Review of the Russian collusion narrative

[Cow Poke]

FIFY n/c

ETA: Phooey. You already noticed[ATTACH=CONFIG]25814[/ATTACH]

Thought you pulled a fast won on me, eh?

[rogue06]

Thought you pulled a fast won on me, eh?

Curses!

000000000000000tptl.gif

Foiled again!

[Starlight]

That makes a weird kind of sense, given how you use the term. So...is there not a term for killing another human being in a manner that is legal (like self-defense)? Because in our lexicon a self-defense killing that is legal is a homicide. Only a killing that is against the law is murder (or manslaughter, depending on the state). In my state, the gradients are First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder , Voluntary Manslaughter , and Involuntary Manslaughter.

Self defence is something you can plead in court to get you off a murder charge, just like insanity. But people here would still describe you as having killed or murdered someone.

Homicide is occasionally used as a synonym for murder, but it's not a legal category, and we don't have 'degrees' of murder. I believe our legal system does have a class for "aggrevated murder" vs non-aggrevated, but those terms aren't used colloquially outside a court room. The penalty for murder used to be effectively 7 years (a 20 year sentence with prisoners rubber stamped for parole after one third of time served) But there was concern that was too low for serious cases, so I think there's now a 20yr minimum non-parole sentence if its classified as aggrevated (which tends to be triggered if you commited any crimes other than the murder I think, i.e. if you're a bad dude).

[JimL]

Self defence is something you can plead in court to get you off a murder charge, just like insanity. But people here would still describe you as having killed or murdered someone.

Homicide is occasionally used as a synonym for murder, but it's not a legal category, and we don't have 'degrees' of murder. I believe our legal system does have a class for "aggrevated murder" vs non-aggrevated, but those terms aren't used colloquially outside a court room. The penalty for murder used to be effectively 7 years (a 20 year sentence with prisoners rubber stamped for parole after one third of time served) But there was concern that was too low for serious cases, so I think there's now a 20yr minimum non-parole sentence if its classified as aggrevated (which tends to be triggered if you commited any crimes other than the murder I think, i.e. if you're a bad dude).

Yeah, in the U.S. you could easily get away with murder nowadays. All you'd have to do is invoke the stand your ground law and claim to have been in fear of your victim. If it's your word against your victims, you can't lose.

[One Bad Pig]

Yeah, in the U.S. you could easily get away with murder nowadays. All you'd have to do is invoke the stand your ground law and claim to have been in fear of your victim. If it's your word against your victims, you can't lose.

This isn't even a good synopsis of the Trayvon Martin case, let alone cases in general.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, in the U.S. you could easily get away with murder nowadays. All you'd have to do is invoke the stand your ground law and claim to have been in fear of your victim. If it's your word against your victims, you can't lose.

"Stand your ground" laws don't work that way, you doofus. They don't act as a "get out of jail free" card. If there is sufficient evidence to prove someone guilty of murder, then "stand your ground" doesn't apply.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, in the U.S. you could easily get away with murder nowadays. All you'd have to do is invoke the stand your ground law and claim to have been in fear of your victim. If it's your word against your victims, you can't lose.

Once again, Jim, you demonstrate your extreme ignorance of the law.

A) Not all states have 'stand your ground laws', and they're not all the same, so it's not (in all of) "the U.S."
2) You don't just "invoke the stand your ground" law - you claim it as your defense.
C) If prosecuted, you still have to prove in a court of law that it applied to your situation.
IV) Even IF you are found criminally 'not guilty', you are still subject to civil suit.
5) You certainly CAN lose - according to recent studies - at least 30% of the time.

I think the 'stand your ground' laws are certainly problematic and subject to abuse, but your statement is just downright goofy.

[JimL]

Once again, Jim, you demonstrate your extreme ignorance of the law.

A) Not all states have 'stand your ground laws', and they're not all the same, so it's not (in all of) "the U.S."

Never said all states did I CP? Stop with the nit picking.

2) You don't just "invoke the stand your ground" law - you claim it as your defense.

Again with the nit picking.

C) If prosecuted, you still have to prove in a court of law that it applied to your situation.

Easily done when it's your word against a dead person.
IV) Even IF you are found criminally 'not guilty', you are still subject to civil suit.

5) You certainly CAN lose - according to recent studies - at least 30% of the time.

You could lose, but 70% is pretty good odds, and if you set it up properly the murderers odds of acquittal are probably even better.

I think the 'stand your ground' laws are certainly problematic and subject to abuse, but your statement is just downright goofy.

Well, since you basically just agreed with me, whats goofy is that you think you're in disagreement with me.

[Cow Poke]

Never said all states did I CP? Stop with the nit picking.
Again with the nit picking.

I fully understand your aversion to actual facts.

Easily done when it's your word against a dead person.

Not so easy when there are other witnesses, and an actual investigation is done.

You could lose, but 70% is pretty good odds, and if you set it up properly the murderers odds of acquittal are probably even better.

If it's a justifiable killing, the acquittal rate should be 100%.

Well, since you basically just agreed with me, whats goofy is that you think you're in disagreement with me.

Well, since you agree with me that you're completely ignorant of the law.... (see, I can play that game, too)

[One Bad Pig]

Never said all states did I CP?

You said, "In the U.S." That's all states, Jim.

[Adrift]

That makes a weird kind of sense, given how you use the term. So...is there not a term for killing another human being in a manner that is legal (like self-defense)? Because in our lexicon a self-defense killing that is legal is a homicide. Only a killing that is against the law is murder (or manslaughter, depending on the state). In my state, the gradients are First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder , Voluntary Manslaughter , and Involuntary Manslaughter.

Couple things you should be aware of; In past conversations we've found that Starlight is nothing like a pacifist. What he means by "borderline pacifist" is that he'd rather a nation not go to war unless defending against an attack, which is not at all what it means to be a pacifist.

He's also wrong that there's some sort of international difference in terminology in regards to "murder" . Murder is not any "violent action intentionally taken that results in a person dying". Rather, in New Zealand, "Murder is when one person kills another deliberately or while acting recklessly, knowing that death is likely". And unsurprisingly, like most of the Western world, New Zealand distinguishes murder from manslaughter, though both are "categories of culpable homicide (the illegal killing of one person by another)" -https://teara.govt.nz/en/violent-crime/page-2

Likely if you were to watch a NZ crime program, you'd be able to figure out and contextualize most of the language used. It's not like we're speaking two entirely different languages. Most NZ law is based on English law same as us. You should realize that Starlight's views of the taking of life are extremely idiosyncratic. You're talking to a guy who is fine with infanticide, and wrongly thinks the rest of New Zealand is as well.

Also, his claim that "nobody here/outside the US calls it 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life'" () is, of course, bull. For the pro-life side, see for instance: Prolife New Zealand, Right To Life New Zealand which describes itself as a "Pro-Life organisation based in Christchurch New Zealand with members New Zealand wide", and Family Life International, which also describes itself as pro-life. For the pro-choice side, see for instance: Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand which is the main pro-choice advocacy group in New Zealand, and who refer to themselves as "pro-choice" throughout their website.

Basically, if Starlight tells you how something is in New Zealand, pass it by 2 or 3 other New Zealanders to make sure he's not just pulling it out of his behind. In fact, asking around about any claim he makes on this forum is a pretty good idea. Starlight is so entrenched in his own little bubble he barely knows a world exists outside his mom's basement.

[Cow Poke]

You said, "In the U.S." That's all states, Jim.

Yeah, that was the point - and it's not in all states, and not in the same version.

[rogue06]

Couple things you should be aware of; In past conversations we've found that Starlight is nothing like a pacifist. What he means by "borderline pacifist" is that he'd rather a nation not go to war unless defending against an attack, which is not at all what it means to be a pacifist.

He's also wrong that there's some sort of international difference in terminology in regards to "murder" . Murder is not any "violent action intentionally taken that results in a person dying". Rather, in New Zealand, "Murder is when one person kills another deliberately or while acting recklessly, knowing that death is likely". And unsurprisingly, like most of the Western world, New Zealand distinguishes murder from manslaughter, though both are "categories of culpable homicide (the illegal killing of one person by another)" -https://teara.govt.nz/en/violent-crime/page-2

Likely if you were to watch a NZ crime program, you'd be able to figure out and contextualize most of the language used. It's not like we're speaking two entirely different languages. Most NZ law is based on English law same as us. You should realize that Starlight's views of the taking of life are extremely idiosyncratic. You're talking to a guy who is fine with infanticide, and thinks the rest of New Zealand is as well.

Also, his claim that "nobody here/outside the US calls it 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life' () is, of course, bull. For the pro-life side, see for instance: Prolife New Zealand, Right To Life New Zealand which describes itself as a "Pro-Life organisation based in Christchurch New Zealand with members New Zealand wide", and Family Life International, which also describes itself as pro-life. For the pro-choice side, see for instance: Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand which is the main pro-choice advocacy group in New Zealand, and who refer to themselves as "pro-choice" throughout their website.

Basically, if Starlight tells you how something is in New Zealand, pass it by 2 or 3 other New Zealanders to make sure he's not just pulling it out of his behind. In fact, asking around about any claim he makes on this forum is a pretty good idea. Starlight is so entrenched in his own little bubble he barely knows a world exists outside his mom's basement.

wrt the pacifist claim, iirc, he supports punching people in the nose who don't share his political stances as well.

[Cow Poke]

wrt the pacifist claim, iirc, he supports punching people in the nose who don't share his political stances as well.

Like here?

How, eggzackly, does that address your professed amusement at somebody punching somebody else in the face?

Because the alt-right are a bunch of horrible people advocating horrible things, and it is cathartic to see a leader of that movement get a punch in the face. Watching a gif of it over and over gives one a sense of karma and reminds one that sometimes bad people do get a little bit of what they deserve.

Would you have been dancing in glee had the 'White Supremacist' been stabbed with a knife?

I would probably be mildly happy that the world was now a slightly better place and then get on with my life. But someone getting killed is not the same kind of thing as someone getting hit in the face with a cream pie, or a wet fish (or hilariously in the case of one NZ politician, a sex toy). A punch in the face is deserved comeuppance and funny, getting stabbed to death isn't funny but all things considered he would deserve it so I'd have no sadness over it.

[JimL]

You said, "In the U.S." That's all states, Jim.

No, it's not OBP. Texas is in the U.S, but it isn't all states, Florida is in the U.S., but it isn't all of the U.S. etc etc.