|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Oh now you're staking out the "it's not violent until someone pulls the trigger" argument. Come on you're smarter than that. or maybe not. You were comparing them to "protesters" a minute ago. How long before you argue they were just camping? I'm sorry that you don't understand that we apply the law equally to everyone (in theory). They threatened violence, they never actually carried out violence, you'll note this in their charges.
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Let's look at the law. Yes, threatening violence is a crime of violence you obtuse gently caress. We let people out on bail accused of poo poo like rape and aggravated assault, threatening violence that is never followed through with does not in anyway indicate someone is a danger to the community worthy of denying bail.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
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!" This, only without the irony. And not all of them, just the one with no criminal record and full time employment.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:It's seriously one of the stupidest and most purposefully dense counter arguments I've seen in D&D for forever and I can't believe there are more than one person advocating it Yeah when the scope of people telling you you're wrong include two people who are usually opposed on literally every criminal justice debate that happens on this forum and a judge maybe you should consider you're the one who's being dense.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
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? Yeah no, the the balancing test here is the consequences of her violating bail versus the consequences of tainting the criminal justice system by lowering the standard for pre-trial detention.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Regardless of his intent, he's comparing Sandy to either apolitical gang members or unarmed left wing protesters who aren't directly threatening to shoot the feds/police. It's dumb as gently caress confusing false equivalency and there's no real point behind it aside from some weird slippery slope argument that keeping her from getting bail will somehow make it harder for actual people who deserve it from getting it. The entire FBI thinks her being granted bail is ridiculous and the judge was wrong, it's not like I'm just pulling poo poo out of my rear end here Wait are you straight up advocating it's the political content that makes it "obvious" she should be denied bail?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:I'm saying gang members don't usually have a stated goal of overthrowing the federal government that's their main driving force, willfully dense dude who snipes from the sidelines So is that a yes? cause it sounds like a yes. It really really sounds like "yes but at some level I've realized how bad that sounds so I'm going to avoid directly answering and sling insults instead" Also when did this become an organized group? So a member of an (actual) organization conducting a criminal enterprise with a stated policy and history of violence toward witnesses is charged with robbing a liquor store should get bail, a hanger on of a group of non-affiliated individuals of various political beliefs and levels of mental illness with absolutely no criminal history should be denied bail... because of their political beliefs and the criminal history of other people? Talmonis posted:Wouldn't it make sense to deny bail to SovCits, on the knowledge that they don't recognize the legitimacy of the court itself, and will likely attempt to flee at the first opportunity? No, it doesn't make perfect sense to base people's due process rights on their political beliefs and/or a history of criminal or non compliant behavior of other people who've shared those beliefs, it's loving horrifying and goes against everything our legal system is supposed to stand for.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:That's neither here nor there when the question is "does it make sense". Yes. It's logical to think that members of a fringe militia would act like....members of a fringe militia. It doesn't mean that it's then right to deny them due process. Our legal sytem is "blind" in that respect, and though it's sometimes infuriating, it is better to err on the side of caution. No, it doesn't make sense for the legal system to do things that are loving horrifying and go against everything they're supposed to stand for, that's the whole point of due process. You don't base one person's due process rights off of how other people with the same politics have acted.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:So you're saying all the Malheur occupiers should be allowed bail. Look, I can put words in people's mouths and completely ignore any point that's made too No, there were reasons other then their political beliefs to deny them bail, I haven't put words in your mouth once you're just sputtering around like an upset child who has no understanding of what the adults are talking about. chitoryu12 posted:"You take away one domestic terrorist's right to bail and suddenly we're giving 20 years to shoplifters!" Keep repeating that strawman edit: Aesop Poprock posted:Uh, you do when they have directly done the same exact thing as those people?? While stating that they're doing exactly that, on camera? jfc you're acting like Sandy was just minding her own business and the mean old federal government arrested her for nothing back in her home state or something No you loving don't, that's the entire loving point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
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 Can you not even keep pretrail detention and being arrested for a crime separate? You're conflating two things that have largely nothing to do with each other.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I'd believe her capable of holing up at some armed miltia compound the moment they let her out custody. Which would cause a threat to officer safety when they attempt to bring her to trial. "She's accused of doing it once" is not sufficient reason to revoke bail, that argument could apply to literally any defendant.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:By your spurious logic, Bundy himself should be released on bail. gently caress that. Regardless of whether he's been convicted yet, Bundy absolutely has shown himself to be dangerous to apprehend, and was only captured when he made a stupid mistake away from his lunatic bodyguards. I'm not sure what you think spurious means but clearly not what you think. Amusingly your argument about Bundy actually is spurious, it has no applicability to the argument over Sandy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:
That's both not what I argued and not what spurious means so congrats on being 2/2 I guess
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Hermetic posted:Seriously. Mute Jarmak, as he sounds like the worst kind of redditor, and move on. There are rednecks to laugh at and a gut-shot kid to worry about. Repeating the reasoning of a federal judge: the worst kind of redditor.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Why not both? You bastard, two minute turn around on that joke just isn't fair.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
xrunner posted:What a well trained militia. I mean, accidents happen and all, but I spent four years in the Army, including a year in an active combat zone as well as plenty of trips out to the range. Cumulatively, I was in the vicinity of probably tens of thousands of rifles getting cleared and I never witnessed an accidental discharge. Eh I've been in the presence of one in country and one in training with blanks. The one in country I have no idea what happened because it was outside the wire and no one was hurt so everyone pretended like it never happened. The one in training was actually a true AD. M249 with a worn sear discharged when our truck hit a bad pothole and barrel thumped the floor.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Good thing we clamped down on that bailchat otherwise we would have missed this awesome gunchat and "man bros are so bad" circlejerk
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:what is your rank in the New American Revolutionary Army Al! posted:Luckily this forum doesn't have a stand your ground rule, so you can retreat to safety now thanks. What is this low effort bullshit, we've had a solid page of people circle-jerking about how stupid gun-owners are but one gun owner comes in and argues differently and the only response is "GTFO"? This is turning back into the bad old days of D&D
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
We had like a full page of people making GBS threads on gun owners and talking about gun control before anyone remotely pro gun even posted. This whole "why can't we sit around and talk about how awful guns and gun owners are without some gun owner making GBS threads up the thread by disagreeing with us" is demonstrating a bewildering lack of self awareness. It's you, you guys started the gunchat, it's not the fault of the person who had the nerve to disagree with your gunchat for making GBS threads up the thread, it's you for starting the loving gunchat. loving shut up about guns. Seriously can we stop talking about loving guns.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:lol yeah I remember when those guys were seriously considering banning all guns. We sure needed someone to hop in here and tell us that guns are, in fact, good and cool despite all evidence pointing to them being dangerous and unnecessary!  "Why can't I poo poo on people who hold different views then me without them making GBS threads up the thread by disagreeing with me."Look even though I'm generally pro-gun I don't really think NathanScottPhillips is putting forward a compelling case. But this whole "it's only making GBS threads up the thread with gun chat if it's gun chat I disagree with" is loving dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 05:45
|
|