tvc184

At 6:01 in half, Nederland 28-0

Touchdown Nederland

Punt blocked. Nederland ball at own 48

Touchdown Nederland At 9:27 in half, Nederland 21-0

Punt to Nederland 46.

End of 1, Nederland 14-0

They don’t watch the pros make that stupid mistake? Hey look at me!!

.Nederland covers fumble in reverse, heads for endzone but player starts showboating and slows down to hold ball up at about the 15 yard line and it is stripped. Touchback WR.

Ko out of bounds. WR ball at 35

At 3:37 in 1, Nederland 14-0

Touchdown run

Ko goes to WR 9 and never taken bu WR. Nederland 1-goal.

At 3:44 in 1, Nederland 7-0

On 4-22 from sack, WR punts to own 28

Fg attempt is wide right. 0-0

Nederland received kickoff and returned to 30. 3 and out and punt to WR 1. On 4-1 WR punted to Nederland 40.

You have been in a first responder’s position also. You know that what goes on behind the scenes is sometimes way different than what the public perceives or realizes.

This was pointed out to me by an Assistant District Attorney when I went to detectives in about 1998. It is from the Code of Criminal Procedures in Chapter 2, Duties of Officers. It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done. They shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused. “Justice” is in the eyes of the DA. The DA’s duty is not to get convictions and not to prosecute “to the fullest extent of the law” or what is justice from the opinion of the victim. At times we would send cases to the DA for review and it would be refused and returned “In the interest of Justice”. I translated that as, you proved the case detective but we don’t think this is worthy of prosecuting and only our opinion counts.

It’s never up to the victim.

He sure got a brother in law deal if it is allowed to stand.

I know it’s not a criminal trial but some prosecution witnesses seemed to be getting crushed by the defense. I only watched a few minutes of either side more out of curiosity as opposed to the outcome. I don’t remember the exact wording but it seems like I saw defense questions and prosecution witnesses answers like….. Once you finished your investigation and turned it over to the FBI for further criminal investigations, did you find any evidence of a crime? No You said as evidence of bribery, the kitchen was updated as a form of payment. When you took photographs recently of the kitchen had it ever been updated? No With several days of testimony, it was certainly many more hours of testimony but when you ask the star witness(es) about do you have proof of specific allegations and the answer comes up “No”…. things that make you go hmmmmm……

The thread title should have been… Tigers vs Stangs (The Mow Down) … or maybe The Smack Down.

I guess the Democrat operatives are reading my comments … 😂😂😂 I said she started the ball rolling and this might be a very good case to slam anti-gun carry laws and claims of emergency orders taking away rights. She must have gotten the word behind closed doors to back off before you kill the anti-gun movement. So the governor has not appeared to back down but has withdrawn her original order and modified it radically. So as to not appear that she is giving up and was a victim of a vicious first round knockout, she has now said that people can carry guns in public…. just not in parks and playgrounds. Boy, that’ll stop the gang killings!!! Make no mistake, she was in position to give a landmark victory to the 2A. Now she is going to claim it is a moot point and the courts should not issue a ruling. Any future arguments from her ban will not be (she hopes) over sweeping authority to suspend rights but to use that authority only for “sensitive places” which was mentioned in Bruen. I believe the sensitive places in Bruen refers to things like in courtrooms, city council meetings, etc. She is now hoping that the courts will rule that in city parks people lose the right of self defense and the 2A. Even if it gets that far, it will not be nearly so damaging as far as a court ruling on emergency powers to suspend rights.

It is very potential that this judge may have done a great service to the pro 2A community. She has now started the ball rolling and it may end up badly for a future anti-2A tactics. The main question is, can a governor in a declared emergency, overcome a person’s constitutional rights and/or, is safety or seriousness of an issue a valid reason to do the same. This is my non-lawyer opinion about how this might play out. NM will not go quietly into the night and will appeal this to the 10th Circuit Court which covers NM, OK, UT, WY, CO and KS. The 10th Circuit will hear the oral arguments to agree with the district judge or overturn the injunction and allow the governor’s order to suspend the 2A to stand. This will not be hearing the full case but just an issue on the temporary injunction. My belief that if this is appealed to the circuit court, they will uphold the judge and the injunction. The next step would be to appeal the actual authority of the governor to the 10th Circuit. That would be to argue, a governor, when declaring emergency can lawfully issue such orders suspending a constitutional right. If it goes that far, the 10th Circuit will set precedent in those 6 states that a governor has no such authority to ban guns in public. That precedent will technically only have legal bearing in those 6 states. The next and final step would be for losing side to appeal to the United States. Again, I suspect that the 10th Circuit will find the governor’s actions unconstitutional. If that happens to be the outcome, the US Supreme Court will deny review (certiorari or cert.) and allow the 10th Circuit ruling to stand, setting precedent. If the 10th Circuit sides with the governor’s authority to issue such an edict, the Supreme Court will accept the case for review and overturn it, again setting precedent.

😀 I didn’t read baddog’s and BS Wildcat’s posts before I started typing away….