anti_dan
17hr ago
Seems like a weird rule that you can have sex with a girl, and its legal so long as your swimmers don't hit the lottery.
anti_dan
1d ago
How much of a problem is this in reality though? How many police chiefs are disciplining beat cops for discretionary acts of mercy? I ask because I regularly see bodycam videos of exactly that: the officer being kind and understanding toward someone who technically broke the law but clearly doesn't deserve punishment, and these officers recieve nothing but praise. Local PD facebook pages regularly post these types of videos themselves as a PR move. And personally, the one time I've been pulled over in the bodycam era involved a courteous interaction where the officer let me off with a warning and we both parted smiling.
It really depends on whether hindsight proves him to be wrong a lot of the time, if we are being honest.
You see this a lot in judicial retention races. Two judges can release the same % of domestic batterers from jail prior to trial, but if one of them has two guys come back and kill their girlfriend and the other has zero, you know who gets the campaign against them. Same for an officer that lets a guy who had 3 beers off with a warning, then T-bones a family of 5 months later.
anti_dan
1d ago
This sets up some pretty fucked incentives. Setting up fucked incentives has historically not gone well.
Every prosecutors office in the country has people who know how to set up witness visas. This has been thought of.
People just don't like doing work.
anti_dan
1d ago
One of the main effects of body cameras is for defense to use discriminatory policing angle. Lawyers can sift through months of bodycam footage of any given policeman and prove that he let some other offender on the same charge thus proving racial profiling etc.
I have seen this attempted fewer than a handful of times, and never seen it work. Even in my very blue jurisdiction, judges are not going to fall for a compilation video of an officer arresting black men and call the cop a racist on the record. The only people who try it are very new defense attorneys (often public defenders) that are pie in the sky idealists that haven't had a chance to understand they are torpedoing their reputation and credibility by trying it.
Thats not to say there aren't bad cops, a few years ago a state trooper was outed as faking hundreds of DUIs. He was discovered by, not some enterprising young defense attorney, but instead by internal investigations who were investigating him for his suspicious amounts of overtime.
anti_dan
1d ago
The 5 year olds parents are the villain of that story. No different than if some parents of a 5 year old committed a burglary and were sent to prison.
anti_dan
1d ago
Its a simple balancing act. 15 is probably too young, because there remains a significant number of girls who are still beginning puberty at that age and pregnancy, while possible, is more dangerous than it would be in just a year or two. By the time a girl is 17, the chance that a pregnancy is better off delayed for a year based on physical development is minuscule.
anti_dan
2d ago
The only legitimate argument one can make against body cameras, IMO, is that judges become way too reliant on them. I have seen this shift over the past few years where many judges seem to have a crippling addiction to body/dash cameras. In practice, this makes cases that should take minutes, often take hours.
By way of example, I'd offer a pretty standard DUI. Misdemeanor, guy is clearly drunk, refuses the breath test at the station.
Pre Body Cam a simplified version of the trial goes like this: 1) Did you respond to an accident? Yes. For a man who had hit a pole with his car. 2) I got to
and there was a guy in a slumped over in the drivers seat with his car smashed into a pole. 3) What happened next? I woke him up and tried to administer field sobriety tests but he kept falling down and couldnt do them. So I arrested him. 4) Then at the station? He refused the breath test.Post body cam: The same thing, but we watch 2 hours of field sobriety tests attempting to be be performed, and 30 minutes of dragging a drunk guy to the breath test station and refusing.
anti_dan
2d ago
Being abnormal does not equate to "acting on any whim". And being abnormal is definitely not a clear cut negative for society. What is it, like 75% of silicon valley unicorn founders are autistic? People with a propensity to not conform, socially or otherwise, seem to be disproportionately progressing society right now.
Some people can be a little abnormal an not be anti-social. Unfortunately, transgenderism has consistently failed that standard. They are antisocially abnormal as a general rule.
Are you arguing that the Irish government should not accept that the actual, biological parent, is a parent, in this case?
The children should likely be taken out of the home, yes.
An argument that basically goes "Trans people are weird, they should choose not to be, in an ideal world we would exile them or kill them, because I've had enough of losing these arguments" is just not working for me. Maybe you have all this background info that, if included, forms this into some rationale that I could follow. But as presented, this is the same level of "boo outgroup" ranting that the Reddit lefties are doing about everybody who voted for Trump. We can all just pick the political opponents we don't like, call them freaks and wish death on them because we're tired of each other.
I am not wishing death on trans people. I have noticed the results of attempts to accept trans people and have determined them to be very bad. I believe exile would be the most appropriate remedy to this issue.
