Southern_Man

So, you recognize that there is a continuum of condition. Somehow your only response to that is to impose a binary judicial philosophy? So that the only determination of the court is whether the guy is competent or not? I don't know, that seems awfully far from reality to me. This guy killed somebody. He deserves to be in jail. It is the best way to ensure the safety of the public (as well as being appropriate punishment for his action). His intellectual disability is one mitigating factor (and courts consider all sorts of mitigating and aggravating factors). In this case the Supreme Court has decided it is a serious enough mitigating factor to disallow the death penalty. That seems appropriate to me. Do you have any problem with Texas ignoring the Supreme Court? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Bah, I always wonder at people's lack of historical perspective when they say things like this. It is not likely to touch the Jefferson/Adams/Burr campaign or the Cleveland/Blaine election. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Well, if you want to know the Supreme Courts reasoning you should read their decision The upshot is that the Supreme Court decided that because of the inherent limitations of a person with intellectual diability 1. It is more problematic to ensure a fair trial and 2. There is reduced (note: not none, which is implied by your not responsible for their actions) moral culpability. The disconnect, if there is one, is that as a legal/clinical term and definition Intellectual Disability is a binary condition (you either have it or you don't) but in reality it is a continuum. So somebody who falls just under the line of cutoff may be entitled to state benefits and (in this case) legal protections that somebody who is just over the cutoff is not entitled to even though functionally they look very little different in their day-to-day life. If we take that further, it would clearly be absurd for a court to hold somebody with a very low IQ (say, mid-30s) criminally responsible for any action. In any case, the Supreme Court said you are not allowed to execute those with intellectual disabilities. Texas just created their own set of criteria, not backed by any sort of research or professional organization or diagnostic criteria and created and exception for themselves. I don't believe Texas, or anybody else, gets to exempt themselves from Supreme Court rulings. I believe I am firmly on record here as being against the death penalty in all cases. In the particular case of Atkins v. Virginia I believe the Supreme Court actually did a very good job articulating the issues based on my 15+ years of professional work in this field. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Please don't spread bad information. It is hard enough to reasonably educate people without having incorrect terminology and bad definitions thrown around. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I bought my first canopy at 37 jumps and bought one at 1:1 (210 sq. ft). I flew that canopy for 200 jumps and recently sold it and bought a different 210 to replace it. I figure I will jump that for at least 100 and probably 200 jumps before considering downsizing. I'm in no rush and have a lot of fun flying at that wingloading. My container will take at least one size smaller, so I will have this container until I have at least 500-600 jumps. Several factors go into my thinking and decisions: 1. I'm mostly focused on RW skills and have no desire to get into swooping or other high performance canopy flight (although I do put effort into learning to fly my canopy effectively will all different inputs). 2. I see a lot of risk and not much benefit fo downsizing in general (yeah, it lets your raise your wind limits and jump in higher winds, ask yourself if that is really a great thing). 3. I am old and don't like pain. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Absolutely abysmal that in the Brisenos decision they state they are going to follow the AAMR criteria for making determinations then they just go ahead and make up an entire new set of criteria.. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I already posted the definition above for you. I'll put another link here to a slightly longer definition: http://www.aaidd.org/content_100.cfm?navID=21 Nobody is saying you should let him go and he is not responsible for his actions. The supreme court has said you should not execute people who are mentally retarded. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

That is painting with an awfully broad brush. this comment in a thread where all "Texans" and all "Christians" are being bucketed..... Not by me. Anyway, I am just questioning why or how somebody could just outright state "retarded people don't abduct folks" I'm sure there are people with intellectual disabilities who can and do defy all sorts of stereotypes that people have of them. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Is your answer really that we should just throw people into institutions? Do you have any experience with institutions or the people who have been institutionalized? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Ivet Lalova is nice. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I don't think it is quite that ambiguous, although I am open to further clarification. Mental Retardation [sic] now Intellectual Disability, is well defined and has three prongs. All three prongs have to be met: 1. Significantly subaverage IQ--this is usually defined as below 70 or two standard deviations below the norm--although I have seen people with IQs above that diagnosed. 2. Limitations in adaptive functioning. There are quite a few instruments to screen for this as well and well established criteria on those instruments. 3. Onset before the age of 18. Sounds like Texas prosecutors dispute that he met #1 (based on conflicting IQ tests) and that he met #2 (though based on what exactly is unclear). #3 can be quite difficult to establish in some cases, especially if the person has been out of school long enough that school records have been destroyed. The method of screening and evaluation of evidence is a different issue. In Virginia they have determined that experts administer the tests but that the jury actually determines if the person meets the criteria. That led to Atkins (in the Atkins v. Virginia case referenced above) being executed. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Which or those things disqualify him from being mentally retarded? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

According to the Supreme Court it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute a mentally retarded person. See Atkins v. Virginia from 2002. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

That is painting with an awfully broad brush. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

If I felt I needed to wear a vest just to go to the movies I would stay at home and watch Netflix instead. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I'm confused about this. Does this mean the candidates who missed the ballot because of issues w/ continuous membership will now be placed on the ballot? Thanks for all your reports. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

ah, yes, DICK, the guy who had no problem declaring guilt in spite of no evidence, and who never saw process that he couldn't cheat. I don't miss that pigfucker for a second. I'm glad Dick Pound is no longer in charge of WADA despite the opportunities for comic relief that his name provides. He was way too much into publicity and grandstanding and way too little for protection of due process rights. Unfortunately in this case I believe he is right. I feel bad for the clean athletes, as the only real defense they have against suspicion is, "I've passed all the tests" and that just doesn't go very far. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Can you post pictures of said official US women mud wrestlers (as well as their opponents) to help me decide? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

A tandem does count for your 25 jumps. You do need some documentation. sometimes a certificate is good enough, some drop zones will also issue little, temporary paper logbooks (good for about 10 jumps?) if you tell them that you are going into AFF. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Water will boil at room temperature in a vacum. My vacuum is also a steam cleaner so that is very convenient. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

too bad, in real life, watching any two average people kissing is likely equivalent in voyeuristic fun as watching a walrus trying to climb over a rock - and probably just as sexy. Unlike what our healthy imaginations wish it was like If you go, I hope you like walruses So attractive in theory, so disappointing in reality. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Defacing walls does not qualify as free speech whether it is on government walls or private property. I am a big fan of Banksy and some of the stuff he has done for the Olympics. Of course he is so well known that many property owners are happy and proud to have his works on their walls. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I *think* "Winnings" are taxed differently. But that is a total and utter guess

I think they are open on Friday a good bit during good weather, not 100% sure. I had a great time there when I visited. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

History has shown us that if we just increase taxes that they will just increase spending. If we do not control spending, this economy is lost. History also shows that when we decrease taxes that they will just continue to increase spending. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"