Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BurnedToast]

tapes on which Trump discussed the payments to Karen McDougal...this is just more evidence of Trump lying about committing crimes

Is it actually a crime to fuck a Playboy Bunny while your wife is pregnant and then lie about it?
Also, is it a crime to secretly record a confidential conversation about paying hush money to said Bunny?

Not rhetorical questions, I'm honestly unsure about the legal statutes regarding the specific circumstances under which these events occurred.

Depends on the state, but it's vanishingly rare, really almost unheard of to persecute anyone for adultery even in states where it's illegal.  As for new york state, it is illegal but it's a misdemeanor with a $500 fine so it's not even worth caring about.

The lying about it - depends who you lie to. As long as he didn't lie under oath or lie to congress or something like that... probably not.

Finally, new york is a one party consent state and cohen certainly knew he was making the recording so it was perfectly legal. There's a chance he could be disbarred (though it's very unlikely) for it since recording your clients without a good reason is discouraged, but the tape is perfectly fine as far as law enforcement is concerned.

I'm not a lawyer though so don't rely on this as absolute truth.

[Reelya]

Active hostage situation at a Trader Joes in LA.

Guess now we have to arm the Trader Joes' staff members alongside our teachers.
Will we ever have enough good guys with guns to finally end the violence?

Arizona Senate candidate who killed his mother supports 'good guys' with guns

... So his story is that he woke up one night to find his mother about to shoot him with a semi-automatic rifle, but luckily, lax gun laws allowed him to have a gun, too.

He said he dodged six bullets before reaching for the gun under his bed, which he then used to shoot his mother. He said if not for that gun, he'd be dead.

Uh ... thank God for lax gun laws ... I guess? How on Earth would he have taken down his mother the crazed gun killer, if guns were restricted?

[redwallzyl]

Active hostage situation at a Trader Joes in LA.

Guess now we have to arm the Trader Joes' staff members alongside our teachers.
Will we ever have enough good guys with guns to finally end the violence?

Arizona Senate candidate who killed his mother supports 'good guys' with guns

... So his story is that he woke up one night to find his mother about to shoot him with a semi-automatic rifle, but luckily, lax gun laws allowed him to have a gun, too.

He said he dodged six bullets before reaching for the gun under his bed, which he then used to shoot his mother. He said if not for that gun, he'd be dead.

Uh ... thank God for lax gun laws ... I guess? How on Earth would he have taken down his mother the crazed gun killer, if guns were restricted?

I have my suspicions about his story and it's reliability.

[Enemy post]

I have my suspicions about his story and it's reliability.

He said he dodged six bullets

How dare you doubt the Chosen One.

[Karnewarrior]

Naysayers. That mans Mother was the crackest shot in the wild wild west, he was only able to dodge because he was redpilled at a young age and knew that velocity was just anti-gun propaganda.

[Trekkin]

And now Trump is tweeting threats in all caps at Rouhani with bluster that would make the Navy SEAL Copypasta guy tell him to tone it down.

Someone's feeling deeply insecure, apparently.

[hector13]

In other news, I’m going to misuse a meme to bash laws I disagree with!

Here goes:

Florida man shoots and kills a man (with video evidence!) and receives no fucking charges because the man pushed him over first.

Stand your ground laws are great. Just take someone you don’t like to a state that has one, goad them into attacking you, then shoot them in the face! Wins all round.

[Maximum Spin]

I'm pretty sure the right thing to do is not to attack people in the first place no matter how goaded you are (and a person who does deserves what he gets).

[Reelya]

Being shot dead, because you pushed someone though?

What we're talking about is goading someone into giving you a shove, then pulling out a pistol and blowing their head off, then saying they started it and you were just "standing your ground".

[Maximum Spin]

Yes, I realise this. I think it's okay if people get shot after assaulting someone. Yes, a shove is assault.
You know this will definitely happen anywhere if the person getting shoved is a cop, right? The least we can do is extend the same courtesy to everyone.

General protip: Don't start shit, won't be shit.

[Reelya]

Sorry, but when minor altercations by default escalate to murder, then you're not living in a sane, civilized society, you're living in a paranoid wild-west situation where you trust nobody.

The only reason any is still alive is because not everyone thinks like the way you just described. If so, you'd all be fucked. If a slap or a shove demands a bullet, then people are quickly going to extend that to shooting people for making verbal threats or yelling in their faces, or knocking their drink over*, or if their car bumped into your car, and more often than not, the dickhead shooter will miss the target and hit some random bystander - all the more reason to not assume that minor altercations are better with added bullets.

* imagine this scenario: I knock someones drink over and call them names. I'm not hitting them, I'm just fucking with their stuff and their head. They then get angry and shove me. Then I shoot them. But I was only "standing my ground" because they hit first. Knocking over a drink isn't a crime, but shoving is assault, so they're the criminal here and I was justified to shoot them in self defense.

[Maximum Spin]

Sorry, but when minor altercations by default escalate to murder, [...] If a slap or a shove demands a bullet,

"By default"? "Demands"? I'm just saying it's a valid option. It's not one most people would use most of the time, but sometimes it's actually the right thing to do, and, well, given that people are physically capable of shooting people for whatever they want and irrational people are going to irrational no matter what the law says, the evidence seems to suggest that we mostly get along just fine with that ability.

* imagine this scenario: I knock someones drink over and call them names. I'm not hitting them, I'm just fucking with their stuff and their head. They then get angry and shove me. Then I shoot them. But I was only "standing my ground" because they hit first. Knocking over a drink isn't a crime, but shoving is assault, so they're the criminal here and I was justified to shoot them.

Some points:
1) Don't fucking hit people, dipshit. It doesn't matter how angry you are or how much they "goaded" you (which could just as easily be all in your head), you don't get to hit people. If you do hit people, they get to react.
2) But, if this hypothetical takes place in a bar, whether or not you get to shoot the person who hits you is up to the property owner. The property owner can definitely say "no shooting people on my property".
3) But, if this hypothetical takes place in a bar, the right thing to do when someone calls you names and knocks over your drink is complain to the owner, who then has the right to demand that you-the-aggressor leave the premises, and then shoot you for trespassing. So, again, this "puzzle" is easily solved by not thinking that hitting people is the right way to handle "minor altercations". Minor altercations aren't better with added shoves either.
4) On the other hand, if this takes place in the drinker's house, hey, that guy can throw you out and shoot you for trespassing too. And you'd deserve it. On the other hand, if it takes place in your house, the right thing to do for the drinker is to leave and not shove you. Shoving someone in his own house is definitely grounds for getting shot.

[Reelya]

2) But, if this hypothetical takes place in a bar, whether or not you get to shoot the person who hits you is up to the property owner. The property owner can definitely say "no shooting people on my property".

Holy crap. Whether a shooting or not is murder shouldn't depend on who's house you're in. That is just plainly insane thinking.

[Maximum Spin]

Holy crap. Whether a shooting or not is murder shouldn't depend on who's house you're in. That is just plainly insane thinking.

But it already does. You can shoot a trespasser in your own house, but you can't shoot the same guy in his house. And whether you can shoot the same guy in a third party's house depends on whether that third party A) considers him a trespasser and B) is okay with you enforcing his property rights for him.

[Egan_BW]

"Shoving --> Deadly Force" is pretty clearly clearly to me a massive escalation. So is "Refusing to leave property --> Deadly Force".

If there's a clear course to proceed that doesn't involve anyone dying, how can you justify bringing out the guns? Hell, just displaying that you have a gun is probably going to get someone to go away.