Japanese Whalers..... by Calhoun

Are you utterly unable to think? Or observe?
They continued to hose down a boat that had been rammed. Is that assisting a vessel in distress?

Should this be treated as attempted murder? Since that is what the likely effect would be if there hadn't been a rescue vessel (and lucky so since this was so far from solid land).

I actually think that the Sea Shepherd Society is composed of a band of reckless people who really don't know much of anything about biology.

But they are vastly preferable to hoseheads like you who defend the most represensible practices.

Have you any decency at all? I don't think so.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 1:14 AM

Frem,

I completely agree that prosecutors do pretty much whatever they want. It's absolutely appalling. But they get away with it all the time, because our fellow citizens actually trust these hoseheads.......

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 2:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
noting that the water cannons have a very short range

So do tasers, would you be okay with a police officer tasering a dude he just beat over the head with his nightstick?
Yes, I believe you would be, if you could spin it well enough for the court.
You should be hosed in that weather to see what you're talkin' about. That would seem right to me.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 3:12 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Yeah, and you'll notice he has no counter argument but to whine about my entirely justified hostility, the most recent provocation of which came from being ON the prosecutors side of the courtroom.

I had nailed a trio of burglars red-handed, goods in hand, full descriptions, vehicle plate number, the whole bloody works, in triplicate - complete with following their vehicle on foot and giving it's position and direction, immediately after which they ran em to ground and rounded em up, no question of the crime since they had the goods ON them when they was busted, and my "testimony" amounted to more or less a recitation of the official report put down during and immediately after the incident cause human memory is more fallible over time - by the book, chapter and verse.

And then having the fucking prosecutor snickering to me while revealing privileged info she could have only gotten from either bugging the public defenders office, or having him roll his clients to her, something that was just grossly unnecessary given how solid the case was - sure they *did* it, but to not even offer them a pretense of a fair trial offended me extremely.

Worse was listening to the bullshit dealmaking by slipping into the courtroom unnoticed and unrecognized before they "opened for business" and knowing full and well that shit is all decided before they even let the peons in there - it's all a pretty little show, a nice little song and dance for the masses to convince them of the faery tale bullshit our so-called "justice" system supposedly rests upon.

I found it offensive in the days it was aimed at me, but goddamn, I found it MORE offensive when I did everything by the frikkin book, and they're laughing up their sleeves with a nudge and wink like I am some willing participant in their outlaw conspiracy - were it not for their legal authority to compel me to testify I woulda told em to go to hell and walked out.

That said...

As I pointed out, once the folks in the pretty boat visibly displayed the Jolly Roger, they were in the wrong to the degree where the other ships had every right to sink them on the spot and not even rescue survivors - not that I have any particular disagreement with their concept, but the execution left them pretty clearly in the wrong, alas.

To which, being in any kind of agreement with this prick, makes me kinda queasy, don't ya know...

Your Approval Fills Me With Shame
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YourApprovalFillsMeWithSham
e

-Frem

There always has to be a price.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 3:26 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Are you and the liberals on this board advocating we eliminate the Courts in all situations or just the ones involving folks and practices you don't approve of?

That's a weak argument, even by your standards, "Hero". I can just as easily ask if you and all the conservatives on this board are advocating we eliminate the courts in all situations involving folks (specifically, "Arabs" as you refer to them, or Muslims) and practices you don't approve of.

YOU have advocated torture for people who are darker skinned and pray to a different deity.

YOU have played cheerleader when a doctor who had committed no crime (never charged, never convicted) was murdered in cold blood while attending his church.

YOU advocate "pre-emptive war" at every opportunity, preferring to invade someone just because you think they MAY become a threat someday in the future.

So it's obviously YOU who have no interest in the rule of law, and no faith in the court system you work for.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 4:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So it's obviously YOU who have no interest in the rule of law, and no faith in the court system you work for.

I note for the record that Hero is not avoiding this thread, he's simply working up the mock-resentment needed to confront these allegations without benefit of moral high ground.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 6:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
Should this be treated as attempted murder? Since that is what the likely effect would be if there hadn't been a rescue vessel (and lucky so since this was so far from solid land).

