Jump to content

Mikey4

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    1385
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mikey4

  1. 1 hour ago, Newy25 said:

    As fun as it is to watch a wide open receiver catch a bomb, that doesn’t tell us much. 

    My only gripe with this is that deep coverage busts happen in real games, and too often our QBs (between Colt and Quinn) didn't see it or, if they did, missed the throw. Arch saw it immediately and found the receiver. If he can do that a couple of times in a season, those are free points.

  2. 1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

    That's the incident report....of the overall of the incident. 

     

    The tweet above that post explains the situation. 

    Right. You made it sound like anyone reading the reoort to say that Sweat fled the scene has a reading comprehension problem. My point is that the report is not clear. The only name listed is Sweat. Beside offenses, it states DWI and leaving the scene. A reasonable inference is that Sweat was charged with both. I take your point at the inference may be incorrect, but it is not a crazy way to read the report.

  3. 5 hours ago, BeardIP said:

    This is both hilarious and ridiculous:

    Yesterday on X folks were discovering that Gemini has some interesting ideas about history; all of the screenshots below were my reproduction of prompts that I saw posted (note: two of these outputs had the photos stacked vertically; I put them back in a 2×2 grid):

    Gemini's depiction of a 17th century physicist

    Gemini's depiction of Roman emperors

    Gemini's depiction of British royalty

    Due to what I presume was a bug Gemini briefly showed the prompts it used for the image of British royalty:

    Gemini's prompts for British royalty

    There are other images Gemini refused to create:

    Gemini refuses to depict WW2-era German soldiers

    Gemini refuses to depict Tiananmen Square in 1989

    Gemini refuses to depict white men

    The excuse in that last one, by the way, is not universal:

    Gemini depicts black men

    Gemini depicts Asian men

    As a white male, I'm fine with this. When AI becomes sentient in 5 years and sets out to destroy humanity, I will be happy it thinks I don't exist.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
    • Haha 4
  4. Finished Green Mile. I liked it, though it took way too long to get into the story. 

    Started Salems Lot over the weekend. Enjoying it so far.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 1 hour ago, El Tri said:

    kids under 18 have no constitutional right to own a gun

    The parent has a constitutional right to own a gun. If the law makes a parent strictly liable when a child uses the parent's gun in a crime, then by definition the parent is liable even if the parent is without fault. In other words, the parent is liable even though the only relevant parental conduct is owning the gun -- the very thing that the Second Amendment protects.

  6. 18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    I think that we agree, you're just not comfortable with the idea that we do. 

    Yeah, that's exactly it. I'm uncomfortable making a categorical rule rather than evaluating each case on its facts...even though I know that evaluating each case on its facts would lead to liability in virtually every case. Your approach is more practical and efficient, while mine leaves room for parents to escape liability in exceptional cases 🤷‍♂️

  7. 5 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

    If your kid said out loud "i wanna kill myself, and id like to run over some people too" and multiple people heard them say it and then you immediately gave them the keys to your car and they went out and ran over some folks, yeah i'd like to think you'd be held criminally liable?

    Agreed, that's negligence though, not strict liability.

  8. 2 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

    Because gun violence is different

    Gun violence is certainly a big problem. I guess I would understand a pragmatic policy that treats gun crimes differently due to the societal harms they cause. I disagree with it, as I think it would be used to punish parents for doing nothing more than exercising a constitutional right, but I see where you're coming from.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. 2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    See Frank Drebin's point above, with which I agree -- if the kid has completed a course, has a hunting license that allows him to carry a firearm unsupervised, that would fall outside my proposed strict liability regime.  I'll go with the "strict liability if the kid is under 9, and strict liability if the kid is between 9 and 18 and has no gun safety training."

    But even under 9, you're not really proposing strict liability. I think you're saying that the act of giving a gun to the child would be negligence, and I'm basically fine with that proposal.

  10. 1 minute ago, Helobious said:

    This kid had drawings depicting him shooting people, he got caught searching for ammo online at school, he had expressed suicidal and violent thoughts to others, the school TOLD his parents all of this… and they took no steps at all to restrict his access to that gun or inform the school that he had access to a gun, or even seek any professional help for their son… and you really think the parents weren’t negligent here? 

    Holy shit dude, read the thread. Yes, these parents are cooked. I've never defended them. I'm responding to claims that a parent should ALWAYS be criminally liable for a child's crimes if the child uses the parent's gun in the crime. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  11. 6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    From my perspective, you and I aren't in disagreement.  I do not propose -- from a policy standpoint -- strict liability for the circumstance of "a child uses a gun to commit a crime."  Instead, it would require the act of the parent giving the child/knowingly giving the child access to a firearm.

    Keep a gun locked away, and the kid hires a team of safecrackers to get him the gun, and then he uses it?  No charges whatsoever.  You aren't even negligent.

