|
Well. At least you’re consistent.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
When I was in high school, and we had a sheriff's deputy on duty for security at my job and I got to know a few of them, I thought cops were good. When I was an obnoxious, belligerent college student and I got wrongfully arrested and pulled over a few times, I hated cops. When I got older and was not constantly getting in trouble, I thought cops were good. Now that I practice law, and represent cities on occasion, I understand that the balance between protecting people from the millions of other assholes, and protecting the citizenry from the state is an impossible one to perfectly strike, because the penchant for anarchy and innovation of the human spirit will always outpace the ability of the organized few to write words that could ever hope to stop the entropy of the social condition. Mr. Nice! posted:There's no good reason for the 5th and 6th to be opt-in instead of out like the rest of the amendments. You don't suddenly lose your 2nd amendment rights because you don't own a gun or expressly state you want to exercise said rights. This only happens with rights that involve policing, and that's not good policy because of the practical effects and because it is inconsistent with the rest of the enumerated constitutional rights. I find this line of thinking kind of ridiculous. Do you mean to say that "no confession is ever admissible?" or that a cop can't order donuts without mirandizing the guy behind the counter? Or that a cop can't ask a neighbor, "what did you see before you heard the gunshots?" without reading them their rights? I'm sure your first thought is, "well if a cop suspects someone might be involved, they have to read them their rights." which also seems ridiculous because, "well, I was just looking for information, I didn't suspect anything." At some point on the scale of criminal jurisprudence you have to accept that you can't legislate away the ability of police to even interact with criminals. We still want to catch and convict them. And you'll never be able to correct every ignorance of the law and how it works. At some point, people need to be responsible for knowing what their rights are. Even if you handed out pocket constitutions to everyone the police talked to, how many of them would read it? What exactly are you envisioning a conversation with a potential suspect to look like?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:When I was in high school, and we had a sheriff's deputy on duty for security at my job and I got to know a few of them, I thought cops were good. When I was an obnoxious, belligerent college student and I got wrongfully arrested and pulled over a few times, I hated cops. When I got older and was not constantly getting in trouble, I thought cops were good. I agree that police find themselves in a difficult situation. They are grossly underpaid and we should have better compensation to draw in better people to be police. blarzgh posted:I find this line of thinking kind of ridiculous. Do you mean to say that "no confession is ever admissible?" or that a cop can't order donuts without mirandizing the guy behind the counter? Or that a cop can't ask a neighbor, "what did you see before you heard the gunshots?" without reading them their rights? I'm sure your first thought is, "well if a cop suspects someone might be involved, they have to read them their rights." which also seems ridiculous because, "well, I was just looking for information, I didn't suspect anything." I'm saying that before any investigative discussion with anyone, the police should be required to inform the person of their rights. Not all confessions should be suppressed, and plenty of people confess after being informed of their rights. Police seem to be able to get convictions even when the suspect remains silent throughout. It is not onerous or difficult for police to tell people "hey, you don't have to talk to me if you don't want to." We don't even get that as it is now. ActusRhesus posted:Well. At least you’re consistent. I can appreciate where you're coming from, and in a perfect work I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is the practical application of the law as it ends up with a police ever pushing the line to a point that some rights effectively do not exist for some people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
By the way. In my fact pattern (ripped from the headlines) the victims of this woman were both poor and black. Her confession meant guilty plea. Which meant justice for the victims. Yes yes. “OK. You found ONE example where a rich white person got what they deserved.” I’d just point out that most of our victims are not white. In fact... in 5 years on this job, I’ve had 4 that I can recall off the top of my head. Two sexual assaults of minors. A murder. A rape. (Granted. I don’t handle most of the sexual assaults or any of the domestics. Can’t tell you what their numbers are.) And very few victims in this jurisdiction are wealthy (I can think of one). There’s also a delicate balance to strike between maintaining the constitutional rights of the accused and the ability to protect a vulnerable segment of the population.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I'm saying that before any investigative discussion with anyone, the police should be required to inform the person of their rights. Not all confessions should be suppressed, and plenty of people confess after being informed of their rights. Police seem to be able to get convictions even when the suspect remains silent throughout. It is not onerous or difficult for police to tell people "hey, you don't have to talk to me if you don't want to." We don't even get that as it is now. Whats an "investigative discussion."? If a cop gets called out to a fender bender, you think they should be required to say, "Ok, before I ask who rear ended who, neither of you are required to speak to me and here is your miranda rights?" Or if there was someone standing on the corner who saw it, are they required to mirandize that person before asking them what they saw? And whats the point of making the investigative process so burdensome? So that people don't accidentally confess because they don't realize they're allowed to not talk to cops without handcuffs on? What's the point behind this additional protection?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:By the way. In my fact pattern (ripped from the headlines) the victims of this woman were both poor and black. Her confession meant guilty plea. Which meant justice for the victims. Yes yes. “OK. You found ONE example where a rich white person got what they deserved.” I agree entirely that there is a difficult line to walk when it comes to policing. Policing, although not the most dangerous job in the world they like to project, is an extremely difficult job being performed by a lot of people who might not necessarily be qualified to do so but are the only people willing to do the job for $12/hr. Further, I'll say most police aren't bad intentioned. They have an ingrained sense of thinking because of the nature of the job. This ends up where you have a police force with bad habits and built in biases. All I want is people to be made aware of their rights prior to police questioning. Your rich woman, in this case, would have probably still made the statements she made even if she had been properly mirandized. For example, see how many people do so by trying to "set the story straight" all the time in custody.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:There is no situation where a police should be talking to someone without informing them of their rights first.  “You have a right to refuse to answer my questions.” “Sir, this is a McDonalds.” “I know. I wanted to ask if you have Szechuan sauce but first we need to cover the rights advisory.”J/k obviously. Actually, to be clear for our foreign readers, there are many situations where people are undoubtedly detained for investigation but are questioned without a rights advisory. They basically need to be under arrest (or in a situation where a “reasonable person” thinks they are) to require a rights advisory. Some states may extend those rights further by statute or their own constitutions but I haven’t heard of any state where the cop can’t just ask their questions right away at a traffic stop, and that’s a situation where the driver is always detained by definition. Piece of fish, do Norwegian police need to advise of rights in every interview/interaction or how does it work? I’m a little surprised. Is it a Nordic legal thing? From what I’ve heard of other European countries I was under the impression suspects’ rights were similar to the US or sometimes less (suspicionless searches, some have lesser burdens of proof, etc.) but cops (and suspects) are less likely to be strapped. E: drat we got a live conversation, I typed this on my phone before the last 10 posts or so. Like the donuts joke wasn’t there when I wrote this. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Jul 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
A. Any argument including the word “probably” is speculative. B. Circling back to your claim that we get convictions all the time.... there’s been a major shift in jury philosophies, at least there is here in the northeast. Conviction rates are pretty low. Especially in sexual assault cases. Which is fine. That’s the system. Burden is on us. But remember.... it’s the weak cases that go to trial. And juries are wanting more and more to get past reasonable doubt. Again. That’s the system. But if you think it’s easy to get convictions in cases that weren’t airtight enough to plead out... especially in sexual assaults... hahahahahahaha.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:And whats the point of making the investigative process so burdensome? Yeah, if it takes 20 seconds, and the officer has to talk to three people on the scene, that's a whole minute.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Whats an "investigative discussion."