I actually think that the Sea Shepherd Society is composed of a band of reckless people who really don't know much of anything about biology.

If the reckless behaivor led to the death of someone, then yes, the Sea Shepherd Society might have been guilty of Manslaughter.

The video clearly shows a pattern of close passes beside and in front of whalers, they are a nimble little speedboat, the whaler a clunky and slow ship. The collision was the protestors fault. They should have to pay for the new paint job at least.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 6:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You should be hosed in that weather to see what you're talkin' about. That would seem right to me.

I'm smart enough to see the guy shooting the hose and stay far enough away not to get wet. The hosing started before the collision, even before they came into range (which is also standard anti-piracy practice).

Clearly they wanted to be hosed. Otherwise, why get so close?

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 6:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
To which, being in any kind of agreement with this prick, makes me kinda queasy, don't ya know...

An open mind...

The truth makes you sick? Kinda tells us where your coming from...

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 6:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
YOU have advocated torture for people who are darker skinned and pray to a different deity.

I don't care who they pray to or what there skin color is. I advocate aggressive interrogation of terrorists without regard to race, creed, color, God, or favorite TV show.

Quote:

YOU have played cheerleader when a doctor who had committed no crime (never charged, never convicted) was murdered in cold blood while attending his church.

Your confusing me with someone else. I'll cheer his execution, like I would any murder. I'm pro life, doesn't mean I wouldn't hang any John Brown's out there.

Quote:

YOU advocate "pre-emptive war" at every opportunity, preferring to invade someone just because you think they MAY become a threat someday in the future.

That is not the Bush doctrine. I support a pre-emptive war doctrine. Attacking someone who is going to attack you makes sense in some circumstances. Its a fair fight if both sides draw, but if I'm faster and get my shot off first...

Quote:

So it's obviously YOU who have no interest in the rule of law, and no faith in the court system you work for.

Like Mr. Adams said, I am for the law and there is no other side. Just this morning I berated another prosecutor for charging someone with a crime that he knew had an alibi (he was in court with another Prosecutor). Last week I sent a man to jail after a Jury trial, and I asked for a longer sentence because he wasted our time. It was wrong and I told them so.

My job is to represent the State, if I don't honostly believe a person is guilty, that case will NOT go to trial because the State is best served when the innocent go free and the guilty go to jail, it is also well served when a person who may be guilty goes free because there is not enough evidence (this is the presumption of innocence folks around here don't seem to believe in). I see my own judgement as the first check in that process (followed by the Judge and Jury).

In this case the law says they can go hunt whales. The law says the protestors can tag along and yell at them. The law does not allow dangerous approaches and attempts to damage or delay the whalers.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 7:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

In this case the law says they can go hunt whales. The law says the protestors can tag along and yell at them. The law does not allow dangerous approaches and attempts to damage or delay the whalers.

The law used to say you could rape your slaves too. In a former life you prosecuted a young white man for beating the shit out of a massa for behaving legally, remember?

Go be Elliot Ness when it comes to speeding tickets, but when peeps hose an already disabled & possibly sinking boat in freezing waters, that's attempted MURDER in my book. Even in existing law, you can't KILL someone for merely being an asshole.
Or do I misunderstand here? Can you pre-emptively kill someone you BELIEVE will be an asshole, MORE than he already is, and will possibly at some later date pose a threat to your property?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 7:19 AM

KWICKO

Chris, don't you realize by now that "Hero" works for the Pre-Crime Prevention Unit? He knows what people are going to do before they do it, just like Bush knew that Iraq was an "imminent threat" even though they had no WMD, didn't consort with terrorists, and had no plans to attack America or Americans.

And of course, just like Giuliani, "Hero" knows that we were never attacked while Bush was in office. ;)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 7:27 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Wow. Hero, are you out of your depth, or making arguments for the fun of stirring people up? Because those you offer are so far "out there" that it's hard to even make SENSE of them!

Quote:
Are you and the liberals on this board advocating we eliminate the Courts in all situations or just the ones involving folks and practices you don't approve of?

To begin with, what has that got to do with ANYTHING in this thread? Given most people here have agreed that both parties were in the wrong, and that if there were laws and courts regarding the open oceans, there would be reason to bring BOTH up on charges.

