search results matching tag: Justice

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.003 seconds

    Videos (808)     Sift Talk (47)     Blogs (44)     Comments (1000)   

Jury Finds Kim Potter Guilty Of Manslaughter

newtboy says...

What she did was a true injustice.
Her convictions are only justice if she gets the maximum 15 years in gen pop. That’s still only 10 years in prison (or less) before parole for killing a kid.
She had a greater duty of care than a normal citizen, abused her authority, and caused a great danger to bystanders (the passenger, other officers, and civilians on the busy street), so if anyone does, she deserves the maximum sentence if not an upward departure from sentencing guidelines for extenuating circumstances (meaning more than 15 years).

Jury Finds Kim Potter Guilty Of Manslaughter

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

What did I tell you!?! States rights! Suckers! Bwaaaahahahahaha!

“I am outraged by yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Texas’s ban on most abortion services to remain in place,” Newsom said. “But if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way.” Newsom said he will work with his staff, the Legislature and California Attorney General Rob Bonta to craft a bill that would let citizens sue anyone who “manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts” in California. They could seek damages of at least $10,000 per violation plus costs and attorney’s fees, Newsom said.

Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article256524466.html#storylink=cpy

I told you this would happen.

BTW, the Presidential coup Plan PowerPoint handed over by Meadows pretty much obliterated the lies that 1) it wasn’t an attempted coup 2) it wasn’t expected 3) it wasn’t planned 4) it wasn’t Trump supporters being violent and 5) the white house wasn’t directly involved.
Contemporaneous records of the planning, including texts to organizers and militias claiming that the national guard is poised to protect Trump rioters from arrest or attack….as if any non cultist needed more evidence beyond the live broadcast of the coup attempt, but now there’s publicly available physical documentation/evidence directly from the highest levels in Trump’s cabinet of their own direct involvement in the planning to overturn the certified election by fraud and force.….which I’m certain you will dismiss as fake news with no hint of evidence because your little brain can’t handle facts.

the PowerPoint laid out a plan to effectively use the military to steal the election outright, undeniably. That’s treason.

The plan was to use the military, specifically the national guard, declare a state of emergency, throw out most of the ballots from the 2020 election, and then have the national guard run by people that Trump handpicked himself count only the paper ballots that they deemed to be legitimate. essentially giving them a free ride to throw out any ballots that were for Biden. Only count the ones for Trump and boom, Donald Trump gets all the electoral votes. That's how the coup was supposed to happen. So again, these lawmakers were briefed on this two days before the capital riot. So they knew exactly what Donald Trump was trying to do, what his administration, what his friends, what his allies had suggested to him. There is no indication at all that one of these lawmakers alerted the department of justice, the FBI, local authorities, anyone, they had this information and they did nothing with it.

Any official who knew and didn’t report to the FBI or DOJ should be removed immediately, get the firing squad, and their entire estate (and their spouses estate, and minor children’s estates) seized. That’s a lot of Republicans.

Also, Fox hosts, the same ones who now claim Jan 6 was a peaceful picnic, families calmly touring congress, and it was BLM and ANTIFA and the FBI that perpetrated the violence that didn’t happen, were all frantically trying to reach the president to stop the attack on January 6, outraged he wouldn’t tell his supporters to stop attacking America, explaining how not acting to stop the coup was destroying his legacy and theirs.

Let's talk about altering the Supreme Court....

dogboy49 says...

To me, the current crop of justices seem to be less willing to deviate from the Constitution as written. Should abortion be allowed? IMO, yes. BUT, are laws banning abortion unconstitutional? According to the Constitution as written and amended, probably not. Roe v Wade was written by a court that believed that abortion and the "right to privacy" should carry the weight of constitutional law, even though the Constitution is silent on these "rights".

My suggestion: If abortion should be considered to be a "right", then so amend the Constitution. Otherwise, it will be subject to the vagaries of "interpretation" forever.

Let's talk about altering the Supreme Court....

newtboy says...

