I went to a brewery recently where they swipe your card at the entrance and hand you a little black credit card type thing. You find your own seats, you go grab a glass, and you insert the card into a slot at a beer tap and pour your own beer, priced by the ounce. If you want food, you go to a kiosk, put your card in, and order food. When it’s ready, you go to the kitchen and pick it up to bring back to your seat. When you leave, you bring the card back up to the register and they charge you for all the food and drink. But then it asks you how much you wanna tip. Who the fuck am I tipping? I was my own host, my own bartender, my own waiter, my own bus boy. I haven’t seen an actual employee here except for some woman who swiped my credit card during a 5 second interaction.
For easy drinks (beer, wine, or simple liquor/ soda mixes), $1 is fine. If they have to bust out a tool like a muddler or peeler, you should probably give more than $1.
I went to a brewery like this as well. Pretty annoying to have to carry your own food out from the kitchen because they weren’t optimizing for take out. They had heavy plates and bowls. Also, feel like rather than sitting and relaxing I’m forced to get up and run around looking for condiments and silverware and water cups. Can’t make it all in one trip. Don’t quite feel like a guest. Then at the end you’re expected to bus your own table.
And yes, they wanted a full 20% tip, probably even 25% if I remember right.
Wtf is the point of this. Even if they wanted to save on labor costs of wait staff and everything why not just use your own card instead of trading it for a temporary card.
It’s like this pizza place I went to recently. They had a little arcade so I went to put some quarters in and realized I had to go buy tokens at a machine first. It wasn’t Dave and Busters or anything, just a hole in the wall with a few games in a corner. I didn’t buy any tokens. Same with laundromats that now want you to buy tokens ahead of time.
There isn’t a single business anymore that isn’t trying to just blatantly scam you out of your money. They used to at least be more subtle about it.
They don't want to handle coins essentially. Going to the bank to exchange coins for cash every day is a huge part of the labor cost, so they make you use tokens that not only allows them to get rid of that but also essentially charge you seignorage.
You’re comparing weeks of spending to a couple hours at a bar though, I’m not sure if that’s really comparable.
There’s a couple other reasons that apply as well:
Because they get charged less by the bank for lower quantity of bigger transactions, instead of high number of small transactions. Also allows for people who have cash but no card to use the system.
Because they get charged less by the bank for lower quantity of bigger transactions, instead of high number of small transactions. Also allows for people who have cash but no card to use the system.
Literally no damage done to the boat will ever actually financially harm the bitchionaire. That’s not the goal of protest - though it’s certainly a bonus when it’s achievable.
Undiluted pine sol is the smell of pine, but it is incredibly strong, and takes forever to get rid of.
Back on reddit there was a story about some soldiers that resorted to it to “speed clean” the smell of their training facility. It’s far more effective in an enclosed space.
The hell is wrong with this country. Shoplifting is not violent crime. If they flee put out an arrest warrant and they’ll turn up later, in a lot more trouble.
Cops are well aware standing in front of a car gives them a free pass killing someone who attempts to escape. It’s totally unnecessary pointless murder.
It’s an execution. Someone accused of a crime doesn’t get a trial or a chance to defend themselves. Someone with a gun makes a decision to end their life on the spot.
Cops are well aware standing in front of a car gives them a free pass killing someone who attempts to escape.
Not to mention, standing in front of a car driven by a POC who has every reason to expect the cops to shoot them anyway. That person is already frightened and likely panicked and not thinking clearly. Putting yourself in front of a car with a panicked driver who is justifiably in fear for their life is incredibly stupid.
Also, what is with cops just repeating the same command over and over again and refusing to otherwise interact with the person. Are they trying to make the situation worse? Why not try and de-escalate the situation. Oh, that's right, they want a reason to shoot people.
Cops are well aware standing in front of a car gives them a free pass killing someone
This "technique" has been demonstrated enough that frankly, I think that any rational person would conclude that in any situation where a cop walks in front of your car, you're better off just gunning it before the cop has a chance to extrajudicially execute you first. If they walk in front of your car, it's clear they're just itching to murder you. The threat has been made, you should fear for your life. It's you or them.
I think that any rational person would conclude that in any situation where a cop walks in front of your car, you’re better off just gunning it before the cop has a chance to extrajudicially execute you first.
Running from police in a high crime area used to be considered probable cause.
That’s changing now because running from police in a high crime area is an eminently reasonable thing to do even if you’re innocent.
If the tactic is demonstrably employed as a pretextual justification to kill nonviolent criminal suspects, than it’s reasonable to say that statutory law of resisting arrest should be the thing that breaks, not the natural law of self defense.
