Print

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

[Andir]

We discussed this before (Atheist thread?) but they are "blue laws."  I'd like to see any State uphold it.

[Virex]

The second idea is the basic idea of it, really. Does it actually harm anyone without their consent or not? If not, then who the fuck cares?

So uh... banning people from office based on their religion or lack of it doesn't harm anyone?  That would seem to be the implication here.

As far as I know, only heterosexual, white, Christian men are to be regarded as people, so in essence, no. 

[Leafsnail]

We discussed this before (Atheist thread?) but they are "blue laws."  I'd like to see any State uphold it.

They can't be upheld because they'd be struck down in the Supreme Court very quickly... unless Ron Paul's proposed changes to the cases which the Supreme Court can hear come into effect.

[G-Flex]

Just to be more explicit about this, his primary target with that bill was abortion.

Also "sexual practices", and the establishment of religion, and same-sex unions.

Ron Paul explicitly opposes the incorporation of the constitution. He wrote here;

If anything, the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to states. If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases — not only when it serves our interests.

Now, a lot of people opposed Kelo (and rightly I think), but normally on the merits of the case, not on the idea that incorporation is invalid.

Yeah, I'm aware of why Ron Paul doesn't think the Supreme Court should have a say, but it's extremely suspicious that he just happened to single out conservative hot-button issues, and I think the view that states should be able to impose official religious matters on the population is kind of absurd and backward.


The fact of the matter is that it's taken the Supreme Court of the US to knock down a lot of backward and regressive laws, including pretty much all the anti-"sodomy" legislation that was on the books until, what, 2003? Not to mention the religious policies/legislation the type of which I've already mentioned.

[Nadaka]

You remember our little discussion on security clearances earlier?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/michele-bachmann-pakistan-nuclear-intelligence-source-revealed-160707748.html

edit: finished reading the article. Apparently it had already been published, and that was her source. There could still be issues with that though.

[Truean]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/gay-slaying.html

It isn't the 21 years. It isn't the plea deal even. The comments below from posters are crazy, as usual. It's the absolute bigotry of the whole "logic" behind the excuse of "homosexual advances" defense that bothers me. It is insane that this could conceivably reduce first degree premeditated death penalty eligible hate crime gun specification murder to voluntary manslaughter.... "Voluntary manslaughter" is traditionally just murder with "adequate provocation," to reduce the charge

I.) First, let's go with just the facts of what the kid did:
1.) He got and brought a loaded gun into a school with the intention of killing another student.
2.) He sat with the gun in a room full of students and deliberately sat behind his victim.
3.) He waited until his victim was facing the front of the room and shot him repeatedly in the back of the head.

II.) Sounds like pretty clear murder doesn't it? Now let's add some information:

1.) The victim was a slight of frame, feminine homosexual.
2.) The kid who shot him was a documented white supremacist who has lots of "white power" propaganda. On this basis, he believes homosexuality is an abomination.
3.) The school, tried to keep the gay kid from being gay.

III.) "The defense:"
1.) Gay kid was openly gay.
2.) Gay kid occasionally flirted with boys.
3.) Gay kid flirted with his killer before the incident. (though not immediately before or even the same day)

IV.) Argument:

Let's even assume for a second that the gay kid really did flirt with his killer repeatedly; that doesn't logically follow as a defense. Break it down into its component parts, a.) Someone who you don't like at all and lets even say are repulsed by; b.) makes advances towards you; c.) but despite these advances doesn't actually do anything (it's flirting). Here, the killer did not like gays and allegedly a gay kid was hitting on him. Imagine, for the sake of argument, it was an incredibly unattractive girl whom no one had any interest in at all who flirted with the guy.... See how it becomes clear when you replace "gay" with "very unattractive girl" as the undesirable party making the undesirable advances, how it is completely unacceptable to freaking kill the person? Much less by pumping bullets into the back of their head in front of an entire classroom of students...?

