https://nypost.com/2020/04/13/virginia-pastor-who-held-packed-church-service-dies-of-coronavirus/
Thx @PayrollHRGuy for posting this down the street.
Thx @PayrollHRGuy for posting this down the street.
-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
Stay At Home Orders
- Thread Starter mightymoose
- Start date
cbg
Super Moderator
Hey, if you can't fight with your friends, who can you fight with?
mightymoose
Moderator
If this were to happen we would likely have a pretty well established and easy to identify crime.
mightymoose
Moderator
https://nypost.com/2020/04/13/virginia-pastor-who-held-packed-church-service-dies-of-coronavirus/
Thx @PayrollHRGuy for posting this down the street.
Unfortunate, but he had a pre existing condition that made him more susceptible to the virus. He should have stayed home but chose to put himself at risk. Every person is free to make that choice.
Zigner
Well-Known Member
Really? So he has the right to put others at risk as well? Those who might become infected from him.
army judge
Super Moderator
I remember VIVIDLY the heated discussions and debates that ensued during the early days of the last century's AIDS/HIV crisis that eventually began among the gay, male community. As time progressed, the HIV/AIDS crisis began to appear among bisexual people and intravenous drug abusers.
I don't think that a discussion among enemies, friends, acquaintances, or frenemies (who happen to be adults) are meant to convince even those with disparate opinions to be persuaded by the arguments supporting the opposing view from the one you hold.
I thank @mightymoose for opening a thread whereby everyone is able to read the views and opinions that might be vastly different from the one's the reader/contributor possesses.
I am of the opinion that the tide is turning on this "virus" and sooner, rather than later, all of us will be able to once again return to normalcy and the routine humdrum of life in the USA.
army judge
Super Moderator
Meanwhile, this just in from The Republic of Texas:
The Texas Supreme Court Monday issued a stay, halting a state district court ruling that Gov. Greg Abbott exceeded his authority when he ordered a limit on the release of jail inmates during the COVID-19 outbreak.
The ruling Friday in a Travis County state district court noted that Abbott, in issuing the order relating to detention of certain inmates in county and municipal jails during the COVID-19 crisis, overstepped his authority and, in fact, violated the law.
Abbott's order barred the release of inmates accused or convicted of violent crimes on no-cost personal bonds.
Judge Lora Livingston, of the 261st District Court, issued the ruling late Friday.
"The COVID-19 crisis did not somehow transfer power away from Texas judges and legislators, and into the hands of the governor," the judge wrote in her order.
The Supreme Court Monday, however, halted the decision enjoining Abbott's order in the case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the high court Monday, saying "the district court unlawfully ruled to allow the release of dangerous individuals.
"A health crisis cannot stop the need for justice, and the district court's decision directly endangered the public," he said.
A similar suit is pending in U.S. District Court in Dallas, however.
In her order Friday Livingston noted the governor's order "suspended several sections of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, preventing, among other things, release via personal bond of jailed inmates who were previously convicted of any crime that "involves physical violence or the threat of physical violence, or any person currently arrested for such a crime that is supported by probable cause.
The order also extended the rules for habeas corpus, normally a 90-day limit from arrest to indictment, to 120 days, a move preceded in McLennan County when both 19th District Court Judge Ralph Strother and 54th District Judge Matt Johnson extended habeas corpus in their courts.
In a move to take pressure off prosecutors and the grand jury, Johnson and Strother extended the time for forcing habeas corpus from 90 to 120 days, which gives the state more time to seek an indictment.
"The Code of Criminal Procedure says anyone can have a hearing, all they have to do is ask for one," Johnson said, "but it also says we can do such things in an 'exceptional situation' and this, certainly, is an exceptional situation."
One local defense attorney said the issue really is moot because "even if a defendant bonds out he still can be indicted even if its six months later."
Those extensions now are invalidated, as well.
The governor's order also included inmates who are jailed for non-violent crimes, such as drug offenses, and those who are accused, but have not been found guilty, of a variety of crimes allegedly involving "violence."
"TCDLA (Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association) is grateful for Judge Livingston's speedy ruling," said TCDLA President Kerri Anderson Donica.
"While we are mindful of the competing interests involved, we believe this ruling upholds the cherished principle that laws do not evaporate with the stroke of a pen, especially in a time of crisis. Texans need their constitutional rights now more than ever," she said.
