tvc184

Game scrimmage with no kickoff or trying to block field goal or PAT.

Not if you include the rest of the sentence. “it will slowly become normalized and desensitized just like” changes the meaning While technically anything can go either way, 5GB’s statement was about abhorrent behavior being normalized to the point and desensitizing people so people ignore it rather than argue. To say, those that think differently are extremist, would certainly work both ways. That isn’t what was said though. What from the conservative perspective is abhorrent behavior that is trying to desensitize people? Voter ID? Free enterprise? Not burning cities because you don’t agree? Lower taxes? In fact most conservative issues today would be considered normal 40 years ago by both sides of the aisle.

I think we have all seen comments/analogies that make no sense. It doesn’t matter which side of a discussion. When you read it and think… HUH!!?

I was thinking of posting that article. To say that they are incited in Kirbyville would seem to be an understatement.

Since this is specifically targeted to the comments about what the scrimmage showed, can you point to a single post by “some posters” that have said Nederland was close to winning or have predicted unrealistic outcomes?

There are so many jokes on here, so I don’t know if I brought this one up before but anyway…. An old woman went to see her doctor. When he asked her what was wrong, she said I have this bad problem. I am passing gas all the time. Like sitting in the waiting room with all those other people, I must have done it ten times. The good thing is you can’t hear them and you can’t smell them, but it still bothers me. I have even done it a couple of times while talking to you. The doctor said, I understand. Take two of these pills a day and see me in two weeks. When she returned in a couple of weeks the doctor asked how she was doing. She said terrible, it is just as bad but now they stink like crazy. The doctor said great, now we have your sinuses cleared up so next we can work on your hearing.

I said it in another thread. If you are looking to be offended, you will be offended. Even if it has to come from someone telling you that you are to be offended.

Go to the last page of the Nederland 2023 thread to get the Nederland perspective on the scrimmage. There are a few comments about it.

I am sure that not much will be taken from it.

Comparing only to last year’s scrimmage with HF, Nederland looked much improved. Great? Certainly not. Improved? Yes. Is HF as good as last year? I have no clue. The passing game was much better considering that most of last year the quarterbacks were overthrowing open receivers, sometimes by 5 yards. There was some decent playing on the defensive line with quite a few gang tackles. I “think” in the controlled scrimmage with the first teams, HF had 2 touchdowns and Nederland had 1. On second team control HF had 1-0. On 2 quarters of game scrimmage with no kickoffs, I believe it was 1-1. Last year HF looked like world beaters in the same scrimmage. They played pretty even this evening in my opinion.

I predict that the practice will give both teams some positive signs and some negative things that need to be worked on.

Interesting in this new law is that the governor vetoed it but it was overridden by the KY legislature. While researching that I came across another legislative veto of the governor recently, this time over gender reaffirming healthcare for children. Apparently the KY legislature passed a law forbidding hormone therapy if the parents wanted to change the sexual characteristics of a child. Mostly it seems to be estrogen therapy to keep boys from becoming boys and testosterone therapy to keep girls become more masculine. Surely the left side of the aisle will jump in here soon and say that if parents want to keep their 9 year old son from going through puberty, it should be okay. But, it makes me wonder how many bills that the governor has vetoed, have been overridden in KY.

Watch the video in the article about Kamala Harris and her outright lies about the curriculum on slavery. The ol’ straw man again shows up.

His writing is exemplary. It probably wasn’t hard to draw his conclusions unfortunately. There is something even more unfortunate however. It is that no matter how much sense his statement makes, it will fall into the laps of a smug group of individuals who have already shown that they don’t see him as an asset or an example of their district but rather a thorn in their side. If I read his statement correctly, when he was contesting the grade he was denied and filed a public records request and it showed there were over 5,500 internal emails about him. When I was in high school, I would be shocked to find that my name was mentioned over 5,000 times even if counting personal conversations out of my presence between friends and enemies combined. The guy hopefully has a bright future. If he does, some of those same school board members will be crowing about how good BISD is and he is an example. When that potential Wikipedia article mentions that he graduated from Westbrook at BISD, the same group that did him wrong, will be high-fiving and patting each other on the back for the recognition of his success.

I have never complained about private jets. I have never seen anyone else say or even imply that Kerry was wrong for doing the same thing as Trump. There are two points to consider. Kerry is the one who is complaining about global warming and excess is by other people, not Trump. That makes Kerry a hypocrite, which is the point. Do as It say, not as I do. The second and what this thread is about is him getting caught under oath in front of Congress.

That is called getting caught with the smoking gun. For those that might not want to watch the video let me paraphrase…. John Kerry: All these false claims that I fly in a private jet and the claimed hypocrisy by me. I have never owned a private jet!! Follow up question: Who owned it? Kerry: I have never owned a private jet!!… Well, but my wife has and yes I flew in it. But it wasn’t in my name!! Hahaha…. 🤣

If anyone doesn’t know, Dershowitz is a fairly hardcore Democrat. A Harvard law professor, he supported Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. He is in most accounts, a well respected attorney. This is his take on the indictment after reading it. The prosecutor lied on the indictment by omission and could be indicted… but won’t be. Part of the indictment was a statement by Trump which clearly puts his comment in the protection of the First Amendment and free speech. So the prosecutor who signed the affidavit under oath, altered Trump’s statement to make it look different. The prosecutor in the indictment left out where Trump said for the people to protest “peacefully and patriotically” but the prosecutor altered the statement by omitting those key words. The video is about 30 minutes long but watch as least the first 3.5-4 minutes.

