I mean short of having possibly baby birth defects, I could give 2 shits less if a brother and sister want to fall in love. Consenting adults can do what they want.

^ Interesting conundrum. On the one hand, I tend to support the idea that all adults should have the liberty to have consensual sex with whomever (or plural whomevers) they wish. On the other hand, this is one of those weird situations in which there is both a social and an individual cost associated with certain extreme edge cases.

I have to admit that I do not oppose laws which aim to prevent siblings from creating offspring, for the obvious (and biologically confusing) reasons.


In other news, our President continues to tweet stuff without thinking. Because, you know, having the President publicly call for your death means that your defense attorney has a pretty good case for claiming that it is impossible for you to receive a fair trial, despite the fact that you really do belong at the end of a rope.



Trump tweets that suspect in NYC terrorist attack ‘should get death penalty’

By Travis M. Andrews November 2 at 8:32 AM

https://player.washingtonpost.com/pr...4-705f80164f6e

President Trump waded deeper Thursday into the legal procedures ahead for the suspect in the New York City terrorist attack, saying he wishes he could ship him off to Guantanamo Bay and urging for the death penalty.

The series of tweets, which began shortly after midnight, staked out a White House position well ahead of the courts. It also sharply broke with long-held traditions of senior public officials holding back comments that could appear to undermine the legal process and possibly complicate proceedings.

In an early morning tweet, Trump wrote that he “would love” to send the suspect, Sayfullo Saipov, to the military-run detention site at Guantánamo, but lamented it might take “longer than going through the Federal system.” Trump also repeated his call for Saipov to face capital punishment.

“Would love to send the NYC terrorist to Guantánamo but statistically that process takes much longer than going through the Federal system,” Trump wrote.

“There is also something appropriate about keeping him in the home of the horrible crime he committed,” Trump added moments later. “Should move fast. DEATH PENALTY!”



Hours earlier, Trump expressed outrage at reports that Saipov asked for the Islamic State flag to be hung in the hospital room where he was treated for gunshot wounds during his capture by police after Tuesday’s rampage.

“NYC terrorist was happy as he asked to hang ISIS flag in his hospital room. He killed 8 people, badly injured 12. SHOULD GET DEATH PENALTY!” Trump wrote.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...8ccbb0874c.png
Sayfullo Saipov in his booking photo after a previous arrest in Missouri. (St. Charles County Department of Corrections/Getty Images)


His tweet deviated from an unwritten rule that presidents shouldn’t express themselves on the outcome of pending criminal cases. Public comments that someone is guilty or should be punished in a certain way can and do play into the hands of defense lawyers if and when cases go to trial.

The lawyers for Bowe Bergdahl, who deserted his base in Afghanistan in 2009, argued unsuccessfully that candidate-Trump’s comment that he was a “traitor” would taint any trial. While a military judge said Trump’s comments were “disturbing,” he did not feel it necessary to dismiss the case. Bergdahl ultimately pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing.


Eight people were killed and a dozen injured on Tuesday when Saipov, a 29-year-old Uzbek immigrant, drove a rented truck into people walking and cycling on a New York City bike path, federal authorities claim. Authorities charged Saipov with providing support to a terrorist organization, alleging the Islamic State inspired him to carry out the attack.

“In court papers, federal authorities said that Sayfullo Saipov told the FBI that he began planning his attack a year ago, though he settled on using a truck as a weapon only two months prior,” The Washington Post reported.

The tweet was one of many from Trump since the attack in New York.

After the attack, Trump wrote several tweets calling for tougher vetting processes of immigrants, in particular calling for an end to the State Department program known as the Diversity Visa Lottery. In several of these, he tweeted at the Fox News show “Fox & Friends.”



He also attacked Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who in 1990 introduced the House bill that helped create the visa program, in an open effort to associate Schumer with the attack.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-death-penalty

I'd rather that moron, than Obama.


example:

flashback:

Obama WH lied about the number of documents, and only released 17 documents that painted a vastly different picture than the actual truth on Bin Laden for political purposes.

^^ I wonder why we didn't see the same level of 'outrage' after Las Vegas. 59 People die and 527 wounded by an older white guy certainly ranks up there with 8 people killed by a white guy in a truck. Not a racist thing just pointing out facts.

I guess we've moved on from the Vegas incident...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
If the Vegas shooter was still alive, I'm sure people would be calling for the death penalty just as fervently.

2 things.

(1) Yes, the killer died so no need to call for the death penalty. Is that the end of the dialog?

(2) We, as a society, tend to move on to the next drama.

Just a personal observation...

