Back to Conspiratoria

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.

BBCode is ON
[img] is OFF
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Back to Conspiratoria

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#174

by free thoughtpolice » Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:22 pm

John D wrote: Shit.... they drained 2 liters of fluid from the old lady's abdomen this afternoon. CT and MRI scheduled for tomorrow. I went to see her and, of course, it was during the procedure. At least I dropped off a fan and a charger for her tablet. Two liters... shit... that sounds really bad. Damn it.
Best of luck.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#173

by Service Dog » Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:08 pm

free thoughtpolice wrote: As for Prosecutorial misconduct that too is against the law and should be prosecuted if they have violated the law or abused their office for political or personal reasons.
https://media.patriots.win/post/uzTYfepB5WnP.jpeg .
https://media.patriots.win/post/VVdlI0BX2A5E.png

.
https://media.patriots.win/post/jxhUKLiwIs4v.jpeg

.

VIDEO: Antifa Sets Fire To Federal Courthouse,
Not Considered Terrorism By AG Garland
Because It Happened "At Night"

https://nationalfile.com/video-antifa-s ... -at-night/

.
https://media.patriots.win/post/H9Dce4WFGX9X.jpeg .

https://media.patriots.win/post/TAZq8Qf7Wg3C.jpeg





.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#172

by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:47 pm

Bhurzum wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: I was all hot for Red, until I saw Green.
Well, since we're talking fantasy, I'll have 'em both! Red in expensive webbing, green in leather/latex.

https://i.gifer.com/FZgL.gif

Fuck it, I'll also have "Aliens" era Sigourney Weaver stood to the side with a moist cloth to mop my brow and yell encouragement!

Yeehaw!
Think you can last 8 seconds?

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#171

by John D » Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:24 pm

Shit.... they drained 2 liters of fluid from the old lady's abdomen this afternoon. CT and MRI scheduled for tomorrow. I went to see her and, of course, it was during the procedure. At least I dropped off a fan and a charger for her tablet. Two liters... shit... that sounds really bad. Damn it.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#170

by Service Dog » Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:02 pm

John D wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:40 am
a 10 cm mass in her abdomen
Best wishes to you & her, truly.

Also ask the doctors if they can save that mass. It's the closest thing to Steersman's platonic ideal of "a woman". And he pays by the hour!

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#169

by jet_lagg » Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:07 pm

John D wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:40 am
They found a 10 cm mass in her abdomen.
Damn, sorry to hear it man. Fingers crossed.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#168

by free thoughtpolice » Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:03 am

Service Dog wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote: Fair is fair.
If Trump is guilty he should face the consequences.
If Hunter Biden is guilty same thing.
That answer doesn't match the question.

The question was about the 5th Amendment. The inverse of "Trump did wrong" is "The witch hunters against Trump did wrong. it's malicious prosecution".

The only reason to bring Hunter Biden into the question... is if you think Hunter Biden and his associates have been wrongly accused by an overzealous FBI, DOJ, Special Prosecutors, FISA courts, Congressional Hearings & impeachments, & crooked Big Tech news media.


"If Trump is guilty he should face the consequences."

Ok. But if his accusers are guilty, what consequences should they face for year after year of witch hunt & show trial?
What question o you think I was trying to answer?
I think it is possible that Hunter Biden may have done something wrong, such as not paying taxes. If he is found to have broken the law he should face the same consequences as anyone else that breaks the law. Bidens are not above the law and neither should Trumps. That was my point.
As for Prosecutorial misconduct that too is against the law and should be prosecuted if they have violated the law or abused their office for political or personal reasons.
Cops and prosecutors shouldn't be above the law either.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#167

by free thoughtpolice » Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:32 am

Service Dog wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote: their opinion that the earth is flat
No one here believes the Earth is flat, or subscribes to QAnon. This is another 'Conspiratoria' smear, to avoid engaging with the actual substance of our posts.
You mean your posts? I don't remember anyone making the inference that covid vaccines were responsible for the deaths of those Toronto doctors.
Can you read? I never said you believed the earth is flat. I used it as an example of a fact as opposed to an opinion.
As for Qanon. That post doesn't mention you and wasn't directed at you.
If you can't argue intelligently or in good faith I'm not wasting any more time responding to you.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#166

by Bhurzum » Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:34 am

John D wrote: Damn. Took my old lady to the hospital yesterday. <snip>
Shit.

I hope everything works out ok for you, John.

Fingers crossed, mate.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#165

by Bhurzum » Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:31 am

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: I was all hot for Red, until I saw Green.
Well, since we're talking fantasy, I'll have 'em both! Red in expensive webbing, green in leather/latex.

https://i.gifer.com/FZgL.gif

Fuck it, I'll also have "Aliens" era Sigourney Weaver stood to the side with a moist cloth to mop my brow and yell encouragement!

Yeehaw!

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#164

by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:42 am

Bhurzum wrote: More info on the smoke-shop stabbing...

I was all hot for Red, until I saw Green.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#163

by John D » Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:40 am

Damn. Took my old lady to the hospital yesterday. She has had abdominal pain and constipation for weeks now. Docs put her on meds to move her bowels but it didn't help.

So... off to Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak MI.

They found a 10 cm mass in her abdomen. They will do a paracentesis to draw fluid this afternoon. Tomorrow is a CT scan. We will see what it is.. but... I suspect it is lady-part cancer. Her sister and mother both had lady-part cancer. Sheesh.

The dog is really unhappy. Dog misses the old lady and is walking around the house with her head down. I am still working from home because my wife hates visitors when she is in the hospital. I am just trying to get work done. Nothing I can do now.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#162

by Service Dog » Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:59 am

Hillary Clinton exists solely in her own private reality, a heavily-fortified gated-community, adhering only to her own internal-logic.

One may only invoke the 5th before Congress if their testimony is 'compelled' by subpoena. Trey Gowdy did subpoena Hillary, but she refuses to accept that fact. ("I did not have sexual relations with that Miss Lewinsky.") And so, by her own twisted logic, she forfeited the right to remain silent.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/politics ... oena-gowdy

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#161

by fafnir » Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:40 am

free thoughtpolice wrote: Trump knew that 5th stuff from years ago when he shared his mob layer Roy Cohn with Fat Tony Salerno.
He was big on document searches when it was being done on his political opponents. Fair is fair.
If Trump is guilty he should face the consequences.
If Hunter Biden is guilty same thing.
Remember, Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House for 11 hours without taking the 5th once.
Trump gave his name and spent 4 hours doing nothing but taking the 5th.
The testifying in front of the house thing was grandstanding and milking political capital. Sure it was at Clinton's expense, but prosecuting her for reals was never on the cards. All any of that was was a bunch of players of the great game, playing the game. Ultimately, that was all in fun.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#160

by Service Dog » Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:46 am

free thoughtpolice wrote: Fair is fair.
If Trump is guilty he should face the consequences.
If Hunter Biden is guilty same thing.
That answer doesn't match the question.

The question was about the 5th Amendment. The inverse of "Trump did wrong" is "The witch hunters against Trump did wrong. it's malicious prosecution".

The only reason to bring Hunter Biden into the question... is if you think Hunter Biden and his associates have been wrongly accused by an overzealous FBI, DOJ, Special Prosecutors, FISA courts, Congressional Hearings & impeachments, & crooked Big Tech news media.


"If Trump is guilty he should face the consequences."

Ok. But if his accusers are guilty, what consequences should they face for year after year of witch hunt & show trial?

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#159

by Bhurzum » Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:14 pm

More info on the smoke-shop stabbing...

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#158

by Bhurzum » Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:15 pm

fuzzy wrote: Screenshot_20220810-233615-851.png
Fake news.

That's the line-up for "Woman of the year" :P

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#157

by fuzzy » Wed Aug 10, 2022 8:38 pm

Screenshot_20220810-233615-851.png
(1.51 MiB) Downloaded 83 times

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#156

by Service Dog » Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:45 pm

free thoughtpolice wrote: their opinion that the earth is flat
No one here believes the Earth is flat, or subscribes to QAnon. This is another 'Conspiratoria' smear, to avoid engaging with the actual substance of our posts.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#155

by free thoughtpolice » Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:47 pm


QAnon is still alive on Real America's Voice. She appears to have nice large breasts.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#154

by free thoughtpolice » Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:21 pm

