Commentareum

  • Recent Comments

    • AvatarDark Matter in reply to Jaybird on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingIt's possible that the rioters are simply acting on emotion and are wrong on the facts.
    • AvatarSaul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels on First Presidential Debate Topics Set for TuesdayWhat would not be shrugging with indifference in your opinion? They are reporting on it and I do not think it helps Trump. All of this getting out into the open does not make it easier for them. Do you want them to call for an immediate storming of the White Hiuse?
    • AvatarJaybird in reply to Alan Scott on How To Resolve The Supreme Court Dilemma Open ThreadYou know what? That's not bad.
    • AvatarGeorge Turner in reply to Saul Degraw on First Presidential Debate Topics Set for TuesdayBloomberg already invalidated the election buying getting together with a bunch of other Democrat elites and buying tens of thousands of votes, which is a 3rd degree felony punishable by five years in prison, and a fourth degree felony for everyone who accepted Bloomberg's money. Don't the Democrats even read election laws anymore?
    • AvatarGeorge Turner in reply to Chip Daniels on First Presidential Debate Topics Set for TuesdayHeck, Obama gleefully tossed the law out the window whenever it suited him, such as he did with immigration, arguing that since Congress hadn't passed a law, he could just go ahead and do whatever. Then he used our national security and intelligence apparatus to try and rig the 2016 election.
    • AvatarChip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw on First Presidential Debate Topics Set for TuesdayYet another way to tell if you're living in an authoritarian regime, when the president announces he may or may not abide by the law, and the media and institutions shrug with indifference.
    • AvatarAlan Scott on How To Resolve The Supreme Court Dilemma Open ThreadMy plan is simple, and doesn't require a constitutional amendment: *Size of court not fixed *A new justice appointed by the president every 2 years, immediately following the election and new president/congress taking seats. *Justices have no term limits. They die or retire without getting replaced. *President nominates the Chief Justice from among members of the court when previous CJ dies or retires. Nominating right away means that the president probably doesn't have to worry about the senate filibustering all possible nominees. I don't think the Senate can hold seats open for two years, given that the president can use the veto to shut down all legislation if it comes to that. Let justices establish their own norms about retiring. I expect you'll see something like 18-22 year terms happening on their own, pairs of ideologically opposite justices agreeing to retire at the same time, etc. Fundamentally, I think the arrangement I've proposed above just lowers the stakes a bit. And I think lowering the stakes is good for our court and our country as a whole.
    • AvatarSaul Degraw on First Presidential Debate Topics Set for TuesdayMore proof that Trump might not be able to help himself on Tuesday: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-peaceful-transition-if-he-loses-get-rid-ballots-there-n1240896?fbclid=IwAR0yBTo1XxBog8llWaAyTsVMbrSfSpBI8OK9Zi_yWVcSeQSt_HhqRD6pAt0
    • AvatarAlan Scott in reply to Pinky on How To Resolve The Supreme Court Dilemma Open ThreadYou want Reagan and George HW Bush picking them. I don't think Alito is ever going to surprise anybody. But the real problem is that at SCOTUS level, there's rarely such a thing as "following the law", because if it gets that far, the law probably doesn't contain an easy answer.
    • AvatarAnthony on Perverse IncentivesPerverse incentives can erode social norms pretty quickly. At the time, people said that welfare for unmarried mothers would go from being young widows (many of whom were soldiers' widows) to causing an explosion in bastardy. Proponents said that would never happen. It *did* take several decades to erode that social norm to zero among the poor.
    • AvatarJaybird in reply to Michael Cain on Indiana To Fully Reopen, But Mask Requirement RemainsWe need to hammer out whether we, as a society, want less of a police presence or whether we want more of one.
    • AvatarMichael Cain in reply to Philip H on Indiana To Fully Reopen, But Mask Requirement RemainsIf they can enforce wear your mask (including your damned nose), and wash/properly sanitize your hands regularly, the results might be surprisingly good. That said, I don't expect law enforcement, particularly in rural areas and college towns, to provide the necessary level of enforcement.
    • AvatarMichael Cain in reply to George Turner on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingAt least in the places I've lived, grand jury members are sworn to secrecy for extended periods.