It isn’t to get away with shoplifting. It’s to avoid being executed without even a trial over shoplifting. They’re going to try to kill you no matter what you do in that scenario; might as well try to get out with your life.
Let me put in a scenario you might understand. Mobsters are regularly jumping in front of cars, shooting the person driving, and then stealing the car. A mobster jumps in front of your car and points a gun at your head. What do you do?
I can’t think of any other reason for a cop to place himself in front of a car. It’s dangerous and it’s not going to stop a car. It really only can be to provide an excuse for deadly force.
Putting equal emphasis on the opinions of both sides is what got us in this fuckhole to begin with. No matter how niche a voice, your opinion matters equal on any and all topics including reproductive health and climate mechanics.
This seems to be more serious that what have been suggested by other comments.
Luckily one of the girls didn’t like the smoothie and didn’t take much. She didn’t fall into deep sleep and was the one who suspected something fishy going on when the man kept coming to the basement. The man even tried to separate the girls. Again, the girl protected her friends by pulling them closer to her. She finally managed to contact her family friend, when the man went outside, messaging them to come and bring her home, and once she was saved, the other families followed suit.
Given a different scenario where everyone took the smoothies, I speculate with high degree of confidence someone would get sexually assaulted or worse.
And this is why we don’t allow our kids to participate in sleep overs.
Edit: Downvote all you want, sleepovers are weird and too risky.
Edit 2: Ok I wasn’t going to include this context but since you are all so ignorant I feel the need to. My son went on a sleep over when he was 14 and ended up getting molested. So for the rest of my kids (yes they are teen girls), there is a zero sleep over policy.
People are down voting you, but I’ve heard about a lot of inappropriate behavior at sleepovers from people close to me, boys and girls. Me and my siblings were not allowed to go to sleepovers. Nobody thought we were weird. Once my parents grew a relationship with a friend’s parents, that rule got broken once in a while. Other than that, we were allowed to invite a friend over for a sleepover if we wanted one 🤷🏼♀️ I’m an adult now with my own child, and I’m really glad my parents protected me. I will have the same rule
Genuine question, what makes your house safer for a sleepover than other parents’? Of course you know your house is safe, but other parents could feel the same way.
Yeah but it’s you who has to make the decisions about your kid’s safety, not them. And you don’t know what you don’t know. I wouldn’t blindly 100% trust strangers with my kid just because of a logical fairness any more than I would lend my car to random person off the street because I have no evidence they would steal it.
I think it’s best if you can get to know people first. Even if it’s just for your own peace of mind and so that it’s visibly clear to them that there will be someone holding them accountable.
Weirdly specific. I had an argument about this exact thing on a post a few weeks ago. There was someone who had a friend who lost was divorced by his wife (phrasing issue) and couldn’t understand why other parents were wary of him hosting a sleepover for his daughter. He had done so many times as a married man but suddenly couldn’t.
So the argument was about how women in general, especially parents of little girls, can’t blindly trust every man they meet. There were some salty males insisting that line of logic is sexist.
Anyway, banning all sleepovers isn’t the solution. Properly chaperoned sleepovers with two parents present should be fine.
[Edit: Yes, I realize that it’s technically sexist. The fact that it is is beside the point that it’s necessary for women to be wary of men. If you don’t understand why, ask literally any woman in your life to explain it for you]
[Edit #2: I’m not engaging anyone else on the subject from this point. I have successfully fallen into the same trap of holding dudes’ hands who don’t understand that strange men do, in fact, pose a risk to women, and now my morning has been wasted.
I already elaborated this point more than enough. If you still feel the need to express how this offends you after you read down this thread, I would urge you to look elsewhere into women’s perspectives on the subject before you just handwave it like these guys are trying to do.]
sexism /ˈsɛksɪz(ə)m / ▸ noun [mass noun] prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex: sexism in language is an offensive reminder of the way the culture sees women.
To burst your bubble, some of the most famous rapists and child molesters I know of had their wives help them. Women can be monsters too.
I really don’t wish to rehash this. For the sake of simplicity, yes. It fits the technical definition of sexism. However, arguing that women shouldn’t be wary of men they don’t know because it might hurt someone’s feelings is completely ridiculous, especially when the thing at stake is a woman or girl’s safety.
I understand, believe me because I had to reassure several people multiple times, that women can also be monsters. That doesn’t change the fact that perpetrators of sexual assault cases are overwhelmingly men.
This cannot be overstated. Even sexual assault against men is perpetrated 86% of the time by other men. See Page 32
I hesitate to even engage you on this because there’s a fine line between logically arriving at the point that it is in fact sexist, and blindly extending the claim to the connotation that discrimination in that sense shouldn’t exist at all. If you are going to argue the latter, I’m not going any further than this.
