Language warning, woman arrested at HS football game

[Boneyard Boys]

In this video you can see she is approached by some kind of school security personnel while she is sitting in the middle of her family group not doing a damn thing wrong. Home team “officer” taking it out on a visiting team parent. 

[tvc184]

4 hours ago, Reagan said:

Come on -- Roe V Wade is NOT law!!!!   If you think it is -- what law is it that was passed.  Very simple question!

You want me to explain how laws work? I really don’t mind but I thought you might have a grasp at this stage of life.

Medical procedures are within the jurisdiction of a state. If the state allows third trimester abortions, that is the law in that state. I really don’t feel like looking up the laws in all 50 states so that you’ll know what each says. Feel free to use Google.

The Supreme Court issues caselaw, not statutory law. They rule on what is constitutional and not constitutional. They do not write statutory or criminal law although some people often say that they do… I guess apparently that is because they do not understand the function.

A woman sued saying that her constitutional rights were violated, I believe under the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court agreed with her up to a point of viability of the fetus. What that means is a state cannot restrict her right to an abortion for a child who is not viable outside of the womb. Later stages it is up to the states and like I said, each state has its own rules. Is that the written law that you’re looking for because you asked what law was passed and it was passed in 50 different states which set their own limits, per the 10th amendment to the constitution and Roe v. Wade. Prior to Roe v. Wade I believe that most states denied abortions. The Supreme Court came in and said that was unconstitutional within limits.

Yes Roe v. Wade is law. It is caselaw telling a government when it cannot do.

[tvc184]

4 hours ago, Reagan said:

Come on -- Roe V Wade is NOT law!!!!   If you think it is -- what law is it that was passed.  Very simple question!

Here you go. And yes I just looked it back up it is the 14th amendment.

Here you go. And yes I just looked it back up and it is the 14th amendment.

I like the Oyez site because it cuts a 15 or 20 page document/explanation down to a simple question and a brief answer. In this link you can find what the Supreme Court says is constitutional and what may be modified by the states. Yes it is law.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, Boneyard Boys said:

@tvc184would have to start that one, he seems smarter than us common folk talking football.

I wish... 😀

[WOSdrummer99]

39 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

who would convict this woman? Any juror following the law.

At least there's a chance it it's trail by jury. I feel like a judge would throw the book at her.

[tvc184]

10 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

At least there's a chance it it's trail by jury. I feel like a judge would throw the book at her.

Yeah, in this highly charged political climate, you could definitely have some nullification where I’m sure some jurors simply might not like the law… Even though it is the law and constitutional. 

[Reagan]

32 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

You want me to explain how laws work? I really don’t mind but I thought you might have a grasp at this stage of life.

Medical procedures are within the jurisdiction of a state. If the state allows third trimester abortions, that is the law in that state. I really don’t feel like looking up the laws in all 50 states so that you’ll know what each says. Feel free to use Google.

The Supreme Court issues caselaw, not statutory law. They rule on what is constitutional and not constitutional. They do not write statutory or criminal law although some people often say that they do… I guess apparently that is because they do not understand the function.

A woman sued saying that her constitutional rights were violated, I believe under the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court agreed with her up to a point of viability of the fetus. What that means is a state cannot restrict her right to an abortion for a child who is not viable outside of the womb. Later stages it is up to the states and like I said, each state has its own rules. Is that the written law that you’re looking for because you asked what law was passed and it was passed in 50 different states which set their own limits, per the 10th amendment to the constitution and Roe v. Wade. Prior to Roe v. Wade I believe that most states denied abortions. The Supreme Court came in and said that was unconstitutional within limits.

Yes Roe v. Wade is law. It is caselaw telling a government when it cannot do.

Oh, I understand fully what took place.  Point is is that it was NEVER passed by the legislature.  It for sure violates the 10th Amendment.  But, unfortunately, we have to deal with rogue rulings.  Even Norma McCorvey later stated: "It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air."  Once we get a strong conservative majority, it'll be. or should I say could be, overturned.  If it is -- what's changed??   Everything you have stated so far is still intact!

