blog 7

     There’s a lot of legal misconceptions out there about what a person can and can’t do when it comes to Gun Law in Texas. 

     The first common gun law myth is if someone shoots someone else on his/her property, he/she should move them inside. People should never move physical evidence from a crime scene. If someone does, they probably just committed the crime of tampering with physical evidence. If they have to use deadly force, they’ll hopefully be justified in that use under Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code. This means that they wouldn’t be completely held responsible for their actions. However, there’s no defense or justification to the crime of tampering with evidence, and if someone is found guilty of tampering, they could be looking to in between 2-10 years of prison, and up to a $10,000 fine. 

     The second myth is if a vicious dog enters someone’s property, they have the right to shoot it. This is a very common myth, and it is something that gets many gun-owners in trouble. In order to be justified in shooting a dog, their use to deadly forces needs to be immediately necessary to stop or prevent a dog from attacking people or other animals. If people shoot dogs just for entering their property, even if they know that that dog is vicious or dangerous, they won’t be justified and they’ll likely be charged with the crime of cruelty to animals. 

     The third myth is to think one can scare off a trespasser using a warning shot. People can never use deadly force against someone who’s a trespasser. Trespasser scan only be dealt with by using force, and in the state of Texas, when someone pulls the trigger on that gun, regardless of where the barrel is pointed, they’ve used deadly force.

      Myth 4 is believing that brandishing is only a crime if the gun is loaded. Many people believe that if their gun isn’t loaded, the law would treat their act less seriously. In fact, Texas law makes no distinction whether or not the gun is loaded. If someone points an empty gun on someone else and they’re not legally justified to do so, they’ll be charged with the exact same crime if they had their gun loaded. 

     The fifth and final myth is horse theft is a hanging crime in Texas. This means people can shoot anyone that comes in their property and try to steel their horses. This is an incredibly wide-spread myth. The reality is that this was the Wild West justice, and the modern Texas Penal Code doesn’t make any distinction when someone is stealing horses or other life stock. If someone commits theft in their property and it is in the day time, they can’t use deadly force in defense of that property. It is only if a perpetrator is trying to steal their property in the night time that they could potentially shoot to stop the theft. 

     Using deadly forces has to be reasonable, which ultimately could be determined by the jury at trial. 

blog 6

     "Instead of war on poverty, they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me." Tupac once said. Marijuana discrimination has been a controversial topic for years. You can’t have multiple states around the country legalizing marijuana, 28 states making medical marijuana legal, and all of a sudden say we want to continue keep marijuana illegal. There’s an amendment that doesn’t allow the federal government to use dollars to prosecute legal states’ use of marijuana. From a medical perspective, marijuana should be taken off the category one, making it equal to heroin as a drug. It is not equal and every single medical society says it isn’t. If its taken off of category one, medical research on marijuana would continue and people would see whatever parts of the plants would work for medical use.  

     Drugs aren’t good in general, but when people are dying from alcohol related deaths and you have zero deaths from marijuana, you have to wonder and double check your thoughts on the subject. Even the people who think legalizing marijuana is a great idea don’t say it’s a good thing. The argument for legalizing pot isn’t that pot is good, but that the war on pot is bad. There’s a way in which legal marijuana could be a public health win. There’s one drug that you won’t see in the drug group which is alcohol, even though it is a lot more dangerous than marijuana or cocaine. Alcohol is really bad for you, lethally bad for you. The centers for Disease Control and Prevention say there are thousands of deaths each years attribute to alcohol. Alcohol is a big contributor to violence, crime, and addiction. It gives people cancer and liver failure. Compared to alcohol, marijuana is a lot safer to use than alcohol. People don’t die from it... they rarely kill others while on it.  

     People using marijuana for fun might have a very different relationship to alcohol than people using marijuana because they’re sick. This isn’t just something we can study, its something that we can affect, that we can change. Dani, I believe this subject is very debatable and people would have countless opinions about it. I really enjoyed reading your article and I really hope we solve this issue soon! 

Blog 5

     There are 1.4 million people that are uninsured in Texas. Medicate is being denied to parents with children, who are making $3,737 a year. They don’t qualify for medicate. What’s it going to take to convince governors to opt into this? Is it antagonism? Or is it persuasion? People have tried the whole range of it. The governors’ decision to reject the medicate is very unconscionable. 1 out of very 4 Texans doesn’t have Healthcare insurance. About 30% of Texas women and 38% of hispanics in Texas don’t have Healthcare coverage. A change in the politics, in the government and of the party leadership in Texas, is what its going to take to really make a difference.  There’s no economic argument about about not expanding medicate. Democrats are liberals who make their decisions from the heart, and republicans are conservatives who make decisions from their mind. In this case, in both the heart and the mind, it’s clear what should be done. Medicate should be expanded. People work and work and work and then, they don’t have basic Healthcare. This isn’t the country we all believe in.    

    Republicans are so opposed to the medicaid expansion. Across the country, in every single state, republicans are saying that they really don’t want to take the medicate expansion money, and they would rather leave hundreds of thousands of citizens totally uninsured and totally without access to Healthcare. David Hogberg,  who’s a Health Care Policy Analyst with the National Center for Public Policy Research, opposed a public policy that would give Healthcare to roughly 5 million people who don’t have it, and according to Harvard University, that would save at least 17,000  lives. It would also create hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. Hogberg is opposed to it because he believed that Medicaid doesn’t give that much access. He believed  that the country should have a system where Primary Care doctors don’t take most types of insurance. He believed that Primary Care is relatively cheap, and what all people are doing with an insurance system is putting more cost in terms of paper work. He thought its a matter of not giving false hopes to people. 