It is a difficult problem because using statistics like that you end up supporting people who say you should be wary of blacks because 14% of the population is black yet commit 53% of the murders.
Imo it’s more important to look at the percentage of crime in general. Googling says around 12,000 pedos out of 330 million people. If you live your life by your statistics you shouldn’t let your kids inside a car. Driving them to a sleepover is far more dangerous than the sleepover.
using statistics like that you end up supporting people who say you should be wary of blacks because 14% of the population is black yet commit 53% of the murders
No, this is a different thing. People who espouse that line of logic are explicitly using it to justify racism. There are several other factors that play into that specific statistic, including the population density of black people in areas where crime is already high, and the likelihood of being economically disadvantaged just by being in a black family from generational poverty.
That stat specifically is simplified to a bare number and used as a bludgeon by racists.
Googling says around 12,000 pedos out of 330 million people
I understand how you misinterpreted the point, given the actual subject of the post, but those statistics are about sexual assault in general. 1 in 3 women experience unwanted sexual contact in their lifetime. I’d say that’s high enough number to warrant being aware of a situation where you, as a woman, might be vulnerable to that.
To relate to the point you’re trying to make about comparing this to justifying racism with black crime stats, would you choose to walk through a neighborhood where the crime rate was high? Regardless of the demographic makeup of the neighborhood, is it morally wrong to arrive at the conclusion that you are not safe in certain areas because the statistical likelihood of being assaulted is higher?
Does the sentence “If I don’t walk through this neighborhood then I must be prejudiced against the people here who don’t commit crimes” make sense to you?
If the answer to all of those is no, then you can at least recognize the line of logic women have to be conscious of when they are faced with potentially being in a precarious situation around a man who they don’t know.
People who espouse that line of logic are explicitly using it to justify racism.
Just as you use your statistic to justify sexism. You don’t consider the factors that cause men to be sexual predators. Because to you, the cause isn’t your problem, being attacked is your problem. You can’t have it both ways.
1 in 3 women experience unwanted sexual contact in their lifetime.
100% of women will experience a car crash in their lifetime. (3-4 accidents per lifetime).
I have said several times already that it’s sexism. That doesn’t make it wrong to be cautious, nor is it justifying the fact.
Sexism in its barest definition exists in benign circumstances all around us. Why do men and women have different bathrooms? Different sports leagues? Different car insurance rates?
Arguing that sexism shouldn’t exist for the sake of it in this specific case is selectively pushing equality in the face of women’s safety.
100% of women will experience a car crash in their lifetime. (3-4 accidents per lifetime).
Let’s extend your logic on this: is it wrong to wear a seat belt given, statistically, that you will experience a car crash at some point? Because in effect, that’s what this line of logic is.
Or are you just being obtuse? Because in order for this point to make sense, you’d have to argue against practicing safety in the face of statistical likelihood. Which is literally what this is about
Because to you, the cause isn’t your problem
Oh, please do educate me on what causes men to sexually assault women. Yes, the fact that women are being attacked is the problem. The cause should not preclude women from taking measures to ensure their safety.
As long as I have spent clarifying this point, besides the misguided notion that we should push equality in a situation that is fundamentally unequal, I seriously don’t understand how people don’t get it.
Oh, please do educate me on what causes men to sexually assault women.
The patriarchy and culture of toxic masculinity. Added to that many religions teach that men are more important than women.
you’d have to argue against practicing safety in the face of statistical likelihood.
Again if you live your life by those statistics, you would also be wary of black people. Saying “yeah it’s sexism but it’s justified because statistics show men commit more sexual assaults” is no different than saying you are wary of blacks based on the same statistics.
The patriarchy and culture of toxic masculinity. Added to that many religions teach that men are more important than women.
And because of this, it’s not important for women to protect themselves? We should denounce the fact that women protect themselves because society has conditioned men to be violent?
Look, I’m all about addressing the root cause, but just pointing at one injustice in society doesn’t make another just disappear.
Again if you live your life by those statistics, you would also be wary of black people
You really need to stop saying “well if you’re taking precautions based on statistics you must also be racist”
Because that’s a really transparent fallacy that essentially just boils down to you asserting “women shouldn’t protect themselves because what about black people?”
These are separate points, and putting the words in my mouth that I must be racist is nothing more than deflection to avoid addressing the actual point.
Again if you live your life by those statistics
Additionally, I know very many people who wear seat belts because of the statistical chance of being in a wreck. According to your fallacy, all of those people must also be racist.
women shouldn’t protect themselves because what about black people?”
