|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Really, this again? The United States has murder rates something like 200% higher than most comparable, developed nations. Can you give us your sources and guidance on 'comparable' then?
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:How's this for a start? Terrible. I can get murder rates from anywhere. Whats your definition of comparable?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:As I have been saying all along, countries with reasonably similar levels of development - GDP per capita and HDI are reasonable enough measures. This is the first time you mentioned GDP and HDI, its not 'saying all along' when you just used the ill-defined 'comparable' as your descriptor. So, you have some stats to show to prove your point, or are you just asserting?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I meant the officer responded but lied about what he was doing beforehand. Point is, there are different degrees of lying that merit different degrees of punishment. Something like planting evidence would obviously merit criminal charges. Not when it comes to being a public servant who can, with a word, condemn citizens to death. Honesty is a binary thing with cops.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I never said that lying should go unpunished. Agrajag's original contention was that any lie on an official report should result in immediate termination, no excuses. Yeah, lying to secure a conviction or cover up an unlawful use of force should result in jail time or termination, but not every lie is going to rise to that level. There are discipline measures other than termination available that should be considered depending on the nature and severity of the lie. A lie on a police report is paper perjury, and undermines the rules of law. It should not only be a firing offense, but that officer should also be barred from ever re-entering the profession. LeJackal fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Sounds like a good argument for some meaningful gun control, eh? Exactly. Disarm the police immediately.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:I apologize, I had you mixed up with LeJackal. Nonetheless, the idea that societal factors in the US justify the cops gunning down unarmed people because of the extremely unlikely scenario that that person is able to get the cops gun from them and kill them with it, is absolutely reprehensible. The situation is that cops are going to keep murdering people. As been obviously demonstrated by the times cops have killed people in wheelchairs, those on the ground surrendering to them, in their custody, etc, the police have no need for an actual threat of harm because they readily perceive one whole cloth. It is essentially victim-blaming. "If only people weren't so capable then cops wouldn't have the beat and murder them. Its their own fault for being so threatening!" You know, except for all the sickly, injured, or paralyzed folks they murder.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:This conversation was 20ish years ago when breathalyzers were fairly new and I believe there was still questions as to accuracy depending on how long ago you had a drink, say you were pulled over leaving a bar and just had a shot you'd blow higher since there would be more alcohol in your mouth/throat. Note I have no idea how true that is, just going off what he said. As a note, breathalyzers are still inaccurate as all hell, but at the same time courts have upheld that their results are de jure correct, constitute evidence, and cannot be examined or challenged by the defense.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Which courts? Aren't you the attorney with Westlaw access or whatever overpriced system exists to deprive the citizenry of free and open interaction with the legal system ostensibly meant to serve the people? Look it up.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Every case I am aware of allows the defense to cross examine the officer on his level of training/experience. Error rate. Frequency of calibration. Etc. Not what I was talking about. For a professed lawyer you're really bad at reading comprehension. ActusRhesus posted:Shut up bougie scum. I want free poo poo. The citizenry has rights. How dare citizens demand to know how their government operates in the legal sphere! This is a privilege afforded only to the wealthy. LeJackal fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I was of the impression that the breathalyser isn't used in court, its just what the police use at the road side to arrest you on suspicion of drink driving and then its the blood test they take at the station that is used as the proof. Is that incorrect? Even blood tests have limited value, as the process assumes that alcohol metabolizes at the exact same rate for every person on the planet. Which is doesn't. The entire system is flawed at the core and doesn't mesh with stated policy goals anyway. Reckless, dangerous driving should be the focus - but its so much easier to be a smug moralist about alcohol.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Come on, it sets a standard that is reasonable. No, what matters is the policy goal, which is ostensibly about highway safety. A bright-line BAC that gets constantly lowered by neo-prohibitionists is without value for this purpose because it does correspond to the stated purpose, re: dangerous and reckless operation of a motor vehicle. A driver may be impaired but have a BAC below that line, or have a BAC above it and not be impaired, and in either case the law fails. (Lets not even get into the negative consequences associated with these laws, like penalizing those responsible enough to not drive while impaired with the same penalties as if they did.) Ideally the police would be arresting those that drive in a reckless and dangerous manner for - you guessed it, actually presenting a danger to society. This involves actual work, however, is not as lucrative, and doesn't allow for Stasi-esque checkpoints.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Are you trying to defend drink driving with the argument that 'a tiny percentage of people are fine so driving drunk is fine and its only horrible people that want alcohol banned that have a problem with it?' I'm trying to say that driving dangerously should be a crime, dude. Maybe also that if a citizen recognizes that they are impaired before driving and sleeps it off in the backseat of their car instead of driving maybe they shouldn't get their lives ruined by a DUI conviction.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Oh you guys.  Driving is good and fun! You can go to a party!  Driving in a dangerous and reckless way is bad. The car might hit someone, or another car!  If someone is driving in a reckless and dangerous way, the police should stop them from driving so that everyone is safe.  It doesn't matter if they are driving dangerously because they are chemically impaired, putting on a toupee, exhausted, or just plain dumb. It is dangerous!  So the police should be vigilant and watch the drivers on the road so they can see who is driving dangerously and stop them.  Police should not set up roadblocks and checkpoints, and they shouldn't arrest people they think might drive dangerously - only those that are. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:Haha I bet you drive better when you're a little buzzed, don't you. I wouldn't know, I don't drink and drive. Pohl posted:Honestly, you have never been drunk and wanted to drive even though you knew it was a horrible idea? Yes, actually. I really wanted to drive, but I knew I was drunk...so I didn't. I called a sober friend and slept on his couch. If I didn't have a friend available I would have likely just slept in my backseat, and then got arrested for DWI.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No. Really. How is your car getting charged? In what universe are you going into court to defend your car? Don't you claim to be a prosecutor? Or a lawyer? Shouldn't you know this kind of information already? I don't think anyone is misreading your posts, AR. Either: A) You're a horrifically ignorant lawyer or B) You misrepresent yourself to assert some veneer of authority or C) You are a lawyer, and you know better, but you just post like an rear end in a top hat because you're an rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:
Its almost like making the legal system increasingly opaque and expensive to access could somehow have detrimental effects like making the already oppressed classes even more susceptible to being victimized by those with privilege. Kind of like how Ferguson has been using convoluted systems of fines and 'administrative' charges to systemically harvest money from citizens of color.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This is the interaction that started this insane derail. LeJackal was literally wrong Am I? Seems like it was never resolved.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:While there are certainly some "scumbags" Look no further than the prosecutor's table. Withholding exculpatory evidence, fabricating false evidence from whole-cloth, intimidating and coercing witnesses, overcharging to force pleas, suborning perjury, vindictively opposing the release of the wrongfully convicted, an open disdain for the rights of the citizenry, pick from a list of fatal sins against the notion of justice. LeJackal fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I agree such behavior is unacceptable. How often do you think that occurs? Too often. Also, you should probably take some time off from posting to work on yourself, since you agree that your behavior is not acceptable.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Edit: Pohl, these are the kind of worthless attack posts I mentioned earlier. It's very difficult to stay civil when this is where the thread inevitably goes.  "Won't somebody think of the poor powerless prosecutors that willfully ruin subvert justice without consequence?"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You wouldn't just be accusing her because she's a prosecutor, would you? I mean, that'd be like me saying "because LeJackal likes guns, he's a white supremacist Stormfronter who ejaculates to the thought of shooting black people." Well I thought that was how things are done in D&D, right? Good for the goose is good for the gander. (You're doing it in your own loving post.) Mr. Wookums posted:Don't know why you're on such a high horse when you have such lovely views on gun ownership. I don't see how treating the 2nd Amendment consistently with the others is lovely, but w/e.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No. One of my issues with mandatory minimums is it focuses people on the wrong end of the number spectrum. That's just one issue. Where is the word 'mistake' in criminal law statue? Source your claims.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You can start with blacks law dictionary and move on to pretty much every statute addressing mens rea. So telling people to just go look things up is valid now? Alright, thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:"It is was a mistake to steal that car, I should have not stolen that car" is fine English. (edit: I suppose that comma is pretty arguable though) Whoah whoah whoah now, I think we have to hire ourselves a trained grammarian. Without years of specialist training how could we common plebs ever understand or parse language? We should leave that task to the professionals. If we can't afford a grammarian, well I guess we will have to suffer the consequences of not writing in correct English.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:However, in your model you would need to be prepared for the fact some people will never meet the rehabilitative criteria. Are you OK giving someone an indefinite prison sentence? How is that different from our current 'life without possibility of parole' or even in the care of a life sentence with the possibility of parole? They seem functionally similar.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Also, not sure where you are getting "because of lovely attorneys" out of that second link. Prosecutors were involved, obviously.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Many innocence project cases are also pre-DNA. DNA testing has dramatically reduced the rate of false accusations. Which is a good thing. Yay science. And thankfully nobody has opposed the use of DNA testing to free the innocent and find the guilty so that...wait, what's that? Prosecutors fight tooth and nail to keep DNA testing from being carried out you say? Well I never would have suspected that the people responsible for railroading the innocent would struggle to smother the truth.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You are incorrect. look up corpus delecti rule. Why is it that you get to tell us to look things up, and on the same page I see you demand proof and citations for others?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:If the suspect thought a deal was being offered, tough poo poo. The most our cops are allowed to say is "I'll talk to the state's attorney" actual offers of time or no time have to come from the state or the judge. And if you're ignorant of that fact, it's your own fault, right?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The general practice in the US legal system is that juries are meant to decide issues of fact, not issues of law (such as whether or not a law is just). In some states juries are the finders of both fact and law, and in those cases the argument for nullification as being a legitimate act for the jury is a lot stronger.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I take it we're all expected to believe that a random drummer with a broken-down car suddenly flipped out and attempted to kill an identified police officer for no good reason? No good reason? He was black and 'no angel' and that is all a 'thug' needs to shoot at one of our brave officers! This is what some people really think.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This isn't going to change as long as America's gun culture fetishizes the idea of getting a chance to murder petty criminals with no consequences. Yes, it has absolutely nothing to do with the culture within the police of continual escalation, us v. them, militarization and battlefield mentality, or the fact that they rarely suffer consequences for their actions. No, the cops aren't to blame. Its those darn 'civilians' with their darn culture!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Well if you didn't have such a proliferation of guns in America, it'd be much harder to run the 'they could pull a gun and kill you any moment' training style. Such easy access to weapons in the US has a direct correlation to Police being trigger happy. Not valid. They gun down people physically incapable of using weapons all the time. (Even if we did have gun control, they'd claim 'they're criminals and have access anyway', so its a moot point.) Stop your victim blaming and address the root of the problem: police culture.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You know I own guns right? It doesn't make you any less misguided. Its like you're blaming Hugo Boss for the Holocaust because he designed SS uniforms. Its so tangential and barely, if even related that I can't help but think you're a concern troll.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:E: Can you take a break from rubbing your nuts on your guns for like one second so you can realize I'm not talking about hunters or hobbyists or target shooters, but about fetishits who make gun-owning an identity, fantasize about one day having a legal excuse to shoot somebody, and pass ridiculous laws like "stand your ground" to make it easier to go start a fight and then kill someone? Right. So the problem isn't that the agents of the state feel that they have a consequence-free monopoly on violence, but that there are laws counter to that fact. I see, makes perfect sense now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 02:54
|
|