Random Thought Thread

Where do I post for some one to help me get a uf2 in the up coming sale?

I'm bad with remembering things but I think it's called a proxy?

The uf2 calls to my soul like a beer that has just hit that point of beginning to freeze but not frozen enough to be a slushy..... if you know you know
 
SCTorrero said:
The court is saying it doesn't matter whether open or closed in this instance. The case is problematic for many reasons, but in this instance, the court expressly ruled that it made no difference whether the box cutters were open or closed.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, any competent attorney should be able to get the decision overruled on appeal because it defies the plain language (and intent) of the law.

Has the case been appealed? If not, it should be.
 
Last edited:
Well, the US was unable to beat Canada in the Women's Hockey Team finals. They gave up 3 goals early and couldn't make up the difference losing 3-2. They didn't get the Gold but they took home the Silver. :)

In Alpine Skiing, unfortunately Mickael Schiffin skiied out again in the slalom portion of the Alpine Combined Event (downhill & slalom) despite posting a good time in the downhill.

That makes 3 times that she's skiied out in 2 of her best events -- the slalom and giant slalom. There's no explanation for it but it's happened to top ranked Alpine skiers before who blanked in an Olympics but came back to better in another Olympics later.

Hopefully that will be the case for Schiffrin.

She still has another chance to win a medal in the Team Event but that's a slalom event and, based on her performance so far, the odds are against her winning a medal in this event UNLESS she can fix whatever the problem is and/or if her teammates can carry her, if need be.

We'll see . . .
 
rb1 said:
Lesson learned.

It is currently good case law, btw. I doubt a BIC razor would qualify under any scenario as a "stabbing" weapon, which is a critical element here.
Click to expand...

Not germane to case law...but your comments brought back a scene from years ago while I was a relatively new agent working in NYC.

A member of the LCN, (La Cosa Nostra aka mafia), was cooperating with our agency and was going to be a cooperating witness against a higher-up in the Colombo family.

He was ensconced on the government's dime in a hotel in Manhattan, and I had left a couple of partners with him earlier and gone home for the night. Had a bad feeling all evening, but I thought it was just an overactive imagination.

Anyway, after the guys were done playing cards with him, he retired to his bedroom...and sometime during the night had second thoughts about bearing witness against the mob...and took a Bic razor to both arms and tried to open up his arteries.

I got a frantic call to meet the other agents at Bellevue Hospital where, in a very crowded ER with a shortage of staff, I assisted the doctor with repairing the mess he had made of himself. The doctor was even a bit queasy. It was like a scene out of "The Godfather".

Spent the rest of the night sitting alongside his gurney with an 870 in my lap reassuring him that no one was going to come into the hospital and murder him on my watch.

The mention of a Bic razor as a weapon brought all of this rushing back...like Proust's madeleine.
 
rb1 said:
Lesson learned.

It is currently good case law, btw. I doubt a BIC razor would qualify under any scenario as a "stabbing" weapon, which is a critical element here. As for "morality", I think that was the court's way of framing a mens rea for what otherwise would seem like a strict liability crime if they didn't qualify it here. He's a bad guy with bad intent, so in this case possessing a perfectly legal knife is a crime. They were clearly concerned if they didn't qualify it like this, it would set off a lot problems. That seems to be the rationale anyway, with a bit of intellectual dishonesty. Their way of slightly mitigating the trope that hard cases make bad law. They really shouldn't have called it "morally blameless", they should have just said "possessed with specific intent to unlawfully harm a person" or something like that. The problem for the court is that the statute doesn't really speak to a mens rea so they have to make it up. It's a pretty shitty precedent, but at least this particular defendant makes a great contrast to many other people that might be charged with illegal possession of a knife. Most people who are charged with actual assault or violent felonies in California aren't going to be terribly concerned about the knife possession count, it's kind of a throwaway charge in that instance. Hell, you can only get an extra year in prison as an enhancement on violent crimes for using a knife in California. Now, use a gun here and some of those enhancements are up in the 20+ year range. And at least in this case, the court's "morally blameless" language sets up a defense of "lawful purpose" for simple knife possession, which might actually be extremely useful in cases where there is evidence of a lawful purpose, like possession of BIC razor in a pharmacy shopping bag.
Click to expand...
Hard cases make bad law.
 
Blues said:
Not germane to case law...but your comments brought back a scene from years ago while I was a relatively new agent working in NYC.

A member of the LCN, (La Cosa Nostra aka mafia), was cooperating with our agency and was going to be a cooperating witness against a higher-up in the Colombo family.

