Jump to content

Brisketexan

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    51894
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    302

Posts posted by Brisketexan

  1. 12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Well, this won't actually create a case precedent.  Firstly, it's an acquittal, so it can't be appealed, so no appellate court opinion will issue.  Second, it's a jury verdict, so there's not even a trial court opinion to cite as precedent.  You can't argue one jury's verdict to another jury, even in the same state/jurisdiction.

    Even when a case can be appealed (guilty verdict or civil case), a jury's decision is almost never reversed and a opinion generated.  The written instructions to the jury can be, for misstatements of law.  Various procedural decisions by the judge can be reviewed. But the jury's application of the jury instructions to the facts they find, almost never, unless the jury really went against the evidence (which they might have here, but acquittal, so no).

    No one is ever going to successfully argue the case of Phillip "Mitch" Brailsford in defense of another cop.

    When the expert witness gets on the stand and talks about police training in general, police stresses, trained responses, etc.....damned right it will come up.  In fact, that's an issue with police testimony/evidence in general -- so much of it relies on and incorporates concepts of "training," and "the view of law enforcement."  You want to invoke evidence of "policing?"  Fine....let's do that.

  2. Yes. It's another example of the daily abuse of power that the American people and the majority of Congress swallow. Just about his every action is an affront to some aspect of American tradition or American institutions. The electorate tolerates and their representatives acquiesce. 
    Should the horror of physical harm come to one of these women, get ready to fight down vomit as a substantial percentage of the American electorate justify and cheer the incident.
    Trump's exit will not change the electorate nor the miscreants who encourage them for votes. We have no Lincoln. We are in trouble.

    There really is no bottom to the barrel. 

    Some folks are starting to acknowledge the obvious truth.

    If Trump is re-elected, you really can’t imagine how bad it will get.

    But even if he doesn’t win...the evil he has awakened isn’t going away.

    We are a rogue, evil nation. We deserve everything that will come to us...but the shitty thing is that many innocent non-Americans will suffer and die in the process.
  3. Which one of you scared old white guys has been hanging out on Anderson Lane this morning?

    8db5f7cc468b5cf85e263a2f86e89329.jpg

    The boy and I drove by that idiot on the way to Whataburger....just shook our damned heads.

    We also were in line behind a MAGA family at LAX yesterday coming home. They were every stereotype. Dad wearing a new MAGA hat in a diverse city and airport, to be a dick. Flat face. Beer belly. Two boys who looked and sounded like Walker and Texas Ranger from Talladega Nights. Chubby, wearing flat billed Dodgers hats with sunglasses perched on top - two little racist douches in training. Mom wearing a red shirt, didn’t bother to read it.

    These assholes run our country. That’s where we are. Caricatures run our country.
  4. Smoking or non-smoking room, sir?  
    Non-Smoking please. 
    Any other requests, sir?
    Away from the elevator.  Non-shooting floor please.  
    Some lawyer explain to me the true meaning of case precedent.  I mean there's tomes on levels of acceptable police violence.  I get that, but at what point does somebody point to this dipshit's case for their own defense and say, "Well, in Mesa...a guy with his legs crossed behind him, his hands on the ground, pleading for his life with no visible weapons...he was considered to be a clear and immediate threat to the life of not one, but two police officers.  In our case, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the officer shot a man who was standing straight up and had a criminal background.  A much more blatant case of clear and immediate threat."  I mean can people point to other rulings where a much lower degree of threat was met with lethal and terminal force to justify their own actions in situations where a reasonable person could kinda look at the video and say, "Yeah, he was running towards you or looked like he had a knife."  ???

    Here’s my take: no citizen should EVER lose a self-defense case. “Look at this example: a trained police officer, the best of the best, one of America’s heroes, was found to be legitimately in fear for his safety when [a dude was laying on the ground, a guy was running away from him, a guy was having a stroke, etc]. In OUR case, the person was actually standing upright. Clearly an even greater threat, and terrifying to someone who doesn’t have years of police training and experience.”

    Seriously. There’s effectively nothing that doesn’t create a “legitimate fear for your life” among cops. Ergo, killing someone in self defense is always justified. Always.
  5. Forget the racism angle, I am most astonished by the idea that elected members of Congress shouldn't express their opinion about how to run the country. 
    This plays into the same loyalty angle. I am sure Trump thinks that Congress works for the President. Because he's an uneducated fool, and because he wants his regime to operate like an organized crime syndicate. 

    Well, he also thinks that congress works for the president....because GOP congressman have LITERALLY SAID “I work for the president.”
    Hate is now a conservative brand. Its fuel. They couldn't keep a lid on this buffoonery, instead nurtured it, and now it's a drunk teenager in a stolen car. They can't win without it now. Every primary will now be a contest to prove how much more cruel and angry you are in comparison to your opponent. 

    100% this. It’s the ONLY brand they have now.
  6. They are absolutely that stupid.  Without a doubt.
    They will repeat, with fervor, whatever the right wing radio and social media machine tell them to.  They do not question their Lords.

    This. Presume they are as stupid as stupid can get. You will be correct.
  7. An illegal alien is a person.  They were to be counted. Otherwise they would have been excluded.  There is plenty of verbiage about foriegn nationals all over the constitution.  The founders were aware of them.

    It really is this simple. If a person is residing in the United States at the time of the census, they are to be counted. That includes non-citizens.

    It did when William the Conqueror created the Domesday book 1,000 years ago. Count everyone. Subjects of another sovereign who reside in England included.
    • Like 2
  8. Wiki says original was/is at Garfield and Valley.  That sounds right, now that I'm thinking about it.  I was working for a GC in those days and we did a lot of work in SGV.

    I dunno, I’m just glad we found it, because it was a sound father-son lunch location.
  9. So a limey bozgor and a bondage model turned the rose garden into a Jerry Springer episode. White House reporters were called punks and told they'd get their ass kicked. 

    Our country is a Jerry Springer episode.

    One of the really shitty episodes, where you end up hating EVERYONE in it.
    • Like 3
  10. idiot, it's up to interpretation as is everything in the constitution you idiot. 

    Yes, everything is up for interpretation, as the term “interpretation” literally means.

    Fortunately, the one undisputed rule of both constitutional and statutory interpretation is “plain meaning.” For example, if a law says that X must happen by September 1 of each year, the court “interprets” that to mean that the deadline is the first day of September. If a law says that no person may shit in public in Texas, that law applies to...every human being in Texas, at any given time.

    So, when the Constitution says that the census most count all persons....that means...”all persons.”

    I know that such complex reasoning is a challenging exercise for Trumpkins, but go ahead and stretch yourself, and give it a try!
  11. a census always undercounts people . Aside from allocation of resources, the game both sides are playing is the EV.  Granted, TX and CA probably cancel each other out but we still have FL and NY. It's marginal, the effect on the POTUS election but still there.  In principle though, since the Census does affect POTUS and HoR, it should only be for citizens.  Other agencies can count the people for food banks and other government efforts, but the Census should be sacred. 

    Cool. Then amend the constitution to make it that way.

    And good luck with that.
  12. Pay attention, people.  The POTUS is telling us what is and isn't free speech.
    If you're not worried yet, you're a fucking idiot.

    But...is he even? If a five year old spewed that garbled idiocy, I’d be embarrassed for him.

    He’s a distilled stewpot of stupid and evil. And it’s hard to distinguish between the ingredients most times.
    • Like 1
  13. thread tldr version -- Surly is cool with illegals submitting a census, with no citizenship question, thus inflating the Electoral Votes for specific states.  Yes? 

    That's the constitutional scheme.  Illegals,  women, 3/5 humans  . . .  all of em.

    Nowthis asks a question that reveals complete and total ignorance of the constitution...and gets bitchslapped by citation to the constitution.

    Pretty solid trumpkin moment.
  14. Full interview
     

    As a country, the tragedy isn’t that we deserve the self-immolation we’re going through. The tragedy is that we deserve even worse.

    We are too stupid to continue as a going concern. I would reduce our rating to “junk” status, and call it a day.
×
×
  • Create New...