I just come from a position where I think that type of rhetoric makes the world a worse place. I think it's a dogshit take, not because I am actually pro trans or anything. I'm pretty moderately to aggressively against the movement. But if you have some total insensitivity towards the specific issues in question, and can't differentiate from a bad expectation and a reasonable expectation (you seem to explicitly state you don't care what the issue is) you're definitely in a position to make the world worse. Which is what you're doing.
Discussing what is the best solution to the existence of a decently sized group of antisocial people who pose a particularly large risk to children is making the world a worse place how? What do you think is the appropriate remedy for the trans movement, which, of course, intentionally targets children for recruitment and dangerous pseudo-scientific "medical" procedures?
anti_dan
3d ago
"Just be normal" is possibly the worst objection to anything I could think of.
Why? Being normal is how societies form and continue to function. If people just acted on any whim they had we'd live in chaos. Some places now do live in chaos because people do that as a norm. They litter, burn trash, shoot each other.
And before you say, "well those affect other people" so does transing yourself. You become a visual blight, you become a blight on language (demanding people use obviously incorrect pronouns), you demand special dispensations. Its all abnormal and taxing on society.
"I am the MOTHER in all contexts except for this particular one where the law requires me to declare I'm a father to act in the best interest of my child" is interesting, but a total nothing burger when you consider literally every other conceivable circumstance of a parent acting in the best interest of their child.
Pretending to be a mother is directly in contradiction with acting in the best interests of the child. How would we possibly accept any of this person's other actions as being so?
Gleefully posting laughing emojis on the twitter repost is fun and all, but i think the appropriate response to a handwave "lol stop being wierd and you won't have any problems, freak 😜" is "well that's just not how the world works."
Because too many wrong people have won battles such as this. This is a good battle to fight to make the world better.
Historically as in pre-enlightenment? We've spent a couple hundred years trying pretty hard to steer away from this type of ridiculousness for good reason.
It is more recent that exile was used, but exile was a good punishment, if we had more unoccupied land I think it would be good to re-instate it. Its a happy middle ground between the death penalty & long prison sentences and the leniency that plagues modern society with rampant low level criminality and antisocial activities. If these people were in a town in Texas in the 1840s they'd be told they should leave. If they did, they'd go to Mexico or California (and one of those places would probably execute them unless they reformed) but, if they didn't they'd be shot.
anti_dan
4d ago
Disagree.
The "trans" father has engaged in maximum levels of grandstanding and rebellion from the world he exists in.
If he wants his children to benefit from the world, he merely must accept normal rules.
All he has to do is be normal and his kid gets normal rules.
Prioritizing your weird rules over normal rules means you are crazy and people should not want your kids as citizens.
Thus, consequences.
Historically, the whole family is lucky to not be exiled.
anti_dan
4d ago
I think it's one of these midwit meme distribution. Glug thinks cartoons are low-brow childish entertainment, midwit thinks since it's not aimed at kids it's adult and somewhat sophisticated. Genius knows it's mostly endless rehash of tropes comfortable to its audience.
This would be odd given the Black + Asian fanbase of anime.
Anime is aimed at teens and is for teens. Adults who are black appear to love it as well. If the meme is to be fufilled the jedi at the right end of adults should also love it.
anti_dan
6d ago
Even in the types of cases where written orders are rare, judges will typically make an oral record which is also typically available in transcript. This is standard in criminal law, for example. If a judge is just like, "Guilty, 10 years in the department of corrections for you" that would be both incredibly rare, and quickly overturned.
anti_dan
7d ago
Nor is shooting someone fleeing (without your property) in the back considered self-defense anywhere.
It was in most states, legal, in 1980. The American culture of 1776-1980 was not some abomination of people selected for individual violence. It was selected for people who were trustworthy in their judgment as to the amount of violence a situation required.
That such trust did not survive the CRA and the associated movements is noted.
anti_dan
7d ago
Nah, its a good general rule that this would be a good excuse to re-impose. Just like imputing deadly intent to any mob the surrounds a vehicle and giving drivers ramming privileges.
anti_dan
7d ago
There are multiple crimes. Assault, battery, unlawful restraint, criminal damage to property. Importantly, by acting in concert of any single conspirator did one, it is imputed to all.
anti_dan
8d ago
A church is a fairly arbitrary point to draw the line at in the grand scheme of things. However it is where the line is drawn and the civil disobedient crossed it.
How is it fairly arbitrary? Almost every state I know of has increased penalties for committing crimes at certain types of places, and almost all of those states include schools and churches in that list of special places. In fact, Minnesota law includes places of worship as one such place in their burglary statute making these actions very serious felonies.
anti_dan
8d ago
No, it is obviously burglary 2nd degree under black letter Minnesota law. Some states have less prosecutor-friendly burglary statutes, but look at this statute for prosecutors in this case (if they wished to take it) that fairly closely mimics the model penal code:
Subd. 2.Burglary in the second degree.
(a) Whoever enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime, or enters a building without consent and commits a crime while in the building, either directly or as an accomplice, commits burglary in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both, if:
(b) Whoever enters a government building, religious establishment, historic property, or school building without consent and with intent to commit a crime under section 609.52 or 609.595, or enters a government building, religious establishment, historic property, or school building without consent and commits a crime under section 609.52 or 609.595 while in the building, either directly or as an accomplice, commits burglary in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both.
Of note, its also burglary 1st degree (up to 20 years) if any of the people breaking in had a deadly weapon on them or burglary tools on them or anyone assaulted anyone in the church according the statute. These people would be seriously cooked if they did the same thing in Minnesota to a public or private school that rioters thought had a teacher teaching gay pride. Even Don Lemon appears to fall under this 2nd degree charge based on the charging documents (obviously everything must be proven in court).
anti_dan
8d ago
In the state I live in, if this happened in a less politically charged case, I would expect the people who invaded the church to be charged with several felonies. The obviously ones would be burglary, unlawful restraint (aggravated if any of them had a weapon), mob action, and criminal trespass and criminal damage charges which would be misdemeanors as well. For first time offenders, they would be lucky to get 2 years probation on a lesser charge with fairly strict probation conditions. For anyone with a criminal history, you are looking at 4-15, extendable to 30.
anti_dan
8d ago
The US is not yet at this level.
Are you sure? https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/fbi-justice-department-twist-federal-law-arrest-charge-pro-life
Peacefully protesting outside an abortion clinic and then defending your 12 year old son from an adult getting in his face meant SWAT teams in 2022.
anti_dan
8d ago
The specific indictment language includes accusasions of things that could be plausibly construed as conspiracy and pre-planning with the event organizers who, ultimately planned a church invasion.
anti_dan
8d ago
IMO the best response to this sort of thing is a re-invigoration of the right of self defense. If someone breaks into your church, they are forfeit. This is not a government courthouse or a Wal Mart. Its a church. Its a lot of people's second home. Just give that pastor and all his flock full immunity to any retribution, including shooting in the back people who flee during the, arguably, proper response of force.
anti_dan
8d ago
Speedy trial considerations. You can't do multiple trials, particularly jury trials at once
anti_dan
9d ago
I am tempted to respond merely with, "go on", but, being in a charitable mood I will explain why I think this reply is very stupid.
The "death penalty" thing is just always stupid in these situations. It logically devolves into anarchy in, actually, very few steps.
Let me assume, for the sake of argument that there is a law wherein the penalty is short of death that you believe in. Maybe something like burglary to a home (which both residents of the home and police could legally shoot fleeing suspects within living memory) or even something more trivial like theft from a retail store.
The penalty for noncompliance is always death. Dont believe me? Go to Target. Steal a bunch of shit. When Loss Prevention tries to stop you, fight them. When they try to transfer you to police custody, fight them. When you are in jail, fight the jail guards. When they try to take you to court, fight more. Eventually, you will either die as a result of the response to your opposition to the law, or you will die in a cell for your infinite transgressions thereof (in a functional criminal justice system, in Minnesota you might get like a $12 million dollar jury award for biting off an officers nose, who knows at this point).
Non-compliance with the law always results in death unless you terminate your noncompliance. Its just a matter of time and place and manner.
anti_dan
9d ago
As someone who has worked a job where you encounter a lot of criminals, your sentiments are not unheard of. Both the part where you dont really care anymore and the part where you feel swamped with idiots who insist on giving them chance number 1200. Because of this, I basically went into, "do your job" mode, wherein I defined doing my job as getting results that were, averaged over all cases, beneficial to the public. Sometimes this meant bad results on individual cases. A sorta bad guy gets a decent offer because a really bad guy has trial scheduled the same day. Sometimes it means driving a hard bargain even on a bad case for a bad guy and risking him getting no sentence at all because the conduct you allege is so egregious.
I think the plan of doing your job mostly works when you are encountering the dregs of society. Any other plan will cause you troubles.
Because the point of the sex is pregnancy. If its morally good to have sex with a woman, it is definitionally also good to impregnate her.
More options
Context Copy link