Trump knew that 5th stuff from years ago when he shared his mob layer Roy Cohn with Fat Tony Salerno.
He was big on document searches when it was being done on his political opponents. Fair is fair.
If Trump is guilty he should face the consequences.
If Hunter Biden is guilty same thing.
Remember, Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House for 11 hours without taking the 5th once.
Trump gave his name and spent 4 hours doing nothing but taking the 5th.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#153

by Service Dog » Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:57 pm

free thoughtpolice wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:09 am
Trump confesses to being a mobster.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YM0UjN6qsKs
This is a fascinating post. The 5th Amendment protects a man from being compelled to testify against himself. It achieves this by asserting that his silence may not be interpreted as evidence of guilt. The 5th Amendment was designed to correct the injustice frequent in witch hunts and show trials. Donald Trump clearly suffers from a flaw common in humanity: he does not see the wisdom of the 5th Amendment when his antagonists invoke it. Only when he is in the courtroom hotseat does he belatedly realize the wisdom of the right to remain silent. So Donald Trump has taken both sides of the issue, contradictory positions. And the thoughtpolice find fault with that.
But which position do the thoughtpolice subscribe to? Is Donald Trump right when he says invoking the 5th Amendment suggests one is a "mobster"? Or is Donald Trump right when he argues the opposite position?...
https://media.patriots.win/post/UOEkOrIT0Tf9.jpeg

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#152

by free thoughtpolice » Wed Aug 10, 2022 3:42 pm

An eagle chick from late June. It fledged a few weeks later.
DSCN1932 (2).JPG
(1.99 MiB) Downloaded 96 times

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#151

by Bhurzum » Wed Aug 10, 2022 12:56 pm

AndrewV69 wrote: You thought that was entertaining?

This was entertaining. I was laughing my tits off.
The "pussy, huh?" as he delivered the coup de grâce to the husband felt entirely justified. Not only did the worm turn, it brought force multipliers!

Yup, tragic though it may have been, it was also quite funny.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#150

by AndrewV69 » Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:10 am

Bhurzum wrote:
Tue Aug 09, 2022 4:54 pm

That was quite entertaining.
You thought that was entertaining?

This was entertaining. I was laughing my tits off.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#149

by free thoughtpolice » Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:09 am

Trump confesses to being a mobster.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YM0UjN6qsKs

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#148

by Matt Cavanaugh » Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:03 am

Patchman -- a new nemesis for Batman?

dekenta-pachman.jpg
(31.88 KiB) Downloaded 115 times

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#147

by Matt Cavanaugh » Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:59 am

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#146

by Matt Cavanaugh » Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:59 am

Lsuoma wrote: jewjitsu.jpg
Now that one's Kosher.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#145

by Lsuoma » Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:09 am

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Also -- as Bhurzum observed, Nyugen apparently had some advanced training. Which likely also included hands-on training. Prosecutor will discover that, and in trial will ask, 'Why didn't you just use your non-lethal [Jujistsu, whatever] skills?'

I get the frustration of thugs robbing your store repeatedly with impunity, and I shed no tears for thugs. But it'd be better to read the state statute before getting charged under it, or to watch some of those self-defense videos before you're the star of one.
jewjitsu.jpg
(51.34 KiB) Downloaded 134 times

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#144

by Bhurzum » Tue Aug 09, 2022 4:54 pm

Service Dog wrote:
Bhurzum wrote:
Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:36 pm
"plug & tug"
(It's a taught technique in the military)
& on YouTube !

Pounce tugs, (if you want them)
That was quite entertaining.

Also, as a side-note, the dude who designed the knife is the spitting-image of a guy who used to work for me in the garrison detention facility - shave the beard, throw him into uniform and bam! I would swear it was the same guy! The likeness is uncanny.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#143

by Service Dog » Tue Aug 09, 2022 1:21 pm

Bhurzum wrote:
Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:36 pm
"plug & tug"
(It's a taught technique in the military)
& on YouTube !

Pounce tugs, (if you want them)

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#142

by Bhurzum » Tue Aug 09, 2022 1:17 pm

May have linked this before, don't care. Awesome cover by one of the most under-rated voices in music!



:dance: :clap:

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#141

by Matt Cavanaugh » Tue Aug 09, 2022 10:46 am

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#140

by Matt Cavanaugh » Tue Aug 09, 2022 10:09 am

Also -- as Bhurzum observed, Nyugen apparently had some advanced training. Which likely also included hands-on training. Prosecutor will discover that, and in trial will ask, 'Why didn't you just use your non-lethal [Jujistsu, whatever] skills?'

