tvc184

    I have never seen anything about "baiting" but you cannot set a booby trap that causes a substantial risk of death or serious injury and the person who set the trap had to have a justification for protecting property just as if it was the actual owner on the scene. 

  That is a fairly big gamble but whatever floats your boat. He went by the comical old saying of judged by 12 and will now serve the rest of his natural life in prison, probably being somebody's Bubba. 

  What do you do? You hold them for the police. At a bare minimum, after they were shot and down they were no threat and he put admitted kill shots into them. He simply wanted to play executioner and will hopefully pay with the rest of his life.    Killing a person that is a threat is legal (in most scenarios). Killing because you are angry is murder. 

It is clearly murder and not a lot of ambiguity. The man was rightfully convicted and sentenced to life.    Even under TX law there would likely be the same outcome. The only thing that might help him would be if he was out in the sticks and some jury decided on jury nullification because they were glad that two criminals were dead. 

  I cannot agree with this at all.    It should be regardless, not irregardless. 

Which has what to do with Obamacare?    Nixon tried to cover up a burglary by some of his henchmen. Clinton lied under oath to cover up sexual harassment.    What does any of that have to do with the thread?

It is also a good place for bulgoki, kim chee, galbi, mandu...................

  ........... or northwest Houston around Longpoint in the Korean district. 

There were two adults present and they were both arrested. If you consider underage drinking a scandal, then you threshold of a scandal is fairly weak. Maybe we can toss jaywalking in there as a scandal. What you call refusing to cooperate means someone isn't jumping up and proclaiming they are guilty. The last time I checked it, we had the Fifth Amendment of thr US Constitution that protected us against such "cooperation".

  I doubt that it is about agreement. It looks like it is trying to be made into some kind of big scandal when it is just high school kids drinking.    Wrong? Yes.   Shocking or scandalous? No. 

    All misdemeanors have a 2 year statute of limitations..... so yes, they can be cited well after the fact. 

  The officers likely wanted to file additional charges on who rented the bus. It could have been an 18 year old on the bus, one of the student's parents, etc.    Who is going to give up his friend, parent or whoever? 

  I could never figure the escape excuse.  

  They take the risk because it always happens "to the other guy". No one would get in a vehicle if they were reasonably certain that they would be in an accident. 

The fact that the bus got stopped and what was found was a decent news story.   This latest attempt looks like a non-story and trying to fill some space on a slow news day. 

   I think that it would matter to some. It is like workers at any location. Maybe 20% will always do the right thing, 20% are impossible to manage and will always do something wrong and the rest will follow how they are led.    There are people that will simply chose to not drive intoxicated. Others will drive DWI and nothing will change them. Others might slow down and look at their options and at the very least, not get into a vehicle where they know the driver is intoxicated.    The only ones that can be changed are the ones in the middle and that goes for employees at a company or kids deciding to drive or ride with someone while DWI. Those are the ones targeted as nothing can change the other two extremes.

  And I forgot to say, they could have ridden with Hippie in his former life and seen some nerve shattering scenes................. 

They could come ride with me and I could show them live and in person. 

  As opposed to some states like I have listed?   Sorry but government is government. None of it is efficient. I see that you also didn't mention taking away our military bases.  I was responding to your statement that the US government should not own any land. I disagree and there are some things that they should own. How much and for what reasons would definitely but up for debate however you said they should not own land. I think they should and I don't think anywhere near a majority of people want all federal lands given up. 

  So they can evict our navy from their nuclear bases in Virginia as state's rights?    Then maybe our national parks like the great ones here in TX and maybe the Grand Canyon can be sold to the highest bidder because a state (like CA or NY) is mismanaged and is in dire need of money? 

This thread was only in its second day when you deemed it as dead.    I think you are confusing it with the other 15 or so BISD threads about all the crooks, idiots  and ostriches. 

  Trotting around.......... 

I think this horse is still out in the pasture..........

  With Obama setting the low bar on this thing, almost everyone is qualified. 

She has a long list of accomplishments.   1. First lady of the Arkansas. 2  First lady of the USA.  3. US Senator because she was the first lady of the USA in a state she never lived in or was from. 4. Secretary of State because she was first lady of the USA. 5. Considered a perennial powerhouse because she was the first lady of the USA.  6. Made into a laughing stock because of her philandering husband because she was the fist lady of the USA.   Yep, she is well qualified and has a long list of accomplishments.