Judex

Kendall coming back would be amazing. Toby coming back would be amazing. If we had a time machine and could undo losing Cornell that would be amazing and I suspect at least some of the idiots that promoted this awful turn of events would change their minds. People from the outside just DO NOT GET IT.

This was all predicted.

Silsbee is going to crush us and I feel awful for these kids already. They grew up dreaming of wearing that silver hat and being part of a legacy of greatness. The only thing that kept us in this game was effort from the players and their athleticism. It is so hard watching it die. Can you even sort of imagine those runs right up the gut against a real WO-S defense?

On 8/24/2023 at 1:26 PM, tvc184 said:

 

It is the Good Faith Exception.

It works several ways but it is all linked together under the same rationale. One deals with the liability of an officer (civil and criminal) and the other is evidence gathered.

Let’s say that an officer detains a person in Beaumont such as on a traffic stop. A warrant is found on the driver issued out of Houston and it is confirmed by the dispatcher. Obviously the officer in Beaumont can’t tell the guy with the warrant, “I need to drive to Houston to review the warrant and discuss the case with the officer and I’ll be back in about six hours so wait for me”.

 Heck, what if it was from another state? Wait here, I’ll be back in three days…..

The officer serving the warrant in Beaumont is acting under good faith that the originating officer and the judge signing the warrant did their jobs correctly. If the officer in Houston or in another state made a mistake, is it the fault of the officer for making the arrest Beaumont? No. He acted in the good faith that the warrant was valid. If the warrant is later found to not have sufficient probable cause or is faulty in some other manner, it is not the fault of the officer in Beaumont.

If it is not a warrant, the same doctrine applies. If Beaumont PD has a robbery and notifies area agencies of the vehicle and suspect description, can an officer from another agency stop a suspect vehicle? A couple have answered it correctly, yes. But only IF…….

The vehicle or person detained has to reasonably match the information given by the originating agency. If BPD said two White males were seen in a small dark blue vehicle and another agency stops a pickup of any color with Black males…. Uhhhh, no.

By the same reasoning, if BPD puts out information that the suspect vehicle left Beaumont approximately two minutes ago, at 12:05 AM and at 12:09 AM an officer around Orange stops a vehicle that does actually match the description, could the suspect vehicle have driven from Beaumont to Orange in 4 minutes? Again the answer is no. So the officer relying on information from another agency still is required to make a reasonable decision based on the information given. Receiving information from another officer is not carte blanche to start stopping everyone.

Then the issue is, what about evidence found after a good faith detention, arrest or search?

In the scenario I gave earlier, a BPD officer arrests a guy from Houston on a warrant. After what appears to be a lawful arrest, cocaine is found in the man’s pocket. Is it still admissible as evidence? The BPD officer made a lawful traffic stop (for example speeding) and made an arrest on what appeared to be a lawful warrant but it was later on appeal, found to be faulty. The officer in Beaumont clearly didn’t violate the person’s rights and didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment for making an unreasonable search because he had probable cause to believe that he was acting correctly. Is the evidence still valid to be used in court?

I am not sure. From the cases I have seen, it appears as though the US Supreme Court says that it’s okay but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals says it’s not okay. That would make it not okay if either court found it unlawful.

So that is a Good Faith Exception. An officer is allowed to rely on what he believes to be valid information from another officer or from a warrant. That officer, however, still has to rely on a reasonable belief which is called “objective reasonableness”  by the Supreme Court (the same standard for use of force). Objective reasonableness is defined by the Supreme Court  as what a reasonable officer would believe when facing the same circumstances.

 

Your question was bad. Good faith is what the officer relies on to be entitled to qualified immunity. Good faith is not the actual thing that makes him IMMUNE to civil consequences. The legal DOCTRINE at issue is Qualified Immunity. Having had occasion to bring 1983/Bivens actions, I am not merely speaking out of turn.

14 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Yes, sometimes if the officer didn’t violate the person’s rights or commit a crime, qualified immunity will cover the officer. 

 That isn’t the legal doctrine that allows an officer to take the word of another officer, especially when serving a warrant.

 Here is a googling tip. An officer arrested a guy on a warrant from out of his jurisdiction. On appeal the warrant was found to be faulty and therefore invalid. What, if anything, covers the arresting officer from liability? 

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

11 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

That is absolutely….. incorrect.

 In fact PC is not required to detain, only reasonable suspicion.

 But that isn’t what I was looking for. 

Qualified immunity is what generally covers them from civil repercussions.

WO-S as a legendary program is done. Apparently it is going to take some folks multiple faceplants to realize it, but that winning percentage is going to plummet faster than you might expect. No one is saying that WO-S won't compete. Occasionally they will field a talented squad that will partially overcome coaching shortcomings, but our reign as a program that is routinely a cut above with kids dreaming of a silver hat from peewee on is over. Don't know what you got til its gone. We predicted this.

Called it.

On 3/29/2022 at 2:03 PM, Majestyk said:

I totally agree but you've got to remember these folks are experts, it's not looking good.

How's it looking now, Majestyk? Anybody know what they were talking about?

I had expected it to take longer to plunge the program into mediocrity, but maybe it is a fitting tribute. Hopefully people will finally realize just how singularly important Coach Thompson was to the program and the real ramifications of his absence. 

On 3/28/2022 at 11:15 AM, Judex said:

I am shocked by the number of people that seem to be unaware that Coach T was there from the very beginning. That was his team long before he was the head coach. We had a brief period when he left and then he came back. We saw what happened. The proof was in the pudding and some folks can't see it. They will learn now. Plenty of schools in the area have had horses over the years. There was a reason for the consistent success and it wasn't just the athletes. The slow degradation cometh and the legacy is about to fade. It will be slow enough that it'll be gone before people realize it. Like anything else, all good things must come to an end.

