search results matching tag: three days

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.006 seconds

    Videos (87)     Sift Talk (10)     Blogs (7)     Comments (249)   

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Week 1 Summary

StukaFox says...

Bob,

It doesn't matter what happened after Baby Rambo intentionally put himself in harm's way during the commission of an illegal act. This would be like me breaking into your house and getting caught in the act of stealing your stuff. You pull a gun and take a shot at me, miss, then I shoot you in the head and claim it was self defense. That's exactly how the prosecution is going to nail him to the cross and he won't be coming back three days later.

bobknight33 said:

Lets see,
This guy got shot when he pointed his gut at Rit

1 guy got shot after hitting him with skateboard and tried to pull the guy away
The other guy said to Rit and his fried that he was going to kill them earlier. When he had the opportunity he chased Rit down and Rit defended himself.

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Week 1 Summary

StukaFox says...

Bob,

"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."


This is completely correct; however, it is not a viable defense. You cannot go "looking for trouble" (trust me, I know this one).

Here's a link to a counter-argument, out of fairness sake:

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/looking-trouble-framing-and-dignitary-interest-law-self-defense

This part is what will send Baby Rambo to Fed for the next billion years:

"This means that any lawful intent or behavior that may have contributed to the confrontation should not be used to undermine the claim of self-defense."

Please note the "lawful intent or behavior" part. Everything Rittenhouse did was illegal up until the point when he went postal on innocent, if rowdy, protestors. The prosecution is going to nail him to the cross and he won't be coming back in three days.

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.
"

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Another indicted Republican, Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, admitted to helping essentially rig the election in the state of Texas so that Donald Trump would win the state. He did this by blocking 2.5 million ballot applications from being sent to Harris county, where Houston is, because if even half of Houstonians voted, Biden would have crushed Trump in Texas, and he knew it, so he blocked sending out applications for mail in ballots (and removed all but one ballot drop box for nearly 4 million voters in Harris County) by claiming they were illegal ballots.
" If we'd lost Harris county, which is where Houston is, Trump won by 620,000 votes in Texas, Harris county mail-in ballots (he actually blocked applications) that they wanted to send out were two and a half million. Those were all illegal." (They weren't though, and it seems he didn't block them elsewhere in Texas) "We were able to stop every one of them.
We would have been one of those battleground states that were counting votes in Harris county for three days. And Donald Trump would have lost the election."

It wasn't fear of fraud, it wasn't the law, it was purely because if voters voted, Trump would have lost Texas by millions of votes. That's why they suppressed the vote in certain parts of Texas. They admit it clearly. Even Texas has rejected Republicanism, but Texas republicans have no problem cheating voters and committing massive fraud if it keeps republicans in power.

One more instance of massive voter fraud by Republicans in 2020, still not a single Democratic voter fraud case, and still Big Daddy Biden crushed diaper Don by millions....without the multiple verified frauds and massive voter suppression he may have won by 20 million or more, definitely >10 mil if just Texas played fair.

Enjoy 2024. Red tsunami?

Ps, don't think I didn't notice you ignored my last post in favor of just denigrating Biden for his age while ignoring Trump's rapid slide deeper into delusional dementia, and his failing health. For fucks sake, his most trusted advisor is a brain dead crack head, the only one who agrees with his nonsense. Even you, delusional sycophant that you are, won't stoop to defend Trump's fitness for office now, you just make up nonsense about Biden to make yourself feel better instead. So sad.

This Computer Is About to Change The World

vil says...

"This would take too long to explain?" Take a stab, you just spent 22 minutes beating about the bush.

Will bread be cheaper?

Governments and rich people will be able to break passwords. Three day weather forecasts will become four day weather forecasts. Pharma will make even more money. Duh.

Massive scientific improvements are fiction until they happen. Trickle down (anything) is fiction. We will never all own helicopters, while helicopters are awesome. This may be as useful to the public as large telescopes and particle colliders.

Not predicting a conspicuous failiure, but lets wait until the chicken hatch.

Living in a country that has trouble building and maintaining an elementary highway system gives you immunity to purely theoretical solutions to traffic problems.

Saskatchewan Farm Trucks

Student - D'Souza to convince him life starts at conception

Sagemind says...

Personally, I am Pro Choice for women to make their own decision on the gestation of biological cells growing in their own bodies up to a certain age of the fetus.

What I don't understand is, are you calling this man pathetic because he "gave two arguments FOR pro choice"? - based on principals laid out by Lincoln in his example?
Or because
Pro Choice doesn't align with your beliefs?

Sorry, you wrap your words up in several ways but you don't come out and say what side you're arguing for so I can't tell the tone or nature of your comments.

I personally don't feel the entity, the biological growth of cells is a person just because it has a heart beat. Does it have consciousness? Is it a thinking being with self awareness? Because I don't remember anything from when I was a fetus. In fact, I don't think the brain is developed at all ...

"not until the end of week 5 and into week 6 (usually around forty to forty-three days) does the first electrical brain activity begin to occur." ~'The Ethical Brain' - The New York Times.

And even then, it's still in development and not a an organ that can contain consciousness.

newtboy said:

Until then, this dumbass just made two arguments for pro choice.
Pathetic.

HomePod - Welcome Home by Spike Jonze

Ford's Test-Drive Vending Machine in China

How Easy it is to Buy a AR-15 in South Carolina

heropsycho says...

Nope.

The only effective way is to practically eliminate the prevalence of guns beyond say a hunting rifle across the general population. Everything else is wack-a-mole, and won't solve the problem.

I'm a political moderate, and I generally gravitate towards moderate "common sense" effective regulations when needed. I don't see any point in regulations that don't do any good.

Universal background checks, banning assault rifles, three day waiting periods, banning bump stocks, stopping people who have been evaluated with psychiatric problems, all of it will insignificantly reduce gun violence.

I just don't see a way forward on this issue because what's needed is so politically impossible when people start declaring armed insurrection when a Democrat gets elected President.

harlequinn said:

But the next question is, will this stop criminal or crazy people from getting a gun?...

Joe Arpaio Learn His Pardon Was An Admission Of Guilt

Why We Constantly Avoid Talking About Gun Control

heropsycho says...

I actually agree with you mostly, but you're not gonna like it.

One thing I will point out though - "I just don't connect gun regulations as an effective solution to mass murder."

We have data on this. Take Australia. In the 21 years leading up to Port Arthur and that massacre itself, which triggered the nation into heavily regulating guns, there were 16 mass murders of four or more people, totaling 137 murders. Since then, there have been 12, with a total of 76 murders. This despite there being population growth.

Violent crime rate has dropped from 1996 to now, mainly from reductions in robbery and a small drop in homicide rates.

There is very clear evidence that if most guns are removed from circulation, there are very real and likely benefits when it comes to reducing violent crime in general and murder.

I'm a political moderate and pragmatic. I go with what works. Don't care how liberal or conservative the solution is. I'm never in favor of regulation that is ineffective at solving problems.

And to that end, I'm against most gun control measures. I'm on board with banning assault weapons, fully automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets, but most gun control things like psychiatric evaluations, universal background checks? No.
Why? Because societal models we know that provided real progress on problems seemed to suggest one thing - it's the prevalence of guns that is the problem. If you make it marginally harder to buy guns by things like...

Three day waiting periods
Universal background checks
Psychiatric evaluations

They don't work. Banning guns works, though. It's worked time and time again. Australia, Britain, over and over and over, if guns lose prevalence, violence, murder, etc. decrease significantly.

At some point, society has to decide that giving up guns is worth it. But until that time, "common sense" gun control is a waste of time, and I quite frankly think it might do real effective gun control measures harm because when nothing gets better from these mild measures, they're going to point that out.

CaptainObvious said:

This was not the 500th mass shooting. You are using an unusable definition that shuts down debating anything on true mass shootings. Most people consider mass shooting to be the killing of innocent people indiscriminately - usually in a public place. Using such an overreaching definition just starts losing its intended meaning. It also shuts down dialog. I own guns. I support practical regulations. I just don't connect gun regulations as an effective solution to mass murder. I can see regulations and restrictions on guns - safety courses, etc on saving lives, but not preventing crime and murder.

The Magnetic Fields - '92 Weird Diseases

lurgee says...

