Houston terminates contract with CSC immediately after game

[UNTFan23]

The next time I see someone jaywalking, which is against the law, I'll call the police and detain the criminal. While attempting to detain the person if they do not comply, I'll be sure to punch them in the face a couple times to make sure they comply.  That's how it should work, right?

[UNT90]

11 minutes ago, UNTFan23 said:

The next time I see someone jaywalking, which is against the law, I'll call the police and detain the criminal. While attempting to detain the person if they do not comply, I'll be sure to punch them in the face a couple times to make sure they comply.  That's how it should work, right?

Edited February 10, 2016 by UNT90

[pastorgrant]

52 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

Actually, force is what the code defines force as, except, oddly enough, the code does not provide a definition. 

What you do in these situations is not rely on someone with a degree in interpreting words to interpret the full meaning of the law, instead you rely on court decisions that set precedents.

Like Candice Pumphrey vs The State of Texas. Very on point and conviction upheld for resisting arrest for simply pulling away from a police officer. This is what 6th District Texas Court of Appeals had to say about it:

"The essence of Pumphrey's second argument is that one cannot commit the offense of resisting arrest in Texas by just pulling against an officer's effort to physically control him or her, but only by directing force toward the officer.   Though this argument finds some support from some cases, we hold that the statute authorizes a conviction for resisting arrest when the defendant actively pulls against 4 an officer's established grasp of the defendant during an arrest attempt.   We also conclude the statute is satisfied by evidence of jerking against, turning in circles to resist, twisting and squirming to thwart, and struggling against, an officer's efforts to arrest an individual.   For that reason, we affirm Pumphrey's conviction."

So while I respect your degree, I do not respect your opinion on this very specific point of law.

And the Court of Criminal Appeals (The Supreme Court of Texas for Criminal Law) did not hear this case, meaning no further appeal was sought or the CCA refused to hear the case, leaving it as settled law in either instance.

Breaking a law, not a rule.

 

Me neither. Rebels unite!!!

You didn't mention anything about an established grasp, and I was working on the basis of what you had said. It changes the situation if the officer has an established grasp on the perp.

I do admit that I'm not a lawyer, and that my expertise is in doing the opposite of what lawyers and judges often do (that is, they twist words to get a desired outcome, whereas I am interested in discovering what the author intended in whatever I am reading).

Can we keep this argument going for 18 more posts? I'd like to hit 1000.

Edited February 10, 2016 by pastorgrant

[UNT90]

5 minutes ago, pastorgrant said:

You didn't mention anything about an established grasp, and I was working on the basis of what you had said. It changes the situation if the officer has an established grasp on the perp.

I do admit that I'm not a lawyer, and that my expertise is in doing the opposite of what lawyers and judges often do (that is, they twist words to get a desired outcome, whereas I am interested in discovering what the author intended in whatever I am reading).

Actually, appellate court judges jobs are to interpret the law, not twist it. They use previous rulings to avoid doing just that. Kinda just the opposite.

I encourage you to google the case and read it. Read the cited cases used to come to a decision. I did. It was interesting. Learning is good for everybody.  

 

[pastorgrant]

Just now, UNT90 said:

Actually, appellate court judges jobs are to interpret the law, not twist it. They use previous rulings to avoid doing just that. Kinda just the opposite.

I encourage you to google the case and read it. Read the cited cases used to come to a decision. I did. It was interesting. Learning is good for everybody.  

 

You don't think judicial activism exists?

[JesseMartin]

Just now, pastorgrant said:

You don't think judicial activism exists?

I already know his answer...I'm just curious to see how he phrases it ;)

[pastorgrant]

1 minute ago, JesseMartin said:

I already know his answer...I'm just curious to see how he phrases it ;)

Me too.

[UNT90]

1 minute ago, pastorgrant said:

You don't think judicial activism exists?

Oh, and you knew exactly what i was talking about, as you respond to law quoted directly from the penal code and used your expertise to interpret said law. And you were wrong. No big deal. Like you said, you aren't in that field. Just don't try and justify it by saying you were replying to something I said. You weren't. You were replying to Texas Law.

