It might be beyond prayer, but it isn’t illegal. It’d be the same if the students (not initiated by the coach) invited a catholic priest to have mass for them before a game or practice. Or if they brought a statue of Lord Siva in and had ash placed on their foreheads after saying the mantras.
 September 2, 2015 at 4:31pm
Incitement has to be pretty specific. The courts give quite a bit of leeway towards impassioned speech. However, authorities might take a closer look at what he said if someone claims that they were inspired by his words to act in a criminal manner. Even in that case, it’s still difficult to prove in a court of law unless he’s really direct about it.
 September 2, 2015 at 4:25pm
Incitement has to be specific. He’d have to say something like ‘ I want all ya n!@@as to go out and cap yoself a cracka!’
I might have missed it but even though he seemed to dance close to the line it didn’t appear like he may have crossed it.
His speech should and is being met as it should: With speech.
 September 2, 2015 at 4:16pm
Kind of dumb if you are wanted by the cops..
My only problem with this is the University trying to take action against her for a political opinion. Even if unpopular, it’s unpopular speech that should be protected, especially at a college..
Then again.. colleges have ceased being institutions of honest debate decades ago.
How about the man that Hillary Cllinton and the full weight of the US Govt came down on for "making a video that inflamed a situation in Benghazi that got our ambassador killed"? Not only was this a political arrest, the attack in Benghazi was known AT THE TIME to have been planned, to have been warned against it happening, and had nothing to do with a video. THERE is a definition of a political prisoner. As far as I know, he still is in prison.
 September 2, 2015 at 4:12pm
I think NASCAR might just inspire a rash of battle flags by trying to be PC.
 September 2, 2015 at 4:08pm
The general rule is that it can’t be coach/teacher/administrator initiated. If it’s student initiated then it’s kosher. The State can’t legally bar students from practicing religion. Teachers and coaches can even participate, but can’t lead such activities. Just like you can have a prayer before a game just so long as the coach doesn’t say “bow your heads for a prayer” or something similar.
That's only if the school is organizing the event. The school didn't organize the event, they just allowed the property to be used by members of the church. The fact that members of the church just happened to be people who attend and work at the school is a non-issue. It's a peaceful religious assembly on public property, which is 100% protected AGAINST the government by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. If the government gets involved, they'll be violating the rights of the people.
It might be beyond prayer, but it isn't illegal. It'd be the same if the students (not initiated by the coach) invited a catholic priest to have mass for them before a game or practice. Or if they brought a statue of Lord Siva in and had ash placed on their foreheads after saying the mantras.
 September 2, 2015 at 4:01pm
Which is legal so long as it was student initiated.
If the cop is human and not a sociopath this has to be weighing on him.
[-1] September 2, 2015 at 2:30pm
In this case the officer did right. Unfortunately he’ll have to deal with the psychological effects that this jerk wanted him to shoot him for a suicide. This situation I don’t think is a result of the militarization of the police. It wasn’t some kid playing with a toy in his own house and SWAT comes crashing in..
Something needs to be done about the Stazi like tactics of some districts, but this incident isn’t a cause or symptom of such a problem.
I have ZERO sympathy for those who commit suicide, they faster they do it without hurting or killing anybody else, the better.
If the man had been pulling the pellet gun out of his dresser while an illiterate SWAT team was breaking down his door he would have been shot too. The cops would be cleared and the comments against the man would be the same. I know because it's not hypothesis, it's history. The courts have even had time to rule on it. You can't shoot an armed cop unless they shoot first and even then you would automatically be guilty of murder unless you could prove justification. The rules should be the same for everyone. Freedom comes with risk, those who can't handle that should point their finger at a cop I guess.
Suicide by cop always disgustes me. Obviously someone who wants to kill themselves aren't right in the head. But I have friends who are cops and they thankfully as yet have not had to deal with scenario. I never want them to have to carry this.
Unfortunately I think it depends on what district you are in.
 September 2, 2015 at 2:23pm
Is John willing to fall on a sword if Iran renegs and gets a bomb? This deal is asinine. We might as well hand them a premade bomb and forget the pretense.
John is sofa king stupid he would likely fall on the hilt.
 September 2, 2015 at 1:46pm
@FoT, Not to mention that under this deal we’re going to teach them how to defend their centrifuges and nuclear sites from attack.
September 2, 2015 at 1:34pm
“…imminent threat to life. In this case there was no imminent threat.”
Disparate force. They were larger than her and outnumbered her. These were not 7 year olds arguing about pokemon.
It doesn’t need to be a threat to life either. However, her standing there arguing about it was ill advised.
It’s not something you want to have to spend money on in court over. Try to keep your emotions cool.
She should also be the first to file a restraining order against the teens and their parents. First out of the box is often has a leg up on the other.
September 2, 2015 at 1:25pm
@For, it’s real border line in this case. I can’t get the audio of it, but it appears she’s using it as an intimidation tool rather than a self defense tool. She’s WAY too close and out numbered. Should she have been armed? YES. Should she have pulled the weapon. Probably. Should she have stood there and argued about it with an brandished weapon? Probably not.
There have been cases where the DA brought a man to court for brandishing a weapon on his own property to run off thieves (he was acquitted).
So it really depends on who the DA is. http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/57100000301.HTML (Unlawful use of a weapon) http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000311.html (Self Defense Statute)
 September 2, 2015 at 12:51pm
Iran will be the wild card that helps China and Russia advance their territorial ambitions. Get the mideast, Israel, and the US involved with a military fight with Iran, then make their move on SE Asia and former Soviet Bloc countries. Already the Chinese are building islands in violation of international agreements.
 September 2, 2015 at 12:30pm
Yes, I agree. I was just suggesting how it should have happened legally and responsibly. It might not be worth it for the DA to press charges but that depends on the DA.
A firearm is a defense tool, not an argument tool.
September 2, 2015 at 12:22pm
Yup. Not all states have “Stand Your Ground” laws. Some states you have to seek out an avenue of escape and be omniscient about avenues of escape before defending yourself. The only place in Missouri where you don’t have a duty to seek retreat from assault before defending yourself is in a home or car. Otherwise you have to prove to a prosecutor or to a jury that you had no way to escape, or you were ignorant of avenues of escape.
This is why Duty to Retreat is stupid. Where a prosecutor can say.. “Well, there was this alley behind you (out of your line of sight). Explain why you didn’t take that route instead of shooting this person (who was in the act of trying to rob, rape, or beat you and your attention is on them rather than a birds eye video game view of your situation).”
 September 2, 2015 at 11:59am
A woman of short stature being assaulted by three teens. She should have started to back away, then pulled the gun had they followed. If they approach while you are retreating, especially if you are visibly armed, one can only conclude they mean to attack you. At that point you have fulfilled all the obligations of self defense and can defend yourself with lethal force. No one is required to suffer damage or be injured before defending themselves.
 September 2, 2015 at 11:45am
@John, I’m not sure. I think the way the idiots set this up was that they have to pass an objection to the deal for the deal NOT to go through. So not bringing it up for a vote means the deal goes through anyway. However, not passing it with veto proof majority means it gets vetoed and the deal goes through anyway. The GOP really shot themselves in the foot. I’m not even sure they can use the power of the purse to stop the nuclear arming of Iran either.
Also, whoever is in the White House at the time Iran declares its nuclear weapons will get the blame for it from the MSM, rather than Bobo’s asinine Chamberlain agreement.