tvc184

    You say that you can understand what he is going through..... but then toss out that you understand that someone might be uncomfortable that you are a man in that position.   Do you understand then the additional concern when that man's attire is dresses?    Who do you understand or sympathize with more, the one guy that wants to dress outside of the norm and/or sex or the parents that have to send their kids in there? 

I will reprint this from the other forum with permission from the owner:      

  More like the captain is kicking out the rats under guise of cleaning up the area and claiming the rat wanted go to another ship. 

It probably has nothing to do with teaching. I find it strange that a man dresses as a woman in a classroom setting.    I could care less about sexual preferences, who is sleeping with who or what he does inside of his own home. I just think it is wrong.    If he wants a sex change, go for it and become a woman and then wear a dress.    I think that if we put some thought to it, we might find a lot of people that have a great ability to teach but that we might not want to be in front of children. Heck, being topless in TX is not against the law. Should male or female teachers be able to teach without covering up because it i legal and the teacher might be great? 

I rise in defense of BMTSoulja on this issue.  :D

  I have no clue what you are talking about and that she "announced" MLK's assassination that happened almost 50 years ago. I am sure that if she used the wrong name in a newscast it was a mistake rather than not knowing history.    Obama said there were 57 states. Does he need a geography or history lesson or was it merely a slip? 

I think that it is great.    The only votes they can possibly draw off of the main two parties is from the Democrats where I am sure that a majority of Muslims already vote.    In a nation that at the moment is divided almost 50/50 on national voting, drawing off 1-3% of the votes might by itself swing the presidential election.    Yep, I think the disgruntled Dems need some more splintering parties. 

  Let's see, a guy who is charged in theft of $4 million going back for four years (coincidentally during the time this report was made), sends in numbers to the state and claims everything is great.    Hmmm.... yep, I'll bet they did receive a superior rating.   Nothing to see here TEA. Everything is ship shape and doing well, move along. 

  Likely officer discretion. They simply chose not to cite them all. 

  The law says   "makes available an alcoholic beverage to a minor with criminal negligence".   Criminal negligence is the lowest culpable mental state basically can mean having your head up your but when you should have know better.    You can debate what "make available" means or what evidence the officers have but looking at the way the law is written, it doesn't look like it takes much. I think that simply being there is not enough but allowing it to be loaded on your bus seems to be getting mighty close. 

  Which in Beaumont are all the same thing. 

  In this case they arrested every adult on scene who could face months in jail. 

I think that having a few school administrators being investigated and fired for felonies that might include the theft of millions of dollars from a district with the potential for the state to come in and take over by getting rid (basically firing) of the duly elected school board and lawfully hired superintendent is quite a bit more of a story than kids in high school drinking.    One is kind of shocking and almost unheard of and the other is probably somewhat routine (but maybe not caught) in almost any high school in the country. 

Better go back and read the law.

Yes he is qualified. He was an American at birth.

As much as some people may not like it, the original police reports may have been accurate or at keast there is evidence to the contrary.

And think of all the free sea salt they can have for the galley.    Yes, that very well could be a game changer.

    Interesting but you kind of prove the point.    There are approximately 3 million people currently in jails and prisons in the USA. There are probably 4-5 times that many on probation or parole. That is just as we sit here and type.   Over the years, there have been many more millions of people incarcerated. Let's just stick with the likely 10 million or more in jail/prison or on probation/parole at this moment.    To show your case, you drag up someone wrongfully convicted...... 40 years ago. Yes there have been others but the point is that out of literally millions, you can find some mistakes. What percentage do you think that it is? 99.9% rightfully convicted?    I'll stick with that rate and make my decision that I think they are guilty. For all that I know they may not even be charged. If not, good for them. They might also be guilty of something like misprision which makes it a crime not to commit the offense but to know of it and not report it.    I believe that everyone should get a fair trial if there is enough evidence even to be brought to court. I have no issues with that or that some people lie or that on rare instances evidence is falsified. None of that has any bearing on my belief that millions of dollars have come up missing from various accounts and places associated with BISD, some people have been charged criminally and according to the news, at least one is set to plea guilty. I believe that is it extremely likely that others than this one guy are involved and even more knew about it and kept their mouths shut.    Pointing out a miscarriage of justice 40 years ago won't change the odds. 

  I guarantee that I think they are guilty. I am not sitting on their jury and can have any opinion that I want.    I would go as far as most people thinking they are guilty. They might publicly make the correct statements about innocence and fair trials but if you ask them to vote on the likely outcome, I'll be a very good majority wouldn't put a paycheck on not guilty. 

  You know, radical.    Stuff like following the law, people paying their own way, lowering taxes.... other horrible stuff like that. 

  And that might be exactly what it will be. 

Texas has basically the same laws under the Penal Code Chapter 71 Organized Crime.    In the TX law it can be organized crime if there are three or more people involved to commit or conspire to commit:   murder, capital murder, arson, aggravated robbery, robbery, burglary, theft, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, continuous sexual abuse of young child or children, solicitation of a minor, forgery, deadly conduct, assault punishable as a Class A misdemeanor, burglary of a motor vehicle, or unauthorized use of a motor vehicle     The penalty in TX for organized crime is that the punishment is one degree higher. As an example if it is a second degree felony theft, it carries a maximum of 20 years in prison. If charged with organized crime, it changes to a first degree felony or up to 99 years in prison.   

Because?

  Did you miss the "credible" part?    Also, if a guy working a deal lies on a sworn statement and thereby commits another felony, what does he accomplish other than making it worse. He would be better keeping quiet than committing another crime.    There is an issue with credibility of a person already charged in a felony. Again, it takes a bit more than just someone telling a cop that something happened.

  If the police believed that the witness is lying, they are illegally obtaining a warrant.    A warrant has to be based on probable cause obtained by "credible" evidence. An unknown person that simply tells the police (local, county, state, federal) a story is not grounds for a warrant.    In most cases like this there is a sworn statement by the witness. While it cannot guarantee that it is not false, signing a sworn statement is perjury or a crime up to a felony. The cops can't get a warrant simply by saying, "Some guy told me that he thinks the other person committed a crime". In many or most cases it comes from a person that claims to have seen the contraband or was there when it was discussed or has seen something like computer data.