tvc184

  I took it to mean that you were wondering what one country involving another meant to use on the other side of the world.    WWI in particular started in this same general area of the world when countries started arguing over territorial disputes, foes and allies, etc. 

I am assuming that this guy will not get indicted simply because it does not matter what happened, it matters what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.    From the many news reports that I have read, there appears to have been some kind of discussion between the two and not simply the father coming upon a strange in his home and firing. Was part of it the father confronting him and the kid saying that it was his girlfriend and that she finally admitted it, then the father killed him?    If someone says that they will kill their daughter's boyfriend because he was in their home (and not underage for sexual assault) and will let a jury punish them, I think either that will not happen and it is bravado or it the person will see huge mistake once he is no longer protecting his family as he is doing many years in prison. It is hard to protect your family when you are sitting the next 25 years in prison. In fact you will likely barely be a memory if you ever get out. So much for protection.    I agree with the statements like, "I will do what I need to protect my family". To that I want to drop down to a more teenage response and go... DUHHHHH!!!!    But was the father actually protecting his family or was he an angry father?    The evil Fox News reported that the father did not go into the bedroom with the gun. He came in to find out what happened, then he went to get a gun, then came back and got into some kind of argument. Hmmm.... does that change anything like this guy merely happened upon a suspected intruder? This case is whether the father knew who he was, if the guy was actually any threat, what a reasonable person would believe in the same place and was not retaliation because he was mad.  I am amazed looking at hundreds of comments (not on this forum) of the people that could care less about the law, what actually happened or that a likely innocent teenager is now dead but wanting to make this somehow a de facto gun rights, stand your ground or some other kind of issue.     And again, I am assuming that he will get no billed and it will end simply because most of the evidence will be testimony of he and his daughter. For all the people that think this guy did a great job remember that the dead kid looks to be absolutely innocent of everything and unarmed. I asked on another website that has way more responders than this political forum, how many people commenting have either gone to their girlfriend's/boyfriend's home and were allowed to or allowed the other person to come inside? There were plenty of comments of things like, "I plea the 5th", "yes I've done that", etc. When you see comments like, "Great job", it makes you wonder. It makes me wonder if it was my 17 year old son if it would be okay to kill him simply because the father didn't like him.  I wonder if they deserved the death sentence for having a boyfriend/girlfriend.    Everybody says let's wait for the facts and that is true but I suspect that somehow all of the facts will not come out because any of them that are incriminating will not be told.    So yes, let's protect our family. Does anyone in this forum know that is what happened? 

  I don't know, maybe WWI and WWII come to mind. 

I would like to bring up another point to ponder. This man shot an unarmed kid. To justify deadly force he either had to be stopping a crime in progress or be in "reasonable" fear of his life with a jury deciding if that fear was "reasonable". The law does not allow for retaliation of a crime that has already occurred. For example if a guy breaks into your home and you know that he is leaving, you can't shoot him just because you are mad and he has broken the magical threshold of your home.    But in this case we know now for a fact that the dead teen was unarmed.    Can you shoot an unarmed man legally by mistake?    Hmmm........   I have seen times in this forum and on others where a police officer shoots the dreaded "unarmed man". and some people are up in arms and no matter what argument is given for justification, it always comes back to, "but he was unarmed". Even fairly recently in this area the captain from Orange PD shot an "unarmed man". Many local discussion took place including on here and some people would always justify a murder charge because no matter what else, the dead guy was unarmed.    So do those feeling apply across the board? Does fear count only for people that are not police officers?    Sometimes I think public feelings are based less on facts and the law and more on emotion or political stance. 

    With "may" being a huge word. It "may" have been murder.    Also, the law does not allow deadly force to retaliate for a crime. It allows deadly force if that is the only reasonable way to stop it. It the girl is talking to daddy about a guy under the bed, it kind of negates "stopping" a sexual assault.    Therein lies the problem with speculating and not knowing or applying the correct law. One minor fact can change it from murder to a justified use of force or vice versa. 

  With the limited information about this incident, it could be anything from justified force to murder. 

I know that I hate having more options. Why trust my physician when I have Doctors Reid, Pelosi and Obama to take care of me.

.... or Obama during the campaign telling Putin on an open mic that he can work with him a lot more when he wins reelection.    I wonder how that is working out for their relationship?

  No but the sanctions are what led to the attack by Japan at Pearl Harbor in WWII to crank off our direct involvement.   Also, the way this has started is what led to WWI and strangely enough, in the same area.  WWI was a screw up of alliances where one country was obligated to attack another in what should have been a border war and one by one different countries stepped in to back up one side or the other. Strangely, some countries has alliances with both sides of the conflict and had to choose which side that they would enter the conflict on.   In WWII, Japan had an embargo against it from the USA after Japan refused to end their occupation of China. They were running out of resources and had to either give up China or attack other lands to get what the USA was not sending them. They really didn't care about conquering us but knew that we would attack them if they invaded various new locations so they did a preemptive strike to take out our fleet.    And no, I do not think this is likely to cause WWIII mostly because we will not get involved other than sanctions and I don't think that Russia is prepared to take over other countries to gain what they lose in sanctions. 

