tvc184

Yes, I remember BC. It was my favorite burger place but I do not remember the name of the hamburger that I liked the best (but I swear that I can still taste it). Since it was built as a BC where Hamburger Depot is today about a block from Bulldog Stadium, I would walk there at halftime at every Nederland home game.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. The police, the district attorney and a criminal jury have looked at it and they all disagree with you.

I was an officer in MO this week and they were having a major police presence staging for an expected major incident in Ferguson.

Again you draw conclusions that have not been posted. No one said it was "the norm", no one said that they would do it in the same situation and no one said that Neil chose the least confrontational approach. The only thing that he did was reach for a door. Maybe he did it to expose her to criminal charges. Maybe he did it to make her look stupid. Maybe he just wanted in the room. No one can read his mind. Whatever his intent, he did not break the law and she did by blocking a door and then from my perspective, by shoving Neil on the way out.

Why would my mother or wife be blocking the door to a public meeting? Why would I want to defend either if it happened? If it happened to anyone in my family I would be very angry. I would be outraged that one of my relatives would be so stupid.

That is exactly what I was talking about. Just because somebody could have done something differently does not make the person wrong. Well, maybe it does if you're looking for an excuse to blame someone else.

People always want to discuss what "could" have been done differently. That is the way to take the blame off of the guilty. It is like a man running a stop sign and killing someone. Then you blame the dead guy because had he taken time to look both ways as a reasonable person would be for crossing an intersection, he would have seen the car about to run the stop sign. It is the victim who is at fault for causing his own death and not the person that ran the stop sign. That is nonsense. When and officer tells you to get out of a car did you do it because it is the law. It does not matter if the officer could have been nicer. When a person is blocking the door and another person reaches to open it, it is the person that blocked the door that caused the entire incident not whether the other guy should've backed off, been nicer or called the police instead. You don't like the fact that Neil reached around Haynes to open the door and it caused her to be convicted in court. There is one person responsible for the entire turn of events and she was found guilty. Blaming the victim won't change that.

By the extra cost of a death penalty trial and all associated appeals.

It is cheaper to have life in prison.

Then on the video, she is seen assaulting him all the way out (assuming that he was offended). Had he wish to file charges then she would have likely been convicted of that also.

I did not say anything about according to logic. I stated the law. It is against the law in Texas to block a passageway. Unless a person who is ordering from the menu is doing so while standing in the doorway of McDonald's and blocking other people, it has nothing to do with this situation. If you see someone standing in the doorway at McDonald's with the person's arms out keeping you from getting in, feel free to make a citizen's arrest. You are trying to add 2+2 and make it come out to 6.732 squared.

Trying to open a door is not taking the law into your own hands. Trying to make an arrest would be. In this case, he could have made a lawful arrest on the spot just as if he was a police officer because that chapter of the law is specifically allowed for citizen's arrest.

Sure it is retaliation. The problem is that there is no legal retaliation.

​I thought the UIL did find it in violation but gave a warning.

The perpetual victim.

People can hold anyone to any standard they see fit. Opinions and legalities are two completely different issues. And I started to respond to AAW and his statement that the media is using the athlete to make the story seem more important. I started to say, "you mean like they do with the cops?".

​The sheriff might be somewhat culpable. I have no clue what their procedures are or where it has been determined that someone did not follow procedures. If so then get it out in the open. You mention an argument that almost always comes up. It is not against the law to argue/smoke/be disrespectful/etc. That has to be the biggest grasping at straws of all the arguments. It is true that she might not have broken a law by using profanity (actually it can be against the law but the USSC has said that not if only the officer is offended) or being argumentative but I do not recall the officer arresting her for using profanity or for arguing. Had the officer said "You are under arrest for being disrespectful"... Houston we have a problem!

​Yeah, I guess we can disagree. I fail to see where "can you put the cigarette out" and "step out of your car" are out of line.

​More like arrogant.

​Does it really matter why an officer lawfully stops a person? Does it make you feel better if it had been speeding or rolling through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop? Had she not killed herself and had gone to trial for assaulting the trooper, she might have been convicted of a 2nd degree felony and up to 20 years in prison. The lane change is a tiny crime. Assaulting an officer or resisting arrest because you don't like the officer's authority is not. I am never sure why there is that need to challenge authority that sides almost completely with law enforcement. Unless the officer does nothing unlawful, the person has to comply or face legal consequences. I guess some people are the ones that disrupted class or generally want to throw temper tantrums just because.

​That is debatable and I would side with a court ruling on the side of the officer for safety. When the officer can lawfully and at his discretion give/make 1. a warning, 2. a citation or 3. an arrest and when an officer can lawfully and at his discretion 1. leave you in a vehicle or 2. order you out of a vehicle, why would anyone want to challenge an officer?

​Grasping at straws and nothing left.

​When it seems fairly obvious that the argument is not going to go your way (facts), you divert attention to something that does not matter.

​ ​There simply is nothing to try again. The question is legally too easy. Did the officer witness a violation of the law?