This is a very oddly-worded statement. What country is he talking about?? I haven't heard any stories claiming foreign intelligence services were anonymously providing information. Is this preemptive?? I'd pay attention the next few days.....
Yes, he was throwing mentally ill people under the bus. The angry people you describe aren't necessarily mentally ill (and I am unaware of any studies that establishes such things). Blaming gun violence on mentally ill people is something people often do to avoid examining the issues that easy access to firearms represents.
I was talking specifically about this particular person who obtained guns legally even though he was known to be mentally ill and has had violent episodes, including throwing his own daughter around her room and threatening her and her boyfriend with a knife.
If you need Anti Trump lies, just ask CNN. Jim Acosta fasely claimed Trump did not go and meet with the victims and later being forced to recant. Again...
Well then....I've now heard of Jesse Benn exactly one more time than zero. Just out of pure morbid curiosity, is there a single source of news that you do trust?? Because throughout this thread, I'm led to believe that we can't trust: The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, CNN, Reuters, and god knows who else I am forgetting. Are stories sometimes wrong?? Yeah, of course. Most of the time?? No, not really. Journalists are not risking a career they have spent their entire life building by just making up shit about Donald Trump out of thin air. Newspaper editors do not go to print with most of this stuff without multiple sources confirming the same information. There have been stories in the Washington Post lately that have had over 30 bylines with dozens of sources. These people aren't sitting at their desks all day writing fiction. They are working their ass off trying to get people to talk to them and find out what the hell is going on. They get things wrong sometimes, but they sure as hell don't MOST of the time, nor are they trying to do so.
You want to see some evil comments, go to Fox news. Much worse than the one random tweet you've got there insinuating maybe to organize. On fox you'll get straight up death threats against liberals all the time.
Yes, he was throwing mentally ill people under the bus. The angry people you describe aren't necessarily mentally ill (and I am unaware of any studies that establishes such things). Blaming gun violence on mentally ill people is something people often do to avoid examining the issues that easy access to firearms represents. It's a way to say that the problem is that people who get the guns are violent because there is something wrong with them, without ever engaging in true analysis of the causes of gun violence. And of course the CDC can't do any research on this because of NRA lobbying.
As far as accessibility to guns goes, the majority of guns that were used to kill were initially obtained legally. Yes, there's a black market in firearms but those firearms are largely obtained legitimately (per existing gun laws) somewhere and transported to the point of sale.
@BillyYank can answer for himself. It is good, then, that I never claimed that all angry people are mentally ill or that only mentally ill people act violently. In some cases, though, mental illness is the cause of violence, just not as often as some people would like to think. No, there are far too many people with short fuses these days who are ready to hit someone in the head with a hammer because they found onions on their hamburger.
An excellent case which ties in with your second paragraph happened in my city last year. This guy got out of jail one morning, broke into a house, stole some guns, fired a few rounds into the air to get people to call the police, then he crouched down in a drainage ditch and waited. When the police showed up, he sniped them from the ditch, killing one officer--he baited them into his kill zone.
*************
@jjstraka34 Rosenstein was probably trying to draw attention to the fact that you cannot place full trust in any news story where the reporter cites things like "sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the subject". How do we know that the reporter is quoting someone who knows something? What if the reporter is making it up as they go along? If that reporter gives the anonymous person's name to another reporter so that the story can be verified, how long before the anonymous source is no longer anonymous? I have mentioned this before, myself--I ignore any story where the reporter doesn't tell you who is relaying information because no one can verify their anonymous claims.
On the other hand, both the Obama and Trump Administrations hate anonymous sources of leaked information--it has been a bad time to be a whistleblower even though we need more of them.
Sooo, Heheh, Putin offering Comey asylum, comparing him in a way to Snowden, has he put down his box of popcorn or is he just pickin up the pot stirring ladle, neither or both?
"President* Donald Trump will reshape U.S.-Cuba policy in Miami on Friday, reinstituting some travel restrictions and blocking business with Cuba's military."
This guy rilly hates him some Obama.
And he's determined to set the US back to the 1930s or something when he thinks America was great. And another thing, I thought he was all for business all the time, what gives? Doesn't he know JOBS the almighty JOBS will be lost by doing this? That's the only thing he claims to care about, right? Of course "jobs" to Trump is usually code for rich corporations make some more money and maybe some schmucks get a couple bucks, maybe not.
@smeagolheart So does Rubio (concerning Obama) when it comes to restoring Cuban relations. Well, if it ain't worked for 50 yrs, let's just keep doin it.
@smeagolheart So does Rubio (concerning Obama) when it comes to restoring Cuban relations. Well, if it ain't worked for 50 yrs, let's just keep doin it.
At least Rubio complained when it first happened. He didn't seem to mind, just complained and moved on. Trump was still hosting the Apprentice probably could care less one way or the other but since OBAMA did it, it's got to go.
We should be making our relationship with Cuba more normal, not less. Yes, this will upset some voters in the Miami-Dade area, some of whom are the second-generation descendants of people who lost everything to Castro and Batista, but in general the benefits will far outweigh the drawbacks.
We should be making our relationship with Cuba more normal, not less. Yes, this will upset some voters in the Miami-Dade area, some of whom are the second-generation descendants of people who lost everything to Castro and Batista, but in general the benefits will far outweigh the drawbacks.
Actually, many of the people who fled Cuba as exiles initially were Batista supporters, and Batista was an out and out fascist who had sold his countries resources out to US corporations. It's hardly a wonder that someone like Castro came along. Regardless, it is LONG past time we stop letting a small group of voters in one county in Florida wholly dictate US foreign policy because their ancestors were oppressed by Castro. It took a Democratic President to do it, because those are Republican votes.
Also, it is not the least bit surprising, because Trump continues to use the office of the Presidency to do nothing so much as help his businesses. Cuba is not an exception. What is going on in the Oval Office is unprecedented. There has never been a President who has had this kind of staggering amount of conflicts of interests, and why even Republican ethics lawyers are horrified at how a blind eye is being turned to all this:
As is mentioned in the comments to this tweet, Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm to avoid any conflict. Now we have corruption on such a massive and blatant scale it flies under the radar simply BECAUSE it is so brazen. Even the media says "well, that's just Trump". This is unheard of.
Wait....what?? Robert Mueller told you to fire James Comey?? Or is he talking about Rosenstein?? And if that is the case, we already know Rosenstein's memo was not the reason Comey was fired, because Trump admitted it ON NATIONAL TELEVISION!!!
There are reportedly plenty of people telling Trump to restrain himself and not fire Mueller. But that will only work for so long, because, again, this is a 70-year old man child who will do what he wants. Trump is incapable of going 24 hours without a temper tantrum or meltdown, and during one of those fits of rage, he will, again, do something incredibly stupid.
This is what I gather the mood is 24/7 in the Trump White House:
I imagine this is what the Anti Trump coalition will continue to do for the entire administration after being rendered electorally impotent. Invent scandal after scandal out of thin air, not ever proving anything to any reasonable degree but not needing to, because the well is so poisoned with half truths and total fabrications nobody wants to drink from it. Based on his own admissions, Comey deserved to go, 100%. In a politically neutral situation I highly doubt there would be any debate in this matter.
I imagine this is what the Anti Trump coalition will continue to do for the entire administration after being rendered electorally impotent. Invent scandal after scandal out of thin air, not ever proving anything to any reasonable degree but not needing to
The investigation is ongoing to collusion with Russia between the Trump campaign. Now there are other investigations into money laundering, illegal business practices, and obstruction of justice by multiple Trump officials including the president. These results will be presented to Congress who will determine any appropriate action. They will not be presented for the public approval.
And if Trumpists would pay attention and not dismiss anything critical of their dear leader they would clearly see his massive corruption. He's literally charging tax payers to fund his golf vacations while pocketing that money at his own resorts.
He's making millions of dollars with just that scam. Much less the official bribery from foreign governments and corporations at his hotels. Also the self dealing in his policies is evident.
So your right there will be scandal after scandal because this guy is totally corrupt.
, because the well is so poisoned with half truths and total fabrications nobody wants to drink from it.
You must be referring to the misinformation coming from Trump's Twitter feed. He's attempting to tell a story of lies and vindication when the investigation is not finished and still turning up new information.
Based on his own admissions, Comey deserved to go, 100%. In a politically neutral situation I highly doubt there would be any debate in this matter.
Obama did not fire him for investigating Hillary's email server he let him do his job. Presumably he didn't much like it because that investigation, unlike the ones going on now, was actually a witch hunt.
To be fair, Carter's statements were very unusual, and if this sets a precedent, it's actually quite narrow.
If such a case comes up again, the defense can argue that this precedent only applies when the person (1) repeatedly, (2) unambiguously, and (3) directly told the other person to commit suicide while (4) explicitly dismissing calls for help, (5) refusing to provide any assistance before death and (6) later confessing, outside of court, that s/he was responsible for the death.
Carter's texts did all six of these things. If some random yahoo tells somebody online to kill him or herself, that only satisfies criteria 2 and 3. If you tell a friend of yours that suicide might be a good idea, that only satisfies criteria 4 at most.
And if you (1) only said it once, (2) were vague, (3) merely suggested it, (4) responded to calls for help, (5) tried to stop them at the last moment, OR (6) didn't privately admit any wrongdoing, you're missing at least one of the six criteria.
The thing about Carter's texts is just how strongly she argued for suicide so many times over such a long period of time without even sending mixed messages, and that she even gave him directions and clear orders to kill himself.
I do think the maximum 20-year sentence would be excessive. Keeping somebody locked up from age 17 to age 37 would be more cruel than execution. Wiping out college, your first several jobs, and practically any chance at marriage or children would mean there was simply no future left in your life.
To be fair, Carter's statements were very unusual, and if this sets a precedent, it's actually quite narrow.
If such a case comes up again, the defense can argue that this precedent only applies when the person (1) repeatedly, (2) unambiguously, and (3) directly told the other person to commit suicide while (4) explicitly dismissing calls for help, (5) refusing to provide any assistance before death and (6) later confessing, outside of court, that s/he was responsible for the death.
