.jpg)
- The Star-Telegram's home page has a video ad that takes up the whole screen this morning. That's in addition to the massive still banner at the bottom. (I may not be inclined to pay for content, but I might be swayed to pay to avoid irritation.)
- Yesterday I said head coach Joe Paterno might be in trouble at Penn State due to the "cover up" of the sex abuse scandal, but even I was surprised by the firestorm across the Internets and talk radio that followed. And a sign placed around his on campus statue is not a good omen.
- And to think Ohio State's coach had to resign earlier this year because his players were trading jersies for tattoos.
- There was another Oklahoma earthquake last night after a day of tornadoes. (Very funny screenshot of one Oklahoma residents reaction to the first earthquake.)
- Ever noticed how movie posters seem familiar?
- This Tarrant County case will be interesting to watch: A guy hears his car being broken into, goes outside, and then fires a shot at the vehicle leaving the scene. One 17 year old in that vehicle, who is said to have remained in the car while his buddies attempted the burglary, is hit and killed. The shooter has to be prosecuted, right?
- The cute hairdresser who was found dead in her burning car in Dallas last Friday is one heck of a mystery. Police now believe she was alive when the car was intentionally set on fire. There are no suspects. Weird.
- I don't have much of an interest in high school volleyball, but I couldn't help but notice that the Decatur team faces its long time playoff nemesis tonight: Abilene Wylie.
- I always like to look at the high school football playoff brackets to see the worst teams who still qualified. This year it seems to be Mexia (2-8) and Callisburg (2-8). Everyone gets a trophy!!
- Wow. I mentioned Joe Frazier's cancer yesterday and then he died last night. If you are a middle aged guy, Ali/Frazier will always mean something to you. (But the only way you could learn about most fights back then was by waiting for the newspaper.)
- I watched a documentary on TV about Ali/Frazier about a year ago and it was really, really good. For the life of me, I can't remember the name of it. (But I did note that the first Ali/Frazier fight is on youtube in its entirety.)
- The Crazy Couple was on Dr. Drew to have an on-stage sonogram to prove Mrs. Crazy doesn't have implants. Nothing like a new couple in love.
- There was a plea bargain in the Wise County courthouse yesterday for 29 years and 10 months. I know the defense lawyer, so I'll find out what's up with the weird 10 months aspect of it. (In state court with penitentiary time involved, 99% of the plea bargains are in years only.)
- And if someone agrees to 29 years and 10 months, there was also a 99% chance the jury would have given them more.
- Whoever suggested answering the "Guess" questions from One Of The Kids in The House with multiple mind-numbing guesses, you are a genius. I got hit with, "Guess what I made on my math test?" when I walked in the door so I started with 50 then 51 then 52. It didn't take long before the kid got worn out and told me 95. (And, yes, from there we talked about the one she got wrong.)
- The odds of someone having removed the umbrella from my car when I need it in a second: Overwhelming.
48 comments:
Bacon Scale
Left to right
4 out of 5
3.7 out of 5
4.2 out of 5
Last one
4.8 out of 5
She is so hot
Great job BG
What a horrible end to an incredible career! As much as I think of him, he had to have known more, and done more than just kicking it upstairs.
PS. If you are a Joe Paterno, and AD of a incredible program, there is no upstairs to pass it up to.
Fired shots at a fleeing vehicle?
No one's life was in danger and he shot someone? Murder...second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter at least. You only use deadly force when you or someone else are in danger of being killed or injured. Burglary is not a crime you shoot someone for unless they are in your house, then you are in danger.
I would like to hire those four young women as swimming instructors. They can meet me at a DC hotel anytime.
Herman Cain
And you would be WRONG 8:47. Deadly force to protect or RECOVER property taken by burglary during the nighttime if the actor reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to "prevent the other who is fleeing from escaping with the property" is a complete defense under Texas law. You can't come on someone's property at night and take their stuff and try to run away without subjecting yourself (and anyone with you) to gettin the hell shot outta ya.
I have a good memeory. I can't remember a single thing I said 14 years ago.. Gloria Allred makes me wonder.
