- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Sentenced to Life for an Accident Miles Away
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:11 pm to Robin Masters
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:11 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
No. What you don’t understand is that just because some cornball politician codified it and an enterprising DA found a clever way to make it stick, makes it right or just.
Yes.
I understand that just fine.
But that's not the argument she's making. None of you who have that opinion, btw, have offered any sort of compelling argument for why you think those legal concepts are invalid, btw. Appeals to ridicule are fallacious and don't count.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:15 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
But that's not the argument she's making. None of you who have that opinion, btw, have offered any sort of compelling argument for why you think those legal concepts are invalid, btw. Appeals to ridicule are fallacious and don't count.
I can absolutely see why the concept is valid and why there are circumstances that warrant them. This just isn’t it. Not by a long shot.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:16 pm to Robin Masters
I'm not reading 21 pages of this shite but I see from the first page it certainly brought out the bootlickers.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:19 pm to 4cubbies
48 downvotes…the lack of logic, compassion and mercy is disheartening.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:21 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I totally understand that you support life without parole for getting arrested after breaking into cars. You have made that abundantly clear.
So again, I'm not sure whether you are knowingly being dishonest and lying or simply are unintelligent.
Again, I'm going to have to go with the former since at least one of my explicit posts clearly denying what you have just claimed was addressed directly to you. So if you were intelligent enough to read it, there's really no way you could miss it.
That being the case, how do you think lying about what others have said helps your argument?
Is it just all the years of being a Democrat, like a reflex? When in doubt, just lie?
quote:
I can ask if you agree that 2+2=4 a million times. It still doesn't have any relevance to this thread.
But just when I think it's dishonesty. you say something like this that makes me think you are just a painfully stupid person.
I have asked you the essence of the question, and your response is to characterize it as a non-sequitur.
quote:
The fact that your response to someone disagreeing with you is name-calling says more about you than anyone else.
It would, if that's all I was doing. But I've offered plenty of rationale and I'm only name calling in response to your dishonesty. Unless you're telling me that it really is stupidity instead of dishonesty, in which case I would say that it's not name-calling to correctly identify a mentally defective person as such. How it is expressed may lack tact or sensitivity, but calling a clinically retarded person retarded isn't "name-calling." It's just what that person is. It's a statement of fact.
However, the fact that you (IMO) intentionally lie about what I have said DOES say something about either the strength of your argument or your ability to argue it.
People who are winning don't have to lie.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:23 pm to wackatimesthree
Think about who you are dealing with.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:24 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
I can absolutely see why the concept is valid and why there are circumstances that warrant them. This just isn’t it. Not by a long shot.
I disagree, but as I posted several pages ago, I think your argument is a valid one and could prevail in a jury trial, and I wouldn't consider it invalid if it did.
Same with the opposing argument.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:24 pm to Jbird
quote:
Think about who you are dealing with.
Yeah. I know.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:27 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
I disagree, but as I posted several pages ago, I think your argument is a valid one and could prevail in a jury trial, and I wouldn't consider it invalid if it did. Same with the opposing argument.
I truly hope there wouldnt even be one person on a jury to go along with this much less twelve.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:28 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
But that's not the argument she's making.
What argument am I making? Curious to see what you'll come up with.
quote:The statute needs to be much more narrow so it isn't applied nonsensically, as it was in this instance.
have offered any sort of compelling argument for why you think those legal concepts are invalid, btw.
There was another example in the article, of a 16-year-old who have gave a Percocet to his friend. Unbeknownst to them, the Percocet was laced with Fentanyl. The friend who asked for the pill swallowed it hours later, at home without the person who gave her the pill, and died. The 16-year-old was charged as an adult and will spend the rest of his life in prison. Do you think that's a reasonable application of the statute?
This post was edited on 12/13/23 at 3:29 pm
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:30 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:Yes!
So again, I'm not sure whether you are knowingly being dishonest and lying or simply are unintelligent.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:31 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:Your position is that the person should have known that his friend was going to evade arrest and kill cyclists while he was in police custody? Since your claim is that I'm stupid, explain that part with a simple yes or no.
Again, I'm going to have to go with the former since at least one of my explicit posts clearly denying what you have just claimed was addressed directly to you. So if you were intelligent enough to read it, there's really no way you could miss it.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:32 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
There was another example in the article, of a 16-year-old who have gave a Percocet to his friend. Unbeknownst to them, the Percocet was laced with Fentanyl. The friend who asked for the pill swallowed it hours later, at home without the person who gave her the pill, and died. The 16-year-old was charged as an adult and will spend the rest of his life in prison. Do you think that's a reasonable application of the statute?
Well, shite. I would have let him off completely. Sometimes shite happens. You hand out a pill and bad stuff happens. It’s really nobody’s fault.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:35 pm to the808bass
I'm assuming most of us have done illegal drugs at some point in our lives. If something would have gone sideways, any one us could be in prison for the rest of our lives and this board would be cheering on the sentencing. It's crazy.
This post was edited on 12/13/23 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:36 pm to 4cubbies
I assume you are still do illegal drugs while a homeless guy steals your bike
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:37 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I'm assuming most of us have done illegal drugs at some point in our lives.
I have not. I’m very risk averse.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:41 pm to the808bass
Nerd. Well, your window of opportunity has certainly passed you up now.
Spoiler alert: you didn't miss out on much.
to keep it on topic, my point is that even though the guy in the article was committing an actual crime against another person, the statute can be applied without an intended victim. It's such an overreach.
Spoiler alert: you didn't miss out on much.
to keep it on topic, my point is that even though the guy in the article was committing an actual crime against another person, the statute can be applied without an intended victim. It's such an overreach.
This post was edited on 12/13/23 at 3:43 pm
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:46 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
to keep it on topic, my point is that even though the guy in the article was committing an actual crime against another person, the statute can be applied without an intended victim. It's such an overreach.
And let’s be real most of the time these overreaches are done so the DA doesn’t have to actually prove their case I the courtroom. Slap you with “life without parole” possibility and you’ll plead guilty for slightly lesser charges.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:48 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
And most people don’t even know it exists.
What
Posted on 12/13/23 at 3:51 pm to 4cubbies
Intended victim
Interesting
Interesting
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News