Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    17882
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dahobbs

  1. 6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    So once you are fired, you are essentially given a dishonorable discharge and never allowed to work in the field again?  Can we do the same with teachers, bankers, and govt employees, politicians?

    Every protection you reference is a byproduct of the police unions.  Gut them, and you get an immediate lift.  

    I love that for @BabaYaga teacher's are the scourge of society. 

    But, to answer your question, yes, if you abuse your power as a cop you should never be allowed to work as a cop again. 

  2. On 4/25/2021 at 6:52 PM, Bruh Man said:

    Hopefully Biden stays healthy because Kamala ain’t it. Listen to her answer on immigration here. Totally incoherent. 
     

     

     

    On 4/25/2021 at 8:19 PM, Dahobbs said:

    What is incoherent about it? Her position is that we need to improve the conditions in the migrants' home countries so that they don't feel the need to leave. While not expressed cleanly and while it isn't obvious that she has a very good command of the specifics, the overall policy approach is at least coherent and reasonable. 

    Still waiting for an explanation. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
  3. 1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

    No, it would be *BELIEF* that resides on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty

    Yes, this. 

    18 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:


    Have to disagree. Lawyer and all. I can look at a motion to dismiss my client’s case, see the facts favorable to me, read the cases favorable to me, and say that my case should be valid - see facts!!

    Problem is, if the court disagrees, my facts and law and reasoning do not matter. They were all just my opinion, despite having a winning case. Judge Ruinmyday disagreed, and so it is now a fact that the case is over when the appeals court affirms. That opinion trumps my opinion and is now fact....at least insofar as my lawsuit is concerned.

    Until the official investigation is complete, the murder outcome is opinion. That does not make the murder opinion any less questionable, but it does not elevate it to fact until the entity charged with investigating makes a pronouncement. Similarly, if they charged the officer with murder, it would not become ‘fact’ until a guilty verdict was upheld in appeal.

    And this. 

    1 hour ago, UpperWestside said:

    Can you two argue in the King’s English for the rest of this? That would add some fun to your back and forth.

    I think we need some physics discussion as well, as special relativity and quantum mechanics may have a bit to say on whether even facts are capable of determination with complete certainty. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  4. Just now, gmr548 said:


    That makes sense from a legal standpoint. The spirit of the law is obviously to curb protests/assembly, though. Despite posting on surly, I’m no lawyer and am not an expert on where that line is drawn. I assume it’ll be tested in court.

    Facially, the law is neutral and there is a reasonable basis for regulating conduct on public roadways. Here is the actual law:

    • "Every person who shall unlawfully obstruct the normal use of any public street, highway or road within this state by impeding, hindering or restraining motor vehicle traffic or passage thereon, by standing or approaching motor vehicles thereon, or by endangering the safe movement of motor vehicles or pedestrians traveling thereon shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding one (1) year, or by a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) and not exceeding Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment. In addition, the person shall be liable for all damages to person or property by reason of the same. As used in this paragraph, "obstruct" means to render impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous."

    I don't see much of a basis for a challenge under the first amendment. Now, the law may be impermissibly vague. And it could have some interesting unintended consequences. For instance, the guy collecting donations for the fire department or the police may violate this provision due to "impeding motor vehicle traffic" by "approaching motor vehicles thereon" such that it renders "passage unreasonably inconvenient." 

    Constitutionally, a related provision might be more problematic:

    • "If an organization is found to be a conspirator with persons who are found to have committed any of the crimes described in Sections 1311 through 1320.5 and 1320.10 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, the conspiring organization shall be punished by a fine that is ten times the amount of said fine authorized by the appropriate provision."

     

  5. 1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

    Yep.  Private businesses should be allowed implement any restrictions they see fit.  I believe that the saying is "Fuck your feelings". 

    Not only allowed, but frankly I think it is negligence to not have restrictions depending on the business. 

