Gdanning
1yr ago
You seem to be a bit fuzzy on what a bright-line rule is. The whole point of a bright-line rule is that details of specific cases are irrelevant. Hence, if the UK court established a bright-line rule, then it doesn't matter whether or not everyone knows the name of the player who was arrested; the media cannot report his name, regardless. The same is true of your hypotheticals.
Gdanning
1yr ago
And if so, I am perfectly fine with Kyle Rittenhouse getting a concealed weapon permit.
Gdanning
1yr ago
You are the one claiming that the BBC's concern over liability is bogus, despite the opinions of UK attorneys that imply that that concern is very much legitimate. Hence, you have the burden of proof.
Gdanning
1yr ago
And as far as I know, America doesn’t have much public healthcare, so these kids getting surgeries while they’re underage have got to be the beneficiaries of rich parents who can afford to foot the bill.
Aside from what others have mentioned about private insurers, there are 90 million people enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP, including 41 million children. People under 18 make up 21 pct of the 331 million people in the United States, so most children are covered by public healthcare.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Ah, yes. We had to destroy the village in order to save it. And, if civilian casualties are a fake concept, then I guess 9/11 was perfectly acceptable.
Gdanning
1yr ago
You're cherry picking that from their site.
No. Rather, I intentionally looked to see what their position was an an extremely well-known recent controversy specifically about ethnic nationalism in Israel.
But let's be honest, they have spent a million times as much money and effort attacking Musk these past few years publicly than they ever have in their entire history for Israel. This is also a left/wing Jew/Israel culture war battle. They don't like Netenyahu or Likud. But make no mistake, if you go criticizing Israel publicly and aggressively, the ADL will come for you to smear your character no matter how good your points are and how good your intentions are.
I have no doubt that they are assholes, but what does any of that have to do with their views on ethnic nationalism?
Gdanning
1yr ago
That there may be bright-line rules contained within a reasonableness rule does not mean that the reasonableness rule is, itself, a bright-line rule
No one said otherwise. Nevertheless, courts often draw bright-line rules when defining reasonableness. For example, ordering the passenger out of a vehicle during a traffic stop is per se reasonable.
Gdanning
1yr ago
I mean, the word "reasonable" is right in the phrase
Again, I am not familiar with the nuances of UK law in this area, and as I said, there might not be a bright-line rule. But the term "reasonable" tells us nothing about that question. The Fourth Amendment forbids only "unreasonable" searches and seizures, yet Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is filled with bright-line rules and has been for decades.
Gdanning
1yr ago
The excuse is that their Tweets and website expose them to potential liability in the UK. Because that is what happened to Bloomberg in the UK case mentioned in the links. They were found liable for an article posted on their website.
Note also that, while the WaPo does not identify the person arrested in their article on their website, they do say, nudge, nudge; wink, wink:
Matt Petgrave, 31, who plays for Sheffield, was the other player involved in the grisly incident that reverberated around the hockey community and led to moments of silence in the NHL.
Obviously, they are trying to comply with the letter of UK law.
Gdanning
1yr ago
You seem to be arguing that the fact that his name was written on the back of his jersey is relevant. It might be, but you have no evidence of that, right? Because the first sentence of the article states a bright-line rule: " the Supreme Court ruled that a person under criminal investigation has a reasonable expectation of privacy prior to charge"
More importantly, the point is not that, under UK law, the publication of his name would DEFINITELY expose the BBC to liability. I am not familiar enough with the relevant case law. Rather, the point is that FEAR OF LIABLITY IS THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION OF THE FAILURE TO REVEAL HIS NAME. I have cited two sources from UK lawyers advising media outlets that revealing the name of a suspect before charges have been brought is a bad idea. Yet, you are convinced that the "real" reason is something else.
People who know more about UK law than you or I disagree with you
Edit >Clearly, they're reporting an arrest and have confidence that an arrest was actually made.
That's irrelevant. The law in the UK apparently draws the line at the point that charges are filed, not at the point of arrest.
Gdanning
1yr ago
groups like the ADL .. . support . . . ethno nationalism in Israel
The ADL opposed the 2018 nation-state law, which means that they oppose ethnic nationalism in Israel.
Gdanning
1yr ago
OP pointed out that virtually no one in San Francisco can get a conceal carry permit, and that it's rank hypocrisy for Feinstein to have gotten one.
No OP made a causal claim -- that she got one because she was "important" -- and I merely pointed that there seems to have been another reason.
asking bing how many CCP have been issued in San Francisco
No one doubts that it was difficult to get CCP in SF during the decade ending in 2017. But that is not the point, and besides note that Feinstein did not have a permit at that time either.
- I keep making the point that she's no more deserving, morally, than many of victims and future victims of violent crime in San Francisco.
And I keep making the point that that claim is based on a misstatement of the facts.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Alternative explanation: The media faces potential liablity for naming suspects before formal charges are filed.
Gdanning
1yr ago
But the issue is less the utility of the tool than the specificity of the threat. Moreover, Marcus Foster was killed with a handgun, not by a bomb or high-powered rifle.
No, I am noting that that particular person at that particular time faced a particular threat from a particular group. If she did not show good cause for a concealed weapon permit, then no one can, so you seem to be advocating that no one should have been issued a concealed weapon permit
Gdanning
1yr ago
No, normal people are not individually targeted by terrorist groups, especially not groups that send several bombs to her and other SF supervisors and are affiliated with organizations which assassinate school superintendents in nearby cities
Gdanning
1yr ago
I still don't think it puts you in the clear as a legislator if you build in exceptions for a narrow class of people like yourself.
Again, I really don't understand why you are saying this. Feinstein was never a CA state legislator, and besides, the state law was in place at least as early as 1969, since it was discussed in Galvan v. Superior Court, 70 Cal. 2d 851 (1969). And, of course, Feinstein did not become a member of the class to which the exception applies (ie, people with good cause to carry a concealed weapon) until after the law was passed. So, not only do you "don't have proof that that is definitely exactly what Feinstein was doing", you have enormous evidence of the opposite.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Couple surprising things, like how my home state of California has the lowest literacy rate, or literacy for US adults is only at 79%
Not that surprising, given that California has the highest percentage of foreign-born residents.
Re data claims in general, one must be eternally vigilant for sloppiness.
Did it?
Sometimes the best way to find the text of old laws is to search the case law section of Google Scholar. That's how I found this:
Permission to carry a concealed weapon may be sought, as petitioners did here, by an application under sections 12050 and 12051 of the Penal Code. Those sections read as follows:
Section 12050: "(a) The sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying is a resident of the county, may issue to such person a license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm for any period of time not to exceed one year from the date of the license.
Salute v. Pitchess, 61 Cal. App. 3d 557 (1976)
California has something like 200,000 assaults per year and I expect most of those are personally targeted
It is my understanding that the vast majority of assaults arise from sudden disputes. Of the remainder, the vast majority are crimes in which the victim is chosen more or less at random. That is a far cry from being targeted in a premeditated fashion, as a specific individual.
But I have no respect for anyone who refuses to live by the rules they set for others.
Again, where is your evidence that she did that? Where is your evidence that she ever tried to avoid compliance with a law that she passed! And, do you even know what her position on gun control was at the time that she got the permit? I can certainly imagine that she might have become a proponent of gun control later, after George Moscone and Harvey Milk were murdered, with a handgun, by what seemed to be a responsible citizen.
Edit: Or, after the 101 California St shooting
Gdanning
1yr ago
She of course was not a Senator at the time. And, normal people are not personally targeted by terrorist organizations.
If the law at the time required good cause for a concealed carry permit, it is not hypocritical to get a permit if you personally have good cause therefor. Is it hypocritical to think that higher income taxes rates would be sound policy, yet to take advantage of a tax deduction to which you are entitled under current law? I don’t see how it is.
Gdanning
1yr ago
I can't speak for other people, but as I have noted, the Trump ban was not a religion-based ban. It wasn't even really a blanket ban on "people from countries that support terrorism." Here is how the Supreme Court described the Trump ban:
The Proclamation (as its title indicates) sought to improve vetting procedures by identifying ongoing deficiencies in the information needed to assess whether nationals of particular countries present “public safety threats.” §1(a). To further that purpose, the Proclamation placed entry restrictions on the nationals of eight foreign states whose systems for managing and sharing information about their nationals the President deemed inadequate. The Proclamation described how foreign states were selected for inclusion based on the review undertaken pursuant to EO–2. . . . Following the 50-day period [of the review], the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security concluded that eight countries—Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—remained deficient in terms of their risk profile and willingness to provide requested information. The Acting Secretary recommended that the President impose entry restrictions on certain nationals from all of those countries except Iraq. §§1(g), (h). She also concluded that although Somalia generally satisfied the information sharing component of the baseline standards, its “identity management deficiencies” and “significant terrorist presence” presented special circumstances justifying additional limitations. She therefore recommended entry limitations for certain nationals of that country. . . . The Proclamation imposed a range of restrictions that vary based on the “distinct circumstances” in each of the eight countries. Ibid. For countries that do not cooperate with the United States in identifying security risks (Iran, North Korea, and Syria), the Proclamation suspends entry of all nationals, except for Iranians seeking nonimmigrant student and exchange-visitor visas. For countries that have information-sharing deficiencies but are nonetheless “valuable counterterrorism partner[s]” (Chad, Libya, and Yemen), it restricts entry of nationals seeking immigrant visas and nonimmigrant business or tourist visas. §§2(a)(i), (c)(i), (g)(i). Because Somalia generally satisfies the baseline standards but was found to present special risk factors, the Proclamation suspends entry of nationals seeking immigrant visas and requires additional scrutiny of nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas. §2(h)(ii). And for Venezuela, which refuses to cooperate in information sharing but for which alternative means are available to identify its nationals, the Proclamation limits entry only of certain government officials and their family members on nonimmigrant business or tourist visas. §2(f)(ii). . . . Upon completion of the first such review period, the President, on the recommendation of the Secretary of Homeland Security, determined that Chad had sufficiently improved its practices, and he accordingly lifted restrictions on its nationals.
And, even if it were a blanket ban on "people from countries that support terrorism," there is a vast difference between a) these people might be dangerous because they are from countries that support terrorism; and b) "these people might be dangerous because they are Muslims."
Gdanning
1yr ago
people are just saying general things that sound good. . . . People don’t want to feel like they’re banning an entire group or religion,
Doesn't that rather reinforce my point about values?
even if they effectively do.
You keep making this claim about the executive order, without any evidence, and despite all the evidence to the contrary.
The criteria you mention seem to be re the initiation of war, whereas the OP is asking about the conduct of war. This Catholic source discusses both.
More options
Context Copy link