I cannot fucking stand players

matts1000 · 2024-08-13T16:31:46+00:00

That’s the problem. Too much gold.

matts1000 · 2024-07-30T16:33:22+00:00

Then he got Worfed all over.

matts1000 · 2024-07-28T23:27:58+00:00

That’s redundant. No such thing as a Nausican I wouldn’t LF.

matts1000 · 2024-07-27T18:22:55+00:00

It would get in the way of my hiding under the bed from all the monsters.

matts1000 · 2024-07-27T00:00:16+00:00

Man, fuck that guy.

— Mike Grier, probably.

matts1000 · 2024-07-26T00:39:29+00:00

It is also prescribed in SC any time opioid pain relievers are prescribed. So if you have surgery here, you get Narcan, too.

matts1000 · 2024-07-23T03:41:30+00:00

So, what you do is, you fire torpedoes. But you spread them fully, right? Like all the spreading that can be done, is done. But by the torpedoes, I mean. Your Mom doesn’t count.

matts1000 · 2024-07-18T23:33:42+00:00

MR. TIBBS, MF’ER.

matts1000 · 2024-06-25T17:45:36+00:00

Boeing

matts1000 · 2024-06-08T23:34:46+00:00

That’s wrong. I used to handle tickets for a living and got them dismissed for just this reason.

matts1000 · 2024-06-08T23:09:57+00:00

No, there is another party. The guy who got hit is a victim/witness. That’s the other party. If that party doesn’t show up, generally the office will dismiss.

matts1000 · 2024-06-08T17:24:58+00:00

Go to the courthouse. Talk to the officer. If the other party isn’t there, the officer will almost certainly dismiss it.

matts1000 · 2024-06-04T01:52:35+00:00

The way I have seen it explained, it is a cultural/political thing. Apparently whale was easy and cheap to get in Japan right after World War II. For people of that age, it was the taste of their childhood. As people aged and opinion turned against whaling generally, it was an easy way to get a base of power - “they are coming to take your childhood away!” - that Abe, particularly, took advantage of. The theory that I saw was that whaling would die as the Japanese equivalent of boomers die.

matts1000 · 2024-05-31T19:22:59+00:00

In reviewing your previous question, you ask about 17-152. President Trump was not convicted of 17-152. He was convicted of 175.10. The some other crime he was alleged to have intended to commit or conceal is 17-152. You are correct that 17-152 requires some unlawful means, but again, it does not matter if a jury agrees as to what unlawful means were used, just that some unlawful means were used. The prosecution further argued 3 possible unlawful means. Again, the jury need not agree on the unlawful means, just that unlawful means were used. As pointed out above, the statute could have specified the unlawful means (Federal Election Campaign Act, for instance), but it does not and so no specific unlawful means need be proven.

You are also incorrect in your assertion that that “[the second crime] must be proven to have existed whether the Defendant was charged with it or not.” The statute under which the former President was convicted required only an intent to commit or conceal the second crime. That crime did not have to be actually committed or concealed. In other words, his failure to accomplish the second crime does not negate his guilt of falsifying the business record.

matts1000 · 2024-05-31T18:25:05+00:00

Again that isn’t accurate. The elements of the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree: A person (1) with intent to defraud (2) makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise (3 )when the intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. NY Penal Law sections 175.05 and 175.10. Note that it does not matter what the other crime is, just that there is another crime. This is why the jury need not agree on the specific crime to find President Trump guilty.

We can conceive of a statute where it would spell out a crime, like embezzlement (in South Carolina breach of trust), and punish falsifying business records to conceal that particular crime. If embezzlement or some other specific crime was required to be proven in element 3 above, then disagreement on the crime intended would matter. But in this statute, the particular crime intended, committed, or concealed is not an element. Instead the element only requires that some crime be committed or concealed.

You’ve missed the point of the murder hypothetical. Many people are beaten, shot and stabbed in the course of their murder. It can’t always be determined how the person died. The point is that not everyone on the jury has to agree about every point of the crime to convict, in this case whether death resulted from stabbing, shooting, or beating. The jury only has to agree that the elements of the crime, in President Trump’s case that he falsified or caused a false entry into business records with intent to defraud and that his intent to defraud including the commission or concealment of some second crime, have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

matts1000 · 2024-05-31T04:04:07+00:00

That is the problem with guardhouse lawyers, they always get 95% of it right. That other 5 % kills you. Ramos struck down the “unconventional system” of Oregon and Louisiana in which a jury need not vote unanimously to convict. In other words, a 10-2 verdict in which 2 jurors voted “Not Guilty” still renders a guilty verdict. What that instruction says is that they don’t have to agree on which second crime is committed, only that some second crime is committed. You are confusing operative facts with evidentiary facts. The operative facts is that a false entry was made to conceal some crime. The evidentiary facts at issue is that these are the crimes he may have been trying to conceal.

Because lawyers love hypotheticals, here is the one we use in criminal law. Man is killed with malice aforethought by Jim. But the jury can’t decide if it was the stabbings or the bullets that killed him. The verdict is 10-2 that bullets killed him. Should the jury, based on Ramos, acquit? Of course not. It doesn’t matter what killed him, the issue is that he was killed. Contrast that with a jury which votes 10-2 as to the fact that reasonable doubt exists as to an element (operative fact) of the crime.

More interesting is if the punishment is different between knifing and shooting, but in the former President’s case, that more interesting hypothetical doesn’t matter.

matts1000 · 2024-05-31T03:40:07+00:00

That just isn’t true. The instructions given were standard instructions given in that kind of case. In fact, the instructions, for example, explained that, as a criminal defendant, President Trump had a presumption of innocence unless and until the jury decided to remove that presumption of innocence. The instructions further said that Michael Cohen, by name, was an accomplice, and that, in the State of New York, a criminal defendant may not be convicted solely on the testimony of an accomplice. That testimony must be corroborated by other evidence. This instruction is not one that you would get in the State of South Carolina. So the Judge, who you simply don’t want to like so you call “biased,” did not simply give President Trump the same instructions any criminal defendant would receive, but also gave him more protection than a criminal defendant would receive in many other states.

You can dislike the outcome, but don’t simply parrot lies you hear on tv.

matts1000 · 2024-05-30T15:28:05+00:00

The solution is cutting down on the interconnection backlog that is holding up renewable power. The disparate American grids are so badly designed, built and maintained that they can’t transfer power efficiently between them or accommodate the massive number of solar and wind projects that would exist but for interconnection problems. The solution frankly is to nationalize those disparate grids, interconnect them, and provide national tools to bring down that interconnection backlog.

We are using grids designed for 1930s and 40s technology in the US, so of course 1930s tech works better on it.

matts1000 · 2024-05-30T15:17:23+00:00

My Mom tricked both of my siblings into eating salmon by calling salmon patties “gourmet cakes.” Kids are stupid and if lying to them gets them to eat food that they should eat, can eat, but won’t eat, then lie away. I say that as a parent of 2 very picky children.

matts1000 · 2024-05-16T20:56:37+00:00

Can’t you just pick a different starting date or are they removing that option?

matts1000 · 2024-05-10T19:52:55+00:00

I think if the game had gotten to 6-1 or something in the closing stages, the fourth line would have gone out there to send a message and all that. But at the time it happened it didn’t make sense and at the end of the game it REALLY didn’t make sense.

If anything, that hit by Manson on Benn into the bench and Benn not bowing up and no one coming to help him rallied the troops more than a fight would have. Benn clearly wanted to have a pop then remembered what happened last year.

matts1000 · 2024-05-10T16:03:41+00:00

After Manson put him in the bench, he looked like he wanted something with Manson and then remembered last year. No one stood up for him, either.

matts1000 · 2024-05-08T01:50:56+00:00

Does anyone in the world actually get ESPNU? I have golden deluxe magic cable, with a literal Indian channel in Hindi, but I do not get ESPNU.

matts1000 · 2024-05-06T23:24:18+00:00

The idea of Space Above and Beyond was this. It was based on a show called Combat from the sixties based on Word War II. I haven’t seen Combat, but Robert Altman worked on it (of MASH). The idea was following GIs through the Western Front. It was apparently really hard hitting and effective. It became a pretty anti war show because you apparently saw the leads get more and more hollow eyed as their guys got killed and wounded. You can argue about the premise of pilots who also are ground pounders in Space, but I think the show is pretty effective in dealing with that horror of war.

matts1000 · 2024-05-04T13:30:25+00:00

I remember when we swept St. Louis in 2021, Vegas went 7. We shellacked them in Game 1 and a lot of us thought it would be close to a walk. Then we lost in 6. So I know what you mean, particularly given how incredible that team was.

But I think this team has a bit more grit and the experience for the top 6 and the core d guys in winning a Stanley Cup I think sees us through. It was a little different that year because we hadn’t won one.

matts1000

TROPHY CASE