Note: This post is closed to commenting. Please comment on the reposted version. Thank you.
Oriana Lee Farrell (1974- ), of Memphis, Tennessee, was yet another unarmed Black American shot at by police. This time, though, police made 18 minutes of the video public.
On Monday afternoon, October 28th 2013, while Farrell was on a cross-country road trip with her five homeschooled children, ages 6 to 18, the New Mexico state police pulled her over “in the middle of nowhere”, as she put it (Route 518 south of Taos).
- Out-of-state plates: check.
- End of the month: check.
- Driving while black: check.
Officer Tony DeTavis said she was going 71 mph in a 55-mph zone. During a dispute over the speeding ticket, she drives off!
DeTavis chases her, siren blaring. Less than a minute later, she pulls over. He shouts at her to get out of the car. He tries to pull her out. Her children are screaming. She fears DeTavis and does not trust him.
After five minutes he persuades her to come out. But when he asks her to turn around, apparently to handcuff her, she tries to get back in the car.
DeTavis tries to stop her. Her 14-year-old son comes out and fights him! DeTavis points his Taser at him: “Get on the ground!” Her son runs back in the car.
Two other police officers arrive, ready to shoot.
DeTavis tries to get Farrell’s son out of the car. The door is locked. He smashes the window with his nightstick.
Farrell drives away. Officer Elias Montoya shoots at the moving car full of children three times – “at the left rear tire in an attempt to immobilize the vehicle,” he says.
Three police cars chase her. They go through Taos, hitting 93 (150 kph). She gives herself up in front of Hotel Don Fernando de Taos. The police also arrest her son, but later let him go.
State police had shot at four people that month, Farrell and three others. All four were persons of colour. New Mexico is 41% White.
In Tennessee v Garner (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that police cannot shoot fleeing, unarmed suspects.
During the chase, police reported she had a gun. Only a toy gun was found.
The police were not charged, though Montoya was fired December 7th.
She has been charged with:
- fleeing the police,
- child abuse (for the police endangering her children?),
- possession of drug paraphernalia (police found two marijuana pipes in her car).
The first two could put her in prison. She is out on bail, the jury trial set for April.
Questions:
- Why she drove off the first time is unclear. It is also unclear why she pulled over so quickly. She gained no apparent advantage, like getting to a more public place. Maybe she just panicked.
- Why she drove off the second time is crystal clear. What mother would not?
- Why the police used unnecessary force, endangering her, her children and the public, over a $126 speeding ticket, is because she had a Phantom Negro Weapon.
Sources:
- YouTube: watch the full 18-minute police video – far more dramatic than the bits they show on the news
- Taos News
- Oriana Lee Farrell: orianalee.com, Facebook, YouTube, Blogspot (2002-present), Twitter – among her Twitter followers: Barack Obama, Tavis Smiley and Jay Electronica.
See also:
In Tennessee v Garner (1985) , the Supreme Court ruled that police cannot shoot fleeing, unarmed suspects.
Well look at that gem right there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dang, that was crazy. I am at a loss for words on this.
LikeLike
There were children in the car, the cops seemed kind of trigger happy. These seem like gestapo tactics. Thank God they didn’t kill the young teenager.
LikeLike
Those kids are going to be traumatized from that incident, a simple cross country trip with the family in 2013 turns into the twilight zone.
LikeLike
A $126.00 speeding ticket does not warrant having guns pulled out on a woman and her young children.
LikeLike
For the life of me I can’t yet figure out why she drove away? Did she give any reason for it?
LikeLike
“child abuse (for the police endangering her children?),”
Yep believe it and also the shooting that happened in new York where the police shot at the guy and missed but hit two innocent bystanders charged him for their mistake saying “The defendant is the one that created the situation that injured innocent bystanders,” said an assistant district attorney, Shannon Lucey …..ain’t that some bs.
http://newsone.com/2803557/glenn-broadnax-nypd/
LikeLike
I posted the video to this incident in the open thread a couple weeks ago, this is a perfect of example of how the police have no intention to, “serve and protect” black people, instead they follow the creed to, “harass and arrest” black people.
I have always said, if a white police officer isn’t pulling over a black person to give a ticket, question, search us, arrest us and arrive in our neighborhoods to ,”protect and serve us” ( which is a joke, being when they arrive, they even treat a black person that has been a victim of a crime, like a criminal ), They have nothing to say to a black person, not one, “hello, how are you?” or “are you ok maam or sir?”
This kind of courtesy is reserved for only white people, you know, the people they actually, “serve and protect”.
They always talk down to a black person, never with respect or professionalism.
They make it a point to let black people know, they don’t like black people by the way they talk, treat and under serve our neighborhoods.
Let me give my black people a nickels worth of advice, if you happen to be in a place, where you’re the only black person in a sea of white people and trouble is a foot, get your black azz outta dodge, before police arrive, because if you don’t….you bet your black azz, you’ll be the 1st one they pull to the side and question, run your criminal background and detain yo azz, until they can rule you out as a suspect.
Then you better hope to god a blind old white man or woman, doesn’t mistake you for the perp, ( being white people think all black people look alike and are all criminals ) The white cops will believe them and take you into custody.
Same thing if you’re driving, if there is a road block or anywhere where police are, avoid being around them at all costs. By all means, don’t ask police for help, directions anything, they will probably charge you with something like, interfering with a police investigation or something along those lines.
This woman didn’t make matters better but worse for herself and her children.
This woman, DID put her children in danger but not for the reasons you may be thinking. She put her children in danger by not dealing with a white racist white cop in a way that would not make things spiral out of control.
Being a black women, how could she not see that this cop, had no regard for the lives of her and her children? Me, being a black man, i know not to make things worse, if i see that a white cop is baiting me, so i can say or do something that would give him an excuse to use excessive force or arrest me.
She allowed for her emotions to take over her, better judgement and as a result, gave the racist cop, all the reason to do what he did, ( which what he was trying to do in the first place ) and it worked!
This is a tactic that white police officers use on black people all the time and it works, 99.9% of the time. They instigate and provoke black people to say or do something, so they can charge us with a crime, anything to get cuffs on us and in custody.
Now, that being said, did that warrant these terrorists dressed in uniforms, called police officers to bash the windows out of the mini van and terrorize the little children in the car and shoot 3 times at the van, pulling away? of coarse not.
I can see that some will say, that at one point, she was trying to protect her children from the terrorists by driving off, after the cop trying to bash into the windows but she didn’t cooperate with the police officer at all.
Maybe she was high on weed?, maybe that clouded her judgement? who knows… I think that everyone on this blog will agree, that she wasn’t very smart about the whole situation and did put her children in danger but not for the reasons, the Mexico police dept. is giving.
Cause and effect comes into play here…
LikeLike
king
the reason she gave was she felt harassed. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/mom-car-chase-fled-terrifying-individual-article-1.1526808
LikeLike
^ I hear her, but if you want cops to get even more terrifying, just tell them “no” and take off in the middle ot them giving you a ticket!
Of course the cops were incredibly irresponsible, reckless, and irrational to break out the windows and open fire on her especially with a car full of children!
But geez what was she thinking? If you want to survive you have to be smarter than that.
LikeLike
I am sure she felt harassed, but we have to use our heads when dealing with law enforcement and driving while black or any other situation, unless we want to be carried out by six and buried six feet under and folks walking slow behind our caskets and singing hymns.
LikeLike
@ L rhino
I was dumbfounded watching the video. I thought maybe she was crazy or something. You don’t want to do anything to aggravate the police, it’s just not smart.
Of course, police have to realize that they may occasionally pull someone over who has lost their witts, so they can’t just shoot every crazy person they come across. But yes, I seefault on both sides. I don’t say that one justifes the other, but it definitely needs to be acknowledged.
LikeLike
That was @ you Legion. (Stupid ipad)
LikeLike
Ha! In name only… In name only….
LikeLike
yeah she was wrong for driving off and the cop was wrong for shooting. both are to blame for this. any sane black person knows u are supposed to be calm don’t reach for anything and don’t drive off. I mean we saw how they killed two black ppl for leading them on a car chase and pumped a lot of bullets into the car. we know if this woman was white they would not have shot, but the mother should not have drove off , take the ticket, contest it in court get the badge number and leave it at that.
LikeLike
Sorry, not logged into google.
Abagond, you claim she was racially profiled. That may well have been(and based on reading some of the other stuff on this blog probably was) a major factor in the police offier going berserk and trying to smash his way into the car and then shooting at it, but I doubt she was pullled over for being black. I do not drive, and thus may be mistaken, but is it actually possible to recognize the race of a person moving at that speed in a car? She should have been pulled over, irrespective of her background, but once the officer tried to smash her car window in, he lost the moral high ground.
LikeLike
In America, it’s ALWAYS open season on black people declared by the police.
LikeLike
I saw the video on MSNBC some weeks ago and the only thing that kept going through my mind when she tried to get the cop to her go was:
“Why is she trying to get her teenage son killed?” — putting him in the position where he feels he needs to protect his mother, a situation that could have easily got him killed.
of course her children would do anything they could to protect her — whose child wouldn’t, but I would never allow my sons to be put in a situation where I know those trigger happy a’sholes would shoot them without asking questions.
that little boy looked so scared and nervous, hopping around trying to figure out what to do to help his mother— as a mother, it hurt my Heart to watch him trying to defend her —- this mother should have thought of her children first — take the G-d’mn ticket and deal with the BS later!
she knows who she was dealing with, she’s not brand new — and she knows those cops would have killed her son without blinking an eye.
The whole situation was a mess but she endangered her children’s lives– I’m just happy that the children got out of this SAFE and without physical injuries_
I hope they got some counseling for the mental anguish of having to see their mother roughed up, getting shot at, and having the police make them lie on the ground with guns pointed at their heads… their screams had brought tears to my eyes.
LikeLike
Driving away from cops in this country while black is on the top of the most stupid and dangerous thing you can do. As if the trigger finger isn’t already itchy. Cops shoot naked people here, why where are they going to pull out that dangerous weapon.( Before anyone starts talking about a certain dangerous weapon know as a the male genitals which have done a lot of damage in the wrong hands I have yet to hear about one killing anyone.) I get embarrassed all the time by people from other countries asking me if our police force is so inapt.
I get that it is a dangerous job, but you signed up for it. Shooting at car full of kids is dumb, there is no excuse for it. Even Hollywood never shows a scene where cops go shooting up at a family with kids in the car.
@ Legion, she doesn’t really have my sympathies but I have driven down in states where the police started to call me boy. I looked at most got their badge number reported them but most of them were either a little older than me or my same age. I had one cop rubbing his gun while talking to me. I was tempted to ask him if he would stop stroking or jerking his gun, but common sense took over. (Plus my survival instincts.)
I keep telling my dads ( dads of the children I take care of) here who go to jail for the dumbest things ever or not so dumb things, stop messing around with the cops especially when you are on parole. One of the fathers of the kids I teach dad was protecting his daughter and they put him away for breaking his parole.
So I say, in the middle of nowhere, I would like to be in a place where people are. I don’t trust the police, they have not shown themselves to be trustworthy to PoC especially blacks. Yet with my kids in tow, I am not going to make a scene and I will definitely not give them an opportunity to shoot at my family like we are fish in a barrel.
@ Linda, amen. You’ve got to put your kids first. You got to remember where and situation you are dealing with. One of my friends use to be a cop, she use to say we aren’t trained to disable someone we are trained to put them down.
LikeLike
Wow. A lot of people here need to watch the full video. I think you are misinformed about what really transpired. Watch it here: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYTqPJvW18s)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seriously? What does being black have to do with this case? She was rude and uncooperative with the officer from the beginning, while receiving so many breaks. He asked her so many times to just step out of the car so that they could talk calmly, but for the longest time she decided to argue with him instead after she just evaded him. Regardless of panic you cannot evade an officer, there is no sympathy for if you are stressed or not. Once she evaded she was unpredictable, and then she’s asking him to shake her hand to trust him? C’mon. Put yourself in the officer’s position for a moment, imagine arguing with someone over every simple command given, someone who just about took off a moment ago, and then seeing a group of young people coming at you. You’d be fairly panicked yourself, but even still he didn’t fire his taser! He just commanded the older kid to get on the ground.
That woman endangered her kids and took off, all for what, 126$ ? I know it’s easy to be dramatic, “broken glass falling onto screaming children”, but take a an unbiased look at the situation and assess from there, please stop trying to see a race issue where there isn’t one. Obviously the gun being fired was excessive, but that officer most likely didn’t even know that there where children there, and if he did he should be fired but outside of that there was nothing unnecessary about what the police did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think race should be left out of this one. Everyone knows better than to do what she did. Yes the cop overreacted by shooting, but in many instances these cops feel in danger too. She did nothing to deescalate the situation just because of her unwillingness to surrender. She is at least as guilty as the cop here. Everyone knows not to just drive off that’s crazy!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok Legion you’ve made your point and I agree with it but now you’re being a bit of an a$$.
What struck me about the incident and video was that she almost got her kid killed. He came out to defend her and actually attacked the officer. Many black people have been shot dead for much much less.
LikeLike
Actually I can’t see where Legion is being as @ss at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also, plenty of White people are also shot by the police if you care to check the stats. It’s not just a Black thing.
http://gma.yahoo.com/texas-student-fatally-shot-campus-police-traffic-stop-125744485–abc-news-topstories.html?vp=1
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Legion
Yes, she was not the perfect victim. She broke the law. She showed poor judgement. The whole thing is an object lesson in how NOT to deal with the police. BUT that hardly means the police were not racist.
It seems probable they were racist because:
1. The disregard they showed for the safety of her children.
2. They assumed she was armed and dangerous when she was not.
LikeLike
It seems probable they were racist because:
1. The disregard they showed for the safety of her children.
2. They assumed she was armed and dangerous when she was not.
It’s true that this is common with racist cops… but with BAD cops in general also. Cops will naturally try to control a situation — bad cops will do ANYTHING to control a situation because they are not preserving the necessary authority needed tp do their jobs, but are instead maintaining their own personal authority.
LikeLike
@ Legion
My main interest was in how black people get shot at by the police since we have so much of the video in this case.
LikeLike
another question is why did she try to get back in the car when he was arresting her?
The charges are justified.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, my conclusion is that the charges are definitely justified.
and the shots taken at the car were unjustified.
LikeLike
@King,
I thought otherwise. Either way, so?
In terms of the incident, they both overreacted or acted poorly but at different times. Ms. Farrell first, then the cops.
LikeLike
Normally I agree with your posts, but this is just stupid.
Running from a cop is the worst decision she could make in that position. Sign the ticket, accept the penalty, get on with your life.
Her being black has nothing to do with getting pulled over when you’re going 16 mph over the speed limit. I’ve seen white friends get pulled over going 4 mph over.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ legion
“Sean Bell deserves tears and activism.
Kenneth Chamberlain Sr. deserves tears and activism.
(there are more examples, to be sure, those are just two that I remember.)
Trying to see racism in Farrell’s example is a real insult to other serious matters.
A real insult.”
I agree, some black ppl will mess it up for the others that do deal with racist cops and situations where they did nothing wrong and were the “perfect” victim. I feel sorry for the kids for having to go through this and being shot at. with the Kenneth chamberlain case I am disgusted, they used the n word and killed him yet nothing happened to them, so yeah of a black person killed after being called the n word still makes ppl say well we can’t prove it was racist there is no hope.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Legion
I don’t think I have any rotting veggies to throw at you, but I will say you summarized exactly what I was thinking after reading this post. I declined to comment because I did not have an elegant way of putting it.
Though I must say the cops were ill mannered as well and both need to reap what they sow.
LikeLike
@C Tucker
And what is it people are supposed to be confused about? or is it that you are the confused one?
LikeLike
Well for what it’s worth we can all agree that both parties behaved irresponsibly.
LikeLike
I didn’t watch video, but read post only. This lady definitely has mental problems (i.e Borderline personality disorder) her action were definitely not called for, but shooting at a van full of children was insane. I’m glad Montoya got fired.
LikeLike
@lifelearner,
Yeah I just heard on MSNBC that the cop who fired at the vehicle was fired last Friday.
LikeLike
@King and Legion
I haven’t read through all of the comments, but I’m gonna have to agree with you here. Were the police being unreasonable? Yes, quite possibly, but, can you just drive off because you feel like it? No.
I wonder if she took off because she knew she had the w33d pipes in her car and she thought they would search the car and find it.
LikeLike
I’m from the UK and we don’t have the Police carrying guns over here a standard like in the USA.
But still we have the same issues – Black deaths in custody, racial profiling, the whole nine.
I must say I have been a silent watcher of this blog for years, probably longer than most on here, 2008 and this is truly an amazing blog
Learnt more on here than I ever did at school
LikeLike
@ Legion
Montoya and DeTavis told the dispatcher about her having a gun during the chase through Taos. Montoya brings up the gun first. DeTavis agrees with him but says she never pulled it out. It is not always clear what they are saying, but that is the first I heard of her having a gun in the video.
Given that no gun was found and that their mention of her gun came AFTER Montoya shot his, it seems like a lie to protect themselves from a lawsuit – since they are not supposed to shoot on fleeing, unarmed suspects.
LikeLike
She broke the law by fleeing the police. She should be arrested. I do not see anyone disputing that.
She also showed amazingly poor judgement. When I am stopped by the police, I remain calm, keep my hands in view, do not argue, run or do anything unexpected – precisely to avoid a nightmare scenario like this. She did only one of those five things (keep her hands in view).
But none of that is a crime worthy of death. None of that, in itself, puts anyone in danger.
What put everyone in danger was the police acting as if she was armed and dangerous when she was not. And that was poor judgement on their part, not hers.
There was no sound reason for smashing her window with children inside, to shoot at her car three times, to chase her down in a high-speed chase through town. The last two could have easily got someone killed, the first one could have sent someone to the hospital, maybe blinded someone. And for what? She was not a physical threat to anyone.
The police could have simply issued a warrant for her arrest and get her later when she is not so freaked out.
She cannot act as if she is brand new – but neither can the police. Dealing with people who break the law and who do not want to be arrested is common in their line of work. Something they signed up for. Something they are TRAINED for, precisely to avoid dangerous scenarios like this one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think we have a case here where one Cop (Montoya) really screwed up by shooting at a fleeing vehicle. At worst, he shot at a vehicle knowing it was filled with kids. At best he shot at a vehicle without even knowing who was in it. Neither option is defensible, but unlike many police departments, here there seemed to be a swift investigation, and the policeman was removed from the force. That is better than what happens in a lot of places.
As Legion mentions, officer Tony DeTavis (the original arresting officer) upon finding that she was driving on an expired license, could easily have impounded her car had he had it out for her. She and her kids would have been out on the side of the road with no way of continuing their journey, and no belongings. Officer DeTavis could have easily become angry and demanding much earlier during their confrontation, once a woman who he was clearly already giving a break to, continued argue with him, as if they were in positions of equal authority. Even after she evaded arrest and then pulled over again, DeTavis did not yank her out of the car, throw her to the ground, and forcefully handcuff her (which it would have been within procedure to do.) He still tried to reason with her, and to spare her children from an ugly scene.
When her son tried to defend his mother by attacking the arresting officer, DeTavis did not shoot the boy. He also did not use his baton on him, which could have done serious damage. He didn’t curse or unduly threaten the boy, He also did not charge the boy, which he easily could have done. If this guy was a bad cop, there were plenty of opportunities for him to legally screw over this family, yet he did not do it.
I am against racial profiling and police brutality, and I know it when I see it (having myself been the victim of one and very nearly the other). IN THIS CASE there was much patience shown by the police for a good part of the arrest. Obviously shooting at the fleeing car was out of policy, and the offending officer was fired for it. Breaking windows in a car that is a flight risk is probably also within policy. Automobile manufacturers use “safety glass” in vehicles that is designed to hold together when shattered and to bead rather than to fly in sharp shards. This why first responders routinely shatter auto glass in the course of rescuing vehicle occupants.
I see one bad cop here who lost his job. I also see a very foolish motorist who”
– Was speeding;
– Driving on a suspended license;
– Evaded arrest;
– Resisted arrest, and;
– Was carrying drug paraphernalia in her vehicle;
who just happened to be Black.
LikeLike
^ that should read “expired”license” not “suspended.”
LikeLike
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mexico-officer-van-shooting-fired-21130722
“New Mexico Officer in Van Shooting Is Fired”
LikeLike
It was not because she was black, she eluded police twice; her son fought with the police; she drove the van at speeds of over 100 miles per hour. She had also been drinking and had marijuana in her possession. Not to mention she had her children in the van. Perhaps everyone is looking at this wrong.
LikeLike
“Legion @ There was no sound reason for smashing her window with children inside …King says this is probably within procedure. I’m a little lazy to search around and check. It doesn’t look at all outside of allowable procedure to me.”
Linda says,
C’mon now, Legion, smashing out her window was a bit much… at this point, the cop was just out and out pi’sed off, he was mad and steaming and wanted to get his hands on the boy for jumping him.
and I bet if he had got his hands on the mother or the boy, he would have beat their a’ses off camera.
LikeLike
Actually, if you retreat into your car, and roll up the windows, as a way to escape/evade a police officer. Then ignore orders to come out of the vehicle or roll down the window, breaking the window, in order to apprehend the suspect, is policy in most police departments. I can’t yet find out if it was policy at this particular department or not, but I ll keep looking.
LikeLike
One hint as to whether it was within policy or not is that the officer who discharged his sidearm was investigated and subsequently terminated. The officer who broke the window did not receive any disciplinary action, from what I am able to tell in the articles. I’m pretty sure it is allowable in such cases, particularly after a suspect has just used the vehicle to try and escape.
LikeLike
She did not MAKE the police officers chase her. That was THEIR BONEHEADED DECISION:
From the Taos News:
and:
Sources:
http://www.taosnews.com/news/article_8f887fc2-51f1-11e3-ae5b-001a4bcf887a.html
http://www.taosnews.com/news/article_fbbf9b4c-50db-11e3-ba01-0019bb2963f4.html
LikeLike
Anti-black racism is not just “being mean to black people”. It is assuming things about them based on stereotypes, like that they are armed and dangerous. It is assuming their lives are not worth protecting. It is thinking that only Perfect Black People deserve any rights.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ King
I stand corrected. I updated the post.
LikeLike
^ When you’ve been in as many accidents as I have you find out!
LikeLike
@Legion,
Ah now I see why you’re going so hard on this topic as it seems you’re an advocate of game theory? which, imo, suffers from the “fatal” flaw of assumed rationality.
As we can see here in the case of Ms. Farrell, despite what she probably should have known and what should have informed her actions, her behavior was not rational (though I suspect she was trying to “attitude” her way out of a drug search).
I agree with you generally here but Abagond has a point that even irrational actors have rights though I think in this instance she pushed her luck and the first/main cop showed great restraint and good police skills.
LikeLike
@ Legion, I was once in a car with a friend who took a wide turn because we were coming from off a step hill. The cops pulled us over asked him for his license took two seconds look at then went over the passenger side and asked me for mine. Now I was a might curious about why he would do it. I didn’t have control of the car, he didn’t ask if the driver was drunk but sure as the sky is blue he wanted my license when I gave him my college id he was livid. NO! There’s no social security number on this! Where is your license. I told him I don’t carry my license when I am not driving or planning to drive. Now, the guy is asking my to step out of the car. Now picture me thinking, has there ever been a situation where the cops pull you out of the car for no reason that turn out for your favor. I then began memorizing his badge number out loud. I told him it was ok Officer 123, I am now getting out of the car Officer 123. I don’t trust the police but I am still in love with my life.
Now my radar was binging. The driver of the car was white you took two seconds but my id a college id you had to take all the way to your car. For a wide turn down a steep hill. No I don’t believe you can trust the cops at all. They have proven themselves over and over again not there to serve and protect people of color especially blacks. But, you better learn the patience of Buddha or the love of Christ when in those situations. My mother use to say you could end up Dead right.
In this case the mother may have been wrong but shooting at a car full of kids is dumb. I don’t know the full situation but she is lucky she still has all her kids and her life. That situation could have gone very sideways very soon.
LikeLike
Abagond:”Anti-black racism is not just “being mean to black people”. It is assuming things about them based on stereotypes, like that they are armed and dangerous. It is assuming their lives are not worth protecting. It is thinking that only Perfect Black People deserve any rights.”
Agreed!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on revealingartisticthoughts and commented:
R.I.P Oriana Farrell
LikeLike
I’m sorry but after seeing that vid, I’m with Legion. WTF?!
All this over a ticket?!?! None of this made ANY sense.
I’m so mad she carried on like that, running her mouth, not caring and doing what she wants. Sign the damn ticket and move on! And then we wonder why people got the saying “Black people don’t respect authority”. Prove me wrong, because even no one can explain why the heck she drove off in the first place! “She was scared”…..MY A$$,from a ticket?……. She wanna do what she wants and be slick. OH and nice move racing back to the van and risking YOUR kids to be shot at. Then do not get me started on her son. UGH! I wish I was there to smack the mess outta him. Are you crazy?! You got that boy fighting officers now?! STUPID. She better stack the hell up in the future, weed pipes in the car, expired license, you talk smart to a officer and your kids wildin out on policemen. SMH.
.
This was not racist in the least. She was WRONG all over being defiant and jeapordizing her children like that. Her being black has NOTHING to do with this at all. Judgement is being clouded due to similar racial accidents with police, but this one has nothing close to them. Look past that and see what she really is…..a irresponsible mother. Sorry, but she gets no tears from me. I’ll save them for real injustice.
LikeLike
From the time DeTavis pulled her over and up to the time she raced away, Farrell was not altogether rational in her behavior and speech. DeTavis should have attempted to take control of the situation the moment Farrell refused to follow procedure of either signing the ticket or agreeing to go before a judge.
He made another misstep when he failed to immediately handcuff Farrell when she exited her vehicle after being pulled over for the second time. Rather than wasting time by offering her more of his ‘patient’ explanations, which she was clearly ignoring anyway, he should have tackled and handcuffed her as soon as he got the chance.
DeTavis’s footing was lost altogether not long afterwards when he decided to chase down a $126 ticket-avoiding person at high speed and to endanger not only her life, but also the lives of her children as well as the lives of pedestrians and other drivers on the road…and his own life to boot.
Major blame goes to Officer DeTavis for how HE allowed this fiasco to play out.
LikeLike
Her son better be grateful. A black male being released with no charges after attacking a officer? Unheard of.
Better learn to control his emotions and thank the stars they saw he was young/trying to protect his mother.
LikeLike
@Payitforward
I agree, and I did think he made those mistakes because he didn’t want to make a scene infront of the kids. A small price to pay for compassion.
LikeLike
DeTavis did enough unnecessary babbling of his own. If he’d stopped babbling for a second, he might have seen that she obviously was not firing on all cylinders, and he might then have decided to take control of the situation rather than to give Farrell so much leeway that she leaves the scene with little effort not once but two times.
DeTavis’s rage at being defied and shamed in front of the other two cops is probably what caused him to recklessly charge after Farrell at 90 something miles an hour anyway.
LikeLike
This sista is mentally ill. How the hell she did not know know the rules of the game when white cops pull your black ass over. Stay in the car with both hands on the wheel, remain calm, yes sir,no sir, and behave yourself. I have no sympathy for her stupid ass. What is she teaching her black sons, how to wind up dead? Her parents failed her dumbass. No, the cops should not have shot at her and the kids, but she escalated this situation with her stupidity. Remember your ass is black in this majority white country, and a target is on our back.
LikeLike
LOL @ this article… Yet more deflection… Let’s just forget about how she was resisting and then tried to flee. Forget that… let’s just blame the cop… She’s innocent because she’s black… lol
http://artisticexpression.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/police-brutality-is-a-myth-trayvon-deserved-it-and-black-people-are-ruining-america/
LikeLike
^ Big Boss, do you support the shooting at a van full of children part?
LikeLike
Yes I do support a trained officer shooting at a car’s tires even if said car has kids in it if the officer deems it necessary and it is proven to be necessary as was the case here. Farrel was a lunatic.
LikeLike
https://www.facebook.com/pages/I-support-Officer-Elias-Montoya-being-terminated/1437784616436995
LikeLike
This is the other extreme…
The “Officer as god” idea. Police officers are trained and therefore even when the law enforcement authority takes the drastic step of terminating the offending officer (the most drastic disciplinary step) based on his bad judgement, it was still clearly “necessary” to some people.
LikeLike
I disagree with trying to play the race card She was wrong for fleeing from police not once but twice and the fired cop was completely wrong for firing at a car with kids in it. It doesn’t matter if she was black, white or anything in between.
Appalling behavior for a self-described “educator” and again, it doesn’t matter what her race is,
LikeLike
While I agree she was not armed, I still see her as dangerous in regards to her actions. She became a danger to herself and her kids and possibly others on the road.
LikeLike
Not seeing what race has to do with any of this. If she was speeding, she deserved to be pulled over. Driving while black has nothing to do with it if you ACTUALLY ARE breaking the law. Then it’s just “breaking the law while black.” If a cop pulls you over for a ticket you don’t then speed off. If they found a few marijuana pipes, maybe she was stoned or something at the time and that explains the odd behavior. As for the shooting, if they were aiming for the tires, that doesn’t count as shooting at the passengers. Of course cops are allowed to shoot out the tires of unarmed suspects during a highway chase. It happens all the time on Southern California freeways where high speed chases are weekly events.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
She had every right to drive off the first time, but no, I would never have done that b/c I know that American cops get a hard on for a police chase, and you will not win…especially w/ some bored cops on a New Mexican highway.
I just saw the video, and the cop tried to force her to sign the citation, which she had every right to refuse. He was wrong to say “You have to pick an option right now…I told you your two options…you do have another option…if you do not want to sign the citation you’re stating to me that you want to see a judge right now.” The cop seemed to be implying he was going to arrest her for not signing the citation, which would be illegal.
Not only was he wrong for making her sign the citation, but what kind of man does that to a woman with her kids present…especially for going 16 MPH over the speed limit, which I’d bet half the cars on that road were doing at that time. What kind of man points a gun at unarmed kids and their mother? The indecent US police state at its best.
LikeLike
@resw77
I must admit I have not fully seen the video so I will watch that and give a much better response than this one.
You are however right in that she did not have to sign the ticket, but with her not signing she must then surrender herself to jail. It may be different for each state but signing is not admitting guilt (which she may not have been aware of). Signing simply means she is aware of the ticket and agrees to appear on said date in court to pay or fight it. It was stupid on her part to simply not sign it and go on with her day, but it was not illegal for the cop to tell her she will be arrested because depending on the laws in said state she most certainly could have and the cop would have been in the right. Though he would then have to read her Miranda rights and go through the whole nine.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“but with her not signing she must then surrender herself to jail.”
Not necessarily, and at least she would have had the right to immediately go before a magistrate, not to jail per se.
I understand that a New Mex. traffic citation manual says that “Refusal to sign the Uniform Traffic Citation for any offense” requires both “court appearances” and “arrest.” Problem is that it bases that “arrest” provision on a Supreme Court decision that applies to criminal offences, and “refusal to sign the Uniform Traffic Citation” is not apparently a criminal offence that permits arrest w/o a warrant in New Mexico: http://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2006/nmrc/jd_66-8-125-18843.html
Understandably the cop had probably been instructed to place under arrest anyone who refused to sign, but he never did before she drove off the first time.
Practically it was not wise for her to drive off, and it’s not something I’d ever do or advise anyone else to do.
LikeLike
@resw77
Here is a link to the manual itself.
Click to access NMTrafficCitationsManual.pdf
It states:
“Some traffic offenses require that the defendant be arrested and taken into custody. Arrest occurs when a defendant is charged with:
Reckless Driving §66-8-113
•Driving While Intoxicated §66-8-102
(not a subject for this manual)
•Failure to stop for accident involving death, injury or damage to property §§66-7-
201, 66-7-202
•Driving while Suspended or Revoked §66-5-39;
or when a person:
•Refuses to sign the Uniform Traffic Citation for any offense, or
•Requests an immediate appearance”
So far as we know she did not request an immediate appearance and that she did refuse to sign. According to this it would require an arrest. Though it can be said that others things listed would require her arrest as well, but all at the discretion of the officer. Regardless of what options she chose to take there were serious consequences for them.Jail is the likely one as cops have god complexes at times.
“but he never did before she drove off the first time”—And that is frankly his own stupidity. He allowed the situation to escalate on his part as well and had he been in control of the situation it would have never gone as far.
“Practically it was not wise for her to drive off, and it’s not something I’d ever do or advise anyone else to do.”—-LOL well I would hope not. Hate to see you on the 5 o’clock news. I would probably be thinking “oh man! He tried the police!”
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Yeah, I already acknowledged and stated that the manual seems to permit arrest. I just added that it’s contrary to New Mexico law.
LikeLike
@resw77
Then I apologize for my repeat, but I took your “not necessarily” as you saying this is something she would not have to do. According to the law she would. Even the statue you presented does not save her from this as 66-8-125 B still is enough for them to present an arrest. In this case he had reasonable grounds with the suspended license. The refusal to sign really can be considered an afterthought because I am sure he was highly aware of it before asking her to sign the citation. I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I personally don’t see a loophole in the law for her.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“According to the law she would.”
There’s nothing in 66-8-125 that permits arrest w/o a warrant for refusing to sign a citation.
“In this case he had reasonable grounds with the suspended license.”
No, her licensed was expired, not suspended. There’s a difference there, but that was even more reason for her to just be compliant..
“I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I personally don’t see a loophole in the law for her.”
I don’t see a loophole either, I see that it’s not against the law to refuse to sign a citation. But she should have settled this disagreement in court, not on the road with highway patrol, especially considering her expired license.
LikeLike
@resw77
“There’s nothing in 66-8-125 that permits arrest w/o a warrant for refusing to sign a citation.”—Nor did I say there was. What I did say was that 66-8-125 B gives him enough reason to arrest her as it states “To arrest without warrant, the arresting officer must have reasonable grounds, based on personal investigation which may include information from eyewitnesses, to believe the person arrested has committed a crime.”
A per the quote you used, I was not particularly referring to that law but rather the manual so that is my mistake.
“No, her licensed was expired, not suspended.”—Then my mistake as I thought it was suspended.
“I don’t see a loophole either, I see that it’s not against the law to refuse to sign a citation.”—I never said that it was against the law for her to refuse to sign but rather that there are consequences and those include an arrest as per the manual. As per the law the officer really just needed reasonable grounds and we all know how reasonable grounds go.
Other than that I frankly am not sure what you are arguing.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“Nor did I say there was.”
Well, you did say, “According to the law she would,” which is why I responded that there was nothing under 66-8-125 that permits arrest for refusing to sign something. That statute is the law, not some manual.
“…to believe the person arrested has committed a crime”
This is the key. If refusing to sign is not a crime, then there are no “reasonable grounds” for arrest. Obviously I understand that cops can basically do what they want, but there were still no grounds for arrest…that’s what I’m “arguing,” to be clear.
LikeLike
@resw77
“Well, you did say, “According to the law she would,” which is why I responded that there was nothing under 66-8-125 that permits arrest for refusing to sign something. That statute is the law, not some manual.”—-I also said “A per the quote you used, I was not particularly referring to that law but rather the manual so that is my mistake.” So frankly what is it that you are getting at? As per the manual they are allowed to. As per the law he can argue that it was reasonable for him to arrest her. I am sure they don’t just toss things in a manual they don’t attend to have some type of legal backing on. If they do then quite dumb.
“This is the key. If refusing to sign is not a crime, then there are no “reasonable grounds” for arrest.”—-Is it all that key? We can also take the small part you quoted and say he was reasonable in that he simply “believed” she had committed a crime. It also stands to reason that “committing a crime” can be anything as per their statues. Statue 66-8-125 does not specify any type of crimes or definitions of. It really only says arrests without warrants. So in order to fully say refusing to sign is not a crime then we would need to find a statue regarding crimes to determine such.
LikeLike
correction intend
LikeLike
In fact in some states it is a misdemeanor crime, but I will later research NM to find out such in regards to that state.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“Statue 66-8-125 does not specify any type of crimes or definitions of.”
Obviously, but it only permits warrantless arrests if a crime is committed. In NM, refusal to sign a citation is not a crime.
And I only say this b/c I have done the research. But please let me know if you find something different.
LikeLike
@resw77
“Obviously, but it only permits warrantless arrests if a crime is committed”—-No it permits an arrest if and I quote “the arresting officer must have reasonable grounds, based on personal investigation which may include information from eyewitnesses, to believe the person arrested has committed a crime. “
” In NM, refusal to sign a citation is not a crime.”—I prefer to read to see it for myself , but if you would like to provide such to aid in my search then by all means I welcome it.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
That quote from the statute does not contradict what I stated.
“I prefer to read to see it for myself”
That’s precisely why I said, “please let me know if YOU find something different.”
LikeLike
@resw77
“That quote from the statute does not contradict what I stated.”—Actually in a sense it does. You are stating that a crime has to be committed in order for a warrantless arrest. The statue only states that if the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to “believe” the person committed a crime. There is a difference in they committed a crime and the arresting officer believes they did.
“That’s precisely why I said, “please let me know if YOU find something different.”—It does not matter why you said it as I was stating what I prefer to do. Had nothing to do with you are anything else for that matter.
LikeLike
or*
LikeLike
I am allowed to have a preference. No need to make it a big hoopla.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
That’s only one part of that provision. The other part, i.e., “based on personal investigation which may include information from eyewitnesses” places an obligation on the officer to verify that a crime was committed. No, it’s not enough to just believe, as you seem to be implying.
“It does not matter why you said it as I was stating what I prefer to do.”
Good for you, but I chose to state why I said it.
LikeLike
@resw77
” No, it’s not enough to just believe, as you seem to be implying.”—Nope did not imply that. In fact I have been stating the whole statue for quite some time not bits and pieces from it. The statue states he must have reasonable grounds from his personal investigation.This can be what he smelled or saw. This can include eyewitnesses but is not necessary. If he believes what he smelled or saw constitutes a crime then hey.
“Good for you, but I chose to state why I said it.”—Kudos, but it was an unnecessary statement centered around what you thought I meant by mine.
LikeLike
I will also at the moment concede to refusal to sign not being in law as I really don’t feel like looking for it and I really don’t care to go back and forth about it. If that is all then I am done.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“In fact I have been stating the whole statue for quite some time not bits and pieces from it. ”
Right, and yet you said, “The statue only states that if the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to “believe” the person committed a crime.” No bits and pieces there at all.
LikeLike
@resw77
“Right, and yet you said, “The statue only states that if the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to “believe” the person committed a crime.” No bits and pieces there at all.”—Actually that is a summary of what was said in the actual statue. Not bits and pieces as you have so freely felt entitled to quote yourself.
Now you can pout and argue like a baby over something so meager or you can move on. Apparently you are looking to argue and while I would usually oblige I simply am not in the mood. Though you are free to go on as if you have accomplished something.
LikeLike
@Sharina
LOL, your last comment shows you’re the only one pouting “like a baby.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
@resw77
When you assume you make an ass out of YOU and me. 🙂
LikeLike
*Toss a pacifier in direction of resw77.* LOL have at it.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“When you assume you make an ass out of YOU and me”
Ooh. Good one. Very unique.
LikeLike
@resw77
Wasn’t trying to be, but I was trying to make you realize that while you are assuming things about me. It is not wise on your part to do such. It says more about you than me.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
No one knows what you’re talking about.
LikeLike
@resw77
“No one knows what you’re talking about.”—If you don’t know what I am talking about then admit it for yourself, but don’t assume to know the mindset of others. Here is a link to better help you understand exactly what I am talking about in regards to your assumptions.
I have been more than nice to you in effort to have an honest and intelligent discourse. I guess when you usually debate you usually get by with assumptions and side jabs and remarks as a means to win, but considering I conceded to your main point don’t know what your problem is and why you are being so difficult. *shrugs* If being childish is your thing this congrats you win. 🙂
LikeLike
correction then*
LikeLike
@resw77
And another interesting point I wanted to make for someone who claims “No one knows what you’re talking about” You sure as heck have engaged in days long debate over something you just have concluded that you nor anyone else knows what I am talking about. My what time you have on your hands to engage in something so meager. 🙂
LikeLike
If you’re going to quote Tennessee v. Garner at least get it right:
“…when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner
In the Tennessee v. Garner case, cops were chasing a unarmed 15 year old and shot him.
She was in a vehicle fleeing police, that’s probable cause to believe she posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury. Many people have been shot and killed while trying to flee police in a vehicle.
LikeLike
I’d just like to point out that the white cop was assaulted after being the most patient officer in the history of police. If you watch the entire video, not just the clip played by the news, you’d agree.
Maybe you should watch the entire video, instead of congratulating yourselves on finding another example of the ‘white devil’ keeping minorities down. I agree that the officer OF COLOR shouldn’t have fired at the van. But that woman was insane as well. She started driving off before he fired at her, so that’s definitely not why she took off the second time. The first time she was obviously just trying to get away from the cops. You ask these three questions at the end, and it’s obvious what you’re trying to do: absolve her of all responsibility. The minority officer shouldn’t have fired at the van. The woman should be in jail and definitely not have custody of her children. The white cop was assaulted for attempting to make a lawful arrest. Then this ‘mother’ narrowly avoided killing herself, all of her children, the police officers, and dozens of civilians when she went hurtling down the street at 100mph.
LikeLike
To the 2 women who were arguing. Both of you guys arguments have a point but what you both fail to realize is that no one knows his intent before she pulled off the first time. He never stated he was arresting her. He had handed her a ticket, which she did not have to sign. YES, he asked her to wait.. Does she actually have too once a ticket has been issued and license returned to driver. To many yes she does. Maybe to her she didn’t have too. Which could be debated in court in April. The first time she fled, she did not endanger anyone… She drove her car in a law abiding manner which leads me to believe she thought she could leave. He chased her down, she pulled over like normal. At that point he could have taken control and tried to access the situation rather than yelling and intimidating her only to sweet talk her out the car, just to place her under arrest. Which led to the crazy events that later took place. Did she follow the law? No. Did any of the officers, approach the situation correctly? Not at all. The only thing she should be guilty of is speeding and driving without a license, which is normally a fee. And the very first video leaked actually had the officer excusing her, that video has been edited and the original removed from the internet.
LikeLike
This lady was crazy in the begining. First off all, I’m black and I saw that it has got nothing to with the color of her skin. That cop pulled her over because she broke the law (speeding),cop asked her to choose between two options of either paying $126 for speeding or go to court but she refused to choose. It would of not happen if she just chose her option. But instead she refused to cooperate with the officer. The cop told her to stay put because she was not cooperating and that he needed to go back to his car. While he checks on something the lady takes off. Now, that lady shouldnt of taken off when the officer was not finished with her. Being a grown ass women and having her 5 kids in the car that was a bad move on her part because she should of been a role model to her kids and did what the officer said when he pulled her over the first time, not only did she keep on refusing the officer when the first time he pulled her over he was polite and actually quite nice by not charging other offences. BUT she kept on refusing she could of made the situation alot easier if she just freckin COOPERATE!!!…Thus leading to the kids screaming and the son inteferring. Now I dont agree with the officer shooting at the van full of kids thats wrong. But that cop that fired the gun I hope he has been dealt with and the mother that put her kids in danger and refusing an officers order saying that she was scared for her kids and thats the reason she fled might be true but she made the situation worst by refusing a cops request when all she needed to say is “yes officer I choose option 1” but no she instead chose to drive off leading to a 10min chase that will traumatise her kids forever
LikeLike
suesue:
Fist off, YOU’RE NOT BLACK! The fact that you felt a NEED to point that out, gave you away as a white person, posing as a black sock puppet.
Also, i didn’t even bother to read the bunch of text, jumbled together.
Go back to school and learn how to write a proper paragraph.
LikeLike
Tgermaine89
I am not sure what two women you are referring to, so it might be beneficial to elaborate. As to the officer intent, it really does not matter unless you can prove it. Anyone can speculate his intent until the cows come home, but that does what?
LikeLike
Why did she take off the first time after being told to turn off her car? Possibly because she had possession of pot and wanted to dispose of it. Once she threw it out the window she pulled back over. It’s just a possibility since other drug related items were found in her car.
LikeLike
The officer that shot rounds at her was out of line and was fired as he should have been. The rest of the officers acted correctly. Fleeing the police is a crime, even if it is only for a 1/4 mile. White or Black they all get arrested, no special case for her. Then she locks herself in the car, yeah, don’t blame them for breaking the window after her son just got finished attacking the officer. Then she takes off again. Not a smart women. Had nothing to do with race in this situation. It sucks that their are horrible stereotypes out there about blacks,it is sad that she will only heighten this stereotype with her actions and it is even sadder that people who’s hearts are so filled with hate and racism that they would write an article like this. Sad world we live in.
LikeLike
99% of you on this blog are dillusional, SHE BROKE THE LAW!!! Easily could have ended with her signing the citation, “thank you soooo much Officer for overlooking my EXPIRED LISCENSE!!! I’ll get that fixed right away. I didn’t realize I was speeding. have a nice day!!” No, she had to have an attitude. SHE WAS WRONG, ON SOOOO MANY LEVELS, I HOPE SHE GETS JAIL TIME AND LOSES HER EBT BABIES TO THE STATE!!
LikeLike
Oriana, you are the biggest idiot for running from the cops, playing the race card won’t help you this time, what a wonderful example you are proving to be for your kids!!! If the cop was black, would you have felt more comfortable? maybe they should give you that option when you get pulled over. “Hello, Ma’am, the reason I pulled you over is for speeding, you clocked at 71 mph in a 55 mph zone, could you please show me your license, insurance and registration? And also, would you like a officer of your color present?”
LikeLike
Ted, I think if you can actually read and count, there were a lot more than 1% who acknowledged that she broke the law and was wrong on a lot of levels.
LikeLiked by 1 person
King
I doubt he read anything, but that assumes he can read and count on my part.
LikeLike
This article is biased and racist. You are creating racism in this world by writing biased articles like this.
LikeLike
William
Please do explain how it is bias and racist.
LikeLike
@William Kelly: You are part of the problem when you choose to close your eyes to the racism that’s happening by being narrow minded and obtuse.
LikeLike
William Kelly, how on Earth is this bias and racist? Please explain.
LikeLike
why did she flee?
why didn’t she obey his lawful order, what was she really afraid?
if she knew she had kids in the car why did she endanger their lives by speeding?
LikeLike
ROY
If you have her number then why don’t you call and ask her.
LikeLike
I think Oriana Ferrell is a BABE. She is my definition of a “CHICK”
I’d like to meet her.
LikeLike
I just can’t help myself. She is CUTE. I would take HER and the KIDS.
LikeLike
I can get her phone number but as far as I know, she’s still in New Mexico.
LikeLike
Safety sites advise women pulled over by police in remote sections of highway, to tell the officer they are afraid to open the window, and ask to be followed to a populated public area. Imposters have pretended to be policeman and gotten women to open car windows and door based on the appearance of a legal stop in a remote area. Black women in the South must fear being stopped out of an highway, more than white women. Ferrell’s ‘attitude’ was justified by Black perceptions of white policemen as being potentially dangerous to their children and themselves. Race matters here because Blacks often are not treated like Whites in stops by white policemen. On this board, there is a lot of denial of this, but the difference in perception of whites and blacks in such a situation are real. So are the fear women of any race have of being stopped in a remote area by a strange, police or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What an idiot this woman is, putting her kids, the police officers, and the public in danger all because she inexplicably refused comply with a single lawful command given by a peace officer. Why didn’t she just sign the ticket and get on her way? Only she knows for sure, but what the video clearly shows is that, throughout the entire encounter, the trooper treated her with the utmost respect, even though she demonstrated willful disregard for the safety of others. Had I been the officer, I would have given her an opportunity to comply, and then if she refused to, I would’ve tasered her for resisting arrest and obstructing justice, especially after she attempted to flee. To those who say the second officer shouldn’t have fired at the tires, I agree. That’s why he was later fired. But the main issue is that instead of signing the citation and ending the police encounter peacefully, she chose to commit multiple felonies through evading and assaulting the police officers and potentially killing herself, her kids, and law-abiding motorists. I hope that child abuser spends many decades behind bars so an incident as appalling and preventable as this never happens again.
LikeLike
This recent article (http://www.timesunion.com/news/crime/article/Mom-in-chase-where-police-fired-at-van-of-kids-to-6381008.php) is an update to Ms. Farrell’s situation. There is no mention of her children. I hope they are not scattered in foster homes throughout New Mexico. I hope she is able to recover from this nightmare.
LikeLike
This woman is a complete whackjob, and plus she is also a consummate liar. But hey, don’t just take my word for it, ask her babies daddies. That is if you can find them. One more reason why I stay the hell outta Tennessee. What a dumbass.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This woman should be in jail. She is the problem here and no one else. She is scum
LikeLike
R. Ellis and k55,
The problem was armed thugs with badges. Farrell wasn’t harming anyone, yet she was treated worse than the latest crop of toxic White male mass shooters.
She was harassed because she was driving while Black——and female.
LikeLiked by 1 person
k55, your moniker says it all!
LikeLike
People need to take responsibility for their actions, and show their children that there are consequences. She was speeding and driving with an expired license. Sign the ticket to pay the fine and move on. Instead she put the police officers, innocent by-standers, AND her children in danger. Senseless. When an officer tells you to do something, do it. Period! Just because you’re a person if color does NOT mean you should get a pass on following the law.
LikeLike
Oh, and at the time of this incident, she was running from a speeding ticket she had been issued in Tennessee. Sounds like she’s doing a fine job if endangering her children all on her own!
LikeLike
Daniel Johnson
It seems to me that the police actions in this incident had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the fact that Ferrell and her children are black. If you are speeding at 71 in a 55 mph zone you are likely to be stopped by the police. If you drive away in the middle of a stop you are very likely to be arrested. If you resist arrest there is likely to be some use of physical force against you.
AND the cop who fired was NOT firing at the idiotic woman OR at any of her idiot children. He was firing at the vehicle’s tyres – quite a different matter. He SHOULDN’T have done that of course (and he has paid a heavy price for doing so) but he was clearly NOT trying to kill or wound Ferrell or her wretched children. AND of course THAT officer didn’t EVEN know that the vehicle’s occupants were black.
LikeLike
Afrofem She was VERY LIKELY to harm someone. Aren’t you even aware that SPEED KILLS, and that SPEEDING KILLS? IT KILLS PEOPLE EVERY DAY. EVERY DAY PEOPLE ARE MAIMED AND KILLED BY PEOPLE LIKE THIS IDIOTIC WOMAN. THAT is why there are speed limits, and penalties for exceeding those limits. It is very evident that this woman is a PERSISTENT DANGER to the public . . . a PUBLIC MENACE. And she was doing this with a vehicle full of her own children! WHAT sane mother exceeds the speed limit by 16 mph with five of her children in the vehicle? Can you imagine the carnage likely to have occurred if she had been involved in a collision at 70+ mph? SHE was the one ALREADY putting her children in SERIOUS danger WELL BEFORE the police pulled her over.
And HOW was she “treated worse”? The police in fact showed EXEMPLARY RESTRAINT during most of this. The cop who stopped her was EXTREMELY and eminently reasonable (and polite) to her DESPITE her exasperatingly stupid behaviour.
Are you seriously suggesting that WHITE MALES who exceed the speed limit by 16 mph DON’T get pulled by the police? Plenty of them ARE, as ANY REASONABLE PERSON knows and will acknowledge. But there are VERY FEW (if any) white males who would be STUPID ENOUGH to refuse to sign the citation when pulled, refuse to turn off their engine and then (insanely) drive off as soon as the policeman goes back to his vehicle. WHAT did she imagine she was doing? WHAT did she think that would achieve?
LikeLike
Afrofem
As for your “There is no mention of her children. I hope they are not scattered in foster homes throughout New Mexico” comment I think you must be insane.
It is blindingly obvious that they would be FAR better off in foster care than continuing to be under the control of this idiotic, criminally reckless woman.
LikeLike
Mary Burrell Gestapo tactics? You must be joking (although it is a sick joke). The Gestapo would have summarily shot this woman through the head after about thirty seconds.
LikeLike
Sondis Before you criticize the standard of other people’s writing you should learn to spell the word “first.”
LikeLike
@Daniel Those two lane desert roads are 55 mph speed traps. I drive 90 all the time but I got a radar detector.
The police are violence.
She ran because she was afraid for her children.
LikeLike
Abagond What you write about this incident and the issues arising from it is full of distortions and irrelevances. For example you point out that “In Tennessee v Garner (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that police cannot shoot fleeing, unarmed suspects.” Yes, that “police cannot shoot fleeing, unarmed suspects” BUT NOT that police cannot shoot at THE VEHICLES of fleeing unarmed suspects. Incidentally, it was ALREADY clear that Ferrell was NOT a mere “suspect” but a PERPETRATOR (and a DANGEROUS PERPETRATOR at that).
LikeLike
Abagond And I was naive enough to take your word for it that “In Tennessee v Garner (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that police cannot shoot fleeing, unarmed suspects.” No sooner did I post my LAST comment than I read the comment from “James” who makes it clear that the judgment in Tennessee v Garner DOES NOT say that at all. So in reality you are either seriously confused or else simply a liar.
LikeLike
michaeljonbarker If you DO indeed habitually drive at 90 ANYWHERE (let alone in 55mph zones) then you are a PUBLIC MENACE and should be in prison, preferably for the rest of your life. It’s PLAINLY RIDICULOUS to try to say that “she ran because she was afraid for her children” when her running OBVIOUSLY ENDANGERED her children, but then I suppose a criminal moron like you (who drives at 90) WOULDN’T EVEN be able to understand that.
You say “The police are violence.”
YOU are violence. Speeding is an act of violence – and in fact the MAIN CAUSE of violent injury and death in the United States (and indeed on THE ENTIRE PLANET).
LikeLike
michaeljonbarker If you DO indeed habitually drive at 90 ANYWHERE (let alone in 55mph zones) then you are a PUBLIC MENACE and should be in prison, preferably for the rest of your life.
He just got out of Folsom Prison after completing his fifty-year bid.
but then I suppose a criminal moron like you (who drives at 90) WOULDN’T EVEN be able to understand that.
As opposed to a lunatic who rants and raves incoherently?
Speeding is an act of violence – and in fact the MAIN CAUSE of violent injury and death in the United States (and indeed on THE ENTIRE PLANET).
In that case, stay off the roads!
Seriously, you cannot be taken seriously with your ranting. However, I find you quite entertaining. Carry on!
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m a public menace ! lol
“Speeding is an act of violence”.
That’s a great line for a tee shirt.
I concur with Hernieth that your entertaining.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Herneith Some people (people like you, for example) dislike hearing the truth and therefore dismiss it as “ranting and raving” – but present NO counter-argument, no argument OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER.
Plus you throw in the word “incoherently” but OF COURSE DON’T actually cite any kind of incoherence in what I wrote.
As I say, you dislike hearing the truth. Indeed, it’s evident that (as the famous line goes) you can’t HANDLE the truth lol.
LikeLike
michaeljonbarker Propositions which make “great lines for a T-shirt” (it IS “T-shirt” by the way, and not “tee shirt” – it has NOTHING to do with golf . . . lol!) generally do so because they succinctly express important truths.
Are you SERIOUSLY trying to deny that speeding is an act of violence? I would have assumed that EVEN a moron like you isn’t THAT stupid.
And “staying off the roads” of course ISN’T an option for the majority of people (as EVEN an imbecile like you perfectly well knows) – quite apart from which a high proportion of those who are killed or maimed by speeding vehicles aren’t EVEN “on the roads” when hit. Many are killed or maimed by speeding vehicles which mounted THE SIDEWALK. In the area where I live two people have recently been run down and killed by motor vehicles – BOTH victims were ON the sidewalk when run down.
You are an idiot.
LikeLike
Herneith Your “staying off the roads” of course ISN’T an option for the majority of people (as presumably EVEN a moron like you perfectly well knows) – quite apart from which a high proportion of those who are killed or maimed by speeding vehicles aren’t EVEN “on the roads” when hit. Many are killed or maimed by speeding vehicles which mounted THE SIDEWALK. In the area where I live two people have recently been run down and killed by motor vehicles – BOTH victims were ON the sidewalk when run down.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Get a bottle of vodka and go to sleep.
“dislike hearing the truth and therefore dismiss it as “ranting and raving” – but present NO counter-argument, no argument OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER.”—So what argument have you presented that deserves a counter? You are pretty comical no doubt, but a lucid argument worthy of seriousness….NOOOO. You want to emotionally appeal to a speeder. Heck half the officers I follow behind are already speeding in the 90s and thus don’t pull me over for going the same long as I am behind them.
“Are you SERIOUSLY trying to deny that speeding is an act of violence?”—Legally speeding is not listed as a violent crime. It is a civil issue not some act of violence.
“aren’t EVEN “on the roads” when hit.”—if they are in a car texting and hitting the individual walking on the side of the road ultimately killing both of them. Meh
LikeLike
sharinalr YOU seem to have swallowed the bottle of vodka and gone to sleep ALREADY, and to have written your “comment” IN your sleep lol. It is almost a MODEL of incoherence. And, amongst other things, you clearly do not understand what is meant when something is referred to as being a “civil issue” or a “civil matter.” When something is described as being “a civil matter” what this means is that one can, for example, be SUED over it, but not PROSECUTED. However actions by the courts for speeding ARE (in general) of course PROSECUTIONS. That is WHY one speaks (CORRECTLY speaks) of a driver as having CONVICTIONS for speeding.
“Heck half the officers I follow behind” – if you are following them I suppose you WOULD be BEHIND them lol!
You claim “half the officers I follow behind are already speeding in the 90s” – this is of course VERY OBVIOUS BS. But in any case what relevance would this have even if it WERE true?
And WHAT is “—if they are in a car texting and hitting the individual walking on the side of the road ultimately killing both of them. Meh” supposed to mean?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“nd, amongst other things, you clearly do not understand what is meant when something is referred to as being a “civil issue” or a “civil matter” etc.”—You really should read up on the law dear. If you are speeding, you are in violation of civil traffic laws. Civil matters (though I specifically said civil issues) is not only about being sued. You get caught speeding, you go to court, or just pay the ticket. You are likely not going to jail and it won’t be on your criminal record. At most you get a suspended license.
“That is WHY one speaks (CORRECTLY speaks) of a driver as having CONVICTIONS for speeding”—No one says that.
“if you are following them I suppose you WOULD be BEHIND them lol!”—Not necessarily. I could be behind three other cars rather than directly behind the cops or even following them.
“this is of course VERY OBVIOUS BS. But in any case what relevance would this have even if it WERE true?”—Nope. I have FOLLOWED BEHIND several officers going past the speed limit. This is not unusual as they know they have little or no repercussions because of it. You really have a delusion about cops being law bidding citizens. Meh.
“if they are in a car texting and hitting the individual walking on the side of the road ultimately killing both of them. Meh” supposed to mean?”—Exactly what it says. People get the same treatment from a driver driving the speed limit and just not even looking at the dang road. Lay off the Vodka already.The first step is admitting you have a problem.
LikeLike
sharinalr As I have observed before, it tends to be VERY hard work arguing with people who, like you, are EXTREMELY IGNORANT as well as extremely stupid. There are laws relating to civil matters as opposed to STATUTORY OFFENCES. There are statutory OFFENCES which are PROSECUTABLE OFFENCES but are not CRIMINAL offences. Some driving offences fall into this category.
As for your “People get the same treatment from a driver driving the speed limit and just not even looking at the dang road” is that meant to be some kind of argument? For a start by “driving the speed limit” do you mean driving WITHIN the speed limit or EXCEEDING the speed limit? I will assume you mean the latter, and if so this is like saying “people who get STABBED to death get the same treatment as people who are SHOT dead, therefore shooting someone dead can’t be a crime.” You are completely absurd.
LikeLike
sharinair And of course speed is ALMOST INVARIABLY at least a MAJOR CONTRIBUTORY FACTOR in ALMOST ALL fatal “road accidents” – it is a comparatively rare event for someone struck by a vehicle travelling at under 20 miles per hour to die as a consequence – in other words SPEED KILLS.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Yeah Yeah. It has been such a struggle conversing with you when you are EXTREMELY IGNORANT as well as extremely stupid. I mean I gave you a link to dispute you what more do you want? I hope you aren’t looking for me to play into your strawman argument. I might.
“Some driving offences fall into this category.”—We are not talking about what some driving offenses are we are talking about your idea that speeding is a violent crime and no where does it say it is. You can get a CIVIL traffic violation IE civil issue. No law lists it as such.
“do you mean driving WITHIN the speed limit or EXCEEDING the speed limit?”–Yeah you should never question any ones intelligence. ““driving the speed limit” means driving the speed limit. ie if the limit is 55 then they are driving 55. SMH.
“You are completely absurd”—Not really. You are acting like speeding is the ultimate offense. It’s not.
” MAJOR CONTRIBUTORY FACTOR in ALMOST ALL fatal “road accidents” – it is a comparatively rare event for someone struck by a vehicle travelling at under 20 miles per hour to die as a consequence – in other words SPEED KILLS.”—SO…” In 2016, speeding killed 10,111 people, accounting for more than a quarter (27%) of all traffic fatalities that year.” and there is
“The study focused on the 65,000 fatal accidents that occurred in the U.S. over the last two years, identifying 10 percent as the result of some form of distracted driving – in line with federal and other insurance industry estimates.
But what the research found next came as a big surprise. It identified 62 percent of the crashes as the result of simply being “lost in thought.” That might mean failing to recognize a dangerous curve in the road, running into the back of another vehicle, surging through a red light or some other driver error. By comparison, only 12 percent of fatal accidents covered by the data were blamed on some form of mobile phone use.
“Distracted driving is any activity that takes your eyes off the road, your hands off the wheel, or your mind off your primary task of driving safely,” said Smith. “We looked at what law enforcement officers across the country reported when they filled out reports on fatal crashes and the results were disturbing. We hope the data will encourage people to avoid these high-risk behaviors that needlessly increase their risk of being involved in a fatal crash.”
Thanks for playing and good night!!
https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/stop-daydreaming-focus-driving-1B9237922
LikeLike
sharinair Hasn’t it EVEN occurred to you to ask yourself in WHAT jurisdiction this incident involving Oriana Ferrell occurred?
LikeLike
sharinair This favourite concept of yours – that of a “civil traffic violation” – apparently does not exist in New Mexico law.
LikeLike
sharinair You really DO seem to have consumed a bottle of vodka (and THEN some, lol).
You say “I mean I gave you a link to dispute you what more do you want” (is THAT supposed to be a sentence, lol?) . . . well, apparently you THINK you did. Where WAS this famous link? You HAVE managed to give a link NOW (an IRRELEVANT one, inevitably). Evidently you are unable to present a valid argument of your own (or EVEN, as we have ALREADY seen, to construct a coherent sentence) so you are reduced to instead copying-and-pasting tracts from elsewhere, BUT tracts which you EVIDENTLY haven’t EVEN managed to READ properly.
LikeLike
sharinair A further point: I wrote “That is WHY one speaks (CORRECTLY speaks) of a driver as having CONVICTIONS for speeding” in reply to which YOU commented (absurdly) “—No one says that.”
I therefore quote the following:
“If you are stopped for a traffic offense in New Mexico, you will face an immediate decision: plead guilty and pay the fine, or set a court date to “challenge” the citation. You will have to make this decision on the side of the road, without a chance to consider the consequences, and without the opportunity to seek legal advice and counsel. There is a lot at stake.
Here is what you need to know:
If you choose to plead guilty at the roadside and pay the fine, you will be CONVICTED. You will drive away from the traffic stop with a fine to pay, instructions on paying, and a traffic conviction about to go on your driving record. The citation will likely be transmitted directly to the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Division, where it will be reported to your homestate, (the state that issued your driver’s license) and posted to the Interstate Data Base. In many cases, it will cost you points on your driving record. Federal law also requires every state to report all CONVICTIONS for CDL holders to the Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS).”
https://www.newmexicotrafficticket.com/5-things-to-know-if-stopped-by-police-in-new-mexico.html
PLEASE NOTE the words “CONVICTED” and “CONVICTIONS” lol.
You really ARE a COMPLETE IDIOT.
LikeLike
I’m not an expert in legislation, especially in its Anglo-Saxon forms that are based on case issues — contrary to principals of variable case decisions based on general civil and criminal code in the country I’m living, but the discussion seems to become less and less fruitful and the milieu is getting more and more toxic. In fact, all we can see are just assumptions and interpretations.
The case is, however, fitting the general situational frame of a conflict between representatives of different groups.
My vision is that the police forces are tended to be suspicious, and they have all the rights and reasons to be, because the New Mexico is likely to be one of routes for human / drug trafficking. To see a woman with too many children, many of whom are underage, fleeing a police is a good reason to suppose that there is something wrong about it.
My opinion is that she was driven by instincts and he was driven by his duty and reasonable suspicions.
Am I biased? Well, it’s easy to check just by envisioning a conflict situation replacing the group identities of its participants for a bias check, e. g.
What would be your attitude to and interpretation of the situation if Oriana were White and De Tavis were Black?
(My first thought is that an officer had misused his authority,,, but then, she fled away… a White woman fleeing a Black officer in a car with several underage children at a cross-border region should be checked and stopped…)
What would be your attitude and assumptions if they both were Black?
(Same as above).
What would be your attitude and assumptions if they both were White?
(Same as above)
This works with another conflicts based on group identity, too. In fact, this is about , so I don’t think the main vein of this story is interracial, it’s more about biology, genderк
LikeLike
…so I don’t think the main vein of this story is interracial, it’s more about biology, gender and age issues.
LikeLike
Daniel Jones
“sharinair Hasn’t it EVEN occurred to you to ask yourself in WHAT jurisdiction this incident involving Oriana Ferrell occurred?”—Why should I? You weren’t even talking about New Mexico until recent. You were talking about speeding is an act of violence, yet you are so busy trying to prove how smart you are you managed to avoid addressing the falsehood of that entirely.
“apparently does not exist in New Mexico law”—Of course not. It is an absolute speed limit state. Like mine. Which puts me in the unique position to argue what really happens.
Your first quote still does not say it, but also your first quote is false. You can explain at that point your reason for speeding and the officer determines what exactly to ticket you for. If you truly want to “challenge” it you go to court, but a court date is set for you upon giving you the ticket whether you wish to challenge or not. You are not “convicted. You can’t get a conviction without pleading guilty and that is generally made aware by paying a ticket or showing up in court.
Yeah. I do believe his approach was an effort to explain it in lay terms to the masses, but kind of a fail. Let me do the honors of correcting him.
“You will drive away from the traffic stop with a fine to pay, instructions on paying, a court date, and points taken from your license.”
Also, you do realize that is a database for actual crimes, right? Like fingerprinting and all that doesn’t happen when you get a ticket? Ultimately, his advice is non-residents. But….
“PLEASE NOTE the words “CONVICTED” and “CONVICTIONS” lol.”—You still hold the title for complete idiot. And I just can’t help pointing out why. NONE of what you quoted states conviction for speeding. The article basically is talking about any stop and you might pass with that, but both articles below should highlight the actual laws and under what circumstances “convicted” or “conviction” would apply. “A New Mexico driver can be convicted of “reckless driving” for driving in a manner that puts people or property at risk.” And “A first-time speeding violator is looking at up to $300 in fines. The exact fine amount depends on the circumstances, including how many miles over the speed limit the motorist was going.” Basically, reckless diving is conviction worthy and speeding is a moving violation. You are arguing speeding. You have not proven any other point other than Herneith’s which is that you are a comical.
https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2015/chapter-66/article-7/part-4/section-66-7-301/
https://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/traffic-tickets/speed-violations/new-mexico-speeding-laws.htm
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
One more thing. Can we get back to you showing how speeding is an act of violence? I mean that was suppose to be your original point right?
LikeLike
A Russian Nagpo Your comment is very interesting. May I say that for some of us “the main vein” is in fact not about ANY of these issues?
For example I don’t know whether you read any of the recent “exchange of views” (lol) between “sharinair” and myself, but (as it seems to me) the differences THERE don’t have much (if anything) to do with “race” or biology or gender or age but are simply a matter of our fundamental difference in attitude on the general issue of road safety (and of course the issue of vehicular speeding in particular).
In fact, having written that I realise that there is also in all probability a difference in UNDERLYING ATTITUDE to the police (and also, probably, to authority in general).
LikeLike
Sharinair WHY should you consider in what jurisdiction this incident occurred?!! Are you joking? It occurred in New Mexico – and IN NEW MEXICO LAW the concept which you try to invoke and on which you attempt to place such weight (of a speeding offense being “a civil matter”) just to repeat DOES NOT EXIST.
LikeLike
Sharinair There in NOTHING is ANY of the sources cited to indicate that if a person is found guilty of a speeding offense in New Mexico they are not THEREBY CONVICTED REPEAT CONVICTED of that offense.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“There in NOTHING is ANY of the sources cited to indicate that if a person is found guilty of a speeding offense in New Mexico they are not THEREBY CONVICTED REPEAT CONVICTED of that offense”—Your right because that was not my point. My point was to show that it doesn’t say it is conviction and point to the actual terminology for what it is considered. A bit hypocritical seeing as none of your sources mention speeding. Oh well. What I sourced is the actual law and not some guy trying to get clients interpretation of the law. Funny watching you argue that.
LikeLike
You’re
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Read very slowly okay. I stated “Why should I? You weren’t even talking about New Mexico until recent.” Your argument was not even based on new mexico law. If it were you might have brought that up at some point, but you didn’t until I sourced something that contradicted you. You stated, “Speeding is an act of violence” but this isn’t true in New Mexico and it has yet to be seen as true in any state. Acts of violence result in criminal court convictions, likelihood of jail time, and a criminal record (fingerprints and all). Speeding isn’t going to get you that .This really isn’t a hard concept to get.
“(of a speeding offense being “a civil matter”) just to repeat DOES NOT EXIST.”—I do remember repeatedly stating civil issue. My full quote “It is a civil issue not some act of violence” You wanted to argue the legal side of it, but that doesn’t change that it is still a civil issue. I leave you with the definition of civil.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil
LikeLike
Sharinair YOU are the one who wanted to stress that speeding is supposedly “a civil issue” as if (were that IN FACT true) it would be relevant to the discussion. But now that your bluff has been called on that, and you have been exposed, you (surprise, surprise!) want to change the subject, lol.
LikeLike
Sharinair “You weren’t even talking about New Mexico until recent”? WHAT language are you trying to write in, lol?
OK, I’ll take it you mean “until RECENTLY.”
I was VERY CLEARLY talking about the Ferrell incident in New Mexico FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. THAT incident is what is under discussion here on this page, or had you SOMEHOW not noticed that, lol?
But I WAS making a very general point about (global) road safety and speeding – NOTHING to do with ANY legal technicalities.
YOU then weighed in with a completely spurious, supposed (but in fact, in this context, NONEXISTENT in New Mexico) concept of a “civil issue.”
Well, if you start invoking (as YOU did) abstruse (and indeed nonexistent, in fact IMAGINARY) legal technicalities you then HAVE TO take into consideration the question “what is the relevant jurisdiction?” – AND THE RELEVANT JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE IS, OF COURSE, NEW MEXICO.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
At what point does speeding become an act of violence? One mile over the limit? Five miles?
If someone needs to go five miles over the limit for less than three minutes in order to safely and quickly pass a slower-moving vehicle, and as soon as the passing maneuver is completed, the driver returns to the posted speed limit, have they committed an act of violence?
If someone is speeding, on whom are they perpetrating an act of violence? If that speeding individual makes it home without hitting anyone with their car, whom have they committed violence against?
Is it a greater act of violence to do 80 on an interstate where the speed limit is 60 or to do 40 in a 20 mph elementary school zone? Or are both acts equally violent?
Is there a distinction in your opinion between a violent act and a hazardous act?
Also, is there a particular reason your caps-lock key gets stuck so frequently?
LikeLike
“But there are VERY FEW (if any) white males who would be STUPID ENOUGH to refuse to sign the citation when pulled, refuse to turn off their engine and then (insanely) drive off as soon as the policeman goes back to his vehicle.”
Can you provide statistics to prove that fewer white men do this than black women?
“WHAT did she imagine she was doing?”
Who do you think has greater reason to fear that a cop who pulls them over on an isolated rural highway might rape them in front of their children: white men or black women?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Unfortunately for you, my bluff hasn’t been called and I still have not changed the subject. But you did when you repeatedly focused on the “civil issue” which you repeatedly tried to change to “civil matter” to argue YOUR point, ignoring several attempts to get you on topic of speeding being an act of violence (your original claim), and now trying to argue that I should read your mind and know you meant NM even though you stated US and the entire planet. That my dear is grade A subject changing and deflection etc.
“I was VERY CLEARLY talking about the Ferrell incident in New Mexico FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.”—I do remember quoting what of yours I was responding to and it was none of your “very beginning” comments. However, of what did respond to your response to MJB in which you claimed, “Speeding is an act of violence – and in fact the MAIN CAUSE of violent injury and death in the United States (and indeed on THE ENTIRE PLANET).”
You weren’t talking about New Mexico at this point (See above). If you are making a general statement, then you basically open the door to be exposed to any and every state and that still refutes what you say despite you now wanting to jump to NM to save yourself. You are still wrong as nothing states speeding is an act of violence. This is why you hold on to me saying “civil issue” (which I standby all I said and have explained why and provided you a definition, so you know what civil means) because you have nothing to support your idea that it is an act of violence.
“Well, if you start invoking (as YOU did) abstruse (and indeed nonexistent, in fact IMAGINARY) legal etc.” Actually no. If I am responding to something you posted, it is not my job to figure out what jurisdiction you mean when you basically were saying it was an act of violence the planet over. You already made the claim and don’t get to have “do overs” because you embarrassed yourself trying to show how smart you are just to show how smart you ain’t. Own it and do better.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
I think he just wants to yell at us speeders or anyone who is okay with it.
LikeLike
Solitaire A very good question, and there may well be no simple, clear-cut answer to it . . . but then the same would have to be said about almost every other major concept used in the evaluation of human behavior, e.g. “exploitation” or “abuse.” When does behavior become either of those? Likewise with “harassment” or “mistreatment” or any of the other key concepts with which courts and other agencies perpetually have to deal.
However, interesting as your questions relating to speed limits undoubtedly are, I would have assumed it to be obvious that I wasn’t talking about any such matters as posted speed limits or indeed ANY such artificial and of necessity arbitrary definitions of “speeding” or “violence” (i.e. legal definitions) at all. I wasn’t talking about the LAW (which in these matters is the proverbial Dickensian “ass”) but about that rather important little thing sometimes referred to as “social morality.”
LikeLike
Solitaire You call that an “isolated rural highway” lol? (How can a HIGHWAY be
be described as “isolated”). Are you going to try to describe it as “a secluded spot” as well,?
LikeLike
sharinair You are becoming more and more confused. It was YOU, not I, who tried to make an issue of its being supposedly a “civil issue” (a concept which, to repeat, seems not EVEN to exist in the relevant jurisdiction).
LikeLike
Solitaire She gives no impression at all of fearing any such thing. If she WAS inclined to fear any such thing WHY would she be cruising around in rural New Mexico with her vanload of screaming idiot children anyway?
LikeLike
“You call that an “isolated rural highway” lol? (How can a HIGHWAY be be described as “isolated”).”
Have you never driven through the desert? What about South Dakota or Wyoming? You can drive on the highway for many miles and never see a town or another car.
LikeLike
“If she WAS inclined to fear any such thing WHY would she be cruising around in rural New Mexico with her vanload of screaming idiot children anyway?”
Dude. That is a fear every woman lives with every single day. If we let it paralyze us, we would never go anywhere or do anything. But we are always at risk.
LikeLike
“I wasn’t talking about the LAW (which in these matters is the proverbial Dickensian “ass”) but about that rather important little thing sometimes referred to as “social morality.””
Ok. Please explain the reasoning through which social morality deems an act of speeding in which no one was hurt to be an act of violence. Against whom was the violence committed, according to social morality?
I’m still waiting for the statistics that show black female drivers cause police chases more than white male drivers.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“I think he just wants to yell at us speeders or anyone who is okay with it.”
I think he wants to find a way to make Oriana Farrell into a violent criminal. Too bad for him she wasn’t wearing a hoodie and carrying a bag of Skittles. /s
LikeLike
Solitaire Incidentally, do you REALLY imagine it’s OK for someone “to go five miles over the limit” (I take it you REALLY mean 5 MILES PER HOUR over the limit) “to safely [sic!] and quickly pass a slower-moving vehicle”?
LikeLike
It may not be strictly legal, but I grew up in a rural area. If you are on a two-lane highway, you have to go into the opposite-bound lane to pass. Of course you want to make sure there is no oncoming traffic, but once you are in that lane it is better to execute the passing maneuver as quickly as you can safely do so, because you want to get back into your proper lane as soon as possible. I’m not talking about zipping around someone in excess of 20 or 30 miles an hour, just up to 5 mph.
Which honestly if your speedometer calibration is a little off, you could easily be doing 5 mph over the speed limit all the time without knowing it. How often do you think.cops bother to give tickets to someone who is only 5 mph over the limit?
I generally try to keep within the posted speed limit. I’m not one of these people who has a heavy foot. But I’m not fanatical about it, either. I’d honestly rather be passed by someone going over the limit who otherwise is a good driver and keeps a safe distance than to have someone riding my bumper with no margin of error.
LikeLike
Solitaire Those five extra miles per hour kill and maim a lot of people..
LikeLike
Solitaire If your speedometer is inaccurate to such an extent your vehicle is in an illegally unsafe condition and should NOT be on the road AT ALL. And if police are failing to book drivers who are exceeding the designated limit by 5 miles per hour they are guilty of a serious dereliction of their duty to the public.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Your fixation on the topic of speeding is what is known as a deflection. You are trying to deflect attention away from the fact that you cannot prove white male drivers run from the police less often than black female drivers, that you cannot prove Oriana Farrell is a violent criminal, and that you have engaged in racist tactics in your attempt to do so.
You also seriously need to lay off your caps-lock. Please, if you feel the need to emphasize every fifth word, use the asterisk to code for italics — it’s much easier on the eyes.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
I am going to ask if you have trouble reading or if you are reading too fast? Honestly, I already know you are confused which is why you don’t get it.
I stated: Legally speeding is not listed as a violent crime. It is a civil issue not some act of violence.
In response to: “Are you SERIOUSLY trying to deny that speeding is an act of violence?”
It was you who took that one statement and made your focus on “civil matter” and not speeding being an act of violence. Do you get it now or are you still lost?
I am going to list 2 consecutive comments of you talking about “civil matter” but do not address speeding as an act of violence, knowing it was false. If anything, I had to repeatedly correct you on what I said, which is not the same.
Here you change the subject to some driving offenses, but still fails to address speeding as an act of violence.
“You HAVE managed to give a link NOW (an IRRELEVANT one, inevitably).” —I gave two links by this point and the argument is quite valid as you are not able to refute it as per your obsessive need to call names. As to writing a sentence to suit your desire of perfect, lets talk about that when you are yourself failing to use perfect grammar.
“so you are reduced to instead copying-and-pasting tracts from elsewhere, BUT tracts which you EVIDENTLY haven’t EVEN managed to READ properly.”—I copied and paste them to ensure you read them as you likely did not click on the links to read them. At that point you claimed, “MAJOR CONTRIBUTORY FACTOR in ALMOST ALL fatal “road accidents” and both sources refute it by saying it is not, but only 27% of major accidents. So, it looks like you didn’t read properly and that vodka you have been consuming is really impairing this ability.
Even now you still won’t address it because you can’t.
LikeLike
@Danial Jones
“a concept which, to repeat, seems not EVEN to exist in the relevant jurisdiction”—You can repeat this as you like, but even in her jurisdiction it is a civil issue. I already explained why with sources.
LikeLike
Solitaire She was in an entirely open area in plain view for hundreds of yards in every direction and with other vehicles passing almost continuously. It was NOT a secluded spot. When she drove off the first time she then stopped in a spot which was in those terms essentially no different from the spot in which she was first stopped. IF she had been in a secluded spot initially and had then driven off and stopped in an UNSECLUDED and open spot further on this might have made some sort of sense . . . but that WASN’T the situation and that ISN’T what she did.
LikeLike
sharinair No you didn’t. You are just being silly.
LikeLike
sharinair My “fixation” with speeding, far from being any kid of deflection, has to do with the fact that my grandfather was killed by a speeding driver you vile disgusting little pig.
LikeLike
sharinair My “fixation” with speeding, far from being any kind of deflection, has to do with the fact that my grandfather was killed by a speeding driver, you vile disgusting little pig.
LikeLike
sharinair I must apologise. My last two comments were, as I expect you will have realised, not intended for you.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
If the primary content of this exchange of words between you and that sentient being is a road safety, then it is very much off-topic on this site which, as I see it, is generally dedicated to Black [counter]racism — although some visitor do see it otherwise.
The being you have mentioned is definitely not the wisest or the kindest or even the wittiest one on the planet; in fact, that username is a little bit insane, but, again, I don’t unSderstand why you have to communicate with that username — especially while every word exchange makes your life less comfortable and your achieving of results or decision-making becomes the more difficult, the more you communicate with that– uh– being.
I mean, that username feeding on your emotions is mostly all about groundless assumptions plus some lies with a little stench of death.
Speaking on death, I wouldn’t project my attitude to a single sentient being who had done me or my dear-and-near wrong and represents a certain gtoup — in your case, the speeding driver who had killed your relative — to all representatives of the same group — e. g. the speeding drivers of the world.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“sharinair No you didn’t. You are just being silly.”—Yes I did and every link I provided plus these pretty much shows I have. That is the beauty of online, the ability to go back, link, and quote people. 😊
“My “fixation” with speeding, far from being any kid of deflection, has to do with the fact that my grandfather was killed by a speeding driver you vile disgusting little pig.”—It is a deflection when you are using it to bypass proving your claims. Though I listed your deflections and your fixation with speed wasn’t one I used.
LikeLike
@A Russian Nagpo
I see you are still fixated on me. I think it is quite alarming that you come to any thread that someone is arguing with me just to have something to say about me.
LikeLike
@A Russian Nagpo
Oh an to add. My name is not being. If you are going to refer to me you use my name. If you can not respectfully use it then by all means stop fixating on me. If it continues I will address it with abagond. Because you failed to read the comment policy you failed to realize that after repeat warning from him you risk ban. If it is insane to quote people words that they thought no one would notice because they wanted to push a lie. Then so be it. 🙂
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“My “fixation” with speeding, far from being any kind of deflection, has to do with the fact that my grandfather was killed by a speeding driver, you vile disgusting little pig.”
I’m very sorry to hear that and you have my condolences. I too have lost people I loved in the same way.
But please don’t tell me when a woman should reasonably be afraid. I know someone who was raped and killed by a white man masquerading as a police officer, and she was abducted by him on the side of a very heavily-trafficked multiple-lane interstate in one of the largest cities in the U.S.
Again, I am sorry for your loss, but I’m curious to know if you make it a habit to leave similar comments on articles about white drivers who were caught speeding.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Funny, I thought he was talking about me. Could be either of us — he’s scared of us both.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
In the comment above I was referring to ARN, not Daniel Jones.
I did say that Daniel Jones was fixated on speeding. He meant “vile disgusting pig” to be directed to me and apologized to you for accidentally writing your name instead.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Oh no worries. Regardless of who he said it to he is wrong. I am curious on why grown men are calling names. It boggles my mind.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“I am curious on why grown men are calling names.”
Well, what else are they supposed to do when we won’t be good and speak only when we’re spoken to?
LikeLike
@Solitaire
With the rise of outspoken women…however can they hope to survive. LOL
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
See? To those two beings it’s not about justice, well-being or at least any reasonableness. To them, it’s all about ‘girl power’ and the similar type of bs these two [unlikely to be sentient] beings are trying to represent projecting their narcissism — like reading only ‘the wittiest’ when it’s clearly written ‘not the wittiest being on the planet’, or trying to smear clear thinking with their instinctive interpretations and phantasms.
As any being of such type, they like to try to manipulate with others’ feelings or to insult the others, but they don’t seemingly like getting their paybacks.
Such type of beings can be found among any race or gender, though the type of passive aggressiveness those two beings has demonstrated is more common for elder women. No surprise, since online communities are often structured and work in a sort of tribal way (the same old story of ‘patriarchy vs matriarchy’).
But they don’t seemingly distinguish ‘being a threat’ from ‘being disgusted’. Well, let them remain among the stench of their illusions, it’s beneath my dignity to contact them.
LikeLike
Solitaire WHY wouldn’t I “leave similar comments on articles about white drivers who were caught speeding”? YOU seem to be the one persistently inserting racial considerations into this “discussion” – not I.
LikeLike
@A Russian Nagpo
You seem to believe that your abusive and obsessive name calling requires that a person accept it. You also believe that abusive and obsessive name calling is not name calling but the readers false interpretation of it or part of ones imagination. Yet you are quoted doing it. It’s not about girl power, but about you as a grown man using name calling in a debate with a teenager and then getting upset that you were quoted doing such. Yet you run to get a threads just to gather allies for some cause.
Sad reality is that most of you comments are projections of the very things you believe solitaire and I are doing. Even saddier is we comment and post showing otherwise.
” it’s beneath my dignity to contact them.”—The sad reality is you are in contact, but using other people to do so. Just because you @ someone else and try to speak about either of us doesn’t mean you are taking the high road and proving your vast signification. What you are proving to people is that you are simply using them to attack another commenter and engaging in discourse with you would only lead to that. Furthermore you are showing to be really emotional cry baby. I, however, will promptly tell them that you are whining about being caught in a lie and had no excuse for it. So ever since you been running from thread to thread hoping someone will be on your side. That is when you aren’t trying to pit commenters (assuming their race) against each other.
LikeLike
Correction: either of us doesn’t mean you are taking the high road and proving your vast sophistication.
LikeLike
Solitaire What conceivable basis do you have for any implication that I ONLY criticize BLACK speeding drivers?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
The fact that here you are at a black-owned blog with a focus on black issues and a black-majority readership, yelling in all caps that:
“the police actions in this incident had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the fact that Ferrell and her children are black.”
and this gem:
“Are you seriously suggesting that WHITE MALES who exceed the speed limit by 16 mph DON’T get pulled by the police? Plenty of them ARE, as ANY REASONABLE PERSON knows and will acknowledge. But there are VERY FEW (if any) white males who would be STUPID ENOUGH to refuse to sign the citation when pulled, refuse to turn off their engine and then (insanely) drive off as soon as the policeman goes back to his vehicle.”
in which you claim that white men would not be as stupid to do what this black woman did — with no proof. You’re thereby setting up an argument that white men are more law-abiding, when the truth is that of course there are white men who have done the same thing when stopped for speeding, and some who have done worse.
LikeLike
@ A Russian Nagpo
“but about you as a grown man using name calling in a debate with a teenager and then getting upset that you were quoted doing such.”
And furthermore, once you were called out on your treatment of the teenager, you tried to argue that she was the real abuser so that you could claim to be the victim. You want to talk about narcissism? That’s some classic Cluster B behavior right there!
“it’s beneath my dignity to contact them.”
But not beneath your dignity to call us names and talk smack about us to other people. How old are you, 12? If you’ve got a problem with me, have the dignity and the balls to take it up with me directly and hash it out directly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Herneith Some people (people like you, for example) dislike hearing the truth and therefore dismiss it as “ranting and raving” – but present NO counter-argument, no argument OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER.
You’re right. In many instances I dislike hearing the truth. One of those instances occurred a few days ago when I went to the doctor. I found out I had chronic hemorrhoids which had to be cauterized as the only cure! In that instance, I did indeed hate the truth. In reference to you though, that isn’t the case. I do not have to ‘engage’ you in ‘debate’. If others wish to do so, that is their prerogative. Personally, I’d rather go shopping.
Plus you throw in the word “incoherently” but OF COURSE DON’T actually cite any kind of incoherence in what I wrote.
Your whole posts are incoherent.
You are an idiot.
It takes one to know one as it were.
Herneith Your “staying off the roads” of course ISN’T an option for the majority of people (as presumably EVEN a moron like you perfectly well knows)
Take the bus! Even a moron such as myself knows this! What kind of lunatics do you live around?
Those five extra miles per hour kill and maim a lot of people..
You can also cause death and mayhem by driving too slow on a highway for instance. I think the lesson to be had is to drive safely being aware of your surroundings, drive defensively.
Solitaire What conceivable basis do you have for any implication that I ONLY criticize BLACK speeding drivers?
I’ll give you that. Someone triggered your obsession with speed and it was down hill from there. I know people, who have been killed by drunk drivers, t boned by crappy drivers running yellow lights, I myself was knocked down by an inebriated driver at a red light(I rolled out of the way so sustained not apparent injuries). Go for therapy to rid yourself of this obsession, it’s not healthy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Herneith
I’ve almost made up a romantic illusion of a mysterious witty women, and then– them comes hemorrhoids, the.
Life ain’t easy for a White mono-racial supremacist foreigner on a Black [counter]-racist blog.
LikeLike
PS …a womAn, of course… This mixture of languages in my head produces a load of typos.
LikeLike
Solitaire WHY would my writing “the police actions in this incident had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the fact that Ferrell and her children are black” mean that I would NOT be likely to criticize speeding drivers who happen to be white? You of course don’t say.
LikeLike
@ Russian Nagpo
So, Russian Nagpo, you are presenting yourself as a “White mono-racial supremacist“.
Wow… this is great!!!
Remember what I said in another thread at this blog:
LikeLiked by 1 person
The haemorrhoid reference was a joke.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Daniel Jones
Because your original focus (before you went off on the tangent of arguing that speeding is a violent act rather than a hazardous act) appeared to be on proving that Oriana Farrell’s race had nothing to do with how she and her children were treated, and you appeared to be trying to demonize her as violent criminal and an idiotic crazy moron, while claiming that no white man would be stupid enough to do what she did.
I have my doubts that you go looking for articles about white drivers who pull similar stunts and argue that “few black people, if any” would be crazy or stupid enough to do what that idiot white male did.
But perhaps you can prove me wrong? If you can link to somewhere online that you made such an argument in the past, that would be sufficient proof for me.
LikeLike
@ Herneith
You seem to have an admirer!
With any luck, he’s really an elderly and feeble Russian oligarch. Maybe you can persuade him to give matrimony a fourth try….
LikeLike
Herneith A point in passing – for a start there are MANY places where there IS NO BUS – but more importantly HOW would taking the bus prevent one from becoming the victim of a speeding driver? You of course don’t say.
LikeLike
@munubantu
‘That was a joke’ (c) Herneith
I cannot be a mono-racial supremacist, because a) I primary identify myself with my religion, not with my race, or my nation, or my language, or my specie (although a sex and a gender is a part of the religion, too);
b) a mono-racial supremacism is an oxymoron, it always takes ‘a despised other’ to be a supremacist, thus to label anyone as a supremacist one has to be sure about reading the mind accurately — which is not the case here, and,
c) growing up in an average Russian town in 90s doesn’t differ much from a life in a Black American ghetto as it is shown in media, plus Black Americans and some Russians have the similar stories of slavery and post-slavery collective traumas (not to mention the roles the women try to assume in both cultures).
@Herneith
I knew. Just to be sure 🙂
LikeLike
@Herneith
“in which you claim that white men would not be as stupid to do what this black woman did — with no proof.”
Yeah, this is a particularly idiotic assertion as there are so many counterexamples: white men literally shooting up the place and being apprehended without being harmed.
Some people truly live in a bubble out of which they have evacuated all fact. Then they accuse YOU of fearing the so-called “truth”.
LikeLike
Solitaire You write “while claiming that no white man would be stupid enough to do what she did.” You (of course) misrepresent (whether intentionally or otherwise) what I said, which was “But there are VERY FEW (if any) white males who would be STUPID ENOUGH to refuse to sign the citation when pulled, refuse to turn off their engine and then (insanely) drive off as soon as the policeman goes back to his vehicle.” I DID NOT say that “no white man would be stupid enough to do what she did” which would be a QUITE DIFFERENT proposition.
LikeLike
Origin Please see my reply to Solitaire on this issue.
LikeLike
Solitaire You write “I have my doubts that you go lookingfor articles about white drivers who . . . [etc]”
Of course you are ENTIRELY RIGHT. And I OF COURSE DON’T go looking for for articles about black drivers “who pull similar stunts” EITHER. For a start I rather doubt whether ANY driver (black, white, red, yellow, brown or green) has EVER “pulled a stunt” QUITE like the one Ferrell pulled (I suspect that it is UNIQUE . . . in the full and LITERAL sense of the word “unique”).
And if I DID go looking for such articles I obviously WOULDN’T be looking according to ANY racial criteria.
YOU need to wake up to the fact that YOU are the racist here.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“VERY FEW (if any) white males”
What does the “if any” mean? Of course it implies “none.”
If you had left out the “if any,” I would concede your point. But what you wrote signifies “at most only a few and quite possibly none.”
And even if I did concede your point about not saying “none,” you would still need to prove that statistically very few white men do this, plus give evidence that fewer white men do this than black women.
And then maybe you can explain why the cops manhandled this woman and shot at her car full of children, but when a white man walked into a prayer meeting at a black church and killed nine people, the cops not only did not shoot at him, but they bought him hamburgers.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Speaking of unique stunts:
Looks white to me. But hey, at least he wasn’t speeding!
LikeLike
Oh, my bad — looks like it isn’t so unique after all:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bangordailynews.com/2018/06/19/news/bangor/brewer-police-arrest-tractor-driver-who-slowly-fled-a-traffic-stop/
LikeLike
Solitaire “IF ANY” means EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS.
The proposition “NO white males would do X” is true IF AND ONLY IF –
(1) “NO white males would do X” IS TRUE . . . PERIOD.
WHEREAS:
The proposition “very few (if any) white males would do X” is true IF AND ONLY IF:
EITHER (1) “NO white males would do X” IS TRUE
SO IT IS TRUE IF VERY FEW WHITE MALES WOULD DO X.
In other words someone who says “very few (if any) white males would do X” is CLEARLY NOT saying “NO white males would do X.”
My statement “Very few (if any) white males would do X” is what is known as a DISJUNCTIVE PROPOSITION.
You REALLY SHOULD be able to grasp all this.
This stuff really ISN’T difficult.
LikeLike
[I’m posting this again because there was some sort of technical glitch with the formatting the first time].
Solitaire “IF ANY” means EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS.
The proposition “NO white males would do X” is true IF AND ONLY IF –
(1) “NO white males would do X” IS TRUE . . . PERIOD.
WHEREAS:
The proposition “very few (if any) white males would do X” is true IF AND ONLY IF –
EITHER
(1) “NO white males would do X” IS TRUE
OR
(2) “VERY FEW white males would do X” IS TRUE.
SO IT IS TRUE IF VERY FEW WHITE MALES WOULD DO X.
In other words someone who says “very few (if any) white males would do X” is CLEARLY NOT saying “NO white males would do X.”
My statement “Very few (if any) white males would do X” is what is known as a DISJUNCTIVE PROPOSITION.
You REALLY SHOULD be able to grasp all this.
This stuff really ISN’T difficult.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Ah, but you haven’t proven that “Very few men would do X” is in fact true when X = “driving away from a police officer during a traffic stop.”
Fine, I will concede you the point on “none” just so we can tackle the real question. Can you prove that very few white men drive away from a police officer during a traffic stop?
You can focus only on incidents involving cars and exclude incidents involving tractors if you wish.
LikeLike
Correction: should have been “very few white men” above.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“And then maybe you can explain why the cops manhandled this woman and shot at her car full of children, but when a white man walked into a prayer meeting at a black church and killed nine people, the cops not only did not shoot at him, but they bought him hamburgers.”
You know PERFECTLY WELL why they “manhandled” her. Having been stopped for speeding at 71 in a 55 zone (and thereby endangering other members of the public, her children and herself) she refused to give the policeman a decision as to whether she would sign the citation or would challenge it. When the cop momentarily went back to his vehicle she drove off, forcing the cop to pursue and to call for assistance. She then pulled over again but (given that she had “fled” once already) the policeman had very good reason to believe that she might drive off again (as indeed SHE DID, driving EXTREMELY dangerously, for example weaving through busy traffic at 50+ mph, having drawn the police into a VERY dangerous chase which at times exceeded 90 mph!).
The officer therefore tried to arrest her, which he had an ABSOLUTELY CLEAR DUTY to do, since she was very evidently a serious danger to the public (AND, to stress once again, to her children and to herself). She then refused to EVEN get out of her vehicle.
The cop (DeTavis) was what in the US is described as a “rookie” – and, probably as a consequence of THAT, and VERY UNFORTUNATELY, continued to put up with this absurd nonsense, instead of doing what experienced police officers ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD would have done, i.e. smash the driver’s window AT ONCE, extract the culprit from her vehicle and IMMEDIATELY handcuff her to eliminate ANY RISK of her driving off AGAIN (and thereby eliminate the risk of her CONTINUING to endanger innocent people).
By the way, was Officer DeTavis (or indeed any of the OTHER police involved in the Ferrell saga) involved in this OTHER incident in the “black church” to which you refer?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
For your edification:
LikeLike
Solitaire I (hereby) thank you for the link you so kindly provided, but what is its relevance?
LikeLike
It is the other “incident” to which I referred.
LikeLike
Solitaire Yes, I know that, bit WHAT does it have to do with the Ferrell business?
LikeLike
Solitaire That should of course have read “but what” – my apologies.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Thank you. The comparative levels of outrage you have expressed tells me all I need to know.
LikeLike
Solitaire You don’t know WHAT my “level of outrage” is in relation to the Charleston church massacre. Suffice it to say that there are of course FAR MORE black people killed by motor vehicles than by ALL the perpetrators of mass shootings in US history . . . and yet you condone speeding. Thus your apparent outrage over the Charleston shooting is plainly hypocritical.
LikeLike
Solitaire And what I asked you was what the relevance of the Charleston shooting is to the Oriana Ferrell case. You (of course) haven’t given ANY answer to that question.
LikeLike
Origin
You earlier wrote as follows:
“@Herneith [sic]
“in which you claim that white men would not be as stupid to do what this black woman did — with no proof.”
Yeah, this is a particularly idiotic assertion as there are so many counterexamples: white men literally shooting up the place and being apprehended without being harmed.
Some people truly live in a bubble out of which they have evacuated all fact. Then they accuse YOU of fearing the so-called “truth”.”
It is to be noted that you address yourself NOT TO WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE but to what SOMEONE ELSE SAID that I wrote.
And if white men CAN indulge in “literally shooting up the place and being apprehended WITHOUT BEING HARMED” (which, however, I doubt) then clearly they are OBVIOUSLY NOT being stupid in the sense in which Oriana Ferrell was being stupid.
How many such “counterexamples” are you in fact able to cite, by the way?
LikeLike
https://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/8-white-people-who-pointed-guns-police-officers-and-managed-not-get-killed
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
Solitaire OK – I looked at that lot. What does ANY of it have to do with the Ferrell incident?
LikeLike
Solitaire And your “account” of the police response to the Charleston shooting could serve as a classic example of what is nowadays referred to as “fake news.”
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Examples just off the top of my head:
The last one shot AT police, killing one.
Solitaire brought up the Waco case.
Part of what makes police behaviour towards Blacks in the US so galling is this very double standard. Maybe you do not notice it or see it, but plenty of Black people do.
Farrell was speeding. She did not shoot up a cinema or a church or an abortion clinic. She did not kill anyone. Yet the police act like she is some kind of dangerous criminal.
Why?
LikeLike
@abagond
Any event of [apparently] similar kind would differ from the rest of events by its cause and effect. Therefore, it’s more complicated than just racial black-and-white counterstance.
To quote myself,
”My vision is that the police forces are tended to be suspicious, and they have all the rights and reasons to be, because the New Mexico is likely to be one of routes for human / drug trafficking. To see a woman with too many children, many of whom are underage, fleeing a police is a good reason to suppose that there is something wrong about it.
My opinion is that she was driven by instincts and he was driven by his duty and reasonable suspicions.
Am I biased? Well, it’s easy to check just by envisioning a conflict situation replacing the group identities of its participants for a bias check, e. g.
a) What would be your attitude to and interpretation of the situation if Oriana were White and De Tavis were Black?
(My first thought is that an officer had misused his authority,,, but then, she fled away… a White woman fleeing a Black officer in a car with several underage children at a cross-border region should be checked and stopped…)
b) What would be your attitude and assumptions if they both were Black?
(Same as above).
c) What would be your attitude and assumptions if they both were White?
(Same as above)
This works with another conflicts based on group identity, too. In fact, this is about , so I don’t think the main vein of this story is interracial, it’s more about biology, genders and age than about a race”.
LikeLike
I am SO glad I am not burdened with the psychological need to see the police in the best possible light, bending over backwards to see their crazy crap as rational behaviour.
LikeLike
Solitaire You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that Ferrell IS a dangerous criminal. The video demonstrates that fact very clearly – and she was convicted accordingly, convicted of a dangerous criminal offence.
She SHOULD have been sentenced to a substantial term in prison (which in my country she probably would have been). “She did not kill anyone” – no, but it was a matter of SHEER LUCK that she DIDN’T kill someone, didn’t in fact cause multiple fatalities, including the deaths of herself and her unfortunate children.
LikeLike
@ A Russian Nagpo
It would have been outrageous even if the police were Black and she and her children were White.
SHOOTING AT UNARMED PEOPLE IS NOT RIGHT!!!!! Especially women and children. There might be some exceptions, but this was hardly one of them.
I am not going to engage in mental gymnastics to let the police off the hook. Why the hell should I? Are they holy, sacred beings? They are suppose to keep us safe, not be a menace to society.
And what the hell is it with this idea that women travelling with small children near the Mexican border are dangerous drug criminals? Do you polish your jackboots every morning before you go off to work for ICE or the US Border Patrol?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
How was Farrell a dangerous criminal?
LikeLike
abagond
I am SO glad I am not burdened with the psychological need to see ALL BLACK AMERICANS, no matter how CRIMINALLY IRRESPONSIBLE they may be, in the best possible light, bending over backwards to see their crazy crap as rational behaviour.
Lol!
LikeLike
abagond
I have ALREADY explained that at VERY CONSIDERABLE length (ALTHOUGH the answer should be obvious to ANY person of even the most basic intelligence). Try reading my comments.
LikeLike
Sea Lion alert! I was going to write tin hat alert, take your pick.
LikeLiked by 1 person
abagond Ferrell WASN’T “unarmed” of course.
LikeLike
My vote is a sea lion wearing a tin foil hat and a swastika armband. Probably lives under a bridge and eats billy goats, too.
LikeLike
Solitaire You STILL haven’t managed to come up with ANY answer at all to the question “What does ANY of it have to do with the Ferrell incident?” (I wonder why, lol. Because there IS none perhaps? Presumably so!).
LikeLike
Solitaire Or is it simply that you are far too busy holding simulated “conversations” with your sockpuppets, lol?
LikeLike
@abagond
I was referring to child trafficking, not drug trafficking. Shooting an unarmed people is wrong, but shooting a person suspected in child trafficking is ok for me. If you weigh risks and losses, then it would be better to hurt an innocent citizen than to let a child trafficker go.
The policeman was wrong, bu she was wrong, too.
I wear red or red-green-and-blue sneakers, so there’s nothing to polish.
LikeLike
@Herneith
Tin hat sounds better.
@Solitaire
LOL. Looks like I missed the fun.
LikeLike
A Russian Nagpo
With the greatest respect, a person sitting at the controls of a motor vehicle ISN’T “unarmed” (unless the vehicle is somehow disabled) – a motor vehicle is, as is often remarked (and not JUST by road safety campaigners) a DEADLY weapon (far MORE deadly than, say, a knife or a small pistol).
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Daniel Jones
You still have not realized that Herneith thinks you are a joke? She will never address anything you say seriously because a) it is no fun and b) a waste of time.
Another thing is you are still trying to use your “emotional” feelings to argue what you feel something is vs what it actually is . A vehicle is only a deadly weapon (like all things) when the intent is to harm. Not just because it exists.
“Yes, a vehicle is considered a deadly weapon in cases where the driver intended to hit another driver or pedestrian. Some driving under the influence cases are also charged as assault with a deadly weapon.”
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-constitutes-a-deadly-weapon.html
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
An armed person? Then it’s a suicide weapon in this case, especially with children on board.
Beware of the lies spread here by the being under the nickname of sharinaIr, for (s?)he is not just about death and decay, but about lies, too.
That being is particularly into lies about other people’s attitude — towards you, towards other persons, etc. That being sees you are feeling some suspicions, so that beings is trying to inforce paranoia, for that beings feeeds on negative feelings (mostly).
LikeLike
Solitaire Where the question is whether a suspect or perpetrator is “armed” (in, for example, the situation in which Officer Montoya fired at the rear tire of Ferrell’s vehicle) Ferrell was for ALL practical purposes NOT unarmed. She was in possession of (and at the controls of) something which is IN FACT a LETHAL WEAPON.
Plus she had ALREADY demonstrated that she was prepared to use that vehicle ILLEGALLY and in a manner which would seriously endanger innocent members of the public (AND, just to reiterate, to endanger her five children and indeed herself).
She had ALSO demonstrated (ALREADY demonstrated, and VERY CLEARLY demonstrated) that her behaviour was likely to be thoroughly irrational and unpredictable.
The point of all this being that in these circumstances the police were FULLY JUSTIFIED in treating her as “armed and dangerous” (as indeed she was).
QED.
LikeLike
@ A Russian Nagpo
“I was referring to child trafficking, not drug trafficking.”
So every vehicle in which there are more than — what, two children? — in any state that borders Mexico should be stopped and searched? Got it.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
I was sorely disappointed that no one laughed at my tractor examples.
OT: Did you see that my comment to you on the Rich Crazy Asians thread is out of mod?
LikeLike
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Oh, look, you were right — he was talking about you!
“Beware of the lies spread here by the being under the nickname of sharinaIr”
I’m jealous now. 🙁
LikeLike
It seems like the blades of the fan are increasingly bending under all the heavy load it’s got.
LikeLike
Solitaire You say “A vehicle is only a deadly weapon (like all things) when the intent is to harm. Not just because it exists.” THAT is obvious drivel. Possession of an assault rifle, say, or a hand grenade, INDUBITABLY constitutes possession of a weapon, REGARDLESS of ANY questions regarding “intent.”
An operational motor vehicle is FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a WEAPON, regardless of any considerations of intent.
And the fact that the motor vehicle is not designed or manufactured with the INTENTION of its being used as a weapon is AGAIN NO argument. A kitchen knife is, obviously, not originally INTENDED to be used as a weapon. A machete is originally AN AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT. Nonetheless, if you are involved in a “public order situation” carrying one of these items you will be described as having been “armed with a knife” and are therefore VERY likely to be charged and prosecuted accordingly.
LikeLike
@A Russian Nagpo
“eware of the lies spread here by the being under the nickname of sharinaIr, for (s?)he is not just about death and decay, but about lies, too.”—It is hard to lie when she posted up thread that he was and I quote “entertaining.” Not to mention that she hasn’t taken anything he said seriously.
“That being is particularly into lies about other people’s attitude — towards you, towards other persons, etc. That being sees you are feeling some suspicions, so that beings is trying to inforce paranoia, for that beings feeeds on negative feelings (mostly).”—It isn’t a lie when you quote people. Not to mention I am a long time commenter and she rarely if ever takes trolls seriously. Though I can just post her first comment here as proof.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
IKR. I must have really hurt his feelings by quoting him lying. Between you and me he is delusional or optimistic.
“I was sorely disappointed that no one laughed at my tractor examples. and Did you see that my comment to you on the Rich Crazy Asians thread is out of mod?”—Sorry. In catch up mode. Juggling here and my assignment, but definitely will respond in full.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
You are referring to me not solitaire as we are two different people.
“THAT is obvious drivel. Possession of an assault rifle, say, or a hand grenade, INDUBITABLY constitutes possession of a weapon, REGARDLESS of ANY questions regarding “intent.”—I do believe this is a straw man. If it was drivel then a link would not accompany my statement. Not to mention you were talking about a vehicle correct? That link refutes you. In fact it clearly states, “In criminal law, the term, “deadly weapon” refers to a firearm, or any other object that is used or intended to be used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being.” You can have a assault rifle or hand grenade and it isn’t deadly until you intent is to make it as such.
All the other stuff you wrote i don’t have time to respond to in full, but I do believe this link (posting it a second time). Refutes you in full and you are basically arguing with the law which is more legit than you opinion.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-constitutes-a-deadly-weapon.html
LikeLike
sharinair You appear to be contradicting yourself. You write “a vehicle is only a deadly weapon (like all things) when the intent is to harm. Not just because it exists” – but then YOU yourself go on to point out that “some driving under the influence cases are also charged as assault with a deadly weapon.”
Presumably in such cases they are so charged EVEN THOUGH there was NO INTENT to harm.
LikeLike
LikeLike
@ Sharina
No rush. I was just afraid you missed it because the Recent Comments list has been taken over by this thread.
I’m to the point now where I’m just feeding links to the sea lion, but if I get my wind back, I might re-engage. Have at ’em!
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Origin
You earlier wrote as follows:
“@Herneith [sic]
You’ve got a lot of nerve putting in that snarky little “sic” when you not only constantly get me and Sharina confused, but you actually called her a “vile disgusting little pig” for something I said.
Glass houses, logs in eyes, etc., etc.
LikeLike
sharinair My apologies for the mistake in the names. However, it is perhaps understandable (if not completely excusable) in that the two of you evidently suffer at least one of the same mental deficiencies, i.e. the inability to understand DISJUNCTIVE PROPOSITIONS, that is (putting it in layman’s, or layperson’s, terms) an inability to distinguish the word “OR” from the word “AND” lol!
Thus you quote [“In criminal law, the term, “deadly weapon” refers to a firearm, or any other object that is used or intended to be used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being”] AS IF you are thereby delivering some sort of killer blow to my argument, WHEREAS it would ONLY create any kind of difficulty for me IF it had ACTUALLY read ” . . . any other object that is used AND intended to be used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being.”
But it OF COURSE DOESN’T say that. It says [to repeat] ” . . . or ANY OTHER OBJECT that is used OR [NOT ‘AND’] intended to be used in such a way that it COULD cause death or serious injury to another human being.”
That means that it is classified as a “deadly weapon” IF it is “used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being” AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT it is INTENDED so to be used.
Thus you have (very neatly, very neatly INDEED) destroyed your own argument.
BECAUSE a motor vehicle UNDOUBTEDLY IS” used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being” – INDEED MOTOR VEHICLES DO PRECISELY THAT – AND DO IT FAR MORE OFTEN THAN ANY OTHER KIND OF OBJECT ON THE PLANET – FAR MORE OFTEN THAN FIREARMS OR, SAY, EXPLOSIVES FOR EXAMPLE.
And, on the day in question, ORIANA FERRELL was of course using her vehicle in PRECISELY that way, i.e. in a way which perfectly satisfies your quoted definition of “deadly weapon” – (which is why the police were in fact ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED in making an attempt to disable her vehicle – i.e. in attempting to IN PRACTICAL TERMS disarm her).
QED.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
In that case, your caps-lock key is a deadly weapon because it is doing serious injury to my eyes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Solitaire You are a very silly person – or else you have very strange eyes.
Block capitals are supposed to be considerably EASIER to read than lower case. THAT IS WHY (one reason why) ALMOST ALL IMPORTANT NOTICES ARE PRINTED IN BLOCK CAPITALS.
By stark contrast, I find the font used on your “black-owned (lol!) blog” almost unreadable. You should REALLY have greater consideration for people trying to read it who may have visual difficulties.
And it is also obvious (PITIFULLY obvious I might add) that (since you are evidently unable to defend your position) you are now resorting to cheap diversion tactics. Shame on you.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
That is not a contradiction buddy. The intent is thus to harm if you are operating a vehicle under the influence.
“the inability to understand DISJUNCTIVE PROPOSITIONS, that is (putting it in layman’s, or layperson’s, terms) an inability to distinguish the word “OR” from the word “AND” lol!”—Or it is called not caring.
It is still a deadly blow and this is where I am going to catch you on that reading comprehension issue you have been displaying.
You stated, ” a motor vehicle is, as is often remarked (and not JUST by road safety campaigners) a DEADLY weapon (far MORE deadly than, say, a knife or a small pistol.
The quoted article states:Y es, a vehicle is considered a deadly weapon in cases where the driver intended to hit another driver or pedestrian. Some driving under the influence cases are also charged as assault with a deadly weapon.”
This refutes you because you are saying it is deadly weapon period and it is clear here that intent is a factor of it not being. This also specifically speaks to vehicles which you are whining about.
You quote from the article: “In criminal law, the term, “deadly weapon” refers to a firearm, or any other object that is used or intended to be used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being.
Still refutes you. A car sitting in your yard or driving down a road is not being used to” cause death or serious injury to another human being.” An action has to take place with it first for it to be considered a deadly weapon per the quote you thought didn’t “deliver some sort of killer blow to my argument.”
LikeLike
@Solitaire
ROFL.
@Daniel Jones
Oh and you can save any and all you typing and caps about ORIANA FERRELL. I stated my opinion on here way up thread years ago when this post was made. If you want to know it read it, but if you are going to assume it then you will have hurt feelings.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Is this your first week ever on the internet?
https://www.dictionary.com/e/irritating-history-caps/
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“since you are evidently unable to defend your position”
I’m still waiting for you to provide statistical proof that black female car drivers cause police chases in greater numbers than white male car drivers.
It’s become obvious to me that you will never admit that any white man who ever lived was a more dangerous criminal than Oriana Farrell, so why waste my time?
LikeLike
Solitaire I’m afraid to say that you persistently misattribute motives. I wasn’t being “snarky” when I wrote “sic”. I wrote that because I was genuinely not sure whether the “Herneith” was correct.
LikeLike
Solitaire
Re. “I’m still waiting for you to provide statistical proof that black female car drivers cause police chases in greater numbers than white male car drivers.”
I’m genuinely VERY surprised (in fact astonished) that you think I EVER said ANY SUCH THING. I would ALWAYS have been prepared to bet that the OPPOSITE is true.
LikeLike
Solitaire
And I’m certain that there are VERY MANY males (including, naturally, many white males) who are FAR more dangerous than Ferrell. I have had the considerable misfortune to know a few of them personally.
LikeLike
Since you love calling people names such as ‘pig’, here’s one for you; Get out of your mother’s basement! The Palm sisters eagerly await you if you can’t!
LikeLike
I decided not to call you a name, you’re lucky!
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“Solitaire And your “account” of the police response to the Charleston shooting could serve as a classic example of what is nowadays referred to as “fake news.”
Nope, the cops did buy him hamburgers.
This has gotten misinterpreted and/or misreported as the cops actually taking him to a fast food restaurant on the way to the police station. You will notice that I didn’t word my account in that manner. But it is true that at the station, when he said that he was hungry, they sent an officer out to Burger King to buy food for him.
Compare this treatment to that of Freddie Gray after his arrest. He had killed no one, much less nine people in a racially motivated hate crime.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Solitaire Are you saying that the police who were holding Roof should have deprived their prisoner of food?
LikeLike
No. I’m saying they should treat black suspects with the same consideration that they treat white mass murderers.
LikeLike
Herneith One of the things you have in common with Solitaire is that you think (if “think” is the correct word, which I rather doubt) in terms of the CRUDEST stereotypes. However, matters are considerably worse that that, in that YOUR stereotypes are not merely crude but in fact ENTIRELY BASELESS, and are laughably hackneyed at well.
Don’t you realise how childish and silly you make yourself sound when you come out with the “mother’s basement” nonsense? PLUS it exposes how narrow and PAROCHIAL is your view of the world. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people in the world DON’T have, and NEVER HAVE had any sort of basement.
And, like very many people in my country, I have always lived in flats. I have never EVEN seen the inside of a basement (and in London, from where I hail, it is paradoxically only VERY WEALTHY people who get to live in “basement flats” – which tend to cost upwards of a million pounds sterling, i.e. WELL OVER a million dollars).
It seems to me there is a humorous play on words lurking here somewhere – something along the lines of “not only BASELESS but BASEMENTLESS” lol.
And please feel free to “call me a name” – I very much doubt whether it would bother me.
LikeLike
sharinair “A car sitting in your yard or driving down a road is not being used to” cause death or serious injury to another human being.” No, nor is an assault rifle lying in a closet or under someone’s bed, or for that matter a nuclear warhead stored in an arsenal somewhere.
They are not CURRENTLY “being used to” cause death or serious injury.” They are currently in all probability not being USED for ANYTHING. That obviously DOESN’T mean that these are not deadly weapons or (the other common term) LETHAL weapons.
You AGAIN fail to grasp a VERY SIMPLE distinction (one which any four-year-old might be expected to understand) namely the distinction between “object x is currently BEING USED for purpose y” and “object x belongs to a category of objects which are (at some time or other) used for purpose y.”
The article in question states “In criminal law, the term, ‘deadly weapon’ refers to a firearm, or any other object that is used or intended to be used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being.”
It does NOT say “that is CURRENTLY being used” and VERY OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT MEAN “is CURRENTLY being used.”
Are you seriously going to (try to) argue that a loaded assault rifle lying in a closet, or a loaded pistol sitting in someone’s waistband or pocket, are NOT deadly weapons?
That certainly ISN’T what the law says. If it DID then nobody could be charged with possession of such implements UNTIL they started shooting (or until there was AI LEAST very good reason to believe that they intended to start shooting).
LikeLike
Solitaire So you in fact ACCEPT that the police in question were acting correctly when they provided Roof with food?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“That obviously DOESN’T mean that these are not deadly weapons or (the other common term) LETHAL weapons.”—According to the law and the nice source provided it does mean they are not deadly weapons just for existing.
“You AGAIN fail to grasp a VERY SIMPLE distinction (one which any four-year-old might be expected to understand) namely the distinction between “object x is currently BEING USED for purpose y” and “object x belongs to a category of objects which are (at some time or other) used for purpose y.”—Sorry but no. This is just another fluffed up bunch of bs to hide the fact that you can’t understand the difference between your opinion of a deadly weapon and the legal definition of it. Be thankful I chose to clarify the use of “used” as you were so quick to point it out when you thought you had something only to be back at square 1. Refuted.
“It does NOT say “that is CURRENTLY being used” and VERY OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT MEAN “is CURRENTLY being used.””—All this reaching and grasping nothing. 1) Quote me saying currently? 2) “that is used” is a very important concept to grasp here. You have to use it as a weapon. Example: that is hot. That does not mean later it is hot or two weeks ago it is hot. rolls eyes
“Are you seriously going to (try to) argue that a loaded assault rifle lying in a closet, or a loaded pistol sitting in someone’s waistband or pocket, are NOT deadly weapons?”—Legally they are not. See source above again.
“That certainly ISN’T what the law says. If it DID then nobody could be charged with possession of such implements UNTIL they started shooting (or until there was AI LEAST very good reason to believe that they intended to start shooting).”—You obviously have shown that you know little of the law. No one is arrested for having a gun in the closet. I have two and legal papers to show it. If I open fire on people then I will be charged and it will being assault with a deadly weapon or murder. If you are charged with possession it isn’t going to be considered a deadly weapon. I knew you were slow to the upkeep when you started name calling but dang.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“Don’t you realise how childish and silly you make yourself sound”—Why ask this when you have yet to realize how childish and silly you make yourself sound with paragraphs of name calling.
LikeLike
sharinair “Noone is arrested for having a gun their closet.” Are you joking?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Perhaps a person can be arrested for having a gun in their closet in London, but if you are going to debate situations that occurred in the U.S. then you had best go by our laws, because yours don’t apply. If a person legally owns a gun, then they’ve got a constitutional right to have that gun in their closet. Not just a legal right, but a constitutionally protected right established by the Founders of the Republic.
LikeLike
sharinair The “source” you quote DOESN’T at ANY point say that if a firearm is not at the moment being used to kill or injure someone it is therefore NOT a deadly weapon. HOW do you come to imagine that it DOES say that.
(By the way, I have the impression that you are struggling to understand certain things because English isn’t your native language. If you let me know what IS your first or usual language I can try to help you out with some translations).
LikeLike
And now I know why you have no conception of the idea that a highway can be in an isolated area. You need to take a little trip to Utah or Australia. Broaden your horizons, literally.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Two men:
One accused of carrying a knife that may or may not have been legal depending on whether state law or city code took precedence and whether the knife fit the definition in the city code; a knife that the man did not pull out or flourish or use to attack, but simply was carrying.
The other gunned down nine innocent victims inside a church, including preachers and a senator.
Which of these two men was more deserving of dying from injuries sustained through improper police transport, alleged beating by the police, and refusal of timely medical treatment?
LikeLike
“Why ask this when you have yet to realize how childish and silly you make yourself sound with paragraphs of name calling.”
REALLY REALLY LOUDLY
LikeLike
Sharinair Whether a person has a constitutional right to own a firearm or not ISN’T THE QUESTION. The question is whether a firearm (or a knife, or a motor vehicle etc.) is correctly described as a “deadly weapon.”
WHAT the Second Amendment says is that “the right to keep and bear arms” (i.e. THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR DEADLY WEAPONS) “shall not be infringed” – it most emphatically does NOT say that firearms are NOT deadly weapons. If they WEREN’T deadly weapons the constitutional “right to keep and bear” them wouldn’t be worth very much, now would it, lol?
LikeLike
Solitaire ONCE MORE – so you in fact ACCEPT that the police in question were acting correctly when they provided Roof with food? What DIFFERENT police in a DIFFERENT police department in a DIFFERENT STATE in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATION did is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to that question.
LikeLike
Solitaire On “isolated” – the video itself shows very clearly that there were other vehicles passing frequently, and that there were settlements (and what would be classified as a “built-up area”) only a few miles away. So the location of the original “stop” was hardly very “isolated” was it?
LikeLike
Solitaire In fact I HAVE travelled through Utah (and OVER it, multiple times) but have so far avoided Australia.
LikeLike
Solitaire (likewise)
Whether a person has a constitutional right to own a firearm or not ISN’T THE QUESTION. The question is whether a firearm (or a knife, or a motor vehicle etc.) is correctly described as a “deadly weapon.”
WHAT the Second Amendment says is that “the right to keep and bear arms” (i.e. THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR DEADLY WEAPONS) “shall not be infringed” – it most emphatically does NOT say that firearms are NOT deadly weapons. If they WEREN’T deadly weapons the constitutional “right to keep and bear” them wouldn’t be worth very much, now would it, lol?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
I will grant you that the highway in question was not as isolated as some others.
What you are failing to take into account, though, is that the perception of isolation is relative, not fixed. New Mexico has very few black residents. Many of those settlements, as you call them, are historical sundown towns, and black people typically feel wary and isolated and vulnerable when they are in small rural white communities that have a history of keeping blacks out using police intimidation, physical threats, and actual violence.
I come from a town like that, although in a different part of the country. It feels like a safe place to me, but black people from the nearby city are scared to stop in my town. As recently as the ’90s, a Vietnamese couple who stopped at night to fill gas were verbally harassed and threatened by some of the town’s teenagers.
Oriana Farrell is from Memphis, which is a sizeable city that has a large black population. She is going to feel way more isolated and vulnerable on that New Mexico highway than any white person probably would.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“What DIFFERENT police in a DIFFERENT police department in a DIFFERENT STATE in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATION did is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to that question.”
It’s not irrelevant when it’s part of an established national pattern of maltreatment of black people in police custody comparative to the treatment of whites.
Yes, not only were they right to provide food, my understanding is they were legally required to do so.
The police in Baltimore were also legally required to properly secure Freddie Gray during vehicular transport and to provide timely medical treatment. Do you think they did wrong by not following these legal requirements?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“Whether a person has a constitutional right to own a firearm or not ISN’T THE QUESTION. The question is whether a firearm (or a knife, or a motor vehicle etc.) is correctly described as a “deadly weapon.””
You introduced a subtopic when you ridiculed Sharina for her statement about the gun in the closet. I was responding to that, as you well know.
LikeLike
But since you brought it up: a gun is not always considered to be a deadly weapon:
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/state-supreme-court-rules-broken-gun-not-deadly-weapon
LikeLike
What is legally defined as a deadly weapon is variable depending on jurisdiction. Each state has a separate law with distinct language:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_weapon
Look under “Examples of Statutes” in the link above. Please note that in Maine a car would only be a dangerous weapon if there was intent to use it as such:
“(3) Any other device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which, in the manner it is intended to be used by the actor, is capable of producing or threatening death or serious bodily injury. For purposes of this definition, the intent may be conditional.”
LikeLike
Solitaire
“Perhaps a person can be arrested for having a gun in their closet in London, but if you are going to debate situations that occurred in the U.S. then you had best go by our laws, because yours don’t apply. If a person legally owns a gun, then they’ve got a constitutional right to have that gun in their closet. Not just a legal right, but a constitutionally protected right established by the Founders of the Republic.”
You need to brush up on your US Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms was NOT “established” by the “Founders of the Republic” (who the heck were THEY anyway – just a bunch of WHITE GUYS, lol). It was RECOGNIZED and affirmed in the Second Amendment as an ALREADY-EXISTING RIGHT (it having PREVIOUSLY been asserted in the ENGLISH Bill of Rights of 1689.
And it of course does NOT say that the gun in someone’s closet is NECESSARILY legal. For a start, in the United States convicted felons may not, as I understand it, legally possess ANY firearm (a restriction which, rather surprisingly, DOESN’T apply in Britain). And, whether one has a criminal record or not, there are numerous categories of firearm which one cannot in practice legally own. TRUE assault rifles for example (i.e. FULLY AUTOMATIC rifles such as the M-16 or the AKM) and indeed ALL fully automatic firearms, e.g. submacineguns. Also shotguns with a barrel below a certain length (18 inches as I remember) . . . and so on.
But the main point is that these are ALL deadly/lethal weapons – whether or not they are in a closet at home or ACTUALLY being used to carry out a massacre as we speak.
LikeLike
“It was RECOGNIZED and affirmed in the Second Amendment as an ALREADY-EXISTING RIGHT (it having PREVIOUSLY been asserted in the ENGLISH Bill of Rights of 1689.”
Which did not apply to colonial subjects. You took our guns away from us to try to keep us from overthrowing your tyrannical rule.
“And it of course does NOT say that the gun in someone’s closet is NECESSARILY legal.”
Go back and read what I wrote. I clearly said that the gun in the closet has to be legally owned.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“The “source” you quote DOESN’T at ANY point say that if a firearm is not at the moment being used to kill or injure someone it is therefore NOT a deadly weapon. HOW do you come to imagine that it DOES say that.”—How do you continue typing with your reading comprehension failure and straw man creating comments? You seem to struggle with the same passage you quote allow me to put it in a manner that will make it easier for you to understand.
“deadly weapon’refers to a firearm, or any other object that is used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being”—This means that is must be used in such a way that would cause death or serious injury to someone. A gun can’t be used in a way to cause death or serious injury in your closet, just being held etc. Key word in that passage is must be used in a way. So until it is used as such it is not a deadly weapon per that source.
“Whether a person has a constitutional right to own a firearm or not ISN’T THE QUESTION. The question is whether a firearm (or a knife, or a motor vehicle etc.) is correctly described as a “deadly weapon.”—Actually the original statement was you claiming a vehicle was a deadly weapon and have now deflected to knife and assault rifle. None the less they have both been answered and you are basically in denial.
“WHAT the Second Amendment says is that “the right to keep and bear arms” (i.e. THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR DEADLY WEAPONS) “shall not be infringed” – it most emphatically does NOT say that firearms are NOT deadly weapons. If they WEREN’T deadly weapons the constitutional “right to keep and bear” them wouldn’t be worth very much, now would it, lol?”—Didn’t mention the second amendment. The “right to keep and bear” doesn’t indicate that they are legally defined as deadly weapons on existence. However, those very quoted laws with sources do indicated clearly that are not.
LikeLike
the ‘rules of engagement’ must be fair and predictable
LikeLike
Solitaire Once again you read something but fail to understand it. Once again you cite something as if it PROVED your point when in fact it UNDERMINES it.
I used to teach in the US, and I remember Americans as being pretty stupid, but NOWHERE NEAR as stupid as you and sharinair et al are proving to be. What the hell is wrong with you all?!!
“Any other device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which, in the manner it is intended to be used by the actor, is capable of producing or threatening death or serious bodily injury. For purposes of this definition, the intent may be conditional
This does NOT say that it is INTENDED to produce or threaten death or serious bodily injury. It says that IF when it is used for the purpose for which it is intended (e.g. driving along a highway at high speeds) it is “CAPABLE OF producing or threatening death or serious bodily injury.”
Just to reiterate, it DOES NOT say that it needs to be INTENDED to cause death or serious injury. It says that it ONLY needs to be capable of producing or threatening death or serious bodily injury when used for its (usual) intended purpose, OR used for the purpose for which the “actor” intended it to be used at the time (e.g. travelling along a highway at high speed, and, in Ferrell’s case, in an attempt to evade apprehension by the police).
And Oriana Ferrells “minivan” (along with most other motor vehicles) in fact fits the Maine definition of “dangerous weapon” PERFECTLY.
It undoubtedly is, when used “in the manner it is intended to be used by the actor, capable of producing or threatening death or serious bodily injury.”
It is NO wonder that most police officers, when one discusses these issues with them, will ALWAYS stress AT THE OUTSET that “a motor vehicle is a lethal weapon” or “whenever you get behind the wheel you have to remember that a car is a deadly weapon.”
QED.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“Didn’t mention the second amendment.”
No, I did and he got us confused again.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“I used to teach in the US”
That’s a load of bull hockey.
“This does NOT say that it is INTENDED to produce or threaten death or serious bodily injury. It says that IF when it is used for the purpose for which it is intended (e.g. driving along a highway at high speeds) it is “CAPABLE OF producing or threatening death or serious bodily injury.”
No, it does not. It is very clearly saying that the object is only considered to be a deadly weapon if the actor used it with such intent. A cast-iron frying pan can be considered a deadly weapon in legal terms if the actor bashed someone in the back of the head with it. But when used as intended, a frying pan is not capable of producing or threatening death serious bodily injury.
Again, I refer you to the wiki link given above:
“For example, a shoe or a shod foot used for kicking may be considered a dangerous weapon.”
When used for the purpose it is intended, as protection for the foot when walking, a shoe is not a deadly weapon.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
” I remember Americans as being pretty stupid, but NOWHERE NEAR as stupid as you and sharinair et al are proving to be. What the hell is wrong with you all?!!”
Says the person who is too dumb to remember the difference between two usernames that both start with “S”
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“And please feel free to “call me a name”
My god, I hope Herneith takes you up on this.
grabs popcorn
LikeLike
https://www.spatzlawfirm.com/blog/2017/12/is-a-car-considered-a-deadly-weapon-in-the-state-of-florida.shtml
LikeLike
sharinair
You evidently can’t write so much as TWO sentences without contradicting yourself –
“deadly weapon’refers to a firearm, or any other object that is used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being”
NOTE – “COULD cause death or serious injury.”
THEN you say:
“This means that is must be used in such a way that would cause death or serious injury to someone. A gun can’t be used in a way to cause death or serious injury in your closet, just being held etc.”
NOTE – you NOW say “must be used in such a way that WOULD cause death or serious injury . . .” (I take it you really mean “in such a way that IT would).
Do you really think “could” and “would” mean the same thing, lol?
You obviously ARE struggling with a language which is not your first language. As I say, let me know what your ACTUAL language is and I will try to organize some translations for you.
LikeLike
Solitaire “Says the person who is too dumb to remember the difference between two usernames that both start with ‘S’.”
That’s just a routine and inconsequential slip – actually occurs most commonly in people of very high intelligence (as with the great and illustrious Reverend Spooner, late Warden of Wadham College, Oxford. Lol!
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“You obviously ARE struggling with a language which is not your first language. As I say, let me know what your ACTUAL language is and I will try to organize some translations for you.”—Yeah. I think you can stop projecting now. The mere fact that after several posts and you still don’t get it but are taking words here and there to argue says it all. However, I have no problem using another post to make you look as foolish as the last few.
“NOTE – “COULD cause death or serious injury.””—Also NOTE: “that is used in such a way”. You still keep trying to bypass the fact that sitting in your closet isn’t being used in a manner that will cause death or serious injury to someone. Not to mention YOU brought up used, so not you want to look for any small thing to ignore the fact that once again you at square 1.
“Do you really think “could” and “would” mean the same thing, lol?”—Oh I don’t, but you would have to actually cause death or serious injury before you are arrested, charged, and enter court for your weapon to be considered a deadly weapon. I mean they aren’t going to charge you for holding it and the only way it reaches a deadly weapon status is if you used it as such. Consider this post number….whatever you have been refuted so many times.
“ (I take it you really mean “in such a way that IT would).”—I meant exactly what I said. What you are doing is using a grammar troll move. That and name calling are usually sure signs of a lost argument, but that part was obvious before the name calling.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“That’s just a routine and inconsequential slip – actually occurs most commonly in people of very high intelligence (as with the great and illustrious Reverend Spooner, late Warden of Wadham College, Oxford. Lol!”–It also occurs in people with dementia and alzheimer’s.
LikeLike
Solitaire
Amazing! You did it YET AGAIN (i.e. exploded YOUR OWN argument)!
“This does NOT say that it is INTENDED to produce or threaten death or serious bodily injury. It says that . . . ”
YOU reply “No, it does not. It is very clearly saying that the object is only considered to be a deadly weapon if the actor used it with such intent.”
WHERE is it “clearly saying” ANY SUCH THING?
But never mind, you have once again managed to make my point for me.
“When used as intended, a frying pan is not capable of producing or threatening death [or] serious bodily injury.”
EXACTLY! And THAT is what distinguishes a frying pan (or a shoe) from a motor vehicle, which PRECISELY WHEN BEING USED FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS INTENDED IS NOT ONLY CAPABLE OF PRODUCING DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY BUT DOES DO PRECISELY THAT – CAUSE DEATH AND SERIOUS INJURY – AND IN GREATER NUMBERS THAN DOES ANY OTHER KIND OF OBJECT ON THE PLANET.
The car is a KILLER (the BIGGEST killer OF ALL) exactly WHEN BEING USED AS INTENDED. The frying-pan and the shoe are, of course, not.
Again – QED.
LikeLike
sharinair It doesn’t make any sense to say “dementia AND alzheimer’s.” It is Alzheimer’s by the way, with a capital “A” (since it is named after a person) inability to spell is ALSO a symptom of dementia, lol.
Alzheimer’s IS (a form of) dementia, not some OTHER condition – so all you have done with your callous and cheap little remark is to provide yet another demonstration of your ignorance
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“inability to spell is ALSO a symptom of dementia, lol.”–You do realize that an inability to spell does not include not capitalizing it right?
“Alzheimer’s IS (a form of) dementia, not some OTHER condition – so all you have done with your callous and cheap little remark is to provide yet another demonstration of your ignorance”–Nope, but you sure help show yours.
“Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease aren’t the same. Dementia is an overall term used to describe symptoms that impact memory, performance of daily activities, and communication abilities. Alzheimer’s disease is the most common type of dementia. Alzheimer’s disease gets worse with time and affects memory, language, and thought.”
In other words, even though alzheimer’s is a type of dementia they are not the same thing.
https://www.healthline.com/health/alzheimers-disease/difference-dementia-alzheimers#alzheimers-disease
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
The term “used with intent” does not have the same meaning as “used as intended.” You are either poorly educated or just pretending you don’t comprehend the distinction so you can troll.
Being legalese, this phrase is written in the passive tense:
“Any other device … which, in the manner it is intended to be used by the actor, is capable of producing or threatening death or serious bodily injury.”
Change it to active tense and you get:
“Any other device … which the actor intended to use in such a manner that it could produce or threaten death or serious bodily injury.”
LikeLike
From an article that specifically talks about New Mexico’s legal code:
https://www.collinsattorneys.com/criminalblawg/penalties-consequences/firearm-sentencing-enhancement/
LikeLike
sharinalr You and a couple of others on here have as your primary dishonest device in argument the particularly cheap one of persistently misrepresenting the other person’s position.
I of course DIDN’T say that Alzheimer’s and dementia “are the same thing.”
LikeLike
Solitaire What are this “passive tense” and this “active tense” to which you refer?
LikeLike
sharinalr OBVIOUSLY, if, as I pointed out to you, Alzheimer’s is a FORM of dementia then Alzheimer’s and dementia are NOT the same thing.
LikeLike
Solitaire
Amazing! You did it YET AGAIN. You cited/quoted a source which FULLY supports MY OWN account of matters and UNDERMINES yours.
Astounding!
“The court recognized that many objects, lamps, chairs, rocks, dishes, bottles and yes pocket-knives may and have become deadly weapons with the requisite intent.”
Which follows “a pocket-knife is no more a deadly weapon than a rock, both of which can be used to inflict deadly harm” –
Which of course is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the situation regarding motor vehicles (which ARE deadly – THE DEADLIEST THINGS THERE ARE ON THE PLANET (the deadliest “man-made” objects) – REGARDLESS of whether there is any INTENT to use them as a weapon).
A pocket knife CAN of course be used for its intended purpose WITHOUT presenting any serious risk of causing death or SERIOUS injury to a person. A motor vehicle CANNOT, as is PROVEN by the deaths and injuries which motor vehicles cause EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY (and in fact, I would suspect as regards serious INJURIES, EVERY SECOND of EVERY day).
LikeLike
Passive voice. It was late at night when I wrote that, and I made a common mistake.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/grammarianism.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/is-it-correct-to-speak-of-the-passive-tense/amp/
You knew what I meant.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
You consistently fail to understand (or more likely, to concede) that “deadly weapon” and “intent” are in this discussion legal definitions.
I have already provided evidence that in criminal cases the courts can decide that cars did not constitute deadly weapons.
No one is arguing that cars do not cause many deadly accidents. Note the term accident.
Please also note that the vast majority of people who cause vehicular accidents are not charged with “assault with a deadly weapon.”
LikeLike
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“It doesn’t make any sense to say “dementia AND alzheimer’s.” It is Alzheimer’s by the way, with a capital “A” (since it is named after a person) inability to spell is ALSO a symptom of dementia, lol.”—It makes plenty of sense seeing as I said “It also occurs in people with dementia and alzheimer’s.” With them not being the same darn thing people can have symptoms and not have the disease. Oh dear I purposely did not capitalize the a and will continue to because this grammar trolling (aka ad hominem fallacy) is a desperate move for someone with no real argument and I like watching you be desperate. Not to mention an inability to spell is me spelling is altimers not me not capitalizing it which is a grammar error.
“I of course DIDN’T say that Alzheimer’s and dementia “are the same thing.”—Yet I didn’t say you did. When I want to quote what you say I clearly put ”You stated:” However, I am entitled to clarify my position. You stated: not some OTHER condition. I never said it was. You assumed that me saying “dementia AND alzheimer’s.” meant that. This is another one of your straw man arguments by the way. You keep trying to argue positions never presented, so the dishonesty is just you.
However, dementia is off topic here. You can continue to argue it here:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/open-thread/
However, you will just be flooding another thread with another topic you will get refuted on.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
He is a troll. There is no way this dude has 24hrs to argue points unless he is occupying some room at his mom’s. His wilfully obtuse behavior is a result of him calling so many names and so desperate to prove he is smart he will never admit he is wrong. Just change the subject to some irrelevant bs.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Agreed, and he’s getting boring. Not a very inventive or mentally dexterous troll.
A lot of what I’ve written has been for the benefit of lurkers, anyway. The troll stopped being fun to play with quite some time ago.
LikeLike
Solitaire I have ALREADY made it clear that I am not (not PRIMARILY) concerned with ANY “legal” or “technical” sense of “deadly weapon” or “intent” – indeed I quoted Dickens to the effect that “the law is an ass” (for the sake of the pedants among you I am already aware that it is said by the character Mr. Bumble in a rather specific context and that what Bumble says is in fact “the law is a ass” (not AN ass)).
ANY legal or technical definition of these terms in any case derives its meaning ultimately from its use in vernacular language, and IN that language the motor vehicle is habitually and customarily described as a “lethal weapon” or “deadly weapon” and also as a “killing machine” (ALL of which are, of course, PRECISELY WHAT IT IS).
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“I have ALREADY made it clear that I am not (not PRIMARILY) concerned with ANY “legal” or “technical” sense of “deadly weapon” or “intent”
That’s fine, but it does not then follow that Oriana Farrell was in possession of a deadly weapon as understood by the law and therefore it does not follow that she was a dangerous criminal under the law. You can’t have it both ways. If you aren’t concerned with the legal definition, you can’t ignore it and use some other non-legal definition to claim she was legally a dangerous criminal in possession of a deadly weapon with intent to kill and/or do serious bodily injury.
“ANY legal or technical definition of these terms in any case derives its meaning ultimately from its use in vernacular language”
And yet the courts would not bother to create and specify a legal definition if the vernacular definition was sufficient for their purposes.
“the motor vehicle is habitually and customarily described as a “lethal weapon” or “deadly weapon” and also as a “killing machine”
Prove that the use is habitual and customary instead of being employed only in purple-prose discourse about traffic fatalities. Habitual and customary use would be: “Honey, have you seen the keys to my killing machine?” or “My deadly weapon needs a new carburetor” or “Look, there’s a nice 2015 lethal weapon on sale at the used killing-machine dealership.”
LikeLike
Solitaire Among your numerous other unattractive traits you evidently have an extremely vile, sick, callous sense of humour. There is NOTHING funny about the slaughter inflicted by motor vehicles on innocent people. You are (apparently) TERRIBLY concerned about nine black people killed by a gunman (IF, that is, the gunman is white) but 900 (or 9,000, or 90,000) black people killed by the venal car industry and by the irresponsible motorist are, it seems (as far as YOU are concerned), a subject for smug bourgeois sarcasm and cheap and flippant excuses for witticisms.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Your fake outrage simply means you can’t dispute my points above.
The burden of proof is on you to show that in the eyes of the law Oriana Farrell was in possession of a deadly weapon that she used with the intent to cause death or severe bodily injury rather than a reckless driver in violation of at least two rules of the road but with no intent to cause death or severe bodily injury.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Solitaire What makes you imagine (or PRETEND to imagine) that my outrage is “fake”?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Why don’t you respond directly to the points I made?
LikeLike
Solitaire Is the black-on-black crime reference intended for me? You don’t say. If it IS perhaps you could explain (or try to explain) what relevance it has to anything I have advanced.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Preemptive strike. You appear to be heading in the direction of the black-on-black crime argument by making the the claim that I only cared about the 9 black murdered churchgoers but not about the larger number of black people who die in car accidents annually. It is a similar argument arising from similar faulty logic.
It’s also an attempt to divert from the main issue: your claim that in the eyes of the law Oriana Farrell was a dangerous criminal in possession of a deadly weapon that she was using with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury.
You have yet to respond to my most recent comments refuting your claims. Instead you were hoping to put me on the defensive by calling me names and challenging me about which deaths I care about more.
It was just an attempt to change the subject, which is generally employed by someone who cannot defend his stated position but refuses to concede.
LikeLike
Solitaire “Why don’t you respond directly to the points I made?” Once again, are you JOKING? You certainly SEEM to be, because THAT is quite hilarious!
Are you aware of the concept in psychology which is meant by “projection”? (You certainly SHOULD be, because your own conduct in these discussions is an almost perfect example of it).
Psychological projection is a phenomenon in which the human ego “defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative)” by DENYING THEIR EXISTENCE IN THEMSELVES – and denying that existence BY MEANS OF ATTRIBUTING THEM TO OTHERS (the others usually being their opponents in a discussion one might add)..
You ask “Why don’t you respond directly to the points I made?” and you ask this EVEN THOUGH it is YOU who fails to respond (whether directly or indirectly) to the points your opponent makes. Instead you “respond” to claims or opinions which you ATTRIBUTE to them, but which they have NEVER expressed.
I indeed pointed out (ONLY a day or two ago) that you (and also of course your online chums) persistently resort to this cheap trick (the cheapest of ALL cheap tricks) . . . and you have just proved me right YET AGAIN.
You write “The burden of proof is on you to show that in the eyes of the law Oriana Farrell [sic] was in possession of a deadly weapon that she used with the intent to cause death or severe bodily injury rather than a reckless driver in violation of at least two rules of the road but with no intent to cause death or severe bodily injury.”
I of course have NEVER said (OR implied) that Ferrell (it IS FERRELL by the way and not “Farrell” – one might have reasonably expected you after all this time to AT THE VERY LEAST have got THAT MUCH right) was doing ANYTHING “with the intent to cause death or severe bodily injury” (and I think that, even if you ARE as stupid as you pretend to be, you know that perfectly well – in other words you are being WILFULLY stupid in order to MISATTRIBUTE an opinion to your opponent . . . and you do this persistently because you are CLEARLY UNABLE to refute what your opponent has ACTUALLY said).
For some strange reason I don’t believe that there is ANY “burden of proof” (lol!) on me to “show” something which I have NEVER actually EVEN asserted, lol.
LikeLike
Solitaire (In reply to your latest, which states “It’s also an attempt to divert from the main issue: your claim that in the eyes of the law Oriana Farrell was a dangerous criminal in possession of a deadly weapon that she was using with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury.)
ONCE AGAIN, I have of course NEVER “claimed that in the eyes of the law Oriana FERRELL was a dangerous criminal in possession of a deadly weapon that she was using with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury.”
So WHY do you persist in speaking as if I HAD made such a claim?
Either you are WILFULLY and dishonestly misrepresenting was I said OR ELSE you must REALLY be ALMOST UNBELIEVABLY stupid.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“(it IS FERRELL by the way and not “Farrell” – one might have reasonably expected you after all this time to AT THE VERY LEAST have got THAT MUCH right)”
Google “Oriana Ferrell” and watch what happens.
Have you heard of a psychological concept called gaslighting?
LikeLike
Solitaire WHAT happens?
LikeLike
Solitaire It seems that Farrell/Ferrell (in line with a time-honoured
criminal practice) is in the habit of VARYING the spelling of her surname (probably, although of course not necessarily, for nefarious purposes) hence the multiple inconsistencies in the various press references to her name. The documents relating to the court case against her in New Mexico DO spell it “Farrell” – but I have seen MANY court documents which have got names wrong (including, on one occasion, my own, lol) – and they get them wrong VERY OFTEN where it is a question of minor differences in spelling. So it is a “moot point” whether it is Farrell or Ferrell (or indeed BOTH, lol) but obviously I was quite mistaken in thinking that the name is definitely spelled “Ferrell.”
LikeLike
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrell_(surname)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrell
The actual correct spelling is Ó Fearghail, but guess why it got changed, you English oppressor.
LikeLike
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93_Fearghail
LikeLike
Solitaire Yes, I KNOW the origin of the name – I am a long-time enthusiast for Irish history.
LikeLike
Solitaire WHAT leads you to assume that I am an “English oppressor”?
LikeLike
Daniel Jones Once again you are making RACIST ASSUMPTIONS.
LikeLike
Solitaire Once again YOU are making racist assumptions, lol!
LikeLike
First you can’t keep Sharina and me straight, now you confuse your own name with mine? And you call me stupid???
Lolololol!!!!!
LikeLike
Solitaire Making a mistake of THAT kind isn’t a sign of stupidity. I am accustomed to placing comments in contexts where one’s identity ISN’T flagged automatically, no I am used to keying in my name at the front of each of my comments. Nothing could be more natural than to put my own name at the front of a comment by mistake.
LikeLike
Solitaire But isn’t it interesting that you choose to focus on THAT instead of answering the RELEVANT question, which is “WHAT leads you to assume that I am an ‘English oppressor'”?
LikeLike
Solitaire It’s interesting . . . and also VERY telling.
LikeLike
Daniel Jones
“But isn’t it interesting that you choose to focus on THAT instead of answering the RELEVANT question”—That was interesting when you spend several posts avoiding addressing relevant topics, particularly those you brought up. Even more interesting or telling is the slew of ad hominems you threw out to avoid the fact you had no argument at all. Yet you didn’t notice what that was telling about you.
But to tell you something about solitaire’s comment. It appears you no longer takes you seriously, though I doubt anyone really has other than ARN who is desperate for support.
LikeLike
sharinalr “That was interesting when you spend several posts avoiding addressing relevant topics, particularly those you brought up. Even more interesting or telling is the slew of ad hominems you threw out to avoid the fact you had no argument at all.”
Well, so you SAY, but you don’t EVEN manage to cite ONE example.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“Yes, I KNOW the origin of the name – I am a long-time enthusiast for Irish history.”
Riiiight, but with all those years of study you didn’t know that Farrell is one of the most common Anglicized versions of the name?
No, you cast shade on Oriana Farrell, saying, “It seems that Farrell/Ferrell (in line with a time-honoured
criminal practice) is in the habit of VARYING the spelling of her surname (probably, although of course not necessarily, for nefarious purposes).”
Instead of admitting and/or comprehending that Farrell is in fact the correct and legal spelling of her family name, you revealed both your ignorance and your prejudice.
So you think you can call me a “vile disgusting little pig,” “extremely vile, sick, callous” and — at least four times — “stupid,” but I can’t call you an English oppressor?
Guess again, you rotten imperalist Sassenach.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Examples? Every last one of your comments are examples. Not to mention examples were provided in most comments by quoting you and on occasion linking.
You provided the examples all on your own.
LikeLike
Solitaire
OF COURSE I knew that “Farrell is one of the most common Anglicized versions of the name.” WHATEVER gives you the impression that I didn’t, lol?
You CAN of course CALL me “an English oppressor.” As the old formulation goes “You CAN of course call me that – whether you MAY call me that is of couse ANOTHER matter.”
You simply continue to PERSIST in making racial (and BLATANTLY RACIST) assumptions.
For a start you don’t EVEN know whether I am English or not.
LikeLike
sharinalr ONCE AGAIN you fail to give EVEN ONE example. And is “Every last one of your comments are examples” supposed to be a coherent sentence?.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“Examples? Every last one of your comments are examples.”
I think we may have reached the point where there isn’t any sense in continuing. He blatantly denies saying and doing everything he’s quite clearly said and done, and he just wants us to waste energy trying to prove it.
Meanwhile, I’m still curious about what you were going to say on the Open Thread last week, if it’s still in your mind to say it.
LikeLike
Solitaire You at least APPEAR to suppose that “Sassenach” is a pejorative word used by the Irish to insult English people – when in fact it is a word used ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY for that purpose by (of course) those traditional and most ferocious enemies of the Irish . . . THE SPLENDID AND MAGNIFICENT SCOTS.
“Sassenach is derived from the Scottish Gaelic word sasunnach, literally meaning ‘Saxon’, and originally used by Gaelic speakers to refer to NON-GAELIC SPEAKING SCOTTISH LOWLANDERS. Scots, after all, is descended from northern varieties of the medieval language known as Old English or Anglo-Saxon, and although Scots and English evolved into their own distinctive forms, they have much more in common with each other than with Gaelic.
“As Tobias Smollett wrote in the novel, Humphrey Clinker (1771), ‘The Highlanders have no other name for the people of the Low country, but Sassenagh [sic.], or Saxons’. In modern Scotland, however, the Gaelic term has been adopted into general usage as sassenach, denoting something or someone English.
“Labels for specific groups of people can of course be problematic, encouraging a sense of cultural and ideological division, and evoking an air of tribalism or inequality. The assertion that ‘this is our word for you (whether you like it or not)’ is clearly a political statement, even when the word is not used intentionally as a term of abuse. The Scots and the English, over the centuries, have had some issues. Catherine Tate’s comedy sketch, where the English grandmother ‘cannot’ understand her Scottish neighbour except in terms of ‘something about kilts’, lampoons a stereotype that is more often fiction than fact, yet real enough to make many a viewer laugh when he or she sees it.
“Sassenach, while a potentially loaded term, is found in a wide range of contexts, sometimes for stylistic effect. The Herald asserted in 2002 that: ‘BBC Scotland is hoping [the soap opera] River City will be just as long-running as its Sassenach equivalents’. In this instance, ‘Sassenach equivalents’ makes the geographical point more clearly, sidestepping the ambiguities of ‘English equivalents’ which could signify language rather than location. Furthermore, Sassenach is well suited to journalese writing that welcomes any opportunity to evoke a sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’.
“There are of course more extreme cases. The actor Maurice Roeves, who was born in Sunderland, recalled some unpleasant childhood experiences after his family moved to Partick. In a Daily Record interview last year he said: “I’d be talking in a Geordie accent and the other kids would be: ‘sassenach’. I got beaten up to hell. I had to learn Glaswegian pretty quick to join the gang.”
“The divisive aspect of sassenach is mitigated somewhat by its adoption by English people. Writing in the Aberdeen Press and Journal in February, Jeremy Cresswell stated: “Strictly speaking I’m a sassenach, but I have spent the bulk of my working life north of the border”. Social, cross-border initiatives, such as ‘Burns in the Buff’, held this year in Dunoon, are clearly good examples of occasions when people can get to know each other better. The volunteers’ co-ordinator for the largest naked Burns Supper of its kind was quoted in The Herald as saying: “As a mere Sassenach, I found the haggis absolutely wonderful”.”
[https://www.thebottleimp.org.uk/2013/05/scots-word-of-the-season-sassenach/]
LikeLike
Solitaire
And I think you mean “imperialist” and not “imperalist” lol.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“whether you MAY call me that is of couse”
I think you meant “course” not “couse,” lol
If I obsessed over all of your typos, I’d be here all day.
Instead, I’m finished with you.
Have a nice day, and don’t let the door hit you where the good lord split you.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Here’s three:
Here is an example of an ad hominem (e.g. name calling). You focused more on trying to make it about a sentence you claim is incoherent. However, you ignore the fact that you are whining at solitaire for doing something you have been doing this whole thread.
Here is an example of you using ad hominem attacks, while avoiding to address the fact that a vehicle is a deadly weapon (a topic you brought up) does not constitute a car because it simply exists.
Not to mention this gem.
Ultimately you tried to falsely argue that you weren’t talking about the legal aspect, but only after you got proven wrong several times over. At best you made an appeal to emotion if that.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Very true. Though I enjoy watching him run around like a chicken with his head cut off. Watch he try to either deflect or resort to more name calling.
@Daniel Jones
I got three examples and you will have them when they are out of moderation, but here is one to go with the others.
You focused primarily on my wording to avoid the fact that the source had refuted you. In fact you brought up “used” originally and when refuted you got made and focused on “would”. The fact that you made it about me rather than the claim you made is called an ad hominem.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“If I obsessed over all of your typos, I’d be here all day.”
Clearly NOT true. MY “typos” are VERY rare, DEMONSTRABLY so – and I DON’T believe “imperalist” WAS a “typo” in any case.
LikeLike
Solitaire “He blatantly denies saying and doing everything he’s quite clearly said and done.”
FOR EXAMPLE?
YOU are lying . . . and BLATANTLY lying.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“Though I enjoy watching him run around like a chicken with his head cut off.”
By all means continue to toy with him if you’re still amused!!
I’m just finding him too boring now to bother with.
LikeLike
Solitaire
AND – be it noted – you STILL HAVEN’T answered the question “WHAT leads you to assume that I am an ‘English oppressor’”?
Like almost all RACISTS you make your RACIST REMARKS but you don’t have the intelligence – or the guts – to back them up, or EVEN to explain them IN ANY WAY.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
It can’t be racism. Ethnic rivalry, maybe.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“It can’t be racism. Ethnic rivalry, maybe”.
You OF COURSE, and TYPICALLY, avoid committing yourself to saying WHAT EXACTLY, according to you, “can’t be racism.”
To WHAT is the “it” supposed to be referring in “It can’t be racism”? You of course DON’T say.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“YOU are lying . . . and BLATANTLY lying.”—How is that a lie when i just posted an example above? Do you need an example of you lying about not doing it?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
You are so slow.
How can the names I called you be considered racist? How can my calling you those names be considered racist? English is not a race. Irish is not a race. You could say ethnicity or nationality but not race.
LikeLike
Solitaire
Try telling the Irish or (heaven help us!) the Scots that they are not a race! There IS, of course, a specialized TECHNICAL terminology under which it is SOMETIMES argued that these are not races but “ethnicities” (although it is also SOMETIMES argued that they are not ethnicities EITHER).
However, the LAW in the UK (and in ALMOST ALL countries in Europe) makes, for example, NO practical distinction regarding, say, the serious criminal offence of “Incitement to Racial Hatred)” between that incitement’s being on the basis of race and its being incitement on the grounds of “ethnicity” (or, for that matter, of nationality or national origin).
Morally – and LEGALLY – racial abuse and “ethnic” abuse are (despite all your sophistry) THE SAME THING.
LikeLike
So much sea lionesses– Well, actually, two is more than enough.
LikeLike
sharinalr The “example” is?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
It is in this comment with a link. I made it easy for you because all you have to do is click on the link.
*Note the second time posting it. i am sure it is quite convenient that you pretend you didn’t see it.
LikeLike
@A Russian Nagpo
Fortunately for you and Daniel I have a habit of quoting, linking, and proving that the liars are just you two. 🙂
LikeLike
Rather unfortunately. ROFL
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Oh and once abagond takes the others out of moderation you will have 3 additional ones with explanations so you are clear.
LikeLike
sharinalr “You focused primarily on my wording to avoid the fact that the source had refuted you. In fact you brought up “used” originally and when refuted you got made [sic] and focused on “would”. The fact that you made it about me rather than the claim you made is called an ad hominem” is just incoherent drivel.
Just to remind you, you quoted a source which says:
“deadly weapon’ refers to a firearm, or any other object that is used in such a way that it COULD cause death or serious injury to another human being” [My capitals].
NOTE – “COULD cause death or serious injury.”
After which you then wrote:
“This means that it MUST be used in such a way that WOULD cause death or serious injury to someone. A gun can’t be used in a way to cause death or serious injury in your closet, just being held etc.”
But of course it DOES NOT say that OR MEAN that.
Your source states that it is a deadly weapon if it COULD cause death or serious injury, and NOT that it WOULD cause either of these.
OF COURSE I focused on “would” – because YOUR phoney “argument” consists of quoting a source which says COULD and then sneakily substituting WOULD for COULD – AS IF COULD and WOULD mean THE SAME THING, lol, which of course they VERY PLAINLY do NOT.
In fact what you came up with isn’t an ARGUMENT at all! It’s just a cheap, crude and very obviously DISHONEST attempt to play a shoddy little verbal trick.
There is NOTHING “ad hominem” about pointing out that your source DOESN’T say what you dishonestly ATTEMPT to CLAIM that it says.
You write “Key word in that passage is must be used in a way. So until it is used as such it is not a deadly weapon per that source.”
BUT the word “MUST” ISN’T EVEN IN THAT PASSAGE.
Therefore your supposed “argument” utterly collapses – at the very outset of proceedings.
QED.
LikeLike
Solitaire
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidanceDefinition of a “racial group”
“The Act says a ‘racial group’ means a ‘group of persons defined by reference to RACE, COLOUR, NATIONALITY (including citizenship) or ETHNIC or NATIONAL ORIGINS.’ ”
Which is part of this:
“SECTION 145 Criminal Justice Act 2003
“SECTION 145 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 imposes a DUTY upon courts to INCREASE the sentence for any offence committed that involves either:
the offender demonstrating towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group;
or
the offence being motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group.
“Crown Prosecution Service application of SECTION 145
“A sentence may be increased under s145 in relation to ANY offence.
“MUCH OF THE HARASSMENT EXPERIENCED BY RACIAL COMMUNITIES IS PERSISTENT, LOW-LEVEL OFFENDING.
“In order to counter this type of behaviour it is important that s145 uplifts are applied for in ALL appropriate cases.
“THIS APPROACH IS INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT RACIALLY AND RELIGIOUSLY AGGRAVATED HATE CRIME IS PUNISHED PROPERLY AND JUSTICE AFFORDED TO ALL.
“THE ACT SAYS A ‘RACIAL GROUP’ MEANS a ‘group of persons defined by reference to RACE, COLOUR, NATIONALITY (including citizenship) OR ETHNIC OR NATIONAL ORIGINS.’ “
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“is just incoherent drivel.”—And this is another example of your ad hominems
“ust to remind you, you quoted a source which says:”—That is not all the source said as it specifically speaks to vehicles in which you claimed was a deadly weapon. Something I also quoted and see how you focused on this as you were refuted by the other and still refuted by this. Let me show you how.
“our source states that it is a deadly weapon if it COULD cause death or serious injury, and NOT that it WOULD cause either of these.”—Actually it doesn’t say that at all. It states, “THAT IS USED IN SUCH A WAY that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being”
See you were quick to point out “used” originally because you thought it was some turning point, but then decided to focus on the “would”. However, you deceitfully ignore the used in a way as that is a requirement for it to be considered a deadly weapon. Still refuted dear and still proving my point.
“consists of quoting a source which says COULD and then sneakily substituting WOULD for COULD – AS IF COULD and WOULD mean THE SAME THING, lol, which of course they VERY PLAINLY do NOT.”—I didn’t substitute could for would. I just summarized the meaning for you as you are having trouble understanding.
“attempt to play a shoddy little verbal trick.”—Not really. The shoddy little verbal tricks in place of an argument are more in line with what you are doing as you have several grammar troll posts. Not to mention you focused on WOULD the whole time, but keep ignoring or deflecting from how the passage faithfully refutes you. You screaming “well you said would” doesn’t change that the passage still means what I said and still refutes you.
“BUT the word “MUST” ISN’T EVEN IN THAT PASSAGE.”—Must doesn’t have to be in the post for it to be a requirements. It called summarization. If it was a direct quote it would be in those things called quotation marks. Duh!
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
See this is a pattern you have shown. When you are presented with sources or anything that refutes a claim you make you quickly attempt to deflect to something else. Now you can rehash the issue in each presented example, but what it won’t change is that they clearly display “you spend several posts avoiding addressing relevant topics, particularly those you brought up and slew of ad hominems you threw out to avoid the fact you had no argument at all.”
Now you even have the added bonus of “blatantly denies saying and doing everything he’s quite clearly said and done”.
Why make stuff up when it can be quoted?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
It is not racism to speak the truth about the English and what they did to the Irish. They stole the land, oppressed the people, and almost succeeded in eradicating the language.
“For a start you don’t EVEN know whether I am English or not.”
I’m not surprised you try to deny it. The English are guilty of horrific crimes against humanity, not just in Ireland but all across the globe. No wonder you’re ashamed.
LikeLike
sharinalr
Regarding your comment:
“See this is a pattern you have shown. When you are presented with sources or anything that refutes a claim you make you quickly attempt to deflect to something else. Now you can rehash the issue in each presented example, but what it won’t change is that they clearly display “you spend several posts avoiding addressing relevant topics, particularly those you brought up and slew of ad hominems you threw out to avoid the fact you had no argument at all.”
Now you even have the added bonus of “blatantly denies saying and doing everything he’s quite clearly said and done”.
Why make stuff up when it can be quoted?”
The “pattern” I have shown is that of reading sources and addressing myself to what they ACTUALLY SAY, unlike YOU who systematically DISTORTS and/or MISREPRESENTS what they say.
You and your little “chums” have yet to come up with ANYTHING that “refutes” my claims.”
And as for the accusation of using “ad hominem” arguments, this is a classic, and glaring example of PROJECTION on your part. You are, consciously or unconsciously, ascribing YOUR OWN failings to ME. Your comment just quoted HERE is a piece of PURE ad hominem.
LikeLike
Solitaire HAVE I “tried to deny it”? No. ALL I’ve done (done so far) is point out that you simply DON’T KNOW whether I am English.
LikeLike
Solitaire
But – as regards the English and what THEY (not I) did to the Irisn, it was of course BENEVOLENT treatment compared to what the US did to the native Americans.
LikeLike
Sharinalr You NOW just seem to be HOPELESSLY confused.
It states, “THAT IS USED IN SUCH A WAY that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being”
Yes, and the motor vehicle as a category is typically used in such a way that it not only COULD but VERY OFTEN DOES cause death and injury – MORE DEATH AND INJURY THAN IS CAUSED BY ANY OTHER MANUFACTURED OBJECT ON THE PLANET.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“it was of course BENEVOLENT treatment compared to what the US did to the native Americans.”
But of course the horrific treatment of the Native Americans began 150 years before the U.S. even existed, in the English colonies under policies devised by the English.
“ALL I’ve done (done so far) is point out that you simply DON’T KNOW whether I am English.”
You obviously are English or else you would have already stated your ethnicity so as not to be confused with that criminal lot of thieves and murderers.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“But – as regards the English and what THEY (not I) did to the Irisn”
You could at least spell Irish correctly. How disrespectful.
LikeLike
Sharinalr There is of course A VERY GOOD reason (the BEST POSSIBLE reason) why I didn’t ORIGINALLY focus on the “would” – which reason is OF COURSE that it WAS NOT THERE AT ALL in the original quotation.
Naturally (and indeed INEVITABLY) I focused on “would” ONLY when you POST HOC attempted to sneakily substitute “would” for “could.”
HOW could I have “focused on ‘would'” when “WOULD” SIMPLY WASN’T EVEN THERE, lol?!!!!!
LikeLike
SOLITAIRE
“But – as regards the English and what THEY (not I) did to the Irisn”
You could at least spell Irish correctly. How disrespectful.
NOW who is TRYING to make an issue out of something which clearly IS a MERE “typo” (and HARDLY any expression of “disrespect”)?
Instead, of course, of replying to my EXTREMELY SERIOUS point about the GENOCIDAL US treatment of the native Americans. But then I VERY MUCH doubt whether you HAVE (or CAN have) any valid reply to that rather decisive point.
And, since you are choosing to be pedantic, you SHOULD in fact have written:
“You could at least spell “Irish” correctly.”
As you are referring to the WORD “Irish” it SHOULD BE, and NEEDS TO BE, in quotation marks (and FAILURE to use quotation marks correctly in such contexts VERY OFTEN causes VERY REAL confusion).
LikeLike
Solitaire “But of course the horrific treatment of the Native Americans began 150 years before the U.S. even existed, in the English colonies under policies devised by the English.
Are you SERIOUSLY trying to suggest that the crimes against the native Americans DIDN’T continue (and in fact INTENSIFY) with US independence?
In fact one of the main reasons for the project of “American independence” was the desire of the American colonists to have a free hand to commit their GENOCIDAL crimes against the native Americans free of any restraints imposed from London (the OTHER main reason of course being the TeaParty-ish desire to evade taxes).
The US is, of course, a PROFOUNDLY more racist country than Britain (or EVEN than England) and YOUR OWN expressed attitudes increasingly exemplify that fact.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Daniel Jones
“There is of course A VERY GOOD reason (the BEST POSSIBLE reason) why I didn’t ORIGINALLY focus on the “would”” – which reason is OF COURSE that it WAS NOT THERE AT ALL in the original quotation”—Sounds like some bs excuse for being caught, but newsflash my dear….it wasn’t in quotations because it wasn’t a darn quote. Do you understand what a summarization is and the purpose of it?
As to the remainder of what you said it was already detailed and explained in another post. You are rehashing. It can’t be substitution in this case unless I replaced the could in the original text. That was not done here. It wasn’t sneakily done it was upfront done in my (sadly repeating) summarization.
“HOW could I have “focused on ‘would’” when “WOULD” SIMPLY WASN’T EVEN THERE, lol?!!!!!”—Because you focused on it to deflect from the fact that “Used” your prior focus did not present a viable argument for you as it still showed you refuted. Like I said you have a pattern.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“The “pattern” I have shown is that of reading sources and addressing myself to what they ACTUALLY SAY, unlike YOU who systematically DISTORTS and/or MISREPRESENTS what they say.”—Acutally the misrepresentation is you. You also seem to have a habit of projecting your inadequacies, so as to avoid taking responsibility for them. In fact, you recently have an example of this when you try to claim the quote says something it doesn’t as you slyly removed USED. In your exchange with solitaire you did this frequently but ignoring certain words and only stringing together those that you feel support you.
“You and your little “chums” have yet to come up with ANYTHING that “refutes” my claims.”—Actually every post so far has refuted you. All with sources while you provide none.
“And as for the accusation of using “ad hominem” arguments, this is a classic, and glaring example of PROJECTION on your part. You are, consciously or unconsciously, ascribing YOUR OWN failings to ME. Your comment just quoted HERE is a piece of PURE ad hominem.”—See this is a prime example of what I said above about failing to take responsibility. Partly believe it is because you don’t really know the definition of ad hominem to realize your magnitude of doing it. It is hard to project when you were the one calling a commenter a “pig” “vile” or some array of “you’re stupid” . Yet you scream ad hominem when you are getting a return. You were doing all this prior to be commenting.
“You NOW just seem to be HOPELESSLY confused.”—Oh I am not confused, but I know you are. 😊
It actually states, “ In criminal law, the term, “deadly weapon” refers to a firearm, or any other object that is used or intended to be used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being. “
I shortened it, so you could better understand as you were struggling with such a large amount of words.
“Yes, and the motor vehicle as a category is typically used in such a way that it not only COULD but VERY OFTEN DOES cause death and injury – MORE DEATH AND INJURY THAN IS CAUSED BY ANY OTHER MANUFACTURED OBJECT ON THE PLANET.”—This is false and this is the second quote on specifically motor vehicles that you faithfully ignore. “Yes, a vehicle is considered a deadly weapon IN CASES where the driver INTENDED to hit another driver or pedestrian. Some driving under the influence cases are also charged as assault with a deadly weapon.” Driving isn’t the definition of “being used in a way that causes death or injury.” Law refutes you, several posts have refuted you. I mean you are arguing with facts here.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“NOW who is TRYING to make an issue out of something which clearly IS a MERE “typo””
How stupid are you not to realize I did so just to give you a taste of your own medicine?
“The US is, of course, a PROFOUNDLY more racist country than Britain (or EVEN than England)”
I know you all like to believe that. You treat the U.S. as a racist uncle.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“I know you all like to believe that. You treat the U.S. as a racist uncle.”—Oddly enough we have had black from Britain post that have stated it is racist, but more subtle.
LikeLike
sharinalr In fact it wasn’t I who changed it but YOU – by your in effect LYING about what your quotation says.
LikeLike
sharinalr
Once again –
You quoted the following:
“deadly weapon’refers to a firearm, or any other object that is used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being”
NOTE – “COULD cause death or serious injury.”
THEN you said:
“This means that is MUST be used in such a way that WOULD cause death or serious injury to someone. A gun can’t be used in a way to cause death or serious injury in your closet, just being held etc.”
NOTE – you THEN said that it means INSTEAD “must be used in such a way that WOULD cause death or serious injury . . .” (I take it you really mean “in such a way that IT would).
AGAIN, do you really think “could” and “would” mean the same thing?
And if the quotation meant “must” WHY does it INSTEAD say “could”?
LikeLike
Solitaire Hardly “a taste of my own medicine” – I in fact DON’T make such an issue of mere “typos” AND OF COURSE I don’t attribute motives, or characteristics such as disrespectfullness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Daniel Jones
“In fact it wasn’t I who changed it but YOU – by your in effect LYING about what your quotation says.”—So quote where you were accused of changing it?
“Once again –You quoted the following”—Yes, just like i have also took the time to quote it in full. What you present is only half the quote.
“NOTE – you THEN said that it means INSTEAD “must be used in such a way that WOULD cause death or serious injury . . .” (I take it you really mean “in such a way that IT would).”—I really mean what I wrote, but this link basically responds to this, so again rehashing something that was already address. Even if you changed it to COULD it still requires it be used in that way and not sitting in a closet so….
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“And if the quotation meant “must” WHY does it INSTEAD say “could”?”—ROFL!!! My goodness. WOW. String the sentence together and read it in full. If you still fail to get it after that then I will break it down.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“And if the quotation meant “must” WHY does it INSTEAD say “could”?”
Because someone doesn’t have to actually cause death or bodily injury to get a charge of “possession of a deadly weapon” brought against them.
Someone might fire a gun at another person and miss. No bodily harm or death incurred. Yet that person may end up with a “possession of a deadly weapon” charge if there was a clear intent to kill or maim rather than, say, an accidental discharge of the firearm.
LikeLike
Solitaire “Because someone doesn’t have to actually cause death or bodily injury to get a charge of “possession of a deadly weapon” brought against them.
Quite! Exactly! Or indeed end up with a “possession of a deadly weapon” charge EVEN IF there is NO such intent whether “clear” or otherwise lol (depending on the context and, of course, on the jurisdiction in which this occurs).
LikeLike
sharinalr
By all means – go ahead and “break it down” lol.
LikeLike
Solitaire/sharinalr
In Pennsylvania, for example:
“A person convicted of an illegal gun or weapons charge faces a possible state prison sentence even if the person has no prior criminal history. When a crime involves a weapon which is not necessarily a gun, district attorneys often ask the court to impose a DEADLY WEAPON ENHANCEMENT.
“The deadly weapon enhancement allows the judge to consider a harsher sentence then what the person would have received under the standard sentencing guidelines in Pennsylvania. While a gun . . . is considered a deadly weapon in Pennsylvania, District Attorneys and prosecutors often attempt to include other weapons within this category. Pennsylvania defines a deadly weapon as any device, implement, or instrumentality designed as a weapon or capable of producing death or serious bodily injury. These would include knives, BB guns, baseball bats, CARS, and tire irons. The court must consider whether the offender intended to use the weapon to threaten or injure another person.”
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“By all means – go ahead and “break it down” lol”—It is actually quite simple.
“Must be used” basically goes together. You have to use it. Sitting in your closet is not using it. Sitting in your drive way it not using it.
You then combining could or would to the the use of it. For example, spraying water at someone could end up in their eyes. However, that requirement is met by you first spraying the water at someone. It would not be met by spraying water at the grass.
“Quite! Exactly! Or indeed end up with a “possession of a deadly weapon” charge EVEN IF there is NO such intent whether “clear” or otherwise lol (depending on the context and, of course, on the jurisdiction in which this occurs).”—This has been repeatedly said and sadly you are just now getting it. However, notice how the scenario solitaire used involves the act of harming someone and not because the item is in existence.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
First of all, your first quote requires a link.
Second of all, how does it remotely change anything said? The quote indicates what the judge may impose, but doesn’t indicate a requirement that it will though I can gather what you used the source for. Here is fully quoted statue and also specified a bit in your link.
“Any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or serious bodily injury, or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner in which it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury.
That still does not constitute a vehicle. Though a weapon or knife may have that definition in that state.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.023..HTM
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Even in the quote you provided, it states that intent is what the court uses to decide whether or not to convict an individual on a deadly-weapon charge.
“The court must consider whether the offender intended to use the weapon to threaten or injure another person.”
Most careless and reckless drivers do not intend to use the car to threaten or injure another person.
LikeLike
Sharinalr
“Sitting in your drive way [sic] it [sic] not using it.”
I take it you ACTUALLY meant “If your car is just sitting in your driveway you are not using it.”
ONCE AGAIN . . . exactly! Like Solitaire you keep on unwittingly making my points FOR me . . . lol.
“Using it” will generally mean NOT leaving it sitting on your driveway BUT INSTEAD DRIVING IT on the public highway – which OF COURSE means running a risk of killing or seriously injuring another person (REGARDLESS of any questions about intent).
LikeLike
Solitaire
“Even in the quote you provided, it states that intent is what the court uses to decide whether or not to convict an individual on a deadly-weapon charge.”
So are you REALLY saying that if the court decides there was no INTENT to use the object in question as a weapon the person will NOT be convicted?!
LikeLike
“So are you REALLY saying that if the court decides there was no INTENT to use the object in question as a weapon the person will NOT be convicted?!”
The person may well be convicted on other charges .
LikeLike
sharinalr
YOUR http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.023..HTM
simply yields a 404
WHERE did you in fact get this famous quote of yours?
LikeLike
Solitaire
The quote IN FACT then goes on to say “Even if the court, however, determines that the person didn’t intend on using the weapon there is STILL a weapons enhancement for THE MERE POSSESSION of it” although it adds “This, however, is not nearly as serious as use.”
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Good. Find me one case where that lesser conviction of possession has been in regards to a motor vehicle.
LikeLike
Solitaire Are all these Pennsylvania convictions available online then?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
It pulls up just fine for me, but there are other ways to link to it.
https://law.justia.com/codes/pennsylvania/2010/title-18/chapter-23/2301/
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“Sitting in your drive way [sic] it [sic] not using it.”
“I take it you ACTUALLY meant “If your car is just sitting in your driveway you are not using it.”—No, I take it I meant exactly what i said. Though I take it you are no longer going to lie about YOU using ad hominems?
“ONCE AGAIN . . . exactly! Like Solitaire you keep on unwittingly making my points FOR me . . . lol.”– If only you had a point.
““Using it” will generally mean NOT leaving it sitting on your driveway BUT INSTEAD DRIVING IT on the public highway – which OF COURSE means running a risk of killing or seriously injuring another person (REGARDLESS of any questions about intent).”—See this is where your logic fails and you are unable to apply it to the quote and what it is saying. You have to use it in a manner that could cause that harm. For example, swerving in front of another car. If you are driving a car you are using it, but that does not constitute a manner that would cause harm to another. You can assume it will, but legally your assumption does not hold up in any court.
LikeLike
sharinalr It is IMPOSSIBLE to drive a motor vehicle at conventional speeds without creating a danger of serious injury OR INDEED DEATH to other people. THAT is why MORE THAN A MILLION PEOPLE ARE KILLED BY MOTOR VEHICLES EACH YEAR IN COLLISIONS – ONE PERSON, APPROXIMATELY, EVERY 25 SECONDS. On top of that MANY MORE MILLIONS die from inhaling the EMISSIONS from motor vehicles, and also untold numbers die from the pollution created in the MANUFACTURE of motor vehicles.
LikeLike
sharinalr If you take a motor vehicle out onto the road and drive it at ANY speed in excess of a few miles per hour then ANY distraction, ANY lapse of concentration, ANY ONE of a HUNDRED kinds of unforeseen mishap may VERY easily cause you to SERIOUSLY INJURE or KILL another person . . . and EVEN IF you don’t actually HIT someone you are going to be pouring toxins into the lungs and bloodstreams of other victims in your vicinity, which IN ITSELF amounts to a SERIOUS physical ASSAULT, whether or not the law AT PRESENT recognizes it as such (as eventually it WILL).
LikeLike
sharinalr Your “JUSTIA” source is evidently some kind of cheap commercial website with NO official status, and is clearly ENTIRELY unreliable, as is shown by its absurd and nonsensical use of the word “instrumentality” lol!
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
It is IMPOSSIBLE to drive a motor vehicle at conventional speeds without creating a danger of serious injury OR INDEED DEATH to other people.”—That is false considering people do this daily. You make a nice appeal to emotion, but that does nothing for what the law states. It simply is your opinion and your opinions are not more valid than legal statues that do not define or see a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon unless it is used as such. Driving it alone does not constitute being used as such no matter how you word. You have not provided not one source that says this but want to manipulate the wording to fit this. You are, as the saying goes, stuck on stupid. You are so driven by this opinion that anything outside of it you don’t or can’t grasp. I’m not saying this to be mean. I am saying it to point out a very huge blind spot in your logic.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
““JUSTIA” source is evidently some kind of cheap commercial website with NO official status, and is clearly ENTIRELY unreliable, as is shown by its absurd and nonsensical use of the word “instrumentality” lol!”—Actually it is quite official. I am terrible sorry you never actually saw what legal statutes look like. It is much more official than this legal blog you used.
https://www.gambonelaw.com/blog/what-to-expect-during-deadly-weapon-sentencing.cfm
LikeLike
sharinalr JUSTIA is a PRIVATE COMPANY and COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATION – with NO official status WHATSOEVER.
LikeLike
sharinalr Did you not notice the JUSTIA disclaimer? It reads:
“Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Pennsylvania may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.”
LikeLike
sharinalr I wrote: “It is IMPOSSIBLE to drive a motor vehicle at conventional speeds without creating a danger of serious injury OR INDEED DEATH to other people.”
In response to which you wrote, ABSURDLY “That is false considering people do this daily.”
You are SERIOUSLY trying to claim that “People DAILY drive a motor vehicle at conventional speeds WITHOUT creating any danger of serious injury or death to other people”? You are clearly utterly insane – COMPLETELY DELUDED and absolutely BARKING mad.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Oh but they are accurate, because I can post other sources that corroborate it.
https://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-18-pacsa-crimes-and-offenses/pa-csa-sect-18-2301.html
Go ahead and find fault with this as well, but fact is still fact. Want another to corroborate as 3 is the charm?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“You are clearly utterly insane – COMPLETELY DELUDED and absolutely BARKING mad.”—No dude you are deluded. I gather many on this thread and in life have driven a car at conventional speeds and none of them managed to not create any danger or serious harm to any one. If they had then they would no longer be commenting as they would be in jail.
Two more for you with one being a repeat. Copy and paste the first and it pulls up just fine, but they all say the same thing. Refuting you none the less.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.023..HTM
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=23
LikeLike
correction: none of them managed to create any danger or serious harm to any one. If they had then they would no longer be commenting as they would be in jail.
LikeLike
sharinalr A device does not have to have been designed or manufactured with the intention of its being used as a deadly weapon for it to in practice BE a deadly weapon, and if something IS a deadly weapon it IS that REGARDLESS of whether it is ACTUALLY being used as such (although of course motor vehicles very often ARE used as such, and INCREASINGLY so . . . in Europe motor vehicles are becoming the MAIN terrorist weapon).
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“A device does not have to have been designed or manufactured with the intention of its being used as a deadly weapon for it to in practice BE a deadly weapon, and if something IS a deadly weapon it IS that REGARDLESS of whether it is ACTUALLY being used as such (although of course motor vehicles very often ARE used as such, and INCREASINGLY so . . . in Europe motor vehicles are becoming the MAIN terrorist weapon).”—Sorry, but what source can you produce that says this? Not only have my sources refuted this, but the very one you recently brought up refutes it. You are entitled to you own opinion, but not your own realm of facts. Up is not down here.
LikeLike
sharinalr Your “mind” seems to have gone completely – you say “none of them managed to not create any danger or serious harm to any one” which IN FACT means that ALL of them DID create danger or serious harm to someone. Has nobody EVER taught you about avoiding double negatives?
LikeLike
Sharinalr “Up is not down here.” Up is not down WHERE? In YOUR brain up certainly IS down, lol.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“Has nobody EVER taught you about avoiding double negatives?”—I don’t care and you should have realized this by now.
“Up is not down here.” Up is not down WHERE? In YOUR brain up certainly IS down, lol.”–If this blew past you then it is quite obvious whose brain is down and has been down for several posts.
At any rate, this can be chalked up to what I said above about using ad hominems to deflect when you are proven wrong. Shrugs
LikeLike
sharinalr You don’t care that what you write is nonsensical garbage? Well, I’ve certainly suspected that for a long time now.
LikeLike
Daniel Jones
Oh come now. No need to be a sore loser. What I don’t care about is grammar or your crybaby antics. Besides…we both know garbage was what you wrote. Precisely why you kept contradicting your own sources and using ad hominems.
LikeLike
sharinalr “Precisely why you kept contradicting your own sources.” THAT of course is PROJECTION yet again! The person doing PRECISELY THAT is of course YOU. Likewise with the accusation of “crybaby antics” lol. As when I point out that what you have written is contradictory and incoherent, whereupon you (instead of trying to actually LEARN SOMETHING) stamp your petulant little feet and cry “boohoo! I don’t care about horrible nasty old grammar!” lol.
Something I’ve often observed is that people who “don’t care about grammar” ALSO (and it’s NO coincidence) don’t care about TRUTH.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
And this is prime example why it is clear you have no grasp on reality. Everything I said you did I provided examples of you doing.
So if I am projecting then why did you say:A device does not have to have been designed or manufactured with the intention of its being used as a deadly weapon for it to in practice BE a deadly weapon, and if something IS a deadly weapon it IS that REGARDLESS of whether it is ACTUALLY being used as such
But your source says: Pennsylvania defines a deadly weapon as any device, implement, or instrumentality designed as a weapon or capable of producing death or serious bodily injury. These would include knives, BB guns, baseball bats, CARS, and tire irons. The court must consider whether the offender intended to use the weapon to threaten or injure another person
That is literally a full fledge contradiction. Using MUST or would never contradicted what the source said. You don’t seem to understand what a contradiction is.
“instead of trying to actually LEARN SOMETHING”—It’s far from crybaby antics to not care what a deluded grammar troll thinks about grammar when he is using it to deflect. I was clear several posts ago when I pointed out your grammar troll habits. I don’t come here to learn grammar from someone who has little grasp on it themselves. However, name calling is the prominent sign of said crybaby antics and the prominent sign of a lost argument.
“on’t care about TRUTH”—See another fine example. Nothing you stated has been corroborated with any source presented by yourself or anyone else. Your opinion isn’t always the truth. Know the different between fact and opinion.
LikeLike
Sharinalr You REALLY don’t understand ANY OF THIS do you?
I have ALREADY clearly stated (MORE than once) that I am NOT primarily concerned with ANY MERELY TECHNICAL “legal definition” of “deadly weapon” but with what “deadly weapon” ACTUALLY MEANS in vernacular language.
Any TECHNICAL definition of it in legal statutes is a definition of a SECONDARY and ARTIFICIAL use of the expression.
And in many places (such as Britain, just for example) the expression “deadly weapon” OF COURSE doesn’t have ANY “legal definition” for the very simple reason that there is NO SUCH OFFENCE as “assault with a deadly weapon” or “possession of a deadly weapon” in those places.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“You REALLY don’t understand ANY OF THIS do you?”–Oh I understand you are probably very good at weaseling your way out of falsehoods in realize with dramatic appeals to emotions, but you don’t seem to be as verse at doing so outside of that.
” I am NOT primarily concerned with ANY MERELY TECHNICAL “legal definition” of “deadly weapon” but with what “deadly weapon” ACTUALLY MEANS in vernacular language.”—Yet you use a legal website that uses a legal definition in efforts to support your claim? As solitaire already pointed out, you can’t have it both ways. Not to mention when legal definition was brought up YOU spent several posts arguing with it.
The situation isn’t measured by Britain and “a lot of places” logic. Your original claim was that vehicles were considered deadly weapons worldwide. That was false and you argued with any and everything instead of simply acknowledging just that.
LikeLike
in real life*
LikeLike
sharinalr If one BROADCASTS something false on the internet it is ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE for another person to POINT OUT that it is false.
Likewise with bad grammar – at least with VERY SERIOUSLY BAD grammar such as your own.
And HOW is pointing such things out being in any way a “troll”?
Perhaps you should try to explain what you mean by the word.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“I am NOT primarily concerned with ANY MERELY TECHNICAL “legal definition” of “deadly weapon” but with what “deadly weapon” ACTUALLY MEANS in vernacular language.”
This originally started when you tried to argue that Oriana Farrell was not unarmed because she was driving a car:
“a person sitting at the controls of a motor vehicle ISN’T “unarmed” … – a motor vehicle is … a DEADLY weapon”
But I see nowhere in case law in the U.S. that an individual is automatically considered to be armed just because they are driving a car.
You then continued to argue that since, in your opinion, Farrell was armed with her motor vehicle:
“the police were FULLY JUSTIFIED in treating her as “armed and dangerous”.”
But whether or not the police were justified in “treating her as armed” is something for the justice system to decide. And the justice system doesn’t use the vernacular but goes by legal definitions and legal precedents. Your “vernacular use” argument would not be allowed by any judge.
On the other hand, if you want to continue to insist on vernacular use as your keystone despite its being entirely moot in a court of law, I’m sure I can find many examples of reportage with wording like “an unarmed motorist” and “the driver was not armed but two passengers were.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Daniel Jones
“ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE for another person to POINT OUT that it is false.”—So why did you have such a problem with people pointing out yours?
“at least with VERY SERIOUSLY BAD grammar such as your own.”–Point it out, but guess what? It doesn’t change that it became the focal of your arguments to avoid addressing your falsehoods. It also doesn’t mean I have to care.
“And HOW is pointing such things out being in any way a “troll”?”—This link does it perfectly.
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/types-of-grammar-trolls/
LikeLike
Solitaire Did you REALLY just write “But whether or not the police were justified in “treating her as armed” is something for the justice system to decide”?
LikeLike
The justice system initially determined that the officer may have acted inappropriately but later determine that the officer was justified in shooting at the car… or, more accurately that the officer did not violate the constitutional rights of Oriana Farrell and her five children when he shot at their minivan as they fled. So, he had to resign his state police job, but she was unable to sue him and he got hired as a sheriff’s deputy.
I also found that at one point one of the children in the car called 911 because they were looking for a police station to surrender at.
Farrell wrote a letter to the Taos News saying, “A uniformed officer can shoot three bullets at my van and be ‘doing his job,’ but my doing what I can to get my own children away from such a terrifying individual has been termed ‘child abuse’ and ‘endangerment,’ according to New Mexico law?”
Initially, the justice system also dropped her charges, but then reinstated her charges and finally accepted a plea where she did not admit guilt, but accepted that she would likely be convicted if it went to trial. So, in the end, she served 6 months unsupervised probation, some community service and had to participate in a “restorative justice circle” (whatever that is).
Honestly, I can pretty much understand the actions of every party involved in this with the exception of the Trooper that shot at the van. I can reconcile why she was trying to figure out an alternative to agreeing to be in court within 30 days, I can understand why the officer was losing patience with that. I can understand how she assumed he had given up when he walked away. I get why she was afraid of him once he was more aggressive at the 2nd stop and why her son felt the need to come to her aid… why he called for backup… and why she fled when things escalated to the point of breaking windows. I would have assumed someone was about to wind up dead at that point and when the other officer shot at her van, it only confirmed that. Who wouldn’t be panicked and running for their lives at that point? Now, we can all sit here and say that any one of those other variables would have been different if it had been us. One person might have had the cruise set at 54mph, one person might have just paid the ticket over the phone at the next rest area, one person might have never been suspicious of the police to begin with and a better cop would have been able to approach the situation with empathy and not escalated things. Heck, I even read where she had a handshake agreement with the officer that he wouldn’t hurt her before she exited the car. She wanted to bring everything to a satisfactory resolution, but drama just kept unfolding at every turn and things escalated at ever step until, someone shot at her family.
That is not ok. Daniel, stop trying to justify it. She hit no one. She hurt no one. Shooting a gun at her van was not ok. You want to play “what if”? As in, What if she had hit someone and killed them due to her speed? Ok, well what if the trooper had successfully punctured her tire and caused her to flip the van, killing a child or two? What if he had shot one of the kids? Yeah, yeah, he was aiming for the tires… but he missed didn’t he? So, he wasn’t in control of where those bullets were going. So, I repeat, shooting at that van was not ok.
Do you truly think it was?
LikeLike
Solitaire Since the person referred to here as either “Farrell” or “Ferrell” was not charged with “assault with a deadly weapon” (for example) “or possession of a deadly weapon” or (as far as I am aware) ANY offence in the statutory description of which offence the expression “deadly weapon” is used, a court could quite happily take into account whether the woman in question was IN THE VERNACULAR SENSE and for PRACTICAL purposes “equipped with a deadly/lethal weapon.”
For example in ANY criminal or civil case brought against Elias Montoya for firing at the van his defense could PERFECTLY WELL have argued that the driver of the “minivan” was equipped with a deadly weapon (in the vernacular sense of the term “deadly weapon”) and that THEREFORE shooting to disable or neutralize that weapon was fully justified.
There would be nothing to prevent a judge or a jury from accepting that argument and reaching a decision accordingly
A case WAS of course brought against Montoya by “Oriana Farrell” – for alleged use of excessive force and violation of the Fourth Amendment right against “unreasonable seizure.”
Montoya’s defense was in fact, however, a more technical one than the defense which I am arguing COULD have been used.
“ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that a New Mexico police officer did not violate the constitutional rights of a woman and her five children when he shot at their minivan as they fled a chaotic traffic stop.
“The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling in the case filed by Oriana Farrell, who was pulled over for speeding and led officers on a high-speed pursuit through the tourist enclave of Taos.
“The appeals court found that the case against Elias Montoya, the officer who fired three times at the van and later left the force, should have been dismissed by a lower court.
“Montoya’s defense rested on the principal [sic] of qualified immunity, which shields public officials from legal actions UNLESS THEIR CONDUCT WAS UNREASONABLE IN LIGHT OF CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW [my block capitals]..
“The appeals court disagreed with the Farrells and noted that seizure situations end once a suspect flees . . . ”
[and]
” . . . The van began to drive away and Montoya fired three shots.
“Court records show the minivan neither slowed nor stopped as the shots were fired.
“Montoya said he was aiming at the rear tire. Authorities say no bullets hit the van or anyone inside.
“The three officers gave chase, at times reaching speeds of 100 mph.
“AS FARRELL REACHED A CONGESTED AREA . . . SHE WEAVED THROUGH TRAFFIC AND DROVE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS [my block caps].”
[https://www.abqjournal.com/1111571/court-sides-with-officer-in-taos-minivan-shooting.html]
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“whether the woman in question was IN THE VERNACULAR SENSE and for PRACTICAL purposes “equipped with a deadly/lethal weapon.””
She was driving away from the officer, not at him.
If the police were concerned about her presenting a danger to others, there are better ways to disable a vehicle than shooting at it.
LikeLike
“[my block capitals]”
I would have never guessed.
SMH
LikeLike
@ Open Minded Observer
“Ok, well what if the trooper had successfully punctured her tire and caused her to flip the van, killing a child or two? What if he had shot one of the kids? Yeah, yeah, he was aiming for the tires… but he missed didn’t he? So, he wasn’t in control of where those bullets were going. So, I repeat, shooting at that van was not ok.”
Excellent point.
LikeLike
“Person” who descries him/her/itself as “Open Minded Observer” lol!
Yes.
LikeLike
To Whom it May Concern
Three pistols bullets in that situation were EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to harm ANYONE – whereas, BY COMPLETE CONTRAST, weaving through busy traffic at speeds such as the madwoman was doing (let alone driving ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD at such speeds) was VERY LIKELY to cause a collision which would have QUITE PROBABLY killed not only the madwoman and her gang of repulsive idiotic brats but multiple ABSOLUTELY INNOCENT members of the public AS WELL.
LikeLike
To Whom it May Concern
[Farrell wrote a letter to the Taos News saying, “A uniformed officer can shoot three bullets at my van and be ‘doing his job,’ but my doing what I can to get my own children away from such a terrifying individual has been termed ‘child abuse’ and ‘endangerment,’ according to New Mexico law?]
The madwoman OBVIOUSLY WASN’T “fleeing in order to get her children wasn’t away from such a terrifying individual” – she was ALREADY IN THE PROCESS OF FLEEING FOR A SECOND TIME BEFORE Montoya fired his three little pistol shots, which OF COURSE was WHY Montoya fired AT ALL.
And the madwoman was BEFORE she was stopped the FIRST time ALREADY guilty of child abuse and endangerment by virtue of driving at 16mph over the speed limit with five children in her vehicle.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“She was driving away from the officer, not at him.”
Yes – At THAT point in proceedings – but there was clearly NO WAY OF KNOWING what the madwoman might do next.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“here would be nothing to prevent a judge or a jury from accepting that argument and reaching a decision accordingly”—Actually it would. It is called the law. If that vehicle is not defined as a deadly weapon then the argument would be moot. You can’t argue a vernacular meaning of a word with a judge and expect it to be accepted. A court is for arguing legalities.
LikeLike
Heck based on new mexico’s law you will have an even harder time trying to argue a vehicle as a deadly weapon.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“If the police were concerned about her presenting a danger to others, there are better ways to disable a vehicle than shooting at it.”
Yes, matters should NEVER have been permitted to get that far. The police performance was completely inept.
After she fled THE FIRST TIME DeTavis should have done what police here are trained to do in such circumstances, i.e. IMMEDIATELY smash the driver’s window, extract the driver from the vehicle and get the handcuffs on him (or her).
Otherwise there is the risk of PRECISELY what happened in New Mexico, i.e. a very dangerous high-speed chase (or the police can decide not to risk such a chase, which may turn out to be EVEN MORE dangerous when the felon gets away).
In the UK the two cops who arrived to assist DeTavis would almost certainly have just boxed in the madwoman’s van, but I suppose in such a situation US cops would be wary of coming under fire (fire amounting to a good deal more than a mere three shots from a medium-calibre pistol).
LikeLike
sharinalr That is just more of your BS. Courts take into account arguments couched in vernacular language ALL THE TIME. As I pointed out to you there is here NO special or technical definition of “deadly weapon” (because the phrase “deadly weapon” doesn’t appear in any legislation) but that doesn’t prevent the expression “deadly weapon” being used in an argument presented in court.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“courts take into account arguments couched in vernacular language ALL THE TIME.”—No, they don’t. They take into account arguments that follow law. A defense is mounted based on laws not based on whatever you think is a reasonable excuse.
“because the phrase “deadly weapon” doesn’t appear in any legislation”—That is a lie as majority of my sources were from statutes that define deadly weapon. Most states have a definition for it.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
So if it is okay for Farrell to be manhandled and shot at for going 17 mph over the speed limit, what should happen to the folks in this article? Summary execution?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/uks-worst-speeder-caught-exceeding-100mph-in-30mph-zone/amp/
LikeLike
Solitaire Imprisonment “for a term not less than twenty-five years.”
LikeLike
Solitaire You continue to bleat on hypocritically as if “going 17 mph over the speed limit” is some kind of trivial matter.
It ISN’T a trivial matter
As I pointed out to you at almost the very outset of this, speeding at 5mph over the limit (let alone at – like the madwoman in New Mexico – 17mph above the limit, i.e. MORE THAN 29 PERCENT OVER THE LIMIT) is a behavior that KILLS MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE – it INJURES MANY MORE completely innocent people – and it also of course BEREAVES COUNTLESS PEOPLE.
LikeLike
“Person” using the name Daniel Jones,
I can appreciate that in your country, and personal life experience, vehicles may kill more frequently than “a mere three shots from a medium-calibre pistol“. However, on this side of the pond, motor vehicle traffic deaths and firearm deaths are virtually tied (36k each with firearms edging out vehicles by less than 100 in the most recent data I could find from the CDC, 2015). Granted, most vehicle fatalities are drug & alcohol related (alcohol is such a deadly weapon isn’t it?) and most firearm fatalities are suicides. We’d have to do a deep dive into the stats to declare a winner, but since the fatal accident data I’ve already looked at for my own area puts less than 10% of traffic fatalities on the high-speed freeways, I’d rather share the highway with a speeder than someone shooting a pistol toward me.
I see and respect your viewpoint that speeding is dangerous. I disagree with your categorization of it as a weapon except in cases where it is deliberately being used as such. I am of the opinion that deadly force should not be used when there’s a low probability of injury or death to others. In spite of your feelings, 71mph in a 55mph zone doesn’t usually kill people. Sure, it can… but it didn’t in this case, and rarely does. If you insist that it does, then why on Earth would the officers risk pursuit at speeds much higher than that?!? Her van plus 3 cruisers equates to 4 times as many “deadly weapons” being deployed on an unsuspecting public! I also believe that if they had not shot at her, she would have continued to “flee” at posted speeds just as she had the 1st time until she reached a safe place to surrender. I know that’s lost on you though, because you think it irrational for her to believe she was in any danger.
That’s the thing. In your mind, the police were justified in using any means necessary to stop a homicidal madwoman. I see a mother acting differently than I would, but once I spent some time reading and watching interviews and videos I could understand her actions and I do not see them as that of a madwoman. Others have tried to provide you with examples of truly mad, aggressive and homicidal individuals who’s lives, and the lives of their children, were not treated with the same disregard. You fail to see the relevance because you’re having a completely different conversation… coming from a place devoid of empathy.
I have to wonder, why are you even posting here? What can you possibly hope to gain? Vengeance?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Open Minded Observer wrote:
“why on Earth would the officers risk pursuit at speeds much higher than that?!? Her van plus 3 cruisers equates to 4 times as many “deadly weapons” being deployed on an unsuspecting public!”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/25/why-police-shouldnt-chase-criminals/?utm_term=.2b37c37b20f5
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/30187827
In other words, not being able to predict or comtrol what the fleeing driver will do is the reason the police should choose to not pursue rather than to do so.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Open Minded Observer
“I also believe that if they had not shot at her, she would have continued to “flee” at posted speeds just as she had the 1st time until she reached a safe place to surrender. I know that’s lost on you though, because you think it irrational for her to believe she was in any danger.”
This is one of the safety tips that women are given all the time, including to call 911 to inform them of your intentions just like her son did. The problem is, you have to balance the risk of sexual assault etc. against the risk of making the cop angry. It’s a lose/lose situation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Solitaire
Yep, 100% aware of both points above. It’ll all be lost on Daniel though because the battle he/she/it is fighting isn’t about this incident or police behavior. I’d love to know the search-term Daniel used to land on this 5-year old thread and begin this crusade.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Also @ Daniel
“Three pistols bullets in that situation were EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to harm ANYONE”
I guess you’re right… because they didn’t.
“BY COMPLETE CONTRAST, weaving through busy traffic at speeds such as the madwoman was doing (let alone driving ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD at such speeds) was VERY LIKELY to cause a collision”
I guess you’re wrong… because it didn’t.
“the madwoman and her gang of repulsive idiotic brats”
This is what you really came here to say and it tells me all I need to know about you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Open Minded Observer
I reckoned you were already aware, which is why on my first comment I put “OMO wrote” rather than “@ OMO” — in both cases my intent was just to build on and provide support for what you said.
I think Daniel Jones is a troll getting a kick out of arguing. I was going to stop responding at all, as I stated upthread, but he keeps saying things where I feel the need to reply for the benefit of any lurkers, whether now or five years from now.
I entertain no hopes of getting through to the troll. He is a nasty little piece of work.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Self-styled “Open Minded Observer
Like other apologists on here for the dangerous behavior of criminal motorists you have as one of your primary methods in a discussion SYSTEMATIC MISREPRESENTATION of your opponent, and of what your opponent has said.
For example:
“In your mind, the police were justified in using any means necessary to stop a homicidal madwoman.”
HAVE I described the motorist in question as “a homicidal madwoman”? No, OF COURSE NOT.
She is certainly DANGEROUS but not (not as far as we KNOW at least) “homicidal” – although it was a matter of SHEER LUCK that her antics didn’t cause a collision and multiple fatalities – and if they HAD done so the word “homicidal” would of course be justified.
Likewise with “In your mind, the police were justified in using any means necessary.”
Have I said (or even implied) any such thing?
No, Of course not.
LikeLike
Self-styled “Open Minded Observer”
Also, your ability to think logically is, I am sorry to say, in very serious doubt.
You quote my:
“Three pistols bullets in that situation were EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to harm ANYONE.”
and you comment:
“I guess you’re right… because they didn’t.”
which however is of course a patently absurd, blatant non sequitur.
You share this failure in logic with “sharinalr” – who imagines that if she/he/personofunspecifiedgenderorofnogender or one of her little friends doesn’t ACTUALLY kill or injure someone an any given day they were therefore not ENDANGERING anyone on that day.
LikeLike
Solitaire People (people such as yourself) who are very narrow and conservative and blinkered in their “thinking” (and whose “thinking” is governed by stereotypes) have a noted tendency to regard anyone who has more radical views (or anyone who simply has DIFFERENT views from their own) as a “troll” (which concept is of course ALSO an example of “thinking” in terms of stereotypes).
This is you:
“Someone who disagrees with my view of the world!! Shock horror!! Oh my goodness! They must be a troll!!”
LikeLike
Self-styled “Open Minded Observer”
Similarly you quote my:
“BY COMPLETE CONTRAST, weaving through busy traffic at speeds such as the madwoman was doing (let alone driving ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD at such speeds) was VERY LIKELY to cause a collision”
and you then, again ABSURDLY, comment:
“I guess you’re wrong… because it didn’t.”
So you are in effect saying “if something DIDN’T happen then it CANNOT have been LIKELY to happen” the corollary of which is of course “if something is LIKELY to happen it WILL happen.” WHERE can you have acquired such a bizarre doctrine?
LikeLike
Self-styled “Open Minded Observer”
Similarly you quote my:
“the madwoman and her gang of repulsive idiotic brats”
and comment:
“This is what you really came here to say and it tells me all I need to know about you.”
Well now, HOW can I have come here to do so when I ONLY arrived at my present view of of the madwoman’s offspring AFTER I “came here.”
AND, of course, your “it tells me all I need to know about you” serves to display (and confirm) your prejudice, AND to confirm and reinforce what I have ALREADY said about your (and your bigoted collaborators’) persistent tendency to “think” only in terms of crude stereotypes.
LikeLike
Ostensible “Daniel Jones”,
Oh my gosh, you caught me!
I should have said, “Madwoman wielding a deadly weapon against an unsuspecting public with a high likelihood of injuring or killing someone.” I had paraphrased that to “homicidal madwoman” but perhaps something was lost in translation.
I truly should have specified “potentially lethal force” instead of “any means necessary” because of course you did specify that they should have smashed the window and extracted her prior to using potentially lethal force. I’m sure there’s some other means you may approve of, but since you didn’t list them explicitly, I will assume for now that yanking her out of the car for driving away at posted speeds and shooting at her van are the only two means of stopping her that you approve of.
“Also, your ability to think logically is, I am sorry to say, in very serious doubt. — Are you really sorry though? If so, I accept your apology.
“which however is of course a patently absurd, blatant non sequitur.” Well spotted! The statement about shooting being safe and speeding being safe were both intentionally ridiculous logical fallacies. You rightly notice that just because something didn’t happen doesn’t mean it couldn’t. However, you stop short of acknowledging that just because something can happen doesn’t make it likely.
You referred to yourself as my opponent. You’re not. You’re simply a conduit for a way of thinking and engaging with you gives me insight into discussions with my own acquaintances. It was also a fun way to say, “Hey Y’all” to some folks here since I hadn’t posted in a bit.
I really do want to know why you came here though. What did you search up to land here on this thread? Why this particular thread. You could have espoused your “madwoman and her gang of repulsive idiotic brats trash anywhere. Why here?
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL
“serves to display (and confirm) your prejudice
Well now, HOW can I be prejudiced when I ONLY arrived at my present view of you AFTER I “came here.”? [your block capitals]
If you would be so kind, please point out any indication that I have applied stereotypes, crude or otherwise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Self-styled “Open Minded Observer”
It is, of course, NOT merely a matter of something’s being inadvertently “lost in translation.” It’s clearly a matter of your wilfully/intentionally DISTORTING and MISREPRESENTING what I in fact wrote.
LikeLike
“It is, of course, NOT merely a matter of something’s being inadvertently “lost in translation.” It’s clearly a matter of your wilfully/intentionally DISTORTING and MISREPRESENTING what I in fact wrote.”
Nope… I paraphrased what I interpreted to be your opinion. You clarified your opinion and I adjusted. I had boiled down your opinion incorrectly. I can only assume our disconnect stems from the fact that I classify shooting at a car full of kids to be pretty far along the spectrum of means. In other words, everything else would be lesser means and therefore if the latter was OK with you, I felt it safe to assume that everything else would be too. Again, I stand corrected.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Self-styled “Open Minded Observer”
On your “Oh my gosh, you caught me!”
Indeed I did.
But then that is obviously NOT very difficult.
LikeLike
Open Minded Observer
You beat me to it. I guess he forgot “madwoman” is what he repeatedly used to describe her.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh… and same goes for the homicidal bit. Not intentionally misrepresenting… just me boiling down a madwoman wielding a car like a deadly weapon to imply homicidal.. my mistake was that I didn’t mean it in a legal sense, more of a colloquial usage of the word here in the States. However, given the context of your arguments I should have been more semantically precise and strayed away from terminology that could imply a legal definition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jeez, you really don’t do sarcasm do you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Open Minded Observer
Our respective last two comments “crossed” . . . so I apologize for the tone of my most recent comment
LikeLiked by 1 person
Open Minded Observer
Our comments crossed again!
LikeLike
@Abagond
I’m so sorry. This was fun but it’s filling the recent post sidebar with this nonsense at the expense of other threads. I’ll move along.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Open Minded Observer
My regards then. Take care.
LikeLike
@ Open Minded Observer
“It was also a fun way to say, “Hey Y’all” to some folks here since I hadn’t posted in a bit.”
It’s good to see you back.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sheesh, is this buffoon Daniel still at it? You would be better-served farting in a wind tunnel.
LikeLiked by 4 people
This back and forth with this Daniel wing nut has been going on for a long time. If this is the hill this clown wants to die on let him have it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Herneith
You of course offer NO argument of ANY kind – simply vulgar abuse.
LikeLike
Mary Burrell
As with Herneith – you offer NO argument, just prejudice and abuse.
You are sad people.
LikeLike
You of course offer NO argument of ANY kind – simply vulgar abuse.
Yes, and I love every second of the ‘vulgar abuse’! If it wasn’t for the language restrictions on this blog, such as swearing, I would tear you a new anus! You’re lucky! Now sod off!
As with Herneith – you offer NO argument, just prejudice and abuse.
Where’s my troll begone Spray?
LikeLiked by 3 people
@ Daniel Jones
Actually, Herneith and Mary are way closer to the truth of things than you are.
LikeLiked by 2 people
abagond
Well, very obviously (and in a paraphrase of the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies) “you WOULD say that, wouldn’t you?” lol.
LikeLike
Herneith Evidently you suffer from having some marked and rather pathetic anal obsessions (a characteristic which I have often noted in Americans, and which, I strongly suspect, derives from the strong, and indeed toxic, Germanic influences in US plebeian culture).
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Herneith is not American. Neither is her handle Germanic, far from it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Damiel Jones
If Herneith mocks you it means you are making a fool of yourself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
abagond Well. once again, you WOULD say that wouldn’t you, lol?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Comment deleted for name calling.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
What country R U from?
LikeLike
Herneith et al
As I ALREADY pointed out to Solitaire:
People (such as yourselves) who are very narrow and conservative and blinkered in their “thinking” (and whose “thinking” is governed by stereotypes) have a noted tendency to regard ANYONE who has more radical views (or anyone who simply has DIFFERENT views from their own) as a “troll” (which concept is of course ALSO an example of “thinking” in terms of stereotypes).
This is you lot:
“Someone who disagrees with our view of the world!! Shock horror!! Oh my goodness! Help help help!! They must be a troll!!”
Lol!!!!!
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Spoken like a true troll.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A Russian Nagpo Well, I’m presently living in the UK, and I spent most of my younger (considerably younger) years in London.
“Solitaire” – being as she is (and as YOU of course ALREADY know) an extremely STUPID person imagines that from THAT information she can somehow deduce my NATIONALITY and/or my “ethnicity” lol!!
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Actually, people from all over the world comment on this blog. The current lot of regulars includes commenters on at least four different continents. If you take a second to consider that fact, you will realize that of course we don’t all share the same world view.
If you act like a troll, you will be treated as a troll. If you act like a sincere commenter who wishes to have a serious and mutually respectful conversation about differing opinions, you won’t be treated like a troll. It’s that simple.
LikeLiked by 1 person
abagond
“Spoken like a true troll.”
Thank you. Your reply PERFECTLY confirms what I had only just said about your narrowness, your bigotry and your ingrained prejudice.
LikeLike
Solitaire
You (of course) DON’T manage in that comment to specify ANY way in which I have (ALLEGEDLY) “acted like a troll.”
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
In that comment she did not say you were a troll.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
I am sitting here with my popcorn dying of laughter. I mean Herneith is always pretty straightforward from the start on how she will respond, so not sure why Daniel has this shock and horror.
LikeLike
Solitaire
As for your: ” . . . includes commenters on at least four different continents. If you take a second to consider that fact, you will realize that of course we don’t all share the same world view” – this is simply YET ANOTHER non sequitur, a very OBVIOUS non sequitur.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Daniel Jones did indeed tell Herneith upthread: “please feel free to “call me a name” – I very much doubt whether it would bother me.”
Which makes it just that more hysterical. 🍿🍿🍿
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Daniel Jones
“this is simply YET ANOTHER non sequitur, a very OBVIOUS non sequitur.”
Not really. It ties into your statement that we all share the same worldview here, and that’s why we’re calling you a troll.
If you’d bothered to lurk for awhile, you would have learned for yourself that isn’t true.
I’ve had a number of disagreements with Sharina, but I have never called her a troll nor have I ever thought she was one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Sharina
“we have had black from Britain post that have stated it is racist, but more subtle.”
I know this comment is several days old, but I was just skimming through the original set of comments from Dec. 2013 and saw this:
“I’m from the UK and we don’t have the Police carrying guns over here a standard like in the USA.
“But still we have the same issues – Black deaths in custody, racial profiling, the whole nine.”
So it was mentioned even in this very thread…
LikeLiked by 1 person
sharinalr Ah, I’m glad you popped your little head out of the woodwork. I have been intending to encourage you to to NOT keep misrepresenting what I have said.
For example, at one point recently I had written:
“And in many places (such as Britain, just for example) the expression “deadly weapon” OF COURSE doesn’t have ANY “legal definition” for the very simple reason that there is NO SUCH OFFENCE as “assault with a deadly weapon” or “possession of a deadly weapon” in those places.”
In keeping with THAT I wrote a little later on:
“As I pointed out to you there is here [NOTE – “HERE”] no special or technical definition of “deadly weapon” (because the phrase “deadly weapon” doesn’t appear in any legislation) but that doesn’t prevent the expression “deadly weapon” being used in an argument presented in court.”
To which you replied:
“That is a lie [NOTE – “LIE”] as majority [sic] of my sources were from statutes that define deadly weapon. Most states have a definition for it.”
I suppose you mean “most states of the USA” . . . which of course confirms just how insular and narrow – i.e. how USA-centred – your outlook is (so “OUTlook” is, I suppose, therefore hardly the correct word for it lol).
It’s, again of course, not by any means clear that “most states” OF THE WORLD (as opposed to just “of the United States”) “have a definition for it.” (POSSIBLY they WOULD – except that MOST of the world’s states are NOT, of course, English-speaking lol).
It seems NOT EVEN TO OCCUR to you that there is A WORLD OUTSIDE the USA and that what occurs THERE as well as what occurs in “the good ol’ USA” might have some relevance in this discussion.
But the MAIN point here is that either you failed to read properly what I had written, or it would seem that you INSTEAD wilfully ignored the word “here” in order to MISREPRESENT what I had written.
And misquoting or misrepresenting passages is of course ALREADY a demonstrated and noted tendency of yours.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Presently? Does that imply that your country of birth differ from the UK?
LikeLike
@Solitaire
True. Plenty of disagreements, but also the maturity to move on after and not allow it to effect decent conversation and discussion on other posts.
As you can see Daniel is lacking and I think the death of his loved one has him blinded. I feel sorry for him in a sense because that much hate has to be taxing. However, can’t deny his entertainment factor though even that has lost value. Now I did give him a link on being a grammar troll up-thread, so he is aware of at least some tactics he used that made him as such.
Nice catch on the comment from Kenny. I didn’t think it was on this thread.
LikeLike
Solitaire
It seems odd that you bother to emphasize what is the merest HEARSAY (such as you just quoted above) when (indeed only a few of days ago) I gave you a long quotation from a document published by an agency (the Crown Prosecution Service) of the British state which acknowledges (and seeks to address, or at least, purports to do so) the prevalence of racist behaviour in the UK.
LikeLike
@Daniel
This case is in the United States. You are arguing about the laws or legislation of Britain is pointless. So, let me do this one favor and expose your deceit.
You stated: There would be nothing to prevent a judge or a jury from accepting that argument and reaching a decision accordingly
This statement was in response to an American case. It never once said here or UK or any where outside of the United states.
My response: Actually, it would. It is called the law. If that vehicle is not defined as a deadly weapon, then the argument would be moot. You can’t argue a vernacular meaning of a word with a judge and expect it to be accepted. A court is for arguing legalities.
Your response: That is just more of your BS. Courts take into account arguments couched in vernacular language ALL THE TIME. As I pointed out to you there is here NO special or technical definition of “deadly weapon” (because the phrase “deadly weapon” doesn’t appear in any legislation) but that doesn’t prevent the expression “deadly weapon” being used in an argument presented in court.
Here is where you place HERE in the sentence in efforts to switch to Britain law when you were not talking about it to begin with. Nice little change-a-roo, but doesn’t absolve you of the fact that you were wrong in context of what my response was originally to. These are becoming repetitive as in you think you have something, you don’t, and you go on and on because you can’t admit defeat.
If you rehash I will just post links because arguing with you is like arguing with a wall.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“nd misquoting or misrepresenting passages is of course ALREADY a demonstrated and noted tendency of yours.”–One last thing. It is hard to accomplish this when I am direct quoting and providing links. So save the projection. I think you are more angry that I found supporting links for what I said (something you couldn’t do) when you are consumed with the idea that it was a lie.
LikeLike
A Russian Nagpo No, but I don’t want (at his stage) to resolve the conundrum (if indeed it IS really a conundrum) if that’s all right with you.
It’s instructive (and, I’m somewhat ashamed to admit that I find it very amusing) to see the likes of “Solitaire” plant themselves in a hole of their own making and then blindly keep digging . . . lol).
The answer is VERY simple really. I’d be grateful though if you would wait a while for the answer . . . however (as the old saying used to have it) “watch this space” lol.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“I think the death of his loved one has him blinded.”
That’s if his story is even real. I (among others) expressed my condolences to him, but I did take note that he didn’t bother to respond in kind about the undergraduate I knew who was murdered by a police impersonator. Not that I needed him to, but the omission was telling.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Do not put commenter names in quotes. It is needlessly insulting – unless of course you are a troll.
LikeLike
sharinalr Any chance of your posting your last load of gibberish in something resembling coherent English (or, if not English, some other known language)? (Probably NOT, I expect).
Once again, you either didn’t read, OR you SOMEHOW disregarded, the crucial word here. And you then, on the basis of what was effectively YOUR LIE bout what I had written, accused ME of lying (JUST AS YOU HAVE DONE PREVIOUSLY).
It’s very difficult to know whether the MAIN problem here is that you cannot read properly, or that although you, despite appearances, CAN read but somehow cannot (even for a couple of minutes) retain in your brain WHAT you have read . . . or that you WILFULLY and SYSTEMATICALLY (whether consciously or unconsciously) MISREPRESENT what you have read.
LikeLike
abagond What is insulting about it (whether “needlessly” or otherwise)?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Well, “Daniel Jones”, if it is not clear to you why it is insulting, you will just have to take my word as the moderator that it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Daniel Jones
All your posts are either ad hominems or some combination with deflections.
HERE is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with what you were arguing in original context which is American law. Your HERE was nicely place in efforts to bypass you being wrong to begin with. So I don’t even care about your HERE because you don’t get to toggle between American law and Britain law when it suites you.
How is it a lie about what you wrote when i am quoting you? Linking to it even.
I read just fine, but I won’t engage in your deflections. You don’t get to be absolved of being WRONG
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Well I can say he wouldn’t be the first to fake a tragedy for sympathy. Though it is a shame.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“hat you WILFULLY and SYSTEMATICALLY (whether consciously or unconsciously) MISREPRESENT what you have read.”–Yeah you can cry misrepresentation all day, but those sources still refuted you and were quoted in full. So what part was misrepresented? I mean if this is still about the WOULD you are still arse out.
LikeLike
Solitaire
I don’t believe that it’s normally expected of ANYONE to express condolences to another person over the death of “an undergraduate they knew” which is REALLY NOT QUITE THE SAME THING as THE DEATH OF ONE’S MUCH-LOVED GRANDFATHER.
There have been VERY MANY people “I knew” who have been slaughtered by motor vehicles, and many others who have been crippled or maimed by them. If people condoled with me over ALL THOSE deaths and MAIMINGS there wouldn’t be enough time in the day to listen to all those condolences.
I don’t know how often a person gets murdered by a bogus police officer, but I’d be prepared to bet with complete confidence that BY CONTRAST WITH PEOPLE BEING KILLED in what are sickeningly referred to as “road traffic accidents” it DOESN’T happen ONCE EVERY 25 SECONDS.
LikeLike
sharinalr I JUST GAVE YOU A PERFECTLY CLEAR EXAMPLE of your misrepresentation of something which I had said. You simply keep telling LIE AFTER LIE about what has in fact transpired in our “discussions” – perhaps you have some known but very obscure mental condition of which I haven’t as yet heard.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Again How is it a misrepresentation of what you said when i quoted and linked you?
LikeLike
sharinalr Amongst other things you don’t understand the relationship between English law and US law. When it comes to STATUTORY law often there are, of course, considerable differences (as one would expect, as indeed I was the one pointing out) . . . but in most US states the principles and the procedures and the precedents of the English legal system continue to apply.
A very great deal of US law isn’t just BASED on the English common law – it IS English common law.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Yeah and that has what to do with the price of tea in china? You don’t get to claim English law and falsely believe it applies to US laws. Obviously it does not.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“I don’t believe that it’s normally expected of ANYONE to express condolences to another person over the death of “an undergraduate they knew” which is REALLY NOT QUITE THE SAME THING as THE DEATH OF ONE’S MUCH-LOVED GRANDFATHER.”
It’s typically good manners to express condolences over any tragic loss. No, it’s not quite the same thing at all: it rocked the whole university and distressed so many people that the repercussions were felt throughout the rest of the year. And it is always terribly hard to lose a student, much less in such a horrendous way.
Of course, I have lost more people due to car accidents — including students. But you had scoffed at Oriana Farrell’s fearing the police officer. You tried to tell me that under those conditions she shouldn’t have been afraid. I know better, from bitter experience.
“There have been VERY MANY people “I knew” who have been slaughtered by motor vehicles, and many others who have been crippled or maimed by them. If people condoled with me over ALL THOSE deaths and MAIMINGS there wouldn’t be enough time in the day to listen to all those condolences.”
Join the club. That doesn’t make it right for you to denigrate Farrell as a madwoman and her children as brats.
“I don’t know how often a person gets murdered by a bogus police officer”
Sometimes they get raped by a real police officer. Especially if they’re black.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Perhaps you didn’t notice, but U.S. law began to diverge from English common law more than 200 years ago. How insular and narrow-minded to assume that they are still the same thing.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
It happens more often than you would think:
https://listverse.com/2013/08/30/10-disturbing-cases-of-police-impersonation/
LikeLike
abagond If something ISN’T insulting “your word as moderator” won’t somehow magically MAKE IT INSULTING. I can’t forbear from pointing out that you don’t explain HOW it is insulting.
You might have noticed that at the head of a comment I DON’T (usually) put the other person’s username in quotes. I say “usually” because where a username has, as it were, “built into it” a somewhat tendentious claim as in “Open Minded Observer” it (for obvious reasons) becomes almost necessary to use quotes (otherwise one seems to be endorsing the claim implicit in the wording of that name). However, there is of course no such problem with the name “Solitaire” (now, THERE the quotes are needed because I am referring to THE NAME ITSELF rather than THE BEARER of that name.
Similarly there is an obvious difference between:
a) “Solitaire” is a good name [which may well be true]
and:
b) Solitaire is a good name [which, of course, is obviously false].
My usual practice is to put a username in quotes where the name is embedded in a sentence or other text (mainly as an aid to clarity). If I intended it to be insulting obviously I would put the username in quotes at the head of a comment AS WELL.
However, I wouldn’t insist on using quotes. In these circumstances obviously they are not obligatory. Nonetheless it seems to me that you are mistaken in regarding the use of quotes as insulting (or as INTENDED to be insulting either).
LikeLike
Solitaire Yes, impersonation of a police officer (known as IPO in Britain) is quite common, but MURDER by someone committing IPO ISN’T so common. A case that comes to mind is the killing of the gangster and kidnapper/extortionist James McBratney, in which John Gotti and two accomplices tried to take McBratney alive by pretending to be cops (the intention being to torture him before killing him). But things didn’t go according to plan and they ended up just shooting him without having tortured him. This incident is depicted in two films about Gotti, including the recent one directed by Conolly and starring John Travolta.
I can’t think of a case in Britain where anyone has ever been murdered by a bogus cop, although there was a notorious and extremely creepy British serial killer called John Christie who was a police officer during World War Two and (it’s believed) may have murdered several women under the cover of being a policeman (Christie was hanged in 1953 for the murder of his wife).
LikeLike
Solitaire Yes, “madwoman” is too strong a word – and I greatly regret describing the children as “repulsive.”
LikeLike
Solitaire On the relationship between US law and English Iaw I of course DIDN’T say that they are “the same thing, period” (and I think you know perfectly well that I didn’t say that).
However, they DO overlap to a surprisingly great extent. Like most things to do with the law this of course gets to be very complicated, and much of the complication has to do with the differences between one use state and another.
There are a good many US states the legal system of which actually has more in common with the English legal system than it does with the legal system of certain OTHER US states. These are in general known as “common law” states . . . in these very much of the law depends on precedent and “judge-made” law rather than statutes enacted by the state legislatures.
LikeLike
Solitaire
She doesn’t behave as if she is frightened of the policeman. She very obviously ISN’T.
If she HAD been “frightened of the police officer” she would obviously just have signed the citation (that was ALL she needed to do) and get out of there immediately (as she could SO easily have done), or say that she wanted to appear before a judge. INSTEAD she argued with the cop at length, precisely what she WOULDN’T have done if she HAD been afraid of him (and for SOME reason the cop put up with it, which was HIS first mistake).
The idea that (at least at that point in the incident) she was afraid of him is patently absurd.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“These are in general known as “common law” states . . . in these very much of the law depends on precedent and “judge-made” law rather than statutes enacted by the state legislatures.”
Please cite your source for this assertion.
LikeLike
sharinalr “Yeah and that has what to do with the price of tea in china? You don’t get to claim English law and falsely believe it applies to US laws. Obviously it does not.”
Well, a great deal of English law DOES apply in the US (certainly FAR MORE than YOU are capable of realizing) but that is beside the point, which is that although there is no offence of ADW or possession of “a deadly weapon” in certain jurisdictions (it doesn’t matter in WHAT jurisdictions) the expression IN ITS VERNACULAR SENSE can perfectly well be used in court proceedings. In other words whether something is a deadly weapon or not can be discussed and considered by a court REGARDLESS of whether “deadly weapon” has been given any statutory definition.
But I don’t think it has anything very much to do with the price of tea in China, lol!
LikeLike
Solitaire
Why not try the Wikipedia article?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
No. I mean a source that says the U.S. uses the term “common law states” to refer to anything else besides common-law marriage.
And I mean a source that says in the above-named “common law states” the legal system “actually has more in common with the English legal system than it does with the legal system of certain OTHER US states.”
The Wiki article you provided does not state either.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
What your Wiki article does state, though:
All emphases mine.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“in these very much of the law depends on precedent and “judge-made” law rather than statutes enacted by the state legislatures.”
You obviously don’t understand how our system of government works.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“the expression IN ITS VERNACULAR SENSE can perfectly well be used in court proceedings. In other words whether something is a deadly weapon or not can be discussed and considered by a court REGARDLESS of whether “deadly weapon” has been given any statutory definition.”
In the U.S., this can happen only if the judge allows it. How many times does that have to be spelled out for you?
If the prosecuting attorney tries to introduce this “discussion,” defense is going to object so fast it will make your head spin.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“In the U.S., this can happen only if the judge allows it. How many times does that have to be spelled out for you?”
You talk as if this is has been “spelled out” repeatedly already, lol. If so, where?
But never mind. Let’s deal with “only if the judge allows it” (a feature of the US system of procedure which, along with most of the other features of procedure in the US system, it of course derives from the procedures of English common law).
“In the U.S., this can happen only if the judge allows it.”
Obviously! Of course! And whether in the US or indeed in England itself, or ANY ONE of the VAST number of OTHER countries which employ the English common law system.
And it could apply to absolutely ANYTHING. If the judge doesn’t like a lawyer’s tie (or the defendant’s face) he CAN of course refuse to allow an argument (whether that argument is based on a statutory definition of some term or a vernacular one). The judge presides. He CAN, in practical terms, simply shut an advocate up. (It’s another “You CAN of course, but whether you MAY is another matter” situation, lol).
But if the judge in a particular court simply (let’s say it’s “the court of first instance”) refuses to allow a particular line of argument, and it can be contended that such a refusal in not rational (or, for that matter if the refusal is objected to on some OTHER grounds . . . or indeed on NO grounds at all!), it is obviously open to the judge (or judges) in a higher court to allow the argument.
That’s a rather large part of what courts of appeal are THERE for – to override irrational or arbitrary decisions by judges in lower courts.
[Or it may simply happen that an advocate in a higher court just goes ahead and presents the argument without the judge (or judges) demurring].
LikeLike
Solitaire
You quote my “in these very much of the law depends on precedent and “judge-made” law rather than statutes enacted by the state legislatures.”
You then you pronounce cryptically:
“You obviously don’t understand how our system of government works.”
In WHAT way do I fail to “understand how [that] system of government works”?
You of course DON’T say.
LikeLike
Solitaire
I was surprised (and somewhat amused) by your:
“If the prosecuting attorney tries to introduce this “discussion,” defense is going to object so fast it will make your head spin.”
WHY do you (as it seems) assume that it is the PROSECUTION which would be using (or attempting to use) such an argument?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“English law DOES apply in the US (certainly FAR MORE than YOU are capable of realizing) but that is beside the point, “—Then provide a source that states as such. You will not be able to commit a crime in the US and be able to apply English law as your reason for it being legal.
“the expression IN ITS VERNACULAR SENSE can perfectly well be used in court proceedings.”—That is false. The primary reason why is because whether the case is decided by judge or jury, they will apply the legal definition of the term to determine your guilt or innocence. They are not going to apply the term in vernacular sense. If it is not considered as such in legal terms it will not be applied as such no matter what you argue. A judge can throw out your whole defense.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“In WHAT way do I fail to “understand how [that] system of government works”?”—I can answer that. Besides several different misconceptions you presented, you stated:
in these very much of the law depends on precedent and “judge-made” law rather than statutes enacted by the state legislatures.”
Our laws are not made by judges, but by state legislatures. This is why different states have varying laws.
LikeLike
Solitaire
As regards your long quotation from the Wikipedia article, what point are you trying to make (if any)? Are you merely bluffing?
You seem to have reverted to your former habit of submitting a quotation AS IF it supported YOUR argument when ON THE CONTRARY it in fact tends to support mine.
LikeLike
sharinalr Haven’t you EVEN read the latest exchange between Solitaire and myself?
I suggest that you try reading the Wikipedia article referred to in that exchange:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
That Wikipedia source does not say that. So try again. It in no way supports your claim.
LikeLike
Herneith et al
As I ALREADY pointed out to Solitaire:
People (such as yourselves) who are very narrow and conservative and blinkered in their “thinking” (and whose “thinking” is governed by stereotypes) have a noted tendency to regard AYONE who has more radical views (or anyone who simply has DIFFERENT views from their own) as a “troll” (which concept is of course ALSO an example of “thinking” in terms of stereotypes).
This is you lot:
“Someone who disagrees with our view of the world!! Shock horror!! Oh my goodness! Help help help!! They must be a troll!!”
Lol!!!!!
I don’t know where you garnered such interpretations from my mockery, but say on. In fact, I can’t figure out how you can ascribe ideologies to mockery which makes no illusion to anything political. But from what I read from your posts, you keep changing the goalposts when someone calls you out. You go off on tangents which leads me to the following conclusions; you are you are full of crap, you are not serious, or, you are mentally disturbed(I’ll go with the third). I don’t agree with everything posted here, but I do enjoy diverse points of view as they can be entertaining and sometimes informative, you are not any of those things. In fact, you are rather tedious. Right now I’m enjoying a delicious cheese(extra old cheddar) omelet with an English muffin slathered with butter, now go fart in a wind tunnel, make yourself useful.
Disrespectfully;
SOD OFF!, to use an English vernacular.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sharinalr
I wrote: “the expression IN ITS VERNACULAR SENSE can perfectly well be used in court proceedings.”
You wrote in reply: “That is false. The primary reason why [sic] is because whether the case is decided by judge or jury, they will apply the legal definition of the term to determine your guilt or innocence. They are not going to apply the term in vernacular sense. If it is not considered as such in legal terms it will not be applied as such no matter what you argue. A judge can throw out your whole defense.”
“An judge can throw out your whole defense.” What exactly do you mean by ? Do you mean in circumstances where there is no jury?
You write “whether the case is decided by judge or jury, they will apply the legal definition of the term to determine your guilt or innocence.”
Not necessarily. Very probably NOT. They may very well have NOT THE SLIGHTEST INTEREST in ANY definitions, whether “legal” or vernacular.
YOU very obviously don’t have much (if indeed any) experience, or knowledge, of the realities of criminal trials.
Juries tend to do WHATEVER they FEEL LIKE DOING, very often COMPLETELY DISREGARDING any advice (or indeed any DIRECTIONS of any kind) from the judge.
The fact that they CAN do that is a VERY LARGE part of the POINT of HAVING the right to trial by jury.
Jury trial means that the PEOPLE, one’s peers, ultimately make the crucial decisions (instead of those decisions being monopolized by the members of a privileged and unrepresentative elite.
BUT, as any experienced criminal lawyer, whether in the US, Britain (or indeed WHEREVER) knows, jury trial is (to put it mildly) something of a lottery.
What verdict a jury reaches is quite often a matter of whether they TAKE A LIKING to the defendant or not. Sometimes it’s whether they take a liking to one or other of the lawyers involved in the trial, and sometimes it’s whether they take a strong DISLIKE to one of the lawyers involved . . . and so on. (Juries have also been known to in some circumstances roll dice, cut packs of cards, or toss coins in order to arrive at a verdict).
YOUR assumptions about the way juries behave are simply the expression of an academic textbook-writer’s ill-informed fantasy.
LikeLike
sharinalr
“That Wikipedia source does not say that.”
There you go again!
Does not say WHAT exactly?
LikeLike
sharinalr
I wrote: “the expression IN ITS VERNACULAR SENSE can perfectly well be used in court proceedings.”
You wrote in reply: “That is false. The primary reason why [sic] is because whether the case is decided by judge or jury, they will apply the legal definition of the term to determine your guilt or innocence. They are not going to apply the term in vernacular sense. If it is not considered as such in legal terms it will not be applied as such no matter what you argue. A judge can throw out your whole defense.”
“An judge can throw out your whole defense.” What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean in circumstances where there is no jury?
You write “whether the case is decided by judge or jury, they will apply the legal definition of the term to determine your guilt or innocence.”
Not necessarily. Very probably NOT. They may very well have NOT THE SLIGHTEST INTEREST in ANY definitions, whether “legal” or vernacular.
YOU very obviously don’t have much (if indeed any) experience, or knowledge, of the realities of criminal trials.
Juries tend to do WHATEVER they FEEL LIKE DOING, very often COMPLETELY DISREGARDING any advice (or indeed any DIRECTIONS of any kind) from the judge.
The fact that they CAN do that is a VERY LARGE part of the POINT of HAVING the right to trial by jury.
Jury trial means that the PEOPLE, one’s peers, ultimately make the crucial decisions (instead of those decisions being monopolized by the members of a privileged and unrepresentative elite.
BUT, as any experienced criminal lawyer, whether in the US, Britain (or indeed WHEREVER) knows, jury trial is (to put it mildly) something of a lottery.
What verdict a jury reaches is quite often a matter of whether they TAKE A LIKING to the defendant or not. Sometimes it’s whether they take a liking to one or other of the lawyers involved in the trial, and sometimes it’s whether they take a strong DISLIKE to one of the lawyers involved . . . and so on. (Juries have also been known to in some circumstances roll dice, cut packs of cards, or toss coins in order to arrive at a verdict).
YOUR assumptions about the way juries behave are simply the expression of an academic textbook-writer’s ill-informed fantasy.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“oes not say WHAT exactly?”—You stated: English law DOES apply in the US (certainly FAR MORE than YOU are capable of realizing) but that is beside the point..
Where does it state in your source that English law applies to US? Where does it state anywhere that you can commit a crime in the united states and argue it using English law and it will apply.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“As regards your long quotation from the Wikipedia article, what point are you trying to make (if any)?”
Does everything have to be spelled out for you? Do they not teach reading comprehension in English schools? Were there too many big words for you?
The section I quoted refutes your argument that “A very great deal of US law isn’t just BASED on the English common law – it IS English common law.”
The quoted section clearly states that, in the U.S., common law does not refer to “a pre-existent law or system of rules, a social standard of justice that existed in the habits, customs, and thoughts of the people.”
This refutes both your argument that our common law is still largely synonymous with English common law and your argument that our common law takes into account “customs” like vernacular usage/definitions.
Instead, in the U.S., common law is always changing; it “evolves daily and immediately.”
U.S. common law “is not the product of ‘universal consent’. Rather, the common law is often anti-majoritarian.” This means U.S. common law can go against what the majority of people believe to be true, such as the vernacular definition of a term. Your argument has been that the common vernacular definition of a term holds weight under U.S. common law precisely because it is the popularly used definition, but in this passage the article you linked to clearly indicates the opposite.
“the US system of procedure which, along with most of the other features of procedure in the US system, it of course derives from the procedures of English common law”
Some of our court procedure comes from England, but not most of it and certainly not all. Our judges don’t wear those funny little wigs either, thank god. Please note, moreover, that there is a significant difference between “courtroom procedure” and “common law,” at least in the U.S.
“That’s a rather large part of what courts of appeal are THERE for – to override irrational or arbitrary decisions by judges in lower courts.”
In other words, if the judge in the lower court makes an irrational and arbitrary decision to allow your “vernacular use of ‘deadly weapon’ in reference to a motor vehicle” argument, the court of appeals will throw it out as the rubbish it is.
“In WHAT way do I fail to “understand how [that] system of government works”?”
In every feasible way. I’m not here to give you a semester-long course in U.S. Government 101. Sharina gave you a hint. You can Google the rest and do your own homework.
You still have not provided any proof that “common law states” refers to anything besides those U.S. states in which common-law marriage is recognized.
And you still have not provided any proof that there are U.S. states in which the legal system “actually has more in common with the English legal system than it does with the legal system of certain OTHER US states.”
Until you can provide that proof, I don’t see how you have any grounds for continuing to argue that the lack of a legal definition for “deadly weapon” in the U.K. has any bearing whatsoever in the U.S. system of jurisprudence.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
My latest reply to you is sitting in moderation until Abagond has a chance to get to it.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“Not necessarily. Very probably NOT. They may very well have NOT THE SLIGHTEST INTEREST in ANY definitions, whether “legal” or vernacular.”—Very much necessarily. I served jury duty in which you are presented with the law in the case and then the facts of the case. You must apply the law as it states and not a vernacular meaning. We also could account for the fact that I have worked for the solicitor’s office as a paralegal so have been present for many cases. This is how I was so well knowledgeable about you spouting BS.
“Juries tend to do WHATEVER they FEEL LIKE DOING, very often COMPLETELY DISREGARDING any advice (or indeed any DIRECTIONS of any kind) from the judge.”—If you believe that then present a source where juries do as most major case jury interviews they state how tough it was because they had to apply the legal meanings or the letter of the law.
“YOUR assumptions about the way juries behave are simply the expression of an academic textbook-writer’s ill-informed fantasy.”—I don’t assume. I apply experience. You sir assume and sadly you aren’t even doing so from an academic textbook.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
What did I say to get thrown to mod? I don’t see it.
LikeLike
@ Solitaire
“bish” as part of “rubbish”.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“Juries have also been known to in some circumstances roll dice, cut packs of cards, or toss coins in order to arrive at a verdict”
Wow. You’ve got some very irresponsible citizens refusing to do their civic duty there in Britain.
A hung jury is one thing. Letting a defendant’s fate be decided by a coin toss is reprehensible and a dereliction of duty.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Thanks.
The irony is, I threw that word in there as a sop to DJ’s Britishness, instead of trash or garbage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Solitaire
“Letting a defendant’s fate be decided by a coin toss is reprehensible and a dereliction of duty.”
Yes, of course it is. You put it very well.
LikeLike
Solitaire
But it doesn’t happen just in Britain. I thought I’d made that clear.
LikeLike
Solitaire By complete contrast SOME juries are, of course, very conscientious.
LikeLike
sharinalr The idea that you (of ALL people, lol!) could have worked as a “paralegal” in ANY reputable law practice (when you are, as we see, capable of coming out with a piece of pseudo-English such as “I was so well knowledgeable” lol is utterly hilarious (or else GENUINELY scary) . . . and it isn’t MERELY a matter of your being MANIFESTLY incapable of writing anything resembling correct English, but that you have demonstrated OVER AND OVER AGAIN your UTTER INCAPACITY for anything EVEN resembling coherent thought.
LikeLike
Solitaire
I’m not sure that you actually READ the Wikipedia article – even the introductory sentences.
You wrote:
“You still have not provided any proof that ‘common law states’ refers to anything besides those U.S. states in which common-law marriage is recognized.”
when the Wikipedia article says:
“Today, one-third of the world’s population lives in common law jurisdictions or in systems mixed with civil law, including Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Burma, Cameroon, Canada (both the federal system and all its provinces except Quebec), Cyprus, Dominica, Fiji, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, the United Kingdom (including its overseas territories such as Gibraltar), the United States (both the federal system and 49 of its 50 states), and Zimbabwe.”
Please note: “including . . . the United States (both the federal system and 49 of its 50 states)” . . . QED.
LikeLike
Daniel Jones
ROFL. Only a fool believes how people type online in a lax setting is a reflection of real world capacity. But then again this is coming from someone who has repeated been refuted by me despite so….
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Daniel Jones
I’m still waiting on that source that says “English law DOES apply in the US (certainly FAR MORE than YOU are capable of realizing) but that is beside the point..”
So far I have experience, statutes, and other sources involving criminal trials and legislation that refute you. Commence with the name calling and ad hominems. Oh and the grammar troll routine is old. Try something new…like actually making a point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sharinalr In a “lax setting” lol? I am brought back to my original suspicion that you are struggling with having to discuss these issues in the English language, presumably because it isn’t your “first” or “native” language.
I DID, if you remember, offer to help you out with this little (well, in fact BIG) problem of yours.
And your last-but-one (I WON’T say “penultimate” lol) comment ends:
“despite so . . . ”
Despite so . . . what?
LikeLike
sharinalr “Grammar troll routine?” WHAT are you referring to now?
LikeLike
Sharinalr “I’m still waiting on that source that says “English law DOES apply in the US . . [etc]”
The Wikipedia article on common law already referenced is a pretty good source which demonstrates EXACTLY that.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
If 49 of 50 states are “common law jurisdictions,” then there is of course no reason to make a special title for them, because those 49 states are the norm.
You argued that:
“There are a good many US states the legal system of which actually has more in common with the English legal system than it does with the legal system of certain OTHER US states. These are in general known as ‘common law’ states . . . in these very much of the law depends on precedent and ‘judge-made’ law rather than statutes enacted by the state legislatures.”
But the sentence you quoted from Wiki does not say anything about your assertions above. The Wiki article does clearly state that “common law” as currently defined in the U.S. is different than the historical understanding of the term and different from the way in which you are using the term.
If you Google “common law states,” you will see that the articles that come up concerning the U.S. all focus on common law marriage. This does not of course mean that the U.S. states do not practice common law in other senses, but it does mean that you are incorrect in your assumption that the term “common law states” in the U.S. refers to states in which the “legal system . . . actually has more in common with the English legal system than it does with the legal system of certain OTHER US states” and in which “very much of the law depends on precedent and ‘judge-made’ law rather than statutes enacted by the state legislatures.”
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“I am brought back to my original suspicion that you are struggling with having to discuss these issues in the English language, presumably because it isn’t your “first” or “native” language.”
I don’t know if Sharina has said it in this thread, but she has said before on this blog that she doesn’t usually bother to proofread here. She does that enough at work and in her graduate program; she doesn’t need to do it here.
Some of her odder mistakes are due to composing on her phone. For example, my phone’s autocorrect just changed “odder” to “order.” I try to skim over my comments before I post, and so I caught that, although I don’t catch everything. Sharina proofreads her posts here less than I do, and presumably if she was writing this, she wouldn’t have noticed what her phone’s autocorrect had done. And then you would have pounced on “order mistakes” as an example of her “struggling with English” because you are a jerk.
Meanwhile you’ve been making plenty of your own typos and errors, but I don’t see any need to point those out to you when the errors in your logic are so much more glaring.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“The Wikipedia article on common law already referenced is a pretty good source which demonstrates EXACTLY that.”
Quote the exact sentence where the Wiki article says that English law applies in U.S. jurisdictions.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“I DID, if you remember, offer to help you out with this little (well, in fact BIG) problem of yours’—It’s called slang. See this is what happens when you think you are so smart and then turn out just to be soooo dumb.
“Despite so . . . what?”—You can go on and on all day about grammar, but at the end of the day you are being refuted by that very same person you are whining about.
“Grammar troll routine?” WHAT are you referring to now?”—All your posts in response to me. I gave you a link showing what a grammar troll is so don’t get amnesia now.
“The Wikipedia article on common law already referenced is a pretty good source which demonstrates EXACTLY that.”—I read the source and it still does not say that. So provide a source that does.
LikeLike
Solitaire
He will harp on it because he can’t refute anything. He might as well find something.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“If 49 of 50 states are ‘common law jurisdictions,’ then there is of course no reason to make a special title for them, because those 49 states are the norm.”
Did I invoke any “special title” for them?
WHAT are you talking about?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
You most certainly did:
“There are a good many US states the legal system of which actually has more in common with the English legal system than it does with the legal system of certain OTHER US states. These are in general known as ‘common law’ states . . . in these very much of the law depends on precedent and ‘judge-made’ law rather than statutes enacted by the state legislatures.”
I’m getting tired of quoting this same passage, so hurry up and find a source that supports your claim or admit that you pulled it out of your arse.
LikeLike
sharinalr
“All your posts in response to me. I gave you a link showing what a grammar troll is so don’t get amnesia now.”
I’ve just had a browse through my previous “posts” to you, and very few of them make ANY reference to your atrocious GRAMMAR, whether specifically or otherwise . . . although I WOULD have been fully justified in doing so had I chosen to do so.
LikeLike
Solitaire Since when has “common law states” been a “special title”? It’s just a straightforward descriptive phrase . . . and, of course, an accurate one.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“I’ve just had a browse through my previous “posts” to you, and very few of them make ANY reference to your atrocious GRAMMAR, whether specifically or otherwise . . . although I WOULD have been fully justified in doing so had I chosen to do so.”—If you want to continue this LIE then I can link all posts were you did. That is part of the reason why I linked grammar troll source as you wanted to know why you were being called such. In the meantime find a source on your claim or you could just own up to being misinformed and enjoy this one showing the meaning of LAX.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lax
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
You said they “are known as common law states” if they fulfill the following criteria:
1) The state’s legal system has more in common with the English legal system than it does with the legal system of some other U.S. states (presumably those states that are not “known as common law states”).
2) Very much of the state’s law depends on precedent and ‘judge-made’ law rather than statutes enacted by the state legislatures.
But you have not proven:
1) that there is a group of U.S. states collectively known by the title “common law states” where “common law” refers to the criteria specified above
2) that there is even a single U.S. state whose legal system is closer to that of England than that of other U.S. states
3) that there are any U.S. states in which much of the law depends on precedent and judicial decisions rather than state legislation
You can say QED all you want, but that it doesn’t make it so.
Until you provide incontestable proof for the claims you made above, your argument does not stand.
LikeLike
Solitaire
You really have very little excuse for finding all this so difficult.
As the article makes clear, ALL states (other than Louisiana) incorporate the principles (and many of the customs and practices) of the English common law in their legal systems, BUT in SOME of these (usually ones such as California, where there is historically a strong Spanish influence) there are areas (or aspects) of the law which have CIVIL LAW rather than COMMON LAW characteristics (the word “hybrid” is sometimes used in connection with such areas or aspects of the systems of those states).
It thts really so difficult for you to grasp?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Here are the links to each time you mention grammar. With one example as each source is loaded with more.
“It is almost a MODEL of incoherence.”: https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-403803
“WHAT language are you trying to write in, lol?” https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-403832
“in that the two of you evidently suffer at least one of the same mental deficiencies, i.e. the inability to understand DISJUNCTIVE PROPOSITIONS, that is (putting it in layman’s, or layperson’s, terms) an inability to distinguish the word “OR” from the word “AND” lol!” https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-404026
“y the way, I have the impression that you are struggling to understand certain things because English isn’t your native language.” https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-404090
“You obviously ARE struggling with a language which is not your first language.” https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-404125
“It is Alzheimer’s by the way, with a capital “A” (since it is named after a person) inability to spell is ALSO a symptom of dementia, lol.” https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-404133
“And is “Every last one of your comments are examples” supposed to be a coherent sentence?.” https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-404263
“The fact that you made it about me rather than the claim you made is called an ad hominem” is just incoherent drivel.”- https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-404294
“I take it you ACTUALLY meant “If your car is just sitting in your driveway you are not using it.”– https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-404356
“as nobody EVER taught you about avoiding double negatives?”— https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-404391
“You don’t care that what you write is nonsensical garbage? Well, I’ve certainly suspected that for a long time now.”– https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-404395
“Likewise with bad grammar – at least with VERY SERIOUSLY BAD grammar such as your own.”— https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-404414
LikeLike
Solitaire
I put in a typo at the end just to keep you happy, lol.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
So I managed to get about 11 quotes and links of you talking about grammar and all of them are five days ago. You have only increased since then, but they will be visible when let out of moderation for you to lie about how you didn’t mean to or didn’t do that or pretend like you didn’t see it at all.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“Until you provide incontestable proof for the claims you made above, your argument does not stand.”
Coming from YOU that’s absolutely hilarious!
“Incontestable proof” of ANYTHING hardly exists outside of the fields of mathematics and formal logic, EVEN IN THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES . . . as ANY scientist worth his or her salt will tell you, PROOF doesn’t exist in the sciences, EXCEPT, as I said, in the areas of maths and formal logic.
You really ARE dotty, ABSOLUTELY dotty . . . lol!
LikeLike
sharinalr List those quotes then.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“You really ARE dotty, ABSOLUTELY dotty . . . “
And you, sir, are unable to prove your assertions.
What you wrote in your previous comment about Louisiana, California, etc. is true but has absolutely no bearing on your argument that:
“There are a good many US states the legal system of which actually has more in common with the English legal system than it does with the legal system of certain OTHER US states. . . . in these very much of the law depends on precedent and ‘judge-made’ law rather than statutes enacted by the state legislatures.”
Since you protest, I will lower the barrier and remove the requirement for incontestable proof.
Just find me one (1) reputable source that supports your specific claims that:
1) there are a good many US states the legal system of which actually has more in common with the English legal system than it does with the legal system of certain OTHER US states.
2) in these aforementioned states very much of the law depends on precedent and “judge-made” law rather than statutes enacted by the state legislatures.
Please note that proving the validity of #1 requires more than proving that the U.S. states differ from each other depending on how much each state mixes common law and civil law. You must instead prove that there are U.S. states in which the legal system is closer to that of England than it is to any other of the 49 remaining states. And to be scrupulously honest, you really should also be able to prove that the legal system of such a state is closer to that of England than it is to the U.S. federal legal system.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“List those quotes then.”
Can’t you read? She said that she did already but the comment is stuck in auto-moderation.
Any comment that contains more than two links is automatically thrown to moderation, where it sits until Abagond has time to approve it.
If you had bothered to read the comment policy, you would already know this, fool.
LikeLike
@ Solitaire
He doesn’t read which is why he thinks that source supports his claim. Though the fact that he doesn’t realize what he has been sayung makes tou wonder if that bottle of vodka has him faded or if that tin foil hat is a reality.
LikeLike
saying* you*
LikeLike
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States#American_common_law
LikeLike
Solitaire/sharinalr
As I said, list them then.
It’s difficult for me to read at the moment as I’m still laughing at your hilarious “incontestable proof” idiocy.
LikeLike
Daniel Jones
can you read?
LikeLike
Solitaire
And you are trying, pathetically, to bluff your way out of the mire YET AGAIN.
There is NOTHING in the most recent long screed you quoted that contradicts (or is EVEN IN THE LEAST inconsistent with) what I have ALREADY very clearly asserted on these issues.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
I am laughing just knowing you are caught and proving to be a liar yet again.
“incontestable proof”–If you can’t wait you can always scroll up, but we both know you will do like you did when those ad homimens were pointed out. Lie and then change the subject to avoid owning up to it.
Though this is in fact another deflection because all that talk and still no source showing “English law DOES apply in the US (certainly FAR MORE than YOU are capable of realizing) but that is beside the point.” Show some source that says you can commit a crime and argue English law.
LikeLike
sharinalr Can YOU read? I JUST explained that I am STILL laughing uncontrollably at Solitaire’s “incontestable proof” nonsense.
My eyes are still streaming, lol!!
And I (of course) ALREADY know that YOU CAN’T read, so it is, of course, a purely RHETORICAL question.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
So I guess that means you can’t read. You are still asking for the incontestable proof, even though it was already stated twice where it is.
LikeLike
Where is the source Daniel?
LikeLike
sharinalr There you go YET AGAIN. WHAT in the sentence “Show some source that says you can commit a crime and argue English law” are the words “argue English law” supposed to mean?
LikeLike
https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-law/Comparisons-of-modern-English-American-and-Commonwealth-law
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“There is NOTHING in the most recent long screed you quoted that contradicts (or is EVEN IN THE LEAST inconsistent with) what I have ALREADY very clearly asserted on these issues.”
Every last bit of it contradicts your stance. In a U.S. state that does not have a legal definition for “deadly weapon,” the court would look to the precedents established in other states and/or the federal system instead of taking England as a guide, as you have tried to argue.
LikeLike
sharinalr Clearly YOU are the one hitting the vodka. I think when (if ever) you sober up you will find that is was Solitaire (Solitaire the Bond girl lol) who was asking for the “incontestable proof.”
LikeLike
Solitaire WHERE have I argued that in such circumstances US courts would “take England as a guide”? I haven’t.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“I am STILL laughing uncontrollably at Solitaire’s “incontestable proof” nonsense.”
Which is easier than admitting that you have been unable to provide one shred of evidence that proves the nonsense you’ve been spouting off.
Where is your proof from an independent reputable source that “English law DOES apply in the US (certainly FAR MORE than YOU are capable of realizing)”?
I have just provided proof that English common law has no standing in the U.S. when it runs counter to domestic laws and precedents. I have also provided evidence that in modern times, U.S. law rarely cites current English law.
Where are your sources that contradict mine?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
English law is what you have been referring to and using said words, so why now would you ask what they mean? They are your words are they not? Go head and lie so I can quote you. Now provide the source.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
So the words “incontestable proof” are solitaire’s, but did you not repeatedly say this “As I said, list them then”?
LikeLike
Daniel Jones:
“Amongst other things you don’t understand the relationship between English law and US law. When it comes to STATUTORY law often there are, of course, considerable differences (as one would expect, as indeed I was the one pointing out) . . . but in most US states the principles and the procedures and the precedents of the English legal system continue to apply.
“A very great deal of US law isn’t just BASED on the English common law – it IS English common law.”
Sharina:
“You don’t get to claim English law and falsely believe it applies to US laws. Obviously it does not.”
Daniel Jones:
“Well, a great deal of English law DOES apply in the US (certainly FAR MORE than YOU are capable of realizing) but that is beside the point, which is that although there is no offence of ADW or possession of “a deadly weapon” in certain jurisdictions (it doesn’t matter in WHAT jurisdictions) the expression IN ITS VERNACULAR SENSE can perfectly well be used in court proceedings. In other words whether something is a deadly weapon or not can be discussed and considered by a court REGARDLESS of whether “deadly weapon” has been given any statutory definition.”
If, as you assert, a great deal of English law does apply in the U.S., then of course in applying that English law, a court in a U.S. state would look to England from whence came the law it is applying and would both reference and cite the aforesaid English law.
You are arguing here that a U.S. state which has no established legal definition of “deadly weapon” would follow the example of the U.K. which also has no established legal definition in deciding whether to admit to the court a discussion of the vernacular use of the term. In actuality, that U.S. state would follow the examples of other domestic courts, not a foreign court across the Atlantic Ocean.
LikeLike
Solitaire The US courts are applying English law ALL THE TIME, for example (JUST for example, just ONE example) whenever court proceedings involve a jury.
LikeLike
Solitaire
Perhaps you could try to sketch out a scenario in which a court would (or in practice even COULD) prevent the term’s being used in its “vernacular sense.
But IN ANY CASE if there is in fact (in the relevant jurisdiction) NO statutory definition of the term “deadly weapon” WHAT POSSIBLE OBJECTION COULD THERE BE to the term’s being used in its everyday, vernacular sense?
LikeLike
sharinalr You say: So the words “incontestable proof” are solitaire’s, but did you not repeatedly say this “As I said, list them then”?
WHAT are you on about now? “As I said, list them then” was directed at YOU, and referred to your claimed “about [sic] 11 quotes and links” of me allegedly “talking about grammar” – and IN FACT I said “As I said, list them then” ONLY ONCE – and of course NOT “repeatedly.”
It’s very difficult to say with all this guff of yours how much is down to your simply being a shameless liar, and how much instead just down to your being hopelessly confused.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“The US courts are applying English law ALL THE TIME, for example (JUST for example, just ONE example) whenever court proceedings involve a jury.”
No one is denying that most legal systems and procedures in the U.S. are based in large part on the English system and English common law, but you fail to recognize that the two diverged a long time ago. The procedural use of a jury is not synonymous with applying current modern English legal rulings.
“Perhaps you could try to sketch out a scenario in which a court would (or in practice even COULD) prevent the term’s being used in its “vernacular sense.”
This has already been explained to you. But you need a scenario? Fine: It would be inadmissible as unduly prejudicing the jury against the defendant.
“But IN ANY CASE if there is in fact (in the relevant jurisdiction) NO statutory definition of the term “deadly weapon” WHAT POSSIBLE OBJECTION COULD THERE BE to the term’s being used in its everyday, vernacular sense?”
Answered above. It unduly prejudices the jury by using a phrase commonly employed in legal language as a criminal charge when there is in fact no such charge against the defendant. It violates the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.
Plus you still haven’t proven that “deadly weapon” is an everyday vernacular synonym for motor vehicle.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Do you comprehend what the term “thrown to moderation” means?
Or did you just get on the internet for the first time?
LikeLike
Solitaire
WHERE have I said ANYTHING about US courts “applying current modern English legal rulings”? of course NOWHERE. You are merely continuing to systematically MISREPRESENT what I have in fact said..
LikeLike
Solitaire
You STILL haven’t provided ANY scenario AT ALL. You haven’t EVEN said what the defendant has been charged with.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
How does one lie with links and quotes of your very words? You initially stated here to list them: https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-404857
Following that comment I told you it was in moderation. Solitaire also told you that. You still chose to comment here to list them:https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-404863
So it appears you can’t read or provide a source supporting your claims. Go figure. But if you like I can pull to links and quotes of your grammar tirade aside from the 11 in moderation.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“WHERE have I said ANYTHING about US courts “applying current modern English legal rulings”?”—Your whole argument is based on this flawed logic as on several occasions you tried to apply said reasoning to Farrell’s case, but carry on.
LikeLike
Solitaire
And WHEN (or WHERE) have I EVER said “deadly weapon” is “an everyday vernacular synonym for motor vehicle” or ANY kind of synonym for “motor vehicle”?
It very obviously ISN’T.
LikeLike
sharinalr Your last comment is complete gibberish. I suggest you have another try WHEN you have sobered up.
LikeLike
sharinalr
Update – rather your last TWO comments.
LikeLike
sharinalr
“But if you like I can pull to links and quotes of your grammar tirade . . . ”
As I already said . . . you are just spewing out gibberish.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“You STILL haven’t provided ANY scenario AT ALL. You haven’t EVEN said what the defendant has been charged with.”
The defendant has been charged with reckless driving, exceeding the speed limit, failure to obey a police officer, and resisting arrest.
Prosecution refers to the defendant’s car as “a deadly weapon.”
Defense objects as prejudicial.
The judge sustains the objection.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
And lucky for me you not only provided 3 examples of your grammar troll bs, but also ad hominems and the cherry on top…it appears you are the shameless liar.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“As I already said . . . you are just spewing out gibberish”–Gibberish or you bluffing? Here are those two links.
“Any chance of your posting your last load of gibberish in something resembling coherent English (or, if not English, some other known language)? (Probably NOT, I expect).”: https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-404663
“The idea that you (of ALL people, lol!) could have worked as a “paralegal” in ANY reputable law practice (when you are, as we see, capable of coming out with a piece of pseudo-English such as “I was so well knowledgeable” lol is utterly hilarious (or else GENUINELY scary)”: https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-404798
Have fun trying to wish away this “gibberish” showing you on that grammar tirade you tried to lie about not existing.
LikeLike
Solitaire
None of these charges you list entailS ANY NEED AT ALL to characterise the vehicle as a “deadly weapon.” Describing it as it a deadly weapon would simply be IRRELEVANT.
You have REALLY completely misunderstood ALL OF THIS.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“WHERE have I said ANYTHING about US courts “applying current modern English legal rulings”? of course NOWHERE. You are merely continuing to systematically MISREPRESENT what I have in fact said..”
You said:
*”A very great deal of US law isn’t just BASED on the English common law – it IS English common law.”
“Based on” refers in this instance to English common law as it existed prior to the establishment of the United States. No one is arguing that U.S. law was not based largely on English common law.
But you have not proven that:
“A very great deal of US law … IS English common law.”
You didn’t specify above whether you meant current English common law or 18th-c. English common law, but regardless, I have already provided proof that whichever of the two you specify, in neither case is your statement true. Most of U.S. law is separate and distinct from English common law, with the federal constitution taking precedence (in any and all legal questions) over even the most ancient and venerable aspects of English common law.
LikeLike
sharinalr WHERE does what you quote make any reference to GRAMMAR?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“in vernacular language … the motor vehicle is habitually and customarily described as a “lethal weapon” or “deadly weapon” and also as a “killing machine”
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“None of these charges you list entailS ANY NEED AT ALL to characterise the vehicle as a “deadly weapon.” Describing it as it a deadly weapon would simply be IRRELEVANT.”
I’m glad you finally understand that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Solitaire What about the jury system then?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
So you don’t have an understanding of the meaning of gibberish? So can it be assumed you also have little knowledge of the meaning of grammar as well? If I have to break it down then I will gladly have to call you stupid or insist you never question the intelligence of anyone.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
What about it?
We borrowed the jury system. So what? That doesn’t mean the bulk of our legal codes and legal decisions are based on English common law.
And our written federal constitution — something YOU don’t have — always takes precedence. Always.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Grammar is defined as the study of the classes of words, their inflections and their functions and relations in the sentence.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grammar
Gibberish is defined as meaningless or unintelligible talk or writing.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/gibberish?s=t
In short you are basically saying my class of words in relation to sentences are meaningless and unintelligible writing. Thus, presenting a focus on grammar as you have been for several posts. We can use other definitions of grammar if you like, but ultimately will put you in the same position. A grammar troll.
LikeLike
Solitaire
I’m glad you finally understand that.”
I’ve understood that ALL ALONG (which of course is why I haven’t AT ANY POINT been arguing in terms of ANY such scenario).
The question now is WHY, since we are supposedly discussing a case in which it WOULD be relevant, you choose to provide a “scenario” in which it OBVIOUSLY WOULDN’T be relevant.
LikeLike
Solitaire
You possibly don’t remember that I expressed surprise at your assuming that it would be the PROSECUTION which might wish you invoke the vernacular, non-technical sense of the phrase “deadly weapon.”
LikeLike
sharinalr An ALLEGED “grammar troll” who is not EVEN primarily concerned with grammar, and who CLEARLY ISN’T a “trolll” . . . lol!
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Not allegedly. I provided a link of tactics of a grammar troll further upthread when you asked what made you one or what one was. I have also provided examples of you doing just that.
In fact, I could link abagond’s post on trolls as you fit the behavior to a “T”. I mean it is typical of a troll to not acknowledge he is one, but one thing is certain and that is behavior doesn’t lie.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Almost every last one of your posts to me are about grammar so it is yet another lie to claim you are not concerned with it.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“We borrowed the jury system. So what?”
“You” BORROWED the jury system? “Borrowed” it?
Does that mean you’re planning to give it back, lol?
LikeLike
Solitaire
And whom you mean by “we”?
LikeLike
sharinalr
As ever you misrepresent (and you probably do so wilfully) what I say.
DID I say that I wasn’t concerned with grammar? No.
LikeLike
“With the greatest respect, a person sitting at the controls of a motor vehicle ISN’T “unarmed””
I wonder what they’re armed with?
“ a motor vehicle is, as is often remarked ”
wait for it…
“a DEADLY weapon (far MORE deadly than, say, a knife or a small pistol).”
I get it, because “Speeding is an act of violence“. So it applies if “The defendant has been charged with reckless driving, exceeding the speed limit, failure to obey a police officer, and resisting arrest.“?
Nah “None of these charges you list entailS ANY NEED AT ALL to characterise the vehicle as a “deadly weapon.” Describing it as it a deadly weapon would simply be IRRELEVANT.”
But what about aggravated fleeing an officer, child abuse and possession of drug paraphernalia?
LikeLike
@Daniel
“And whom you mean by “we”?”
If you had to guess… like stretch your reading comprehension to the max and use all your context clues to really give it a go… what would you come up with?
I’m no mind reader, but I’d guess We The People. The broad “We” that refers to the United States of America who’s judicial system you were referring to.
On another note:
DID I say that I wasn’t concerned with grammar?
She said “it is yet another lie to claim you are not concerned with it.“.
Apparently you concur that it would be a lie to say you are not concerned with it. You seem to have a very confrontational way of agreeing with people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Daniel Jones
“DID I say that I wasn’t concerned with grammar? No.”–Did you or did you not say “An ALLEGED “grammar troll” who is not EVEN primarily concerned with grammar”
If it was not your primary concern then Almost every last one of your posts to me wouldn’t be about grammar.
Read my response in full: Almost every last one of your posts to me are about grammar so it is yet another lie to claim you are not concerned with it.
Then you can agree that your statement above is just a lie. No one misrepresented you.
Where is the source for your claims? You had a long time to produce one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sharinalr
“If it was [sic] not your primary concern Then [sic] Almost [sic] every last one of your posts to me wouldn’t be about grammar.”
FOR EXAMPLE?!!!!!
LikeLike
sharinalr
AND “it is yet another lie to claim you are not concerned with it.”
NO, but what IS “for all intents and purposes” a LIE is YOUR trying to make out out that I EVER claimed NOT to be concerned with grammar”
LikeLike
sharinalr
Characterizing your incoherent twaddle as gibberish ISN’T criticizing or even characterizing its GRAMMAR.
One would have to REWRITE your twaddle so that it made at lease SOME kind of reasonable sense BEFORE one could even BEGIN to evaluate its grammar (and I in fact HARDLY EVER pass ANY comment on the GRAMMATICAL errors which people make – I ALMOST ALWAYS simply ignore them – hardly the behaviour of a “grammar troll” . . . IF such a thing exists). –
LikeLike
Self-described “Open Minded Observer”
“But what about aggravated fleeing an officer, child abuse and possession of drug paraphernalia?”
Yes, WHAT about them?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“FOR EXAMPLE?!!!!!”—I gave two here: https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-404903
And 11 here: https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-404852
As follows most of your most recent comments have done so as well.
“ a LIE is YOUR trying to make out out that I EVER claimed NOT to be concerned with grammar”—Not really. Had you read the comment in full you would know that was not the case, but you didn’t so the lie is all yours.
“Characterizing your incoherent twaddle as gibberish ISN’T criticizing or even characterizing its GRAMMAR.”—Actually it is and I do believe I explained why above. Your basis of my writing being incoherent isn’t based on the idea that it is so much as the little misspelling of words here or there or structure. All things that deal with grammar. Do you know the definition of grammar? I wager not if you are trying to pull this argument. According to those links above you don’t ignore them and a discussion of a grammar troll wouldn’t be brought up if you were. So a troll and a liar now. Sad.
However, where is that source?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
There is very much a such thing as grammar troll. Try google or the link I posted. A nice tactic is using it to deflect from claims they can’t support. Kinda like your focus on asking me to prove you a liar and a grammar troll (already done) to avoid your lack of ability to provide a source for you claim. Yet to prideful to admit to not having one and spouting bs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
weren’t*
LikeLike
um? speeding? an ‘infraction’ — less than a summary or disorderly persons?
this guy is killing me here, his words are a blunt but deadly weapon of bs!
LikeLiked by 1 person
sharinalr Your “link” establishes NOTHING.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Comment deleted for putting commenter’s name in quotes.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
” Your “link” establishes NOTHING.”—Actually its LINKS and it establishes a great deal.
You claimed: very few of them make ANY reference to your atrocious GRAMMAR, whether specifically or otherwise . . . although I WOULD have been fully justified in doing so had I chosen to do so.
You continued this claim in stating: who is not EVEN primarily concerned with grammar
13 of your own quotes establish you as a….how did you put it….SHAMELSS LIAR. Furthermore, as per the link on grammar trolls typically use deflections to opponents grammar when they lose or begin to lose an argument. Here you keep indulging in this convo about grammar, but won’t offer up a source for your claims as to establish even a remote chance of legitimacy to it. You can’t. Though all I have said has been established as legitimate. Why are you afraid to admit you have no source, when it is well founded you don’t? All the ad hominems in the world won’t change you losing this argument or any other you engaged in on this thread.
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/types-of-grammar-trolls/
LikeLike
v8 driver “um? speeding? an ‘infraction’ — less than a summary or disorderly persons?”
Meaning? “Or disorderly persons” WHAT?
LikeLike
abagond
Re: “Comment deleted for putting commenter’s name in quotes.”
There is a VERY CLEAR JUSTIFICATION for putting the “name” in question (which constitutes NOT MERELY a “name” but also a tendentious (a VERY tendentious) purported (and very evidently false) DESCRIPTION of its bearer).
And I have ALREADY made exactly this point to you.
That being so, you are (consciously and intentionally) abusing your privileges as moderator to FORCE contributors to ASSENT to that description (that FALSE description) of the bearer of the name in question OR ELSE have their comment deleted.
And THAT is a very clear (and outrageous) ATTACK on FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (do you in fact REMEMBER the First Amendment?)
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
I have been moderator long enough to know that a certain amount of civility is required for free speech to mean something more than a screaming match. And one of the minimum rules of civility is to call people by their right names.
Open Minded Observer is a name, a label, not an objective description. Everyone above the age of five knows that. That is why it is capitalized. You do not need quotes, unless you are bent on being a douchebag.
LikeLiked by 2 people
abagond
No, it CERTAINLY ISN’T an OBJECTIVE description. And it also certainly isn’t his “right name.” It’s very evident indeed that he is NOT “open minded.”
If you are going to try to impose a rule in these matters it would be more appropriate for you to refuse to accept names which (as “Open Minded Observer” does) blatantly constitute tendentious descriptions of their intended bearer.
And ANYONE who is prepared to use the word “douchebag” with abusive intent is hardly in any position to talk about “civility.”
Finally, all of this would not be so serious if it were not ALSO clear that you are at the same time allowing this site to be used as a platform for racially aggravated abuse, which in MY present jurisdiction is a serious criminal offence.
LikeLike
@ Daniel,
Would these charges as listed entail any need at all to characterise the vehicle as a “deadly weapon”?
(It’s lost on me how that question wasn’t clear within the context.)
P.S. It tickles me how much it pains you to type my username. As if typing it conveys an endorsement of it’s aspiration meaning. I can understand though… I struggle with putting the words “President” and the name of the man currently occupying that office together in the same sentence. So, I’ll tell you what, you can just call me Steve.
LikeLike
@Daniel
Also (and I actually asked this of you before), can you point to where I was prejudiced, closed-minded or otherwise anything other than open-minded? I understand that by commenting I somewhat relinquish the “Observer” part of the moniker, but I honestly feel as though I read, processed, took a week to consider and then decided to disagree with some of your positions. Perhaps you think that anyone who would disagree with you cannot possibly be open-minded. You haven’t stated that, so I am of course only guessing. I’m very much open to learning where I wasn’t open-minded.
-Steve (like the hedge in Over the Hedge)
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Daniel Jones
I did not call you a douchebag. Do not get it twisted.
Racially aggravated abuse? How so?
LikeLiked by 1 person
ababagond
Why is it that, as it seems ALL of you characters here PERSISTENTLY misrepresent what I have said. Did I say that you called me that? No.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
ROFL. How do people “misrepresent what I have said” when they quote exactly what you said?
LikeLike
abagond
Did you, as moderator, somehow not notice Solitaire’s comments directed at me as a supposed English person?
LikeLike
sharinalr At the critical points in your “arguments” you typically either OMIT a critically important word (such as “primarily”) OR ELSE you sneakily SUBSTITUTE one word for another (as with your, famously, substituting “would” for “could”).
LikeLike
https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/what-is-the-difference-between-criminal-traffic-an-314996.html
unfortunately, once she fled in the vehicle, it becomes felony evasion or eluding police, so technically… not sure about NM in particular, but that is my understanding,
daniel you are still quite annoying and just bothering everyone
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“you typically either OMIT a critically important word (such as “primarily”)”—It wasn’t omitted. It was acknowledged and responded to in a manner you obviously didn’t clearly read or understand. Regardless you still ultimately showed yourself to be a liar as those 13 quotes still proved you and your primarily as such.
“OR ELSE you sneakily SUBSTITUTE one word for another (as with your, famously, substituting “would” for “could”).”—Except there was no substitute as it was my own summarization. You might be able to argue this lie if I had quoted the source and changed the quoted material, but that didn’t happen so.
Regardless you were arguing that WE are misrepresenting your words. When presented with the fact that people are quoting you in full you deflect to another topic in which you were already refuted on. You are running in circles and no lies to hide behind.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Is that what you mean by racially aggravated abuse? Can you give me some examples of her abuse?
LikeLike
agabond
Are you unable to read?
Are you unable to do a simple search for relevant text?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Just more of your BS, in other words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abagond
Try the following.
Solitaire
@Daniel Jones
The actual correct spelling is Ó Fearghail, but guess why it got changed, you English oppressor.
