Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 304: All Posts Are Bad

(+) Yeah! (+)

Isn't Corrik's stance about DUIs that you shouldn't lose your license over them because "then people will just be encouraged to drive without their license unlawfully and it won't be their fault"

There's no actual internal consistency

---

red13n posted...

I didn't defend him. I want the police to use their fucking legs when someone was running away.

I want him arrested if at all possible.

I don't want people shot when course of action is clearly not a last resort.

That's great. However, it is their job to stop him by all means at that point. If a single person died after that point that was an innocent or themself, it was on their hands for failing to act.

---

he also did it multiple times from what I recall.

once was "i was just going down the block" or something like that and he said that was fine.

---

red13n posted...

he also did it multiple times from what I recall.

once was "i was just going down the block" or something like that and he said that was fine.

Three times that he's admitted to here.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Isn't Corrik's stance about DUIs that you shouldn't lose your license over them because "then people will just be encouraged to drive without their license unlawfully and it won't be their fault"

There's no actual internal consistency

Losing your license for a DUI is a foolish sentence that should be changed, yes. There are better means to punish that crime.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand before you rehash the same conversation for the 50th time for no reason because you think it somehow debases the character.

---

Corrik7 posted...

There are better means to punish that crime.

There are better means to punish the crime of pointing a taser at an officer than murder too
---

Corrik7 posted...

Losing your license for a DUI is a foolish sentence that should be changed, yes. There are better means to punish that crime.

Based on your stance and the threat you would pose for your actions, the punishment would be getting shot in the back.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Losing your license for a DUI is a foolish sentence that should be changed, yes. There are better means to punish that crime.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand before you rehash the same conversation for the 50th time for no reason because you think it somehow debases the character.

But driving under the influence means you are a direct threat to the lives of others. You were as much of a danger, if not moreso, than this guy with a taser. So should the punishment be changed to just shooting you the next time you drive drunk?

---

I'm just really surprised by this stance of Corrik's that he himself deserves to be killed by the police. Out of nowhere really, but can't fault him for staying true to his own personal convictions and not being a complete hypocrite.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

There are better means to punish the crime of pointing a taser at an officer than murder too

There was no legal actions taken here as the criminal was unable to be detained by police in a non-lethal manner that didn't dispose the public or themselves to harm.

If he had simply not resisted, he would have been charged with a DUI (likely a highest one due to his predisposition of falling asleep in a drive-thru) and that would have been the end of it.

There are people who are justifiably shot for far less of a crime by the police than this man was. This wasn't even a semblance of gray. 0% chance of conviction. Just like I said in the case of the case in Pittsburgh which again was innocent. It's not hard to see the outcomes of the legal cases when you know how the law works.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Based on your stance and the threat you would pose for your actions, the punishment would be getting shot in the back.

If I resisted, assaulted an officer, and fled, I probably would have been.

---

Corrik7 posted...

If I resisted, assaulted an officer, and fled, I probably would have been.

Not likely, and you know why.

---

Corrik7 posted...

It's not hard to see the outcomes of the legal cases when you know how the law works.

What will your reaction be when Chauvin is found not guilty for killing George Floyd
---

StealThisSheen posted...

But driving under the influence means you are a direct threat to the lives of others. You were as much of a danger, if not moreso, than this guy with a taser. So should the punishment be changed to just shooting you the next time you drive drunk?

If you say so.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Losing your license for a DUI is a foolish sentence that should be changed, yes. There are better means to punish that crime.

You did it again, so yeah, you probably should have served significant jail time.

And still had your license revoked after that.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Not likely, and you know why.

Definitely likely. You act like white people aren't shot by the police lol.

---

red13n posted...

You did it again, so yeah, you probably should have served significant jail time.

And still had your license revoked after that.

If you say so, petition your nearest PA lawmaker to argue your point if you wish. Maybe they will change the laws to whatever you think!

---

Corrik7 posted...

If you say so, petition your nearest PA lawmaker to argue your point if you wish. Maybe they will change the laws to whatever you think!

Protesting is proving to be much more effective, honestly
---

So what it sounds like is you got a DUI (or multiple?) and lost your license over it. You then drove anyway without your license.

Sounds to me like you didn't obey the police. Sounds to me like you resisted their lawful attempt to detain you from driving.

Sounds to me like your argument is that people who drive once their license is taken away deserve to be shot.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

So what it sounds like is you got a DUI (or multiple?) and lost your license over it. You then drove anyway without your license.

Sounds to me like you didn't obey the police. Sounds to me like you resisted their lawful attempt to detain you from driving.

Sounds to me like your argument is that people who drive once their license is taken away deserve to be shot.

Just lol at this post. The fact you thought that up and decided to post it thinking it was a good argument is funny.

This is laughable.

Also, did I say I drove without a license? Or did I say the law was disproportionate to the poor who had no other means of travel to and from work to support their families while zero burden to the well off?

---

StealThisSheen posted...

So what it sounds like is you got a DUI (or multiple?) and lost your license over it. You then drove anyway without your license.

Sounds to me like you didn't obey the police. Sounds to me like you resisted their lawful attempt to detain you from driving.

Sounds to me like your argument is that people who drive once their license is taken away deserve to be shot.

This is a good framework

Why is Corrik allowed to be a recurring potential danger to public lives but this man in Atlanta was not?
---

Corrik7 posted...

Also, did I say I drove without a license?

Yes.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Yes.

Oh I did. Show me.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Or did I say the law was disproportionate to the poor who had no other means of travel to and from work to support their families while zero burden to the well off?

Have you petitioned your local PA lawmaker to get this changed? Hows that worked out?
---

Corrik7 posted...

Definitely likely. You act like white people aren't shot by the police lol.

They are less likely to be.

Whites commit 3x the number of crimes than blacks pretty much across the board but are are shot to death at a number typically less than 2x that of blacks.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

I'm just really surprised by this stance of Corrik's that he himself deserves to be killed by the police. Out of nowhere really, but can't fault him for staying true to his own personal convictions and not being a complete hypocrite.

Going to repost this every time there's a Corrik argument

---

Corrik7 posted...

Oh I did. Show me.

We have witnesses that corroborate the story.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Have you petitioned your local PA lawmaker to get this changed? Hows that worked out?

I don't care enough to petition for change. It is my opinion on the matter and nothing more. I don't care if the change happens, but do assume common sense on it will shine through at some point.

---

red13n posted...

We have witnesses that corroborate the story.

Lol okay!

---

Jakyl25 posted...

What will your reaction be when Chauvin is found not guilty for killing George Floyd

Speaking of this, do we know if murder 3 is a going to be an option for the jurors if they don't think murder 2 was proven?

The former at least should be a slam-dunk given the video.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Oh I did. Show me.

Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't and multiple people misunderstood your posts, you have definitely admitted to driving intoxicated multiple times, so you were still a recurring danger to public lives.

---

red13n posted...

They are less likely to be.

Whites commit 3x the number of crimes than blacks pretty much across the board but are are shot to death at a number typically less than 2x that of blacks.

Of course when you compare crime as a generic term and not violent crime.

White people have a lot more white collar crime than minorities because minorities are very disproportionately at economic disadvantage, which is also the class which disproportionately moreso commits violent crime.

---

Should be a slam dunk.
Prosecutors don't tend to push beyond too much usually because juries are prone to dismissing more if they're innocent of one charge. Running both puts the murder 3 at a greater risk than it would be by itself.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I don't care enough to petition for change. It is my opinion on the matter and nothing more. I don't care if the change happens, but do assume common sense on it will shine through at some point.

You know honestly my least favorite thing about you is your eternal appeal to some mythical notion of common sense that does not exist and never has in any facet of life
---

Corrik7 posted...

Okay, bud. Keep thinking you maintain some moral superiority while defending literal violent criminals.

No one here is defending cops

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Speaking of this, do we know if murder 3 is a going to be an option for the jurors if they don't think murder 2 was proven?

The former at least should be a slam-dunk given the video.

Based on what the specific type of murder 2 they charged him with says, it should still IN THEORY be a slam dunk

IN THEORY
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't and multiple people misunderstood your posts, you have definitely admitted to driving intoxicated multiple times, so you were still a recurring danger to public lives.

What I thought. I argued it was dumb when a better means exists with ignition interlocks and based on economic disparity of the punishment.

You can eliminate the offense with ignition interlocks completely while not attacking a low income person's means of supporting their family or forcing them to break a law to try and support their family.

The law shouldn't back someone into a corner like that. Especially, when a common sense option like ignition interlocks can accomplish the goal without taking away their means.

Your arguments are misguided and frankly weak. I get you know you can't defeat the argument against the guy fleeing here, so you deflected onto my character. But, surely you can at least make better arguments and make up less.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

You know honestly my least favorite thing about you is your eternal appeal to some mythical notion of common sense that does not exist and never has in any facet of life

I can have faith in it. They know certain laws can disproportionately affect the lower classes to give them more reason to commit crime unnecessarily. If their main goal is recidivism, then I have faith they will see that and fix it where they can.

---

Ah, yes. The law shouldn't take away somebody's legal right to drive if they're proven a danger to public lives multiple times.

But the law should take away somebody's life if they maybe possibly potentially are a threat with a taser.

---

Peace___Frog posted...

No one here is defending cops

You should be when appropriate. That is the problem however. You want ACAB and every cop made the wrong decision, instead of focusing when they actually did. It hurts your cause more than helps if frankly.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Of course when you compare crime as a generic term and not violent crime.

No, I said across the board and I meant it. All crime, violent and non-violent.

There are outliers like murder but they account for a miniscule percentage of violent crime(Less than 0.5%).

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Based on what the specific type of murder 2 they charged him with says, it should still IN THEORY be a slam dunk

IN THEORY

For everyones sake they better find him guilty.

A not guilty verdict will unleash hell.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Ah, yes. The law shouldn't take away somebody's legal right to drive if they're proven a danger to public lives multiple times.

But the law should take away somebody's life if they maybe possibly potentially are a threat with a taser.

Yes, a violent offender fleeing a scene is a threat to the public.

If a cop tries to pull someone (or me since it makes you salivitate at the idea apparently?) For a DUI and they start a high speed chase, they very likely will be shot to end the chase because the person fleeing the police is a danger to the people on the road at that point.

---

red13n posted...

For everyones sake they better find him guilty.

A not guilty verdict will unleash hell.

The cop will be guilty of murder 2. I think the other 3 will be found innocent. At least 1 of the 3 will for sure likely. Will be an interesting case.

---

https://twitter.com/senatorcollins/status/1271871411041251334?s=21

Such a blatant lie
---

The reason you were used as an example is because you whine about the law being too harsh about crimes that you, personally, have committed, and yet you blindly and tirelessly defend the taking of somebody's life when they were not a threat to anybody else's in that time.

---

Corrik7 posted...

If a cop tries to pull someone (or me since it makes you salivitate at the idea apparently?) For a DUI and they start a high speed chase, they very likely will be shot to end the chase because the person fleeing the police is a danger to the people on the road at that point.

You were already a danger to people on the road, multiple times.

Why the fuck should they let you drive again.

---

Corrik7 posted...

For a DUI and they start a high speed chase, they very likely will be shot to end the chase because the person fleeing the police is a danger to the people on the road at that point.

Uhhh you think the safest way to end a high speed chase is to shoot the driver?
---

StealThisSheen posted...

The reason you were used as an example is because you whine about the law being too harsh about crimes that you, personally, have committed, and yet you blindly and tirelessly defend the taking of somebody's life when they were not a threat to anybody else's in that time.

No, I have never done that. I have plead guilty, accepted my punishments, and did them. I have worried about the consequences of them, sure. I have contemplated how it affects my family outside of just me sure. I have lamented on making mistakes, sure.

I have argued that there was questionable circumstances in some of my cases, sure. I have also accepted my punishments and plead guilty without fighting them.

I don't know why you keep making stuff up.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/senatorcollins/status/1271871411041251334?s=21

Such a blatant lie

By "work to overturn" she means that she'll leave it at that and then say she believes the president has learned his lesson in a TV interview.

---