Carter's texts did all six of these things. If some random yahoo tells somebody online to kill him or herself, that only satisfies criteria 2 and 3. If you tell a friend of yours that suicide might be a good idea, that only satisfies criteria 4 at most.
And if you (1) only said it once, (2) were vague, (3) merely suggested it, (4) responded to calls for help, (5) tried to stop them at the last moment, OR (6) didn't privately admit any wrongdoing, you're missing at least one of the six criteria.
The thing about Carter's texts is just how strongly she argued for suicide so many times over such a long period of time without even sending mixed messages, and that she even gave him directions and clear orders to kill himself.
I do think the maximum 20-year sentence would be excessive. Keeping somebody locked up from age 17 to age 37 would be more cruel than execution. Wiping out college, your first several jobs, and practically any chance at marriage or children would mean there was simply no future left in your life.
I just don't see how there is a charge here, much less a conviction. She didn't actually DO anything. We talk about speech all the time here, but if you are going to criminally charge someone for something they said, the bar has to be higher than this, and likely involve some actual action as well that is working in tandem with that speech to cause it to happen. I mean, you can't really ORDER someone to kill themselves. I'm not passing judgement on how good a person she is, but manipulating someone's emotions is not really a "crime", and I don't even know how you get to involuntary manslaughter here.
And this of course goes back to the idea that society itself treats suicide and assisted suicide as a crime, based on nothing by religious texts that say it's a sin. Again, I just don't know how you can force someone to kill themselves. He had to get back in that car and go through with it. I'm not saying what was done wasn't reprehensible, but this does not belong in a court of law. And hey, judging by comments on the internet this morning, I am WAY in the minority on this, but there was really no action here, only words.
And this of course goes back to the idea that society itself treats suicide and assisted suicide as a crime, based on nothing by religious texts that say it's a sin. Again, I just don't know how you can force someone to kill themselves. He had to get back in that car and go through with it. I'm not saying what was done wasn't reprehensible, but this does not belong in a court of law. And hey, judging by comments on the internet this morning, I am WAY in the minority on this, but there was really no action here, only words.
It's not the case that only actions are (or should be) against the law. Imagine that the authorities become aware of someone planning a terrorist attack. The nature of the attack requires no advance preparation (for instance driving a car into a crowd), so there is not the opportunity to wait for tangible actions before arresting them. Does that mean they should be allowed to carry out the intended attack? I don't know US law, but certainly in the UK the answer to that is no - planning such an attack is a criminal offense in itself. However, such an offense is much more difficult to prove than actually committing an attack due to the need to demonstrate a real intent to make the attack as opposed to just 'mouthing off'. The sorts of tests that @semiticgod set out above would be used in this type of case as well.
The law now also recognises that abusive relationships are not confined to physical actions - emotional abuse is also an issue.
Incidentally, Carter's actions were not confined to texts. Her boyfriend got out of the car after setting up the suicide and phoned her. She didn't try and talk him out of it, much less try and get any help. She didn't even just say she couldn't talk or ring off - instead she ordered him to get back in and kill himself. As semiticgod said this case is not setting a huge precedent: there's a really high threshold required to convict and Carter had to work extremely hard to get herself over that threshold.
Again, I just have to ask, how can someone order another person to get back in a car, especially when they are (from what I understand) over 30 minutes away?? What tangible (and legal) effect does her saying or even demanding he get back in the car constitute?? I'm not disputing she told him to continue in the process of killing himself, I'm saying these were words. She wasn't holding a gun to his head, she wasn't even within the general vicinity of where he was. We're entering the realm of what sort of mental hold she had over his psyche, and using it as basis for a criminal prosecution. I don't disagree that she is morally culpable for his death (at least part of it), but I have a serious question as to whether she should be legally culpable for it.
As far as I know, we are talking about conversations, through text or phone calls. If she had been there and made sure he couldn't get out of the car if he had second thoughts, or if she had bought the pipe he was using to siphon fumes into the car, then we are talking about an entirely different ballgame. But even if she said these things 100 times, she still just SAID them. I found this on Reddit, and unless the laws are different, these are the situations where someone is LEGALLY required to stop a suicide, and I don't think any of them apply here:
There are four situations in which a person can be held liable in criminal court for his/her failure to act: 1. Statue imposes a legal duty on the person, 2. status relationship (e.g. parents), 3. one has made a contract (e.g. lifeguards), 4. voluntarily assume responsibility of another.
Other than this, I just don't know. Everything else could easily be construed as her genuine opinion of what he should do, and even if it wasn't, it's impossible to actually prove it WASN'T her opinion in the moment.
In Minnesota, recently, it was actually found to NOT be a crime, specifically:
It would be interesting to get everyone's opinion on this matter. I guess I'm also coming at it from the perspective of someone who absolutely believes that people have a RIGHT to kill themselves if they choose to do so.
As I said before words are important and that's both morally and legally. Criminal offenses can be solely based on words, e.g. Cyber Bullying.
I don't disagree that it would have been necessary to show that Carter had a significant influence over her boyfriend, but I don't think showing that such an influence existed would have been one of the more difficult hurdles to prosecuting the case.
This was one of the MOST blatant examples of police murder that has occurred over the past couple of years. His GF basically streamed the whole thing on Facebook. Cops, in the big picture, are NEVER going to be held accountable for these incidents. Our country and justice system simply will not allow it to happen, not by accident, but by design. Summary execution of black men is, like mass shootings, perfectly acceptable to a great portion of the public. They don't care. You want to know why things are starting to seem on edge and violent?? Try starting with the fact that the people in charge of carrying out the law are not only above it, but pretty much immune to all consequences except in the most egregious of circumstances, like the cop in Oklahoma who systematically raped women while on duty, or the one in SC who was caught on camera planting a taser on the man he just shot (and even he wasn't found guilty by a jury, but is pleading out). Other than that, they can do whatever they want.
Philando Castile had a legal permit to carry his gun. He informed the officer in a polite fashion that he had one on him. This trigger-happy coward cop shot him anyway, in front of his GF and daughter, while he bled out and this nutcase stood there screaming afterwards instead of getting him help. Nevermind the fact that they weren't pulled over for any actual infraction in the first place, other than their skin color. And Castile wasn't even driving, he was a PASSENGER. So goddamn sick of this. The fact is, if you are black, you de facto DO NOT have the same right to carry a gun as a white person does.
Juror 2: An older white female who manages a White Bear Lake gas station that has a contract with police. She said she had never heard of the Castile case. The judge denied an attempt by prosecutors to strike her after it was revealed that she had pro-police posts on her Facebook page. One of those posts was heavily critical of NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who began kneeling during national anthems last year to protest police shootings. She said she had forgotten about the posts.
Juror 3: Middle-aged white male whose wife works for the St. Paul School District, as did Castile — but she did not know him. He lives very close to the where Castile was shot and works “as the number one guy” at a small metal finishing shop. He said his father was a fire chief and he grew up around law enforcement, and also has a nephew who’s a police officer. He said it would be difficult for him to be unbiased. He has permit to carry and said he knew to keep his hands visible during a traffic stop. “That’s what they teach you,” he said./sure dude./
Juror 4: A middle-aged white male who had very little knowledge of the case. He said he owns a gun and called the criminal justice system “a very fair process.”/what kind of person would ever say that?/
Juror 5: A middle-aged white female who works at an assisted-living center and is highly active in church volunteer work. She said she had heard about the shooting at the time it happened, but knew little else. Her husband was carjacked at gunpoint 18 years ago. She said she had a high regard for police./yay she's one of ours! .../
Juror 9: A middle-aged computer support worker, she was not familiar with the Yanez case, and said “I’m thankful we have police officers.”/first thing that comes to mind when a police officer kills someone/ She believes in the right to own a firearm but added “I’m trying to stay away from them right now.”
Juror 10: A middle-aged white male who is retired from preprinting work, he said he followed news about the case off and on. He said he had seen Reynolds’ Facebook video. “She seemed overly calm”/sharp guy. read her like a book./ he said on his juror questionnaire. He owns a handgun and hunts.
Juror 11: A middle-aged white male who owns several shotguns and long rifles to hunt pheasants. A former business manager who now works in construction and remodeling, he said in his questionnaire that the criminal justice system has problems but is “the best in the world.”/who thinks this?/
Juror 12: A middle-aged white male who moved to Minnesota four years ago to get a new start. He said he’s a regular listener to MPR who knew “a lot” about the case. A pipe fitter, he took a permit-to-carry class three months ago. “Keep your hands visible and do not do anything until they tell you want to do” he said of permit to carry education on traffic stop conduct. He believes minor criminal offenses snowball and trap people in the justice system. “It seems like it’s rigged against you,” he said. /because you're bound to get killed otherwise which is completely normal right?/
Juror 2: An older white female who manages a White Bear Lake gas station that has a contract with police. She said she had never heard of the Castile case. The judge denied an attempt by prosecutors to strike her after it was revealed that she had pro-police posts on her Facebook page. One of those posts was heavily critical of NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who began kneeling during national anthems last year to protest police shootings. She said she had forgotten about the posts.
Juror 3: Middle-aged white male whose wife works for the St. Paul School District, as did Castile — but she did not know him. He lives very close to the where Castile was shot and works “as the number one guy” at a small metal finishing shop. He said his father was a fire chief and he grew up around law enforcement, and also has a nephew who’s a police officer. He said it would be difficult for him to be unbiased. He has permit to carry and said he knew to keep his hands visible during a traffic stop. “That’s what they teach you,” he said./sure dude./
Juror 4: A middle-aged white male who had very little knowledge of the case. He said he owns a gun and called the criminal justice system “a very fair process.”/what kind of person would ever say that?/
Juror 5: A middle-aged white female who works at an assisted-living center and is highly active in church volunteer work. She said she had heard about the shooting at the time it happened, but knew little else. Her husband was carjacked at gunpoint 18 years ago. She said she had a high regard for police./yay she's one of ours! .../
Juror 9: A middle-aged computer support worker, she was not familiar with the Yanez case, and said “I’m thankful we have police officers.”/first thing that comes to mind when a police officer kills someone/ She believes in the right to own a firearm but added “I’m trying to stay away from them right now.”
