Jump to content

BurntEyes

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    10438
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by BurntEyes

  1. First, the armed party can not be the aggressor. Then there are a ton of aspects that come in to play. Where it is happening (the armed persons home), what the unarmed person is doing (trespassing, breaking into their car, beating the shit of of them.) Too much to clarify without some actual specifics but the primary one is the armed person need to feel their life is in danger.
  2. Some people keep missing an important aspect of this, whether intentionally and by design or just unable to accept a reality. If you are the aggressor in a situation, and the person you're engaging with ends up dead, the self defense aspect is almost always, in every single imaginable scenario, gone. He went to the victims team tent. (Aggresor) He was asked to leave and didn't. (Aggresor) He may, or may not have made threats to escalate. (Aggresor) He made no attempt to run nor flee when his aggressive aspects escalated the situation based on all we currently know. (Aggresor/refusing to de-escalate/seek alternatives to esclate) Victim is stabbed and dies. Thats murder. Unless there are facts we have yet to be made aware of to this point. Trying to defend these actions as self defense, at this point given what we know, is like blaming everyone on the team but the QB for a loss in a football game.
  3. 1) Father of the victim who seems extremely reasonable. A PR firm run by a criminal and grifter hired by the accused's family. 2) Likely random internet race baiting assholes on one side or the other. 3) No clue 4) Nope 5) mostly its jibber from complete dumbasses throwing out shitty talking points of one "side" or the "other" who don't care about facts, law or evidence
  4. While I agree with your post in full, I wanted to make note that I rep'd you for this truly artistic slam. Well done sir.
  5. We also have a lot of circumstantial evidence supporting he was the aggressor and as such self defense is most likely not in play.
  6. She and her husband appear to be very shifty and not nice people. Still wood... Her.. not her and her husband. But in pinch I'd be open to cuck work.
  7. I'm not dismissing what you're saying but this NYT Article confirms some of what I was thinking. Catholicism was on a down trend but has stabilized with a shift south and west. That shift is in large part attributed to immigrants in the US, and not white ones. The other is a return of Hispanics to the church. While the current priest joining may consider themselves less progressive, at least a portion of that can likely be the shift of part the progressive political side to the louder extremes thus altering where they see themselves on spectrum. Happy to see any data that speaks alternatively to this information.
  8. It goes right back to asses in seats and coins in the coffers. You might get a slight uptick of some racist folks in the US going back to Catholic Church, maybe a bit in Europe in a couple of countries. However, you aren't getting Methodist, Baptist, Scientists or snake dancers converting, and the numbers there would be vastly offset by losses in Africa, Asia, Central and South America. That lean into the Nazi make zero business sense and there is plenty of negative shit you can say about the Catholic Church but a lack very basic level demographics and complete lack of basic business sense aren't two of them. No upside and a massive downside.
  9. Valerie has absolutely picked up sleeping habits from Darlene:
  10. There were a lot of current Catholics that didn't like the direction of the Pope. Based on my admittedly limited engagement with them they felt it was a move to appeal to a broader public. I'm inclined to agree with them in broad strokes. The horrific pedophile scandals and cover ups, crossed with changing mindsets/progressive ideology has seen a big decrease in Catholic growth and even loss in the more liberal countries. At the end of the day, all religions are about putting butts in seats and coins in the coffers while expanding their message, whatever that "message" might be. While broad attendance/faith numbers are good, countries in Africa and South America don't bring the big dollars in global influence North American/European engagement does. Its probably a discussion for another thread, but to keep it relevant, I think the Catholic Church knows if it wants to grow it needs a "moderate" as it relates to progressive ideas. But... what the fuck do I know about what goes on behind closed doors in the Vatican.
  11. Yeah, I guess I was looking at it more from a global HQ perspective, as I'd love to get taxes aligned with revenues and not just real estate, but I'm a tax loving fool.
  12. I know this is a zombie response but I was laughing. My last company made a nerdy engineer a leader in... sales. Yes, Sales Management. You'll note I'm speaking in the past tense.
  13. Ummm... could we possibly start this with the cult of Xenu Space Invaders aka Scientology hit Utah and work our way down from there? I'm in no way defending the Catholic Church as they are absolutely on my to-do list but I was just thinking we should start with the ones based in the US then expand our reach internationally. Get some domestic kills under our belt first, if you will.
  14. Gamefag shit and massive spoilers:
