Comments by "Barry On" (@barryon8706) on "Nate The Lawyer"
channel.
-
1700
-
351
-
275
-
117
-
89
-
88
-
84
-
69
-
49
-
48
-
45
-
43
-
41
-
39
-
36
-
35
-
31
-
28
-
26
-
26
-
24
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
 @anthonym840 I'd caution against some of that reasoning. There are probably some men given shorter sentences than some women. I'm more comfortable with averages.
But that said, I'd say that the legal system is biased probably in favor of women, even with everything else being equal.
I'd also say it's probably biased in favor of Whites over Blacks; those sentencing statistics show similar bias, though that could also be wholly or partially due to priors. Blacks commit more serious crimes than Whites, just as men commit more serious crimes than women.
Both the right and left object to this, but to different aspects, which is both funny and sad.
I'd be fine with more standardized sentencing, with judges individual preferences removed. Give each crime a grade, factor in all the priors, and arrive at a sentence with a formula that's hopefully simpler than the tax code. For people like myself who value equal treatment over equal outcome, that would be worlds better.
1
-
 @anthonym840 Yes, but I can still object to one kind of reasoning you used, even if I support the conclusion. If I say that I know rain exists because elves tell me so, I'm very likely wrong about the elves but I'm right about the rain.
You said, "As weve seen, men have served longer for the same crime, even with no prior convictions."
That's true, but in and of itself it doesn't matter much, and I wanted to point it out because I've seen well-meaning people get trapped by that kind of thinking.
For an example, we see times when Blacks get shot by cops and Whites don't, and some people will look at times Whites didn't get shot and say, "If he'd been Black, cops would have shot him."
But we also see times when Whites get shot and times that Blacks don't. There are a lot of police encounters across the country in cases where a cop could reasonably shoot someone or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1) Justified. Easily.
2) Not justified. He was a crazy man with a knife, but he wasn't threatening anyone. I can understand a cop's desire not to let a crazy man with a knife get away, but them's the breaks.
3) Justified. Despite repeated warnings, she'd closed to a distance where a quick dash could get those scissors through his throat.
4) Justified, for the same reason as #3.
It's sad when this happens to the mentally unstable, but if it comes to killing them or putting a cop at immediate risk of death or serious injury, the cop has a right to kill in order to save his own life.
In fact, cop or not, I would have given any citizen with a legal right to possess a firearm the same verdict. That might not hold for those states with a duty to retreat, but I cannot expect law enforcement to just come back the next day and hope the person is feeling more cooperative, especially in case #4 where, if I understand correctly, the decedent had been battering someone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I hate to say it, but I have to fall on the side of not justified. He wasn't under imminent threat, as far as I can tell. It's true that someone in the crowd might have had a gun, but not knowing you aren't under imminent threat isn't the same as having reason to believe you are under imminent threat. The streets are full of people who might have a gun hidden on their person and want to do me harm, but I don't get to shoot them "just in case."
Gunning it vs. moving slowly might not be as much of a factor in my judgement. He'd already tried moving slowly. If he drove through the crowd at 30MPH, that's not justified IMHO, unless fleeing a ranged attacker or any other reason he needs to escape *now*, like the car being on fire. If he drove through at 15MPH, think that would be justified (if driving through them at all was justified). That's more than average running speed for humans.
If a window had been broken or he saw someone with a gun or molotov cocktail, it would have been justified. Floor it, and ask the mechanic to hammer out the dents after.
I think imperfect self-defense may be an ameliorating factor in the sentence. A lot of people would have been frightened under those circumstances and acted unreasonably. But as much as the crowd look like Darwin Award wannabees, I think the cop erred.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is it a setback for women? Well, yes, but it brings DV more in line with Blackstone's ratio, "It is better for five guilty men to go free than for one innocent to be punished." We do that with murder, FFS. We take that course, even knowing that by letting the guilty walk, some of them will create more victims, because the government is big and powerful and should have the burden. It's not perfect ("There are no solutions, only compromises," - Thomas Sowell), but we don't have a liberal democracy in a country where an accusation is an automatic conviction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1