LawTalkers
Page 27 of 126 « First 172526 27 28293777 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about! (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=824)

Adder 01-31-2009 12:00 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 379801)
1. Meant to fire Taser but actually fired gun --> "Oh, shit!"

2. Meant to fire gun b/c he really thought Grant had concealed weapon --> "Freeze. Gun! {Bang.} {Bang.} {Bang.} Backup! He's carrying!"

3. Meant to fire gun b/c he's a racist asshole --> "{Bang.} {Bang.} {Bang.}. Did you see that? He's got a gun in his waistband! Clear this area, now! {Unregistered handgun is placed in waistband.}"

Note that his actions are inconsistent with #2, and under any set of facts he's a lying piece of shit for lying about a dead man who he had just seconds before accidentally killed. There's time in Purgatory for that, but he's looking somewhat less like a murderer and more like a run-of-the-mill coward for not saying what was (albeit career-endingly) true: that his idiocy and distraction had killed a man.
I think I agree. Based on that motion, which of course is a defense submission, it looks more like incompetence than anything else. But I don't think that answers the question of whether it was criminal.

LessinSF 01-31-2009 02:31 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 379807)
The nice thing is I am picking way more tips on how to do my taxes and the "oops I didn't realise I had to declare/pay taxes on that" defence than TurboTax ever gave me.

Thanks Tim and Tom!
Just write Rangel Rule on top of your return.

Atticus Grinch 01-31-2009 02:58 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 379811)
Just write Rangel Rule on top of your return.
I have to admit that's pretty funny. Can I take a Frist Plea when I thrill-kill a cat?

Atticus Grinch 01-31-2009 03:00 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 379806)
Way to be an apologist for the man.
If my annual performance evals ended thusly, I'd be a happy man. Er, Man.

Atticus Grinch 01-31-2009 03:07 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 379810)
I think I agree. Based on that motion, which of course is a defense submission, it looks more like incompetence than anything else. But I don't think that answers the question of whether it was criminal.
It used to. The only time criminal law intruded upon traditional common law negligence was when the defendant denied specific intent but there was a showing of reckless indifference to whether an injury would result -- the Russian roulette cases. Now it just means "fucked up badly," so moms are getting prosecuted for forgetting their kids in hot cars. They're devastated; they're remorseful; their worst sin was in not thinking of something they should have, and a bloodthirsty public thinks the kids can only be avenged by making the mom guilty of a homicide. It's happening all over, this criminalization of negligence, and I don't think either liberals or libertarians should be too happy about it.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-31-2009 03:10 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 379807)
The nice thing is I am picking way more tips on how to do my taxes and the "oops I didn't realise I had to declare/pay taxes on that" defence than TurboTax ever gave me.

Thanks Tim and Tom!
I haven't used TurboTax for a few years, but I think I'm getting it this year, and not just because I have some stock in Intuit.

Adder 01-31-2009 04:09 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 379814)
It used to. The only time criminal law intruded upon traditional common law negligence was when the defendant denied specific intent but there was a showing of reckless indifference to whether an injury would result -- the Russian roulette cases. Now it just means "fucked up badly," so moms are getting prosecuted for forgetting their kids in hot cars. They're devastated; they're remorseful; their worst sin was in not thinking of something they should have, and a bloodthirsty public thinks the kids can only be avenged by making the mom guilty of a homicide. It's happening all over, this criminalization of negligence, and I don't think either liberals or libertarians should be too happy about it.
You can call it the criminalization of negligence. I would call it refinement of recklessness.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-31-2009 04:25 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 379815)
I haven't used TurboTax for a few years, but I think I'm getting it this year, and not just because I have some stock in Intuit.
I've used it for a couple years and find that it is, how shall I put this... much less "obstructionist" than an accountant.

Atticus Grinch 01-31-2009 05:29 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 379817)
You can call it the criminalization of negligence. I would call it refinement of recklessness.
Fair enough, but God help you if you're ever in an accident where 12 people get to self-congratulate that they would have paid better attention than you did, and gone slower.

