Comments by "EvilGuacamoleGaming" (@EvilGuacamoleGaming) on "LegalEagle" channel.

Bob Murray? Wasn't he the guy who approved the original Sonic movie design?
3
Objection! I site death of the author. It doesn't matter what Lucas or Spielberg say in regards to her age at the time of the affair- if it's not in the movie it's not part of the movie. As such, we would need to go with in movie clues to judge her age. At the very least Jones seems perfectly interested in women of legal age in this and other Indy movies; he also seems to have continued interest in her when we see her in this movie and, if you include Crystal Skull, well past this age. He also seems to have this interest regardless of if she's easily controlled (as is implied happened 10 years prior) or not (every instance we see her). This eliminates the profiles of those we know seeking sex with minors- a pedophilic sexuality or a desire to groom. From all we know Marion could have been 18 or older when the affair occurred. In addition, she says '10 years' but that's a nice round number and could be rounded. She also doesn't state her age and could be 28 or even older. Do we even have a concrete age for Indy? She was the daughter of his professor which could indicate he wasn't that old himself at the time. I hate to use the defense but there are those 'Romeo and Juliet' laws that make age of consent fuzzy for those who are just barely over the age of consent themselves. As an aside, this is only a logical defense because we are discussing fiction. In fiction we get to shape how we engage with it. Reality isn't like that. I don't want a character I like to be a child predator and I am thus motivated in my defense to that end. This is reasonable when it is a character. It's not a pattern of thought for real people. All we have to go on is tidbits of what happens in the movie, unlike the living testimony when it comes to real life victims.
1
You say it's not a red v blue thing but the reality is that this is the inevitable conclusion of the money and power worship that is the heart of the conservative ethos.
1
(at 31:24) Strangely, as I've heard about this case a number of times, I can't recall how sentencing went. I have a feeling though that this wouldn't be too noteworthy if they indeed were hung. As for how it should be settled- the law is clear that the penalty of their crimes could be life sentences, so it's within the law to give them their desired punishment. As for justification, the only way you could have someone more deserving of death is if their crime involved more people dying. A child being killed for pleasure? It is the height of crime. Certainly, they present the greatest of danger if allowed to be out ever again. I feel the defense's arguments were not all particularly strong, either. I do suspect the war could have that effect on young boys to some degree but ultimately they were in environments that supported them not being murderers. All that said, as judge I would use my discretion to avoid capital punishment whenever possible. We know now (though I'm not sure if we did then) that it is not a deterrent. We can see it would not have been for these two- they believed fully that they would receive no punishment so it doesn't matter what they believed the punishment would be. In general, people don't not murder because they fear punishment. We don't murder because we are naturally inclined to not harm others. On a grander scale, it just doesn't make sense to kill someone who's killed others. At that point you are stating that it is acceptable to kill people, but only when the government does it. That's... not helpful.
1
I'm glad to see how it ended. I suspect that had a long impact on the death penalty... at least until the 'war on crime' started pushing for capital punishment again. We really were improving the world at one point...
1
OBJECTION! Well, not a legal one. You indeed can legally write on currency, HOWEVER! It's really rude because it means more work for bank tellers who have to pull out said bills and send them to be destroyed by the fed. The fed 'buys' said bills from banks at an equal exchange.
1
How I suspect it came out: that the trap was legal. How I would want it to come out: that the trap was not legal. My main conviction here is that the concept claimed here is that the home owners wished to have a deterrent. The trap is not a deterrent if the home owners did not somehow announce the use of deadly force.
1
@altonbulani3419 yes. An unarmed intruder should never risk being shot. Life simply is now important. The need to declare deadly force is now necessary when the home shows signs of no one living there, like no trespassing signs and boarded up windows. I'm sorry, possessions and the prevention of theft just aren't worth physical harm to a person.
1
@altonbulani3419 we have cops to protect Capital, not people, but I'd say that how cops exist in this country is inherently wrong. The fact that we currently have police who will harm and kill over possessions when their victims pose no threat does not justify the position that criminals should always expect their lives to be in danger. Nor has the existence of possible punishment, potential or delayed, ever been a very effective deterrent. This feels similar to blaming sexual assault victims for wearing revealing clothing or being flirty or for rejecting men. Even if those things may facilitate how the attack happens it does not justify the attack. Let's say I'm in a bad neighborhood and I get mugged: is it my fault because I should know people get mugged there?
1
If the police restricted citizens and family from entering the school to enact protections for their children aren't they preventing people from engaging in the actions the police were refusing to do?
1
Objection! They're are two major reasons why Ghostbusters II is better than I. First, no weird demonization of government regulation and the EPA. Second, no weird ghost blow job scene!
1