Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMS General Discussions Politics We have an AMERICAN CITIZEN ON AMERICAN SOIL accused of Terrorism
TOPIC: We have an AMERICAN CITIZEN ON AMERICAN SOIL accused of Terrorism
GoTo Page: Less ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... More 
Start   11 to 20 of 366   End
User Details are only visible to members.
"I just cannot give a rat's ass as to why they did what ever they did. You put rabid dogs down...period."

This is great logic.......if rabid dogs were responsible for Colorado or Boston.

You don't take them alive because you think killing them would be unjust. You take them alive to find out what the fuck went wrong in their heads that lead them down such a dark path. You take them alive to find out if they acted alone or if others helped plan it. You take them alive to find out if other similar events are going to happen. Corpses don't give intel.

T

Danville PA
Username hidden
(3205 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
By the way, both "usual" (and unusual) and "ordinary" have specific legal criteria as well

Rosemont IL
Username hidden
(3844 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
A standard for what is fair and appropriate under usual and ordinary circumstances; that which is according to reason; the way a rational and just person would have acted. Again...an established legal standard so time tested, it is the basis of the burden of proof in capital cases. In cases where a judge finds the jury has not properly applied it, he can overturn a conviction...it is objective and clear as glass

Rosemont IL
Username hidden
(3844 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Reasonable:

"adj

A standard for what is fair and appropriate under usual and ordinary circumstances; that which is according to reason; the way a rational and just person would have acted."

h ttp://law.yourdictionary.co m/reasonable

"reasonable adj., adv. in law, just, rational, appropriate, ordinary or usual in the circumstances. It may refer to care, cause, compensation, doubt (in a criminal trial), and a host of other actions or activities"

ht tp://dictionary.law.co m/Default.aspx?selected=1729

So I would say that reasonable is about as clear as mud.

Hazle Township PA
Username hidden
(7703 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Yes...it does Fun Ahoy, so much so that matters of life and death in capital cases depend on the standard of meeting the objective definition. As I once told a friend of yours, repeating an nonsense with conviction, does not make it truth..never will.

Rosemont IL
Username hidden
(3844 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
You said the word "reasonable ... has very specific meaning in Legal terminology."

It doesn't. Carry on.

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10938 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Again Fun Ahoy, you lack of knowledge fails you, and worst of all you just agreed with me but don't realize it. Again, "reasonable" (as you accidentally described) can be litigated situationanally and circumstantially, but that has nothing to do with the objective definition of the legal term. For example, you can litigate as to whether someone has a "reasonable" expectation of privacy; but without the objective baseline definition of both"reasonable" and "privacy", there would be no standard to base such a decision on. Like any legal term or statute, people and judges can disagree on the the fringes of definition, but that does not dertact from that definition itself

Rosemont IL
Username hidden
(3844 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
No, you're wrong. "Reasonable" is not specific across the law. It arises in a wide range of civil and criminal contexts, and has different meanings. Sometimes it's according to an "objectively" reasonable standard; other times it depends on what is subjectively reasonable under particular circumstances. And yet other times its a hybrid of the two.

No big deal. Minor thread derail. And as I told someone else earlier, that's about as far as I plan to go into a debate with someone who doesn't seem very knowledgeable on this.

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10938 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Fun Ahoy..please son, you don't know what you are talking about. "Reasonable", (As in reasonable doubt for example) is a specific burden of evidence and proof which must be met. It is contrasted by "preponderance of evidence" which is used for lesser offenses and in civil cases, and 'shadow of a doubt" which existed in Blackstoneian law, but with the exception of the state of Ohio, is not generally found in the US justice system. "Reasonable" in legal terms is defined as "That which can and would be generally regarded as such by the majority of persons of sound mind and judgement." Again, it may be the subject of litigation, but only in as much as the situation reflects, never the specific definition of the term

Rosemont IL
Username hidden
(3844 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Thing is Fun, is virtually every interview and lecture Scalia has given since he wrote the opinion, he not only implies, but in fact infers that the line in the proverbial sand or "commonly used" weapons mentioned in the decision which can be possessed with virtual impunity within the perimeters of existing law, is the handgun. The USCA recently reflected that when they opted not to hear one of the lawsuits against the Assault Weapons (please lets skip the semantics) ban in NY state. Courts of appeals and circuit courts are never supposed to use SCOTUS decisions made without prejudice as criteria for either decisions or criteria to hear a case, but any 1st year law student will thell you, that they certainly do. I predicted Roberts would swing the HRC vote and I dazzled and amazed my friends and pissed off my detractors, and yes, I played it up as if I were some legal prophet. Fact is, it was a no brainer, and there were many who read the same tea leaves I did. A few months previous, they sent a HCR suit back to the US circuit court on a procedural issue. Usually when that is done, it is signed by only the justice who's box it lands in...this one was signed...(wait for it) by the 5 justices who upheld the personal mandate, including Roberts....that is legal dog whistle.

Rosemont IL
Username hidden
(3844 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... More 
Start   11 to 20 of 366   End
TOPIC: We have an AMERICAN CITIZEN ON AMERICAN SOIL accused of Terrorism