tvc184

You need to keep up. bigdog asked who is funding Haynes. GMCPats said that maybe some teacher's union if she is a member. I said that have no unions. They certainly have no unions with any bargaining power which is what I was referring to. GMCPats retorted that teacher have some associations that have no bargaining power but they like to refer to them as unions. I wrapped it up (so far) saying that when people typically refer to unions they are talking about collective bargaining rights and teachers and I believe no other public sector workers have a true union.... except police and firefighters. So a union is not funding Haynes but some other professional association may be. That is what is has to do with her.

I wasn't.

How many? I would venture to say very few. I would go as far as saying that the general public's knowledge of laws (even fairly common ones) it as times dismal. It is when you "think" you know a law that tends to get you in trouble. What is the old saying, a little knowledge is dangerous? I had a guy call me in the office this week asking about something on self defense and he mentioned that he was sometimes open carrying and told me how. I told him that what he had just told me was in fact a crime and not legal carry if he was seen doing it. The guy told me that he had a CHL and knew that TX just passed open carry and he had been told that it didn't matter how he carried openly. Ooops! He has not been to the update but was correct that the old CHL license did automatically go to an open carry license also but only if the handgun was in a belt or shoulder holster. So much for that little bit of knowledge........... I have repeatedly heard at gun counters at local sporting goods stores that you can carry a handgun in your vehicle with or without a license but it has to be visible. That is exactly the opposite of the law and a handgun has to be concealed. I could go on but an sure you get the picture.

Perhaps. It is according to where you are merging from. Let's say there is a three lane highway in one direction like IH-10 going to Houston. The car in the left lane that is merging into the lane to his right (middle lane), he has the right of way over another vehicle that is merging into the same lane from the left. .... just to be difficult.

But he is likely to be replaced by the snakette in the grass who may be worse.

I understand and that is what I was referring to. I guess five guys can buy an insurance policy and/or have a law firm on retainer and call themselves a union. Even joining AARP, NRA or many other organizations give legal benefits including in certain cases, lawyers. Therefore if you join the NRA I suppose you can say that you are part of a union. I think that most people think of unions or unionizing as not merely a group of similar people but as bargaining committees/collective bargaining rights. That means contract negotiations for specific rights and working conditions including salary and other monetary benefits. Teachers do not have that. Before my police department had collective bargaining rights through a vote of the public in an election, some officers in our department (including me) had a police association affiliated with Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas/CLEAT. It provided insurance legal representation for internal discipline and criminal charges if job related. We never called ourselves a union because..... we weren't. When we since unionized and gained collective bargaining and CLEAT still represents us but now in collective bargaining. Neither teachers nor any other TX public workers (I think) are not in contract negotiated unions. They have no bargain rights. That was my only point. I believe that many or even most people think that everyone has the right to unionize and that simply isn't true in TX for any public employees (city, county, state, school district, etc.) except the police officers and firefighters. It does not even cover police/fire department employees such as secretaries, ID Techs, Lab Techs, dispatchers, etc. and only the officers and firefighters themselves. There are no district union contracts or collective bargaining agreement that protects Haynes. She might be a member of an organization that has lawyers on retainer as can anyone including individuals.

Stop calling felons, felons. Stop calling convicts, convicts. It makes you wonder why even people that are liberals or support the Democratic Party will continue to defend "their team" for that reason only. The funniest part is how far they will go for political correctness. Now it will be an "individual who was incarcerated" or a "person who has committed a crime". Are a murderer? Are you a rapist? Are you a child molester? No, I am a person who has committed a crime. Change you can believe in...............

I don't think that teachers in TX have unions or collective bargaining. I believe that is only allowed for police officers and firefighters in the public sector.

In most jurisdictions and elections, to win you have to get the "most votes" or as it means in elections, more than 50% of the vote. When you do, you win. Donald Trump may or may not get there. If not it goes to a runoff much as we are currently doing in Jefferson County in the sheriff primary. Zena Stephens got the most votes (by almost 1,000) but Joe Stephenson was in second place. Even though she got the "most votes", she is not the winner. We now have a runoff for the final spot in a few days. Should Zena just be given the win because she got the most? I wonder if the second place finisher, Democrat Joe Stevenson agrees with Ted Cruz or is he willing to simply quit in the runoff because Zena got the "most votes"? Even our presidential election has the same rules. If no person gets more than 50% of the delegates (electoral college) then it goes to a runoff in the House of Representatives. Bear in mind that the primary elections are not part of the government run election system. It is a political party that can choose anyone in any manner it wants. Any party can place a person in nomination for the presidency. In fact every election several parties place people on the ballots in at least some states. Within the law as set out in the Constitution (35 years old and natural born citizen), anyone can run. A party gets to set its own rules on how it wants to choose its candidate. If a person doesn't like the rules of a party, he/she can feel free to run elsewhere or get enough people in the party to agree to change the rules. A party gets to choose in the manner that it sees fit to choose its candidate that it wants to represent it. Who the "establishment" wants to win can be whatever it wants. So much is made of the fairness of the two biggest parties, Republicans and Democrats. For example, what if fair about so many super delegates in the Democratic Party? In the spirit of true democracy it isn't fair but a party is not part of the government. If the Democratic Party wants to try insure that a Bernie Sanders kind of person doesn't win, that is their business.The primary elections and party conventions are to select a person that the party thinks can win under the rules that they get to set. Just like the presidential election and just like the runoff in a few days in Jefferson County for the sheriff race, the "most votes" means 50% are more and not simply a plurality. It works the same in the RNC and the DNC just as it does for most other elections in this country. To think or say otherwise is a smoke screen for someone that either doesn't like the results or simply wants to trash a person or party..... when in fact the person that is supported by the person making the claim is under the same rules. When someone in the RNC get the most votes (more than 50%), they will be the winner. Ted Cruz is entirely correct just as the DNC will do, just as the presidential election will do and just like we will do in the Democrat runoff in Jefferson County to see who will be on the ballot in the general election this coming November.

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.