-- Infrequently posting things about law and debunking your harebrained legal theories. Don't use my stuff in court. Do send me asks! -- 26, M, He/His Pronouns--- Current T14 Law Student (Class of 2022); Fighting for the wrongfully accused with the Innocence Project since 2019
Good afternoon everyone (well, it’ll be afternoon when this is queued anyway)!
Given a lot of things, including my desire to practice my writing skills and my ability to summarize complex issues, I’m going to be more present on this site (with hopefully a broader range of commentary as well). That being said, I’m just one person with a… particular set of interests. So, I can only cover so much.
So, if you want a legal questions answered, analyzed or discussed, feel free to send it to me! It doesn’t matter what it’s about as my love for the law is basically infinite and I enjoy talking about pretty much anything having to do with the law. While I mostly post here about stuff like criminal law, or constitutional rights, I also have a love for property law, corporate law (which is really interesting actually), civil procedure, etc. So, pretty much most areas of law that you could ask a question in, I have an interest in.
For example, I’m currently preparing a post analyzing the Supreme Court’s decision today in National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Alston discussing the Court’s support of the NCAA “paying” student athletes and what that means for the more popular demand that student athletes actually be able to profit from their likeness or achievements. Expect that in the near future!
I would love to have some more engagement with the people who follow or view my blog by answering their questions about the law.
HOWEVER, do NOT ask me questions about the law that directly pertains to you. I’m not a lawyer (yet), and I’m not YOUR lawyer, and I don’t want to give legal advice or for there to be any confusion that you and I have any kind of legal relationship. If you have some questions that you’d like general advice from someone moderately informed on any particular issue, feel free to message me or ask me to respond privately and I’ll see what I can do. However, you really should be speaking to a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for that.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing what you all have to say and answering some questions!
If you are going to say that maybe The Left needs to ease up and increase police funding then for those of us who don’t have the brain of a goldfish you should include some measures to ensure that the police are under civilian control.
We’re way up on murders. Even the Vox article celebrating a reduction in the number of police kills admits that there were way more murders than the police kills were reduced by.
If I make no change to the police rules and simply get rid of the Progressive DAs who let so many violent guys roam the streets that they had to invent #StopAsianHate to cover it up and conflate 55 incidents of Trump being rude with violent assault, then I’ll come out ahead on the total number of deaths.
And we could change the police rules, but the problem is that it won’t change the underlying difference in the crime rates. And since it won’t change the underlying difference in crime rates, and it’s impossible to get perfect police performance, we’ll still have left-wing claims that police are “racist” and pressure regardless.
I feel like expanding on that conflation today.
In nominally serious sources, for example TIME Magazine, we see this sort of j*urnalism: (bold mine)
As we continue to witness violence against Asian Americans–including, in the past month, the punching of a Bay Area father pushing his baby in a stroller; the assault on two women with a cement block in a Baltimore liquor store; and the stabbing of two women, ages 85 and 65, at a bus stop in San Francisco–my social media feeds are frequently filled with messages imploring people to recognize and challenge anti-Asian racism.
It’s clear why, as many are apparently unaware. A recent survey found that 37% of white Americans had not even heard about the spike in attacks on Asian Americans (with 42% of respondents unable to name a single prominent Asian American). Another survey revealed that Asian women were targeted in 65% of incidents in which the victim’s gender was reported, and when demographic information was available, a majority of perpetrators were reported to be white and male.
The “another survey” points to a PDF from a professional-looking organization calling itself the Virulent Hate Project. It’s off to a bad start from page 1:
You reviewed news articles? That’s going to get you trends in media coverage, you buffoons, not trends in anti-Asian racism. You should know this.
I have legitimately no idea how one can make a long post and somehow still get information on the article wrong. It’s quite… remarkable in many ways. None of them good. Well, at least I’m going to assume that there’s some kind of misinterpretation here. The alternative would be bad faith. This is going to be very long because it’s a response to something that was already pretty long. However, I’ll include a shorter TL;DR as well.
TL;DR: This post can be broken into several component parts:
There is no evidence that using news articles is a bad way to get the data, and you do not provide any reasoning. It’s an unstated assumption that needs to be proven
There is no bait and switch. Virulent Hate Project claims to be about Asian racism, is used in a two-part claim about racism against Asians, and the survey report is about anti-Asian racism
The Virulent Hate Project breaks down its data into both harassment incidents and political incidents. It then provides the raw data for each in every stage of the survey report. It doesn’t attempt to combine the two save in counting overall numbers of incidents
The political statements being racist need to be taken in the context in which the statements were said. Context is key. In the context of the Coronavirus pandemic, calling something the “China virus” or the “Wuhan virus” or the “Kung-flu” is different than in other contexts and can be interpreted differently
I encourage everyone to read the original “read more” as I’ve decided largely not to quote directly so as not to make this any longer. Once everyone is familiar with the arguments, we can begin.