? If a cop gets called out to a fender bender, you think they should be required to say, "Ok, before I ask who rear ended who, neither of you are required to speak to me and here is your miranda rights?" Yes, a cop investigating a fender bender should absolutely tell the people he's talking to that they are not under any circumstances required to talk to him and may receive punishment as a result of anything they say. I'm not trying to make anything excessively burdensome, and informing people of their rights isn't really a burden since it can be done in a quick sentence. The witness on the corner if required to stay and give a statement by statute (iirc TX has something like that with car wrecks but it's been loving forever since driver's ed) should be informed of the statutory requirement plus notified if they confess to a crime it will be used against them. This isn't a massive burden on police and protects people's rights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:A. Any argument including the word “probably” is speculative. Oh yeah, sexual assault cases are always rough especially in the Trumpenreich. I have no delusions that assaulters get away scot free far more often than they should and victims are frequently bullied/harassed into silence. It's a disgusting thing, for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
Btw.... and this is no dig at Fish’s fine nation, but comparing rights under two different legal systems is a little more complicated than that. Ok. A more strict rights advisory practice. Good for defendant. A weaker suppression practice when things are done wrong Bc inquisitorial vs adversarial. Bad for defendants. Not saying one is better. But they are really too different at their core to be able to say “we should do things more like x.” (There also tend to be more convictions in systems without the jury wildcard)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Oh yeah, sexual assault cases are always rough especially in the Trumpenreich. I have no delusions that assaulters get away scot free far more often than they should and victims are frequently bullied/harassed into silence. It's a disgusting thing, for sure. They had low conviction rates well before Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:They had low conviction rates well before Trump. Sadly true 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I agree entirely that there is a difficult line to walk when it comes to policing. Policing, although not the most dangerous job in the world they like to project, is an extremely difficult job being performed by a lot of people who might not necessarily be qualified to do so but are the only people willing to do the job for $12/hr. Further, I'll say most police aren't bad intentioned. They have an ingrained sense of thinking because of the nature of the job. This ends up where you have a police force with bad habits and built in biases. It’s definitely true that by far most people will talk anyway even with the rights advisory. But the other side of that is “if it doesn’t make a difference why change the jurisprudence?” Put another way, if the purpose of Miranda is to keep people from being sweated in “the box” for an hourslong interrogation until they say what the cop wants to hear, what’s the necessary interest being served by Mirandizing before asking a question on the street? I could see the rule being moved to require more for detention situations short of arrest, which would have an added benefit of police making it clear to more people when they are free to go but that’s just applying a principle of Miranda we already have. I don’t see the opt in/out argument because it’s not like the police need to affirmatively tell people “you have a right to buy a bunch of guns and post stupid poo poo on Twitter.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Btw.... and this is no dig at Fish’s fine nation, but comparing rights under two different legal systems is a little more complicated than that. Ok. A more strict rights advisory practice. Good for defendant. A weaker suppression practice when things are done wrong Bc inquisitorial vs adversarial. Bad for defendants. Not saying one is better. But they are really too different at their core to be able to say “we should do things more like x.” (There also tend to be more convictions in systems without the jury wildcard) Yeah, I wish one of these murder shows would ask the defense attorney “If the jury was gonna be so overcome with prejudice for your weird but harmless client, why don’t you opt for bench trials?”
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:It’s definitely true that by far most people will talk anyway even with the rights advisory. But the other side of that is “if it doesn’t make a difference why change the jurisprudence?” Put another way, if the purpose of Miranda is to keep people from being sweated in “the box” for an hourslong interrogation until they say what the cop wants to hear, what’s the necessary interest being served by Mirandizing before asking a question on the street? I could see the rule being moved to require more for detention situations short of arrest, which would have an added benefit of police making it clear to more people when they are free to go but that’s just applying a principle of Miranda we already have. I don’t see the opt in/out argument because it’s not like the police need to affirmatively tell people “you have a right to buy a bunch of guns and post stupid poo poo on Twitter.” The problem is when that questioning on the street becomes the basis for arrest and conviction. These conversations are typically coercive and are rarely voluntary. People, in general, are not at all aware of what their rights are. There should always be an onus on someone who has the ability to arrest you to inform you of your rights fully before interaction. Police do not have authority to go on a fishing expedition with a search warrant, and shouldn't be able to do the same with an interrogation. You are entitled by the constitution to 1. have a lawyer present when being questioned, and 2. remain silent in the face of questioning. There is no good reason to ever have a discussion with someone without informing them of these basic rights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
While I am perfectly willing to attribute a great deal of our current problems to Trump, who I think we all agree is a shithead, what you just did is a little problematic “yeah. Look how bad things are now that trump’s in charge” is effectively a form of whataboutism that I see quite a bit. I’ve experienced plenty of sexual harassment and misogyny. Let’s not pretend it just comes from the right. Being anti-choice is problematic. Of course. So is paying your female staffers less and excluding them from inter office sports. And referring to a female opponent as a “pig” or “caribou Barbie” (Obama). Sexting with underage girls (weiner) engaging in textbook workplace sexual harassment (Clinton) disparaging victims of sexual harassment and assault (Hillary Clinton) slut shaming Melania Trump (pretty much everyone) leaving a woman to die in a submerged car because you don’t want to be busted for drunk driving (Kennedy). I can go on and on. But there is a real trend in pointing out the (clearly present and clearly a problem) misogyny of one side while ignoring or worse giving a pass on it when it comes from one side of the aisle. And Jesus Christ. When did this turn into D and D?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:While I am perfectly willing to attribute a great deal of our current problems to Trump, who I think we all agree is a shithead, what you just did is a little problematic “yeah. Look how bad things are now that trump’s in charge” is effectively a form of whataboutism that I see quite a bit. I’ve experienced plenty of sexual harassment and misogyny. Let’s not pretend it just comes from the right. You're absolutely right. What I'm talking about with Trump is mainly the Sessions DoJ and the changes he's implemented. We've been lovely as a whole to women the entire existence of this nation, and the fight for women's rights is far from over. We've regressed on the civil rights front in the past two years on some fronts, and women's rights is definitely one of them. I don't give misogyny a pass on either side. All men have been "that guy" including myself. Bill Clinton is just as much a predatory monster as any other rich sex pest. This has nothing to do with coercive or involuntary statements made to police, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
Imo this debate is too good natured to qualify for d and d
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
The most difficult struggle I find when talking to people about horrific poo poo that is currently happening is whataboutism to Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Bill Clinton. I'm not defending any of them or their actions when I rightly call out Trump, Sessions, or anyone like that a piece of poo poo for things they've recently done. We've been in a badly regressive slide for 40 years now regardless of who is in charge. The bottom half of this country has basically had zero increase in wealth and has lost real wages when compared to inflation. The top 20% of the nation and specifically the top 1% have seen explosive growth in the same time frame. The real struggle, as has always been, is between the haves and have nots and the gap gets significantly wider every day. The only candidate that even discussed this in 2016 was Bernie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__9m-vK23sI AR: I'm not calling you out, but just talking in general when discussing literally anything with my family/childhood friends from west Texas. I entirely get where you're coming from, and I wasn't trying to imply that things were ever "good" for women when it comes to sexual assault prosecution. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jul 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:No, you're absolutely right. What I'm talking about with Trump is mainly the Sessions DoJ and the changes he's implemented. We've been lovely as a whole to women the entire existence of this nation, and the fight for women's rights is far from over. We've regressed on the civil rights front in the past two years on some fronts, and women's rights is definitely one of them. Ok. Glad we’re on the same page. I just get tired of “I’m so pro-women. Check out my feminist blog and pussy hat. WHY THE gently caress WONT YOU SLEEP WITH ME? I’M A SENSITIVE ALLY.” Or being told I should smile. Look. I don’t owe you a facial expression, rear end in a top hat. I’ve gotten that one from a liberal court. In a status conference with like 30 other attorneys. As for our constitutional discussion... you’re conflating the 4th and 5th. There’s a reason one has a poison tree doctrine. You have a right to be free of unreasonable search. Cop violates that, suppression. Suppression of all fruit. Done. You have a right to INVOLUNTARY self-incrimination. Miranda is to help mitigate the inherently coercive detention environment. There’s no fruit doctrine for an improper rights advisement because the advisement is not, by itself, a right. You’re taking the position that any comment to a cop is per se coerced. I think that’s a bit untenable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Ok. Glad we’re on the same page. I just get tired of “I’m so pro-women. Check out my feminist blog and pussy hat. WHY THE gently caress WONT YOU SLEEP WITH ME? I’M A SENSITIVE ALLY.” Or being told I should smile. Look. I don’t owe you a facial expression, rear end in a top hat. I’ve gotten that one from a liberal court. In a status conference with like 30 other attorneys. No I'm with you. It sucks for women. If any guy here wants to see something horrific, just ask any woman friend you know about how guys treat her on Tinder. ActusRhesus posted:As for our constitutional discussion... you’re conflating the 4th and 5th. There’s a reason one has a poison tree doctrine. You have a right to be free of unreasonable search. Cop violates that, suppression. Suppression of all fruit. Done. You have a right to INVOLUNTARY self-incrimination. Miranda is to help mitigate the inherently coercive detention environment. There’s no fruit doctrine for an improper rights advisement because the advisement is not, by itself, a right. You’re taking the position that any comment to a cop is per se coerced. I think that’s a bit untenable. Every conversation with police is necessarily in a coercive environment. The reasonable person standard is good in theory, but in practice no one generally feels like any conversation with police is voluntary and police go out of their way to blur the line. It is exceedingly difficult to resist police questioning and often times the best case scenario is the person getting arrested and released without charges.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And Jesus Christ. When did this turn into D and D? When being a lawgoon became a cat-jailable offense in D&D. blarzgh posted:When I was in high school, and we had a sheriff's deputy on duty for security at my job and I got to know a few of them, I thought cops were good. When I was an obnoxious, belligerent college student and I got wrongfully arrested and pulled over a few times, I hated cops. When I got older and was not constantly getting in trouble, I thought cops were good. Also a ton of policing behavior varies by jurisdiction in the U.S. I would like to see more local control by highly policed communities/neighborhoods. If a small town has a problem officer, local leaders both in and out of law enforcement will get an earful (may not apply in the South unless a white person was slightly inconvenienced in buying their 9-year-old a gun). We don’t see the same dynamic in Chicago or any number of metro areas where rich neighborhoods and even suburbs get a vote on who controls the sheriffs/police department and discipline is almost always rejected by some arbitrator.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Ok. Glad we’re on the same page. I just get tired of “I’m so pro-women. Check out my feminist blog and pussy hat. WHY THE gently caress WONT YOU SLEEP WITH ME? I’M A SENSITIVE ALLY.” Or being told I should smile. Look. I don’t owe you a facial expression, rear end in a top hat. I’ve gotten that one from a liberal court. In a status conference with like 30 other attorneys. There isn't even a poisonous tree doctrine for getting an un-Mirandized statement and then using that to get a key piece of evidence. You can't bring in the statement that led you to the murder weapon, but you can bring in the murder weapon. hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Also a ton of policing behavior varies by jurisdiction in the U.S. I would like to see more local control by highly policed communities/neighborhoods. If a small town has a problem officer, local leaders both in and out of law enforcement will get an earful (may not apply in the South unless a white person was slightly inconvenienced in buying their 9-year-old a gun). We don’t see the same dynamic in Chicago or any number of metro areas where rich neighborhoods and even suburbs get a vote on who controls the sheriffs/police department and discipline is almost always rejected by some arbitrator. This is basically how I characterize my criticisms of police and why I generally don't feel bad painting with a broad brush. Even though the vast majority of cops are good people doing the best they can, there are legitimately poo poo ones who shouldn't have gotten close to the badge. Nonetheless, when those guys gently caress up, none of the good cops can bring themselves to say that the clearly bad cop is a bad cop. Pook Good Mook fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Jul 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:This is basically how I characterize my criticisms of police and why I generally don't feel bad painting with a broad brush. Even though the vast majority of cops are good people doing the best they can, they are legitimately poo poo ones who shouldn't have gotten close to the badge. Nonetheless, when those guys gently caress up, none of the good cops can bring themselves to say that the clearly bad cop is a bad cop. Semi-unrelated but this is why I think cop unions are bad. And I’m generally pro-union (and cops are probably generally anti-union....except when it comes to cop unions).
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:When being a lawgoon became a cat-jailable offense in D&D. This is why I firmly believe police chiefs/sherrifs, DAs, and judges should not be elected. Appointed but subject to legislative committee or appointed commission review every x years. Elected tend to be too results oriented and focused on what their voter base wants than following the law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Semi-unrelated but this is why I think cop unions are bad. And I’m generally pro-union (and cops are probably generally anti-union....except when it comes to cop unions). Good news! Police unions are going to be dead soon thanks to Janus. ActusRhesus posted:This is why I firmly believe police chiefs/sherrifs, DAs, and judges should not be elected. Appointed but subject to legislative committee or appointed commission review every x years. Elected tend to be too results oriented and focused on what their voter base wants than following the law. "But Sheriff Joe puts those thugs in pink and makes them live in tents in the desert. That's the type of tough on crime attitude I want in my Sheriff!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:This is why I firmly believe police chiefs/sherrifs, DAs, and judges should not be elected. Appointed but subject to legislative committee or appointed commission review every x years. Elected tend to be too results oriented and focused on what their voter base wants than following the law. Iowa has gotten exactly one thing right in it's entirety history, judges aren't elected.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Speaking of elected DAs, the former #2 in my office decided to run for DA as a progressive alternative, and then two days later met with LGBTQIA+ activists who were worried about the fact he belongs to some super homophobic church. He proceeded to call them all sinful and compared being gay/trans to adultery. It’s the most impressive shooting off of one’s own political dick that I’ve ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:There isn't even a poisonous tree doctrine for getting an un-Mirandized statement and then using that to get a key piece of evidence. You can't bring in the statement that led you to the murder weapon, but you can bring in the murder weapon. Yeah, terrible how they caught that murderer I BACK THE BLUE
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Good news! Police unions are going to be dead soon thanks to Janus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:Speaking of elected DAs, the former #2 in my office decided to run for DA as a progressive alternative, and then two days later met with LGBTQIA+ activists who were worried about the fact he belongs to some super homophobic church. He proceeded to call them all sinful and compared being gay/trans to adultery. It’s the most impressive shooting off of one’s own political dick that I’ve ever seen. Ever heard of a guy named Clayton Williams? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Williams Clayton was the republican candidate for Governor in Texas in 1990. He was a shoe in to win if he could have just kept his mouth shut. Instead he would just say the dumbest loving thing possible all the drat time. I think the NY times piece cited in the wiki article doesn't exactly quote him, but his biggest gaff came on his ranch one day. He invited a bunch of press out to his ranch in west Texas to film some puff piece about how he was a real hard workin cowboy unlike that socialist pot smoking woman he was running against. However, the weather refused to cooperate and it was raining/storming the entire day. While sitting on his porch he quipped to the audience "well, you know the rain is a lot like rape. Ain't nothing you can do about it, so you might as well sit back and enjoy it." Seemingly overnight bumper stickers popped up all over about how they'd rather smoke pot with Ann Richards than get raped by Clayton Williams. He had such a big mouth he lost to a socialist woman in Texas in 1990.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
nm posted:Nope. Cops are one of the few groups of public employees that seem to understand the value of their own union, even when they are otherwise extremely right-wing. I know a few police officers here in town personally. Some people are already making a ruckus that they want to opt out of the union.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I know a few police officers here in town personally. Some people are already making a ruckus that they want to opt out of the union. Ok, maybe it is just California cops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
nm posted:Nope. Cops are one of the few groups of public employees that seem to understand the value of their own union, even when they are otherwise extremely right-wing. Union for me but not for thee. Also Ann Richards owns. Look Sir Droids fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Jul 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
this is one of the funnier documents i have read in my time and i suggest you all read it, and then snicker to think about what is going to get unleashed when it's no longer about nonsense like the ordering of trials: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4594533/7-11-18-US-Oppo-Manafort-Motion-to-Continue.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
So this is fun. Petition filed in 2013. Motion to withdraw as counsel in 2015. New counsel in 2015. Counsel has gotten three motions to amend scheduling orders without opposition. Most recent one court rescheduled for a day I’m already on trial. “Do you consent to a motion to continue?” “No.” Wow. It’s going to be granted. The court made the error and I’m already ordered to be before another judge. So you managed to burn a bridge with my office AND look like an unreasonable jackhole. Well done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:this is one of the funnier documents i have read in my time and i suggest you all read it, and then snicker to think about what is going to get unleashed when it's no longer about nonsense like the ordering of trials: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4594533/7-11-18-US-Oppo-Manafort-Motion-to-Continue.pdf loving  he was bragging on the phone with cronies about everything he was trying to do to subvert the case against him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:57
|
|