tvc184

    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. 

    NEWSFLASH:   That is the way most search warrants are drawn up. If an officer actually sees something illegal, there is no need for a warrant. 

  Happening so fast, I wonder what deal was offered for what kind of testimony. 

Maybe someone else from BISD was "fired" and the term was misunderstood. 

There was a shooting at CMMHS? 

  Come on man...... I distinctly remember BD vehemently defending George Zimmerman saying that he was innocent until it could be proven otherwise. 

The problem is that most of the people committing these crimes are not reading the newspapers...................... 

And yet again.............   [Hidden Content]

The way things are going, I wonder if the name "The Butch" will remain on the stadium on IH-10 or how soon it might come down? 

The state may not have to take over. If people keep getting arrested, there will be no one left.  :D

  I have no doubt that some are having the same conversations. The difference is that in some communities, speaking out against the party line will draw immediate and vile accusations that most are not willing to face and it will come from within that very community. 

  .......... and what was happening. Unless his job as the person that is second in charge of a huge district with hundreds of employees is only to play tiddlywinks in his office while Rome burns, he had to know that something was amiss. He might not have known about any criminality but he must have been blind or completely uncaring if he couldn't see millions of dollars disappearing and improprieties happening.    It is not like this was a stunning set of revelations. The accusations of wrong doing and/or poor management have been there for years but because it may have some from the wrong neighborhood, it was ignored (and still is) under the guise of racism. 

  Here is the problem that I have with the often stated, "If they are old enough" answers.   Because a very limited few people volunteer to take a risk, do you really want to be on the roads with a new crop of 17 year old kids that can now legally drink? It seems that we are trying to lump all people in with a few that are willing and mature enough to serve their country.   The "old enough" arguments really have no bearing on reality of life.    Also for those putting their lives on the line, I believe that once outside of the country, 18 is the minimum wage. A cook in the Air Force that never leaves TX is hardly putting his life on the line. If called to duty overseas, then he can drink at 18 when he actually is "putting his life on the line".    To take the reverse of the very few that are willing to take the risk and therefore "all" 17 or 18 year old people should be able to do whatever, think of this. In TX you can be criminally certified as an adult at 14 years old. Although it is only a limited few people have that happens to (just like joining the military), it is possible for any child so let's just lower all ages to 14. Perhaps we should then end child molesting if the "child" is at least 14 and consents to sex. So if the 35 year old neighbor talks your 14 year old daughter into sex, who cares? A 14 year old can go to prison so no matter how immature, they should be able to consent to anything... right? How about a 15 year old signing a contract? And if they can do all of these things that they have been deemed by some as having earned by age, can the parents legally abandon them at those ages?    The "old enough" argument, while on the face of it seems interesting, opens up a can of worms that a majority of people will think is ludicrous. 

I can see them banning the sale on base or ship. I can't imagine the banning of its use. 

    Just like with Calvin Walker cheating them out of millions of dollars and even when discovered, they wash their hands of it, act like it never happened and then renew the same criminal's contract.    Of course their, "Let's live and let live" attitude might change if the people involved were of a different demographic. It is sometimes amazing how quick the same people are to point fingers when it is someone else and completely dismiss it if it involves "your own".    Gwen Ambres is a perfect example of someone not liking the good ol' boys club until she in the the club and why BISD cannot and will not solve their own problems until someone forces it or takes over. 

  Who cares? Maybe 80 million American Catholics.    Isn't birth control a great thing? You bet it is. In fact about 70% of Christians are in the various Protestant versions and have no problem with birth control and that means a majority of all Americans. What those protestants believe in is religious freedom and not in the beliefs of the Catholic church. They believe that their fellow Christians have the right to choose for themselves what services that they give their employees, not the federal government and they believe that it is a violation of the First Amendment. 

I have read two articles about this poll and the report or the responses make excuses about people needing to actually be here to know what it is like. Maybe like outside press is hurting us.   In both articles that I have read, apparently the people are missing the part that says they gathered the data by calling people in the actual area and asking how it was. This was not one of those polls where somebody or group in a room tucked away in Des Moines, IA made some kind of arbitrary decision based on perception. They called the people "here" and got the negative responses. 

  Yep, I understand that. Just like I can be suspended from work for something that is not even a crime.    But in this case, they took a guy's livelihood away for at least three years for something that is a crime. His claim in the media is that the other person "recanted". That means the person made a second statement that the first statement was false.    That leads me to only two questions. If she actually recanted or claimed that it never happened, why would he then sign a document admitting guilt or is he simply lying and the "victim" did not recant the story?