Hey wait.... maybe Beaumont is that good. I see that Port Arthur just had a magazine (must be the same magazine) rate that city as one of the top 5 small cities in Texas to live in.   [Hidden Content]     Maybe we are just missing the point on BISD and they are really awesome.  :D

  After 5 years without passing a budget or even bringing one up for a vote in the Senate, NOW you want to worry about the economy?   Interesting.............. 

  FIFY

It doesn't really matter if the USA should or shouldn't get involved. John Kerry said that all options are still on the table.    Does anyone in the world believe that is true? That has to be one of the most hollow threats ever made.    Oh yeah, the Navy SEALS kills OBL, so Putin is shaking in his boots................... 

  .... as a failure.    I remember all the gloating a few months ago because some magazine rated BISD as something like one of the top 10 districts in the nation. Now it appears as though they are the only district in the entire state that has not been accredited. 

When I first started voting, there was no early voting unless you signed a waiver saying that you would be out of town on election day. It was not "early" voting, it was "absentee" voting.    Then you had to vote on election day.    Now they send out mail ballots where you really don't know who sent it back, many days to vote, complaints about showing an ID, etc.    I don't care who votes but some people are trying to make it easier and easier to skew the results and if you complain, you are trying to disenfranchise someone. The Democrats appear to want to make it where the less verification there is, the better. 

  It means nothing as they were all elected locally.   It means for example that Nancy Pelosi probably has an approval rating nationwide of about 10% but she won reelection in her district with about 85% of the vote.    The nationwide approval does not matter because the people in her district love her. What the people are voting on is not how good their congressman is as they may love him/her. They are rendering an opinion on the rest of Congress that does not agree with "their guy".    In other words, the congressional approval is a joke. If it meant anything, every incumbent would be voted out every two years. How's that working out for you?   In the case of the president, it is a one person issue. When Obama came in with a 60+% approval rating, people had high hopes. Those hopes have vanished.   

I don't see this poll as anything outstanding anyway. Obama's polls are pretty far down from the mid-40's to the upper 30's in percentages of approval. That alone means that a good percentage of the people that voted for him are no longer satisfied and would not vote for him today.  It is not like earth shattering news that he has lost support. 

  eg. - CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, New York Times

Which also leads to a great chance for a whistle blower lawsuit. 

A comedy of errors.    Now we know (if we didn't already) why Butch decided it was time to go.      No organization is immune from stupidity from individuals but this looks like institutional misconduct or in other words, a lot of looking the other way and not wanting to be the rat or being threatened if they did. 

I don't think numbers tell anything. Content and authority are the issues, not numbers.    Numbers is a cop out.    It would be like if a president signed an order ending the First Amendment. I guess the argument would be that it is okay because it is the only order that he has signed and the previous guy signed dozens more. 

  To my knowledge the federal government has not defined when life begins. The state of Texas has and it is at conception, even to the point of filing murder charges for intentionally killing a fetus. That appears to be under the Tenth Amendment under states' rights and I have not seen any constitutional challenge to that TX law of establishing life. So with the feds not defining life and TX has, it seems that the TX law is constitutional (and in fact is unless overturned) and as I have said, there has been no challenge or overturning of the TX law.   If life is in the womb, why is allowing the killing of the child allowed under the US Constitution? What part of the Constitution allows the killing of a person not convicted of any crime short of life saving? Remembering that a state could ban abortion before Roe v. Wade when the SCOTUS ruled that a state had to allow it to some extent but left most of those rules to the states. If a state rules that life begins as conception, what constitutional authority does any other person have to murder that child?    Obviously TX has law that says it is not murder IF it is by the mother's choice AND by a medical professional licensed to perform that procedure (due to Roe) but for anyone else, it is. By the SCOTUS overriding a state's right to make laws on when life begins, it is murder for a man to hit a woman in the stomach and kill the fetus even it if with the consent of the mother but if she hits herself in the stomach and causes the same abortion, it is legal.   Maybe I need to go back and read the Constitution again and find out where the killing of a person that is not convicted of a crime or to save a life is constitutional. 

  And Holder's statement/plan is a typical response to gain Democratic votes by allowing felons to vote after having that right removed long ago by their own actions.   You seem to want to play politics on one side of the aisle but give a pass to the other. This is nothing more than a vote scheme and everyone knows it. It is no different than the move to give citizenship to illegal aliens or to simply allow them to vote. If 65% of Hispanics or felons voted Republic instead of Democrat, the Dems would be fighting such a notion with every ounce of breath.    All you would have to show Holder that Obama won the last election by 5 million votes but allowing Hispanics to vote at 65% Republican would automatically doom the next Democrat in the presidential election by increasing the Republican vote by 10 million. You would bet that there would be no move by any national Democrat to allow anyone else to vote unless they gained from it. It is comical to claim that they are worried about rights. 

  That is why I said "I think".    I usually choose my words carefully and watch what I commit to.  ;)

  Until the upcoming rule change that only allows 5 specks in TX waters.