mistercwood

Nooo, the "and being formally interrogated" is the turning point. Cops can arrest you and sit you there as long as they're legally allowed, but the Miranda reading isn't required until an interrogation begins. If the cuffs go on and they chuck you in the back of the squad car, and you start spilling your guts before they get you to the station and start an actual interview, your rights aren't violated because they didn't Mirandise you beforehand. Mate it's a bit rich to say this is semantics when you just spent half a page berating Seth for not getting his wording/interpretation perfect.

Oops Jakee, seems you've picked up some misinformation of your own from the teevees. Miranda rights only have to be read when you are in custody and being formally interrogated, not before. Reading them as the cuffs go on is a trope, not a legal requirement...

Rick and Morty - Jerry Unemployed and Annoying - YouTube

I can't get on board with mandatory sentencing, for the same reason I'm not on board with the death penalty - innocent, or at least less-guilty, people get caught up in the same net. This is not in any way inconsistent with agreeing that the culprit in your hypothetical can go away indefinitely. As others have pointed out, your passion for some of the particulars here is getting in the way of your usually *very* level-headed discourse. You're fighting against points no one has made.

I don't know how you got there from what I wrote. My opposition to mandatory sentencing is that it allows zero leeway in sentencing to someone who is at the exact opposite spectrum of your example. I have no opposition at all to judiciary's being able to hand down extremely lengthy sentences in and of themselves.

I'm not sure I can get on board with this part, but I'm also (generally) opposed to mandatory sentences that go to immediate extremes anyway, i.e. 3 strikes laws etc. Because while I agree that there needs to be a significant enough deterrent to scare people away from using weapons in a crime to start with, my concern is the real-world effect being that crims escalate the severity of a crime more easily - if you're going to take a gun with you and risk the extra 10 years, aren't you more likely to then actually use it because hey, you're already on the hook for the 10, how much difference is a murder sentence really going to make now? If there's judicial discretion I think you can still get most of the deterrent effect, but with less escalation risk.

I don't jump into US gun control discussion much because I know what worked for *us* isn't going to work for you guys, at a bare minimum just because of the insane starting number of weapons in circulation. But I've long thought that registration (and consequent responsibility/accountability) could be one of the most effective measures you could use without stepping on the Second - my understanding though is that this will always be a non-starter right? The word alone always seems to be immediately painted as the first step to confiscation, which is disappointing.

Fair enough, that's understandable. I still consider my initial reaction reasonable at the time as I've seen so many posts just like it without source attribution... :P It starts with a lot of assumptions without confirmed data, then declares absolute truths based off that data. Skydekker's already pointed out the thing that overrides it all - excess deaths for 2020 spiked massively with no other clear trigger other than Covid.

Don't know why you guys are arguing with Bill as if those were his own words, and not clearly and obviously a copy-paste job from some social media post that struck a chord with him...

Well of course you are. It's another conservative/libertarian group telling you what it is and painting it in the worst possible light, as opposed to any actual teaching that's currently going on. It took a few seconds of skimming the page to pick up on the language chosen and then another couple of minutes checking the parent site and the other externally linked references to confirm this was the furthest thing from an objective observer. If CRT actually was what that website says it is, everyone here would be in agreement with you. But also if you spent half as much time writing your lengthy diatribes and put the balance into actually *researching* the topics you've chosen, you might have already seen that you are being led by the nose. In fairness though, I do genuinely appreciate that you finally provided some sources for examination.

Just another reminder that the outrage about CRT is completely manufactured by right-wing thinktanks, who actively set out to manipulate public perception around it and have no problems admitting that they did it: The tell is mostly that CRT has been an academic topic for *decades* but no one outside those spaces had even heard of it until conservative media *just this year* started losing their fucking minds about it....

Originally, from the guy at the centre of this piece: How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory | The New Yorker Dude decides the old buzzwords of Political Correctness, and Woke, weren't doing enough, then finds Critical Race Theory and figures he's hit the jackpot. Goes on Tucker, gets the traction he wanted with people at all levels of power who won't look into what it actually is, and huzzah, here we are! We got Winsor saying that the person who coined the term itself doesn't know what it's about, but he's got it all figured out. There's more laws against CRT than there are institutions teaching it. That's all that really needs to be known about the threat vs the outrage.

That's several hundred more words than were needed for you to acknowledge "No, I haven't actually looked into how CRT works". I mean, if it were that clear cut, you would have offered specific examples and refutations by now, instead of just saying vague, unsupported things like: Right?

I'll risk the ban hammer to state something others may prefer to dance around. For a dude who otherwise presents as being above average intelligence, you really do go out of your way sometimes to appear dumb as shit. Your assessment of CRT is 100% aligned with rage-bait headlines and not with the reality.

There's no finer example of privilege than being comfortable saying "I don't think there's a problem anymore, so no one else should either".

Absolutely correct in the broader sense, in that yes, the protestors were on privately owned property in terms of the community they entered. My point is that they never stepped onto the couple's property specifically - they reacted only to the couple pointing weapons at them (with horrifyingly negligent trigger-discipline).

There's so many straw-men in that OP I'm amazed this thread isn't classified as a fire hazard.

I'm just surprised* that a year after the event there are still people who aren't aware that the protestors never left the sidewalk, there was no trespass on the couple's property. *Not actually surprised.

I say this with love - get a job, Brent. Or better hobbies. You're starting drama because you're bored. It's a poor outlet for your energies.

None of which supports your blanket assertion that Biden's presence in the White House is the trigger. Hence, drownings and Nic Cage films. A while back you dodged my question about making your online construct a better person. If you won't do that, have you considered making him smarter?

Yes and your first point is the only one historically that has any ties to the incumbent having a D in front of their name (and even that is mostly a manufactured boogieman). The other two? Maybe something to do with millions of your citizens, in demographics known to be fond of weaponry, refusing to believe the election was legitimate and threatening to response with violence? *You've* decided people are buying for the first time because of the White House resident. Occam's Razor suggests there are more logical reasons.

Let's get this back on track - what does Biden think about the Oxford comma?

I'd honestly thought it was just me, I get it every week or two and usually denies me access for around a day.

Literally no-one made a comment about a comedian, boring or otherwise. You are making up parts of this conversation entirely in your own head and then arguing against them.