
sheeeit
Legacy Members-
Posts
753 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Reputation
56 ExcellentRecent Profile Visitors
The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.
-
Some fair points. On Iron Claw, they didn’t need giants to play the roles but the 2,big stars are what around 5’8”? They are fine actors but we know they are really short. And I don’t mind using shorter or taller actors for certain roles, but when you’re playing a professional wrestler, then your physique is a definite characteristic of the role. My understanding is that Tom Cruise‘s production company bought the rights to reacher. So I do think it was poorly cast if he bought the rights with the expectation that he himself would play the lead. The books are very popular for a certain segment of the population. I cannot believe that other companies were not interested in purchasing the rights. it just seems like a bad idea to me to make a movie that is certainly tailored to a somewhat specific group of audiences. And the people that like the reacher books are definitely a big segment of that particular audience. So you kind of alienated a large percentage of the target audience that you were going for. And, for the record, I think Tom Cruise is a fantastic actor.
-
Iron Claw (I never saw it for this reason. Was it any good?) It really bugs me when they just completely ignore physical stature in movies. For many roles the physical size is probably not that important. But it is critical in some roles. Like the Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher comments. It matters because a TON of the backstory and appeal of Reacher is his size. So they make a professional wrestling movie and cast 2 of the shortest actors in Hollywood. I'm turned off before it even comes out.
-
Louisiana House of Reps passes bill to ban chemtrails
sheeeit replied to Beau Vine's topic in Daily Texan
I just completely disagree. I also think it is funny that you think that Texas and Louisiana have more "insane morons" than the state legislatures in California or Oregon. This is a political board so I assume people here know some of their reps. I'd say 75% are wholly unqualified for the job. The truth is that the best and brightest among us do not run for office. It is hard to blame them. It pays next to nothing. Your life is on blast. Any moderate position taken will be blasted by the fringe of each party. People will twist your words and take comments out of context to try and score political points. It is a lousy gig for a competent person. As an attorney I am certain you have met and worked with people from every spectrum of the law. I am also certain that there are a small percentage of attorneys out there that you may have genuine disagreements with and may have been on opposing sides of issues with that you would say were honest, forthright, competent, moral, ethical and smart. None of those people are going to run for office in the state legislature. And yet, you would most likely agree that that smalll percentage of folks (be they dem or rep) would be light years better than who we have now. -
Louisiana House of Reps passes bill to ban chemtrails
sheeeit replied to Beau Vine's topic in Daily Texan
I tend to disagree a bit. The voters are electing the people on the ballot. -
Louisiana House of Reps passes bill to ban chemtrails
sheeeit replied to Beau Vine's topic in Daily Texan
Wow. Stupid is as stupid does. We really need to find a way to incentivize people to run for state office. With few exceptions, state legislatures are populated by wildly incompetent people. -
Jesus. You are a kook. I am not defending the arrest of the judge. Not one time did I suggest the judge should have been arrested. Multiple people posted that the arrest was illegal or that the warrant wasn’t legally enforceable or that the agents came into the courtroom to try and arrest the defendant or that they threatened the judge or tried to coerce or influence the judge. None of that is true. I have watched this board go apoplectic when someone posts something that is false. At some point I would think a few of you would care about the actual truth. I pointed out that it is reasonable for people to think the actions taken were over the top or unreasonable or whatever. That’s a decent debate. But the actions were not illegal. Also, you are presumably a doctor and smart and educated yet you go around negging posts on an anonymous message board like a petulant 7 year old. You really need to take some stock.
