Jump to content

Mikey4

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    1489
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mikey4

  1. Why are they setting up tents in the first place? Are people resting in them in between protests or something? I don't understand what purpose they serve.
  2. This is just amazing. We've had scoreboard on them for 13 years running, and yet they have somehow dominated us on the field.
  3. how long before somebody can take a legitimate post game presser and start inserting AI shit after the first minute or two, so it starts out looking real and then goes completely off the rails? I bet we see some of that this year.
  4. So far, we're sending unwanted players into the portal. I haven't heard of any executions as of yet.
  5. Not getting the Taffe hate. His elite athleticism and instincts are unmatched. Just watch how quickly he closes here at 2:22. That's what we need.
  6. My only gripe with this is that deep coverage busts happen in real games, and too often our QBs (between Colt and Quinn) didn't see it or, if they did, missed the throw. Arch saw it immediately and found the receiver. If he can do that a couple of times in a season, those are free points.
  7. Right. You made it sound like anyone reading the reoort to say that Sweat fled the scene has a reading comprehension problem. My point is that the report is not clear. The only name listed is Sweat. Beside offenses, it states DWI and leaving the scene. A reasonable inference is that Sweat was charged with both. I take your point at the inference may be incorrect, but it is not a crazy way to read the report.
  8. Look at post #314. It’s at least confusing.
  9. Or, how about we don't call a woman a cunt on any board. Jesus Christ.
  10. As a white male, I'm fine with this. When AI becomes sentient in 5 years and sets out to destroy humanity, I will be happy it thinks I don't exist.
  11. Lol, someone solves the deepest riddles of physics, and chooses Surlyhorns.com as the place to announce his findings, and you want to run him out of town. Smh.
  12. Where is RayDog when you need him?
  13. Finished Green Mile. I liked it, though it took way too long to get into the story. Started Salems Lot over the weekend. Enjoying it so far.
  14. They're an utter embarrassment to the state is what they are.
  15. It depends on the kind of bar. The kind with alcohol should be off limits to minors. But kids should have access to crowbars for gang brawls and the like.
  16. I'm fine with that. 100% agree. The bar should be very high. But there should be a bar.
  17. The parent has a constitutional right to own a gun. If the law makes a parent strictly liable when a child uses the parent's gun in a crime, then by definition the parent is liable even if the parent is without fault. In other words, the parent is liable even though the only relevant parental conduct is owning the gun -- the very thing that the Second Amendment protects.
  18. Yeah, that's exactly it. I'm uncomfortable making a categorical rule rather than evaluating each case on its facts...even though I know that evaluating each case on its facts would lead to liability in virtually every case. Your approach is more practical and efficient, while mine leaves room for parents to escape liability in exceptional cases 🤷‍♂️
  19. Yeah, if you read upthread, nobody is defending these dipshit parents, but people have differing views about why they should be criminally liable, and that's where the thread has gone.
  20. Agreed, that's negligence though, not strict liability.
  21. Gun violence is certainly a big problem. I guess I would understand a pragmatic policy that treats gun crimes differently due to the societal harms they cause. I disagree with it, as I think it would be used to punish parents for doing nothing more than exercising a constitutional right, but I see where you're coming from.
  22. But even under 9, you're not really proposing strict liability. I think you're saying that the act of giving a gun to the child would be negligence, and I'm basically fine with that proposal.
  23. Holy shit dude, read the thread. Yes, these parents are cooked. I've never defended them. I'm responding to claims that a parent should ALWAYS be criminally liable for a child's crimes if the child uses the parent's gun in the crime.
  24. Yeah, we're basically saying the same thing. I might quibble over whether the act of giving a child a firearm is always categorically negligence (if that's what you're saying), but it would certainly be negligence in the vast majority of cases. (Say the family has a ranch and the 17-year-old, Eagle Scout son helps with the sheep, including using the 22 to shoot wild dogs that try to get through the fence. I'm not sure giving him access to that gun with those facts would be negligence, but I see the arguments both ways.)
  25. Why wouldn't that same logic -- secure your shit, do a better job parenting, pay attention to your kid -- make parents strictly liable for every crime a kid commits? Your kid steals the car, road rages, and hits someone? "Do a better job securing your car, do a better job parenting/paying attention to your kid."
×
×
  • Create New...