We're going to be adding some advertisements to the forums! If you notice any weirdness around this or spot bad/inappropriate ads, please make a thread in the bugs forum.

Michigan Politics: Republican Judges No Longer In Majority

1356761

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    So a slim majority of people in Michigan can now vote to take away the local government from the rest of the state (Detroit)? And appoint someone who will definitely take care of things better (wink wink nudge nudge)? And most of the people getting their government taken away are black?

    I feel like if somehow a state where the majority of people happened to be black took away the self government from most of the white people in that state, all these militias which threaten to revolt all the time, would actually honest to goodness revolt. But because it's "just" black people in Detroit getting fucked over, apparently it's business as usual, carry on.

    Alternately: Hey Mississippi, you're a failed state, DC is taking you over.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    HacksawEdith UpwardsJaysonFour
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    As others have said, it really depends on how the state constitution is written, but last I checked it's within the state's rights to take over a locality if they have good justification to do so. My question here is, if someone challenged his actions in court, could they prove without a doubt that what he is doing is a power grab and that Detroit hasn't triggered something that allows for a state take over?

    That said, I doubt this would be really an issue if Snyder and his party had a good reputation for not fucking things up. The problem is they have a very bad reputation and whoever Snyder appoints will probably hose up any issues Detroit has even worse.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    So a slim majority of people in Michigan can now vote to take away the local government from the rest of the state (Detroit)? And appoint someone who will definitely take care of things better (wink wink nudge nudge)? And most of the people getting their government taken away are black?

    I feel like if somehow a state where the majority of people happened to be black took away the self government from most of the white people in that state, all these militias which threaten to revolt all the time, would actually honest to goodness revolt. But because it's "just" black people in Detroit getting fucked over, apparently it's business as usual, carry on.

    I'm sorry, but I do t think this is about race at all. It's about the city collapsing under the weight of its own debt and poverty.

    Frankiedarlingspool32Smrtnik
  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    Do I think this is primarily about race? No.

    It's about pushing an austerity ideology in a stronghold of your political opponents and maybe your friends can make a buck on it.

    Does it help that a lot of the people are black? Sure, cause they are easier to screw over and not feel bad about it.

    He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
    Captain CarrotJuliuszagdrobHacksawSeidkonaEdith Upwards
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    So a slim majority of people in Michigan can now vote to take away the local government from the rest of the state (Detroit)? And appoint someone who will definitely take care of things better (wink wink nudge nudge)? And most of the people getting their government taken away are black?

    I feel like if somehow a state where the majority of people happened to be black took away the self government from most of the white people in that state, all these militias which threaten to revolt all the time, would actually honest to goodness revolt. But because it's "just" black people in Detroit getting fucked over, apparently it's business as usual, carry on.

    I'm sorry, but I do t think this is about race at all. It's about the city collapsing under the weight of its own debt and poverty.

    I don't think it's about race either. It strikes me as awful that a majority of a state can so totally fuck over the minority of a state, and the minority apparently can't do anything about it, racial demographics aside. That said, I feel like people would be more up in arms if the demographics were switched around, but the crux of the issue that kills me is the tyranny of the majority. A lot of states have a rural/urban divide, and if the 51% of the state that is rural starts making life miserable for the 49% that's urban, because they disagree politically with the city folk, I'd be upset no matter what the racial situation.

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

    spacekungfumanJibbaEdith UpwardsArithon32HachfaceMetzger Meister
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    So a slim majority of people in Michigan can now vote to take away the local government from the rest of the state (Detroit)? And appoint someone who will definitely take care of things better (wink wink nudge nudge)? And most of the people getting their government taken away are black?

    I feel like if somehow a state where the majority of people happened to be black took away the self government from most of the white people in that state, all these militias which threaten to revolt all the time, would actually honest to goodness revolt. But because it's "just" black people in Detroit getting fucked over, apparently it's business as usual, carry on.

    I'm sorry, but I do t think this is about race at all. It's about the city collapsing under the weight of its own debt and poverty.