She went on to say "Troublingly, (the governor's order) covers numerous inmates who may be at risk of dying, becoming ill or spreading coronavirus -- which likely exists in many Texas county and municipal jails.
"While the situation is fluid and it is not precisely known which Texas jails have COVID-19 and in what numbers, jails are known "hot spots" for the virus."
GA-13 also suspends Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) rules relating to release of aforementioned inmates, when counties fail to timely transfer them to proper facilities.
It suspends CCP rules relating to good conduct time, which shortens sentences for well-behaved inmates, and it suspends CCP rules relating to "electronic monitoring"; thereby requiring aforementioned inmates to serve their sentences in jail facilities, rather than house arrest.
TCDLA's petition challenged Gov. Abbott's authority to issue and enforce such an order and argued numerous grounds of constitutional and statutory law, chief among them was that Gov. Abbott's Executive Order violated constitutional laws relating to "separation of powers."
TCDLA and its co-plaintiffs successfully argued that only judges – elected by Texas voters – have the authority to decide issues relating to personal bonds, community safety and release of inmates.
The Texas Supreme Court Monday issued a stay, halting a state district court ruling that Gov. Greg Abbott exceeded his authority when he ordered a limit on the release of jail inmates during the COVID-19 outbreak.
The ruling Friday in a Travis County state district court noted that Abbott, in issuing the order relating to detention of certain inmates in county and municipal jails during the COVID-19 crisis, overstepped his authority and, in fact, violated the law.
Abbott's order barred the release of inmates accused or convicted of violent crimes on no-cost personal bonds.
Judge Lora Livingston, of the 261st District Court, issued the ruling late Friday.
"The COVID-19 crisis did not somehow transfer power away from Texas judges and legislators, and into the hands of the governor," the judge wrote in her order.
The Supreme Court Monday, however, halted the decision enjoining Abbott's order in the case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the high court Monday, saying "the district court unlawfully ruled to allow the release of dangerous individuals.
"A health crisis cannot stop the need for justice, and the district court's decision directly endangered the public," he said.
A similar suit is pending in U.S. District Court in Dallas, however.
In her order Friday Livingston noted the governor's order "suspended several sections of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, preventing, among other things, release via personal bond of jailed inmates who were previously convicted of any crime that "involves physical violence or the threat of physical violence, or any person currently arrested for such a crime that is supported by probable cause.
The order also extended the rules for habeas corpus, normally a 90-day limit from arrest to indictment, to 120 days, a move preceded in McLennan County when both 19th District Court Judge Ralph Strother and 54th District Judge Matt Johnson extended habeas corpus in their courts.
In a move to take pressure off prosecutors and the grand jury, Johnson and Strother extended the time for forcing habeas corpus from 90 to 120 days, which gives the state more time to seek an indictment.
"The Code of Criminal Procedure says anyone can have a hearing, all they have to do is ask for one," Johnson said, "but it also says we can do such things in an 'exceptional situation' and this, certainly, is an exceptional situation."
One local defense attorney said the issue really is moot because "even if a defendant bonds out he still can be indicted even if its six months later."
Those extensions now are invalidated, as well.
The governor's order also included inmates who are jailed for non-violent crimes, such as drug offenses, and those who are accused, but have not been found guilty, of a variety of crimes allegedly involving "violence."
"TCDLA (Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association) is grateful for Judge Livingston's speedy ruling," said TCDLA President Kerri Anderson Donica.
"While we are mindful of the competing interests involved, we believe this ruling upholds the cherished principle that laws do not evaporate with the stroke of a pen, especially in a time of crisis. Texans need their constitutional rights now more than ever," she said.
She went on to say "Troublingly, (the governor's order) covers numerous inmates who may be at risk of dying, becoming ill or spreading coronavirus -- which likely exists in many Texas county and municipal jails.
"While the situation is fluid and it is not precisely known which Texas jails have COVID-19 and in what numbers, jails are known "hot spots" for the virus."
GA-13 also suspends Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) rules relating to release of aforementioned inmates, when counties fail to timely transfer them to proper facilities.
It suspends CCP rules relating to good conduct time, which shortens sentences for well-behaved inmates, and it suspends CCP rules relating to "electronic monitoring"; thereby requiring aforementioned inmates to serve their sentences in jail facilities, rather than house arrest.