She has to be the Michael Vick of the legal profession.
I'm not a Cain supporter. If the boy was trying to get some strange, I'd invoke the Bill Clinton rule and move on.
There's a story behind the 29 years and 10 months. I imagine it was a prosecutor's reaction to the "give me something to take to my client" less than the 30 years in prison you are offering, a typical refrain heard by prosecutors from defense attorneys who want their clients to think they just did something for them.
I blame the football player who witnessed the abuse and didn't whip the assh--e out right then.
The Star-Telegram's home page has a video ad that takes up the whole screen this morning
The Star-Telegram's home page looks normal for me. I use FireFox with AdBlock on an 7 year old Apple computer machine.
I heard a FW cop say just the other day that force - up to and including the deadly variety - is justifiable while attempting to stop a thief who is making off with your property. But I think he left out the part about the time of day. If it happens at night, your case is pretty much ironclad. I know a cop's word/opinion won't stand up in court, but that is the prevailing sentiment in these parts.
It amazes me that a criminal (or the late criminal's family) can claim their "rights" have been violated while they're stealing somebody's car!
A long time football nemesis doesn't necessarily transfer over to volleyball. Different sport - different genders. That girls' team is much better at what they do than anything the football program has fielded since Bobby took them to state
Today's RT gals: How about some free cookies to go with all that milk?
"Frazier goes down! Frazier goes down!"
Triple Fake How-ard Co-sell
i think we have a right to defend property
Not even one of those girls looks happy or nice. At least a couple of them probably have boyfriends who would shank or otherwise eliminate us if they knew we were looking!!! Ha ha ha
If you ain't taking peoples stuff that they WORKED for, you don't have to worry about being shot. That seems perfectly logical to me.
One less dumb donkey to worry about later on.
Triple fake -
Have you even seen a DHS football game this year? Decatur is 10-0 and fun to watch. AND the team is made up of some incredible, classy kids.
BG - I have never followed volleyball till now. It has been really entertaining to watch these girls. And like the football team I mentioned above, this team is made up of very outstanding, classy kids, which makes it even more fun to cheer them on. And like you said, Abilene Wylie has been a nemesis, which also adds to the fun of the game.
The story in the S-T did not report that anything was stolen. The shots were fired at the suspects while fleeing the scene. The deed had already been done. I’m not convinced that this would meet the test of defending life or property. …could be problematic for the shooter….unless he’s in Wise County.
9:04 is pretty much right. I can't remember if it's an absolute defense, and it's not a bar to prosecution if you have a gung-ho prosecutor, but it's a defense and he otherwise stated the law accurately.
Rage
8:47, come steal some shit and test that out..I will pump you full of lead then get a great attny and make up some sad story and even shed a fake tear.
Triple Fake--the line was "Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier" "Frazier goes down must've come from that gay porn you were watching last night.
Kept thinking someone would bring up the DHS Cross-Country runners qualifying for state this past Saturday......girls team 1st place, boys team 3rd place. HUNT THE ROCK!!!
9:49 -
"...10-0 and fun to watch. AND the team is made up of some incredible, classy kids."
none of that means they are better than the volleyball team, which is ranked tenth in the state. And how many games have they played since their last loss?
I'm saying that the current incarnation of the volleyball team is better at what they do than the current football team - even at 10-0. The competition hasn't been that tough, and yes, I have seen them play. They're a good team, but their success - as usual - depends on several very talented players and savvy coaching.
10:36 -
I was going off memory. Soooo-reeee!
I couldn't say for sure what "goes down" in gay porn, since I've never watched any, but you seem to know something about it.
I made a simple mistake - you hit below the belt. That's a low blow.
Would you care to jump on those double entendres as well? or throw in the towel?