And where the hell did the "liberal" come from? Are you one of "those" who happily lumps people into two categories, and then runs with it? That's pathetic. Also doesn't address, again, that anyone wants to eliminate courts; what's been said was just the opposite.

Quote:
I'll cheer his execution, like I would any murder. I'm pro life, doesn't mean I wouldn't hang any John Brown's out there.

That's just sad, and typical of the pro-life crowd. And yes, I'll lump them because of their behavior--not to mention you admitted being one yourself. The feeling obviously by you anti-choicers is that life is sacred, until it comes out of the womb. I find that reprehensible, and completely devoid of logic.

Quote:
I am for the law and there is no other side

No, you're obviously not. Anyone who "cheers" murder, however it's done, can say that.

Quote:
My job is to represent the State

I must have that wrong, then. I thought a prosecutor's job was to represent the VICTIMS of crimes...so I guess from what you say, those don't come into it at all.

Quote:
The law does not allow dangerous approaches and attempts to damage or delay the whalers

Please provide maritime law cites so we can determine this accurately. Because I don't believe you're right, I think there IS no specific law not allowing attempts to damage or delay the whalers. If there were such laws, the whalers AND the protesters would be brought up on charges.

I, along with virtually everyone here, feel that both sides are in the wrong, period. That you advocate one side only shows your bias.

It's pretty clear from your "signature" that you feel inferior and need to grasp at anyone's approval you can to shore up your self-image. That pretty much says it all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 7:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

It's pretty clear from your "signature" that you feel inferior and need to grasp at anyone's approval you can to shore up your self-image. That pretty much says it all.

A couple of times I tried to celebrate his (temporary) letting go of the Dark Side, and he never lets me forget it.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 10:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
The law used to say you could rape your slaves too. In a former life you prosecuted a young white man for beating the shit out of a massa for behaving legally, remember?

I was born in the anti-slavery part of West Virginia and I live and work in NorthEast Ohio, I sincerely doubt any past life involved American slavery. I note for the record that I have my Great (Great) Grandfather's Discharge Medal from a West Virginia Union Cavalry regiment.

Quote:

Go be Elliot Ness when it comes to speeding tickets, but when peeps hose an already disabled & possibly sinking boat in freezing waters, that's attempted MURDER in my book.Or do I misunderstand here?

Since the Protest boat was breaking the law and endangering both craft, any death's would have been on the protest boat Captain and crew and possibly the head of the protest group. Its the Felony Murder Rule, if a person dies during the commission of a Felony, then the suspect can be tried for murder.

You make it sound like they rammed the boat, turned around passed it again to spray more water on the boat. The video shows the boat approaching the ship, the ship had its automatic sprayers on. The boat is sprayed by the bow sprayers as they pass by, the boat is struck, the aft sprayers hit it as the ship continues on, this is all over the course of seconds, not minutes. AND the boat had already been sprayed during other close approaches. Those water cannons don't shoot far...its extremely close range.

As for the sinking boat, its was sinking so fast another video shows the boat still afloat and under observation by the whaler long after the crew had been rescued by Bob Barker and they had already cleared the area.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 10:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I must have that wrong, then. I thought a prosecutor's job was to represent the VICTIMS of crimes...so I guess from what you say, those don't come into it at all.

You are wrong on both accounts. I represent the State of Ohio and the people of my City. The victim AND the Defendant are my responsibility, not to mention society at large.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 11:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

I was born in the anti-slavery part of West Virginia and I live and work in NorthEast Ohio, I sincerely doubt any past life involved American slavery.

Reincarnation has less to do with place than time, doofus. Your facts are not applicable to my anecdote.

Quote:

Since the Protest boat was breaking the law and endangering both craft, any death's would have been on the protest boat Captain and crew and possibly the head of the protest group.

To use your own argument, the protest group did nothing illegal until a Judge & jury says they did.

Quote:
The video shows the boat approaching the ship, the ship had its automatic sprayers on.

Nice automatic sprayers... pretty hi-tech, they're able to accurately target a boat while moving.
Or, are they MANNED, you idiot? Busted again, say anything to support your position, no matter if it's true or not.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 11, 2010 2:24 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

So with no law enforcement anywhere nearby

who is the body that would investigate this?

