tvc184

I thought Pho Realizz was Vietnamese soup.

I am going to talk about investigations in general. For probable cause to exist as documented in an affidavit after an arrest made without a warrant (which is probably 90+% of arrests) or an affidavit to request a warrant, each step of discovery or authority by the officer must be documented. As an example: If an officer in an affidavit for a DWI arrest says, “I was on patrol and stopped a vehicle. The driver appeared intoxicated and I blah blah blah and arrested him”. That is not sufficient and not a lawfully documented arrest even if the guy was drunk as a skunk. The reason is because the officer detained a guy under the Fourth Amendment but does not justify the detention. “I stopped a guy” says absolutely nothing that would justify a detention as a suspected crime. A person can only be detained if an officer has details that led the officer to believe that a specific crime is about to be committed, is being committed or was just committed. A correct justification for a detention might be like, “I was on patrol at 2am and sitting in the parking lot of Walgreen’s at 11th St and College St. in Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas. I could clearly see the north bound traffic lights on 11th St and all of them were red. A vehicle traveling north on 11th St went through the red light without stopping and continued north. I then stopped the vehicle for running the red light and blah, blah, blah. That justifies under oath a reason for the detention. For this investigation (or any), to justify an arrest either without a warrant like an officer answering a call, with a warrant signed by a judge or with a warrant after an indictment by a grand jury, it must be shown how the information came under investigation and then how any evidence was lawfully discovered. So how did the police start this investigation? Did a student report a text to the principal and the principal called the police? Did a student go directly to an officer? Did a teacher happen to walk by and saw what was happening on a text and called the police? There are plenty of possibilities but whatever it was, it has to be documented and sworn to in a probable cause (PC) affidavit on how it came to the police department’s attention. A PC affidavit doesn’t have to list specific details. It has to give enough of the information to be convincing to the definition of PC. All PC affidavits and arrest or search warrants are public information and less details are needed so it is usually better for investigative purposes to not divulge every detail that may be known to the police. Like I could say that I responded to a call of a shooting and found a man with at least one gunshot wound. EMS arrived and could not revive the man and a justice of the peace pronounced him dead at the scene. I would not need to say any details like the man had 3 gunshot wounds to the chest and 9mm shell cases were found nearby. That kind of detail simply is not needed to believe the guy is dead and justify an arrest for murder if a suspect is located before a warrant can be obtained. So….. going out on a limb which might be completely wrong… It would be plausible that a PC affidavit in a case like this would say that at some point officers found that texts were being sent which led to a voluntary interview with a student who said that blah blah texting and blah blah touching and….. Any of those details used to justify any police or grand jury actions, would become public information from a PC affidavit. So if the police were notified that a teacher was sending inappropriate but not necessarily illegal texts and that was the reason for other investigations, it would need to be documented in the public affidavit. So a reporter says, there was mention of blah blah….. That is likely completely true from the affidavit however those listed details might not in themselves be a crime. They just show the sequence of events that led to the conclusion by the officers. I am guessing that a reporter read the PC and noted parts that of it without context.

That is what I am thinking. It might all tie in together (if it is even true) as part of an investigation but not necessarily a crime. Is this reported somewhere or people’s speculations or people saying “I heard”?

It makes me wonder. If I remember correctly, it doesn’t apply to a teacher from another district unless they are involved in a school activity. An example would be a UIL Speech and Debate tournament competition at a school. If a teacher from School A hooks up with a student from School B, this law applies. But… She might have been snap chatting which might be incidental to the indictment or yet to be filed if a child. Also, child pornography is a person under 18 by state and federal law. So while the age of consent is 17, the age of lewd photography isn’t. Of course if that was the case, it should have been filed under that law and not improper relationship. Also… I haven’t read anything of details of the case but it might not have been a current year student in her current district. With knowing nothing of the situation but playing what if… Let’s say that prior to 2022 she was teaching in another district. There was a relationship with an adult student (at least 17) in that district. A year or two (or 3, 4….) later it is discovered. It is so within the statute of limitations. People might assume that if she is teaching at a school right not that the victim has to be in that school. Have they released any details such as a current year same district student? I am just speculating on what laws may apply. I would even go as far as saying if it was just an arrest, an officer might have made a mistake on the proper charge. Since it was an indictment, it was presented by the DA to the grand jury.

