Bunny Trails: Politics

[Moses]

St. Trump
Now that's a new one! I mean, it does seem like some people feel that way but never knew anyone to come out and say it before!

I suspect you know, but that is a typo. They are allowed here.

Yea, I was just trying to be funny.

[temporal1]

.. whatever googlemaster says ..

Reality belies your assertion that it is Christians who are disadvantaged in this country.

nothing to match your continual obsession with attempting to belittle honest dialogue with rash and often unrelated lib talking points, boosted with copy+pasted google “noise” .. rather than ever just requesting clarification of something you’re not understanding.

no matter. just keep blasting away. using broad brushes, you’re bound to get something right now+then.

[temporal1]

What exactly is the difference between (1) assaulting Floyd, showing reckless disregard for his life, ignoring people who thought he was killing Floyd, ignoring appeals to let Floyd get medical assistance, not letting the EMT try to save Floyd's life and (2) murdering Floyd? That's clearly second degree murder.
How do you measure what Chauvin intended? If he didn't mean to kill Floyd, he had plenty of opportunities to reconsider what he was doing.

Am I correct to understand that you do indeed believe that it was Dereks intention that Floyd would never again arise off that asphalt alive? Am I correct to understand that you do indeed believe that it was Dereks intention that he choke Floyd until life was extinguished from his body that day?

Could you please answer my questions first?

The jury heard the evidence and found him guilty of second degree murder. I think the law is quite reasonable here -

if you assault someone with deadly force and that person dies as a result, can you simply say
“oops, I didn't mean to kill that person when I used deadly force!"

In a word: YES.
In the U.S. it’s done everyday.
Not to mention, “presumed innocent until proven guilty.”
AND, plea deals.
AND, appeals. Some appeals are automatic in the system.

Defense law is lucrative.

Not much slam-dunk in U.S. courts. Not much locking up and throwing away keys.

John Hinckley:

Nowadays, Hinckley lives in an apartment with his 7-year-old cat Theo, who he rescued from the Heritage Humane Society.
After devoting her life to looking after him, his mother, Jo Ann Hinckley, died in 2021 at the age of 95, and Hinckley no longer lives in the home he shared with her in Kingsmill.
May 12, 2023

[Szdfan]

Am I correct to understand that you do indeed believe that it was Dereks intention that Floyd would never again arise off that asphalt alive? Am I correct to understand that you do indeed believe that it was Dereks intention that he choke Floyd until life was extinguished from his body that day?

Could you please answer my questions first?

The jury heard the evidence and found him guilty of second degree murder. I think the law is quite reasonable here -

if you assault someone with deadly force and that person dies as a result, can you simply say
“oops, I didn't mean to kill that person when I used deadly force!"

In a word: YES.
In the U.S. it’s done everyday.
Not to mention, “presumed innocent until proven guilty.”
AND, plea deals.
AND, appeals. Some appeals are automatic in the system.

Defense law is lucrative.

Not much slam-dunk in U.S. courts. Not much locking up and throwing away keys.

John Hinckley:

Nowadays, Hinckley lives in an apartment with his 7-year-old cat Theo, who he rescued from the Heritage Humane Society.
After devoting her life to looking after him, his mother, Jo Ann Hinckley, died in 2021 at the age of 95, and Hinckley no longer lives in the home he shared with her in Kingsmill.
May 12, 2023

While John Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity, he also spent three decades institutionalized at St. Elizabeths Hospital In Washington, DC. Starting in the 1980s, Hinckley attempted to obtain a less restrictive institutionalization as well as conditional releases, which were denied until the early 2000s. These limited releases required custodial supervision.

It wasn’t until 2016, that a judge ordered Hinckley released with conditions.

So while Hinckley didn’t spend the rest of his life in prison, he also wasn’t set free either and spent the next 30 years at a psychiatric institution. None of this has anything to do plea deals or appeals. Hinckley had a court trial and was found to be insane.

Hinckley was institutionalized for longer than Chauvin is going to spend in prison for the death of George Floyd. Nobody has thrown away the keys here either.

[temporal1]

^^Tou Thao

In a word: YES.
In the U.S. it’s done everyday.
Not to mention, “presumed innocent until proven guilty.”
AND, plea deals.
AND, appeals. Some appeals are automatic in the system.

AND, mistrials.

[Grace]

The Biden administration wants to redo women’s sports by having the Title Ix program include men in women’s sports. So much for fairness for young women in sports. And protecting women, from being exposed to men’s genitalia, in their locker rooms. Are these people crazy or evil? I would say they are booth.

[GaryK]

I'd like to hear people explain the level of proof we should apply to Donald Trump and Joe Biden, in the same way. Fairness and justice start there.

If there's enough evidence to warrant an impeachment hearing or a trial, by all means. Then, over time, we find out what evidence is actually there. If the evidence falls apart, that tells us something. If it is solid, that tells us something else. For both Trump and Biden. Regardless how any of us feels about either of them.

So far, Hunter Biden and Donald Trump have both been charged with serious crimes. There seems to be plenty of evidence to warrant trials, in both cases.

This thread is about Hunter Biden, not Trump.

Does that mean that none of the things I said in my quote apply here in this thread?

Should Hunter Biden and Donald Trump be treated the same way or differently? Why? Should both be subject to trials between now and the election, despite political concerns? (I think they should, FWIW). Should both be considered subject to the rule of law in the same way? Should we treat "innocent until proven guilty" the same way for both of them?

If people are charged with serious crimes and facing trial, is that different from someone who has not been charged with a crime at all? I think it is. And if we talk as though these differences don't matter, I think it makes criminals really, really happy and makes it easier for them to get away with things.

May I ask who is talking as though these differences don't matter? Or is this just another case of you assuming something about someone and assigning motives?

And BTW, what criminals are reading MN and are really, really happy with what they are reading here and how does what they are reading here make it easier to get away with things? I didn't realize MN was that widely read.

[Bootstrap]

May I ask who is talking as though these differences don't matter? Or is this just another case of you assuming something about someone and assigning motives?

Why should I have to make assumptions and assign motives? You can write your own lines. Just answer my questions. Feel free to review things you said in the other thread if that helps you.

[GaryK]

May I ask who is talking as though these differences don't matter? Or is this just another case of you assuming something about someone and assigning motives?

Why should I have to make assumptions and assign motives? You can write your own lines. Just answer my questions. Feel free to review things you said in the other thread if that helps you.

I'm not sure why you should need to make assumptions and assign motives but it seems to happen quite frequently.

[Bootstrap]

I'm not sure why you should need to make assumptions and assign motives but it seems to happen quite frequently.

Actually, I think you are the person who is turning this into a discussion of assumptions and motives. I think that happens over and over again. My questions mentioned neither.

And it seems like an attempt to change the subject from the question I asked. Over and over again. Whether or not that is your intention, there is no way to respond to you without turning it into a discussion of something else entirely. So this is the last time I am responding to this line of questioning.

But I'm happy to discuss the subject, especially the questions I brought to it. Here on MN, people often talk about "fairness" and "justice" and concerns about politics entering into justice and what ways are appropriate to talk about political figures. Do you have a set of standards that you think can be applied the same way to both Hunter Biden and Donald Trump? If so, what are they?

For instance, here's a question for you: Over in a Trump thread, you were concerned that I might think that Trump is guilty before he was convicted of a crime. Personally, I think that nobody should go to trial without strong evidence of a possible crime. I also think defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in our justice system. How do you see that? In this thread, would it be wrong to think that Hunter Biden might be guilty and deserving of a trial?