Breath play is fine so long as its done safely which is what this is about… Unless you want people to have dangerous uninformed sex?
Translation: choking a woman is safe because I’m the one doing it….you can’t stop me from attempting to murder my girlfriend so you should teach us how to batter women properly
Hey Western men you are exactly like the Muslim men you disdain
@such-justice-wow telling people that choking is safe is encourage “dangerous, uninformed sex”.
I didn’t say it was safe I said if it was done safely
The words are literally right there
Radfems can’t read
You know the annoying part is every time I see radfems say this shit I know it’s because they more than likely have skeletons in their closet
What are you implying?
That usually when radfems try to police the sexual acts other women like it’s usually because they wanna seem morally superior when they are into the same thing or possibly something stranger not to mention that an I might blow your mind with this but lesbians enjoy bdsm an choke play too and hold on an get ready here but there are gals called dominatrix’s and a thing called femdom so in your attempts to claim men are some evil sexually violent force you seem to forget it’s a fetish that anyone can have be they man or woman an the original tweet that is up there being replied to by a known terf talks about how to be safe while enjoying a fetish you may not like but those people do an they wanna be safe about it
Silence rapist
That usually when radfems try to police the sexual acts other women like it’s usually because they wanna seem morally superior when they are into the same thing or possibly something stranger
This is a pretty stupid argument. Let’s say it’s true: we all like being strangled during sex. This means it’s wrong for us to inform other women of the dangers because…why? Exactly? It’s like saying a mother is wrong for telling her daughter that her boyfriend is bad news because she’s with an abusive man herself. You can want other people not to get hurt even if you can’t extend that compassion to yourself. But I guess these people are of the “If I’m suffering, so must everyone else” variety. Not at all surprising.
@such-justice-wow there is no way to safely choke someone. Its not safe period therfore its also not sane
There are. Not breathing for a few seconds won’t kill you. The article in that tweet is literally about this kind of thing and what you can do to make it safe.
Thats not actually true. It takes a small amount of pressure to crush a windpipe and a few seconds of air/ blood loss to the brain to cause irreversible brain damage. Stop lieing to people (which totally takes the consent out of it) just because you think hurting women is sexy. No sane person will ever want to hurt their partner.
Brain cells don’t start dying until several minutes of oxygen deprevation and not breathing for a few seconds won’t cause this because you still have oxygen in your blood.
If that was the case way more people would die from trying to hold their breath for 30 seconds to see if they could.
As for the windpipe crushing that’s down to hand placement and strength which can be learnt to be avoided and should be before you attempt any kind of breathe play.
Also again with the gendering. I’m a woman. I have consensual sex which is frankly none of your buisness and you have no place to tell me how I can have sex.
Calling kinky sex insane is so fucking stupid and demeaning to the men and women who consensually have sex and incredibly infantilising towards adults who are able to make their own informed decisions.
People self harm for all sorts of reasons. What part of putting your Sexual partner in danger from dieing is kinky? A little butt spank sure. But men are out there killing women and then being like woopsie she liked it rough and i went a little to far. That is not ok and its not sexy. You say informed yet plug your ears and scream prude. Chokeing is abuse https://www.biausa.org/public-affairs/media/strangulation-domestic-violence-and-brain-injury-an-introduction-to-a-complex-topic someone finding abuse to be a turn on should be a giant red flag. And news flash this aint just about you. And it aint about your bedroom if you are actively spreading misinformation thats gonna get women killed and help men get away with it.
If someone beats someone to death with a golf club that doesn’t make golfing homicide.
Disgusting people will use whatever they can to excuse that behaviour. This is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Except there’s almost no bathwater.
You dont generally beat things with golfing clubs. But strangling itself is dangerous. The action isny safe and there is no actual safe way to deprive someone else of oxygen. Its dangerous and repeated strangulation leads to death 80% of the time. Its not a game. You are excuseing the behavior of strangulation. Especally when you say things like oh theres no bathwater when strangulation is the #1 intimate partner violence. You are the dispicable one hiding abuse under the guise of sexy fun and games so spare me your bulldhit pear clutching you are actively harming others with your misinformation. And actively defending violence.
Again you’re comparing things which aren’t comparable.
Stabbings and making a nice fruit salad both use knives but one is a crime and the other is cooking.
Also id really like to know where you got that 80% because that sounds absolutely ridiculous and severely unlikely for one of the most common kinks to be performed.
You are conflating abuse with consensual behaviours. Pay attention to what you are actually saying. You even admitted that spanking is fine. You can spank someone and cause damage of you’re strong enough and an absolute idiot about it.
I wonder what these feminists would think of men who like being choked
Considering Celty says women can’t rape at all, I’m guessing she’d ignore or deny those men’s existence.
Also, killing someone by accident isn’t murder, Walsh.
Ok, but why are you engaging in an activity that you KNOW could kill someone? In any other scenario, putting your hand around someone’s neck is felony assault. The only reason someone would actively do it is because they want to get off on pretending to kill someone. When did society get so twisted? I though sex was supposed to be an act of love. If someone is going to risk ending your life to get off then they don’t love you. They don’t even like you. They could not care less about you, or the family that is going to have to take care of you after brain damage. Pls everyone, act sane for once.
>
In any other scenario, putting your hand around someone’s neck is felony assault.
Like many martial arts?
>
The only reason someone would actively do it is because they want to get off on pretending to kill someone.
Or because the bottom is into it and specifically asked for it, as MC pointed out above. The person doing the choking doesn’t actually have to like it.
>
I though sex was supposed to be an act of love. If someone is going to risk ending your life to get off then they don’t love you.
Or they love you and have very poor risk assessment.
Sex is also, often, an act of pleasure.
>
They could not care less about you, or the family that is going to have to take care of you after brain damage.
You are making an awful lot of assumptions here, and none of them are correct. Why do you assume the choker is just going to leave if the chokee gets injured?
And I say this is someone who thinks this kind of thing is dangerous, and would never do it.
Nice try. Any kind of strike to or grabbing of the neck is banned in boxing, karate, mma, taekwondo, judo, and wrestling. If straight up combat sports consider strangulation to be too dangerous, that’s kind of all you need to know. These are sports where you can punch someone in the face and then pin them to the ground. Yet they consider a strike to the neck as going too far. By choking a partner, you are being even more violent towards them then would be allowed against an mma opponent. Please don’t talk about things you don’t understand.
People still die in martial arts even with all those rules.
Also, judo, you say?
Sure looks like he grabs the neck to me. Unless you meant a specific type of grip.
Your logic is like going “people aren’t supposed to drink while driving or operating heavy machinery, therefore nobody should drink at all, in any context whatseover.”
Also, good job addressing a single point, ignoring all the rest, and acting smug.
Yup. Chokes, totally banned in martial arts competitions and in no way so common you can find a dozen compilation videos of people winning matches with them in a couple of seconds.
This is bad from all sides and all angles.
TL;DR: Breath play is common but inherently dangerous. That does not mean that it can never be done safely, but it does mean that it can never be entirely safe. The article in question actually agrees with this point. MMA/martial arts comparisons are weird, but there are chokes (mostly blood chokes) in MMA/martial arts. However, directed strikes to the throat are banned under the unified rules of MMA and in most martial arts competitions. Likewise, a head/neck throw are not the same as an attack on the neck, and furthermore an MMA fight really isn’t comparable to a breath play scenario.
Where corporations legally justify child slavery because of Zyklon B.
it’s not that simple. it’s because the actions occurred somewhere else, as in “not in this country”, not in the courts’ jurisdiction. that is the crux of the matter. the united states is not the world police. if people go get gay married in other countries then come back to the usa, that does not mean they should be prosecuted. this was actually tried. if we ignore jurisdiction, then people who cross state lines to get abortions could be prosecuted for doing so in their home state. people who go to amsterdam or elsewhere and do legal drugs in those places can then be criminally prosecuted here.
what could still happen is that nestle is held accountable for using child slavery in its supply lines, if there are laws banning such. this particular lawsuit is about international law. this is not the first such lawsuit, and previous suits have reduced the tort this was brought under to basically nothing. the argument being used by the corporations is ridiculous.
this is a clickbait headline and not honest. there isn’t even a link to the actual article where this is explained. i don’t know if the tweet was falsely edited up in the screenshot or if the article was edited, because the article that links to says absolutely nothing about nuremberg, nazis, or zyklon b.
Firstly, It’s not selectively edited.
You didn’t search for Zyklon B in that link, though. It’s right here.
Secondly, The argument was explicitly “the international community didn’t hold the companies responsible for Zyklon B, so you can’t hold us responsible for child slavery.”
As for the argument in the article/ tweet, I have no idea how the author can literally link the brief and then get the restatement of the brief’s argument misleadingly wrong. The statement that the brief discussed how the international community has not traditionally held that liability extended to corporations (rather than to individuals) is entirely correct; however, the context of Zyklon B manufacturing makes substantially more sense in context. The brief discusses how the Nuremberg trials extended the traditional liability for sovereigns to individuals, but not to corporations. Therefore, while the owner and two employees of the firm that manufactured Zyklon B were indicted, the actual firm itself was not. It’s not that someone cannot be held accountable for child slavery, it’s that the companies themselves are not held responsible for these sorts of actions under international law. Additionally, Zyklon B is explicity used as an extreme example which is to say “even in this case the company was not held liable–the individuals were.”
The brief goes on to mention the ICTR and ICTY tribunals (dealing with genocide and crimes against humanity in Rwanda and Yugoslavia respectively) as followers of the Nuremberg tradition of not extending individual liability to corporations. The brief further makes the claim that there is no real rulebook on how to create this liability for corporations, and that if such liability is to be created it must be done by Congress as opposed to the judiciary. This is disputed by other amicus briefs, as well as by other cases, but that’s kind of outside the purpose of this post which is more to clarify the argument in the brief itself.
For what it’s worth, this is a fairly extreme argument, and one that I personally do not agree with. However, it rests on a little sounder footing than merely “we didn’t charge the firm that made Zyklon B, therefore we can’t charge Nestle and Cargill for child slavery.” Likewise, this argument was rejected by the Court who instead applied the first section of the brief based on Kiobel rather than the more extreme argument predicted on an application of Jesner and the above-discussed international norms.
I have no idea how this got a little twisted in the Slate article, but I do think that the article’s reporting is at least somewhat misleading for those who either don’t know the type of law in question or don’t read the brief. And that’s unfortunate. I think that the author’s biases, which are front and center throughout this piece, impede on the reporting a little. I can’t fault anyone who read the Slate article from coming away with a bit of a skewed perspective on the brief. Instead, I fault that article’s author who really should know better.
Cats cannot commit crimes because one of the core tenets of our society’s theory of criminal justice is that a crime consists of both criminal action and criminal intent, and there can be no crime if either element is absent. Criminal intent in turn requires understanding what you’re doing, and cats don’t understand anything.
Crows, on the other hand, fully understand when they’re breaking the rules, and consequently are capable of a variety of crimes, up to and including tax fraud.
In jurisdictions that follow the Model Penal Code, cats may be culpable for a wider range of criminal behaviors under the mens rea classification of recklessness, which only requires conscious disregard for the inherent danger of one’s chaotic behavior. I’d argue cats are aware their behaviors are chaotic and risky but do not care.
Thus, cats in MPC jurisdictions may still be convicted of homicide and arson, but not conspiracy or theft.
@thenuanceddebater the world is begging to know your thoughts on the criminal liability of cats
…I’m sure that’s not the case. Or at the very least I hope it’s not. But, you’re going to get in anyway.
However, I really don’t have much new theory to add seeing as others already brought up how many citations are strict liability, as well as MPC culpability states. I guess I can give the ordering of culpability states which are (in order of declining culpability):
Purposefully/Intentionally
Knowingly
Recklessly
Negligently
So the idea that cats are reckless isn’t necessarily a bad one. I suppose I do have an issue with the idea that cats are capable of a “conscious disregard” to a “substantial and unjustifiable” risk such that the behavior constitutes a “gross-deviation of the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in a given situation.” Cats might understand that you’re upset by their behavior and perhaps that’s a bad thing, but I’ve seen no level of understanding of the actual risks innate to the action as is required by recklessness. If I was required to defend a cat from a recklessness offense, pretty sure I could do it.
Now, let’s do something more fun. If cats can be reckless, then why can’t they have constructive knowledge? Under the MPC, an individual commits an offense “knowingly” when:
(i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and
(ii) if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.
If we are claiming that a cat can commit a conscious disregard of substantial and unjustifiable risk, then who is to say that a cat also cannot be aware that their conduct is wrong, or that the consequences of their conduct is wrong? Who is to say that my cat does not gain actual or constructive knowledge that he is not supposed to be on the table when I continuously tell him (occasionally with punishment in the form of a squirt bottle) that he is not in fact supposed to be on the table? If cats can be reckless, then I see no reason to say that they cannot also have knowledge.
Of course, then you end up with cat defense lawyer trick #1: Competency to stand trial. This would even work for many citation-related offenses. I doubt that a cat will be able to competently assist counsel, likely will not understand the charges against them (unless you have a trial so quickly that it calls multiple constitutional amendments into question), and would certainly lack a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings. Therefore, a cat would not be able to satisfy the Dusky test, rearticulated in Indiana v. Edwards, and any court could not convict them. They would instead be remanded to in-person treatment to make them competent to stand trial (which might take… a while).
Oh, and just in case someone gets the bright idea of trying to sue the cat for civil damages, that’s likely going to be even less effective. As we’ve seen in multiple jurisdictions and how they treat minors, the standard is less likely to be a “reasonable person” standard and more likely to be a “reasonable cat” standard which is much harder for you to win on. Unless, the judge is a dog person… Then you might have a chance.
Sadly, you’re probably better off telling Mr. Snugglesworth that he’s a “bad kitty” and supplementing with a spray bottle as he slinks back off to his life of crime. Unconvictable. All hail our cat overlords.
Prison labor is a problem we need to address soon.
Convicts in prison should have to work like the rest of us.
You mean like slavery?
No, we’re giving them 3 meals and a bed, at our expense, while they just sit around and watch TV. They should have to work!
Right. Like slavery.
It’s not like slavery!
Can they leave?
No.
Can they refuse work?
No.
So how exactly isn’t this slavery?
We DO pay them!
Do we pay in accordance with labor laws?
No. We pay them between 33 cents and $1.41/hour with a maximum daily wage below $5, then take up to half of that as room&board fees and victim compensation.
Below URL image reads “fun bonus fact: enough of our labor market currently relies on labor at these depressed rates, that it has a substantial downward pressure on both wages and job availability in low-skilled sectors. Immigrants aren’t taking your jobs. Slavery is.
End description.
I’d also like to add it’s not just private prisons. It’s also private detention centers where ICE keeps the immigrants.
-fae
The constitution even acknowledges that it’s still slavery
a hefty chunk of items with that ‘made in america’ sticker are in fact made by prison labor
at the very least anything that is a product of prison labor should be required to have a similar sticker to inform consumers they are taking part of this system, which is difficult to track because prison made manufactured goods include almost the entire uniform of a US soldier, road construction in most southern states, and agricultural goods sold in most stores
this…. looks familliar
So, far be it for me to discourage people promoting prison/carceral reform, but there’s potentially some misinformation here based on… one of the sites previously linked.
Here is an article/opinion from the same place as the prison labor statistics called “Confronting Prison Slave Labor Camps and other Myths” in which the second “myth” confronted is the idea that carceral labor is modern slavery. It’s not. OLDER carceral labor, where people were not paid at all was slavery. The 13th Amendment is now used to get around things like minimum wage laws which would otherwise apply. But even if one wants to argue that it’s like slavery, it’s definitely not slavery (even if it could be).
Furthermore, in arguing that prison labor is slavery, be sure to take into account the opinions of the prisoners themselves which are quite varied. While some prisoners hate the conditions and their pay and become disillusioned with the system, others enjoy the work and find it fulfilling. Furthermore, as that piece points out, there are other considerations than the obvious “prisoners do not need to be paid minimum wage” that factor-in to whether or not major companies want to use prison labor and are driving prison expansion as a result of said desire for prison labor.
Finally, I have my personal experiences working with people incarcerated long-term. I work with the Innocence Project. My home state does not have widespread prison labor programs. I’ve talked with many inmates–most of whom were serving at least 20 years in prison. The number one thing they are is bored and lonely. When we called, they were so happy to be able to tell their stories, their theories, their ideas and hear that someone wanted to believe them. The only other time where they got anything resembling that is when they took classes or were allowed something other than just recreation/yard time. Prison labor, for as terrible as it might sound to people not incarcerated, could very well be a haven for people who are incarcerated. Labor is more than just a way to earn money (or at the very least, it should be more than just a way to earn money). So, it might be worth keeping that perspective in mind when we’re talking about prison labor as akin to slavery.
All-in-all I’m all in favor of prison and criminal justice reform. But I don’t think that the above analogy is the way even if it’s popular. In fact, overzealous non-thoughtful action might end up hurting the very people we are ostensibly trying to help.
They seem pointless to me, and really just a way for the police to flex and enjoy their power. Any amount of evidence that could be destroyed enough to leave no trace in the time it takes them to knock and get inside was probably not substantial evidence in the first place.
I largely agree with this Anon. Good take! Yeah, especially about the evidence thing.
There are also so-called “exigent exceptions” wherein an officer can enter a house without a warrant if the destruction of evidence is imminent. So, if a police officer knocks on your door to speak with you and hears you say “oh shit! Flush it!” well, they no longer need to wait for a warrant and can enter and conduct a limited search for whatever it was that you were intending to flush. They are then empowered to arrest you and/or your coconspirators depending on what they find. So, you wouldn’t even necessarily need a no-knock raid to prevent the destruction of evidence (though, I don’t really agree with the extent of this exigent authority either).
Furthermore, another justification people use for no-knock raids is officer safety. But, as we’ve repeatedly seen, it’s not like police get shot at less when they don’t knock. So, I think that’s a little hollow as well.
🥰🥰I think pedophiles, rapists and male murderers should be executed 🥰🥰
no i am not taking suggestions
I was going to ask why not female murderers but the tags say it all, don’t they?
I’d also ask about female rapists and pedophiles, but something tells me OP will just pretend those don’t exist.
because most female murderers are acting in self-defence. most male murderers are not at all. why are y’all this pressed over someone wanting rapists & pedos dead tho? 🧐
“Most”. Debatable, but let’s roll with it.
What about the others?
what others?
The other female murderers. The ones that don’t do it out of self-defense. Even though self-defense ISN’T murder.
women who kill in self defence are still prosecuted for murder a huge portion of the time, bc to get away from abusers they often need to find a moment when said abuser is for example sleeping, which is not recognised by most courts as self defence, despite it being so.
and what about the other female murderers? i said nothing on them. i only theorised why op probably specified with male murderers, but didn’t specify with rapists nor pedophilea. op probably didn’t want to wish death on female murderers as a group when a large portion of them have been found, time and time again, to have been acting in self defence.
