dont worry we can solve it by not voting and having traditional republican beliefs but not identifying as republicans.

No people in the entire history of the world have voted their way out of tyranny.

Also, how can I not vote but still be a republican?

Its like prosecutorial overreach in politicized cases and prosecutorial neglect in mundane criminal cases is rapidly approaching an event horizon of a dystopia that has been unthinkable in the post civil war period of our history.
We've got Sotomayor pontificating about how the legitimacy of the supreme court is in jeopardy over Roe v Wade, but what does the head matter if the justice system crumbles from within? Who will enforce the law?

In the land of rational people, if the parents left a gun loose in their home and there's no law against in it in Michigan, that's not a crime. If the parents bought a gun specifically as a present for their kid and there's a law against buying a gun for a child, then they're guilty of that crime- not murder, which does not follow by even the most herculean leaps of the felony murder rule being contorted into lunacy. And if the parents cackled with glee at his plans to shoot up a school, trained him and compelled him to murder people- then the prosecutors would have provided evidence of that at the latest news conference.

either theres some SERIOUS facts in the case not yet known or its a terrible overreach.

id guess, out of my a**, that even if there is no law in michigan requiring home safes or lock and key storage, that it could be argued as an aggravating or mitigating circumstance in sentencing, but that's for the shooter not a charge out of the blue for the mommy. something is fishy.



your ideals can be traditionally republican without you being a card carrying member of the party.

do you have a list of anything the republican platform aims for that you disagree with, wherein you also agree with the democrat's stance on the same issue? that's what centrism is.

otherwise if you're just not a member of either party out of nihilism and a distaste for corruption generally but still like the proposed aims of the one side then you just quack like a duck.

I got you a Christmas present.
Seemed right up your alley.

I think the constant in the recent court cases has been blood sacrifice.
The crowd hungers for whipping boys to be slaughtered upon the apex of our media pyramids, guilty and innocent alike, but mostly the innocent.
Derek Chauvin, Kyle Rittenhouse, the McMichaels, Kim Potter, these parents, its a lot of cases in a short span in the public eye, and what differentiates it from previous media circus trials like OJ or Casey Anthony or so on from the past, is the sheer level of bloodlust and seething hatred. Let alone the vitriol people feel towards the defendants, its a culture that is virulently inimical to any suggestion of fair trial, reasonable analysis, impartial justice, etc. Most commentary is the equivalent of uncle ruckus standing up in the jury booth holding a noose. People get irrationally angry towards anyone who will even mention facts of the cases. You'll get banned off half of reddit if you bring up any inconvenient details of the George Floyd trial like the entire autopsy.
I can't help but see the biblical parallels to barabbas, the historical parallels to mob justice of previous centuries, and juxtapose it against the exceptional periods of history where such sentiments were defeated, like the boston massacre trial.

I don't think the fact we have cell phones today changes the echoes of basic human nature

a simple no would do fine in the future.



while i dont like the charge any parent neglectful enough to live with and raise a school shooter should be criminally charged with something.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 3 2021 12:42pm

The degree to which parents can be responsible for the choices of their children is decidedly murky, which is no ground in which to plant the burden of criminal liability beyond a doubt. We can't even decide on how parents should raise kids or what degree the state should be allowed to compel them, we certainly can't go out and start creating a criminal liability that assumes total responsibility for independent choices, especially those the parents tried to stop. I mean, one society could say that allowing your child to read radical right-wing internet forums creates a criminal liability for indoctrinating them into hate groups and lock up parents who let their kids on jsp. Another society could say that encouraging your kid to identify as a transgender two spirit atheist anarchist is child abuse and church inquisitors should put a swift and violent end to their heresy.

There are degrees to which liability can exist, when its plain, immediate and direct. If a wahabbi-islamist family takes their kids to a remote compound and trains them to be jihadists and puts guns in their hands and tells them to kill Americans. But whatever hypotheticals or comparisons I could make, it wouldn't matter to the facts of this case we've seen so far. Unless they're hiding some amazing ace up their sleeve

I don't think this was a terror attack at all. If it was a terrorist attack, done in the name of a secular ideology, then it would be an atheist terror attack.

No child's choices are entirely their own until they turn 18, whether the liability is criminal or not is debatable, but no child does anything without their parent getting a modicum of praise or blame.

i tend to agree unless there's an insane circumstance the charge isn't legit, and even in the current legal code i fail to see a neglect type charge that would satiate my personal opinion on raising broken humans let alone proving it beyond a reasonable doubt.