Unpack the court, it’s packed with unqualified fraudulent unscrupulous appointments now.

Democrats hold control now, and can make the court have as many seats as they like. Shitty, but those are the rules…rules they should change as soon as they take advantage of them. Not unconstitutional. No whining like you normally do….like you are now….crybaby.

Not holding a hearing when the constitution says they “shall”, not they “may choose not to until their party makes the nomination”, is unconstitutional and not following the “rules”, on top of being hypocritical, unethical, and immoral. He wasn’t denied the position by vote, like Bork, he was denied the constitutionally required hearing and vote he was constitutionally guaranteed.

Left of center, yes, but centrists. You clearly don’t know what that means. Holy shit.
Rabid leftists? far from it. You can’t say the same for the right leaners, they are extremist far right wing activist judges, out of touch with the majority of the country and the law. One is a blatant unapologetic rapist, another a dishonest religious zealot with no judicial experience.
I didn’t expect a respected serious jurist like RGB, but didn’t expect people less respectable and less serious than ODB.

I overstate! LMFAHS!! Hilarious coming from the bombastic liar completely divorced from reality that overstates everything that he doesn’t just completely make up.
If overstating everything, desperate to prove himself at every instance makes one a miserable poser and a child looking for approval, why are you so in love with and a zealous follower of a desperate miserable poser child begging for approval, namely Trump?
🤦‍♂️

I must have hit a real nerve to get you this triggered, Snowflake. Whine like a spoiled little girl some more, bobby. Your Trumpist tears are delicious….and your broken English blather makes an entertaining, if fact free, read.

Edit: more good news for ya….the DC appellate court just ruled unanimously that Trump has no say in the release of White House documents surrounding Jan 6 (or any others). The unanimous ruling makes it unlikely the Supreme Court will even consider it. We’re going to see what he’s so terrified will come to light, his complicity in the attempted coup, and exactly what he expected to come from it. Hint, it’s not what he’s been telling you.
Oh, and it sounds like there may be more obstruction of justice investigations since Trump admitted he fired Comey to derail the investigation, and if he hadn’t he would have been convicted and removed from office. His words. Not smart to admit on the air.
Aaaaaand, the full, unedited by Barr, Mueller report may be released soon. The one the investigators wrote before the one they released, including all their findings that Barr apparently refused to accept, allegedly containing lots of never before released findings, charges,evidence, and information. A FOIA request prompted the DOJ to begin vetting it for classified info, should be ready mid February. Not good for a Trump comeback, or Republican mid terms. D’oh! Don’t cry….don’t cry.

bobknight33 said:

You bitch like a little girl.
Now you want to stack the court?


Republicans had control and Garlend was denied. Those are the rules, as shitty as they are.

Shitty but not un Constitutional.

Sotomayor and Kagan are centrist in your eyes but left of center in everyone else eyes.

Kavenaugh and Barrett are conservatives. You hoped for an RGB?

The left held the majority for quite a while and now doesn't.



We all know you over state everything trying to be some beacon of knowledge light.

You just a miserable poser, desperately to prove yourself at every instance.


Do you want a cookie for your efforts? You a child just looking for approval.

News Fails to Ask WHY Police Seized $100K From Traveler

bobknight33 says...

from Asset Forfeiture
Policy Manual 2021


I. Guidelines for Planning for Seizure and Restraint
A. Background
The Department of Justice (Department) Asset Forfeiture Program (Program) encompasses the
seizure and forfeiture of assets that represent the proceeds of, or were used to facilitate, federal
crimes. The Program has four primary goals:
(1) Punish and deter criminal activity by depriving criminals of property used in or acquired
through illegal activities.
(2) Promote and enhance cooperation among federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law
enforcement agencies.
(3) Recover assets that may be used to compensate victims when authorized under federal law.
(4) Ensure that the Program is administered professionally, lawfully, and in a manner consistent
with sound public policy

