Garza also said he didn't intend to break any laws. He called the GAB warning "a good cautionary tale," but added that voters should have the right to show support for their candidates. "I think they should revisit the law," he told AP. "I removed mine, and I know others removed theirs, but I should have the right to state who I support."

Um, nothing in that law says you can't tell others who you voted for or make a show of support for your chosen candidates. You do still have your freedom of speech and stating who you voted for is well within your rights. You just can't spread pictures of your completed ballot around or show it to people. The two are apples and oranges, and it may be the editing of the news organization, but this Garza guy comes off sounding like an idiot for thinking that.

That's one of the most awful things a mother could do to her child. I've heard rumors about people on drugs gouging their OWN eyes out back in the 60's and 70's, but just rumors. I hope that she realizes how terrible this was when she sobers up. This is one of those cases when "an eye for an eye" would seem fitting and just.

Glad these creeps were caught quickly. I hope the kids were able to get their belongings back undamaged. There are extra-low thieves out there (even lower than thieves already are) who will just damage their loot as badly as they can if they're about to be caught, so that the victim can't use it anymore anyway.

This crap really needs to stop. I don't understand what it is that makes people think they should prevent care reaching someone who is hurt. What if one of these times the person dies, and it could have been prevented if the medics were allowed to get to them sooner?

It's not just these two incidents, I have a friend who is a medic and he's told me some horrific stories about being attacked by bystanders when trying to help others. The most interesting was the time he was grazed with a knife on his arm warding off being stabbed by the wife of a man who was having a heart attack; she kept screaming "let him f****** die! Miserable sonofab****!" And then again it will often be the very person they try to help who attacks them, which is why he now walks with a limp.

... And they pay way more than they would have to just get a proper license and tag and hunt in the right areas at the right times.

I know several vets with issues ranging from PTSD and other mental health problems to ongoing pain due to injuries. Getting recognized and getting treatment unfortunately takes time. And news stations can't stop to make a story about every vet who is having difficulty getting help from the VA because the list of people that falls under that heading is rather long. Hopefully this guy gets more help now than he was before.

Each assumption that you make, and each defense you make of your assumptions, makes you look more and more ignorant. I see crackheads all over the place, including at the library (I believe the free internet access may have something to do with this). As for what "most DV" victims are like, I'm a victim of DV myself (with an active protection order, which means nothing at all until after anything happens), and I believe your generalities on this subject betray your ignorance even further.

And one thing you seem to be ignoring entirely is the fact that her ex was a crackhead and appeared to be high when the children were found. It's also plausible that he was high at the time he approached her car; which would explain him doing something like walking right up, opening the door, inquiring about seeing his son, and then taking a swing at her, chasing her off, and kidnapping her children.

Actually the truth is that no one knows whether God exists or not. You can't prove He does and you can't prove He doesn't. You either believe in Him or you don't, but it isn't based on fact, it's based on faith and feeling. And it's okay either way. You can believe or not believe, whichever feels right to you.

Well, there was the time the guys caught the shop towels on fire and nearly ruined one gal's car.

You are making some big assumptions there. Not only are you assuming that they were in contact and arranged for a visit, but you are assuming that SHE contacted HIM. There's nothing in the accounts of the incident that have been published to suggest that she willingly met him there to arrange visitation (quite the opposite, it seems like she had no intention of seeing him or letting him visit with the kid, which is probably why he opened the car door and took a swing at her and chased her off before he kidnapped her children). With the little information that has been released, it's just as likely that he was stalking her or knew she went there regularly.