General US Politics Discussion

[CosmicBuffalo]

13 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

1st degree criminal mischief - class B felony, max 25 years

3rd degree arson - class C felony, max 15 years

They definitely committed both of those, but you would gladly see them only charged with criminal trespassing? Do you even expect to be taken seriously? 

I said criminal damage felony to begin with.  But really, that's a stretch when people are burning down buildings.  So I would go with criminal trespass.  I dont know the definition of those crimes, and really dont care if they apply.  These are crimes of passion and holding a misguided ideology.  Which I came here and openly mocked these two, but does that mean I think they should be held without bond or sentenced to jail time...um no.  That's idiotic for the reasons I already stated.

 

 The federal jurisdiction here is so weak....on this theory, any obstruction of law enforcement is also a federal crime. 

 

"The theory in this case is because the New York Police Department receives federal funding, that's a federal interest,"

Edited July 2, 2020 by CosmicBuffalo

[Burbalade]

They indisputably committed crimes with a total max sentence of 40 years and you think they should get no jail time because they were misguided? 

 

If the NYPD vehicles are paid for by the federal government, charging people that destroy them is federal interest. This has nothing to do with obstruction. 

[CosmicBuffalo]

Just now, Burbalade said:

They indisputably committed crimes with a total max sentence of 40 years and you think they should get no jail time because they were misguided? 

 

If the NYPD vehicles are paid for by the federal government, charging people that destroy them is federal interest. This has nothing to do with obstruction. 

Most major police departments receive federal funding in some form or another, and by obstructing law enforcement that receives federal funding, you can now be charged with violating federal law according to this reasoning.  

 

They should not get any jail time.

 

[Raavi]

5 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

It would be considered first degree, which is a class B felony. 

NYS rarely ever charges first degree criminal mischief, and if it does it most often gets plead down to a lesser charge. First degree is also a stretch looking at the actual conduct that occurred. People don't go to prison for 25 years for lightly damaging an already ruined cop car's dashboard.  Let alone 45 years. Well, maybe in China.

 

14 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

They weren't the only ones rioting.

Then find 8 or more other people they were together with whilst throwing the molotov cocktail. Just to slap with a class E felony.

 

22 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

They were inciting people to riot and trying give them molotovs. I've seen no mention of the number of people they incited but if you can say for certain that it did not happen, then I'm guessing you have seen that number?

Correction: The EDNY alleges in their indictment that they were. This assumes there were multiple unlit molotovs found, which I don't remember reading about off the top of my head. In any event, this is but a class A misdemeanour. Not even felony territory.

 

22 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

Class C far exceeds class B?

You first referred to a charge that doesn't even exist under NYS law. But my proposed third degree arson charge actually fits with other recent charges in cop car torching incidents. With the big difference here being there was very little damage.

22 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

At most" obviously implies maximum, so stating anything less than everything that could apply is not the most. It's just your suggestion.

At most implies that it is the highest that would be charged under NYS law. Realistically it would be far lower because the criminal conduct that occurred here is laughably minor.

[Burbalade]

1 minute ago, Raavi said:

NYS rarely ever charges first degree criminal mischief

Probably because it rarely occurs.

 

2 minutes ago, Raavi said:

First degree is also a stretch looking at the actual conduct that occurred. People don't go to prison for 25 years for lightly damaging an already ruined cop car's dashboard.

The amount of damage done is not relevant to a first degree charge. 

 

3 minutes ago, Raavi said:

Then find 8 or more other people they were together with whilst throwing the molotov cocktail. Just to slap with a class E felony.

Don't need to have ten people participating in the same arson to be part of the same riot. 

 

5 minutes ago, Raavi said:

The EDNY alleges in their indictment that they were.

And you allege that they weren't. Who has more credibility here?

 

6 minutes ago, Raavi said:

At most implies that it is the highest that would be charged under NYS law. 

...which it isn't, according to NYS law. 

 

8 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Most major police departments receive federal funding in some form or another, and by obstructing law enforcement that receives federal funding, you can now be charged with violating federal law according to this reasoning.  

Obstructing an officer is not the same as destroying property that a department received assistance to pay for. 

[CosmicBuffalo]

8 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

Obstructing an officer is not the same as destroying property that a department received assistance to pay for. 

So, if federal funding is used to pay for training of said officers or possibly paid for the equipment they are carrying such as body cams.  This is a slippery slope.  Trying to make an example out of these two is stupid and a waste of resources.  I get why they wanted them to remain in jail because there is no way they would plea while out of jail, and then they can file a motion to determine whether this jurisdiction is even lawful.  And hopefully go through the interlocutory appeals to make sure the jurisdiction is lawful.  Which gut feeling, its not.

Edited July 2, 2020 by CosmicBuffalo

[Burbalade]

Obstructing an officer doesn't destroy their training. The cost of a body cam (~$200) is insignificant next to the cost of a patrol car, and likely isn't being intentionally destroyed because of it's value in an attempt to bankrupt or destroy an entire police department. 

[CosmicBuffalo]

Just now, Burbalade said:

Obstructing an officer doesn't destroy their training. The cost of a body cam (~$200) is insignificant next to the cost of a patrol car, and likely isn't being intentionally destroyed because of it's value in an attempt to bankrupt or destroy an entire police department. 

Receiving federal fuding is the phrase they appear to hanging their hat on...not destroying, bankrupting or the value of funding.

[Raavi]

Just now, Burbalade said:

The amount of damage done is not relevant to a first degree charge. 

Not to the statutory definition, but most definitely to the charging decision. If the damage is minor you are not going to charge some ridiculous class A or B felony. Proportionality needs to be taken into account - not to mention the costs.

 

Just now, Burbalade said:

Don't need to have ten people participating in the same arson to be part of the same riot. 

Reality is a bit more complicated than that. It is even more complicated for the male lawyer that was really only aiding his female compatriot by driving her. He did not toss anything or do anything that could be remotely qualified as rioting.

 

Just now, Burbalade said:

And you allege that they weren't. Who has more credibility here?

I don't allege anything I said I cannot remember off the top off my head if there was anything about multiple molotovs being recovered in the indictment. The EDNY's allegation is only as strong as the evidence they have to substantiate it. 

 

Just now, Burbalade said:

...which it isn't, according to NYS law. 

According to your reading of NYS law. And again, more goes into prosecutorial decisions than just statutory definitions.

[Burbalade]

4 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Receiving federal fuding is the phrase they appear to hanging their hat on...not destroying, bankrupting or the value of funding.

If federal funding pays for an officers training and you obstruct said officer, he still has his straining. The department still has what the feds paid for, all is well.

If federal funding pays for a police car and you destroy it, it is gone. The department no longer has what the feds paid for, money has been wasted. 

It's quite easy to hit a car with a molotov and then run or drive away, costing the department $25,000+ per vehicle, plus any equipment destroyed within the vehicle. 

Destroying an active body cam without assaulting or killing the officer wearing it and being immediately arrested or justifiably killed yourself is damn near impossible, and would cost the department roughly $200. This is not a realistic scenario. 

 

13 minutes ago, Raavi said:

Not to the definition

When you're talking about the most that could possibly be charged, the definition of the laws in question is extremely important. The fact that you personally wouldn't bother with the charge is irrelevant to the theoretical maximum. The charge would be entirely fair under the law. 

 

16 minutes ago, Raavi said:

He did not toss anything or do anything that could be remotely qualified as rioting.

I don't recall you putting up this fuss when the man that recorded the Ahmaud Arbery shooting was charged with murder. He was much further removed than the co conspirator and getaway driver in this case. 

 

21 minutes ago, Raavi said:

I don't allege anything

 

Quote

Inciting to riot is another class A misdemeanour and requires inciting again ten or more people. Which did not happen here.

You seem to be entirely sure that it did not happen, even after admitting that you've seen nothing suggesting it didn't, but EDNY said it did. 

 

29 minutes ago, Raavi said:

According to your reading of NYS law.