The fallacy I’m trying to elaborate is mismatched risk. Cars are far more dangerous but you ignore that risk. You could choose to not be sexist just like you currently choose to ignore the statistics to not be racist.
1 in 3 women experience unwanted sexual contact at least once in their lifetime. That’s roughly 65 million women in the states.
That’s not an insignificant risk. You may choose to ignore it, but you clearly don’t have to live with it.
Saying “women should ignore potential danger” on the premise that it’s not fair to a man, who is 9 times out of 10 not even effected by the precautions that women tend to take, is basically like saying you shouldn’t wear a seat belt so that you don’t accidentally offend the other drivers on the road.
You aren’t discriminating against those other drivers by being conscious of your own safety.
Whether or not you agree with that doesn’t really change the fact that women are taught to go to the bathroom in groups or go to the bar with friends (or really not go anywhere alone that they might not be able to easily call for help) or carry mace or cross the street to avoid a man that’s looking at them creepily or any number of avoidant situations.
These are things women do to protect themselves that literally only affect the men who wanted to and would otherwise miss an opportunity to assault them, and things women are taught to do by other women because sexual assault is a thing that happens.
The only context things like this are even brought up as “sexist” at all is when men realize that women have to do it and then get offended on the behalf of all men because it’s “not fair”. Like in this conversation we’re having now.
That sounds much more reasonable, but don’t forget these numbers are also skewed by sexism, on many levels. Victims might not even realize they are victims. In many jurisdictions a woman having nonconsensual sex with a man isn’t even considered rape.
Now, I don’t believe the numbers are even close to 50/50 or that women don’t have the right thing being wary. But being wary is one thing, simply banning all sleepovers at the house of single male parents is another. I’d still call that sexist.
In many jurisdictions a woman having nonconsensual sex with a man isn’t even considered rape
It wasn’t defined as rape in the US until 2013. The FBI only considered “penetration” to be rape until the definition was revised, so national statistics didn’t represent ANY female-on-male rapes, unless the female used a body part or object on the male victim’s anus.
There were some salty males insisting that line of logic is sexist.
[Edit: Yes, I realize that it’s technically sexist. The fact that it is is beside the point that it’s necessary for women to be wary of men. If you don’t understand why, ask literally any woman in your life to explain it for you]
I appreciate that you even understand that what you’re saying is sexist and are self aware enough to realize it is and had to come up with a goalpost moving reason why your statement isn’t actually sexist, really.
So the argument was about how women in general, especially parents of little girls, can’t blindly trust every man they meet.
If you don’t understand why people would be upset that people lost trust in their ability to not be a rapist just because their wife died, I think you need to take a full college course in empathy. This isn’t “blindly trusting every man they meet” this is specifically “I no longer trust you because you don’t have a woman in the house who would prevent you from being a pedophile”, and is 10000% a sexist statement.
Fellas, is it wrong to fear for the safety of your children?
It’s quite ironic of you to take that stance, on this post.
Yeah, it’s sexist. That doesn’t make taking precaution wrong. If you want clarification on that subject, go read the essay I wrote for the other guy. Or maybe ask a lady friend. Most women tend to understand this concept pretty well, given they have to live with it.
Yeah, no. None of my lady friends would tell me they’d stop trusting a dude to watch their kids because his wife died. Because I’ve seen how they treated a friend who had that happen after he lost his wife young to cancer. They supported the dude and he still got to let his daughter and friends hang out at his house and sleep over. Maybe that’s just because they’re not secretly sexist? Not everyone is so afraid of their own shadow that they’d abandon a friend like that.
Also, I’m only aware of 1 or 2 ladies in my friend group who haven’t told me about being sexually assaulted, so believe it or not, I understand how common this is. But hey, what do I know about it, I’m just some guy whose had to comfort a partner and multiple friends after being assaulted. I haven’t had to truly experience it.
To be clear, the man in question was divorced. Unknown reasons. Not widowed.
Also, I’m not over here saying that no man should ever be trusted in that situation. Just that I won’t blame parents who do look at that situation and don’t want their girls at that sleepover.
In any case, I’m pretty tired of arguing against the “secretly sexist” accusations. Call it what you want. The concept is out there, and you clearly understand it.
Waking up in the morning at your best friends house and playing Nintendo with the volume on the tv way down before their parents are awake who then make us pancakes are core memories.
Should be a said though that my friends parents were reasonable close friends with my own parents and my friends slept over at my place regularly as well.
You raise your kids however you want but don’t underestimate the small experience of independence a sleepover can give a child.
Your child is going to hate you for smothering them and unfairly limiiting their ability to be a child because of your misplaced anxieties. This sort of shit is an exception to the normal, and your hurting your children by cowering in fear over something that’s a very low probability.
I hope you don’t drive your kids anywhere, that’s waaaaaaay too risky and dangerous for them if you think sleepovers are risky.
Yes, yes, restrict and police rather than educate and enable personal agency. All children need is to live in an impermeable bubble of perfect safety, not learn any life skills at all… 🤦🏼♂️
Fucksake. Your kids are going to be stunted adults that require $$$$ of therapy to function in the real world. Congrats.
I grew up with a guy that was stunted by his parents. Study, don’t go out except on a few select occasions, do this sport, no girls.
He did really great at school, great student, good guy, good athlete. Then he had to live home for university and went completely overboard. Overweight, stuck with a controlling woman who took advantage of him, failing in his studies. It’s really sad.
A huge chunk of the country just down plays everything.
“OH, if it’s really so bad why haven’t I heard about it.” I just told you mf’r.
“Trump is the victim in all this.” Get fucked. In no way has that silver spoon orange cum rag ever been a victim in his life. We are talking about the person that is suppose to represent and lead umpteen million Americans and you’re treating him with kid gloves.
“Innocent until proven guilty.” He was proven guilty.
“It’s only civil court, it’s not criminal.” Hold still while I shove this goalpost up your ass.
1/4 of republicans splitting the vote pretty much means a free win for dems though. Don’t let the irony of this election compared to the 2016 Bernie situation slide past you lol
They can deny it all they want but Trump lead an insurrection on the capitol and people still support him. Should we really be surprised though? There is a reason dictators come to power. If Trump wins you really have to start asking was our government really equipped to deal with the information age?
My answer is no and even as a kid I thought it was stupid we were so reliant on a piece of paper drafted 200+ years ago. Before automobiles. Before radio. Before the internet. When slave labor was still a thing.
Like it or not, America, it is your hubris that got us into this situation and your hubris that will doom the way of life so many have become accustomed to, even with all of its shortcomings.
It's Texas, so my money is on a few good ol' boys who 1.) don't appreciate the kid's skin color, 2.) don't love that he's nationally embarrassed them for the fools they are, and 3.) are dense enough to believe they can still "win" this thing.
Its generally conservative viewpoints of fitting people into “the norm”. Conservatism/traditionalism doesnt stop in the U.S, japan has schools for example that require students dye their hair black and conform to a very atrict uniform. Although that requirement was dropped very recently in tokyo(like 2021), it likely still exist in some regions.
I had some punk students with non-natural hair colors when I was a high school teacher in California, and that was a long time ago. Nobody cared. This story is from Texas, though.
I mean, yeah it is. The law is dumb and offensive, but it’s not a clear 1A issue. On top of that, even if the topic overall was a clear-cut 1A issue, the fact pattern here doesn’t allow for a decision on that basis – the majority is clear on this in its opinion.
… Darryl was suspended the same week the state’s CROWN Act, a law prohibiting discrimination based on one’s hair texture or protective hairstyle such as locs and braids, went into effect.
This is what systemic racism looks like in real life.
arrested not for breaking any law, but for 'not complying' where the office had no real reason to order anyone to do anything... and then charged with resisting.
Except in the sense that they have weapons and are rarely punished for using them. There’s what the law says and then there’s the reality that if some cop gives you an order you have to choose between obeying and betting your life he’s not going to escalate.
Me too friend. I feel like the only way to make them reform without disbanding and rebuilding them would be to hit them in the capitalism. Right now they don’t risk anything. The absolute worst case is getting fired and then just getting a new job in the next suburb over, but usually they just get a paid vacation.
Of course he broke the law - he hurt the officer's feelings. That's the worst law you can possibly break! /s
But seriously though. Cops got butthurt, and so they aggravated the situation, and used the fact that the poor man panicked when being manhandled as the reason to arrest him in the first place. What kind of circular reasoning bullshit is that??
the poor man panicked when being manhandled as the reason to arrest him in the first place
this is a primary tactic of all police in the united states. all of them.
i would assume its part of the pathetic training they receive which includes things like 'most cops will die on the job, the public is trying to kill you 100% of the time'
Whenever I see dumb laws like this being passed, I think about all the problems they aren’t fixing. Louisiana is damn-near last place on all of the quality of life indexes. It’s sad that they keep electing politicians who refuse to better their quality of life.
It doesn’t help that it was a shitty election cycle. People didn’t vote and are in shock that the republican won where turnout was 36% of registered voters because people assumed the jungle primary would cause a dem and repub to move forward when in fact, of that 36%, Landry won outright with 51%.
Im not saying he wouldn’t have won anyways, but it would have been much closer if people would actually vote.
Fair. I guess I just mean he won with less than 20% of registered voters so it’s difficult for us to know if it’s a fluke since dems did not come out to vote
Others may be forced to contort their neurons to uncomfortable angles trying to come up with reasons thisd be bad… just think of all those hurted brains!! The humanity!!!
It seems so out of touch when people make these arguments these days as they pretend like marijuana is some mystery drug that’s barely used when in reality it’s already medically legal in 4/5ths of the country and recreationally legal in 1/2 the country.
Our founding fathers grew and used hemp. For decades, the cotton industry was famously the largest lobbying agent against its legalization. It’s gotten a bad rap for centuries.
I thought the decline of hemp production in the 1950s (180 years after the American Revolution) was due to the availability of synthetic fibers. But you're saying it was Big Cotton?
I’ve read articles that state both cotton farmers and DuPont (rayon) were against it. There’s a really interesting paper that was featured on leafly.com on the subject, but I’m not seeing it now.
The only thing that proves those worries wrong is every single place where marijuana has been legalized and regulated has less crime and more taxes collected through regulated legal sales. So, just reality.
While I agree it should be 100% legal across the board someone made a good point. Once it’s rescheduled we could see it be classified at a medicine and ban recreational use then they’ll shoot the price through the roof re-opening the black markets. It’s worth treading carefully while we learn future plans that aren’t being spoken of loudly enough.
The thing is, if it gets rescheduled it will be entirely up to the states to handle growing the plant. I fully expect places like Wyoming to continue the draconian laws (like they just did with D8, it’s a felony after June 1st, farm act be damned) but most places will just regulate based on their current laws. What worries me is the ATF being assigned as the federal regulatory body, but that would only happen with it being a taxable, saleable, product. I don’t forsee big pharma being able to do much with rescheduling, it’s too easy to grow.
Yeah, red states are holding this nation back in a huge number of ways. Wyoming still publicly defends racism and hate speech under the guise of “free speech”. Check out the statements made by the University of Wyoming regarding a guy that comes onto campus specifically to harass and spew hate at transgender people this year. The college not only gives him his own table in the student Union, they encourage him to harass people. It sparked entire groups of people to literally scream racism and hate speech at people all over town because “muh freedoms”. It’s bad. Being a minority in this state is legit scary.
For those of you who are wondering why Trump seems to get so much leeway, this is why. The prosecutors and judge have to be perfect in their process and their treatment of the defendant, otherwise a conviction can be thrown out like this.
And for those of you complaining about the two-tier justice system, you’re 100% correct. Because if someone without the resources of Weinstein or Trump were in a similar situation, they probably wouldn’t be able to appeal at all.
At least in Weinstein’s case , he won’t be released right away, since California has also convicted him. And this is, ironically, a good thing for Trump, also, because he now has something to talk about that won’t run afoul of the gag order.
Only two of those people were proven guilty in court and then got out later due to their wealth and power. The other two are innocent until proven guilty and 1 of them is dead and died an innocent man.
It was because the defense was able to cast doubt on the evidence because of how terribly it was handled. The best evidence in the world won't help if the police and the prosecution screw it all up.
Innocent in the eyes of the criminal justice system does not require the rest of society to ignore the evidence against them, it just means they don’t face criminal punishment
OJ wrote a book titled “if I did it”, and then proceeded to explain in great detail how he did it. How much more obvious can it get that he did it and got away with it?
Yes, but not just wealth for it’s own sake, wealth that can be used to buy the services of good defense lawyers, who know how to exercise every right available to the defense.
Or, in Trump’s case, just kinda OK lawyers who get a lot of shit wrong, but know how to file all the paperwork, so that every now and then one of their motions sticks.
I really wish we could dispense the myth of “good lawyers” in this context. That’s not to say that there aren’t such things as good and bad lawyers–there are–but “wealthy clients get away with stuff because they can afford better lawyers” doesn’t really tell the story. Even if you have okay lawyers who fuck up a lot, if you have all the money in the world (or they think you do), you can get them to just keep working to try to fix it and throw new shit at the wall until something sticks. Normal people eventually run out of money.
The “every right available to the defense” list is an exhaustible list. If your client is Donald Trump and your goal is to stall, well, many or even most defense lawyers are going to know everything that goes on that list. It doesn’t matter whether they charge $100 or $1000 an hour, and it doesn’t matter whether they’re fresh out of law school or have been practicing 30 years. A public defender can stall a case if he wants to.
Donald Trump and other rich litigants aren’t buying “better lawyers”. Those lawyers don’t know more or have unique, novel trial strategies that work magic on the courts. And you can watch a trial to see that: There isn’t a huge qualitative difference between the case that OJ’s very expensive defense counsel put on and the case that Marcia Clark (a public servant) put on. Why? Because both sides spent a fortune. They didn’t get better lawyers. They just got more of their lawyers’ time. Simpson spent maybe $6 million on his lawyers, and the taxpayers of California spent $9 million on theirs. Johnnie Cochran was an extremely effective trial lawyer, but I don’t think anyone would say any of Trump’s lawyers is a once-in-a-generation talent.
The only reason you don’t want a public defender is that the public defender is overworked. He has hundreds or thousands of clients and simply can’t devote time to you. The public defenders in my jurisdiction are absolutely the smartest, best experienced criminal lawyers in town. Why? Because they’ve worked hundreds of criminal trials! But those guys don’t have a thousand hours to look up case law in order to exhaust the list of rights for a defendant who needs to put off getting convicted until after November. Even Alina Habba can figure out the whole list if you throw an arbitrarily large pile of cash at her and let her put a room full of junior associates on it for a month.
It’s not better lawyers. It’s just more lawyer time.
And bribes. It’s also bribes.
I say all this because I think a lot of people think that more expensive lawyer = better lawyer, and that’s just not true. For many, many cases, hiring a cheaper lawyer can get you much further if it means your money buys more of your lawyer’s time. That’s the difference between being able to keep your lawyer if you have to appeal and not being able to appeal at all. It’s the difference between going to trial and taking a less favorable settlement, and it’s the difference between being able to pay for more hearings (say, for example, if you need to jam up the proceedings with frivolous motions) and going straight to the merits.
I don’t generally do criminal work, but many, many more of the sad or frustrating “this is the end of the line” talks I’ve had with clients have had to do with the clients’ financial situations than with the actual merits of their cases. At some point it’s often just not cost effective for most people to pursue further litigation, and it doesn’t matter who the lawyer is. If you’re a member of the 1%, however–well, then you never have to worry about that. Just keep litigating forever, and it doesn’t matter whether your lawyer is Clarence Darrow or Rudy fucking Giuliani.
The shortest part of your post is about bribes, but a side topic on that is that those expensive lawyers also know judges outside the courtroom and can apply pressure to get minor judgements to go their way. Did the “affluenza” judge really believe that judgement, or did he feel pressure from that social circle? Did Brock Turner’s judge give him a very light sentence because he felt that was appropriate for sexual assault, or did he know the family? In the last case, it might just be an old man who doesn’t think sexual assault is a bad crime.
Expensive lawyers also have political hook ups. They go golfing with the local rich people. Their kids are friends with the rich families’ friends. And when those people need legal advice, they ask the expensive lawyers for advice. The expensive lawyers then start knowing who is doing what, and more importantly, who’s breaking or has broken the law. They can then use this information to ask for a favor to stay quiet.
The Suits show did this a lot in the first couple of seasons, but so much so that it became boring in the latter seasons. House of Cards and Ozark also demonstrated how back door dealing can get things done with the right motivation.
Granted these are TV shows, but if I’m not mistaken I believe one of the Clinton’s said HoC is very close to what actually happens.
Case and point, Trump’s lawyers are currently arguing in front of the Supreme Court that presidents should be allowed to assassinate political rivals. They know they won’t win, but have already succeeded in their goal to delay.
Seems like this really points out our justice system is almost nonexistent. If you have money, you can stay out of prison regardless of guilt, and if you’re poor you can be punished regardless of innocence.
At least with OJ, he got locked up for a decade for theft and kidnapping. Not exactly life in prison but a decently long sentence. Cosby spent less than a year and a half in prison for raping dozens of women.
Weinstein still has 16 years for his California conviction.
Meaning they want minorities to sit down and shut up, which is more liberal than Republicans. But they still want the oligicarhial society where money gets you everything like Republicans.
It’s not what people want, but the rich bought both major parties, so we don’t get a choice the vast majority of the time.
Neoliberal economic policies have nothing to do with liberal social policies. They are as linked as the German Nationalist Socialist Party was to socialist economic policies. Whenever these two words come up, someone invariably links the two as though they are spiritual cousins, and I don’t like that. It should be very clearly stated each time these words are conflated, or compared, that neoliberalism liberal, and that people who would describe themselves as liberal are entirely against neoliberal economic policies, which are largely carried out by corrupted politicians on both sides of the political aisle. Lest we mince words; neoliberals are at the opposite end of the political spectrum to liberals.