LessinSF 01-31-2009 10:58 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 379814)
It used to. The only time criminal law intruded upon traditional common law negligence was when the defendant denied specific intent but there was a showing of reckless indifference to whether an injury would result -- the Russian roulette cases. Now it just means "fucked up badly," so moms are getting prosecuted for forgetting their kids in hot cars. They're devastated; they're remorseful; their worst sin was in not thinking of something they should have, and a bloodthirsty public thinks the kids can only be avenged by making the mom guilty of a homicide. It's happening all over, this criminalization of negligence, and I don't think either liberals or libertarians should be too happy about it.
I haven't come up with a Sebby-pithy, but, yes, we have a society that wants crucifixion for negligence, but will forgive outright intentional killin'. Unfortunately, no one will see reason, and choose to punish the criminally negligent (i.e. stupid) with sterilization, not imprisonment.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 02-01-2009 09:25 AM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 379817)
You can call it the criminalization of negligence. I would call it refinement of recklessness.

Not really my thing, but perhaps one of you types who deal with criminal law could give us all the definition of "manslaughter"?

Hank Chinaski 02-01-2009 09:58 AM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
The NYT story about the Iraq election says that things are running smoothly almost everywhere and all security is Iraqi. It sounds pretty good. And to think, Obama did it in just a bit over a week.

sebastian_dangerfield 02-01-2009 10:35 AM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 379821)
I haven't come up with a Sebby-pithy, but, yes, we have a society that wants crucifixion for negligence, but will forgive outright intentional killin'. Unfortunately, no one will see reason, and choose to punish the criminally negligent (i.e. stupid) with sterilization, not imprisonment.
In Europe they call it "Compensation Culture." You can't even compare our civil negligence system to that of our criminal system anymore. One is openly a big business, and will continue to grow as Americans realize more and more how lucrative that system can be. If you even think you're injured, why not sue? You have nothing to lose, everything to gain.

I think the criminal side of the court system is cynical and hardly as honest or just as it ought to be, but even on its worst day, I don't think it's as corrupted as the lawsuit machine we have on the civil side. No point in even discussing them in the same breath.

Philip K. Howard has my proxy as to the rest.

Hank Chinaski 02-01-2009 10:54 AM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 379814)
It used to. The only time criminal law intruded upon traditional common law negligence was when the defendant denied specific intent but there was a showing of reckless indifference to whether an injury would result -- the Russian roulette cases. Now it just means "fucked up badly," so moms are getting prosecuted for forgetting their kids in hot cars. They're devastated; they're remorseful; their worst sin was in not thinking of something they should have, and a bloodthirsty public thinks the kids can only be avenged by making the mom guilty of a homicide. It's happening all over, this criminalization of negligence, and I don't think either liberals or libertarians should be too happy about it.
I guess one difference is that the fact that the victims are almost alway black implies that some control is exercised and it isn't 100% negligent, even when "an accident." I'm sure purely negligent policing should end up with white guys getting it too.

Adder 02-01-2009 03:01 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 379824)
The NYT story about the Iraq election says that things are running smoothly almost everywhere and all security is Iraqi. It sounds pretty good. And to think, Obama did it in just a bit over a week.
Your teeth are next. Trust us.

Adder 02-01-2009 03:05 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 379826)
I guess one difference is that the fact that the victims are almost alway black implies that some control is exercised and it isn't 100% negligent, even when "an accident." I'm sure purely negligent policing should end up with white guys getting it too.
2. It's not an easy question, but in some way we need to ask those whom we ask to carry weapons on our behalf not even to be negligent.

Jack Manfred 02-02-2009 05:48 AM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 379823)
Not really my thing, but perhaps one of you types who deal with criminal law could give us all the definition of "manslaughter"?
In my experience misdemeanor manslaughter is synonymous with acquittal, assuming the judge hasn't already thrown out the case after the prosecution rested their case-in-chief.

I may differ from Atticus in that I think it's really difficult to get 12 people to convict someone who has not been drinking of manslaugher from a car accident. Most people have never shot someone. Most adults have never been in a fistfight. But almost everyone has driven over the speed limit, run a red light, run a stop sign, or failed to come to a complete stop before making a turn. People are afraid to convict someone of something that may happen to them on the drive home from court.

In California, most vehicular manslaughter involving alcohol can and should be charged as Murder Two. After you pick up a DUI, in most counties your plea form contains a Murder Advisement stating you can be charged with murder if you kill someone as a result of drinking and driving. Most judges read the advisement during DUI sentencing as well.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-02-2009 10:56 AM
Hank could edit Newsweek.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 379824)
The NYT story about the Iraq election says that things are running smoothly almost everywhere and all security is Iraqi. It sounds pretty good. And to think, Obama did it in just a bit over a week.
So he's got that going for him. On the other hand, there's this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_anqVy8b414...cover_prn1.jpg

eta: If the image doesn't show, here's a link.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 02-02-2009 12:53 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 379824)
The NYT story about the Iraq election says that things are running smoothly almost everywhere and all security is Iraqi. It sounds pretty good. And to think, Obama did it in just a bit over a week.
Hey, it took Reagan less than a day to get the hostages released. Obama's clearly underperforming.

Penske_Account 02-02-2009 12:58 PM
Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 379863)
Hey, it took Reagan less than a day to get the hostages released. Obama's clearly underperforming.
I was going to post that same sentiment, but I thought it would seem anti-post-partisan.

Nice pick up for you though! Keep up the good work.

Penske_Account 02-02-2009 01:11 PM
Daschle
 
I think he has to fall on the sword here. this isn't Geithner semi-grey zone stuff, this is evasion, plain and simple. Anyone who has ever taken a tax class, law or H&R Block tax preparer, could spot this one a mile away, and certainly, someone who has voted on many of our tax laws over the past many years should be presumed to have such knowledge.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 02-02-2009 01:17 PM
Re: Daschle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 379867)
I think he has to fall on the sword here. this isn't Geithner semi-grey zone stuff, this is evasion, plain and simple. Anyone who has ever taken a tax class, law or H&R Block tax preparer, could spot this one a mile away, and certainly, someone who has voted on many of our tax laws over the past many years should be presumed to have such knowledge.
I don't want this guy as my lawyer:

""If there was no 1099 [form] from his employer for the car and driver, how was he to know it was taxable?" Graefe said"

Penske_Account 02-02-2009 01:23 PM
Re: Daschle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 379868)
I don't want this guy as my lawyer:

""If there was no 1099 [form] from his employer for the car and driver, how was he to know it was taxable?" Graefe said"
If he makes it, I am not filing on the premise that my firm used to take withholding out and send it in and even though I am in the corner office, I just assumed that they were still doing that.....and my draws were just gifts......from a friend.

If called out, I will hire that dude to rep me, and I will immediately issue an apology letter, which I am sure will be taken in good faith by the Service, and there will be no prosecution. Probably a government appointment, as a reward.

eta: I'm still not sure what Richardson did, but, whatever it is, I would be in favour of deep sixxxing Daschle here, and giving this appointment to Richardson.

RETA: RT, if Daschle is approved, please nuke this post and all references to it.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 02-02-2009 01:34 PM
Re: Daschle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 379869)

RETA: RT, if Daschle is approved, please nuke this post and all references to it.
If Daschle were Richardson and Obama didn't care so much about health care, wouldn't he be out already?

Penske_Account 02-02-2009 01:39 PM
Re: Daschle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 379872)
If Daschle were Richardson and Obama didn't care so much about health care, wouldn't he be out already?
Not sure, but i find it shocking. I will admit to not having paid attention in tax class, in a philosophically protesting sort of way, but, isn't this situation covered somewhere in the first couple of weeks (or I have been phelpsing the bong too much lately)?

Tyrone Slothrop 02-02-2009 01:40 PM
Re: Daschle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 379872)
If Daschle were Richardson and Obama didn't care so much about health care, wouldn't he be out already?
If Daschle were Richardson or Obama didn't care so much about health care, he would be out already.

Obama is very close to Daschle. So I think Daschle will get by in a situation where other nominees would be done. Also, I suspect he'll get nicer treatment in the Senate than Geithner did, relatively speaking, because he was one of them.

Penske_Account 02-02-2009 01:45 PM
Re: Daschle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 379877)
If Daschle were Richardson or Obama didn't care so much about health care, he would be out already.

Obama is very close to Daschle. So I think Daschle will get by in a situation where other nominees would be done. Also, I suspect he'll get nicer treatment in the Senate than Geithner did, relatively speaking, because he was one of them.
I don't normally cite blogs, for the obvious reasons of questionable credibility, but, in this case, considering your beliefs, I will make a special exception, and note, that there is a report on politico.com that Baucus might not play ball and doesn't have any affectionate feelings for his former colleague.........

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 02-02-2009 01:45 PM
Re: Daschle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 379877)
. Also, I suspect he'll get nicer treatment in the Senate than Geithner did, relatively speaking, because he was one of them.
By "one of them" do you mean "one of the many senators accepting corporate favors and not disclosing them as income"?*

*Because they weren't sent 1099s.

