site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   2580 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for October 3, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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]".

the defendent seems to have admitted to brandishing a "black semiautomatic (as opposed to a revolver) handgun"

I don't see any such admission.

You probably have seen the joke that goes something like: "I didn't kill him. And if I did it wasn't intentional. And if it was intentional it wasn't premeditated." IMO, here the defendant (as summarized by the appeals panel; as noted above, I can't access the legal documents, since they're in Pennsylvania and I'm not a lawyer) is only saying: "I didn't point anything at the witnesses. And if I did it wasn't a gun. And if it was a gun it wasn't an operable gun."

Right, thats where having the original ruling would be very helpful. But going by:

Green raises the following issues for our review:

  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. 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?
  4. 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.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats