Posts posted by TwiceHorn
-
-
-
9 hours ago, Asithappens said:
A couple of things. One, I don't remember calling the US "special", although we do have a system of government that, imo, is superior to many others (US Constitution) and does offer a better than average chance of weathering these types of storms. Maybe you disagree with that assessment. And while I'm in no way a Nationalist, we are exceptional, at least there's nothing wrong with thinking so. It's fine to do so. It's fine for the Swedes to think they are exceptional, too.
And nothing I have said means that I don't think we are at risk of imploding. Of course we are at risk. Take your argument to those who have explicitly said such a thing.
But you seem to think the sky is falling a lot of the time. I guess one of these times you'll be right.
The flip side of American exceptionalism, or the lack thereof, is that we are neither exceptionally good, nor exceptionally bad.
-
-
Edited by TwiceHorn
24 minutes ago, lemonlime said:Thanks for this perspective. I think if this is the defense, it also negates the people who are arguing this has nothing to do with race. I have a hard time seeing how this defense works in a white, upper middle class suburban neighborhood.
For arguments' sake, you can take race out of it. This neighborhood (where it happened) has a high crime rate. Rivercrest or Tanglewood (affluent, mostly white hoods) have almost zero crime rate.
For reference, here's a crime map. Generally speaking, FWs worst hoods are to the southeast of downtown, and its best are due west of downtown. https://www.crimemapping.com/map/agency/128 This occurred on Allen Avenue, which runs parallel to 30, a couple of major streets south of it on either side of 35.
-
4 hours ago, Huckleberry said:
Once again, the most important thing is that this guy is found guilty of something that prevents him from ever working in law enforcement again for the rest of his life. Nothing will bring the victim back, and society's primary concern should be preventing this from happening again, not necessarily vengeance.
Given the current state of police work in this country, though, I am willing to support sentences that might be "too long" for a guy that was just a scared pussy in order for there to be a deterrent effect on other officers. The idea of sentences as deterrents is oversold in most cases, but I really do believe there needs to be a critical number of officers convicted of and sentenced to prison for murder (like Guyger) or manslaughter (possibly this guy if he says it was an accident because he was a scared pussy with terrible trigger discipline) so that police nationwide realize that they don't have carte blanche to kill people anymore.
Good post. I agree about disqualifying these types as LEO, as that community, among its other defects, seems to be waaay too forgiving of professional errors and omissions that seriously call into question fitness for the job.
I also wonder if homicide convictions are a ham-handed way of exacting professional discipline, at least in the context of the above sentence (setting aside for the moment that they actually commit homicide).
Finally, I think you are right about deterrent effect for the LEO community. Unlike most criminal types, you know they are watching these cases like hawks, so this is probably an effective way to send the message that society is fed up with this. Also, I think a spate of convictions with serious consequences is probably a better solution than trying to legislate something that has unforeseen effects.
-
Edited by TwiceHorn
Yes, a lawsuit is a possibility. Probably to be avoided if you can.
Historically, you could recover the medical bills, as billed by the provider (as opposed to your copay, deductible, etc.) plus pain and suffering damages (usually some multiple or fraction of the out-of-pocket medical bills).
Now, it's what the insurer actually paid for your bills, as opposed to the billed amount or whatever your portion was, if any. That is, if a treatment is billed at $5000, paid at $2000, and your copay was $200, the damages are $2000. (could be misstating here, someone will be along to correct me).
You could theoretically do such a lawsuit yourself in small claims court, if the total is under $10k, armed with the medical bills and payouts by your insurance. You actually sue the parents, not the child, and you have to prove that the parents were negligent in their "supervision" of their hellspawn.
If the amount is greater than $10k, you'll need a lawyer. Most lawyers are going to charge 33-40% of your recovery if they have to file suit. Probably less if they don't. But, odds are pretty good that they will raise the recovery substantially.
"Pressing charges" is not (necessarily) the route to financial recompense. It might happen that an adjudication in juvenile court results in restitution for your costs, but it's not the classic way to go. A civil suit, as above, is your direct ticket to compensation if the parents are financially good for it.
-
-
14 hours ago, RPM said:
Denton County SO shot a man in the back in September. They claimed he pointed a weapon at the deputy, but he was shot in the back. They still haven't released his name and refuse to comply with public information requests. Nothing suspicious about this at all.
That's disgusting. Something needs to happen there.
-
4 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:
The testimony of an 8 year old will probably be admissible.
and I am sure the interview was recorded.
Yes. However, child testimony is always a problem. It always presents credibility/suggestion issues. Yet, no one really wants to cross the shit out of an eight year old in front of a jury. Whether they even put him on the stand presents significant issues.
Texas Tribune has an article that conflicts in some respects with the other coverage (may be a result of the timing of the article) https://www.texastribune.org/2019/10/13/fort-worth-police-officer-shoots-and-kills-black-woman-home/
An interesting tidbit:
QuoteIn the video released by Fort Worth police, the department magnified a frame of the video and labeled it as a weapon laying* in the bedroom. A department press release also noted that a firearm was found in the home. The department's statement does not say if the woman was holding the gun or what threat the officer perceived.
*lying.
-
-
The reason I knew something about ESRD and Medicare is that I owned a stock of a company that made a treatment for ESRD patients.
I came to realize that Medicare and its pretty stingy reimbursements covered almost all ESRD patients, of any age, and that there was no private insurance reimbursement. Thus, there was no market for the product until basically getting approved by CMS or proving to the 2-3 providers of dialysis services that the product was a better use of limited reimbursement dollars than the current standard of care.