Fugee 02-02-2009 01:46 PM
Re: Daschle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 379877)
Also, I suspect he'll get nicer treatment in the Senate than Geithner did, relatively speaking, because he was one of them.
Translation: He knows where a lot of bodies are buried?

Penske_Account 02-02-2009 01:47 PM
Re: Daschle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 379880)
By "one of them" do you mean "one of the many senators accepting corporate favors and not disclosing them as income"?*

*Because they weren't sent 1099s.
Also, is it a relevant distinction that he wasn't a senator when this arrangment was happening?

Tyrone Slothrop 02-02-2009 01:49 PM
Re: Daschle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 379879)
I don't normally cite blogs, for the obvious reasons of questionable credibility, but, in this case, considering your beliefs, I will make a special exception, and note, that there is a report on politico.com that Baucus might not play ball and doesn't have any affectionate feelings for his former colleague.........
Interesting. I confess to reading no blogs on this topic recently, and speaking straight from my well-informed arse.

If Daschle doesn't get confirmed, he will end up in the White House in a position relating to health care reform that doesn't require Senate confirmation.

Penske_Account 02-02-2009 01:49 PM
Re: Daschle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 379881)
Translation: He knows where a lot of bodies are buried?
Bodies? Did you miss the part where Obama beat Hillary? I don't think he was anywhere near Ft. Marcy Park in July of 1993...

eta: Hi Sidd!

Tyrone Slothrop 02-02-2009 01:50 PM
Re: Daschle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 379880)
By "one of them" do you mean "one of the many senators accepting corporate favors and not disclosing them as income"?*

*Because they weren't sent 1099s.
I believe Daschle had the class to wait until he was no longer a Senator to accept the car and driver and not report them as income.

Penske_Account 02-02-2009 01:51 PM
Re: Daschle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 379884)
Interesting. I confess to reading no blogs on this topic recently, and speaking straight from my well-informed arse.

If Daschle doesn't get confirmed, he will end up in the White House in a position relating to health care reform that doesn't require Senate confirmation.
Will he have the Prez' email addy?

Penske_Account 02-02-2009 01:53 PM
Re: Daschle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 379886)
I believe Daschle had the class to wait until he was no longer a Senator to accept the car and driver and not report them as income.
I am not sure I understand why its so classy, but if I ever get audited and called on anything, can I cite some sort of, private citisen class defence or mitigating factour?

Tyrone Slothrop 02-02-2009 01:56 PM
Re: Daschle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 379884)
Interesting. I confess to reading no blogs on this topic recently, and speaking straight from my well-informed arse.
Oops! Now I've looked at a blog, and it says:

Quote:
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) has just released a statement affirming his commitment to health secretary nominee Tom Daschle, answering a widely circulating Politico report about his longtime frostiness with the former Senate Democratic leader.

Baucus' statement was as effusive as can be, given his laconic reputation and the uncertain political landscape that faces Daschle....
YMMV.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-02-2009 01:57 PM
Re: Daschle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 379888)
I am not sure I understand why its so classy, but if I ever get audited and called on anything, can I cite some sort of, private citisen class defence or mitigating factour?
Yes, but you'll have to use the same kind of irony I was deploying, and I hear that doesn't cut it with the IRS. Good luck!

Penske_Account 02-02-2009 02:01 PM
Re: Daschle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 379890)
Yes, but you'll have to use the same kind of irony I was deploying, and I hear that doesn't cut it with the IRS. Good luck!
Thanks.

GGG, are there alternatives to using a lawyer for IRS issues?

Penske_Account 02-02-2009 02:08 PM
apropos of none of that...
 
Daschel's red glasses.....do we like?

Cletus Miller 02-02-2009 02:10 PM
Re: Daschle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 379868)
I don't want this guy as my lawyer:

""If there was no 1099 [form] from his employer for the car and driver, how was he to know it was taxable?" Graefe said"
Deeming the car and driver to be a requirement of the job, of course. Tom, being a salt-of-the-earth type from SoDak, would have used his mule (or that train thing, if it were raining) to get around the District, except his boss insisted that it didn't project the proper image and might make him late.

That has to be the explanation for the glasses, too, doesn't it?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:32 AM.
Page 27 of 126 « First 172526 27 28293777 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com