I get the frustration of thugs robbing your store repeatedly with impunity, and I shed no tears for thugs. But it'd be better to read the state statute before getting charged under it, or to watch some of those self-defense videos before you're the star of one.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#139

by Matt Cavanaugh » Tue Aug 09, 2022 9:58 am

Service Dog wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: I think Nguyen loses, however, as it was shoplifting, not forcible entry into an occupied dwelling, in which case
Everything you're saying makes sense. But if I were his lawyer... I wouldn't say 'Open & shut case! He's guilty!'. I'd be looking for a defense in here:
NRS 200.120  “Justifiable homicide” defined; no duty to retreat under certain circumstances.

1.  Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of an occupied habitation, an occupied motor vehicle or a person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors to commit a crime of violence, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the occupied habitation or occupied motor vehicle, of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.

2.  A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:

(a) Is not the original aggressor;

(b) Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and

(c) Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.

3.  As used in this section:

(a) “Crime of violence” means any felony for which there is a substantial risk that force or violence may be used against the person or property of another in the commission of the felony.

....

[1911 C&P § 129; RL § 6394; NCL § 10076]—(NRS A 1983, 518; 2011, 265; 2015, 1781)

NRS 200.130  Bare fear insufficient to justify killing; reasonable fear required; rebuttable presumption under certain circumstances.

1.  A bare fear of any of the offenses mentioned in NRS 200.120, to prevent which the homicide is alleged to have been committed, is not sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the person killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge.

2.  There is a rebuttable presumption that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the person killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge if the person killing:

(a) Knew or reasonably believed that the person who was killed was entering unlawfully and with force, or attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the occupied habitation or occupied motor vehicle, of another;

(b) Knew or reasonably believed that the person who was killed was committing or attempting to commit a crime of violence; and

(c) Did not provoke the person who was killed.

3.  As used in this section:

(a) “Crime of violence” means any felony for which there is a substantial risk that force or violence may be used against the person or property of another in the commission of the felony.

(b) “Motor vehicle” means every vehicle which is self-propelled.

[1911 C&P § 130; RL § 6395; NCL § 10077]—(NRS A 2015, 1782)
Wearing robber masks might make the crucial difference between shoplifting and "a surreptitious manner". Jumping over the counter might cross the line from shoplifting to "a tumultuous manner".

I'm not denying that the shopkeeper becoming a test case-- would be ruinous for the poor guy... even-if he eventually prevails.
As a store is not a "habitation", the automatic justification of deadly force does not obtain.

Nyugen's defense must rely on establishing his reasonable fear that death was potentially imminent. That's undermined by his nonchalant handling of two dudes in balaclavas, even after they stole shit. The strongest argument is, that when the dude abruptly jumped the counter, that presented an immediate threat and a sudden change of dynamic. But that's also undermined by the fact that the dude didn't charge Nyugen, but rather started grabbing merchandise. And the prosecutor will play that video in super slow-motion. His best hope is either the DA not wanting to touch it, or jury nullification.

Nyugen was also a complete retard to make public statements. (Yes, there is a left tail to the Asian IQ bell curve.)

Had he immediately trespassed them out of the store, even with a collar in one hand and the knife in the other, he'd be in a much better situation now. Had they physically attacked him at that point, he could justifiably stab away.

But seriously, carry a gun, and if anyone comes in wearing a ski mask, draw on them -- low ready is fine -- and order them to leave. Worst trouble you're facing is a brandishing charge. And unless they're actually just returning from the plastic surgeon's, I guarantee they won't be filing a complaint.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#138

by Service Dog » Tue Aug 09, 2022 3:44 am

Nancy Pelosi 's son, age 53, still breastfeeds.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#137

by jet_lagg » Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:04 pm

A toast

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#136

by mordacious1 » Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:19 pm

Reportedly, the FBI raided Trump’s home at Mara Lago, broke into his safe, and removed materials. It has been suggested that the Justice Department is investigating whether Trump walked out of the White House with box loads of classified documents. If this is the case, the Justice Department might be in trouble here. The ultimate classification (or declassification) authority is the President. He can grab a document, state it’s declassified, and hand it over to The NY Times…totally legal in my view. The military and federal agencies never want their stuff declassified, but presidents do it constantly. This could be interesting.
The question would be, does the president have to follow normal declassification protocol? Is it illegal if he doesn’t?

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#135

by Lsuoma » Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:52 pm

Facknell, I never knew this:
Her father had been a British spy during World War Two. Her mother was the daughter of the German Nobel laureate, Max Born, and had fled with her family when the Nazis came to power in 1933.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#134

by Lsuoma » Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:51 pm

73

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#133

by Lsuoma » Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:50 pm

Olivia Neutron-Bomb dead at 72.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#132

by Service Dog » Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:10 pm

so he posts a picture of a little blue arrow that wasn't in the unlinked article so he posts a picture of a little blue arrow that wasn't in the unlinked article so he posts a picture of a little blue arrow that wasn't in the unlinked article
The earth is a spheroid :twatson: That is a fact. No matter how much someone believes their opinion that the earth is flat, it doesn't make it so. Only a total fucking idiot would argue that.
:cdc: :cdc: :cdc: :cdc: :cdc: :cdc: :cdc:

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#131

by Service Dog » Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:47 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the person killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge.

The trespassing & robbery was ongoing, so I think he's in the clear on "in the spirit of revenge"

"NRS 200.060  When killing punished as murder.  The killing must be the result of that sudden, violent impulse of passion supposed to be irresistible; for, if there should appear to have been an interval between the assault or provocation given and the killing, sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, the killing shall be attributed to deliberate revenge and punished as murder.

[1911 C&P § 124; RL § 6389; NCL § 10071]"

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#130

by Service Dog » Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:20 pm

:nin: jet

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#129

by Service Dog » Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:18 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: I think Nguyen loses, however, as it was shoplifting, not forcible entry into an occupied dwelling, in which case
Everything you're saying makes sense. But if I were his lawyer... I wouldn't say 'Open & shut case! He's guilty!'. I'd be looking for a defense in here:
NRS 200.120  “Justifiable homicide” defined; no duty to retreat under certain circumstances.

1.  Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of an occupied habitation, an occupied motor vehicle or a person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors to commit a crime of violence, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the occupied habitation or occupied motor vehicle, of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.

2.  A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:

(a) Is not the original aggressor;

(b) Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and

(c) Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.

3.  As used in this section:

(a) “Crime of violence” means any felony for which there is a substantial risk that force or violence may be used against the person or property of another in the commission of the felony.

....

[1911 C&P § 129; RL § 6394; NCL § 10076]—(NRS A 1983, 518; 2011, 265; 2015, 1781)

NRS 200.130  Bare fear insufficient to justify killing; reasonable fear required; rebuttable presumption under certain circumstances.

1.  A bare fear of any of the offenses mentioned in NRS 200.120, to prevent which the homicide is alleged to have been committed, is not sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the person killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge.

2.  There is a rebuttable presumption that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the person killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge if the person killing:

(a) Knew or reasonably believed that the person who was killed was entering unlawfully and with force, or attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the occupied habitation or occupied motor vehicle, of another;

(b) Knew or reasonably believed that the person who was killed was committing or attempting to commit a crime of violence; and

(c) Did not provoke the person who was killed.

3.  As used in this section:

(a) “Crime of violence” means any felony for which there is a substantial risk that force or violence may be used against the person or property of another in the commission of the felony.

(b) “Motor vehicle” means every vehicle which is self-propelled.

[1911 C&P § 130; RL § 6395; NCL § 10077]—(NRS A 2015, 1782)
Wearing robber masks might make the crucial difference between shoplifting and "a surreptitious manner". Jumping over the counter might cross the line from shoplifting to "a tumultuous manner".

I'm not denying that the shopkeeper becoming a test case-- would be ruinous for the poor guy... even-if he eventually prevails.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#128

by jet_lagg » Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:05 pm

I think Service Dog is referring to the line before the quoted one.
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors to commit a crime of violence
Where crime of violence is defined as the following:
any felony for which there is a substantial risk that force or violence may be used against the person or property of another in the commission of the felony.
IANAL, but it seems like a convoluted way of saying even if it's argued the person who gets killed was attempting to harm the property and not the person inside the property that the use of lethal force was still legal. Regardless it's only applicable to homes and cars.

Dude had better hope the jury has the same idea of reasonable fear as he does.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#127

by free thoughtpolice » Mon Aug 08, 2022 12:05 pm

DW Adams wrote:
Service Dog wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote: Unless you just put it there it could be a browser thing. That is why asked someone else if they could see the link.
This has been an insightful tour of your mind.

No it hasn't. As usual you haven't learned a fucking thing much less gained insight.
Ok. Our perspectives are too divergent. I'll defer to a disinterested third-party Solomon. Either there's a tiny blue arrow there, or there isn't.