TCDLA's petition challenged Gov. Abbott's authority to issue and enforce such an order and argued numerous grounds of constitutional and statutory law, chief among them was that Gov. Abbott's Executive Order violated constitutional laws relating to "separation of powers."
TCDLA and its co-plaintiffs successfully argued that only judges – elected by Texas voters – have the authority to decide issues relating to personal bonds, community safety and release of inmates.
mightymoose
Moderator
I don't think he knowingly put anyone at risk. It appears once he knew he was sick he withdrew.
As for others, if they fear they might get sick from someone else they can choose to avoid public places.
If a person is fearful of a virus why would they choose to go anywhere other people are? They are free to hunker down at home in peace. Their own personal choices put them in the places they may be at risk. If they get sick, they knowingly took that risk.
Last edited:
army judge
Super Moderator
Very eye opening, indeed, mate.
My grandparents and parents defined that entire concept as "self responsibility".
It was taught to me starting at my tender years, well into adolescence, even into young adulthood.
Our forefathers and foremothers who bravely trekked across the great prairies, Rocky Mountains, and western deserts were known for perseverance, self-reliance, "mother wit", and self responsibility.
mightymoose
Moderator
It seems to me reasonable accommodations can be made for those prisoners most susceptible to the virus, including temporary release.
Considering that more than 95% of people infected only get mild flu symptoms and recover from it, it hardly seems necessary to release large quantities of prisoners. Releasing them certainly doesn't ensure they won't get sick anyway.
army judge
Super Moderator
True, which is one of the reasons the TCDLA filed the case, to prevent the executive branch from usurping powers granted by our constitution to the judiciary and the legislature (which meets every two years in Texas), and illegally stripping "inalienable" rights granted to the citizenry.
As the TDCLA successfully argued, "only judges – elected by Texas voters – have the authority to decide issues relating to personal bonds, community safety and release of inmates".
The executive order was also an attempt to address recent jail arestees by limiting the incarcerated county jail population.
You've accurately addressed the entire matter of EOs early on in this thread when you mentioned what a governor's or president's EC is supposed to address, and to whom it is supposed to be directed.
PayrollHRGuy
Well-Known Member
And the Arkansas Governor did the same and we have one of the lowest cases per 100K population in the country and we are still not under required lock down
For now....let's see where you are at in a week or two.
You just don't get it do you? EVERYONE is at risk.
'I'm Young, Healthy, And I Exercise Five Times A Week—And COVID-19 Came For Me Anyway'
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
It's not just an issue of "personal responsibility". This isn't the wild, wild west any more where people live far apart and live and die on their own resources. People get sick and flood the hospitals, even though they are ready to take the risk, that impacts everyone else needing care. People with other conditions who need care might not get it — and may die — because of the foolishness of those who decided to go out and risk getting it. Those who get it and cannot afford treatment impact everyone when the taxpayer picks up the tab for that. We all literally pay for that. So what you don't want to acknowledge is that you and others taking that risk would indeed affect the rest of us, even if we decided to stay home.
And, moreover, we can't all stay home 100% of the time. We still have to encounter those more reckless people at places like the grocery store where we need to go to get life's essentials. The more risk you take, the more you may infect me when we do come into contact in such places. Should have the right to do that? IMO, no, you don't have that right.
cbg
Super Moderator
And my state was, while not the first, still one of the first states to recommend a shut down. We have, as of yesterday, 26,867 confirmed cases and 844 deaths out of a population of slightly less than seven million. So what's your point, PayrollHRGuy?
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
So far every place that has tried going that route has regretted it when the cases start pouring in. Eventually the lock down comes; it's just a question of how many die before that happens. I hope for the citizens of your state that somehow your state will prove to be the exception to what every other place that delayed experienced. The health experts say that to keep things under control you have to get ahead of it and stop the spread before you see a serious problem. Once the virus infects enough people for the politicians to finally see it is a problem it's already too late to stop a lot of people from getting ill and from a spike in deaths — a number of whom would not have died had the government acted sooner.
Tell me how much sooner the government should have acted.. Should they have acted before there was even one death in the US? Should they have acted during the primary elections? What would your be saying if the administration had closed down the country during the primary elections without a single death in this country?
Stick to the facts. Don't try to rewrite history for your political motives.
WTF are you blathering about? There was nothing political in TC's posting(s).
Share this page