From the article: "No matter how heavy the theorizing may get, the project of interpreting what is known as the “living” Constitution is nothing more than the dishonest use of the law to reach ideologically pleasing results."  The article is titled:  William Brennan and the Creation of a Right to Abortion

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

23 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Oh, I understand fully what took place.  Point is is that it was NEVER passed by the legislature.  It for sure violates the 10th Amendment.  But, unfortunately, we have to deal with rogue rulings.  Even Norma McCorvey later stated: "It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air."  Once we get a strong conservative majority, it'll be. or should I say could be, overturned.  If it is -- what's changed??   Everything you have stated so far is still intact!

From the article: "No matter how heavy the theorizing may get, the project of interpreting what is known as the “living” Constitution is nothing more than the dishonest use of the law to reach ideologically pleasing results."  The article is titled:  William Brennan and the Creation of a Right to Abortion

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I have never heard the 14th amendment called legal thin air but you’re entitled to your opinion.

As far as your argument saying that there is no law passed by a legislative body, it does not matter and I do not even understand that argument. Your premise is that no SCOTUS rulings are valid because none of their rulings then go to the Senate and House for confirmation. The ruling stand on their own. It makes no sense to say there’s no legislation because it needs to be none.

SCOTUS rules on constitutionality. When they said the police have to read a list of warnings when they interrogate you if you were in custody, that is not legislative law. It does not matter if the state passes that. SCOTUS made the statement to all the courts below them that if the police did not follow those rules and the confession was unconstitutional and not valid. What legislative action are you looking for? 

if you’re only point is to say that the Supreme Court it’s not a legislative body, I agree. The Constitution does not require them to be.

[Realville]

7 hours ago, tvc184 said:

The one that says the governor can issue criminal mandates.

 In this case from what I have read in current sites (and I believe that I made the same comment here or another forum), she was asked to leave the school property for not wearing a mask, she refused. She was trespassing. She then resisted arrest. Going by Texas law only as an example of what Ohio law may be similar to, you cannot even resist an unlawful arrest.

 So who would convict this woman? Any juror following the law.

 If it was in Texas, yes the mask is a criminal law. 

If we’re going to pick the corn out of the poo poo then the officer needs to follow the law an address the cheerleaders not wearing a mask. The law is the law right? Total over reach an the video shows it. Most of these mandates read that if an when you can’t keep a six feet social distance then you are required to wear a mask. This lady is with her family socially distant. 

 

 

[Realville]

8 hours ago, tvc184 said:

The one that says the governor can issue criminal mandates.

 In this case from what I have read in current sites (and I believe that I made the same comment here or another forum), she was asked to leave the school property for not wearing a mask, she refused. She was trespassing. She then resisted arrest. Going by Texas law only as an example of what Ohio law may be similar to, you cannot even resist an unlawful arrest.

 So who would convict this woman? Any juror following the law.

 If it was in Texas, yes the mask is a criminal law. 

I guess this gentleman that was chased down by the mob and arrested by the Police must not have been wearing his mask. SMH

 

[Realville]

19 hours ago, JasperDAWG said:

WE LIVE IN THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH! 

to all the "mask"holes: check out how non abiding non mask wearers are treated/dealt with in other countries since its so bad here in USA.

FOR example in India 8 non maskers went to court for not conforming to mandates and their judge ruled punishment is/was  to have to dig graves for covid19  patients that die.

If you like that kind of freedom you ought to move there. That means the cheerleaders at the end of the video would need to dig graves too since they weren’t wearing a mask. 

[RETIREDFAN1]

20 hours ago, AggiesAreWe said:

Are you saying schools cannot have policies unless it is law?

the subject of the post I answered was LAW, not policies.......I answered him appropriately.......

[RETIREDFAN1]

18 hours ago, tvc184 said:

 No, property rights are not a straw man. 

His apples to orange comparison was.......

[Reagan]

10 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I have never heard the 14th amendment called legal thin air but you’re entitled to your opinion.

As far as your argument saying that there is no law passed by a legislative body, it does not matter and I do not even understand that argument. Your premise is that no SCOTUS rulings are valid because none of their rulings then go to the Senate and House for confirmation. The ruling stand on their own. It makes no sense to say there’s no legislation because it needs to be none.

SCOTUS rules on constitutionality. When they said the police have to read a list of warnings when they interrogate you if you were in custody, that is not legislative law. It does not matter if the state passes that. SCOTUS made the statement to all the courts below them that if the police did not follow those rules and the confession was unconstitutional and not valid. What legislative action are you looking for? 

if you’re only point is to say that the Supreme Court it’s not a legislative body, I agree. The Constitution does not require them to be.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Judicial branch makes laws?  They "interpret" if laws passed are Constitutional.  Now, with that being said, we have seen many times of this being abused by activist judges.  The 7 that ruled abortion is a Constitutional right, "felt" it needed to be.  So, they used the "right to privacy" clause in the Constitution to validate their feelings.  Again, it clearly violates the 10th Amendment.  This is why it's stated that the right to an abortion was created out of thin air.  But, you are right, we have to, unfortunately, abide by these bad rulings until we can get them changed. 

[TxHoops]

On 9/24/2020 at 10:29 AM, Reagan said:

I see a mulit-million dollar lawsuit in her future!!  Start draining these clowns of money and they'll stop!  You start suing everyone involved.  It's time to fight back when our Constitutional rights are being violated. 

You are a neoconservative.  You don’t believe in multi-million dollar lawsuits.  Because that is what big insurance paid you to believe.  
 

You also believe all people should comply with police instructions, less they be shot and killed.  Or is being tased worse than losing your life?  
 

To paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy, you might be a racist if....

[TxHoops]

23 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I agree. Great topic. I have made more posts in half an hour than I usually make all week  

 On a side note,  I never knew how many lawyers and police officers were in this forum. I am impressed. 😀

 

I had so much to say but you pretty much nailed it at every turn.  You may not be a lawyer but you play a pretty dang good one on this forum.  Legally speaking, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen you post anything that wasn’t precisely correct. 

[Realville]

They’ll probably reach a settlement because they would have a hard time explaining this to a judge or jury. What had happened WUZ!

[exsoftballplayer]

All could have been avoided if she would have just done what the officer said.  If you do not do what they ask or tell, you LOSE!!!!!

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

I had so much to say but you pretty much nailed it at every turn.  You may not be a lawyer but you play a pretty dang good one on this forum.  Legally speaking, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen you post anything that wasn’t precisely correct. 

Thanks.

I have been doing this for almost 37 years and I teach at Lamar in Beaumont as a side.  Mostly I try to stay unemotional so it does not matter what my political opinion is, I have to go by what the courts have ruled. I do not change my stance just to make an argument. 

 I don’t always agree but they have yet to ask for my opinion. 😀

[BMTSoulja1]

On 9/24/2020 at 1:16 PM, WOSdrummer99 said:

I agree. And a subject for another time and place, my friend.

Agreed.

[Big girl]

On 9/24/2020 at 8:57 AM, Boneyard Boys said:

Woman tased and arrested for not wearing a mask at a high school football game. It looks like she has a mask in her pocket so I’m sure she had to wear it to get in and while around other people. But sitting outside and socially distanced in the bleachers she did not have it on. Thoughts?

She should've complied, we dont know the whole story etc. One should never resist arrest. Heck, at least she is still breathing.

[Realville]

29 minutes ago, Big girl said:

She should've complied, we dont know the whole story etc. One should never resist arrest. Heck, at least she is still breathing.

Did you know that the cheerleaders on the track did not even have a mask around their neck much less their face? Cheerleaders are invisible to the China Flu.😂 Define compliance in this situation? Are is it just selective compliance?

[5GallonBucket]

2 hours ago, Realville said:

Did you know that the cheerleaders on the track did not even have a mask around their neck much less their face? Cheerleaders are invisible to the China Flu.😂 Define compliance in this situation? Are is it just selective compliance?

Don’t bother they elect those that kill babies and they see nothing wrong with it.....can’t reason with humans that kill pure innocent babies.

plain simple they re screwed in head....

[Realville]