In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there are important, interesting or just plain weird things happening out there and a group of people can find these better than one.
I thought I would test with a thread for linking general news articles about "other news" and discussion. Perhaps it goes into the abyss that is page 2 and beyond, but it is worth a try.
Some guidelines:
- Try to find the "clean link", so that links to the news site directly and not a social media site. Avoid "amp-links" (google).
- Write some cliff notes on what it is about, especially if it is a video.
- It's not an excuse to make outlandish claims via proxy or link extremist content.
- If it's an editorial or opinion piece, it is polite to mark it as such.
- Note the language if it is not in English.
- There is no demand that such things be posted here, if you think a piece merits its own thread, then make one.
what were the facts of the case that warranted overriding and shitting on the judicial process in your opinion?
I have no clue you think they would at least tell us what happened in the article. Maybe the protester was beating him with a sign . Democrat Prosecutors and governors **** on the justice system non stop so why not a republican governor
I have no clue you think they would at least tell us what happened in the article. Maybe the protester was beating him with a sign . Democrat Prosecutors and governors **** on the justice system non stop so why not a republican governor
which cases do you think democratic prosecutors and governors had **** on the justice system non stop? plz be specific. keep in mind this most recent Trump case has apparently been brought over 9,000 times against other new york businesses that have falsified business records since 2015. so i wouldn't try and start with that one.
to enlighten you on this case, perry made a bunch of threats about how he wanted to kill some black/minority people and some protestors. he then found an opportunity and drove his truck into a crowd of protestors that were on the street. in the crowd was a retired air force member who was legally carrying a rifle. perry then "feared" at the situation he himself created and shot the air force veteran several times killing him. he was found guilty by a jury of his peers.
which cases do you think democratic prosecutors and governors had **** on the justice system non stop? plz be specific. keep in mind this most recent Trump case has apparently been brought over 9,000 times against other new york businesses that have falsified business records since 2015. so i wouldn't try and start with that one.
to enlighten you on this case, perry made a bunch of threats about how he wanted to kill some black/minority pe
The fact that they refuse to prosecute people that break the law ? California, New York, People illegally crossing the border
That could be but put the facts in the article. From what Slighted says sounds like he is guilty as charged
what were the facts of the case that warranted overriding and shitting on the judicial process in your opinion?
.
isnt literally any pardon exactly about over riding the judicial process?
do you frame all pardons like that?
can an article describing pardoning as "overruling the jury’s verdict" be anything but trash?
the Texas parole board recommended the pardon btw (which is a requirement in Texas to give pardons).
the fact of the case is that republicans like the widest possible interpretation of stand your ground laws. democrats hate that.
the guy was prosecuted by a democrat DA in a democrat city so he got convincted under the democrat interpretation of the law.
the governor and the board representing the higher and superior opinion of the state of Texas said no, we decide how it gets interpreted, he walks free.
and what democrats AG are now trying is "let's try to find a way to federally prosecute him even if it's blatantly a state issue because he got away with this", which ofc you have nothing to say about
isnt literally any pardon exactly about over riding the judicial process?
do you frame all pardons like that?
can an article describing pardoning as "overruling the jury’s verdict" be anything but trash?
the Texas parole board recommended the pardon btw (which is a requirement in Texas to give pardons).
the fact of the case is that republicans like the widest possible interpretation of stand your ground laws. democrats hate that.
the guy was pro
I think it's far more likely that the deciding factor wasn't their strong support for stand your ground laws, but their strong support for men who openly state they are racist and plan to go to a BLM rally and shoot people.
I think women should join the police only if they are willing to use lethal force against lethal threats immediatly, and even in that case they should be selected for big bodies and stuff like that because especially if rule of engament are such that shooting is very last resort, you need to be able to tackle big men regularly
https://x.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1796...
This video is from Germany where something very ****ed up just happened, just watch the video
isnt literally any pardon exactly about over riding the judicial process?
do you frame all pardons like that?
can an article describing pardoning as "overruling the jury’s verdict" be anything but trash?
the Texas parole board recommended the pardon btw (which is a requirement in Texas to give pardons).
the fact of the case is that republicans like the widest possible interpretation of stand your ground laws. democrats hate that.
the guy was pro
And when in other cases it will be a Republican AD u will say well his a RINO so it doesn’t count .
The fact of the master is the only DA u would trust is if he was a maga and obv maga showed laws should apply to trump .
In effect u will never have full confidence in the judicial system .
The U.S. is China just because u don’t like a verdict ?
And in the end , let’s say you are right ?
Then why trump did it if the risk was so high ?
This conviction is just long trail of illicite action by its corporations., lawyers , associates , and even himself in other cases shrug .
Now if u plead every president should be above the law then it’s another matter .
And when in other cases it will be a Republican AD u will say well his a RINO so it doesn’t count .
The fact of the master is the only DA u would trust is if he was a maga and obv maga showed laws should apply to trump .
In effect u will never have full confidence in the judicial system .
The U.S. is China just because u don’t like a verdict ?
And in the end , let’s say you are right ?
Then why trump did it if the risk was so high ?
This conv
I don't have faith in elected officials of parties I dislike, like you don't. J don't even trust much those in parties that align a little more with my preferences.
You are in a country where prosecution isn't as political as in the USA (most countries aren't like the USA in this regard).
Anyway the prosecution acted legally, and the jury convicted.And the governor and the board pardoned.
All went according to the rule of law: the people claiming foul play are the other side lol because a racist guy walked free after assassinating a leftist in cold blood.
You should reread the thing
I think women should join the police only if they are willing to use lethal force against lethal threats immediatly, and even in that case they should be selected for big bodies and stuff like that because especially if rule of engament are such that shooting is very last resort, you need to be able to tackle big men regularly
https://x.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1796...
This video is from Germany where something very ****ed up jus
i think about a 3rd of uk police are women. Neither the men or women use lethal force (with very rare excepetiona)
i think about a 3rd of uk police are women. Neither the men or women use lethal force (with very rare excepetiona)
What are the rule of engagement for a situation like that in the video, in the UK?
we have a lot of women cops in Italy but they assignments aren't those where physical scuffles are expected
From the perspective of LAW ENFORCEMENT... Force, without the possible element of lethality, isn't effectual or even 'forceful'.
Texas' Republican governor pardoned a man convicted of killing an antiracist protester
overruling the jury’s verdict and backing Perry’s claim that Texas’
“stand your ground” self-defense laws should have shielded him
Yeah, that’s pretty insane. If you’re going to overturn a murder conviction in which the perp is politically on your side and the victim an opponent you really have a high burden to overcome.
Yeah, that’s pretty insane. If you’re going to overturn a murder conviction in which the perp is politically on your side and the victim an opponent you really have a high burden to overcome.
It's appalling that anyone in any position of power would consider themselves on the side of someone who admitted he was a racist who openly planned to kill protestors. This guy should have been locked up even before he did it.
It's appalling that anyone in any position of power would consider themselves on the side of someone who admitted he was a racist who openly planned to kill protestors. This guy should have been locked up even before he did it.
Go to Texas and vote a different governor.
Or accept democratic outcomes
Huh? Did I say I didn't accept the election? I just said that I was appalled that someone who sympathizes with racist murderers was governor. I didn't even say that he shouldn't be governor.
But I guess I now understand how MAGA people claim that democrats were just as bad about claiming an election result was invalid. I guess, like you, think someone saying they are appalled that a particular person was elected is the same as saying you didn't accept a democratic outcome.
I had thought you were smarter than that though.
It's appalling that anyone in any position of power would consider themselves on the side of someone who admitted he was a racist who openly planned to kill protestors. This guy should have been locked up even before he did it.
The law itself is so so stupid how Abbott is interpreting it. Like if the murder victim hadn’t died and started shooting back clearly that would have been legal as well. If the law allows 2 private citizens to get into a Wild West shootout on a public street with neither side comitting a crime, it’s probably time to look closely at rewriting the laws.
If the law allows 2 private citizens to get into a Wild West shootout on a public street with neither side comitting a crime, it’s probably time to look closely at rewriting the laws.
If you can't prove that quintic equations have no automatic way to solve them then you have no right to an opinion.
The law itself is so so stupid how Abbott is interpreting it. Like if the murder victim hadn’t died and started shooting back clearly that would have been legal as well. If the law allows 2 private citizens to get into a Wild West shootout on a public street with neither side comitting a crime, it’s probably time to look closely at rewriting the laws.
yeah it's so obviously this. i've said this a bunch but as a country we are so ****ed with this 2A absolutism ****. it's impossible to reconcile the ideas that everyone gets to carry firearms all the time wherever and however they want, AND everyone(particularly cops) can shoot you for carrying a firearm.
the politicians dont care to reconcile it anyway, they were too busy taking all the russian NRA money before the faucet turned off, and now they cant go back on it even when the money from russia has dried up.
yeah it's so obviously this. i've said this a bunch but as a country we are so ****ed with this 2A absolutism ****. it's impossible to reconcile the ideas that everyone gets to carry firearms all the time wherever and however they want, AND everyone(particularly cops) can shoot you for carrying a firearm.
the politicians dont care to reconcile it anyway, they were too busy taking all the russian NRA money before the faucet turned off, and
Russian money is definitely responsible for American gun culture.
yeah it's so obviously this. i've said this a bunch but as a country we are so ****ed with this 2A absolutism ****. it's impossible to reconcile the ideas that everyone gets to carry firearms all the time wherever and however they want, AND everyone(particularly cops) can shoot you for carrying a firearm.
the politicians dont care to reconcile it anyway, they were too busy taking all the russian NRA money before the faucet turned off, and
Meanwhile, in big blue cities there is literal shootouts where people die, where not a single person is legally armed, and no one is charged with anything. Having strict firearm laws and then never enforcing them, even against repeat offenders, doesn't seem ideal either.
https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shooting...
Chicago violence: Prosecutors reject charges in deadly gang-related Austin shooting
Charging dead people with gun crimes seems like a waste of resources.
Meanwhile, in big blue cities there is literal shootouts where people die, where not a single person is legally armed, and no one is charged with anything. Having strict firearm laws and then never enforcing them, even against repeat offenders, doesn't seem ideal either.
https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shooting...
Chicago violence: Prosecutors reject charges in deadly gang-related Austin shooting
I think that, as long as no bystanders are injured, letting violent gang members kill each other off is pretty much an ideal solution. I'd be tempted to offer them better weaponry to kill each other more quickly and efficiently.
