|
Post by hawg on Jul 12, 2018 14:39:47 GMT -6
And btw, California can never be used as an example of anything other than what happens when liberals are in charge. Fugly would probably blend right in there.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 12, 2018 15:08:31 GMT -6
People vs Wilkins. Wilkins committed a burglary (which was at the time still a felony in California). Driving home, unsecured items fell from the back of his truck causing the vehicle behind to swerve and crash, and someone to die. Wilkins was convicted of murder. The conviction was upheld on appeal. Finally the CA Supreme Court overturned it. WHAT A FANTASTIC WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY. No, because California Supreme Court jurists are elected, not appointed, and they are frequently punished for their decisions by the electorate. Wilkins got away with murder, but many felons guilty of murder, as Wilkins was (and is) are serving draconian sentences, and I'm glad they are.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 12, 2018 15:08:33 GMT -6
Whats to stop the "gubmint" from making parking tickets felonies? Well, hopefully 100 million gun owners But what resistance could 100 million gun owners put up that wouldn't involve them committing felonies? Or would those felonies be okay?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 12, 2018 15:13:57 GMT -6
Burglary, however, is not a felony. Burglary is a felony in California under PC 459. Grand theft is not a felony either. Felony grand theft in California is defined under PC 487.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 12, 2018 15:34:48 GMT -6
People vs Wilkins. Wilkins committed a burglary (which was at the time still a felony in California). Driving home, unsecured items fell from the back of his truck causing the vehicle behind to swerve and crash, and someone to die. Wilkins was convicted of murder. The conviction was upheld on appeal. Finally the CA Supreme Court overturned it. WHAT A FANTASTIC WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY. No, because California Supreme Court jurists are elected, not appointed, Incorrect. They are appointed by the governor. It's true, however, that after being appointed, California Supreme Court justices must stand (uncontested) for retention at the next gubernatorial election, and (uncontested) every twelve years thereafter. I do not think they are " frequently punished for their decisions by the electorate". As far as I know, the last time California voters ousted a CA Supreme Court Justice was in 1986. I don't think they have ousted one either before or since. According to whom? Not according to me. Not according to the CA Supreme Court. Not according to the law of California, which the Supreme Court has the sole and uncontested right to interpret. Not according to the electorate, who have voted to retain all the CA Supreme Court Justices facing retention elections after Wilkins. Not according to common sense. According to Joe Phillips from SoCal. Indeed. Like most Marxists you think the world would be a better place if we simply had an authoritarian, all-powerful government.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 12, 2018 15:44:14 GMT -6
Burglary, however, is not a felony. Burglary is a felony in California under PC 459. Grand theft is not a felony either. Felony grand theft in California is defined under PC 487. Proposition 47 reduced most instances of burglary and grand theft to misdemeanors. It's retroactive. So if you were sentenced to burglary for shoplifting less than $950, you are entitled to early release and for your conviction to be reduced to a misdemeanor. Read all about it. www.socalcriminallawyer.com/california-proposition-47-effect-on-theft-crimes/
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 12, 2018 15:50:29 GMT -6
Proposition 47 reduced most instances of burglary and grand theft to misdemeanors. Unfortunately, yes, but that can and will be corrected.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 12, 2018 15:53:12 GMT -6
Like most Marxists you think the world would be a better place if we simply had an authoritarian, all-powerful government. Fascist, perhaps, but not Marxist. A duly elected, authoritarian government, one where the rule of law is applied with an iron fist, is fine by me.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 12, 2018 16:11:55 GMT -6
Proposition 47 reduced most instances of burglary and grand theft to misdemeanors. Unfortunately, yes, but that can and will be corrected. You prove my point. What's defined as a "felony" is easily changed with the prevailing political winds. It's an unstable basis via which to determine what counts as murder.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 12, 2018 16:15:02 GMT -6
Like most Marxists you think the world would be a better place if we simply had an authoritarian, all-powerful government. Fascist, perhaps, but not Marxist. UnAmerican, either way. But historically unworkable. Where Marxist totalitarianism typically takes many decades to fail, Fascism will usually fail in a single decade.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 12, 2018 16:49:13 GMT -6
Why? Communists and Nazis are both welcome here. Their freedoms to assemble and speak are beyond dispute. It's all good. Where Marxist totalitarianism typically takes many decades to fail, Fascism will usually fail in a single decade. The people have the right to experiment either way. I doubt what you regard as "American" ever really existed. It probably doesn't now.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 12, 2018 16:51:59 GMT -6