    • Like 1
  6. 27 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    I almost wonder if the law is passed to deter people from blocking the highway and roads as the normal folks without a dog in the fight of whatever protest du jour can be unencumbered and unmolested and that the silent majority was really just annoyed, and this was their lawmakers pushing back. Makes you think, at least.

    The portion that grants immunity doesn't have any real connection to the portion that criminalizes blocking the street. 

    19 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    That can't be it....  but the tragic results will come as people think they have immunity to drive thru a crowd, and cry wolf.

    This is actually a good point. People may think the law says something that it does not. You may actually see a murder conviction come out of this at some point because an idiot thinks this law allows him to drive through some protestors. 

  7. 2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    The point of these laws is to encourage more Charlottesvilles by making terrorists think they can get away with it.

    I assume the point is to get somebody re-elected. I don't think the law is actually going to do much to change behavior. If somebody actually wanted to encourage more dangerous conduct, they would create a law that actually provided some additional protection for that conduct. This law doesn't do that. It is mere "virtue signaling," which the DT crowd so often rails against. 

  8. 10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Actually, poolflood does have a point.  The circumstances under which "immunity" is granted pretty much exclude everything but good faith accidents.

    And to washpark's point about discretion, there's enough fact questions in that statute that a goodly number of cases could be prosecuted where there's questions about the "good faith" of the driver (necessary fleeing, due care).

    So the media is rather mischaracterizing it.  And Oklahoma Rs fucking love it.

    Because this is another law that's more about symbolism than good policy.  And that's about all the GOP is good for.  Kudos, I guess, for actually passing a law, that's different.

    Yeah, I agree. It doesn't seem like the bill really changes anything. I also think the definition of riot is missing from this discussion.

    Oklahoma Statutes §21-1311 (2019) - Riot defined. :: 2019 Oklahoma Statutes :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

    "Any use of force or violence, or any threat to use force or violence if accompained [sic] by immediate power of execution, by three or more persons acting together and without authority of law, is riot."

    I really have no idea what "immediate power of execution" means. But this is going to be a difficult set of a conditions to meet. I guess the main practical change this law may accomplish is some shifting of the burden of proof in this rare set of circumstances. And it isn't even clear that it does that. Hell, I would think that even if a defendant was in the position of potentially taking advantage of this defense that it would be far easier to argue normal self-defense. Otherwise, the defense attorney would spend a bunch of time distracted by whether there was actually "three or more persons acting together" using or threatening violence with "immediate power of execution."

    • Hook 'Em 2
  9. 1 hour ago, Bruh Man said:

    Hopefully Biden stays healthy because Kamala ain’t it. Listen to her answer on immigration here. Totally incoherent. 
     

     

    What is incoherent about it? Her position is that we need to improve the conditions in the migrants' home countries so that they don't feel the need to leave. While not expressed cleanly and while it isn't obvious that she has a very good command of the specifics, the overall policy approach is at least coherent and reasonable. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. 5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    NPR,  Friday.  I'm sure it was heard by millions who listen to their reports.  

    This one? 

    People In Columbus Gather To Protest Shooting Of Black Teenage Girl : NPR

    "Ma'Khia Bryant was involved in a fight on Tuesday, according to 911 calls. Her aunt says Ma'Khia called police for help. Body cam video shows Officer Nicholas Reardon getting out of his car, and the video shows Ma'Khia Bryant with a knife, which she raises as if to plunge into another person. The officer yells, get down and then fires his weapon. NPR's Frank Morris is in Columbus. Frank, good morning.

    ***

    Seconds after officers showed up, Bryant is shown lunging at a woman who falls. Reardon pulls his gun and yells. Then Bryant turns to another woman, rearing back with what police say was a knife in her hand, as the woman cowers on the side of a car."

    or this one?

    Ma'Khia Bryant: Police Identify Officer Who Shot Teen, Release Video Footage : NPR

    "Bryant, who was Black, died after calling 911 to ask for police to come help protect her from a group of other girls who had threatened violence, her family says. State authorities are investigating her death. Video from the scene shows that Bryant was holding a knife.

    "We need a police officer here now," a female is heard telling a 911 operator in one recording, as yelling is heard in the background. As the noise continues in the background, the female adds, "We got these ... grown girls over here, trying to fight us.""

    Forgive me if I question your hearing. 

    3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    I haven't spun a damn thing, you can stop lying about what happened on the other thread any time now. It's way beyond old.

    How have I lied? You parroted a false claim from a radio program and admitted you were incorrect when called on it. I thanked you for that. I just wish you'd acknowledge the greater problem of having millions of people parroting claims that are easily proven false. And I wish everyone was a bit more skeptical about what they read and hear, especially when an event is first reported. Lebron James would have done well to follow the same advice. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  11. 2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    Calling it a knife fight implies two people engaged in a knife fight, not one person attacking an unarmed person with a knife.  The choice of words was deliberate.  

    I have no idea how those two came into the situation they were in. Based on news report, the deceased call 911 about a fight and needing assistance. Certainly at the time the police arrived she was the aggressor. I don't know about before that or if she was the first person to have the knife. But, by all means, point out the offensive article so we can read the words in context. Or, did you hear "knife fight" on the radio? 

  12. 11 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

    I’m very happy one life was able to be spared, actually.  
     

    Lol. Yeah I guess you could say that.  Still plenty of outlets calling it a “knife fight” etc.   but whatever.  

    More imaginary slights and vague allegations that some article somewhere said "knife fight" (and I'm not even sure why that is objectionable). Here is my prediction: you are conflating opinion pieces with news articles, and twisting neutral comments regarding known facts into insinuations that offend you. You're searching for something to be offended by and reading anything and everything in way that fits with the slight you think exists. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 2 minutes ago, Wally Pryor said:

    And she'll win.  Because that how fucked up things are in today's world.  

    Taking responsibility = taking responsibility for finding any lawyer who will take your case when you don't have a rat's ass business doing so to do being with. 

    Jesus.

    You have no idea what you're talking about. 

  14. Just now, fattyflattie said:

    Awarded was the wrong word, and it sounded like court settlement.  Gifted.  He has been gifted several million dollars since the incident.  We can circle back once his lawsuit rolls and see if he was “awarded” anything.  But correct, I should have used gifted instead of awarded. 
     

    So what large factors and issues do you think lead to this?  You plainly said we were overlooking them to placate a narrative.  Let’s discuss the “real” issues then.   

    What I said is that y'all are tilting at windmills. I dont think this thread is about incident at all. Y'all don't care about what happened. This thread is about the media coverage and the slight y'all believe y'all suffered because of it. Pretty much everyone (except perhaps the family) agrees this shooting was justified. And even those that first thought there was something more here walked it back once the footage was released. This thread is the embodiment of the victims mentality that y'all mock. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 2
  15. 9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

    2.4m in handouts that piece of shit Jacob Blake has for breaking the law.  Let’s see how much the suit brings and we can revisit.  But suffice to say he’s now a multimillionaire for fucking around, and finding out.  
     

    You said you wanted to explore the conditions that could have led to this.  I feel the poor or even lack of parenting has more to do with it than any amount systemic racism ever could. So let’s explore it.  The mother either didn’t want, or couldn’t maintain custody.   The father apparently likes to fight along side her, and while father/daughter bonding is important and a key to a healthy relationship, I think he missed the mark there.   

    Jacob Blake hasn't been awarded anything in court or in settlement. He literally just filed suit in March. Again, what are you talking about? A gofundme page? What does that have to do with lawyers? And, his case is quite a bit different than any hypothetical lawsuit by the biological mother. Again, I question whether she would have standing. And it seems like the only entities she could bring a possibly plausible claim against, the foster parents and foster system, have either sovereign immunity or zero collectable assets.  

    As to this incident, I agree that parents/foster parents probably weren't the best. But I don't have enough facts to judge them. I wouldn't be surprised if a bad home life contributed to the tragic shooting. I didn't say anything about systemic racism. I don't know that it has anything to do with this event outside of the poverty that it tends to create. I feel like you think I'm making an argument that I am not. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  16. 10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

    Bro. The country just watched a man assault several officers, make his way back to his truck to retrieve a knife, only to be awarded 7 figures.   You don’t think they'll be able to find a lawyer for a 16 yo girl? 

    What are you talking about? 

    8 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

    Sure. Let’s talk about the parenting of this individual. What we know: the mother didn’t appear to have custody.  The father was seen trying to stomp on a teenage girls head.   And...go 

    I don't know what point you think you're making. Didn't I say that I wouldn't be surprised if the foster and biological mom shared a lot of the blame? Are you agreeing with me that a child's behavior can be caused or heavily influenced by the home environment?

  17. 2 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

    The problem is, ALL the blame pretty much lies at the feet of the girl trying to stab people.  Her foster mother didn’t cause that. Foster system didn’t cause that. This is a “oh shit, can’t get a settlement from city? #who’s next #accountability” move from the bio mother who couldn’t keep her shit straight enough to even have custody of the kid.  Just another attempt at a payday. 
     

     

    Sure, maybe the 16-year old was always going to be problematic. Or maybe the environment she was raised in contributed significantly to how she ended up. Is that really so hard to fathom? I really don't know what happened for her to end up in foster care or how long she was there. And, frankly, I don't have a clear picture as to why she was going at it with this other girl. But I certainly know that the foster care system can be abused and doesn't always end up with children in favorable conditions. So, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that her foster home wasn't the best. I wouldn't surprise to find out her biological mother's home wasn't the best. And it wouldn't surprise me to learn that both of them share a big part of responsibility for what happened. And hell, maybe the biological mom is just searching for a "payday." I can pretty much guarantee you she isn't going to find it and that'll she'll have a hard time finding a lawyer to even attempt to bring the case. 

    But, sure, let's not discuss the big picture and instead focus on whatever myopic view best fits your preferred political narrative at the moment. Personally, I think that is the bigger problem and emblematic of this entire thread, which is a typhoon of fury engendered by nothing but some vague notion that the media coverage of this incident has aggrieved the members of this forum..

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  18.  

    25 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

    Preach it Clay.

     

    2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

    im thinking it might be a good idea to instruct cops to murder lawyers instead

    I'm confused. What are y'all upset about here? (1) no lawsuit has been filed, (2) no lawyer has indicated a case will be filed, and (3) the target of any potential case by the biological mother would have to be either the foster care system or the foster mother. Ignoring the legal problems (e.g., lack of standing for the biological mother and sovereign immunity for any state run foster system), are we under the impression that either the foster system or the foster mother aren't deserving of some criticism? I thought that is exactly what y'all wanted, for blame to assessed to individuals besides the cop who appears to acted completely justifiably? Hell, I'm pretty sure if I dig back in this ridiculously long thread, I'll find a number of posts saying that the foster mother is partly responsible.

  19. 1 hour ago, VABuckeye said:

    You're right.  NBC picked it up.  Still, where's the outrage over this crime which is more horrific than shooting someone who is attempting to murder someone else.

     

    No need to answer.  It doesn't fit the narrative so it gets tossed by the wayside.

    Shitty people do shitty things all the time. Everyone hates it, no one approves. But there isn't much controversy so a single event isn't going to generate long lasting outrage. Police officers abusing their power is different because of their special position in society. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. 

    And, as to this particular event, the outrage mostly died down once more facts became available. The only thing keeping this thread going is the grievance group feeling victimized for... I don't, something. As an example, look at you. You were outraged the national media didn't cover a specific incident yet were able to immediately post a link of the national media covering that incident. You're the one creating a narrative. The cognitive dissonance in this thread is amazing. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...