Pissing Off The Libs and ACLU

Started by Solar, November 21, 2012, 01:28:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

hfishjr81

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2012, 12:10:16 PM
What he did was legal, had he not had an agreement between the two party's and made the same ruling, it then and only then could be considered unconstitutional.

What he did, in his own words, was "unconstitutional".

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2012, 12:10:16 PM
Your ignorance of the law exposes your bias.


Im only repeating the Judge about his actions. But I am going a step further and saying church shouldn't be used as a punishment, it's not just bad for church image but sends a terrible message to other kids pertaining to drinking and driving.  If you cant see that than you are allowing your bias and emotions guide you rather than the brain god supposedly gave you.

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2012, 12:10:16 PM
He is being forced to do something he may not have done on his own, doing so is called arrest, so yes, this is a form of court arrest and punishment.

Youre wrong... Read a little, Solar.

"My client goes to church every Sunday," Baker said. "That isn't going to be a problem for him.

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20121115_12_A11_CUTLIN265206&allcom=1


As far as him not be drunk, ok, Ill give you that, but being a minor under the influence he is still breaking the law, and should take responsibility for the other lives he elects to drive around with.

And good, glad to hear you're open minded.  :thumbup:

"According to Gallup, 68 percent of Americans want corporations to have less influence in America."

JustKari

To clarify, I don't want "the book" thrown at him either.  I am glad that he and the victim's family came to an agreement, but I just don't think that going to church should have been an option. He could have been given a sentence of service to a VA hospital or at an intervention/rehab center. 

Solar

Quote from: hfishjr81 on November 22, 2012, 12:34:51 PM
What he did, in his own words, was "unconstitutional".
Again, so what? It was legal!
Do I need to explain it again, what is it with you libs?

QuoteIm only repeating the Judge about his actions. But I am going a step further and saying church shouldn't be used as a punishment, it's not just bad for church image but sends a terrible message to other kids pertaining to drinking and driving.  If you cant see that than you are allowing your bias and emotions guide you rather than the brain god supposedly gave you.


Youre wrong... Read a little, Solar.

"My client goes to church every Sunday," Baker said. "That isn't going to be a problem for him.
What part of rehabilitative do you not get?It was not punishment, it's a way to keep him occupied.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20121115_12_A11_CUTLIN265206&allcom=1
Quote

As far as him not be drunk, ok, Ill give you that, but being a minor under the influence he is still breaking the law, and should take responsibility for the other lives he elects to drive around with.

And good, glad to hear you're open minded.  :thumbup:
He wasn't under the influence according to the police.
Also your link starts out with a biased lie.

He was not convicted for a DUI...
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Darth Fife

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2012, 05:15:40 AM
So the law should ignore the wishes of the victims family?

So are you saying manslaughter is just fine and dandy as long as you get the blessing of the family of the deceased?

QuoteWhat good does prison do, when this was not a crime of malice, but stupidity, punish an act of stupidity the same as one of intent?

I disagree. It was an act of intent! Is it a secret that it is illegal to drink if you are underage? Are there no warnings that drinking and driving is a deadly combination - especially if you are underage? In fact, I believe that in some states, even if you are not technically "under the influence" you can be arrested and lose your license for driving if you've been drinking and are underage.

It wasn't Murder 1, but make no mistake about it - this was an act of intent that had disastrous consequences.

QuoteThe kids were being stupid, the victim is equally culpable in that he neglected to protect himself by wearing a seat belt.
No, this was nothing more than Darwin's law in effect.

I never thought I'd ever hear you blame the victim!  :thumbdown:

God help me, but I agree with the Fishmeister! :scared:

Church is neither punishment nor is it rehabilitation!  He doesn't need to be in a state pen doing hard time; I like the idea of him doing a lot (say 2 or 3 years) of community service at the local V.A. Hospital. I could also see a scenario where he is required to spend a 24hr shift riding with a paramedic crew once a month.

But this attending Church thing is just bullshit!

Solar

Quote from: Darth Fife on November 22, 2012, 04:44:40 PM
So are you saying manslaughter is just fine and dandy as long as you get the blessing of the family of the deceased?
There is a reason we have manslaughter laws, look them up.
Quote
I disagree. It was an act of intent!
Wrong! Intent would carry a 1st degree murder charge.
QuoteIs it a secret that it is illegal to drink if you are underage? Are there no warnings that drinking and driving is a deadly combination - especially if you are underage? In fact, I believe that in some states, even if you are not technically "under the influence" you can be arrested and lose your license for driving if you've been drinking and are underage.
Read, would you? He was not charged with a DUI!!!
Quote
It wasn't Murder 1, but make no mistake about it - this was an act of intent that had disastrous consequences.
It's a good thing you never entered law school.
QuoteI never thought I'd ever hear you blame the victim!  :thumbdown:

God help me, but I agree with the Fishmeister! :scared:
And you see that as a badge of honor ?

QuoteChurch is neither punishment nor is it rehabilitation!  He doesn't need to be in a state pen doing hard time; I like the idea of him doing a lot (say 2 or 3 years) of community service at the local V.A. Hospital. I could also see a scenario where he is required to spend a 24hr shift riding with a paramedic crew once a month.
I have no problem with that either,.
QuoteBut this attending Church thing is just bullshit!
Your bias is noted.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Darth Fife

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2012, 04:55:38 PM
There is a reason we have manslaughter laws, look them up.

If you insist...

Vehicular homicide (also known as vehicular manslaughter) in most states in the United States, is a crime. In general, it involves death that results from the negligent operation of a vehicle, or more so a result from driving while committing an unlawful act that does not amount to a felony.


As I said before, in most states it is illegal for someone under the age to drive if they have been drinking even if they are not legally under the influence. Even if it isn't under age drinking is illegal, there for it does fit the definition of vehicular manslaughter.

QuoteWrong! Intent would carry a 1st degree murder charge.Read, would you? He was not charged with a DUI!!!It's a good thing you never entered law school.

The "intent" was that he knowingly drove a vehicle after he had been drinking. Also, one could say that he was drinking under age even though he knew it was illegal - again intent.

I wouldn't sully myself by becoming a lawyer!

QuoteAnd you see that as a badge of honor ?

Not even close!  :lol:

QuoteI have no problem with that either,.

QuoteYour bias is noted.

So is yours! :wink:

BILLY Defiant

I am reminded of the Old days when Judges used to sentence juvenile offenders to "the Marines or the Army"..... take your pick. Probably half my Basic training barracks picked "the Army".... :lol:


Billy
Evil operates best when it is disguised for what it truly is.

hfishjr81

"According to Gallup, 68 percent of Americans want corporations to have less influence in America."

hfishjr81

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2012, 02:28:22 PM
He was not convicted for a DUI...


"Alred was not legally drunk, but because he was below the legal drinking age, he was still considered to be driving under the influence of alcohol. The high school student pleaded guilty in August to a charge of manslaughter as a youthful offender."


He pleaded "guilty of manslaughter" for killing someone while driving under the influence (DUI).
"According to Gallup, 68 percent of Americans want corporations to have less influence in America."

Solar

Quote from: Darth Fife on November 22, 2012, 05:12:00 PM
If you insist...

Vehicular homicide (also known as vehicular manslaughter) in most states in the United States, is a crime. In general, it involves death that results from the negligent operation of a vehicle, or more so a result from driving while committing an unlawful act that does not amount to a felony.


As I said before, in most states it is illegal for someone under the age to drive if they have been drinking even if they are not legally under the influence. Even if it isn't under age drinking is illegal, there for it does fit the definition of vehicular manslaughter.
Which is also why there are classifications of the charge, in this case, a class D felony.

QuoteThe "intent" was that he knowingly drove a vehicle after he had been drinking. Also, one could say that he was drinking under age even though he knew it was illegal - again intent.

I wouldn't sully myself by becoming a lawyer!

