TeknOShEeP
11mo ago
Right, thats where having the original ruling would be very helpful. But going by:
Green raises the following issues for our review:
- Did the trial court err in overruling the defense’s objection to [Taylor’s] lay opinion about whether [] Green held a genuine firearm in his hand where that opinion was based on improper speculation?
- Was the evidence insufficient for a conviction under [section] 6105 where the object described by the complaining witness could not have been a genuine firearm?
- Should the [section] 6105 charge have been graded as a misdemeanor of the first degree where there was no evidence at trial that [] Green had been convicted of a disqualifying felony?
- Was the evidence insufficient for a conviction for recklessly endangering another person where all evidence showed that [] Green’s purported gun was not loaded?
I read as an established fact by the criminal trial that the defendant pointed something at the witnesses, and now we are just arguing about the technicalities of what it was.
TeknOShEeP
11mo ago
Reading through the first case, while it is only the appealate court's decision rather than the actual criminal case, it seems to be far less alarming then first glance would have you believe. Unless I am missing something, the defendent seems to have admitted to brandishing a "black semiautomatic (as opposed to a revolver) handgun", and pointing it at the two women (his cousins). This is, broadly speaking, rather antisocial behavior, especially from a felon who is a prohibited person, and frankly seems like grounds for restricting their liberty for a substantial duration. The appeal does not appear to dispute these basic facts, and relies on technicalities such as "the witnesses could not have known it was a real gun" and "a real gun wouldn't click twice [ignoring the obvious issues that a real DA hammer fired gun would in fact click with each trigger pull]".
TeknOShEeP
1yr ago
I think that would be a fair assessment. There is certainly a wide gap between being a fairly local politician and trying to run a campaign on a bigger stage, and then actually delivering once you've won the race. In many ways, the skills don't translate, and cabinet secretaries are one of the posts where it can be most obvious (not guaranteed though- regardless of how you feel about the moral and philosophical implications of her actions, it's hard to deny the Clinton got shit done as Sec State, Cruz seems to be doing similarly).
"erosion of norms" is just DNC speak for "refusing to play the loveable loser to our obviously more virtuous candidate."
I freely admit I was part of it in my stupid college days, but frankly the DNC has been demonizing conservatives for a lot longer than Trump has been relevant, he was just the first one to fling the shit back in any effective manner.
If you want to point to a specific moment the norms really started to collapse, I would suggest the Johnson administration for the most recent cycle.
More options
Context Copy link