tvc184

Such a prognosticator. NEWSFLASH: Everyone knew that she would be fired. She broke school rules. Just sayin'.................

Is it an issue? Do you really think McD would ban anyone? I think did it will rightfully be the end of their billion dollar company.

I think that anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone else for any reason. Any government function should be rendered equally to everyone but that does not apply to private citizens or it should not.

Below is parts of Chapter 9 of the Penal Code. It explains defenses to prosecution. A defense to prosecution means that if the defense exists, the crime did not happen. An arrest can lawfully be made and the prosecution can bring the case in front of a jury however the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense did not exist. This is some of the key wording in the Penal Code on a defense to prosecution: (d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted. You can see that if the defense goes to the jury, any reasonable doubt requires the defendant to be acquitted. The DA must overcome the defense in each instance beyond a reasonable doubt. For example under TX law, if you kill someone, it is murder. That is all the law says in that section. But you go over to Chapter 9 and it says a person is justified in using deadly force to protect himself or any other person against a robbery, aggravated robbery, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping or murder that may be about to occur. Killing someone intentionally is murder... but Chapter 9 says... not so fast! Under a defense to prosecution the defendant must claim the defense in court. If that evidence is brought into trial, the prosecution has to prove that the defense did not exist. An example is someone breaking into your home at night and you defending your family. If you bring up in trial that you were defending your home, the burden is then on the state to basically prove that you are lying. You do NOT have to prove the defense beyond doubt but the DA has to prove that it did not exist. (a great example is George Zimmerman) The normal procedure however is not to bring such cases to trial. If the cops show up at your home at 3:00AM and there is a dead guy in your living room, your door is kicked in, you are not likely to be indicted and have to defend yourself. That is because the DA is not going to bring a case to court that he not only knows he can't win but is also within the law as a lawful defense and the DA is supposed to seek justice, not convictions. I have seen a few cases where a person was shot and killed and no arrest was made and the DA and grand jury never issued an indictment. Another example in the law is that when a doctor gives you a shot, he has caused bodily injury according to the letter of the law and therefore an assault. Why isn't he charged in a crime? Because the law specifically says that it does not apply to a medical professional if the procedure that he does is with the consent of the person. Ever wonder why most medical procedures start with you signing a document of your consent? This is a short quote from that law: it is a defense for a "recognized medical treatment". There are many such defenses in the law. Things that we do in everyday life can be illegal under some law but most of those things have specific defense or if you like another word, exemptions from the law. In the parent/child law it says this: Sec. 9.61. PARENT-CHILD. (a) The use of force, but not deadly force, against a child younger than 18 years is justified: (1) if the actor is the child's parent or stepparent or is acting in loco parentis to the child; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is necessary to discipline the child or to safeguard or promote his welfare. (b) For purposes of this section, "in loco parentis" includes grandparent and guardian, any person acting by, through, or under the direction of a court with jurisdiction over the child, and anyone who has express or implied consent of the parent or parents. As you can see it clearly says that force "but not deadly force" is justified "to the degree the actor (parent) reasonably believes that force is necessary". There are two issues in that law that the parent has to be able to defend. One is for discipline. If a man gets mad because Tony Romo just lost another game in the last minute by throwing yet another interception and he throws an ashtray in a fit of anger and cuts his son's head open, that is a reckless assault, not discipline. He also needs to be able to defend that through his eyes, it was reasonably necessary. Remember the wording says that it goes by the "actor"'s belief with "actor" is a legal term for suspect or defendant. Under the teacher law it says this: Sec. 9.62. EDUCATOR-STUDENT. The use of force, but not deadly force, against a person is justified: (1) if the actor is entrusted with the care, supervision, or administration of the person for a special purpose; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is necessary to further the special purpose or to maintain discipline in a group. Again, it says "to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is necessary". Would a person in the actor's (teacher) position believe that such for is necessary? Like officers using force, it is in courts (particularly appeals courts) viewed from the position of the person accused. Also remember that it doesn't matter what some people might believe, the DA must convince the entire jury in a case like the teacher was not issuing discipline. I think most people would see that this is a matter of discipline within the group with the teacher giving out that discipline. The next point would be through the eyes of the teacher, would the amount of force used be reasonable? It doesn't matter if you are for or against spanking, corporal punishment or any other form of force. The law says to the degree the "actor reasonably believes" the force is necessary. To get a conviction the DA would have to try and convince an entire jury that none of those cases existed while a defense attorney will bring witnesses and there are very likely to be sympathetic jurors. It takes only one no vote to stop a conviction. I am not saying that the DA will not charge her and try to get her scared enough to take a plea deal or try to convince a unanimous jury but I have personally worked on cases way worse that this where the DA refused charges. Of course those cases didn't make the news..............

The student should then get arrested but not a teacher. In the same chapter of Texas law it says that parents can spank a child. It even applies to a person in the place of a parent such as a babysitter or grandparent. That is written into the law exactly like it is for teachers. If a child hits back, there is no such authority under the law. That would be assault. It is not a hard concept, parents and teachers can use force to discipline, child or students but they cannot retaliate. I have witnessed a parent spank a child and when the child struck the parent back, the child was arrested and convicted in juvenile court. I understand that people are making statements on what they wish but wishing doesn't always make something legal or illegal.

Only using your posts to state a point...... Arrests by the police are only accusations. A large percentage of lawful arrests are refused for prosecution by the prosecuting attorney's office (District Attorney, US Attorney, City Attorney). That might be from prosecutorial discretion, lack of evidence, justification of the action under the law. For defenses to prosecution to be used, there had to be a technical violation of the law to begin with. For example if a person breaks into your home at night and tries to kill your family and you shoot and kill the intruder, that is Murder under Texas law. Murder says... "A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual". That is it. There is not even a section under Chapter 19 Homicide that says you can use self defense. That part of the Penal Code comes in Chapter 9 Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility. That chapter (and in other parts of the Penal Code) it says that certain otherwise criminal conduct can be justified. An example as with the person breaking into your home, Murder can be justified under 9.32 and 9.42 where it says that deadly force is justified to stop a various assaults, robberies, burglaries, etc. So by law, yes you committed Murder and can lawfully be arrested. For a lawful arrest the police only need probable cause and in this example if you took the life of another person, it is Murder. The DA however would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not have a justification for the killing. The arrest itself if made would not mean that you are guilty and only that a police officer was making a judgment call that probable cause existed. In the case of a teacher, the came Chapter 9 on Justification says, a teacher can use the force that the teacher believes is necessary to maintain discipline. Did she hit the student? Sure. By law it was Assault or Injury To a Child. Also by the law (just as self defense from a person breaking into your home), there is a law that says such force is criminally justified. It might break school rules, it might seem unnecessary and it might be offensive to some. Those are not criminal laws. Were officers legally correct in making such an arrest? Sure, there was probable cause that she hit a person. By law that is all that is needed. An officer does not need to prove a crime happened, if a conviction would likely happen or if the DA would even take charges. The officer only needs to be lawfully concerned with the letter of the law. Merely making such an arrest however does not mean that a crime happened at all or that a prosecution will happen. Like I said above, an arrest is only an accusation by a single officer (unless under a warrant/indictment) and many such arrests are refused by the prosecuting attorneys.

All that I posted was the law. If you think it is gibberish, fine. Please contact your legislator. I told you while she was arrested. I don't think it was Beaumont PD and likely the school district police. She might be a loose cannon and she might need to be terminated. She almost certainly broke policy. None of those crimes. Your Internet and Facebook law degrees are now revoked.

Yes, assault is against the law. Apparently you missed the part that I posted about the law on teachers. Interestingly, you noted in two posts above that you thought corporal punishment was okay. Did you not know that if you cause a person to feel any pain, it can be up to a year in jail so your acceptance of corporal punishment is a crime? Hmmmm....... Did you know that any time your doctor gives you a shot, it is an assault that carries up to a year in jail? For that matter, any time a parent spanks his own child it is a crime by what is listed on the books. If that child is under 14, it is up to 10 years in prison. Hmmm...... Did you know that every time a football player gets tackled, the person committing the tackle likely committed an assault and can get up to a year in the county jail? Did you know that every single time that a police officer places a person in handcuffs, it is a crime punishable by up to a year in jail or up to 2 years if it is a person under 17? Did you know that if a person is breaking into your home at night and you have to shoot and kill him in self defense, it is murder? You see that there are lots of laws on the books and by the letter of the law many or all of us break them from time to time. Why aren't we prosecuted? There are also many defenses built into the law (called a defense to prosecution or an affirmative defense to prosecution) like if it is your doctor and you consented to the conduct, a parent giving discipline, a teacher giving discipline, you voluntarily participated in an event like a football game, a person acting in self defense, etc. Again, I listed that above and actually quoted the law.... which apparently you missed or ignore because you didn't like it. I accept that fact that you have very little knowledge of laws. I have almost no knowledge of a chemical engineer and I have to accept that in that area, I will have almost no valid input. I am sure however that you be more than willing to give me some finer points on the law and the enforcement thereof.

No, I would not be debating it. There is no debate and the answer should be the same. She should not be in jail.

I think she was thrown in jail for political purposes. Read the criminal law that I posted above. It clearly says that an instructor could use the amount of force that the instructor thinks is necessary as long as it is not deadly force. That is the law. Did she break school rules? Almost certainly. Was her temper out of control? Probably yes. Breaking school rules and losing your temper are not crimes. Hopefully the DA will do the right thing and not accept charges. Being that he is a politician elected to office that might not be the case. At the very least he should drop it down to a class C misdemeanor offensive contact and that would put it in the City Court or the equivalent of a traffic citation. That would be a fine only. I do not think that criminally would be correct however she could pay a hundred fine and walk out with no other record.

I am not sure why an arrest was made although it wouldn't be the first time that such an arrest was done for political reasons to quell a potential disturbance. Legally it is a crime however Chapter 9 gives a defense to prosecution and the DA, if charges are accepted, has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the force was either deadly (and it certainly wasn't) or it wasn't used for discipline.

The part in Chapter 9 that shows justification for conduct that excludes criminal responsibility. Note that it says any force other deadly force can be used "when and to the degree that the actor (teacher) believes the force is necessary". CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY Sec. 9.62. EDUCATOR-STUDENT. The use of force, but not deadly force, against a person is justified: (1) if the actor is entrusted with the care, supervision, or administration of the person for a special purpose; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is necessary to further the special purpose or to maintain discipline in a group.

I have investigated way more serious incidents than slapping a student and the DA and in once case grand jury refused under Chapter 9.

The problem I have is that the Penal Code says that it is not a crime of any level.

Yes.

I am just wondering about how the criminal charges will fly or if the DA will even take them.

I wonder if the founding fathers even believed that any government in this country (local, county, state, federal) would try to regulate the size of drinks that could be served. I think they would more likely have envisioned machines that can fly to the Moon and devices that can be carried in the pocket where you can talk to a person in another country..... which video and that long before the delivery of electricity was invented. This is how far the nanny state has progressed.

Since apparently you have a fixation on the RNC and doing what it "right", how about the DNC? It is right to have 719 superdelegates out of 4,770? Bernie Sanders can go into the convention winning in popular votes and delegates.... and then losing? It likely won't happen but the Dems have it set up just to make sure a Sanders does not win. A state could have 100% votes for one candidate and yet 15% more can go to a loser that gets no votes. Here is the scenario under the DNC. Sanders goes into the convention winning by 2,325 votes to Hillary's 1,726. Neither has more than 50%. The superdelegates step in and all vote for Hillary and she wins 2,445 to 2,325. While it may not happen, why even have such a vehicle in place to overturn the will of the voting public? Both parties require more than 50% of votes/delegates to win. It isn't set up for the mere leader to take all. If that was the case you could have 7 candidates go to the convention with each averaging only 14% of the delegates. Both parties want to have the most popular person on the floor of the convention to pick the winner if it hasn't been done by the people by convention time. Both have floor votes if no one gets to 50%. It is then open for debate. The Dems add the extra superdelegates to potentially go against the will of the people by stopping any floor fight. They do so by simply having the "leaders" (apparently that is only a bad word for the GOP) tell the superdelegates how to vote that can overturn the majority of delegates just as I lined out above. So.... wondering if your angst against potentially blocking the person with the most delegates... but not a majority, is only directed at the RNC or does the DNC with the added superdelegates in place to overturn the will of the people also included?

