed with going, “See, we told you!!! Blah blah blah....”. Yep, and Hillary still lost to a natcissistic bully which in the end, is all that Trump supporters ever wanted. At this point it is just entertainment watching the left come unhinged with each tweet.

You got the right guy in Teddy Roosevelt... you just missed his best quote. It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Game Nederland 3-2

Bottom of 6, Nederland 3-2

Rally over. Top of 6 coming up. Nederland 3-2

3-2 Nederland bottom of 5, still batting.

Top of 2 coming, PNG 1-0

Nederland won the flip and will defer. Oops, forgot to swap forums.....

If I remember correctly, that same law makes it a crime up to a year in jail and removal from office for a sheriff or chief to institute such a santuary policy. I am looking forward to some chiefs and sheriffs being arrested ........

Long time member

That is not completely untrue about design..... kind of. The AR, like other combat rifles, was made to kill humans at some very long ranges. It can easily reach out over a quarter of a mile to hit a target. However...... No school shooting has ever taken place at over a quarter of a mile. In fact most if the victims are within a very few feet, up to point blank range. At those ranges the AR isn’t particularly well suited. It is almost impossible to conceal, reloading can be much slower than with handguns. It is more cumbersome to get on target rapidly at close ranges (defeating your claim of shortest amount of time) and carrying a lot of ammo is a pain in the butt and way more difficult than with handguns. It would not be a stretch that in most school shootings a high capacity handgun would have produced more fatalities than the AR. So if you do not think that those kinds of rifles should be owned by anyone, great. If you are trying to claim that if no one owned that type of rifle, these school shootings would be different, you’re out of your mind.