site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   2470 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.

Mildly interesting court opinion:

  • A woman and her daughter allege the following: In the middle of the night, they are about to get out of their car in front of their house. They look out of the car's window and are terrified to notice a cousin of theirs standing outside the window and pointing what appears to be a pistol at them, with his finger on the trigger. They hear two clicks, but no gunshot occurs. The two alleged victims flee to a nearby alley. By the time they return to their car with a police officer, the cousin has disappeared.

  • The cousin is charged with possessing a gun as a felon, possessing an instrument of crime, assault, and reckless endangerment. A search of his residence turns up no gun. Nevertheless, at a bench trial he is found guilty of all charges and is sentenced to 26 years of prison (with the possibility of parole after 13 years). The appeals panel vacates the conviction of reckless endangerment since there is no proof that the gun was loaded, but affirms the other three convictions, and leaves the 26-year sentence untouched since the trial judge imposed no penalty for the reckless endangerment.

Don't forget that you can be convicted of serious charges in a "he said she said" case, on witness testimony alone, if the jury (or the judge in a bench trial) finds the witnesses more credible than you are "beyond a reasonable doubt"!

Mildly interesting court opinion:

  • While driving around in the middle of winter, a police officer observes a woman crying and yelling as she bangs on the front door of a house while wearing only a bathrobe and a pair of slippers. When the officer stops and inquires, the woman states that her romantic partner pushed her out of the house after an argument. The romantic partner exits the house and talks with the officer. The officer advises the woman of her state-law rights to seek a restraining order or press criminal charges for domestic violence, but the woman refuses to do so.

  • Several minutes later (after, among other things, using her car's computer to review the department's training on domestic violence), the officer returns to the house and talks again with the woman to advise her even further of her rights under state law. The woman still isn't interested in doing anything. However, since the police have been called to this house five times in total, the officer tells another officer to contact a detective for further investigation.

  • Later on the same day, the woman is found dead in the house. The romantic partner pleads guilty to manslaughter. The woman's estate sues the officer for negligence, arguing that the officer was obligated to arrest the romantic partner because there was evidence that the romantic partner had perpetrated domestic violence (pushing, which constitutes the crime of assault) against the woman. The officer moves for summary judgment, arguing that state law grants absolute immunity to liability for any failure to make an arrest. The trial judge denies the motion.

  • The appeals panel reverses. The law says that an officer is obligated to arrest an alleged perpetrator of domestic violence if the alleged victim "exhibits signs of injury". Here, the officer observed no such signs. And, in any event, that domestic-violence law does not override the separate law that grants absolute immunity to liability for failure to make an arrest, which applies in all cases where the officer acts in good faith. The woman's estate will not be getting any damages.

Not-so-fun fact: While both the federal government and the New Jersey government allow random members of the public to access all the documents in a case docket online, it appears that the Pennsylvania government does not! Rather, electronic access to Pennsylvania judicial documents is restricted to lawyers and case participants "for legal and security reasons", and members of the public must request documents manually by submitting a form to the court clerk.

Microsoft has a convenient list of controller manufacturers that are sufficiently high-quality to be trusted with the official Xbox license.

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