And, all of that actually assumes the gay kid really did flirt with the white supremacist kid who killed him? It's entirely possible he never, ever flirted with the kid who killed him, which really blows the defense away.

V.) Trial History and Response
The prosecution cut the 21 year plea deal rather than risking a second trial that could deadlock like the first one did. The first trial deadlocked.... Think about that, faced with the admitted, uncontested evidence that the jerk shot the gay kid in the back of the freaking head in front of a room full of people, about half the jurors wouldn't convict the white supremacist of first degree murder, which he very clearly committed.... The prosecution was afraid of another deadlock.... Thus, they cut the plea deal to make sure the killer served 21 years rather than going through trial forever....

VI.) Summation:
WTF? Where were the parents who let kid have loaded gun and raised kid as white supremacist? How the hell did kid get loaded gun in school? How did he shoot gay kid in the back of the freaking head in the middle of a crowded classroom? How did even part of a jury think "gay kid was gay and flirted with boys," made it less than premeditated murder.... This was not a "heat of passion" defense. He planned to take the gun into school in advance to shoot gay kid. He shot gay kid exactly as planned. They'd never let that fly with a boy shooting an "unappealing" girl or a girl shooting an "unappealing" boy. Moreover, no flirting happened even allegedly that day, but only on prior days.

Bigoted. Gay life not worth as much....

[RedKing]

From what little I've read about the case, the shooter's parents may have been a contributing factor.

[MonkeyHead]

Questions:

1) I am assuming that such a ruling defies all precedent in such cases. If so, can the ruling be reviewed/amended (e.g. court of appeal?)

2) How can the accused "agree" to a sentence? When did justice become participatory? Ok, so I get the logic of plea bargaining to some extent even if I do not agree with some of the moral or ethical considerations... but this "smells" different.

3) Where in the US did this occur? Is the area in which it occured a pretty conservative state so could overarching political thinking of the empowered individuals come in to play?

The more time I spend on these forums, the more I feel thankful for being lucky enough to live in a Western democracy that isnt the USA.

[ECrownofFire]

The second idea is the basic idea of it, really. Does it actually harm anyone without their consent or not? If not, then who the fuck cares?

So uh... banning people from office based on their religion or lack of it doesn't harm anyone?  That would seem to be the implication here.

Oh for fuck's sake... My second statement was completely separate from the Ron Paul thing.

Oh, and it would be harm, obviously. It's a form of censorship and discrimination.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Which is why Ron Paul shouldn't be president. He's one more in a line of "State's Rights" enthusiasts. And it so happens that the states have a tendency to be short-sighted and discriminatory if not reigned in by the federal government.

[ECrownofFire]

Did you think Bachmann couldn't get any stupider?

Well...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's like watching a train wreck. The GOP candidates just keep trying to commit political suicide. It's like they're competing to get as little support as possible.

[G-Flex]

Which is why Ron Paul shouldn't be president. He's one more in a line of "State's Rights" enthusiasts. And it so happens that the states have a tendency to be short-sighted and discriminatory if not reigned in by the federal government.

The problem is that people look at his quasi-libertarian views and "outsider" status and think the guy would be really good for individual rights. He wouldn't be. He's opposed to the federal government exercising control/regulation over your life, but only because he'd rather your state/local government be allowed to get away with far, far worse (which is also more likely in state/local governments, where highly provincial/regional attitudes exist at large which tend to be more "fringe" than any consensus by the federal government/entire nation would be).

[scriver]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/gay-slaying.html

It isn't the 21 years. It isn't the plea deal even. The comments below from posters are crazy, as usual. It's the absolute bigotry of the whole "logic" behind the excuse of "homosexual advances" defense that bothers me. It is insane that this could conceivably reduce first degree premeditated death penalty eligible hate crime gun specification murder to voluntary manslaughter.... "Voluntary manslaughter" is traditionally just murder with "adequate provocation," to reduce the charge

I.) First, let's go with just the facts of what the kid did:
1.) He got and brought a loaded gun into a school with the intention of killing another student.
2.) He sat with the gun in a room full of students and deliberately sat behind his victim.
3.) He waited until his victim was facing the front of the room and shot him repeatedly in the back of the head.

II.) Sounds like pretty clear murder doesn't it? Now let's add some information:

1.) The victim was a slight of frame, feminine homosexual.
2.) The kid who shot him was a documented white supremacist who has lots of "white power" propaganda. On this basis, he believes homosexuality is an abomination.
3.) The school, tried to keep the gay kid from being gay.

III.) "The defense:"
1.) Gay kid was openly gay.
2.) Gay kid occasionally flirted with boys.
3.) Gay kid flirted with his killer before the incident. (though not immediately before or even the same day)

IV.) Argument:

Let's even assume for a second that the gay kid really did flirt with his killer repeatedly; that doesn't logically follow as a defense. Break it down into its component parts, a.) Someone who you don't like at all and lets even say are repulsed by; b.) makes advances towards you; c.) but despite these advances doesn't actually do anything (it's flirting). Here, the killer did not like gays and allegedly a gay kid was hitting on him. Imagine, for the sake of argument, it was an incredibly unattractive girl whom no one had any interest in at all who flirted with the guy.... See how it becomes clear when you replace "gay" with "very unattractive girl" as the undesirable party making the undesirable advances, how it is completely unacceptable to freaking kill the person? Much less by pumping bullets into the back of their head in front of an entire classroom of students...?

And, all of that actually assumes the gay kid really did flirt with the white supremacist kid who killed him? It's entirely possible he never, ever flirted with the kid who killed him, which really blows the defense away.

V.) Trial History and Response
The prosecution cut the 21 year plea deal rather than risking a second trial that could deadlock like the first one did. The first trial deadlocked.... Think about that, faced with the admitted, uncontested evidence that the jerk shot the gay kid in the back of the freaking head in front of a room full of people, about half the jurors wouldn't convict the white supremacist of first degree murder, which he very clearly committed.... The prosecution was afraid of another deadlock.... Thus, they cut the plea deal to make sure the killer served 21 years rather than going through trial forever....

VI.) Summation:
WTF? Where were the parents who let kid have loaded gun and raised kid as white supremacist? How the hell did kid get loaded gun in school? How did he shoot gay kid in the back of the freaking head in the middle of a crowded classroom? How did even part of a jury think "gay kid was gay and flirted with boys," made it less than premeditated murder.... This was not a "heat of passion" defense. He planned to take the gun into school in advance to shoot gay kid. He shot gay kid exactly as planned. They'd never let that fly with a boy shooting an "unappealing" girl or a girl shooting an "unappealing" boy. Moreover, no flirting happened even allegedly that day, but only on prior days.

Bigoted. Gay life not worth as much....

This is just... I have no words beyond what the fuck? A kid got murdered, for fucks sake!

"Voluntary manslaughter" is traditionally just murder with "adequate provocation," to reduce the charge

...This sounds very strange. How could manslaughter possibly be "volountary"? Isn't the whole point of separating manslaughter from murder that there needs to be a different charge for when a murder wasn't supposed to be a murder but ended up killing anyway? Could you give me an example of a situation that "volountary manslaughter" is supposed to cover, that isn't just weasling bullshit like this one?

[SalmonGod]

...This sounds very strange. How could manslaughter possibly be "volountary"? Isn't the whole point of separating manslaughter from murder that there needs to be a different charge for when a murder wasn't supposed to be a murder but ended up killing anyway? Could you give me an example of a situation that "volountary manslaughter" is supposed to cover, that isn't just weasling bullshit like this one?

I'm not by any means a legal expert, but I'll take a stab at it.  I think manslaughter is when you kill someone through sheer recklessness.  Voluntary manslaughter is when you were legitimately provoked into action by self-defense or simply being pissed off beyond proper judgment (say someone murders your child before your eyes), but not to the point that deadly force was justified.