Legal Eagles: Current Law Case Discussion & Other Legal News

Yeah, he’s not guilty of murder. Someone technically attacked him and they got shot. Fair enough. That said, Kyle R. is also a piece of shit who went out, I truly believe, HOPING to be “forced” into shooting people. Please don’t treat this guy like a hero for technically not murdering someone (though I suspect a lot of his proponents are all in favor of murdering people they don’t like). He still knowingly made stupid choices that led to someone being shot and killed when it was not necessary. It’s only for the sake of the continued strength of the laws that must continue protecting truly good people in self defense situations that my emotions are at all mixed regarding this trial. I believe that Kyle is a bad/foolish/immature person. I believe the judge was operating in bad faith and in blatant favor of the defendant. I believe the prosecution was a bit wonky and inept. I also believe the legal decision was the correct one. This was not a case to be celebrated. This was a shit show, and people died. May he live unhappily ever after.
 
a lot of this "both sides" discourse going around. its exceptionally aggravating if you paid even the tiniest detail to that sham of a trial.
He is a truly shitty human being and I hope he faces some moral reckoning for what he did, but the prosecution failed to make their case that his actions met legal definitions. As Lara says in the interview above.
 
He is a truly shitty human being and I hope he faces some moral reckoning for what he did, but the prosecution failed to make their case that his actions met legal definitions. As Lara says in the interview above.
yes the whole thing was a fucking debacle but people are turning it into a "both sides" debate and its caused me to just check out of the discourse.
 
yes the whole thing was a fucking debacle but people are turning it into a "both sides" debate and its caused me to just check out of the discourse.
There should be no sides, the evidence is clear: he's a race baiting hussler with zero shame.
 
I saw someone reply that it was like saying workplaces had no right to keep floors dry because it obviously gets wet elsewhere.

Yes, pretty much.

Or because you can cut yourself in the kitchen at home, it therefore follows that there is no need to have regulations about workplace safety, training and equipment in commercial kitchens, because injuries can happen anywhere.
 
This will not help policing:

 

Let's discuss gents.

A web designer is a private business no? It is not a hospital, driver's licence centre, or any public institution that needs to guarantee access for everyone.

What is the difference between this and going to some shop in an ethnic neighbourhood that only has signs in their language and the staff inside can't speak or be bothered to speak any English. A private store owner can technically choose not to serve you based on your looks (night clubs) or how you smell that day.
 

Let's discuss gents.

A web designer is a private business no? It is not a hospital, driver's licence centre, or any public institution that needs to guarantee access for everyone.

What is the difference between this and going to some shop in an ethnic neighbourhood that only has signs in their language and the staff inside can't speak or be bothered to speak any English. A private store owner can technically choose not to serve you based on your looks (night clubs) or how you smell that day.
Discuss? Maybe if you actually understand what is being litigated? To put it in a context you will understand, it is no different than a bar refusing you service because you are not white, or if you bring in the Persian whores you spend time with. Public business is one that serves the public, not that it is a private entity or not.

The appellant has not been sued under the Colorado law. She just wants to be able to tell potential customers and to publish on her website that she is an artiste and should not have to take commissions from faggots and dykes for the creation of same sex wedding websites. She wants to be indemnified in advance. It could be gooks or Persian slags instead.

Is that low level enough for you to understand now?

Discuss.
 
Discuss? Maybe if you actually understand what is being litigated? To put it in a context you will understand, it is no different than a bar refusing you service because you are not white, or if you bring in the Persian whores you spend time with. Public business is one that serves the public, not that it is a private entity or not.

The appellant has not been sued under the Colorado law. She just wants to be able to tell potential customers and to publish on her website that she is an artiste and should not have to take commissions from faggots and dykes for the creation of same sex wedding websites. She wants to be indemnified in advance. It could be gooks or Persian slags instead.

Is that low level enough for you to understand now?

Discuss.

"Justices in the conservative majority seemed generally supportive of the notion that Smith should not be forced to express sentiments to which she disagrees, with Justice Clarence Thomas noting that policing speech was not how public accommodations laws like Colorado's were traditionally applied.

'This is is not a hotel. This is not a restaurant. This is not a riverboat or a train,' he said, referring to businesses required to service all customers. Other conservative justices, including Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, asked similar questions."

I am merely repeating the majority of the justices who say there is no need to accommodate. She isn't the one and only minister who can bless weddings in Colorado so she's not essential. She's a wedding designer or whatever that is.

Why does court need to intervene anyway? To use your analogy, a bar that only serves people who speak Swahili will by the good graces of capitalism find itself struggling to break even versus one who accepts anyone. The same goes for an Indian restaurant who insists only employing Indians - you end up overpaying to get that homogeneity or you are saddled with poorer talent compared to a wider talent pool consisting of all races.

If anything capitalism and the need to stay afloat and make money to the widest possible customer base will resolve these issues without a supreme court justice spending valuable time to opine on it.
 
"Justices in the conservative majority seemed generally supportive of the notion that Smith should not be forced to express sentiments to which she disagrees, with Justice Clarence Thomas noting that policing speech was not how public accommodations laws like Colorado's were traditionally applied.