I read the entire article. What was the problem?

The article said that they got arrested for the city’s amplified noise ordinance.

It goes into ignorance of the law is no defense to prosecution. A law says, you can use self defense if crime A is happening but not crime B. You use self defense and when the police ask you why, you say that I was defending myself from crime A. Then the police say, crime A never happened, crime B did. Oops! My bad!, isn’t going to help.

I wouldn’t disagree. I might rather a basic law class on constitutional law/case laws, why the Constitution was actually created and the intent of the final result, why and how it sets up the country, especially the policies powers of the Tenth Amendment, etc. Dual sovereignty alone might be (probably) unknown to most people yet we have had a big news story recently in this area that involves dual sovereignty. I would bet money that even for people who are familiar with the case, they might know the outcome but will have no clue as to why. Laws change but how it works doesn’t.

You probably already have it but if not and you want to look up laws, read the entire Penal Code or search, this is most laws in Texas including the Constitution. The search feature is great but like all searches, knowing key words to search helps. If you search “stop” in the Transportation Code, you might get hits in 50 different chapters. Searching a word like “interference” in the Penal Code might give 10 chapters with hits but I can quickly spot Chapter 38 Obstructing Governmental Operations which is what I am usually looking for in the crime Interference With Public Duties (which is a little known but interesting law). On another note, since the legislature ended in May but add on a couple of special sessions, many new laws will go into effect on September 1 and they will not be in the codes [Hidden Content]

It’s not red tape. The issue is not self defense laws but how other laws change the outcome and people’s understanding of those laws. For example, theft plus assault equals robbery. If you slap a person, it’s misdemeanor assault. If you steal a loaf of bread, it’s a misdemeanor theft. If you slap a person while trying to steal bread, it’s a robbery. Robbery can possibly justify deadly force. Stealing bread or slapping someone can’t. So the law on self defense is that you can use deadly force to stop a person escaping with property from a robbery. That’s simple enough and that isn’t red tape. BUT… WAS THE PERSON ACTUALLY COMMITTING A ROBBERY?? The problem is the ignorance (not stupidity) of the public on what are the elements of a particular crime is. It comes from things like people commonly call a theft, a robbery. I have seen people complain like, I was robbed last night. While we were sleeping somebody came in my yard and took one of my wife’s pot plants. The problem is that is isn’t a robbery. It is a theft or the equivalent of a traffic citation. So if a person doesn’t get someone’s long winded explanations and heard, you can use deadly force to stop a robbery, what does that person think? He might think that if he sees a person taking something from his yard, he can come out shooting. Nope. The law is not complicated. A substantial percentage of the people are ignorant of criminal law though.

Yep. Assuming it was justified, making no judgment since I have no clue what actually happened….. Hopefully it won’t cost anything or won’t cost much. The police department might turn the completed investigation over to the DA and a No Bill will follow from the grand jury. Case closed. To show how this might play out and how important the facts or what can be proven are…. There are several ways this could have taken place. I am going to give couple of situations and my conclusion about this case… which might have nothing to do with what actually happened. This is also why speculation might be fun and interesting in a forum but the outcome might be completely different from what people believe it should be on either side. Remembering that deadly force to prevent the theft of property can only be used if the property was taken in a Robber/Aggravated Robbery, Burglary or a theft during the nighttime. Then toss in the other requirements of a reasonable belief by the shooter that the property would not likely be recovered, etc. These will all assume that deadly force was used. It also might be looked upon as a warning on how close situations are where one might be justified and the other might send you to prison for life. 1. A guy sees someone stealing his car and as the person drives away. It is just a theft (called Unauthorized Use of Vehicle). Unjustified. 2. A guy I see someone stealing his car and runs to stop him. The car thief then tells the owner, if you try to stop me, I’m gonna beat you like a red-headed step child. He then tries to drive away. The threat of injury made the Theft into Robbery. Justified. 3. I guy enters a car trying to steal it. He sees the owner coming out and runs to get away and leaves the car but grabs a cell phone off the seat. It is only two misdemeanors, Burglary of Vehicle and Theft. Unjustified. 4. The exact same scenario as number 3 but as the thief turns to run away with a cell phone, he runs into a 70 year old woman, knocking her down and causing a small scratch on her elbow. Recklessly running into the woman while getting away with property and causing injury to a person or 65 years of age or older, it became Aggravated Robbery (up to 99 years in prison). Probably Justified. 5. The same scenario as number 4 however after taking a couple of steps, the thief throws down the cell phone where the owner can clearly see it. He then runs into the 70 year old woman and causes the minor injury. Once the thief, abandon the property, it is no longer a Robbery or Aggravated Robbery (by age) since he is no longer trying to maintain control over the property when he made the threat or caused the injury. He has committed the two misdemeanors as previously mentioned and the additional crime of Injury to an Elderly Individual (a felony) but those are not among the only four crimes justifying deadly force for property. Unjustified. Anyone see how close one situation is to the other? In one he dropped the cell phone and the other he kept it. In one he did not run into anyone recklessly and then the other he did. In one he drove away with the car but in another, he made a threat to kick a guy’s butt before driving away. On the one hand, it is fairly easy to say, I have no sympathy for a thief. I have sympathy for his family because they did not cause it. On the other hand, in an emotional situation of you being the victim of a crime, shooting might be justified yet a small change in the situation/facts might cause you years in prison and your family left wondering what to do.

If that’s you criteria, Nederland would be the 6th largest city in Wyoming. 😂