The girl’s father was in prison for a separate sex crime and has no involvement in his daughter’s life, Tulsa Police told FOX23 News at the time of the incident.
so i guess that explains why she was comfortable with allowing an adult to rape her daughter. these are the kind of men she dates.
Reminds me of someone I knew that would keep a pint of Jack in his trunk. He drove drunk constantly and it was there for when if he ever got into an accident he was prepared to run out of the car, pop the trunk, and pound the bottle in front of all the witnesses.
Can’t prove he was drunk at the time of the accident.
This kind of thing has been repeated amd handed down for like a century. But I’ve never ever heard of anyone actually doing it, much less having it work.
That sounds like a terrible legal defense. Yes - I had alcohol in my car, and I was pounding it at the time of the accident. But trust me, I was totally sober when I actually hit that person.
It’s up to the police to prove you were drunk while driving. Normally that’s not hard since they can show that between them getting to you, field so riery testing, and taking you in there’s no way for you to have had a drink before they take a blood test for instance. But if you break that chain, there isn’t a good way to prove that it wasn’t from after the incident.
Ah but you didn’t just have alcohol in your car. That’s totally legal, otherwise you would never be able to drive home from a store with alcohol. You even have witnesses stating you got it from your trunk, so even if it was already open, it could not have been within reach while driving. Which is a component of most open container laws.
It’s up to the police to prove you were drunk while driving.
Actually, its up to the prosecution to prove you were drunk while driving. And that standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt', which I'm pretty sure 'pounding liquor after an accident to have plausible deniability on your insobriety' would make an easy argument to meet that threshold.
The cops will take you either way and let a judge decide what to do with you.
I know I’ve read of at least one successful case where the person fled the scene and went home, then claimed he was drinking at home. Honestly, though, there’s so many things that factor into whether an individual gets arrested or released that we’d need more examples to differentiate between just letting someone go and This One Simple Trick Judges Hate.
It’s up to the police to show you were driving while intoxicated. You have witnesses corroborating that you were drinking after the accident. Any field sobriety, or blood test they give you would be worthless because it would be after that.
You might not be able to prove it, but anyone willing to chug alcohol in front of witnesses to have that kind of plausible deniability can easily be assumed to have already been drunk to start with. That just doesn't seem like it would hold up to the 'reasonable doubt' standard...
How is this torture? He isn’t starving, and he doesn’t have to eat gross or questionable food. If a vegan diet was a medical requirement, both his lawyers and the media would’ve milked it dry, but they didn’t, which tells me that vegan food is only a preference.
I think I see where you’re coming from! It’s actually a common misconception that you can easily transform vegetarian meals into vegan ones. Every vegan has different needs, and a prison menu has unique challenges. They often serve packaged items or things like stew, which you can’t remove ingredients from.
And I think you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who is a vegan for “political” reasons. No one is asking for a platform here, they’re asking for food.
Do I like this person? No.
Are they a person? Yes.
That’s the key point that I think is getting lost in many of the comments here. I would never fault someone for being massively angry about what FTX did.
No what’s not okay is that they aren’t forcing him it eat meat against his will. This is prison, not a vacation, he needs to be punished not catered to.
I instantly distrust anyone I see open carrying in public. Hunting or on the farm? Sure, makes sense. In the grocery store…ehhh.
The weekend after it became legal here I saw a guy in cut off jean shorts+beater tank with a 22LR Beretta Neo in a drop leg holster at a local diner. I can only assume he’s an elite operator.
Generally you’re right, but the reason those rights exist is to protect you when you actually need them. Carrying a gun because there’s a Lynch mob who think you’re the wrong color? Well now the cops in that Lynch mob have what they need to arrest you if not justification for gunning you down right there. This whole business of banning carry started in these very scenarios.
Now that cultural divide is more on economic lines, all these bans have carve outs you can pay your way around. California with the strongest gun bans in the country banned"unsafe handguns", but they created a market by letting you buy ANY handgun you want for typically 2x retail price from a police officer who is exempt and specifically allowed to transfer his exempt guns to you. Cali even lets you own a machine gun if you’re willing to spend $5,000-10,000 on the right lawyer to do the paperwork and make the arrangements with your police chief (requires their signature in addition to checking some procedural boxes beforehand).
Before living in California I lived in New York City, the other most restrictive place in the country. Before the supreme Court ruled on bruen, you could carry a gun anywhere with a carry permit it was quite permissive - the only way to get one was to pay a lawyer who made the arrangements. I never got one myself but knew several people who did and it cost them a few thousand in legal fees plus incidentals.
Open carry was pretty much always banned in the United States.
The early cases make a clear distinction between habitual open, carry and purposive open carry.
Habitual open carry, where you wear your gun as a garment just to show it off, was viewed as a sign of a lawless society. It was looked down upon and was illegal in civil places as a breach of peace.
Purposive open carry was legal at common law for people with an obvious need to carry, such as bankers, stagecoach drivers, and police. That’s why every state’s gun laws read the way they do, for the most part: declaring that carrying is illegal except in specific circumstances, one of which is that the bearer has a permit and the weapon is concealed, another is that the bearer is a police officer, or on their way two and from hunting, or to and from the range, etc.
There are surprisingly many people who cc in public, legally or not. Pressed to choose, I would prefer to deal with cc, because open carry is easier for a rando to take it, plus oc in my particular area are larpers and nervous Nelly/ showoff types which are, in my experience more dangerous than the average gang member at the corner store buying a beer and lotto. That said, I’m rural so I’m not sure how that changes in met areas.
I’m in full agreement with you, especially in conservatism. I blame Dan Abrams and Hollywood, glorification of excessive force. And I think Larry Flynt called this one.
I think some of them are wannabe heroes. They think they are going to heroically stop a crime, when they are more likely to kill an innocent bystander or themself.
Ehh while perhaps not popular amongst this crowd there's also collectors. I've bought and traded more than 3 in that timespan as collectibles/trade options for a sale or some such. Not everything is for nefarious reasons.
Connecticut already requires background checks for all firearm sales and requires that all firearm sales are reported. Further, licensed dealers are required to report to the ATF sales of multiple firearms within a certain time period.
I have a very difficult time believing that despite these measures, many people are purchasing handguns for resale to prohibited persons at a rate greater than 36 per year.
Well you only need one for a mass shooting, and carry bans aren’t going to stop you if you’re about to fucking murder a bunch of innocent strangers, so what problem is this solving exactly?
Why not just get a big pickup truck and hang truck nuts on it? All the microdicks in my area do that. Nice oversized infotainment rich pickup truck, no mud on her, no tools or supplies in the back. Sorry about the penis size.
It’s not. In the view of many, civilian gun ownership is A Problem To Be Solved. Such people do not draw a distinction between law-abiding gun owners who keep their guns secure and threaten nobody, and violent criminals and psychopaths who frequently kill people. Thus, with that view, any law that restricts gun ownership or reduces the number of guns in society is progress.
In reality, this law will do absolutely nothing for public safety. It will make the lives of gun owners harder, while the criminals and psychos will ignore this law just as they do every other law.
But how many Olympic swimming pools is that? Or is that a unit of volume… sorry, I think I’m looking for the number of football fields, yes how many of those is it in diameter?
He should be careful. He can't actually negotiate with foreign governments due to the Logan Act. This looks like he's trying to go abroad to influence those governments.
It is. I’m not willing to try it myself. I wouldn’t like an untested drug that works in unknown ways and that goes into unwanted regions of my brain. But I still can very well understand it, especially when a doctor recommends it.
I agree with you on except the doctor recommended part. They are sold to by drug manufacturers and get a cut so always make the final decision after you’ve checked reputable sources on the drug, unless they’re a relative or something.
Good question, I may have worded that too strongly. But if they’ll approve it upon request that is pretty close to a recommendation still, even if they didn’t bring it up themselves. Keep in mind that all medicine will be subsidized and cost the government money, and afaik the medicine in question is fairly expensive, so doctors are in general supposed to be restrictive in prescribing medicine willy nilly - if they prescribe it, patients will trust that it will have effect and be safe.
We’re able to know what the side effects of drugs like this are as that is a measurable output. SSRIs are another example where we’re not fully sure how they work mechanically, but we still have a good sense of potential side effects.
Dr. Susan Yanovski, a co-director of the office of obesity research at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, warned that patients would have to be monitored for rare but serious side effects, especially as scientists still don’t know why the drugs work.
Also, why are executives deciding how our bodies work?
She faced resistance in part because some company executives were convinced that obesity resulted from a lack of willpower. One of the champions of investigating GLP-1 for weight loss, Mads Krogsgaard Thomsen, the current chief executive of the Novo Nordisk Foundation and former chief scientific officer of the company, said in the video posted by the foundation that he “had to spend half a year convincing my C.E.O. that obesity is not just a lifestyle condition.”
They don’t know them all for sure, which is why that monitoring is important. The same happened with SSRIs and other drugs that are not fully understood. After Vioxx gave thousands of people heart attacks, pharma companies now have to monitor drugs safety and efficacy even past FDA approval. I used to pull reports from the HCO I worked for so the pharma company that made the drug could measure side effects. Still, those potential side effects are often less severe than the cost of non-treatment; in this example diabetes and heart disease.
As for your second question, in my view that’s just because our society puts too much stake in wealth. It’s assumed the rich are rich because they’re better and smarter. When they get all the way up to CEO their heads have gotten so big they think they know better than scientists because obviously they’re in their position out of their own personal work ethic and not thanks in part to other factors like luck and those that supported them along the way.
I can see why some people want to take the risk even though the risks potentially could be fatal in rare cases OR there might not be any side effects at all. It’s a crapshoot either way.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.