That’s bullshit
it’s not. already provided evidence months back which you can find in the notes :). but since u felt the need to bring this up months later instead of scrolling a little in the notes to find the sources:
these sources prove the following: a huge portion of female murderers do so in self defence.
there is little consideration in court for female self defence due to the difference in how women defend themselves and the chances they get to do so.
and women are often convicted despite it being self defence.
> bc to get away from abusers they often need to find a moment when said abuser is for example sleeping, which is not recognised by most courts as self defence, despite it being so.
Yes, killing someone who is not presenting an imminent deadly threat and physically can’t keep you from leaving or assault you in any way is generally not considered self-defense.
This is the equivalent of that lady in Chicago going
>these sources prove the following: a huge portion of female murderers do so in self defence.
Which links, specifically, do that? To choose at random, that Irish women’s aid one doesn’t seem to have any sources, except themselves, and that “Femicide watch” PDF starts by implying men can’t kill women in self-defense, ever. And also that men are the only people who kill women worth talking about.
As if the title wasn’t a hint of bias. The term and usage “femicide’ implies any woman murdered by a man must’ve been killed out of misogyny, which is not how murder works. It also claims;
“ A review of Femicide by the World Health Organisation (WHO), found that an intimate partner commits more than 35% of murders of women worldwide. In comparison, the same study estimates that an intimate partner commits about 5% of all murders of men. The same report also showed that women killing their male intimate partners was often an act of self-defence following ongoing violence and intimidation.”
Okay. And how many of those women are convicted or even accused of murder, specifically? Or charged at all. Doesn’t say, and I can’t be arsed to look up a third study, which will probably be just as biased as the rest.
I also can’t seem to find the part in your link - the “Impact Report” - where they claim women are incorrectly sentenced for self-defense. Which would be a tad hypocritical when Page 5 says intimate relationships should be considered aggravating factors for men who are charged.
Also, have you ever heard of a Gish Gallop?
Also, I like how you backpedalled to “i only theorised why op probably specified”, even though your first post was a direct, unequivocal statement with no qualifiers.
You also backpedalled from “most female murderers” to “a huge portion”, which is much less specific. And it would still include “most”.
To me, it seemed pretty obvious OP wasn’t talking about legal criteria, because pedophilia is not illegal. That would be thoughtcrime. You have to actually do something with those desires to go to jail.
So, it’s very obvious to me that SYABM and others who are reblogging this don’t understand Battered Women’s Syndrome (BWS) and the associated legal arguments. I covered most of this in an earlier response to this post here, but I’ll restate the prevalent parts again after quoting.
Yes, killing someone who is not presenting an imminent deadly threat and physically can’t keep you from leaving or assault you in any way is generally not considered self-defense.
Right. No one is disagreeing with this. This isn’t a response. Menalez and many others recognize that this is a fact. Their argument is that it shouldn’t be. Yours an implied “it should be” but just stating the facts as everyone accepts them is not an appropriate response to the contention that the facts shouldn’t be true. That’s like responding to someone saying “you should have used more salt” with “but I didn’t.” You’re dodging the question and saying things that everyone agrees on.
Now, onto the actual contentions. As I summarized in my post, and as you stated here, the current standards for self-defense usually don’t cover most instances of BWS. I think that’s a mistake. Some instances of BWS look like State v. Norman where a woman endured repeated abuse from her husband over years including (but horrifyingly not limited to): Punching, kicking, having cigarettes put out on her, facial scarring and disfigurement, having hot coffee thrown at her naked body, having glass broken against her face, forced prostitution for money (her husband did not want to work), humiliation of the defendant to her family and friends, food deprivation for days, sleep deprivation for weeks, etc. Now forgive me, but I think a woman snapping after 20 years of this treatment and killing her husband is a little different than someone murdering a business partner or a complete stranger in cold blood.
However, the Supreme Court of North Carolina disagreed. he court held that despite the horrible abuse that the defendant endured, and the distinct possibility that had her husband lived she would have been subjected to yet more horrible abuse, the fact that she shot her husband while he slept meant that there was no reasonable, objective fear of imminent harm. Mere subjective belief from the defendant of the inevitability of future acts, regardless of the strength of evidence to support these conclusions was insufficient. And while the defendant’s abuse was terrible, and there was abuse the day before the murder, there was no abuse in the period directly before her husband fell asleep. That seems like there’s a little bit of a weird standard there to me–possibly some sexism involved in how the legal system determines what is or is not “reasonable” in terms of self-defense–but you might disagree.
However, if you do, I want to hear why. Why is a woman who killed her husband in his sleep after being subjected to 20 years of what we would call a crime against humanity if inflicted on a broader population the same as a cold blooded murderer who premeditatedly kills a stranger because he or she wants to? Show your work.
As for the murder charge/conviction rate, I don’t know the actual number off the top of my head, but it’s pretty high. Self-defense usually means that there’s a murder charge, and if it’s a BWS case, the murder charge is even more likely because it means that the self-defense claim is itself conditional on the jury’s belief/ the veracity of the BWS claim. Which… is not super likely to be believed. According to April 2021 update to the American Jurisprudence Proof of Facts, between 60-70% of women claiming BWS who are convicted are affirmed on appeal regardless of the convincingness of their expert testimony (Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 1 (originally published in 1983) (April, 2021 ed)). Plus, there are further issues with establishing BWS including the total number of events that need to occur before claiming BWS, limitations of self-defense claims even after BWS is proven, etc. It’s a very complicated area of the law. You clearly don’t understand it, which is fine, but it warrants a little more than just a couple paragraphs of dismissal.
And you only got to the impact report because you dismissed the first source (a seminal piece of legal scholarship) and the second source (a strong piece by the law firm Linklaters) to try and find a weaker source that you can attack. And you did it. That’s a bad source. Doesn’t prove your argument seeing as you have no source and have yet to respond to the first two sources which are better.
You’re using the claim of Gish Gallopping wrong as well. A Gish Gallop really doesn’t work in this kind of setting, and if it did would require more sources. Likewise, when someone is legitimately asked for sources and provides them, you can’t then turn-around and accuse them of a Gish Gallop in good faith. You (or at the very least your side) asked for the information. If you can’t be assed to read it then that’s on you. And that did happen. If you go through the notes, it happened quite a lot actually.
The first post actually does have a qualifier? The word “most” is a qualifier. Without it, it would refer to all female murderers. Now it’s just referring to “most” (which we’ll assume is some percentage over 50% but probably not up to 90%). By definition, the qualifier removes at least 10% of female murderers from discussion. Also, it’s entirely possible that Menalez doesn’t agree entirely with the OP–just as I don’t agree entirely with Menalez. We’re not talking about “all” female murderers like the OP said. We’re now talking about “most” female murderers. And personally, I wouldn’t classify “a large portion” as a retreat from “most” based on my reading of the sentence, but that’s subjective.
It’s fine to point out that Menalez doesn’t totally agree with the OP. That still doesn’t respond to her point. Maybe you don’t want to do that. Maybe you just want to respond to the easier claim that all female murderers are different from all male murderers. If so, then Menalez moved the goalposts. If not, and you actually want to respond to the points being raised, then the one moving the goalposts is you.
I understand why jurors need to be sequestered from media coverage and stuff, but it’s crazy that they’re prohibited from doing ANY internet research or fact-checking related to the case. Some guy is being fined $11k because he Googled a patch that an ICE officer was wearing in their case – the jury was told in court it was a trade workers’ union patch, but the guy didn’t think it was since he was a retired pipe fitter and didn’t recognize the logo. So he went home and googled it and says he found it to be a white supremacist logo. And since he googled it, he’s being charged with contempt and fined for the costs of the mistrial he caused by doing so. But like… doesn’t that mean that our court system is set up so that juries could be lied to (by prosecutors, etc) and be unable to do any verification or fact-checking without literally committing a crime……?
Sorry I’m just now getting to this post, and thanks for the tag!
TL;DR: Yup, this is a thing. Jurors are not allowed to do internet research as it may bias them, or they may try to apply inapplicable law, or misunderstand the law they are supposed to apply. In fact, this is a pretty big problem. For example, in this case the patch was a pretty insignificant detail seeing as the charge was for resisting arrest and there was no argument that the ICE officers started a fight. Even if the patch was a white supremacist as opposed to a trade patch, it doesn’t change the facts here. As for if juries can be lied to, the answer is “yes” but the frequency depends on how you define lie. Depending on the definition, juries are lied to all the time. They have a check through the fact that they can decide what information to believe, and there are also measures that go above the jury to resolve issues of knowing dishonesty by an attorney. Remember: There’s always someone on the other side looking for mistakes, lies, and general bad behavior–whether that person is a judge or another attorney.
So, after literal years of people demanding bodycams, this organization is suddenly complaining about their use?
Also, how is this a “civil rights” issue? “Communities of color” (IE poor black neighbourhoods) are “disproportionately surveilled” because that’s where a lot of crime happens. Black people have a higher chance of being murdered than any other racial group. By other black people.
“
So, after literal years of people demanding bodycams, this organization is suddenly complaining about their use?
“
What is “Reducto Ad Absurdum”?
They’re pointing out that the purpose of a Police’s Body Camera is to have an impartial objective record that can contradict a Police’s Written or Spoken statement, which is then used to confirm/deny whether or not that cop’s testimony is credible.
For example. before the police interrogate a prime suspect, they will carefully collect and review multiple forms of camera footage and eyewitness testimony.
They will NOT offer to show said footage or testimony to that suspect before interrogating them. This is so that the suspect freely present their own perspective, and if they then contradict any of said camera footage, then interrogators are then able to call them out on their lies, red-handed, and invalidate their testimony in a court of law.
These Viral videos from JCS are a great example of this technique at work:
When we allow cops free reign to review their own body camera footage before they give any written or spoken statements, we’re giving a dishonest cop the opportunity to cover their ass, and construct an airtight narrative, when they would otherwise provably lie to save their own skin.
I guess the Average Conservative can’t read above an 8th Grade level, and assumes this is some sort of contradiction, instead of basic police procedure… just applied to cops.
Which part of that Gish Gallop makes this a civil or constitutional rights issue? Or a racial one?
That’s a good fucking question. :/
I’m sorry but I still refuse to believe that we’re worse off having video evidence of these interactions than not. Maybe being able to review the camera before gives the police an advantage in interrogation or in the courtroom but they can’t change the objective reality of what’s going on in those videos. Let’s be honest, progressives pushed for these body cameras because they thought it would catch police misconduct or force a change in their behavior but the reality is more often than not it’s much more damning for the people they’re interacting with.
Oh good! The you effectively agree with the report in the article. The report isn’t claiming that it would be better not to have body cameras. It’s just discussing how body cameras alone, absent proper use policy, does not fix all of the problems with policing.
As you mentioned, being able to review the footage does give police an advantage, mostly in pre-trial, trial, and other assorted legal proceedings. Police reports are used as evidence of what the officer remembered/ the officer’s perception at the time of their action. Based on that perception, which is the only perceptions that matters for things like use of force where the standard is what the officer reasonably would have thought was appropriate given the circumstances, details that witnesses remember that the officer does not, or missing information can be used to impeach the credibility of the officer’s testimony. However, the ability to do that goes out the window if officers are allowed to review body camera footage before writing their official reports.
Furthermore, if officers are allowed to review footage before writing their official reports, they can include much more information than witnesses who are not afforded the same opportunity. That means that not only is it basically impossible to impeach the officer’s testimony based on the official report, but now that testimony might seem more reliable than would be warranted with the officer’s reflections without prompting. This is partially why police refuse to release body camera footage when specific actions are important–they don’t want to taint the witness’s own recollections with the information in the footage. The report is suggesting that this should apply to officers as well, and in most major police departments with body cameras it just… doesn’t. That’s all. Nothing more and nothing less.
And progressives (or at the very least most people who supported body cameras) never thought that the vast majority of police interactions were misconduct. That would be ridiculous. Instead, the issue is that the majority of police misconduct is disproportionately done to POC and that POC are more likely to experience police misconduct. That’s the racial aspect here. The Constitutional aspect is about Fourth Amendment rights as well as just the general legal effects.
But, happy to hear that you disagreement with the report appears to stem more from misinformation and misunderstanding as opposed to actual substance. I’d recommend reading it. It’s pretty interesting.
What a funny way to say “cops blew up neighborhood”
It’s been really hilarious to watch the LAPD try to dodge any responsibility for this while the media tries desperately to help them by publishing the most confusing fucking headlines but what really happened is that the cops found and confiscated thousands of pounds of “illegal” fireworks in LA and then decided to take 10 pounds of that, call the press, and make a show of using their new expensive toy, the “total containment” truck that is supposed to be able to take explosions of up to 15 pounds.
So they took the 10 pounds of explosives and their toy truck to a poor Black neighborhood, got reporters there, stuck the explosives inside, and set them off intentionally instead of just defusing them like they did with the other 4,990 pounds of fireworks.
For some reason, likely because something went wrong with their truck which I bet cost the city a shit ton of money, the containment completely failed and the explosion destroyed cars, homes, and injured 17-19 people (I’ve seen different reports with different numbers), a couple of whom were in critical condition but it sounds like everyone survived.
The LAPD then had the audacity to tweet that they didn’t know what caused the explosion when it was them who caused the explosion, intentionally, and we know because they called the media so that everybody could see them do it.
In summary, the LAPD wanted to show off/justify their ridiculous budget but their expensive toy was a dud and so they ended up bombing a poor Black neighborhood (because they would never risk this in a white neighborhood) and don’t want to admit it.
In my experience with people eager to show off their new toys, particularly ones explosion or fire related, my money says the truck itself didn’t fail, they just completely fucked up the operation of it, which just adds to the incompetence on display here.
I’m skeptical of this accounting of events. Not because it’s not possible that the LAPD just wanted to show-off a new toy and royally messed up, and that they didn’t care about collateral damage, but I don’t think it’s all that likely.
TL;DR: A lot of the above arguments (and similar arguments I have seen elsewhere) seemed based in misreading sources, bad faith, or misinformation. It’s certainly possible that the LAPD made a mistake here, but it’s equally possible that there was some unknown or unforeseeable mechanical error, or just an error in policy. Any person who is seeking to ascribe malicious intent to the LAPD, or any kind of utter recklessness to the LAPD is doing so prematurely.
