Search options (Page 1 of 4)

There are a couple of reasons to review. One, obviously is to gain points. The other, hopefully, is to learn and help. That alone should be enough motivation to review. One of the best ways to improve our writing is seeing other styles, how ideas are presented, blah, blah.

As a reviewer, we need to remember there is much more to look at than spelling and grammar mistakes but that’s where a majority of reviews start and stop. I guess that’s why there are different kinds of editors. A good grammarian probably won’t give you much feedback on other aspects of the story. But if we’re trying to learn how to write, we need to look at the bigger picture and pass that onto the author. I’ll confess I’m guilty of the opposite. I’m weak on many grammar points, so I focus on other aspects. I should do more, but I don’t possess the skill to tell someone where to put a comma so I avoid it. But we all have the ability to discuss how interesting the story is, or if it’s confusing, or if it flows well.

As little as it’s talked about, we also need to remember that the ability to present a worthwhile review takes effort and time. And this is where too many authors (in my opinion) are doing a disservice to reviewers. If a reviewer takes the time to write one and point something out, the author needs to do more in a reply than ‘Thanks for the review’, or ‘Glad you liked it’, or ‘Sorry it didn't work for you’. One of my favorites is to point out something that is illogical or out of sequence and have the author explain it in a reply, but never say anything about fixing the manuscript. 
For me, that’s an indication the author doesn't give jack about what a reviewer has to say. Maybe that’s why reviewers simply don’t take the time, or after a while, drift away.

I'll stop in a minute. In parts of the country where predators are a problem for livestock, ranchers will run a donkey in the pasture with the cattle or sheep. They are highly protective and will fight off a predator, especially a coyote. You can Google it.

Thanks, JP. Glad to know he's OK. Since I can blame it on being an old fart, I have avoided all the social network sites. I don't know how to tweet, twitter, or twerk, and I don't have a garden so I can't take pictures of my vegetables to share. I do have a couple of followers though. One is a rabbit in my back yard, the other is the cat from across the street. I did try to tango once, but I was drunk.
Allen

John - The best I can offer is excerpts from the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. I didn't edit them, so disregard the citations and focus on the 'meat' of the wording. I added notations (**) on the really pivotal parts.

Art. 18.01. SEARCH WARRANT.  (a)  A "search warrant" is a written order, issued by a magistrate and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for any property or thing and to seize the same and bring it before such magistrate or commanding him to search for and photograph a child and to deliver to the magistrate any of the film exposed pursuant to the order.

Art. 18.04. CONTENTS OF WARRANT.  A search warrant issued under this chapter shall be sufficient if it contains the following requisites:
(2) ** that it identify, as near as may be, that which is to be seized and name or describe, as near as may be, the person, place, or thing to be searched;**
(3) that it command any peace officer of the proper county to search forthwith the person, place, or thing named;  and
(4) **that it be dated and signed by the magistrate.**
**A sworn affidavit setting forth substantial facts establishing probable cause shall be filed in every instance in which a search warrant is requested.**

(b) ** No search warrant shall issue for any purpose in this state unless sufficient facts are first presented to satisfy the issuing magistrate that probable cause does in fact exist for its issuance.** 
(c) ** A search warrant may not be issued under Article 18.02(10) unless the sworn affidavit required by Subsection (b) sets forth sufficient facts to establish probable cause: 
1) that a specific offense has been committed,

2) that the specifically described property or items that are to be searched for or seized constitute evidence of that offense or evidence that a particular person committed that offense, and

3) that the property or items constituting evidence to be searched for or seized are located at or on the particular person, place, or thing to be searched.**

** search warrant may not be issued under Subdivision (12), Article 18.02, of this code unless the sworn affidavit required by Subsection (b) of this article sets forth sufficient facts to establish probable cause that a specific felony offense has been committed and that the specifically described property or items that are to be searched for or seized constitute contraband as defined in Article 59.01 of this code and are located at or on the particular person, place, or thing to be searched.**

If the officers, during a legal search, see other items that are clearly and unquestionable suspected to be contraband, then they may also take them, or they can get another search warrant and go back to seize them. If they do that, then obviously they would keep someone at the scene to prevent contamination or removal.

For info on the constitutional issues dealing with 'stop' vs 'arrest' see:
http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/arti … ls?id=2167l

Reads like he was outrunning him - he just wasn't faster than the .357 slug.

Here's the link to the old site
http://old.thenextbigwriter.com/index.html