The other problem with the Vegas shooter is we don't even know why he did it. There is no obvious political, religious, or other extremist motive at play that people can point to in order to drive an agenda. The most likely reason he did it is because he was mentally ill and possibly had a psychotic break but there isn't much hard evidence of that either besides the shooting itself. It's hard to continue the outrage when it becomes some guy who is now dead killing a bunch of people for no apparent reason. It's tragic but there is nothing to focus on.

Something to note perhaps is how quickly people jumped on guns as being an issue and the need to ban them yet is seems no-one wants to address an ideology that calls for gay's to be killed, women to be subjugated and non believers to be converted or killed as a greater danger to western society.

Good points.
Rapidly moving from one outrage to another seems to be the norm.
Cultural ADHD and sensationalism in media and all that.

As far as the Vegas shooting goes, I wish we knew more facts about what happened. Much of the story doesn't add up and eyewitness accounts don't seem to mesh very well with what's being reported.
If you are just speaking to the fact that we didn't immediately pass some feel good laws, then I think that is part of a discussion that has been ongoing for years and all sides seem to locked in a stalemate.
My personal opinions for what to do about "gun violence" is to enforce existing laws (particularly pertaining to straw purchases) and to introduce harsh mandatory sentences for recidivists.
Recidivists account for the vast majority of homicides in our country, by far.
Apart from total confiscation (won't go well for reasons that should be obvious), it's the solution that would most likely have a real impact.
For instance, if you are a felon and you commit any crime with a firearm upon your release, you are now incarcerated for life.
First time offenders get 20 years.
We can make room for them by releasing people who are incarcerated for drug related charges.

Nah, not interested in yet more new laws...

I'm of the opinion the punishment should far outweigh the crime so that it truly becomes a deterrent. In other words, you commit a crime using a gun, too bad but society doesn't need/want you so unfortunately you need to be put to death.

You sexually assault a child, sorry off with your dick and your picture goes in the public records forever. I could almost lump this with a gun offense but I'll be 'forgiving' today.


That would be a win... With my method you don't need the space.

I mean we know why he did it. He went to Vegas to party, do hookers, and snort blow. Instead he had a 3 day God damn country music festival right outside his window. That would cuuse anyone to go crazy.

I find this concept interesting...

While I am also a fan of massively disproportionate response, history has shown us that the deterrent value of criminal punishment is not a factor in the decision-making process of most felons. As an example, the criminal penalties for possession of controlled substances for personal use are relatively severe as compared to the societal harm caused by same, and yet people continue to use buy, sell, and consume all manner of illegal drugs.

The same goes for homicide. Pretty much universally, the punishment for a murder conviction ranges all the way up to execution or life imprisonment, and yet the average homicide rate in the US has not seen a meaningful and lasting decline since the beginning of the 18th century.

I'm less interested in the potential deterrent value of disproportionate response, and more interested in simply separating those individuals who have demonstrated a willingness to commit violent crimes (despite the potential penalties) from life altogether.


Of course, there's a reason that the appeals system exists. Until we reach a Minority Report level of criminal investigation, biases and mistakes will always exist both in the police and in the courts. Is it better to execute one innocent person than to let ten guilty walk free?

Can't speak to the individual states but the Federal laws aren't so harsh, or the actual punishment isn't. Federal laws tend to be harsher if the crime was on an 'offical' i.e. police officer or other law enforcement. Haven't researched enough to see if law enforcement deaths have gone down or not.

Decent reading: Life Sentences in the Federal System

United States Population and Rate of Crime per 100,000 People 1960 - 2016

Re. Appeals: I'm all for appeals even up to the SC if the case warrants it. That's part of our system of due process IMO.

Personally, I think the perception of how harsh our laws are aren't founded in reality. Deal drugs... so what, I'll be out soon. Abuse a child... what of it, I'll plead it down. That said, no law will stop the nut case willing to drive into a crowd or shoot 600 people in a night.

There aren't a lot of violent crimes that end up in the Federal court system. Certainly not your everyday murder / rape / talking-at-the-theater kind of stuff. The vast majority of criminal litigation, especially the "cut his dick off" kind of stuff, happens at the state level. This is why it's OK to punch Nazis* in Tejas, but not in Oregon.

* = actual, literal members of the National Socialist Workers Party, not merely people who you happen to disagree with / are offended by.

On a related note, if you do decide to rape a child in Louisiana, you should probably request human counsel. Dogs aren't especially good litigators.

Or, failing that, at least don't make self-incriminating statements to the police.


The suspect told police ‘give me a lawyer dog.’ The court says he wasn’t asking for a lawyer.
By Tom Jackman November 2 at 5:38 AM


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...df12d53005.png
Warren Demesme seemingly asked for a lawyer while being interviewed by police, but his use of slang negated that request, Louisiana courts say. (Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office)

When a friend says, “I’ll hit you up later dog,” he is stating that he will call again sometime. He is not calling the person a “later dog.”

