Minneapolis is Burning

[Texaspython 231]

39 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Bullshit. Judge made common law is usually to expand rights and liability, not restrict them in the face of statutes that clearly say otherwise and grant immunity where no basis exists to do so. 
 

I realize you’re a smart and intelligent poster worthy of respect. But if you are defending qualified immunity here then you’ve gone over your skis. Just my opinion. 
 

 

I’m trying hard to figure out why he’s so respected. He spits out simple legal concepts as if lay people are too stupid to understand, then provides no practical information as to how that works in the real world. If you disagree, your opinion is “facile”. He’s the guy so far behind in the race he thinks he’s leading. Most legal concepts are pretty simple, it’s only pretentious lawyers who try to make them seem complicated. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

9 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

I’m trying hard to figure out why he’s so respected. He spits out simple legal concepts as if lay people are too stupid to understand, then provides no practical information as to how that works in the real world. If you disagree, your opinion is “facile”. He’s the guy so far behind in the race he thinks he’s leading. Most legal concepts are pretty simple, it’s only pretentious lawyers who try to make them seem complicated. 

He may be wrong but at least it’s a fair discussion. It’s a fine line but he’s a poster a like talking to. Most lawyers are somewhat pretentious so that’s nothing new. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 hours ago, bolverk said:

Well, see, if that's what they're saying then I'd agree. To me, I interpret that statement about patriarchy to mean that they support getting rid of the notion that mothers have to have two jobs (one out in the world; one in the home to take care of kids) while dads are left free of the same expectation. It sounds like they feel that this expectation is an obstacle to women being involved in the movement.

Personally, I'd really like to hear exactly what the statement means when put into plain language, because I really do feel like it's poorly written. It reads like a college sophomore who has just recently learned a lot of new concepts and terminology and is attempting to explain those new ideas without being completely fluent with their new vocabulary.

I could well be wrong in my interpretation and it was indeed written by some wild-eyed radical who actually believed in breaking up families. But I suspect if directly questioned on that matter, you'd hear differently.

Yes I believe you're wrong. Statistics bear out the potential adverse effects of the one parent family, especially those on lower economic rungs.

[Huckleberry 32699]

Quote

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

Where does that say that they don't want two parent households? It says that they disrupt (BUZZWORD ALERT) the prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other with a more extensive network to the degree that families are comfortable. It is not saying that two parent households are bad, it is saying that parents shouldn't feel like they have to do it alone.

There is nothing at all wrong with that paragraph. Zero.

Edited July 4, 2020 by Huckleberry

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2630]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Dude took the Tweet down.

Holy shit.

 

Any update on this?  Terrorist, drunk driver? Someone driving fast at night and not paying attention? 

[Ted Lange 16043]

Fucking Pigs. Burn it all down. 
 

 

[bolverk 29399]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yes I believe you're wrong. Statistics bear out the potential adverse effects of the one parent family, especially those on lower economic rungs.

I meant I agree with you if that's what they're saying. As a father who went through a divorce, I have an intimate and immediate understanding of how the loss of a two parent household directly affected my daughter 

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 hour ago, Xian said:

Any update on this?  Terrorist, drunk driver? Someone driving fast at night and not paying attention? 

The highway was closed for the protest and he went up an off-ramp to get onto the highway.

 

[TwiceHorn 31269]

3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Bullshit. Judge made common law is usually to expand rights and liability, not restrict them in the face of statutes that clearly say otherwise and grant immunity where no basis exists to do so. 
 

I realize you’re a smart and intelligent poster worthy of respect. But if you are defending qualified immunity here then you’ve gone over your skis. Just my opinion. 
 

 

I am not defending it. I am explaining how it came to be and why it is the way it is. 

I think abrogating it is the right thing to do under these circumstances. Maybe under any circumstances.

I have said as much. 

People around here seem to have a problem getting a legal analysis that is divorced from the emotions surrounding the issue. 

I expect the lawyers to do better with this. 

Edited July 4, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31269]

3 hours ago, Texaspython said:

I’m trying hard to figure out why he’s so respected. He spits out simple legal concepts as if lay people are too stupid to understand, then provides no practical information as to how that works in the real world. If you disagree, your opinion is “facile”. He’s the guy so far behind in the race he thinks he’s leading. Most legal concepts are pretty simple, it’s only pretentious lawyers who try to make them seem complicated. 

Fuck dude.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you're going on ignore, Mr. "Stepped into Federal Court."

[Texaspython 231]

51 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am not defending it. I am explaining how it came to be and why it is the way it is. 

I think abrogating it is the right thing to do under these circumstances. Maybe under any circumstances.

I have said as much. 

People around here seem to have a problem getting a legal analysis that is divorced from the emotions surrounding the issue. 

I expect the lawyers to do better with this. 

If what you’re saying is true, I’m not sure what point you were trying to make here. I expressed the opinion that the problem isn’t so much QI but the Judge made application of it and you been over backwards to defend the process. I laid out a real life scenario that illustrates why it’s so patently flawed and you run back to “I’m just trying to explain”. Lawyers disagree, don’t take it personally. Certainly don’t let hurt feelings back you into arguing for something you’re against. 

Edited July 4, 2020 by Texaspython

[JimmyJames 12271]

53 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am not defending it. I am explaining how it came to be and why it is the way it is. 

I think abrogating it is the right thing to do under these circumstances. Maybe under any circumstances.

I have said as much. 

People around here seem to have a problem getting a legal analysis that is divorced from the emotions surrounding the issue. 

I expect the lawyers to do better with this. 

The legal analysis regarding qualified immunity can be simply summarized as a bunch of federal judges, mostly republicans, decided the police and their insurance carriers needed more protection than the law allowed. Sorry I get emotional when judges just make shit up out of thin air that ultimately harms all of us. 

[DDD Dad 14251]

He may be wrong but at least it’s a fair discussion. It’s a fine line but he’s a poster a like talking to. Most lawyers are somewhat pretentious so that’s nothing new. 

Hey!

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2630]

 

Edit: thought i was on the Texas reopening thread.  

Edited July 4, 2020 by Xian

[TwiceHorn 31269]

19 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The legal analysis regarding qualified immunity can be simply summarized as a bunch of federal judges, mostly republicans, decided the police and their insurance carriers needed more protection than the law allowed. Sorry I get emotional when judges just make shit up out of thin air that ultimately harms all of us. 

You're actually kind of wrong about that.  Pierson v Ray established it as an alternative to granting police/judicial officers complete immunity, which is what the Fifth Circuit gave.

The court that decided it was the Warren court, and the majority justices were Warren, joined by Black, Clark, Fortas, Brennan, White, Stewart, and Harlan. Only Douglas dissented.  You'll note that even the Republican-nominated justices there were regarded as liberal.  Black, Clark, Fortas, and Brennan were regarded as pretty damned liberal and White was a Kennedy appointment.

All that said, Qualified Immunity, particularly as it has been interpreted, has lost any conceivable justification in the modern policing environment and needs to be modified, if not eradicated outright.  As brisket noted, the police have abused their freedom from lawsuits and it must be removed.

Also, every single sovereign immunity sucks ass for plaintiffs.  All of them.  That doesn't make them all automatically wrong or the product of a Republican white man conspiracy.

N.B. this is not a defense of Republican white man conspiracies.  They exist.  But not everything bad is a product of them.

Edited July 4, 2020 by TwiceHorn
Louder for those with thick skulls or reading impediments.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Is “liberal” somehow divorced from republican now? Does that mean a “liberal” is a fallen republican now?

[JimmyJames 12271]

38 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You're actually kind of wrong about that.  Pierson v Ray established it as an alternative to granting police/judicial officers complete immunity, which is what the Fifth Circuit gave.

The court that decided it was the Warren court, and the majority justices were Warren, joined by Black, Clark, Fortas, Brennan, White, Stewart, and Harlan. Only Douglas dissented.  You'll note that even the Republican-nominated justices there were regarded as liberal.  Black, Clark, Fortas, and Brennan were regarded as pretty damned liberal and White was a Kennedy appointment.

All that said, Qualified Immunity, particularly as it has been interpreted, has lost any conceivable justification in the modern policing environment and needs to be modified, if not eradicated outright.  As brisket noted, the police have abused their freedom from lawsuits and it must be removed.