Not even close!  :lol:

So is yours! :wink:
Why do I get the feeling you're channeling Feddy?
"Intent" under the law is a plan of following through on an action such as a robbery or a murder where the plan can be proven in court.
Having a beer, dicking around with friends and getting in a wreck falls under Class D felony, because there was no motive, or intent, were they able to prove intent, he would have been charged with 1st degree murder.

Drop this Darth, my patience are wearing thin where ignorance is concerned, stupid is a liberal trait, let them own it.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

hfishjr81

Quote from: Solar on November 23, 2012, 06:27:19 AM
Drop this Darth, my patience are wearing thin where ignorance is concerned, stupid is a liberal trait, let them own it.


The way you talk about Liberals borders on hate speech, which stems from emotion, and we know your thoughts on emotional debate.
But what's really weird is the fact that you bypass anything that proves you wrong. It's like you're that guy that grabs his ball and walks home when someone scores on him. Or, more likely,  calls "foul" and doesn't count the score. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Not to mention the fact that people like you on all sides is whats wrong with this nation, Solar. People that cant stand one side or the other so much that they block much of the good moderate possibilities.   

You should try to lay down your anger toward Libs, they're just people, they don't own "stupid" , or wrong for that matter, humanity does. And, IMO, we need to understand that if we're ever to really move forward.  For now though, until you decide to change, Your emotionally charged detachment from others will stay a microcosm of the GOP, and for those reasons , among others,  will be why they'll keep losing the presidency, no mater the supposed "muslim, commie, marxist" that runs against.    :thumbdown:
"According to Gallup, 68 percent of Americans want corporations to have less influence in America."

Solar

Quote from: hfishjr81 on November 23, 2012, 07:45:56 AM

The way you talk about Liberals borders on hate speech, which stems from emotion, and we know your thoughts on emotional debate.
But what's really weird is the fact that you bypass anything that proves you wrong. It's like you're that guy that grabs his ball and walks home when someone scores on him. Or, more likely,  calls "foul" and doesn't count the score. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Not to mention the fact that people like you on all sides is whats wrong with this nation, Solar. People that cant stand one side or the other so much that they block much of the good moderate possibilities.   

You should try to lay down your anger toward Libs, they're just people, they don't own "stupid" , or wrong for that matter, humanity does. And, IMO, we need to understand that if we're ever to really move forward.  For now though, until you decide to change, Your emotionally charged detachment from others will stay a microcosm of the GOP, and for those reasons , among others,  will be why they'll keep losing the presidency, no mater the supposed "muslim, commie, marxist" that runs against.    :thumbdown:
I'll let this be an example as proof of my point.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Darth Fife

Quote from: Solar on November 23, 2012, 06:27:19 AM
Which is also why there are classifications of the charge, in this case, a class D felony.
Why do I get the feeling you're channeling Feddy?
"Intent" under the law is a plan of following through on an action such as a robbery or a murder where the plan can be proven in court.
Having a beer, dicking around with friends and getting in a wreck falls under Class D felony, because there was no motive, or intent, were they able to prove intent, he would have been charged with 1st degree murder.

Drop this Darth, my patience are wearing thin where ignorance is concerned, stupid is a liberal trait, let them own it.

Trust me, I'm not channeling anyone. However, I may not be expressing myself clearly.

I'm not saying there was intent to have his friend die in an accident. I'm not saying there was even intent to have an accident.

The intent come with the under age drinking. Unless someone spikes the punch at a party, you don't accidently drink when you are under age. Drinking under age (whether or not you are technically "under the influence" is a crime).

He committed a crime (under age drinking) + negligent operation of a motor vehicle which resulted in a death (which may have been cause by his under age drinking, even though he wasn't "DUI") = Vehicular Manslaughter.

Am I wrong?

Regardless, I do agree we are wandering off into the weeds on this one. The main point is that sentencing someone to attend church for 10 years - for any "crime" is just B.S. IMHO.



hfishjr81

Quote from: Solar on November 23, 2012, 09:14:18 AM
I'll let this be an example as proof of my point.


And I'll let you're obvious inability to be civil stand on its own as proof to mine.
"According to Gallup, 68 percent of Americans want corporations to have less influence in America."

Cryptic Bert