Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678910 ... LastLast
Results 55 to 63 of 125

Thread: Does this make any sense to anyone?

  1. #55

    Default Re: Does this make any sense to anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by pm01 View Post
    Ugly, I agree we are the same page; however ban refuses to join us on that page.

    He stubbornly clings to vague terms like "upstanding" which is relative and a value statement, as well as "treated the same" without ever defining what they mean. All while we've given specific examples/scenarios to illustrate our position. It seems apparent he either doesn't understand how the judicial system operates or he's too proud to merely agree with us and others.
    THANK YOU for posting again! It truly is my lucky day (aside from my rough morning on the golf course). While on my run today, I came up with this little idea; all that I had to hope for was that you'd write yet another insulting slam on me, which you have done. I thank you, again. Enjoy, folks!

    The World According To pms01

    In post #39 pms01 says: "The simple fact is that youare waving your hands trying to do hocus pocus to obfuscate, misdirect, andgenerally ignore the context members here are talking about."

    Analysis: pms01 draws such a conclusion because she has yet to understand or even remotely grasp the simple pernt that I have repeatedly made in this thread. When comprehension isn't your strong suit, things will tend to appear "obfuscated" and "misdirected." In regard to pms01's statement where I "ignore the context," that must be why she has yet to grasp what I am saying this entire thread, and somehow seems to think that I'm saying something else.

    In post #48, pms01 said: "If he truly believes, andit's difficult to believe, that equal and fair means every person convicted ofthe same crime should rcv the exact same sentence, then one only needs acursory familararity with the legal system to see he is wrong and judges dont agreewith him. He injected himself into the thread and hijacked it. It is morelikely he's dancing."

    Analysis: pms01, once again, has some "context problems" here, which I pointed out prior. However, the best part is that pms01 tries to sell herself as an attorney and that I don't even have a "cursory familiarity" with the legal system and that judges "don't agree with me." I believe that must be why the judge disagrees with pms01 and agrees with me in this case, eh, folks? pms01 also states that I have "injected myself into the thread" and "hijacked it." What ppms01 seems to be overlooking is that she has also injected herself into the thread, and hijacked it as well. How many times, you ask? At present count, pms01 has made 8 posts in this thread, but she hasn't injected herslef into the thread, NOR has she hijacked it! ONLY ban basketball has done that, folks!

    In post 53, pms01 said: "He stubbornly clings tovague terms like "upstanding" which is relative and a valuestatement, as well as "treated the same" without ever defining whatthey mean. All while we've given specific examples/scenarios to illustrate ourposition. It seems apparent he either doesn't understand how the judicialsystem operates or he's too proud to merely agree with us and others."

    Analysis: I'll just let pms01's little "stubborn clings" speak for themselves on this one: hocus pocus, obfuscate, misdirect, cursory familararity.

    pms01 also must have missed my little definition of "treated the same," even though I've stated it on here 14,007 times: "Equal and fair treatment under the law. Unless I'm missing something, those are basic ideals of our justice system, right?" (Post #21, as but one example of where I clarified it).

    pms01 also seems to play the part of attorney with his expertise of the legal system, witness her statement in the above of my lack of understanding how the justice system works, yet a JUDGE SIDES WITH ME IN THIS CASE, WHILE NOT SIDING with pms01. Gee, what an IDIOT I am!

    The lesson to be learned, folks? Some may recall the old saying, "we hate in others what we hate in ourselves." Does anyone illustrate more self-loathing than our resident legal expert, pms01?

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Last edited by ban basketball; 05-30-2012 at 12:57 PM.
    UNI Panthers...Because it's just right.

  2. #56

    Default Re: Does this make any sense to anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by WhippetGrappler View Post
    Back to Topic!! Killing someone is a crime. Yet self-defense is a circumstance that gets you off for killing someone. Should the one who kills in self-defense be punished?!? With your example, they should be punished also correct??
    I refuse to get caught up in the Sean McVeigh Hannity game of deflecting onto a scenario that doesn't fit with the present discussion, so, no...


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Homey-dont-play-dat__.jpg 
Views:	37 
Size:	234.9 KB 
ID:	3055
    UNI Panthers...Because it's just right.

  3. #57
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default Re: Does this make any sense to anyone?

    Ban, I haven't chimed in on this thread lately because I feel I have made my position clear and would only be repeating myself, but I have to say that your Homey picture made me smile and was the perfect way to illustrate your point.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  4. #58

    Default Re: Does this make any sense to anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by ban basketball View Post
    I refuse to get caught up in the Sean McVeigh Hannity game of deflecting onto a scenario that doesn't fit with the present discussion, so, no...
    At the risk of the horrifying result of being called a "she"...

    You seem to want to remain at a very general level, stating that the law should be "fair and equal", assumedly across a broad spectrum of crimes. When others present specific examples of "fair" not necessarily equating to "equal", you revert back to the specific situation, saying you don't want to talk about other crimes or examples.

    I've lost track of what the question is, but in my opinion there are quantitative and qualitative considerations to be made whenever a judge is to render a decision or sentence. Otherwise you're stuck with situations like the three-strike rule.

    By the way, patting yourself on the back for agreeing with the judge in question is not really relevant. Decisions much more fundamental and important than this are overturned on a regular basis, judges often either misinterpret statute or choose to ignore prior case history.

  5. #59

    Default Re: Does this make any sense to anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flop The Nuts View Post
    At the risk of the horrifying result of being called a "she"...

    You seem to want to remain at a very general level, stating that the law should be "fair and equal", assumedly across a broad spectrum of crimes. When others present specific examples of "fair" not necessarily equating to "equal", you revert back to the specific situation, saying you don't want to talk about other crimes or examples.

    I've lost track of what the question is, but in my opinion there are quantitative and qualitative considerations to be made whenever a judge is to render a decision or sentence. Otherwise you're stuck with situations like the three-strike rule.

    By the way, patting yourself on the back for agreeing with the judge in question is not really relevant. Decisions much more fundamental and important than this are overturned on a regular basis, judges often either misinterpret statute or choose to ignore prior case history.
    No "she" for you; you haven't been insulting. I'll debate in a friendly manner all day-which you do-but when someone attacks me, you know of my x10 personal motto.

    "Fair" and "equal" are meant to be the same thing in the context that I have used them. Equality/fairness under the law, and equality/fairness treatment under the law. Stated another way, fair and equal treatment under the law. I posed this several posts ago, but is that not our system, and how am I wrong in my understanding of that?

    I get that sentences are not deemed "equally/fairly;" I got that LONG before I ever began talking on this thread, but what I kept coming back to was that to use how "upstanding" someone is as the criterion for how that person was sentenced, in this instance, is not fair. Again, we have to assume that the girl has had no other run ins with the law, that another guy may also have had no run-ins with the law, but to use how "upstanding" someone is as the basis for a lesser sentence, versus the guy who was not as "upstanding," to me, is unfair and not what a court or judge should be doing. Obviously, that judge felt the same way, or so I assume.

    Trust me, I wouldn't normally be patting myself on the back for agreeing with the judge, but that WAS my way of telling pms01 that for her to try to play attorney online and claim that I knew nothing about the justice system was a bit short sighted, as here was a judge who would show her that she knows nothing about the justice system, whereas maybe I do. I don't know, but if I was she, I wouldn't have patted MY OWN SELF on the back so quickly. I would also add that, in this case, I don't see this ruling getting overturned. The case isn't big enough, nor the consequences enough to see a legal challenge (so I'm guessing).

    Finally, how do you know that pms01 isn't a she anyway?
    UNI Panthers...Because it's just right.

  6. #60

    Default Re: Does this make any sense to anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by ban basketball View Post

    Finally, how do you know that pms01 isn't a she anyway?
    Fair enough.

    It might be too fine of a point, but I agree that whether a defendant is generally "upstanding" shouldn't enter into the equation when determining punishment. A physician driving 100 mph deserves a ticket just as much as a pederast driving 100 mph, moral content doesn't enter into it. But, it seems to me that in this case we aren't talking about a generally upstanding person, we're really talking specifically about reasons why she was late to school. We're kind of conflating the goodness of a person with legitimate reasons for being late to school.

    If she was working two jobs and supporting her family, and that had nothing to do with her being late to school then she should be treated like anyone else. If she had to work until 7:30, had a 45 minute drive to school, and school starts at 8:00, then the judge should be able to take that into consideration.

  7. #61

    Default Re: Does this make any sense to anyone?

    Well said Flop.

    I'll take Spider's example as nothing offered by bb has been relevant or persuasive so I'd be merely repeating myself.

    There's two firsts in this thread:

    1. My position opposite of the judges choice in sentencing while bb misunderstanding law resultingly argues to remove judicial discretion and mandates sentencing.

    2. My first use of the board's ignore feature. Welcome to ignore bb.
    Last edited by pm01; 05-30-2012 at 04:50 PM.

  8. #62

    Default Re: Does this make any sense to anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by pm01 View Post
    Well said Flop.

    I'll take Spider's example as nothing offered by bb has been relevant or persuasive so I'd be merely repeating myself.

    There's two firsts in this thread:

    1. My position opposite of the judges choice in sentencing while bb misunderstanding law resultingly argues to remove judicial discretion and mandates sentencing.

    2. My first use of the board's ignore feature. Welcome to ignore bb.
    Regarding #1, once again, you completely missed my last post, eh? Again, judicial discretion isn't foreign to me (hence the problem with mandatory minimums; how about that for an understanding, eh?), but the only discretion to be used is how "upstanding" the citizen is, which I think isn't reasonable. That is ALL that I have been saying, and to be so thick-skulled as to infer anything else from that statement ought to be embarrassing to me.

    As for #2, thank GOD! I won't have to put up with your ignunt, smartass replies anymore. !

    Giddy on, boy (girl)...
    UNI Panthers...Because it's just right.

  9. #63

    Default Re: Does this make any sense to anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flop The Nuts View Post
    Fair enough.

    It might be too fine of a point, but I agree that whether a defendant is generally "upstanding" shouldn't enter into the equation when determining punishment. A physician driving 100 mph deserves a ticket just as much as a pederast driving 100 mph, moral content doesn't enter into it. But, it seems to me that in this case we aren't talking about a generally upstanding person, we're really talking specifically about reasons why she was late to school. We're kind of conflating the goodness of a person with legitimate reasons for being late to school.

    If she was working two jobs and supporting her family, and that had nothing to do with her being late to school then she should be treated like anyone else. If she had to work until 7:30, had a 45 minute drive to school, and school starts at 8:00, then the judge should be able to take that into consideration.
    And I find your points very reasonable, as I do all others on this thread who disagreed with me (except our resident legal expert, who chose to want to play the insult game).

    I think that we just see it differently, simply because, as an educator, if I don't treat everyone equally and say that I can make an exception in one student's case, while not doing so for another, flies in the face of everything that I stand for and try to maintain as a fair educator. Strangely enough, this judge, in more or less terms, said the exact same thing, and probably why his decision rang so true with me.
    UNI Panthers...Because it's just right.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •