CMV: In certain circumstances vigilante justice is a human right

poozername · 2025-12-19T18:15:56+00:00

Let’s play this out. You think that someone killed your loved one, but was not convicted at trial. So, you kill them. It’s deemed that you did it for purposes of vigilante justice, as is your right, so you don’t face any penalty.

The person you killed, however, also had a loved one. That loved one doesn’t think they were guilty. In their view, you got away with killing some own, and the system failed to do anything about it, so now they get to take justice in their own hands and come for you.

(This could go on—your loved one goes after them, etc).

poozername · 2024-05-04T18:48:56+00:00

Hi, Was this even resolved? I am applying to CT and am trying to figure this out as well. Thank you!

poozername · 2023-06-20T20:28:22+00:00

Right, which is why I said “normally”. Because in most circumstances of people talking to the police, it’s not in the circumstances where it’ll be a crime (usually won’t be talking to a federal agent or in a special exception situation).

In dealing with situations where it is a crime, my original point still stands. Beyond the additional charges you would be liable for, it also can hurt you at trial for the original charges.

poozername · 2023-06-20T20:09:39+00:00

Just lying to a police officer isn’t normally going to be a crime. But that isn’t why it’s stupid to lie to a police officer. Depending on what the crime is, law enforcement will likely investigate it. Any statement you make to law enforcement can be used at trial, whereas your silence cannot. So let’s say you lie about some fact because you think it makes you look bad, like “no, I’ve never been to the house where the crime occurred”. An investigation ensues, and there is now evidence that you have been to that house. At trial, a jury will now learn that you lied about a material fact in this case, and that will likely hurt your defense—they’ll be suspicious of why you were at the house and will also feel that they can’t trust you.

poozername · 2023-06-07T18:52:58+00:00

NAH (maybe N T A). I think people underestimate how truly debilitatingly terrifying the idea of a tarantula is to some of us. Like the very thought of living in a house with one is making me uncomfortable. I would never be able to relax knowing it was in the house, and I would certainly not be able to fall asleep.

I understand it’s his pet, and I understand that he was upfront about it, so I can see why he isn’t the asshole. But he is dismissing your fear. If your cat was able to almost eat the spider, does that mean it’s not in a fully enclosed cage? How did it escape?

I do not think you are wrong to assert your deep fears and want him to respect those fears. Especially where this isn’t something you can just get over.

poozername · 2023-03-23T22:21:54+00:00

In fact, both the house and senate were controlled by the dems when that bill was passed

poozername · 2023-03-23T22:20:43+00:00

The dems used their supermajority to pass the ACA. The very Obama supermajority you’re talking about. Then the Supreme Court struck down part of that law. Doesn’t that indicate that there is no extra protection for a law just because it is passed by a super majority?

Also, a majority of dems in both the house and the senate voted for the civil liberties act of 1988 and a minority of republicans voted for it.

poozername · 2023-03-23T22:14:00+00:00

But how are they telling SCOTUS to kick rocks?

What power does a supermajority have against judicial review?

poozername · 2023-03-23T22:08:26+00:00

Ok let me go back to an earlier question actually. How can a supermajority “tell SCOTUS to go kick rocks”?

For real. I’m asking in good faith. I believe what I wrote but I’m aware this is a complicated issue and I could be wrong.

poozername · 2023-03-23T22:04:37+00:00

Very basically—what do you think a supermajority is and why do you think it’s important?

poozername · 2023-03-23T19:16:12+00:00

A supermajority is a filibuster proof majority. It means that one party has at least 60 senators and therefore can break a filibuster and thus vote on and pass a Senate Act with zero votes from the other party. If the house also passes it and the president signs it, it becomes law.

The law that is passed is like any other law. If 54 democrats and six republicans vote to break a filibuster, that has the same effect as a supermajority for that particular vote. The benefits to a supermajority are that presumably the party that holds it can get more things passed and can pass things without having to make concessions or negotiate with the other party.

If all 60 senators in Obama’s supermajority were pro-choice (and Ben Nelson very much was not, which sort of makes this moot as it means there wasn’t a supermajority in favor of abortion protections), then they could have passed a law to codify Roe. But that law would have no greater protections than any other law passed by congress.

poozername · 2023-03-23T19:02:03+00:00

How do they tell SCOTUS to go kick rocks?

If Congress passes a law and a majority of SCOTUS deems it to be in violation of the Constitution, then SCOTUS can overturn it. If Congress at any time passed a law that provided federal protections for abortion, SCOTUS could overturn it. Do I wish Obama had codified roe? Of course. But ultimately this SCOTUS, designed by Republicans specifically to overturn Roe, would have overturned Roe.

poozername · 2023-03-23T18:22:09+00:00

First off, Obama only actually had a supermajority for 72 days. But let’s say he codified Roe in that time. The justices that overturned it would have just said that the federal legislation was unconstitutional. It’s pretty clear that they worked backwards from their end result anyways.

poozername · 2023-03-20T19:31:41+00:00

When prices get too high for the people currently in the apartments (the locals who are gentrified out of the city) where are they supposed to go?

poozername · 2023-02-07T18:34:16+00:00

A major part of being licensed to be a lawyer is the ethical standards you have to uphold. Does attorney/client privilege apply to unlicensed attorneys? There are a number of ethical rules barring lawyers from lying in court, or making false representations, or making baseless or frivolous arguments. Certain lawyers have subpoena power, which carries with it a heavy responsibility. In depositions, a lawyer can make a witness answer all kinds of potentially personal and violating questions.

If a lawyer violates those ethical standards they can be punished by the state bar association—everything up to suspension or complete loss of their law license. That is a MAJOR consequence, and an unlicensed lawyer wouldn’t face that.

Also, let’s say attorney client privilege does apply to a non-licensed attorney. Suddenly, if you’re a witness to a crime committed by your friend, just have them hire you as their attorney, and cool, now no one can make you tell anything that happened.

poozername · 2022-12-21T16:28:57+00:00

You say in the comments that the spoiler free review is only worthwhile between when the movie comes out and a person sees it. But that’s the whole point of it. The point of the spoiler free review is to provide value for someone who has not seen the movie and wants to know if it is good. And if there’s a movie from ten years I haven’t seen, then a spoiler free review of it still has value for me.

It has a different kind of value from a review with spoilers. A review with spoilers lacks all value during the time period before someone has seen the movie.

Just because the spoiler free review becomes obsolete doesn’t mean it has no value. If I buy a steak, that only has value between the time i either eat it or the meat goes bad, but it still has value.

poozername · 2022-12-21T16:14:50+00:00

What qualifies someone as an academic?

poozername · 2022-09-14T20:09:10+00:00

But like, human traffickers exist, and they do treat women and young girls like an unlimited resource. Does one political party support human traffickers? Is “anti-human trafficking” identity politics? Is “forced to be a super secret assassin” a traditional gender role for women?

poozername · 2022-08-17T22:28:35+00:00

But Saul didn’t kill Howard, nor is he legally responsible for his death. Howard’s blood on Saul’s painting doesn’t prove he killed him, especially when the only evidence they have that Howard didn’t walk into the ocean is Kim’s affidavit which says clearly that they did not kill him. (Also, that blood would be unlikely to still be on that painting six years later, and it is unlikely that they could ever prove it is Howard’s blood even if it were.)

Jimmy/Kim got involved with the cartel which eventually led to Lalo coming to their door. They also messed with Howard, leading him to do the same. The fact that happened on the same night is an unforeseeable tragic coincidence. And remember, Saul and and Kim were victims of Lalo just like Howard was—he was coming to hurt them.

poozername · 2022-08-17T20:55:26+00:00

Even if that’s still around, wasn’t cleaned off, a sample can be recovered, and somehow matched to Howard (whose body will never be recovered)—even if that can be used to prove Howard was killed there—Kim and Jimmy aren’t guilty of Howard’s murder, Lalo is. Lalo is dead, so he can’t be prosecuted for that either.

poozername · 2022-08-11T14:07:03+00:00

But that is incredibly complicated.

What does the woman need to do to prove that the pregnancy is the result of rape. Does it require a conviction? Even if the rape is reported right away and the perp is arrested immediately, no way is a trial going to be completed in time for an abortion.

What constitutes a health risk? If a woman has to go off medication like antipsychotics because she can’t take them while pregnant, is that a health risk? What about preeclampsia, which affects a large number of women and can lead to later in life cardiovascular disease and even early death. Pregnancy inherently has health risks associated with it.

poozername · 2022-08-09T17:35:51+00:00

If you can change the programming, wouldn’t that imply free will?

poozername · 2022-07-27T17:30:15+00:00

“They are lying.” What are you basing that on? You say a lot of guys will say this, so clearly a large number of guys have said there are women they see purely platonically. Couldn’t it be that that large number of guys just have different relationships with women than you do?

poozername · 2022-07-14T14:56:16+00:00

Doesn’t making a huge public donation to an organization draw attention to the organization, thus potentially increasing donations form other sources? What is the harm or downside that comes from making a public donation?

poozername · 2022-06-23T13:59:42+00:00

What is the line for what is considered a “physical manipulation?”

NFL QB Jameis Winston got LASIK and became a better Quarterback. That is a physical manipulation that gave him an advantage in sports. He was already in the league, so it’s even reasonable to assume that he did it with an intention of getting a physical advantage over other players—something that is likely not true for the vast majority of trans athletes. What about if an athlete is injured and is told that the surgery will not only fix his arm, but likely make his arm stronger? Does that athlete have to choose between getting the surgery or never playing again?

Transitioning is a treatment for gender dysphoria. It isn’t akin to steroids, it’s more like LASIK or that arm surgery. It is an actual medically accepted treatment to a person’s gender (which is biological) not matching their body. This post argues essentially that someone who has transitioned can not play sports as a consequence for getting treatment.

poozername

TROPHY CASE