tvc184

!!!score:0/42/3


You've alerted the ScoreboardBot:

Score Alert: Nederland(0) @ Silsbee(42) Q3

!!:0/35/3


You've alerted the ScoreboardBot:

Score Alert: Nederland(0) @ Silsbee(35) Q3

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up

One thing that hurt PNG was having our star LT sit out and moving our center to LT. Not to take away from Nederland or PAM's performance. PAM will get both Nederland and PNG ready for our tough district.

I like our kicker 😎💪🏾 He's going to end up winning a game for us this season I bet. 

Longest 1st half ever. Wth 

Well, it was fun for a little bit 
 
!!:14/12/1


You've alerted the ScoreboardBot:

Score Alert: Port Arthur Memorial(14) @ Nederland(12) Q1

Mitch McConell freezes up. A stroke? Is it a seizer?
My mother had similar symptoms and completely froze up to the point of one time being on the floor for several hours alone before being discovered. She was admitted to the hospital twice under emergency conditions, once being completely unconscious. After rounds of tests that showed no stroke, another neurologist was called in and diagnosed it in about 30 seconds. He put her on anti-seizure meds and she lived 5 more years without another incident. This was when she was 79 years old and once on a daily med, she was fully cognizant and functional, living 5 more years alone and taking care of herself for the rest of her life  
So while all the internet and sidewalk doctors are diagnosing online, no one knows what his issue is. I am but suggesting that he has the same condition as my mother but a neurologists and another doctor did not diagnose her correctly when speaking with her directly and looking at her charts. McConell is 81 so it must be a stroke.
Maybe a stroke or some other serious medical issue should be an automatic limiting factor. If so, should John Fetterman’s stroke remove him from the Senate also? He doesn’t appear to be as cognizant as McConnell.
All while realizing that the question (as posed in the OP) “is it time”,  is all likely a moot point. It is an interesting topic but we don’t get a vote according to the Constitution. For there to be term limits there would almost certainly have to be a constitutional amendment. So the politicians of both parties would have to vote on an amendment to limit their own careers and then put it to the states.
Good luck…

It’s not about the shot, per se, it’s a prelude to mail-in ballots due to a renewed pandemic. Nothing to raise an eyebrow about it occurring four years apart. Simply a coincidence. Anything else is a conspiracy theory. 

Turner keeping us in it 
 

8:25 in 3, Nederland 27-16

Yes.
If the reporting officer lied, it is him and not the officer that made a reasonable detention based on information given.
 The main point is, if a reasonable officer would say… this doesn’t sound right…. he is still obligated to draw a reasonable conclusion and not really on information that he should know is wrong. 

78 yard touchdown run by Nederland 

Yep

Yep

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.
 

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.
 

Hmmmmmm.......
You can only have so many broadcast booths. Normally a press box has two. I would think one would go to KLVI (been doing Nederland games for decades) and the other would go to the visitor team if they have a broadcast entity. Also, since Texan Live is doing the game, I have to think that TL paid Nederland ISD for the streaming rights. With those rights comes with exclusive video broadcast rights.
I'm not sure this is the case, but I am very familiar with press box space and how it is sometimes very hard to come by.
I'll be interested to see how many Nederland games TL does this season.

Not new that changed last year to provide more season tickets to Nederland fans

But other than that what do you have? 

But other than that what do you have? 

Not if you include the rest of the sentence. “it will slowly become normalized and desensitized just like” changes the meaning  
While technically anything can go either way, 5GB’s statement was about abhorrent behavior being normalized to the point and desensitizing people so people ignore it rather than argue.
To say, those that think differently are extremist, would certainly work both ways. That isn’t what was said though. 
 What from the conservative perspective is abhorrent behavior that is trying to desensitize people? Voter ID? Free enterprise?  Not burning cities because you don’t agree? Lower taxes?
In fact most conservative issues today would be considered normal 40 years ago by both sides of the aisle. 

Point taken.  My limit is as long as it doesn’t hurt somebody else.  Can someone teaching completely nude hurt someone?  Undoubtedly.  Does a man fully clothed in a dress teaching hurt someone?  Probably not, but I don’t think that’s a discussion someone should be able to force on parents.  It’s obviously a difficult subject 

Fixed it for you….  

🏆🍪