Juror 10: A middle-aged white male who is retired from preprinting work, he said he followed news about the case off and on. He said he had seen Reynolds’ Facebook video. “She seemed overly calm”/sharp guy. read her like a book./ he said on his juror questionnaire. He owns a handgun and hunts.
Juror 11: A middle-aged white male who owns several shotguns and long rifles to hunt pheasants. A former business manager who now works in construction and remodeling, he said in his questionnaire that the criminal justice system has problems but is “the best in the world.”/who thinks this?/
Juror 12: A middle-aged white male who moved to Minnesota four years ago to get a new start. He said he’s a regular listener to MPR who knew “a lot” about the case. A pipe fitter, he took a permit-to-carry class three months ago. “Keep your hands visible and do not do anything until they tell you want to do” he said of permit to carry education on traffic stop conduct. He believes minor criminal offenses snowball and trap people in the justice system. “It seems like it’s rigged against you,” he said. /because you're bound to get killed otherwise which is completely normal right?/
Well, in comparison, this makes the OJ jury look like a paragon of objectiveness. Minnesota is where I grew up (though not in the Twin Cities). I love the State, I especially love Minneapolis/St. Paul, but my guess is this jury was pulled mostly from upper middle-class suburbs. This is just shameful. Philando Castile was a school cafeteria worker, who not only memorized the names of all 500 of his students, but their food allergies as well. And again, they were pulled over for this age old excuse:
A St. Anthony police officer patrolling Larpenteur Avenue radioed to a nearby squad that he planned to pull over the car and check the IDs of the driver and passenger, saying, "The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery.
Bullshit. This is what they ALWAYS say. I am as white as they come, and no less than 3 times in the last 10 years, when in my OWN car looking for something late at night (actually one time I was moving) a cop pulled up and asked what I was doing, and their excuse, without fail, all three times was "we've had alot of robberies lately". Mind you, this was in 3 SEPARATE cities. Imagine how often this happens to black people. Oh wait, we don't have to. Castile was pulled over 52 times for MINOR traffic violations in the years prior. Show me any 10 white people who can match that number for what we know is nothing more than an excuse to harass African-Americans.
We constantly hear (almost exclusively on the right) that this wouldn't happen if African-Americans didn't break the law and listened to officers. Well, Castile got his permit legally, he knew exactly what he was required to legally tell the officer about his gun. And it did not save him. By the way, where the hell was the NRA on this case?? You'd think they might be upset if a person with a legal conceal and carry permit was shot down in his car. At least, you'd think that if you didn't know anything about what the NRA actually is.....
Juror 2: An older white female who manages a White Bear Lake gas station that has a contract with police. She said she had never heard of the Castile case. The judge denied an attempt by prosecutors to strike her after it was revealed that she had pro-police posts on her Facebook page. One of those posts was heavily critical of NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who began kneeling during national anthems last year to protest police shootings. She said she had forgotten about the posts.
Juror 3: Middle-aged white male whose wife works for the St. Paul School District, as did Castile — but she did not know him. He lives very close to the where Castile was shot and works “as the number one guy” at a small metal finishing shop. He said his father was a fire chief and he grew up around law enforcement, and also has a nephew who’s a police officer. He said it would be difficult for him to be unbiased. He has permit to carry and said he knew to keep his hands visible during a traffic stop. “That’s what they teach you,” he said./sure dude./
Juror 4: A middle-aged white male who had very little knowledge of the case. He said he owns a gun and called the criminal justice system “a very fair process.”/what kind of person would ever say that?/
Juror 5: A middle-aged white female who works at an assisted-living center and is highly active in church volunteer work. She said she had heard about the shooting at the time it happened, but knew little else. Her husband was carjacked at gunpoint 18 years ago. She said she had a high regard for police./yay she's one of ours! .../
Juror 9: A middle-aged computer support worker, she was not familiar with the Yanez case, and said “I’m thankful we have police officers.”/first thing that comes to mind when a police officer kills someone/ She believes in the right to own a firearm but added “I’m trying to stay away from them right now.”
Juror 10: A middle-aged white male who is retired from preprinting work, he said he followed news about the case off and on. He said he had seen Reynolds’ Facebook video. “She seemed overly calm”/sharp guy. read her like a book./ he said on his juror questionnaire. He owns a handgun and hunts.
Juror 11: A middle-aged white male who owns several shotguns and long rifles to hunt pheasants. A former business manager who now works in construction and remodeling, he said in his questionnaire that the criminal justice system has problems but is “the best in the world.”/who thinks this?/
Juror 12: A middle-aged white male who moved to Minnesota four years ago to get a new start. He said he’s a regular listener to MPR who knew “a lot” about the case. A pipe fitter, he took a permit-to-carry class three months ago. “Keep your hands visible and do not do anything until they tell you want to do” he said of permit to carry education on traffic stop conduct. He believes minor criminal offenses snowball and trap people in the justice system. “It seems like it’s rigged against you,” he said. /because you're bound to get killed otherwise which is completely normal right?/
Was this prosecuter on drugs? How the Hell did these people get on the jury? Sounds like prosecutorial incompetence to me. Either that or the judge is a real piece of work...
Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, hired a lawyer to protect himself from the Russia investigation.
And Vice President Pence hired a lawyer to protect himself from the Russia investigation.
Trump accidentally? confirmed in an angry tweetstorm that he is under investigation for obstruction of justice because of how he fired Comey.
Finally, Richard Burt, a former American ambassador to Germany who lobbies for Russian interests told The Guardian on Thursday that he attended two dinners hosted by Sessions.
Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, hired a lawyer to protect himself from the Russia investigation.
And Vice President Pence hired a lawyer to protect himself from the Russia investigation.
Trump accidentally? confirmed in an angry tweetstorm that he is under investigation for obstruction of justice because of how he fired Comey.
Finally, Richard Burt, a former American ambassador to Germany who lobbies for Russian interests told The Guardian on Thursday that he attended two dinners hosted by Sessions.
Have the lawyers in charge of investigating the Russian connection hired lawyers to protect themselves from the Russian investigation? Just wondering...
Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, hired a lawyer to protect himself from the Russia investigation.
And Vice President Pence hired a lawyer to protect himself from the Russia investigation.
Trump accidentally? confirmed in an angry tweetstorm that he is under investigation for obstruction of justice because of how he fired Comey.
Finally, Richard Burt, a former American ambassador to Germany who lobbies for Russian interests told The Guardian on Thursday that he attended two dinners hosted by Sessions.
I think this is fine. Just because you are lawyering up, doesn't mean you are guilty, just means you have someone watching your back in case you are made a goat.
On the suicide talk, there was this incident here. Who was found guilty. This guy was an ex-nurse pretending to still practise and giving people advice on the "best way" to kill yourself instead of the practice of "do no harm."
Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, hired a lawyer to protect himself from the Russia investigation.
And Vice President Pence hired a lawyer to protect himself from the Russia investigation.
Trump accidentally? confirmed in an angry tweetstorm that he is under investigation for obstruction of justice because of how he fired Comey.
Finally, Richard Burt, a former American ambassador to Germany who lobbies for Russian interests told The Guardian on Thursday that he attended two dinners hosted by Sessions.
Have the lawyers in charge of investigating the Russian connection hired lawyers to protect themselves from the Russian investigation? Just wondering...
Anyone has to admit that there is a hell of alot of people lawyering up for something that supposedly doesn't have a there there.
Comments
This is a very oddly-worded statement. What country is he talking about?? I haven't heard any stories claiming foreign intelligence services were anonymously providing information. Is this preemptive?? I'd pay attention the next few days.....
I won't include their curse words towards the victim because its against the rules.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JesseBenn/status/875049629167079425
If you need Anti Trump lies, just ask CNN. Jim Acosta fasely claimed Trump did not go and meet with the victims and later being forced to recant. Again...
Nationalism inspires some really vicious ideas.
An excellent case which ties in with your second paragraph happened in my city last year. This guy got out of jail one morning, broke into a house, stole some guns, fired a few rounds into the air to get people to call the police, then he crouched down in a drainage ditch and waited. When the police showed up, he sniped them from the ditch, killing one officer--he baited them into his kill zone.
*************
@jjstraka34 Rosenstein was probably trying to draw attention to the fact that you cannot place full trust in any news story where the reporter cites things like "sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the subject". How do we know that the reporter is quoting someone who knows something? What if the reporter is making it up as they go along? If that reporter gives the anonymous person's name to another reporter so that the story can be verified, how long before the anonymous source is no longer anonymous? I have mentioned this before, myself--I ignore any story where the reporter doesn't tell you who is relaying information because no one can verify their anonymous claims.
On the other hand, both the Obama and Trump Administrations hate anonymous sources of leaked information--it has been a bad time to be a whistleblower even though we need more of them.
This guy rilly hates him some Obama.
And he's determined to set the US back to the 1930s or something when he thinks America was great. And another thing, I thought he was all for business all the time, what gives? Doesn't he know JOBS the almighty JOBS will be lost by doing this? That's the only thing he claims to care about, right? Of course "jobs" to Trump is usually code for rich corporations make some more money and maybe some schmucks get a couple bucks, maybe not.
Also, it is not the least bit surprising, because Trump continues to use the office of the Presidency to do nothing so much as help his businesses. Cuba is not an exception. What is going on in the Oval Office is unprecedented. There has never been a President who has had this kind of staggering amount of conflicts of interests, and why even Republican ethics lawyers are horrified at how a blind eye is being turned to all this:
As is mentioned in the comments to this tweet, Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm to avoid any conflict. Now we have corruption on such a massive and blatant scale it flies under the radar simply BECAUSE it is so brazen. Even the media says "well, that's just Trump". This is unheard of.
