I think you understand what I mean.
Iāll have you know, good sir, that the British use of the maxim gun in Zululand was mandated by our gentlemanly prudence, and our deep desire to bring the knowledge of Adam Smith to South Africa.
3 Likes
Clearly the long answer - I do love a good, long, dull read
5 Likes
It all started with these two derelicts, Terrance and Phillipā¦
Then long you shall have. I shall vent my spleen when I get home from work and can devote my faculties to the task.
1 Like
Ah, the UK approach. Good to see the transatlantic sharing of ideas hasnāt been affected by Trumpās tariffs.
1 Like
Iāve got some time this weekend. Letās hear it.
Thatās outrageous. Law or not, they should all step aside and let this man walk out of the courtroom/jail.
1 Like
Ya, itās unreal.
This is one of the blatant weaknesses of our justice system. He plead guilty. If he could have afforded a good lawyer, even a bad one, he wouldnāt have even gone to trial. Itās disgraceful. This is a felony conviction so his life has been permanently screwed.
3 Likes
The fact that the prosecution even pursued this nonsense beggars belief. They have discretion, for goodness sake!
1 Like
The article on that case was click-baity bullshit and the reporting was terrible. The news media all have a hardon for misrepresenting stand your ground. It does not āentitle citizens to use force in self-defense if there is a reasonable belief of a threat.ā You have the right to use deadly force in defense of your life or the life of another in every state. States without Stand Your Ground donāt require citizens to attempt to retreat, and thatās all it does, remove the duty to retreat.
Since Connecticut doesnāt have Stand Your Ground, the law says that the defendant was obliged to try to run away. Which is bullshit. Itās easy in the safety and comfort of a courtroom to say that all the defendant had to do was run out of the back door.
1 Like
The problem is that he plead guilty. I have to guess that he isnāt well-educated, possibly not that intelligent or at least naive, and not very articulate. Add to that he couldnāt have had a decent attorney, if he even had one. Why else would someone plead guilty to a felony when it seems to be a pretty simple case to argue on his behalf? This is why the whole Miranda crap is crap. The cops should not be allowed to question anyone without a lawyer, period. Every suspect should have to speak to a lawyer before opting to not have a lawyer. How many people are in prison not because they are guilty but because they were simply ignorant?
1 Like
They also like to have convictions to justify their existence and they prisons need to be kept full.
I missed the part of the Constitution that promised us all babysitters.
Itās right next to the part that allows the govt to statistically send minorities to prison with extra time for the same crime.
Gotta read the fine print mang
Those are also legitimate questions that the shitty reporting left unanswered. But if there was an obvious avenue of escape and he didnāt take it, like a back door he could have run out of, then it wasnāt legitimate self defense in the state of Connecticut, and he would have lost his case. It could be that, knowing he was on thin ice, he went for a lighter sentence.
Bingo.
The thing is, the judge said he believed he acted in self-defense. If he had a lawyer or was simply brighter he would have articulated that he didnāt have an avenue of escape. I mean, there were three attackers and they were close enough for one to get stabbed.