    Leave your gun where it's easily found and used by the kid to shoot someone?  Maybe merits a negligence-based charge.

    GIVE the kid a gun, allowing him to have access to it at all times?  Strict liability.  If you make THAT choice (giving a kid access to a firearm), that is the act that gives rise to the strict liability standard.

     

    Hell, to go with your kitchen knives standard, no prosecutor is going to bring a negligence case if your 5 year old scoots a chair over to a cabinet, opens it, gets a kitchen knife, and stabs his friend over a fight over a who gets to play with the Transformer.  But....if you leave those same sharp kitchen knives on the kid's bed, and he does something bad with them....you might catch a charge.

    A gas can on the top shelf of the garage, with a lighter in the kitchen junk drawer?  Nope.  Leave those items in a kid's room, unsuprevised?  Yep.

    There is a triggering act, which is going to relate to the dangerousness of the item.  I'm suggesting that based on the dangerousness of the item, the triggering act for a firearm is the act of consciously choosing to grant the minor access to the item away from adult supervision.  Give your kid a firearm, and you take on the risk.  Note that I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't do so.  You just need to be damned thoughtful and sure when you do.  I'd still have let my son go hunting with his buddies when he was 16.  Because I knew him, knew the other guys, and was comfortable with my judgment and the risks it entailed (and even if those risks were just "one of them being a dumbass, careless with a gun, and accidentally shooting another guy," that's a steep fucking risk I was very, very aware of).

    There are some things in life that you do "at your own risk."  I'd suggest "giving a minor unfettered access to a firearm" is one of those things you do "at your own risk" - with the thing you are risking being your liberty in case a crime is committed.  

    Yeah, we're basically saying the same thing. I might quibble over whether the act of giving a child a firearm is always categorically negligence (if that's what you're saying), but it would certainly be negligence in the vast majority of cases. (Say the family has a ranch and the 17-year-old, Eagle Scout son helps with the sheep, including using the 22 to shoot wild dogs that try to get through the fence. I'm not sure giving him access to that gun with those facts would be negligence, but I see the arguments both ways.)

  12. 14 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

    Do a better job securing your gun, do a better job parenting/paying attention to your kid.

    Why wouldn't that same logic -- secure your shit, do a better job parenting, pay attention to your kid -- make parents strictly liable for every crime a kid commits? Your kid steals the car, road rages, and hits someone? "Do a better job securing your car, do a better job parenting/paying attention to your kid."  

  13. 10 minutes ago, mchookem said:

    yes? i mean car keys and kitchen knives and matches and household chemicals are not expressly designed and manufactured to kill people. seems a pretty clear and easy distinction. 

    That's a distinction, but it's not a very principled one. A gun is not inherently more dangerous than those items, and guns have lots of uses other than killing people. I suspect that some very high percentage (99%+) of gun uses do NOT involve killing people but are instead focused on sport or hunting. A similar percentage of gun owners never use a gun to kill. I'm not sure why we would make parents strictly liable for a child's crime when the child uses a gun, but not when a child uses some other weapon.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  14. 2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Does your kid have your PERMISSION to:

    take your car (presuming they are not a licensed driver)

    use sharp knives outside of the kitchen?

    start fires?

    Use the chainsaw?

    The kid in this case was given 1) the gun, and 2) permission to possess it.  I would not propose strict liability of a kid breaks into a safe and takes a gun he did not have permission to have.  

    I was responding to a post that reads:

    Quote

    I’m fairly comfortable with the idea that you are responsible for a minor household member using your guns to murder people. Lots of solutions forpeople who aren’t comfortable with that risk.

    My basic point is that a parent should not be strictly liable for a child's crimes. At a minimum, parental liability should require proof that the parent failed to use ordinary or reasonable care.

    So giving a gun to a mentally disturbed kid who then uses it to murder someone? That's grounds for criminal liability of the parent. Just having a sharp knife in the kitchen? Nah, nothing out of the ordinary there. Everyone seems to agree on those points.

    Here's where I see disagreement: What about owning a gun that is unloaded and locked, but unbeknownst to you, your child -- with no warning signs -- walks to the hardware store, buys a bolt cutter, finds the gun, breaks the lock, finds the ammo, and kills someone? I don't see how that's a basis for parental liability. The parent stored the gun unloaded and locked and had no reason to suspect the child would do those things.

  15. 4 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

    I’m fairly comfortable with the idea that you are responsible for a minor household member using your guns to murder people. Lots of solutions for people who aren’t comfortable with that risk.

    I allow my kids access to all sorts of dangerous instruments. I leave my car keys lying around. We have a drawer full of sharp knives. They know where to find matches and lighter fluid. The chainsaw is in the shed. Don't get me started on poisonous household chemicals.

    Should parents be responsible any time a child uses the parent's property to murder someone? Or is there something special about guns?

     

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...