But... remember what's At Stake: Either you're unfit parse evidence presented plainly in front of you... Or else I'm peddling "Bullshit Dog" "tricks" etc.
► Show Spoiler
What an odd argument.
He got called out on a lie, doubled down on another lie, and when asked to show the link he claimed to have he started posting more bullshit.
So he posts a picture of a little blue arrow that wasn't in the unlinked article. A childish, clearly dishonest attempt at confusing the whole argument.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#126

by free thoughtpolice » Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:57 am

Service Dog wrote:
Sun Aug 07, 2022 4:45 pm
free thoughtpolice wrote: you told him to lie more carefully so it wasn't so easy for a bad person like me to show what a liar he is. I'm sure it was embarrassing for you to see your friend telling such transparent lies.
This is not a fair & honest characterization.

And I won't pretend that both free thoughtpolice & John are equally culpable. Nope. That would be False Equivalence. John tried to mend a mess in good faith. & ftp responded by compounding the mess in bad faith.

I think this is an iteration of the 'derangement syndrome'-- when the effteepeez of the world feel so justified in the their contempt... that they give themselves permission to abandon minimum standards of how to treat people whose opinions differ from theirs.

I understand the upside to me Not posting this, taking a higher road.

But I'm not out of line for posting this.
Decorum does not oblige me to refrain from calling-out bad behavior.
I think this is an iteration of the 'derangement syndrome'-- when the effteepeez of the world feel so justified in the their contempt... that they give themselves permission to abandon minimum standards of how to treat people whose opinions differ from theirs.
There is a difference of opinion then there are obvious facts. The earth is a spheroid. That is a fact. No matter how much someone believes their opinion that the earth is flat, it doesn't make it so. Only a total fucking idiot would argue that.
Now instead of deflecting and spamming, and outright lying now you are pulling a passive aggressive ftp is being mean to me and I am the well behaved victim of his bad behavior.
Get fucked.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#125

by DW Adams » Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:48 am

Service Dog wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote: Unless you just put it there it could be a browser thing. That is why asked someone else if they could see the link.
This has been an insightful tour of your mind.

No it hasn't. As usual you haven't learned a fucking thing much less gained insight.
Ok. Our perspectives are too divergent. I'll defer to a disinterested third-party Solomon. Either there's a tiny blue arrow there, or there isn't.

But... remember what's At Stake: Either you're unfit parse evidence presented plainly in front of you... Or else I'm peddling "Bullshit Dog" "tricks" etc.
► Show Spoiler
What an odd argument.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#124

by Matt Cavanaugh » Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:00 am

Service Dog wrote: I think it sez you can use deadly force to protect property... in your habitation or car... if a felony is being committed at the time.
It reads
... necessary self-defense, or in defense of an occupied habitation [against] any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the occupied habitation or occupied motor vehicle, of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.
This is similar to CA law, where
PC 459 wrote:Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel,... floating home,... railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle, trailer coach,... any house car, ... inhabited camper, ... vehicle ... when the doors are locked, aircraft, ... or mine or any underground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.
and
PC 198.5 wrote:Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
Ergo, if anyone is breaking into your house, car, tent, etc., there's an automatic presumption of imminent death or great bodily harm, so deadly force is justified.


I think Nguyen loses, however, as it was shoplifting, not forcible entry into an occupied dwelling, in which case
It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the person killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#123

by Service Dog » Mon Aug 08, 2022 7:52 am

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Deadly force may only be used when you have a reasonable belief an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm exists. In general, use of force must always be proportional.
Below is the Nevada law. I think it sez you can use deadly force to protect property... in your habitation or car... if a felony is being committed at the time.

(But I'm just posting a link I read earlier. Haven't gone back to double-check. But if that-much is indeed true... then is there some local precedent protecting a proprietor 's store as-well? I suspect there is, but I don't have any evidence to back-up my hunch.)

And... I'd discourage testing the strength of that protection against a prosecutor with an agenda).

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200 ... S200Sec120

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#122

by jet_lagg » Mon Aug 08, 2022 7:15 am

Bhurzum wrote:
Well, if that's the case, I hope our hypothetical rapist conducted a risk assessment, familiarised himself with relevant COSHH rules/regulations and was wearing appropriate PPE before he plundered her filthy stench-trench.

H&SAW cuts both ways.
Did Steersman ever launch his consent app? Could be time to put in a feature request to help automate regulatory compliance.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#121

by Bhurzum » Mon Aug 08, 2022 7:14 am

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Swinging a bag of radios at the victim's head was use of deadly force. That is what justified the use of deadly force in response.
Reminds me of this.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#120

by jet_lagg » Mon Aug 08, 2022 7:13 am

Bit of trivia I learned after leaving New York and looking into the gun laws, Vermont is constitutional carry (i.e. no permit required to carry), and also it has no stand your ground law for your home. One hell of a combo.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#119

by Bhurzum » Mon Aug 08, 2022 7:04 am

fafnir wrote:
Bhurzum wrote:
Sun Aug 07, 2022 10:39 am
John D wrote: Doods come in with masks and steal shit. Shop owner says leave. One dood jumps the counter threatening the owners personal safety. Owner protects his safety with reasonable defensive tools.... and... somehow this is the owners fault.
I'm just waiting for a rapist to sue his victim because he caught crabs off her.

:lol:
Isn't it normally the responsibility of the operator of a venue to keep it in minimal compliance with health and safety regs?
Well, if that's the case, I hope our hypothetical rapist conducted a risk assessment, familiarised himself with relevant COSHH rules/regulations and was wearing appropriate PPE before he plundered her filthy stench-trench.

H&SAW cuts both ways.

https://i.gifer.com/4wA.gif

(does rape qualify as work?)

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#118

by Matt Cavanaugh » Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:34 am

Service Dog wrote: the law sez deadly force is allowed in the protection of property... IF a felony is being committed.
Non-deadly force may be used to protect property, or to trespass someone off your property. Deadly force may only be used when you have a reasonable belief an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm exists. In general, use of force must always be proportional.

This example is from Florida, but it's quite colorful & shows how much latitude there is in favor of the victim of robbery:
The Tampa Bay Times identified other questionable cases that judges found justified under Florida’s "stand your ground" law, including one in which a man who saw someone stealing a radio out of his vehicle grabbed a knife and chased the suspect down. The suspect swung a bag of stolen radios at the man, who then stabbed him in the chest with a knife. The fact that [the robbery victim] never called police, hid the knife and sold the bag of stolen radios by the time police caught him didn’t matter to the judge, who [ruled] the case was self-defense.
The brandishing of a weapon may or may not constitute assault depending on the jurisdiction.

Swinging a bag of radios at the victim's head was use of deadly force. That is what justified the use of deadly force in response.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#117

by ThreeFlangedJavis » Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:30 am

John D wrote:
Sun Aug 07, 2022 1:49 pm
I am not saying John Corea is wrong on the law. I suspect this poor shop owner has just destroyed his life for the next ten years. I am saying that I think the law is wrong. If a dood in a mask jumps your counter to steal shit you should be able to execute him. Most people do not agree with me.
I think that for most people the decision on whether or not to put holes in another human being is dependent on more than whether the law allows it and "principle". IOW, Jack Reacher is a psychopathic cnut. You either have an abhorrence for the idea or you don't.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#116

by Service Dog » Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:16 am

Nevada's 'Stand Your Ground' law passed in 2012 & I read an article from back-then which said there law didn't establish anything new-- it just codified the status quo as established in precedent cases.

If so, I suspect Nevada has plenty of precedent cases involving gangs of masked bandits robbing shopkeepers. And small details... such as this gang holding the front door open so the shopkeep couldn't activate the remote door lock... and the several verbal requests which the crooks disregarded... should accrue in the shopkeep's favor.

Specifically... the robbers have been charged with felonies... & the law sez deadly force is allowed in the protection of property... IF a felony is being committed.

This example is from Florida, but it's quite colorful & shows how much latitude there is in favor of the victim of robbery:
The Tampa Bay Times identified other questionable cases that judges found justified under Florida’s "stand your ground" law, including one in which a man who saw someone stealing a radio out of his vehicle grabbed a knife and chased the suspect down. The suspect swung a bag of stolen radios at the man, who then stabbed him in the chest with a knife. The fact that [the robbery victim] never called police, hid the knife and sold the bag of stolen radios by the time police caught him didn’t matter to the judge, who [ruled] the case was self-defense.

Re: Back to Conspiratoria

#115

by jet_lagg » Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:48 am

AndrewV69 wrote:
Sun Aug 07, 2022 1:50 pm
Now I am hearing that the 100mph (estimated) fiery (but mostly peaceful) crash involving a Mercedes Benz where six people were killed on the spot, was being driven by a drunk registered nurse.
"Deaths of Exuberance"

https://www.unz.com/isteve/deaths-of-exuberance/

[/bbvideo]

Top