What does the panel think about this one?

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/19/us...her/index.html

As an aside, why are those men wearing cowboy hats indoors?
Do they wear them in bed?

harry wrote:
What does the panel think about this one?

All is right with the world.

As an aside, why are those men wearing cowboy hats indoors?

It's Texas

Do they wear them in bed?

Depends on whether they are staing the night.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out...
http://www.floridaloghouse.net

First off God Bless Texas!!

harry wrote:
What does the panel think about this one?

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/19/us...her/index.html

As an aside, why are those men wearing cowboy hats indoors?
Do they wear them in bed?

We have a teaching moment he

In all branches of the military, all peace officers, and any agent of any
federal, state or local entity are REQUIRED to not remove their headgear IF
they are armed. This is true from the FBI down to truancy officers.

The rationale for this regulation has to do with having the officers' hands
remaining unencumbered in the event of an emergency.

You'll notice the person on the speaker's left is wearing a Texas Ranger's
badge. We can't identify the agency to whom the other person belongs, but he
is probably also an law enforcement officer.

Of course in the UK, few officers are armed, so the issue probably has never
come up.

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:48:42 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

harry wrote:

What does the panel think about this one?

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/19/us...her/index.html

Fully justified homicide. It does not get much clearer,
witnesses, physical evidence - the father catching the perp. in
the act. An attack like that on a child is most definitely a life
threatening situation. He probably saved her life, many of those
sickos kill the victim after 'getting off'.


I think most any man would do the same in those circumstances. Good
for dad, he should get an award.

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
news
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:48:42 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

harry wrote:

What does the panel think about this one?

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/19/us...her/index.html

Fully justified homicide. It does not get much clearer,
witnesses, physical evidence - the father catching the perp. in
the act. An attack like that on a child is most definitely a life
threatening situation. He probably saved her life, many of those
sickos kill the victim after 'getting off'.


I think most any man would do the same in those circumstances. Good
for dad, he should get an award.


that particular molester will never harm another child,100% guaranteed.
Justice was done. a benefit to Society was done.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

G. Morgan wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:48:42 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

harry wrote:

What does the panel think about this one?

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/19/us...her/index.html

Fully justified homicide. It does not get much clearer,
witnesses, physical evidence - the father catching the perp. in
the act. An attack like that on a child is most definitely a life
threatening situation. He probably saved her life, many of those
sickos kill the victim after 'getting off'.


I think most any man would do the same in those circumstances. Good
for dad, he should get an award.

I'm sure he's totally traumatized. An award would not be good for
his state of mind right now, just positive comments to reassure
him he did the right thing.

I would like to think you're right about most men doing the same,
I fear some may do nothing at all (al-la Sandusky case).

I believe most would, especially when it's their own child. I know I
would!!
Well, except maybe someone like the canadian homeboy, he'd probably
make him cookies

"ChairMan" wrote in message
.com...
G. Morgan wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:48:42 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

harry wrote:

What does the panel think about this one?

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/19/us...her/index.html

Fully justified homicide. It does not get much clearer,
witnesses, physical evidence - the father catching the perp. in
the act. An attack like that on a child is most definitely a life
threatening situation. He probably saved her life, many of those
sickos kill the victim after 'getting off'.


I think most any man would do the same in those circumstances. Good
for dad, he should get an award.

I'm sure he's totally traumatized. An award would not be good for
his state of mind right now, just positive comments to reassure
him he did the right thing.

I would like to think you're right about most men doing the same,
I fear some may do nothing at all (al-la Sandusky case).

I believe most would, especially when it's their own child. I know I
would!!
Well, except maybe someone like the canadian homeboy, he'd probably make
him cookies

I've not reviewed the specific law but understand that what the father did
is covered and permitted in Texas statute.

I erect the matter was brought before the GJ as a matter of procedure. I
doubt very seriously if any Texas jury would have voted to convict.

G. Morgan wrote:

I think most any man would do the same in those circumstances. Good
for dad, he should get an award.

I'm sure he's totally traumatized. An award would not be good for
his state of mind right now, just positive comments to reassure
him he did the right thing.

I would like to think you're right about most men doing the same,
I fear some may do nothing at all (al-la Sandusky case).

You're probably correct in both observations.

In days of yore, when those on the frontier had to slaughter or hunt their
own food, and in the cities where folks out for a stroll had to step over
bodies while sashaying along public way, there was a general indifference to
blood and gore and nerves and sinews and veins and eyeballs and bones
sticking out, and scattered body parts, and intestines, and gall bladders,
and so forth.

Perhaps we need more R-Rated movies?

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 17:42:48 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:


"ChairMan" wrote in message
g.com...
G. Morgan wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:48:42 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

harry wrote:

What does the panel think about this one?

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/19/us...her/index.html

Fully justified homicide. It does not get much clearer,
witnesses, physical evidence - the father catching the perp. in
the act. An attack like that on a child is most definitely a life
threatening situation. He probably saved her life, many of those
sickos kill the victim after 'getting off'.


I think most any man would do the same in those circumstances. Good
for dad, he should get an award.

I'm sure he's totally traumatized. An award would not be good for
his state of mind right now, just positive comments to reassure
him he did the right thing.

I would like to think you're right about most men doing the same,
I fear some may do nothing at all (al-la Sandusky case).

I believe most would, especially when it's their own child. I know I
would!!
Well, except maybe someone like the canadian homeboy, he'd probably make
him cookies

I've not reviewed the specific law but understand that what the father did
is covered and permitted in Texas statute.

I erect the matter was brought before the GJ as a matter of procedure. I
doubt very seriously if any Texas jury would have voted to convict.

Going to a grand jury is expensive enough. Having to defend yourself in front
of a petit jury would be criminal in itself. There shouldn't even be a grand
jury in such a situation.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

I've not reviewed the specific law but understand that what the
father did is covered and permitted in Texas statute.

I erect the matter was brought before the GJ as a matter of
procedure. I doubt very seriously if any Texas jury would have
voted to convict.

Going to a grand jury is expensive enough. Having to defend yourself
in front of a petit jury would be criminal in itself. There
shouldn't even be a grand jury in such a situation.

In Texas, a determination is made as to the cause of death, usually by the
county coroner (in some counties a Medical Examiner makes the call). When a
finding of "homicide" (the killing of one human by another human), and the
killer is known or alleged, the matter MUST go before a grand jury.

In article ,
" wrote:

Going to a grand jury is expensive enough. Having to defend yourself in front
of a petit jury would be criminal in itself. There shouldn't even be a grand
jury in such a situation.

But it has to go GJ in these cases. If only provide cover for the DA if
something goes wrong later on. "We were only following the directions of
12 citizens."
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 08:09:59 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

Going to a grand jury is expensive enough. Having to defend yourself in front
of a petit jury would be criminal in itself. There shouldn't even be a grand
jury in such a situation.

But it has to go GJ in these cases. If only provide cover for the DA if
something goes wrong later on. "We were only following the directions of
12 citizens."

I understand it has to, in some jurisdictions. It *shouldn't* (think: SYG).
BTW, aren't there at least 24 on a GJ?