Also, every single sovereign immunity sucks ass for plaintiffs.  All of them.  That doesn't make them all automatically wrong or the product of a Republican white man conspiracy.

N.B. this is not a defense of Republican white man conspiracies.  They exist.  But not everything bad is a product of them.

Oh so it’s good they granted something less than the 5th circuit had no authority to give. Very comforting. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

43 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You're actually kind of wrong about that.  Pierson v Ray established it as an alternative to granting police/judicial officers complete immunity, which is what the Fifth Circuit gave.

The court that decided it was the Warren court, and the majority justices were Warren, joined by Black, Clark, Fortas, Brennan, White, Stewart, and Harlan. Only Douglas dissented.  You'll note that even the Republican-nominated justices there were regarded as liberal.  Black, Clark, Fortas, and Brennan were regarded as pretty damned liberal and White was a Kennedy appointment.

All that said, Qualified Immunity, particularly as it has been interpreted, has lost any conceivable justification in the modern policing environment and needs to be modified, if not eradicated outright.  As brisket noted, the police have abused their freedom from lawsuits and it must be removed.

Also, every single sovereign immunity sucks ass for plaintiffs.  All of them.  That doesn't make them all automatically wrong or the product of a Republican white man conspiracy.

N.B. this is not a defense of Republican white man conspiracies.  They exist.  But not everything bad is a product of them.

I’m curios why you seem to be defending qualified immunity so vigorously while at the same time claiming you oppose it.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Oh so it’s good they granted something less than the 5th circuit had no authority to give. Very comforting. 

Well no immunity at all was an alternative, yes.

But you understand that in the USA, government employees and officers almost always receive immunity, right?  Absolute immunity?  Like, you can't sue a judge, or a prosecutor, or your congressman?  Even if they act maliciously or in bad faith?

[Texaspython 231]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I’m curios why you seem to be defending qualified immunity so vigorously while at the same time claiming you oppose it.

This is one of the more impressive episodes of stubbornness I’ve seen since dealing with my daughter this morning. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well no immunity at all was an alternative, yes.

But you understand that in the USA, government employees and officers almost always receive immunity, right?  Absolute immunity?  Like, you can't sue a judge, or a prosecutor, or your congressman?  Even if they act maliciously or in bad faith?

Not when a statute like 1983 says otherwise. Are you being ignorant or something else?

[TwiceHorn 31269]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

I’m curios why you seem to be defending qualified immunity so vigorously while at the same time claiming you oppose it.

Its like playing cards with my brother's kids.

Explaining that its origins aren't some insidious conspiracy of white men is not defending something.  It can have perfectly legitimate origins, which qualified immunity pretty much does, and have morphed into something illegitimate and wrong.

I think qualified immunity for law enforcement officers has outlived its usefulness (it applies to some other species of government officials as well).  That's not to say that it was completely wrong in the first place.

Do you think all sovereign immunity should be abolished?  Or does it have a place somewhere in the legal scheme of things?

[JimmyJames 12271]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Its like playing cards with my brother's kids.

Explaining that its origins aren't some insidious conspiracy of white men is not defending something.  It can have perfectly legitimate origins, which qualified immunity pretty much does, and have morphed into something illegitimate and wrong.

I think qualified immunity for law enforcement officers has outlived its usefulness (it applies to some other species of government officials as well).  That's not to say that it was completely wrong in the first place.

Do you think all sovereign immunity should be abolished?  Or does it have a place somewhere in the legal scheme of things?

Qualified immunity and sovereign immunity are totally completely different things. If you don’t understand that it’s not worth debating with you.

Qualified immunity was a cop out for judges to protect law enforcement during a time when crime was out of control. It was. ultimately a mistake, and today we suffer the consequences.

Edited July 4, 2020 by JimmyJames

[TwiceHorn 31269]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Not when a statute like 1983 says otherwise. Are you being ignorant or something else?

1983 doesn't address immunity.  I agree that you could delve into it and find a waiver of immunity if you wanted.

Buuut, 1983 doesn't apply to state, as opposed to federal, actors, which is what we're talking about most of the time here, anyway.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

1983 doesn't address immunity.  I agree that you could delve into it and find a waiver of immunity if you wanted.

Buuut, 1983 doesn't apply to state, as opposed to federal, actors, which is what we're talking about most of the time here, anyway.

Dude. You don’t know what you are talking about. Let it go. 

[Texaspython 231]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Dude. You don’t know what you are talking about. Let it go. 

Wow, guess I’m going to have to dismiss some cases. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Texaspython said:

Wow, guess I’m going to have to dismiss some cases. 

Yep. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Qualified immunity and sovereign immunity are totally completely different things. If you don’t understand that it’s not worth debating with you.

Qualified immunity was a cop out for judges to protect law enforcement during a time when crime was out of control. It was. ultimately a mistake, and today we suffer the consequences.

Qualified immunity and sovereign immunity come from the same notion: that government has to be free of lawsuits in most cases in order to function.  In most cases, the government's immunity extends to the people that make up the government.

Crime wasn't out of control in 1967.

I don't think it was a "cop out."  It was a legitimate concern that if cops could be second guessed by a lawsuit routinely, that would be difficult for government to handle, in addition to the individual cops.  If they really wanted to protect cops, they could have given them absolute immunity.

But, ultimately that's neither here nor there.  As it currently stands, it would be a good thing if police departments ground to a halt under the weight of civil rights litigation, and their attached municipalities have to bear that burden as well.  So, qualified immunity needs to go, one way or another.

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Qualified immunity and sovereign immunity come from the same notion: that government has to be free of lawsuits in most cases in order to function.  In most cases, the government's immunity extends to the people that make up the government.

Crime wasn't out of control in 1967.

I don't think it was a "cop out."  It was a legitimate concern that if cops could be second guessed by a lawsuit routinely, that would be difficult for government to handle, in addition to the individual cops.  If they really wanted to protect cops, they could have given them absolute immunity.

But, ultimately that's neither here nor there.  As it currently stands, it would be a good thing if police departments ground to a halt under the weight of civil rights litigation, and their attached municipalities have to bear that burden as well.  So, qualified immunity needs to go, one way or another.

 

What would have been the basis for “absolute immunity?” There is none. 

Cops getting second guessed for killing people should always be a legitimate concern. We just decided to ignore that concern for 40:years or so. Longer actually.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

10 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Dude. You don’t know what you are talking about. Let it go. 

Oops, yeah, brain cramp, I flipped that and a Bivens action.  My bad.

Still, I agree that you can find that 1983 waives immunity.  But it doesn't do so explicitly and courts have found that absolute immunity still exists for many government officials, including judges (now in the statute), prosecutors, and the like.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

What would have been the basis for “absolute immunity?” There is none. 

Cops getting second guessed for killing people should always be a legitimate concern. We just decided to ignore that concern for 40:years or so. Longer actually.

What's the basis for sovereign immunity?  It's a common-law doctrine.

The original Pierson decision tried to strike a balance between the policy underlying governmental immunity and giving remedies for cops violating people's rights.  It actually had a different test than the current one.  

That balance has gotten out of balance and the whole thing needs to go.  I'll even concede that the reason it has gotten out of balance is Republican-appointed, white judges, especially those in the Fifth Circuit.

 

[TwiceHorn 31269]

All of this debate does bring to mind that qualified immunity also applies in cases where no one was physically injured, as in VAPA's case(s).  We had many go rounds advising VAPA that he would get tossed on QI and he did.  And, he accused us of supporting QI, when all we did was explain it to him.

It also applies to government officials other than cops, like patent examiners.  And FDA personnel, and people at the drivers license office, and many, many others who may be accused of a constitutional violation in carrying out their duties or functions. So qualified immunity still serves a purpose in certain contexts.

So, as alluded to in the discussion with brisket, it probably only ought to be trashed for cops.

[Parliament 14133]

Bugaloo's and BLM folks join together to carry guns around and decry police violence. I think this is a good thing?  A lot to unpack here.

 

[F250 28682]

 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31269]

Here's a question for you, @JimmyJames.

Would it not be overall more effective than ditching qualified immunity for states to

a) make police violence and non-violent misconduct a tort claims exception to sovereign immunity;

b) take the damage cap off of the tort claims act for police violence and  misconduct; and

c) make municipalities/departments liable under respondeat superior for tort claims against cops?

Granted, you'd have to get it done in all 50 states, but it kind of sidesteps the whole constitutional foofaraw for straight-up torts.  1983 and Bivens have always been end-arounds the limitations of state tort law, so why not cut to the chase?

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

11 hours ago, Texaspython said:

I’m trying hard to figure out why he’s so respected. He spits out simple legal concepts as if lay people are too stupid to understand, then provides no practical information as to how that works in the real world. If you disagree, your opinion is “facile”. He’s the guy so far behind in the race he thinks he’s leading. Most legal concepts are pretty simple, it’s only pretentious lawyers who try to make them seem complicated. 

Twice knows his shit.  Although I have no idea why he is trying to die on this particular hill.  

[Bookman 4610]

Oh man I just face-palmed myself so hard it's going to leave a mark.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

6 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Twice knows his shit.  Although I have no idea why he is trying to die on this particular hill.  

I'm not dying on it.  I have said repeatedly that I am opposed to qualified immunity as it's currently implemented.  And maybe completely, insofar as it applies to cops.

But just throwing the whole fucking thing out the window is probably not the solution because other government officials have it, not just cops. Completely tossing it is simple-Simon shit.  And, importantly, it leaves prosecutors out of the mix and they need to be addressed in here somewhere at some point, I think.  Maybe even judges, too. Maybe that is "criminal justice reform," but I have a hard time separating the two.

Immunity doctrines have their place in the law.  They aren't all some vast right wing conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of rights.  Their operation certainly seems unfair a lot of the time or all of the time, but they have to exist.  It totally sucks that Mike Leach can't get any money out of Tech.  It's worse when someone is injured by the State of Texas and can't get more than $250k, if that.  But not too many people are arguing for the abolition of sovereign immunity altogether.

And, it might be overall more effective for states to beef up their tort laws against cops.  Someone pointed out and it has been reported that "Colorado waived qualified immunity."  Well, clearly, that's not the qualified immunity we're talking about here, but it raises the issue of what states can do with their internal laws.  Why not both?  

 

 

Edited July 5, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Enchubben 5509]

9 hours ago, Parliament said:

Bugaloo's and BLM folks join together to carry guns around and decry police violence. I think this is a good thing?  A lot to unpack here.

 

Utilizing their god given 2nd amendment rights. I’m for it. 

[TwiceHorn 31269]

The other thing is this.  Even without qualified immunity, the employers are not on the hook, legally.  To make this maximally effective, there needs to be a mechanism to make cities and departments legally liable for the torts of their cop employees. Maybe the pension fund, too, but that strikes me as having some other problems (primarily that most of them are already bankrupt and causing taxpayers headaches).

And that has to come from the state. 

 

Edited July 5, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Texaspython 231]

7 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Twice knows his shit.  Although I have no idea why he is trying to die on this particular hill.  

This is an area I have experience with. I’ll admit, he puts a lot of effort into his posts, but I’ve caught him talking out of his ass on two occasions, not just wrong but horribly wrong. Worse, he presents himself as some sort of authority on the subject.

I won’t comment on an area of law I don’t really understand. Personally, I think the guy is full of shit and pretending to understand things he really doesn’t.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Texaspython

[Texaspython 231]

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's a question for you, @JimmyJames.

Would it not be overall more effective than ditching qualified immunity for states to

a) make police violence and non-violent misconduct a tort claims exception to sovereign immunity;

b) take the damage cap off of the tort claims act for police violence and  misconduct; and

c) make municipalities/departments liable under respondeat superior for tort claims against cops?

Granted, you'd have to get it done in all 50 states, but it kind of sidesteps the whole constitutional foofaraw for straight-up torts.  1983 and Bivens have always been end-arounds the limitations of state tort law, so why not cut to the chase?

 

Don’t know why I’m wading back in here but Tort claims Act causes of action are based on negligence. Rarely are police charged with having committed neg but rather intentional torts. Respondent suoerior doesn’t apply to intentional torts. Essentially, you’d have to carve exceptions upon exceptions and Texas ain’t doing that. The Tort claims act really only applies to state actors who are negligent in auto collisions, that’s it. 
 

QI immunity needs to stripped of the onerous application Judges have designed. Make it easier and more efficient to get a trial date, lessens the standards on clearly defined constitutional right, custom and policy (to hold municipalities financially responsible) and get rid of the interlocutory appeal. You do that and the system will work well as is.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Texaspython

[JimmyJames 12271]

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's a question for you, @JimmyJames.

Would it not be overall more effective than ditching qualified immunity for states to

a) make police violence and non-violent misconduct a tort claims exception to sovereign immunity;

b) take the damage cap off of the tort claims act for police violence and  misconduct; and

c) make municipalities/departments liable under respondeat superior for tort claims against cops?

Granted, you'd have to get it done in all 50 states, but it kind of sidesteps the whole constitutional foofaraw for straight-up torts.  1983 and Bivens have always been end-arounds the limitations of state tort law, so why not cut to the chase?

 

Sure but then the police are potentially liable for negligence and then you will really see the lawsuits starting to fly around. Won’t ever happen or work in my opinion. 
 

The standard for holding the police liable for anything is already high enough. They don’t need qualified immunity making the whole thing absurd. You’re only liable for Intentionally choking someone to death if some earlier court opinion said you could be liable for intentionally choking someone to death? The whole concept is ridiculous. 

[TwiceHorn 31269]

33 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Sure but then the police are potentially liable for negligence and then you will really see the lawsuits starting to fly around. Won’t ever happen or work in my opinion. 
 

The standard for holding the police liable for anything is already high enough. They don’t need qualified immunity making the whole thing absurd. You’re only liable for Intentionally choking someone to death if some earlier court opinion said you could be liable for intentionally choking someone to death? The whole concept is ridiculous. 

Totally agree that its current incarnation leads to absurd results.  There was a time when it wasn't much of a barrier to excessive force claims, as the constitutional right to be free of being killed or injured was obvious.

One thing worth mentioning.  You said you thought it was created at a time when crime was high.  I don't think crime was high then, but more importantly, I don't think the Supreme Court is that sensitive to those kind of practicalities.  Certainly isn't in other areas of the law.

What it does hit on, though, is one of my pet peeves about Supreme Court justices, of both political persuasions.  And that is that they tend to have spent large chunks of their careers in government service.  Not only as prosecutors, but usually as some sort of senior official in the DOJ or another government agency.  I think they tend to be too deferential or susceptible to government arguments and interests at the expense of the actual litigants and actual lawsuits and the general effect of laws on the people.

[Francisco 2.0 32323]

 

 

[Dahobbs 17445]

2 hours ago, Texaspython said:

This is an area I have experience with. I’ll admit, he puts a lot of effort into his posts, but I’ve caught him talking out of his ass on two occasions, not just wrong but horribly wrong. Worse, he presents himself as some sort of authority on the subject.

I won’t comment on an area of law I don’t really understand. Personally, I think the guy is full of shit and pretending to understand things he really doesn’t.

You've been on the forum all of 2 days as far as I can tell. I suggest cooling the attacks on reasonable and popular posters. And, frankly, it seems to me that you are reading something into his comments on QI that isn't really there. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Dahobbs

[wildcat09 29237]

21 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You've been on the forum all of 2 days as far as I can tell. I suggest cooling the attacks on reasonable and popular posters. And, frankly, it seems to me that you are reading something into his comments on QI that isn't really there. 

Agreed. TwiceHorn is good people and knows his shit. This new guy overreacted to something he unreasonably inferred and Twice has been pretty clear about his thoughts on QI.

[Texaspython 231]

33 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You've been on the forum all of 2 days as far as I can tell. I suggest cooling the attacks on reasonable and popular posters. And, frankly, it seems to me that you are reading something into his comments on QI that isn't really there. 

I think, if you look, I don’t get personal unless I’ve been attacked but I know you won’t look because, who gives a shit.

Honestly, the guy started a pointless fight which muddled the true issues. As for his viewpoint, as JimmyJsmes points out, he defended a flawed system which he doesn’t really understand then tried to have it both ways by saying “I don’t believe in QI”. Anyway, the dude gets shitty when called out, he needs to put the ego down and admit, maybe someone else knows a little more about the subject matter and differ. I sure as shit won’t claim to be an authority on Tax.

[Anastasis 23394]

Less lawyer on lawyer violence, more fuck the police. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Less lawyer on lawyer violence, more fuck the police. 

Coming straight from the underground...