Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,955
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Not generally, no.
-
Features
Black Jogger Gunned Down In The Street
- Thread starter ZiprHead
- Start date
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,955
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I so rarely am offered any sort of medication that I have a hard time wrapping my head around this. Last prescription I got, I practically had to beg for.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 41,867
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Yup, getting opioids from my doctor is like pulling teeth. And they have signs up that say under no circumstances will xanax even be discussed.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,955
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I’m not even talking opioids !
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,788
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
That isn't always the case.
I had a big problem a few years ago when my mom went to the emergency room with severe pain.
My niece took her there.
The hospital prescribed her hydrocodone and gave her a big jar! Sent her home to an empty house with it. My niece called me a bit later saying, "Call Gran, she doesn't sound right." I called Mom, and she was whacked. I told her, "Go sit on the couch. I'll be there as fast as I can."
I closed my store in the middle of the day. Drove up there, and my Mom is talking to my Dad, who has been dead for three or four years. She still had the pill bottle in her hand. Turned out she had developed a UTI, and wasn't really in her right mind at the hospital. But she had great insurance, so they just added a bottle of high performance opiods to the bill and sent her home.
Oh no. Opiods are easy to get. All too easy.
Tom
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,597
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It's weird. There are contexts where opioids are prescribed and contexts where they are not.
I honestly think they are less hesitant to prescribe them to old people.
Eventually I will be old and dying and in my "useless but for the joy of uncle/grunkle/grandpa" years, I have already made peace with the potential for opioid use then!
Even so, even I at a young age occasionally end up with a bottle in the pill cupboard and every time is a miserable fight to get away from wanting them. It's like that two weeks after smoking hookah where my brain is all "mmmm maybe break out the hooka today" and then I realize that it's entirely the addiction factor and I must snuff it out like the fuse of a bomb.
Sometimes I wonder if the problem is exactly the "only this one bottle" phenomena, where one of the most addictive dependency-inducing things in the universe gets shoved at folks just long enough to develop an addiction to it.
Not feeling pain is addictive. Also dangerous and foolish, but still it feels so good to not hurt.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 41,867
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Yes, there was a time when opioids were handed out like candy. Not anymore. Are you not aware of this?
There were congressional hearings on the matter and at least one oxycontin drug manufacturer got in big trouble over this.
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,788
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
I hear different things, but I don't have any real experience. I'm pretty sure that bottle, about 6 years ago, is the only one I've ever handled.
I prefer to keep things that way.
Tom
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Is the Jury System Fair?
McMichaels case (Guilty verdict) vs. Rittenhouse case (Not Guilty)
2 very similar cases, about the same time, similar situation of a White gunman killing someone in a violent altercation. But why such a different verdict? In each case it wasn't even close.
McMichaels: GUILTY on all charges (2 co-defendants guilty on almost all charges)
Rittenhouse: NOT GUILTY on all charges
A virtual clean sweep for the prosecution in one case, and a clean sweep for the defense in the other. Why the difference?
similarity of the 2 cases: a gun-owner unwisely brings a gun into a conflict situation, 2 opposing sides. In each case the gunowner displays the gun, maybe inappropriately, gets assaulted, punched by an opponent who tries to seize the gun away from him. In both cases the gunowner shoots and kills, claiming self-defense. What made one of these guilty of murder but the other innocent? Was each verdict right?
possible explanation: Each jury actually did the same thing: Despite the opposite outcomes (verdict), each jury had the same sentiment, which was to side with the UNDERDOG. Both Arbery and Rittenhouse were underdogs, outnumbered by those opposing them and pursuing them.
There is no rule, or legal requirement, that the underdog is always right. But a jury generally favors the underdog -- the one outnumbered or at a disadvantage -- in a case which is ambiguous.
If the same thing had happened to McMichaels that happened to Rittenhouse -- i.e., if there had been 2 or 3 other Black joggers with Arbery, but no one with McMichaels, and exactly the same altercation took place (Arbery gets shot while trying to seize the gun), then McMichaels would have been acquitted, because he would have been the underdog.
There doesn't seem to be a basic legal principle to distinguish these 2 cases. Rather, in this case the legal arguments were the same while mainly the underdog factor separates the guilt from the innocence. So, if you're shot by someone who was an underdog, it's self-defense, but if you're the underdog and get shot, it's murder. And so the rule is: be the underdog.
But were there other factors to explain why McMichaels was guilty but Rittenhouse was innocent? I'm not saying the underdog element is the only factor, but probably it's the most significant.
E.g., was there evidence that McMichaels was a racist but not Rittenhouse? and this might also explain why the verdicts were so different? If so, then this would discredit the CRT doctrine that America is structurally racist, because a structurally racist U.S. judicial system would do the opposite: it would give more favorable treatment to a racist rather than less favorable.
McMichaels case (Guilty verdict) vs. Rittenhouse case (Not Guilty)
2 very similar cases, about the same time, similar situation of a White gunman killing someone in a violent altercation. But why such a different verdict? In each case it wasn't even close.
McMichaels: GUILTY on all charges (2 co-defendants guilty on almost all charges)
Rittenhouse: NOT GUILTY on all charges
A virtual clean sweep for the prosecution in one case, and a clean sweep for the defense in the other. Why the difference?
similarity of the 2 cases: a gun-owner unwisely brings a gun into a conflict situation, 2 opposing sides. In each case the gunowner displays the gun, maybe inappropriately, gets assaulted, punched by an opponent who tries to seize the gun away from him. In both cases the gunowner shoots and kills, claiming self-defense. What made one of these guilty of murder but the other innocent? Was each verdict right?
possible explanation: Each jury actually did the same thing: Despite the opposite outcomes (verdict), each jury had the same sentiment, which was to side with the UNDERDOG. Both Arbery and Rittenhouse were underdogs, outnumbered by those opposing them and pursuing them.
There is no rule, or legal requirement, that the underdog is always right. But a jury generally favors the underdog -- the one outnumbered or at a disadvantage -- in a case which is ambiguous.
If the same thing had happened to McMichaels that happened to Rittenhouse -- i.e., if there had been 2 or 3 other Black joggers with Arbery, but no one with McMichaels, and exactly the same altercation took place (Arbery gets shot while trying to seize the gun), then McMichaels would have been acquitted, because he would have been the underdog.
There doesn't seem to be a basic legal principle to distinguish these 2 cases. Rather, in this case the legal arguments were the same while mainly the underdog factor separates the guilt from the innocence. So, if you're shot by someone who was an underdog, it's self-defense, but if you're the underdog and get shot, it's murder. And so the rule is: be the underdog.
But were there other factors to explain why McMichaels was guilty but Rittenhouse was innocent? I'm not saying the underdog element is the only factor, but probably it's the most significant.
E.g., was there evidence that McMichaels was a racist but not Rittenhouse? and this might also explain why the verdicts were so different? If so, then this would discredit the CRT doctrine that America is structurally racist, because a structurally racist U.S. judicial system would do the opposite: it would give more favorable treatment to a racist rather than less favorable.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,519
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
The two cases are near completely unidentical.
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,788
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
If all you see is race, then the two cases are identical.
The two cases are near completely unidentical.
Tom
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,519
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Rittenhouse was white person shot white people.If all you see is race, then the two cases are identical.
The two cases are near completely unidentical.
Tom
McMichaels was white person shot black person.
So no.
The cases are not even remotely similar. Read the trial transcripts and watch the testimony on Youtube for both cases before you repeat your absurd speculations and embarrass yourself even further.
Statements like these tell me that you don't understand how the American justice system works. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not on the defense to prove innocence. The jury did not find Rittenhouse to be innocent, rather, they were not convinced that he was guilty. Vastly different proposition.
I know you are not going to do any actual research, so here is a summary: There is enough evidence to suggest that the Rittenhouse shooting was in self-defense, enough to establish reasonable doubt. For the Arbery case, there is overwhelming evidence, including the testimony of one of the convicted assailants and video evidence from his phone, that this was a felony murder. The cases are nothing like each other. The circumstances are nothing like each other. The actions of the assailants are nothing like each other. The evidence presented at trial is not even remotely of the same quality. Do your fucking homework before you say stupid things in public.
The difference is fucked-up laws in Rittenhouse's case. After reading what they were dealing with I agree the jury made the right choice in the Rittenhouse case. The problem is the law there requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't acting in self defense. Usually self-defense is based on preponderance of the evidence (pleading self-defense renders the normal beyond a reasonable doubt moot--to plead self defense is to admit the underlying act, there's no issue of whether you did it or not.)
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 41,867
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
One of Ahmaud Arbery's killers fears being slain in a Georgia state prison, court document says
One of the men found guilty of murdering Ahmaud Arbery fears being killed in state prison and wants to remain in federal custody for his safety, according to a court document filed by his attorney.
edition.cnn.com
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 41,867
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Father, son get life for hate crime in Ahmaud Arbery’s death
The white father and son who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery in a Georgia neighborhood each received a second life prison sentence Monday — for committing federal hate crimes, months after getting their first for murder — at a hearing that brought a close to more than two years of criminal...
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,788
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
I don't even remember her name anymore.
But what ever happened with the police official who tried to cover all this up?
Tom
But what ever happened with the police official who tried to cover all this up?
Tom
Arctish
Centimillionaire
Jackie Johnson was the Brunswick District Attorney. She was indicted by a grand jury last year on a felony charge of violating her oath of office as well as a misdemeanor count of hindering a police investigation. There's probably enough evidence for a conviction.
Gregory McMichael had 16 calls with then-DA Jackie Johnson in the weeks after Ahmaud Arbery's death, court document says
She should have immediately recused herself.
Tigers!
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 5,082
- Location
- On the wing, waiting for a kick.
- Basic Beliefs
- Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
I have been following this case from the beginning. The sheer senselessness of it and the hatred involved. Let them rot in prison and then hell. Though these are the cases where the death penalty should be applied.