Crazy World We Live In

LibertyTurns

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,751
Yesterday Bing search was observed blocking the iconic image of the June 5,1989 "tank man" photo in Tiananmen Square.
God bless tank man's courage.
You think that’s bad, take a gander at the below. The FBI now wants to investigate people who read news articles the government does not like.

 

SnidelyWhiplash

Helluva Engineer
Messages
15,991
You think that’s bad, take a gander at the below. The FBI now wants to investigate people who read news articles the government does not like.


And the ****ing post office has been surveilling people. 🤣🤣🤣. Just work on delivering the ****ing mail correctly, mkay?
 

SnidelyWhiplash

Helluva Engineer
Messages
15,991
“Constantly harassed by Pokice”

Well, that’s what happens when you’re a lifelong felon. 🤣. Problem solved. It’s rare, but always happy to see police pursue illegal weapons when it happens.

 

Technut1990

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
853
“Constantly harassed by Pokice”

Well, that’s what happens when you’re a lifelong felon. 🤣. Problem solved. It’s rare, but always happy to see police pursue illegal weapons when it happens.


outside the obvious in this story people should consider the result of banning some kinds of guns. If or when this effort goes full force what do you think it will look like ? Let’s make it as simple as possible, would you be notified by mail that your gun is now illegal and given a period to turn it in ? What happens when you dont ? Police wearing tactical gear will be busting down your door b/c you are an armed felon. Given stats say that during the pandemic the majority of gun sales were to minorities and women who do you think will be getting shot ?

my point is not really about gun control though it’s about complaining about “police violence“ AS you support authorizing laws that will require police to deal with people who are known to be armed. By the nature of the laws proposed won’t the police be coming to take what they consider to be high capacity high lethality guns ? That law alone will add 200 more police shootings a year. Example of what I mean when politicians pass laws that police have to enforce, the result won’t be carried by the actual politicians, they will be condemning the very cops they send.
 

LibertyTurns

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,751
outside the obvious in this story people should consider the result of banning some kinds of guns.
There’s already a ton of gun laws not being enforced. Any reason we wouldn’t start there instead passing another law we’re not going to enforce? For example, would it really matter if some felon is violating 11 laws instead of 10?
 

GT_EE78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,493
WaPo caught - has edited a 15 month old headline in their archives
was Feb 17,2020 " WIV lab leak is a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked.”
was changed to "coronavirus fringe theory that scientists have disputed,”
1622931847162.jpeg
 

Technut1990

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
853
There’s already a ton of gun laws not being enforced. Any reason we wouldn’t start there instead passing another law we’re not going to enforce? For example, would it really matter if some felon is violating 11 laws instead of 10?

definitely agree ! My concern is that any current version of a band would essentially fail us b/c “assault weapons” can only be defined as a look rather than firing ability. Currently some are confused with the “legal” AR being a single shot gun. The image portrays it as a “machine gun” when in fact those are already illegal. To address the current legal AR the law would essentially criminalize all firearms given that they fire exactly like an AR (rate wise). One trigger pull = one bullet. Making an AR illegal based on mass shootings means all similar guns of similar rate of fire would have to be illegal, otherwise what’s the point ? Meaning any gun owner would have to turn in their weapon or be a felon on the face of of the law. A shotgun would have to be illegal under any band, a .22 2 shot pocket pistol, .30-.30 deer hunting rifle, all fire like an AR if you don’t ban them then they become the weapon of choice in these mass shootings. Meaning if mass shootings from assault rifles are to be eliminated then all single fire guns have to go.

70% would comply but to my point, the police are going to have to go get the other 30%, which is where and when the shootings happen.
 

Technut1990

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
853
WaPo caught - has edited a 15 month old headline in their archives
was Feb 17,2020 " WIV lab leak is a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked.”
was changed to "coronavirus fringe theory that scientists have disputed,”
View attachment 10661

best case scenario the US funded its own Covid economic collapse which included all the deaths as well as lost livelihoods, it appears taxpayer money helped China create the virus. Our own government did this, let that sink in. Why worry about N Korea when our own agencies are working on our demise ?
 

awbuzz

Helluva Manager
Messages
9,152
Location
Marietta, GA
“Constantly harassed by Pokice”

Well, that’s what happens when you’re a lifelong felon. 🤣. Problem solved. It’s rare, but always happy to see police pursue illegal weapons when it happens.

Pretty much our thoughts too... "constantly harassed"... I'm sure it was because he was an upstanding citizen the never did anything illegal...

Then you have the outstanding citizens who think it's okay to destroy other people's property and steal it to because something bad happened ... What about all of those folks that own businesses or work there who are now most likely out of job or have big losses that they have to work around? Real quality individuals there pulling that stuff.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,054
definitely agree ! My concern is that any current version of a band would essentially fail us b/c “assault weapons” can only be defined as a look rather than firing ability.
I had a Benelli M3 on order in 1994, but it wasn't delivered before the assault weapon ban that year went into effect. Those had a pistol grip and held 7 rounds which made them illegal. I didn't understand then what the pistol grip had to do with anything other than just "looking" scary, and I still don't understand.
 

SnidelyWhiplash

Helluva Engineer
Messages
15,991
I had a Benelli M3 on order in 1994, but it wasn't delivered before the assault weapon ban that year went into effect. Those had a pistol grip and held 7 rounds which made them illegal. I didn't understand then what the pistol grip had to do with anything other than just "looking" scary, and I still don't understand.

