7,846 Forum Posts by "Camarohusky"
At 8/28/14 02:18 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: Bullshit. This is a cop-out.
You mistake apathy for laziness. Sometimes trying to sound smart makes one (in this case, you) sound quite ignorant.
At 8/28/14 06:05 PM, Tybia99 wrote: Uh no, actually there are plenty of reasons. States know how to take care of their own people, states need different education goals depending on their criminal level/poverty level/population, etc.
No they don't. Schools only need three goals: get as many students as possible to graduate, ensure those who do graduate that plan to go to college are as prepared as possible, and to ensure that those who graduate that do not plan to attend college have a basic set of skill needed to succeed in everyday life. Sure there are some differences in how to get there, but that's not on a state by state basis. It's on a school by school basis. So don't go spouting your nonsense about states aving their own needs. They don't.
Different schools need to experiment with different way's the government taking over and institutionalizing everything makes it more sterile and less progressive, fail rates have taken an increase as well as more proof.
Funny thing is the success of the pay to play one size programs is SOLELY because the states collectively failed to handle education on their own. They routinely took so much money from schools that school districts and state departments of education had to turn to the Fed for money and a standardized program is what they got.
In short, you've actually shown that your goal is more harmful by trying to defend it. Bravo.
A "one size fits all" system isn't going to work.
It works better than letting states dictate their own standards for what is essentialy a one size fits all job market.
At 8/27/14 08:06 PM, epicaldude wrote: It's only a racialy-motivated crime if the victim is black; if the aggressor is black then it's all good.
No it's a case of "I don't know what the fuck a hate crime is, and I'M MAD ABOUT THAT FACT!!!!!!"
At 8/27/14 06:14 PM, Tybia99 wrote: different states have different needs.
No they don't. Doing computer engineering in Alabama is EXACTLY the same as doing it in Oregon. Same for every job.
You may have valid reasons for not wantd the Feds involved in education, but your stated reason is a shake and bake crock of shit.
At 8/27/14 07:01 PM, Malachy wrote: I'm glad I took the AP English exams in highschool.
My school gave credit for "English 100" for passing the English AP test. However, one of English, 110, 120, 130, or 140 was required to graduate. So essentially passing AP English was just 5 credits off the total, not a replacement for a class.
In fact, most of the AP exams did that at my school. I got out of a nonexistent history class for passing AP History.
In fact, I think the only one that replaced real classes (of the ones offered way bacj then) were AP government and AP Calculus (A and B). I got a 5 on the calc one and got out of two terms of calculus. Super smart me thought it would be a great idea to take calculus 3 spring term of Freshman year. It's remarkable how quick you forget how to do integrals when you're not using them. I actually had to go to my calculus TA and tell her "Uh... it's been a while, and could you, uh... remind how to do calculus again?"
It's a wonder why I didn;t do an engineering degree. I mean I was always very good at math. I once figured out a geometrical representation of an algebraic theory because I was on the toilet in a restaraunt and was annoyed that there weren't enough tiles to pass the time making mental patterns out of.
I guess being near Intel in the early 2000s gave me a terrible outlook on engineering. They were laying off people by the hundreds, and were paying recent college grads to NOT work there. Not to mention I never really liked doing math.
At 8/27/14 08:38 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: my god these College Writing I books are mind fucks they are talking about how to properly structure sentences and the point of the subject while referencing how they do it while you read, and the fact that I have to write 3 page essays on it. ughhh!
Yuck. At least my first (and only) college writing course didn't mess around with that crap. We have 4 options. There was narrative writing, technical writing, persuasive writing, and social writing. I took the social one because it matched the freshman class group I was in. They put first term freshman in class groups with an english course and one or two other big courses to help us get used to college. Didn't do me much good as Marching Band had aready broken me in by that point.
At 8/26/14 11:06 PM, Malachy wrote: Speaking from experience, it is a total shitfest when you go in just because 'well, I was a poli-sci major and I guess this is the next step???". It's like going to med school 'just cause'. Not passionate about medicine? Imagine how that would go. Same thing with law, you need to be passionate about it. I wasn't. I got out as soon as I could but it was still a year and a (very large) chunk of student loan debt over a whim.
I know. Either you're just plain good at it and will get a job making enough money to hate it, or you have (or find) a calling and enjoy what you do.
I was very lucky to find a corner of law I was passionate about. I mean, when it comes time for me to finally get a job (health shit out of the way) if I get a contract law job, I'll be bored shitless and hate it. With the amount of loans and blood, sweat, and tears that went into it, law school is very close to being a complete and disasterous mistake, even with the corner of law I like.
At 8/26/14 07:09 PM, TNT wrote: I'm focusing on starting off as a cop anyway before I consider my options on grad school, or maybe law school.
Definitely make sure you know what you want to do with a law degree before you do it. Law school is not fun and having no goal can make it even shittier.
At 8/26/14 06:19 PM, TNT wrote: Good luck to you man! I just finished my college degree, and am working on finding a job in the Criminal Justice field. It's kind of difficult at the moment. What you're going for though, you'll be able to find a job very quickly I bet.
I wonder what a criminal justice degree teaches. From what I have seen in the criminal justice field, most jobs either don't need a degree or they already have a specialized degree. CSI need science degrees. Juvenile Justice people most often need social work. Same for the drug folks. The court staff need paralegal training. The judges and attorneys need JDs. The very specialized folks need a very speciliazed dgeree (such as accounting, computers, and so on)
Sounds like criminal justice as a degree is just a ticket for someone to become a detective, as most departments prefer or require a degreee for their detectives. Perhaps that is the way to go.
At 8/26/14 06:20 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Right and the autopsy clearly shows he was shot from the front.
Just FYI, there is a difference between being shot at and being shot.
Well, they do care to research what they say. So, I guess they can't be too bad.
At 8/26/14 09:29 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Starting another college semester today, reaaaallly apprehensive about it even though I am taking two classes this semester.
ooh, what school?
At 8/26/14 03:26 AM, divinorum wrote: I don't tell many people I'm an atheist because I don't feel like explaining myself or being judged
I don't tell cause there's no reason to tell. It's my business what I believe in and not anyone else's.
At 8/24/14 09:48 AM, Ericho wrote: That is pretty outrageous. I have no idea why I haven't heard that in the news. It looks like it could be worse than the Zimmerman trial! Then again, "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" haven't been on for awhile and neither has "South Park". Where's all the topical stuff?
There's actually some stark differences here. The ZImmerman case had a stupid law that could be scapegoated and Zimmerman openly admitted to doing some morally reprehensible stuff leading up to the confrontation.
Here, we're dealing with a police officer's right to use force in a situation they deem dangerous to themselves or others, a VERY justified reason. Also, we have no evidence that the police officer did anything wrong to incite the incident.
The only similarity between both cases is that we don't have very many, if any, reliable facts as to what actually happened.
At 8/23/14 09:07 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: If they have something on it, couldn't that be subpoenaed by the grand jury? There has to be some CYA thing written somewhere.
Noirmally that would be right. However in cases of officer involved shootings, the departmant gets it from both sides. Not only does the public/defedant's people posture against the department, but the union for the officer often does to. Doing what would best serve the defendant/public could lead to extensive liability from the officer and the union.
When you get it from both sides, the best CYA is to shut the hell up and let things start moving before you do anything. (well, actually the best CYA against a pincer of legal liability is good set policies in the department, but short of that, then shutting up.)
I mean, forcing the officer to immediately write a report could lead to numerous union grievances. not to mention it may even be a violation of the 5th amendment right against self incrimination.
At 8/23/14 05:28 PM, Feoric wrote:At 8/23/14 04:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Where's the report? All these both have are just the form information.That's a really good question. Where is the report?
Well, reports are made for both records purposes and prosecution purposes. Here, as there was no arrest, the need for a reports was for only one of the two main needs.
Another thing that might have had a large effect on this is that it was an officer involved shooting. They may have procedures for this that intentionally bypass a report because of all of the IA, Union, and media wrangling that goes on.
At 8/23/14 12:23 PM, Feoric wrote: Both the FDP and SLCPD released their police reports on the Mike Brown shooting. I'm still in the process of scrutinizing all of these documents, I'll let you guys know if I find anything interesting. I'm not expecting anyone to read all of that.
Where's the report? All these both have are just the form information. There's no narrative. That pretty much renders these useless for anything but record keeping.
At 8/21/14 10:15 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: The person in charge of public integrity has no integrity (DUI)---> Governor wants her to step down due to her lack of integrity -----> threatens action if she does not step down for her misconduct -----> felon overnight.
To be honest, the criminal history of a prosecutor has no bearing on the effectiveness of the office. Sure, it may look bad. Sure it may be a stain. However, it in now way inhibits the prosecuting office's ability to carry out its duty.
Now, if she were a bus driver with a DUI that woul dbe very different.
At 8/21/14 10:01 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Vetoing is a constitutional component of checks and balances.
Vetoing a departments funds as punishment for not doing what the vetoer asked that department to do is an abuse of power. (there is some leeway for things related to the department's purpose or quality, like the education department raising test scores for examle, but once the motivating factor leaves this it becomes a form of political extortion.)
Here, Perry wanted a prosecutor to resign. He directly threatened to veto the funds for the entire department if that prosecutor did not leave. She did not leave. Perry vetoed her funds.
Prim facie case made.
I got to thinking and found 1 thing that would have prevented this whole shitstorm. It would have done so even if all facts were exactly how Wilson said and all parties did exactly the same thing.
That thing is a taser. In so many cases during police shootings a taser would have served the same exact purpose for the officer but would not have had the same negative result.
The facts even in the light most favoring Wilson indicate that a taser would have sufficed. It would have incapacitated a beligerent and vilent suspect but wouldn't have resulted in Brown's death.
Perhaps the massive wave of fuck the police that is arising would be better suited advocating for the greater prevalence and use of non-lethal weapons by law enforement. I don't mean by riot police, as they have already largely converted to such weapons. I mean by regular front lie police officers in their regular patrol/beat.
At 8/20/14 09:38 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: And this children is Why I resent my local Law Enforcement Ferguson Law Enforcement threatening to mace Journalists oh and Tear Gassing Al Jazeera America when they were doing nothing but doing they're jobs. and Getting arrested at a Mcdonalds LOL WUT?!
Regardless of what you think about the original event, it is prety clear that the Ferguson PD has completely fucked the response.
That's not to say the response would have been easy. I mean with anti-police riots erupting and all, but come on. There's no reason for all of this overboard shit they have pulled. They would have been just fine making a line and ignoring the invective hurled their way.
At 8/19/14 10:33 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: So, does anyone know what he was charged with?
At 8/19/14 11:54 AM, TNT wrote: Rick Perry's arraignment has been set; on my birthday.
Somebody's giving you a special present.
At 8/18/14 11:49 AM, Feoric wrote: Yeah, that's not Q.E.D. I'm having a hard time going from witness --> sympathetic towards protesters --> unreliable.
When there's so much emotion that riots have occurred several times in one week, it can be assumed that any bias is thick bias. The large amount of attention on this case presents an very strong motive to adjust the facts in ones favor.
Also, aren't you disregarding the police's testimony in the very same manner?
As an aside, the protests are completely irrelevant to the broader point I'm making. If you're a defense attorney you can try to cast doubt on their credibility to make them seem like they have an agenda to get the cop convicted, sure, but at the end of the day you don't even attempt to refute the fact that eyewitness testimony gets a fuckton of convictions, which was my main point there.
The average eyewitness does not arise from a scenario in whihc practically an entire town is rioting. You blow off the riots as if they have no effect on what people do afterward. They do, and the bigger the riots, the bigger the incentive to adjust testimony or memory to fit the goals of the emotional mob.
There can definitely be valid reasons not to arrest someone, but none of them matter to a community reeling in hurt from an officer who admitted to killing an unarmed teen.
The only reason people want him arrested is because the community is mad. Seriously, people are saying that the officer should be arrested to make the parents feel better.
You have at least three witnesses saying they saw the cop attempt to shoot Brown while running away and killed him allegedly while surrendering. This is why when you admit to killing someone and you aren't immediately taken into custody while the investigation takes place everyone thinks it's ridiculous and people start exercising their rights.
Again, your legal ignorance is shining very brightly. If you admit to killing someone, with no justificatio, yes, you get immediately arrested. That is nowhere near the case here, and you should know better. There is no doubt a justification claimed. In such cases, lest the evidence already accumulated be so strong, there is no arrest until the prosecution can be very confident that they can overcome the justification. Mind you, justifications only need be proved by preponderance, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
And, to be clear, I'm not talking about the law here and how it affects Wilson, I'm talking about perception.
So, you are saying we as a society should bow to the mob. I mean, who cares about justice, due process, or the law, we are mad and therefore he should be in jail.
Which additional accounts have been proven wrong? We already know he wasn't shot in the back which I wrongly assumed. What else has been debunked in light of the autopsy report?
Witnesses said he was shot in the back, and yet he was not. That's a pretty darn material fact to get wrong.
I was more interested in talking about what we know and what we don't know, not hearts and minds, but here we are.
You're the one advocating his arrest as a way to pacify the crowd. Not only that, advocating an arrest with little to no evidence to back it up.
Alright there Lt. Camaro, settle down now. I'm not the one typing in caps here.
When it comes to the law, typing in caps is 1000 times better than arresting someone on extremely weak evidence just to appease the angry masses.
You keep on assuming we have evidence of what happened before hand. We have dubious witness accounts, parts of which are wrong, by people who are surrounded by an extremely angry mob, meaning they ave a high chance of being influenced by it. Other than that there is no evidence of what happened before hand at all. There is weak speculation, but that's it. Eyewitness tesimony in already know to be incredibly unrelaible. Add the riots nearby and the massive cauldron of emotion the witnesses are neck deep in and their testimony becomes almost entirely worthless. Other than these people what is there?
At 8/18/14 10:04 AM, Feoric wrote: Personally I would love to see the figures on the number of people serving murder convictions based solely on eye witness testimony. I'm gonna go with "a shit load."
However, in 99.9999% of those cases, the community, to which the witnesses belong, did not explode in violence. The witnesses that have come forward ALL have been sympathetic to the protests before they did their witness statement. This is what we call bias in the legal system, and ALL witnesses on both sides here have it in spades. That means their accounts just don't hold much water.
The police department hasn't disputed that Brown was shot and died 35 feet away from the police car, nor the fact that the police officer was the one that shot him. I don't really know what else can be interpreted from all of this other than "an unarmed man was shot and killed no less than 35 feet away from a police car." No new pieces of information from this past week has disputed any of this, not even the autopsy results.
That proves nothing legally.
Also, invoking the Casey Anthony case was really dumb, because there is photographic proof all over social media depicting numerous things, such as photos taken no more than minute or two after the shooting, as well as showing Brown laying dead in the middle of the street no less than 20-30 feet from the police car.
We all knew FROM THE BEGINNING THAT Brown was killed by police officer. Again, you have proved NOTHING. You have essentially proved facts that were at best mildly disputed. You still have a huge empty space as to what Brown was doing prior to being shot, and the autopsy report have already proven several witness' account of this to be 100% wrong.
Casey Anthony is a PERFECT case to mtch it to. They had a shit ton of evidence too, but NOT ENOUGH. The prosecutors bent over to public outrage and EVERYONE LOST. I am quite surprised you cannot see this. There is not enough evidence to disprove the officer's claim of self defense and/or shooting in the line of duty. Until such evidence exists, it is far too early. I mean seriously. You usually are a calm voice of reason here, but now you have jumped out of an airplane with no parachute because people were getting mad behind you.
Kowtowing to a mindless mob? Of course not. I think I've made it pretty clear we shouldn't be kowtowing to the police.
Wanting prosecution when there is at best 5% evidence of anything culpable just because the town has decided to shit all over itslf in mindless barbaric anger is the TEXTBOOK definition of kowtowing to the mob. When it comes to legal issues, it's far better to let the brains lead the charge instead of the hearts.
And legally, there is nothing to go on right now. I think you need to step back and stop muddying the waters because you're mad at an incident that you, and the entire town, knows VERY LITTLE about.
At 8/18/14 02:10 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: "...were fired from Brown's front — a finding that could contradict a witness statement indicating that Brown was hit as he ran away from police."
And this is why I find the witness' claims to be dubious. Too much emotion involved and seeing as the community has erupted, I find it hard to believe that the witnesses accounts do not have an agenda. Same goes for the police accounts. This has become a mini Gaza.
At 8/17/14 10:35 PM, TNT wrote: "This indictment amounts to nothing more than an abuse of power"
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
At 8/16/14 11:58 PM, Feoric wrote: A good way to calm down a situation where people are angrily protesting in the streets is to see if you can meet some of their demands. The arrest of Wilson would have stalled tensions from rising as high as they did (and are), because there would have been no way for anyone to interpret that as the PD protecting a man who killed a kid instead of bringing him to justice.
That sets a terrible precedent. If they do this, they set the precedent that while police officers are legally allowed to use force on duty, they will be arrested should they do so.
Not only that, if they do eventually find out he was culpable, they could blow it by ringing him in early (Casey Anthony style). The quick arrest starts the speedy trial clock ticking and a good defense attorney would get that case to court as quick as possible to ensure that as little eidence has been collected by trial.
In both cases, they should wait to arrest until they have enough evidence to go forward.
A violent mob response is no reason to buck over 200 years of jurisprudence and move too quickly. That can (and will) back fire. I am actually quite surprised how easily and willfully you are kotowing to a mindless mob.
At 8/13/14 09:10 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: The doctor called back on Tuesday to say the results of my ultrasound were normal. It doesn't explain what was going on, so I need to follow up with my gynecologist.
I hate it when they can't figure out what's going on. About 10 times this year I have had extremely painful joint swelling up and down my leg, from my ankle to my hip.
They have painfully aspirated swelling three times. That's when they stick a needle into the joint and pull out fluid, last time they pulled out 20 mL.
They have x-rayed the joints and even did a CT scan. As of yet they don't know what it is. It might be gout, pseudogout (crystals just like gout, but not made of uric acid), and infection. Negative on all things. Problem is, they can't prevent it if they don't know what it is...
I don't trust anyone here.
The police are naturally going to stand behind the blue wall. The witnesses are naturally going to say whatever is needed to fit their anger. Sad part is that we'll never know what actually happened, and some large group will end up feeling like they were on the wrong side of whatever outcome happens.
The worst part about this is the neighborhood's reaction. Ah yes, you think the police attacked on of your peers, so the best response is to destroy your neighborhood and assault the police? Could you be more stupid? If you think this is born out of racism, WHY ACT EXACTLY LIKE THE RACISTS THINK YOU WILL?!?!?! This is one thing the black community seems to never understand. Responding to supposed racism by acting like barbaric violent monsters is only playing into the hands of the racists out there and puts the average luke warm people against them.