-
Obviously there are layers to this thing. If we go back to what Twice originally posted: The third element that the government must prove to establish a section 1071 offense is that the defendant actually harbored or concealed the fugitive. The courts have uniformly held that 18 U.S.C. § 1071 does not prohibit all forms of aid to a fugitive. Instead, what is generally required to establish a violation is "any physical act of providing assistance, including food, and shelter, and other assistance to aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension." This was the general legal break down of how the statute is applied. This is what the lawyers and courts have "generally" found. It is inarguable that the judge violated this. She absolutely had a "physical act" providing assistance to "aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension" The judge knew the parties were waiting outside the courtroom with a legal warrant to arrest the defendant. She snuck him out through a side/back door. There is no other explanation that she did that to "aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension". Some argued she did it to avoid some type of "circus". It still doesn't matter. She knew the parties were there to arrest him. She didn't like it, so she snuck him out. To me, the thing that is so disturbing is that she is a freaking judge. Presumably she knows the law better than most. She absolutely knew what she was doing was illegal but she did it anyway. That to me is worse than if you or I did the same thing. Lets say you own a restaurant and the FBI shows up with a legal warrant for one of your cooks. If you tell them to wait outside and then you go and alert the cook and sneak him out the back door of the restaurant, there is a good chance you will be arrested. To the people saying this was just an example of sending a message. No shit. But to act like it is just one side that does this is just ridiculous on its face. https://www.yahoo.com/news/pro-life-activist-arrested-swat-171717669.html Obviously that was a "message" designed to intimidate. 25-30 FBI agents with guns drawn to arrest a guy who preached outside of abortion clinics. Guns drawn in front of his wife and small kids. The initial charges were already tossed before the raid and this guys attorney said the guy would help in anyway, including coming in to speak with FBI people. Guy had no weapons and wasn't a threat to anyone. But the DOJ/FBI did it to intimidate other people from speaking out against abortion near abortion clinics. No one here claimed Biden was Hitler and that they were fascists etc.
-
Twice. I am really surprised you keep arguing things that are easily found to be untrue if you cared. The ONLY reason anyone was talking to the "trial judge" is because the "trial judge" LEFT her courtroom and went out into the hallway to confront the agents. She started yelling at them because she knew that they were there to arrest the defendant when the defendant LEFT her courtroom. No one asked the trial judge to help in any way. No one tried or was even considering coming into her courtroom and arresting the defendant. The "trial judge" initiated the contact. Then, after confronting the agents in the hallway, she went back into her courtroom and snuck the defendant out the side/back exit- in the middle of the hearing. She didn't even notify the other parties/lawyers that were there for the hearing. Literally in the middle of the hearing, she just whisked the defendant out of the courtroom and out through the side/back exit. That is why the act of trying to send them to the chief judge is possibly damning. It can be argued (not really an argument I would personally make) that she tried to send them to the chief judge to give her more lead time to sneak the defendant out while the agents were talking to the chief judge.
-
Why do you think your hypothetical has any relation to this case?
-
Jesus. Et tu? The agents with the arrest warrant were not attempting, at all, to "serve a warrant IN A COURTROOM." You know this. They were waiting outside of the courtroom to arrest the defendant. They asked for ZERO cooperation from the judge or the judge's staff. Zero. People get arrested outside of courtrooms and courthouses every single day. You know this.
-
LOL. If my aunt had balls. But to answer your hypothetical, If you knew the person coming towards you on the street had a legal warrant for their arrest and that the cops around the corner were coming specifically to arrest that person and then you warned him that the cops were there, then yes you would/could be subject to arrest.
-
Seriously? Have you even read about the case? The judge went outside the courtroom to confront the ice/dea/fbi agents. She tried to send them to the chief judge to get rid of them. She then went back into the courtroom and asked the defendant and the defendant's lawyer to come with her out of the courtroom and then she ushered them out through a side/back door. The judge did not even tell the rest of the people in the hearing they were having what was happening. It is inarguable, except for maybe sawbonz, that she tried to aid the defendant in avoiding the agents there to arrest him.
-
You can do your own searching if you want to. This is the actual language from the statute: Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; except that if the warrant or process issued on a charge of felony, or after conviction of such person of any offense, the punishment shall be a fine under this title, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. It is comical you guys are even arguing this.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... COOKIE MONSTER!