The College Admissions Bribery Scandal Has Some Texas Connections

      In an article written by Leif Reigstad, a Texas Monthly writer, we’re informed about major news; College Admission Bribery Scandals. There has been a massive investigation in the college Admissions fraud. This involves coaches and wealthy parents at some of the nation’s most elite schools. It was confirmed that the head tennis coach of the University of Texas is named in the indictment. It also includes actors including Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin who were wiretapped by the FBI as part of this investigation. Prosecutors say that  parents paid an admission consultant 25 million dollars, from 2011 through last month, and that consultant bribed coaches and administrators to label children as recruited athletes to boost their chances of getting into schools. Coaches also accepted bribes to admit students, regardless of their ability. They also bribed entrance exam operators to improve test scores. 

      In the article, Reigstad focused on four people who are facing federal charges in Texas. Michael Center, the head coach of the men’s tennis team at the University of Texas-Austin; Nikki Williams, a college entrance exam administrator; Martin Fox, a Houston resident and president of a private tennis academy in Houston; and John Wilson, a CEO of a Massachusetts private equity and real estate and development firm. Reigstad went in depth in this article and laid out conversations that were proof of the accused people taking action. 

       Parents weren’t just acting in the best interests of their children. They also cheated the system so they can set their children up for success, with the best education money can buy. This story has captured so much interests. Reigstad showed how big this story is and how much it matters to the American people. Why? Because people know in their hearts that people who have resources have advantages. In the case of their kids, they can move to better public schools, or buy private school education, tutors, and summer programs to enrich resumes. What was shocking the most was how far people would go to advance their children. The millennial generation and the technology that collides in their lives on a daily basis has given them a chance to live lives of their own making. It is very upsetting to know that the system was gamed. We all believe that America is about equal opportunities, with no privilege. We all have to work hard and play by the rules. This situation is a clear violation of the rules. The game needs to be fair and the rules need to be observed, and the families that were charged should face the law and justice. 

Beto O'Rourke appears to be leaning toward presidential bid instead of challenging Sen. John Cornyn

    What is it that makes people think Beto O’Rourke has what it takes to become president? In an article written by Gromer Jeffers Jr., a political writer for The Dallas Morning News, we’re informed about Beto O’Rourke’s actions and hints for running for presidency in 2020. The political writer Gromer Jeffers has written about administrations of mayors Laura Miller, Tom Leppert and Mike Rawlings. He has covered national and local politics, including the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. He has also written extensively about texas government and politics, including administrations of Rick Perry and Greg Abbott. Therefore, I believe this article is written by a well-informed person who knows the bits and pieces of politics.

    In the midterms, O’Rourke almost took Ted Cruz’s Senate seat. He came so close, there are now whispers of a presidential run in 2020. But what makes people think Beto can make it to the White House? O’Rourke ran a grassroots campaign in the traditionally Republican state of Texas, which hadn’t elected a Democrat to statewide office since 1994. He visited all 254 countries and engaged with the communities. O’Rourke focused his campaign on inclusivity and minorities’ rights. He decided that he would run a grassroots campaign, visit every country and listen to everyone regardless of the differences. O’Rourke’s approach resonated with people of all ages and backgrounds. However, he ended up losing the midterms by three percentage points, but that didn’t stop him from being positive and wanting to achieve more for the country he loves.

    In the article, Jeffers supports O’Rourke actions and shows his concerns whether O’Rourkes runs for presidency in 2020 or challenges Texas Sen. John Cornyn. If O’Rourke campaigns against Cornyn, Jeffers believes that O’Rourke will have to change his approach that he used against Cruz which was listening to voters of all types. He believes that O'Rourke should focus on voters who haven’t heard him speak, including the cafes and town squares in Iowa, New Hemisphere and the early primary states. Jeffers uses words such as “national figure,” “duty, “ and “loyalty” to show his admirations and high beliefs about Beto O’Rourke.

What Sid Miller told Donald Trump in the presidential limousine

    In the article “what Sid Miller told Donald Trump in the presidential limousine,” Jonathan Tilove, who is the Statesman's chief political writer, talked about what happened inside “The Beast” before Trump’s El Paso rally. What happened was that Miller addressed that trump was unhappy with the fact that the city’s Republican Mayor, Margo, contradicted him on the success of El Paso’s boarded wall and believed that El Paso was a safe place well before “the wall.” In the article, Tilove shows how Miller was trying to back up his words and actions, and Miller believed he knew everything due to the fact that he was on the inside. He was the chairman of Homeland Security and Public Safety, and all the reports came through the DPS and FBI; he had all the crime stats, he had them all. Both Trump and Miller believe that the wall had improved so many things in El Paso and lowered the crimes rate but not everybody agrees. A couple points that I found interesting and Tilove did a great job to address them was the fact that the government would manipulate the numbers, hide the “real” crime rates and make believe countries don’t deal with issues.  

Blog Stage One

Hello!