Mrebo

Image not showing?

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

:) does not equal "jumping for joy"

semantics.

You're right, this is me:

:) does not equal "jumping for joy" nor does it equal "soldier"

It means I am pleased with the verdict and this is not Politics.

I am pleased because there was a mountain of reasonable doubt and that the racial narrative and mob mentality did not prevail above justice.

:)

Maybe once every 2-3 years.

Tomorrow I'm going to see Return of the Jedi in a theater. It doesn't say "Special Edition" but looking at the website it has the dates "1983/1997" so meh. "Special Edition" should be required by law, else it's false advertising and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Warbler can debate these points with me in Politics).

And tonight, I'm going to see Mad Max :D At least that's not Special Edition.

TV's Frink said:

I'm closer to Warb's position on this one, that was pretty awful.  However...

Warbler said:

People died and others were seriously ignored in this accident.  

THE SERIOUSLY IGNORED ARE NOTHING TO JOKE ABOUT!!!

:P

I'm seriously ignoring Warbler! lmao

Hilarious, though the real situation is tragic.

I can't imagine how the intern felt comfortable signing off on that...

Warbler makes a cogent argument.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

And finally, modern science catches up to reality on salt.

I thought consuming a high amount of salt increased the risk of high blood pressure.

Modern science. But worry not, global warming is still real ;P

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

They'd have to have the Supreme Court declare that the 3rd Amendment applies to the states (via the 14th - that is not automatic and never been decided).

I won't go there,  I agree to disagree here.

You're not permitted to disagree on this point :P

You're right than an argument can be made that the 3rd Amendment (even if I'm not convinced), but it is fact that the 3rd Amendment has never been found applicable to the states and that the Supreme Court goes through lengthy justifications to establish when part of the Bill of Rights is thus incorporated. Until just a few years ago, the 2nd Amendment was not held applicable to states. The Court could change based on the argument you're making, but it would have to happen!

Mrebo said:

I've read they are making a 4th Amendment claim, which one could say is not applicable since there is no search or seizure (aside from the arrest).

they entered the house without permission, if they did not have a warrant, I think that violates the 4th amendment. 

Mrebo said:

Good old-fashioned trespass, property damage, assault, false arrest, and other such legal claims are the most straightforward route, I'd wager.

cops committing trespass doesn't violate the 4th amendment?

It can. But the 4th Amendment applies to searches and seizures. I have not seen it claimed that the police sought to search or actually did search. As always, an argument can be made. And throwing constitutional claims on the power makes it sound all the more egregious.

Mrebo said:

 

"If you think it's 60 percent likely or 70 percent or even 80 percent likely that Zimmerman is guilty and doesn’t deserve self-defense, you have to acquit," Dershowitz said.

well 80% does get close to what is needed to convict.   You don't need to erase all doubt, just all reasonable doubt.

Dershowitz did proceed to say that 90% gets close. 

darth_ender said:

Current Events.  No politics.  If the scenario turns political, take it to the politics thread, and put a link in here for others to follow if interested.

Link.

And finally, modern science catches up to reality on salt.

Warbler said:

btw, Zimmerman said he will not testify.   Darn, I wanted the listen to prosecution grill him on why he suspected Trayvon of anything.  

Well since the burden is on the prosecution and the prosecution hasn't provided a case convincing beyond a reasonable doubt, there's no good reason to have Zimmerman testify. He could sit there and deny any improper motive, express how much he cares about the community, how Trayvon attacked him that night, but I don't know if you'd find that helpful. It's been a terrible and politicized show from the start. We want to see Zimmerman squirm! Meh.

Even the US DOJ (!) spent thousands of dollars related to rallies related to the case against Zimmerman. I have no principled objection to Zimmerman being tried for something...but trying him for such baldly political reasons with murder on such sparse evidence is disgusting. Renowned attorney/professor Alan Dershowitz suggested the high charge was pushed in order to get a "compromise" guilty verdict for manslaughter. Doesn't feel very justicey to me. Dershowitz concludes:

"If you think it's 60 percent likely or 70 percent or even 80 percent likely that Zimmerman is guilty and doesn’t deserve self-defense, you have to acquit," Dershowitz said.

Based on not knowing how the fight started but questionable behavior on both sides, I don't see how any juror can be at all sure that Zimmerman acted with a depraved mind. There's also much evidence for self-defense I don't see how a juror can discount it for a basis of reasonable doubt. Even manslaughter is a tough sell.

"I might not want to be friendly with George Zimmerman at the end of the case … I certainly would not declare him innocent. There's a big difference between declaring him innocent and declaring him not guilty," he said.

I think there is reason to worry about what an actual vigilante might do.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

There is also this "3rd Amendment" case. I don't think the 3rd Amendment claim will fly, but breaking into someone's home and arresting them for non-cooperation with a surveillance operation is certainly illegal. More about police seeking control.

I think the 3rd amendment claim could fly.    I think one can argue police are soldiers of a sort.   I think one can argue that if the police of today existed when the amendment was written, that the founders would have included them as well as soldiers.   I am surprised they are also not making a 4th amendment  claim.    Seems like their rights to privacy were violated.    Did the cops have a search warrant before they broke in?   It certainly seems like the cops took things too far.

Well they'd have to argue that cops = soldiers...which I don't buy. They'd have to argue that the occupation = quartering. They'd have to have the Supreme Court declare that the 3rd Amendment applies to the states (via the 14th - that is not automatic and never been decided). I've read they are making a 4th Amendment claim, which one could say is not applicable since there is no search or seizure (aside from the arrest). Good old-fashioned trespass, property damage, assault, false arrest, and other such legal claims are the most straightforward route, I'd wager.

Mrebo said:

I promise I'm not trying to bait ferris to come back.... ;)

please do bait him to come back!   He drove me crazy sometimes, but I miss him and his prospective on things.

Okay :P

Well this one time, on a Sunday years ago, my lady friend was driving on the highway with me as a passenger. There was very little traffic. Perhaps one or two other cars on the highway in sight. She was driving like an old lady, at 50 in a 65. Just because she felt like driving casual or something. I didn't even notice. Cop pulls us over. Gives her a ticket for "impeding traffic." Again, no notable traffic. I think the cop probably had a quota to meet.

TV's Frink said:

My nuts fell off.

But was that due to marriage?

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

First, video making the rounds showing police abusing their authority. And if something illegal had been found in the car and there was no video, the kid would be in jail. How many people have gone to jail, particularly on plea bargains, based on such illegal searches?

It sure seems like those officers are jerks who don't care about peoples rights, constitutional or otherwise.    But maybe we need to see the other side of this.   The guy says he never had drugs in the car, but he could be lying.

Did you see the part where the dog apparently "indicated" because the officer told the dog to do so? (ie when the dog jumped up to the window and promptly back down). Maybe the dog did something else off camera at another part of the car, but even at the open window, the dog promptly moved on, after being told to jump up at the window.

He could have been doing stuff off camera to intentionally piss off the cops in order to try get them to do something bad, I have seen multiple videos on youtube of people trying to do that.

Point is that being non-accommodating/non-submissive should not mean cops feel they can "do something bad."

Also we have no idea if what he described the officers doing and saying off camera actually happened.    I would love to hear from experts on whether or not the dog sniffing of the car was done properly, and legal experts on the whole stop.

ferris should chime in!

But it is pretty obvious the stop and bringing in the dog was based on the guy being a overly assertive (ie not a crime).

Mrebo said:

And not to beat up on police, but I agree with this article concerning training police to not shoot dogs.

I agree completely with the article.   I am afraid that the cops might come to my door someday for some reason and my miniature poodle might bark at them and they might shoot it.   Shooting a dog should be the last resort, not the first option.   Many of the incidents listed in the article seem to be a complete disgrace to me.   Some of those officers probably deserve to lose their badges.  C3PS, what do you think of the article?

I love to hear from ferris on any of the above.

If you recall, ferris said no self-respecting cop would want to deal with the embarrassment of claiming s/he felt threatened by your poodle. But I do feel the standard for shooting a dog is overly subjective/easy to justify. And I think a huge part is less feeling threatened per se, than wanting to risk losing any control over a situation. And that is a common thread with the traffic stop article...

There is also this "3rd Amendment" case. I don't think the 3rd Amendment claim will fly, but breaking into someone's home and arresting them for non-cooperation with a surveillance operation is certainly illegal. More about police seeking control.

I promise I'm not trying to bait ferris to come back.... ;)

First, video making the rounds showing police abusing their authority. And if something illegal had been found in the car and there was no video, the kid would be in jail. How many people have gone to jail, particularly on plea bargains, based on such illegal searches?

And not to beat up on police, but I agree with this article concerning training police to not shoot dogs.

Similar story is Paula Deen being fired by everybody, her next cookbook canceled. I'm less exercised about story since people are fired for all manner of silly reasons that might reflect poorly on a company, plus its not a government prosecution.

In this case, she was ostensibly fired for her admission that she used the n-word some number of years ago in describing someone (black) who robbed her. It came out in the course of an ongoing harassment lawsuit against her by an employee. I don't think using a racial slur years ago should count for that much. I don't think using it yesterday should necessarily count for that much if the person is sufficiently apologetic.

I don't think he should be punished at all.

This was an interesting exchange at the Supreme Court (I think Scalia might have made the same point in a footnote somewhere too...)

Not that serious...people are banned from entering countries all the time. It's when they throw you out of the country there's a real problem.

I was amused.

Super old, but worth it if you haven't seen it.

We need Mormon!

CP3S said:

Added emphasis on Dr. Manhattan's penis?

Saw the movie, never saw that "part" of it. I've also heard there was such a sight to see in Django. Saw the movie, but not that. Watching movies without glasses has its advantages.

I'm going to go see Man of Steel on Wednesday with some friends. I'll be able to give some real opinions on the film then.

For me, didn't leave a lasting impression, look forward to your thoughts.

Well there's one role on that list I could match.

TV's Frink said:

Mrebo said:

But I believe the aptly-named imperialscum and Hey, it's me are similarly reacting. I think they are speaking to the broad trends and not intentionally labeling each and every liberal and/or Muslim in a negative way.

Well, it's nice that you believe that.  Me, not so much.

Honestly, I think most rational liberals wouldn't expect that guy to be arrested either.  But LIBERALS ARE HORRIBLE SUB-HUMANS so that can't be the case, it must be a broad trend that most would want to hang the guy.

Eh, it's sort of the way they declare that Republicans/conservatives are waging a war on women. That was a mainline attack by liberals which took (at best) a gross mischaracterization and generalized it. And even for those on the liberal side who might concede it was an overly broad attack, many of them would likely say there is a kernel of truth to it anyhow.

I'm with you that generalizing about all people on the other side of the aisle is not the way to go. But the politics of the left does foster the kind of prosecution of hate speech around the world and seeks a stilted idealized multiculturalism.

When a conservative says something dumb there are calls for every conservative to unequivocally denounce that person, lest they reveal themselves just as bad. Is that healthy in that it seeks to drive the particular view (or odious radio host) out of acceptable politics? Or is it a witch hunt? By the same token, is it perhaps healthy to get all liberals to denounce the kind of laws and politics at issue here?