  15. So much to unpack on this one but nobody got time for that... I'll go top 3. 1) It truly looks like this guy is sitting alone in his "hobble chair" in an empty parking lot. Hearts and minds. Change! (spare change, got some) 2) the dirt road ministry, I don't care what stupid "symbolic" bullshit they're using/trying to use. dirt road ministry 3) flying both the rebel flag and US flag. Pick a fucking side.
  16. 1) Zero evidence thus far has been presented that this was a case of self defense. NONE Doesn't mean some won't surface but no evidence has been provided to this point. 2) The accused was in the team tent of the victim. Why don't know why, but it's reasonably logical to conclude the accused was the aggressor not the other way around. This is supposition, based on known facts. 3) The accused brought a knife to a track meet. This is known fact. The accused took the knife he brought to a track meet and then went to the tent of the victim. It's supposition but reasonable to conclude that particularly when combined with #2 above. 4) Below is a cut and paste from a lawyer in Texas. It's a clarification around self defense and escalation. Texas Self Defense Law - Criminal Lawyer Interpretation So, based only on the facts we currently know for sure. The accused brought a knife to a track meet and when to the team tent of the victim. Then, the accused stabbed the victim with a knife. The victim died. It's logical to conclude, but it is supposition that the accused was the aggressor based on know facts. It's logical to conclude that the victim told the accused to leave. It's logical to conclude that the victim may have attempted to physically remove the accused from the tent. That act under Texas stand your ground law/castle doctrine may be covered. What you can't legally do, if someone tries to remove you from a place where they belong and you don't/aren't wanted is escalate to stabbing them. The self defense doesn't play here, as the accused went to the victims "castle". Whether or not the accused intended violence prior, if he didn't leave when asked it is aggression, and the accused chose an escalation path. Even if the victim tried to push him out physically, that doesn't qualify as reason to escalate as the accused could have just left Being in the tent in the first place could easily be perceived as aggression by the victim and most jurys/judges would agree particularly if the victim asked him to leave and he didn't. That's without including the fact the accused brought a knife. Based on current known facts, there is nothing that supports a self defense claim as bring a knife to a track meet and going to the victims tent is easily perceived as clear indication of aggression. Hell, the accused didn't even need to have the knife for his actions to have appeared aggressive. Evidence may well surface that alters thing, but currently, based only on know facts, self defense doesn't apply.
  17. Definitely gonna make the bikeys stabby so it makes sense in this thread.
  18. For the record, I was informed that suggestions of Thunderdome or similar ideas is a clear indication of being a racist Trump supporter a few pages back. Thought you should know.
  19. In fairness, you have always been complimentary about my girth.
  20. Who's gonna fund my vacation man? This plan is going into the shitter fast.
  21. Fuck that noise! Not enough time to fleece the Surly flock prior to disappointment and sadness. Plus, I get no cut of that action. No sir, remote Central American island destination or bust!
  22. (Fixed)You're lying. Not once during our friendship have you ever said that to me. Asshole.
  23. So, when the fuck is the Surly Fyre Festival happening? Where is it? I need to start working on connections for the drugs and sex workers. This shit takes some planning.
  24. I can agree to what you've put forth, just important to me that the victim and his family aren't forgotten in all of this. To that end and to practice what I preach here is a snap shot from Austin Metcalf's X profile and his hudl link. (I blurred the phone and email because I think I should) Austin Metcalf Hudl
  25. I fully understand and don't disagree which is why I put hold the party responsible accountable first. Yes, on the broad stroke the criminal justice systems service is in the name of the state on behalf of the people not the individual, but as with all items the devil is in the details. I like to believe you and Twice both believe that our criminal justice system is in place to bring forth justice, dont you? Let's take a look at the legal definition of justice as described by the Cornell Law School that I hope we can agree is a fair arbiter of the word, legally. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/justice Justice has three meanings: (For purposes of discussion and because the second two were covered by both you and Twice I'll focus on the first) Justice is the ethical , philosophical idea that people are to be treated impartially, fairly, properly, and reasonably by the law and by arbiters of the law, that laws are to ensure that no harm befalls another, and that, where harm is alleged, a remedial action is taken - both the accuser and the accused receive a morally right consequence merited by their actions So, I would argue that while the criminal justice system absolutely does serve the people in a broad aspect, in the name of justice it also strives to serve the victims (and those accused) of the crime to receive a morally right consequence, to use the Cornell Law definition. Likely this falls into a semantics discussion but I ask, what is a criminal justice system without morally right consequence and justice for the victims? Who are will killing in the name of?
×
×
  • Create New...