|
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
"Josepi" wrote in
: I understand that those "drug legal areas" have been rescinded and no longer exist in the last few years. As I understood it, the law still says it's illegal, but there is a gentleman's agreement (change wording as appropriate) that personal enjoyment is allowed, and serving that personal enjoyment in what in Amsterdam is called "coffeeshops" is fine too. Because of (mostly German) drug tourism and vandalism, such is not the case for non-citizens in communities very close to the German border. But, hey, I'm not really interested in it, so take it for what it is, usenet noise ... -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
: Han wrote: Well, all of you are right, except for 1 thing: Where did that illegal gun come from? Just like a car can be traced through all its owners by the VIN, a gun - IMO any gun - should be traceable through a similar registration process. It's not only the last perp who has an illegal gun and is guilty, it's all the former owners who "neglected" to legally transfer the weapon, back to the manufacturer. Oh - pure bull****. Do you live in any sort of a real world? For christ's sake think will you? So you legally register your gun. It gets stolen. What freakin' good is your almighty registration? Do you even think before you write this stuff? The real world is about more than your feel good crap. Sorry - but this brain dead line of thought really hits a nerve. Now, I agree that isn't likely to be instituted any time soon, but, using Heybub's story up there somewhere as an example: Did the guy whomhe surprised in a burglary take any of Heybub's weapons, and if so did Heybub notify the authorities of their "VIN"'s? Because it is generally stolen or purposely bought and sold guns that are now the "illegal" guns. Tracing them and legally punishing the sobs that brought them on the illegal market in the first place ought to help at least somewhat. You are a dreamer. Do you really even understand where illegal guns come from? Do you really believe they all come from traceable sources? Do you really believe the capacity even exists to actually trace these things? Have you thought this out at all? Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the highest % of population in prison of all Western countries, but that should be another thread, perhaps not on the wreck. Oh... that would be a thread, wouldn't it? You're just feeling wicked tonight aren't you...? Are you saying that trafficking in stolen guns is so well established that we really shouldn't consider it illegal anymore? Your trains of thought are insane, IMNSHO. Of course, I admit that you think otherwise. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
"HeyBub" wrote in
m: Han wrote: "HeyBub" wrote in m: Han wrote: You're right, by now it may be too late to be really useful. Still, why make it even easier for criminals to get guns? Heh! It's BECAUSE criminals can easily obtain guns that the rest of us should be able to obtain a gun just as easily. Here's how a criminal gets his gun: * Criminal #1: "Here's the money." * Criminal #2: "Here's your gun." Why should it be any different for me? (Fortunately, it's not much different, but you get the idea.) Well, all of you are right, except for 1 thing: Where did that illegal gun come from? Just like a car can be traced through all its owners by the VIN, a gun - IMO any gun - should be traceable through a similar registration process. It's not only the last perp who has an illegal gun and is guilty, it's all the former owners who "neglected" to legally transfer the weapon, back to the manufacturer. What difference does it make to me where the criminal got the gun if I have to protect myself from him? Traceable? Why? Any time the cops have a gun that COULD be traceable, the crime has already occurred. What difference does it make to me, when accosted by a mope, whether the gun he uses can be traced? Seems to me it would make a definite difference to the prosecution of the ccriminal(s). Now, I agree that isn't likely to be instituted any time soon, but, using Heybub's story up there somewhere as an example: Did the guy whomhe surprised in a burglary take any of Heybub's weapons, and if so did Heybub notify the authorities of their "VIN"'s? Because it is generally stolen or purposely bought and sold guns that are now the "illegal" guns. Tracing them and legally punishing the sobs that brought them on the illegal market in the first place ought to help at least somewhat. No, the goblin didn't get any guns from me. He was apparently just beginning his squit-eyed actions. Good for you. I hope things are well locked up in your house now. You had better check your facts: Most guns used in crime, so far as authorities know, are NOT committed with stolen guns. Illegal guns then. Believe me, every time authorities find a gun that has moved illegally in commerce, those responsible are punished. Except for those thousands of guns whose dodgy sales were sanctioned by the BATF. Most went to drug cartels in Mexico (a good thing) but some ended up on this side of the border where they contributed to the mayhem. It amazes me that now you seem to imply that BATF should be more empowered, but that would be GOOD in my opinion, at least if they get the deadbrains out of the line of command. Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the highest % of population in prison of all Western countries, but that should be another thread, perhaps not on the wreck. We have the highest percentage of incarceration because we want to keep the crime rate as low as possible. There is an obvious and dramatic inverse relationship between crime and incarceration. This doesn't prove causality, of course, but it's a good indicator to most folks. My train of thought is - more poor and desperate people - easy drug use - more criminality - more incarceration. But then, that's another train of thought. For the record, there are areas in Amsterdam (or other cities) where walking around at night may not be advisable. But I have walked round many areas of New York City without incidents of any consequence too, but mostly during daytime or early evening. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