It’s just a bunch of do nothings trying to act like they’re doing something by targeting a certain gun (AR-15) that kills fewer people than hammers each year.
 

ramblinwreckguru

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
915
Location
Savannah, GA

GT_EE78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,493
An Amazon delivery driver attacked a retiree who was waiting for a package. It sounds like the retiree was being annoying, but the Amazon driver is supposedly claiming self defense. I don't believe the video supports that claim.

If you think that's bad, In Jaspar County, SC (even after confessing exactly what you did) you can still get away with emptying the entire contents of your 9 mm pistol into a retiree just for driving away in the vehicle you are trying to steal because you feel threatened over losing your ride! (and then fist bump your attorney)
 

SnidelyWhiplash

Helluva Engineer
Messages
15,991

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,054
If you think that's bad, In Jaspar County, SC (even after confessing exactly what you did) you can still get away with emptying the entire contents of your 9 mm pistol into a retiree just for driving away in the vehicle you are trying to steal because you feel threatened over losing your ride! (and then fist bump your attorney)
In my opinion, a lot of cases like this are not signs of weakness in the criminal justice system. They are caused by prosecutors acting foolish or sloppy. The George Zimmerman case and the Casey Anthony case (both in Florida) were examples of prosecutors charging ahead on cases in which they didn't have enough evidence to convict. In the George Zimmerman case, the state's own witnesses contradicted statements made by the prosecutors in opening statements. In the Casey Anthony case, the media had ideas that there was all sorts of incriminating evidence, but the prosecutors didn't present any.

I only know what was in that article about the Devon Dunham case. A total guess on my part would be that they only charged him with murder and didn't include manslaughter. In SC, murder requires "malice aforethought", which would include intent to commit a felony. The prosecutor claims that Dunham wanted to carjack the car, but they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to steal the car. If they cannot offer proof that he intended to steal the vehicle vs just asking people for a ride, then the jury can't find him guilty of murder. If manslaughter is not an option available to the jury, then they can't find him guilty of anything.

I think the prosecutors sometimes think that people in general believe a certain way about a case and that evidence isn't actually necessary in order to get a conviction. It doesn't always work out that way. I think it is even more scary that it does work out that way sometimes.
 

GT_EE78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,493
In my opinion, a lot of cases like this are not signs of weakness in the criminal justice system. They are caused by prosecutors acting foolish or sloppy. The George Zimmerman case and the Casey Anthony case (both in Florida) were examples of prosecutors charging ahead on cases in which they didn't have enough evidence to convict. In the George Zimmerman case, the state's own witnesses contradicted statements made by the prosecutors in opening statements. In the Casey Anthony case, the media had ideas that there was all sorts of incriminating evidence, but the prosecutors didn't present any.

I only know what was in that article about the Devon Dunham case. A total guess on my part would be that they only charged him with murder and didn't include manslaughter. In SC, murder requires "malice aforethought", which would include intent to commit a felony. The prosecutor claims that Dunham wanted to carjack the car, but they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to steal the car. If they cannot offer proof that he intended to steal the vehicle vs just asking people for a ride, then the jury can't find him guilty of murder. If manslaughter is not an option available to the jury, then they can't find him guilty of anything.

I think the prosecutors sometimes think that people in general believe a certain way about a case and that evidence isn't actually necessary in order to get a conviction. It doesn't always work out that way. I think it is even more scary that it does work out that way sometimes.
I don't know if SC has a murder 2 or murder3 or if those are called manslaughter but it certainly does seem to be a mistake not to have included a lesser charge.
Prosecutors don't seem to have difficulty nailing murderous bank robbers without specific "malice aforethought" so i'd guess you're right and other mistakes may have occured
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,054
I don't know if SC has a murder 2 or murder3 or if those are called manslaughter but it certainly does seem to be a mistake not to have included a lesser charge.
Prosecutors don't seem to have difficulty nailing murderous bank robbers without specific "malice aforethought" so i'd guess you're right and other mistakes may have occured
There was very little actual information in the article about the SC verdict. It said that the prosecutor claimed he was trying to rob the vehicle. The defense attorney claimed he was just asking for a ride. I don't know what evidence was actually presented to try to prove that he was intending to steal the truck. Is there any evidence that he told the victim to give him the truck, or is that just a wild statement that the prosecutor invented? Is there any evidence that he had the gun drawn when he approached the truck? If there is no evidence of those things, then it is crazy for the prosecutor to not include manslaughter type charges.(Or however they work in SC)

EDIT: A bank robber is obviously committing a felony, which by my understanding of some SC appeals court decisions would qualify as malice aforethought by "felony murder rule":
"Malice aforethought" is defined as "the requisite mental state for common-law murder”"and it utilizes four possible mental states to encompass both specific and general intent to commit the crime. Black's Law Dictionary 969 (7th ed.1999). These four possibilities are intent to kill, intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, extremely reckless indifference to the value of human life (abandoned and malignant heart), and intent to commit a felony (felony murder rule).
In this case, they need to prove that the defendant was indeed committing a felony for the felony murder rule to apply. In a trial, it should not be assumed that he did, it has to be proven. (Or at least it should have to be proven.)
 
Last edited:
Top