School Shooting at Oxford High School

[canuck]

I think the Crumbly's are being treated unfairly. At the very least they should be allowed affordable bond and allowed out, perhaps on a tether, but allowed out.

You can argue that. I think the prosecutor mentioned that they had no immediate family in the vicinity, that they were all in Florida.

It could be argued that it is certainly part of the high profile of the case about how you will afford security, and civic residence before and during trial to the accused, could it not?

[Richard]

A preliminary hearing is a pre-trial, thefore, it is a trial of sorts.

Maybe in Canada but in this country no it’s not,a trial is a determination of guilt or innocence,this is solely for the prosecutor to prove she has enough evidence,based on existing laws,in order to move to a trial.

[Richard]

I think the Crumbly's are being treated unfairly. At the very least they should be allowed affordable bond and allowed out, perhaps on a tether, but allowed out.

I agree,it is based on community ties,owning a house has a lot to do with it because they have a stable residence.

Considering what has happened locally in regards to bail,you can set somebody on fire,and be released on low bond no restrictions,be an international drug dealer and pay a low bond and get released no restrictions,he bolted though.

When you take the totality of those being released even for crimes even more serious then these charges,it is extremely high,personally how it all sounds is even if it was set at $50,000 they would not be able to raise it.

But this case is about setting an example,if they were released pre trial it would give them an opportunity to build thier case in a more productive manner.

Even at that,and most will not care one way or another,it prevents them from supporting their child in any way,which in turn we many never know what motivated him on that day.

Notice that they have separate lawyers as a strategy,it makes it look as if it goes to trial the prosecutor will be looking for one or the other to be the sacrificial lamb as a plea deal,so they are trying to keep them in jail,seperated so they cannot combine forces into one.

So far the prosecutors are going directly after the mother,the husbands role is barely referenced.

But he may be next and she is just going after one at a time during the process.

[canuck]

Maybe in Canada but in this country no it’s not,a trial is a determination of guilt or innocence,this is solely for the prosecutor to prove she has enough evidence,based on existing laws,in order to move to a trial.

What are you worried about, then?

They have a pair of defense lawyers to help them set things straight before the judge.

If they are convicted, next time your favorite candidate wins the presidency, you can try and convince him they should be pardoned. So much for Justice being detached from the Executive branch. That kind of fancy footing is not done in Canada.

[Richard]

What are you worried about, then?

They have a pair of defense lawyers to help them set things straight before the judge.

Next time your favorite candidate wins the presidency, you can try and convince him they should be pardoned. So much for Justice being detached from the Executive branch. That kind of fancy footing is not done in Canada.

No because it is easy to buy people off in Canada,so it does not go to trial in the first place.

Actually the history in this country shows the Democrat Presidents have provided more pardons by far then the Republicans,well over double,so it would be highly doubtful that my choice of favorite candidates would be pardon reliable.

What was that word of the day you used earlier?

Conjecture- O yea, that’s what it was.

Like I posted before,it was not until 1996 and Canada received a phone call from Italian intelligence that you had a clue that your Italian mafia was connected to the Italians.

Who would have ever figured that one out.

Remind me again about that fancy footing in the Canadian legal system again?

[Meddle]

I think the Crumbly's are being treated unfairly. At the very least they should be allowed affordable bond and allowed out, perhaps on a tether, but allowed out.

They've displayed behavior that makes them a flight risk.

[canuck]

I agree,it is based on community ties,owning a house has a lot to do with it because they have a stable residence.

Considering what has happened locally in regards to bail,you can set somebody on fire,and be released on low bond no restrictions,be an international drug dealer and pay a low bond and get released no restrictions,he bolted though.

When you take the totality of those being released even for crimes even more serious then these charges,it is extremely high,personally how it all sounds is even if it was set at $50,000 they would not be able to raise it.

But this case is about setting an example,if they were released pre trial it would give them an opportunity to build thier case in a more productive manner.

Even at that,and most will not care one way or another,it prevents them from supporting their child in any way,which in turn we many never know what motivated him on that day.

Notice that they have separate lawyers as a strategy,it makes it look as if it goes to trial the prosecutor will be looking for one or the other to be the sacrificial lamb as a plea deal,so they are trying to keep them in jail,seperated so they cannot combine forces into one.

So far the prosecutors are going directly after the mother,the husbands role is barely referenced.

But he may be next and she is just going after one at a time during the process.

As far as I have been able to gather, the defense lawyers are working as a team, and the judge specified that if at any time the defendants disagreed on their individual defense, or other matter, that they, the attorneys had to advise the court.

The problem is that they are both not able and permitted to communicate with one another for obvious reasons. There.

[Richard]

As far as I have been able to gather, the defense lawyers are working as a team, and the judge specified that if at any time the defendants disagreed on their individual defense, or other matter, that they, the attorneys had to advise the court.

The problem is that they are both not able and permitted to communicate with one another for obvious reasons. There.

You said you were watching,I just figured you would have noticed that when the defense lawyers objected,they both did so at the same time,while both standing up at the same time.

To me anyways,if they were working as a team it would be one or the other standing up at a time.

But that would be considered conjecture,I guess.

[Richard]

They've displayed behavior that makes them a flight risk.

Displaying behavior is not a singular determination,they drew all cash available from the bank - $3000

They put the house up for sale or was for sale.

They put the horses up for sale but the boarding agent said it has not been successful yet.

So they also have to have the means to be a flight risk,the only means so far has been the $3000 if they had not spent a dime of it to date.

But as we know these days bond is set of it even set and at what rate is up to the whims of the system.

So really no rhyme or reason.

[canuck]

That's what I said.

They are a team. The judge wants to know if there is a disagreement about the individual parents' defense if or when it arises between defendants to determine another defense strategy for them.

You mentioned the couple's ability to support their child if out on bail. I doubt very much that they can enter into communication with that party given the mesh of circumstances. Are you attempting some capital of sympathy for the triad?

Remember, they are being defended by a couple of pretty savvy lawyers…

[Richard]

That's what I said.

They are a team. The judge wants to know if there is a disagreement about the individual parents' defense if or when it arises between defendants to determine another defense strategy for them.

You mentioned the couple's ability to support their child if out on bail. I doubt very much that they can enter into communication with that party given the mesh of circumstances. Are you attempting some capital of sympathy for the triad?

Remember, they are being defended by a couple of pretty savvy lawyers…

When I said so the parents could support their child I kinda figured another parent would understand the unconditional love for their child and what is left of emotional support.

What would people like to do,take the kid in front of a firing squad tomorrow?

I also prefer to look at motivating factors before passing judgment on others and even Charles Manson was afforded outside contact and emotional support,some would argue the kid deserves non of that,then they have to be ready to put him in front of a firing squad tomorrow.

Take a troubled kid that we do not know what motivated him to do what he did,did he just snap ? Stick him alone in a cell with no contact with anybody he loved in a world,if he is capable, dealing with the actions that he did is a form of torture,if he did not have mental issues then he will most likely have some now.

I do not know the history of the lawyers and it is hard at this point to really see if they are savvy,lawyers are based on what you can afford generally and their time to shine is not at that point so far.

I have an acquaintance that is a lawyer,he was a states AG for many years,he was paid millions to leave the country and not open private practice in the states,he writes training manuals for lawyers now,I have watched him from 7500 miles away get some serious cases dropped that were based on false accusations,with a phone call.

I care about this school shooting just as I care about any other school shooting and as a parent I feel for the parents whose children were the victims,I have not lost a child but can imagine what that feels like.

Having said that,if it continues to be a constitutional issue over and above a school shooting,then yes I will be calling in a favor from 7500 miles away because the constitution has priority over even my life.

Preferably the judicial system will work as intended and not be manipulated by the court of public opinion or narratives.

Where I am at I have another acquaintance where their son is going through the system after randomly shooting and killing 5 people over a course of a few months,5 people that were just walking down the street minding their own business.

His parents are there every day,before he went off to college in another state I met the kid several times,never once thought he was capable of doing that,he came back from college,got a job then just decided one day to start taking people out.

You and others view me as evil for supporting the parents,I am looking at it as a parent and a kid just as an adult,you never really know what is going on in their head.

I kinda think it is important for the parents of the victims and maybe some closure if the question of why can be answered or information gleaned that may help to reduce shootings in the future.

If the kid figures it is over,he may just clam up and shut down which will leave more unanswered questions then answered.

That is the one thing we as parents cannot answer,what would you do if it was your child,because we cannot fathom our children as being capable of such an act,no parent can until they are faced with it.

[canuck]

I agree with you about the constitution. If you have a good constitution, it follies you have a better chance at a longer life. You have to enhance your good constitution, amend it where it’s lacking, and you should be good for a while.

[Richard]

I agree with you about the constitution. If you have a good constitution, it follies you have a better chance at a longer life. You have to enhance your good constitution, amend it where it’s lacking, and you should be good for a while.

It has been done in the past,added 11 more to the bill of rights,abolished slavery,gave women the right to vote.

There is a process and the president cannot take part in that process,a sitting president can only sign off after the people have approved it.

The reason

In the last 2 years there have been 5 coups in democratic controlled countries because the democratically elected leadership used the court system to circumvent their constitution and render it useless in order to gain dictatorship powers.

The 6th would be Venezuela,they were successful,the other 5 not so much,the people choose to stay Democratic and were successful in overthrowing the leadership.

The US is a constitutional republic,makes it hard for a president,if not impossible,to throw away the constitution in order to gain total power.

In this case there are safe gun storage laws and regulations making their way through the system,the legal way,and by those tasked by the people to create them.

That system is set up so the people have control over the laws and to prevent others from randomly making them up.

This is a recent Michigan court ruling that revolves around who can change the law and when - this is an example and not intended to go down any political path.

Murray wrote that Benson issued the rules without following the process for creating a rule under state and federal law, thus violating the state’s Administrative Procedures Act.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...bsentee-ballot

Even the highest courts in Michigan agree that those tasked with enforcing laws or those in power cannot make up the laws as they go along,they want everybody to follow the laws,they have to also.

[canuck]

…by which I meant your own personal constitution…

[southen]

That system is set up so the people have control over the laws and to prevent others from randomly making them up.

When you say people you really mean whichever corporate interest hires the best lobbyist, right?

[Meddle]

^^ Corporations are people, no?


The Nine Paid Corporate Stooges said so.

[Richard]

When you say people you really mean whichever corporate interest hires the best lobbyist, right?

I do not know the answer to the lobbyist thing.

Its a double edge sword,the new bridge in Detroit would have never been approved without lobbyists,some would say that is good some would say bad.

So it depends on your cause,you as an individual can be a lobbyist of sorts,you have that right.

The women’s right to vote did not come about because those in power said one day,let’s do it,the women and their supporters lobbied their representatives to make it happen.

We have a country of 350 million,what I desire may be completely opposite of what you desire and it is not right for either one of us to decide to deprive another of their voice,there is always middle ground.

A lot of that is the fault of the voting public,you cannot go through the drama of elections and once your candidate is in office sit back and relax while expecting them to change the world,you have to lobby them of sorts,you do not have a voice if nobody hears it.

A constitutional amendment takes 3/4 of 50 states to approve change,it has to be a serious majority in order to do that.

The biggest problem in this country is people keep referring to the politicians as their leaders,they are not your leaders,you hire them to be your voice and representation,they are going to be like everybody else on the job,slack when they can,if you do not speak up and light a fire under their ass ,that’s on you.

[Richard]

…by which I meant your own personal constitution…

It is my personal constitution,read it,it’s intent is to give every US citizen equal rights and protections no matter what race,color or creed.

In case you have not noticed,when we deviate from that,we have problems.

[canuck]

..as in, morning constitutional, etc… lol

[southen]

I do not know the answer to the lobbyist thing.

Its a double edge sword,the new bridge in Detroit would have never been approved without lobbyists,some would say that is good some would say bad.

So it depends on your cause,you as an individual can be a lobbyist of sorts,you have that right.

The women’s right to vote did not come about because those in power said one day,let’s do it,the women and their supporters lobbied their representatives to make it happen.

We have a country of 350 million,what I desire may be completely opposite of what you desire and it is not right for either one of us to decide to deprive another of their voice,there is always middle ground.

A lot of that is the fault of the voting public,you cannot go through the drama of elections and once your candidate is in office sit back and relax while expecting them to change the world,you have to lobby them of sorts,you do not have a voice if nobody hears it.

A constitutional amendment takes 3/4 of 50 states to approve change,it has to be a serious majority in order to do that.

The biggest problem in this country is people keep referring to the politicians as their leaders,they are not your leaders,you hire them to be your voice and representation,they are going to be like everybody else on the job,slack when they can,if you do not speak up and light a fire under their ass ,that’s on you.

You are deliberately conflating ordinary citizens lobbying for equal rights with corporations spending billions each election cycle to get what they want. They aren’t the same but I suspect you’re well aware.

I always love watching conservatives wax poetic about the constitution but immediately backtrack when the concept of money equaling speech and the unchecked influence of capitalism is introduced. Then all of a sudden a lack of legislation is solely on the voter and not a system that promotes purchasing politicians, because that only happens in shithole leftist countries…

[Richard]

^ you had no complaints when everybody was well aware that big tech was pumping billions into the last election cycle,so it is okay as long as it swings to your favor?

I love watching liberals complaining about capitalism,while living in a capitalist society,enjoying all of the comforts and benefit’s of a capitalist society,then campaigning for increased wages or even expecting to get paid at the end of a workweek.

Then to top it off they cannot have a simple discussion without going into the attack mode of blame,it’s the game,if you have problems playing it,that’s on you.

[southen]

Actually I don't want any big money in elections. I would love to have Citizens United overturned and having publicly funded elections. Remind me, is it the conservative or liberal justices on the court that propped that one up?

Comforts and benefits like a completely bought congress or the comforts and benefits of having the very government you constantly decry have to bail out industry when abuses take place because, get this, you won't allow any regulation at all. You constantly bemoan power seeking politicians while on the other hand ignore the system that allows for power accumulation and corruption in the private sector to the same disastrous effect.

I want accountability for everyone. You only want it as long as it doesn't impact your ability to make a buck.

Again, feel free to tell me how money equaling speech is in line with what the framers of the constitution would have wanted.

[Richard]

^ if we lived in a perfect world,I would agree with you 100%,you are mistaking the acceptance of the reality of we do not live in a perfect world as taking a stance.

In the real world it is all about compromise,just as it is in politics,we never get everything we need or want and you cannot take what you or I want as an individual and apply it to everybody as a whole.

As an example only

I can say,I do not want tech and the auto manufacturers and anybody else that will benefit, should not be allowed to lobby the government while spending millions in the process in order to push EVs.

But if I say that,then I also have to say I do not want anybody lobbying and spending millions toward a cause I support.

I have always advocated against those in the power of making policy not be allowed to invest in companies that will benefit them financially,that is becoming a reality of being stopped as we speak.

It does not matter if you are a democrat and I am a Republican,that is your government that represents you No different then it is my government that represents me.

It is OUR government together,it only works with compromise otherwise it becomes a dictatorship and neither one of us gets anything we want,they will tell us what we want.

You also have to remember that the government is massive,it is a slow lumbering machine that has many stop gaps in place that protects your rights as a citizen,it takes a lot of time to implement change,years and sometimes decades.

Ever notice how these young newly elected politicians hit Washington in the first year all up in the media full of piss and vinegar while demanding change and actually think they are going to do that immediately,notice how quiet they become after they realize they cannot change the world that fast.

It’s been happening on collage campuses for decades,everybody wants to change the world right now,it does not work that way.

You cannot change the system,the only way to implement change is to learn the system and how to use it to benefit your cause.

To be honest with you,throwing bags of cash at somebody gets you results a hell of a lot faster.

Unfortunately it is just the nature of the beast,it does not make it right,but it is what it is.

The new bridge,who do you think had deeper pockets,the one who did not want it or the one who wanted to build it.

They told you it would add billions to your local economy,so one could argue in that case,the power to lobby worked in your favor.

I do not like it anymore then you do,I cannot change it anymore then you can.

The previous administration tried to neuter the lobbing power of the pharmaceutical companies,and they tried to impeach him,not once but twice.

So it does not matter,left,right or center they are telling you,don’t mess with it,because it ain’t happening.

Seriously,if they can try to remove a sitting President for trying to change it,what do you think the odds of you or I changing it?

The chick had 3 dragons at her disposal and she could not even break the wheel.

[southen]

This might be your most thought out response yet which I agree with, mostly, but just a few things to add.

One, Trump didn't get impeached twice for trying to change pharmaceutical lobbying. You know that. The only things he put his weight behind was a tax cut and the judiciary. Everything else was window dressing especially when he had two years to implement whatever he wished. He simply didn't care. The comparison of him to Daenerys is laughable but I will give you credit for the topical reference.

Two, either the government is a giant wheel that nobody can change, people be damned, or the slightest leftist leader is going to turn it into a dictatorship. You cannot have it both ways depending on what you are arguing. Thread after thread you talk about a liberal takeover and a loss of rights that will happen over night and then when it comes to a discussion about an issue that Republicans are responsible for suddenly the government is an immovable object and just look at how it treated Donald Trump and his three dragons here to save everyone.

You constantly talk about the narratives other people have here but that right there is the best damn example yet.

[Richard]

I do not think my post was well thought out,it just appears that way because the majority of people oppose something they know little about how it actually works,you cannot make changes without understanding the metrics behind it.

Politics is not straight line,a politician may do something and nobody will say anything,they will just find another way for retribution,that other way may have zero to do with the original beef on the surface,on the streets it is referred to as payback is a *itch.

Different ways of implementing change,you question why somebody would oppose every little thing that they feel the opposition is presenting.

The government is like a big block of ice,while you look for massive and immediate change,others are the ones that use the ice pick and slowly chip away until there is nothing left,it takes years or even decades.

In this case and referring to gun control,those that oppose guns wish and demand that you just wipe the slate clean and create new laws,it does not work that way,there is a slow and tedious process involved when you seem to remove peoples rights under the constitution,it was set up that way by design.

So the ones that want to rewrite the gun laws are the ones that are and have been using the ice pick method,slowly chipping away until there is nothing left.

You keep referring to me personally,I am not the system,I am a part of the system or one of millions like minded that oppose the ice chippers because if not,it may not happen today or ten years down the road,because you and I personally are irrelevant in our time frame,the ice chippers plod on,so yea the goal is to oppose.

There is no middle ground when it it comes to constitutionally based issues,because it is clearly spelled out as to intent,if one does not like it there is a path in order to change that,it is hard by design,so somebody in power cannot just rewrite it to suit them.

People use the argument that it was written in a different time and outdated and needs to be updated to reflect the current times,the framers understood that and created a path to follow in order to do that,and it has been done in the past.

But people get upset or frustrated because they cannot make that change in the here in now,we live in the here and now,the bases of the government or even cities are set up to provide a basis to follow 100s of years into the future.

That is by design so people in the future can have the same rights we have today,if we systematically allow those rights to be removed over a course of time,those born in the future will have no rights.

So say for instance,that the socialists cannot take over in a short time frame,you really need to look at history and the examples where they have,literally overnight.

You were just provided an example how easy it is in other countries for one man to remove every citizens rights with the stroke of a pen.

Within seconds millions lost their rights.

You cannot do that in this country because you have rights that prevent people from doing that,but there are others that are standing there with that ice pick systematically chipping away at those rights and hoping for the day when they can just remove them all at once.

Everybody seeks radical change now,by design our constitutional republic is designed to not except radical change,because radical change is based on emotionally charged issues in the here and now,you may feel passionate about an issue today where 20 years in the future it may seem irrelevant but that change may have done a lot of damage that you cannot reverse.

Some seem to like jumping on the bandwagon of personally opposing and looking for ways to discredit somebody personally when they present a view point that they do not agree with,you have the same freedoms as I do in this country to seek whatever political stance you choose to.

I oppose socialism,no different then generations before and no different then generations will after me,if one lives in a constitutional republic or a democratic society and for the life of them cannot figure why there is so much opposition against them,they really need to figure out another line of work.