Larry Jaques wrote in
: On 08 Jan 2012 01:58:26 GMT, Han wrote: Larry Jaques wrote in m: If it's Saturday, it must be Lutefisk. Since my daughter in law is from North Dakota I have taken the obligatory bite of lutefisk. It took hours before that foul taste was out of my mouth. I had leftovers from yesterday's swai. Just microwaved with some kind of dill mix over it. At $6/lb it was delicious, and held up well to warming up ... I wonder how much Agent Orange is left in the mud over there in swai country...but, yeah, swai is pretty good. Why is some tilapi sweet and mellow, the other very fishy? Is it just old fish before it's frozen? I switched from tilapia to swai because of price and apparent greater sustainability. And it also tastes better, IMO. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On 1/7/2012 8:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote: No. Again, I am not a lawyer, and not familiar with the specific laws of your state or Oklahoma, but running a red light is not even a misdemeanor, let alone a felony. It is breaking a law. Therefore you are liable for being punished in some way for being with him. That has to be the most idiotic statement I've heard in the last hour. Now you know how I feel about the guy that was standing out side and be charged for something that did not happen. |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On 1/7/2012 8:17 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote: Common sense. You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with out wearing a seat belt???? Now do you see the logic? No, I don't see the logic, nor, evidently, do you. A passenger in a car is not a participant in any offense in which the driver partakes. Take it further: You are a passenger in a car. Your buddy, the driver, gets incensed over the actions of another driver, pulls up beside the other driver, and, through the open window, shoots the other driver dead. Are you in any way guilty of anything? Of course not. Same thing with the buddy standing out side. |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On 1/7/2012 8:28 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote: On 1/7/2012 7:46 AM, HeyBub wrote: Swingman wrote: I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you do see the stark difference? You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon. Again, Asshat lawyers playing games with the legal system by shading what should be the even hand of justice. Let's posit a hypothetical: Two men agree to rob a bank. One will do the robbery, the other will drive the getaway car. During the robbery, a teller is shot and killed. Do you actually think robber #2 can be charged only with double-parking? No, you might say, he's guilty only of robbery. But HE didn't rob anybody or even attempt to do so! He was merely sitting in the car outside the bank with the engine running. The sequence here is that when more than one person participates in committing a crime, each member of the gang is equally responsible for any act that any member undertakes. Lets change that story to a friend drives another to the bank to make a deposit. The friend ends up robbing the place and gets killed. Now you go to jail responsible for his death. No you don't. We have a teaching moment here; The basic theory of criminal law is that every offence is predicated on the state of mind of the accused. In the example you posit, there is no "mens rea", or guilty mind. Without the requisite criminal (or negligent) intent, there is no crime. Period. End of story. The driver must have known, or should have known, that a robbery was planned before any sanction can attach. Mere presence is not enough because, as you proposed, the presence was entirely innocent. Same applies for the guy standing out side until we learn, at the beginning of this thread it was not known, what he confessed to. |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
"Mike M" wrote in message ... I haven't had a gun since then other then a rifle with ammunition so old I'd probably be safer having it pointed at me then shooting it. I guess when they cut the police force to where you have to protect yourself I'll reconsider. Mike M Remember; when every second counts the police are only moments away. Max |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On 1/8/2012 9:18 AM, Han wrote:
"Mike wrote in : Han wrote: Well, all of you are right, except for 1 thing: Where did that illegal gun come from? Just like a car can be traced through all its owners by the VIN, a gun - IMO any gun - should be traceable through a similar registration process. It's not only the last perp who has an illegal gun and is guilty, it's all the former owners who "neglected" to legally transfer the weapon, back to the manufacturer. Oh - pure bull****. Do you live in any sort of a real world? For christ's sake think will you? So you legally register your gun. It gets stolen. What freakin' good is your almighty registration? Do you even think before you write this stuff? The real world is about more than your feel good crap. Sorry - but this brain dead line of thought really hits a nerve. Now, I agree that isn't likely to be instituted any time soon, but, using Heybub's story up there somewhere as an example: Did the guy whomhe surprised in a burglary take any of Heybub's weapons, and if so did Heybub notify the authorities of their "VIN"'s? Because it is generally stolen or purposely bought and sold guns that are now the "illegal" guns. Tracing them and legally punishing the sobs that brought them on the illegal market in the first place ought to help at least somewhat. You are a dreamer. Do you really even understand where illegal guns come from? Do you really believe they all come from traceable sources? Do you really believe the capacity even exists to actually trace these things? Have you thought this out at all? Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the highest % of population in prison of all Western countries, but that should be another thread, perhaps not on the wreck. Oh... that would be a thread, wouldn't it? You're just feeling wicked tonight aren't you...? Are you saying that trafficking in stolen guns is so well established that we really shouldn't consider it illegal anymore? Your trains of thought are insane, IMNSHO. Of course, I admit that you think otherwise. Consider that guns have been being registered in some form for many years. Now consider the fact that many people still think that registration should implemented. Now consider that nothing has improved. |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On 1/7/2012 9:07 PM, Larry W wrote:
In articleM8qdncNyKuDV_5XSnZ2dnUVZ5vKdnZ2d@giganews. com, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/7/2012 7:48 AM, Larry W wrote: In articleAdWdndD7eMIPP5rSnZ2dnUVZ5sidnZ2d@giganews. com, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/6/2012 5:16 PM, HeyBub wrote: Leon wrote: No ****! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No murder was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to pay for killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on the young woman. Better check your definitions. Homicide = Killing of a human being by the actions of another Murder = Homicide with premeditation and malice or homicide committed during the commission of a felony. Note the person committing the homicide need not be the felon (as in defense of self). I under stand the laws say it is so but what moron made that law up. A group of people are standing on a cliff on a dark night. One of them tells another, "Go ahead and jump off. There's a lake at the bottom." He does so, falls on to the rocks, and dies. The others in the group testify in court that this is what happened. The jury is satisfied as to the veracity of their testimony and convicts the defendant of murder. Substitute "Break in to that trailer" for "Go ahead and jump." Seems logical enough to me. Presumably a judge and jury, upon hearing the evdence and arguments in court, (unlike those of us merely speculating in a newsgroup) will make the right decision. Is that what the guy outside the trailer said??? Or did he say I'll wait out side while you go into inside "your trailer" to take a ****. Hey dude! Why are you kicking in your door??? BANG? The friend is dead and you are up for murder. Again, that will be for the jury to decide, not rec.woodworking. If it makes it to court at all. More than likely it will be thrown out if felony murder charges are brought up. |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On 1/7/2012 8:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote: If they planned to do a burglary or rape the woman, it is still felony murder for the waiting driver. Perhaps not the maximum sentence. Think of the deterrrence value of it. There is that word IF again. If it actually happened then yes the out side guy should be charged with the crime that actually happened. Because one one was actually murdered he should not be brought up on murder charges. No, "if" about it. Gomer #2 participated in the planning and execution of the crime. Gomer #2 HAS been charged with murder. For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder rule. That you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's unfair is at variance with the greatest legal minds of almost a millennia, indeed, your position is the opposite of a civilized society. No, my mind set is not to go with the lench mob mentality. |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
|
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
Max wrote:
"Mike M" wrote in message ... I haven't had a gun since then other then a rifle with ammunition so old I'd probably be safer having it pointed at me then shooting it. I guess when they cut the police force to where you have to protect yourself I'll reconsider. Mike M Remember; when every second counts the police are only moments away. Uh, the approved quote is "... MINUTES away." Recall the gal in Oklahoma who recently blew away a berserker breaking into her house? The one where the 911 dispatcher said "... do what you have to do..."? It took the cops TWENTY-ONE MINUTES to respond!. To a home invasion in progress. Pitiful. And educational. |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
Leon wrote:
On 1/7/2012 8:17 PM, HeyBub wrote: Leon wrote: Common sense. You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with out wearing a seat belt???? Now do you see the logic? No, I don't see the logic, nor, evidently, do you. A passenger in a car is not a participant in any offense in which the driver partakes. Take it further: You are a passenger in a car. Your buddy, the driver, gets incensed over the actions of another driver, pulls up beside the other driver, and, through the open window, shoots the other driver dead. Are you in any way guilty of anything? Of course not. Same thing with the buddy standing out side. Only if the buddy in no way helped the assailant. It's true that when the ass-hat kicks down the door, the buddy has no duty to intervene, but in the instant case, the buddy was an active, willing participant in the crime. |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
Leon wrote:
No you don't. We have a teaching moment here; The basic theory of criminal law is that every offence is predicated on the state of mind of the accused. In the example you posit, there is no "mens rea", or guilty mind. Without the requisite criminal (or negligent) intent, there is no crime. Period. End of story. The driver must have known, or should have known, that a robbery was planned before any sanction can attach. Mere presence is not enough because, as you proposed, the presence was entirely innocent. Same applies for the guy standing out side until we learn, at the beginning of this thread it was not known, what he confessed to. As an ex-cop, I can assure you he confessed. Cops probably said (after a Miranda warning), "We're just trying to figure out what happened here. Nobody got robbed. Nobody got raped. You didn't do anything wrong. Now the way I see it, Albert wanted to rape that woman and he and you went over there so he could get his rocks off, right? I mean you had no intention of robbing or raping anybody, so you're in the clear. But isn't that the way it went down?" NB: It is not against the law for a cop to lie to a suspect. |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On 1/7/2012 8:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:
For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder rule. That you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's unfair is at variance with the greatest legal minds of almost a millennia, indeed, your position is the opposite of a civilized society. The "greatest legal minds of almost a millennia" have arguably spent more time in advancing their business model through blurring of and shading distinctions than serving the common good. -- www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
Han wrote:
What difference does it make to me where the criminal got the gun if I have to protect myself from him? Traceable? Why? Any time the cops have a gun that COULD be traceable, the crime has already occurred. What difference does it make to me, when accosted by a mope, whether the gun he uses can be traced? Seems to me it would make a definite difference to the prosecution of the ccriminal(s). Absolutely no difference at all. The perp is a criminal because he used a gun. The provenance of the gun is completely irrelevant to his crime. No, the goblin didn't get any guns from me. He was apparently just beginning his squit-eyed actions. Good for you. I hope things are well locked up in your house now. Uh, no. They are concealed. The squint would have to tear up the house to find them while I can put my hands on one in mere seconds. You had better check your facts: Most guns used in crime, so far as authorities know, are NOT committed with stolen guns. Illegal guns then. Believe me, every time authorities find a gun that has moved illegally in commerce, those responsible are punished. Except for those thousands of guns whose dodgy sales were sanctioned by the BATF. Most went to drug cartels in Mexico (a good thing) but some ended up on this side of the border where they contributed to the mayhem. It amazes me that now you seem to imply that BATF should be more empowered, but that would be GOOD in my opinion, at least if they get the deadbrains out of the line of command. Huh? I hold the BATF should be ABOLISHED. Root & branch. Cremated and the ashes scattered. Take no chances is my motto. Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the highest % of population in prison of all Western countries, but that should be another thread, perhaps not on the wreck. We have the highest percentage of incarceration because we want to keep the crime rate as low as possible. There is an obvious and dramatic inverse relationship between crime and incarceration. This doesn't prove causality, of course, but it's a good indicator to most folks. My train of thought is - more poor and desperate people - easy drug use - more criminality - more incarceration. But then, that's another train of thought. So we lock up those tempted, or driven, to illegality. Same result: less crime. |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
Leon wrote:
We're 180 degrees on this one. A big guy with a foot long knife breaking in your door is assault, period. Now, can I prove it? Yes. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault By concocted Legal definition only!!! Actual common definition, a : a violent physical or verbal attack. The legal definition is similar to TB III glue claiming to be water proof, which by common definition it is not. When I went to law school, the definition drummed into us for "assault" was "The serious threat to inflict death or serious bodily harm, coupled with the present ability to carry out that threat." Some jurisdictions add the term "battery" as the actual infliction of harm. Now you might think the definition is "legal fiction," but the "legal" definition, and use, is hundreds of years old. The vernacular definition may have changed, but the legal definition endures. So, in essence, you're equating the classic definition of "assault" with the slang you learned in grammar school. Here's a more poignant example: The King James version of the Bible has Jesus saying "Suffer the little children to come unto Me." Does that mean the children should be whipped or otherwise "suffer" in some way? No. In the 17th century, the word "suffer" meant "permit" or "allow" or "give permission." (Think "suffragettes"). Today, the word "suffer" means "experience pain or discomfort." Bottom line, the current use of the word differs from the original, but the original (i.e., the Bible) continues with its own purpose. |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
Dave wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 21:24:41 -0500, "Mike Marlow" Oh - pure bull****. Do you live in any sort of a real world? For christ's sake think will you? So you legally register your gun. It gets stolen. What freakin' good is your almighty registration? There is often a definite advantage to law enforcement if some sort of trail can be established from where, when and who the gun was stolen from. Consider this. A bunch of guns are stolen in the US and find their way into a smuggling ring that brings them up to Canada. (As has happened many times). Knowing where these guns came from in the US lets law enforcement focus on certain areas and travel routes more than others. Every little bit of knowledge helps in trying to prevent such occurrences. How about a closely comparable example? Knowing where many/most of the illegal immigrants cross the Mexican border into the US, lets immigration concentrate more on a particular area. Same situation, different subjects, both true. Tell me you dispute this? I do dispute it. I believe it makes a plausible sounding argument, but it does not work out that way often, in real life. Criminals are not so stupid. Guns get laundered through other criminal elements, distributed across wider areas, etc. Or - perhaps more likely, used locally where the registration information is useless. -- -Mike- |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:29:27 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
Recall the gal in Oklahoma who recently blew away a berserker breaking into her house? The one where the 911 dispatcher said "... do what you have to do..."? It took the cops TWENTY-ONE MINUTES to respond!. To a home invasion in progress. The courts have held that police have no responsibility to prevent crimes. It could be that that extends to responding to a crime in progress in a timely manner, but I'm guessing. Their primary responsibility is capturing a perpetrator *after* a crime has been committed. Preventing a crime appears to have been left up to us the citizens, but of course, with rare exceptions, we're not allowed to harm a criminal to do so. -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in m: What difference does it make to me where the criminal got the gun if I have to protect myself from him? Traceable? Why? Any time the cops have a gun that COULD be traceable, the crime has already occurred. What difference does it make to me, when accosted by a mope, whether the gun he uses can be traced? Seems to me it would make a definite difference to the prosecution of the ccriminal(s). That of course, would be after he did his criminal act. So - your registration would do nothing to make things better. As for a definite difference in the prosecution, why is that not the case where registration is already in place? -- -Mike- |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 13:02:59 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
I do dispute it. I believe it makes a plausible sounding argument, but it does not work out that way often, in real life. Criminals are not so stupid. Guns get laundered through other criminal elements, distributed across wider areas, etc. Or - perhaps more likely, used locally where the registration information is useless. You can't argue your way out of an immutable fact Mike. Criminal elements and organizations have been exporting guns to Canada for a long time. That's fact. Tracking information (where it exists) goes a long way in the fight to prevent this trafficing. As I said before, every little bit of information in this fight, helps. Registration is just a part of that fight. You want to call it a small part? Fine, I'll give you that, but the basic premise still stands. |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 13:02:59 -0500, "Mike Marlow" I do dispute it. I believe it makes a plausible sounding argument, but it does not work out that way often, in real life. Criminals are not so stupid. Guns get laundered through other criminal elements, distributed across wider areas, etc. Or - perhaps more likely, used locally where the registration information is useless. You can't argue your way out of an immutable fact Mike. Criminal elements and organizations have been exporting guns to Canada for a long time. That's fact. Tracking information (where it exists) goes a long way in the fight to prevent this trafficing. As I said before, every little bit of information in this fight, helps. Registration is just a part of that fight. You want to call it a small part? Fine, I'll give you that, but the basic premise still stands. I have not tried to argue that guns are not exported illegally to Canada. What I'm saying is that registration information is of little or no value, regardless of how good that idea may feel. You state that tracking information goes a long way to fight this trafficing, and that's the point I contest. That's the feel good hope of programs like registration, but the problem is that it's only feel good. -- -Mike- |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 13:56:22 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
information goes a long way to fight this trafficing, and that's the point I contest. That's the feel good hope of programs like registration, but the problem is that it's only feel good. Registration promotes responsibility. Before I bought my first hand gun, I had to go through some form of training, belong to a gun club and wait a specific period before getting my first gun. I didn't want to jeopardize my gun ownership, so I was careful to adhere to my responsibilities. That's just the start. There are other advantages. If you want to label registration as a feel good endeavor, that's entirely your prerogative. I see it as more than that. My prerogative. |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 08:42:04 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:45:49 -0500, Dave wrote: On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:10:35 -0500, wrote: complicity is pretty easy to establish. Charge the guy. Convict the guy. Then figure out what to do with him. I'm guessing that's probably not too far from the truth, except for the conviction part. I've experienced something similar up here in Toronto, Canada, except the charges were part of the cops fact finding. I was sick and passed out at the wheel of my car. Slammed head on into a concrete light pillar and knocked it over. Woke up in the hospital not remembering one bit of the accident. Cops didn't have a clue why the accident happened either, but that didn't stop them from charging me with careless driving. When I consulted a lawyer, I was told it was just one method they use to find more information. And IF you were sick when you got behind the wheel, you WERE guilty of driving without due care and attention - and therefore, legally - you WERE guilty of "careless driving". Depending on the circumstances, the charge would LIKELY be dismissed, and if not you would quite LIKELY be found not guilty - but by the letter of the law - if you were sick when you got behind the wheel, you WERE guilty of the charge. That's just the way the law works. Due care and attention would preclude you from driving if you knew you were not physically and mentally up to the task, or if you reasonably should have known. However if you were sick to the point of passing out you might also have been in a mentally impaired state and incapable of making such a judgment, and it is difficult to argue effectively that one becomes sick by intent or has any other kind of volition in the matter. One problem with the current legal system is that it doesn't have any place for "**** happens through nobody's fault". That is up to the court to decide from the evidence brought forward IF it gets to trial. Which is what my last statement covers. The courts get to make the final decision. Sometimes the decision is "**** happens through nobody's fault" and the verdict is "not guilty", or guilty and suspended sentace, or guilty and minimum penalty - etc. |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
Steve Barker wrote:
And we'll never know the outcome, because in a few days, it'll be some other earth shaking "breaking news" to distract the media and all will be forgotten about this incident. (i've forgotten most of it already if it weren't for this thread). Anyone remember when we were all gonna be killed by anthrax or the bird flue? How about H1N1? That ring a bell? It's all bull****. Yup it is - 'cause the whole damned earth is gonna blow up, or disappear in a vapor, or sumptin' else, later this year. Just ask the Myans. It's true - I read it on the internet... -- -Mike- |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 09:45:24 -0700, "Max"
wrote: "Mike M" wrote in message .. . I haven't had a gun since then other then a rifle with ammunition so old I'd probably be safer having it pointed at me then shooting it. I guess when they cut the police force to where you have to protect yourself I'll reconsider. Mike M Remember; when every second counts the police are only moments away. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!, Max. S/B: When every SECOND counts, the police are only MINUTES away. -- Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise. -- Margaret Atwood |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 18:05:17 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote: On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:29:27 -0600, HeyBub wrote: Recall the gal in Oklahoma who recently blew away a berserker breaking into her house? The one where the 911 dispatcher said "... do what you have to do..."? It took the cops TWENTY-ONE MINUTES to respond!. To a home invasion in progress. The courts have held that police have no responsibility to prevent crimes. It could be that that extends to responding to a crime in progress in a timely manner, but I'm guessing. Which means the Castle Doctrine should be embraced by all states and DAs. Their primary responsibility is capturing a perpetrator *after* a crime has been committed. Preventing a crime appears to have been left up to us the citizens, but of course, with rare exceptions, we're not allowed to harm a criminal to do so. Liberal Logic. Go figure. -- Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise. -- Margaret Atwood |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On 08 Jan 2012 15:26:58 GMT, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in : On 08 Jan 2012 01:58:26 GMT, Han wrote: Larry Jaques wrote in : If it's Saturday, it must be Lutefisk. Since my daughter in law is from North Dakota I have taken the obligatory bite of lutefisk. It took hours before that foul taste was out of my mouth. I had leftovers from yesterday's swai. Just microwaved with some kind of dill mix over it. At $6/lb it was delicious, and held up well to warming up ... I wonder how much Agent Orange is left in the mud over there in swai country...but, yeah, swai is pretty good. Why is some tilapi sweet and mellow, the other very fishy? Is it just old fish before it's frozen? I switched from tilapia to swai because of price and apparent greater sustainability. And it also tastes better, IMO. Why is swai (farm raised only) more sustainable than tilapia (farm raised only), Han? This I gotta hear. ;) -- Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise. -- Margaret Atwood |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 10:55:29 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 1/7/2012 5:40 PM, Larry Jaques wrote: We're 180 degrees on this one. A big guy with a foot long knife breaking in your door is assault, period. Now, can I prove it? Yes. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault By concocted Legal definition only!!! Actual common definition, a : a violent physical or verbal attack. Holding a large knife while kicking your door in isn't violent or physical? Wasn't he screaming at her to open the door, too? Add verbal attack. The legal definition is similar to TB III glue claiming to be water proof, which by common definition it is not. That's up to the DA to go after Sears for horsepower figs and TB (and especially Thompson's) for waterproofing claims. The sheep no longer have common sense and go along with what they are told. That's half the reason the U.S. is in all these messes today. -- Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise. -- Margaret Atwood |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
Larry Jaques wrote in
: Why is swai (farm raised only) more sustainable than tilapia (farm raised only), Han? This I gotta hear. ;) Yep, sounds weird, right? But that's what I read somewhere, but where? This is possibly a better guide: http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/c...factsheet.aspx But swai is definitely cheaper than tilapia, for now anyway. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On 1/8/2012 8:48 AM, Leon wrote:
On 1/7/2012 9:07 PM, Larry W wrote: In articleM8qdncNyKuDV_5XSnZ2dnUVZ5vKdnZ2d@giganews. com, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/7/2012 7:48 AM, Larry W wrote: In articleAdWdndD7eMIPP5rSnZ2dnUVZ5sidnZ2d@giganews. com, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/6/2012 5:16 PM, HeyBub wrote: Leon wrote: No ****! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No murder was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to pay for killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on the young woman. Better check your definitions. Homicide = Killing of a human being by the actions of another Murder = Homicide with premeditation and malice or homicide committed during the commission of a felony. Note the person committing the homicide need not be the felon (as in defense of self). I under stand the laws say it is so but what moron made that law up. A group of people are standing on a cliff on a dark night. One of them tells another, "Go ahead and jump off. There's a lake at the bottom." He does so, falls on to the rocks, and dies. The others in the group testify in court that this is what happened. The jury is satisfied as to the veracity of their testimony and convicts the defendant of murder. Substitute "Break in to that trailer" for "Go ahead and jump." Seems logical enough to me. Presumably a judge and jury, upon hearing the evdence and arguments in court, (unlike those of us merely speculating in a newsgroup) will make the right decision. Is that what the guy outside the trailer said??? Or did he say I'll wait out side while you go into inside "your trailer" to take a ****. Hey dude! Why are you kicking in your door??? BANG? The friend is dead and you are up for murder. Again, that will be for the jury to decide, not rec.woodworking. If it makes it to court at all. More than likely it will be thrown out if felony murder charges are brought up. And we'll never know the outcome, because in a few days, it'll be some other earth shaking "breaking news" to distract the media and all will be forgotten about this incident. (i've forgotten most of it already if it weren't for this thread). Anyone remember when we were all gonna be killed by anthrax or the bird flue? How about H1N1? That ring a bell? It's all bull****. -- Steve Barker remove the "not" from my address to email |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On 08 Jan 2012 21:41:15 GMT, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in : Why is swai (farm raised only) more sustainable than tilapia (farm raised only), Han? This I gotta hear. ;) Yep, sounds weird, right? But that's what I read somewhere, but where? Now that tilapia is US farm raises, swai, the import, is out. ;) This is possibly a better guide: http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/c...factsheet.aspx But swai is definitely cheaper than tilapia, for now anyway. Ha! I just got done reading the articles there myself. There are lots of fish with high mercury levels shown there. Both tilapia and swai have been running between $3.50 and $5/lb here, usually within 50 cents of each other in price. It's all either frozen or previously frozen here. Something I haven't tried yet is a swaiburger. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Seafoo...77452212299551 I may try one tomorrow. I'll be passing through Medford. -- Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise. -- Margaret Atwood |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On 1/8/2012 2:43 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 10:55:29 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/7/2012 5:40 PM, Larry Jaques wrote: We're 180 degrees on this one. A big guy with a foot long knife breaking in your door is assault, period. Now, can I prove it? Yes. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault By concocted Legal definition only!!! Actual common definition, a : a violent physical or verbal attack. Holding a large knife while kicking your door in isn't violent or physical? Wasn't he screaming at her to open the door, too? Add verbal attack. I believe that you are introducing some fiction here. The legal definition is similar to TB III glue claiming to be water proof, which by common definition it is not. That's up to the DA to go after Sears for horsepower figs and TB (and especially Thompson's) for waterproofing claims. The sheep no longer have common sense and go along with what they are told. That's half the reason the U.S. is in all these messes today. Yes, the attorneys have twisted the meaning of everything to fit their needs. |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
Larry Jaques wrote in
: On 08 Jan 2012 21:41:15 GMT, Han wrote: Yep, sounds weird, right? But that's what I read somewhere, but where? Now that tilapia is US farm raises, swai, the import, is out. ;) This is possibly a better guide: http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/c...factsheet.aspx But swai is definitely cheaper than tilapia, for now anyway. Ha! I just got done reading the articles there myself. There are lots of fish with high mercury levels shown there. Both tilapia and swai have been running between $3.50 and $5/lb here, usually within 50 cents of each other in price. It's all either frozen or previously frozen here. Something I haven't tried yet is a swaiburger. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Seafoo...77452212299551 I may try one tomorrow. I'll be passing through Medford. Great, in a few days I'll be nest to Medford, MA ;-) -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On 08 Jan 2012 23:08:38 GMT, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in : On 08 Jan 2012 21:41:15 GMT, Han wrote: Yep, sounds weird, right? But that's what I read somewhere, but where? Now that tilapia is US farm raises, swai, the import, is out. ;) This is possibly a better guide: http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/c...factsheet.aspx But swai is definitely cheaper than tilapia, for now anyway. Ha! I just got done reading the articles there myself. There are lots of fish with high mercury levels shown there. Both tilapia and swai have been running between $3.50 and $5/lb here, usually within 50 cents of each other in price. It's all either frozen or previously frozen here. Something I haven't tried yet is a swaiburger. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Seafoo...77452212299551 I may try one tomorrow. I'll be passing through Medford. Great, in a few days I'll be nest to Medford, MA ;-) Great, I won't see you. I meant Medford, OR, as I'm sure you knew. -- Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise. -- Margaret Atwood |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 16:37:32 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 1/8/2012 2:43 PM, Larry Jaques wrote: On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 10:55:29 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/7/2012 5:40 PM, Larry Jaques wrote: We're 180 degrees on this one. A big guy with a foot long knife breaking in your door is assault, period. Now, can I prove it? Yes. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault By concocted Legal definition only!!! Actual common definition, a : a violent physical or verbal attack. Holding a large knife while kicking your door in isn't violent or physical? Wasn't he screaming at her to open the door, too? Add verbal attack. I believe that you are introducing some fiction here. Perhaps, but have you ever seen a wild, drugged-out idiot kicking a door down -without- screaming? The sheep no longer have common sense and go along with what they are told. That's half the reason the U.S. is in all these messes today. Yes, the attorneys have twisted the meaning of everything to fit their needs. insert Shakespeare reference here -- Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise. -- Margaret Atwood |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
The good ole' USanian "Right to Bear Arms" obsession again?
I understand if the gun advocates got their way it would legal to shoot people for looking at them funny, too. Somebody has to stop this guns out of control nonsense before it gets too far out of hand. It should be the same as the right to bear a Taser. You have to experience the taste of one first. Seems fairly obvious the gun advocates display obsessive compulsive disorders. It would be comparable in obsession to the ISLAMic advocates seen here occasionally. ------------------ "Mike Marlow" wrote in message ... That of course, would be after he did his criminal act. So - your registration would do nothing to make things better. As for a definite difference in the prosecution, why is that not the case where registration is already in place? |
OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 00:40:33 -0500, "m II" wrote:
The good ole' USanian "Right to Bear Arms" obsession again? I understand if the gun advocates got their way it would legal to shoot people for looking at them funny, too. Moronic statements help the situation how? All you did was to show your ignorance and you probably thought you were being funny. Somebody has to stop this guns out of control nonsense before it gets too far out of hand. Lawbreakers don't care how many new laws are enacted. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter