Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Fri May 03, 2013 7:29 am

For me, and it's probably because I'm "close" to the case I mentioned in particular, There was no need to wait 15 years. Nothing changed. And, really, who honestly thought it was going to change. His defense strategy was to maintain that he did intend harm, but that death was not his intention. The case was a slam dunk from the time it hit the courts. At that point, he was bargaining merely to save his life, nothing more, nothing less.

The obvious response to his "I didn't mean for her to die" would be to question what he thought the outcome of his actions would ultimately be. And yes, He was severely intoxicated at the time of the crime, rendering his judgement impaired. But really, the question then becomes, how in the hell do you end up so drunk that you can "logically" (in the mind of a drunk person) conclude that you can do this to a 6 month old child, and the outcome would not be death?
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Fri May 03, 2013 1:55 pm

Fridmarr, the law is that you can sell someone a gun as a private citizen as long as you don't have reason to believe it's going to be used in the commission of a crime. If the prosecution can prove that you knew it was being purchased from you for use in criminal activity, you're guilty of aiding and abetting at the very least, all the way up to multiple felony murder counts.

The problem is that it's damned hard to prove. It's pretty much the word of the seller vs the word of the criminal, and there's a bias there to believe that the person on trial for the crime itself would lie about the situation.

And in the wheelman scenario, it depends on the level of involvement they had outside the actual commission of the crime, I'd imagine. For instance, if they were the one who gathered the crew, planned the crime, supplied the equipment etc... then they're more culpable than someone who was just hired on to drive a car. At least, that makes intuitive sense anyway.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri May 03, 2013 4:33 pm

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri May 03, 2013 4:37 pm

Fivelives wrote:Fridmarr, the law is that you can sell someone a gun as a private citizen as long as you don't have reason to believe it's going to be used in the commission of a crime. If the prosecution can prove that you knew it was being purchased from you for use in criminal activity, you're guilty of aiding and abetting at the very least, all the way up to multiple felony murder counts.

The problem is that it's damned hard to prove. It's pretty much the word of the seller vs the word of the criminal, and there's a bias there to believe that the person on trial for the crime itself would lie about the situation.

And in the wheelman scenario, it depends on the level of involvement they had outside the actual commission of the crime, I'd imagine. For instance, if they were the one who gathered the crew, planned the crime, supplied the equipment etc... then they're more culpable than someone who was just hired on to drive a car. At least, that makes intuitive sense anyway.


Fivelives wrote:Or felony murder. If you sell someone a gun and they use that gun to kill a couple of people in cold blood, under the law you're guilty of felony murder. That can carry the death penalty, as far as I know?
While there is some truth to your comments, the general crux is incorrect.

First, selling a gun is generally legal. Selling a gun to someone who you know is going to murder someone is not, so that changes your comment. That said, I'm pretty sure that it still wouldn't qualify for felony murder. Generally for felony murder, people have to be killed while you are committing the felony. I guess I can imagine a few scenarios where that could happen, but by and large that seems rather rare. Aiding and abetting...sure, but that's not felony murder and not punishable by death.

That brings me to my second point. I wasn't suggesting that a wheelman isn't guilty of felony murder. He obviously is, but I was getting at the fact that felony murder has punishment limits. You can't be executed for being a wheelman, even if found guilty of felony murder (ironically the supreme court took on that exact case ) unless you manage to kill someone (like run someone over) while doing it. In other words, even felony murder is not punishable by death if you didn't kill anyone...more or less.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri May 03, 2013 7:52 pm

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby aureon » Fri May 03, 2013 8:32 pm

Klaudandus wrote:http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2013/05/02/even-counting-votes-too-scientific-for-north-carolina/

Is this.. real?
It's not some kind of "SA features The Onion"?
User avatar
aureon
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:41 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fetzie » Sat May 04, 2013 4:00 am

Klaudandus wrote:http://www.salon.com/2013/05/03/a_march_on_washington_with_loaded_rifles/
Please, do it!
Image


“This will be a non-violent event,” the Facebook group warns, “unless the government chooses to make it violent.”


So...it'll be a bloodbath.
Fetzie | Protection/Holy Paladin | EU-Kazzak
Former Author of the TankSpot Protection Paladin Guide
Image
Sagara wrote:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.

bldavis wrote:we are trying to extend it as long as we can...it just never seems to last very long
User avatar
Fetzie
 
Posts: 2031
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:43 am
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sat May 04, 2013 4:50 am

aureon wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2013/05/02/even-counting-votes-too-scientific-for-north-carolina/

Is this.. real?
It's not some kind of "SA features The Onion"?

http://m.newsobserver.com/observer/db_9 ... ue#display
Opponents of the bill shouted “No!” when voting to show their frustration at Republican chairman Bill Rabon’s refusal to count votes with a show of hands. In what was clearly a razor-thin margin, both sides said they would have won if the votes had been counted.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sun May 05, 2013 10:35 am

Israel attacks Syrian targets twice. Russian and Iranian media reporting that Assad will counter strike Israel.

I'm all ok with this as long as Israel doesn't try to drag us into it, as they normally want us to. I mean, fuck you guys...
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue May 07, 2013 4:49 pm

Well, this is a big load of croak. Typical GOP scum: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05 ... other-bill
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Tue May 07, 2013 6:21 pm

Really, allowing people to have another option in their compensation, an option that is totally their choice, is a terribly evil thing? Many gov't employees have had this choice for some time...that darn evil gov't riding the backs of it workers!

Yeah yeah, I know. Motherjones can point out a few cases where this works out well for the employer while ignoring all the times that it doesn't, to suggest that it's all part of the big business conspiracy. I mean it's all about the lowest common denominator anyhow. The people who don't know whether comp time or OT pay is in their best interest or not, should dictate policy for the rest of us. After all it's in our own best interest to be treated like idiots who work for terrible evil companies just waiting to take advantage of our inability to make an intelligent educated choice. We should forego having the ability to choose to protect us from ourselves and our evil bosses. Give me a break.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue May 07, 2013 6:34 pm

Seeing as I am a govt employee, I can say I dont get an option to choose between comp time and overtime, at least not where I work at.

I've been an employee for 10 years now, I could count with one hand the times I've actually been paid overtime. Instead, all I get is "you must take this many days off before months' end" -- which is not really that bad, but it annoys the fuck out of me how the GOP is trying to sell it to people.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Tue May 07, 2013 6:44 pm

You may not, but others do. I've seen it plenty. http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs7.pdf

You post that crap and then rage about the GOP spin on the issue?
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Wed May 08, 2013 3:01 am

I'm not sure what he underlying discussion is, but I'm all for workers having a choice as to whether to get paid for theor OT or get time off for their OT (I'm assuming the last is the comp - compensation?)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed May 08, 2013 8:37 am

High level:
Basically when certain workers work more than 40 hours a week, they get paid overtime.  Overtime is paid at 1.5x their normal hourly rate.  This bill would allow workers to choose between overtime pay and comp time.  Comp time is basically paid hours off work, basically additional vacation.  The bill states that comp time be awarded (at a minimum) at the same rate as overtime pay.  1.5hours per overtime hour worked.
 
It really can be quite handy to have that flexibility, and it's totally a choice.  The worker can take the pay or even if the worker takes the hours and doesn't use them, the worker can cash the hours back in for the pay anyhow.  
 
Labor groups and women's groups have said it's an anti worker pro corporation bill.  The white house has said that if it passes they will veto it. 
 
To biggest complaints are that corporations will pressure employees to take comp time instead of OT pay to save money.  That's a stretch since the employer either has to pay the worker in time equal to the pay (plus potentially manage the absence) or pay the worker the cash if it goes unused.  Either way, the employer owes 1.5 hours of compensation.  Also, pressuring the worker to take the time is prohibited in the bill. 
 
The other complaint, which is garbage, is the notion that the employees don't have the ultimate say as to when they get to use the time.  That's true, requests to use it have to be approved by the company, but then that's also true of ALL vacation.  The employer always has the ability to deny vacation requests.  A business can't remain open if all their employees take vacation on the same day, and so they can deny vacation requests for staffing purposes for instance.  As klaud points out, he's forced to take vacation (use or lose) if he runs a balance that's too high.The rules around this comp time are logically similar.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed May 08, 2013 4:22 pm

Fridmarr wrote:High level:
Basically when certain workers work more than 40 hours a week, they get paid overtime.  Overtime is paid at 1.5x their normal hourly rate.  This bill would allow workers to choose between overtime pay and comp time.  Comp time is basically paid hours off work, basically additional vacation.  The bill states that comp time be awarded (at a minimum) at the same rate as overtime pay.  1.5hours per overtime hour worked.
 
It really can be quite handy to have that flexibility, and it's totally a choice.  The worker can take the pay or even if the worker takes the hours and doesn't use them, the worker can cash the hours back in for the pay anyhow.

Comp time wouldn't do me any good. I'm too busy to take my normally accrued vacation time, much less any additional comp time.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1682
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed May 08, 2013 4:24 pm

Ok...so take the pay. The only change is the additional choice.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Wed May 08, 2013 11:50 pm

If a worker *is* pressured to take the time (instead of the money), what would be his recourse under the new law?

I don't think suing your employer is going to end well if you want to continue working there...
Paxen
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Thu May 09, 2013 1:43 am

How is that anti-worker? In one of the most socialist nations in europe (scandinavian socialism) that has been the norm for... 30 or 40 years - originally driven by the unions, because they didn't want to be "forced" to work overtime (you know, the kind where the person staying moves up, or is kept on when lay offs happen) and didn't want an artificial extension of the workweek (which aroundhere is down to 37 hours, with 6 weeks of paid vacation, and various holidays as well)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu May 09, 2013 6:01 am

Paxen wrote:If a worker *is* pressured to take the time (instead of the money), what would be his recourse under the new law?

I don't think suing your employer is going to end well if you want to continue working there...
The bill is just altering the Fair Labor Standards act, so I'd assume it's similar to any other sort of compensation grievance under that act.

Being fired for filing a grievance opens up another can of worms for the employer though.


Nooska wrote:How is that anti-worker?
Just standard partisan politics here. I think in pretty much every article I've read, the term pro-worker in reference to this bill or the GOP has been in quotes, it's an embarrassment but nothing new.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Thu May 09, 2013 6:43 am

My biggest objection is the removal of recourse through the system, and the need to pursue it in court.

That's incredibly anti worker IMO.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu May 09, 2013 8:25 am

Shoju wrote:My biggest objection is the removal of recourse through the system, and the need to pursue it in court.

That's incredibly anti worker IMO.


Well I disagree that that would make the bill anti worker, but I think it's moot because I don't think the assertion is accurate.  I've seen a few other articles suggest the same thing, but a ton of the articles I've read are blatantly false.  They just reaffirm my years old choice about not reading that crap.
 
I've read the bill, it's actually fairly short and not totally full of legalese so it's not too difficult to read.  I didn't see anything to suggest that the grievance process was changed.  First, it's not clear to me, that such current disputes are currently handled through some system. Well, outside of collective bargaining but that supersedes this too.
 
The only section in the new bill dealing with remedies is simply restating (almost word for word) the text dealing with employers violating the overtime pay provision, but just changing it to refer to the overtime compensatory time provision.  In other words, it basically says all the recourse stuff dealing with overtime pay also deals with overtime comp time, and it states the same liability level.

Is my interpretation inaccurate?
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri May 10, 2013 5:59 am

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri May 10, 2013 7:01 am

Wait... is it actually legal for a state to ban the enforcement of federal law?
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4908
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri May 10, 2013 10:08 am

Yes and no. The legalization of marijuana in Washington and Colorado is an example. State and local law enforcement consider possession (of less than an oz) and use legal and will not arrest you for it. A federal agent however considers it illegal and can arrest you for it.

I think the feds can take the states to court to get their legalization laws thrown out, but it's a grey area.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest