-
Posts
3405 -
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 4th and 5
-
got one of these for Christmas, enjoying a delicious glass of iced tea right now, 5 stars
-
I need another Mesquite/St. George trip this year, bad. And Scottsdale too.
-
It Was Fun While It Lasted: New Cars to Be Drunk Proof
4th and 5 replied to Doc Reeves's topic in Daily Texan
Hmmm.... Possession with Intent PG1 >4g for a bag of shrooms you and your boys collected from the pasture? Agg Assault FV on your old man because he deserved it for what he did to your mom? Burg Hab - felony other than theft, because you were drunk and the holed up resident needed an asskicking? Aggravated Sexual Assault for roofy-ing that little honey? Aggravated Robbery because you knocked down an elderly person wahooing some beer from HEB? am I getting close? -
It Was Fun While It Lasted: New Cars to Be Drunk Proof
4th and 5 replied to Doc Reeves's topic in Daily Texan
A Picatinny rail mounted breathalyzer? -
Hat tip to @Mac8111, a shoreline he pointed out to me earlier this year paid off big on Wednesday afternoon and Thursday. We caught 13 keeper reds 22”-26” and 3 18” trout, wading knee deep with topwater lures. The fog was so thick at times you could barely see the end of your cast. And there were stingrays everywhere.
-
Same % deal but glass lenses are more expensive
-
Costa del Mar fanboys: Sunglass Hut has many models of Costa for 30% off ($189 x .7 = $132) If you buy one, you get 50% off the already 30% off price for all additional (not just one) glasses purchased I just bought 4 Brine green mirror/amber lens for me and my son for $132 + $66 + $66 + $66
-
-
Chris Angel? Cool.
-
Pitt paid Mr. Whipple $476,450 last year money whipping Marion may be easier said than done
-
Norf Korea bans laughing for 11 days starting Friday.
4th and 5 replied to phdhorn's topic in Daily Texan
I blame Sark for this -
John was the BBQ savant. Troubled but none better. He knew me from Shaggy and always treated me like a VIP when I stopped by.
-
Took a day off from a golf vacation in Sarasota yesterday to do some fishing. We couldn’t get out til 10 due to the fog, but when we did, it was on. We landed a dozen snook in 45 minutes then made a run out into the bay. We tried to pick up some mangroves for dinner, which we did, about a 10, but the jacks were ruthless. Every cast. Maybe 8 to 1. My elbow is sore AF. Then we went back into the river and did some more snooking, flipping freelined pilchards under docks and trying not to get broke off. Landed about a dozen more and called it a day by 2.
-
THIS IS NICE 20 21 South Carolina 19 Commits 87.39 0 2 17 206.05 21 25 Oklahoma 12 Commits 90.65 0 6 6 202.72 22 23 Rutgers 18 Commits 87.29 0 4 13 202.25
-
Dieunerst
-
is Ewers' haircut worse than Nick Rose's?
-
18. the case of Idleman v. Pops
-
It does if the cops charge you with Evading Detention or Arrest in a Motor Vehicle, which makes it a felony. This is a legal joke, but I know many ADAs would would try. Again the use of force or deadly force has to be justified to defend one's self, another, property, or make an arrest or prevent escape. Four justifications. We can eliminate property. As the dude is going away from the shooter or other cop, I see no justification for self or the other officer. So that leaves us with to arrest or prevent escape. The leading case is Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) which is used to claim that the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect who has committed a felony was necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, which is essentially codified in all state penal codes to conform to the minimum standards in Garner to be constitutional. In Texas, that is Texas Penal Code 9.51. Below is Arizona's version - 13-410. Justification; use of deadly physical force in law enforcement C. The use of deadly force by a peace officer against another is justified pursuant to section 13-409 only when the peace officer reasonably believes that it is necessary: 1. To defend himself or a third person from what the peace officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. 2. To effect an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom the peace officer reasonably believes: (a) Has committed, attempted to commit, is committing or is attempting to commit a felony involving the use or a threatened use of a deadly weapon. (here: felony aggravated assault of the employee or cop working security) (b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon. (c) Through past or present conduct of the person which is known by the peace officer that the person is likely to endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury to another unless apprehended without delay. (d) Is necessary to lawfully suppress a riot if the person or another person participating in the riot is armed with a deadly weapon. D. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, a peace officer is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force when and to the extent a reasonable officer believes it necessary to protect himself against another's potential use of physical force or deadly physical force.
-
Man in Texas killed trying to pick up kids from ex-wife
4th and 5 replied to Jive Turkey's topic in Daily Texan
the law on provocation..... The Texas Penal Code plainly provides that a person is not justified, as a matter of self-defense, in using force against another if the actor provoked the person against whom the force was used. See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 9.31(b)(4), 9.32(a)(1). "[A] charge on provocation is required when there is sufficient evidence: Elizondo v. State, 487 S.W.3d 185, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (quoting Smith v. State, 965 S.W.2d 509, 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)). In deciding whether to include a provocation instruction, the trial court must "decide whether evidence has been presented that could support a jury's finding on all three elements of provocation beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (emphasis omitted). In reviewing the trial court's decision to include a provocation instruction, the appellate court views "the evidence in the light most favorable to giving the instruction," resolving conflicts in the evidence and drawing reasonable inferences in favor of the instruction. See Smith, 965 S.W.2d at 514.
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!