And sure it does, but this case is far from anything that gets anyone's political dander up, so...

[UNTFan23]

You want to know someone else that is in hot water for doing something they have no authority to do? Melissa Click, a professor over at the University of Missouri.  Never mind the constitutional laws (or rules... whatevs) she violated since she is an employee of a state institution, she assaulted a member of the student newspaper. Yeah, she didn't throw any punches like the CSC guy did but she had no authority to assault the student, despite her trying to provide security (or whatever it is she thought she was doing) for the protesters for Concerned Student 1950.

I just struggle with the justifying a non-law enforcement officer the privilege (or right?) to assault another individual just because someone is committing a misdemeanor offense. 

[UNT90]

Just now, UNTFan23 said:

You want to know someone else that is in hot water for doing something they have no authority to do? Melissa Click, a professor over at the University of Missouri.  Never mind the constitutional laws (or rules... whatevs) she violated since she is an employee of a state institution, she assaulted a member of the student newspaper. Yeah, she didn't throw any punches like the CSC guy did but she had no authority to assault the student, despite her trying to provide security (or whatever it is she thought she was doing) for the protesters for Concerned Student 1950.

I just struggle with the justifying a non-law enforcement officer the privilege (or right?) to assault another individual just because someone is committing a misdemeanor offense. 

Get back to me when you decide what you want to argue...

[pastorgrant]

1 minute ago, UNT90 said:

Oh, and you knew exactly what i was talking about, as you respond to law quoted directly from the penal code and used your expertise to interpret said law. And you were wrong. No big deal. Like you said, you aren't in that field. Just don't try and justify it by saying you were replying to something I said. You weren't. You were replying to Texas Law.

And sure it does, but this case is far from anything that gets anyone's political dander up, so...

1

No, I was responding to your whole argument in this thread.

[UNT90]

1 minute ago, pastorgrant said:

No, I was responding to your whole argument in this thread.

Whatever. People can read. Check out that case, you'll learn something. 

[pastorgrant]

On 12/6/2015 at 10:50 AM, UNT90 said:

Ok, child, we were talking about the HOD bowl, and no trespassing sign were posted. Also, most jurisdictions with stadiums have a city ordinance stating that you can't rush the field.

Furthermore, it's private property, toddler. If you are told to leave, or not to enter by the owner or someone acting on his behalf (security), and you do so anyway, you have committed criminal trespass, a class B misdemeanor. One step above a traffic ticket and something that stays on your criminal record.

Now infant, please do what you want, but if you lose your job and screw up your future, don't blame security or the police.

Look in the mirror.

This reminds me of Kingdl's parking disputes at old Fouts Field...

Actually, the thing that got me riled up was this. There's no good reason to talk to someone like that. 

I don't know why I try with you, though. I don't expect anything to change.

[UNT90]

8 minutes ago, pastorgrant said:

Actually, the thing that got me riled up was this. There's no good reason to talk to someone like that. 

I don't know why I try with you, though. I don't expect anything to change.

You should have looked at the date and know the backstory, but it's just too easy for you to prejudge me, isn't it?

Something to think about.

Funny that you express no concern for the post that led to that response. Maybe because you don't like the online me, eh?

Edited February 11, 2016 by UNT90

[UNTFan23]

 

 

[UNT90]

4 minutes ago, UNTFan23 said:

 

 

Not really, I think you are being a little B because of other issues you have with me on other topics, and wanting to argue things that I haven't argued in this thread. 

And your being a drama queen.

And I think it clearly pisses you and the good Pastor off that I was clearly right on the law...

So...  Sorry?...

Edited February 11, 2016 by UNT90

[pastorgrant]

Just now, UNT90 said:

You should have looked at the date and know the backstory, but it's just too easy for you to judge me, isn't it?

Something to think about.

I am not your Judge, but I do care about the people in this group (you included). There aren't enough fellow Mean Green fans out there for me not to care. When you're berating people I care about, it is right to point it out and call for change.

Now, if you agree that those insults were wrong, then you should apologize. If you've already done that, then I'll agree I shouldn't have said anything about that post.