There are several drugs out there like that. Oddly enough, one drug that somehow weaseled its way into the standard of care is the enormously expensive, patented (until recently I believe) erythropoietin.
Anyway I did not know the precise reason for the lack of private insurance coverage of ESRD in the US until this thread. But I thought mentioning some of the "consequences" of it were worth bringing up.
-
-
-
49 minutes ago, Tom said:
I've been sick to my stomach about this situation, but blaming it on the city of Fort Worth and saying their people deserve this or are somehow to blame is absurd. And turning it into some city vs. city debate is in bad taste. I must be getting old, but it's been, what, about a week or two since a Dallas cop was sent to jail for 10 years for something equally if not more egregious? Tell me more about how much more progressive Dallas is!
Yes, Fort Worth is a little more conservative than other Texas cities. But this is a nationwide epidemic of a broken police and justice system that needs to be addressed. I'm sorry one or two of you sat in a restaurant in Fort Worth once and saw too many white people for your comfort level.
The debate started concerning the relative likelihood of vigorous prosecution and conviction by the Tarrant County DA and a Tarrant County jury.
I think a Tarrant County jury is less likely to convict a cop. Everything else works backward from there.
Brisket's the one that has to extrapolate everything negative going on into this city/county/state/country doesn't deserve to exist anymore.
-
-
-
-
27 minutes ago, David Dennison said:
He's still going to get impeached. They don't need one more document.
Agreed.
From a procedural and evidentiary standpoint, they don't need any more proof or evidence of impeachable offenses.
At this point, it's convincing people with the attention span and intelligence of a gnat that it is legitimate and not merely a political ploy.
-
3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:
And let me observe that it wasn't that long ago that I (and plenty of other people on this board) agreed with him. I thought Iraq was a good idea. I was wrong. Maybe. Perhaps it was just the way in which we carried it out that was in error.
But that is a discussion for another day.
What is pertinent here today is that Bolton has a worldview that he isn't going to change out of political expediency, like the rest of the GOP. And he's been at it a long time. He's been a high-ranking bureaucrat for more than 30 years.
He knows how to cover his ass. He knows how to document shit. And he knows how to leak. He's not somebody you want to fuck with.
I think he naively went into this administration expecting that Trump was a moron (he is) who could be bent to Bolton's views (he isn't). That was as foolish as going into Iraq with too few allies and too few troops. And Bolton's not the kind of guy who's going to admit that he made a mistake with that; he's going to fight that fight to the bitter end.
Yep. A zealot. A lunatic. An asshole. But lacking integrity, no.
And a longtime civil servant and government pro.
-
-
Edited by TwiceHorn
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:I dunno. But it sure as shit raises a lot of questions.
An attorney is a legal agent of the person they represent. So, Rudy was an agent of one of two people:
1 - Donald Trump, individual citizen
2 - Donald Trump, President of the United States
If he was acting in role 1, then anything he was doing was NOT officially on behalf of the US government.....and thus is not cloaked in executive privilege or anything of that sort. While he might have an attorney-client privilege in terms of communications, actions that would be illegal if they are NOT taken within the scope of the president's authority (think simple things here - the president can order an airstrike on a suspected terrorist training camp, killing people, and he generally can't be prosecuted for that; if private citizen Trump does that, it's a crime) are flat-out crimes, and he has taken part in the commission of those crimes.
If, on the other hand, he was acting in role 2, and was acting at the direction of the President of the United States, then any impeachable offenses committed by and through him are impeachable offenses of the President himself.
Quite the choice there, fellas. Which one are they gonna claim? Choose wisely......
Inasmuch as the White House Counsel is the President's lawyer, I don't think Rudy can claim that he's anything but Trump's personal lawyer.
Well, wait, this is Trump, so they may call him both and the Man in the Moon, so . . . .
I read somewhere that everyone thinks Giuliani is super smart, or was before any potential dementia set in. But he was extraordinarily humiliated by his failure of a presidential run and couldn't stand being out of the limelight and may have become unhinged by it.
-
2 hours ago, crash_davis said:
Your credit card and bank companies know what you buy and when and where you travel. Your cell providers always know where you are and your apps and internet usage. Your ISP knows where you surf on the net. Your browser company also knows your internet interest. If you have a newer car, your car company also knows your location. Your social media platforms know a whole hell of a lot about you, with Facebook being the absolute worst.
Yes Google specifically deals in data as their source of revenue but there are many companies who aren't vilified which know a shitton about you. I'm not defending google but are most people as diligent keeping the other companies in the dark as much as they try to keep Google in the dark.
Very true, but if you aren't careful, Google knows all that shit. All in one place.
-
-
44 minutes ago, scottsins said:
I believe that Twice is asserting (correctly, IMO), that THIS kind of “tough on crime” stance comes with a heavy dose of “pro-cop”.Exactly. Some defendants are more equal than others, and Wilson seems to be more than willing to do what "the powers that be" ask or require. The illegal voting prosecution was a GOP special.
Tough on crime is code for hard on poors, and browns. Can also include whites, but more sparingly.

impeachment inquiry hearings thread
in Cloak Room
·
Edited by TwiceHorn
There's not all that much law on executive privilege, unlike attorney-client privilege. The privilege applies to deliberative communications and processes within the executive branch. I think there's a pretty good argument that if you bring in someone who isn't a part of the executive branch, you blow the privilege. Crimes and wrongdoings notwithstanding.
Also worth noting that the privilege is not absolute, as is the attorney client privilege. It can be pierced in the interest of justice even when no exceptions or disqualifications apply.