jakee

Not only are you evidently incredibly gullible, you and the author are two whiny peas in a victim complex pod. I mean, what was the point of the South Park story? To show that the author wanted to work for Goldman Sach because he wanted to say he worked for Goldman Sachs… and that means they tricked him into it? How about grow up and take some responsibility for your own actions, bro. And then the part about pretending they’re socially conscious - well duh, of course they do. But the thing that’s conspicuously lacking is any evidence they’ve actually fooled anyone. The author shows they got regulatory and tax breaks from classic crony capitalism, but what has so called ‘woke capitalism’ actually got them? Who in the left has ever called for Goldman Sachs to be able to do whatever they want because they’re so moral? Who on the left has ever said Amazon is anything other than a soulless, small business destroying mega corp?

Gotta love it when the rodents start eating each other.

The car was parked out front. The cops had every opportunity to check that before arresting everyone. Why did they need to surround the house with guns drawn? Why did they need to handcuff everyone before talking to them?

Right, I already mentioned being interviewed in my previous post and it's clear from the context of Kallend's post that I'm replying to that being interviewed is the scenario we're talking about. Again, I see your point but you've over stretched. You're forcing an equivalence that doesn't exist. That's not true. He wasn't not perfect, he was actively, unambiguously wrong in the information he created this thread specifically to offer - and by the way invited people to correct him. It took half a page because he kept arguing that he wasn't wrong before changing his mind and claiming he meant something else all along. That's not my fault.

I see your point, but that is just semantics. While in the state of being under arrest vs not, is my point. Exactly when the warning is read doesn't change that.

Anytime. Though you could make it easier next go around.

Your use of "can't" is throwing me off because you clearly did mean "can't". In your first post "UK: you cannot later supply an answer at trial (in other words you have to stick to your silence defense)" "May be held against you" is more acceptable because it is correct, whereas you were wrong.

The Miranda rights are read when you're being arrested. This guarantees you're under suspicion of something and therefore it is possible in that situation that absolutely anything you could say might be construed as self-incriminating. If you were being interviewed solely as a witness to a crime you wouldn't be Mirandised.

Your comment could not possibly have been taken from that link, because it simply does not say that you're not allowed to ambush the prosecution with your own personal testimony. Whatever you read, you didn't read it there.

No, because you're still plain wrong. Again, it's all in the standard police warning. "... if you do not mention something when questioned that you later rely on in court." How would you later rely on it in court if you were not allowed to rely on it in court? The "ambush defense" refers to introduction of expert witnesses or testimony not previously disclosed, as a cursory Google search reveals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambush_defence

No, that's not true. Your defense can use at trial things you didn't say during an interview. There is still the adverse inference thing though. This is all pretty obvious from the standard police arrest/interview warning “you do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention something when questioned that you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence”.

Except that's a blatant and obvious lie. First of all, it's obvious that you don't want every single person convicted of any kind of violent offense to spend the rest of their lives in prison. Of course you don't. It would be fucking insane to the point of sociopathy to genuinely hold that view. Second, not only have you not once said that yet, you have said several things that directly contradict it. Again, what you ACTUALLY SAID in the first post that you underlined "violent offenders" and said you were going to be "very clear" about your opinion was that 15 years should mean 15 years. I don't know which classes you failed to pay attention in, English or logic or whatever, but 15 years doesn't mean life. If this subject has got you so riled up you can't even see that then you seriously need to go and calm yourself down before your next post. What you ACTUALLY SAID back when this thread was still about guns (before you derailled it with your revenge fantasies) was that using a gun in a violent crime should bring an extra 10 year sentence as a specific gun violence deterrent. You even clarified why you thought not using a gun was worth a lesser sentence. But now if all violent offenders should get LWOP anyway how is any of that remotely relevant? Why would you even have said it? Answer; something you're saying is not true. You've dug yourself into a hole that you're now lying to get out of because you're too proud acknowledge your fucked up and contradictory arguments. See above. You're not attacking me because I wasn't paying attention, you're attacking me because I was. Blaming the reader for knowing what you said is pure trolling. Shame you decided to go down that road, Brent.

You know what happens when I pay attention? I catch you contradicting yourself yet again. Are you lying, or are you just paying so little attention you don't even know what you said? I think you do know what you said, you're just doing your best Brenthutch impression again. Surely you know how much it undermines your position when you can't keep your story straight? What do you get out of making yourself look so slippery and dishonest? "I say Good. It should be that much and more. There should be no college, no trade school, Life means life without parole, 15 years means 15 years without parole, Etc." You do want to see violent criminals released back into society with no rehabilitation whatsoever. You said it, now own it. Be straight for once.

Yes, "so called experts". The guy who'd rather listen to a random GP in a PTA meeting than a panel of experts who've spent their entire working careers in epidemiology is moaning that there's no consistent guidance. The guy who's actively spreading misinformation is complaining about the prevalence of conflicting information. It's exactly the same right wing playbook as election security - spend a year baselessly scaremongering about the official line then claim there must be something inherently wrong with the official line because people no longer trust it.

And you want to turn them out into society without being rehabilitated at all. Which one sounds more sensible?

Wow, I think you're on to something. If we institute tougher mandatory minimum sentencing then inmates will no longer be able to escape or murder people in prison. You're a genius!! By the way, care to explain why you disagree with your own source?

How specifically do you think there has been a lack of consistent and quality info from actual scientific leaders on Covid? Apart from banning republican congressmen from opening their mouths what exactly can you do to stop confusing, differing opinions from being spread?

He's a family doctor with a subspecialty in complementary medicine. You may know complementary medicine as that spiritual stuff that isn't medicine.

Sorry Wendy, but if it was anyone else you'd see and call the bullshit. He's getting all the way up on the high horse of "won't someone think of the poor victims' families" but is suggesting that the solution to families getting no help is to make sure prisoners get none either - not to actually provide any help. It's a cynical and hollow ploy to try and emotionally blackmail people inot agreeing with an argument he knows he can't support any other way. There's a difference between saying someone's getting on their high horse and saying they're the antichrist too. By the way, ironic that it's actually Bigun seriously proposing we treat people who do one bad thing as entirely and irredeemably evil. Maybe it's him you should be warning of the dangers of black and white thinking, no?

Look again. He's cynically portraying himself as the only person in the conversation who cares about victims and their families while proposing exactly nothing that would reduce the number of victims or provide assistance for their families.

Branson is just dabbling but Bezos is building a super heavy launch vehicle too, just taking a more conventional, less visible (and so far apparently slower and much more expensive) approach to it. (Meanwhile established tech giant Boeing is trying to make just a capsule to sit on top of an existing rocket and is struggling to get that right.)

It's hard to take you seriously all the way up on that high horse when you don't appear to want to change that. Here's a novel thought - maybe those families would be helped more by being helped instead of by taking rehabilitation programs away from prisons. What do you think? Right, because again, these are the people most likely to come up with rational, productive plans. Because look, unless you institute life without parole for any and every violent offense many of these prisoners will at some point be released back into society. Why don't you explain to the victims of recidivists why you felt it was best for them to be released having learned nothing more than how to do the crimes that put them away in the first place? What a surprise.

No, that's not clear. Mostly because you've just proved that you're lying, either to us or to yourself. You said that your stance was about protecting society. Putting someone in prison for 15 years with no access to education, social work, support of any kind does a worse job of protecting society than putting them in prison for 15 years with those things. What you want is not useful, it's not noble, it's not for the greater good. What you want is a personal feeling of revenge.

You already said there shouldn't be parole anyway. How complicated is it for you to keep track of your own statements? But once again, just so we're both absolutely clear and on the same page, you are saying now that you're ok with the idea of the man who anally raped your wife being released back into society ten years earlier because he did it at knifepoint, not gunpoint? Then why is rampant gun violence a uniquely American problem if the solution is harsher sentencing? America already has the harshest sentencing in the world, and it's not even close. You have the least free population in the world, in large part because of extremely harsh mandatory sentencing, and yet you still have all this gun violence. Explain why just one more massive mandatory penalty will make any difference? Lol, there's nothing circular about this. How could there be when you're twisting and turning all over the place to avoid answering straightforward challenges to the argument you chose to introduce? It's just another classic Bigun being too proud to admit he fucked up and said something stupid moment. I know you don't approach this forum with the same intent as Brenthutch but damn you do a great impersonation of him sometimes.

That's not a clarification, it's a completely different statement to the one you made. You said there shoud be an added sentence for using a gun, period. Someone even asked what about knives, and you said guns were worse. Now you're saying you want anyone guilty of any violent crime with guns, knives or any weapon to go away forever? How exactly do you add a 10 year gun use tarriff to a life sentence? Do you want a specific deterrent for gun use or not?