domain:shapesinthefog.substack.com
anti_dan
14hr ago
But DNA can't solve that factual question. The jury already answered that question without DNA, which can only further implicate him. He can only go from 100% guilty to 100% guilty.
Jiro
14hr ago
Another Stalin-related example of how political cults of personality work is a demand that you follow the personality's line even if they make complete u-turns.
"50 Stalins" uses Stalin as metonymy. It isn't about actual Stalin, and the fact that people behave in a certain way in relation to Stalin (and have to to stay alive) doesn't make that what "50 Stalins" is about.
Crowstep
14hr ago
Framing citizenship as a "reward" is completely nonsensical
It doesn't matter how anyone on the internet frames it. Illegal immigrants (quite rationally) do treat first world citizenship as a prize and lie and cheat their way to getting it. They do it for the same reason young third world men risk their lives coming across the sea on rubber dinghies and why rich foreigners quite literally buy it.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
14hr ago
Well, the problem is that some people have the exact opposite intuition! They can’t see why qualia should pose a problem for physicalism at all. Thus the debate carries on interminably.
Throwaway05
14hr ago
My right to be alive supersedes your right to have a gun.
People who dislike me because of X attribute (for instance jihadis) can have a gun. People who have said threatening things towards people like me can have a gun. People who have gone out and attacked people like me can't have a gun. People who have murdered people like me definitely can't have a gun.
That's what felons have done, committed a crime and so you lost the right. Involuntarily committed people have usually committed a crime (that does not go charged because we don't usually charge people for suicide attempts or attacking an ER nurse while psychotic), or have expressed a desire, willingness, and ability to commit a crime.
It is not assessed through a jury of peers, but this is why I'm asking what you want instead, because if you want that shit gets worse - do you want to be held until the legal system gets its shit together instead of just discharged from the hospital? Do you want your taxes to balloon?
Accept the current system, propose something else, or let your psychotic neighbor shoot you in the face.
You've also declined to say whether limitations should exist, which is clearly important.
Rov_Scam
14hr ago
Um, I dunno, suspect's blood found at the crime scene. Victim's blood found on the suspect's clothes, or in his apartment. I could go on but I don't have a decade to list all the scenarios where DNA evidence could be relevant in a murder case.
Throwaway05
14hr ago
The legal system in many places in the U.S. has abandoned intervention when a problem is a psychiatric matter and not a criminal one. Some of this is clearly inappropriate such as situations where the police are exhausted or the DA refuses to get involved. Sometimes it is appropriate, if someone is a chronic schizophrenic who has lost touch with reality and is violent then it's not a criminal problem, the guy is obviously not guilty by reason of insanity.
The person does not belong in jail they belong in a state hospital, this issue in part being that the funding for those beds has been taken away so traditionally these days they go to jail instead (it's just not the correct disposition).
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
14hr ago
It also led to the 2000s, and the 2010s, and the 2020s. Lots of things look really great if you refuse to look at the long-term consequences. Meth, for instance.
Throwaway05
14hr ago
I frankly have no idea how the judge in question here can honestly take a look at a forty-year period with no criminal history or further interactions with the mental health system or criminal justice system,
I think the implication of the proceedings was that this was not true, clearly wasn't true, and the court didn't want to waste time and money on sorting it so used other procedural grounds to close the matter.
Most people who fail in these kinds of proceedings are so allergic to basic competence and not being an entitled asshole that nobody who actually witnesses the situation feels bad. In the same that you look at most police encounters and go: "Should he have beat his ass? No. Did he absolutely earn it? Yes."
Most principled third parties read about these situations and fear some authoritarian judge taking rights away (which does happen) but the vast majority is "please give me something, anything to work with.....okay I guess you won't."
Rov_Scam
14hr ago
I understand what you're saying, but you're imposing a standard on the court that simply doesn't exist. He was involuntarily committed in 1983. He's presumed unfit to own firearms. You may have a disagreement about the process that was in place before 1987, but that's not what's at issue here. The guy isn't arguing that the record should be expunged because his original commitment was invalid, it's unlikely that he would be able to prove that it was invalid due to the passage of time, and the only way such an argument would work would be in the context of a ruling that all involuntary commitments prior to 1987 are presumptively invalid on procedural grounds. But again, that's not the issue here, and the court isn't going to relitigate this on its own.
Operating from that presumption, it's T.B.'s burden to prove that he qualifies for expungement, not the court's burden to prove that he doesn't. So, yeah, the court could have subpeonaed any number of different things, but they didn't, because they're under no obligation to prove that this guy is unfit to own weapons. That's already been established, insofar as the law is concerned, and if he wants the expungement, he has to provide the evidence himself. And what evidence did he provide? His own testimony, which suffered a debilitating lack of credibility, and a note from a psychiatrist which he admitted was obtained under false pretenses. The only thing we're left with that doesn't implicate T.B's lack of credibility is his lack of criminal record, which is persuasive but not dispositive. There's no provision of New Jersey law stating that the court has to grant an expungement just because someone hasn't committed any crimes for a period of time.
There's no legal issue here. All we have is you disagreeing with the factual findings of a judge who met the guy and reviewed the entire record, which, fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But it's no different than people who disagree with a jury verdict based on news reports they saw on TV. It's a factual issue, not a legal one, and no appeals court is going to overturn a finding of fact unless the evidence is so overwhelming that the conclusion is patently unreasonable.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
14hr ago
As I said, you are not a strong 2A advocate. You are not willing to, shall we say, "bite the bullet" and accept that there may be bad consequences to that right that cannot be fully ameliorated.
This is in bad faith.
No, postulating Jihadis with nukes was bad faith, because it conflated the subject we were discussing -- people who should be denied Second Amendment rights -- with the extent of the Second Amendment for everyone, in a way attempting to make limits on the latter justify limits on the former. Anyway, Jihadis have so far killed more people with guns than they have with nukes.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
14hr ago
What's your favorite Nietzsche book?
(If you say Zarathustra or WtP you're a poser.)
roystgnr
14hr ago
keeps following you around as you leave your house saying "Nybbler you raped me, I'm going to shoot you."
...
it is clearly a psychiatric matter not a criminal one.
I have identified the problem.
Throwaway05
14hr ago
There are always limitations. If I state that I have the right to murder people I disagree with because murder is expression of my speech. I will get laughed out of court for making this argument.
For 2A there are limitations..... well first of all what is a gun? I say a tank, a Warthog, and a fissile device are all guns. The court may say they are not guns and therefore I have no constitutional right to them. Some fictional guns are gun shaped and launch projectiles but are sufficient to destroy the planet. The government better ban them, I live on the planet.
Limitations must exist, else you live in a society where I can murder you legally for no reason because I assert it is my constitutional right to do so.
I don't think you believe that no limits should be placed on constitutional rights though, I think you are mad at the current limits, which are more expansive than what I'm asking for.
American citizen Jihadis absolutely have the right to guns if they haven't been convicted of crimes. We can't just have a member of the priesthood point to them and say "Man, those are some BAD muzzies" and no guns for them.
This is in bad faith. I didn't say Jihadis couldn't have guns. I said they couldn't have nukes. That is an example of a common sense limitation.
Certain people can't be trusted with certain powers. Determining this adequately is hard and frustrating. Nearly nobody should be trusted with nukes. Nearly everybody should be trusted with a fork and knife.
If you want to criticize an aspect of the current plan you need to either assert that no rights limitations are appropriate (which you have alluded to but not actually done) or come up with an alternative solution to the problem.
anon_
14hr ago
Indeed. And since Reagan made a set of rules and it led to the golden age of the 90s, that’s exactly the right lesson.
anon_
14hr ago
Yes, I get that.
I must have written exceptionally poorly for so many folks not to actually get my point.
hydroacetylene
15hr ago
'Legitimacy' means 'Emperor who is at worst neutral about my tribe'. The US isn't a nation anymore and everyone accepts it; an imperial government which takes your tax money(ideally as little as possible) to fuck off and spend on its own pet projects but doesn't demand anything else is far from the worst thing in the world- it's the default human governance arrangement. Trump makes a big show of this and that is why he's so successful at campaigning on 'legitimacy' when he's blatantly wrong. He has more black support than previous republicans because he doesn't talk about rap music and 70% illegitimacy and sagging pants- he doesn't want to impose red tribe values and religion(socially conservative but orthopraxic Christianity) on the black tribe. That plus caudillismo plus pomp is the secret sauce to Trump's 'mandate of Heaven'.
I'm not sure that the percentage of people who just want a good strong emperor to make the government leave them alone is a majority yet- I think Trump is Marius, not Caesar. But it's clearly a rapidly growing percentage that explains a huge chunk of Trump's appeal. The people who feel like their tribe's values and religion are something Washington wants to replace love him because of it, even if they're not ready to crown him with laurels when his troops force the senate to suspend elections.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
15hr ago
· Edited 15hr ago
The constitution is not a suicide pact, case law establishes restrictions to constitutional rights
So we've reached the "There are limitations, therefore this limitation is OK" stage of vitiating the Second Amendment.
The same for 2A. Jihadis can't have a right to nukes just because they are American citizens. That is not sensible. You can still be pro-2A and think that murders have lost their right to guns.
American citizen Jihadis absolutely have the right to guns if they haven't been convicted of crimes. We can't just have a member of the priesthood point to them and say "Man, those are some BAD muzzies" and no guns for them.
Ultimately your right to live supersedes my example crazy guys right to own a gun. If you believe otherwise you are in a gross minority.
You're not asking for a right to live; it's illegal to shoot you. You're asking for a right to safety, by taking away the guns of those who you think might shoot you based on some very lightweight procedure amounting to the word of a doctor. There's no such right.
BahRamYou
15hr ago
what if you're homeless/transient and don't have a driver's license or any other sort of ID? That's the argument that's always been used against requiring voter ID, so I don't see why it wouldn't apply here.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
15hr ago
Absolutely is!!! I think it’s mostly a meaning or community issue frankly. But our medical system is not well designed for that sort of thing.
hydroacetylene
15hr ago
I think this is a little far- the median white democrat is some normie teacher who thinks children should be planned and in a stable relationship that they might not be super explicit about needing to be marriage but they would be skeptical about non-marriage relationships filling the same role.
hydroacetylene
15hr ago
women having impossible standards for men
While there are definitely a minority of women on the internet demanding men be 6'5 self made millionaires who believe every woke shibboleth and yet act like conservatives, it seems like most women have eminently reasonable standards(be stably employed in a good job, not be a porn/substance/gambling addict, not a criminal, taller than her, etc) and simply aren't exposed to men who meet them.
phailyoor
15hr ago
Democrats defected first with immigration laws. Maybe deliberately bringing in millions and millions of people through a legal loophole wasn't the best idea to encourage a spirit of cooperation. Endlessly cooperating with them is a sure way to get trampled on.
hydroacetylene
15hr ago
A few from the fifth circuit in the Abbott v Feds standoff under the Biden admin. I don't think it made any difference in the end.
Congress has put many conditions on Medicaid, and only through controversial interpretations of various statutes is PP eligible in any state, let alone South Carolina.
More options
Context Copy link