|
that guy's fingers had fat rolls
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 02:46 |
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:Kylo Ren now pointing out where the media trucks are in the distance. Backhoe is still going at it. lube moat
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:It's so surreal to see everyone taunting these people and practically giddy because the FBI shot someone. Christ, is our culture war horseshit really that entrenched in everyone now? thats actually not whats going on at all but you do you fam
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
false alarm lmao
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Oh no there are for sure people who hate the government for completely irrational and made up reasons. There was one guy who was immediately called out and admitted he had mental health issues.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
yeah can we get a link or what edit: overlooked the link, lol http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/watch_authorities_hold_press_c.html
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:If they're already charged with conspiracy then all of them will now be charged with murder since Finicum was shot and was part of the conspiracy. Any other deaths will be added on. They will probably never get out of prison now. what
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:in many situations, bad things that happened while you were committing a felony are ALSO your fault. If you rob a bank and your partner gets killed you might get slapped with a murder charge. It happens a lot if that's true the american justice system is even more hosed up than i thought.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Victim I agree but perpetrator, sorry. The LDS spent a fuckton of money to discriminate against gays in California with prop 8. You are a member of that church so by proxy you helped support it. I may disagree with pro-lifers but if you are a member of a group that on the national level supports and promotes the PP video garbage even if your local chapter didn't you are still supporting a massive disgusting lie even if indirectly. ... and now we observe a moment of silence as this person remembers what their taxes pay for.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Yeah keeping dangerous people who have every reason to flee and/or reoffend locked up is actually a good thing. how is she going to do any of that
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Yeah how is this person who already traveled hundreds of miles to commit armed insurrection against the government and declare no laws apply to her going to skip out on court or commit further acts against federal public land managers. It's not like she's a folk hero among the sovcit / land rights crowd or anything. We can definitely assume she won't be in contact with that crowd. It's not like she's going back to Idaho where she is surrounded by federal lands or anything. no you smarmy little poo poo, i mean how is she actually going to do all that? where is she going to hide? given that you think she's going to "reoffend", what place do you think she will occupy next, with who's help? do you think she's just going to pick up a revolver, sit her rear end down on a federally owned stretch of tundra and hope someone sets up a loving website or what exactly is going on in your head when you pee yourself in terror at night
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
oh wow she's done it before and cellphones exist, lock her up and throw away the key, this is definitely the right thing to do and won't bite us in the rear end when people apply the same kind of logic to a black guy with a joint or whatever
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
XMNN posted:e: I think if a black guy with a joint was holed up pointing a gun at the FBI for a month talking about how he'd rather die than surrender, then people might question the decision to grant him bail, too. and when has she done any of that?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
XMNN posted:approx jan 2nd to feb 11th 2016 yeah i vividly remember all those FBI agents getting guns pointed at them at approximately that time
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:"These domestic terrorists with outstanding warrants who barricaded themselves on federal property and threatened to shoot anyone who tried to arrest them should be released on bail so we don't destroy the bail system altogether! Also you are the real racist!" yeah that's kinda exactly the point, good job
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
hey any of you idiots willing to make the US justice system even harsher on suspected criminals, you wanna bet on sandra running away? wanna bet on her occupying another federal building? because i'll gladly take those bets.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Sure, but you do realize the bet should be that she does something dumb enough that shows she shouldn't have been out on bail which is what people have been arguing, so if she violates it in anyway, clamors for armed support, refuses to show up for court, does anything to show she might indeed be a danger to her community etc etc you lose. Now if she magically goes to court like you claim she will then I lose, I mean that is what you are claiming she will do right? the bet is indeed "does she do something that shows she should not have been granted bail", but clamoring for armed support doesn't count. i don't give a poo poo how many facebook posts she makes, you don't deny somebody bail because they have a tendency to post annoying status updates. if she either "reoffends" and gets violent or at least cuts her ties and runs and tries to hide, then i lose. simply not showing up to court (but not disappearing) because she thinks that sort of thing is heroic or whatever does not make her a danger to the community and does not mean she should not have been granted bail.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:It's like the point you're desperately trying to prove is that we want all people with sovcit ideas rounded up and denied bail, when nobody at all is saying that. You're fighting against an imaginary idea and I'm not sure if it's on purpose or if you're just totally confused. Sandy Anderson supplied and directly took place in this occupation while stating her beliefs in doing so. She didn't get arrested just for having a position on something 18 U.S. Code § 3142 - Release or detention of a defendant pending trial - pretty clearly states that any defendant has the right to be released on bail, unless (a) there is a reasonable expectation that the released person will not appear in court or present a danger to the community. If there is a reason to believe that this is the case, the judge has to release the person under special conditions, this is where anything from ankle bracelets to simply raising the bail amount comes in. (b) if it has been determined that no combination of special conditions is enough to make sure that the defendant will appear in court and not pose a danger to the community, the person can be placed in detention. (c) it can automatically be presumed that the defendant is a danger to the community if the crime they're accused of appears in a list of specific crimes, such as sex trafficking or terrorism transcending national boundaries. (Note: this doesn't apply here.) So under what provision of the law are you arguing for pre-trial detention here?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Uh it's nice of you to specifically state that c. doesn't apply at all, but why not? Here's what part of "terrorism transcending national boundaries" pertains to: No, actually non of that sounds "right on target", seeing as occupying is not the same as destroying, and "terrorism transcending national boundaries" actually has to transcend national boundaries.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:I would guess that though you may argue that it is terrorism it may not apply if it's not a part of the offical charge. That would still be domestic terrorism, which isn't mentioned in the bail statutes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:They wrecked the hell out of the refuge. Regardless, it was probably referring to acts of destruction that result in immediate lose of life or injuries. The part about failure to show up to court or possibility of committing another crime (although I'd lean much further towards the first than the second) part is more than enough, and what we've been discussing for this entire conversation so I'm not sure why I'd have to clarify that again after posting about it for days That's exactly why I posted the law excerpt - if you want to put her in pre-trial detention, you have to argue that no possible combination of ankle bracelets, DNA swabs, mandatory check-ins with bail agents or even supervised housing will be enough to remove the reasonable suspicion that she will not appear. That is what you have to argue, simply saying "she probably doesn't want to" is not enough. That is what I want to hear from you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:You don't know what you're talking about bud. Here Be specific. Here, I'll start: quote:(g)Definitions.—As used in this section—
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:The threats to the lives of any law enforcement who attempted to arrest them should be viewed as posing a danger to the community under b.). Those threats occurred before the arrest, you have to show she'll be a danger afterwards. Again, the question is not what she did but what she is likely to do. If you think that she is absolutely likely to start shooting up a police station or mail pipe bombs to Quantico, that's fine, that's a reason to deny her bail. I don't think that's likely however.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:I interpreted that was meaning it includes both origins of an act of terrorism, not just international. Hence the transcending part. Could be wrong You're wrong, domestic terrorism is a different part of the statute, and the bail text refers explicitly to terrorism transcending national boundaries.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:It's why Ammon is in prison now and not hiding at his father's ranch surrounded by a few dozen armed idiots. No it isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:The sooner the whole "Alpha Bro" poo poo dies, the happier a whole lot of us will be. I realize it doesn't have any basis in actual science in the first place, but we've known since the 70s that the whole "alpha wolf" concept is a myth based on shoddy research. The fact that this hasn't trickled down into public consciousness says a lot about public science education.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:In wolves. It does happen in primates. That's true, but the popular concept of the alpha male almost certainly refers to wolves, not just because the term originated with Schenkel's study on wolves in 1947, but also because the term "alpha wolf" gets thrown around a lot in popular culture. Also comparing yourself to a wolf sounds cooler than comparing yourself to a chimpanzee  Alien Arcana posted:IIRC the original study was conducted by taking a bunch of random wolves from the wild and putting them in a pen together. A social hierarchy developed that was based mostly on the wolves' ability to beat each other up. The problem was that the scientists decided this was "the way wolves are" without ever considering how artificial the whole setup was - like trying to build a theory of psychology based entirely off of prison documentaries.  derail, don't read unless you're interested in this sort of thing Not quite, but almost correct. The study that created the concept of alphas was Rudolf Schenkel's landmark study "Expression Studies on Wolves", published 1947, based on observations on two wolf packs in the Basle Zoo (Switzerland) starting in 1934. Schenkel observed two wolf packs successively, both in the same enclosure of about 200 square meters. The idea behind his studies was extremely smart: Up to that point, wolves had been extensively studied, but the concepts that had been created by zoologists were based on individual behaviour (imprinting, displaying, threatening), not social behaviour. Schenkel set out to study wolves as social animals. (The original paper is very readable and you can find it online, by the way. If you're interested in this stuff, I encourage you to read it.) In any case, he observed that quote:a bitch and a dog as top animals carry through their rank order and as single individuals of the society, they form a pair. Between them there is no question of status and argument concerning rank, even though small frictions of another type (jealousy) are not uncommon. By incessant control of all types of competition (within the same sex), both of these "alpha animals" defend their social position. (p. 87) That paper right there is where we get the term "alpha" from. From this study is was then imported into ethology (the study of animal behaviour) at large. The problem: Schenkel observed wolves that were confined to 200 sqm. For comparison, the smallest known wolf pack in the wild has occupied a territory of ~33 square kilometers, the largest known wolf territory is around 6200 sqkm. Wolves, as it turns out, who are forced to live in unnatural environments, develop unnatural behavioural tendencies. In the wild, wolf packs have a parent unit and offspring. At some point, the offspring founds their own packs, at which point they become parent wolves themselves. There is no alpha / beta distinction because there is no competition -- once the pups are old enough to leave the pack, they automatically become "alphas", i.e., parent wolves. The subtitle to Schenkel's study, interestingly, is "Captivity Observations", and Schenkel was acutely aware that captivity might cause some irregular behaviour. He just didn't think this sort of behaviour was abnormal. Why that is, and why it took us 30 more years to realize there was a fault in the original study, is another question that I won't bother you with, unless somebody really wants to hear me talk more about science gone wrong
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:You must be in favor of reducing the amount of cars to 0 as well. Car owners are 1000x times more likely to die than bus riders. quote:Is it a hobby or is it a constitutional right needed to guarantee the security of our state? Very clearly a hobby.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:And Black Lives Matter supporters beat up a vet in a McDonald's parking lot. Just because some morons with guns did something moronic doesn't mean the 2nd amendment isn't important. Your type of logic would be at home on the Rush Limbaugh show. Yeah but the 2nd isn't important, with or without idiots. It's an amendment legislating a hobby. That's all it is.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:And since the US constitution is the longest lasting constitution in the world, maybe there is some merit to it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Can you point to a time in American history where the 2nd amendment wouldn't be re-ratified if this were the case? If you could maybe you would have a point. Guns have always been popular and looking at background checks for firearms sales in the past few months, have never been more popular than right now. 86% of US citizens are in favor of universal background checks, the majority of Americans feel the laws governing firearms sales should be more strict. Unfortunately the 2nd Amendment is worded so diffusely that it's difficult to assess whether this means the majority would be for or against a re-ratification of the 2nd, since nobody can actually agree what "a well regulated militia" is supposed to mean.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:As am I. Universal background check = people buying guns. I'm not sure why you equate universal background checks with repealing the 2nd amendment? Universal background checks also means some people are prohibited from buying guns, and as I'm sure you know a good number or republicans think that universal background checks or indeed any sort of gun control are a violation of the 2nd amendment, which is why I brought it up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 02:46 |
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Currently literally millions of American citizens are barred from owning guns. Republicans are stupid, news at 11. Well if you're so on board with gun control why are you arguing with a thread that's largely advocating for more gun control?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:33
|
|