tvc184

Not likely since almost no one is ever killed for a tv. 

So you think a 17 year old with no record should get the same sentence as a guy that have been in prison three times previous? 

The DOJ has nothing to do with burglaries or robberies (except maybe carjackings and bank robberies). 

I agree. By TX law she is clearly guilty in my opinion but I thought a hung jury was likely as the defense brought up enough reason for a juror, looking for a reason not to convict, could justify (in his/her own mind) a not guilty vote. I know that a juror does not have to justify a vote but I think in a juror's mind, he/she wants to be able to fall back on something.
 
I applaud all members of the jury for following the law and the judge's charge and not falling to politics. 

How is it wasting "millions"? I don't think congressmen get overtime. 
 
And what is this hypocrisy? 

Recruitment drive.

It is a felony.

So the state can regulate what vehicles are driving on their roads so that they can pay for those roads. Roads are expensive and everyone gets to pay his fair share. It has nothing to do with deterring crime which is your claim for gun registration. 
 
What is expensive of me owning a gun that the government has to pay for? To my knowledge the government gives me nothing to enhance my gun ownership but they do enhance the way I travel in my car but providing roadways. 
 
The gun vs. vehicle argument is a smoke screen. 

The only Little League is used in the title. I think that it is often used as a generic term and not the actual Little League Baseball Inc. The article calls it TC Youth Baseball League. 
 
I can't tell how many times I have heard people say their kid is playing little league football or little league basketball. It is like, "Hand me a Kleenex". 

They should be given meds to make them discourteous?

And the fact that any medical problems in prison (from any cause) are required to be treated ....... at taxpayer's expense.

It is probably very cost effective to spend 15 cents for prevention rather than $3,000 or a lot more to treat an STD.

While I really have very little regard for most felons, I do have regard for my wallet.

Yes, those also. You know, the kind of weapons that Joe Biden suggests we shoot to scare off attackers.

Shiela Jackson Lee must be a serial killer....

The whole claimed case against Z was a scam. The only real fact in the case that even made it anything more that a fairly clear cut local case of self defense was that the two people that were involved were of different races and one of those was white.

What does one guy's opinion got to do with self defense?

Even if he "profiled" Martin, why does that change any facts in the case? Profiling is drawing a conclusion based on a set of facts. The police are taught profiling which also called suspicious conduct. It is nothing more. Profiling based on race while it may be wrong, has no bearing on a civilian looking at something. There is no law on what we can think. Many states have civil prohibitions against police racial profiling that say a detention cannot be based on race alone however race can be a factor. 
 
Let's say that Zimmerman thought that Martin was suspicious based on race. So what? He called 911 to report that suspicion to the police. What are we now to do as 911 operators, ask what a guy is thinking when he calls the police department?
 
It all comes down to to who attacked who and what evidence there was. It doesn't matter what was in Zimmerman's mind or what some guy thinks. There was overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman was attacked or at the very least was in a serious situation that might cause him serious injury (there us no requirement to fear death as  is often reported in the media). There was no such evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, much less the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

If a guy that I hate comes at me and tries to kill or seriously injure me, I do not lose my right of self defense because I do not like him for whatever reason and that includes race? The answer is an easy "no".  
  You, frank and everyone else has the right to an opinion. Frank's does not change the case no matter when he may or may not have sided with Zimmerman.   I think ol' Frank who is irrelevant on anything, wants his 15 seconds of fame. 

I don't understand the rationale of what she is being paid to do. It has nothing to do with it. 
 
If a person does not want to carry a gun, great. I don't want that person to do so because if it is unwilling, it will be more dangerous than being without one. The idea of "I am not getting paid" however seems like a union stance of, "That's not my job". You know, where a guy asks another to hand him a hammer on a construction site but the guy near him is a pipe fitter and not a carpenter so he won't do it. Get the "someone that is in the "right" union to hand it to you. 
 
A teacher does have the job of protecting students. When they have fire drills or meetings of what do when something does happen like a lock down or shelter in place, does the teacher get to opt out because, "My job is to teach"? 
 
Again, if a person doesn't want a gun then that person should not carry one or be made to carry one. That should not stop someone else from doing so. Teachers or administrators that are armed have not changed their duties and become police officers, they just now have a way to respond in case something very bad does happen other than simply sitting in a classroom saying, "That is not what I am paid to do so I will sit here and die along side the rest of you". 

It is almost comical. We have 73,000 "less" people working than a month ago, yet the unemployment rate falls almost half a percent. 
 
When hundreds of thousands of people simply give up looking, they call it a victory and jobs created. 

What do you do? You hold them for the police. At a bare minimum, after they were shot and down they were no threat and he put admitted kill shots into them. He simply wanted to play executioner and will hopefully pay with the rest of his life. 
 
Killing a person that is a threat is legal (in most scenarios). Killing because you are angry is murder. 

It is clearly murder and not a lot of ambiguity. The man was rightfully convicted and sentenced to life. 
 
Even under TX law there would likely be the same outcome. The only thing that might help him would be if he was out in the sticks and some jury decided on jury nullification because they were glad that two criminals were dead. 

I think there is a big difference between not having a good image and something so blatant as Sterling's rant. 

What do you do? You hold them for the police. At a bare minimum, after they were shot and down they were no threat and he put admitted kill shots into them. He simply wanted to play executioner and will hopefully pay with the rest of his life. 
 
Killing a person that is a threat is legal (in most scenarios). Killing because you are angry is murder. 

I cannot agree with this at all. 
 
It should be regardless, not irregardless. 

It is also a good place for bulgoki, kim chee, galbi, mandu...................

........... or northwest Houston around Longpoint in the Korean district. 

The officers likely wanted to file additional charges on who rented the bus. It could have been an 18 year old on the bus, one of the student's parents, etc. 
 
Who is going to give up his friend, parent or whoever?