Yes.

It is completely true. If you are a slug, third generation welfare recipient and high school dropout.... moving to an area where affuent people live will change your life. You will see the folly of your ways and after years of government dependency and free stuff will turn over a new leaf and become a productive member of society.

Oh the comedy of your response. You aren't interpreting the Bible for us, you are translating it. The point that you are glossing over is that you are adamant that the Bible does not say the world is flat but ignore that nowhere in the Bible does it describe pillars as continental shelves. You have the belief that it must be, probably because you have been told that by someone or read it somewhere.... but wait, that would be another person giving their interpretation what the word "pillar" means. No wait, that would not be an interpretation, it would be a translation. I have a question for you. Why do we attend church or go to Sunday school? I have been to church in many denominations and in every single one, including some non-denominational churches, has had a person giving a sermon. That person is not only reading from the Bible the verse but explaining what it means. Under any word you choose to use, isn't that an interpretation or translation or whatever as given by man? If the word of God is so clear that we merely need to read the verse and it stands alone, why do we need church or Sunday school at all?

We have generations and communities where the government is the answer to literally everything. Last week the police received a call locally because a woman's 10 year old girl was being rude and disrespectful to her. When you were being raised, would your parents have even imagined calling a government official (in this case the police) because you were rude.... when you were 10 years old? That is how far we have degraded this society. It reminds me that if you take a wild animal at birth and raise it completely in captivity and give it food and shelter and all needs. Then two years later throw it out in the wild, it will likely die. It has not learned what might have been centuries of behavior passed down from generation to generation of wild animals. It has learned only one way, to be completely taken care of. We have created that same scenario with people that are used to using government handouts not in an emergency but as a way of life.

All you have to do is watch the Democrat debates to confirm all you need. Give me... You owe me.... I want free (meaning someone else to pay for it).... I owe you (when said by a politician).... And so on.

Here is the problem with your statement. You claim that man cannot interpret God. Okay, I can understand that. The problem is that the Bible is not a text book that explains every details. A lot is left open to interpretations or if you don't like that word, teaching. As as example of this in your response about the Earth being flat because there are "pillars" you correctly say that the Earth being flat is not specifically stated in the Bible. You then go on to say that the "pillars" means the continental shelves. Okay..... so my question to you is, where in the Bible does it say that "pillars" are continental shelves? Perhaps that could be an interpretation? I was reading one "interpretation" that the pillars are the mountains. In either case the pillars would be a feature of the earth but both likewise would seem to me to be an interpretation.... which you claim cannot be done. Where in this truth of God's word does it say that pillars means continental shelves? The irony is that you say interpretation is not allowed to follow God's meaning and to back it up you give an interpretation. I can only assume that you mean only your interpretation counts.

Are they idiots simply because they have been raised in a situation where someone else is always responsible for whatever they have? When someone else pays for your home, you food, your clothes, your utility bills and just about anything else you can think of............. I arrested about a 12 year old child maybe 18 years ago. He was on a stolen bicycle and tried to get away but did not. He was as angry as anyone that I have ever seen that was arrested and that includes adults that I had to fight. This kid's conversation with me on the way to be booked for the theft were something like, "You owe me!!". When I asked him why he was owed anything that had to be stolen his response went like, "My mother said that you people that have good jobs owe me whatever I need. If I need to take it then you just lose it and I should not be put in jail because you owe me!!". And yes, that is a true story and what I was told. He was taught by his mother (according to him) that if he needed something, then he should be able to take it because other people can afford more than she could and other people should be responsible for what he needs.... in addition to all the government handouts. .