tvc184

I don't see it. I would think it would be easy to beat in court.

It is occupational knowledge. I don't know much about being an operator at a chemical plant or bank loans (other than being rejected). I will say this, knowing what actual laws say is not so important to most people as most can figure out what most laws are such as assaults, theft, property damage, drug possession, etc. I honestly don't expect people to know the exact details of such laws in our state, much less that of other states. Your question above is such an example. It is a great question out of common knowledge. Even being directly involved in laws and enforcing them I don't expect most people to know about bail. Heck, most officers don't know as it has no bearing on how they do the job. That is a job for judges and to be contested by lawyers. What sometimes has me wondering is the total lack of knowledge of procedure or rights even in general terms that is severely lacking. People often spit out the idea of "my rights" when in truth they have no clue what those rights mean. I (and others on here) could probably list a lot of legal issues and court rulings that would have people baffled or stunned.

Typically bail is denied in very limited circumstances on capital crimes. I believe the idea that you may be put to death adds to the risk of flight. Looks at the SC Penal Code, this does not appear to be a death penalty case.

I understood it.

.... edited by Hillary Clinton.

Again, I have no problem if you go in the service that you can make your own decisions. Why give a person that is immature and you can't even force to go to the military the claim that "because of the military" they the benefit. Make it an earned privilege. I don't get the GI Bill because my brother went to Viet Nam and served for 26 years and my father went to Korea and earned a Bronze Star for valor. They earned it, I did not.

I never understood this belief. While everyone that is 18 is "old enough" to serve, the truth is that most will not serve and many will even leave the country if forced to serve as we saw the last time we had a draft. There are exemptions in the laws for people that serve in the military and if this is one of those exemptions then so be it. If a person is actively serving in the military or has done at least two years active and gotten an honorable discharge, let them make the decision. In fact I am all for illegal aliens getting the same exemption. The Dream Act was that if they went to college or joined the military they could become legal. To heck with college as anyone would do that just to get in the country. If you put on the uniform of the US military and do your time, potentially on the front line, you have earned your ticket.

....... and I think in some states down to about 15 without parental consent.

The most liberal state in the national is taking away people's "rights"?

1. Everybody is not guilty at the original plea on felonies. 2. There is little reason to plea guilty later unless there is a plea bargain.

That is true.... and Christ was named after Christmas.

Not much surprises me anymore when it comes to knowledge. The outright stupidity of people graduating or who should have graduated from high school is stunning. I work with people that are in the 21-30 year old range and sometimes talk about something (as an example) like maybe "The First Gulf War" with Iraq after they invaded Kuwait. Some have no clue what I am talking about. This was something that likely happened in their lifetime, possibly that a parent was involved in..... and they have never heard of it. I have spoken about current events in our daily meeting and again, no clue. Forget it if you talk about something like Viet Nam, Korea, the Civil War, the JFK or RFK assassinations, Neil Armstrong on the Moon, etc.

It is according to who a person supported going in. I have seen articles and news talking heads that have said that the winners was Cruz/Trump/Christie/Paul/Rubio. The others were relegated to the losers bracket. Cruz did okay but could have done better. I think his "win" might have been simply holding his own. Christie actually made some great points without being abusive. I think he said that he was "a federal prosecutor" too many times. Yep, we know that now Chris. Try answering without saying, ".... and I know that because I was a federal....". Christie "might" pick up a couple of percentage points out of this performance but he is so low that it won't likely matter but time will tell. I think of the second tier candidates on the big state last night (Christie, Fiorina, Kasich, Bush and Carson), Christie likely came out on top enough to stay in for a little longer. Rubio was hot and cold and may pick up a couple of points from the lower tier. Trump was just Trump. The carnival act was in full swing and I don't see his support dropping from last night's performance. The guy makes almost no sense at all and never has a plan other than "trust me" but he is such an entertainment that he still have some (I have no idea why) support. Paul was on point on his Constitutional defense but he also always appears angry and he (like his father) is still seen by many as a kook. He carries his libertarian views a bit too far to be mainstream. All in all, I am not sure that anyone really moves up or down although I can see either Cruz or Rubio or both picking up some steam.

You do realize that all debates from any party are exactly the same. No matter who gets the nomination, it will be exactly the same on the stage with Hillary and it will be slinging both way. When people are in a system to pick a person that the voter thinks is "better", the only way to get the vote/win is to go after the other person. It is not a talent contest where you play a piano and I play a trumpet and someone votes on who is the best. You win by saying, "The other guy can't get it done because..............". The only way you can solve anything is to win and the only way to win is to go after the other guy(s).

They are making a strong move to abolish free thought.

Get away from ball ammo and the military can keep the AR15 platform another 20 years. The police carry far superior rounds than the military.

I agree. I just wanted to point out that Sharpton (like always) is patting himself on the back and pretty much stating that he can be thanked for the verdict.

I noticed this from the article. "If an all-white jury in Oklahoma City would convict a policeman of this amount of grievances, of charges, then it gives us hope that our marching and continued organizing is not in vain," Sharpton said. It sounds like Sharpton believes that this all white jury convicted the ex officer not because of the evidence but because he is has always organized marches. I would bet that neither Sharpton nor anyone else was in the juror's minds and they were dealing with nothing other than the evidence at hand. Sharpton has found a way to again blow his own horn with no evidence of anything. I also find it interesting that he believes marching gained this conviction when in truth, race was probably not an issue with the jury. They looked at the evidence and it pointed to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No prompting from the studio audience was needed. Imagine that Al.... a group of all white people in the south came to a logical conclusion "based on evidence" with no need to go any further. Now if we could just get him to go by the same standard..............

A tweet by Trump said that it was a bogus report.

Doesn't know or like the current occupant of the WH, doesn't care what it says?

I mostly liked the talking heads before any details came out that had this attributed to right wing extremists. Like always, facts aren't needed.

I agree 100%.... however..... Yes, politicians are into politics. It is kind of like saying police officers are into policing or doctors are into doctoring. I agree that we ought to push our own agenda. Does that mean that we can't then agree with a politician pushing his agenda no matter his reasoning? As as example, this shooting has both the Dems and the GOP spitting out their opinions on gun control. Does that mean that we cannot agree with one side that it putting out their opinion? Sometimes political rhetoric IS my agenda. I am anti most gun control measures. If a politician comes out against those same measures, he isn't thinking for me. I am simply agreeing with his stance. Although I rarely use politicians in my posts unless it is disagreeing with one and not agreeing with (pushing someone else's) an agenda.....