But that’s not how the courts in Louisiana see it. And when a suspect in an interrogation told detectives to “just give me a lawyer dog,” the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the suspect was, in fact, asking for a “lawyer dog,” and not invoking his constitutional right to counsel. It’s not clear how many lawyer dogs there are in Louisiana, and whether any would have been available to represent the human suspect in this case, other than to give the standard admonition in such circumstances to simply stop talking.

The ruling by Louisiana’s high court could have serious implications for a suspect charged with raping a juvenile, because it will allow his subsequent incriminating statements into evidence at his trial, which is pending. And it clarified that requesting a canine attorney need not cause the police to stop questioning someone.

Warren Demesme, then 22, was being interrogated by New Orleans police in October 2015 after two young girls claimed he had sexually assaulted them. It was the second time he’d been brought in, and he was getting a little frustrated, court records show. He had repeatedly denied the crime. Finally, Demesme told the detectives:

“This is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog ’cause this is not what’s up.” The punctuation, arguably critical to Demesme’s use of the sobriquet “dog,” was provided by the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s office in a brief, and then adopted by Louisiana Associate Supreme Court Justice Scott J. Crichton.

Demesme subsequently made admissions to the crime, prosecutors said, and was charged with aggravated rape and indecent behavior with a juvenile. He is being held in the Orleans Parish jail awaiting trial.



https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...fc3b79192f.png
Louisiana Associate Supreme Court Justice Scott J. Crichton wrote that a suspect asking police to “give me a lawyer dog” was not invoking his right to counsel. (Louisiana Supreme Court)


The public defender for Orleans Parish, Derwyn D. Bunton, took on Demesme’s case and filed a motion to suppress Demesme’s statement. In a court brief, Bunton noted that police are legally bound to stop questioning anyone who asks for a lawyer. “Under increased interrogation pressure,” Bunton wrote, “Mr. Demesme invokes his right to an attorney, stating with emotion and frustration, ‘Just give me a lawyer.'” The police did not stop their questioning, Bunton argued, “when Mr. Demesme unequivocally and unambiguously asserted his right to counsel.”

Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorney Kyle Daly responded in his brief that Demesme’s “reference to a lawyer did not constitute an unambiguous invocation of his right to counsel, because the defendant communicated that whether he actually wanted a lawyer was dependent on the subjective beliefs of the officers.” Daly added, “A reasonable officer under the circumstances would have understood, as [the detectives] did, that the defendant only might be invoking his right to counsel.”

Bunton’s motion to throw out Demesme’s statement was rejected by the trial court and the appeals court, so he took it to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a ruling issued last Friday and first reported by Reason, could have denied the appeal without issuing a written ruling, which it does in most cases. But Justice Crichton decided to write a brief concurrence “to spotlight the very important constitutional issue regarding the invocation of counsel during a law enforcement interview.”

Crichton noted that Louisiana case law has ruled that “if a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal . . . the cessation of questioning is not required.” Crichton then concluded: “In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a ‘lawyer dog’ does not constitute an invocation of counsel that warrants termination of the interview.”

Bunton said, “We’re obviously disappointed we didn’t win,” but declined to discuss the case, or the finer points of punctuation when using the term “dog.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-for-a-lawyer/

when you get pulled over for speeding, what typically happens? a small fine.

when you get a job and collect your first paycheck, what typically happens? a large fine.

^ you can't legislate intelligence!

Actually, in Germany a moving violation is treated pretty severely with a hefty fine and loss of license for the actual owner of the vehicle in certain cases.

Here, we'd say that was way too severe.

Over there it's an effective deterrence for the general populace.

No comment on the "large fine"... but hey, I thought deficits were bad things. It's like we're in an alternate universe.

I forget the origin, but I have heard a theory that for a penalty to have any deterrant effect it has to be sufficiently uncomfortable/inconveniencing, and it needs to happen with enough certainty that one can expect that they WILL be caught and punished. It doesn't matter if the penalty for spitting on the sidewalk is 50 lashes by a cane if you are never likely to be caught and/or punished. If you know someone personally who has been whipped or you have yourself been whipped you will likely avoid spitting on the sidewalk.

Same goes for any law in my opinion.

I found driving in Germany to be an extremely pleasant experience, both in the city and out on the autobahn, mostly because people follow the rules.

I found being a pedestrian in Germany to be extremely odd and a tad unsettling, mostly because people follow the rules.

In particular, pedestrians waiting to cross the street actually wait until the light changes to allow them to cross, and will not cross the street until this happens. This observation was true both in Papenburg (a very small town) and in Bremen (a major city with a commuter rail system).

Maybe we should deport the entire chain migration and families of those convicted of acting on behalf of, or convicted of terrorism. Send the whole lot of them back to the shit hole they came from a few times and see how that works as a deterrent.