10:08
8:47 here, test what out? I was not endorsing burglary. It is illegal to shoot a fleeing person or persons unless you are certain they have your stolen property in their possession and you are reasonably convinced there is no other way to recover it. That’s what it says in my book of Texas gun laws that I received when I took my CHL course. If you have your CHL you will have this book, look on page 61, pc 9.41 use of deadly force. This shooter did not know if they had his stolen property. You can’t just walk out and shoot at someone driving away unless they have your property in their possession. I carry all the time so I am well versed in Texas gun laws. If they had none of his property in the vehicle, he is in for a rough time.
let someone come onto my property and steal stuff and me catch 'em running. Gonna get an a** full of lead.
just sayin
8:47, aka 11:14, so you think that the law requires you to be CERTAIN that someone who has just broken into your car or other property has it in their possession? And if you happen to be wrong the defense goes away? Strange interpretation of "reasonably believes", and Rage you might be right about an overzealous prosecutor, but you will never be convicted. It IS an absolute defense ... the legal term is "justification" meaning that the prosecution has to prove otherwise. Take a look at Section 9.42, Texas Penal Code.
11:14
wooooo...you are so scary and macho...woooooooo...please don't hurt me...woooo...
Who you gonna scare when you won't even say ass.
I missed Mobammy and Obammy on Dr. Drew this morning. Damn, I wish I had a Tivo.
This Tarrant County case...
Somebody ALWAYS has to be guilty and pay. Always.
I am not buying the theory that someone killed that Stylist, YET.
Running around at 2:30 in the morning, after leaving friends means one thing to me. You either had too much to drink, or are very tired which could result in passing out behind the wheel causing an exit from the roadway. If a car sustains an impact a certain way it could catch on fire.
Yeah, I've seen and cited it often. But an absolute defense is one that cannot be rebutted. If a prosecutor proves otherwise, then how can it be an absolute defense?
In this particular case, part of 9.42 states that all the conditions of 9.41 must also apply. The biggest problem there is 9.41(b)(2). If they could prove that the car wasn't being taken by force (the owner peeked outside and saw it being taken away, but he was not pulled out of the car by force), then his 9.42 "night-time" defense is in serious doubt. You never even get to 9.42 if 9.41 isn't proven--and it is the Defendant who has to prove it.
It gets tricky though, because you were right about "justification" (as was I, in light of the nuances), as seen here:
Sec. 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.
So, if a Defendant proves he was justified, he may not be prosecuted. But where do you prove that, if not in court? The prosecutor could poke holes and get it to trial, easy.
There was a similar case a few years ago where a guy's truck was being repossessed--he leaned out of his door with a deer rifle and shot the repo man in the chest. He was no-billed, I think.
I Houston a guy (Google Joe Horn) a few years ago was no-billed despite saying on the 911 call that he was going to go shoot the guys stealing from his neighbor's house.
Basically, something you said and that I agree with is that in Texas, it rare to get indicted for something like this. Around here, even grand juries think some people just need killin'.
Rage
11:10, touching..I have the same book and very well versed in it, hold it up and see it helps on a triple tap. Its all in presentation and arranging the scene to benefit me, thats why i carry a throw away and denatured alcohol. go read something, thanks for paying attention in class..double fake Cullen Davis OUT
One and done Eagles + One and done Bulls same as last 10 years.
Hey, Rage, did you miss the "OR" in 9.41(b)? If the actor reasonably believes the other person (i.e. the scumbag thief) had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor then 9.41 is satisfied and you move on to 9.42. Sooo, if as you say the stuff was taken with force, threat or fraud then you're ok, OR if the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor then you are OK.
"Absolute" defense was a modifier for the term defense that I used, not a legal term. A "defense" when raised by the evidence is the prosecution's burden to disprove. In this case, the evidence clearly raises the issue so the prosecution will have to rebut, another way to say prove, that the defense is not applicable ... not the other way around. If it was an "affirmative" defense, the defense would have the burden to persuade the jury.
In regards to the Penn State mess:
1. First you drag the rapist football coach off the ten year old boy.
2. You then call the police & detain him until they arrive.
You do not have a committee meeting or kick it around the office for several days. All directly connected should be fired/retired/considered for charges. Simple.
My Other Brother Darryl
Are you sure about detaining him until the police arrive?
Isn't there a Wise County man who caught some boys stealing from a construction site and had them detained until the police arrived and was charged with kidnapping or holding someone against their will or something like that?
Hey, Rage, did you miss the "OR" in 9.41(b)?
Well yes, I did. Sorry--still a little hung over. Long weekend.
A "defense" when raised by the evidence
This means it was first proven by the Defendant. The only way evidence can prove something is if the person with that burden has it admitted.
is the prosecution's burden to disprove.
The state always has the burden. Defendants prove defenses. If the Defendant doesn't prove it, it's not the same as the state proving it.
In this case, the evidence clearly raises the issue so the prosecution will have to rebut
Not really rebut, but try to chip away at the elements. But again, just facts alone won't show that a defense gets submitted to the jury.
Rage
Sorry, Rage. Been doin this a long time. Defenses are raised and submitted to jurys all the time when the Defendant presents NO evidence. Defenses can be, and usually are, raised by the FACTS. Doesn't matter which side raises that fact, however, a DEFENSE wins if the state does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that it does not apply; as opposed to an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE which must be raised and proved by the Defendant. If the prosecutor for example admits a statement from a defendant taken by a police officer wherein the defendant states that he reasonably believed the person driving away burglarized his home and they had his stuff so he took his shot, the defense has been raised and will be submitted to the jury with a charge that they must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did NOT act in defense of his property, or he must be acquited. The defendant's attorney can sit on his hands all day and if the evidence raises the issue, he gets he instruction. This happens most often with the defense of self-defense. Given in virtually every murder trial even though the defendant seldom testifies and often has no evidence.
Rage,
8:47 and 11:10 here.
In your 12:47 post you (pargraph 2) seem to be suffering under the delusion that the shooter's car was being stolen. They drove away in their own vehicle. As far as the shooter was concerned, he had no idea if anything had been taken from his vehicle which was parked on the street.
As I said before, he better hope they find something of his in their vehicle or he will be facing the murder or manslaughter charge I spoke of earlier.
hey don't metion me on here if i am sick
7:08 doesn't have to be his car he reasonably believes is being stolen. The law does not define the property. And, once again, he does not have to be right as long as his belief was reasonable. You may disagree with the law but that's what it says. And I would take this case in a heartbeat and win easily if he is charged with murder. Being charged is not the equivalent of being convicted.
Congrats to the Lady Eagles for a great season.
Good Luck Friday night boys - you can do it.
And on to the state championships CC teams - keep the tradition alive.
Proud of you ALL!
10:51 Thank YOU!!! Yes the cross county kids qualified for state! But as ususal football is king even if it is mediocre at best. Seriously parents watch what happens during the next 5 or 6 years. The cross county kids will go on to do big things in college and most of the football kids...well they will tumble back home... it just repeats itself year after year...
They's mo silicone in that pitcher then the paint isle at the home depoe
8:50
It's me again. You bozos are wearing me out. He didn't belive a car was being stolen, he was shooting at a car he believed contained people that may have broken into his car. Read the damn article before you comment again! You can't go out on the street and shoot at cars that you think may have people that may have stolen something.
x
8:37, It's me again. Yes, you can ... if you reasonably believe that your PROPERTY has been taken and you are trying to recover it. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE THEY STOLE YOUR CAR, CAR, CAR. Shit how dense are you.
8:53,
I'm sorry, I thought you believed they were stealing a car because you said
"7:08 doesn't have to be his car he reasonably believes is being stolen."
I can't possibly understand why I thought you were talking about a car just because you said CAR! You bozo.
Well, 12:54, what part of "IT doesn't have to be his car he reasonably believes is being stolen" do you not understand? In kindergarten language that means, he can think it was something OTHER than his car that was being stolen because the law only requires that it be PROPERTY, of any kind, NOT a car. It COULD be a car, it could be his radar detector, it could be the 357 magnum he carried illegally in his console ... IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HIS CAR. Jeez.
hey, 11:47: what makes you think I am male? Do you see me? You are assuming..I could be male or female. YOU will never know jerkoff.
and, no, sorry, 11:40; I am not 8:47.
Post a Comment