No, you’re confused, bro. ‘Liberal’ is both a political identifier people use for themselves and others, and a series of policies and political ideals. Neoliberalism is a series of economic policies practiced by conservatives, regardless of the (D) or ® next to their names. If we were going to describe someone as a neoliberal, which people generally do not, the person being described would be almost the exact opposite of someone who would be described as liberal. The thing you said about being fiscally one way and socially another isn’t the definition of neoliberalism, that’s just an old line people say when they’re ashamed of being conservative and don’t want to come off dumb.
Trump has gotten leeway bcz he’s a former president. If he was just a real estate developer/business person amd had these same criminal proceedings against him, he be in prison already. There are plenty of examples of people sharing state secrets, and working for/with foreign governments as agents on their behalf and they’ve ended up in prison with life sentences pretty damn quick.
Let’s also be very clear that the court is made up of (usually white men) people. There are plenty of appeals cases where the court goes to great lengths to keep someone in prison even when the law is 100% on the side of the wrongfully convicted.
I have read a state supreme court say “yes that is the law (to exonerate them) but still we’re going to find it’s ok (to keep them locked up)”. Like, that was almost verbatim the opinion delivered. Can they do that? Well - yeah. Sure the appellant could try for the SCOTUS but #1 they had no money and #2 they’d lose there too, now.
That is one of the other reasons the criminal clown has gotten away with so much for so long.
In the SCOTUS case you are mentioning, they decided that actual innocence didn’t matter as long as the proper procedures were followed all along the way.
It kinda does matter though. If you are innocent of a crime, and you can prove it, then you should be released from prison immediately, and paid out the ass for the amount of time and life experiences stolen from you, full stop, period.
If that doesn’t bother you then you need to go take a look in the mirror and think long and hard about what it is that’s making you a crappy human being.
You’ll have to explain how mentioning the reasoning of the court makes me a bad person. It’s almost as if you acting in bad faith, don’t know what you are talking about, and are stuck in edgy mode.
How am I acting in bad faith? If someone is innocent (and I’m not familiar with this court case for the record), and the Supreme Court decided the fact that they are innocent is immaterial to the case, that should be riot level shit.
They are basically saying if we mistakenly arrest you and put you in prison for something you didn’t do, we can just say oopsie and keep you there as long as we followed proper procedures. That is super fucked up.
Mental health maintenance is a valid reason to use sick leave, and getting out of town to have some fun is exactly what people need from time to time. Her union should hire her a good lawyer to tell the district to pound sand.
The issue in this case is that if was planned with some time in advanced and notified the same day/day before.
If a coworker has any kind of emergency (family, health, mental) and takes the day off, I will sympathize, regardless of how that impacts me. If it’s planned but not communicated not so much.
Of course, I live in a country with 22+ paid days off + “unlimited” sick days and I in my role we usually are flexible with the time off. With very different conditions that might be more understandable.
When you live in a country where your vacation requests can be denied arbitrarily you might be tempted to just say ‘fuck em’ and let them know it’s not optional the day before you skip work.
Me and my wife are both members of TST and we LOVE the work they do. The Tenets they promote are loving, self-respecting, and do justice towards an ideal world of Individualism, anti-authoritarianism, and critical thinking - i.e. everything that Christianity and modern conservatism in general are eager to suppress. We regularly donate to them, and we constantly purchase stuff through their store to help support them.
Check out the book “Compassionate Satanism” by Lilith Starr. You can buy it on TST’s website, I am not sure about availability on other platforms.
Romantic Satanism holds up the depiction of Satan from Romantic period literature as an ideal. The book has a nice analysis of Satan’s use at that point as a rebel against authoritarianism who fought for Enlightenment. Romantic Satanists are non theistic and do not believe in the supernatural. TST is an organization of Romantic Satanists but you don’t have to be a TST member to be one; the seven tenets of TST are a major guiding force as well.
Totally suggest reading the book - it’s fascinating and well written.
Out of curiosity, how does one join the Satanic Temple? I never hear anything about them except when they show up in the news, and the more I hear about them the more I love them.
Open question to anyone: how much shit do you get being TST members? Do you just keep it on the downlow? I can very much imagine consequences if it got around at work, etc. Any repercussions may be illegal, but a lot of people are “ask questions later, sort it out in court if it gets there” types.
My work associates are all extremely liberal so they were actually pretty stoked. A couple others had no idea what it was, but LOVED the concept after it was explained to them.
A good friend of mine who’s a Christian Pastor was the only one that was like…shocked. lol. After he chilled out and I got to explain it to him, he was all in favor of it. He’s not a big fan of the mainstream evangalism shit that’s going on, so TST being a way to fight the encroachment of the alt-right/Supply-side Jesus on our government was a big win for him.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.