He was ensconced on the government's dime in a hotel in Manhattan, and I had left a couple of partners with him earlier and gone home for the night. Had a bad feeling all evening, but I thought it was just an overactive imagination.

Anyway, after the guys were done playing cards with him, he retired to his bedroom...and sometime during the night had second thoughts about bearing witness against the mob...and took a Bic razor to both arms and tried to open up his arteries.

I got a frantic call to meet the other agents at Bellevue Hospital where, in a very crowded ER with a shortage of staff, I assisted the doctor with repairing the mess he had made of himself. The doctor was even a bit queasy. It was like a scene out of "The Godfather".

Spent the rest of the night sitting alongside his gurney with an 870 in my lap reassuring him that no one was going to come into the hospital and murder him on my watch.

The mention of a Bic razor as a weapon brought all of this rushing back...like Proust's madeleine.
Click to expand...
Wow! Reminds me of what happened to Frankie Five Angels.
 
sgt1372 said:
Well, the US was unable to beat Canada in the Women's Hockey Team finals. They gave up 3 goals early and couldn't make up the difference losing 3-2. They didn't get the Gold but they took home the Silver. :)

In Alpine Skiing, unfortunately Mickael Schiffin skiied out again in the slalom portion of the Alpine Combined Event (downhill & slalom) despite posting a good time in the downhill.

That makes 3 times that she's skiied out in 2 of her best events -- the slalom and giant slalom. There's no explanation for it but it's happened to top ranked Alpine skiers before who blanked in an Olympics but came back to better in another Olympics later.

Hopefully that will be the case for Schiffrin.

She still has another chance to win a medal in the Team Event but that's a slalom event and, based on her performance so far, the odds are against her winning a medal in this event UNLESS she can fix whatever the problem is and/or if her teammates can carry her, if need be.

We'll see . . .
Click to expand...
Like Simone Biles, NBC and commercial sponsors made her The Face of The Olympics. That's just too much pressure for almost anyone - espcially in any kind of sport that requires finesse and is more than just pure strength or pure speed. Too hard to empty your mind and just perform. She's 26 so not too old to make a comeback in Milan. I hope she gets help from the best sports psychologists in the world, because it looks to me from the quotes I'm reading that she's lost self-confidence . . . and frankly I find it heartbreaking.
 
sgt1372 said:
If that's the case, any competent attorney should be able to get the decision overruled on appeal because it defies the plain language (and intent) of the law.

Has the case been appealed? If not, it should be.
Click to expand...
I can't speak to the competence of the attorney, but the opinion quoted is the ruling of the appellate court.

The court actually "hid" in the plain language of the statute, i.e., they were too reliant on the plain language. I won't bore people here, but the court was overly literal in its reading of the relevant penal code section (PC 16470). That section essentially says, "X is a dirk or dagger, by Y is not included in X." In this case, "Y" includes: (1) non-locking folding knives, (2) small switchblades, and (3) pocketknife, provided 1-3 do not have an exposed blade locked into position.

The court reasoned that the box cutter locked, so (1) was out, was not a switchblade obviously, so (2) did not apply, and was not a pocketknife, so (3) did not apply. Because the exceptions did not apply (in the court's view), the box cutter was a concealed dirk or dagger. This overly literal reading produces some absurd results. For example, a literal folding pocketknife dagger would be legal, and scissors would be illegal (as would a "miniature replica of the Eiffel Tower," for that matter, as noted in the concurrence).

The real problem is that this overly literal reading required the court to tie itself in knots to avoid characterizing anyone carrying a pencil in their pocket as a criminal. Thus, they "created" a moral blameworthiness component NOT found in the plain language of the statute (there is some precedent here, but the precedent itself is court-created).

This means that two identical twins could be walking down the street next to each other, each dressed the same way, each carrying a small folding box cutter in their pocket, and one, both, or neither could be guilty of a crime depending on whether authorities believed there was a good reason to be carrying said box cutter.

In sum, you are correct that this reading is contra to the plain INTENT of the law.
 
As for the Olympic Women's Figure Skating competition, all is "right" in the world again.

Valieva (Russia) skated herself off of the podium with an uncharacteristically AWFUL performance, while Sherbakova (Russia) performed a beautiful and well balanced Free Skate that qualified her to win the Gold over her team mate Trusova (Russia) who took the Silver who performed 5 (imperfet) quads which affirmed that it its not just all about the quads, which left Sakamoto (Japan) w/the Bronze to twart a Russian sweep of the competition.