II. Payment of Attorneys’ Fees in Criminal Forfeiture Cases
A. Defendant’s attorneys’ fees
The defendant in a criminal forfeiture action may file for an award of attorneys’ fees only under
the Hyde Amendment.4 A motion for fees and costs filed in a civil forfeiture case under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2465(b) cannot include fees and costs incurred in even a directly related criminal proceeding.5
To prevail on a Hyde Amendment claim, the defendant must prove that: (1) the defendant was the
prevailing party in the underlying action; (2) the government’s position was vexatious, frivolous, or in
bad faith; and (3) there are no special circumstances that would make the award unjust.6
This burden
is heavier than the one the government must meet under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA

Let's talk about altering the Supreme Court....

newtboy says...

Democrats are denied even a hearing for even their centrist picks (Garland) outrageously unconstitutionally, then Republicans pick FAR RIGHT politicos to replace moderate leftist judges. That was new, never before seen in our history.
Sotomayor and Karen are centrists, dumb shit. Kavenaugh and Barrett are extremist far right wingers….Barrett is barely even a judge, rushed in by a lame duck traitorous seditionist and his lackeys, directly contradicting their own excuse for not hearing Obama’s nomination. They actually admitted they rammed her through as fast as possible with the barest minimum of examination in order to pack the court in anticipation of them contesting the election results….admitted it before the election.
Kavenaugh and Barrett are both extremist Far right wingers, political activist judges, who lied in their confirmation, one is a multiple rapist, never investigated, the other a religious extremist with zero experience who said she would recuse herself on any issue of faith, but hasn’t recused herself from any.
Throw down the gauntlet?! Opposition to his nomination centered on his perceived willingness to roll back the civil rights rulings of the Warren and Burger courts, and his role in the Saturday Night Massacre during the Watergate scandal. On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court by a roll call vote of 42—58. Bork's margin of rejection by the Senate remains, by percentage, the third-largest on record and broke a 142-year record for largest defeat of a Supreme Court nomination. A historic immediate bipartisan rejection because he was totally unsuited, and had undeniably tried to help Nixon cover up Watergate as acting AG by firing the special prosecutor at Nixon’s direction (the AG and deputy AG had quit when Nixon insisted)….*.
Absolutely nothing similar to Obama being denied a hearing for his picks for a year until his term ended….*. Holy shit! What stupidity.

There are far fewer “conservatives” today, the Republican Party is 26% of the population, not a majority.

Yes, they are throwing cases to the packed court as fast as possible before their stolen majority evaporates. I support a 15 justice Supreme Court with a constitutional amendment halting any further additions without a 2/3 majority….add 6 hyper liberals…no judicial experience necessary or even preferred…AOC would be great.

Why bring a case you might lose? Because cases are supposed to be heard on their merits, not based on political affiliation you ignorant cow. You think the Supreme Court should be a political wing of the right, choosing and deciding cases based on political affiliation, not the law, science, common sense, ethics, or precedent….but only when it serves you.

So, gun rights should be up to states? That’s the next step if you win that fight…the constitution dies and states decide everything….as civil war erupts. Great plan, so patriotic. Remember, California is big enough that when they require fingerprint scanners on all guns sold in the state, manufacturers will add them to all guns….when semi auto guns are banned, manufacturers will move to single shot guns….just like auto manufacturers changed their cars to meet our requirements. Is that your plan? Had you even considered what individual states being in control means? It means California becomes the leader of America, controlling the other states by means of our size, wealth, and international clout. Enjoy.

Not like this, it hasn’t. Never in American history has the court been politicized and weaponized against the will of the majority to ignore precedent (contrary to their oaths and confirmation statements) in order to overturn established law and constitutional rights as a political act. Never.

bobknight33 said:

To say that Republicans are politicizing the supreme court is nonsense. Democrats pick left leaning and Republicans pick right leaning. This is not new. Where were your complaints of politicizing when Sotomayor or Kagen were appointed?