'This is is not a hotel. This is not a restaurant. This is not a riverboat or a train,' he said, referring to businesses required to service all customers. Other conservative justices, including Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, asked similar questions."

I am merely repeating the majority of the justices who say there is no need to accommodate. She isn't the one and only minister who can bless weddings in Colorado so she's not essential. She's a wedding designer or whatever that is.

Why does court need to intervene anyway? To use your analogy, a bar that only serves people who speak Swahili will by the good graces of capitalism find itself struggling to break even versus one who accepts anyone. The same goes for an Indian restaurant who insists only employing Indians - you end up overpaying to get that homogeneity or you are saddled with poorer talent compared to a wider talent pool consisting of all races.

If anything capitalism and the need to stay afloat and make money to the widest possible customer base will resolve these issues without a supreme court justice spending valuable time to opine on it.
You don't even know what business she runs? Cool. Roll on capitalism. You are merely a conduit to spout incomplete facts anyway so there is nothing to discuss.
 
"Justices in the conservative majority seemed generally supportive of the notion that Smith should not be forced to express sentiments to which she disagrees, with Justice Clarence Thomas noting that policing speech was not how public accommodations laws like Colorado's were traditionally applied.

'This is is not a hotel. This is not a restaurant. This is not a riverboat or a train,' he said, referring to businesses required to service all customers. Other conservative justices, including Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, asked similar questions."

I am merely repeating the majority of the justices who say there is no need to accommodate. She isn't the one and only minister who can bless weddings in Colorado so she's not essential. She's a wedding designer or whatever that is.

Why does court need to intervene anyway? To use your analogy, a bar that only serves people who speak Swahili will by the good graces of capitalism find itself struggling to break even versus one who accepts anyone. The same goes for an Indian restaurant who insists only employing Indians - you end up overpaying to get that homogeneity or you are saddled with poorer talent compared to a wider talent pool consisting of all races.

If anything capitalism and the need to stay afloat and make money to the widest possible customer base will resolve these issues without a supreme court justice spending valuable time to opine on it.

Just curious, did capitalism desegregate the South?

F379A568-EC1E-4683-81F7-3D2E4A115E89.jpeg
 
You don't even know what business she runs? Cool. Roll on capitalism. You are merely a conduit to spout incomplete facts anyway so there is nothing to discuss.

More like I don't believe in businesses that revolve around a wedding - aka a glorified party. Of course people get divorce multiple times these days so maybe business is booming.

Just curious, did capitalism desegregate the South?

I don't know. I'm sure someone can run studies on GDP and median household incomes.
 

An alternate juror comes in....after the prosecution has closed final arguments. Only the defence now needs to wrap it up. How up to date is this alternate juror?

(from someone who has never been in jury duty)
 

An alternate juror comes in....after the prosecution has closed final arguments. Only the defence now needs to wrap it up. How up to date is this alternate juror?

(from someone who has never been in jury duty)
alternates jurors hear the proceedings, see the evidence, are sequestered with the jurors if that happens, they just don’t participate in the deliberations
 
alternates jurors hear the proceedings, see the evidence, are sequestered with the jurors if that happens, they just don’t participate in the deliberations
Its common here to empanel 14 people - just in case
 

An alternate juror comes in....after the prosecution has closed final arguments. Only the defence now needs to wrap it up. How up to date is this alternate juror?

(from someone who has never been in jury duty)
The judge asked the juror if she had any belongings she needed to take with her before leaving, and she replied she had kept a dozen eggs in a back room.
WTF?
 

"... allows pregnancies up to 10 weeks to be terminated at home.

However, Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court heard the woman was between 32-34 weeks pregnant when she took them.

Abortion is legal up to 24 weeks. However, after 10 weeks the procedure is carried out in a clinic."

"Sentencing, judge Mr Justice Edward Pepperall said it was a 'tragic' case, adding that if she had pleaded guilty earlier he may have been able to consider suspending her jail sentence."

But wait... This incarceration is immoral according to:

 
Affirmative Action took a hit and the reactions have been fairly predictable along party lines. I’ve yet to read any deeper commentary.
 
I'm honestly confused about it because I was listening to it during one of my workouts earlier this week on admittance into Harvard. If a white person and a latino or black have equal credentials/merit, then they turn to the race card and choose someone who is diverse that gives the black or latino a leg up. Whites are unhappy about this because they can't get in.

Then it turns to Asian Americans (I assume orientals and not browns) who complain they are being classified - I assume after an interview - as timid, shy, not aggressive enough. Whites are getting in and taking their places.

At the end of the day, who is actually getting into Harvard then?
 
At the end of the day, who is actually getting into Harvard then?

Mostly legacy admissions, from what I’ve heard.

I also heard that the SC gave an exemption for the military academies to continue to give preference to minorities. It’s important to have a diverse officer class but an all-white ruling class is also just fine?
 
Mostly legacy admissions, from what I’ve heard.

I also heard that the SC gave an exemption for the military academies to continue to give preference to minorities. It’s important to pretend to have a diverse officer class but an all-white ruling class is also just fine.
fixed this for you
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom