Free Republic

I didn’t mean to jump as vehemently as I did. You obviously know the difference which is a good thing.

However, not everyone does. I’ve seen many a freeper espouse the Posse Commitatus (the group, not the act) nonsense that the county sheriff is the ultimate political and law enforcement power in his/her jurisdiction. Which as we’ve been through, is not the case.

Even in my state, TX, it’s not the case. The Texas Rangers have jurisdiction over all other local law enforcement. One of their duties is to investigate complaints against county law enforcement.

I wish FReepers would stop posting that nonsense about the county sheriff being the most powerful law enforcement, blah blah.

One more time, for the record: Like the office of the governor, the power of the sheriff is derived from the state constitution. Some states have governors with strong executive powers, and some states do not. Likewise, some states grant sheriffs broad powers, and some states don’t. Some states like CT, and AK don’t even provide for the office of sheriff. In some states the sheriff is just a job that is filled and vacated by hiring and firing not an elected official. Some states grant the office broad law enforcement powers, others relegate them to process servers, and a handful use them exclusively as jailers.

Yeah, I’ve been pulled over a few times. Speeding, expired registration, that kind of thing. I can’t honestly say that I’ve ever met a cop in my personal dealings that was anything other than professional and polite.

Depends on how you define national police force. Specifically, what laws are they enforcing? The FBI for example could be defined as a national police force, and it’s completely constitutional.

My problem is the age range. The gap between 14 and 18 is simply huge. I agree that mandatory life sentences are not appropriate for 14 year olds, but cannot extend that to someone on the cusp of 18.

You need to get out more. Men are indeed naturally stronger, and have a much higher potential for strength than women. However, if you're 59 and don't work out, you'd be surprised at the number of women who'd make short work of you.

Using the bench press as a standard that almost anyone can understand: Without the aid of a bench shirt there are a lot of women who can bench in the 300's, a few even the 400's. Less than half that of their male counterparts, but still several times more than your average cube rat.

I don't disagree with your underlying principle. However, like most, you don't grasp how easily an in shape woman can surpass an out of shape man. The effects of being out of shape are far worse than your average couch potato will ever admit.

I think that would more appropriately be described as mercenary capitalism than communism. Unscrupulous capitalism, ie, putting profit above any and all moral concerns, is certainly not laudable, but neither is it communism. Communism by its very definition entails state ownership of enterprise, which again, by definition precludes the profit seeking motive of the individual.

Oh come on, now you're really reaching, and you know it. Even if she were, our system is indeed setup to deal with offenders who are stone deaf.

Where is the original summons?

You can bet that a copy is still on file.

Are the original judge and bailiff available for witnesses to the no-show?

Who cares? They don't need to be. Court transcripts are held as indisputable evidence. So much so that courts of review admit no evidence, accept no testimony, but instead rule entirely based on the transcript of the lower court.

Did I mention she suffers from amnesia?

And I'm sure you can prove that. Or maybe you shouldn't, as her diminished capacity would certainly disqualify her from meaningful employment with a defense contractor such as Pratt and Whitney.

Face dude. You were wrong, you know you were wrong, but you just don't want to publicly acknowledge for whatever personal reason you may have. Since you've obviously backed off from the preposterous notion that Wal-Mart can somehow be sued over this, I'm just going to let this be my last reply.

Again, your confusion is showing. The warrant she was picked up on was for failure to appear. The original charge is totally without relevance here.

Perhaps she snuck back into the store and returned them.

As she was obviously caught, the cigarettes were no doubt returned during apprehension.

Or sent an anonymous letter reimbursing them for the loss and an apology and the store conveniently "lost" it.

Which is dandy, however, that is not an affirmative defense against theft, let alone the actual charge she was eventually picked up on, failure to appear.

Where are the actual people that witnessed this right now? How are their memories? Could they pick her out of a line-up all these years later? I'm no F.Lee Bailey but I pity the company that takes me to small claims court.

They aren't needed. The theft of the pack of cigarettes is a paltry and inconsequential offense when juxtaposed with the more serious charge of failing to obey the summons. As for that, no more proof is required than she didn't answer when her name was called, the judge noted it for the record, and issued a warrant for her arrest from the bench. All of which was neatly recorded by the court reporter.

There seems to be a lot of (unnecessary) confusion surrounding this, so I’ll spell it out to both of you here.

1), Wal-Mart is no way culpable, or the target of a potential suit, as Wal-Mart’s sole part in this was originally calling the police when the theft took place. Given the lack of severity of the offense, she was no doubt issued a summons and sent on her way. Possibly, she was was taken in, processed, and sent on her way. Either way, a distinction without relevance. She’s in trouble because whether via citation or from the bench during arraignment, she was given a summons to appear in court at a future date, which she ignored.

2), There is no statute of limitations on outstanding warrants. The statute of limitations limits the time after a crime has been committed that a charge may be filed. Once a charge is filed, it remains legally active until it is resolved one way or another. That can be anything from a verdict either way, to the court receiving a certificate of death.

3), The outstanding warrant had nothing to do with the theft of a pack of cigarettes. It doesn’t matter if the original charge is murder one, or jay walking. When a bench warrant is issued for failure to appear, it stays on the books forever. The failure to appear is a much more serious charge than the original theft of the pack cigarettes.

Dont knock it. Its gems like these that serve to expose the true intelligence of many posters

And what grounds exactly do you believe she has to challenge Wal-Mart on anything? Either your reading comprehension is seriously flawed or you are seriously confused about the law in general.

What exactly is Free Trade Communism? I’m sure that I’m not alone in my inability to reconcile two such disparate ideas

No, horrible math. For starters, you’d be better served by looking at the population of adults (205m) instead of the total population. Then there are going to be myriad factors that will further whittle that number down. The more of those factors you can include the more accurate, albeit smaller, your final 47% is going to be.

Ah, but you see that's the real truth here. Talk radio isn't dying all by itself. Radio itself is dying, albeit ever so slowly.

Prager is guilty of over simplification here, and there is just no getting around that. There is no magic switch that secular conservatives can flip so that they suddenly believe in a God. I know, I number myself among them. I would love to be able to believe that I’m in possession of an immortal soul, and that I don’t “really” have more days behind me than in front of me. However, no amount of want turns the skepticism off and allows me to believe.

It’s equally, if not more so, foolhardy to expect those without religious beliefs to embrace anyway.

As a matter of fact, yes. Muhammed is part of the frieze that looks down on the Supreme Court.

Gordon Kahl, is that you?

Yep, I think the only test that day was climbing the ladder to the roof. If you could get up there and point a rifle in the general direction of the looters, you were good enough.