Correction: According to how NYS law was written

 

Now you're trying to ignore actual laws by passing off their literal definitions as just being my interpretation. 

 

Why is it when Sivi gets more rational, you get less rational? 

[Raavi]

24 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

When you're talking about the most that could possibly be charged, the definition of the laws in question is extremely important. The fact that you personally wouldn't bother with the charge is irrelevant to the theoretical maximum. The charge would be entirely fair under the law. 

If I was concerned with theoretical purely black letter charging decisions, I'd look to publish a paper about it. Even though they don't really happen, even in countries where prosecutors have less than discretion than in the US. This is about realistic, practical charging decisions - and charges carrying sentences for minor damage are simply not realistic. This is not just my personal view, anyone with any kind of background in criminal law will tell you this. There is a whole host of factors that is considered with charging decisions, even more so with high profile cases. 

 

24 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

 

I don't recall you putting up this fuss when the man that recorded the Ahmaud Arbery shooting was charged with murder. He was much further removed than the co conspirator and getaway driver in this case. 

I don't think I ever commented on that case in any kind of detail on here. Especially not as to the guy videotaping it. I'm also not really up to date with the details of the Arbery case but without even reading it he was probably charged with felony murder. Which is a charge I have serious reservations in the best of circumstances.

 

24 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

You seem to be entirely sure that it did not happen, even after admitting that you've seen nothing suggesting it didn't, but EDNY said it did.

Based on the facts that are public it seems like a bit of a reach. In fact I also see no mention of it anymore in the amended indictment nor the press release by the EDNY. So we'll see what remains of that when proceedings start.

 

24 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

Now you're trying to ignore actual laws by passing off their literal definitions as just being my interpretation. 

You are not talking about pure statutory definitions. You are trying to fit these statutory definitions to this fact pattern. Problem with that is twofold: One, you can easily disagree about charges based on a given fact pattern; and two, the black letter law is only a part of a charging decision a lot more factors are weighed to arrive at a charge.

 

24 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

Why is it when Sivi gets more rational, you get less rational? 

Me disagreeing with your stance has no bearing on the rationality of my argument.

[CosmicBuffalo]

1 minute ago, Burbalade said:

If federal funding pays for an officers training and you obstruct said officer, he still has his straining. The department still has what the feds paid for, all is well.

If federal funding pays for a police car and you destroy it, it is gone. The department no longer has what the feds paid for, money has been wasted. 

It's quite easy to hit a car with a molotov and then run or drive away, costing the department $25,000+ per vehicle, plus any equipment destroyed within the vehicle. 

Destroying an active body cam without assaulting or killing the officer wearing it and being immediately arrested or justifiably killed yourself is damn near impossible, and would cost the department roughly $200. This is not a realistic scenario. 

The federal jurisdiction has nothing to do with the value of the property damaged.  The car was barely damaged in this case.  A political prosecution for a $200  body cam could very well happen under this reasoning. 

[Burbalade]

12 minutes ago, Raavi said:

and charges carrying sentences for minor damage are simply not realistic.

The metric you're weighing most heavily on your imagined decision not charge is a metric that is irrelevant to this particular charge. 

 

16 minutes ago, Raavi said:

Based on the facts that are public it seems like a bit of a reach.

We know they were inciting people to riot, we don't have a number, and you think it's a reach to think it might be ten or more? And you don't think you're showing any sort of bias here?

 

18 minutes ago, Raavi said:

You are not talking about pure statutory definitions.

I am, but you're trying every thing in your power to justify ignoring them because you don't want them to fit.

 

18 minutes ago, Raavi said:

Me disagreeing with your stance has no bearing on the rationality of my argument.

I was't calling you irrational for disagreeing with me. Need I point out that Sivi is now disagreeing with me ratioanlly? Are you guys switching roles in some sort of good brit/bad brit routine?

 

20 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

The federal jurisdiction has nothing to do with the value of the property damaged.  The car was barely damaged in this case.  A political prosecution for a $200  body cam could very well happen under this reasoning. 

I'll quote Raavi here. Reality is a bit more complicated than that.

[Raavi]

27 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

The metric you're weighing most heavily on your imagined decision not charge is a metric that is irrelevant to this particular charge. 

You are fundamentally misunderstanding charging decisions. The statuotory definition is not the end all be all of charging decisions. If a certain charge is disproportionate because of any of a whole list of factors. That charge is not filed. Criminal law is not supposed to be a sledgehammer to squash fruit flies.

 

27 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

We know they were inciting people to riot, we don't have a number, and you think it's a reach to think it might be ten or more? And you don't think you're showing any sort of bias here?

We dont though. You would think that with the whole litany of ridiculous federal political charges they got brought up on, incitement would be in there if there is anything solid to suggest it, which it is not. That should be an indication. 

 

27 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

I am, but you're trying every thing in your power to justify ignoring them because you don't want them to fit

I can very likely find a multitude of federal statutes that you at some point probably have violated. That doesnt mean you should be charged with any of them.

 

27 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

TI was't calling you irrational for disagreeing with me. Need I point out that Sivi is now disagreeing with me ratioanlly?

What part of what I am saying is not rational?

 

Also, this discussion really is entirely academic. The real problem here is that they were charged federally in the first place and how ridiculous the charges they have been brought up on are. This purely political. This becomes even more obvious when you look at the third person in all this. Who was arrested in an entirely different incident involving a molotov the same night, an incident in which she threw a molotov into a 4 x occupied NYPD van- yet was brought up on the exact same charges as the two lawyers one of which lightly damaged a dashboard of an already vandalised cruiser. 

[Burbalade]

19 minutes ago, Raavi said:

Criminal law is not supposed to be a sledgehammer to squash fruit flies.

Lawyers throwing molotovs at police cars and inciting other protesters to do the same is hardly a fruit fly. 

 

20 minutes ago, Raavi said:

That should be an indication. 

Or it could just be that they didn't feel the need to stack any more charges.

 

23 minutes ago, Raavi said:

What part of what I am saying is not rational?

Quite a bit of it, actually. Ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your narrative, ignoring charges that fit perfectly because of a metric unimportant to that charge, claiming you shouldn't charge people with some stuff even if there's indisputable proof they did it (Because that wouldn't be fair?), then going on to say that the lack of a charge is proof of no evidence even after evidence has been presented. You give your own stances a tremendous amount of leeway in supporting evidence (sometimes no evidence is more than enough) while giving my stances no leeway. (sometimes to the point that indisputable universally agreed upon evidence - isn't enough?) Refusing to give the slightest bit of ground even when you know you're wrong. It goes on and on. You're holding yourself to a standard so low that I can find supporting evidence for my stances in your posts. You can do better. And if you can't, then you're wasting our time. 

[CosmicBuffalo]

7 hours ago, Burbalade said:

I'll quote Raavi here. Reality is a bit more complicated than that.

This quote does not does make sense in this context as may have when a prosecutor is looking at which statutes might apply.  The facts and backgrounds of both defendants favor what I am saying and not charging them in federal court.  Without doing any reading, I made my first comments, and when you challenged, I read further and concluded this an extreme use of federal power.  Done solely to make an example out of them, yet it will have the opposite effect, and actually proves part of the ideology's point which is that the system is rigged against people.  I hope that the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and that it be taken up in state court as it should have been.

Edited July 2, 2020 by CosmicBuffalo

[sivispacem]

12 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Keep the population difference between our countries in mind when you're thinking of stuff like this. If 23,000 seemed like a lot for DUIs, 20% of the known US homeless population is well over 100,000. 

And what proportion of these have already been to prison before? Given the homelessness rate amongst previously incarcerated people is ten times that of the general public, breaking the cycle of offending and homelessness seems like an eminently sensible thing to do if the aim is to reduce reoffending, depress prison numbers and reduce costs long-term. Assuming the same 20% (and accepting that this figure ignores the literal criminalisation of being homeless through aggressive enforcement of laws around rough sleeping or begging), circa 110,000 is not a particularly large proportion of the 2.3 million people in prison in the US, and I would suggest that policies designed to rehabilitate the 95.2% of prisoners not currently trapped in cyclical homelessness and reoffending of such a severe degree that they're intentionally committing crimes solely to be reincarcerated is probably going to be fairly effective at deflating the number trapped in that cycle long-term. I suspect there are also significant differences in offending rates for the purposes of re-incarceration between sheltered and unsheltered homeless (IE the latter being far more prone to this behaviour) but am having trouble finding many figures.

 

12 hours ago, Burbalade said:

From what I can tell you're far more likely to be jailed for meth, heroin, etc. than weed

What I found interesting when researching this is that quite a large number of states treat misdemeanour drug possession in almost exactly the same way for first offences regardless of the drug in question, but have enormously different penalties for second offenses between hard and soft drugs. Given the high proportion of users of methamphetamines, crack cocaine or heroin who are likely to be trapped in addiction, plus the additional attention given to these sorts of hard drug users (typically over and above other similarly scheduled drugs such as LSD or MDMA/Ecstasy) I would posit the chances of them being rearrested, or whatever treatment measures variable though they are from state to state failing to prevent relapse, means incarceration for simple possession is much likelier for these users (who are also disproportionately of low socioeconomic status and therefore are less able to afford effective council).

 

12 hours ago, Burbalade said:

There's no way to logically reach the author's conclusion from the data or statements that were available to the author.

It would certainly have made a lot more sense if the author had cited directly from the actual report rather than paraphrasing as they seemed to:

• "This report concludes that inmates who completed in-prison cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) programs recidivated at about the same rate as inmates who did not complete the programs" 

So far, so accurate.

However, the author's statements of what apparently needs to change is in fact corroborated by the state auditor's report:

• "...Corrections has not revalidated the accuracy of the tools it uses to assess inmates' rehabilitative needs since recent statutory changes caused a major shift in the State's prison population" 
• " ...Corrections has not ensured that all of its CBT class curricula are evidence based, resulting in a significant portion of inmates that do not receive treatment that has been proven effective in reducing recidivism" (emphasis mine)

The latter comment suggest that the issue is not CBT in general as that is highly effective in reducing recidivism (as per my previous post), but specifically the curricula and service delivery within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

There's more pointing to abject failure within the California department specifically rather than the principles of what's being discussed:

• "...Corrections has neither consistently placed inmates on waiting lists for needed rehabilitation programs nor prioritized those with the highest need correctly"
• "...Corrections is having difficulty fully staffing its rehabilitation programs at all of its prisons"
• "...Corrections has neither developed any performance measures for its rehabilitation programs, such as a target reduction in recidivism, nor assessed program cost-effectiveness"
• "...Corrections has not analyzed whether its rehabilitation programs reduce recidivism"

[Raavi]

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Lawyers throwing molotovs at police cars and inciting other protesters to do the same is hardly a fruit fly. 

It is an analogy for the proportionality issue I referenced earlier. You need to take into account all the facts, all the facets of the case - which here illustrates there was very minor criminal conduct. Which means the responding charge is not to be disproportionate - like you know one with decades in prison.

 

If you want to have some notion of what goes into a charging decision the UK's CPS' full code test and selection of charges bit is a good indication.

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Or it could just be that they didn't feel the need to stack any more charges.

Overcharging is not something the EDNY seems to be at all concerned with in this highly political indictment. So applying Occam's razor it seems more probable they simply did not have the evidence to do it.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Quite a bit of it, actually. Ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your narrative

What evidence? If you refer to the incitement - see the reply above this. If a certain allegation magically doesn't appear in the amended indictment and press release, even in such a highly political prosecution such as this. Chances are it was too weak to pursue.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

ignoring charges that fit perfectly because of a metric unimportant to that charge, 

You're arguing in bad faith and only focussing on singular sentences from my paragraph that have perfectly explained this at this point ad nauseam. The actual damage done is very relevant to any charging decision, you're not going to spend all these resources (read: money) pursuing some high level charge when there has been some light damage to the dashboard of an already damaged car. Viewing charges in the vacuum of black letter law is disingenuous and completely unrealistic.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

even if there's indisputable proof they did it (Because that wouldn't be fair?),

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the reasoning behind stacking charges. There really is no point to going page by page in a penal code and charging a certain kind of criminal conduct with everything from misdemeanour to low level felony that fits - when you already have a perfectly fine mid-level felony to stake your case on. The only reason you stack charges in a case like this would be to scare the defendant into a plea deal. A plea deal I might add that would only include a fraction of the actual charges you bring them up on initially. 

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

You give your own stances a tremendous amount of leeway in supporting evidence (sometimes no evidence is more than enough) while giving my stances no leeway. 

If you stop being disingenuous in your argumentation and accept the basic premise of charging decisions being more than just black letter law we would come a long way.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

(sometimes to the point that indisputable universally agreed upon evidence - isn't enough?) 

What evidence?

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

You're holding yourself to a standard so low that I can find supporting evidence for my stances in your posts. You can do better. And if you can't, then you're wasting our time. 

You are fundamentally and at this point I can only conclude - purposely misunderstanding or ignoring basic tenets of criminal law and procedure that complicate your very one-way reasoning. You are seemingly not at all interested as to the actual prosecutorial practice and realistic outcomes of this case. Then to accuse me of "low standards" is pretty damn rich. I also do not appreciate this devolving into personal attacks.

[Burbalade]

11 hours ago, Raavi said:

It is an analogy for the proportionality issue I referenced earlier.

there was very minor criminal conduct.

If you want to have some notion of what goes into a charging decision the UK's CPS' full code test and selection of charges bit is a good indication.

- I know it was an analogy, just pointing out that it was a poor one.

- Making and throwing molotovs at police vehicles and inciting others to do the same is not minor criminal conduct. 

- You lost your right to apply British policies to American politics 244 years ago. 

 

11 hours ago, Raavi said:

Overcharging is not something the EDNY seems to be at all concerned with in this highly political indictment.

Or their idea of overcharging is not the same as yours. 

 

11 hours ago, Raavi said:

I also do not appreciate this devolving into personal attacks.

What personal attack? You asked a question, I answered it. You knew the answer was not going to be praise. Don't ask someone to hit you then cry when they do. Typical leftist tactics. 

 

If this really is the best you can do, then we're both wasting time here. 

 

[Raavi]

36 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

- I know it was an analogy, just pointing out that it was a poor one.

It is one of many common analogies that are used to point too proportionality in a legal sense. Killing a small bird with a bazooka is another one. 

 

36 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

- Making and throwing molotovs at police vehicles and inciting others to do the same is not minor criminal conduct. 

A singular already ruined police vehicle that suffered minor and contained damage. There was no risk of harm to any person, only property. So yes, minor criminal conduct. It is different in the other case I mentioned where the defendant threw a molotov into an occupied police van (that failed to ignite) and charged with the same exact charges. Which if you had any notion of the law would rub you the wrong way. That is serious criminal conduct with risk of harm to multiple people. Same goes for many of the other things that transpired that night in NY that did not result in any charges.

 

36 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

- You lost your right to apply British policies to American politics 244 years ago.

First of all, I'm not a Brit. Second of all, where do you think your legal system comes from? Hint: it did not come falling out of the sky. The simple fact is that charging decisions include consideration of similar factors across the board. The CPS just happens to have it nicely summed up for general perusal.  

 

36 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

Or their idea of overcharging is not the same as yours

Overcharging is a pretty universally understood concept. I am also far from the only one (even in this very thread!) who takes serious issue with this political prosecution and these ridiculously trumped up (in more ways than one) charges. It even led to dozens of former prosecutors to file an amicus brief to express dismay at their wholly unnecessary pre-trial detention. As well as a whole lot of other outrage from across the legal community. Here just a few links for you:

 

https://theappeal.org/federal-prosecution-nypd-car/

https://medium.com/@leenawiddi/an-open-letter-from-the-fordham-law-community-in-support-of-urooj-rahman-15-and-colinford-mattis-57133d9a16e

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/50-former-prosecutors-write-to-appeals-court-favoring-lawyers-accused-of-throwing-molotov-cocktail-at-police-vehicle-during-protest/2020/06/16/2fa65fd6-b034-11ea-8758-bfd1d045525a_story.html

https://www.fairfieldcitizenonline.com/news/article/Federal-charges-in-NYPD-firebombing-case-called-15360955.php

 

36 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

What personal attack? You asked a question, I answered it. You knew the answer was not going to be praise. Don't ask someone to hit you then cry when they do. Typical leftist tactics. 

Calling me irrational and low standard are pretty clear personal attacks. I'm not going to stoop to such level even if you have given me plenty of ammunition to do so. I'm also not a leftist, but by all means do keep up swings and misses.

[Burbalade]

Good job missing the point, Dwight. 

[Raavi]

Just now, Burbalade said:

Good job missing the point, Dwight. 

So what is in essence going on is that you are arguing from personal dare I say political conviction rather than legal reasoning and now have realised you are in fact out of your depth, but you're too big to admit it. Which is fine.

 

What is telling in this is that both Cosmic and I despite having argued against one another and disagreed almost equally as often, and have diverging political leanings agree here as to A. this not being a fed issue and B. these charges being ridiculously overblown. You would too if you had a background in law to appreciate this situation.

[Burbalade]

14 minutes ago, Raavi said:

So what is in essence going on

is that you're projecting your faults rather than admitting to them. Here's why I'm done with you:

-You ask a question, knowing how I'm going to respond

-I answer your question exactly how you expected

-You accuse me of personally attacking you

-You say you would never use personal attacks

-You use a personal attack in your very next post

Then you rationalize your position by pointing out that the guy that thinks criminal trespass is an appropriate charge for throwing molotovs at police vehicles supports your stance. 

It's something Piers Morgan would do, absolutely pathetic. I've got better things to do than argue with pretend criminal defense lawyers on the internet. 

[CosmicBuffalo]

Imagine being the guy here though, in my mind, he is giving he notice to corporate law job...he had been grinding in corporate america and saved up his money, bought a house out of the city and owned a couple rentals, and he his going to help some people while he works as maybe a prosecutor or public defender somewhere, but he hooks up with this equally lefty but a bit more reckless woman, and he has no idea she is about to throw a Molotov cocktail...he thinks she is throwing a brick or a rock...then next thing he knows she is in his car and he is driving, and what he thought would be at worst, state court misdemeanor charges, is a felony and bogus federal charges.

[Raavi]

The guy really got shafted yeah, came from a disadvantaged background managed to pull himself up and ended up in a mid-tier corporate law firm. Just to give a ride to a friend at the wrong time and now stands to lose it all. 

 

As for the girl, she seems more strongly ideological but that doesnt explain how she ended up with a molotov. In fact she was interviewed on the street an hour or two before the incident sans any kind of molotov or bag to hold any. I do wonder what happened between that street interview and her ending up holding a molotov. Something/ someone must have set her off. 

 

@Burb Merely calling a spade a spade yet you continue to disparage me, and now Cosmos as well for no reason and have yet to refute any argument.

 

Semi-related interesting article: https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/06/20/doj-local-rioting-cases-329735

 

Especially got a kick out of this snippit:

 

"In another case, federal authorities charged a man with possession of a Molotov cocktail, arguing that because he had used an imported bottle of Patron Citronge Pineapple Tequila to make the incendiary device, the case fell under the federal government’s regulation of foreign commerce."

 

Almost beyond parody.

[Burbalade]

36 minutes ago, Raavi said:

Merely calling a spade a spade

Wow. I take it you're not aware of the racial connotations that has in the US, especially in New York?

 

I'm going to assume you were not, in which case the point you're attempting to get across just as accurately represents what I was doing, difference being you asked me to do it. I didn't ask you to. 

[CosmicBuffalo]

8 hours ago, Raavi said:

Semi-related interesting article: https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/06/20/doj-local-rioting-cases-329735

 

Especially got a kick out of this snippit:

 

"In another case, federal authorities charged a man with possession of a Molotov cocktail, arguing that because he had used an imported bottle of Patron Citronge Pineapple Tequila to make the incendiary device, the case fell under the federal government’s regulation of foreign commerce."

 

Almost beyond parody.

Although it kind of proves my whole point for a page and is hilarious, its terrifying...and I genuinely mean that.  This is essentially the death of federalism in the court system if allowed to stand.  I contemplated proposing, whats next?  She used a credit card to buy to the tp or had a cell phone and made a call 2 mins before hurling an inept firework, but truth is stranger than fiction.

Edited July 3, 2020 by CosmicBuffalo

[Raavi]

25 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Although it kind of proves my whole point for a page and is hilarious, its terrifying...and I genuinely mean that.  This is essentially the death of federalism in the court system if allowed to stand.  I contemplated proposing, whats next?  She used a credit card to buy to the tp or had a cell phone and made a call 2 mins before hurling an inept firework, but truth is stranger than fiction.

Couldn't agree more. It's absolutely ridiculous, and if allowed to stand would set an incredibly dangerous precedent. It almost sounds like it comes straight from a Simpsons episode. I really hope that the district and circuit court judges will see this for what it is and act accordingly. There are some hopeful signs this will be the case looking at the detention decisions. The irony of it all though is that is this being helmed by a man who has per the article advocated as recently as February of this year against using the commerce clause for federal overreaches. This stuff really should grab headlines across the media sphere. 

 

@Burb The saying is traced back to the Ancient Greek, that it was once co-opted for less savoury means does not mean it should be banned speak. It also does not invalidate the point. Does the feds grossly overreaching as illustrated in the article not at all concern you?

[CosmicBuffalo]

11 minutes ago, Raavi said:

Couldn't agree more. It's absolutely ridiculous, and if allowed to stand would set an incredibly dangerous precedent. It almost sounds like it comes straight from a Simpsons episode. I really hope that the district and circuit court judges will see this for what it is and act accordingly. There are some hopeful signs this will be the case looking at the detention decisions. The irony of it all though is that is this being helmed by a man who has per the article advocated as recently as February of this year against using the commerce clause for federal overreaches. This stuff really should grab headlines across the media sphere. 

 

@Burb The saying is traced back to the Ancient Greek, that it was once co-opted for less savoury means does not mean it should be banned speak. It also does not invalidate the point. Does the feds grossly overreaching as illustrated in the article not at all concern you?

The political motivation behind it are transparent to anyone who knows anything about the court system.  The feds know most state courts will let off most people with less than a slap on the wrist.  Community service and a fine.  However, currently its for rioters, so some the right will tolerate it, but when its for federal hate speech laws or environmental violations (the limits are endless) and the hook of having the federal government up your tail pipe is using a computer connected to the internet because "commerce clause"...we are all in jeopardy of political prosecution, assuming the powers that be in future will actually change.  Its not hard to see this as an outcome.  This is only one nightmarish scenario that is an inevitable outcome of allowing the feds to essential become nationwide police force.

[Raavi]

Exactly. It's worrisome that people on one side apparently are fine with big government swooping and overstepping states' rights in the pursuit of "Law and order". But when the shoe is on the other foot the Fox News', Breitbarts etc of the world and their audience would be up in arms, and rightly so. There is already a ridiculous amount of federal offences (if you want to have a laugh I'd recommend @CrimeADay on Twitter) and with this expansive reasoning that is being used now basically anything can become federal. Which is insane and the exact opposite of the original intention of the federal system. Equally insane is how aggressively the feds are pursuing pre-trial detention in all these cases. Even for the 21 y/o girl, sans any kind of criminal history that lobbed a rock through the window of a cop car. Which is as close to textbook of a case that self-evidently does not call for PTD.