customdesigned on March 24, 2012, 07:11:50 pm
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/20/2703918/lawyer-girl-on-phone-with-trayvon.html

I was reminded of Emily shooting a man under mistaken assumptions.  Unfortunately, no Autodoc was around in real life.  The media is trying to make the above story into a "hate" crime (as if murder doesn't always involve hate).  But to me it is clearly manslaughter - with a high, possibly criminal, level of negligence: he was under no immediate threat, and said "they always get away" implying he wasn't going to let this one get away.

customdesigned on April 02, 2012, 11:11:58 am
Ok, so the left wing press left out important eyewitness accounts (not to mention running old photos so people can't see what the guy actually looked like now), and it looks a lot less like Emily's story.

dough560 on April 02, 2012, 12:12:01 pm
I had that lesson repeated time and time again, in a large percentage of the crimes I investigated,  The case facts did not match appearances.  Especially in defense situations.

Suggest this post move to Talk Among Ourselves.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2012, 09:56:41 am by dough560 »

Andreas on April 03, 2012, 01:43:11 am
You instigated crimes? :o :o :o
 ;)

dough560 on April 04, 2012, 09:53:06 am
Stuff happens, then you get a farm boy like me poking through the results.  Dealing with the Good, Bad and Ugly.  Face to face exposure to our current body of law and the legal system, made me a libertarian.  The screwed up mess we deal with wasn't in any of the founder's worst nightmares.

dough560 on April 04, 2012, 10:00:24 am
Working thirds for the last two months straight and writing when tired.  Perfect example of "Stuff".  So much for Proof Reading.  Thanks for the catch. 

macsnafu on April 04, 2012, 10:24:06 am
Working thirds for the last two months straight and writing when tired.  Perfect example of "Stuff".  So much for Proof Reading.  Thanks for the catch. 

Oh, we're quite ready to believe that you are an instigator, and not an investigator!

 ;D
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

Andreas on April 04, 2012, 01:53:42 pm
I don't envy having to clean up the effluvia of modern society...
Talked to an ER doc once... stuff he told me makes a Saw movie sound like a boyscout jamboree.

wdg3rd on April 04, 2012, 05:33:45 pm
I've been known to instigate a few crimes.  None of those crimes involved violation of the Zero Aggression Principle.  Obviously I lack a certain amount of respect for the governments which declare such activities criminal.  Equally obviously I do not share details on open forums, as there are those who like to prosecute individuals who show such lack of respect.
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

customdesigned on April 06, 2012, 09:34:34 am
I've been known to instigate a few crimes.  None of those crimes involved violation of the Zero Aggression Principle.  Obviously I lack a certain amount of respect for the governments which declare such activities criminal.  Equally obviously I do not share details on open forums, as there are those who like to prosecute individuals who show such lack of respect.

Every single person in the US has instigated crimes - most without knowing it.  The criminal code has grown like kudzu to cover ever aspect of ordinary life.  If someone wants to put you in jail, it is just a matter of research to discover what "crimes" you have committed, and a bribe for a public prosecutor.  There is a sort of cosmic justice to this, because most of these ill advised laws were written in response to public outrage and demands that Congress "do something" about some flagrant violation of existing laws (e.g. Enron, illegal campaign donations, "hate" crimes).  I keep asking people how adding more criminal laws is going to help enforce existing laws, but I only get the equivalent of "there ought'a be a law" in response.  They just don't get that there already is a law, and surprise, somebody broke it, and even though they got caught and prosecuted, surprise, people got hurt.   

This site tries to educate the public on overcriminalization: http://www.overcriminalized.com/

NotDebonair on April 17, 2012, 08:34:28 am
I have spent enough time with police officers to have lost count of the number of times I have heard one say how easy it is to legally stop any car.  They all give a variation of, "It's not possible to drive ten minutes without committing some sort of violation, just follow them and wait."

Killydd on April 17, 2012, 12:15:17 pm
Fun story with that:  I was driving, and had forgotten to turn on my headlights, or rather the switch had only turned far enough to turn the running lights on and not the headlights.  I couldn't tell because it was so bright out with all of the streetlights.  I was pulled over, my nerves at this were so bad that the cop decided I was under the influence, but not of alcohol, because that he could have tested right there.  Instead he gave me the choice of being hauled into the station for drug testing, or just driving me home.  I was completely sober at the time, of course.

sam on April 17, 2012, 06:30:58 pm
There is a sort of cosmic justice to this, because most of these ill advised laws were written in response to public outrage and demands that Congress "do something" about some flagrant violation of existing laws (e.g. Enron, illegal campaign donations, "hate" crimes).

In the Enron case, Enron issued obscure and cryptic, but technically truthful accounts, which supposedly showed that the company was making lots of money.  This enabled the company to buy stuff with promises to pay later, and sell stuff cash in advance.  A lot of people were puzzled.  How was Enron making money?

A bunch of accountancy students went over Enron's accounts with a fine tooth comb, and discovered that Enron was not making money.  It was losing money hand over fist.

Word got around, and people selling stuff to Enron started demanding cash on the barrelhead, which of course Enron could not pay, and people buying stuff from Enron started demanding that they see their stuff before they paid for it, and of course Enron could not show them their stuff.

Pretty soon the paychecks bounced, people stopped turning up for work.  The landlord of their offices tossed their stuff.  Enron ceased to be.  Capitalism 101, everything worked the way it was supposed to, except that their books were cryptic, misleading, and opaque.

So the government passed a law, Sarbannes-Oxley, supposedly banning accounts from being cryptic, misleading, and opaque.

But it was, of course, entirely impossible to comply with Sarbannes-Oxley.  What people had to do instead was hire accountancy firms sufficiently important and well connected that whatever they did was deemed compliance with Sarbannes-Oxley.

The left, starting with Rousseau, have always been fundamentally hostile to civilization, all of it, lock stock and barrel.  Thus with  Sarbannes-Oxley the modern left did to double entry accounting, what the Occupy movement did to poop control.  Sarbannes-Oxley, no less than modern university courses, is part of the leftís war on western civilization and modern technology.

If Enron's accounts were opaque, Sarbannes-Oxley accounts are irrelevant, reflecting official reality without regard to observable reality.

In the present crisis, a lot of strange accounting has come to light, strange accounting often curiously similar to that conducted by Enron Ė but due in part to Sarbannes-Oxley, only came to light after numerous financial institutions bit the dust, whereas before Sarbannes Oxley, it came to light before Enron bit the dust, and caused Enron to bite the dust.

The way real accounting works is that accountants ask people who actually operate the company where money and valuables are, and what was done with past money and valuables, what happened to the previous years money and valuables, and do some spot checks to make sure that the money and valuables reported to be there actually are there.

Theoretically this also happens in Sarbannes-Oxley but in practice it is is apt to be the other way around.  Instead of listening, the godlike accountants tell people, and rather than the accounts reflecting reality, reality is supposed to be adjusted to reflect the accounts, much as peer review results in the scientific community telling the experimenter what he observed, instead of the experimenter telling the scientific community what he observed.

By examining Enronís accounts carefully and cynically, people could, and did, discover that Enron was deeply in debt and losing money hand over fist, and was therefore unlikely to be able to pay for goods it had purchased, nor supply goods it had been paid for.  There was no way that someone examining MF Globalís accounts could tell that MF Global had already pissed away its clientís money on European welfare bums.  That is the difference that Sarbannes-Oxley made.

« Last Edit: April 17, 2012, 06:37:57 pm by sam »

Andreas on April 18, 2012, 02:16:09 am
What is Western Civilization defined as, may I ask?
I just a while ago had a conversation with a couple of neonazi apologists trying to sell that arabs invaded Europe first.
Then I pointed them at Rome and Greece.
And then first they tried to claim that Rome wasn't Europe, only the Franks were. Despite that Rome created Europe from flotsam, and the Franks only managed to put it back together again.
I called BS and pointed them at Charlemagne, king of the Franks and EMPEROR OF THE ROMANS.
Then they tried fibbing by saying that Darius I was before that.
I then pointed out that Darius was not an arab, and they tried to make like the Persians were to the middle east what Rome was to Europe, which is entirely ridiculous.

Anyway, after that pile of intellectual dishonesty I am very averse to all mention of "western civilization". It seems the term is being abused in obnoxious ways, and I call BS on the term from now on.

macsnafu on April 18, 2012, 10:44:22 am
[By examining Enronís accounts carefully and cynically, people could, and did, discover that Enron was deeply in debt and losing money hand over fist, and was therefore unlikely to be able to pay for goods it had purchased, nor supply goods it had been paid for.  There was no way that someone examining MF Globalís accounts could tell that MF Global had already pissed away its clientís money on European welfare bums.  That is the difference that Sarbannes-Oxley made.

Intentionally or not, government regulations tend to protect the companies, not the public.
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

 

anything