What's defined as a "felony" is easily changed with the prevailing political winds. It's an unstable basis via which to determine what counts as murder. Oh, please. What comprises murder isn't written in stone. One state's criminal statute is entirely different from another's. The people define what is or isn't murder, along with the proscribed punishment for murder, not the courts.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 12, 2018 18:16:18 GMT -6
Whats to stop the "gubmint" from making parking tickets felonies? Well, hopefully 100 million gun owners But what resistance could 100 million gun owners put up that wouldn't involve them committing felonies? Or would those felonies be okay? ok, apparently you've never heard the NRA joke. if the NRA had 20 million members who would be the next president? whoever they wanted. now since you've gone completely off the rails and I have no idea what felonies you're trying to mention here, let me suggest in my best sexy female british GPS voice: "at the first convenient moment make a safe U turn......" again, here is he only point, if two or more persons knowingly and on purpose commit ANY kind of crime, misdemeanor shoplifting for all I care, and one of them commits a murder in the process ALL should be charged, convicted and hung for murder. there is no room for what if's like my brother in law lent a gun to an uber driver who made a u turn in front of a dopers house and asked for directions just as the police served a search warrant there...yada, yada, yada....stay on point.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 12, 2018 18:42:56 GMT -6
Why? Communists and Nazis are both welcome here. Far from "welcoming" Nazis and communists, visa applications and visa waiver applications routinely contain questions asking whether the petitioner is or has been a member or participant in the communist or national socialist parties and/or their activities, and petitioners who answer "yes" have been denied entry into the USA on that basis. See e.g. academic Ernest Mandel, and Kleindienst v. Mandel in which SCOTUS upheld the right of the US not to admit communists. insider.foxnews.com/2016/08/23/visa-forms-don’t-ask-about-isis-support-question-nazi-affiliation You continue to demonstrate a surprising lack of knowledge concerning how things in the USA, and even in California, are done.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 12, 2018 19:13:43 GMT -6
What's defined as a "felony" is easily changed with the prevailing political winds. It's an unstable basis via which to determine what counts as murder. Oh, please. What comprises murder isn't written in stone. No-one expects it to be. But neither should it be defined and re-defined with whatever is politically trendy.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 12, 2018 19:32:13 GMT -6
But what resistance could 100 million gun owners put up that wouldn't involve them committing felonies? Or would those felonies be okay? ok, apparently you've never heard the NRA joke. if the NRA had 20 million members who would be the next president? whoever they wanted. I hadn't heard the joke. It's very good. But maybe it makes the point I was alluding to. I just mean that if it's the gun owners in particular who would protect us from draconian laws on parking tickets, etc, then I guess they would do so using their guns. But almost all the ways in which they could use their guns against the government would themselves be felonies. I would guess that to even threaten a government employee with a firearm is probably a felony in most jurisdictions. So maybe you think that some felonies are okay, i.e. the ones that gun wielding patriots must commit in defense of a free state. Would that be right?
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 12, 2018 20:38:52 GMT -6
ok, apparently you've never heard the NRA joke. if the NRA had 20 million members who would be the next president? whoever they wanted. I hadn't heard the joke. It's very good. But maybe it makes the point I was alluding to. I just mean that if it's the gun owners in particular who would protect us from draconian laws on parking tickets, etc, then I guess they would do so using their guns. But almost all the ways in which they could use their guns against the government would themselves be felonies. I would guess that to even threaten a government employee with a firearm is probably a felony in most jurisdictions. So maybe you think that some felonies are okay, i.e. the ones that gun wielding patriots must commit in defense of a free state. Would that be right? Voting. 100 million gun owners voting is what I had in mind and the point of the NRA joke. But yes, using force against a corrupt government may well be a felony. Just like Hancock, Adams and the rest were certainly criminals against the crown. You may have heard of that little dust up. And whether or not that action will remain felonious will be up to the victors. As always.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 13, 2018 7:17:47 GMT -6
neither should it be defined and re-defined with whatever is politically trendy. But that is the nature of democracy. You can't have it both ways. If it weren't for political "trendiness," the Bill of Rights wouldn't exist, and it's not sacrosanct, either.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 13, 2018 10:20:08 GMT -6
I hadn't heard the joke. It's very good. But maybe it makes the point I was alluding to. I just mean that if it's the gun owners in particular who would protect us from draconian laws on parking tickets, etc, then I guess they would do so using their guns. But almost all the ways in which they could use their guns against the government would themselves be felonies. I would guess that to even threaten a government employee with a firearm is probably a felony in most jurisdictions. So maybe you think that some felonies are okay, i.e. the ones that gun wielding patriots must commit in defense of a free state. Would that be right? Voting. 100 million gun owners voting is what I had in mind and the point of the NRA joke. But yes, using force against a corrupt government may well be a felony. Just like Hancock, Adams and the rest were certainly criminals against the crown. You may have heard of that little dust up. And whether or not that action will remain felonious will be up to the victors. As always. yet on retrospect even with those 100 million voting (hopefully) gun owners we still got brotha'bama and damn near got hillary. so maybe it will have to come to revolution. I wonder what fugly will bring to the show?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 13, 2018 10:50:43 GMT -6
Voting. 100 million gun owners voting is what I had in mind and the point of the NRA joke. Surely the joke is funny because you mean guns, not votes. "I got a joke for you. If the NRA had 100 million members who would be the next president?" "Whoever they wanted. They could vote in whoever they liked. Same if the NAACP had 100 million members. Or Occupy Wall St." "Sorry, I told it wrong. If the NRA had 20 million members who would be the next president?" "Sh*t, well, 20 million is a lot but not enough to win an election on its own, so I don't know." "Whoever they wanted!" "Huh?" "Geddit? NRA members." "Oh right, yeah ha ha." Yes indeed. The crown would have been wise to quell the rebellion by (1) making the right to bear arms conditional on not being a felon, and (2) making things like throwing good tea into the sea into a felony (which it probably was already). By the time they got around to signing the declaration, the population would have already been disarmed by increments and the crown could simply crack a few heads, hang a few would-be founders and reestablish order.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 13, 2018 11:00:32 GMT -6
neither should it be defined and re-defined with whatever is politically trendy. But that is the nature of democracy. Not if you mean this one. There are lots of very stable laws on the books, either because they are well designed, or because they are embedded in a framework designed to endure through the passing fancies of the mob. The articles of the constitution are particularly good examples. And yet the founders found a way. Perhaps that's why they're called founders. You picked the one case that best illustrates how wrong you are. The Bill of Rights has held remarkably stable through time and the whims of the plebs. The eighth, for example, seems cool and distant to your incessant pecking.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 13, 2018 13:14:51 GMT -6
Voting. 100 million gun owners voting is what I had in mind and the point of the NRA joke. Surely the joke is funny because you mean guns, not votes. "I got a joke for you. If the NRA had 100 million members who would be the next president?" "Whoever they wanted. They could vote in whoever they liked. Same if the NAACP had 100 million members. Or Occupy Wall St." "Sorry, I told it wrong. If the NRA had 20 million members who would be the next president?" "Sh*t, well, 20 million is a lot but not enough to win an election on its own, so I don't know." "Whoever they wanted!" "Huh?" "Geddit? NRA members." "Oh right, yeah ha ha." Yes indeed. The crown would have been wise to quell the rebellion by (1) making the right to bear arms conditional on not being a felon, and (2) making things like throwing good tea into the sea into a felony (which it probably was already). By the time they got around to signing the declaration, the population would have already been disarmed by increments and the crown could simply crack a few heads, hang a few would-be founders and reestablish order. You're kinda out there today. Try to have a safe re-entry
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Aug 8, 2018 10:53:53 GMT -6
If you have no intention of killing anyone, are not responsible for killing anyone and was not at all involved in the killing - you can, in several states, be just as guilty of murder as if you pulled the trigger. How the hell is this justice, and how the *f---* are these laws constitutional? If you are suggesting like when a robbery occurs and one shoots and kills and the other doesn't and says he or she didn't even know the other was carrying a gun. It's constitutional because when you take a part in an armed robbery you know that someone may be killed. And I for one don't believe that one robber didn't know the other robber was killing a gun, knife or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Aug 13, 2018 16:57:07 GMT -6
And I for one don't believe that one robber didn't know the other robber was killing a gun, knife or whatever. Are you saying that the "other robber" always knows?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Aug 13, 2018 23:13:11 GMT -6
And I for one don't believe that one robber didn't know the other robber was killing a gun, knife or whatever. Are you saying that the "other robber" always knows? Doesn't matter the other robber, person was there knowing it might happen. If a robber, person doesn't want to take that risk may I suggest they get a job.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Aug 24, 2018 9:51:49 GMT -6
So we can conclude that felony murder laws doesn´t serve a purpose, leads to unfair punishment and can safely be abolished? Nice!
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Aug 28, 2018 18:53:06 GMT -6
So we can conclude that felony murder laws doesn´t serve a purpose, leads to unfair punishment and can safely be abolished? Nice! you're a perfect example of the chess playing pigeon. struts around knocking over the pieces, chits all over the board and then claims victory.
|
|