But if you want to go there it started with Senator Ted Kennedy within minutes of Bork being picked by POTUS Reagen to be appointed took to the floor of the senate and thrown down the gauntlet.


They may be lean more conservative today however Its been leaning left last 50 years.

The fact that cases are now before the court is because some conservatives feel there is a chance to have their cases win.

Why bring these case before the supreme court if you know you would have a high likely to loose. All the cost time and effort.


WRT to the abortion issue .If overturned it just means that the decision goes back to the states.


Overturning a previous opinions has occurred and will occur in the future .

Terry Pratchett on Why we need to believe in things...

vil says...

I saw this whole movie and its not bad.

The books are great.

You have to believe in something to have a goal in life but you need to pick well.

Justice and mercy (opposites in a way, no?) are IMHO good things to hope for, hoping to prove election fraud is like praying your neighbors goat should die. Morals and politics are a personal choice. Morals are what you hope to be and politics are what you hope the world around you will be.

Pratchett does a good job explaining to kids that its how you change yourself is more important than how you change the world.

The universe offers entropy.

Terry Pratchett on Why we need to believe in things...

crotchflame says...

"You need to believe in things that aren't true...how else can they become?"

All well and good when you're talking about justice and mercy, but what about election fraud?

Terry Pratchett on Why we need to believe in things...

newtboy says...

I guess I’m not human by his measure then.

Do people really believe the universe/nature offers justice or mercy?
These aren’t even universal human properties, and they are purely human concepts…. they absolutely aren’t properties of the universe.
The universe is cold, calculating, and impersonal, not a moral, ethical, or empathetic guardian of justice or mercy that cares about you.

Jury finds 3 men guilty for the murder of Ahmaud Arbery

cloudballoon says...

It's just how a nation that shouldn't be ashamed of its justice system should reach as a verdict. It should've been a "non-event" case in its eventuality. That it's a big deal says something is very rotten.

Gun Laws: Jon Stewart Interview w/ Former ATF David Chipman

newtboy says...

15% of all violent crime is domestic violence. It stands to reason then that 15% of killings are direct domestic violence, if not far more.
Nearly 50% of women killed in the us are killed by their intimate partner.
Guns are involved in over 50% of intimate partner homocides.
That’s guns in domestic violence cases accounting for 25% of femicides (women killed).
It’s impossible to give an accurate number for violence tangential from domestic violence (ie shot by police, collateral injuries, suicides, etc) but it’s far from zero.

https://ncadv.org/STATISTICS

https://efsgv.org/learn/type-of-gun-violence/domestic-violence-and-firearms/

The National Gang Center under the Department of Justice based on annual surveys of local law enforcement agencies tallied 11,934 "gang-related" homicides in the U.S. from 2007 through 2012. The FBI reported 93,253 total murders during the span. Comparing the numbers, the Center estimated that "gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13% of all homicides annually."

Researcher John Lott stated that the U.S. has a high homicide rate compared to other developed countries because of “drug gangs.”
According to the National Youth Gang Survey Analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Gang Center, and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, most gun homicides are not related to gangs.
A December 2020 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by the CDC of 34 states, four California counties, and Washington, D.C., found that 9.7% of homicides in 2017 were gang-related

So, 25%+- of all women killed (and a similar number for men one assumes) vs 9-13% for gang violence (including tangential)…but you want to focus on “inner city gang killing” (read “black thugs”) as if it’s 90% of homocides and domestic violence death is non existent.

Again, you devolve into making up fake racist statistics to turn any issue into a racist argument. This is where you fail every single time. Fail to say what you really mean. Fail to be honest. Fail to offer true statistics. Fail as a human being….you completely racist liar.

Downvote your comment because as usual you ignore the topic, likely didn’t watch the video, and make up statistics to be a blatantly lying, unapologetic worthless piece of racist excrement.

How can you possibly be so stupid you thought no one would call you out on these easily debunked blatantly racist lies, Bob?

bobknight33 said:

OF all the killings per year how many are domestic violence?