When I was yea high 'til I was three
I suffered from petit mal epilepsy
Any excitement gave me a fit
But there were drugs to cure me of it

Weird diseases
I get weird diseases
Whenever Krishna sneezes
I get weird diseases

So at the least sign of emotion
I got a tranquilizing potion
Thus from the time I was a young boy
I could feel neither anger nor joy

Weird diseases
Random weird diseases
Once from eating recalled cheeses
I got weird diseases

Nearly fatal renal cysts
Maybe Asperger's if that exists
Pityriasis rosea
Two separate times giardia

Weird diseases
I get weird diseases
Wafting on the toxic breezes
I get weird diseases

Debilitating spider bites
Hiccups for three days and nights
A thousand earaches, one deformed eardrum
Hyperacusis, what's that from?

It's from weird diseases
I get weird diseases
Whenever baby Jesus pleases
He gives me weird diseases

Chronic fatigue
COPD
Petit mal epilepsy
Two big holes inside my brain
Migraine aura sans migraine

Weird diseases
I get weird diseases
Weird diseases
I get weird diseases

RetroReport - Nuclear Winter

vil says...

The list of possible covariates or confounders is unknown and practically infinite for climate. Weather - anything beyond three days is guesswork, climate - more complicated.

Science is about repeatability (and disprovability), and it is true, correlation can provide false repeatability. You sure win that one. Correlation can be a good lead sometimes to find real relationships, but you cant base science solely on correlation.

"If we assume the risks are real" - (sigh) just dont assume. Also I would not speculate about future risks, the current situation is already bad enough to warrant action. The conflation of climate science and economic science worries me deeply, having a degree in the latter. Pollution is not an economic benefit/cost, it is a side-effect, it becomes a cost only if it is artificially designated as one ("taxed") and is better dealt with not by incentives, but by strict "safety" regulations of technology. Economic subjects can deal with pollution taxes with economic tools, rather than change of technology.

Like the ozone hole, the hype alone, or economic measures, would not have stopped people from using sprays. "Safety" legislation and the induced introduction of an alternative technology did.

Hype will generate irrational responses.

Given how politics works goverments go after soft targets only, unless pressured. What should be hyped are not dire predictions of the future but A) polluters and what can be done about them and B) implementation of new technologies that replace polluting ones (thats where tax breaks can help).

Louisville Woman Brought Into Courtroom Without Pants

radx says...

I assume that she wasn't sucked through a dimensional rift or whatnot, so there will be quite a lot people who have come into contact with her during these three days. Would it be a stretch to also assume that none of them spoke up about this treatment?

Unfit to serve, the lot of 'em.

Colbert Takes the Gloves Off: Gun Control

heropsycho says...

First off, 1 in every 300 Americans are NOT on watch list used for this. That's complete horse crap. Less than 5,000 people living in the US would have been impacted by the bill had those people actually tried to get a gun. 1/300 Americans is 0.0033% of Americans. The actual percentage of Americans being impacted? 0.0015384615384615385% with the highest estimate, and that highest estimate would also assume every one of those people would seek to buy a gun where a background check would be conducted.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article85294962.html

If you go with the gun ownership rate of roughly 33% (generous), now you're talking 0.000512820512820513% of Americans impacted by the law who would actually go buy a gun, and that's assuming those people ALL went to buy a gun where a background check would be conducted. That's like one out of 2000 people.

Secondly, it was a terrible compromise.

We all need to understand just how ineffectual just the concept of putting anyone on the watchlist would be anyway in stopping a shooting.

We're talking about stopping only the people on the watchlist who are actually trying to buy a gun where they'd do a background check, not a private sale.

And on top of that, if the government can't make a case against them within three days, they get the gun. There's no way the federal government would be able to make a case with all the evidence within three days.

It was ridiculously weak and ineffective as is. The Democrats' bill was a joke, and the GOP's turned into a Carrot Top-esque joke.

scheherazade said:

1 in every 300 Americans is on the terror watch list...

The rep version wasn't too bad.

Basically the status quo, but would get the person flagged onto LE radar along with a 3 day delay.

Doesn't crap too hard on innocent people, while at least drawing attention... in case attention is needed.

All in all a decent compromise, given that the watch list is packed full of innocent people that were robo-flagged.

-scheherazade



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