    • AvatarGeorge Turner in reply to greginak on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingDid anyone say they were out in the hall, watching the police, and there was no knock? Did anyone say they were listening with rapt attention, way past midnight, and heard the officers on the landing but didn't hear them knock or holler anything? If you asked such a question in most apartments, of the 11 "witnesses", most would say they were sound asleep till the gunfire erupted. A few of the rest would be watching late night TV, or watching Youtube videos with their earbuds in, etc. But one witness definitely was listening, and heard the cops knock and announce. As did Breonna Taylor's boyfriend. When you include all the officers, that's pretty much everybody involved. So there's not even a dispute on that point. Those whole "no-knock" outrage was based on the existence of a no-knock warrant on file, not on anything that actually happened during the raid. But some people just can't let go of a narrative, no matter how debunked it is.
    • Avatargreginak in reply to George Turner on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingSpit take......lol......So you're only a witness if you saw something positively happen. If you didn't see something your observation is useless. Excelsior.
    • AvatarPhilip H on Indiana To Fully Reopen, But Mask Requirement RemainsThat's not gonna end well. But it will be educational for anyone who dares to pay attention.
    • AvatarMike Schilling in reply to superdestroyer on Trump For Supreme Court Justice?He got to make some very weighty decisions,
    • AvatarGeorge Turner in reply to Jaybird on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingI don't think they can. Kentucky requires an indictment by a grand jury for crimes like the one's that were charged. In a slight majority of states, the prosecutor can skip that step, but not here.
    • AvatarGeorge Turner in reply to Philip H on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingI've never heard of a book by a grand juror. Do you mean books by jurors?
    • AvatarJaybird in reply to George Turner on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingI know how it works in theory. I also know how it works in practice (in theory). Hence the "ham sandwich" observation and the additional observation that the only meat on the deli tray is the "don't shoot into the wrong apartment" meat.
    • AvatarGeorge Turner in reply to greginak on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingI didn't hear a knock either. Not witnessing something means someone isn't a witness. Breonna's boyfriend definitely heard it, which is why he and Breonna were rushing to the door, him with his gun in hand, when the one officer entered. (Duh).
    • AvatarJaybird in reply to Em Carpenter on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingAfter a few days of the city being on fire, Minneapolis authorities decided to change their minds about charging the cops who were present at George Floyd's Officer-Involved Anoxia Event. Maybe that'll happen here too.
    • Avatargreginak in reply to Jaybird on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingPer noted marxist liberal Radley Balko 1 person said they heard a knock but 11 other witnesses said they didn't hear a knock.
    • AvatarGeorge Turner in reply to Jaybird on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingThe police officers executing the raid weren't the ones who obtained the warrant. That guy was Joshua Jaynes, who was reassigned later. The officer who was indicted had been brought in just as extra backup. Essentially, he's charged with totally missing Breonna Taylor ten times.
    • AvatarPhilip H in reply to George Turner on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor Shootinggiven the number of tell all books and interviews given by high profile grand jurors these days I suspect it will come out eventually. But that's not the point.
    • AvatarEm Carpenter in reply to Jaybird on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingNo, he was not the one who shot her. Breonna is not the victim of the wanton endangerment charge. So nobody is going to be punished for her death even if the officer is found guilty on all counts against him.
    • AvatarChip Daniels in reply to InMD on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingRight, because another hallmark of an authoritarian regime is the Wilhoit Principle where they have laws that bind some without protecting, and protect some without binding.
    • AvatarGeorge Turner in reply to Philip H on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingHow would anyone find out if they did? It's not like any prosecutor is going to disavow an indictment.
    • AvatarPhilip H in reply to Jaybird on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingHe's not.
    • AvatarGeorge Turner in reply to Jaybird on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingOur grand juries might be a bit more independent than average, or maybe they're just more crotchety, or maybe the cases that stick out most in lawyer's minds are the ones where the grand jury told the prosecutor to go f*** himself. KY rules of criminal procedure - grand jury It starts out with: The court shall swear the grand jurors and charge them to inquire into every offense for which any person has been held to answer and for which an indictment or information has not been filed, or other offenses which come to their attention or of which any of them has knowledge. That last clause is the open-ended one where one of the grand jurors might pipe up and say "I know darn well he killed Jeffrey Epstein! Let's look into that!" ^_^ Anyway, the prosecutor presents his evidence, and the grand jury can ask for just about anything else except testimony from the defendant, as that would potentially violate the 5th Amendment. However, the defense can request to present their side of the case, though the grand jury isn't obligated to hear it. If they think the prosecutor is dragging his feet, they can go ahead an make their own case and task the prosecutor with writing up their indictment. It takes 9 of the 12 grand jurors to return an indictment. If they don't, the case is over and any bail monies, etc., are returned to the person who'd been accused. So if just four of them don't think the prosecutor's charges are justified, that's it.
    • AvatarJaybird in reply to George Turner on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingSeems like they wasted some resources on getting the no-knock warrant and then announcing themselves and knocking first and then having a conversation through the door. Next time, just get a regular knocking warrant that has a kick-in-the-door provision at the bottom.
    • AvatarJaybird in reply to DensityDuck on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingWas the cop who shot through the apartment walls the one who shot Breonna Taylor? If not (or if we don't know), then we could well be in "he didn't get punished at all" territory. I mean, he didn't even get indicted.
    • AvatarEm Carpenter in reply to Kristin Devine on Thank You, Ruth; I Am, Because You WereThank you!
    • AvatarDensityDuck in reply to Jaybird on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor Shooting"Surely overreaching on the charges (and then failing to get Murder 1 or whatever) would be better for everybody in the long run" Eh. I think that an easy lay-up win is preferable here, because "he went to jail but not for murder" is a less-inspiring rallying cry than "he didn't get punished at all"...
    • AvatarJaybird in reply to Chip Daniels on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingIt seems that the pro-Trump activists are getting what they wanted: Protesters surround a man trying to defend his business, and begin smashing the windows #Louisville #BreonnaTaylor #LouisvilleProtests pic.twitter.com/ZeMAuccr4e— Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) September 23, 2020
    • AvatarPhilip H in reply to George Turner on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingThe question put before the grand jury is really very simple. “Did this person commit a criminal act for which they should be tried?” If the answer is “no”, that’s the end of it, even if politicians and thousands of virtue-signaling protesters scream till they’re blue in the face. Subject to the whims of what the elected prosecutor decides to present. I have never seen Reporting on any grand jury that went rogue and over ran a prosecutor's presentations.
    • AvatarInMD in reply to Jaybird on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingMany are.
    • AvatarGeorge Turner in reply to Chip Daniels on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingRead my above comments on the powers of a grand jury. One of the ways we are NOT an authoritarian regime is that all the real power is left to randomly selected citizens who are called to grand jury duty. The people of my commonwealth decided that we don't trust the police, we don't trust lawyers, we don't trust prosecutors, and we don't trust elected officials. We wouldn't give them the power to decide who has to be a defendant in a criminal case, one which could deprive a person of life and liberty. That dangerous power is retained by the people, because we didn't think anyone else is trustworthy enough wield it. Politicians will play their games, driven by vanity and their next election. They go off on some ideological crusade demanding this or that in the name of "justice". But where the rubber hits the road, it's up to a room full of citizens, who have no axe to grind, to decide whether this person or that person should stand trial for a particular criminal offense, ignoring the ego-driven politicians and the outrage-driven mobs. The question put before the grand jury is really very simple. "Did this person commit a criminal act for which they should be tried?" If the answer is "no", that's the end of it, even if politicians and thousands of virtue-signaling protesters scream till they're blue in the face.
    • AvatarJaybird in reply to InMD on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingThe warrant was kinda sketch.
    • AvatarJaybird in reply to George Turner on Indictment For Police Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor ShootingOh, you're not familiar with the "ham sandwich" line? It's been around for a while. Maybe it's an "East of the Mississippi" thing. From what I understand, it makes reference to the fact that Grand Juries are easy to lead around by the nose and if the Prosecutor says something like "if you think that there *MIGHT* have been a crime here, you can send it out as a 'True Bill' and that's not saying that you think he's guilty, just that you think there should be a trial!", then the Grand Jury would tend to do just that. I mean, he's the prosecutor, right? You're just the citizen who couldn't get out of jury duty.