Andy9o8

Members
  • Content

    24,277
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by Andy9o8

  1. http://www.sphomerun.com/Portals/20590/images/A-Handy-Computer-Repair-Invoice-Template-for-Your-Business-The-Fake-Geek-Computer-Repair-Invoice-Sheet-400px.jpg
  2. I think one could argue that eight cops shooting one guy who tried to reach for a gun while on the ground having already been shot is a "mass shooting." Maybe we can come up with a dictionary entry as it sounds like we need multiple definitions though... mass shooting [mas shoot-ing] n. 1) Any event where a firearm is discharged or firearms are discharged and more than one person is injured or killed (as a result of the firearm discharge(s) or otherwise.) 2) Any event where more than one firearm is discharged, or a firearm is discharged more than once. (note: no one need be injured or killed.) There, is that useless enough for everyone? Yes, because your definitions are doodly-squat. It's OK; Wm F. Buckley, for example, was a master at doing that. Diverts the discussion quite nicely, and sometimes people don't even notice.
  3. Honestly? Because there is no such thing as the National Bomb Association. Ha. Then why does the NRA give a shit about handguns? Well, here we get into legal definitions. When does a "handgun" become a rifle? I think most handguns have rifled barrels; don't they? I mean it's all incrementalism and a slippery slope. So, that's probably why. What about the NAACP? "Colored people"? Strictly speaking, everyone of every ancestry is colored by melanin, except for albinos. The KKK is chock-full of colored people. What's with that?
  4. Honestly? Because there is no such thing as the National Bomb Association. Ha. Then why does the NRA give a shit about handguns?
  5. That's a very reasonable question. The law was passed by Congress, which drafted the language. You have 2 Senators and 1 Congressperson. You're their employer. If you feel the law needs to be amended, communicate with them. Seriously.
  6. The main issue I was worrying about was more along the lines of This.
  7. My first guardian ad litem case as a law student was representing an 11 year-old kid whose parents would force him to eat the hair out of a hairbrush. Boy, was that creative.
  8. Yeh, I'd agree that's pretty obvious. I was thinking more along the lines of some kind of possible psych defense. As a matter of due diligence, until/unless it's conclusively ruled out, and attorney would have to treat it as ruled in, and protect his client accordingly. For starters, that means STFU (including w/written communications) until defense-retained psych experts have the chance to evaluate him.
  9. I'd be curious to hear an OB/GYN's opinions as to (a) her drinking that quantity/regularity (whatever that was) at 6 mos pregnant, and (b) the broadly-applicable medical value of the drinking part of that individual anecdote.
  10. This is so funny. You twits are learning first-hand why lawyers are such dicks.
  11. Well, they got most of their whippings, kidnappings, lynchings and church-bombings out of their system by the end of the 1960s.
  12. So what, in your opinion, would then be the role of a defense attorney in this case? To obstruct an investigation or ensure his client is treated fairly? Look, this guy is going to get death or life in jail either way. There simply is no third option here. What would be the advantage of him not cooperating? I think it would be the lawyer's duty to see that the client is not abused and as long as he is cooperating that would seem like a good strategy. Without assistance of counsel, the govt gets the goods, and they still get to kill him. An attorney will do his best to broker cooperation in exchange for sparing his life. Alternatively, if the attorney thinks the govt won't deal, he will get his client to STFU so he doesn't say something that might blow either a guilt-phase defense or a penalty-phase defense. Assistance of counsel is never not needed.
  13. Somebody in the ME's office better lose their job over that.
  14. Its an IED not a feckin nuke FFS Talk about a stretch, is this so that they can say that yes they found WMD in Iraq in years to come? well, according to some accounts I read there were certainly lots of biological weapons and ingredients found in irag, so I don't think they have to make stuff up ?? The WMD justification for Dick & Junior's invasion of Iraq have been pretty thoroughly debunked these past several years. talking about nuclear, yes. But as I said I;ve read lots of reports about biological weapons... Working strictly from memory, I thought those were pretty well debunked, too....
  15. Oh, OK. I wasn't using "enemy combatant" in, say, the "target of a drone in Pakistan" sense; I was using it strictly in the sense of a detainee in US physical custody.
  16. Its an IED not a feckin nuke FFS Talk about a stretch, is this so that they can say that yes they found WMD in Iraq in years to come? well, according to some accounts I read there were certainly lots of biological weapons and ingredients found in irag, so I don't think they have to make stuff up ?? The WMD justification for Dick & Junior's invasion of Iraq have been pretty thoroughly debunked these past several years.
  17. Jerry, you gonna stand by that post? The statutory definitions are what they are.
  18. While I do agree with Andy regarding his statements about people being either a suspect of a crime or a POW if exclusively subject to US jurisdiction, he's not addressing the full scope of the "enemy combatant" designation in his statements. Perhaps intentionally, perhaps not. His statement certainly addresses anyone in the custody of the United States or an entity thereof though, and that's where I agree with him. It's not without its problems, however, because the very nature of the conflict stands some of the provisions in the Third Geneva Convention on its head. For example the provision that prisoners of war be released at the end of hostilities. Nothing cagey intended. I used the term to avoid cluttering the discussion with 3rd-country jurisdiction. If the US has someone in custody and wants to keep them there, they're either criminal defendants or POWs. But if the US wants to relinquish physical custody, it can remand the detainee to the custody of a 3rd county whose laws the detainee is alleged to have violated. In fact, the US does this to allow the 3rd country to torture the detainee, nominally w/o violating US law - it's called "extraordinary rendition". Under other circumstances, the US could turn the detainee over to the 3rd country for criminal prosecution if that country has an extradition treaty w/the US, and a US court orders such extradition. The practice of extraordinary rendition is yet another Bush-era end-around giving the detainee the benefit of a judicial extradition hearing with due process of law. Disgraceful, if you ask me, but nobody in govt generally asks me (unless I'm standing in front of a judge).
  19. Ooh. Somebody's touchy today. http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/achmed_the_dead_terrorist.jpg
  20. For a big guy, you got fast reflexes, Dave. Anyhow, what he said.
  21. I was discussing this with my parents yesterday. They were young adults during the McCarthy Era and "blacklisting" abuses of the 1950's; and to them, the parallels are striking. This is why the study of history is important, folks, even for you hard science/tech geeks out there. Learn from it. It gives you "wisdom of experience" far beyond your years.