Dummy Old Thing

2.3K posts

Dummy Old Thing

Dummy Old Thing

@DummyOldThing

Just some guy somewhere.

France Katılım Ağustos 2018
395 Takip Edilen65 Takipçiler
Dummy Old Thing
Dummy Old Thing@DummyOldThing·
@gordon_alive (also w.r.t. the specific definition of 3), "ought to have known it would be" should have been, to be quite precise, rather more "the speaker consciously disregarded the substantial risk that it would be", since otherwise that's describing negligence which is subtly different :))
English
1
0
0
27
Dummy Old Thing
Dummy Old Thing@DummyOldThing·
@gordon_alive w.r.t. your specific question, the answer is that "reckless" does not modify "threatening someone the speaker intends to kill" but rather instead modifies "the speaker's awareness of the fact other would understand their speech to be communicating a threat"
English
2
0
0
30
Patrick Jaicomo
Patrick Jaicomo@pjaicomo·
In Bill’s hypothetical, Comey’s photo would still be protected by the First Amendment. Hoping someone is murdered so your book sales improve comes nowhere near satisfying the constitutional standard. It’s not a true threat, let alone one recklessly made.
Patrick Jaicomo tweet media
Shipwreckedcrew@shipwreckedcrew

Hypothetical: Jim Comey sent a text message to his book agent that reveals what he did, and includes a portion that says words to the effect of "Imagine if someone did make another attempt to assassinate him now, that picture will go viral and book sales could go through the roof." Remember, the standard for criminality is "recklessness."