    Which, amazingly, has a LOT to do with the ethnic makeup of the city and how racism expressed itself in the North in the mid-20th century. It's worth reading several of the recent pieces by Ta-Nehisi Coates in The Atlantic where he's discussing how racism translated into political and economic impacts.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Captain CarrotMrVyngaardenlightenedbumHacksawEdith Upwards
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    So a slim majority of people in Michigan can now vote to take away the local government from the rest of the state (Detroit)? And appoint someone who will definitely take care of things better (wink wink nudge nudge)? And most of the people getting their government taken away are black?

    I feel like if somehow a state where the majority of people happened to be black took away the self government from most of the white people in that state, all these militias which threaten to revolt all the time, would actually honest to goodness revolt. But because it's "just" black people in Detroit getting fucked over, apparently it's business as usual, carry on.

    I'm sorry, but I do t think this is about race at all. It's about the city collapsing under the weight of its own debt and poverty.

    Which, amazingly, has a LOT to do with the ethnic makeup of the city and how racism expressed itself in the North in the mid-20th century. It's worth reading several of the recent pieces by Ta-Nehisi Coates in The Atlantic where he's discussing how racism translated into political and economic impacts.

    I don't understand the point you are trying to make with that article. It's filled with hyperbole, and even acknowledge at the end that those theories may have been false.

    Also, whenever you put rioters against people behaving peacefully, I will always side with the peaceful people. Even if they were initially wrong, at least they did not escalate to violence.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Ah, yes, your well-known dedication to decorum as the highest possible good.

    AngelHedgieMayabirdkedinikHachfaceMetzger Meister
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    So a slim majority of people in Michigan can now vote to take away the local government from the rest of the state (Detroit)? And appoint someone who will definitely take care of things better (wink wink nudge nudge)? And most of the people getting their government taken away are black?

    I feel like if somehow a state where the majority of people happened to be black took away the self government from most of the white people in that state, all these militias which threaten to revolt all the time, would actually honest to goodness revolt. But because it's "just" black people in Detroit getting fucked over, apparently it's business as usual, carry on.

    I'm sorry, but I do t think this is about race at all. It's about the city collapsing under the weight of its own debt and poverty.

    I think the point is more that people aren't protesting it much because the folk it affects are black.

    Seidkona
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    So a slim majority of people in Michigan can now vote to take away the local government from the rest of the state (Detroit)? And appoint someone who will definitely take care of things better (wink wink nudge nudge)? And most of the people getting their government taken away are black?

    I feel like if somehow a state where the majority of people happened to be black took away the self government from most of the white people in that state, all these militias which threaten to revolt all the time, would actually honest to goodness revolt. But because it's "just" black people in Detroit getting fucked over, apparently it's business as usual, carry on.

    I'm sorry, but I do t think this is about race at all. It's about the city collapsing under the weight of its own debt and poverty.

    I think the point is more that people aren't protesting it much because the folk it affects are black.

    It's worth noting that a sizable majority of us voted this bullshit down four months ago.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    SeidkonaEdith Upwards
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Ah, yes, your well-known dedication to decorum as the highest possible good.

    It's not decorum. Rioters hurt or even kill innocent people, and destroy/steal the property of innocent people. Once you start harming innocents in your protest, you cede the moral high ground, IMO.

    Smrtnik
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    At this rate sometime between my 40's and 50's I may have to do the Snake Plisskin Trifecta and escape from dystopian Detroit, New York, and Los Angeles.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Ah, yes, your well-known dedication to decorum as the highest possible good.

    It's not decorum. Rioters hurt or even kill innocent people, and destroy/steal the property of innocent people. Once you start harming innocents in your protest, you cede the moral high ground, IMO.

    Unless you're doing all that through the proper and legal methods?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Captain Carrot
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Ah, yes, your well-known dedication to decorum as the highest possible good.

    It's not decorum. Rioters hurt or even kill innocent people, and destroy/steal the property of innocent people. Once you start harming innocents in your protest, you cede the moral high ground, IMO.

    Unless you're doing all that through the proper and legal methods?

    Silly Hedgie, that's clever legal maneuvering to destroy people's lives, also known as The American Dream.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • Clown ShoesClown Shoes Give me hay or give me death. Registered User regular
    Ah, yes, your well-known dedication to decorum as the highest possible good.

    It's not decorum. Rioters hurt or even kill innocent people, and destroy/steal the property of innocent people. Once you start harming innocents in your protest, you cede the moral high ground, IMO.

    And sometimes they hurt guilty people and destroy/steal property of guilty people. If you write off the claims/demands of rioters just on the basis that they're rioters, you cede the rational high ground.

    You live in a country that was founded by violent revolution against the "legitimate" government - and that "legitimate" government only existed because people had to resort to violence to change the previous "legitimate" government.

    Hachface
  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    Ah, yes, your well-known dedication to decorum as the highest possible good.

    It's not decorum. Rioters hurt or even kill innocent people, and destroy/steal the property of innocent people. Once you start harming innocents in your protest, you cede the moral high ground, IMO.

    And sometimes they hurt guilty people and destroy/steal property of guilty people. If you write off the claims/demands of rioters just on the basis that they're rioters, you cede the rational high ground.

    You live in a country that was founded by violent revolution against the "legitimate" government - and that "legitimate" government only existed because people had to resort to violence to change the previous "legitimate" government.

    In addition you need to understand that the decorum that people hide behind is actually backed up with violence.

    It is not the grand violence of rioters in the street but the little of violences from police and prisons, taking away your right to your home by helping kick you out, keeping you from getting the food and clothing you need for your child, punishing you for your addiction.

    The status quo is steeped in violence, look at the mostly peaceful Wall Street protests and the violent and deadly response.

    It lies just beneath the surface, hidden enough if you are the right race and class but ever present.

    If the ruling class is just, then the violence might be justified to protect the innocent. But the power legitimized by these threats are used for self fulfillment and enrichment at the expense of large swaths of society.

    There is a reason that we do not have larger protests in this country and it is less laziness and more that you will be arrested, lose your job and die in the street, rejected by society, if you engage in it.

    He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
    Harry DresdenAngelHedgieL Ron HowardShadowfireshrykeClown ShoesArdolzagdrobHacksawKelzorB_RGnome-InterruptusMrVyngaardBlindPsychicMan in the MistsNitsuaEdith UpwardsV1mSCREECH OF THE FARGHachfaceMetzger Meister
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Ah, yes, your well-known dedication to decorum as the highest possible good.

    It's not decorum. Rioters hurt or even kill innocent people, and destroy/steal the property of innocent people. Once you start harming innocents in your protest, you cede the moral high ground, IMO.

    And sometimes they hurt guilty people and destroy/steal property of guilty people. If you write off the claims/demands of rioters just on the basis that they're rioters, you cede the rational high ground.

    You live in a country that was founded by violent revolution against the "legitimate" government - and that "legitimate" government only existed because people had to resort to violence to change the previous "legitimate" government.

    In addition you need to understand that the decorum that people hide behind is actually backed up with violence.

    It is not the grand violence of rioters in the street but the little of violences from police and prisons, taking away your right to your home by helping kick you out, keeping you from getting the food and clothing you need for your child, punishing you for your addiction.

    The status quo is steeped in violence, look at the mostly peaceful Wall Street protests and the violent and deadly response.

    It lies just beneath the surface, hidden enough if you are the right race and class but ever present.

    If the ruling class is just, then the violence might be justified to protect the innocent. But the power legitimized by these threats are used for self fulfillment and enrichment at the expense of large swaths of society.

    There is a reason that we do not have larger protests in this country and it is less laziness and more that you will be arrested, lose your job and die in the street, rejected by society, if you engage in it.

    Redlining stole wealth from minorities, just as surely as a looter steals. Yet it was completely legal.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    Ah, yes, your well-known dedication to decorum as the highest possible good.

    It's not decorum. Rioters hurt or even kill innocent people, and destroy/steal the property of innocent people. Once you start harming innocents in your protest, you cede the moral high ground, IMO.

    And sometimes they hurt guilty people and destroy/steal property of guilty people. If you write off the claims/demands of rioters just on the basis that they're rioters, you cede the rational high ground.

    You live in a country that was founded by violent revolution against the "legitimate" government - and that "legitimate" government only existed because people had to resort to violence to change the previous "legitimate" government.

    In addition you need to understand that the decorum that people hide behind is actually backed up with violence.

    It is not the grand violence of rioters in the street but the little of violences from police and prisons, taking away your right to your home by helping kick you out, keeping you from getting the food and clothing you need for your child, punishing you for your addiction.

    The status quo is steeped in violence, look at the mostly peaceful Wall Street protests and the violent and deadly response.

    It lies just beneath the surface, hidden enough if you are the right race and class but ever present.

    If the ruling class is just, then the violence might be justified to protect the innocent. But the power legitimized by these threats are used for self fulfillment and enrichment at the expense of large swaths of society.

    There is a reason that we do not have larger protests in this country and it is less laziness and more that you will be arrested, lose your job and die in the street, rejected by society, if you engage in it.

    Redlining stole wealth from minorities, just as surely as a looter steals. Yet it was completely legal.

    And backed up by a paramilitary force built up for drug enforcement. Okay I guess it seems like I am heading into conspiracy theorist territory here...

    He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2013
    Do you really not see the difference between that states exercise of its monopoly on the use of force and illegal force employed by rioters? The former is accountable to the people and the latter is not susceptible to democratic pressure at all. The same applies to legal methods which you think hurt people unfairly vs illegal looting. The former can be changed through the process. The latter cannot.

    spacekungfuman on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2013
    Ah, yes, your well-known dedication to decorum as the highest possible good.

    It's not decorum. Rioters hurt or even kill innocent people, and destroy/steal the property of innocent people. Once you start harming innocents in your protest, you cede the moral high ground, IMO.

    And sometimes they hurt guilty people and destroy/steal property of guilty people. If you write off the claims/demands of rioters just on the basis that they're rioters, you cede the rational high ground.

    You live in a country that was founded by violent revolution against the "legitimate" government - and that "legitimate" government only existed because people had to resort to violence to change the previous "legitimate" government.

    Which is another way of saying if you rebel, you'd better be damn sure you will win. Basically impossible now. . .

    That said, are the people of Detroit planning to riot, or, like normally happens in these situations, will they just put up with it? I hope and assume the latter.

    spacekungfuman on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Do you really not see the difference between that states exercise of its monopoly on the use of force and illegal force employed by rioters? The former is accountable to the people and the latter is not susceptible to democratic pressure at all.

    Not as much as it should be. Convicting crooked or corrupt police officers is virtually impossible these days. Civilian authorities are far too weak to keep them accountable.
    The same applies to legal methods which you think hurt people unfairly vs illegal looting. The former can be changed through the process. The latter cannot.

    Not if the people who hurt people unfairly have unlimited resources and the state is to weak to keep them in check. It's easy to keep the status quo as the former when you have the resources to keep authorities from shutting your shit down legally or exploiting every opportunity that the state has no ability to catch up with.
    Ah, yes, your well-known dedication to decorum as the highest possible good.

    It's not decorum. Rioters hurt or even kill innocent people, and destroy/steal the property of innocent people. Once you start harming innocents in your protest, you cede the moral high ground, IMO.

    And sometimes they hurt guilty people and destroy/steal property of guilty people. If you write off the claims/demands of rioters just on the basis that they're rioters, you cede the rational high ground.

    You live in a country that was founded by violent revolution against the "legitimate" government - and that "legitimate" government only existed because people had to resort to violence to change the previous "legitimate" government.

    Which is another way of saying if you rebel, you'd better be damn sure you will win. Basically impossible now. . .

    That said, are the people of Detroit planning to riot, or, like normally happens in these situations, will they just put up with it? I hope and assume the latter.

    You can only hurt people so much before they fight back. This goes double for classes that have been oppressed by authorities for decades and their situation keeps getting bleaker. Rioting also might be what's needed to get the media and the public's attention to know WTF is going on down there and get the federal government to intervene in their favor.

  • Clown ShoesClown Shoes Give me hay or give me death. Registered User regular
    Do you really not see the difference between that states exercise of its monopoly on the use of force and illegal force employed by rioters? The former is accountable to the people and the latter is not susceptible to democratic pressure at all. The same applies to legal methods which you think hurt people unfairly vs illegal looting. The former can be changed through the process. The latter cannot.

    The American revolution was illegal force. The British state's exercise of it's monopoly power was absolutely not accountable to the people and that's why the American revolution happened. Your state's exercise of it's monopoly is only legal because of the rioters who drove out the "legitimate" state and created their own.

    Which is another way of saying if you rebel, you'd better be damn sure you will win. Basically impossible now. . .

    Which is another way of saying that you think rebelling is fine when it gives you privilege but bad when it takes it away so anyone who rebels against the laws that favour you should be punished.


    Basically, you owe me 200 years of back taxes and until you pay them, you are a hypocrite.

    Harry DresdenMrVyngaardkedinik
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Do you really not see the difference between that states exercise of its monopoly on the use of force and illegal force employed by rioters? The former is accountable to the people and the latter is not susceptible to democratic pressure at all.

    Not as much as it should be. Convicting crooked or corrupt police officers is virtually impossible these days. Civilian authorities are far too weak to keep them accountable.
    The same applies to legal methods which you think hurt people unfairly vs illegal looting. The former can be changed through the process. The latter cannot.

    Not if the people who hurt people unfairly have unlimited resources and the state is to weak to keep them in check. It's easy to keep the status quo as the former when you have the resources to keep authorities from shutting your shit down legally or exploiting every opportunity that the state has no ability to catch up with.
    Ah, yes, your well-known dedication to decorum as the highest possible good.

    It's not decorum. Rioters hurt or even kill innocent people, and destroy/steal the property of innocent people. Once you start harming innocents in your protest, you cede the moral high ground, IMO.

    And sometimes they hurt guilty people and destroy/steal property of guilty people. If you write off the claims/demands of rioters just on the basis that they're rioters, you cede the rational high ground.

    You live in a country that was founded by violent revolution against the "legitimate" government - and that "legitimate" government only existed because people had to resort to violence to change the previous "legitimate" government.

    Which is another way of saying if you rebel, you'd better be damn sure you will win. Basically impossible now. . .

    That said, are the people of Detroit planning to riot, or, like normally happens in these situations, will they just put up with it? I hope and assume the latter.

    You can only hurt people so much before they fight back. This goes double for classes that have been oppressed by authorities for decades and their situation keeps getting bleaker. Rioting also might be what's needed to get the media and the public's attention to know WTF is going on down there and get the federal government to intervene in their favor.

    None of this excuses rioting. It just suggests that the system ought to work better, but surely the system not working well should not prompt indiscriminate violence. If you are wrongfully accused and convicted of a crime, that is awful, but it does not justify a prison break which leaves guards, other inmates and civilians dead. . .

  • NotEasyBeingGreenNotEasyBeingGreen Registered User regular
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Snyder

    why am I not surprised by the heading above his signature????

  • Clown ShoesClown Shoes Give me hay or give me death. Registered User regular
    If you are wrongfully accused and convicted of a crime, that is awful, but it does not justify a prison break which leaves guards, other inmates and civilians dead. . .

    If you are wrongly deprived of your freedom, anything you do to the people who wrongly removed it in order to recover that freedom is justified.



    V1m
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Do you really not see the difference between that states exercise of its monopoly on the use of force and illegal force employed by rioters? The former is accountable to the people and the latter is not susceptible to democratic pressure at all.

    Not as much as it should be. Convicting crooked or corrupt police officers is virtually impossible these days. Civilian authorities are far too weak to keep them accountable.
    The same applies to legal methods which you think hurt people unfairly vs illegal looting. The former can be changed through the process. The latter cannot.

    Not if the people who hurt people unfairly have unlimited resources and the state is to weak to keep them in check. It's easy to keep the status quo as the former when you have the resources to keep authorities from shutting your shit down legally or exploiting every opportunity that the state has no ability to catch up with.
    Ah, yes, your well-known dedication to decorum as the highest possible good.

    It's not decorum. Rioters hurt or even kill innocent people, and destroy/steal the property of innocent people. Once you start harming innocents in your protest, you cede the moral high ground, IMO.

    And sometimes they hurt guilty people and destroy/steal property of guilty people. If you write off the claims/demands of rioters just on the basis that they're rioters, you cede the rational high ground.

    You live in a country that was founded by violent revolution against the "legitimate" government - and that "legitimate" government only existed because people had to resort to violence to change the previous "legitimate" government.

    Which is another way of saying if you rebel, you'd better be damn sure you will win. Basically impossible now. . .

    That said, are the people of Detroit planning to riot, or, like normally happens in these situations, will they just put up with it? I hope and assume the latter.

