• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

BrickTopHarry

Members
  • Content count

    348
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About BrickTopHarry

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    Texas
  • Interests
    Sailing

Recent Profile Visitors

338 profile views
  1. What about other charges that don't require premeditation? He was also charged and acquitted of something like negligent homicide, like if you drove drunk and ran onto a sidewalk and killed people. What about lesser charges that don't require intent, like reckless endangerment?
  2. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/us/police-shooting-video-arizona.html?_r=0 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-daniel-shaver-police-video-20171208-story.html The basic scenario: Daniel Shaver, the guy who got killed was some kind of exterminator from Texas, in AZ for a job. He had and used pellet guns as part of his work, maybe to shoot vermin? Police were called over reports that someone at the hotel had pointed a gun out of a window and came on scene to respond to that call. The events shown above followed. Charges were brought against the police officer, of second degree murder and negligent homicide but he was acquitted of all counts. The judge apparently instructed the jury to only consider the tiny second of time before the shots were fired in assessing guilt or innocence, where it looks like Shaver's hand reaches towards his waist. He was unarmed and didn't even have any gun with him at all except the pellet gun or guns which were in his hotel room. The judge also did not allow the fact that the policeman's weapon had "You're fucked" engraved in it to be known to the jury because it would be prejudicial to the policeman. The cop was let go from the force not too long after this, supposedly not because of this case but other performance issues. The trial had been ongoing but just concluded with the acquittals. The widow has indicated she will proceed with a civil lawsuit(s). Shaver, the dead guy, is the guy in the corner photo with his kids. To me this shooting sums up a lot of the issues with policing and police violence in the U.S., without the filter of racial animus that makes it so very easy for a lot of Americans to ignore these or justify them on the flimsiest pretext in their minds. To me, some of the key elements in the video are these: - Shaver was trying to comply. He was terrified for his life, as if his blubbering and beggging the cop not to shoot him didn't make that clear enough. - To me it seems clear that the attitude of the cop speaking is one of extreme contempt and even hatred. - The cop speaking repeatedly makes the threat that he will shoot the suspect. - The cops' instructions to the two were, in my opinion, insanely complex for the tension in the situation, and highly likely to result in some aspect not being followed to the satisfaction of the cops and thus leading to the death or one or both people. I feel even stone cold sober, with the guy shouting every couple of seconds that he's going to kill me, I might have a hard time correctly crossing my right leg over my left or my left over my right and maybe this twitchy asshole will just end my life if I did the wrong one. How are you supposed to raise up from prone to kneeling when your legs are crossed without pushing up abruptly with your arms? How are you supposed to crawl with your legs crossed? Crawl means on your hands and knees to me, the woman shuffled forward on her knees but somehow didn't get snuffed out. - Once the suspects were trying to comply and prone with hands on the deck, why have them raise up and crawl to you instead of just covering them with a weapon and having the other officer go up and cuff them and giving them the simple instruction to stay perfectly still? If it were me I'd be absolutely terrified to raise up from prone in that situation, if there's something about the way I raise up that looks too abrupt or whatever, I'm going to die in that instant. Asking the suspects to raise up, and then to approach you, with a complex series of requirements, massively increases the odds of a shooting death. It should be actionable negligence, if not negligent homicide, by increasing the risk in the stiuation in this way. If the argument is what if there were others armed in the room, you can keep these two still and wait for backup. - The operating idea is ESCALATION of tension rather than DE-ESCALATION which is present in so many of these incidents. Was it necessary for the cop to ask the two people to raise up from a prone position and approach them? Was it necessary to shout threats every few seconds to destroy any composure they might have? Was it necessary for Eric Garner (chokehold victim in Staten Island NY) to be physically taken down over suspicion of tax free cigarette sales? Was it necessary for Sandra Bland (Texas) to be pulled out of her car after refusing to put out a cigarette on the cop's order after essentially completing business with her traffic stop (subsequently died in jail)? To me there is a fetishization of police in America, the job is so dangerous, I wouldn't want to do what they do etc. But how dangerous is it when the citizen, like Shaver, is made to endure all the risk in any encounter with a cop, the cop is considered justified in snuffing out his life if he twitches funny when that cop took numerous actions that irresponsibly increased the odds of such an outcome instead of minimizing it? I do believe police work is one of many relatively dangerous jobs but I'd respect the danger element if police in general didn't seem to have the attitude that killing a hundred innocent civilians for twitching funny or not being quite good enough at Simon Says rather than take a second to find out if a guy who was clearly trying to comply and wanted to live was just involuntarily reaching to pull up his pants that were falling down because of an idiotic instruction to crawl forward. To endure one millionth of a chance that they could be harmed, to not kill innocent people. If I run around throwing knives and hatchets into a crowd indiscriminately and someone dies as a result, I can be convicted of manslaughter, negligent homicide etc. because even though I might not have intended to kill that specific person, my actions would reasonably be considered to make such an outcome likely. But we rarely hold police accountable in such a way. They are rarely even charged in such circumstances, and the system is tilted heavily in their favor because in most places the prosecutors who would have to make a case against them are the ones they work with on a regular basis, a terrible conflict of interest.
  3. Roy Moore 3rd rail?

    But... are you going to vote for both of them? So that the Dems don't get the seat? That's what I'm getting from the fancy dancing in your posts.
  4. Roy Moore 3rd rail?

    How is it in any way mysterious that Roy Moore got nominated by the GOP in Alabama? The same reason he got elected as a judge again like twice by the same voters despite being removed for going against the law. The guy is an obnoxious Bible thumping zealot. These seem to be favorable characteristics for an electorate that has a lot of Bible thumping zealots in it. Seems like basic math to me.
  5. Roy Moore 3rd rail?

    Really the only proper response to Dog is to say "whataboutwhataboutwhatabout" after every whatabout post of his, which is the entire sum of his argument here. Dumb to play his game in my opinion. Whataboutism is a tempting and lazy game to play. I often think, with respect to a lot of Trump stuff, "can you only imagine if Obama did X, he'd be crucified nonstop by Fox and every GOP voter" but best to engage the current things on their own merits.
  6. Roy Moore 3rd rail?

    How could the Catholic Church go on for centuries as one of the most powerful organizations in human history with a bunch of priests who were raping and molesting children unless the society around them was willing to ignore this or be complicit? How could Harvey Weinstein have achieved and maintained a position as one of the most powerful movie moguls in Hollywood while raping or attempting to coerce scores of women without the people all around whispering to each other but not saying anything to not rock the boat, incur his wrath and retribution, jeapordize their prospects in the movie business. How could Jerry Sandusky have raped so many young boys over so many years without the large community of Penn State football fanatics ignoring the whispers or refusing to believe them because FOOTBALL? Etc etc. The fact of the guy achieving a prominent position is in no way indirect proof he couldn't or didn't do this. People like you disbelieving these women is exactly the reason they are reluctant to come forward in the first place, and when this stuff initially happens, and why it can then continue. Unless you can prove they are being paid a large sum of money, why would they possibly do this? Because they want some politician to win? By doing this each one who comes public is inviting years or a lifetime of persecution by MAGAts, none of that is worth it to affect some election where their abuser is likely to win anyway. Leigh Corfman has already had her recent photo and place of work posted on Twitter by Jack Posobiec, one of the shit golem army of alt right propaganda Nazis, he since took it down under public pressure, but this is what they are in for.
  7. Roy Moore 3rd rail?

    Turns out she's a high school classmate of the woman whose yearbook he signed:
  8. Roy Moore 3rd rail?

    I think the national GOP will have about as much luck gaining control over who their nominees are as they did with Trump. The genie is out of the bottle. A full generation of Fox News and Rush have softened the brains of the GOP electorate that the Trumps and Moores seem to be what they want now. Gone are the days when you could have your patrician Ivy Leaguer wear a cowboy hat and pander a bit on guns, abortion and affirmative action and get the folks in the sticks to vote for you reliably. How you gonna keep 'em down on the farm when they've seen gay Paree? (Or Sarah Palin as their potential president.)
  9. Roy Moore 3rd rail?

    This is not as much of an obvious move as you think. The Hannity Bannon faction of the GOP is all in on Moore. To remove him would require a substantial number of GOP Senators to vote for such a move, which is a bit different than tut-tutting about him in the media. This could cost them MAGAt support that they need, especially in purply states like AZ or any blue state where they might be narrowly elected. It might be the best choice but is not without significant cost.
  10. Roy Moore 3rd rail?

    Actually, this is precisely the reason he is the GOP nominee in the first place and why he was leading the race earlier, and why he still might win, in my opinion.
  11. Roy Moore 3rd rail?

    kmacdonald, all whataboutism nonwithstanding, how would you vote if you were an Alabama voter? 1. Vote for Moore - either don't believe the accusations or don't care, better a pederast than a Democrat 2. Vote for Doug Jones - he is either the better candidate or the lesser of two evils 3. Write in vote for Luther Strange 4. Other 5. Wouldn't vote
  12. Roy Moore 3rd rail?

    "Some psychiatrists are saying". What are YOU saying? Cool with it?
  13. Roy Moore 3rd rail?

    whataboutwhataboutwhatabout
  14. Roy Moore 3rd rail?

    I honestly can't tell if you are serious or sarcastic through the internet. So do you think if you call a special election, and then it unexpectedly looks like it might not turn out in your favor, that it's a legitimate solution to just call off the election until you can achieve a more favorable condition for your party? Are you a guy who, if losing at chess, sweeps the pieces off the board and calls for a do over? Also, regarding your other question, I googled it for you! Age of consent in Alabama is 16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#Alabama Relevant parts of Alabama code appear to be here: http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/codeofalabama/1975/coatoc.htm
  15. Roy Moore 3rd rail?

    So the Alabama GOP has kind of dug in and gone all in on Roy Moore. The National GOP has hit the eject button including an ever increasing number of Senators who are taking the position that "Roy Moore should leave the race now" instead of "if it turns out he can be proven guilty in a court of law". An increasing number are saying maybe he shouldn't be seated or perhaps he should even be expelled if he wins. Tough situation. Moore voters make up the core constituency of Alabama GOP officeholders, but for the national party I think they see Jones winning as a lesser evil at this point. If Moore wins they will either have to seat him, or not seat him or vote to expel, all of which have serious consequences with either their core Trumpy voters or with non Trumpy voters costing them a large number of seats nationally. I suspect the preferred outcomes for McConnell and co. are, in this order: 1. Luther Strange wins as a write in (unlikely) 2. Jones wins. GOP doesn't have to confront the issue of seating Moore and having Moore and Trump be the face of the GOP until 2020 and further the electoral tsunami in 2018 and 2020. And they can likely win the seat back in 2020 anyway. 3. Moore wins.