tvc184

    It makes sense to me.

I finally got around to reading the IN law. I can't see the controversy.   It reminds me of "Hands up, don't shoot" and "Romney has not filed an income tax return" which were both found to be outright lies and known to be outright lies when they were stated. It is a political agenda of convenience when no such reality exists. It is like someone saying today, "I demand that we end slavery in the USA now and quit waiting", all the while knowing that it ended 150 years ago. It is nothing but a straw man argument.   The actual law says that the "state" may not enforce any action that may substantially interfere with religion.    It speaks nothing of any protected class under federal law and speaks nothing of individuals or businesses.    The law says that "state action" (the prohibited act that goes against religion) is defined as "implementation or action based on implementation of a state or local law". I cannot contemplate how that is being portrayed as not serving people based on race, religion, national origin, etc.    The relief for a claimed grievance is the business that is being discriminated against (for example the company that does not want to bake a cake because the state forbids it) is to go to court and claim your religious freedom was discriminated against. The way the law looks to me, it is the bakery that has to file for the injunction or other relief. It is not the person that asks the cake to be baked. The law in no way allows individual discrimination by anyone.   Of course that is just the law and has nothing to do with the current political rant that is based on emotion of a claimed law that does not exist.    Back to your regularly scheduled arguments on religion that have nothing to do with this faux discrimination............... 

Billy was out playing golf today at the Garth House fund raiser......... for what that's worth.  :D   I went to a couple of schools with him back in my youth like Intoxilyzer update and Standardized Field Sobriety Tests.... all when he was a DPS trooper. 

    No man, they're just wannabe's. No real harm............... 

Bad crimes can and will happen anywhere at any time. No one is immune including good cities, good families or good schools. People are individuals and they walk among us. Because there are bad people does not mean that a culture in a city, school district, individual school or family is corrupt. 

  His mother was an American, she lived for more than 10 years in this country and at least 5 years after her 14th birthday. That was the law prior to November 1986. After that time, any person born anywhere that has at least one parent that is a US citizen, that person is born as an American.    Cruz being born in 1970 qualifies as being an American at birth because his mother was born an American and lived the required number of years in the USA. 

  Sure, why wouldn't he be?

  Maybe I read the article incorrectly but I thought it said that he was "required" to sign up for it due to a provision in the law. If that is true, rather than show a question on why he is doing it, it is yet another valid reason for him to be against it as it is forcing his hand. 

  Is it the culture of a school? Was Columbine evil because of Klebold and Harris?    Perhaps it could be a bad person(s) amidst a group of good people........... 

    I understand the idea that you don't like what they did, think they were undermining the president, etc.   I can accept that as your honest opinion.     It is the calls of treason and other violations of the law (Logan Act) that makes your position untenable.    Not liking it? Great.   A crime because you don't like it? Not in the least. 

    Ted Cruz  1. Law clerk on US Fourth Circuit 2. Law clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist US Supreme Court 3. Private law practice 4. Domestic policy adviser to G. W. Bush 5. Associate Dept. Attorney General US Justice Department 6. Policy planner US Federal Trade Commission 7. Solicitor General, State of Texas (arguing 9 cases before the US Supreme Court) 8. United States senator   Barrack Obama 1. Community organizer 2. State legislator 3. Private law practice 4. United States senator       Yep, almost the same in experience. 

  Well....   He also said that he would make the world love us, he would close Gitmo within his first year, he would never raise taxes on the middle class even by a single penny, we could keep our doctor...........

There is no problem with a third party. The problem is that we would all have to do it and if "we all" thought alike to do such a thing, there would be no point in voting since "we all" woukd be thinking the same way to begin with. Good luck with that premise.

  Yes, the title seems completely bogus and is meant to skew the law's intent. Sensationalism at its finest.   Hard to believe, right? 

  Which has very little or nothing to do with this proposed law. 

  We have a couple of openings for dispatcher and for police officers.  ;)

It really just adds teeth to an existing law of interfering. It does not prohibit recording. It only prohibits people closing in on officers. It is only 25 feet so less than 10 yards. We routinely push people back at least that far anyway whether recording or not. With the new craze of videoing everything, people are getting within arms reach of the police and everyone else and shoving cameras in their faces. That makes for a dangerous situation for the police trying to conduct business.

    With my duty handgun and with a rest like shooting prone? Maybe 8 out of 10. Certainly not combat shooting like 5 shots in 3 seconds from the holster.    Here is the folly of some of the thinking however. Who said the guy was trying to make a head shot? The suspect could have been trying for a body shot which would make more sense and missed by 18 inches. In fact shooting at night makes a person tend to shoot high which would make more sense if the guy aimed at just a big area and hit in the upper shoulder and head.    For all we know, the guy also might have been shooting over the officer's heads (he thought) just to scare them and accidentally shot low because he was a terrible shot, not a great shot.    Everyone seems to be looking at where the bullets hit and want to think it was a world class marksman. Maybe the guy missed by two feet in one direction or the other.   If the two officers hit were standing next to each other, it is hard to believe that it was shots at someone else and the bullets just accidentally landed inches from each other from 120 yards away, if that in fact was where they came from .   With a 4" barrel (approx. 6" sight radius) and 120 yards away and the guy fired the gun with the barrel 1" away from where the first shot was fired, he would have missed by about  45 feet. Possible to hit that close on a lucky shot? Sure. Likely? I would put about a 100 to 1 odds against it on a bet.   

  It depends on the elements of crimes in MO and what the evidence is at the moment. Charges can be upgraded or reduced as further information comes in. Often in such a case the police and/or DA will take a charge that they know works legally so it justifies an arrest and holding a person in jail or out on bail and then investigate further.    It is often crimes that are frequently called lesser included offenses. For example if a person shoots and kills another person, it is definitely an assault (called battery in some states), it is definitely aggravated assault or assault with a deadly weapon, it is also attempted murder, etc. Sometimes it is best to go with what the police/DA "know" that they can prove initially and then move on while the person is being held on a known and provable charge.    Again, it may also deal with how the laws are written and as an example, in TX an Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon is a 2nd Degree felony and equal to Attempted Murder. It is sometimes easier to prove the "assault" since "intent" is not required. While the Att Murder sounds worse, in court it may be a harder crime to prove and for no higher amount of a penalty. 

From my experience from taking confessions from simple theft to murder, they will almost always admit to the entire incident..... except that they will almost always deny the real reason or try to make the officer "understand" what "really" happened. They give themselves an out while not denying the accusation. Like, I am not a bad guy but I...........   "Yes I killed her..... but it was only because I thought that she ......".   "Yes I had sex with that under aged girl but she told me that......".    "Yes I shot the officers but I was not......."

The only information about officers not being targeted was by the suspect that was arrested. Go figure.   "Uhhh..... I wasn't firing at officers. I was shooting at other people and the bullets just happened to miraculously hit two officers in close proximity to each other. It was simply a mistake and there was no way that I am guilty of shooting at officers....."   "Trust me" 

I don't know. I do not think you are a police officer and yet I see no shortage of opinions on how they think coming from you. I guess that rationale only works one way, right?

Okay, I've got it now. In the mind of big girl treason was committed. Since that has nothing to do with the law then big girl can convict them in her mind.

  I know that you missed it posted in the previous response so here is the law on treason.    Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.   I see no place where it uses the word "betray". It does say "levies war" and give "aid and comfort" to an enemy. I know that facts don't go over very well with you but perhaps for once you could actually read the law in question and explain how the senators "levies(d) war" or gave "aid and comfort" to an enemy. 

    The Cuban Missile Crisis was about command of the US armed forces of which the president is the commander in chief per the Constitution. Congress had no say in that matter. It would have been wrong for anyone to step in and act in place of the commander in chief and try to override his blockade of Cuba. I see that as having no comparison in this issue and a lousy analogy.   The same Constitution says that the president is the commander in chief also says that he can make a treaty with "advise and consent" of the Senate and only after a 2/3's majority. It does not say only "consent" after a deal is made. Several senators in this case sent a letter stating US law under the Constitution which also in Article II says that such treaties will be made with "advise" on the Senate.   So please explain how a group of senators that represent the government of the US and by the Constitution are allowed to give "advise and consent" to any international treaties, is violating the law by merely stating the law/Constitution?   Since I know that you probably will not look up anything (other than political articles), here are some resources for you.   This is the law (called the Logan Act) under 18 USC 953 Private Correspondence with Foreign Governments:   Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.   This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.     Please explain how stating the Constitution by 47 senators violates the above law.   Next is the oft cited by you, the case of US v. Curtis-Wright Export. That case was not about the Logan Act being discussed but a conspiracy to provide arms to a country that a joint resolution of Congress gave the president to enforce and provided criminal penalties. The Court issued 14 points from the ruling and one of those points was (#9) that the president is the “sole organ” of the federal government in this case. This was in this case being considered when the people indicted argued that the president did not have the authority which is this case was a “joint resolution of Congress”. So in this ruling the “sole organ” was to enforce a congressional resolution, not a treaty. Again, this was a conspiracy case of selling arms to a foreign country that the US Congress and president deemed to be illegal. That congressional act gave the president authority to regulate arms. Again, it had nothing to do with the Logan Act of which there has never been a prosecution in more than 200 years of the law.   So this case seems to argue the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim. You are arguing that the president alone is the issue when this case is a ruling involving not the president but the president acting on a congressional law/resolution. In other words, dual authority in this conspiracy case. Yet again, this case is not a Logan Act case but about the president's sole authority to enforce an act of Congress (Whoever sells any arms or munitions of war in violation of section 1 shall, on conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding $10,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both.) to prohibit the sale of arms leading up to WWII. You take a case that is not of the issue at hand (the Logan Act) and cite one of 14 points taken out of context and use that as evidence that the Logan Act was violated?     As far as your claim of treason, this is the law under 18 USC 2381.   Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.   I agree that Congress or an American citizen owes allegiance to the US. Now to your treason charge. Did the 47 senators “wage war” against the US? Did they give “aid and comfort” to an enemy (usually defined as a country that we have declared war on but we will skip that for now), that being Iran?   I don't see how publicly stating the Constitution is waging war. I don't think telling Iran the law is giving them aid and/or comfort. Actually it is quite the opposite.   So I would love to hear your explanation on your claim that the 47 senators waged war on the US to support a congressional declaration of war or gave aid and comfort to Iran.