site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   3536 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for December 19, 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.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The trial judge rejects the defendant's argument. In this case, defendant actively engaged in a fistfight with the officers, showing that he indeed was willing to carry out his threats to harm them. The trial judge imposes a total sentence of four years (with the possibility of parole after two years) for the two threats. The appeals panel affirms.

This creeps me out. The idea that he doesn't get in trouble at all for attacking people (which he did), but he does get in trouble for "terroristic threats" (I would not consider threats against a specific person to be "terroristic"), and the guilt is proven by the fact that he did attack people (even though he was acquitted of this).

Is this simply that the criteria for "assault" are strict and he didn't quite meet all the criteria? Because what this looks like to me is an ad-hoc "we think he should get a little bit of jail time but not a lot, so let's just convict him of something that carries a smaller penalty than assault." and abusing the law to get that outcome. Because in what world do you prioritize punishing words over actions?

This reminds me of this story where a streamer was harassing somebody in public, and the person he was harassing drew a firearm and shot him (non-lethally).

The person who took the shot was found not guilty of "malicious wounding," but he was found guilty of unlawfully discharging a firearm in public.

In other words, the jury found that it was legal for the bullet he shot to hit the guy that he shot, but it was not legal for him to shoot the bullet in the first place.

Presumably, this means that the law expects you to teleport the bullet from your gun into your target without firing it or otherwise having it occupy the intervening space.

I suspect that if you look, the law is full of all sorts of cases like this.

The jury found that it was legal for the bullet he shot to hit the guy that he shot, but it was not legal for him to shoot the bullet in the first place.

Presumably, this means that the law expects you to teleport the bullet from your gun into your target without firing it or otherwise having it occupy the intervening space.

I think a better inference is that (1) the jury found the wounding justified but the method of wounding unjustified, so (2) in a situation where a self-defense justification is dubious, the law expects you to use a knife or your fists rather than endangering others by firing a gun (or maybe to just reveal the gun, but not actually fire it until the self-defense justification becomes less dubious).

Relevant laws:

Unfortunately, "for legal and security reasons" judicial documents other than appellate decisions are not open for electronic perusal in Pennsylvania, so I can't do much further investigation.

Is this simply that the criteria for "assault" are strict and he didn't quite meet all the criteria?

Pennsylvania's definition of "assault" does not seem particularly strict.

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