
sheeeit
Legacy Members-
Posts
747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by sheeeit
-
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.
-
LMAO. Good point. You are not smart.
-
This is the language. I just copied what Twice posted. 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. I can see no argument that the Judge did not violate the statute.
-
Responding to you is sort of worthless but since you felt compelled to be moronic, show your work. My entire point was that it was perfectly within the law as written for the judge to be arrested. She certainly could be arrested. Was arresting her the right move, that is what I do not know. But she absolutely opened herself up to being arrested. Do you believe her arrest was illegal? What exactly are you arguing?
-
What are you having trouble with? There is a law, Twice posted it above and I quoted from it. Here it is again: 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." She clearly "aided" the defendant from avoiding apprehension. I do not think anyone really denies this. Do you? I read the stupid other Wisconsin Judge's letter about halting court procedures going forward and how she "“has no intention of allowing anyone to be taken out of my courtroom by [Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents] and sent to a concentration camp,” One of the ironies of this ordeal is that it is showing how stupid some of these state judges actually are. No one even considered "taking someone out of my courtroom". No one asked this judge or the other arrested judge to help in any way. The judges got to do whatever they wanted in their courtrooms but once the hearings are over and the defendants leave the courtroom then they are in public areas and are perfectly legally taken into custody based on laws going back to the early 1900s. The fact that these freaking judges do not seem to understand this is kind of scary. It is like Ahoolco is a Wisconsin state judge.
-
What is your point and what does anything you posted have to do with this case? The ice/dea guys were perfectly within their rights to be at the courthouse and to take the defendant into custody. Do you deny this? The judge stopped the hearing in the middle of it without even telling the prosecutor what was going on and escorted the defendant and his attorney out of a side exit. She did this after she realized that the ice people were there to arrest him. That is a textbook violation of the statute. We can certainly have a legitimate debate over whether it is a bad statute, but we cannot argue that she violated it. You have actual attorneys on this thread advocating for killing people that followed the laws exactly as they are written on the books. Statutes signed by Clinton with a dem controlled congress.
-
Very interesting response to this situation. Kind of a microcosm of so many issues under Trump. The situation is full of misinformation, no understanding of the law and no understanding of the history of the law. Coupled with Trump's admin pursuing the law to levels generally, but not always, not pursued as aggressively. Considering administrative versus judicial warrants, administrative warrants are 100% enforceable by ICE and have been used to take illegal immigrants into custody by the millions under Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden. Not one single court anywhere has ruled that administrative warrants for illegal immigrants are illegal or unconstitutional. The only real practical difference in the 2 types of warrants is that admin warrants have the caveat that they can not be served on private property and they do not, and this is a biggie in this case, REQUIRE cooperation from other law enforcement agencies or courts. US state and Federal courthouses are absolutely public area and ICE is well within the law to arrest people there on admin warrants. However, while these warrants do not REQUIRE cooperation, it is absolutely against the law to actively try and subvert them. 100%. The language in the statute is very clear. From Twices post: "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." The judge had no obligation to help in the arrest of the defendant. She did not have to have her bailiff or other court officers turn the defendant over to ICE. All she had to do was make whatever ruling they were working on in the case before her and then either let the defendant go or have him taken into custody for the crimes he was being accused of in the proceedings they were litigating. Thats it. The issue is that she absolutely knew that the defendant was going to be taken into custody once he left the courtroom. She admits that knew this. She openly challenged the ICE agents. And I do not think openly challenging them is necessarily wrong and she doesn't deserve any punishment, imo, for challenging them. However, because she knew that they were there and, unarguably, knew their intention to take the defendant into custody, by law, what she she absolutely could not do was violate the above statute. I can see no argument that by actively escorting the defendant to a side exit- importantly in the middle of the actual hearing as opposed to after its conclusion to perhaps avoid a circus- that she "aided the prisoner in avoiding detection and APPREHENSION". It is not even a close call. She absolutely aided the defendant in trying to help him avoid apprehension. Should she have been arrested? I don't know. But there seems to be zero argument that she could under existing law be arrested because she did willfully violate the statute/law. Again, whether the law is justified or rarely enforced or whatever is irrelevant. It is the law as written.
-
17 year old stabbed to death by another 17 year old at Frisco track meet
sheeeit replied to Derka's topic in Daily Texan
Kudos for digging in I guess. But you still keep missing the main factor. All the witnesses say Anthony said something to the effect of "touch me and see what happens or punch/hit me and see what happens". Legally you can not go up to someone or respond to a confrontation knowing you have a knife and escalate the situation in any way. When Anthony challenged Metcalf, regardless of what Metcalf did first, his self defense claims go out the window. You really seem to not like that but it is the law. Further, Anthony's statements to the cops are "he put his hands on me". Not 2 guys jumping him or tackling him or he punched me or tackled me or some mysterious group surrounding him ready to beat him. Not a single witness said anything about a group of people involved. He, singular, put his hands on me is what he said. Lastly, the ONLY way your ridiculous scenario involving multiple people "standing against" him could be possible would involve multiple people in the middle of the day at a track meet in the bleachers which are visible to everyone at the track meet (parents/coaches/fans/participants) that surrounded Anthony to a point that he could not escape and then attacked him and he used a knife to defend himself. By all accounts, Anthony could have just left the tent when asked to do so. He chose to stay and confront Metcalf and had a knife that he brought out and used. My guess, based on what we know so far, is he will plead to manslaughter and get 7-10 years. I think that would be pretty fair. -
17 year old stabbed to death by another 17 year old at Frisco track meet
sheeeit replied to Derka's topic in Daily Texan
You are missing the point. Let's assume that most of what you said is true- even though there is a police report where they interviewed many of the 30 or so people that watched the incident and every one of them basically says the same thing- that Metcalf approached Anthony and told him to leave the tent area, that then Anthony dug in his bag and retrieved something- then Anthony told Metcalf to "touch me or hit me and see what happens" and then Metcalf pushed him and then Anthony stabbed him.- and the knife was still in the bleachers when police arrived and they taped it to the bleachers and photographed it. So lets just assume all of the witnesses are lying and colluding to frame Anthony and that Metcalf somehow did everything you said, it still doesn't matter. Even in your crazy scenario you admit that Anthony "warned" Metcalf not to touch him. To claim self defense you can not, in any way, escalate the situation or act as an aggressor and then stab someone when you had the ability to leave the scene without any harm to anyone. Thats it. I do not want the kid convicted of murder. I think he was young and dumb and made a fatal mistake. But he is going to prison. The only thing now is for how long. I hope they reach a plea agreement where he gets out in time to have a life. -
17 year old stabbed to death by another 17 year old at Frisco track meet
sheeeit replied to Derka's topic in Daily Texan
The chainsaw guy has to be trolling at this point. I knew he was a lunatic based on his posts but this is a level beyond stupid. this is all that matters from a legal standpoint. All. Karmelo had time and free will to go and retrieve a knife from his backpack. He absolutely could have left at that point. Unarguable. But he retrieved a weapon and someone died. Hopefully he can plead to 20 or so years. But he is going in. And should. -
I read threw some of the lawsuits surrounding these guys and some articles in the NYTimes. Wow. Total scumbags. It certainly says something about our society that these guys have/had a large following. They really are disgusting. Have to love that by their own grandstanding and bragging and profile and flaunting of their wealth that they wound up on someones radar. FAFO The shitty thing is that I am not sure they actually broke any laws. There is tons of smoke and a few allegations but, at least what is available at this point, I am not sure they broke any laws. I certainly hope they did and they get buried under the jail. For discussion purposes only, I am curious what the law is regarding the original claims made by the Jane Doe that started the arrest process. It seems the following are the facts that all parties have agreed to: Tate met Doe, a woman from Florida, who was admittedly an Onlyfans model and they met through Seeking Arrangements (funny that there is a long page about Sugar Babies here on the site). They had sex a few times and Tate went back to Romania. He continued to stay in contact with Doe and told her he wanted a relationship with her and bought her a plane ticket to Romania. Upon arrival, Doe says that she hardly saw Tate and that he moved her into a house where women ere doing Onlyfans (or equivalent) and Tate was taking some of the money. At some point Doe contacted a friend who was a marine and texted that she was being "sex trafficked". The marine wanted to go to the authorities but Doe asked him not to, but he ended up doing it anyway and the ball started rolling. Doe claimed to authorities that she was a "sex slave". Tate's lawyer provided security video of Doe and a friend casually entering and leaving the compound at their leisure. Doe acknowledged that she was being paid, could leave anytime she wanted and still had her passport. There are sketchy texts between Doe and Tate and between Tate and others and between Doe and others. Tate was absolutely grooming her and using money and excitement to lure her in. Doe came though of her own volition and she even admitted to the marine that she did not want the marine to go to the authorities until she could go on a vacation/trip that she was excited about. She texted the marine that she was safe. It is very bizarre. Clearly an older guy manipulated a younger woman but didn't do anything illegal as far as i can tell. Immoral as hell. Disgusting. But I don't think illegal. For what it is worth, after Doe's allegations and the Romanian authorities arrest of Tate and subsequent investigation where they talked to all of the women in the Tate orbit and seized phones and computers etc, a high court in Romania said they did not have enough to warrant a trial. Apparently new allegations are out there and hopefully they will get Tate. Also they may be able to get him on tax/money laundering charges like Capone. I am for anything that gets him behind bars.
-
I agree completely that as of now there is no tie to illegal border crossings and I think anyone making those is being deliberately obtuse.
-
I can not understand why any parent, obviously unless there are some underlying medical circumstances, would willingly not vaccinate their children. I agree with you that those people are "breathtakingly stupid". It is actually a problem and, statistically, is getting worse. It is a real problem. But, as has become typical for you and others on here, the rest of your post is just wildly inaccurate. https://www.unicef.org/lac/en/press-releases/latin-america-and-caribbean-records-worlds-biggest-drop-childhood-vaccination-over-past-decade from the article: "New UNICEF report shows 1 in 4 children in the region are missing out on vital vaccines, setting immunization coverage rates back almost 30 years." https://www.shadac.org/news/childhood-vaccinations-rate-by-state-ethnicity-insurance Non-Hispanic White children had the highest rate of vaccination at 75.5%, followed by children of multiple races or some other race (non-Hispanic) at 72.8%, Hispanic/Latino children (any race) at 69.9%, and, finally, African-American/Black children at 66.5%. Hard to know the overall reason for the declines. Money? Disinformation? Access? Breathtakingly stupid? Surely a combination of all. But to suggest the problem is "almost entirely" white people is a loser take.
-
The destruction of America's public education system
sheeeit replied to Captainant's topic in Cloak Room
I predict that a large percentage of schools over the next 10 years will implement a 4 day school week. Certainly the smaller school districts. Like any change or program, the implementation is critical and you have to have a Super that is all in, but the results can be pretty good. There is a Super in Wagoner, OK that is sort of creating the mold for the program. Wagoner is a fairly small town with enrollment of around 120 per grade. They are about 60% white and 40% black and hispanic. Some highlights: 1) They have chosen to take Mondays off. Partially because a number of doctors offices and other businesses have limited hours on Fridays. Also, sports, especially football, are still a big thing in small towns in Oklahoma and they wanted the school spirit/pep rallys, homecoming events etc that are usually on Fridays. 2) They added 10 or so minutes per required class and go from 7:45 to 4:00, Tuesday through Friday. Same pay. What they claim is that test scores have gone up across the board, behavior issues have dropped dramatically, truancy has dropped dramatically, teacher retention is greatly improved (they had a teacher leave and without advertising they had more applications than they could get through). They just had their first class graduate that had been in the 4 day program for the entirety of middle school and high school (7 years) and their scholarship pool was around $5M for the seniors versus $750K 7 years ago. They have been very creative on working parents. They had a local non profit offer free babysitting and CPR/safety certification to any students that wanted it and then offered the school as essentially a day care facility manned by students that wanted a little extra money. So parents had the option of sending kids to the school for the day or part of the day for a very nominal fee. When they first decided to go to 4 days many parents were upset but after a few months they only had 5 or 6 kids that showed up on Mondays. The real proof is that they did polling last year and over 85% of students, parents and staff like the 4 day schedule over the 5 day. As for cost savings, it wasn't much. The Super estimated they could retain 2 extra teachers with the savings. They really did t for the benefits mentioned above. -
I remember seeing that and it was really cool. Thanks for posting. As for the Departed, I have watched it a few times and I would give it a 7.5-8. Its really good but not great. The last 30 minutes are really jumbled. On the acting: DiCaprio- A Damon- A Farmiga- A Baldwin- A- Nicholson- B. t just seemed like he was playing Jack Nicholson and not the character and his lines were just a series of one liners where some worked and some didn't. Wahlberg- D. I have to actually fast forward through his scenes. He literally can not act when he has to be serious and deliver tight dialogue. Also, while not top 5, the Guy Ritchie movies that had gangster ties (Snatch, RocknRolla, etc) are really fun movies.
-
You do NOT pass the stoned test.
-
Not sure where to put this but this is the safest spot. The male A&M cheerleaders are shockingly gay. They have to know. It’s almost a bit.
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!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!