    You can only hurt people so much before they fight back. This goes double for classes that have been oppressed by authorities for decades and their situation keeps getting bleaker. Rioting also might be what's needed to get the media and the public's attention to know WTF is going on down there and get the federal government to intervene in their favor.

    None of this excuses rioting.

    No, but it is understandable. They're in a situation beyond their control and they need to release their anger somewhere and its not like they're getting the proper attention from federal authorities as it is.
    It just suggests that the system ought to work better, but surely the system not working well should not prompt indiscriminate violence.

    Got any better options for them?
    If you are wrongfully accused and convicted of a crime, that is awful, but it does not justify a prison break which leaves guards, other inmates and civilians dead. . .

    True. Only in this case the innocent has no allies to legally protect them to prove that they were being framed.

  • Clown ShoesClown Shoes Give me hay or give me death. Registered User regular
    If you are wrongfully accused and convicted of a crime, that is awful, but it does not justify a prison break which leaves guards, other inmates and civilians dead. . .

    True.

    Really? If I wrongly imprison you in my cellar and you harm me and my accomplices as you escape, I'm pretty sure you won't be punished.

  • NocrenNocren Lt Futz, Back in Action North CarolinaRegistered User regular
    If you are wrongfully accused and convicted of a crime, that is awful, but it does not justify a prison break which leaves guards, other inmates and civilians dead. . .

    True.

    Really? If I wrongly imprison you in my cellar and you harm me and my accomplices as you escape, I'm pretty sure you won't be punished.

    I don't think your cellar qualifies as a prison, especially if the person was wrongfully convicted in a court.

    newSig.jpg
    Harry Dresden
  • Clown ShoesClown Shoes Give me hay or give me death. Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Nocren wrote: »
    If you are wrongfully accused and convicted of a crime, that is awful, but it does not justify a prison break which leaves guards, other inmates and civilians dead. . .

    True.

    Really? If I wrongly imprison you in my cellar and you harm me and my accomplices as you escape, I'm pretty sure you won't be punished.

    I don't think your cellar qualifies as a prison, especially if the person was wrongfully convicted in a court.

    I hold court in my kitchen - I've even got a wig.

    edit: the point wasn't that my cellar is a legal prison, more that it's morally justifiable to use whatever force you need to escape a wrongful punishment.

    Clown Shoes on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Nocren wrote: »
    If you are wrongfully accused and convicted of a crime, that is awful, but it does not justify a prison break which leaves guards, other inmates and civilians dead. . .

    True.

    Really? If I wrongly imprison you in my cellar and you harm me and my accomplices as you escape, I'm pretty sure you won't be punished.

    I don't think your cellar qualifies as a prison, especially if the person was wrongfully convicted in a court.

    I hold court in my kitchen - I've even got a wig.

    edit: the point wasn't that my cellar is a legal prison, more that it's morally justifiable to use whatever force you need to escape a wrongful punishment.

    An innocent person doing a prison break is a completely different situation to someone escaping from being imprisoned in someone else's basement.

    Harry Dresden on
    NocrenCaptain CarrotspacekungfumanFrankiedarlingMrVyngaardzagdrob
  • Clown ShoesClown Shoes Give me hay or give me death. Registered User regular
    Nocren wrote: »
    If you are wrongfully accused and convicted of a crime, that is awful, but it does not justify a prison break which leaves guards, other inmates and civilians dead. . .

    True.

    Really? If I wrongly imprison you in my cellar and you harm me and my accomplices as you escape, I'm pretty sure you won't be punished.

    I don't think your cellar qualifies as a prison, especially if the person was wrongfully convicted in a court.

    I hold court in my kitchen - I've even got a wig.

    edit: the point wasn't that my cellar is a legal prison, more that it's morally justifiable to use whatever force you need to escape a wrongful punishment.

    An innocent person doing a prison break is a completely different situation to someone escaping from being imprisoned in someone else's basement.

    In the sense that the innocent person escaping jail will have to run away from the police as well as their jailor(s).

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Nocren wrote: »
    If you are wrongfully accused and convicted of a crime, that is awful, but it does not justify a prison break which leaves guards, other inmates and civilians dead. . .

    True.

    Really? If I wrongly imprison you in my cellar and you harm me and my accomplices as you escape, I'm pretty sure you won't be punished.

    I don't think your cellar qualifies as a prison, especially if the person was wrongfully convicted in a court.

    I hold court in my kitchen - I've even got a wig.

    edit: the point wasn't that my cellar is a legal prison, more that it's morally justifiable to use whatever force you need to escape a wrongful punishment.

    An innocent person doing a prison break is a completely different situation to someone escaping from being imprisoned in someone else's basement.

    In the sense that the innocent person escaping jail will have to run away from the police as well as their jailor(s).

    Exactly. Only these jailors have the legal authority to imprison said person.

    Harry Dresden on
  • Clown ShoesClown Shoes Give me hay or give me death. Registered User regular
    Nocren wrote: »
    If you are wrongfully accused and convicted of a crime, that is awful, but it does not justify a prison break which leaves guards, other inmates and civilians dead. . .

    True.

    Really? If I wrongly imprison you in my cellar and you harm me and my accomplices as you escape, I'm pretty sure you won't be punished.

    I don't think your cellar qualifies as a prison, especially if the person was wrongfully convicted in a court.

    I hold court in my kitchen - I've even got a wig.

    edit: the point wasn't that my cellar is a legal prison, more that it's morally justifiable to use whatever force you need to escape a wrongful punishment.

    An innocent person doing a prison break is a completely different situation to someone escaping from being imprisoned in someone else's basement.

    In the sense that the innocent person escaping jail will have to run away from the police as well as their jailor(s).

    Exactly. Only these jailors have the legal authority to imprison said person.

    Having the "legal authority" to wrongly imprison someone just means that you're carrying a bigger stick - it doesn't automatically convey a moral justification.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Nocren wrote: »
    If you are wrongfully accused and convicted of a crime, that is awful, but it does not justify a prison break which leaves guards, other inmates and civilians dead. . .

    True.

    Really? If I wrongly imprison you in my cellar and you harm me and my accomplices as you escape, I'm pretty sure you won't be punished.

    I don't think your cellar qualifies as a prison, especially if the person was wrongfully convicted in a court.

    I hold court in my kitchen - I've even got a wig.

    edit: the point wasn't that my cellar is a legal prison, more that it's morally justifiable to use whatever force you need to escape a wrongful punishment.

    An innocent person doing a prison break is a completely different situation to someone escaping from being imprisoned in someone else's basement.

    In the sense that the innocent person escaping jail will have to run away from the police as well as their jailor(s).

    Exactly. Only these jailors have the legal authority to imprison said person.

    Having the "legal authority" to wrongly imprison someone just means that you're carrying a bigger stick - it doesn't automatically convey a moral justification.

    No, but it does give them a legal authority regular criminals don't have.

  • Clown ShoesClown Shoes Give me hay or give me death. Registered User regular
    Nocren wrote: »
    If you are wrongfully accused and convicted of a crime, that is awful, but it does not justify a prison break which leaves guards, other inmates and civilians dead. . .

    True.

    Really? If I wrongly imprison you in my cellar and you harm me and my accomplices as you escape, I'm pretty sure you won't be punished.

    I don't think your cellar qualifies as a prison, especially if the person was wrongfully convicted in a court.

    I hold court in my kitchen - I've even got a wig.

    edit: the point wasn't that my cellar is a legal prison, more that it's morally justifiable to use whatever force you need to escape a wrongful punishment.

    An innocent person doing a prison break is a completely different situation to someone escaping from being imprisoned in someone else's basement.

    In the sense that the innocent person escaping jail will have to run away from the police as well as their jailor(s).

    Exactly. Only these jailors have the legal authority to imprison said person.

    Having the "legal authority" to wrongly imprison someone just means that you're carrying a bigger stick - it doesn't automatically convey a moral justification.

    No, but it does give them a legal authority regular criminals don't have.

    Like I said, bigger sticks.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Nocren wrote: »
    If you are wrongfully accused and convicted of a crime, that is awful, but it does not justify a prison break which leaves guards, other inmates and civilians dead. . .

    True.

    Really? If I wrongly imprison you in my cellar and you harm me and my accomplices as you escape, I'm pretty sure you won't be punished.

    I don't think your cellar qualifies as a prison, especially if the person was wrongfully convicted in a court.

    I hold court in my kitchen - I've even got a wig.

    edit: the point wasn't that my cellar is a legal prison, more that it's morally justifiable to use whatever force you need to escape a wrongful punishment.

    An innocent person doing a prison break is a completely different situation to someone escaping from being imprisoned in someone else's basement.

    In the sense that the innocent person escaping jail will have to run away from the police as well as their jailor(s).

    Exactly. Only these jailors have the legal authority to imprison said person.

    Having the "legal authority" to wrongly imprison someone just means that you're carrying a bigger stick - it doesn't automatically convey a moral justification.

    No, but it does give them a legal authority regular criminals don't have.

    Like I said, bigger sticks.

    Having authority isn't having a "bigger stick", it gives them the legal power to what you're saying legally. They are not the equivalent to any criminal who imprisons random people for their own amusement.

    spacekungfuman
  • Clown ShoesClown Shoes Give me hay or give me death. Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Nocren wrote: »
    If you are wrongfully accused and convicted of a crime, that is awful, but it does not justify a prison break which leaves guards, other inmates and civilians dead. . .

    True.

    Really? If I wrongly imprison you in my cellar and you harm me and my accomplices as you escape, I'm pretty sure you won't be punished.

    I don't think your cellar qualifies as a prison, especially if the person was wrongfully convicted in a court.

    I hold court in my kitchen - I've even got a wig.

    edit: the point wasn't that my cellar is a legal prison, more that it's morally justifiable to use whatever force you need to escape a wrongful punishment.

    An innocent person doing a prison break is a completely different situation to someone escaping from being imprisoned in someone else's basement.

    In the sense that the innocent person escaping jail will have to run away from the police as well as their jailor(s).

    Exactly. Only these jailors have the legal authority to imprison said person.

    Having the "legal authority" to wrongly imprison someone just means that you're carrying a bigger stick - it doesn't automatically convey a moral justification.

    No, but it does give them a legal authority regular criminals don't have.

    Like I said, bigger sticks.

    Having authority isn't having a "bigger stick", it gives them the legal power to what you're saying legally. They are not the equivalent to any criminal who imprisons random people for their own amusement.

    Legal authority just means that lots of people agree that you should have that big stick - or at least there aren't enough people trying to take that stick away. To make something legal you just need the power wielded by the people who want it to legal to be larger than the power wielded by people who don't want it to be illegal.

    Morality is about right & wrong, legality and authority are about power.

    Clown Shoes on
    Edith Upwards
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    It's no surprise that someone like Rick Snyder thinks firstly in terms of dollars and cents, being as he is first and foremost a businessman. This, I feel, is the problem with making politicians out of businessmen; they tend to look at things in the same way they looked at their previous economic ventures in the private sector, very much dollars and cents affairs. But upon being elected or appointed, what they often fail to realize is that government is not a business, government is a service. And while it's true that a government should concern itself with the viability of its continuing solvency, it should first and foremost focus on how much good it can do for the community it was created to serve. Rick Snyder is not serving the good of Detroit's community by doing this.

    Harry DresdenCaptain CarrotAngelHedgieMrVyngaardzagdrobSeidkonaNitsuaEdith UpwardsJaysonFourHachfaceSirialis
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Rioters do not confine themselves to only hurting (or even neccesarily hurt at all) the people they see as the wrong doers. They destroy property of unrelated people, and hurt, rape and kill random people. In my book, that makes them worse than the people who wronged them in the first case, in almost all cases.

    FrankiedarlingNitsuaSmrtnik
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    It's no surprise that someone like Rick Snyder thinks firstly in terms of dollars and cents, being as he is first and foremost a businessman. This, I feel, is the problem with making politicians out of businessmen; they tend to look at things in the same way they looked at their previous economic ventures in the private sector, very much dollars and cents affairs. But upon being elected or appointed, what they often fail to realize is that government is not a business, government is a service. And while it's true that a government should concern itself with the viability of its continuing solvency, it should first and foremost focus on how much good it can do for the community it was created to serve. Rick Snyder is not serving the good of Detroit's community by doing this.

    Well, it's more his primary goal is to enrich himself and his buddies/campaign donors via the wonderful world of privatizing vital public services. Notably education.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
Sign In or Register to comment.