Comments by "Arthur Mosel" (@arthurmosel808) on "Police Chief Testimony Makes Family of Texas School Shooter Timothy Simpkins LOOK REALLY BAD" video.

@DieselRamcharger Sorry, but President Trump followed the Constitution, and left state crimes to state authorities. How many times were his policies challenged in court? The left did everything it could to hamstring him. Was he perfect, no. Was he trying, yes. I could go further, but I realize that you would ignore any facts that don't fit your narrative. Just one ponder for you, VP Harris helped fund a bail fund for criminals that let a man out to commit murder.
28
@DieselRamcharger Sorry, about firearms, I own several and have for years; and none cave ever attacked me or anyone else. Shootings are conducted by people, not firearms. When plea bargains by local prosecutors drop firearms related charges routinely (Chicago's Kim Foxx who recently refused to charge anyone on either side because it was mutual conflict) you signal illegal use of firearms is condoned. Even if all firearms vanished tomorrow, violence world remain. There have mass injuries from knife and axe attacks in the PRC; recently an archer in Canada killed and injured 7 people; the UK and New Zealand have gone after knife sales. This is just as useless, because of my military duties I learned how many deadly things are available in almost every home if someone researches and wishes to do harm. So, drop the firearm nonsense and concentrate on criminals. As to the wall, how often was progress stymied by Congress (via funding) or lawsuits in front of friendly (mostly Democrat judges); yet then Wall was being built. Remember that was one of the first thing President Boden stopped, for months the Feds paid the contractors for doing nothing, and recently came to a settlement to end the contracts; leaving the materials piled to rust. Contrary to the Dems and leftists; President Trump didn't play dictator and ignore the courts, by the way our current President has played fast and loose ignoring the courts. Again unless you wanted him to act as a dictator, he couldn't try or jail Ms. Clinton. Remember the same people who lied about him in the DOJ protected her and the Bidens. Hunter anyone? So, as I suspect that I am actually dealing with an anti-law type pretending to equally damn both sides; try dealing in facts not talking points.
16
Be happy that at least there was a 75,000 bond. In Chicago, New York (city and state), and many other Dem controlled areas; they are released without bond. Currently there are many more than 100 people charged with murder who are on the streets with an ankle monitor at best. Violations of their bond aren't routinely followed up.
15
@DieselRamcharger This shooter's family talked about having the funds; so bail was no problem. As to the poor; yes, what is bail to them. Something that keeps them off the street and prevents them from robbing, attacking, beating, hospitalizing, or killing a new victim. Check out this is not a claim but fact. What is the law if their is no consequence? You know the answer to that; but choose to ignore it. Your stance here proves you are no Conservative or even Libertarian; since even they understand that we need to show concern for victims not the victimizers.
10
The problem with attempted murder is intent. While I agree that there probably was intent, proving what was in his mind is difficult at best. There should have been an assault with a deadly weapon charge and illegal possession of a firearms charge (at his age possession of a handgun is illegal, even in Texas). I believe that he could not possess the weapon in a school. So, he was definitely under charged.
3
@Listed MiA Here at least for lower murder charges (less than first degree), intent isn't needed. Only the intent to kill at the moment, and I believe three rounds into an individual provides that.
2
@Listed MiA While I agree with your comment in general, I suspect the sentence will be on the low end and possibly concurrent. This is the norm up here. Which means much less than 40 especially with parole. The shooter deserves more than the minimum.
1
@josephpearlman4010 If you read everything that I posted, you will find that one degree of intent is required for premeditated murder, that would be taking the firearm into the room with the intent to kill initially; however, he had to get the weapon and return to the argument. This would show intent but only in the heat of the moment, yes an intent to kill but as part of a physical confrontation; which is usually dealt with as a lesser murder charge, i.e. some form of manslaughter (the term used depends on the state, 2nd degree or third degree murder is common). A prior intent to kill isn't needed then; only the intent at the moment of action. You should be able to see the difference.
1
@John-zs2eo Read the post right above this one on the difference between bring the weapon with a planned intent to kill, and getting a weapon as part of a confrontation. The second shows intent to kill at that moment that wouldn't have occurred if there wasn't the immediate conflict. The first would be impossible to determine; while the second is easy. The first would be premeditated murder, while the second depending on the state could be intentional manslaughter or 2nd or 3rd degree murder. Read both of my initial comments with that understanding.
1
@ToFester Under law, an 18 year old is an adult for the purpose of entering into legal contracts on their own and are considered emancipated under law with parents no longer considered responsible. Some state give the option of treating younger people as adults when they commit a crime of sufficient magnitude that juvenile action no longer makes sense; this is especially true when an individual has a prior juvenile criminal history. As to the alcohol prohibition, check out the history on that. It became an issue during the 2nd Indochinese Conflict, and for a while 18 became a limit for at least beer. The liberals pushed that and then later pushed it back to 21. You can see a similar dynamic with tobacco. The socially conscious Dem pushed for higher ages and used that for ways of raising taxes under the guise of further limiting use. The ages for drivers licenses also comes for pushing the social good and started first in Dem controlled states. So, who do you support? If it is the Democrats, you support this type of inconsistent law making.
1
@ToFester Sorry but to call out things as they are is what you are upset with. You talked about examples of why 18 year olds could do one thing and not another, something that too often has political reasons, whether disguised as health concerns or not. As to children being children to older ages, it is the groups that claim to be concerned over equity that support this the loudest. Remember, it was that long ago that adolescents even younger than 18 were considered as adults. Now, we excuse childish behavior that would have been condemned in the past. Too many easy years have passed since the Great Depression. My parents grew up in it and had to put away childish things early. Most of my great grand parents were immigrants and lost their fathers early due to work and had to become adults early to help the family. It is the Democrats that prefer permanent childhood under a "benevolent" government rather than individuals taking responsibility for themselves and their families.
1
@ToFester Unless you can present a cite for that, it is your opinion, not a fact. Keep talking, your true beliefs are starting to show.
1