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"The video clearly shows a pattern of close passes beside and in front of whalers, they are a nimble little speedboat, the whaler a clunky and slow ship. The collision was the protestors fault. They should have to pay for the new paint job at least."

THANK GOD FOR VIDEO.

Maybe, just maybe, you can get away with that in court (considering the cretins you seems to be dealing with). FORTUNATELY - there really are videos. Much, I'm sure, to your chagrin.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
So with no law enforcement anywhere nearby

who is the body that would investigate this?

Law of the Sea is a legal specialty area.

UNCLOS is one governing legal authority. The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea.

Piracy is defined as acts of violence, detention, or deprivation against a ship and committed for private ends on the high seas (ie outside territorial waters). Legally all states have the right to seize and prosecute persons who commit piracy on the high seas. International Law does not cover pirate acts within coastal waters (the 12 mile limit) which makes Indonesian piracy a troubling issue.

Pirates are hostis humani generis or 'an enemy of all mankind' thus jurisdiction is universal. Terrorism is viewed in much the same way, thus providing legal reasoning in international law for a country like the US to enter a country like...Afganistan to hunt for terrorists absent a formal declaration of war or the invitation of the Afgan government (such that existed in 2001). Other examples (both good and bad) are Isreal entering Lebanon, Russia entering Georgia, India and Pakistan, China in Mongolia, the US Marines in Algeria, etc.

More fitting to the whaling incident is the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Navigation (“the SUA Convention”). This makes it illegal to seize or exercise control over a ship by threat or use of force thereof or any other form of intimidation. This was updated in 2005 to include acts of Political Piracy such as the ones being committed by the protest boats.

It is important to note that New Zealand, the closest state, has declined to take action in this case. They have indicated that they are not responsible for the safeguarding the protest boats when they are engaged in dangerous and illegal activities.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
THANK GOD FOR VIDEO.

Maybe, just maybe, you can get away with that in court (considering the cretins you seems to be dealing with). FORTUNATELY - there really are videos. Much, I'm sure, to your chagrin.

I linked to a number of videos.

In court the main question would be 'how did this happen'? How did a speedboat come so close to the whaler as to suffer the collision? The speedboat was not disabled, it was faster and more manueverable then the clunky ship. The crew was not oblivious or incapacitated. So what brought the two so close together that collision was the result?

The answer is that the boat was engaged in its routine practice of close passes, attempted boardings, and crossing the whaler's bow towing cables in an attempt to damage or disable the ship's rudder. The videos I linked to make that very clear.

I'd take a case like this to a jury and win a conviction against the protest-pirate (or win a defense of the whalers). I note for the record I would not take the case to defend the whalers, neither would I authorize charges against them, but I would prosecute the protesters.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:37 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"How did a speedboat come so close to the whaler ..."

The whaler turned INTO the boat - violating the FIRST duty of any captain.

And OF COURSE you wouldn't show that. Violating the oath to 'the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth'.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:47 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Let's take 'Hero's' argument into everyday life.

Several youths are sauntering down the street strung across all lanes, in a slow-motion jive-ass stroll. They are interefering with traffic, yelling at and flipping-off drivers, creating potential distractions, and occassionally kicking at cars and potentially causing dents. And of course they are jaywalking.

That give me the right to run them down.

Right 'Hero' ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:58 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Think I'm backing out of this one. I feel like both sides have spoken their piece and this has become Hero v. Everyone Else. Waste of time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:08 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

HEY - I've been off line for many days now ! It's not like I'm part of a pack. I'm just expressing my POV.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:17 AM

BYTEMITE

Niki: It usually is. Hero is pretty knowledgeable when it comes to his profession, and he can be a useful reference to call upon for insights, but he doesn't mince words about what he does. Hero's lawyer-think combination of "is it legal" and "can I prove it" and "if yes then good" can be somewhat disturbing for us less "letter of the law" and even "no law" type people. Especially when we also tend to see the law as a source of abuse, or as the basis for some seriously crazy policy.