Daniel Jones
@Solitaire WHAT leads you to assume that I am an “English oppressor”?
on Monday September 3rd 2018 at 00:07:38
Daniel Jones
Once again you are making RACIST ASSUMPTIONS.
Daniel Jones
@Solitaire
AND – be it noted – you STILL HAVEN’T answered the question “WHAT leads you to assume that I am an ‘English oppressor’ “?
on Monday September 3rd 2018 at 20:25:06
Solitaire
@ Daniel Jones
It can’t be racism. Ethnic rivalry, maybe.
Solitaire
@ Daniel Jones
It is not racism to speak the truth about the English and what they did to the Irish. They stole the land, oppressed the people, and almost succeeded in eradicating the language.
“For a start you don’t EVEN know whether I am English or not.”
I’m not surprised you try to deny it. The English are guilty of horrific crimes against humanity, not just in Ireland but all across the globe.
No wonder you’re ashamed.
on Monday September 3rd 2018 at 21:50:17
Solitaire
@ Daniel Jones
You are so slow.
How can the names I called you be considered racist? How can my calling you those names be considered racist? English is not a race. Irish is not a race. You could say ethnicity or nationality but not race.
on Monday September 3rd 2018 at 22:38:33
Daniel Jones
@Solitaire
Try telling the Irish or (heaven help us!) the Scots that they are not a race! There IS, of course, a specialized TECHNICAL terminology under which it is SOMETIMES argued that these are not races but “ethnicities” (although it is also SOMETIMES argued that they are not ethnicities EITHER).
However, the LAW in the UK (and in ALMOST ALL countries in Europe) makes, for example, NO practical distinction regarding, say, the serious criminal offence of “Incitement to Racial Hatred)” between that incitement’s being on the basis of race and its being incitement on the grounds of “ethnicity” (or, for that matter, of nationality or national origin).
Morally – and LEGALLY – racial abuse and “ethnic” abuse are (despite all your sophistry) THE SAME THING.
Daniel Jones
@Solitaire
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidanceDefinition of a “racial group”
“The Act says a ‘racial group’ means a ‘group of persons defined by reference to RACE, COLOUR, NATIONALITY (including citizenship) or ETHNIC or NATIONAL ORIGINS.’ ”
Which is part of this:
“SECTION 145 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 imposes a DUTY upon courts to INCREASE the sentence for any offence committed that involves either:
the offender demonstrating towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group;
or
the offence being motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group.
“Crown Prosecution Service application of SECTION 145
“A sentence may be increased under s145 in relation to ANY offence.
“MUCH OF THE HARASSMENT EXPERIENCED BY RACIAL COMMUNITIES IS PERSISTENT, LOW-LEVEL OFFENDING.
“In order to counter this type of behaviour it is important that s145 uplifts are applied for in ALL appropriate cases.
“THIS APPROACH IS INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT RACIALLY AND RELIGIOUSLY AGGRAVATED HATE CRIME IS PUNISHED PROPERLY AND JUSTICE AFFORDED TO ALL.
“THE ACT SAYS A ‘RACIAL GROUP’ MEANS a ‘group of persons defined by reference to RACE, COLOUR, NATIONALITY (including citizenship) OR ETHNIC OR NATIONAL ORIGINS.’ “
And of course:
Solitaire
@Daniel Jones
Guess again, you rotten imperalist Sassenach.
LikeLike
I fail to see how it can be racist when I’m part English myself. I think I have a right to speak critically of my own people.
I will call the horrendous atrocities of English imperialism what they were, even if Daniel Jones will not.
LikeLike
LoM?
and sorry for the aside here, folks, but i’m Scotch Irish, British, and Irish, among other things, and ‘white’ or ‘Caucasian’ or ‘Caucasoid’ covers it, ‘ethnically’ there is not that much difference, POLITICALLY divided by nationality and religion!
sheesh!
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
😂😂😂😂 ROFL!!! Did you break every bone in your body with that reach?
LikeLike
Did he not say he wasn’t English?
LikeLike
@ v8driver
“LoM?”
Bite your tongue.
“‘ethnically’ there is not that much difference”
I beg to differ — linguistically alone there is a huge difference — but this isn’t the thread for that discussion.
What happened here is this: Farrell is one of several Anglicized spellings of an Irish name, but Daniel Jones first told me I was spelling it wrong and then when corrected strongly implied that Oriana Farrell uses more than one spelling of her surname for nefarious and/or criminal purposes.
So I chose to tweak his nose a little.
LikeLike
Agabond
“Solitaire” apparently thinks that her being “part English” (whatever THAT means, and indeed IF it is true) SOMEHOW prevents her comments from being racist.
It of course DOES NOT.
I am awaiting a response from you on this issue.
LikeLike
@ Daniel
In case you missed my last two comments to you.
Steve
LikeLike
Steve
I haven’t AT ANY POINT envisaged any “deadly weapon” CHARGE being brought against the woman who is here referred to as “Farrell” . . . our Bond girl Solitaire somehow came to assume that I was envisaging a situation in which there would be a court case in which THE PROSECUTION would be invoking the expression “deadly weapon” . . . but then (as you may have gathered) our Solitaire (as indeed befits a Bond girl) is NOT terribly bright.
LikeLike
@ Daniel
I didn’t go back to re-read everything, but I assume you are correct regarding any charges being brought against Oriana Farrell. However, since I didn’t ask about charging anyone with a deadly weapon charge, I’ll summarize my train of thought and coem to a different question below:
You and I disagree on the officer’s justification for the use of deadly force.
My understanding is that you support the officer because:
1 “Speeding is an act of violence“
2 “a person sitting at the controls of a motor vehicle ISN’T “unarmed””
3 “ a motor vehicle is”…”a DEADLY weapon (far MORE deadly than, say, a knife or a small pistol).”
Solitaire and others argued that “A vehicle is only a deadly weapon (like all things) when the intent is to harm. Not just because it exists.”
Your rebuttal was to reaffirm your opinion that “An operational motor vehicle is FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a WEAPON, regardless of any considerations of intent.”
You then went on and on about court cases and scenarios while people were trying to nail you down on a justification for your opinion. I suppose your goal was to get people to provide justification for not having your opinion.
Anyway, it came around to Solitaire providing you with a scenario where a prosecutor might share your opinion and apply it in court. i.e. “The defendant has been charged with reckless driving, exceeding the speed limit, failure to obey a police officer, and resisting arrest.“
That seemed like a slam dunk to me. Whatever even led to those charges would have most certainly a motor vehicle (which you define, for all practical purposes, as a weapon, regardless of intent). Further, that vehicle would have been being used as excessive speeds and in a reckless manor ( one of which you have defined as an act of violence).
So, I was truly surprised when you responded that “None of these charges you list entailS ANY NEED AT ALL to characterise the vehicle as a “deadly weapon.” Describing it as it a deadly weapon would simply be IRRELEVANT.”
I thought, wow! Why would it then be prudent to consider a vehicle as a deadly weapon in an incident that yielded charges of aggravated fleeing an officer, child abuse and possession of drug paraphernalia? You didn’t answer as to whether or not you would now think it irrelevant in that instance. That was the gist of the question I had asked.
So, that does lead me to wonder… if it turns out that you do think it irrelevant to consider it a deadly weapon in that instance as well, was it truly prudent to use deadly force to stop Oriana Farrell?
-Steve (OMG that cracks me up!)
LikeLike
Self-styled OMO, lol
You appear not to have actually READ my last comment (AND not to have understood several earlier comments in this thread).
Meanwhile I am STILL awaiting a reply from Abagond regarding her abuse of her privileges as moderator AND her allowing her site to become a platform for racially aggravated abuse by others.
THAT is now the PRIMARY issue as far as my own involvement is concerned.
LikeLike
However, I’m sufficiently puzzled to decide that I WILL ask WHAT exactly you mean by:
“That seemed like a slam dunk to me. Whatever even led to those charges would have most certainly a motor vehicle (which you define, for all practical purposes, as a weapon, regardless of intent).”
I would, I suppose, infer that you mean “would have BEEN a motor vehicle . . . ” but I’m not able to be ABSOLUTELY sure that’s what you in fact DO mean.
And – TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN (including of course “sharinalr”) – DON’T try to interpret this request for clarification as an act of “grammar trollery.”
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Actually open minded observer summed it up quite nicely. As it stands you don’t seem to be mentally present for half the stuff you say.
Abagond is a HE and if he enforces racially aggravated abuse anything then you do realize that you will be severally punished right? In fact, I can quote you harping about Americans and black Americans, but are angry because someone called English oppressors out for their behavior. ROFL
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
But it is grammar trollery. You took time to add would have been, but not the time to respond to what was said. Just full fledge dumb.
LikeLike
I WON’T bother to ask what the HELL a “slam dunk” is (I guess I can figure it out from the context).
LikeLike
sharinalr You seem to have started hitting the vodka bottle early today. Your last comment is EVEN MORE incoherent than your USUAL very sorry efforts.
As for your “Abagond is a HE” evidently you are unaware that it is nowadays a common practice amongst those of us with a progressive, anti-sexist agenda to use “she” rather than “he” as the default pronoun (and, in keeping with that, “her” rather than “his” . . . and so on) . . . which is part of the process of undermining patriarchal norms.
LikeLike
sharinalr You are seriously trying to make out that I have committed racially aggravated abuse?
Where?
At one point I wrote *I remember Americans as being pretty stupid” but saying that does not of course in itself constitute racially aggravated abuse.
And WHAT am I supposed to have said about BLACK Americans?
LikeLike
sharinalr And what leads you to imagine that I am “angry because someone called English oppressors out for their behavior”?
WHY would THAT make me angry?
LikeLike
sharinalr
“You took time to add would have been, but not the time to respond to what was said.”
Well now, HOW can one respond to a sentence when that sentence MAKES NO SENSE? There appears to be AT LEAST ONE crucial word missing from the sentence.
Until it is established what the sentence was MEANT to say how can one respond to it?
LikeLike
@Daniel
I most certainly did read your comment, more than once. I make no claims that I understood what you wanted to convey. I read it to mean that you felt my premise was flawed because you were never discussing any sort of deadly weapon charge against Oriana Farrell. However, neither was I, so perhaps we are incapable of understanding each other. That’s why I went all the way back to the beginning so you could see my train of thought.
“slam dunk” is a basketball reference. Another colloquialism. I apologize for using it because I know that doing so led to this tangent. In that context, it was meant to mean that Solitaire’s scenario seemed like a perfect example, a perfect fit, the exact set of charges where one might apply the misguided notion that cars are deadly weapons by default regardless of intent. Yet, you seemed to dismiss it as irrelevant. That’s fine. I just really figured a person that would see it applicable in a situation like Farrell’s would also see it as applicable in that scenario. When you didn’t, I thought maybe your opinion on the officer’s justification for using deadly force may have evolved, or was more nuanced.
Unless corrected by you, I’m going to assume that you still believe, quite firmly, that the officer was justified in shooting at a van full of children. Also, that his justification for using such extreme measures was that Oriana Farrell had previously committed an “act of violence” (70+mph) in a “Deadly Weapon” (her van) and needed to be stopped. You feel the risk to her and her family was superseded by the risk to fellow officers and the general public.
Does that about sum it up?
If so, I still disagree.
Side note: There’s a whole thread on race if you want to head over there to argue that English or Irish or American (or honestly anything else at all) constitutes a distinct race of homo-sapiens. I suspect “the conundrum” of your identity may give you some interesting insight to offer that thread.
Steve
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
The comment is quite coherent, but as a typical grammar troll you would find any means to deflect.
“you are unaware that it is nowadays a common practice amongst those of us with a progressive, anti-sexist agenda to use “she” rather than “he” as the default pronoun”—That is pretty false. You would use non-gender related terms. They person etc. Your purpose appears to be disrespectful and that little bit of bs is going to get you banned after a while.
“committed racially aggravated abuse?”—Here: https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-404625
And here: https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-404117
Now if you need to have this spelled out based on your delusional logic, then that can be arranged.
“does not of course in itself constitute racially aggravated abuse.”—Neither does solitaire’s response about English oppressor, but if you want to play that game you can quickly see how you are likely to be punished as well.
“And WHAT am I supposed to have said about BLACK Americans?”—I happily quote “I am SO glad I am not burdened with the psychological need to see ALL BLACK AMERICANS, no matter how CRIMINALLY IRRESPONSIBLE they may be”
“WHY would THAT make me angry?”—Good question and I wager you are more than likely English, but like every thing else don’t want to admit it so you give this full run around and cry about some racially aggressive behavior that doesn’t really exist.
“Well now, HOW can one respond to a sentence when that sentence MAKES NO SENSE? There appears to be AT LEAST ONE crucial word missing from the sentence.”—You have been responding to posts you claim make no sense for about 50 posts now. They make sense, you just want something to deflect to and the grammar troll habit is old.
LikeLike
Abagond As I have had no response from you I shall now be reporting your site to WordPress for violation of its Terms of Service, in particular for carrying illegal racist content and providing a platform for racially aggravated abuse (whilst simultaneously denying freedom of expression by imposing idiosyncratic, arbitrary, and irrational restrictions exemplified by your perverse refusal to accept quotation marks around tendentious usernames).
LikeLike
sharinalr
“And WHAT am I supposed to have said about BLACK Americans?”—I happily quote “I am SO glad I am not burdened with the psychological need to see ALL BLACK AMERICANS, no matter how CRIMINALLY IRRESPONSIBLE they may be”
Er . . yes? WHAT is supposed to be the problem with that?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Besides the fact that you attempted to lie about saying something about black Americans? That is a reminder you did and the added bonus of how bogus your claim of racially aggravated abuse is.
LikeLike
sharinalr
“Neither does solitaire’s response about English oppressor.”
Oh yes it does.
LikeLike
As to you reporting abagond, good luck with that and hopefully this is the first step to you being banned.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
No it doesn’t. English can constitute any race (black, white, Asian). Not to mention what she said has historical facts to you. What you said did not, which in fact would likely make you the racially aggressive abuser.
LikeLike
sharinalr
How do you make out that I “attempted to lie”?
My comment doesn’t make ANY assertion, or generalise in any way, about black Americans.
It merely envisages the possibility that there MAY BE some black Americans who are criminally irresponsible.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
You attempted to lie by asking what you said about them when you knew what was said. Also in stating ALL black Americans you care making such generalization. No you didn’t envisage some possibility of some or what they may be as your words are pretty clear. See you lie about what you mean when your words spoke exactly what you meant.
LikeLike
oh please, bland food, speak english go to christian church in the EU, under common law
LikeLike
are* not care*
LikeLike
@daniel jones my latin teacher told me along time ago, maybe in like 1987 “it is the lowest form of humor to make fun of someone’s name”
LikeLike
@ Open Minded Observer
““slam dunk” is a basketball reference. Another colloquialism. I apologize for using it because I know that doing so led to this tangent.”
Don’t apologize — this isn’t 1982. He could have looked it up in less than a minute. That’s what Google is for.
LikeLike
sharinalr
“No it doesn’t. English can constitute any race (black, white, Asian). Not to mention what she said has historical facts to you [sic]. What you said [did not, which in fact would likely make you the racially aggressive abuser.”
I have ALREADY quoted (in fact TWICE) the relevant definition of “RACIAL GROUP” but AS USUAL you display what must be either your inability to read or else your TOTAL INABILITY to UNDERSTAND what you read.
However, ONCE AGAIN here is the definition of “racial group” relevant to the prosecution of racially aggravated offences:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidanceDefinition of a “racial group”
[PLEASE NOTE – DEFINITION OF “A RACIAL GROUP”]
“The Act says a ‘racial group’ means a ‘group of persons defined by reference to RACE, COLOUR, NATIONALITY (including citizenship) or ETHNIC or NATIONAL ORIGINS.’ ”
Which is part of this:
“SECTION 145 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 imposes a DUTY upon courts to INCREASE the sentence for any offence committed that involves either:
the offender demonstrating towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group;
or
the offence being motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group.
“Crown Prosecution Service application of SECTION 145
“A sentence may be increased under s145 in relation to ANY offence.
“MUCH OF THE HARASSMENT EXPERIENCED BY RACIAL COMMUNITIES IS PERSISTENT, LOW-LEVEL OFFENDING.
“In order to counter this type of behaviour it is important that s145 uplifts are applied for in ALL appropriate cases.
“THIS APPROACH IS INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT RACIALLY AND RELIGIOUSLY AGGRAVATED HATE CRIME IS PUNISHED PROPERLY AND JUSTICE AFFORDED TO ALL.
[and ONCE AGAIN]
THE ACT SAYS A ‘RACIAL GROUP’ MEANS A ‘GROUP OF PERSONS DEFINED BY REFERENCE TO RACE, COLOUR, NATIONALITY (INCLUDING CITIZENSHIP) OR ETHNIC OR NATIONAL ORIGINS.’ “
Have you FINALLY got it now? (I’m very much afraid, PROBABLY NOT . . . lol).
LikeLike
Solitaire
Did you REALLY imagine that I don’t know what it means, lol?
You really ARE a twit.
LikeLike
v8driver
However, he was of course WRONG, and he also, somehow, failed to teach you back maybe in “like 1987″(lol) that “Latin” begins with a capital “L” lol!
LikeLike
Signing off now for a while.
LikeLike
@Daniel
“I WON’T bother to ask what the HELL a “slam dunk” is ”
I won’t even bother to ask why you’d post that then.
I will ask you for a 3rd time if you’d mind pointing to where I was prejudiced.
-Steve
@Solitaire
LOL! My apology was actually to the rest of you…
“I apologize for using it because I know that doing so led to this tangent.” I knew it was a farce and yet another attempt to distract and shift the goalpost. I should have seen it coming.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“As I have had no response from you [Abagond]”
Unlike you, Abagond has a life and other things to do besides babysitting this blog. You couldn’t even give him 24 hours? How impatient.
“I shall now be reporting your site to WordPress for violation of its Terms of Service, in particular for carrying illegal racist content and providing a platform for racially aggravated abuse”
Good luck with that. Abagond has allowed commenters on this blog to say much worse about his own race, and it’s all still sitting online as evidence of equal treatment and fair play.
Meanwhile, you still haven’t explained how what I said is racist when I myself am white and partially of English descent.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Your link goes to a 404 error.
Your definition doesn’t refute what I said. English can refer to any racial group (Ie black white Asian). However, here are two accurate definition of the term. “. A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared bythe group.”
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Racial+Groups
http://www.yourdictionary.com/racial-groups
Have you FINALLY got it now? Or do you want to continue this dance of you looking foolish?
Nice law, but it wouldn’t even remotely be enforced as what solitaire said I based on historical accuracy.
LikeLike
v8driver
Incidentally, I say “he” because, for all the undermining of traditional gender stereotypes, I’m still unable to imagine a female Latin teacher.
Except that, now I come to think of it, there is Mary Beard (but of course she ISN’T a schoolteacher).
LikeLike
Oh and based on that law you would need to point out where she
” wounding, assault, damage, harassment and threatening/abusive behaviour.”
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance
Again nope and nope you are lost.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“Did you REALLY imagine that I don’t know what it means, lol?”
Of course I knew you were bluffing. You either already knew what it meant or could easily find out.
You only asked what it meant in order to troll Open Minded Observer — and you will please note my comment was addressed to him, not to you.
I was letting Open Minded Observer know that I thought he was bending over backwards to be polite to a troll, but now I see that I was mistaken and he wasn’t apologizing to you.
Nevertheless, I don’t think an apology was necessary because it is impossible to predict with 100% accuracy what trollery a troll is going to pull out of his arse.
Open Minded Observer should not feel one shred of responsibility for the tangent because his word choice of “slam dunk” was not the cause, but rather an excuse latched onto by a troll hellbent on trolling.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Daniel Jones
“That is pretty false. You would use non-gender related terms. They person etc.”
Sharina is absolutely correct on the above. If you were truly moving in progressive circles, you would use “they” as a neutral singular because this construction does not presume gender and therefore is also inclusive of those people who identify as agender, genderqueer, genderfluid, etc., as well as those who are born as intersex (formerly called hermaphrodites).
Plus you also revealed yourself to be a liar by referring to v8driver’s teacher as “he” and then, while fumbling for an excuse, revealed just how sexist you really are:
“Incidentally, I say “he” because, for all the undermining of traditional gender stereotypes, I’m still unable to imagine a female Latin teacher.”
My Latin professor (PhD) at university in the 1980s was a woman. Over 30 years ago. You need to get with the times.
LikeLike
My Latin teacher at university was female too.
LikeLike
agabond “My Latin teacher at university was female too.”
Jolly good show. So . . . ?
LikeLike
Solitaire As I made clear, I was referring to schoolteachers (and in any case ACKNOWLEDGING that this was something of a personal failing).
LikeLike
Solitaire And no, I would NOT us “they” . . . for very obvious reasons.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“I fail to see how it can be racist when I’m part English myself. I think I have a right to speak critically of my own people.
I will call the horrendous atrocities of English imperialism what they were, even if Daniel Jones will not.”
So you think that a person who is “part English” cannot be racist?! I’m surprised.
LikeLike
Solitaire
In fact I know (or know of) a considerable number of “part English” people who are EXTREMELY racist (many of them being (just for example) part English and part Irish.
LikeLike
Solitaire
Superfluous left-hand bracket lol.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“My Latin professor (PhD)”?
Why do you bother to mention the “PhD” (assuming that that’s in fact what you are doing)?
What was her name?
LikeLike
Solitaire
Would you like to ACTUALLY cite a few of your “atrocities of English imperialism”?
LikeLike
Solitaire
And no, I would NOT use “they” . . . for very obvious reasons.
And those of us who are TRULY RADICAL in fact DO use “she” (which is, in certain contexts, FAR more subversive of gender stereotypes than “they” . . . as when Christian feminists, or feminists in other religious groups, refer to GOD, or to their other masculine-named deity, as “SHE”).
Using “they” merely AVOIDS ascribing gender, but in fact doesn’t OTHERWISE in any way undermine or subvert gender stereotypes.
LikeLike
Solitaire
And no, I would NOT use “they” . . . for very obvious reasons.
And those of us who are TRULY RADICAL in fact DO use “she” (which is, in certain contexts, FAR more subversive of gender stereotypes than “they” . . . as when Christian feminists, or feminists in other religious groups, refer to GOD, or to their other masculine-named deity, as “SHE”).
Using “they” merely AVOIDS ascribing gender, but in fact doesn’t OTHERWISE in any way undermine or SUBVERT gender stereotypes.
LikeLike
sharialr
I gave you a STATUTORY definition of “racial group” – it’s SO hilarious that after you for so long tried to insist on a statutory definition of an expression YOU NOW (now that you fondly imagine it suits your purpose) want to insist on replacing a statutory definition with a NON-statutory one.
LikeLike
Soliaire
“Abagond has allowed commenters on this blog to say much worse about his own race, and it’s all still sitting online as evidence of equal treatment and fair play.”
If so this is YET ANOTHER strike against Abagond.
You are just confirming that Abagond is habitually providing a platform for racial abuse.
“Fair play”? Are you joking?
Racial abuse is a serious matter, NOT some game.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“Superfluous left-hand bracket lol.”
You mean what you did here?
“What you said [did not,”
Lol….
“Why do you bother to mention the “PhD” (assuming that that’s in fact what you are doing)?”
So that you would know she wasn’t merely a graduate student with a job as a teaching assistant.
“What was her name?”
And give you a clue as to where I did my undergrad? Not a chance.
“As I made clear, I was referring to schoolteachers”
Latin classes had fallen to budget cuts in my district by the time I got to school, but I knew the retired schoolteacher who had taught Latin there, and she was female.
“(and in any case ACKNOWLEDGING that this was something of a personal failing).”
Yes, a failure stemming from a sexist worldview.
“I would NOT us “they””
How would one “us” they?
“as when Christian feminists, or feminists in other religious groups, refer to GOD, or to their other masculine-named deity, as “SHE”).”
Yawn. That was considered “radical” and “subversive” 40 years ago.
And it just makes your failure to use “she” for v8driver’s Latin teacher that more glaring. Guess you aren’t that radical and subversive after all, are you?
“Using “they” merely AVOIDS ascribing gender, but in fact doesn’t OTHERWISE in any way undermine or subvert gender stereotypes.”
To the contrary, using “they” undermines and subverts the entire idea of binary gender categories.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“So you think that a person who is “part English” cannot be racist?! I’m surprised.”
I never said that. Many English people are very racist and, for example, seek out African American blogs to troll on.
What I asked you specifically was how the particular statements I made about the English could be in any way racist, considering that I myself am part English and considering they are backed by historical fact?
“You are just confirming that Abagond is habitually providing a platform for racial abuse.”
Pet lizards serve as useful examples when racism is being deconstructed and examined.
“Would you like to ACTUALLY cite a few of your “atrocities of English imperialism”?”
Here are two examples, for starters:
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
And lest we all forget, you still haven’t provided any proof or reputable sources backing your claims that there are U.S. states whose legal systems are closer to that of England than that of other U.S. states and that there are any U.S. states in which much of the law depends on precedent and judicial decisions rather than state legislation.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Here are a few more:
https://www.oddhistorian.com/10-worst-atrocities-committed-by-the-british-empire/
But no wonder you don’t appear to know anything about your nation’s crimes against humanity:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Replacing it? Who said anything about replacing it? And I remember using the statutory definition for deadly weapon and not once insisting on such for racial group. Either definition you use still has the same outcome of not indicating what solitaire said as racially aggressive abuse and I pointed out why. English can be any race (Black, white, or Asian) but further can be any nationality. Additionally, “it would require wounding, assault, damage, harassment and threatening/abusive behaviour” as per your very source. So I again say “No it doesn’t.”
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
I can go on all day….
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency
LikeLike
Solitaire
To remind you, you wrote:
“I fail to see how it can be racist when I’m part English myself.”
Which can ONLY mean “if I am part English my remarks can’t be racist.”
LikeLike
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html
LikeLike
sharinalr
Yes, when “deadly weapon” was the phrase under discussion you were trying to insist on a statutory definition, but you NOW of course want to insist on a NON-statutory definition of “racial group” . . . somewhat inconsistent (to say the least)!
LikeLike
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newhistorian.com/english-colonists-massacre-a-pequot-village/3866/amp/
LikeLike
Solitaire
On your examples of atrocities – it is EXACTLY as I suspected!
Did you not EVEN NOTICE that in the cited texts all the atrocities and crimes in question are referred to as acts of the BRITISH (rather than of the ENGLISH)?
Which is a crucial distinction?
It was PRECISELY BECAUSE I suspected that you repeatedly and persistently confuse “English” with “British” that I asked you to list some examples.
AND YOU IMMEDIATELY PROVED THAT MY SUSPICIONS WERE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!
LikeLike
Soliyaire
APART, OF COURSE, from actions of American colonists.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
So what? The empire-building of the English started when they invaded the British Isles. The English were the ones who created the concept of Great Britain.
Irish, Scots, Welsh, and Cornish peoples may have been complicit in the British Empire, but the English were the originators and the driving force behind it.
LikeLike
Solitaire
You cite the the actions of a small (a VERY small) group of colonials who happen to have originated from England as if they were actions of the entire English (OR BRITISH) people.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“APART, OF COURSE, from actions of American colonists.”
If you are referring to the massacre of the Pequot, those colonists were not born in the Americas, and some in fact were newly arrived from England.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“Irish, Scots, Welsh, and Cornish peoples may have been complicit in the British Empire, but the English were the originators and the driving force behind it.”
Oh no they weren’t, not exclusively, IF AT ALL!
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“You cite the the actions of a small (a VERY small) group of colonials who happen to have originated from England as if they were actions of the entire English (OR BRITISH) people.”
Those actions were performed under the aegis of the English government.
Are you going to make this same argument for India, Kenya, and Malaya?
LikeLike
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/22/british-empire-museum-colonial-crimes-memorial
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
If you are going get people’s names wrong, misgender them, call them stuff like “twit” and “vile disgusting little pig”, then you do not have much ground to stand on when someone calls you an “English oppressor”, especially when you will not even admit to being English.
Because this blog deals with racism, I have allowed people to say far, far more racist things than “English oppressor”, which is laughably mild by comparison. I cannot even count that as a slur, like “whitey” or “white trash”, which I would not allow anyone to call you.
But, if you wish, I will delete the offending comment – along with any of your name-calling comments others want deleted.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“From the Norman conquest of Ireland in the 12th century, the English began imagining themselves as the new Romans, persuading themselves they were as duty-bound to civilise ‘backward’ tribes as they were destined to exploit their resources, land and labour.”
The passage quoted above is, of course, an out-and-out distortion of history (and a particularly stupid one at that).
Did you by any mischance notice the words “NORMAN CONQUEST” in “Norman conquest of Ireland”?
NORMAN conquest. The Norman conquest of Ireland was an extension of the Norman conquest of ENGLAND ITSELF (and of Wales).
In the 12th century the English were still living under NORMAN (i.e. Norman French) rule . . . and they continued to do so for approximately another four centuries.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
You are slow on the upkeep.
A) The insisting of the use of deadly weapon was because you were in fact attempt to argue the legalities of case. Of course, it would be insisted upon. Acts of violence are legal issues.
B) You are attempting to apply law to a situation that isn’t even a legal matter, so a non-legal definition should be added. Just as the remainder of what your statute says to ensure it is clear on why it has no application here.
C) I want you to quote where I am insisting on using another definition. I clearly stated whether we use yours or not it does not change that it is not racial aggravated abuse and I also stated clearly why.
D) Your definition, which oddly was used to refute you here, does not change the fact that English has many races and many nationalities. Per your definition it only defines a racial group being a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Nothing more. However, in using the term English oppressor there is no specific race, color, and English oppressor isn’t considered a nationality. You might be able to ride on ethnic or national origins but even that is a stretch as English oppressors have no ethnicity or national origins. ROFL.
None of this stuff is hard to read as your own source (once again) refutes you and it is as if you have the inability to comprehend the basics of what you read in these statutes.
LikeLike
abagond
You just DON’T get it, do you?
Nothing in what you attribute to me amounts to racial abuse.
And WHY are Solitaire (and, it now seems, you) so preoccupied with the question whether I am English or not?
Or rather, WHY, it seems, so determined to identify me as English?
That would IN ITSELF appear to betray the existence of an underlying racist (or, if you prefer, “ethnic”) agenda.
And it is in fact rather sinister.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
I’m perfectly aware of this, and I also know the Normans intermarried with the English until the two became indiscernable.
Or are you going to tell me now that you are a full-blooded Jute?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Oh when you are done deflecting could you provide those sources. Solitaire mentioned it up-thread but i just wanted to remind you.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
I never once said you were English. But if you are NOT English, then your offence is manufactured. So yes, it matters because you made it matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Daniel Jones
“Or rather, WHY, it seems, so determined to identify me as English?”
Perhaps I wish to embrace you as my long-lost kinfolk.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Thank you for the reminder.
@ Daniel Jones
When are you going to provide those sources that prove me wrong and you right?
LikeLike
sharinalr
What leads you to suppose that racial abuse ISN’T a legal matter? It clearly IS a legal matter.
LikeLike
Abagond
“But if you are NOT English, then your offence is manufactured.”
What nonsense!
How do you figure THAT?
It is in fact likely to make the offence given EVEN GREATER (and make the offence COMMITTED by the racial abuser EVEN MORE serious).
And it is SOLITAIRE, not I, who has made an issue of it – “who has made it matter.”
LikeLike
sharinalr
“English” refers, under the definition of “racial group” given in the Act, to a “racial group” . . . and “oppressor” is clearly pejorative.
MOST English people would be prepared to give as their nationality either “British” OR “English” and they wouldn’t much care WHICH of these terms was used. (Incidentally, the majority of people in England would NOT accept that a black or Asian person can be regarded as English, although many would accept that a black or Asian person person CAN be regarded as British, which in most contexts would simply be taken to mean that the person referred to has British citizenship).
And “sassennach” is a VERY abusive word, almost as abusive as the “n” word used to refer to a black person.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“And “sassennach” is a VERY abusive word, almost as abusive as the “n” word used to refer to a black person.”
That’s not what you said here:
I called you a Saxon, is what it boils down to. Are you going to holler if I call you an Angle and a Jute, too?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
““oppressor” is clearly pejorative.”
“Oppressor” is clearly the historical truth. The reason Farrell is spelled the way it is now (and has equally acceptable alternate spellings like Ferrell) is due to English attempts to eradicate the Irish language — an oppressive act of cultural genocide.
Now, it could be just as equally argued that Oriana Farrell has this Anglicized Irish name as her surname due to white American oppression that stripped her ancestors of their original African names — also an act of cultural genocide.
If someone in pointing out that second fact called me “you white oppressor,” should I get upset about it?
Which is more upsetting, being called an oppressor or the historical fact that your nation engaged in cultural genocide — and actual genocide — in several different places across the globe?
LikeLike
Solitaire
If you remember, you called me personally an “English oppressor” (without EVEN having any reasonable grounds for making the assumption that I am English).
There is NO DOUBT that very many of the English HAVE oppressed, and CONTINUE to oppress.
Nor indeed have I ever denied it.
But it is ONE thing to say that some of the English, or even that great numbers of the English, have been or are oppressors, and a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thing to ASSUME that any INDIVIDUAL English person is therefore an oppressor.
It is your doing THE LATTER which marks YOU out as a blatant racist.
If you hold, or try to hold, an individual member of a racial group responsible for the actions of OTHER members of that group, regardless of what THAT INDIVIDUAL has or has not done, then you are UNMISTAKABLY a racist.
LikeLike
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/scottish-word-of-the-week-sassenach-1-3467165/amp
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“If you hold, or try to hold, an individual member of a racial group responsible for the actions of OTHER members of that group, regardless of what THAT INDIVIDUAL has or has not done, then you are UNMISTAKABLY a racist.”
You have the privilege of living in a First World nation which got to that level by stealing land all over the globe, raping those lands of their resources, and subjugating the native peoples of those lands.
You are complicit. You enjoy your high standard of living bought by the blood and suffering of millions — and moreover, you use the leisure time of that cushy lifestyle to troll an African American blog, which is more than passive complacency on your part.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
A) It isn’t a legal matter. If it is then go file charges. However, show me were you are wounded, assaulted, damaged, harassed, and that this constitutes threatening or abusive behavior because that is exactly what is required in your legislation to be even considered a legal issue. You have none of those as a concern.
B) You didn’t get the joke even with the ROFL and I figured you wouldn’t. Besides stealing other people’s land and oppressing them show me the customs of English oppressors. Show me their nationality or home nation.
C) English isn’t a nationality it is an ethnicity. “Many people think that ‘English’ is the same as ‘British’. It is not” http://projectbritain.com/nationality.htm
D) Further from that source: “Slang terms sometimes used for the English include “Sassenachs” (from the Scots Gaelic), “Limeys” (in reference to the citrus fruits carried aboard English sailing vessels to prevent scurvy) and “Pom / Pommy” (used in Australian English and New Zealand English).”
F) The fact that no one knows if you are English or not further dismisses your claim as a legal issue. However, English oppression is a fact of life.
LikeLike
Hi Daniel,
A while back you mentioned that I had a “persistent tendency to “think” only in terms of crude stereotypes” and that something I’d posted confirmed my prejudice. You’ve also mentioned that “It’s very evident indeed that he is NOT “open minded.” when referring to what you call my “tendentious” username.
I’ve asked you 3 times, so far, to provide some examples. I thought I’d give you a 4th opportunity before assuming you were simply attacking my character in an attempt to discredit my point of view.
-Steve
LikeLike
@ Daniel,
Also, in one of the posts where you were going off about my username, you wrote this: “And THAT is a very clear (and outrageous) ATTACK on FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (do you in fact REMEMBER the First Amendment?)”
To which I guess I felt the need to mention that this is Abagond’s forum. I have no presumption of freedom of expression. I admit to not knowing the legalities on the matter. My understanding is that Abagond has the right to post whatever he wants as the main topics and the 1st Amendment protects him from being censored by the government. Again, my understanding is that he is not obligated to allow comments and he cannot legally be forced to publish our opinions on his blog.
So, as a guest on this forum, I appreciate the leniency he affords dissenting opinions because I believe it allows us all to learn. I also believe he is far too tolerant of commenters that seem more interested in sewing the seeds of discontent as opposed to engaging in productive discourse. Responding to questions with information and insights is more productive than name calling and a feigned inability to glean meaning from hastily written posts that may contain an omitted word or two.
In short, his blog, his rules. Obey them or leave.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Solitaire
So, just to get this absolutely clear, you are accusing me of the crimes of stealing land all over the globe, raping those lands of their resources, and subjugating the native peoples of those lands, and you are doing so on the basis of . . . what exactly?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
You are misrepresenting what I wrote. I never said that you personally did any of those things.
LikeLike
Solitare
I don’t think I AM misrepresenting what you said, which was:
“You have the privilege of living in a First World nation which got to that level by stealing land all over the globe, raping those lands of their resources, and subjugating the native peoples of those lands.
You are complicit. You enjoy your high standard of living bought by the blood and suffering of millions . . . [and so on]”
What then do you mean by the word “complicit”?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“What then do you mean by the word “complicit”?”
I mean instead of trying to right those wrongs that were done — and some of which are still being done — by the nation in which you live, you choose to come to an African American blog and harass black people for your amusement.
LikeLike
Solitaire
” . . . you choose to come to an African American blog and harass black people for your amusement.”
That is simply false.
LikeLike
sharinalr
“The fact that no one knows if you are English or not further dismisses your claim as a legal issue. However, English oppression is a fact of life.”
ONCE AGAIN:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidanceDefinition of a “racial group”
“The Act says a ‘racial group’ means a ‘group of persons defined by reference to RACE, COLOUR, NATIONALITY (including citizenship) or ETHNIC or NATIONAL ORIGINS.’ ”
Which is part of this:
“SECTION 145 Criminal Justice Act 2003
“SECTION 145 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 imposes a DUTY upon courts to INCREASE the sentence for any offence committed that involves either:
the offender demonstrating towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group;
or
the offence being motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group.
“Crown Prosecution Service application of SECTION 145
“A sentence may be increased under s145 in relation to ANY offence.
“MUCH OF THE HARASSMENT EXPERIENCED BY RACIAL COMMUNITIES IS PERSISTENT, LOW-LEVEL OFFENDING.
“In order to counter this type of behaviour it is important that s145 uplifts are applied for in ALL appropriate cases.
“THIS APPROACH IS INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT RACIALLY AND RELIGIOUSLY AGGRAVATED HATE CRIME IS PUNISHED PROPERLY AND JUSTICE AFFORDED TO ALL.
“THE ACT SAYS A ‘RACIAL GROUP’ MEANS a ‘group of persons defined by reference to RACE, COLOUR, NATIONALITY (including citizenship) OR ETHNIC OR NATIONAL ORIGINS.’ “
NOTE:
“the offender demonstrating towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group”
AGAIN (with emphasis):
” , . . hostility based on the victim’s membership (or PRESUMED membership) of a racial or religious group.”
PRESUMED membership.
LikeLike
OMO
The First Amendment definitely DOES NOT mean that Abagond has a right to say, to post, or to broadcast “whatever he wants” – although the belief that the Amendment DOES mean that “one can say whatever one wants” is a very common misconception about the First Amendment.
LikeLike
OMO
You (you know who you are . . . lol) wrote:
“So, as a guest on this forum, I appreciate the leniency he affords dissenting opinions because I believe it allows us all to learn. I also believe he is far too tolerant of commenters that seem more interested in sewing [sic] the seeds of discontent as opposed to engaging in productive discourse. Responding to questions with information and insights is more productive than name calling and a feigned inability to glean meaning from hastily written posts that may contain an omitted word or two.
“In short, his blog, his rules. Obey them or leave.”
As I said, the First Amendment definitely DOES NOT mean that Abagond (or, of course, anyone else for that matter) has a right to say, to post, or to broadcast “whatever he wants” – although the belief that that Amendment DOES mean “one can say whatever one wants” is a very common MISCONCEPTION about the First Amendment.
AND, more importantly (as well as more relevantly here), your “guest” analogy is an entirely false one.
This page ISN’T a sitting-room in a private house. This “discussion” isn’t some chat at a private party.
This is in effect the equivalent of a traditional public forum, and “ownership” (in your and Solitaire’s characteristically bourgeois terms) of the site of that forum DOES NOT confer ANY right to impose arbitrary and irrational rules on individuals using it . . . OR to exclude (or threaten to exclude) a person from the forum simply because the “owner” (lol!) of the SITE happens to disagree with that person’s views.
LikeLike
https://en.forums.wordpress.com/topic/how-to-blockban-a-person/
LikeLike
Solitaire
So?
LikeLike
@ Daniel,
Regarding “whatever he wants”… yes, that was innacurate. So, feel free to read that as, “Whatever he wants within the confines of the law”. That was the wrong takaway from my comment though. The point was that the 1st Amendment and subsequent supreme court case law are all about restrictions the government can place on the speech of it’s citizens. 1A does not say that non-governmental entities, like Abagond, are forced to publish our opinions on his blog. He is not government, his blog is not a public entity. Sure, it’s visible by the public, but it is not owned by the public and our comments are not a matter of national public interest (well, maybe you think yours are, but I don’t think so).
So, Twitter might have a challenge if they tried to ban or limit the tweets of a president, but neither of us is the president. (As far as I know anyway. In spite of the similarities in random capitalization, you seem to be able to string together a complete sentence… something I’ve noticed he rarely does.)
I’m pretty certain you’re wrong and I wouldn’t say so without having done some research on the subject. You might want to do your own research so you can either educate me or improve your understanding. As Solitaire’s quote from WordPress shows; Abagond can restrict us from commenting, delete our comments and outright ban us from commenting at all. However, one has the freedom to create their own blog where Abagond cannot restrict them. There’s even a couple of those out there already.
Side Note: Abagond’s blog is not a park or town square. In fact, if you had bothered to get to know the blog, you’d know it’s a virtual dinner table.
-Steve
LikeLike
“As Solitaire’s quote from WordPress shows; Abagond can restrict us from commenting, delete our comments and outright ban us from commenting at all. However, one has the freedom to create their own blog where Abagond cannot restrict them. There’s even a couple of those out there already.”
“Can” is the operative word (we are back to “You CAN . . . whether you MAY is another matter”).
The main question is whether it is morally defensible for WordPress to confer on him the power to do this without his, as it seems, having to provide some valid justification.
A further question is whether it is in fact even LEGAL for Agabond to ban a person OR suppress comments without valid justification.
I strongly suspect that it is on constitutional grounds illegal (in some jurisdictions at least) for Abagond to do so, and that it is ALSO unconstitutional (and therefore, of course, again illegal) for WordPress to confer on him the power to do so.
LikeLike
@ Open Minded Observer
My understanding is that blogs are closer to newspapers and magazines than open-air forums (e.g., the proverbial soapbox in the square). Editors are not legally required to print every single letter that a periodical receives, which has been true since long before the internet existed. And now that there is an internet presence of the press, newspapers and other periodicals still are not required to allow a comment section for their online articles, and if they do allow such, they may moderate the comment section and edit, delete, or refuse to post online any comment that violates their policies.
Likewise an internet provider or hosting platform can delete blogs, forums, or other websites that violate its terms of use, such as a couple years ago when Reddit banned and scrubbed a number of virulently racist subreddits.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
A)“English oppressor” isn’t a RACE, COLOUR, NATIONALITY (including citizenship) or ETHNIC or NATIONAL ORIGINS.’ Do you get it? If not, then quote one passage from any book that has decided that English oppressor is since the joke has flown over that empty head of yours. Again, read the passage for clarity. What race is English oppressor? What Color is English oppressor? What nationality is English oppressor? What ethnicity is English oppressor? What national origins are English oppressors?
Yeah nice quotes, but you left out:
A. Demonstrating hostility
The elements to be satisfied are that:
1. The offence to be sentenced has one or more identifiable victims.
2. The victim (or one of them) belongs to a particular racial or religious group or there is evidence that the offender presumed that he or she did so at the time of the offence (whether or not that was in fact correct).
3. The offender, by words or deeds or other indication, demonstrated (i.e. actually manifested or indicated) some hostility towards the victim based on the actual or presumed membership of a racial or religious group. Where the offence itself involves some hostile act towards the victim (i.e. an offence of assault) there must additionally be some evidence of a demonstration of hostility on grounds of actual or perceived membership of a racial or religious group. It need not be proved that the offender was actually motivated by any malevolence on grounds of the race or religion but it must be shown that, viewed objectively, he did in fact make some outward indication of hostility on that ground. Verbal abuse, referring to the membership of that group or a feature of it, will suffice provided it actually demonstrates hostility towards the victim. Expressions of, or behaviour consistent with, contempt for the individual victim is unlikely alone to suffice, unless it can be shown to amount to the necessary demonstration of hostility based on the actual or presumed membership.
4. The demonstration of hostility must have occurred at the time of or immediately before or after the conduct element of the substantive offence.
5. In any case involving multiple offenders, consider first whether there is evidence that each offender, by his behaviour in committing the conduct element of the substantive offence, associated himself with the demonstration of hostility proved (in which case all will be liable for the aggravating feature). If there is no such evidence, can it be shown that the individual offender was himself responsible for the demonstration of hostility relied upon.
The following evidence will be necessary:
1. Evidence of the utterance, doing or showing of any indication of hostility towards the victim. The evidence should be as particular as possible as to the terms of the indication of hostility.
2. The victim (or one of them) belongs to a particular racial or religious group or there is evidence that the offender presumed that he or she did so at the time of the offence (whether or not that was in fact correct).
3. Alternatively and/or additionally, evidence that the offender either knew or presumed that the victim belonged to a racial or religious group.
4. Evidence that the hostility referred to in (1) was based on the actual, known or presumed membership of a race or religion.
5. Evidence that the demonstration of hostility relied upon was more or less contemporaneous with the conduct element of the offence, or that it can immediately be related to it in time.
In addition, evidence of some malevolence towards the victim based on his or her actual or presumed race or religion, although not necessary, will be useful. This need not necessarily be contemporaneous to the substantive offence.
It should be noted that mere evidence of the commission of the substantive offence against a victim who identifies with a race or religion will not suffice. That is not to say that it is irrelevant: evidence of the commission of an assault offence or one that involves the use or threat of violence may well be good evidence of the relevant hostility being present or demonstrated. Typically however there will be another explanation for the commission of the offence and so further evidence of a specific, express demonstration of hostility based on presumed or actual race or religion will be required.”
None of her quotes equate to hostility or meets the requirements of your law to be tried as such. You got one quote and a lot of work in proving anything other than you are full of bs. Though I have several quotes that could get YOU tried under your law.
LikeLike
Solitaire
Abagond (Abagond, just for example) is NOT “reprinting” posts – once again you people are attempting to argue on the basis of an absolutely false analogy.
The posts on this blog normally appear AUTOMATICALLY (and are therefore transmitted/published automatically in jurisdictions all across the world) UNLESS there is some kind of INTERVENTION (e.g. by Abagond) to prevent this.
If a newspaper DOES include a comments section on its website but then, without adequate justification, persistently excludes comments of a particular kind (or excludes particular individual contributors) it is therefore guilty of using its ownership of the relevant website in a manner which attacks/undermines freedom of expression.
And you say “They “may moderate the comment section and edit, delete, or refuse to post online any comment that violates their policies.”
What if those policies are themselves illegal? And what if they arbitrarily (or in a discriminatory way) refuse to reproduce (or persistently “fail” to reproduce) material that in fact DOES NOT “violate their [supposed, or as stated] policies?”
LikeLike
sharinalr
“None of her quotes equate to hostility.”
No, possibly none of her quotes “equates to hostility” (whatever exactly “equates to” is supposed to mean) – but SEVERAL of her comments CERTAINLY DO express/manifest/display hostility on the basis of my SUPPOSED membership of a specific (in the terms of the Act) racial group.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“The posts on this blog normally appear AUTOMATICALLY (and are therefore transmitted/published automatically in jurisdictions all across the world) UNLESS there is some kind of INTERVENTION (e.g. by Abagond) to prevent this.”
They only appear automatically if Abagond allows it. From the same WordPress article linked to above:
WordPress does not require automatic posting of comments, and if Abagond chose to do so, he could block all comments whatsoever. I’ve read a number of other blogs where comments are permanently disabled because the blogger doesn’t want to deal with the headache and is under no requirement to do so.
“If a newspaper DOES include a comments section on its website but then, without adequate justification, persistently excludes comments of a particular kind (or excludes particular individual contributors) it is therefore guilty of using its ownership of the relevant website in a manner which attacks/undermines freedom of expression.”
Under what law? This argument will not hold up if you’re basing it on the First Amendment, which only applies to the government, not to privately held and privately owned newspapers.
“What if those policies are themselves illegal?”
Under what law would those policies be illegal?
“And what if they arbitrarily (or in a discriminatory way) refuse to reproduce (or persistently “fail” to reproduce) material that in fact DOES NOT “violate their [supposed, or as stated] policies?””
Then if you so choose, you can waste your time and money in court trying to prove it, but the entity most likely will have followed standard boilerplate to cover all the legal bases. Again, the First Amendment does not apply to private entities, or Fox News would not exist. Mother Jones would have to print conservative articles, Rush Limbaugh would have to give equal time to liberal opinions, Reason would have to print non-Libertarian articles, etc.
LikeLike
LikeLike
sharinalr
Your attempt at an “argument” is truly bizarre. “English” refers to what is (in the terms of the relevant act) “a racial group” and the word “oppressor” expresses hostility.
Moreover Solitaire’s reference to me as an “oppressor” is clearly made on the basis SOLELY of her PRESUMPTION that I am English,
LikeLike
Solitaire
If Abagond had chosen to “block all comments whatsoever” it would (VERY OBVIOUSLY!) be an entirely different matter.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“Under what law would those policies be illegal?”
Well – rather obviously – that would depend on what the policies ARE, lol.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“the word “oppressor” expresses hostility”
Nope.
Just stating fact. The English oppressed (and arguably are still oppressing) the Irish.
I don’t feel any hostility towards you, Daniel Jones. You just make me tired.
LikeLike
“Well – rather obviously – that would depend on what the policies ARE”
OK just for fun, how about a policy that says Abagond can delete any comment on this blog, just because he felt like it.
Show us applicable US law that would render that policy illegal.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“Under what law? This argument will not hold up if you’re basing it on the First Amendment, which only applies to the government, not to privately held and privately owned newspapers.”
I of course DIDN’T in what you quote claim that it happened to contravene ANY law.
Such conduct attacks/undermines freedom of expression REGARDLESS of what THE LAW (in any jurisdiction whatsoever) happens to say about such matters.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Yeah no.
“but SEVERAL of her comments CERTAINLY DO express/manifest/display hostility on the basis of my SUPPOSED membership of a specific (in the terms of the Act) racial group.”—No, she read you for your bs long before calling you an English oppressor. You would need to link that she has treated you as such because of a perceived or real idea that you were English and not on the basis that you are full of sh*t.
“Your attempt at an “argument” is truly bizarre.”—Not really. It was initially a joke, but you failed to get it and have been basically arguing it. Because you want to and not just get the joke then you need to show me how English Oppressor can be defined as a racial group. Not try to weasel out of it by separating English and oppressor. Now that you have made another bs claim you can also show me how saying oppressor is hostility.
“Moreover Solitaire’s reference to me as an “oppressor” is clearly made on the basis SOLELY of her PRESUMPTION that I am English,”–Is it, then why are you not taking legal action? I wager it is because the word does not because oppressor can be applied to any group other than English so…
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“Such conduct attacks/undermines freedom of expression REGARDLESS of what THE LAW (in any jurisdiction whatsoever) happens to say about such matters.”
In that case, the above is just your opinion. It is not law, nor a constitutional right, nor a fact, but an opinion.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“The English oppressed (and arguably are still oppressing) the Irish.”
ALL the English?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“SEVERAL of her comments CERTAINLY DO express/manifest/display hostility on the basis of my SUPPOSED membership of a specific (in the terms of the Act) racial group.””
I am myself part English in descent. We the English people have a long and horrid history of oppressing other populations. That is simply a fact.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“ALL the English?”
If you were an American, you would be the type that wants a pass on racism because your great-grandpappy never owned slaves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Daniel Jones
“Solitaire’s reference to me as an “oppressor” is clearly made on the basis SOLELY of her PRESUMPTION that I am English “
I also think you’re a racist and a sexist, so you can add “white oppressor” and “male oppressor” as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Solitaire
I find it odd (not really) that he is going crazy over English oppressor, but feels justified in his Americans are stupid and ALL black Americans are criminals implication. Based on his little law I think there is enough to bring UK charges. I am most certainly not above taking a screenshot and passing it along to the proper authorities.
LikeLike
Solitaire
I wrote:
“Such conduct attacks/undermines freedom of expression REGARDLESS of what THE LAW (in any jurisdiction whatsoever) happens to say about such matters.”
To which you replied:
“In that case, the above is just your opinion. It is not law, nor a constitutional right, nor a fact, but an opinion.”
On the contrary. It is an incontestable fact.
ALMOST ALL facts are (indeed) facts regardless of ANY such legal considerations.
The UK of course doesn’t have any equivalent of the Second Amendment. THAT VERY OBVIOUSLY DOESN’T mean that it is a matter of MERE OPINION whether, for example, closing down all the left-wing or liberal newspapers in Britain would thereby attack or undermine freedom of speech.
Indeed, YOU ONLY JUST NOW claimed that when you called me an “English oppressor” you were “just stating fact” EVEN THOUGH there is of course NO LAW stating that I am an English oppressor (or for that matter that the “English” people EVER “oppressed the Irish.”
It’s very evident that YOU, just like sharinalr, are completely incapable of anything even resembling consistent or coherent thought.
LikeLike
sharinalr
WHERE am I supposed to have said (or implied) that “ALL black Americans are criminals” . . . lol?
LikeLike
sharinalr
And WHATEVER makes you imagine that I am “going crazy over English oppressor” lol?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“I strongly suspect that it is on constitutional grounds illegal (in some jurisdictions at least) for Abagond to do so [i.e., to ban a person OR suppress comments without valid justification], and that it is ALSO unconstitutional (and therefore, of course, again illegal) for WordPress to confer on him the power to do so.”
It is not illegal in the United States. The federal constitution only addresses censorship and the suppression of freedom of speech by government.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“On the contrary. It is an incontestable fact.”
Prove it, then. Freedom of speech is in itself an idea, a relatively new idea, and one that is still not recognized in many nations.
“ALMOST ALL facts are (indeed) facts regardless of ANY such legal considerations.”
Define “fact” and then prove that your statement is a fact and not an opinion.
Then prove that it is an incontestable fact under the strictures you yourself laid out upthread:
““Incontestable proof” of ANYTHING hardly exists outside of the fields of mathematics and formal logic, EVEN IN THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES . . . as ANY scientist worth his or her salt will tell you, PROOF doesn’t exist in the sciences, EXCEPT, as I said, in the areas of maths and formal logic.”
So please provide the incontestable proof to back your statement.
