tvc184

Well, Zenobia Bush defends BISD on the grounds that all of this is racism.    Bush says that it isn't corruption but racism that is the problem.   I guess it was racism and not corruption that allowed Calvin Williams to bilk BISD for $4 million... then after he was convicted, rehire him. I guess it is racism and not corruption where the federal courts ruled against BISD on their election. I guess it is racism and not corruption where some BISD administrators are now on leave after raids by the FB (under control of Obama and Eric Holder) make it appears as though they are scamming hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars from the district. I guess it is racism and not corruption that might cause the TEA to take over the district soon. I guess it is racism and not corruption that has allowed BISD to be the only district in the state to not receive accreditation. I guess it is racism and not corruption where several thousand dollars are missing from the athletic booster club. I guess it is .................   From KBMT: "But not everyone wants Chargois to step down, several people spoke in his support, including Trustee Zenobia Bush, who says the district's problems don't stem from corruption, but racism."   Yep, no problems here except racism. I guess when all other cards in the deck fail...........    [Hidden Content]

I will not go to Longview for only $10,000.    I expect that check soon............... 

  You bet they do.    They want to live in a reasonably peaceful environment and have their kids actually graduate school with the ability to read and write basic English. They will drive where they have to in order to earn a living and then return to their safer haven.     But not so long many of those people that live in BC, Lumberton, Orangefield, etc., lived in Beaumont, PA and Orange. They didn't leave the city, the city and school districts left them.

  Several of the articles say that the investigators (cops) say that there was an argument. That to me leads me to wonder how much "fear" was involved as opposed to "anger".    Like I have said a few times though, you can be as guilty as ever if they don't have the evidence to prove it. 

I am about 50/50 on it. 

  I read several stories on it before I commented which is my usual practice. At least one of them (I remember one was from Fox News which is also the source in the OP) said that he went to the bedroom, saw the boy and then went back to get his gun. Several of the articles mentioned the ensuing argument, again giving a good chance that he and the girl told that he was invited in.    At least a couple involved interviewing neighbors that said that the kids had a saying not to go around that house because of fear of the father. I can  see that it was for good reason but it also might show some of the insight to a person that was enough of a loose cannon that the neighborhood kids talked about him. 

  Feel free to do anything that you believe you can get away with.   TX law does not allow deadly force for trespassing and this kid was not even doing that.    I have a hard time wondering why so many are fervently defending the father for killing what we know was an innocent kid. Maybe the kid lunged for the gun and caused his own death but short of that, I can't see a justification for killing him.    I can just about assure you that if this kid was the child of a parent in this forum, we should be seeing a huge difference and outcry on how a person that was guilty of nothing but having a stupid girlfriend got the death sentence by a guy that was in such fear for his child that he left the room to go get a gun and come back. If I thought that a guy was armed and a danger to my child, I have a hard time believing that I would leave the room, probably with my child in there that I claim that I am worried about.    Yes I am looking at it from a law enforcement standpoint and the law and I have said more than once this guy will probably get away with the shooting but that does not mean that what he did was right or legal. 

Defense is necessary force. If you are going to include a person's morality into self defense, get ready for a lot of dead people.    That is what many Muslims are now using to justify murder. 

  Apples and oranges.   Driving a car doesn't take a two party consent to constitute the crime. A claim of sexual assault does as it takes at least two parties. 

  We always bring that up when called to some houses about their 15 year old daughter and her 15 year old boyfriend.   Really, do you want us to arrest your daughter for the felony? Nope, just the guy.  :rolleyes:

  That is correct.     Complain to your congressman. They pass the laws.  :)

  Really?   Did you read the comment that I responded to? The statement was that if I find a guy uninvited (but this guy was invited) then the answer is "guilty".    Well just like a guy standing on a porch, this kid was guilty of nothing. Apples and apples.    There was no claim that "if I was in fear of my life". The only statement was that is a person is with the daughter, guilty.  I hate to tell you but any person that is legally in a home can invite someone inside. If a guy's wife invites her friends over for a party at 3:00AM and it is keeping him awake at night, he has no legal recourse to do anything except seeking an attorney to see what kind of divorce settlement he can get. 

  As long as the other party is not "more than" 3 years older, the age of consent in TX is 14 years old.    The law does not use the term of "age of consent" but merely states the law. If a 14 year old girl has consensual sex with her "adult" 17 year old boyfriend, there is not crime. We have these cases come up fairly frequently and the parents demand the boy's arrest and we usually say, sorry but it is legal.    In layman's terms, if you a person is not more than 3 years to the day (not 3 years and 1 day) older than the other person, sex with consent is legal in TX at 14. At 13 and under it is not legal, period. If there is more than a 3 year difference in age, 17 is the age of consent.    In this case there can be no statutory rape or assault by age because the boy was only one year older than the girl. The only way a sexual assault happened is if it was by force or threat just like any other sexual assault and there is no such accusation that I have seen. 

  No, it has not gone in front of the grand jury. If you read back in the forum I have said that it is what can be proven and not what happened.   The guy's only out at this time (and it will likely be enough legally) is his daughter saying that she said she didn't know him. This guy did not confront some guy in the hallway that he didn't know in the night and shoot in self defense. He went into his daughter's bedroom, had words with the guy, went and got a gun and then came back and shot him.    According to any statements made to the police that night, he might be charged for Murder (spending 50 years in prison is not protecting your family) or he might "get away with it".    For all I care you can kill someone for kissing your daughter on the porch but be prepared for the consequences. 

  Could be?   Not even in the same ballpark. 

    Maybe you missed the point. This could not have been statutory rape or any rape/sexual assault by age. Simply put, this 16 year old girl could have consented to sex with this kid and it is no more of a crime than the married parents having consent sex.  I was only pointing out that the term of statutory rape no longer appears in TX law but even if it did, this was not it. This kid that was killed committed no crime. 

  No, it isn't. If you believe that is the law then you need to brush up on it. 

  14  is the minimum age of consent.    There could be no statutory rape (called Sexual Assault in TX). 

  ..and I replied before I saw your post. 

  And it is a good thing that statutory rape did not happen in this case nor could have happened. 

  And anyone shooting his daughter's boyfriend should expect to go to jail for murder.    Not liking someone is not justified grounds for homicide. 

  So you are saying that most Americans would agree that killing a 17 year old that did nothing illegal?    If not it sure appears that is what you are saying.

  Guilty of what, having a girlfriend?

  And in my statement you didn't notice that I didn't say that you said what you would do. In my statement I said "someone". I also did not quote anyone whether it be you or anyone else and simply made a blanket statement after reading many (hundreds) of comments on different forums.    I also mentioned "not this forum" on reading hundreds of comments.    :D   NEXT............... 

  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.