Yea!!! :)

Lots of drama after the performance.

Tears of defeat from Valieva who should not have been put in the position that she found herself due, it seems. largely to the corrupt system that the Russians have created to pump out champion women (who really are just children) figure skaters.

Tears of anger from Trusova who felt he was "robbed" of the Gold And tears of joy from Sakamoto for just winning the Bronze. No clear emotion from Sherbakova who just seemed to be confused and bewildered by it all.

And, because Valieva did not make it to the podium, there was a ceremony to "honor" the top 3 atheletes and will be a medal ceremony later. :)

Sherbakova and Trusova are both only 17 years old but probably won't be back for the next Olympics because they've be "too old" for the Russians by then. LOL! ;)

That's because the Russian system picks up girls when there are just 9-10 and, if they don't win, then spits them out by the time the are 15-16 beause when the get older/larger they can't do the high scoring quads and other jumps that the Russians are targeting to win the competitions.

Alissa Lu (who was the bright spot for the US) by finishing 7th, has had that problem. She could previously do a quad but hasn't been able to do it again since she "aged" and grew 2" taller. Fortunatley for her, she can "compete" in the US for as long as she is able to "perform."

However, unfortunately for Valieva, after her failure at the Olympics, she'll probably get dumped but you have to believe that she was NOT to blame for the positive drug test. She's 15 years old and just did what she was told to do as she was required to do by the "adults" around her.

It is the Russian "training" system that is to blame. This system is apparently "under investigation" by the IOC and the Team Figure Skating medals are still in question as a result of it.

Hopefully, the US Figure Skating team will be awarded the Gold, as a result of this investigation, later.
 
Last edited:
sgt1372 said:
As for the Olympic Women's Figure Skating competition, all is "right" in the world again.

Valieva (Russia) skated herself off of the podium with an uncharacteristically AWFUL performance, while Sherbakova (Russia) performed a beautiful and well balanced Free Skate that qualified her to win the Gold over her team mate Trusova (Russia) who took the Silver who performed 5 (imperfet) quads which affirmed that it its not just all about the quads, which left Sakamoto (Japan) w/the Bronze to twart a Russian sweep of the competition.

Yea!!! :)

Lots of drama after the performance. Tears from Valieva who should not have been put in the position that she found herself due, it seems. largely to the corrupt system that the Russians have created to pump out champion women (who really are just children) figure skaters.

Lots of drama afterward.

Tears of defeat from Valieva. Tears of anger from Trusova who felt he was "robbed" of the Gold And tears of joy from Sakamoto for just winning the Bronze. No clear emotion from Sherbakova who just seemed to be confused and bewildered by it all.

And, because Valieva did not make it to the podium, there actually was a medal ceremony. :)

Sherbakova and Trusova are both only 17 years old but probably won't be back for the next Olympics because they've be "too old" for the Russians by then. LOL! ;)

That's because the Russian system picks up girls when there are just 9-10 and, if they don't win, then spits them out by the time the are 15-16 beause when the get older/larger they can't do the high scoring quads and other jumps that the Russians are targeting to win the competitions.

Alissa Lu (who was the bright spot for the US) by finishing 7th, has had that problem. She could previously do a quad but hasn't been able to do it again since she "aged" and grew 2" taller. Fortunatley for her, she can "compete" in the US for as long as she is able to "perform."

However, unfortunately for Valieva, after her failure at the Olympics, she'll probably get dumped but you have to believe that she was NOT to blame for the positive drug test. She's 15 years old and just did what she was told to do as she was required to do by the "adults" around her.

It is the Russian "training" system that is to blame. This system is apparently "under investigation" by the IOC and the Team Figure Skating medals are still in question as a result of it.

Hopefully, the US Figure Skating team will be awarded the Gold, as a result of this investigation, later.
Click to expand...
Wow. Not sure what to think about that. But I think gymnastics is similar. Maybe there should be age bracket competitions . . . under 16, 16-18, and over 18? Of course then the Russians would be faking birth certificates. So how about weight divisions - like for rasslin', boxing, weightlifting . . . under 100 pounds, 100-120 pounds, and over 120 pounds - something like that? You have to compete in your weight class. You'd see gals packing away pancakes before the weigh-in to make sure they're heavy enough. LOL.
 
ferider said:
Was a pretty day today.

i-DnGFR7t-X4.jpg
Click to expand...

The above was Mon -30 miles west of the continental divide. This is today -30 miles east of it:

i-wfvrfPF-X4.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top