|
ActusRhesus posted:Is it your position that grand larceny (vehicle) is not a serious offense? We've gone from defending drug possession (ok) to defending drug dealing (?) to defending carjacking (?!) Lovely strawmanning. Nobody mentioned carjacking. You post in bad faith.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
LeJackal posted:Lovely strawmanning. Nobody mentioned carjacking. Oh. I'm sorry. Car theft. Is car theft ok?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Oh. I'm sorry. Car theft. Is car theft ok? If someone stole my car it would suck, for sure, but its insured and probably not worth utterly destroying the criminal's life to prove a point?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Oh. I'm sorry. Car theft. Is car theft ok? What do you mean by "ok"? Why are you using such imprecise language? Say what you mean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:"Please ignore broad trends, instead we need to focus on each individual case so I can nitpick them away." This is not very smart. It does matter what the specifics are. Someone jailed on terrible and ineffective scaling weed possession laws in one state are completely different than someone being jailed for shooting a store clerk for the contents of a cash register in another. Someone getting 20 years for their third bust for a joint and half a burnt bowl is stupid. Someone getting 25 years for shooting another person in a robbery is not. twodot posted:Please provide a source of authority that provides a specific legal meaning of mistake. If mistake does have a specific meaning that should be written down somewhere. So far you've shown me mistake being used to define an actual legal term, but the usage of mistake in one context does not preclude its usage in another. (edit: To be clear, concluding that any term used to define a legal term is itself a legal term, and can only be used in the context used in that definition obviously leads to madness) Google is hard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
EDIT: this was a bad idea. Removed.
thefncrow fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
We've already agreed that mistakes of fact and mistakes of law (and various other mistakes of X) are legal terms, and clearly aren't what is being used in any context, both in the context of "It was a mistake to steal this car" and the context of the jury instructions. edit: The apparent need of actual legal terms to distinguish themselves from simply a mistake is itself a pretty good argument that mistake is not a legal term itself. twodot fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:If someone stole my car it would suck, for sure, but its insured and probably not worth utterly destroying the criminal's life to prove a point? The person who decided to force-ably take someone's car chose to ruin their own life. It is one thing to run afoul of a law designed to target low income and inner city residents such as possession laws, and robbery of a vehicle by force. Someone who steals a vehicle by force is a danger to society. Someone who is splitting an 8 ball of coke with his two buddies is an addict who needs help. thefncrow posted:Boy, I'd hate to be a friend of ActusRhesus if this attitude extends beyond just being lovely on the Internet. That is not what she is saying at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Hair Is Spiders posted:The person who decided to force-ably take someone's car chose to ruin their own life. The only person that has brought up carjacking is AR. The original question was about 'stealing' a car, and you can get those kinds of charges laid for taking your parent's subaru without permission.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:Boy, I'd hate to be a friend of ActusRhesus if this attitude extends beyond just being lovely on the Internet. Did friend intend to drive into another car? If the answer is no, then accident would in fact be the correct term.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Oh. I'm sorry. Car theft. Is car theft ok? As far as teenage hobbies went, it was a pretty decent one. I'd rate it somewhere between 'ok' and 'fun'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:The only person that has brought up carjacking is AR. You aren't going to get 10 years for wrongfully appropriating your parents' car. So your whole premise is flawed. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Hair Is Spiders posted:That is not what she is saying at all. I pulled back that post because it was too harsh, but being a pedantic rear end in a top hat in that manner is pretty much the point behind starting this entire dumb "mistake" conversation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:EDIT: this was a bad idea. I smell a new thread title.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:joat mon was a military defense counsel and prosecutor. would love to hear his take on this. maybe if a man confirms it instead of a self-hating misogynist it will carry more weight. ...who doesn't read this thread very regularly. My experience is more than a decade older than ARs. The general training focus was on sexual harassment, using a red light-yellow light-green light analogy. The training was generally viewed as hokey, but the traffic light analogy at least provided a language to discuss sexual harassment issues. I'm not familiar with the current training, but I get the impression that it has entered a more culturally and legally grey area that is difficult to teach and harder to put into practice because it's so far out of most people's experience. "Don't beat up a soldier because he or she is gay" is easy to teach and to understand. There is a clear demarcation between what is legal and what is not, and it's susceptible to clear external proof. That is not the case with sexual assault, unfortunately. Sexual assault is bad. Convicting a innocent person of sexual assault is as bad or worse. Prosecuting a sexual assault case according to the law that applies to all other crimes* is difficult. At the moment the cultural solution being pushed in the military is to make it easier to convict an innocent person in order to make it less difficult to prosecute a sexual assault case. The rule of law and 'the way it's always been' has a lot of inertia, so there's going to be some pushback, culturally and legally. The types of sex issues that were most in play in the court-martial realm had more to do with fraternization and particularly fraternization between instructors and students. In those cases, the legal problem was not consent, but the power imbalance. The power imbalance was regarded more as a policy reason for making it illegal rather than as a declaration that by law the students lacked agency. Overzealous investigators (NIS/NCIS hadn't cleaned up their act yet) could err by going after students for fraternization as well as the instructors, which could push a student toward rape allegations to avoid criminal liability. Where consent was the issue, the law in practice had barely gotten past whether a verbal 'no' at some time during an encounter where there was no physical resistance was sufficient for rape. With regard to inebriants, capacity to consent was the issue, rather than capacity to exercise poor judgment was the issue. In practice, 'passed out or not' was usually the break point. Treating male and female inebriation differently was a problem even then. The military law on sexual assaults has changed hugely since I was in, as well. Avoiding getting in trouble (legally, socially, and with parents/partners) is an undeniable factor in false allegations of rape, particularly when that 'out' is suggested by the investigator. Does the 'already in trouble, name one of each descriptor' allegation raise red flags? Of course. Does it mean it could not have been rape? No. *Statutory rape would be an exception, which incidentally happens to be the direction sexual assault law is headed. The patriarchal origins and patriarchal assumptions underlying such a shift are a most bitter irony.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You aren't going to get 10 years for wrongfully appropriating your parents' car. More like six in the chest: Salon posted:Take this tragedy as a cautionary tale: Do not call the police on your kids, or anyone’s kids, or anyone, ever, in order to teach them a lesson.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
A. He was shot twice. B. he wasn't shot for taking his dad's truck. He was shot because he posed a threat to both officer and public safety, as confirmed by dashcam.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Hair Is Spiders posted:Someone getting 25 years for shooting another person in a robbery is not [stupid]. Yes it is. That's a ridiculously long sentence in most circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Yes it is. That's a ridiculously long sentence in most circumstances. What do you think the appropriate sentence for taking another human life should be?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:What do you think the appropriate sentence for taking another human life should be? You said 'shot' not killed. What is it with law enforcement and needless escalation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
jfood posted:You said 'shot' not killed. What is it with law enforcement and needless escalation? The only difference between felony murder and robbery and attempted murder is aim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Yes it is. That's a ridiculously long sentence in most circumstances. I am more than positive the person with a bullet in their chest would disagree. Assuming they were still alive to read your very bad post. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Hair Is Spiders posted:I am more than positive the person with a bullet in their chest would disagree. Assuming they were still alive to read your very bad post. Good for them. They don't get a say.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Let's Debate the Police, Criminal Justice and 500 pages of pedantic bullshit that has nothing to do with the issues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:What do you think the appropriate sentence for taking another human life should be? Norway gives a maximum sentence of 21 years at one time. The expectation is that imprisonment focuses on attempting to rehabilitate the person and eventually let them back into society if they've shown sufficient progress to indicate that they understand what they did was wrong and can be released with the trust that they not do it again. The sentence can always be extended from that point forward if it's determined that they haven't made any improvement (this is what's theorized will be happening to Anders Breivik, since he appears completely unrepentant and has been stated as being "manipulative" while in prison), which allows for the individual's progress to be taken into account before delivering any further punishment. It simultaneously allows criminals to reintegrate after sufficient rehabilitation and punishment while not simply tossing a person out the gates after they complete their requirements. It helps that Norwegian prisons aren't anywhere near as bad as ones in the US.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Hair Is Spiders posted:I am more than positive the person with a bullet in their chest would disagree. Assuming they were still alive to read your very bad post. Why is the victim's opinion relevant? Either the sentence is good public policy or it isn't. Satisfying someone's vindictiveness shouldn't enter into it. ActusRhesus posted:What do you think the appropriate sentence for taking another human life should be? The bare minimum to get them rehabilitated. A prisoner should be regularly reevaluated by psychiatrists and other experts (in consultation with their regular caretakers who would know best), and released with appropriate support once he or she is deemed no longer a danger to society. Why is it so important to put a hard number on it? Also, can you please address why you think it's appropriate to strip felons of voting rights given the systemic racial issues in the US justice system? Are you not concerned that the disparate impact is effectively a source of racial disenfranchisement? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The only difference between felony murder and robbery and attempted murder is aim. Can you define "aim"? I'm gonna need some citations and legal precedents before I can tell if this conversation is valid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
 So is this a mistake, or an accident?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
She's faking it
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:
Somebody posted that in the schadenfreude thread and said she was faking it (for the second time that day).
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
So is there any source for she's a karate master and faking it or are you guys just making poo poo up
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
If she's not then that was a top-notch chokeslam right there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Shukaro posted:If she's not then that was a top-notch chokeslam right there. He was actually trying to get on Tough Enough, being an out-of-control cop is just his gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Why is the victim's opinion relevant? Either the sentence is good public policy or it isn't. Satisfying someone's vindictiveness shouldn't enter into it. Are you serious? Do you actually think the victim's opinion matters? You don't think that the individual harmed should have a voice? You are a pile of human garbage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Here's the full video of the above gif As usual, morons being morons and then cry a lot when the police handle them 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Hair Is Spiders posted:Are you serious? The point he put forth is that sentencing should be done with an eye towards reform, that the convicted might eventually rejoin society. If that is in fact the end goal of the justice system, reforming the criminal to become productive, then satisfying the bloodlust of the victim doesn't really do much to reform someone, right? That's the point that he expanded on in the other half of his post, that you didn't quote. If sentencing is being done with an eye towards punishment, then yes the victim's opinion would carry more weight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
frajaq posted:Here's the full video of the above gif In what way does that make the cop practicing his sweet judo moves fake?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
frajaq posted:Here's the full video of the above gif Maybe it should be the responsibility of the armed people serving the public and paid by public money to deescalate potentially violent situations and not violently attack civilians. Maybe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Hair Is Spiders posted:Are you serious? The justice system is not the executor of your personal vengeance and if you believe the purpose of criminal justice is strictly punitive then I would be careful when slinging the "human garbage" insults and pay attention to the plank in thine own eye.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:As to the rest, while I think perhaps too many things are classified as felonies, I don't have a problem with people convicted of the classic common law felonies not getting to vote. Why. If the person is still a threat, why are they out of prison. "We trust you not to steal another car, but we can't take the risk that you might...vote wrong  "
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 03:08
|
|