1 minute ago, UNT90 said:

Not really, I think you are being a little B because of other issues you have with me on other topics, and wanting to argue things that I haven't argued in this thread. 

And your being a drama queen.

Well, there we go.

[UNT90]

4 minutes ago, pastorgrant said:

I am not your Judge, but I do care about the people in this group (you included). There aren't enough fellow Mean Green fans out there for me not to care. When you're berating people I care about, it is right to point it out and call for change.

Now, if you agree that those insults were wrong, then you should apologize. If you've already done that, then I'll agree I shouldn't have said anything about that post.

Well, there we go.

But you don't demand that the person who insulted that led to that response apologize? Or did your internet hate for me blind you to those comments? Maybe a re-read is in order, eh?

Edited February 11, 2016 by UNT90

[UNTFan23]

2 minutes ago, pastorgrant said:

Well, there we go.

I don't understand the free pass that is given when it comes to name calling by certain individuals on this message board.

[UNT90]

2 minutes ago, UNTFan23 said:

I don't understand the free pass that is given when it comes to name calling by certain individuals on this message board.

Ban ban ban!!!

good god. Go eat a snickers.

Whats funny is you want me banned because I don't worship at the feet of Rick Villarreal. That's the real issue. Just say it.

Edited February 11, 2016 by UNT90

[pastorgrant]

1 minute ago, UNT90 said:

But you don't demand that the person who insulted that led to that response apologize? Or did your internet hate for me blind you to those comments. Maybe a re-read is in order, eh?

Honestly, you have a good point. We all need to treat each other better. The difference, though, is that I don't see a constant flow of insults from everyone on here.

I do like you, 90, but I do get frustrated with you sometimes.

[SilverEagle]

1 minute ago, UNT90 said:

Not really, I think you are being a little B because of other issues you have with me on other topics, and wanting to argue things that I haven't argued in this thread. 

And your being a drama queen.

Aren't you glad you overreacted to me and brought out the criminal code. So, do you think by now you've got both arms and a leg embedded in that tar baby? 

[UNT90]

55 minutes ago, pastorgrant said:

Honestly, you have a good point. We all need to treat each other better. The difference, though, is that I don't see a constant flow of insults from everyone on here.

I do like you, 90, but I do get frustrated with you sometimes.

Just realize that was a mostly tongue in cheek response to a post calling me geriatric and old. So there were no innocents. 

People get mad at me because I express opinions they may not agree with, some get insanely mad. 

What I find funny is people want me banned strictly for my opinions and cry to the mods about it, some constantly.Meanwhile, the only time I've ever contacted a mod is to try and get a ban overturned on someone who unleashed a vile, profanity laced post my direction (it was in the political forum. Venture in at your own risk). 

This is a public forum. Argue your points and respect others that do the same. 

And for cripes sake, don't bother the mods with playground issues. 

51 minutes ago, SilverEagle said:

Aren't you glad you overreacted to me and brought out the criminal code. So, do you think by now you've got both arms and a leg embedded in that tar baby? 

If By overreacted you mean educated you on the law? No.

I think it was needed. 

Edited February 11, 2016 by UNT90

[pastorgrant]

Just now, UNT90 said:

Just realize that was a mostly tongue in cheek response to a post calling me geriatric and old. So there were no innocents. 

People get mad at me because I express opinions they may not agree with, some get insanely mad. 

What I find funny is people want me banned strictly for my opinions and cry to the mods about it, some constantly.Meanwhile, the only time I've ever contacted a mod is to try and get a ban overturned on someone who unleashed a vile, profanity laced post my direction (it was in the political forum. Venture in at your own risk). 

This is a public forum. Argue your points and respect others that do the same. 

And for cripes sake, don't bother the kids with playground issues. 

It isn't your views, it's the way you express them.

If you remember correctly, I argued against you having your posts limited.

[UNT90]

5 minutes ago, pastorgrant said:

It isn't your views, it's the way you express them.

If you remember correctly, I argued against you having your posts limited.

That was directed at 23, who tries to goad me into an argument, can't, gets frustrated, them wants me banned. Lol. 

For people like he who supposedly don't like me posting, he sure does try to engage me a lot.