English
15
13
185
18.8K
Dummy Old Thing
Dummy Old Thing@DummyOldThing·
@CovfefeM @barstoollaw @GsuGrinding ...given you've blocked me I can't respond to your tweet properly, but fyi my point is that it *doesn't matter* whether Comey wanted him killed - he could have wanted him killed and even confess as much in open court that it wouldn't salvage the case
English
0
0
0
5
Dummy Old Thing
Dummy Old Thing@DummyOldThing·
@CovfefeM @barstoollaw @GsuGrinding The problem is they have to show that basic English concepts/sentences reasonably mean smth wildly different from what people generally understand them as - not just "please kill Trump, random ppl on Instagram" but more specifically "I'm gonna kill Trump/hire a hitman to do it"
English
2
0
0
9
Dummy Old Thing
Dummy Old Thing@DummyOldThing·
@gordon_alive i mean she's not exactly alone in this given it has happened more than 2128 times in SCOTUS history according to lonedissent.org 😭 (point taken, though, an attempt at disbarring them for this would be... on difficult grounds :p)
English
1
0
0
7
Gordon’s alive?!
Gordon’s alive?!@gordon_alive·
@DummyOldThing However, They won’t be the first lawyers with indefensible positions. Just look at Justice Jackson’s record being 1-8 several times. So…whatever.
English
1
0
0
8
Dummy Old Thing
Dummy Old Thing@DummyOldThing·
@gordon_alive (also, I suppose it would indeed be ironic if he doesn't believe in these precedents either, but the defendant's beliefs about the law are generally not persuasive authority, unless they happen to be the judge who wrote the applicable precedent x))
English
1
0
0
13
Dummy Old Thing
Dummy Old Thing@DummyOldThing·
@gordon_alive The court could indeed ignore CA4 binding authority on threat and the comically-on-point persuasive CA9 ruling on presidential threats, yes, although I will say I would be, uh, pretty surprised, to say the least
English
1
0
0
16
Dummy Old Thing
Dummy Old Thing@DummyOldThing·
@gordon_alive (ok, theoretically "Comey had a secret cartel to kill Trump and this was intended to communicate a threat to them" or smth like that would work but I assume you can guess why I find *that* implausible, given Comey is not currently under arrest for conspiracy to assassinate Trump)
English
1
0
0
17
Dummy Old Thing
Dummy Old Thing@DummyOldThing·
@gordon_alive ...and show that such was widely known such that Comey was reckless of it being interpreted as meaning he threatened to personally take direct action towards killing Trump - I would hope you can see why I think there's no possible set of evidence they could have that would do so
English
1
0
0
16
Dummy Old Thing
Dummy Old Thing@DummyOldThing·
@TScatteredFlock @Europarl_EN If I'm getting a tattoo and decide I want to stop midway through and tell the tattoo artist as much, then if they don't stop they're committing assault. Same here.
English
0
0
2
15
The Scattered Flock
The Scattered Flock@TScatteredFlock·
@Europarl_EN So if a man is inside a girl, and he says, "Get off me," and she doesn't within a second... he can have her arrested for rape. Got it.
English
2
0
1
979
European Parliament
European Parliament@Europarl_EN·
Sex is only sex when consent is freely given, informed, and revocable at any time. Everything else is rape. Parliament is once again pushing for an EU-wide definition of rape centred on the absence of consent.
English
2.3K
618
5K
6.2M
Dummy Old Thing
Dummy Old Thing@DummyOldThing·
@CovfefeM @barstoollaw @GsuGrinding I suppose it is *possible* for the government to show up and say "Comey's post communicates that he *personally* intends to act directly towards killing Trump" - but they haven't even done that (alleging it means "please kill Trump, random people on Instagram" is not sufficient)
English
1
0
0
20
Dummy Old Thing
Dummy Old Thing@DummyOldThing·
@gordon_alive and indeed i suppose the government *could* just allege (evidence-free) that Comey posting seashells spelling "86 47" means (as understood by a reasonable person) "I, James Comey, am going to kill Trump", although that certainly seems like a daring theory to ever bring to a court
English
1
0
0
26
Dummy Old Thing
Dummy Old Thing@DummyOldThing·
@gordon_alive Counterman just means you can't say "lol i'm just too stupid to understand that's a threat lmao" - here it means that people reading Comey's post must have reasonably understood it as an 871(a) threat, and that Comey ought to have known they would (was reckless to it)
English
1
0
0
24
Dummy Old Thing
Dummy Old Thing@DummyOldThing·
@LundukeJournal @grok @X it seems Elon has decided the standard for removing posts is "what is legal in the US" - he doesn't seem to have updated the policy document but it's at least his stated standard, and this post just isn't prosecutable
English
0
0
0
35
The Lunduke Journal
The Lunduke Journal@LundukeJournal·
Hey @grok, is this post (in the screenshot) a violation of @X rules? Is saying “I’ll beat the sh*t out of you you f**king nerd” considered violent or hateful speech?
The Lunduke Journal tweet mediaThe Lunduke Journal tweet media
English
31
7
140
16.5K
Dummy Old Thing
Dummy Old Thing@DummyOldThing·
@gordon_alive @JoelKatz @ASFleischman @shipwreckedcrew I am quite very happy to say that a grand jury indicting Trump is effectively meaningless, yes, in the exact same sense as it is meaningless for a grand jury to have indicted Comey. Meaningfulness can only be found in the text of the indictment, not the grand jury rubber stamp
English
0
0
0
5
Dummy Old Thing
Dummy Old Thing@DummyOldThing·
@gordon_alive like idk if you understand that sentence but it means the speaker (subject, Comey here) means to commit (verb) violence (object, killing Trump here) - that is, it requires that "Comey" (and not some other guy) means to kill Trump
English
1
0
0
21
Dummy Old Thing
Dummy Old Thing@DummyOldThing·
@gordon_alive For it to be a threat it must communicate that *the speaker* (that is, Comey in particular) intends to personally take direct action against Trump, even Counterman says so extremely explicitly x.com/DummyOldThing/…
Dummy Old Thing@DummyOldThing

@gordon_alive @TweetTonyMac @pjaicomo (w.r.t. what Counterman has to say on actus reus, it just says "True threats are 'serious expression[s]' conveying that a speaker means to 'commit an act of unlawful violence'" - not exactly a big precedent-setting part - and it's also saying the same as i but more compressed :p)

English
1
0
0
29