|
Grouchio posted:Care to elaborate? You should divorce your personal health from politics because they aren’t getting better for a long time
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
Arcturas posted:That’s a political question, not a legal question. It’s not legal but that won’t stop Trump and/or Republican candidates from suggesting it, and they’ll probably have a few fringe lawyers make up legal theories about it, probably they’ll find a senile Harvard professor to put on tv about it, and who knows what scotus will do. But it’s really just a political issue, not a legal one. euphronius posted:You should divorce your personal health from politics because they aren’t getting better for a long time
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
I’m a doctor. Please.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:C-Spammers and USPOLsters are under the assumption that it's certain that they already are gonna do it no matter what. If they are both agreeing that's a strong clue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:How would you know that? See the election results from yesterday. The leopards eating faces party continues to eat faces while the opposition party campaigned on good things but then failed to provide any. As a result, the elections are between the leopards who promise to eat faces and the people who say “hey at least we’re not eating faces but we’re not going to do anything else.” Capital owns all branches of government, and thus all of government is diametrically opposed to anything that would be a negative for capital such as paying workers their fair share or providing healthcare for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:See the election results from yesterday. The leopards eating faces party continues to eat faces while the opposition party campaigned on good things but then failed to provide any. As a result, the elections are between the leopards who promise to eat faces and the people who say “hey at least we’re not eating faces but we’re not going to do anything else.” Grouchio posted:And before any of you get wild ideas on why McAuliffe lost, just remember: Grouchio fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Nov 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
Go back to D&D you succ lib, you'll continue to make excuses for lameass democrats in 2022 and 2024 as well but this isn't the place to argue about it. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:See, your strawman arguement falls apart the moment you decide to generalize everything on the 'fault of capitalism' the moment things don't go your way. No sir. It was the revival of covid in the states like Virginia that eked out a win:  Yup it was covid's fault that the democratic party is run by idiots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:See, your strawman arguement falls apart the moment you decide to generalize everything on the 'fault of capitalism' the moment things don't go your way. No sir. It was the revival of covid in the states like Virginia that eked out a win: Biden won by 16% in NJ; Murphy looks to win by a few percent. Biden won by 10% in VA; Youngkin won by 2%. Nothing about this suggests it was a state-level thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
The current situation in the US isn’t something that is going to be resolved by legal talk. Inter arma etc etc etc In other words, it doesn’t matter whether or not the shopping cart is in the return corral or the middle of the parking lot right now because it’s on fire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
I cast Magic Missile at the shopping cart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
i'm going to put you all in a shopping cart and push you into traffic.euphronius posted:You should divorce your personal health from politics
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:You should divorce your personal health from politics
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 21:41
|
|
|
1) don’t do that 2) is hard yeah. One of the reasons I stopped private practice
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
Please don't shame people for being monsters, we didn't all choose to be lawyers oh wait yes we did lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 22:10
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Very very hard to do when I'm 1) politically analyzing every news I see, and 2) trying to empathize passionately with peoples' plight as a person with autism so I don't feel like a monster. You're not a monster for not empathizing with other people, and empathy is unproductive. It feels like it is, because it takes a toll on you, but it doesn't actually do anything on its own and it can paralyze you when things are bad enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:You're not a monster for not empathizing with other people, and empathy is unproductive. It feels like it is, because it takes a toll on you, but it doesn't actually do anything on its own and it can paralyze you when things are bad enough. Empathy makes you want to give money to a beggar, not throw a can of soup at them and call it "irony." Empathy is generally part of Not Being lovely, and helps in Trying to not be lovely. There's a very beneficial effect which is felt in an entire group rather than only an individual. It's ok to have trouble feeling empathy in many cases, or experiencing burnout, or compassion fatigue or whatever. That doesn't make empathy a net negative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
also, politics isn't about empathy, it's about the opposite: contempt a lack of empathy is just the neutral position between empathy and contempt which makes me think, just to bring this back on topic, judges should be able to pound that gavel and declare you in empathy of court, and give you some kind of reward for it
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 23:01
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Empathy makes you want to give money to a beggar, not throw a can of soup at them and call it "irony." Empathy is generally part of Not Being lovely, and helps in Trying to not be lovely. There's a very beneficial effect which is felt in an entire group rather than only an individual. First of all you're describing sympathy. I never said empathy was a net negative. But empathy without action, especially when it's empathy for trauma, is maladaptive and leads to burnout. Autistics experience burnout differently because we're stuck performing emotions a certain way so people will acknowledge that we're human beings. We typically experience empathy in a way that is totally different from neurotypicals. We're not, on the whole, deficient, and many of us need no encouragement to feel it or express it. Most of us need help getting some distance, especially when people insist feeling is the same as doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 23:10
|
|
|
How much of this is bullshit: https://www.vox.com/2021/11/3/22758188/climate-change-epa-clean-power-plan-supreme-court ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:How much of this is bullshit: Not much. The current SCOTUS is going to upend much of this nation. poo poo is going to get worse before it gets better. It may not get better. Don’t try to stress it too much, though, because you’re powerless to change anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 00:44
|
|
|
I know this is state-specific (any WA state lawyers here?) but can a custodial parent voluntarily waive their right to child support from the noncustodial parent? My wife makes good money, I do not. We are discussing divorce, but we're in agreement on most things, including her having custody. Can she waive her right to court-mandated child support from me, or ask for less than the court would dictate? Or does a judge just give me a number without her input and if I don't pay it I get my income garnished and/or get thrown in prison? LiterallyATomato fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Nov 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 01:14
|
|
|
LiterallyATomato posted:I know this is state-specific (any WA state lawyers here?) but can a custodial parent voluntarily waive their right to child support from the noncustodial parent? Talk to a WA family law attorney because that poo poo is very state specific. The answer, as always, is probably "it depends" Louisgod posted:Curious, how would vaccines for children work when the sole legal parent says no but the other says yes? On the surface it looks like that's final, no room for argument, but the pandemic has affected so much that it seems like it's in the best interest of the children and their health to get them vaccinated. Have there been any legal rulings on this yet? Probably depends on the judge/state. I think as vaccines get approved you will see courts ordering kids get vaccinated if they find it is in the best interest tho.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 02:18
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:I wish to discuss the plausibility of a hypothetical 'stop the steal' event in 2024, in which a number of states refuse to certify for Biden. Is this something likely enough to lose sleep over? If you wish to discuss this you're going to do it in a different forum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 05:17
|
|
|
Eminent Domain posted:Talk to a WA family law attorney because that poo poo is very state specific. Couldn't the ex-wife just write a check back to the ex-spouse for the same amount? EDIT: Actually, I would assume child support payment is gender neutral and if one spouse is female and a high earning neurosurgeon while the other is a male and earns minimum wage at the cracker factory, the wife would pay child support. But maybe that's a bad assumption on my part. HisMajestyBOB fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Nov 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 05:50
|
|
|
HisMajestyBOB posted:Couldn't the ex-wife just write a check back to the ex-spouse for the same amount? I can only really speak to CA. Child support here doesn't give a poo poo about gender, it's a formula where you plug numbers in and it spits out what guideline support should be. Main things are income and timeshare. Beyond that you get into very fact specific stuff. Parents can't waive child support in CA because it's in the best interest of the child to be provided for. So you can't agree to never seek child support and be bound by it. Child support case can also get triggered by applying for public benefits. Anything beyond that gets into facts of a particular situation and probably a conversation with your local attorney or child support agency. Eminent Domain fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Nov 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 09:19
|
|
|
Is there a good place on this forum or elsewhere looking at the Rittenhouse trial? Kid is dumb and definitely bad for killing three people, but I've seen reasonably compelling breakdowns of the footage available saying 'at the moment he pulls the trigger it's pretty clear cut self-defence.'
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 14:32
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Is there a good place on this forum or elsewhere looking at the Rittenhouse trial? You can find some right-wing websites on twitter if you want to jack off to murder fantasies
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 14:41
|
|
|
Okay cool but maybe I'd like to know more about the competing case theories of the prosecution and defence from someone who knows what they are writing about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 14:54
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Okay cool but maybe I'd like to know more about the competing case theories of the prosecution and defence from someone who knows what they are writing about. Maybe after that you can read about the competing theories of the holocaust (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 14:56
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Okay cool but maybe I'd like to know more about the competing case theories of the prosecution and defence from someone who knows what they are writing about. You can watch the trial livestreamed on YouTube. I recommend watching some of it for anyone interested in how courtrooms actually function. This thread was very responsive when the trial for the Minneapolis cop who murdered George Floyd was happening. If you have any questions please feel free to post them here, there are plenty of us who have a lot of experience doing big criminal trials.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 14:59
|
|
|
From what I've read so far, the prosecution in their opening said they have footage that shows he basically chased the people he shot down, which would mean he "brought on the difficulty" -- short version, you can't succeed in a self defense claim if you started the fight. He brought an illegal gun across state lines and moved toward a bunch of unarmed people, so . .. The various right wing blogs generally are looking at the events after he'd (allegedly) already started the conflict, showing people trying to take his gun away, and saying it was self defense. Alternate take is they were heroes trying to disarm a mass shooter. That's basically what the trial is about. Practically speaking all he needs is one dedicated CHUD on the jury and it will hang and he'll get a do-over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 14:59
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:From what I've read so far, the prosecution in their opening said they have footage that shows he basically chased the people he shot down, which would mean he "brought on the difficulty" -- short version, you can't succeed in a self defense claim if you started the fight. Yeah so in the UK this isn't really a thing and is where my curiosity lies - over here even if you are the instigator the presumption is pretty heavily that you look at events moment to moment and someone trying to disengage from a situation is entitled to self-defence if the other party tries to prevent them disengaging and seeks to escalate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 15:06
|
|
|
Right, it's complicated and it can shift moment to moment.. Guns make it more complicated because it's very difficult to retreat to a safe distance from someone waving an assault rifle at you. End of the day though juries tend to like self defense arguments if the defendant takes the stand and is convincing. Same reason cops are routinely acquitted. "Did he do a murder" and "will a jury convict him" are different questions. Juries are made up of Americans and a lot of Americans are pretty horrible people and all he needs is a couple of chuds to hang thr jury and get a do over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
Oh yeah it's a lot easier for us to be generous on self-defence when 99% of the time it's drunken fisticuffs gone too far and you can just charge everyone with affray for the whole event because nobody died.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Okay cool but maybe I'd like to know more about the competing case theories of the prosecution and defence from someone who knows what they are writing about. The judge is also coming across as a bit of a wild-card, but I think its a bit overblown. Alchenar posted:Yeah so in the UK this isn't really a thing and is where my curiosity lies - over here even if you are the instigator the presumption is pretty heavily that you look at events moment to moment and someone trying to disengage from a situation is entitled to self-defence if the other party tries to prevent them disengaging and seeks to escalate. Every state in the US is going to have their own "Self Defense" statute that reads a certain way, and then has been interpreted by Courts of Appeals over many years. When the jury finally deliberates, there will be a piece of paper (the jury charge) they all have to check off that reads something like, "Did the Defendant act in self defense?" And will probably have an asterisk with a footnote instruction that reads, "A Defendant acted in self defense if..." and contain the definitions the Jury will have to consider when answering. If Wisconsin doesn't use pattern jury charges, then the question and instructions will be subject to debate with the lawyers, to the judge, and the judge will decide exactly how they read. If they do, then its a standard form. Either way, during trial, the Defense and Prosecution will each be trying their best to tailor the narrative in a way that frames the facts to fit the jury charge. Alternatively, if the Defense or Prosecution knows the charge is difficult for their case, they may focus on telling a more general narrative, and convincing the Jury to simply answer "Yes" or "No" out of an overwhelming sense of how the case should turn out. The self defense statute is here: https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2014/chapter-939/section-939.48 It doesn't look like wisconsin uses pattern jury charges by statute, but the pattern instruction looks like this: https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0801.pdf also, Devor posted:Maybe after that you can read about the competing theories of the holocaust go away
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:go away I was wrong, sorry. You don't have to go to twitter
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 15:27
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The judge is also coming across as a bit of a wild-card, but I think its a bit overblown. Without attempting to deduce his (somewhat transparent) opinion on the case, is it uncommon for judges to act this way, or is this just sensationalism latching onto a typical element of a trial and blowing it out of proportion? Specifically, I’ve seen a lot around the judge allowing the accused’s victims to be called “arsonists” in the absence of any charges/conviction, not allowing the victims to be called “victims,” allowing the defense to use racial slurs in court, and the judge giving the jury an extended Bible lesson from the bench.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 15:42
|
|
|
Not sure why this thread is so spicy at the moment but this is not a shitposting forum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
Sonic Dude posted:Without attempting to deduce his (somewhat transparent) opinion on the case, is it uncommon for judges to act this way, or is this just sensationalism latching onto a typical element of a trial and blowing it out of proportion? I don't know what the law is in Wisconsin, but in my state the judges are prohibited from referring to crime victims as "victims." They must use the term "alleged victim," or much more likely they will simply use the name of the person. Why? Unless and until the jury returns a verdict of guilty, the victims are not victims because the defendant is presumed innocent until the moment the verdict is delivered. Until that specific moment, they are alleged to be victims. My Court of Appeals - and every appellate court I'm aware of - requires judges to use the phrase "alleged victims" because if the judge called the victims "victims," the jury might inappropriately get a signal from that that the judge thinks the defendant is guilty. I personally disagree on this, because it supposes that jurors are idiots, but my personal disagreement is trumped by what the court of appeals tells judges to do. A wholly different issue is whether prosecutors can call victims "victims," or whether prosecutors are required to call victims "alleged victims." This varies from place to place is my guess. When I was prosecuting, we never called victims victims because I didn't want the court of appeals to weigh in on the matter and produce a rule requiring it. I said that the defendant victimized Mr. or Mrs. X, or the defendant murdered Mr. or Mrs X, which was permitted. As to the defendant's lawyers being able to call the victims "rioters," this is a classic example of the judge not wanting to resolve issues of fact. The defendant in a criminal trial gets to argue that the people he gunned down were in the act of rioting or in the act of felonious property damage, which was in his mind when he pulled the trigger. In fact, in this case, it appears that that is the central argument he's going with. I have no idea how successful that is going to be or what the evidence is going to show. Here's the crux of the issue though: whether or not that is true is for the jury to sort out. Of course the prosecutor is going to disagree with that, and disagree strongly. In fact, the burden is on the prosecutor to disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt. But the issue of whether or not the victims were "rioters" is not for the judge to sort out prior to trial. If they aren't rioters, or if they were but that is irrelevant, the jury gets to decide that. Is that fair? Does that make sense? Who knows? But in criminal trials, those kinds of procedural protections always cut in favor of the defendant. Judges are going to be conservative in their rulings because they don't want the court of appeals to reverse the convictions for some bullshit reason like "I wanted to call them rioters in my opening and it's unfair that I wasn't able to when my whole defense hinged on arguing they were rioting." Plus prosecutors are used to those types of rulings because that's the state of the law. And if they can't overcome defenses like that, then our system requires acquittals. That's the whole point of presumption of innocence and burden of proof. Short answer: The system presumes the defendant is innocent, which gives him greater leeway to argue his stance (using "rioters"). The prosecutor bears the burden of the proving the defendant guilty, and he's not guilty until that presumption is overcome, thus the victims aren't "victims" until the end of trial. BigHead fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Nov 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 17:11
|
|