1%
2%

OF those domestic violence what % are from guns, Knifes , other?
Evil White conservative owners are the problem? No bias here.

What about the 90+% gun violence ? inner city gang killing?
This is where you start.

Down vote since it not about any meaningful discussion of root causes.

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Week 1 Summary

JiggaJonson says...

Nah, he was illegally "defending" property that didn't belong to him (silly Wisconsin values human lives [even 'thugs'] more than used cars).

He was illegally practicing medicine by soliciting people and asking if they needed first aid. WI code allows for unlicensed medicine practice in an emergency ONLY (how do we know he was offering services absent an emergency? He was turned down repeatedly, aka there was no emergency where someone needed forst aid). Walking around offering first aid services is illegal without a license. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/448/ii/03

He illegally purchased a firearm through his uncle because he was under age.

He illegally was out past curfew for people 17 and under.

Gee, given all his lack of training and experience and maturity, I wonder why these things are illegal? Oh right, because someone so immature and ignorant of the law or disobedient of the law is more likely to be dangerous and kill someone when it's not warranted.


====

You can't escape the fact that WI law dictates that if he's already doing anything illegal he MUST exhaust all other reasonable options BEFORE using deadly force.

HE DID NOT DO SO. Someone fired a round in the air, someone lunged, and he killed em. Tangeal witnesses hear "he shot someone!" And give chase. He kills another. Why no empathy for the people who suspected he was a "thug" and tried to vigilante justice him?



And
And
And
ANOTHER THING
It's really ugly to witness the duality of your flippant attitude towards people trying to legally claim asylum 'they broke the law' because they went to the wrong entry point because they speak fucking Portuguese and don't always know exactly where they are out in the Mexico desert.
Vs the bizarre justification you're trying to make for this kid who 'broke the law' in, I contend, a series of more serious laws that warrant criminal liability.

If this kid gets off I hope he moves to NC and you run into him once he gets his highway patrol car. You can have him.

I'll take the family in Afghanistan I'm trying to help who, you know, don't get off on killing people.

bobknight33 said:

He was put into harms way the the thugs.

You just upset because he defended himself.

Guess you wanted him to be beaten to a pulp.

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Week 1 Summary

JiggaJonson says...

Eh, it's debatable still

Here's the WI state code as that would apply here
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

===================================
Some likely applicable law from that link
From SUBCHAPTER III
DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
===================================
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
-------------------------------------------
> It's not up to the witnesses to determine if the actions were reasonable or not, that's a question for the jury.

====================================================
====================================================

"engage in unlawful conduct likely to provoke others to attack"

"Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
---------------------------------------------------------------

>excerpted/emphasized (tldnr)
>"engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack...is NOT entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense...person is NOT privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant UNLESS the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape

============================
============================



He was able to run away... And while someone shot into the air they didn't shoot at HIM or point a gun at him. And the person who shot into the air isn't the one who lunged at him.

Seriously, what kind of world do you want to live in @bobknight33 ?? You want MF 17 year olds to be able to walk around with assault rifles and if you stutter-step at the wrong moment they can vigilante justice your ass ? And if that happens well they can just say



bobknight33 said:

@JiggaJohnson
@bcglorg

Prosecution's Main Witness ( victim) Admits Kyle Rittenhouse Acted in Self-Defense




Having a illegally owned a gun and self defense are 2 different crimes

as else mentioned" Evidence wise though, it looks like self defense, after breaking many laws and putting himself in harms way, is still factually part of the night.
"

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Week 1 Summary

JiggaJonson says...

He illegally owned a gun, and was doing some vigilante justice (also illegal), and was out as a 17 year old in Wisconsin past curfew

"No minor under the age of seventeen years shall be or remain in or upon any of the streets, alleys, other public places, or any private place held open to the public in the county between twelve o'clock midnight and five a.m., unless accompanied by a parent"

Then he killed several people by shooting them with an assault rifle.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon