Politics Generations

[Elerond]

45 minutes ago, smjjames said:

I'm curious as to what and who notable lawyers thought should have been charged with something. Also, you (and the notable Norwegian lawyers) may or may not realize that Florida has the 'stand your ground' law, which is likely partially why no charges were brought. Still, it sounds like a horrible accidemt that would almost deserve a Darwin award.

edit: The guy was certainly unaware of the confrontation the father in law had with another relative earlier that night.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/

Florida is strange place where you get 20 years in prison for shooting warning shot, but where it is just tragic accident that doesn't need any investigation when you shoot and kill somebody 

[Gromnir]

31 minutes ago, smjjames said:

If you read the article, the guy had a confrontation with other relatives earlier that night and the banging was at the back door, where you wouldn't really expect visitors to be.

 

20 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

Haha, I don't think "Norway" is critizising the US, more like some Norwegian lawyers commented on it, and found it a bit strange that they did no investigation. Killing someone (whether an accident or not) is pretty serious stuff. And since it was a Norwegian citizen that died, it gets extra attention over here

You get criticized for locking up a crazy amount of people for minor crimes, as far as I know. If you're found guilty of manslaughter, that's hardly comparable!

florida has the castle doctrine. 

*shrug*

by law it ain't inherent reckless to defend self and home with a deadly force.  as such, there wouldn't be much to investigate. were the homeowner under the influence o' illegal drugs?  'less there were some kinda obvious evidence that the shooter had planned this, occam's razor says mistake... accident. at best you maybe find an argument for negligent homicide.

we mentioned earlier in the thread how regardless o' how laws is written, mistake and accident do not get prosecution unless there is some other overriding factor. yeah, we punish all kinda people for all kinda minor stuff. nevertheless, in spite o' what recent cases and tv and movies lead you to believe, if cops and da believe is mistake or accident, then any intent crime typical goes unpunished.

however, there is a whole bunch o' crimes we punish regardless o' intent. speeding ticket? toxic waste dump? drug possession? most crimes is actual mala prohibita as 'posed to mala in se and it don't matter what the defendant's intent were. 

confused? probable. is worth doing a quick looksee at mala prohibita v. mala in se if you are genuine curious.

HA! Good Fun!

ps we didn't actual watch the video, but he is wearing a cal hat, so...

 

[ShadySands]

I wonder if it gets frustrating for you to try to explain the law all the time... and even more frustrating when we still don't get it.

I had an old lawyer acquaintance back when I lived in NYC who I asked a similar question to and his answer was something along the lines of yes but generally better than hanging out with other lawyers

[Gromnir]

5 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

I wonder if it gets frustrating for you to try to explain the law all the time... and even more frustrating when we still don't get it.

 

biggest problem is vocabulary, which am suspecting is not actual accident. if law weren't arcane, then people wouldn't need lawyers... or at least not need as often. words like malice and intent don't actual mean same thing as they do in english. am suspecting lawyers as an industry has created impenetrable vocab just to make themselves indispensable. 

am thinking we mentioned at least once before how in spite o' fact most o' our acquaintances over recent years has been attorneys, and even 'mongst those we genuine respect, is few with whom we would wanna go to a ballgame.

is not that we dislike fellow attorneys, but am finding we have little to talk 'bout with most attorneys save for law... and as am a Con Law guy, we get the kinda dismissive, "you poor soul" treatment from fellow folks in the profession.

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

I doubt it. Lawyers LOVE the sound of their own voice.

[Maedhros]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

florida has the castle doctrine. 

*shrug*

by law it ain't inherent reckless to defend self and home with a deadly force.  as such, there wouldn't be much to investigate. were the homeowner under the influence o' illegal drugs?  'less there were some kinda obvious evidence that the shooter had planned this, occam's razor says mistake... accident. at best you maybe find an argument for negligent homicide.

we mentioned earlier in the thread how regardless o' how laws is written, mistake and accident do not get prosecution unless there is some other overriding factor. yeah, we punish all kinda people for all kinda minor stuff. nevertheless, in spite o' what recent cases and tv and movies lead you to believe, if cops and da believe is mistake or accident, then any intent crime typical goes unpunished.

however, there is a whole bunch o' crimes we punish regardless o' intent. speeding ticket? toxic waste dump? drug possession? most crimes is actual mala prohibita as 'posed to mala in se and it don't matter what the defendant's intent were. 

confused? probable. is worth doing a quick looksee at mala prohibita v. mala in se if you are genuine curious.

HA! Good Fun!

ps we didn't actual watch the video, but he is wearing a cal hat, so...

 

Thanks for elaborating.

You're saying that Florida has unique state laws, and that by law he did nothing wrong. I guess I just expected there to be some precedence for his extreme negligence to at least be investigated?

----

https://www.businessinsider.com/pro-trump-group-behind-aoc-protester-calling-to-eat-babies-2019-10?r=US&IR=T

A crazed protester at an AOC town hall, shouting things like "we have to eat babies" and "bomb russia" to fight climate change, gave the Trump fanboys a lot of ammo the other day, with Trump calling AOC a wackjob for having such followers. "She didn't even rule out eating babies"

Turns out the protester was a member of a cultlike anti-CO2 reduction group, trying to satirise those who...listen to scientists.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Maedhros

[Gromnir]

9 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

Thanks for elaborating.

You're saying that Florida has unique state laws, and that by law he did nothing wrong. I guess I just expected there to be some precedence for his extreme negligence to at least be investigated?

castle doctrine is not particular unique. majority o' states have a version.

keep in mind is legal to carry and brandish a firearm in your home anywhere in the country.  Gromnir may believe such behaviour is stoopid and prohibitive likely to result in a harmful or fatal mistake, as it did in this case, but such is law. jehovah's witnesses show up to proselytize and you wanna answer your door with your ar-15. is not inherent unreasonable or reckless to do so. 

more important, and again, we rare criminal prosecute mistake. shooting somebody who leaps outta bushes and growls is reasonable? not in our mind, but do you really wanna imprison a guy for a stoopid mistake? even if mistake is moronic and terrible we general don't criminalize. after all, negligence is ordinary a civil issue. for intent crimes we are seeking justice for folks who got genuine ill will. accidental kill the birthday surprise guy is subject matter for a far side comic as 'posed to fodder for criminal courts.

shrug off and say this were yet another example of florida man? am understanding frustration. unsatisfactory. and again, am personal not sympathetic to shooter.

investigate and find out there were no growling and leaping from bushes, shooter simple opened the door and shot. fine. gonna csi that and check for footprints in bushes and whatnot? ok. am not sure what the cops did, but am doubting they didn't at least ask questions o' witnesses. so, what else?

keep in mind that if a month from now somebody discovers email evidence that the guy from norway were shot not 'cause o' accident but 'cause the shooter were a greenpeace fanatic who secretly loathed his norwegian in-law 'cause o' norway's stance on whale and seal hunting, then is not as if the shooter couldn't be prosecuted at a later date. 

were son-in-law who died trying to surprise somebody on their birthday. am suspecting cops quickly saw just how tragically perverse and utterly human the situation was.  

HA! Good Fun!

[Maedhros]

36 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

keep in mind is legal to carry and brandish a firearm in your home anywhere in the country.  Gromnir may believe such behaviour is stoopid and prohibitive likely to result in a harmful or fatal mistake, as it did in this case, but such is law. jehovah's witnesses show up to proselytize and you wanna answer your door with your ar-15. is not inherent unreasonable or reckless to do so. 

more important, and again, we rare criminal prosecute mistake. shooting somebody who leaps outta bushes and growls is reasonable? not in our mind, but do you really wanna imprison a guy for a stoopid mistake? even if mistake is moronic and terrible we general don't criminalize. after all, negligence is ordinary a civil issue. for intent crimes we are seeking justice for folks who got genuine ill will. accidental kill the birthday surprise guy is subject matter for a far side comic as 'posed to fodder for criminal courts.

Well, not necessarily, because this was a very absurd happening - but I don't think intent should always save you when you commit a terrible mistake. Driving while drunk for example is a very, very moronic thing to do - which becomes particularily clear every time there's an accident because of is. Should the drunk driver go free because he didn't "intend" to hit anyone with his car? Or another situation I read about recently - Some guys having fun managed to make a huge rock fall off a cliff, and could face charges because it could've led to the death of fellow hikers below. Stupid mistake, or stupid crime?

I lean more towards "no", because of the absurdity of the situation. But I can't help but feel that the enormity of the shooter's mistake should have some consequences.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Maedhros

[Gromnir]

1 minute ago, Maedhros said:

Well, not necessarily, because this was a very absurd happening - but I don't think intent should always save you when you commit a terrible mistake. Driving while drunk for example is a very, very moronic thing to do - which becomes particularily clear every time there's an accident because of is. Should the drunk driver go free because he didn't "intend" to hit anyone with his car?

we explained earlier in the thread how drug use would alter, and have mentioned previous how drunkenness effective replaces intent from a legal standpoint. the intent to get drunk is, for purposes o' the crime, fulfillment o' the state of mind requirement. 

drunk isn't illegal, but driving drunk is. had requisite intent for the drunk driving criminality. drunk driving results in death o' another is not considered an accident, unless you were slipped a mickey or somesuch.

can't check for alcohol level at this point anyway. if weren't already checked... not that would matter 'cause drunk in home is not illegal.

HA! Good Fun!

[Hurlshort]

9 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

Well, not necessarily, because this was a very absurd happening - but I don't think intent should always save you when you commit a terrible mistake. Driving while drunk for example is a very, very moronic thing to do - which becomes particularily clear every time there's an accident because of is. Should the drunk driver go free because he didn't "intend" to hit anyone with his car?

I lean more towards "no", because of the absurdity of the situation. But I can't help but feel that the enormity of the shooter's mistake should have some consequences.

I think those consequences might be better suited in a civil case than a criminal one, though. Drunk driving is a heck of a lot different than shooting someone on your property. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think it's safe to say that doing anything special for your inlaws is dangerous and that you should keep as much distance, emotional and physical, as possible. Especially if they're in Florida.

[Gromnir]

5 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

I think those consequences might be better suited in a civil case than a criminal one, though. Drunk driving is a heck of a lot different than shooting someone on your property. 

yeah. the notion a person is getting away with something ignores what we said 'bout negligence being more appropriate to civil. we specific used examples o' doctor prescribing wrong medication or construction worker wrong building scaffolding when explaining texas cop case. make a mistake does not mean you ignore consequences. not go to prison is hardly the same as getting away with something.

however, shoot somebody is fundamental different... but less so in USA as 'posed to almost anywhere else. sure, far more people die every year from prescription med mistakes than all firearm crimes and accidents combined. nevertheless, while meds may be as dangerous as firearms, the purpose o' the gun is to cause hurt or death. guns is different, or should be. if you use a firearm on a person, is expected somebody will be severe hurt or dead. prescription drug is not intended to harm.

am getting the consternation and the dissatisfaction. we want to get justice for victims, and innocent people being shot and killed feels like a situation where justice is demanded. nevertheless, even when is an option for da to do so, we typical do not criminal prosecute mistake for intent crimes. is rare. is the exception. even the vehicular manslaughter stuff is rare unless is a repeat offender o' dui... or if the incident gets disproportionate publicity 'cause child dies or some other reason.

HA! Good Fun!

[smjjames]

Trump is desperately trying to find a scapegoat. IMO he should throw Pence under the bus some more, or maybe even Giuliani, which I suspect will happen at some point.

[ManifestedISO]

he will; no one is immune from attack by a cornered psychopathic narcissist under threat of exposure and accountability

 

if the president continues to call for 'impeachment' of Congressional Republicans, as he did with Romney -- likely jurors in a Senate trial -- removal from office may actually occur

[Bartimaeus]

Witness from mentioned Guyger killer cop trial murdered in home by currently unknown assailant: https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Man-Fatally-Shot-at-Dallas-Apartment-Complex-562267151.html Theories currently abound on the perpetrator. (e): Also, my condolences to his family, but more importantly, I hope the person(s) responsible hang.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Bartimaeus

[Guard Dog]

9 hours ago, smjjames said:

Trump is desperately trying to find a scapegoat. IMO he should throw Pence under the bus some more, or maybe even Giuliani, which I suspect will happen at some point.

As far as throwing Pence under the bus, Pence might not be blameless. One thing is for sure though. Trump likely did not know he was wading into an ethical swamp. Even after three years he has no clear idea of what a US President can or cannot (or should not) do. Pence does know better. 

[Guard Dog]

Well, I guess this is another way to go: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-blames-rick-perry-for-perfect-ukraine-call/ar-AAIlhHy?ocid=spartanntp

How the Energy Secretary is "responsible" for all that is..... WTF am I saying? This is a Trump Administration. None of it makes any sense.

[smjjames]

6 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Well, I guess this is another way to go: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-blames-rick-perry-for-perfect-ukraine-call/ar-AAIlhHy?ocid=spartanntp

How the Energy Secretary is "responsible" for all that is..... WTF am I saying? This is a Trump Administration. None of it makes any sense.

That's basically what the link in my previous post was.

Anyways, I wonder just how far the 'I was only following orders' defense would work out for Pence? Even though his political future depends on latching to Trumps ass as tightly as possible like a male anglerfish, he is expected to have some independence.

Edited October 6, 2019 by smjjames

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

hahahahaha governor goodhair got thrown under the bus hahahahahaha

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, smjjames said:

That's basically what the link in my previous post was.

Anyways, I wonder just how far the 'I was only following orders' defense would work out for Pence? Even though his political future depends on latching to Trumps ass as tightly as possible like a male anglerfish, he is expected to have some independence.

Actually his best hope at this point is to put as much distance between himself and the President. As far as his political future I'm not sure he has or wants one. He was not seeking any office when Trump picked him. He was term limited as Indiana governor IIRC was was leaving politics. 

[Gromnir]

so at the very least there is three whistleblowers. there is a second whistleblower who has first-hand knowledge o' the events described by the person who had concerns 'bout trump's efforts with the ukraine. is also a third whistleblower who has raised issues 'bout interference with irs handling o' trump taxes.

whistleblowers get special protections, so once the proverbial cat is out of the bag, there is some motivation for other whistleblowers to come forward to offer up evidence.

admitted, am not an expert on whistleblower. one time in multiple decades we had even tangential involvement with a whistleblower case, and that were limited to straightforward complaints regarding a federal district judge. 

quick asides:

Constitution doesn't require a vote for pelosi to unilateral start an impeachment inquiry, and am understanding why is political advantageous not to have such a vote. those moderate democrats, particular in the south, is gonna be forced to take a stand, albeit a minor one, on the impeachment issue. nevertheless, is the norm to have such a vote. Congress, when starting inquiries o' clinton and nixon had a vote. 

the notion trump is interested in stopping corruption and not in seeking to undermine a political rival is clear hokum, and yet it appears to be the repeated refrain from gop. 

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1180146216790872072/video/1

also, trump is going hard after any republican who doesn't share the suicide pact mentality which is developing regarding impeachment inquiry. romney impeachment?  ben sasse and susan collins has made comments which may expose themselves to trump's wrath.  even so, can't current see a trend o' gop Congressmen abandoning trump. yeah, the actual numbers o' republicans abandoning nixon were never large, but were essential. am just not seeing the possibility o' something similar at the moment. we don't see pence and others leaving the bunker to save themselves.

am thinking the big problem for the gop is that trump's previous bad behaviour has effective inoculated politicians and public alike. what our country deems too much to accept from a President has clear changed 'tween january 2017 and now. 

this administration needs to be an aberration. regardless o' what happens with trump, the extreme polarization needs end. 2019 cannot be the new normal. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Agiel]

51 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

 

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1180146216790872072/video/1

also, trump is going hard after any republican who doesn't share the suicide pact mentality which is developing regarding impeachment inquiry. romney impeachment?  ben sasse and susan collins has made comments which may expose themselves to trump's wrath.  even so, can't current see a trend o' gop Congressmen abandoning trump. yeah, the actual numbers o' republicans abandoning nixon were never large, but were essential. am just not seeing the possibility o' something similar at the moment. we don't see pence and others leaving the bunker to save themselves.

am thinking the big problem for the gop is that trump's previous bad behaviour has effective inoculated politicians and public alike. what our country deems too much to accept from a President has clear changed 'tween january 2017 and now. 

this administration needs to be an aberration. regardless o' what happens with trump, the extreme polarization needs end. 2019 cannot be the new normal. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Gromnir]

17 minutes ago, Agiel said:

problem for the gop is the beating taken were most felt among those who put country over party. republican voters did not forgive those who "defected."

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

23 minutes ago, Agiel said:

Everything is cyclical. In 2016 the Democrats were virtually destroyed. You could drive from Miami FL to Pocatillo ID and not pass through any state, county, city or congressional district controlled by the Democrats. Next year there is a pretty good chance they win both houses and the White House. Then they will go hog wild, stick their middle fingers in red America's faces, do all the s--t that they are howling about Trump doing and in 2022 they will lose congress. Then the cycle begins again.

 

@Gromnir I do hope this is not the new normal. It would be helpful if the next administration comes in and strikes a tone of reconciliation. Pretty much the opposite of what Trump and Obama did. Not going to happen though. Especially if the next admin has Congress on their side.  

Assuming Trump fatigue is enough to cost him the election even if all bad acts are dismissed by his supporters. I know I'm sick of him. 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Guard Dog

[smjjames]

4 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Next year there is a pretty good chance they win both houses and the White House.

Not sure what you think the Democrats chances are of winning the Senate, but they have a majorly uphill battle to get a majority. Even flipping three is going to be difficult. Still, anything's possible.

I could have sworn Obama tried, at least initially to take a reconciliatory approach, but the Republicans didn't want it, or act like they wanted it. Given how deep the polarization is though, I'm not even sure what a reconciliatory approach would look like other than maybe massively pivoting towards the center and the other side has to want to reconcile in order for it to even start in the first place.