4th and 5

Y'all remember, if you can get it through, you don't necessarily need a tool to cut the hook - if you don't have a tool to cut the hook, smashing/breaking/filing down the barb and backing it out also works.

On one of these huge greens, is it legal to use a wedge? Instead of putting? Or do you have to use a putter if you’re on the green?

Only rent it to friends. Use it mostly from spring break to Thanksgiving. Condo does all the maintenance, we just take care of the interior.

So the wife was cowboying her D’s in my face and I’m thinking, “how is Hovland gonna play that bunker shot?” Is that wrong?

I own a condo on the beach Use two 5 gallon buckets full of water as anchors, downwind. Keep the downwind side a little lower. Buckets will fit over the end of a folded up standard canopy to carry easily. I see people lose canopies frequently, it’s dangerous and damages other people’s canopies who have properly anchored them. If there is just a few of us I use a heavy duty umbrella with a heavy duty anchor dug deep with a mini shovel. If a storm comes thru we just put the umbrella down.

Crazy to think that a person's body could be searched without their consent, without probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and that evidence of that crime would be found via that search. What other of the bill of rights don't you believe in?

Y'all don't spend much time looking at the constitution, do you?

I call bullshit on this. Prove me wrong

Yes, the CRASE (citizen response to active shooter event) training is ADD, avoid, deny, defend. Your first option is run. Sadly, had these teachers sent their kids out the other direction the result may have been different. Denying, in this instance, failed. I will tell you that while I agree that one child would be one too many, but few if any of the children who died could have been saved even by an immediate medical response.

Was Dave baked at the presser today?

depends on the Nevada state law, Texas has something similar in TPC 19.02(b)(2), the murder statute, but it would not apply in Ruggs case due to no intent to cause SBI (b) A person commits an offense if he: (1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual; (2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or (3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual. State could get creative if they could find an underlying felony in NV to use the felony murder rule, assuming they have it, like if Racing on a Highway were a felony (in Texas it is, if you have 2 priors) Otherwise you'd have to go with Manslaughter, which is also a second degree felony, no better than Agg Assault

I'm not going to spend any time watching that video to see if it is addressed, but even without proof of intoxication, there result should be more or less the same in NV For instance, intoxication manslaughter in Texas is a second degree felony Aggravated assault (recklessly + cause serious bodily injury OR cause bodily injury via use or exhibition of a deadly weapon) is also a second degree felony. So the range of punishment is the same, with or without proof of intoxication, in a case like this, were it to occur in Texas, so should be similar in NV.

A creative use of the felony murder rule in Texas (DWI 3rd is a felony + act clearly dangerous to human life in the course of + cause death of individual) to increase the punishment to a 1st degree for what would otherwise be a 2nd degree felony intoxication manslaughter.

Defense lawyer trying to suppress evidence of intox due to violation of statute or constitution Causing the death of another (or serious bodily injury to another), by reason of intoxication, increases the penalty from typically a class B misd to a 2nd (or 3rd for SBI) degree felony in Texas

cool pics, can see my place in a few of them

Due to the natural dissipation of alcohol and other intoxicants in a person's blood, time of search is an issue in DWI cases. Law enforcement needs: (1) consent, or (2) a search warrant based on probable cause, stated in the PC affidavit, or (3) proof of exigent circumstances that excuse the failure to get a warrant (a tough showing for the state). If you have an accident, the state can take your blood? Is that what you are saying? You misunderstand the law, and/or appear to not believe in the constitution. 1. A wreck, no matter how egregious, is not PC for a blood search warrant. 2. There are no "silly delays from your lawyer" when it comes to blood testing in DWI cases. Lawyers are not involved, there is no right to immediate counsel on the side of the road. Lawyers get involved well after the incident, particularly when cops do not perform their duties correctly. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. It's really not that hard for law enforcement to follow the law.

Unless you have read the PC affidavit for the search warrant, you claiming to have an informed opinion of the merits of his defense lawyer’s claim is, well….laughable, as you say.

I’m sure if it was you or your family member, and the state violated your constitutional rights in acquiring evidence, you’d be so principled as to waive your rights. We are a lawless society because we have lost respect for the law. And each other.

This seems like some bullshit to me....there is no obvious time constraints in getting a warrant, law enforcement has it down pat, or most agencies should have. Further, an exigent circumstance could excuse the failure to get a warrant, but it doesn not provide PC for a search with a warrant "There's obvious time constraints in applying for a search warrant for a blood draw," Justice of the Peace Ann Zimmerman said. "Under the totality of the circumstances, there is more than sufficient evidence for a finding of probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant in this case. This seems like more bullshit to me....refusing SFSTs, which is your right, or refusing to answer law enforcement questions, is also your consitutional right, and is no evidence of intoxication (actually pretty good evidence of having one's mental faculties). The invocation of one's constitutional rights can never be incriminating. This JP is an idiot. "Nobody has mentioned so far that Mr. Ruggs was seriously injured in this accident and transported to the hospital, so he would have been unable to submit to field sobriety tests. Coupled with his refusal to answer questions, this does not result in a reward. ... Motion to suppress is denied." The issue is whether there is evidence of intoxication (as defined in NV law) in the PC affidavit for the search warrant. Sounds like there might not be. Or this reporter sucks at his job. The PC affidavit is public record, all you gotta do is request a copy.

I'll also add that in evaluating PC for a search warrant, the only thing that can be considered it what facts are in the PC affidavit. The fact that the state had the evidence for PC, or could show that later in court, is irrelevant. The question is, does it appear in the PC affidavit?

The cops get a blood search warrant by swearing out a probable cause affidavit before a magistrate (judge) wherein they articulate that the person was operating a motor vehicle in a public place while being intoxicated (or whatever term Nevada uses in its Penal Code). Typically that is odor of alcohol, admission of drinking, at fault collision, slurred speech, watery bloodshot eyes, disoriented, confused, open container, stumbling, mumbling, fumbling, you get the idea... Gonna need some evidence of intoxication, hauling ass and wrecking is not enough. Has to be some proof that evidence of a crime (intoxicants in blood) will be found as a result of the search (a blood draw).

What a bunch of tools