He demonstrates the institutionalism that blinds a lot of lawyers to the actual ramifications of court rulings in order to say "no, really, it's not that bad." For example, throughout the video he admonishes Rittenhouse's supporters that this ruling shows that his victims would be protected had things gone the other way - which is ignorant of decades of courts taking a hard line on leftists.
It's also quite noticeable that he really doesn't bring up the weapons charge that was dropped/throw out by the judge on very shaky grounds using the "hunting/short barrel" reasoning (he mentions very quickly about barrel/overall length and that Wisconsin has "loose" firearms laws, but nothing else), even though it was a straw purchase ( which is a federal crime, not state) and outside of the AR's length, Kyle didn't meet the rest of the criteria for using the hunting rifle exception for minors.
I understand that "thinking like a lawyer" means you've gotta take it on a case-by-case basis and are at the mercy of what charges the judge/court allows into the jury instructions and final dispensation of the case, but that doesn't mean it can't be horseshit.
Wow, I'm surprised he didn't go into the gun law thing. I've seen so many different explanations of the law (most of the wrong) that I figured a real lawyer would love to explain it.
As far as I can tell, the judge interpreted "not in compliance with 29.593" to mean having obtained a hunting permit without any of the listed qualifications, rather than simply having any of the qualifications listed in the 29.593.
That's an interpretation that's clearly against the intent of the legislature and that makes the last requirement entirely pointless.
The other popular claim is that you need to not be in compliance with both the law about being over 16 and the law about being qualified to get a hunting permit. But that's a simple failure to read the whole sentence: if you are not in compliance with both statutes, you can't use the exception for long rifles and shotguns.
If I was to go into gun law, I wouldn't do it on a recreationally themed sponsored youtube channel
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
He demonstrates the institutionalism that blinds a lot of lawyers to the actual ramifications of court rulings in order to say "no, really, it's not that bad." For example, throughout the video he admonishes Rittenhouse's supporters that this ruling shows that his victims would be protected had things gone the other way - which is ignorant of decades of courts taking a hard line on leftists.
It's also quite noticeable that he really doesn't bring up the weapons charge that was dropped/throw out by the judge on very shaky grounds using the "hunting/short barrel" reasoning (he mentions very quickly about barrel/overall length and that Wisconsin has "loose" firearms laws, but nothing else), even though it was a straw purchase ( which is a federal crime, not state) and outside of the AR's length, Kyle didn't meet the rest of the criteria for using the hunting rifle exception for minors.
I understand that "thinking like a lawyer" means you've gotta take it on a case-by-case basis and are at the mercy of what charges the judge/court allows into the jury instructions and final dispensation of the case, but that doesn't mean it can't be horseshit.
The problem with "thinking like a lawyer" is that many times that winds up including a lot of institutionalism, thanks to how the legal profession in the US works. For example, a lot of the leeway judges get comes from the fact that the legal profession treats the bench as a retirement plan, so they softpedal the idea that perhaps judges should be accountable for their behavior in court and not be little tyrants because hey, that's going to be you eventually.
He demonstrates the institutionalism that blinds a lot of lawyers to the actual ramifications of court rulings in order to say "no, really, it's not that bad." For example, throughout the video he admonishes Rittenhouse's supporters that this ruling shows that his victims would be protected had things gone the other way - which is ignorant of decades of courts taking a hard line on leftists.
It's also quite noticeable that he really doesn't bring up the weapons charge that was dropped/throw out by the judge on very shaky grounds using the "hunting/short barrel" reasoning (he mentions very quickly about barrel/overall length and that Wisconsin has "loose" firearms laws, but nothing else), even though it was a straw purchase ( which is a federal crime, not state) and outside of the AR's length, Kyle didn't meet the rest of the criteria for using the hunting rifle exception for minors.
I understand that "thinking like a lawyer" means you've gotta take it on a case-by-case basis and are at the mercy of what charges the judge/court allows into the jury instructions and final dispensation of the case, but that doesn't mean it can't be horseshit.
Wow, I'm surprised he didn't go into the gun law thing. I've seen so many different explanations of the law (most of the wrong) that I figured a real lawyer would love to explain it.
As far as I can tell, the judge interpreted "not in compliance with 29.593" to mean having obtained a hunting permit without any of the listed qualifications, rather than simply having any of the qualifications listed in the 29.593.
That's an interpretation that's clearly against the intent of the legislature and that makes the last requirement entirely pointless.
The other popular claim is that you need to not be in compliance with both the law about being over 16 and the law about being qualified to get a hunting permit. But that's a simple failure to read the whole sentence: if you are not in compliance with both statutes, you can't use the exception for long rifles and shotguns.
I assumed that the judge made his ruling based on the idea that Rittenhouse couldn't be in violation of 29.593 because he wasn't hunting (and therefore didn't require the certification). It completely ignores the spirit of the law, but that hardly seems surprising with this judge.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
He demonstrates the institutionalism that blinds a lot of lawyers to the actual ramifications of court rulings in order to say "no, really, it's not that bad." For example, throughout the video he admonishes Rittenhouse's supporters that this ruling shows that his victims would be protected had things gone the other way - which is ignorant of decades of courts taking a hard line on leftists.
It's also quite noticeable that he really doesn't bring up the weapons charge that was dropped/throw out by the judge on very shaky grounds using the "hunting/short barrel" reasoning (he mentions very quickly about barrel/overall length and that Wisconsin has "loose" firearms laws, but nothing else), even though it was a straw purchase ( which is a federal crime, not state) and outside of the AR's length, Kyle didn't meet the rest of the criteria for using the hunting rifle exception for minors.
I understand that "thinking like a lawyer" means you've gotta take it on a case-by-case basis and are at the mercy of what charges the judge/court allows into the jury instructions and final dispensation of the case, but that doesn't mean it can't be horseshit.
Wow, I'm surprised he didn't go into the gun law thing. I've seen so many different explanations of the law (most of the wrong) that I figured a real lawyer would love to explain it.
As far as I can tell, the judge interpreted "not in compliance with 29.593" to mean having obtained a hunting permit without any of the listed qualifications, rather than simply having any of the qualifications listed in the 29.593.
That's an interpretation that's clearly against the intent of the legislature and that makes the last requirement entirely pointless.
The other popular claim is that you need to not be in compliance with both the law about being over 16 and the law about being qualified to get a hunting permit. But that's a simple failure to read the whole sentence: if you are not in compliance with both statutes, you can't use the exception for long rifles and shotguns.
I assumed that the judge made his ruling based on the idea that Rittenhouse couldn't be in violation of 29.593 because he wasn't hunting (and therefore didn't require the certification). It completely ignores the spirit of the law, but that hardly seems surprising with this judge.
Yeah, but that's not the law that says you can't hunt without a permit. It's the law that says you can't get a permit without meeting certain qualifications.
Hunting without a permit wouldn't put you out of compliance with 29.593, either.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Legal eagle is not a criminal lawyer.
Legal eagle also tends to skip a lot of pertinent details in trying to get a video under a certain time and simplified for lay people.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
+15
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
I've been purposely not following this because I knew I'd be disappointed again. Glad I'm not.
though I clearly have no idea what murder and false imprisonment charges actually entail, because it seems to me that only one would be guilty of the former and none would be guilty of the later?
It's worth noting that the judge in that trial made a number of decisions differently from the judge in the Rittenhouse case, from allowing the prosecution to call Arbery a victim, dismissing the defense's demand to not allow Black clergy into the court, and so on. As such, the defense could never remove race from the proceedings.
Legal eagle also tends to skip a lot of pertinent details in trying to get a video under a certain time and simplified for lay people.
Yes, that's true. But at the same time, he's a lawyer trained in the American legal education system, then spent time in BigLaw. Which means he's been soaking in the profession's institutionalism, and I'd bet he doesn't even see it. Part of why I still read the blog Lawyers, Guns, and Money is because the legal writers there have become critical of legal institutionalism (probably because they were some of the first to go after the scam law schools, when a lot of other people were looking the other way.)
I’m noticing, both in the last thread, and many other left leaning discussion areas get an influx of new people who are blatantly pro Rittenhouse. And not just ‘Well, the evidence showed he justified’. I’m talking full blown ‘Victim was a pedophile, ergo the Left supports pedos!’ It was kinda surprising how quickly they formed an internet bloc. Suspicious when accounts created in 2008 but almost no activity until this very moment…
Maybe I’m just paranoid. I’m dissatisfied with the verdict, and disappointed that the internet Right celebrates this horrific tragedy as a sports score.
I've been purposely not following this because I knew I'd be disappointed again. Glad I'm not.
though I clearly have no idea what murder and false imprisonment charges actually entail, because it seems to me that only one would be guilty of the former and none would be guilty of the later?
I’m noticing, both in the last thread, and many other left leaning discussion areas get an influx of new people who are blatantly pro Rittenhouse. And not just ‘Well, the evidence showed he justified’. I’m talking full blown ‘Victim was a pedophile, ergo the Left supports pedos!’ It was kinda surprising how quickly they formed an internet bloc. Suspicious when accounts created in 2008 but almost no activity until this very moment…
Maybe I’m just paranoid. I’m dissatisfied with the verdict, and disappointed that the internet Right celebrates this horrific tragedy as a sports score.
And I'm sure those same people will be petitioning the next Republican president to pardon Arbrey's murderers.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
+7
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
It's a damn shame that we are so excited and incredulous that basic justice has been done.
And charges never would have even been brought if not for weeks of diligent work by protestors who refused to allow local authorities to sweep it under the rug. It’s nice when the good guys manage to win a small consolation, even in a rigged system.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
+41
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Legal eagle also tends to skip a lot of pertinent details in trying to get a video under a certain time and simplified for lay people.
Yes, that's true. But at the same time, he's a lawyer trained in the American legal education system, then spent time in BigLaw. Which means he's been soaking in the profession's institutionalism, and I'd bet he doesn't even see it. Part of why I still read the blog Lawyers, Guns, and Money is because the legal writers there have become critical of legal institutionalism (probably because they were some of the first to go after the scam law schools, when a lot of other people were looking the other way.)
Buddy, you're attacking my post as if it's not a criticism of legal eagle.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
It's a damn shame that we are so excited and incredulous that basic justice has been done.
And charges never would have even been brought if not for weeks of diligent work by protestors who refused to allow local authorities to sweep it under the rug. It’s nice when the good guys manage to win a small consolation, even in a rigged system.
I've been purposely not following this because I knew I'd be disappointed again. Glad I'm not.
though I clearly have no idea what murder and false imprisonment charges actually entail, because it seems to me that only one would be guilty of the former and none would be guilty of the later?
Felony murder is basically “you were doing a crime and people died as a direct result it’s your fault”. Malice murder is basically “you did the murder yourself intentionally.” And false imprisonment is basically kidnapping/illegally arresting someone. So the breakdown is basically….
“Only one of them actually shot Arbery so they’re guilty of the malice murder if they didn’t shoot maybe Arbery survives so no one else is clearly guilty of the malice. One of them didn’t have a gun, so they’re not guilty of the felony murder with a gun modifier to felony murder. But they all went and imprisoned this person illegally (IE kidnapped/or ‘arrested’) so they all get the base felony murder because they were all doing the felony and someone died
I’m noticing, both in the last thread, and many other left leaning discussion areas get an influx of new people who are blatantly pro Rittenhouse. And not just ‘Well, the evidence showed he justified’. I’m talking full blown ‘Victim was a pedophile, ergo the Left supports pedos!’ It was kinda surprising how quickly they formed an internet bloc. Suspicious when accounts created in 2008 but almost no activity until this very moment…
Maybe I’m just paranoid. I’m dissatisfied with the verdict, and disappointed that the internet Right celebrates this horrific tragedy as a sports score.
This forum was an extremely different place back when those accounts were created. I've seen since of the threads from that time necroed up from the depths and they are not flattering.
+12
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It's a damn shame that we are so excited and incredulous that basic justice has been done.
And charges never would have even been brought if not for weeks of diligent work by protestors who refused to allow local authorities to sweep it under the rug. It’s nice when the good guys manage to win a small consolation, even in a rigged system.
jesus, I didn't know that
Yeah man, state prosecutors didn't even want to touch it. They had to be forced.
I've been purposely not following this because I knew I'd be disappointed again. Glad I'm not.
though I clearly have no idea what murder and false imprisonment charges actually entail, because it seems to me that only one would be guilty of the former and none would be guilty of the later?
Felony murder is basically “you were doing a crime and people died as a direct result it’s your fault”. Malice murder is basically “you did the murder yourself intentionally.” And false imprisonment is basically kidnapping/illegally arresting someone. So the breakdown is basically….
“Only one of them actually shot Arbery so they’re guilty of the malice murder if they didn’t shoot maybe Arbery survives so no one else is clearly guilty of the malice. One of them didn’t have a gun, so they’re not guilty of the felony murder with a gun modifier to felony murder. But they all went and imprisoned this person illegally (IE kidnapped/or ‘arrested’) so they all get the base felony murder because they were all doing the felony and someone died
I’m noticing, both in the last thread, and many other left leaning discussion areas get an influx of new people who are blatantly pro Rittenhouse. And not just ‘Well, the evidence showed he justified’. I’m talking full blown ‘Victim was a pedophile, ergo the Left supports pedos!’ It was kinda surprising how quickly they formed an internet bloc. Suspicious when accounts created in 2008 but almost no activity until this very moment…
Maybe I’m just paranoid. I’m dissatisfied with the verdict, and disappointed that the internet Right celebrates this horrific tragedy as a sports score.
This forum was an extremely different place back when those accounts were created. I've seen since of the threads from that time necroed up from the depths and they are not flattering.
Not putting this as a fault of the forum, but it seems some fascists manage to co-exist in G+T for a long time because they either intentionally or unintentionally avoid anything that would cause them to unmask but eventually an issue comes along that they feel the need to wade into and basically it's the beginning of the end.
They're not sleeper agents (Their views in 200x we're probably a lot closer to the forum mean in more ways then one back then) but they kept a low profile till now, for whatever reason
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
It's worth noting that the judge in that trial made a number of decisions differently from the judge in the Rittenhouse case, from allowing the prosecution to call Arbery a victim, dismissing the defense's demand to not allow Black clergy into the court, and so on. As such, the defense could never remove race from the proceedings.
And it should also be noted the judge in the Arbery case did forbid the prosecution from introducing some evidence of the defendents' racism, such as a photograph of their truck's bumper stickers and some social media posts.
It's worth noting that the judge in that trial made a number of decisions differently from the judge in the Rittenhouse case, from allowing the prosecution to call Arbery a victim, dismissing the defense's demand to not allow Black clergy into the court, and so on. As such, the defense could never remove race from the proceedings.
And it should also be noted the judge in the Arbery case did forbid the prosecution from introducing some evidence of the defendents' racism, such as a photograph of their truck's bumper stickers and some social media posts.
True, but in the Arbery case it felt more appropriate. When I initially saw that they police weren’t going to charge this I was mortified and sad. I am pleasantly surprised that activism turned that from not being prosecuted, to an arrest trial and conviction.
It's a damn shame that we are so excited and incredulous that basic justice has been done.
And charges never would have even been brought if not for weeks of diligent work by protestors who refused to allow local authorities to sweep it under the rug. It’s nice when the good guys manage to win a small consolation, even in a rigged system.
jesus, I didn't know that
Yeah man, state prosecutors didn't even want to touch it. They had to be forced.
SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) — The former prosecutor charged with misconduct for her handling of the Ahmaud Arbery case was booked at a Georgia jail on Wednesday and released.
Former Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney Jackie Johnson turned herself in Wednesday morning at the Glynn County jail, county Undersheriff Ron Corbett said. Jail records show she was released on her own recognizance, meaning she did not have to pay a cash bond.
A grand jury indicted Johnson, 49, last week on a felony charge of violating her oath of office and a misdemeanor count of obstructing police. Johnson was the area’s top prosecutor when three white men chased and fatally shot Arbery last year. The indictment alleges she used her position to discourage police from making arrests in the 25-year-old Black man’s killing.
(This was September 8th)
Psn:wazukki
+2
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I've been purposely not following this because I knew I'd be disappointed again. Glad I'm not.
though I clearly have no idea what murder and false imprisonment charges actually entail, because it seems to me that only one would be guilty of the former and none would be guilty of the later?
Felony murder is basically “you were doing a crime and people died as a direct result it’s your fault”. Malice murder is basically “you did the murder yourself intentionally.” And false imprisonment is basically kidnapping/illegally arresting someone. So the breakdown is basically….
“Only one of them actually shot Arbery so they’re guilty of the malice murder if they didn’t shoot maybe Arbery survives so no one else is clearly guilty of the malice. One of them didn’t have a gun, so they’re not guilty of the felony murder with a gun modifier to felony murder. But they all went and imprisoned this person illegally (IE kidnapped/or ‘arrested’) so they all get the base felony murder because they were all doing the felony and someone died
Give me a minute to make some lunch and I'll try to elaborate on this.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I've been purposely not following this because I knew I'd be disappointed again. Glad I'm not.
though I clearly have no idea what murder and false imprisonment charges actually entail, because it seems to me that only one would be guilty of the former and none would be guilty of the later?
Felony murder is basically “you were doing a crime and people died as a direct result it’s your fault”. Malice murder is basically “you did the murder yourself intentionally.” And false imprisonment is basically kidnapping/illegally arresting someone. So the breakdown is basically….
“Only one of them actually shot Arbery so they’re guilty of the malice murder if they didn’t shoot maybe Arbery survives so no one else is clearly guilty of the malice. One of them didn’t have a gun, so they’re not guilty of the felony murder with a gun modifier to felony murder. But they all went and imprisoned this person illegally (IE kidnapped/or ‘arrested’) so they all get the base felony murder because they were all doing the felony and someone died
ahh that clears it up, thank you!
Just as a note on something I just learned, malice murder and felony murder in Georgia have the same minimum punishment of life in prison. The only variable is if you can get parole or not. It’s not a lesser crime, it’s the same crime, in that state.
I’m noticing, both in the last thread, and many other left leaning discussion areas get an influx of new people who are blatantly pro Rittenhouse. And not just ‘Well, the evidence showed he justified’. I’m talking full blown ‘Victim was a pedophile, ergo the Left supports pedos!’ It was kinda surprising how quickly they formed an internet bloc. Suspicious when accounts created in 2008 but almost no activity until this very moment…
Maybe I’m just paranoid. I’m dissatisfied with the verdict, and disappointed that the internet Right celebrates this horrific tragedy as a sports score.
There exists a noteable bipartisan current of thought that all pedophiles (or anyone they think is one) deserve to be murdered.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
The PA forums used to be a lot more broad in their perspective, with us having a real mix of views ranging from liberal to libertarian to straight anarchist and as such you could get real interesting conversations going on gay rights, religion and male circumcision.
The problem was that the sheer ineptitude of bush broke a lot of folks, and it simply wasn’t possible for them to make excuses for neo-conservatism anymore.
Not everyone flipped of course; there were a handful of republicans/libertarians that stuck it out as the forum became more liberal and the mods more stringent on language.
Part of me wishes we could have those days and conversations back, but the sad reality is that the Republican Party is largely untethered from reality at this point and whenever such forumites turn back up its an exercise in futility to try and have a good faith discussion with them.
+11
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Felony murder is when you engage in a criminal activity with violence involved (or a predictable result from) and then someone dies as a result. This includes if a cop shows up to your robbery and hits someone with a stray bullet. It's necessary because we want to heavily dissuade people from engaging in inherently violent acts and punish people for having a death arise from the results of their actions. Compared to if you and some buddies were vandalizing a statue and then the cops show up and your buddy shoots them, that's not felony murder because it's not a natural consequence arising from the crime of vandalism.
Murder with malice aforethought is what you generally think of as murder. In some states, the premeditation factor can occur instantly. Did you decide to shoot this guy to kill him? That's probably murder with malice aforethought.
The difference in sentencing between the two? Very, very little. There is not much difference between murder with malice aforethought and felony murder unless you live in a jursidiction that has the death penalty. Otherwise, it means the same sentence but no opportunity for parole.
False imprisonment is a violent crime. It is inherently violent, because you are physically forcing someone to go somewhere against their will. They might fight back, someone might try to stop you, etc.
So by agreeing to commit false imprisonment, the dudes involved were on the hook for any deaths that happened as a result. It wouldn't matter if it was manslaughter, murder with malice aforethought, or if the dude had a heart attack as a result from overexerting himself fighting them. That's felony murder.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
The PA forums used to be a lot more broad in their perspective, with us having a real mix of views ranging from liberal to libertarian to straight anarchist and as such you could get real interesting conversations going on gay rights, religion and male circumcision.
The problem was that the sheer ineptitude of bush broke a lot of folks, and it simply wasn’t possible for them to make excuses for neo-conservatism anymore.
Not everyone flipped of course; there were a handful of republicans/libertarians that stuck it out as the forum became more liberal and the mods more stringent on language.
Part of me wishes we could have those days and conversations back, but the sad reality is that the Republican Party is largely untethered from reality at this point and whenever such forumites turn back up its an exercise in futility to try and have a good faith discussion with them.
I think the mass exodus was because of the goobers not bush.
The PA forums used to be a lot more broad in their perspective, with us having a real mix of views ranging from liberal to libertarian to straight anarchist and as such you could get real interesting conversations going on gay rights, religion and male circumcision.
The problem was that the sheer ineptitude of bush broke a lot of folks, and it simply wasn’t possible for them to make excuses for neo-conservatism anymore.
Not everyone flipped of course; there were a handful of republicans/libertarians that stuck it out as the forum became more liberal and the mods more stringent on language.
Part of me wishes we could have those days and conversations back, but the sad reality is that the Republican Party is largely untethered from reality at this point and whenever such forumites turn back up its an exercise in futility to try and have a good faith discussion with them.
This forum and its moderators made me a more rational, thoughtful person.
There's a lot more anti-gun-control people on the forums then people think and there used to be more. You just don't see it because we stopped having gun control threads because they caused huge fights exactly because there's way more of those people here then you think.
The Rittenhouse case functions in large part, especially here, as a proxy fight over gun control and so as soon as that starts a lot of anti-gun-control people come out to argue their side.
I’m noticing, both in the last thread, and many other left leaning discussion areas get an influx of new people who are blatantly pro Rittenhouse. And not just ‘Well, the evidence showed he justified’. I’m talking full blown ‘Victim was a pedophile, ergo the Left supports pedos!’ It was kinda surprising how quickly they formed an internet bloc. Suspicious when accounts created in 2008 but almost no activity until this very moment…
Maybe I’m just paranoid. I’m dissatisfied with the verdict, and disappointed that the internet Right celebrates this horrific tragedy as a sports score.
There exists a noteable bipartisan current of thought that all pedophiles (or anyone they think is one) deserve to be murdered.
could say that about a lot of crimes, to be honest
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
The PA forums used to be a lot more broad in their perspective, with us having a real mix of views ranging from liberal to libertarian to straight anarchist and as such you could get real interesting conversations going on gay rights, religion and male circumcision.
The problem was that the sheer ineptitude of bush broke a lot of folks, and it simply wasn’t possible for them to make excuses for neo-conservatism anymore.
Not everyone flipped of course; there were a handful of republicans/libertarians that stuck it out as the forum became more liberal and the mods more stringent on language.
Part of me wishes we could have those days and conversations back, but the sad reality is that the Republican Party is largely untethered from reality at this point and whenever such forumites turn back up its an exercise in futility to try and have a good faith discussion with them.
Bush may have started that process, but it was goobergate that broke a lot of communities and where decisions were made. It's great that when the first screed about Zoe was posted up on the internet, which started the entire thing, one of the places it was initially posted was actually on Penny-Arcade but tube and the mods took one look and straight up obliterated it. I think in more recent times the Trump presidency just broke everyone remaining who was a conservative and could actually think in any form of reality on this forum.
I used to have significantly more right wing views when I was younger. A younger me, in his 20s, would even have thought what Kyle did was not inherently inappropriate even if he was stupid for various actions he took on the night. My viewpoint has shifted as it's become more and more clear where how my original viewpoint was formed, it's base origins and the inherently disagreeable connotations it has. Like, it should not be something to celebrate or a surprise that three men couldn't claim self defense for chasing an unarmed person in a truck, confronting them while armed with firearms and then that unarmed person (somehow) ends up dead. I mean, that's open and shut murder surely?
But here we are. One thing I will say that makes the difference, probably to a jury, is the same thing that was being repeated before. The people Kyle killed were not ideal victims. They are mentally ill, had problems or similar, which allowed the defense to portray them as unstable attackers. In as much as can be said, it was harder for the defense to portray a guy just running in his neighbourhood as not being a victim of three guys who went out to murder someone and surprise, surprise, ended up murdering someone. It's good to see that this verdict does at least mean America hasn't quite devolved into the wild west of "Whoever is left standing is the winner and can claim self defense".
In another reality though, maybe Arbery did get that shotgun away and shoot one (or more) of those men dead. Then I wonder what would have happened and I suspect he wouldn't have got the initially soft treatment from the DA and so forth those three men got.
Posts
Wow, I'm surprised he didn't go into the gun law thing. I've seen so many different explanations of the law (most of the wrong) that I figured a real lawyer would love to explain it.
As far as I can tell, the judge interpreted "not in compliance with 29.593" to mean having obtained a hunting permit without any of the listed qualifications, rather than simply having any of the qualifications listed in the 29.593.
That's an interpretation that's clearly against the intent of the legislature and that makes the last requirement entirely pointless.
The other popular claim is that you need to not be in compliance with both the law about being over 16 and the law about being qualified to get a hunting permit. But that's a simple failure to read the whole sentence: if you are not in compliance with both statutes, you can't use the exception for long rifles and shotguns.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The problem with "thinking like a lawyer" is that many times that winds up including a lot of institutionalism, thanks to how the legal profession in the US works. For example, a lot of the leeway judges get comes from the fact that the legal profession treats the bench as a retirement plan, so they softpedal the idea that perhaps judges should be accountable for their behavior in court and not be little tyrants because hey, that's going to be you eventually.
I assumed that the judge made his ruling based on the idea that Rittenhouse couldn't be in violation of 29.593 because he wasn't hunting (and therefore didn't require the certification). It completely ignores the spirit of the law, but that hardly seems surprising with this judge.
- John Stuart Mill
Yeah, but that's not the law that says you can't hunt without a permit. It's the law that says you can't get a permit without meeting certain qualifications.
Hunting without a permit wouldn't put you out of compliance with 29.593, either.
Legal eagle also tends to skip a lot of pertinent details in trying to get a video under a certain time and simplified for lay people.
Finally, some good fucking news.
though I clearly have no idea what murder and false imprisonment charges actually entail, because it seems to me that only one would be guilty of the former and none would be guilty of the later?
It's worth noting that the judge in that trial made a number of decisions differently from the judge in the Rittenhouse case, from allowing the prosecution to call Arbery a victim, dismissing the defense's demand to not allow Black clergy into the court, and so on. As such, the defense could never remove race from the proceedings.
Yes, that's true. But at the same time, he's a lawyer trained in the American legal education system, then spent time in BigLaw. Which means he's been soaking in the profession's institutionalism, and I'd bet he doesn't even see it. Part of why I still read the blog Lawyers, Guns, and Money is because the legal writers there have become critical of legal institutionalism (probably because they were some of the first to go after the scam law schools, when a lot of other people were looking the other way.)
Maybe I’m just paranoid. I’m dissatisfied with the verdict, and disappointed that the internet Right celebrates this horrific tragedy as a sports score.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
The author is a political and legal commentary channel.
Georgia has a felony murder law.
And I'm sure those same people will be petitioning the next Republican president to pardon Arbrey's murderers.
And charges never would have even been brought if not for weeks of diligent work by protestors who refused to allow local authorities to sweep it under the rug. It’s nice when the good guys manage to win a small consolation, even in a rigged system.
Buddy, you're attacking my post as if it's not a criticism of legal eagle.
jesus, I didn't know that
Also, we're not done here. The DA who tried to cover this up needs to face justice as well, starting with disbarrment.
There wouldn't have even been a trial if one of the defendants hadn't leaked the video because he thought it made him look better. And the former DA of Brunswick is facing obstruction of justice charges for her actions.
Felony murder is basically “you were doing a crime and people died as a direct result it’s your fault”. Malice murder is basically “you did the murder yourself intentionally.” And false imprisonment is basically kidnapping/illegally arresting someone. So the breakdown is basically….
“Only one of them actually shot Arbery so they’re guilty of the malice murder if they didn’t shoot maybe Arbery survives so no one else is clearly guilty of the malice. One of them didn’t have a gun, so they’re not guilty of the felony murder with a gun modifier to felony murder. But they all went and imprisoned this person illegally (IE kidnapped/or ‘arrested’) so they all get the base felony murder because they were all doing the felony and someone died
This forum was an extremely different place back when those accounts were created. I've seen since of the threads from that time necroed up from the depths and they are not flattering.
Yeah man, state prosecutors didn't even want to touch it. They had to be forced.
ahh that clears it up, thank you!
Not putting this as a fault of the forum, but it seems some fascists manage to co-exist in G+T for a long time because they either intentionally or unintentionally avoid anything that would cause them to unmask but eventually an issue comes along that they feel the need to wade into and basically it's the beginning of the end.
They're not sleeper agents (Their views in 200x we're probably a lot closer to the forum mean in more ways then one back then) but they kept a low profile till now, for whatever reason
Come Overwatch with meeeee
And it should also be noted the judge in the Arbery case did forbid the prosecution from introducing some evidence of the defendents' racism, such as a photograph of their truck's bumper stickers and some social media posts.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Good news!
(This was September 8th)
Give me a minute to make some lunch and I'll try to elaborate on this.
Just as a note on something I just learned, malice murder and felony murder in Georgia have the same minimum punishment of life in prison. The only variable is if you can get parole or not. It’s not a lesser crime, it’s the same crime, in that state.
There exists a noteable bipartisan current of thought that all pedophiles (or anyone they think is one) deserve to be murdered.
The PA forums used to be a lot more broad in their perspective, with us having a real mix of views ranging from liberal to libertarian to straight anarchist and as such you could get real interesting conversations going on gay rights, religion and male circumcision.
The problem was that the sheer ineptitude of bush broke a lot of folks, and it simply wasn’t possible for them to make excuses for neo-conservatism anymore.
Not everyone flipped of course; there were a handful of republicans/libertarians that stuck it out as the forum became more liberal and the mods more stringent on language.
Part of me wishes we could have those days and conversations back, but the sad reality is that the Republican Party is largely untethered from reality at this point and whenever such forumites turn back up its an exercise in futility to try and have a good faith discussion with them.
Murder with malice aforethought is what you generally think of as murder. In some states, the premeditation factor can occur instantly. Did you decide to shoot this guy to kill him? That's probably murder with malice aforethought.
The difference in sentencing between the two? Very, very little. There is not much difference between murder with malice aforethought and felony murder unless you live in a jursidiction that has the death penalty. Otherwise, it means the same sentence but no opportunity for parole.
False imprisonment is a violent crime. It is inherently violent, because you are physically forcing someone to go somewhere against their will. They might fight back, someone might try to stop you, etc.
So by agreeing to commit false imprisonment, the dudes involved were on the hook for any deaths that happened as a result. It wouldn't matter if it was manslaughter, murder with malice aforethought, or if the dude had a heart attack as a result from overexerting himself fighting them. That's felony murder.
I think the mass exodus was because of the goobers not bush.
This forum and its moderators made me a more rational, thoughtful person.
The Rittenhouse case functions in large part, especially here, as a proxy fight over gun control and so as soon as that starts a lot of anti-gun-control people come out to argue their side.
could say that about a lot of crimes, to be honest
Bush may have started that process, but it was goobergate that broke a lot of communities and where decisions were made. It's great that when the first screed about Zoe was posted up on the internet, which started the entire thing, one of the places it was initially posted was actually on Penny-Arcade but tube and the mods took one look and straight up obliterated it. I think in more recent times the Trump presidency just broke everyone remaining who was a conservative and could actually think in any form of reality on this forum.
I used to have significantly more right wing views when I was younger. A younger me, in his 20s, would even have thought what Kyle did was not inherently inappropriate even if he was stupid for various actions he took on the night. My viewpoint has shifted as it's become more and more clear where how my original viewpoint was formed, it's base origins and the inherently disagreeable connotations it has. Like, it should not be something to celebrate or a surprise that three men couldn't claim self defense for chasing an unarmed person in a truck, confronting them while armed with firearms and then that unarmed person (somehow) ends up dead. I mean, that's open and shut murder surely?
But here we are. One thing I will say that makes the difference, probably to a jury, is the same thing that was being repeated before. The people Kyle killed were not ideal victims. They are mentally ill, had problems or similar, which allowed the defense to portray them as unstable attackers. In as much as can be said, it was harder for the defense to portray a guy just running in his neighbourhood as not being a victim of three guys who went out to murder someone and surprise, surprise, ended up murdering someone. It's good to see that this verdict does at least mean America hasn't quite devolved into the wild west of "Whoever is left standing is the winner and can claim self defense".
In another reality though, maybe Arbery did get that shotgun away and shoot one (or more) of those men dead. Then I wonder what would have happened and I suspect he wouldn't have got the initially soft treatment from the DA and so forth those three men got.