What you watch on TV or dream about at night is not representative of how the law actually works. Please post these Jury instructions you keep going on about.
those are rioters, not protestors.Demonstrators in the eastern city of Leipzig set up road blocks, lit fires and threw stones at officers, police said.
i don't see how this puts "stand your ground" in the spotlight at all? the investigation is ongoing, but it seems like the shooter is claiming that she fired at the victim through the door. i also don't see anything about the victim being armed or any evidence that could otherwise justify a threat of "imminent death or severe harm". unless there are crucial details that are just not being mentioned, it sounds like even the shooter's own story amounts to 2nd degree murder at minimum, and i can see a reasonable case for 1st degree here.Authorities came under intense pressure Tuesday to arrest and charge a white woman who killed a Black neighbour on her front doorstep in a case that has put Florida's divisive "stand your ground" law back in the spotlight.
Ha ha ha ha, right on cue.those are rioters, not protestors.
Instead of trying to classify legal rulings on a political scale, it is often more helpful to ask two simple-sounding questions: First, who is required to obey the law? Second, who is entitled to its protection? In a perfect world, the answer to both questions would be “everyone.” But consider a lawsuit filed by New York City police officer Matthew Bianchi. According to a Fox News report, Bianchi alleges that the NYPD union issues laminated cards for officers to pass out to friends and family or in exchange for favors. When pulled over, recipients can flash the card and get out of any ticket — unless they’re stopped by a straight arrow like Bianchi. He claims he was retaliated against for refusing to go along with the system. Such a system, assuming it exists,
The author of that article lives in NM and is just being careful about what he has heard. Such a system is new to me.It exists alright, I've seen it firsthand![]()
The author of that article lives in NM and is just being careful about what he has heard. Such a system is new to me.
Former President Donald Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination, appeared confused when reminded that a convicted cocaine dealer he ordered released in 2018 would have been put to death under his latest proposal to execute drug dealers. “You’ve said you’d be in favor of the death penalty for drug dealers. Still the case?” asked Fox News “Special Report” anchor Bret Baier during an exchange with the 77-year-old that aired Tuesday. “That’s the only way you’re gonna stop it,” Trump declared, adding that “a drug dealer will kill approximately 500 people during the course of his or her life.” Baier then brought up Alice Johnson, a Tennessee grandmother who had served 21 years of a life sentence in connection with her non-violent involvement in a cocaine distribution ring. Trump commuted Johnson’s sentence during his second year in office and issued her and other drug convicts a full pardon in August 2020 after being lobbied by reality TV star Kim Kardashian.
OMG *facepalm* Lmao“I focused on non-violent crime,” Trump said, touting his First Step Act criminal justice reform bill, which allowed thousands of offenders to re-enter society.
“As an example, a woman who you know very well was in jail. She had 24 more years to serve, she served for 22 years. Alice,” the former president said.
“But she’d be killed under your plan,” Baier retorted, prompting Trump to reply, “Huh?”
https://nypost.com/2023/06/21/trump...renewing-his-call-for-executing-drug-dealers/“As a drug dealer,” the anchor continued.
“No, no. No. Under my, oh, under that? Uhh, it would depend on the severity,” Trump improvised.
“She’s technically a former drug dealer. She had a multimillion-dollar cocaine ring,” Baier continued, noting that Johnson had appeared in a Super Bowl commercial meant to boost Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign.
“Even Alice Johnson? In that ad?” the anchor pressed.
“She can’t do it, OK?” the former president said.
lol at asserting law should apply to everyone and then pretending self defense isn't a thing, that this "victim" didn't approach a blocked vehicle with a gun and lift his arm with it.Such a system, assuming it exists, exempts favored people from the application of the law, in this instance traffic laws. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott extended the same approach to a far more serious offense when he publicly declared his intention to pardon a convicted murderer. The murder victim, Garrett Foster, was a white military veteran and also, more to the point, a Black Lives Matter protester. A counter-protester shot him. Abbott’s declared intention to pardon the convicted killer is a pretty explicit statement that he believes Foster forfeited his right to the protection of the law by participating in a BLM protest, and that the convicted killer should accordingly be exempted from the law against murder.
isn't this one of those cities that doesn't enforce law against thefts < $1,000 or some crap? sf memed itself. my only issue with is that people (reasonably) flee that city and then (unreasonably) vote for policy that resembles sf.Another vivid example comes from San Francisco, where tech executive Bob Lee was stabbed to death on a city street in the middle of the night. Fellow tech bros lost no time blaming the city’s elected officials. As the New York Times reported, “Prominent tech executives including Elon Musk tore into the city’s leaders. Matt Ocko, a venture capitalist, said San Francisco officials had Mr. Lee’s ‘literal blood on their hands.’” Well, literal in the sense of figurative. But then, as it turned out, not even that. The person arrested for Lee’s killing was someone well known to him. Then the Wall Street Journal reported on Lee’s hard-partying lifestyle. According to the WSJ, Lee’s use of “ecstasy, ketamine [and] cocaine” was no secret among his contemporaries.
So when the tech bros condemned the city’s lawlessness, did they mean Lee should have been arrested for possession of controlled substances? Of course not. My impression is that they simply took for granted that Lee, a rich white man, was exempt from the drug laws that have put so many millions of less fortunate Americans in prison. But they evidently believed his status gave him an exalted claim to the law’s protection.
if the officer in question was actually punished for not behaving in accordance to expectations wrt cards, if that assertion is true...how would it not imply criminal conspiracy?Theoretically, no different than having a bumper sticker that says 'I support the police', that might improve chances of a cop going easy on you, but doesn't GUARANTEE you get out of a ticket....unless this lawsuit is correct in that officers were required/very strongly encouraged to accept those cards.
yikes. the quotes are hard to read in parts. was this machine translated? it sounds pretty bad regardless. i guess it's not too surprising in a country that does crap like mostly banning paternity tests.Here are some of the digital habits that are, in this case, exploited as so many "proofs" of the existence of a criminal project 12 :
that exchange also sounds like it was machine translated, what the heck trump lol. he would do better just backing off on death penalty generally. would cost him practically none of his base. desantis' polling/performance is junk, but would help distance him from that too. for both parties, any candidate who goes broadly anti-authoritarian w/o directly pissing off its base should be able to farm more votes. for stuff like death penalty, it would even be easy for both sides to cherry pick examples of the government handling it poorly. it's not like you have to look hard.OMG *facepalm* Lmao![]()
Yeah, as I said it is from the google translate of the french site https://www.laquadrature.net/2023/0...ations-assimile-a-un-comportement-terroriste/. I could not find it in English.yikes. the quotes are hard to read in parts. was this machine translated?
This sure is some top notch critical thinking, here. "the people I don't like don't like him, ergo, he done (some) good". A twist on the enemy of my enemy, except it's invented "deep state" conspiracies all the way down.those people hating him suggests he did some things right.
that this "victim" didn't approach a blocked vehicle with a gun and lift his arm with it.