Wait....what?? Robert Mueller told you to fire James Comey?? Or is he talking about Rosenstein?? And if that is the case, we already know Rosenstein's memo was not the reason Comey was fired, because Trump admitted it ON NATIONAL TELEVISION!!!
There are reportedly plenty of people telling Trump to restrain himself and not fire Mueller. But that will only work for so long, because, again, this is a 70-year old man child who will do what he wants. Trump is incapable of going 24 hours without a temper tantrum or meltdown, and during one of those fits of rage, he will, again, do something incredibly stupid.
This is what I gather the mood is 24/7 in the Trump White House:
And if Trumpists would pay attention and not dismiss anything critical of their dear leader they would clearly see his massive corruption. He's literally charging tax payers to fund his golf vacations while pocketing that money at his own resorts.
He's making millions of dollars with just that scam. Much less the official bribery from foreign governments and corporations at his hotels. Also the self dealing in his policies is evident.
So your right there will be scandal after scandal because this guy is totally corrupt. You must be referring to the misinformation coming from Trump's Twitter feed. He's attempting to tell a story of lies and vindication when the investigation is not finished and still turning up new information. Obama did not fire him for investigating Hillary's email server he let him do his job. Presumably he didn't much like it because that investigation, unlike the ones going on now, was actually a witch hunt.
This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I think this sets a hell of a dangerous precedent.
If such a case comes up again, the defense can argue that this precedent only applies when the person (1) repeatedly, (2) unambiguously, and (3) directly told the other person to commit suicide while (4) explicitly dismissing calls for help, (5) refusing to provide any assistance before death and (6) later confessing, outside of court, that s/he was responsible for the death.
Carter's texts did all six of these things. If some random yahoo tells somebody online to kill him or herself, that only satisfies criteria 2 and 3. If you tell a friend of yours that suicide might be a good idea, that only satisfies criteria 4 at most.
And if you (1) only said it once, (2) were vague, (3) merely suggested it, (4) responded to calls for help, (5) tried to stop them at the last moment, OR (6) didn't privately admit any wrongdoing, you're missing at least one of the six criteria.
The thing about Carter's texts is just how strongly she argued for suicide so many times over such a long period of time without even sending mixed messages, and that she even gave him directions and clear orders to kill himself.
I do think the maximum 20-year sentence would be excessive. Keeping somebody locked up from age 17 to age 37 would be more cruel than execution. Wiping out college, your first several jobs, and practically any chance at marriage or children would mean there was simply no future left in your life.
And this of course goes back to the idea that society itself treats suicide and assisted suicide as a crime, based on nothing by religious texts that say it's a sin. Again, I just don't know how you can force someone to kill themselves. He had to get back in that car and go through with it. I'm not saying what was done wasn't reprehensible, but this does not belong in a court of law. And hey, judging by comments on the internet this morning, I am WAY in the minority on this, but there was really no action here, only words.
The law now also recognises that abusive relationships are not confined to physical actions - emotional abuse is also an issue.
Incidentally, Carter's actions were not confined to texts. Her boyfriend got out of the car after setting up the suicide and phoned her. She didn't try and talk him out of it, much less try and get any help. She didn't even just say she couldn't talk or ring off - instead she ordered him to get back in and kill himself. As semiticgod said this case is not setting a huge precedent: there's a really high threshold required to convict and Carter had to work extremely hard to get herself over that threshold.
As far as I know, we are talking about conversations, through text or phone calls. If she had been there and made sure he couldn't get out of the car if he had second thoughts, or if she had bought the pipe he was using to siphon fumes into the car, then we are talking about an entirely different ballgame. But even if she said these things 100 times, she still just SAID them. I found this on Reddit, and unless the laws are different, these are the situations where someone is LEGALLY required to stop a suicide, and I don't think any of them apply here:
There are four situations in which a person can be held liable in criminal court for his/her failure to act: 1. Statue imposes a legal duty on the person, 2. status relationship (e.g. parents), 3. one has made a contract (e.g. lifeguards), 4. voluntarily assume responsibility of another.
Other than this, I just don't know. Everything else could easily be construed as her genuine opinion of what he should do, and even if it wasn't, it's impossible to actually prove it WASN'T her opinion in the moment.
In Minnesota, recently, it was actually found to NOT be a crime, specifically:
https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/03/19/encouraging-suicide-isnt-a-crime-minnesota-court-says/
It would be interesting to get everyone's opinion on this matter. I guess I'm also coming at it from the perspective of someone who absolutely believes that people have a RIGHT to kill themselves if they choose to do so.
I don't disagree that it would have been necessary to show that Carter had a significant influence over her boyfriend, but I don't think showing that such an influence existed would have been one of the more difficult hurdles to prosecuting the case.
This was one of the MOST blatant examples of police murder that has occurred over the past couple of years. His GF basically streamed the whole thing on Facebook. Cops, in the big picture, are NEVER going to be held accountable for these incidents. Our country and justice system simply will not allow it to happen, not by accident, but by design. Summary execution of black men is, like mass shootings, perfectly acceptable to a great portion of the public. They don't care. You want to know why things are starting to seem on edge and violent?? Try starting with the fact that the people in charge of carrying out the law are not only above it, but pretty much immune to all consequences except in the most egregious of circumstances, like the cop in Oklahoma who systematically raped women while on duty, or the one in SC who was caught on camera planting a taser on the man he just shot (and even he wasn't found guilty by a jury, but is pleading out). Other than that, they can do whatever they want.
Philando Castile had a legal permit to carry his gun. He informed the officer in a polite fashion that he had one on him. This trigger-happy coward cop shot him anyway, in front of his GF and daughter, while he bled out and this nutcase stood there screaming afterwards instead of getting him help. Nevermind the fact that they weren't pulled over for any actual infraction in the first place, other than their skin color. And Castile wasn't even driving, he was a PASSENGER. So goddamn sick of this. The fact is, if you are black, you de facto DO NOT have the same right to carry a gun as a white person does.
It is impossible to argue with this sentiment.
His mother, whose righteous indignation is more than justified:
Juror 2: An older white female who manages a White Bear Lake gas station that has a contract with police. She said she had never heard of the Castile case. The judge denied an attempt by prosecutors to strike her after it was revealed that she had pro-police posts on her Facebook page. One of those posts was heavily critical of NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who began kneeling during national anthems last year to protest police shootings. She said she had forgotten about the posts.
Juror 3: Middle-aged white male whose wife works for the St. Paul School District, as did Castile — but she did not know him. He lives very close to the where Castile was shot and works “as the number one guy” at a small metal finishing shop. He said his father was a fire chief and he grew up around law enforcement, and also has a nephew who’s a police officer. He said it would be difficult for him to be unbiased. He has permit to carry and said he knew to keep his hands visible during a traffic stop. “That’s what they teach you,” he said. /sure dude./
Juror 4: A middle-aged white male who had very little knowledge of the case. He said he owns a gun and called the criminal justice system “a very fair process.” /what kind of person would ever say that?/
Juror 5: A middle-aged white female who works at an assisted-living center and is highly active in church volunteer work. She said she had heard about the shooting at the time it happened, but knew little else. Her husband was carjacked at gunpoint 18 years ago. She said she had a high regard for police. /yay she's one of ours! .../
Juror 9: A middle-aged computer support worker, she was not familiar with the Yanez case, and said “I’m thankful we have police officers.” /first thing that comes to mind when a police officer kills someone/ She believes in the right to own a firearm but added “I’m trying to stay away from them right now.”
Juror 10: A middle-aged white male who is retired from preprinting work, he said he followed news about the case off and on. He said he had seen Reynolds’ Facebook video. “She seemed overly calm” /sharp guy. read her like a book./ he said on his juror questionnaire. He owns a handgun and hunts.
Juror 11: A middle-aged white male who owns several shotguns and long rifles to hunt pheasants. A former business manager who now works in construction and remodeling, he said in his questionnaire that the criminal justice system has problems but is “the best in the world.” /who thinks this?/
Juror 12: A middle-aged white male who moved to Minnesota four years ago to get a new start. He said he’s a regular listener to MPR who knew “a lot” about the case. A pipe fitter, he took a permit-to-carry class three months ago. “Keep your hands visible and do not do anything until they tell you want to do” he said of permit to carry education on traffic stop conduct. He believes minor criminal offenses snowball and trap people in the justice system. “It seems like it’s rigged against you,” he said. /because you're bound to get killed otherwise which is completely normal right?/
A St. Anthony police officer patrolling Larpenteur Avenue radioed to a nearby squad that he planned to pull over the car and check the IDs of the driver and passenger, saying, "The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery.
Bullshit. This is what they ALWAYS say. I am as white as they come, and no less than 3 times in the last 10 years, when in my OWN car looking for something late at night (actually one time I was moving) a cop pulled up and asked what I was doing, and their excuse, without fail, all three times was "we've had alot of robberies lately". Mind you, this was in 3 SEPARATE cities. Imagine how often this happens to black people. Oh wait, we don't have to. Castile was pulled over 52 times for MINOR traffic violations in the years prior. Show me any 10 white people who can match that number for what we know is nothing more than an excuse to harass African-Americans.
We constantly hear (almost exclusively on the right) that this wouldn't happen if African-Americans didn't break the law and listened to officers. Well, Castile got his permit legally, he knew exactly what he was required to legally tell the officer about his gun. And it did not save him. By the way, where the hell was the NRA on this case?? You'd think they might be upset if a person with a legal conceal and carry permit was shot down in his car. At least, you'd think that if you didn't know anything about what the NRA actually is.....
Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, hired a lawyer to protect himself from the Russia investigation.
And Vice President Pence hired a lawyer to protect himself from the Russia investigation.
Trump accidentally? confirmed in an angry tweetstorm that he is under investigation for obstruction of justice because of how he fired Comey.
Finally, Richard Burt, a former American ambassador to Germany who lobbies for Russian interests told The Guardian on Thursday that he attended two dinners hosted by Sessions.
On the suicide talk, there was this incident here. Who was found guilty. This guy was an ex-nurse pretending to still practise and giving people advice on the "best way" to kill yourself instead of the practice of "do no harm."