What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Covfefe-19 The 12th Part: The Only Thing Worse Than This New Board Is TrumpVirus2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
dxmnkd316 said:
Part of me wishes we could prosecute these people.
Click to expand...

Which people? The ones who attended the wedding? The people who planned it/got married and invited guests? Or the church who agreed to officiate it/lent their building for it? All of them?
 
You wanna-be Perry Mason types, can you stick to your purported medical "expertise", please?

The idea that you'd be able to create a direct causal link to specific people beyond a reasonable doubt would be challenging enough ... but there's this "intent" thingie, which turns your theoretical witch-hunt from "challenging" to "impossible". No self-respecting district attorney in their right mind would ever charge anyone in this scenario, and for quite obvious reasons. If a relative of yours got charged on something like this, you'd be (rightfully) irate. But if it's some nameless faceless people half a continent away, it's easy to create and harpoon scapegoats.

Totalitarian morons.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Part of me wishes we could prosecute these people.
Click to expand...

The person who drops a match in a dry forest can be prosecuted whether they meant to start the fire or not. And you're liable when the brat drowns if you don't put a fence around your pool because of your freedumbs.

Worth a shot. These f-cks are a menace.
 
Last edited:
Swansong said:
Boston was hit because it's a city. Cow Hampshire has a very low population density. And what does a virulently contagious disease like COVID love more than high population density? Stupid people like you.
Click to expand...

Southern New Hampshire's population density (south of Rte. 101) is virtually identical to the MA population density around the Rte. 495 outer belt that borders us. Our population density overall is much larger than neighboring Maine and Vermont.

Boston is the 21st largest city in the US. The 5 cities immediately ahead of Boston are Charlotte NC, San Francisco CA, Indianapolis IN, Seattle WA and Denver CO. The five cities just behind Boston in overall population are El Paso TX, Nashville TN, Detroit MI, Oklahoma City OK and Portland OR. NONE of those urban areas have had the poor COVID-19 results that Boston has experienced - nor have the states they're located in. So no, it's not just about big cities ...

Swansong said:
Per capita deaths are important but when a chunk of the country is demonstrably lying, unfortunately it's not a good indicator anymore. And again, no **** that when you appropriately close a state down that unemployment goes up. In other news, rain comes from the sky!

My main disconnect is nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...

So when the data is in your favor, it's all good ... but when it tells another tale, it's "demonstrably lying".

Yet the MSM doesn't say a word about China, or challenge the accuracy of their reporting. OK sure ...

And there you go again with the "appropriately close a state down" thing. Again, the decisions made on how a state handles its business is nothing more than the consensus opinion of the elected (and sometimes unelected) persons charged with making those decisions. There's nothing "factual" about that, other than the decision itself is a matter of fact. It's why 50 states have made different decisions on how to handle their business. Sure, it may irk those folks who've gotten the worst results, but it does reflect on their judgment. And the data to date strongly indicates NY, NJ and MA got it wrong.

Surprisingly, the data speaks far more favorably to Red states like FL and TX, and even Blue CA ...
 
Yikes. I'm not sure I'm in favor of legal consequences, however that statement is asinine.

There's no direct intent when an intoxicated driver takes out a pedestrian, however there is criminal liability all the same.
 
Swansong said:
There's no direct intent when an intoxicated driver takes out a pedestrian, however there is criminal liability all the same.
Click to expand...

That is probably the best analogy. They are drunk drivers. They didn't choose to kill the family in the other car, but they chose to get drunk (not wear PPE) and then get in a vehicle where that was a possibility (not social distance).
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
That is probably the best analogy. They are drunk drivers.
Click to expand...

Except a drunk driver intentionally consumes alcohol, and then intentionally gets behind the wheel of a vehicle and drives. The outcome may not be intentional, but the wrongful conduct along the way certainly is.
 
Kepler said:
The person who drops a match in a dry forest can be prosecuted whether they meant to start the fire or not. And you're liable when the brat drowns if you don't put a fence around your pool because of your freedumbs.

Worth a shot. These f-cks are a menace. Cons have nothing to live for but we do.
Click to expand...

You can't even tell the difference between criminality and civil liability. What a fraud.

Stick to whatever the day job is, Perry. You should have stuck with your first instinct ...

“it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt.”
- Mark Twain
 
SJHovey said:
Except a drunk driver intentionally consumes alcohol, and then intentionally gets behind the wheel of a vehicle and drives. The outcome may not be intentional, but the wrongful conduct along the way certainly is.
Click to expand...

Correct. Maybe you can educate the folks on here going forwards then?
 
SJHovey said:
Except a drunk driver intentionally consumes alcohol, and then intentionally gets behind the wheel of a vehicle and drives. The outcome may not be intentional, but the wrongful conduct along the way certainly is.
Click to expand...

And the conservatard who intentionally doesn't wear a mask and then intentionally hangs out in super spreader situations is doing the same thing.

That's why it is exactly analogous.
 
SJHovey said:
Except a drunk driver intentionally consumes alcohol, and then intentionally gets behind the wheel of a vehicle and drives. The outcome may not be intentional, but the wrongful conduct along the way certainly is.
Click to expand...

If you're intoxicated, I don't know that you can form a legal "intent" to drive. Doesn't matter because you don't need to have that intent, just the factual condition of operating or driving a motor vehicle. But intoxication can get a murder charge reduced to manslaughter because the intoxication can negate the ability to form the intent to commit the crime.

The most absurd criminal case I've heard of being prosecuted is a statutory rape case where a guy was in a bar talking to a girl with a drink, thought she looked young and literally asked to see her id, and she showed him the fake that got her in the door and the booze from the bar. Turns out she was only 17. Court says it doesn't matter that you wouldn't have slept with her if you knew she was underage, that you attempted to discern her actual age, that she lied to you and said she was of age, that she was in a bar drinking booze, or that she showed you an ID showing she was of age that you had no reason to believe was fake. You slept with her, and she was in fact underage, so your conviction stands.

If that can happen, then I'm all for going after people who intentionally attend mass gatherings in violation of a law/proclamation/ordinance, thereby endangering public health by spreading a communicable disease. They're a helluva lot more culpable.
 
Last edited:
unofan said:
If you're intoxicated, I don't know that you can form a legal "intent" to drive. Doesn't matter because you don't need to have that intent, just the factual condition of operating or driving a motor vehicle. But intoxication can get a murder charge reduced to manslaughter because the intoxication can negate the ability to form the intent to commit the crime.

The most absurd criminal case I've heard of being prosecuted is a statutory rape case where a guy was in a bar talking to a girl with a drink, thought she looked young and literally asked to see her id, and she showed him the fake that got her in the door and the booze from the bar. Turns out she was only 17. Court says it doesn't matter that you wouldn't have slept with her if you knew she was underage, that you attempted to discern her actual age, that she lied to you and said she was of age, that she was in a bar drinking booze, or that she showed you an ID showing she was of age that you had no reason to believe was fake. You slept with her, and she was in fact underage, so your conviction stands.

If that can happen, then I'm all for going after people who recklessly attend mass gatherings, thereby endangering public health by spreading a communicable disease. They're a helluva lot more culpable.
Click to expand...

Please tell me that didn't stand up on appeal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top