VakAttack

1. "Please explain how I'm not asking legitimate questions" - literally the second half of that sentence you're responding to explains that. 2. "You keep throwing out that "i'm a lawyer" b.s. over something that doesn't take having your expertise..." - statutory interpretation and legislative intent are literally a huge part of what I do every ***duck duck goose** day, what are you talking about? 3. I'll just respond generally to your meandering thing about the language of the legislation. The legislation is written overbroad specifically because it creates the situations desired outcomes of curtailing discussion of the undesired speech. They are currently building on that pervious outcome with new legislation that expands it: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/31/florida-house-parental-rights-bill-pronouns-lgbtq-00089971 And on and on we go. I never said all Floridians and all teachers hate it, because guess what, dumbass, there will never be anything that all people hate. I'm telling you what the outcomes have been in the targeted communities. I never said anything about the people on the board put in to oversee the Reedy Creek district (and not Disney, dope) are anti-gay, though there is substantial reporting that says that at least one of the guys has made several homophobic remarks, including calling gay people evil. And again, I didn't claim Desantis is responsible for the insurance debacle, you just keep putting other people's arguments into my mouth because it suits, but he has definitely exacerbated the problem with his legislation that is entirely designed to favor the insurance companies over the insured. People DO buy multiple policies, and then the insurance companies don't pay them, and have lobbied for (and been given) legislation from Desantis and his predecessors that make it harder to force them to pay on the policies that people buy. Again, keep putting words in my mouth, I have never said that this is some slam dunk prosecution, you just keep making shit up because your entire value in life is tied up in your political ideology, and you want to feel smarter on a subject than you actually are.

Actual imminent danger vs. perceived potential danger. If you drive while drunk, there is a penalty for that. It is not death.

Homicide is, definitionally, a neutral term that just means a person has killed another person. Whether or not that homicide meets the elements of the charge of murder is a different thing. No, it is not nor should it be legal to murder someone for what you think they might do.

The only connection I can make is when the Trump White House reached out to Twitter seeking to have a private citizen Chrissy Teigen's rude Tweet taken down, but the "Twitter Files" avoided discussing that, instead focusing on the Biden campaigns requests to have Hunter Biden's dick pics taken down. Is that what you're referring to? There have been like 19 "Twitter Files" infodumps.

Twitter files Trump what?

Flights booked. Hotel booked. Trying to decide if I'm too cheap to spend the extra $12 to buy the tickets ahead of time....

Except it's not tit for tat, because there's a difference between citizens and private companies enacting repercussions for speech they don't agree with versus a governmental entity.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=TwitterThread Just further evidence that the ethics requirements that all other judges are subject to should be imposed on SCOTUS Justices.

Three things: 1. He's the one who talked about Republicans playing too nice. 2. I'm going to need to see you show me some great movement of areas where Democrats are PUSHING gender affirming drugs and/or surgeries on minors, as opposed to simply stating that the government shouldn't be enforcing their beliefs on parents who want to have this care for their children. Do the parents have a say in their child's medical choices ONLY when it conforms with what conservative dogma believes? Isn't the idea of small governmen that the government shouldn't be involved in individual choices? 3. None that gets by the idea of: that's not pedophilia. Pedophilia means you want to have sex with children. She is accusing Democrats of wanting to have sex with children. None of this is true. First are you being purposely obtuse when you say the bill doesn't say anything about gay, then you say one sentence later that it talks about sexuality? The bill actually has two parts, the preamble where it says you can't DISCUSS sex, sexuality, gender, etc. and then the body of the bill which says only INSTRUCT. However, none of these words are ever defined by the bill or anywhere statutorily, leaving them so vague purposely so that people have no idea what they can or can't say, thus the culture of fear currently coursing through public schools to the point of gay teachers being afraid to even mention the existence of their significant other. Nobody is indoctrinating kids to think anything, there is no actual statistical evidence of that, and importantly, the medical community wildly disagrees with this take. You've now veered wildly off topic into an are that 1. Affects an extremely small piece of the population. 2. In this case, nobody of any seriousness is advocating that kids receive any kind of medical care, including gender-affirming care without their parents approval. Nobody is advocating for marching into schools, asking each individual kid if they're trans, and then immediately taking them to the surgical theater. These things involve individual doctors with individual patients making individual decisions. The mere discussion of th existence of a minority group of people should not be demonized. This is just unabashedly a misunderstanding of what gender is. You can not change your birth sex, which is related to physical characteristics, whereas gender refers more to societal constructs and norms. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender I'm not saying nobody ever has done this, but the vast, vast, vast majority of trans kids are NOT hurt in the way you are describing. They are making medical decisions with their parents.

You're not asking legitimate questions where you want answers, because you are precluding any answers that don't conform with what you already believe, and damning sources before you even know what they say. And I'm not asking anyone to bow down to me on the general subject of life, astrophysics, or neuro medicine, but when it comes to the idea of laws in the State of Florida, yes, you would probably want to defer to a lawyer who practices in Florida on the subject. But keep on reveling in your obtuseness. Imagine me coming into whatever your job is and lecturing you on it.

Spoiler alert, you shouldn't take anything politicians (or politically adjacent people like her) say at face value, including her

LOL. I live here. Not just people I abstractly know. I live here. Again, I am a lawyer. A person who deals with the law. A person who reads statutes.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/marjorie-taylor-greene-defends-calling-democrats-pedophiles-rcna77869 Leading with kindness.

Well, if Joe Concha says it...

I live here. He is doing all of these things. You can @ me by the way, rather than just tossing my name in. He's passed tons of legislation limiting people's ability to sue their insurer for failing to properly assess claims, he literally just signed a law restricting litigants ability to seek attorney's fees from the party they're suing, making them much less likely to get sued even further. All this while insurance companies in the State are making record profits and, after the initial legilsation aimed at property insurance, guess how much property insurance rates went down? Spoiler alert, they didn't. As to education, teachers here are terrified. Terrified of doing anything that might cost them their jobs if one parent decides they don't like something in their lesson. They're basically building towards totally demolishing public education and making it so that only the wealthiest citizen will have access to quality education for their children. Books are currently being removed from the shelves in my kid's schools because ONE parent complains about it, all based on the legislation passed. There was a book whose name escapes me right now that was removed for "review" because it described a gay couple kissing, and not in any particularly graphic terminology. Just because the law written doesn't say "book x is now banned' doesn't mean it isn't designed to have that same effect, similar to ho the enhanced sentencing for crack cocaine in the 70s and 80s didn't explicitly say they were targeting black people, but...it had that effect. And, by the way, that was part of the plan back then, too. You're just a bad faith arguer in this case. You say "show me evidence, but just not any mainstream articles" so what evidence do you want? I gave you some anecdotal evidence of my experience up there, plus the experiences of people I know in the teaching and legal worlds. Maybe that satisfies you?

I do not believe Desantis is going to stand up to national scrutiny, especially not w/ Trump pounding away on him. He doesn't do well with pushback, he's kind of an automaton. With Florida's shifting electorate, that's fine, but he's going to fall apart, Scott Walker style, on the national stage.

How is this salty?

Yes. Bragg was quoted in a couple of articles saying they haven't made any charging decisions yet. Thinking more on this, for the police to arrest him on scene (as opposed to later after an investigation) may indicate that there's more we the public don't know yet.

This incident just happened. Cops made the arrests, prosecutor hasn't done anything yet. Cops make arresting decisions based on probable cause (very low standard) and then prosecutors will look at evidence and see what charges, if any, the arrested person will face, i.e. what charges they think they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I would guess the parking lot attendant is not likely to be charged with anything unless there's evidence he shot the alleged thief when a reaspnable person wouldn't have, for example, if after wrestling the gun away, he had the thief at gunpoint and 5 minutes later, just shot him. Relatively standard.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1430996/download Based on the charge he entered a plea to, Obstruction of an Official Proceeding, I would probably recommend a plea, if he asked my opinion. There is no doubt Congress was in session and in an official proceeding, and that the entry onto Capital grounds was designed to impede that proceeding. Plus he gave media interviews where he proclaimed it win that Congress was force to retreat and hide. Those are uncontroverted facts as near as i can tell. Most of the other stuff is window dressing and/or mitigating/aggravating factors. The actual charge, though, is pretty clear cut violation by him, and his own statements display intent and lack of remorse.

Since this is a professional inquiry, I would need much more information on the case before being able to answer that. There are intricacies. The truth is that the judicial system itself is formatted in such a way that almost everybody pleads guilty eventually, especially at the federal level. Trials at the state level are somewhat rare, but not super rare. I've done 40 or so. At the federal level, they are much more rare because of the discovery rules being more favorable to the prosecutors and the sentencing being extremely harsh in general, plus prosecutor's offices have a lot more resources than individual defense attorneys for investigative purposes. Many cases that I would love to go to trial don't end up there because defendant's are scared of possible trial outcomes and sentencing from judge's being more harsh. The Federal system, in particular, is tough because there are no fully formed plea agreements. For example, in state cases, if I have a plea agreement worked out w/ a prosecutor and my client, everybody knows exactly what the sentence will be. In the Federal system, there is no full agreement so much as prosecutors agreeing to make a recommendation, or removing certain things from the sentencing guidelines in terms of the enhancements (basically a table is created where defendants get points added (which is bad) or removed (obviously good) to go into a final score that is converted to a recommended sentencing range. Then the judge gets to enter a sentence, and the guidelines are not particularly binding on the judges anyway, they can go above or below them depending on their feelings about the case.

You have to enter a plea at arraignment of charges, and 99.999% of criminal defendants plead not guilty to allow their lawyers time to examine their case and do investigations. Most of the time the plea is filed in writing (at the state court level) by the defense attorney without the defendant doing or saying anything on the record. Pleading not guilty at arraignment is perfunctory.

You just saying "the truth" without any evidence while also lecturing me on how things work in the FIELD THAT I WORK EVERY DAY is truly, truly incredible.

My side? Dude, I'm a defense attorney. WTF are you even talking about? I would be REPRESENTING Chansley in this scenario.

My understanding of the system, as a person who actually works in and deals with the system on a day to day basis, is incomplete, but yours is fully realized? Who are you? Collette Peters?