tvc184

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

Second pick 6 for FBM

!!score:0/24/3

Intercepted for pick 6

FBM with 4-5 from Nederland 20. Nederland holds. Ball over on downs. Nederland gets dead ball unsportsmanlike. 1-10 from Nederland 9

On 4-16, Nederland punts to midfield. FBM ball with 5 minutes in 3

At 6:12 in 3, !!score:0/17/3

Touchdown FBM

On 3-30 Nederland throws screen for first down but holding makes it 3-40. Punt goes to FBM 35. 8:40 in 3, FBM 10-0

Nederland gets touchback to 25 to start the second half.

Halftime !!score:0/10/half

2-1, midfielder, 0:51 to go. Sack back to FBM 37. Pass thrown away. FBM punts to Nederland 28 at 0:10 in half.