“The UK of course doesn’t have any equivalent of the Second Amendment.”
True, but we weren’t discussing gun control, were we?
“THAT VERY OBVIOUSLY DOESN’T mean that it is a matter of MERE OPINION whether, for example, closing down all the left-wing or liberal newspapers in Britain would thereby attack or undermine freedom of speech.”
In this scenario, who would be the entity closing down all the left-wing or liberal papers in Britain?
LikeLike
sharinalr
It certainly ISN’T an offence to say “I remember Americans as being pretty stupid” . . . especially in circumstances where one is merely responding to gratuitous personal abuse directed at one by Americans.
Most people in Britain would say something FAR more brutal and FAR more forthright about Americans (especially in view of what transpired in the 2016 presidential election . . . lol).
LikeLike
“there is of course NO LAW stating that … the “English” people EVER “oppressed the Irish.””
Look at the denial. I guess the Irish gave up their ownership of their island on their own accord, banned their own language, denied themselves any participation in government, evicted themselves from their homes, and starved themselves.
LikeLike
@ Open Minded Observer
“OK just for fun, how about a policy that says Abagond can delete any comment on this blog, just because he felt like it.
“Show us applicable US law that would render that policy illegal.”
Excellent question. Notice that he’s avoiding it.
LikeLike
Solitaire
Where did I say there was “incontestable proof” of anything (other than propositions in mathematics or formal logic)?
LikeLike
I remember the English as being pretty oppressive.
Also condescending, rude, and not anywhere as smart as they liked to think.
If they found out you were an American, they would insult your intelligence and your knowledge base without any further inquiry. I very much enjoyed putting a few of them in their place when they assumed I knew nothing about a subject that happened to be my field of study.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“Where did I say there was “incontestable proof” of anything (other than propositions in mathematics or formal logic)?”
If you declare something to be an “incontestable fact,” then you should be able to provide proof. Otherwise, it’s contestable.
LikeLike
Solitaire
So – let’s get this absolutely clear – you ARE saying that ALL the English “oppressed (and arguably are still oppressing) the Irish.”?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Awww, you want an “I’m not an oppressor” pass. How cute.
LikeLike
Solitaire
So why are you unable to answer my question?
LikeLike
Solitaire
YOU were one who was in effect questioning whether the English ever oppressed the Irish, not I.
If you remember (TRY to remember . . . lol!) you wrote:
“In that case, the above is just your opinion. It is not law, nor a constitutional right, nor a fact, but an opinion.”
I am pointing out to you that if your “reasoning” there were valid then (since there is no LAW saying that the English oppressed the Irish) IT WOULD INEVITABLY FOLLOW (follow from what YOU YOURSELF had just said) that it could ONLY be a mere OPINION that “the English oppressed the Irish.”
You contradict yourself at EVERY turn.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Sigh.
I never said that a fact had to be a law or backed by a law.
There is such a thing as historical fact.
Are you really this dense?
You forgot that you had scoffed at my use of “incontestable,” didn’t you?
If you are going to set guidelines by which a word such as “incontestable” is only valid in very narrow circumstances, you ought to remember throughout the rest of the thread that you have done so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Solitaire
Once again I will remind of what you wrote:
“In that case, the above is just your opinion. It is not law, nor a constitutional right, nor a fact, but an opinion.”
In other words, if there is no law there is ONLY OPINION.
But you NOW want to start referring to HISTORICAL fact, something which according to what YOU YOURSELF had only just written (and which I have found it necessary to quote back to you twice now) didn’t EXIST.
To repeat, you contradict yourself at EVERY turn.
LikeLike
Solitaire
So why are you STILL unable to answer my question?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Do you remember telling Sharina: “OR [NOT ‘AND’]”?
The same concept applies to “nor.”
I wrote:
“It is not law, nor a constitutional right, nor a fact, but an opinion.”
To break it down for you:
It is not a law.
It is not a constitutional right.
It is not a fact.
It is an opinion.
Nowhere did I say that a fact cannot be a fact unless it is enshrined in a law.
Nowhere did I say that a law, a constitutional right, and a fact are all the same thing.
I was not making any generalized statement about “facts” and their nature. I was only talking about one specific statement of yours, which I believe is an opinion.
You are free to try to convince me that your statement is a fact rather than an opinion. But don’t LIE that I ever once said that if something is not a law, then it is not a fact.
LikeLike
Solitaire And are you saying that the English people you met suspected that Americans were stupid?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
You have no room to talk, with your incredibly low level of reading comprehension.
Half the time you’re spouting off nonsense because you failed to comprehend wording that a 10-year-old should be able to grasp.
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Barbara_(TV_series)
LikeLike
Solitaire
You say “don’t LIE that I ever once said that if something is not a law, then it is not a fact.”
No, you didn’t SAY it, but it was a premise in your “argument.”
It is what is known as a “suppressed premise”
LikeLike
A “suppressed premise” like police should be able to use deadly force against speeders because they are wielding a deadly weapon?
The problem with a suppressed premise is that, at least within this thread, they can be based on incorrect assumptions.
LikeLike
Daniel Jones
Here: https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-403982
And don’t has for it again. This will be your third time so far and more comments to drown it out won’t make it disappear. You already attempted to rationalize your racism, so don’t bother to try again as that was bs.
“And WHATEVER makes you imagine that I am “going crazy over English oppressor” lol?”—The fact that you were whining to abagond about it and trying to make it a legal issue after maybe about 50 comments past it. When asked for proof you provide one comment with no implication that it could apply to your law and since have made several posts about it. That is crazy.
“It certainly ISN’T an offence to say “I remember Americans as being pretty stupid”—You said more than just that, but by your laws it would apply as you have said enough in here to meet the required proof of your law.
“Most people in Britain would say something FAR more brutal and FAR more forthright about Americans”—So have I, but your law and apparently your present location of residence would make your repeated statements illegal. Sounds like English hypocrisy.
oh and you aren’t providing those sources?
LikeLike
don’t ask*
LikeLike
sharinalr Yes, what about that comment?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
You asked this did you not: WHERE am I supposed to have said (or implied) that “ALL black Americans are criminals” . . . lol?
I supplied what you asked for. If you can’t keep up with your bs then move on.
LikeLike
sharinalr
There is nothing there to that effect.
You are being very silly.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Oh there is plenty there, plus compiling other statements that have been quoted by you it indicates a pattern. You are in essence making a statement on the habits or behaviors of all black Americans. Not some or a little. You are being ignorant, but you knew that.
LikeLike
Per your legislation I just need to find where to present this evidence and then you can tussle it out in court. I mean why argue legalities if you won’t hold yourself to the same standard right?
LikeLike
sharinalr
You seem to be imagining that I have committed some offence. What offence exactly?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
If I am imagining an offense then so too is your UK legislation you were so proud to quote. Though it is very much true that YOU imagined an offense you claim solitaire committed and attempted to argue the legalities of it. Not knowing that you were the one who actually broke your laws. sighs You can play dumb, but I would rather see if submitted if your legal system will consider it as ‘imagined’. ROFL
LikeLike
sharinalr So then, it’s evident that you are unable to say what offence I have supposedly committed.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Are ypu really that stupid or did you really forget what offence the discussion is about? I doubt that.
LikeLike
sharinalr
“You are in essence making a statement on the habits or behaviors of all black Americans.”
Not in the least. There are very many black Americans whom I greatly admire.
LikeLike
Daniel Jones
Funby considering you said all. So nice lie.
LikeLike
sharinalr That discussion was primarily about the definition of the phrase “racially aggravated” in the expression “racially aggravated offence” – but of course it has to be established that there is prima facie evidence that SOME offence (e.g. assault or threatening behaviour) has been committed in order for that offence to then be treated as “racially aggravated.”
LikeLike
sharinalr
“Funby considering you said all. So nice lie.”
What?
LikeLike
sharinalr
Was “funby” meant to be “funny”? (I can’t be entirely sure).
LikeLike
Daniel Jones
Are you reiterating the point of the discussion for your benefit? Let me help you out. The discussion was NOT about the definition of “racially aggravated”offence. It was about you trying to guilt abagond into taking action against Solitaire by using said law as your reason. An issue you made legal though it was not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oddly ignoring that you had repeatedly broken your very law and left enough evidence for it to reasonably be established that you have hostility towards Americans, black americans, and speed drivers or drivers in general( though that may not be illegal per your law).
LikeLiked by 1 person
v8driver
May I ask, is there a reason (apart that is from the obvious) you adopted the name “v8driver”? Just curious.
LikeLike
sharinalr I’m NOT IN THE LEAST hostile to black Americans in general (only to a very few of them) . . . and the same goes for other Americans too.
LikeLike
LikeLike
sharinalr
And it wasn’t a matter of trying to “guilt” abagond into taking action against Solitaire etc. It was about objecting to abagond’s (in effect) censoring my comments over the supposed issue of (merely) using quotes around a tendentious username . . . while AT THE SAME TIME accepting and condoning racial harassment and abuse, and (more seriously still) accepting comments which condone illegal speeding.
LikeLike
Solitaire
Your point being?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“ I’m NOT IN THE LEAST hostile to black Americans in general (only to a very few of them) . . . and the same goes for other Americans too.”—Such a load of bs. Your comments say otherwise.
“ AT THE SAME TIME accepting and condoning racial harassment and abuse, and (more seriously still) accepting comments which condone illegal speeding.”—BS. There was no racial harassment or abuse to condone. And comments condoning illegal speeding? ROFL..so…not a legal issue. You pushed an “it’s illegal” issue to get him to remove solitaire’s comment or take some action. When asked for proof you had one comment calling you an English oppressor. One. He offered to delete said comment, but you didn’t agree because he would have to delete several of yours that consisted of racial abuse and name calling. Not to mention harassment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sharinalr
You last comment consists, naturally, of lie upon lie.
LikeLike
sharinalr
It contains nothing but lies and wilful distortions
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Do you even know what a lie is? I mean ypu speak them so frwewly I guess not. At any rate I have quoted you repeatedly so no lies here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
you* freely*
It is hard to distort direct quotes buddy, but I get the delusion you have that if you flood the thread with bs then no one will bother to go back and check. I don’t blame them as it is a lot of bs to wade through. But I havr no problem finding things to show how much of a lying pos you are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sharinalr
“There was no racial harassment or abuse to condone. And comments condoning illegal speeding? ROFL..so…not a legal issue. You pushed an “it’s illegal” issue to get him to remove solitaire’s comment or take some action. When asked for proof you had one comment calling you an English oppressor. One. He offered to delete said comment, but you didn’t agree because he would have to delete several of yours that consisted of racial abuse and name calling. Not to mention harassment.”
Lies and distortions.
LikeLike
All:
Still toing and froing with this whack job?
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Herneith
I’m playing debate tactic bingo. I just need “Playing Devil’s Advocate” and then I’ll it to “Last Man Standing”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
^ leave it to…
LikeLike
sharinalr
It’s “hard to distort direct quotes buddy”.
A “direct quote” from me (IF it a truthful and ACCURATE direct quote) very obviously ISN’T something YOU wrote. It’s something I wrote.
It is what YOU wrote which is made up of lies and distortions.
LikeLike
sharinalr
I earlier wrote:
“ I’m NOT IN THE LEAST hostile to black Americans in general (only to a very few of them) . . . and the same goes for other Americans too.”
about which you say:
“Such a load of bs. Your comments say otherwise.”
For example?
LikeLike
sharinalr
You ALSO wrote:
“Are ypu [sic] really that stupid or did you really forget what offence the discussion is about? I doubt that.”
This appears to have been your way of ducking out of answering my enquiry:
“You seem to be imagining that I have committed some offence. What offence exactly?”
So I’ll ask you again.
WHAT offence have I supposedly committed?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“Lies and distortions”—Oh really.
This is when you first mentioned racial aggressive abuse. https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-405030
The above comment followed your objection to abagond’s ‘censoring’. It was not before or with, but after. It was also after abagond being clear on why he deleted your comment for disrespect. When abagond asked you what racial aggressive abuse you pulled one comment of solitaires that said “The actual correct spelling is Ó Fearghail, but guess why it got changed, you English oppressor” and the remaining quotes were of YOU asking her about English oppressor. You pulled in a law, that even to this very moment does not support you.
Here is what abagond said to you click link to read full:
“But, if you wish, I will delete the offending comment – along with any of your name-calling comments others want deleted.”
You then tried to hammer in the racial aggressive abuse bs again and this is after you threatened to report his blog for failing to immediately respond to you as if he has no life as you appear to not have. As abagond said above, your whole offense is manufactured because your outrage is several posts following the comment by solitaire.
“direct quote” from me (IF it a truthful and ACCURATE direct quote) very obviously ISN’T something YOU wrote.”—Reading comprehension can go a long way for you. I wasn’t referring to direct quotes from me, but direct quotes as per these links and order indicate that the only lies and distortions told were from you.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
I already provided an example, but here it the link to the third time you asked so you can once again lie about that.
“This appears to have been your way of ducking out of answering my enquiry:”—No it isn’t as it has been the same offense for several posts now. You not knowing is a way for you to pretend ignorance. How do you pretend ignorance when you brought up the offense?
LikeLike
@Herneith
Bored so I figured why not.
LikeLike
@Open Minded Observer
He more than likely will be the last man standing as he will throw out anything to ensure it. He has already started the rehash old stuff again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sharinalr
As I pointed out to abagond, there is a crucial, fundamental difference between mere “name-calling” and racial harassment or racial abuse.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
And as abagond pointed out your bs is manufactured.
Racial harassment or abuse never occurred. It is what you made up as an excuse for your bs. It is an excuse you made up following 1 comment. You have nothing but a bunch of excuses for your lack of sources and p**s poor arguments. You are just a sorry AMF.
LikeLike
sharinalr
And abagond ostensibly wanted to impose a condition of deleting MY allegedly “name-calling” comments (which would obviously raise the question WHAT EXACTLY constitutes “name-calling”) but he evidently was NOT contemplating deletion of ALL THE OTHER name-calling comments on this page (OR, presumably, those on his OTHER pages either).
Which of course means that abagond was effectively proposing to FURTHER VICTIMISE a victim of racial abuse for the “crime” of having had the temerity to OBJECT to that racial abuse.
LikeLike
sharinalr
“And as abagond pointed out your bs is manufactured.”
WHERE did he say exactly that?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Blah Blah blah. You are screaming racial abuse over one comment that in fact is not racial abuse and comparing it to several of your post that are not only name calling, but some of which are legit racist. You are no victim. Just a man trying to get bad on p**s poor behavior.
“WHERE did he say exactly that?”–You know where he said it considering you quoted it here:https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-405446
Go find it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sharinalr What does the sentence to which you have once again referred supposedly SAY about “all black Americans”?
LikeLike
sharinalr
You mean THIS?!!
“But if you are NOT English, then your offence is manufactured.”
You apparently didn’t even read my reply to abagond, which said:
What nonsense!
How do you figure THAT?
It is in fact likely to make the offence given EVEN GREATER (and make the offence COMMITTED by the racial abuser EVEN MORE serious).
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Sharina
His outrage has been manufactured all along, way before I called him anything.
He said this to me very early on, back when he thought I wasn’t white:
“YOU need to wake up to the fact that YOU are the racist here.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Sharina
Also, he said that because I called him out on this racist comment of his:
“there are VERY FEW (if any) white males who would be STUPID ENOUGH to refuse to sign the citation when pulled, refuse to turn off their engine and then (insanely) drive off as soon as the policeman goes back to his vehicle.”
So you can add that one to your list.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“sharinalr What does the sentence to which you have once again referred supposedly SAY about “all black Americans”?”—It isn’t a supposedly now is it? You were quoted saying ALL with your usually caps, so it can’t be missed or mistaken for anyone else. I am not going to repeatedly provide links and quotes for something you already are aware of and came up with the biggest load of bs excuse to hide it.
“You apparently didn’t even read my reply to abagond, which said”—I read your replay which was the actual nonsense
LikeLike
Solitaire
And WHAT is (supposedly) racist about that?
LikeLike
@Solitaire
And of all the quotes and links presented he repeatedly pretends like he is not the REAL RACIST here.
LikeLike
sharinalr
And WHAT is supposed to be racist about the comment to which YOU refer? You of course don’t say.
LikeLike
Solitaire/sharinalr
You both have a track record of persistently distorting, misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting my comments. So it is incumbent on you to actually STATE ( what is supposedly racist in these comments.
LikeLike
sharinalrSolitaire
You both have a track record of persistently distorting, misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting my comments. So it is incumbent on you to actually STATE what is supposedly racist in these comments
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“And of all the quotes and links presented he repeatedly pretends like he is not the REAL RACIST here.”
Right, and then he demands that we explain to him why his statement is racist, but no matter how simply and painstakingly he’s spoonfed, he refuses to see it or own up to it, introduces ridiculous reasons to excuse himself, and then (as he is doing now) pretends that it hasn’t already been explained to him and demands we start all over again explaining the same thing.
Just watch, once he is last man standing, he will claim that makes him 100% correct instead of admitting everyone else got fed up with wasting their time on an arrogant blockhead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Solitaire
He is either being wilfully obtuse or a troll. I do not see any other reasonable possibility.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Solitaire
You quote “there are VERY FEW (if any) white males who would be STUPID ENOUGH to refuse to sign the citation when pulled, refuse to turn off their engine and then (insanely) drive off as soon as the policeman goes back to his vehicle.”
It however says NOTHING to the effect that white males are IN GENERAL less likely than black males, or black females (or white females for that matter, and so on) to refuse to sign a citation and then drive off as soon as the cop goes back to his car.
LikeLike
abagond
Well. perhaps then YOU can say what is supposedly racist about my quoted comments . . . since both sharinalr and Solitaire seem to be incapable of doing so.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“And WHAT is supposed to be racist about the comment to which YOU refer? You of course don’t say.”—I did say, but of course you want to pretend like you didn’t see it and this is brand new.
“You both have a track record of persistently distorting, misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting my comments. So it is incumbent on you to actually STATE ( what is supposedly racist in these comments.”—Nope. We both have a track record of repeatedly quoting and linking to your very comments and detailing why it is what it is. YOU on the other hand have lying, amnesia, misinformation, and fake racial outrage while being racist.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Agreed. I think he is very much aware of what he is doing. Notice the change from aggressive name calling to naive victim.
LikeLike
abagond
Perhaps you believe you can make something out of the fact that I referred specifically to “white males”?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“And abagond ostensibly wanted to impose a condition of deleting MY allegedly “name-calling” comments”
He’s actually been very lenient with you. As per the comment policy, he had grounds to delete almost every single comment you’ve made on this thread, unconditionally:
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“Notice the change from aggressive name calling to naive victim.”
Often in the same comment, no less.
LikeLike
sharinalr
I’m certainly not naive (nor do I pretend to be) but THAT of course doesn’t provide absolute protection against one’s being made a victim.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“And abagond ostensibly wanted to impose a condition of deleting MY allegedly “name-calling” comments”
“He’s actually been very lenient with you. As per the comment policy, he had grounds to delete almost every single comment you’ve made on this thread, unconditionally:
“I reserve the right to delete comments that are: …
• IN ALL CAPS,…
• way off topic,
• ad hominem attacks or name calling”
IF he were to apply those at all consistently he would have to delete a rather or very large number of your’s and sharinalr’s comments (and also, indeed, one or two of his own lol!).
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
I don’t believe you to be naive either, but I do fully believe you are good at pretending to be. ROFL. Okay you aren’t good at pretending either.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Yet I have no problem with him deleting my comment if he needs to. shrugs
LikeLike
Solitaire
What do you (or, for that matter, abagond) mean by “ad hominem attacks”?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
There was a full discussion on that upthread as well. Again with the rinse and repeat.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“Yet I have no problem with him deleting my comment if he needs to.”
Absolutely true. I’ve seen him delete 30+ of your comments in one go and you didn’t even kick.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This was, I believe, the first instance of name calling in the current exchange, begun by Daniel Jones:
“You are an idiot.”
Although he did also insult Oriana Farrell and her children in his very first comment:
““at the idiotic woman OR at any of her idiot children”*
LikeLike
Maybe it’s too bad “idiot” is no longer a moderated word. So many of his initial comments would have been thrown to mod that maybe he would have gotten discouraged early and gone away.
LikeLike
@solitaire
Could never remember even close to how many it was, but I sure know it has been a lot over the years. LOL
If moderated he would have screamed victim-hood and censorship even more.
LikeLike
I referred to michaeljonbarker as “an idiot
in reply to his comment to me, which was:
“@Daniel
Those two lane desert roads are 55 mph speed traps. I drive 90 all the time but I got a radar detector.
The police are violence.
She ran because she was afraid for her children.”
In reply to THAT “you are an idiot” is an admirably judicious and restrained comment.
LikeLike
Solitaire/abagond
And the continued presence of such a comment shows that abagond is in effect condoning extremely dangerous illegal behaviour.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“condoning extremely dangerous illegal behaviour.”—Yeah whatever.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
This was from your second comment, so right away you are making invidious comparisons of people’s intelligence by sex and race. Others managed to blame Farrell’s stupidity without making blanket statements that imply White men have more intelligence Black women. Maybe that is not how you meant it, but that is how most people are going to take it.
In context, the comment is more sexist than racist. You did not have to drag Farrell’s sex into it at all to make your point, but you did it anyway. Which means that either you are a troll trying to lay it on thick or you actually believe women are stupider than men.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“I referred to michaeljonbarker as “an idiot[“]
in reply to his comment to me”
But he didn’t call you a name in his comnent, did he?
If your argument is strong enough, you shouldn’t need to call anyone an idiot or any other ugly name to make your point.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Re: Farrell’s stupidity
I do not think it was a matter of stupidity but of fear, of her panicking. And, as it turns out, her fears were rational in this case. She was right to get back into town first. White men have way less reason to fear the police, as amply documented on this blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Solitaire
In fact I’m VERY glad that you reminded me of that comment, which, as one would at least hope, is a clear violation of the WordPress terms of use. If carrying such a comment is NOT deemed to be a violation of those terms of use then WordPress ITSELF needs to be investigated . . . as a matter of urgency.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
An ad hominem argument is where you make it about the other person rather than trying to show what is wrong with their argument.
Examples:
LikeLike
Re: ALL CAPS
It is all right to use ALL CAPS for EMPHASIS of a particular word or phrase.
IT IS NOT ALL RIGHT TO USE ALL CAPS NON-STOP FOR NO APPARENT REASON.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Solitaire
He brags “I drive 90 all the time but I got a radar detector” and yet simultaneously has the brass neck to say “the police are violence” . . . and in response to that you want to make an issue of my simply calling him an idiot?
That’s utterly laughable (or would be, except that it very definitely ISN’T funny . . . IT ISN’T FUNNY AT ALL).
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Damn. He’s USING them SO MUCH that IT GIVES ME a FREAKING MIGRAINE.
But thanks for clarifying.
LikeLike
Solitaire/abagond
Well, that tears it.
From now on I intend to pursue these issues very seriously.
LikeLike
Solitaire/abagond
michaeljonbarker could well go out and kill an entire family tonight . . . but YOU are concerned with restricting the use of block capitals.
LikeLike
Re: WordPress terms of service.
Their main restriction on commenting is that I cannot allow calls for violence. I do not remember anything about racism or hate speech.
The First Amendment applies to the government. It would be unconstitutional for them to shut down me or WordPress simply because they did not like something we said.
As far as WordPress or this blog goes, it is more like a magazine or a newspaper: it is the owner or editor who makes the decisions about what appears. If you send a letter to the New York Times they do not HAVE to print it.
There are two main models of comment moderation, at least in my corner of the blogosphere: the free speech model and the safe space model. For a blog that deals with racism there are good arguments for both.
I follow the free speech model. I err on the side of letting people have their say so long as they are civil. I do not have to. I could decide, with good reason, to kick off everyone who is racist or seems racist. But I believe racists are best dealt with by open challenge, not by shutting them up or kicking them off.
The best way to think of commenting is as a dinner party at my house: if you get too abusive or unruly, then I have every right to throw you out.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
You seem to choose a strange strategy for being accepted here (of course if that is your intent — but I don’t know actually what your intent is, maybe you want to remain in the memory of the visitors as the most disgusting person they’ve read, but, again, I don’t know much for their perception, either. However judging by their comments you haven’t got a model fiendly welcome here).
And, as Abagond has dutifully pointed it out, this is h.i.s. blog, so he’s in his right to post anything on [counter]racism, politics, black-and-white modelling, etc.
Basically, you have två options, that is, either go on with your improvised cruisade against the windmills of your mind and doing a hell of a job — with no guarantee for further success and, should it be a success, being remembered by many a person as a complete jerk, or accept the fact that there are things you cannot control and live with such an experience a relatively happy-go-lucky life (without visiting this blog or tread too ofta).
LikeLike
@Daniel
From now on I intend to pursue these issues very seriously.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and previous precedent will make that a difficult and likely unsatisfactory battle for you.
LikeLike
“maybe you want to remain in the memory of the visitors as the most disgusting person they’ve read”
I wasn’t around for commenters like xprae and no_slappz, but from what I understand, if this is Daniel Jones’s ultimate goal, he’s got a long, long way to go.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Let us not forget da jokah, churchs, Riverside Rob, and so many more. Most ended up banned and Riverside Rob left after claiming to not be racist, but ultimately went full racist after not being accepted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Sharina
Thank you for the reminder. I missed them except for the tail end of Riverside Rob, but their names live on in infamy…
Actually now that I think about it, the necrophilia comment that should have gotten LOM banned was way more disgusting than anything said here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
abagond
Why do you suppose that in that quoted comment of mine I referred to the category “white males”?
LikeLike
abagond
I asked you:
Why do you suppose that in that quoted comment of mine I referred to the category “white males”?
You don’t reply.
I’m not surprised that you fail to reply, because the real answer is an obvious one, and presumably it embarrasses you.
The answer is that I was simply replying to the comment from afrofem which went:
“The problem was armed thugs with badges. Farrell wasn’t harming anyone, yet she was treated worse than the latest crop of toxic White male mass shooters.”
Note that it is afrofem, not I, who introduced the category of white males (via “White male mass shooters”) into the discussion.
AND it is ALSO afrofem (and NOT I) who introduced GENDER as an issue in that discussion with her:
“She was harassed because she was driving while Black——and female.”
So it is evident that you give a distorted account of the meaning and intention of my remark by ripping it out of context (and I suspect that you do so knowingly, knowingly and wilfully).
It is a standard, notorious and cheap little debating trick, and of course others in your little faction of slanderers do it as well, most notably sharinalr.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Would it be right to sum up your statement that any kind of [negative] discrimination starts with listing another person within a certain category, without respect to interdependence of personal qualities and current circumstances of interaction?
LikeLike
And did you REALLY write this?
“The best way to think of commenting is as a dinner party at my house: if you get too abusive or unruly, then I have every right to throw you out.”
ROFL!!!!!
(Now, I have never used “rofl” before, but it’s virtually impossible to avoid using it HERE . . . I was in “stitches” and LITERALLY rolling in the floor laughing when I read your pronouncement, and it has had much the SAME effect whenever I was reminded of it).
YOU may move in circles where people tend to own houses and indulge in the pretentious little petty-bourgeois ritual of the “dinner party.”
However, most of us DO NOT. As I emphasised in one of my earlier comments, most of the urban and/or industrial world’s people DON’T live in houses.
They live in small flats or rented rooms. A large proportion of my friends and colleagues live merely in a small room (usually a VERY small room) in an HMO (“house in multiple occupation”).
Your blog, and the comments of your pseudo-progressive petty-bourgeois little allies on it (such as Solitaire), absolutely REEK of petty-bourgeois material and social privilege.
And your masquerading as some kind of representative of the world’s (or the USA’s) deprived and oppressed is at one and the same time both extremely comical and thoroughly obscene.
“The best way to think of commenting is as a dinner party at my house . . . ”
Amazing, ABSOLUTELY amazing.
LikeLike
A Russian Nagpo I’m not sure I fully understood your question, but it seems to me that negative discrimination can begin in any one of a large number of ways, not necessarily always with the categorization of any particular individual. But, as I say, I may have misunderstood your question.
LikeLike
Daniel Jones
Abagond
And did you REALLY write this?
“The best way to think of commenting is as a dinner party at my house: if you get too abusive or unruly, then I have every right to throw you out.”
ROFL!!!!!
(Now, I have never used “rofl” before, but it’s virtually impossible to avoid using it HERE . . . I was in “stitches” and LITERALLY rolling on the floor laughing when I read your pronouncement, and it has had much the SAME effect whenever I was reminded of it).
YOU may move in circles where people tend to own houses and indulge in the pretentious little petty-bourgeois ritual of the “dinner party.”
However, most of us DO NOT. As I emphasised in one of my earlier comments, most of the urban and/or industrial world’s people DON’T live in houses.
They live in small flats or rented rooms. A large proportion of my friends and colleagues live merely in a small room (usually a VERY small room) in an HMO (“house in multiple occupation”).
Your blog, and the comments of your pseudo-progressive petty-bourgeois little allies on it (such as Solitaire), absolutely REEK of petty-bourgeois material and social privilege.
And your masquerading as some kind of representative of the world’s (or the USA’s) deprived and oppressed is at one and the same time both extremely comical and thoroughly obscene.
“The best way to think of commenting is as a dinner party at my house . . . ”
Amazing, ABSOLUTELY amazing.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Who said that a person not experiencing negative social discrimination cannot be an object of a racial discrimination at the same time? You can be both well and negatively discriminated within a same society, like a boycotted businessman in Elisabethian England.
(I wouldn’t determine Solitaire as an ‘ally’, she is more like a typical ‘white saviour’ stereotype with an intention to preach and prophetise within the crazy stereotypes of her milieu, but, again, my impression is based on what I’ve seen on this blog).
If you are into this not for a justice or a similar/better cause then I don’t see your point.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Again…How do you distort meanings and intentions when you were quoted in full? Not sections of your quotes, but the whole quote. A majority of which was basic name calling and ad hominems. In response to those quote you either deflect, ask “what of it”,smply try to clean it up by arguing you have black friends, or worse yet flat out lie about it. ALL means everyone not some. Do you or do you not know the definition of ALL?
LikeLike
There was no tactic. Just your own words that you typed and submitted here to be seen. Maybe you need to reevaluate yourself.
LikeLike
abagond
“The best way to think of commenting is as [at (presumably)] a dinner party at my house . . . ”
Oops, WHAT a giveaway! ROFL x5!
LikeLike
A Russian Nagpo
“Who said that a person not experiencing negative social discrimination cannot be an object of a racial discrimination at the same time?”
I don’t think I said that. I wouldn’t have thought that negative social discrimination and racial discrimination overlap to a very great extent.
LikeLike
Daniel Jones
A Russian Nagpo
CORRECTION!
“Who said that a person not experiencing negative social discrimination cannot be an object of a racial discrimination at the same time?”
I don’t think I said that. I WOULD have thought that negative social discrimination and racial discrimination overlap to a very great extent.
LikeLike
A Russian Nagpo
Again:
“Who said that a person not experiencing negative social discrimination cannot be an object of a racial discrimination at the same time?”
I don’t think I said that. I would have thought that negative social discrimination and racial discrimination overlap to a very great extent.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“your pseudo-progressive petty-bourgeois little allies on it (such as Solitaire), absolutely REEK of petty-bourgeois material and social privilege.”
OMG, that is hysterical!! If you only knew…
“They live in small flats or rented rooms. A large proportion of my friends and colleagues live merely in a small room (usually a VERY small room) in an HMO (“house in multiple occupation”).”
It is quite possible to have a dinner party in those living circumstances. I’ve been to and hosted plenty of dinner parties where everyody sat on the floor of a small room.
Now, perhaps that isn’t what you would call a dinner party. You apparently feel it is necessary “to own houses” in order to “indulge in the pretentious little petty-bourgeois ritual,” which leads me to guess that for you it is not a dinner party without a long table and crystal stemware and old silver cutlery and everyone wearing evening dress. I’ve seen those in movies….
“And your masquerading as some kind of representative of the world’s (or the USA’s) deprived and oppressed is at one and the same time both extremely comical and thoroughly obscene.”
LikeLike
@Danie Jones
ok
LikeLike
Correction: everybody, not everody
LikeLike
Solitaire
You and I clearly have VERY different ideas of what constitutes a “small” room, rofl (“rofl” yet again, lol).
And if what I envisioned was “a dinner party with a long table and crystal stemware [whatever the hell THAT is, lol] and old silver cutlery and everyone wearing evening dress” I would probably be referring to bourgeois, rather than petty-bourgeois, affection.
LikeLike
Solitaire
I’ve been a guest at quite a few informal evening parties over the years (both here AND in the USA) and people have been known to eat at them – but I’ve never heard one referred to as a “dinner party” lol.
LikeLike
Solitaire
And we humble plebs over here in Britain of course don’t in any case refer to the evening meal as “dinner” . . . amongst us mere working folk “dinner” refers to the MIDDAY meal (which is why school meals are referred to as “school dinners”).
So an evening gathering of ANY kind, no matter how lavish or pretentious, would never be referred to as a “dinner party” lol.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“You and I clearly have VERY different ideas of what constitutes a “small” room, rofl (“rofl” yet again, lol).”
Depends on how many people you invite and how comfortable they are in close quarters. Do you consider 8 ft x 8 ft a large room?
“crystal stemware [whatever the hell THAT is, lol]”
Google it, blockhead.
“And if what I envisioned was “a dinner party with a long table and crystal stemware [whatever the hell THAT is, lol] and old silver cutlery and everyone wearing evening dress” I would probably be referring to bourgeois, rather than petty-bourgeois, affection.”
Perhaps, then, you could describe what exactly you envision as a petit-bourgeois dinner party?
LikeLike
Solitaire
For “affection”.read “affectation” lol.
LikeLike
Solitaire
And please ignore the stray full stop . . . sorry, the stray period rather.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“And we humble plebs over here in Britain of course don’t in any case refer to the evening meal as “dinner” . . . amongst us mere working folk “dinner” refers to the MIDDAY meal (which is why school meals are referred to as “school dinners”).”
The nomenclature has nothing to do with class on this side of the pond. “Supper” has generally fallen out of use, although it was hanging on in the South last I knew. I grew up saying it, and perhaps one of the Southerners here will be kind enough to let me know if “supper” is still in common use there, and if “dinner” still means the midday meal.
You can try to cast it as “plebes” and “working class” all you want, but here the difference is regional.
So then what is your term for the U.S. “dinner party”?
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“but I’ve never heard one referred to as a “dinner party” lol.”
Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you? But you don’t live here, do you? So your experience was limited.
By the way, upthread you claimed that you taught when you were in the U.S. Is that what you consider a working class, plebian occupation? Lifting that heavy chalk and eraser all day?
LikeLike
@Solitaire
My grandmother still uses “supper” to indicate the evening meal and “dinner” for a mid day meal. This is really only among older heads and I do not hear it often among younger generations.
LikeLike
Solitaire
8×8 is quite spacious compared with a good few of the rooms I’ve known (including a couple in the US), and in any case I think it would be quite difficult to hold much of a “dinner party” in an 8×8 which contained the entire worldly possessions of two adult people.
Also, see:
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/nov/06/government-proposes-minimum-bedroom-size-for-rental-properties
LikeLike
Solitaire
“This is really only among older heads and I do not hear it often among younger generations.”
In the US perhaps, where middle-class (strike that – petty-bourgeois) affectation appears to have made more headway than over here in the UK (I sometimes forget that “middle class” has a rather different meaning in the US than in Britain).
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Thanks, I was wondering if the use was dying out there, too.
I’ve mostly switched to the mainstream usage but my parents, even after living over 50 years in the Midwest, still say breakfast, dinner, supper.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“I sometimes forget that “middle class” has a rather different meaning in the US than in Britain”
¿How woul you describe the difference between these two?
LikeLike
Solitaire
“Google it, blockhead.”
I don’t have EVEN that much interest in what it is, and I’m certain I won’t EVER be using any lol.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
Please, tell us all about your working-class labor in the schoolroom and how your daily toil among the books and chalkboard keeps you free of any petit-bourgeois affectations.
LikeLike
Solitaire
Teachers (IF that is what you in fact mean) are INDEED workers. and most of them are entirely free of such affectations.
LikeLike
A Russian Nagpo
Again – good question.
In Britain people say that what they in the US mean by “middle class” is “anyone who actually has a job” lol.
In the US car assembly workers are (at least sometimes) described as middle class. In Britain a blue-collar worker of that type (even some kind of supervisor or foreman) would NEVER be described as middle class.
LikeLike
Solitaire
And often it is teachers who form the backbone of ant-racist organizations.
LikeLike
Solitaire
The backbone of anti-racist organizations, lol.
LikeLike
For those of you who may have had visions of swarms of racist ants backed by teachers.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
“Teachers (IF that is what you in fact mean) are INDEED workers.”
Anyone who works is a worker, including people whose work has made them very rich. Oprah Winfrey is a worker. Bill Gates is a worker.
“Working-class” means something different altogether. So does “plebeian.”
“and most of them are entirely free of such affectations.”
Mmm, all the schoolteachers and professors there are anti-racist progressive Marxists living in tiny bedsits, are they? Not a one who lives in a house, upholds the monarchy, practices subtle discrimination against students of color or of lower-class origins, that sort of thing?
What exactly was it about Abagond’s use of the phrase “dinner party” that you thought was so damning? I’m still not clear what that signifies to you in petit-bourgeois terms.
LikeLike
holy crap, troll award is duly awarded!
Don’t feed trolls people. time is valuable.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Bill Gates is a worker.”
ROFL yet again!
IS he indeed?
According to what criteria?
LikeLike
Daniel Jones
Solitaire
“Bill Gates is a worker.”
ROFL yet again!
IS he indeed?
According to what criteria?
LikeLike
re. son
Don’t, people, encourage trolls who unjustifiably accuse others of being trolls.
LikeLike
Solitaire
And WHAT, pray, is Oprah Winfrey?
Is that a person of some description?
(And no, I really can’t be bothered to “Google it” . . . lol).
LikeLike
Daniel Jones
I am confused. If you are seeking legal action then why are you here? To prove you are harassing the very blogger you claim committed a wrong against you although no such offense exists. You sound like a bitter drunk telling us your woe story.
LikeLike
sharinalr
“You sound like a bitter drunk.”
Another example of projection.
LikeLike
sharinalr
And yes, you ARE confused, lol.
LikeLike
“And WHAT, pray, is Oprah Winfrey?”
It boggles my mind to consider the degree of disconnectedness it would take, for someone in currently in London who also lived in the US, to ask this question.
“And no, I really can’t be bothered to “Google it””
That’s it… OWN that willful ignorance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Daniel Jones
In case you have been in a coma for the past 30 years or living outside the electrified parts of the English-speaking world:
LikeLike
You gentlemen have an unhealthily US-centric view of the world, lol.
LikeLike
Daniel Jones
Well seeing as I have yet to project I find it hard that you would claim another one. I mean a projection would require an inability on my part to presebt proof of your very acts right?
As to being confused, sure but it is safe to say you are confused as well. It is down right odd for YOU to claim to be taking serious action, but repeatedly commenting and crying nonsense which is common in bitter drunks. You seem to truly have believed that threats were going to get you your way.
LikeLike
And what would “living in London” have to do with the matter? Is the aforementioned Winfrey some famous London street character lol?
The paper-seller outside Charing Cross Station perhaps?
LikeLike
Nope, but she could likely buy ypu and have you play the street character. You put up a good act here so…
LikeLike
The florist at Waterloo Station perhaps?
No, I remember now, THAT was Buster Edwards, the famous Great Train Robber (as played in the film “Buster” by good old Phil Collins).
LikeLike
sharinalr
ypu to you too, lol
LikeLike
sharinalr
Or is it “ypu to ypu too “?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
I would tell you, but why bother. It is obvious the lack of brain cells keeps you from gathering it yourself. However, how does it feel to know you reached drunk stalker level?
LikeLike
sharinalr
“Nope, but she could likely buy ypu . . . ” lol.
Is ypu very expensive then, rofl?
LikeLike
sharinalr
Is that John Stalker the famous detective?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
So your name is John Stalker? Is he drunk like you? Being a detective I gather he would have better deductive reasoning. Maybe you can solve crimes to deal with your bitter episodes.
LikeLike
sharinalr
I of course would NEVER be inclined to stalk ANYTHING whatever, and ESPECIALLY not ypu lol.
LikeLike
First mystery is where is that brain of yours?
LikeLike
sharinalr
All right . . . enough already! I’m fed up with ypu.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“ESPECIALLY not ypu lol.”–I didn’t imply stalking me. Granted based on your habits it is possible, but you are stalking a blog you claim committed some racial offense and you were taking serious action right? You seem to say one thing and do another.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“All right . . . enough already! I’m fed up with ypu.”–You should be fed up with your behavior. Want better…Do better dude.
LikeLike
sharinalr
Well, I certainly DO prefer bitter to vodka, lol.
LikeLike
sharinalr
You REALLY SHOULD look back over YOUR OWN comments.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
And here I thought you were gone to actually live your life. sign
“bitter to vodka, lol.”—Apparently you don’t. You are all over the place with no real direction.
“You REALLY SHOULD look back over YOUR OWN comments.”—Actually you should read them and I mean read them and engage in reading comprehension. For some odd reason you never seemed to connect. Always a day late and a dollar short. I’m sure you get that often.
LikeLike
sharinalr
Your “reading comprehension” remark is simply YET ANOTHER glaring example of projection on your part.
I have never encountered ANYONE on the internet with such hopeless “reading comprehension” as that which YOU have consistently displayed by your own absolutely abysmal performance.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“example of projection on your part.”–Sorry, but this remark is just an example of you using words that you don’t know the meaning to. Solitaire pointed out several instances where you thought something said something or meant something it did not. In fact, you recently made a comment indicating your lack of said reading comprehension.
“I have never encountered ANYONE on the internet with such hopeless “reading comprehension” as that which YOU have consistently displayed by your own absolutely abysmal performance.”–Of course not. You met someone with no level of reading comprehension which is yourself. In fact I could ask you right now for an example of my supposed lack of reading comprehension and you will present an example that will ultimately show your own lack of. However, want an example of your handy work?
LikeLike
abagond
“In case you have been in a coma for the past 30 years or living outside the electrified parts of the English-speaking world . . . ”
Again the conceit. Again the arrogance.
I’m afraid to say the above is just another demonstration of US-centric cultural (I repeat) arrogance (and one is tempted to refer as well here to US-centred cultural imperialism and cultural chauvinism).
Believe it or not, very many British people don’t know who “Oprah Winfrey” is. I’ve in fact been asking around. Some people say “the name sounds familiar.” Most have “never heard of him!” lol!
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
For someone who is only known in the US then please explain this..
https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/august-cover-vogue-2018
I mean why would a nobody be chose for the UK vogue cover?
LikeLike
chosen*
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
The sentien being known here as sharinaIr made a sign — to be read as @a sigh*, I presume 🙂
Looks like you’ve got an aché from a Grey grigory 🙂 [chuckling]
LikeLike
shatinalr
What proportion of the British people do you imagine ever buy “Vogue” or even read it, or ever EVEN look at its cover?
And most of the very few people who look at the cover STILL wouldn’t be able to tell you the name of the person on the cover (unless the cover photo was of, say, Naomi Campbell or Kate Moss).
LikeLike
sharinalr
And where did I say that Winfrey is a “nobody”? That is just another of your implicit lies
LikeLike
sharinalr
Current circulation of “British Vogue” is apparently roughly 220,000 . . . within a population of over 66 million people.
LikeLike
@A Russian Nagpo
Lame as ever. Still crying I see. 🙂
LikeLike
sharinalr
Which, just to work it out for you, means rather less than ONE copy per every 300 of the population . . . lol!!
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
It isn’t a matter of who buys it or reads it now is it? It is a matter of you claiming that even knowing of her is a US-centric view. When obviously it is not and she is known in UK. I could have chosen the article on her interviews following her movie shown in the UK as well.
“That is just another of your implicit lies”—No, dear you are the only liar. While I never said you did say it…..You clearly implied it by calling her a street character and a him. Want those quotes.
“Current circulation of “British Vogue” is apparently roughly 220,000 . . . within a population of over 66 million people.”—Source.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“Which, just to work it out for you, means rather less than ONE copy per every 300 of the population . . . lol!!”—You would sadly be working it out for yourself because A I don’t believe you and when you get caught in lies or look stupid you always want to attempt to prove yourself smart. Could be worse. You could be A russian nagpo living in a fairy-tale or religious delusion, sexism, and confusion between whether he wants to engage in female tendencies while trying to showboat how masculine he isn’t.
LikeLike
sharinalr
“You would sadly be working it out for yourself because A I don’t believe you”.
Which part of what I said regarding “Vogue” don’t you believe?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Not really hard to grasp here Danny boy. Exercise that reading comprehension you keep failing to use.
LikeLike
sharinalr
Do you mean the circulation figures?
If you DO mean the figure I quoted then, as Solitaire would say “Google it” (except that SHE apparently likes to say “Google it blockhead” but I of course don’t go in much for that kind of vulgar name-calling).
Just search on the terms “Vogue circulation British” rofl.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Yeah, but I asked you for a source blockhead seeing as it was your claim. Though I wager a source will reveal more than you are willing to tell.
LikeLike
sharinalr
The Google results pages list a number of sources. WHAT is your problem?
If you are for some very strange reason unable to select from the results provided by the Google search, try:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogue_(British_magazine)
LikeLike
sharinalr
“Though I wager a source will reveal more than you are willing to tell.”
How much will you wager?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
But it isn’t my claim so why should I be looking for it for you. Now that you have provided a source to support your claim. Do you understand that circulation refers to monthly magazines and not or the whole year?
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Further on your source. Circulation is how many copies are made per month not how often said magazine circulates among people. Critical thinking lesson here.
LikeLike
sharinalr
Yes, of course – the figures refer to the circulation for an edition.
And gosh, yes, people HAVE been known to pass a copy around.
Not to about 300 people per copy though, rofl!
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Not just pass around. Businesses often keep copied which are read by individuals waiting to be seen. You really have no idea how much traffic a magazine gets or has gotten from that alone. 300 clients or more in a hospital waiting area is reasonable.
None the less you made a false play of how it was US-centric for Oprah to be known and it shows she is quite known to even be put in British vogue and even more so to be doing interviews and appearances in the UK.
LikeLike
sharinalr
Yes, and do a survey of people who have browsed through a magazine in a hospital waiting area EVEN AS THEY LEAVE THAT AREA, ask them who featured on the cover and very few will be able to tell you.
A week later about one in 50 (if THAT many) will be able to tell you. (And that’s true EVEN WHERE the person featured on the cover is a person who REALLY IS famous in Britain (e.g. Kate Moss).
She is “quite known” – yes, WHO said that she isn’t? The reserve goalkeeper of a failing Second Division football team is ALSO “quite known” rofl.
LikeLike
Daniel Jones
You do the survey since that is your new claim. Fact is you are assuming and appear to be quite wrong if vogue saw her as important enough that they could make money with her on the cover.
“yes, WHO said that she isn’t”– You implied it several times. Would you lile quotes and links?
LikeLike
sharinalr
So – “implied” (allegedly) and not SAID.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Implied does not mean allegedly. It means “suggested but not directly expressed”
You stated: And WHAT, pray, is Oprah Winfrey?”
Abagond provided a source in which you followed with calling her a him, street character, made a claim that abagond and open minded observer had an unhealthily US-centric view of the world, and asked “Is the aforementioned Winfrey some famous London street character lol?”
You further implied this by arguing the 220,000 circulation to indicated that not many people know about her. That actually could be viewed as a more direct indication that you are implying she is not well known. You continued this by asking for a survey of people in UK to show they would not recognize her.
LikeLike
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/implied
Now allegedly would be this idea that you taught school, but if you did it is a shame for the students you taught because you don’t appear to have a basic understanding of anything you present.
LikeLike
sharinalr
No, it’s that YOU are apparently incapable of understanding what you read.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Oh I understand what you are saying. Your issue is you got caught in another lie and you want to make it appear as if there is some lack of understanding or confusion on everybody part but yours. I offered to quote you, but you don’t want those quotes. You want to lie and lie some more. I just quoted you and you already came up with a lie.
LikeLike
sharinalr
And you are ALSO incapable of expressing yourself intelligibly. As with “Now allegedly would be this idea that you taught school . . . ” What is THAT supposed to mean?,
LikeLike
sharinalr
Where am I supposed to have LIED? You keep on saying this but you have never come up with one concrete example.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
” you are ALSO incapable of expressing yourself intelligibly.”—I expressed myself perfectly fine unless you want to whine about typos. If so then go ahead and whine, but none of that changes the fact that you boldfaced lied again and do so each post.
“What is THAT supposed to mean?,”—Throw in some commons and it is clear as day. Regardless you don’t grasp common sense, dictionary meanings, reading comprehension, or context. Who would hire you to teach kids with a lack of ability to understand the basics. It is pitiful and I would laugh if it wasn’t so sad. You sit in here and want to call other stupid and all other crap but can’t even figure out simple stuff without being spoonfed.
LikeLike
comas* not common
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
I gave you several examples and recently supplied on in the comments you replay to. The issue is you change the subject once seen or lie that they are not there. Those are your quoted words behind YOU STATED. I asked if you wanted more quotes on posts above and you proceeded to ignore it, even though I provided some anyway.
LikeLike
sharinalr “Abagond provided a source in which you followed with calling her a him, street character, made a claim that abagond and open minded observer had an unhealthily US-centric view of the world, and asked “Is the aforementioned Winfrey some famous London street character lol?”
The above quote is almost a model of drunken, incoherent English (if it IS to be regarded as English at all).
And WHERE did I “call her a him”? DO say.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
Not only is the statement coherent English and indicate no drunkness on my part, but it has the amazing ability of highlighting the fact that you sir are probably retarded and thus incapable of being anyone’s teacher. Or it could just be your drunken eyes made it impossible for you to read, comprehend, or do any of the things you seem consistently incapable of doing. Shrugs
Anyway here is your quote liar.
“Believe it or not, very many British people don’t know who “Oprah Winfrey” is. I’ve in fact been asking around. Some people say “the name sounds familiar.” Most have “never heard of him!” lol!”
Now before you try to argue some bs to get out of this, it was already well established that abagond is a man so i would not have been talking about him.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
So when I named two famous Americans, you knew who Bill Gates was but claim to have never even heard of Oprah Winfrey?
In other words, you admitted familiarity with the highly accomplished white man, but you chose the highly accomplished black woman to deprecate and belittle?
You seem to really enjoy criticizing and making fun of black women.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
By the way, Kate Moss and Naomi Campbell are both British — and both far less internationally famous than Oprah Winfrey — yet I know who they are.
They are just models, known only for their looks, whereas Oprah got where she did on her brains, personality, and business acumen.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Even before the “him” quote, Daniel Jones implied that Oprah Winfrey might not be human:
“And WHAT, pray, is Oprah Winfrey?
“Is that a person of some description?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Solitaire
WHAT I implied was that I had no idea who (or what) the words “Oprah Winfrey” referred to, suspecting (and of course, RIGHTLY suspecting . . . as the reaction AMPLY proved) that YOU (and some others, including of course most notably abagond) arrogantly presume that if someone happens to be a big name on US television then OF COURSE EVERY person in Britain, and not just Britain but in ANY ONE of (to use abagond’s phrase) “the electrified parts of the English-speaking world . . . ” MUST OF COURSE know WHO the words “Oprah Winfrey” referred to and WHAT said Oprah Winfrey is famous for..
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
There have been multiple articles about Oprah Winfrey in The Guardian just in the last year. (Presumably in other U.K. media as well but that’s the only one I bothered looking up.)
She is one of the most famous people in the world.
And yet you expect me to know who Kate Moss is — a brainless drug-addicted fashion model. Isn’t that U.K.-centric of you, lol?
LikeLike
Solitaire
“You seem to really enjoy criticizing and making fun of black women.”
What I criticize and make fun of is, to repeat, people who arrogantly presume that if someone happens to be a big name on US television then OF COURSE EVERY person in Britain, and not just Britain but in ANY ONE of (to use abagond’s phrase) “the electrified parts of the English-speaking world . . . ” must OF COURSE automatically know WHO the “big name” refers to and ALSO WHAT the person bearing that “big name” is famous for.
LikeLike
Solitaire
I absolutely love your apparent assumption that everyone in Britain (and, by abagond’s implication, everyone in any one of “the electrified parts of the English-speaking world) of course (and inevitably) reads “the Guardian.”
LikeLike
Solitaire
“And yet you expect me to know who Kate Moss is — a brainless drug-addicted fashion model. Isn’t that U.K.-centric of you, lol?”
I of course (and as I think you are perfectly well aware, or certainly SHOULD be) referred to Moss and Campbell in the context of a discussion (introduced by sharinalr) of people who have been featured on the cover of “Vogue” (and people who avidly read THAT publication are VERY likely to know who those two chaps are) AND MOREOVER (the more important point) IF someone had wondered who THEY were I WOULDN’T have reacted wit,h any comment resembling abagond’s offensive (but, at the same time, quite hilarious) comment “In case you have been in a coma for the past 30 years or living outside the electrified parts of the English-speaking world . . . [etc]”
I ALSO object to your DEFAMATORY description of Kate as “a brainless drug-addicted fashion model.”
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
I think you just wanted to make fun of Oprah Winfrey’s name.
No, of course I don’t assume everyone in the U.K. reads it, or I wouldn’t have said what I did about not looking up other periodicals. But you didn’t like Sharina’s example of Vogue, so I provided another.
Why don’t you tell me what periodicals you do read (or if none, what news and/or current events programs you watch on television or listen to on the radio) and then we’ll see how often they have had coverage on Oprah Winfrey.
And all of this bluster is to distract from the fact that you never have described what a petit-bourgeois dinner party entails, in your opinion.
Which itself is just a distraction from the fact that someone does not need to have ever hosted a dinner party or even attended a dinner party in order to use the term “dinner party” as a metaphor for an event at which conversation is the main focus (as opposed to dancing, getting drunk, etc.).
When Abagond said that his model for this blog is a dinner party, all that implies is a small gathering of people come together to converse, to share ideas, to discuss topics of interest.
And your feigned outrage over his use of “dinner party” is itself just another distraction from your failure to prove that the First Amendment applies to Abagond’s blog.
And that is just a distraction from your failure to provide any proof or reputable sources backing your claims that there are U.S. states whose legal systems are closer to that of England than that of other U.S. states and that there are any U.S. states in which much of the law depends on precedent and judicial decisions rather than state legislation.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“And yet you expect me to know who Kate Moss is — a brainless drug-addicted fashion model. Isn’t that U.K.-centric of you, lol?”
I of course (and as I think you are perfectly well aware, or certainly SHOULD be aware) referred to Moss and Campbell in the context of a discussion (introduced by sharinalr) of people who have been featured on the cover of “Vogue” (and those who avidly read THAT publication are VERY likely to know who those two chaps are) . . . AND MOREOVER (the more important point) IF someone had wondered who THEY were I WOULDN’T have reacted with anything resembling abagond’s offensive (but, at the same time, quite hilarious) comment “In case you have been in a coma for the past 30 years or living outside the electrified parts of the English-speaking world . . . [etc]”
I ALSO object to your DEFAMATORY description of Kate as “a brainless drug-addicted fashion model.”
And I would, again, stress DEFAMATORY.
LikeLike
Solitaire
Citing, in this context, the fact that there have been some articles in the “Guardian” is (of course) ridiculous, although not QUITE as ridiculous as citing the example of “Vogue” lol. What proportion of the British population do you imagine reads the dear old “Guardian” lol?
That reminds me, they (the “Guardian”) actually owe me what (by my standards at least) is a considerable sum of money.
LikeLike
@ Daniel Jones
I didn’t take you for a Daily Mail reader, but as it appears to have the largest circulation of any newspaper in the U.K., then it would be pertinent to note that the Daily Mail has far more coverage of Oprah Winfrey than does The Guardian.
One might even say that the Daily Mail’s coverage is excessive, fixating on such minor details as the dress which Oprah Winfrey wore to Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding, at which Oprah Winfrey was an invited guest.
Still, this kerfuffle remains a mere distraction from the many claims that you have so far put forth without the ability to prove them. You move the thread further and further off topic to hide your ignorance and lack of logic.
LikeLike
Solitaire
Not that it matters greatly here, but the UK daily papers with the largest circulation are in fact (1) “The Sun” and (2) “The Metro.”
The Sunday newspaper with the largest circulation is, very regrettably, “The Sun on Sunday.”
LikeLike
Solitaire
And WHAT, pray, is “Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding”?
It sounds like a rather bad TV sitcom series.
LikeLike
@Daniel Jones
“introduced by sharinalr”—False. I presented the link of Oprah as an example that she is well known. You deflected and make it the complete subject of discussion.
“WHAT I implied was that I had no idea who (or what) the words “Oprah Winfrey” referred to, suspecting (and of course, RIGHTLY suspecting . . . as the reaction AMPLY proved) that YOU”—Learn the definition of implied. You explicitly made it clear that you did not know her, but later tried to argue that people in the UK didn’t really know her either. Between Vogue and the guardian and countless interviews in the UK, she’s is well known and your claims were yet again BS.
You mean this sun? https://www.thesun.co.uk/who/oprah-winfrey/
You mean this metro? https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/19/oprah-winfrey-pretty-much-royalty-attends-royal-wedding-amazing-hat-7559232/
You mean you got caught in another lie?
LikeLiked by 1 person
OFF TOPIC: Oprah Winfrey
LikeLiked by 1 person
I deleted several comments which had nothing but insults. This thread is spiralling down to an ugly place.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Deleted some more comments…
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Daniel Jones
You are banned.
I think it has become clear to everyone, especially with the Oprah Winfrey discussion, that you are not arguing in good faith, that you are nothing but a troll.
Goodbye.
LikeLiked by 3 people
https://m.facebook.com/V8Driver/posts/10217121043566779
LikeLike
xx
In fact DeTavis tells Montoya (while the chase is in progress) that there is no gun.
LikeLike
abagond
Have you noticed the above observation?
LikeLike
@ Jenkins
What I heard during the chase was the police saying she did have a gun.
LikeLike
Oh no, not again.
LikeLike
I mean, there are people killing and dying, there are undercover wars between intelligence services with four superpowers at the world gameboard, there is a climate change, the world transition, hte political terms changing their meanins, there are issues of literal and virtual lives and deaths, and, last but not least, there’s the Hispanic Heritage, and this woman wasn’t even killed.
LikeLike
@Jenkins
Montoya has said in reports, “I heard Officer DeTavis or Officer [Anthony] Luna mention something about a gun.” Montoya wrote that when the vehicle started driving away
This is likely a made up story to make it seem as his actions were necessary. He may in fact have initially said no gun and changed it to what he thought another said.
LikeLike
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/state-officer-in-minivan-shooting-is-fired/article_af9e0340-a681-5d59-af2d-03996ec954c7.html
LikeLike
Jenkins
“Montoya wrote that when the vehicle started driving away”?
LikeLike
sharinalr
“Montoya wrote that when the vehicle started driving away”?
LikeLike
sharinalr
You may well be right in saying that the reference to a gun was made up after the event.
LikeLike
abagond
There is nothing in the video to support the notion that DeTavis at any stage suggested that there was a firearm in the minivan.
Immediately after Luna arrives and just before DeTavis starts hammering at the van window Luna asks whether the boy has a gun and DeTavis says very clearly “no” . . .
LikeLike
The stupidity and entitlement in the comments is amazing. How can you not see the wrong in this “mother”?? You must be stupid not to!
LikeLike
Oriana Farrell Is a human turd
LikeLike
@Oblivion:
You’re just mad because you can’t date her! Sod off!
@dingwall:
Oriana Farrell Is a human turd
What does that make you? a sh*t stain?
LikeLiked by 2 people
abagond
You write “Why the police used unnecessary force, endangering her, her children and the public, over a $126 speeding ticket, is because she had a Phantom Negro Weapon.”
You seem to be determined to stand every aspect of this saga on its head. It is Farrell herself, and not the police, who was endangering not only her own person and the lives of her five children, but also innumerable members of the general public, by her idiotic, reckless driving. She was already doing precisely that, even before she was initially stopped by the police .That is clearly why she was stopped, not because she was “driving while black.” It was she, not the police, who manufactured a huge melodrama and created a very dangerous as well as entirely avoidable and unnecessary crisis “over a $126 speeding ticket.”
And it is evident that the police did not stop her, or pursue her, because of any notion of some “Phantom Negro Weapon.”
LikeLike
It’s Pathetic! Whitewashing this “due to Driving While Black”!!! She could dispute the speeding citation in Court! Driving is a Privelege, one that you acknowledge when you apply and receive your drivers license! When you sign to receive your drivers license, there is a paragraph essentially stating, when you are receiving a traffic citation, you AGREE!!! To SIGN THE CITATION!!! The Officer even stayed OUTLOUD “This is NOT an admission of Guilt” you simply agree to either pay the fine (he told her how she could do this) or Appear Before a Judge at a Future given date!!! If you want to see the Judge immediately, then you are taken into Custody. Simple!!! She would NOT COMPLY! Failing to sign the citation is Legal Grounds for your Arrest!!!!!
Obviously she has trouble understanding English, because the Officer elucidated everything Very Clearly, and REPEATEDLY!
He clearly told her to stay there when she sped off the first time! On the second stop, he had a right to place her in handcuffs (lawfully detaining her)!Having Children in her vehicle, as a MOTHER, should have instinctively compelled her to calm down and NOT ESCALATE this further!!! She RESISTED being Handcuffed!!! She CHOSE TO DRIVE OFF!!!
It is Rediculous, that because she is Black, she is using “Driving While Black” as her excuse for being pulled over! Hey dummy, go to COURT!!!!! Argue it there, not with your Brain Washed, Indoctrinated Kids in the Car!!! That young man is Lucky the Officer only pulled out a Taser! The Officer has NO Way of knowing if he had or didn’t have a weapon, of was going to assault him! It’s not like he’s a 5 year old! This woman is using her Race as an excuse for HER ACTIONS!!! Hey Dummy, even Obama’s very own DOJ stated that, a WHITE MAN has nearly a 3:1 GREATER CHANCE Alf being shot and Killed by Police! But you have been Brain Washed by the Media and the DNC, into thinking you are exclusively being zeroed on!? I have a question for you, an inconvenient TRUTH!? People say that Blacks are disproportionately arrested and in Jail. Why is it that the 11% of our POPULATION, COMMITs OVER 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA??!!!!! Not my stat, but from Obama’s very own DOJ. Of Course the Media does NOT report that Fact, because it does NOT fit the Narrative they promote and the one they use to Brainwash YOU! My son, A WHITE Man, has a greater chance of being shot than YOU!!! THATS A FACT! It’s very easy, whether you agree with the reason or NOT, FOLLOW ALL COMMAND GIVEN TO YOU BY A POLICE OFFICER!!!!!!!! ALWAYS!!! You can argue the arrest, apprehension, detainment Later, While your still alive and unscaved!
LikeLike
sock PUPPET?
LikeLike
People really do see what they want to. The officer who fired at the car was an idiot, only second to the woman herself. It’s rarely simply a good versus bad situation. The trigger happy cop was in the wrong. The entitled mother was in the wrong. Both people nearly got her kids killed, him with a gun, her with driving off in the 1st place and later causing a high speed chase which endangered everyone involved, and anyone who happened to be sharing the roads with her at the time.
LikeLike
Urbie green
two things:
Your son is more likely to get shot based on? I mean stats actually show that to be false, because they state repeatedly that minorities are disproportionately targets. Most blogs will try to argue the whataboutisms to excuse it. Also there are more whites so that explains a lot.
Racial profiling, racist systems, etc. exist. So of course it would appear as if they make up 50% (not the over you claim). FYI blacks are about 13% of the population not 11%
I mean I could go on, but I see you thrive on misinformation so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most of what I see here are crybaby racists who believe a black person can behave any damn way they please. You all disgust me. She deserved everything she got and WAY more.
LikeLike
THIs is NOT A BLACK thing! I’m black myself. This is a idiot mother, period. All she had to do was sign that “125.00 ticket” instead of not complying. Yes they should’ve have fired at the van but none of it would’ve happened if not for the idiot mothers actions. She put herself and kids in that situation. If she’s so scared of cops & was thinking of other cop shootings she would’ve signed the ticket. She gave a cop risking his life daily no respect & was teaching her kids to do the same. She was the problem in this instance!
LikeLike
@ Open-Minded Observer
See, what did I tell you about the Artificial Intelligence overlords? All of a sudden this thread has come back to life! Coincidence? I think not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Abagond
Are you no longer responding to comments?
LikeLike
Tim
I agree with much of your comment, although not with all of what you say about Elias Montoya (the cop who fired at the van’s rear tire). No doubt there are reasons for condemning what he did, but it is exaggerating to say that “he nearly got the children killed.” There was next to zero chance that the shots he fired could have caused death or injury to the children or to their mother. Whereas by contrast what the mother did after (for the second time) driving away might very easily have killed herself and the children, or some of the police, or multiple absolutely innocent members of the general public. If Montoya had in fact succeeded in disabling the car (which admittedly was not very likely) by firing at the rear tire as he did this might in fact have saved the children’s lives (or that of Farrell, or indeed any number of other people). This would have been far more likely than that any of the shots he fired could have ricocheted off the road and then penetrated the van killing or harming any of the van’s occupants.
LikeLike
@Abagond
Are you no longer responding to comments?
LikeLike
Abagond (and others)
Browsing through the comments what most amazes me here is the frequency of absurd attempts to deny that a motor vehicle is a lethal/deadly weapon..
LikeLike
Abagond
Your writing “What I heard during the chase was the police saying she did have a gun” serves (since in fact none of the police said that) to very strongly indicate that you (i.e. you Abagond) tend to hear what you, for entirely tendentious reasons, want to hear.
LikeLike
Abagond and others
It is remarkable how many lines of discussion can be generated by a single incident, as is evident in so many of the comments above..
It is also remarkable how much of what has been written above cries out to be challenged but has unfortunately not been challenged, or at the very least has not been effectively challenged.
LikeLike
There appears to be a rather unpleasant little camarilla operating in this forum (if “forum” is to be accepted as the correct term for it) the members of which seek to condone dangerous speeding and, for example (and as I noted above), absurdly try to deny that a motor vehicle is a lethal/deadly weapon.
LikeLike
@ Jenkins
I do not condone speeding but shooting at a car full of kids is madness. It is even more dangerous. The police are supposed to keep the public safe but too often they become themselves a threat to public safety.
LikeLike
Abagond
Ah, so you are, after all, still around. I already addressed the question of how dangerous or otherwise Montoya’s three 9mm pistol shots were. Certainly far less dangerous than Farrell’s insane high-speed drive through busy traffic. That drive demonstrates conclusively that it was necessary to disable Farrell’s vehicle if at all possible, and in fact, paradoxically, very much more necessary because there were children in the van than if Farrell had been alone..
LikeLike
When I say “if at all possible” I of course mean “if at all possible without increasing the level of risk to the children (or to members of the public) above the level represented by Farrell’s driving off unimpeded.”
LikeLike
However, I have to say that I do not understand why, when Montoya arrived, he did not, as he came to a stop, swing his vehicle in front of the van, thereby blocking it in or at least making it more difficult for Farrell to drive off. That would certainly have been preferable to firing at one of the van’s tires, if only because it would have been far more effective.
LikeLike
@ Jenkins
Shooting guns at cars looks cool in Hollywood movies – pew! pew! – but it is batshit crazy in real life. (Same with shooting two guns at the same time.) For one thing, it caused her to panic which led to her high-speed drive through town – causing the very thing they were supposedly trying to prevent. She was not the point of failure, the police were.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Abagond
Is Jenkins a sock puppet for Daniel Jones, who was banned?
Not only does he sound a lot like him, and first showed up four days after Daniel Jones was banned, and demonstrates the same tenacity, but he made the same idiosyncratic mistake that Daniel Jones kept making of addressing himself instead of the commenter he was replying to:
Compare to this (among others):
There has been speculation upthread (from 2018 & 2019) that Jenkins is a sock puppet. I’ve assumed this is why hardly anyone has been responding to him. It certainly is my reason.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Solitaire
Jenkins and Daniel Jones use the same British telephone company but never the same IP address. So nothing solid.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Ah, I see. Time will tell.
What happened to my comment, anyway? I’d given up on it. Was it stuck in the spam filter?
LikeLike
@ Solitaire
Yes, it got filtered.
LikeLike
abagond
It certainly isn’t what caused her to panic. What caused her to panic (unsurprisingly) was the cops smashing the passenger-side window. And in panic she started driving away.
Also, I don’t think anyone was trying to use two guns. Your comparison with such nonsense in the movies is plainly irrelevant. Shooting out tires can be thoroughly effective. Be that as it may, Montoya should, as I pointed out, have swung his cruiser in front Farrell’s van. Two police vehicles arriving (as they did) almost simultaneously could very easily have been immediately positioned in such a way as to block the van in. Certainly that would have been a far more reliable way of preventing Farrell from driving away than would (and, as of course we have seen, did) Montoya’s somewhat optimistic firing at the tires.
LikeLike
abagond
In my last comment the fourth sentence of the second paragraph should read “Be that as it may, Montoya should, as I pointed out, have swung his cruiser in front of Farrell’s van.”
LikeLike
At the point where Farrell drove away for the second time hardly anyone involved was behaving rationally. Montoya’s shots have, as one would expect, attracted the most comment both here and elsewhere, and that has unsurprisingly distracted attention from what the other two police were doing. However, it seems to me that in fact what the others were doing, and in particular what DeTavis was doing, was far less defensible than what Montoya did. DeTavis had evidently got angry (unduly angry) at the young man who had briefly (very briefly indeed) confronted him (and in technical terms “assaulted” him) and was therefore intent on getting the lad out of the vehicle and arresting him. However, from a protection of the public standpoint, and also of course as regards the safety and welfare of Farrell’s children, what was immediately required was that Farrell should be prevented from driving away a second time. What DeTavis was doing in smashing the offside window did nothing to prevent that, but instead, as we have seen, brought it about (with what might have been fatal results).
LikeLike
@Jenkins
By legal definition it is not a deadly weapon unless it was intended to be used as one and I gather if you read and understand the basis of those comments you would know that. All your comments do is attempt to bait and rehash an old argument that was refuted. You want attention…get a pet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@sharinalr
It is nowadays generally/universally acknowledged that a motor vehicle is a lethal/deadly weapon. I’ve lost count of the number of times I have heard police officers on radio or TV (or in conversation with myself) start any discussion of motor vehicles by stressing that “a motor vehicle is a deadly weapon” (often with “one always has to remember that a motor vehicle is a deadly weapon”).
LikeLike
@sharinalr
Perhaps I should comment that I don’t think I fully understand the part of your contribution which follows “By legal definition it is not a deadly weapon unless it was intended to be used as one.” For example, I am not sure what the words “I gather” are doing there. What is it you gather? Also i am puzzled by the sentence “All your comments do is attempt to bait and rehash an old argument that was refuted.” Can one bait an argument? In any case I need to ask what argument you are referring to (and, I suppose, where it was refuted).
LikeLike
@sharinalr
I should add that I have a “pet” (if by “pet” you mean what more enlightened people than you appear to be refer to as a “companion animal”). His name is Grover.
He had a brother called Terence, but Terence was killed . . . by a speeding car (like so many millions of other precious, innocent creatures).
LikeLike
@ Jenkins
If it was universally acknowledged then the law would reflect just that. As such the law was quoted above and it refutes that stance. It is as such on the basis of intent. Radio and Tv are not a source for facts and any officer telling you that is false.
You brought up what argument this discussion centers on so you can stop at the attempt at being coy. Sources were Additionally provided so it was as such refuted. He say she say never refutes a claim. Of course you can bait an argument.
As to your last comment, If you had paid attention to your pet then he wouldn’t have been hit by a speeding driver. Sure if you want to believe that one is more enlightened by calling a pet “companion animal.”
LikeLike
@ Jenkins
Terence’s death was entirely preventable by not allowing him to roam freely outdoors. Pets shouldn’t go outside except on a leash, for their own safety. Cats, ferrets, and rabbits can all be trained to harness and leash. I have done it myself with cats.
For Grover’s sake, I hope you learned your lesson and are being more responsible with him.
Why are you trying to stir up an argument from two years ago on a thread almost seven years old? What is the cause of your single-minded fascination with this thread?
LikeLike
@ Abagond
This is the same dude. I know you have to do your due diligence and all, but this is so him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Solitaire
Oh yeah. It is most certainly is. He talked himself into exposure.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“Pets shouldn’t go outside except on a leash, for their own safety.” Are you serious?
LikeLike
@sharinalr
I’m not entirely sure what the words “as such” are intended to mean in your:
“As such the law was quoted above and it refutes that stance. It is as such on the basis of intent.”
I would be grateful if you would clarify the above two occurrences of “as such.”
Thank you.
LikeLike
@Jenkins
Nope. Clarifying won’t change the basis of what was said. 🤷🏾♀️
LikeLike
@sharinalr
A request for clarification isn’t a request for “the basis of what was said” to be changed. It’s a request for something that was said to be made clearer.
LikeLike
@Jenkins
🤦🏾♀️ Duh! Clarifying “as such” won’t change that I said what I said. Get it now?
Do you have anything of value to add to this thread?
Are you going to address that legally there is no support for your claim that “It is nowadays generally/universally acknowledged that a motor vehicle is a lethal/deadly weapon”?
should I spell some words wrong so you can focus on that?
LikeLike
@sharinalr
Why are you unable to clarify those occurrences of “as such”?
I have to say that it makes it difficult to avoid the suspicion that you don’t know what you meant by them yourself.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
OK, if you are determined to dig your heels in forget “as such.” It is probably more important to ask what you mean by “legally” in “that legally there is no support for . . . “ Legally as opposed to what? The law doesn’t in general have any say in what words mean, other than as regards the meaning (in relevant legal proceedings) of words or phrases which occur in the corresponding statute or statutes, and which words or phrases have entirely specialised meanings which apply only within the proceedings brought under that statute or those statutes.
LikeLike
@ Jenkins
Not able to or not wanting to? Google is free and accessible.
I don’t care what you suspect. I know that when people focus on mundane things they usually have nothing to counter with. You could have removed as such and it still would have been the same thing. 🥴
A quick google search of the definition of deadly weapon will 9 times out of ten come from a legal site. The definition will include intent. Leave it to people anything can be a deadly weapon if there is no real clarification for what makes one. If you kill a person with a weapon you have to go to court. If said weapon does not meet that legal definition you can cry deadly weapon all day and it won’t make it one.
Now I fully believe all this was clarified up thread as well. So really what are you seeking that you could not read in previous comments?
LikeLike
@sharinalr
“Not able to or not wanting to?” To what is that supposed to refer?
As for “mundane things” here we go again. “Mundane” as opposed to what? As opposed to exciting? As opposed to unworldly/spiritual?
LikeLike
@sharinalr
“If you kill a person with a weapon you have to go to court.”
Well, obviously not, if for example you kill yourself first (as very many killers do) or if you are killed by the police, or someone other than a police officer (as many killers are) or for that matter if you die first of natural causes, or in an accident (as happens surprisingly often). Nor of course if your crime goes undiscovered (as also happens often). Nor also, of course, if your crime is discovered but you are not identified as the killer (as of course also happens often, very often). Nor if you kill someone with a weapon but the relevant authorities decide (without the matter going to court) that you have not committed an offence (for example because you are deemed to have acted in self-defence or in defence of another person or persons).
LikeLiked by 1 person
@sharinalr
“If said weapon does not meet that legal definition you can cry deadly weapon all day and it won’t make it one.”
What “legal definition”?
And you have already stated in your initial description of the case that the person was killed with a weapon.
Also, in what circumstances (as you envisage this) would an accused person be “crying deadly weapon”?
LikeLike
@sharinalr
To repeat, you have already stated (in your initial description of the case) that the person was killed with “a weapon”.
LikeLike
@Jenkins
“what is that supposed to refer?”- scroll back.
“As for “mundane things” here we go again.”- Nope here you go again. Google is still free and accessible.
Funny because in all your examples, while not going to court, they still go through a legal system. Which in turns require a legal definition be applied. 🤦🏾♀️🤷🏾♀️
“What “legal definition?” -Are we not talking about deadly weapon? Oh okay then scroll up. Or use google.
“And you have already stated in your initial description of the case that the person was killed with a weapon.”- An example not the basis of the discussion. Many more examples will be used. I will label or not next time. I gather your follow up comments don’t understand an example. The case lol
“Also, in what circumstances (as you envisage this) would an accused person be “crying deadly weapon”–The situation where people lavel things as deadly weapons as opinion believing it has basis for everyone.
LikeLike
@Jenkins or daniel
You have one more comment before I ignore as it is clear you are attempting to rehash a debate up thread that many have provided clarity and information (including me). I have no desire for rounds of non-constructive bs.
If you want to discuss the depths of how deadly weapon is applied and what falls in per se and how each states vary etc. as it applies to a vehicle. Happy to. If you want to reinforce your opinion. ✌🏾
LikeLike
@sharinalr
Such a wealth of confusion and misunderstanding to reply to!
You wrote this:
“What “legal definition?” – Are we not talking about deadly weapon? Oh okay then scroll up. Or use google.”
Well, I had used the phrases “lethal weapon” and “deadly weapon” in connection with automobiles (and with motor vehicles in general).
You in attempted rebuttal of what I had written (i.e. what I had written to the effect that a motor vehicle is a “lethal weapon” or “deadly weapon”) cites a putative situation in which one person kills another “with a weapon” and ends up in court because of this.
You didn’t specify what exactly the charge or charges against the putative killer would be in the example you were then envisaging.
If, however, you clarified this we could then examine the wording of the relevant statute or statutes.
So far we haven’t even established whether the phrase “deadly weapon” in fact occurs in the relevant statute or statutes.
Of course there is the associated question (which arose earlier and on which you have already expressed an opinion) whether a judge might allow (in court proceedings) the use of “deadly weapon” or “lethal weapon” in an everyday sense of those phrases rather than in a technical legal sense specified in a statute or statutes.
I am personally of the opinion that a judge might very well allow such a use, and that there would be nothing improper in their doing so, unless the phrase in question is to be found in the relevant statute or statutes (or, quite possibly, even if it is). I consider that a judge might even herself or himself use either of these phrases “deadly weapon” or “lethal weapon” in their everyday meaning during court proceedings.
I would welcome your observations on this.
LikeLike
You wrote this:
“What “legal definition?” – Are we not talking about deadly weapon? Oh okay then scroll up. Or use google.”
Well, I had used the phrases “lethal weapon” and “deadly weapon” in connection with automobiles and with motor vehicles in general.
You in attempted rebuttal of what I had written (to the effect that a motor vehicle is a lethal/deadly weapon) cites a putative situation in which someone kills somebody else “with a weapon” and ends up in court because of this.
You didn’t actually specify what the charge or charges against the killer would be in the example you envisaged. If you clarified this we could then</em examine the wording of the relevant statute or statutes.
So far we haven’t even established whether the phrase “deadly weapon” actually occurs in the relevant statute or statutes.
Of course, there is the associated question whether a judge might allow in court proceedings the use of “deadly weapon” or “lethal weapon” in an everyday sense of these phrases rather than in some technical legal sense specified in a statute or statutes.
It is my opinion that a judge might very well allow such a use, and that there would be nothing improper in their doing so, unless the phrase in question is to be found in the relevant statute or statutes. I consider that a judge might even himself or herself use either of the phrases “deadly weapon” or “lethal weapon” in their everyday meaning during court proceedings.
I would welcome your comments on the above.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
My apologies.
My last comment was (as you will probably have gathered) meant to be addressed to you.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
[I may get this right eventually, lol]
You wrote this:
“What “legal definition?” – Are we not talking about deadly weapon? Oh okay then scroll up. Or use google.”
Well, I had used the phrases “lethal weapon” and “deadly weapon” in connection with automobiles and with motor vehicles in general.
You in attempted rebuttal of what I had written (to the effect that a motor vehicle is a lethal/deadly weapon) cites a putative situation in which someone kills somebody else “with a weapon” and ends up in court because of this.
You didn’t actually specify what the charge or charges against the killer would be in the example you envisaged. If you clarified this we could then examine the wording of the relevant statute or statutes.
So far we haven’t even established whether the phrase “deadly weapon” actually occurs in the relevant statute or statutes.
Of course, there is the associated question whether a judge might allow in court proceedings the use of “deadly weapon” or “lethal weapon” in an everyday sense of these phrases rather than in some technical legal sense specified in a statute or statutes.
It is my opinion that a judge might very well allow such a use, and that there would be nothing improper in their doing so, unless the phrase in question is to be found in the relevant statute or statutes. I consider that a judge might even himself or herself use either of the phrases “deadly weapon” or “lethal weapon” in their everyday meaning during court proceedings.
I would welcome your comments on the above.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
For”cites” read “cited” . . . many thanks.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
Or rather . . .
For ”cites” read “cited” . . . many thanks.
[I think that’s it]
LikeLike
@Jenkins
“Well, I had used the phrases “lethal weapon” and “deadly weapon” in connection with automobiles and with motor vehicles in general.”—Duh. Which is why it made no sense for you to ask this question “What “legal definition?”
“You didn’t actually specify what the charge or charges against the killer would be in the example you envisaged.”—Because it was not necessary. You are only confusing yourself. The point of that example was simply to point out that just because you think someone should be a deadly weapon does not mean it will be considered as such if it does not meet legal definition. Your opinion does not count as such in court.
“So far we haven’t even established whether the phrase “deadly weapon” actually occurs in the relevant statute or statutes.”—No YOU haven’t established that because you have failed to do the research or bother to scroll back to the links posted in the last discussion about this. The very reason Daniel’s attempt was refuted was because he was debunked by statues from the very state the incident occurred in.
“Of course, there is the associated question whether a judge might allow in court proceedings the use of “deadly weapon” or “lethal weapon” in an everyday sense of these phrases rather than in some technical legal sense specified in a statute or statutes.”—Sure if the judge chooses not to uphold the law. The issue here is you believe an opinion (specifically yours) carries more weight than it does. It doesn’t matter if the judge uses the phase lethal or deadly weapon, what matters is what that definition says.
Now Daniel as I made clear. I am not interested in rehashing your past arguments. It was refuted. You need to scroll up to see why as this is my final comment.
LikeLike
More things that both Daniel Jones and Jenkins habitually do:
⚬repost an entire comment in order to make just one small correction
⚬clutter up the thread with several individual comments making corrections to one post
LikeLike
@sharinalr
With respect, I think that you should stop falling back on what appears to be a much earlier discussion with which I am not entirely familiar, and on claims (I suspect false claims) to have “refuted” this or that point which may (or, of course, may not) be slightly different or very different from the points which I have been striving to make here.
You seem (from so much of what you have been saying here) to be very seriously confused. For example, addressing me, for some reason (perhaps out of sheer confusion), as “Daniel”.
LikeLike
@ Jenkins
“With respect, I think that you should stop falling back on what appears to be a much earlier discussion with which I am not entirely familiar”
You brought up that earlier discussion before Sharina ever did:
“Browsing through the comments what most amazes me here is the frequency of absurd attempts to deny that a motor vehicle is a lethal/deadly weapon.”
“It is remarkable how many lines of discussion can be generated by a single incident, as is evident in so many of the comments above.
“It is also remarkable how much of what has been written above cries out to be challenged”
Certainly you made it sound as if you were familiar with that earlier discussion.
You’ve also spent the best part of two years trying to get an argument going on this issue, which is more than adequate time to read (and reread) the earlier discussion.
LikeLike
@Solitare
It became very clear that it was Daniel for me here:
“It is my opinion that a judge might very well allow such a use, and that there would be nothing improper in their doing so, unless the phrase in question is to be found in the relevant statute or statutes. I consider that a judge might even himself or herself use either of the phrases “deadly weapon” or “lethal weapon” in their everyday meaning during court proceedings.”
This is the exact same argument he made in an exchange above:
Only difference is he attempted to quote Pennsylvania statutes and did not completely understand what it was saying or even referring to.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
Regarding your latest comment, it is singularly unsurprising that Jones and I would present what is essentially the same argument, since any person who is possessed of any intelligence and who therefore understands the issues here would be almost certain to do so.
LikeLike
@Jenkins
Had you or your alias possessed any of those qualities you would have done the research and not still harping on refuted points. But go off.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
This is rather puzzling, Only a little while back [Mon Aug 3rd 2020] you wrote “You need to scroll up to see why as this is my final comment[my italics].
LikeLike
@sharinalr
What makes you so arrogantly assume that anyone who happens to disagree with you has therefore necessarily failed to “do the research”?
LikeLike
@Jenkins
What is puzzling is you are still @ me with knowledge that it could be my final comment. You look attention seeking.
Disagreeing with me is not the marker that you failed to do research. Your own comments indicate you failed to. Lack of links, comments stating your opinion, and focus on anything but what is stated. (i.e as such). When directed to links, refusal to bother to scroll up and click. etc. Even this comment is a focus on anything but..
Now I will definitely make this my last comment. Have fun @ me and talking to you.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
And, as regards the most recent example under discussion, while it is true enough that I have not “done the research” that is in fact only because you have (entirely in line with your persistent and systematic refusal to commit yourself to a distinct position on successive matters) declined to say what in your example charge or charges are being brought against the putative killer. Since it is your example it is up to you to flesh out that example to just a tiny little degree. If you would only be good enough to do so I would then be very pleased indeed to undertake any research necessary to establish whether the phrases “deadly weapon” or “lethal weapon” appear in the relevant statute or statutes and, if so, what the implications of that would be.
LikeLike
@ Jenkins
lol I know the last comment was to be my last but this was too good to slide. So it is my fault you are a failure? Sorry failed to do research. lol. My position hasn’t changed though. So you harping in fleshing out an example because you can’t bother to research or read the comment explaing the purpose of the example? 🤣 You can’t get simple stuff but want to debate? Good night dude. Good tomorrow and good week.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
I rest my case.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Yep, Daniel Jones and Jenkins both insist that the “everyday use” or “vernacular use” of lethal weapon could be introduced into the courtroom, either during argument or sentencing. I suppose two different people from Great Britain could get fixated on that same narrow argument, and could both have the same blind spots in comprehending the U.S. legal system, but it seems unlikely. Occam’s razor and all that.
It’s obvious he thrives on attention and has no compunction about:
⚬dragging a thread way off topic
⚬breaking the stated rules of the blog
⚬circumventing a handle ban
⚬persistently trying for 2 years (!) to respark the previous argument
It’s easy to get sucked into a debate with him and, once in, difficult to get out.
Since Abagond doesn’t yet have enough hard evidence that Jenkins is a sock puppet, and since Jenkins/Daniel Jones wants attention, in my opinion the best thing to do is starve him.
LikeLike
@Jenkins
If only you actually had one to rest 🤷🏾♀️
LikeLike
@ Sharina
I have a comment to you from last night that’s apparently stuck in mod.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your last comment is your fifth now since you made what you
then assured us was your final comment, lol.
That being so I will merely stress once again that if you would be good enough to clarify your example by merely specifying what, in the case you envisage, the charge or charges against the putative killer would be I would then be very pleased indeed to undertake any research whatsoever which might be necessary in order to establish whether either of the phrases “deadly weapon” or “lethal weapon” appears in the relevant statute or statutes and, if one or both of those phrases does so occur, what the implications of that would be.
LikeLike
Jenkins
@sharinalr
Your last comment is your fifth now since you made what you
then assured us was your final comment, lol.
That being so I will merely stress once again that if you would be good enough to clarify your example by merely specifying what, in the case you envisage, the charge or charges against the putative killer would be I would then be very pleased indeed to undertake any research whatsoever which might be necessary in order to establish whether either of the phrases “deadly weapon” or “lethal weapon” appears in the relevant statute or statutes and, if one or both of those phrases does so occur, what the implications of that would be.
[With my apologies for the repetition of this comment.]
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Gotcha
@Jenkins
“Your last comment is your fifth now since you made what you then assured us was your final comment, lol.”–🤷🏾♀️ Not us but you as I will gladly speak with others. Actually only 2 or 3 with one stating final. Stating Good night dude. Good tomorrow and good week. Basically means you are lost. lol Quick question, do you often laugh when you are wrong?
“That being so I will merely stress once again that if you would be good enough to clarify your example by merely specifying what, in the case you envisage, the charge or charges against the putative”- Nope. Because of the following:
I am good enough without your stipulations. What you want is someone to engage in a repeated argument and you are using this as bait to do so. Then using name calling or other remarks when it doesn’t happen. If you had anything of value to add you could add that without me or anyone saying a thing. As solitaire pointed out, you have been trying for years to get someone to discuss. Why?
The example was made on July 30 and the discussion began July 24th. If you were as good and intellectual as you envision yourself, then why have you not done independent research? That is lazy and sheepish because you are waiting to be spoonfed or told when to act. It is in essence my example and it served its purpose as explained. You don’t get to tailor my example because you are not equipped for a debate you keep begging to have. One you already lost due to your failed ability to do independent research before engaging. One you keep trying to control but can’t.
As solitaire so eloquently pointed out, you made it appear as if you are aware of the argument so you already know it has been discussed. It was also pointed put it is the same one you made last time you were here as Daniel, so why should I or anyone repeat refuted information?
Answer the questions or don’t you are literally a drain. Sadly arguing a refuted debate to be refuted again.
https://www.harleytherapy.co.uk/counselling/why-we-put-the-blame-on-others.htm
LikeLike
@sharinalr
[“Your last comment is your fifth now since you made what you then assured us was your final comment, lol.”–Not us but you as I will gladly speak with others. Actually only 2 or 3 with one stating final.]
I of course didn’t write that you had made five comments which you have described as final. I was very clearly stating that you had produced five since making the first of those which you described as your “final” comment lol.
And you (of course) completely misunderstand my use of “us” in my previous comment.
You also (I suppose inevitably) absolutely fail to understand the form of words “if you would be good enough to . . . ” lol.
The question remains why do you refuse to specify what in your putative example the charge or charges against the accused killer would be? What is your difficulty in answering this, other of course than that you (in the fullest sense of the following expression) “don’t know what you are talking about”?
LikeLike
You write “The example was made on July 30 , , , ”
Are you referring to your comment which included the following?
” . . . and I don’t care what you suspect. I know that when people focus on mundane things they usually have nothing to counter with. You could have removed as such and it still would have been the same thing.
“A quick google search of the definition of deadly weapon will 9 times out of ten come from a legal site. The definition will include intent. Leave it to people anything can be a deadly weapon if there is no real clarification for what makes one. If you kill a person with a weapon you have to go to court. If said weapon does not meet that legal definition you can cry deadly weapon all day and it won’t make it one.”
LikeLike
@sharinalr
You write “The example was made on July 30 , , , ”
Are you referring to your comment which included the following?
” . . . and I don’t care what you suspect. I know that when people focus on mundane things they usually have nothing to counter with. You could have removed as such and it still would have been the same thing.
“A quick google search of the definition of deadly weapon will 9 times out of ten come from a legal site. The definition will include intent. Leave it to people anything can be a deadly weapon if there is no real clarification for what makes one. If you kill a person with a weapon you have to go to court. If said weapon does not meet that legal definition you can cry deadly weapon all day and it won’t make it one.”
[Once again my apologies for the repetition]
LikeLike
@Jenkins
🤷🏾♀️ My bad. Since we counting how about these 15 comments since I made my final all addressed to me?
“And you (of course) completely misunderstand my use of “us” in my previous comment.”–I don’t think you actually understand your use of us. However here is the definition and if you read over my comment you might get it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/us
“You also (I suppose inevitably) absolutely fail to understand the form of words “if you would be good enough to . . . ” lol.”–Its actually a play on your words, but you got it. NOT. 😆
“The question remains why do you refuse to specify what in your putative example the charge or charges against the accused killer would be?”– That question was answered. You just failed to accept it. I mean if i didn’t know what I was talking about I would just be like you begging for an example to be detailed, oblivious to statutes, focusing in the irrelevant and mundane. All while trying to take focus away from the failed attempt at a rebuttal using example that have legal basis and opinions. Just say your opinion matters.
There is only one example of mine used so 🤷🏾♀️
LikeLike
@sharinalr
“”The question remains why do you refuse to specify what in your putative example the charge or charges against the accused killer would be?”– That question was answered.”
No, it was very definitely not answered. Nor have you ever given even theslightest detail regarding the incident in which the victim (if indeed there was a victim) was killed. All you have specified is that the person was killed “with a weapon” . . . and as regards even that you as yet haven’t even answered one of the first questions which a lawyer would be likely to ask about your putative weapon, namely whether the object (or other thing which might not be correctly described as “an object” but which might be used as a weapon) which you refer to as a “weapon” is a weapon per se or something which is not (at least in the law as it as present stands) regarded as a weapon per se but instead is something which is improvised as a weapon (as for example might be a hammer or a tire iron or a chisel).
LikeLike
@sharinalr
You of course also haven’t even specified whether the person in question was killed intentionally or accidentally, whether they were killed in self defense, whether they were killed in the commission of a felony such as robbery or kidnapping or arson . . . and so on . . . and so on . . .
LikeLike
@sharinalr
And because you have specified (em)none(/em) of this it would be virtually impossible for (em)anyone(/em) (even for a lawyer trained within the legal system of the relevant jurisdiction) to establish conclusively whether the phrase “deadly weapon” occurs in any of the relevant statutes.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
And because you have specified none of this it would be virtually impossible for anyone (even for a lawyer trained within the legal system of the relevant jurisdiction) to establish conclusively whether the phrase “deadly weapon” occurs in any of the relevant statutes.
LikeLike
@Jenkins
If the question was as you say “The question remains why do you refuse to specify what in your putative example the charge or charges against the accused killer would be?”–It was answered here:
://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-463896
Both telling you exactly why. Again it all centers on you not liking the response and your need to control.
“yet haven’t even answered one of the first questions which a lawyer would be likely to ask about your putative weapon, namely whether the object (or other thing which might not be correctly described as “an object” but which might be used as a weapon) which you refer to as a “weapon” is a weapon per se or something which is not (at least in the law as it as present stands) regarded as a weapon per se but instead is something which is improvised as a weapon (as for example might be a hammer or a tire iron or a chisel).”–You never asked a first question dear. Per se was what I presented and offered a discussion on it, but you were so stuck on an example. All this is another ploy to engage.
It was your argument that a car is a deadly lethal weapon. So it is actually your job to present a laundry list of things that make it so or not so. Not for me to defend an example which simply pointed out the absurdity of labeling something a weapon when it does not meet legal definition. I forget the fallacy that identifies what you are doing, but it is just a way to avoid taking responsibility for being WRONG.
LikeLike
@Jenkins
“And because you have specified none of this it would be virtually impossible for anyone (even for a lawyer trained within the legal system of the relevant jurisdiction) to establish conclusively whether the phrase “deadly weapon” occurs in any of the relevant statutes.”–LOL. If laws were made based on people’s examples in chat rooms then we will all be screwed. Those statutes have been conclusively in place way before my example was posted. Yet had you scrolled up you would know, but your pride won’t let you be wrong Daniel.
Have at it. You are repeating yourself and I am not interested in doing the same. Especially when it is clear you are reading to respond and not understand. Your comments get more ridiculous by the day.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
You write “If laws were made based on people’s examples in chat rooms then we will all be screwed.” Possibly so, but what is the relevance of this remark of yours? I am not directing you to chat rooms. Far from it. I am, on the contrary, attempting to encourage you to provide at least some basic detail of the example you supposedly have in mind so that we may then examine the relevant statute or statutes, i.e. the relevant body of law.
LikeLike
@Jenkins
shakes head
“what is the relevance of this remark of yours?”–Reread you comment and figure out the relevance. Nor did I claim you are directing me to chat rooms.
“on the contrary, attempting to encourage you to provide at least some basic detail of the example you supposedly have in mind so that we may then examine the relevant statute or statutes, i.e. the relevant body of law.”–Oh I know what you are doing. All in lieu of supporting your claims. WE don’t need to review the relevant statutes because I have already reviewed them and posted links to them above. YOU lost on your own and are too prideful to admit that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@sharinalr
It is impossible to know what the relevant statute is, or statutes are, without knowing some at least of the basic details of the example you supposedly have in mind. However, you are demonstrably either unable or unwilling to provide those basic details. Your claim to have reviewed the relevant statutes is therefore at the very least slightly suspect, lol.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
““what is the relevance of this remark of yours?”–Reread you comment and figure out the relevance.”
More evasion on your part. Evasion and nothing else but evasion.
LikeLike
“@sharinalr
“”on the contrary, attempting to encourage you to provide at least some basic detail of the example you supposedly have in mind so that we may then examine the relevant statute or statutes, i.e. the relevant body of law.”– Oh I know what you are doing. All in lieu of supporting your claims. WE don’t need to review the relevant statutes because I have already reviewed them and posted links to them above. YOU lost on your own and are too prideful to admit that.”
More evasion on your part. Evasion . . . evasion and ad hominemremarks.
LikeLike
@Jenkins
If refusing to do the work for you is evasion then I am perfectly fine with that. I mean isn’t it evasion when you make claims and try to find any reason not to support the.?
LikeLike
Overall summarization:
Daniel is Jenkins.
It is amazing how if you let.someone type enough they always tell on themselves and he will be none the wiser as to what was the giveaway. 🤭
LikeLike
@sharinalr
I am not asking you to do any “work” at all. I am merely asking you to state what you imagine the charge or charges against the “killer” to be. Do you seriously regard that as “work” lol?
LikeLike
@sharinalr
Your last two comments simply amount to yet further evasion.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
I would like to draw your attention to the following:
‘The car is a lethal weapon’ Mountain leader jailed for dozing off at the wheel and hitting cyclist
A professional mountaineer has been jailed for twelve months after dozing off at the wheel and hitting a cyclist who crashed into his car’s windscreen.
Jake David Tomkinson, 28, of Conwy, had taken a 30-strong party for an overnight trek on Snowdon and was within a few miles of his home when the accident happened.
The trek had lasted from midnight to 6.30am, and the evening before Tomkinson had five-and-half hours sleep.
After breakfast he set off from Llanberis for home but knew he was tired, the court heard.
Tomkinson, of Rowen, who has led school parties abroad and been a Duke of Edinburgh Award assessor, struck the cyclist when his VW Polo drifted onto the wrong side of the road.
Tomkinson pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
Judge David Hale, sitting at Caernarfon Crown Court yesterday, said Tomkinson had already stopped twice and knew he was tired.
The judge accepted that Tomkinson was riven by remorse, had admitted his fault immediately and had given first aid at the scene of the accident at Talybont in the Conwy Valley.
As well as being a keen cyclist the victim, Gareth Evans, enjoyed surfing and was fitness enthusiast, the court heard.
The effect on Mr Evans, 34, a family man, bricklayer, and builder, had been “devastating” remarked the judge.
Tomkinson was banned from driving for two and a half years and must take an extended re-test before obtaining a full licence again.
“You should have stopped and had a nap – there were two opportunities to do so,” the judge reminded Tomkinson. “You were tired, you knew you were tired.”
Ryan Rothwell, prosecuting, said the accident happened at 9am last June.
The defendant had “drifted off” in his girlfriend’s yellow Polo and Mr Evans on his £1,500 bike, had serious injuries including fractures to his collar bone and ribs, and an injured eye socket.
Last autumn he was still in pain and Mr Evans stated in an impact statement: “My business is affected in a massive way, I’m really struggling.” He wondered whether he would ever be pain free, the court heard.
Alistair Macdonald QC, defending, said Tomkinson was a mountain leader and a teacher-instructor who had experience with parties, including youngsters with special challenges, and had gone to the Alps, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Malaysia and Malawi.
He was due to go to Morocco but cancelled the trip because of the accident.
The crash was due to “a momentary lapse into sleep” he said.
Before sentence was passed Mr Macdonald [speaking for the defence] said: “He’s a thoroughly decent young man, a person who has made a substantial contribution to society. As a result of a misjudgement he’s lost his good character.
“He’s an inspirational figure for young people who are at the bottom of the barrel – the difference he can make to these young people and the confidence he can give to them.”
Tomkinson had aspirations to become a geography teacher.
“Passing sentence Judge Hale told him: “You were responsible for causing very serious injury to Mr Evans by the way you drove that car on that sunny morning.
“The car is a lethal weapon.”
[https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/the-car-lethal-weapon-mountain-14408915]
LikeLike
Abagond
With the utmost respect you are rather foolish to continue in your attempt to suppress freedom of expression on the issue here under discussion. All this does is to guarantee that, while the discussion will of course continue (I will see to that), it will be with far greater publicity and in a forum over which you have no control.
LikeLike
@ Jenkins
What are you talking about? I do not remember deleting any of your comments, but if I did, I would have told you and told you why:
From time to time, comments do get stuck in the spam filter or held up for moderation. If you suspect that to be the case, just tell me and I will look into it. And, sometimes, comments just get lost in the ether by accident. It happens even to me.
LikeLike
@ Jenkins
Your comments were marked as spam. I just fished them out of the spam filter.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
You wrote:
“If refusing to do the work for you is evasion then I am perfectly fine with that. I mean isn’t it evasion when you make claims and try to find any reason not to support the.?”
I am, of course, not asking you to do any “work” whatsoever. All I am asking you to do is supply one or two basic details of the example which you supposedly envisage. How could that in any way constitute “work”?
LikeLike
@Abagond
Please accept my apologies for the last remark which I addressed to you. I was jumping to conclusions.
LikeLike
@Abagond
Again, my apologies.
LikeLike
@Jenkins
“ad hominemremarks.”—I gather you don’t know the definition of the fallacy ad hominem remarks or evasion. See links. Directing you to links above is not an adhominem attack or evasion. If you want to call it as such because I won’t do as you tell me with those examples, then it would not apply because I refuse to engage in your deflection. Please see the definition of an example. I can post a link as it is clear you are allergic to research. Additional drawing more attention to my example, which was a minor side note to the overall, is evasion. I directed you to the tools and you failed to use them.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Click to access FallaciesOverhead.pdf
“I am not asking you to do any “work” at all. I am merely asking you to state what you imagine the charge or charges against the “killer” to be. Do you seriously regard that as “work” lol?”–That is not what you actually asked, but I can quote you so we can see how you are now switching goal posts. If you know the definition of work then you would be less inclined to ask that question. But lol right?
Your job is to support your claim and so far you have 30 emails not doing so and only one attempting. I will respond to it sooner or later.
LikeLike
@Jenkins
The burden of proof (called in Latin onus probandi) is the obligation to provide sufficient supporting evidence for any arguments that you make.
Unfortunately, your article does not support your claim. In fact, it further supports mine in some respects.
Your claimed: It is nowadays generally/universally acknowledged that a motor vehicle is a lethal/deadly weapon.
Your article only has the titles “The car is a lethal weapon” and a small quote at the bottom in which it is unknown who it can be attributed to. Nothing else supports the idea that it is universally known or shared idea. In fact, this is a Uk case and if your claim is as stated, then you would really need to show a US case, China Case, etc. It does support the idea presented, by me, that just because you believe it is a deadly weapon does not mean that one will be charged with it. He was charged with serious injury. Additionally this case went to court (as I pointed out above), which would require a legal definition to be applied for deadly weapon and was not because….it goes right back to what I stated earlier. What you think is one does not mean the law views it as one and will apply it as one. In the Uk they have offensive weapon which is about the same as deadly weapon or lethal weapon in the USA. However, the discussion is on a US case so your UK case has no bearing here.
Thank you for your participation in proving my point. I would hope that your later comments include something to support yours. Although your time is up with me.
https://effectiviology.com/burden-of-proof/
P.S. Flooding the comment threads with irrelevant comments won’t hide what your doing. It makes it more clear. 🙂
LikeLike
@ Jenkins
“the discussion will of course continue (I will see to that)”
No kidding; you’ve dedicated two years to it so far.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Just curious, is there any reason why comments on this particular thread are going into the spam filter? By my count, I’ve had 3 recently that ended up there.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Interestingly, Daniel Jones didn’t understand what ad hominem means, either:
This was after you’d spent days trying to explain it to him.
LikeLike
@ Solitaire
Good question.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Yep, and my count’s now up to 4. 😅
LikeLike
@sharinalr
On the issue of your fondness for ad hominem comment, do you perhaps recognize the following?
“If you were as good and intellectual as you envision yourself, then why have you not done independent research? That is lazy and sheepish because you are waiting to be spoonfed or told when to act. It is in essence my example and it served its purpose as explained. You don’t get to tailor my example because you are not equipped for a debate you keep begging to have. One you already lost due to your failed ability to do independent research before engaging. One you keep trying to control but can’t.”
The above paragraph consists almost entirely of ad hominem disparagement and is, of course, a characteristically cheap little diatribe from one of your own recent comments.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“No kidding; you’ve dedicated two years to it so far.”–I laughed so hard at this that I spit out my drink.
It is interesting but not more so than his sad attempts at pretending that he is not Daniel.
LikeLike
@Jenkins
Of course I recognize the following. Do you recognize why it is not an ad hominem? I will say this only once.
Ad hominems require that name calling be a rebuttal to an claim/argument. If I am not mistaken that is a response to you claiming you can not do research until I flesh out my example. Had you clicked that link you might know that.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“Since Abagond doesn’t yet have enough hard evidence that Jenkins is a sock puppet, and since Jenkins/Daniel Jones wants attention, in my opinion the best thing to do is starve him.”—You are correct. I really shouldn’t have allowed it to go this far, especially when it became clear I was just repeating myself.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Open Minded Observer thinks Daniel Jones is a computer program designed to elicit that circular response.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
You write: “Ad hominems require that name calling be a rebuttal to an claim/argument.”
I assume that what you actually mean here is that when
one accuses another person of using ad hominems one is accusing them of using an allegation or allegations of personal deficiency against someone advancing a proposition, or stating a position, as an attempted argument against that proposition or that position.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
However, although that does indeed apply if one is specifically accusing a person of engaging in argumentum ad hominem (i.e. in perpetrating one of the thus-named subclass of informal fallacies originally identified by Aristotle) it doesn’t (doesn’t necessarily that is) apply if one is merely accusing someone of “making ad hominem remarks.”
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Over time I have noticed something very strange with abagond’s “trolls.” They all seem to have this idea of challenging him for the public. It is as if their own blogs are ran on the idea that they can “take on abagond”. It’s weird.
Regarding Daniel’s struggle with ad hominem I almost entirely forgot about it. Like Jenkins he tried to change the definition to sidetrack what he was doing.
He states, “doesn’t (doesn’t necessarily that is) apply if one is merely accusing someone of “making ad hominem remarks.” Not realizing that the ad hominem took place the moment he started making his lack of an argument about me and what I was not doing for him so he can research. Sad really.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Jenkins
Your last two comments only further prove you have no idea what an ad hominem is. 🤣🤣🤣
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“My last comment to solitaire can be deleted It got lost and I retyped it.”
And I replied to your comment last night, but it hasn’t shown up yet. This thread is doing futzy things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Sharina
“They all seem to have this idea of challenging him for the public.”
Daniel Jones/Jenkins also likes to make big threats. I’m still waiting for Interpol to come after me for calling Daniel an English oppressor. And he was going to get WordPress to shut down Abagond’s blog for First Amendment infringement, LOL.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
Your last comment to me only further proves that you are constitutionally unable to grasp even the most straightforward and elementary distinction.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
So you are seriously trying to suggest that my pointing out that your supposed “example” is so devoid of the most basic detail that it is impossible to seriously evaluate it is an example of argumentum ad hominem?
LikeLike
@sharinalr
And, just to illustrate that I fully understand what “ad hominem” means I will merely point out that, whereas my penultimate comment does contain an “ad hominem remark” (but not an ad hominem argument), my last comment contains neither.
LikeLike
@Soltaire
You wrote as follows:
[“Interestingly, Daniel Jones didn’t understand what ad hominem means, either:
Solitaire
What do you (or, for that matter, abagond) mean by “ad hominem attacks”?
This was after you’d spent days trying to explain it to him.”]
Whereas, interestingly (lol), even on what has been a very cursory reading of the relevant comments I am able to see that Jones was rather gently (and rhetorically) pointing out what he would have inevitably perceived as the repeated and persistent misuse of the phrase “ad hominems” by Sharinalr et al. However, it is painfully (but of course hilariously) apparent that neither you nor Sharina has ever had any inkling at all of what he was in fact doing.
LikeLike
@Jenkins
If your whole new discussion is going to be based on ad hominems you may want to go here. https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/ad-hominem-argument/
However, I will address a few things here and anything else regarding it over there.
“Your last comment to me only further proves that you are constitutionally unable to grasp even the most straightforward and elementary distinction”—Actually it proves that I know when a straw man argument is being formed. I never made the claim that calling out an ad hominem was when you engaged in it nor did I say your last comment was one. This is essentially you creating an argument I never made and then proceeding to engage in name calling. I will link strawman for you as well.
“So you are seriously trying to suggest.”–I am not suggesting it. I am telling you and providing sources to support just that.
Example: Person A: “It is nowadays generally/universally acknowledged that a motor vehicle is a lethal/deadly weapon.”
Person B: If it was universally acknowledged then the law would reflect just that. As such the law was quoted above and it refutes that stance. It is as such on the basis of intent. Radio and Tv are not a source for facts and any officer telling you that is false.
Person A:” I’m not entirely sure what the words “as such” are intended to mean in your:” https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/oriana-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-461188
As such has nothing to do with the argument itself and in fact was the first time I noticed you engaging in ad hominem. If you indeed fully understood it then you know it basically translates to argument against the person which has been your focus and not on your claim. What you have demonstrated is that you did a basic search of the word and can regurgitate the history, but can’t seem to understand its usage in common discussion.
LikeLike
@ Jenkins
Apology accepted.
LikeLike