User Profile: a guy in texas

a guy in texas

Member Since: August 31, 2010

Comments

123
  • [1] November 16, 2014 at 6:49am

    And that my friends is why “eye-witness” testimony sucks. Multiple people can witness the same EXACT event and tell multiple stories about it, with every single one of them being altered based on the witnesses mood, state of mind, and conscious or unconscious desire to make their story fit some greater narrative.

    Body camera, body cameras, body cameras police department, with STRICT limits on how hey can be used. Make it to where you cannot troll camera footage looking criminal activity, and where they can be used as supporting evidence, not the primary source of evidence when prosecuting a crime.

  • November 16, 2014 at 6:39am

    Guess he really NEEDS that stiff drink with McConnell.

  • November 15, 2014 at 9:19am

    Penn and Teller Season 2 Episode 1 or their old show Showtime show BS, all about PETA:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kXUPy-dCx4&list=PLDFC32BDCE3CFC1A2 This is part 1 with links to the other 2 parts of it.

  • [9] November 8, 2014 at 7:30pm

    Why bother, we have a President and Congress ready to give them ours.

  • November 8, 2014 at 3:05pm

    He’s not wrong. Most of the time the police show up as and over-paid, over-powered evidence collection force after the crime has occurred. It is very rare you hear about cops stopping anything this felonious “in progress”.

  • November 7, 2014 at 8:05pm

    Actually that is not what they said at all. What they said was 1. The penalty for having a mandate did not exist as an Art1 Sec 8 power of Congress, basically saying that Congress cannot punish you for not engaging in private consumption of a good or service. 2. Since the government added to their argument that the penalty was actually a tax penalty, which puts it firmly in the realm of Executive power, it was constitutional there. 3. That states could not be forced to expand Medicaid rolls via a penalty if they choose not to.

    So contrary to your point, part of PPACA was found to be unconstitutional. This thing is going to get the death of 1000 cuts when it is all said and done.

    And I’ll take your bet, this is not a conceptual argument about whether this or that is lawful under the Constitution. This is a direct contradiction in the letter of the law vs its practical application. It specifically says States that setup their own exchanges qualify for federal subsidies. Not all exchange purchased insurance qualifies. Normally this is caught and corrected in the conference committees, but the Dems rammed this through to “…Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It”. And even when stuff like this slips through it is usually fixed by simple legislation to amend the previous law, but that is only when the original law is completely read and understood. I will bet any amount of money in the world the no Congressmen that voted yeah on this bill has actually read it.

  • November 7, 2014 at 7:50pm

    There are only very few ways you could possibly be more wrong in your statement. SCOTUS has absolute jurisdictions over this, as it is a federal law. Unless you are trying to say Marbury v. Madison was a bad precedent?

    Now I will agree with your assessment in Congress having no Article 1 Sec 8 powers over this. But of course with an OWS name like OUTLAW_WEALTH, makes me wonder what powers you think Congress should have.

    Responses (1) +
  • November 7, 2014 at 7:45pm

    They would have to be impeached off the bench, just like any other Federal judge.

  • [52] November 7, 2014 at 4:47pm

    I really doubt I would try to hide in a house I broke into through a doggie door. Most people don’t get doors that big unless they have big dogs.

    Responses (1) +
  • [7] November 7, 2014 at 1:07pm

    Maybe Chief Justice Roberts will finally stake this thing through the heart. If they follow the letter of the law, which is what they usually do, the subsidies being handed out by the Federal Exchange have to go.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] October 30, 2014 at 1:38pm

    For those getting all bent out of shape because this shooting will go to a grand jury, this is the norm for fatal shootings in Texas, regardless if the shooter is a civilian or law enforcement officer. When a fatal shooting is not sent to a grand jury is when eyebrows raise here in the state. It is not required Constitutionally or Statutorily, but it is the common practice, mostly to take politics out of it.

    Recall Florida’s Zimmerman/Martin incident. The local prosecutor declined to send it to the grand jury, presumably because he/she felt it was a justifiable shooting. Enter the Reverends of CORGAA (Church of Racial Grievance and Animosity), it became politically expedient at that point to go ahead and send it to the grand jury just to “prove” that the system is working. Once it hit the grand jury, the representatives of CORGAA could then leave to stoke other racial fires.

    Also in Texas, you are immune to civil action if your use of deadly force is deemed justified, and a no bill from the grand jury easily meets this requirement.

    Responses (1) +
  • October 30, 2014 at 10:40am

    It is legal to shoot someone “…fleeing immediately after committing…” in most instances that deadly force would be justified in Texas, specifically in this case 9.42(2)(B). Out of sheer curiosity, what state do you live in, and did you teachings come from LEOs or actual research into what the State Penal Code said?

  • [1] October 30, 2014 at 10:34am

    You’re right, you don’t know the laws in Texas. As reported so far, this seems justifiable under Texas Penal Code 9.42.

  • [5] October 30, 2014 at 8:18am

    Doesn’t have to be “more to this…”‘, in many instances, robbery and theft at night included, you are allowed to use force, up to and including deadly force, under 9.42 of the Texas penal code even if the criminal is fleeing immediately after the crime occurred. Texas Code 9.42(2)(B).

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] October 30, 2014 at 6:57am

    Perfectly legal in Texas 9.42(2)(B) states that clearly in the use of deadly force in defense of property.

  • [1] October 30, 2014 at 6:55am

    All fatal shootings in Texas go to the GJ, it’s just the way things are done down here, partially to take the politics out of it. Better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6.

  • [4] October 30, 2014 at 6:54am

    The legal standard in Texas on deadly force in Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY states under (2)(B) “…to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;,,,”

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] October 29, 2014 at 9:54pm

    See my reply to DoOrDie, ALL fatal shootings in Texas go to a GJ, even when cops do it. Nothing unusual about this at all.

  • [3] October 29, 2014 at 9:52pm

    Actually Texas has adopted the standard of all shootings go to a grand jury, no matter how cut and dry they seem. So no shock to anyone familiar with the way the Texas legal process works. Hence the phrase you hear tossed around these parts of “Better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6.” That avoids the whole political element of it all. He will probably be no-billed, so nothing to worry about.

  • October 29, 2014 at 5:55am

    I was thinking along those lines, or a bear, perhaps a bee or hornet swarm upset bu the percussion wave.

123