. . .

13 hours ago, UT alum said:

You peoples’ deified adoration of Donald Trump is downright creepy. He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and you’d accuse the FBI of a setup. The man is a grifter who is  sciopathically  narcissistic.  Federal judges don’t issue search warrants on  a whim. He’s already been caught smuggling documents out of the White House.  The law is the law and if you’re a suspect, you get investigated. Biden didn’t ask his FBI chief for a loyalty pledge. He understands separation of powers. You conspiracy clowns only believe in the justice system when your enemies are being investigated. When it’s your demigod under investigation, it’s heresy. I have no TDS, your cute little acronym for anyone who questions your omniscient leader. I believe in the rule of law, I believe Donald  Trump has broken it, and I believe he’s going to pay.

wow, so there ARE sane people that comment here :)))

It's so weird watching people bark views based completely on what they want to believe, completely divorced from evidence, while simultaneously dismissing the views of others based on the exact same fallacious paradigms.

3 hours ago, Majestyk said:

I totally agree but you've got to remember these folks are experts, it's not looking good.

who said they were an expert? when did this become a place where one cannot express an opinion, expert or not?

4 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

Why not?

I'm not trying to diminish one over another and I didn't play, so I am going by what my friends who did had to say. I was there 85-89 when the dynasty started and back then it was understood that although Dan was the head coach, that was Coach T's team. "Defense wins championships." Coach T became DC in 1981. He was also the strength and conditioning coach. Also importantly, he was the disciplinarian. WO-S' reputation is defense and conditioning. Discipline.

From 1985 to now WO-S has missed the playoffs just 5 times. '92 when we forfeited some district games, '99, then 2001-2003.

Coach T was gone to Palestine and Huntsville 2001-2003.

It could be a wild coincidence. The district was tough. Going 8-2 and missing the playoffs is tough. But, it could also be the proof in the pudding. I bleed blue and silver. I WANT to be wrong. I just don't think I am.

People were fighting for Toby because they believed he was the best chance to continue a legacy because he spent so much of his life a part of it. Every little change we hear about from outsiders coming in sounds like the death of what has worked for so long. It just sounds like it is really finally over.

2 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

I’ll ask once again… wouldn’t y’all consider Dan Ray Hooks the “foundation”? (Whatever the hell that really means…)

No.

I am shocked by the number of people that seem to be unaware that Coach T was there from the very beginning. That was his team long before he was the head coach. We had a brief period when he left and then he came back. We saw what happened. The proof was in the pudding and some folks can't see it. They will learn now. Plenty of schools in the area have had horses over the years. There was a reason for the consistent success and it wasn't just the athletes. The slow degradation cometh and the legacy is about to fade. It will be slow enough that it'll be gone before people realize it. Like anything else, all good things must come to an end.

An awful lot of folks have no idea what we lost with his retirement. They are about to find out. His imprint was on that program LONG before he "officially" took the reins. Irreplaceable.

On 10/13/2021 at 12:36 PM, LumRaiderFan said:

Do you have a point you're trying to make here?

 

I think I made it.

So , it sounds like you guys think that any view that does not comport with your views is ipso facto "divisive." It also sounds like you guys think that the majority or popular view is the one that should prevail. Simultaneously, you appear to support the side that lost the majority or popular vote by a pretty significant margin. Weird echo chamber here. One would think there should be lots of cognitive dissonance, but I guess that requires cognition . . . 

4 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

I saw this:

divisive - dissenting (especially dissenting with the majority opinion)

lol, I am super aware of the word's meaning. I am curious as to how this thread's originator is using it and whether they can explain the reason. It seems really strange to me that someone would suggest that the current president is the most "divisive" one in recent memory. 

Can you please explain what you mean by divisive?

Define "divisive." 

I will defend Hillary. I do not agree with her politically on a variety of issues, but she is probably more qualified to be president than anyone else who has ever run for it and she is certainly more qualified and capable than anyone in this race. I have no doubt that she has enough concern for this country and her legacy that she will handle it responsibly. She is intelligent capable and experienced. The political propaganda attacks on her are hilarious. Republicans control virtually all of the legislative apparatus and most of the executive apparatus in this country, spent millions with this Benghazi farce, and it turns out there is nothing of substance in her woodpile. She has been under intense scrutiny and outright attack for literally over 25 years. If there was really any substance to these wild allegations, does anyone actually believe that somehow ALL of the Republicans in places of power have either been coopted or bought off to maintain their silence? It would be more comical if it wasn't just sad.

Trump is a clown show, trolling his own supporters, demonstrating just how far we have fallen. This whole circus has been scripted. Hillary was presumed to be the heir as soon as she lost the nomination to Obama. The entire reason for the Benghazi investigations was simply because that was the ONLY ground available for the GOP to build an attack. It has been remarkably effective as millions of people assume she actually had something to do with wrongdoing there. Just like millions of people thought that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The beat goes on. Trump has had ties to the Clintons for a long time. His nomination sealed her ascension. And you bought it.

Can you imagine if a democratic nominee acted like Trump and said and did the things he has done? Trying to equate Trump and Hillary is a joke. On you.

1 hour ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

Well, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't it your defense that gave up the long runs to give good field position from the beginning?  You wouldn't have been pinned that deep.  

So you say the defense wasn't scored on...  So was the offense scored on? Which is it? 

Keep I'm mind I'm not being sarcastic, be you and I are discussing a serious question...

This is one of the more asinine statements that I have read on here.

OMG, just realized, does PAM have a soccer team? You may be making a case for them going up to 6A for that right?