Finally….

I can believe they saw it. I think it was misinterpreted. That was a sign and it wasn’t from another planet.

I can honestly say that I have never considered a single year to be a “good program”.

C. None of the above ?

That and it is completely legal if it was the same people outside of being an educator. I understand the potential corruption as in, do this for me and I will change your grades. The law however doesn’t differentiate between people in those positions.

Kamala Harris word salad. The life, which is life, because to live you have to have life…..

Where did you read that in the order? I read the Supreme Court response and all it said was that the request was denied. A federal judge ordered a special master to review some documents to see if they could be released. The Eleventh Circuit appeals court put a halt to part of that order. A request was made to the Supreme Court to block the circuit court and let the special master (who is also a federal judge) continue. The Supreme Court chose in a one sentence response to stay out of it for now. Where in the order did you read the Supreme Court implicitly ruled anything about the documents which they haven’t seen?

So you are admitting that the vilified conservative (constitutional) judges are not swayed by politics? And SCOTUS only ruled that Trump can’t get the papers back for now. They made no ruling on any charges.

Taking of a human life… Which seems wrong? A. A person convicted of a heinous crime and with the right to appeal any verdict? B. An innocent child who cannot defend himself and there is no appeal.

ALSO….. I keep seeing the reference to a 12 year old. I didn’t see that if the article. BECAUSE….. If the student was under 17, the same touching would automatically be Indecency with a Child at a minimum. I see that they filed two counts of Improper Relationship only. If they were going to stack charges and the student was under 17, why not file the additional charges for it being a child and not just s student? With any penetration on either party with any body part or object and if the student is under 14, it is a First Degree felony and up to 99 years.

She is charged with Improper Relationship Between Educator/Student which requires “contact” at a minimum. The charges at the very least has to show probable cause (the minimum to indict/accuse, not to convict which is beyond a reasonable doubt) of some type of sexual contact. Sexual contact by criminal law definition is contacting the breast or crotch area. The contact can be in either direction. It can be the educator doing the touching or the student touching the educator. So if a teacher said, do you want to touch my _________ and the student did, it is sexual contact. Even if there were no words exchanged but the teacher was being suggestive and “allowed” himself/herself to be touched, it's the same crime. In that particular crime, there has to be context from one party to the other Only as an example, if the student was at least 17 and therefore an adult, practically anything would be legal except for the educator/student relationship. So if the educator and a (at least) 17 year old student were starting to get the hots each other, if the educator quit and took a different job not with the school, they could then have a scorching and intimate relationship and it with be legal. I think parts of that law are wrong because it requires no authority over the student. A 20 year old student teacher in the math department could get into a relationship with an 18 year old student who isn’t taking any math classes in the final year before graduating and it is a felony. A 60 year old guy working across the street could start a relationship with the a 17 year old at the school and it is no crime. So 20-18 years olds are having a relationship (which seems normal) and it is a felony but 60-17 year olds are having the same relationship and it is nothing. I understand the intent but it is not necessarily a child victim issue.

1. He has nothing to do with WOS. 2. Perhaps you have an understanding issue with the word “possibility“. 😀

Can you paraphrase??

The scored 1 on offense and had 2 called back on penalties.

!!final:0/24

Intercepted by FBM at 2:06.

Punts to Nederland at 3:09 in game.

On 4-4, Nederland punts to FBM 47.

On 4-13 on Nederland side of the field, FBM points to Nederland 4.

Intercepted by FBM. 1-10 at own 25.

End of 3, Nederland with 2-8 at Nederland 42 !!score:0/24/4