I'm pretty sure he's just Lawful Neutral though, because even though he sometimes punishes people for ticking him off and wasting his time, he doesn't seem to be in the profession for selfish reasons. That's generally where I draw the line, and I actually think there are lawyers out there on far shakier ground than Hero.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:23 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"can I prove it"

Not so much "can I prove it", but "can I get a jury to agree with me, by any means necessary". If it involves manipulation, logical fallacies, hiding parts of the story, mis-stating things here and there - oops - oh, well. They (or we) should'a been smarter.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"How did a speedboat come so close to the whaler ..."

The whaler turned INTO the boat

Perhaps. The video does not reflect this, but assuming its true, the whaler is slow, ponderous when compared to the speedboat. In order to turn into the speedboat and strike it the speedboat would have to be extremely close. They could have and should been able to avoid any direct action by the whaler.

Again, the video does not reflect what you are saying. The videos show numerous close passes by the much faster speedboat and attempts to disable the whaler by passing in front of it at close range. Other videos show deliberate ramming by other protest ships and there are also records of successful and unseccessful attempts to close with and board the whalers.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Let's take 'Hero's' argument into everyday life.

Several youths are sauntering down the street strung across all lanes, in a slow-motion jive-ass stroll. They are interefering with traffic, yelling at and flipping-off drivers, creating potential distractions, and occassionally kicking at cars and potentially causing dents. And of course they are jaywalking.

That give me the right to run them down.

Right 'Hero' ?

Your example does not reflect what happened. I note for the record that your example would likely result in the arrest and prosecution of the 'youths' since a passing motorist would stop and call the police, an option not available to the whalers.

If several youths were seeking to interfere with traffic by running across the road in front of car stringing wire in hopes of stopping, damaging, or delaying them...perhaps seeking to leap onto moving vehicles, using their own vehicles to ram the passing cars, then running alongside the moving cars placing themselves in the roadway so as to partially obstruct the road resulting in a collision, then your example would be more correct.

In both examples the driver could use the defense that they were in legal use of the roadway as a defense. In the case of deliberate action your example describes, the Defense would hopefully fail, in the more accurate example I provided, there would be no need because the youths would be the only ones on trial.

My advice for the future would be for the whaling fleet to have a military escort to warn off the protest ships and seize them if necessary. In fact this would be a reasonable solution since the military (especially from a neutral power)could provide an unbiased account of what happens (including an account of whaling activities). Its clear things have gotten out of hand, some nation needs to step up and sort this business out. Piracy, even for a good cause, is still piracy.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 9:00 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm pretty sure he's just Lawful Neutral though, because even though he sometimes punishes people for ticking him off and wasting his time, he doesn't seem to be in the profession for selfish reasons. That's generally where I draw the line, and I actually think there are lawyers out there on far shakier ground than Hero.

I dunno, I've always taken him for Lawful Stupid.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid
With a side order of Knight Templar.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar

The latter being kind of ironic since it was actually being more TOLERANT of other faiths and less hardcore pricks than the rest of the church that landed the Knights Templar in trouble in the first place, but I digress...

To me, it's even simpler though - you know that Philip Pullman quote I am so fond of, and how I point out which side I am on ?

Well, I am a captain of one side - and Hero is a captain of the other.

It's not personal, but it *IS* due to the very diametric opposition of our viewpoints that anything less than antagonism is unthinkable.

Which is why even being in the slightest agreement with him on this makes me nauseous..

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 9:32 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Your example does not reflect what happened."

It doesn't ? In my example I had people interfering with activity, breaking minor laws (jaywalking), getting in the way of cars, and acting in a way that could POTENTIALLY cause damage though no ACTUAL damage was in evidence.
And I had people being run down as a result.
It seems quite equivalent to me.

"I note for the record ..."

Something you are CLAIMING as fact, which may not actually be one.

"... that your example would likely result in the arrest and prosecution of the 'youths' since a passing motorist would stop and call the police, an option not available to the whalers."

And if the motorist decided to run down the youths, would that not also be a crime leading to arrest and prosecution ? Which one of those crimes do YOU think would result in a greater sentence ? Which one of those crimes would YOU focus on for persecution ? I mean prosecution ?

"... using their own vehicles to ram the passing cars ..."

And if their vehicles were, comparatively a skateboard or bicycle ? And they were 'ramming' Hummers ?

"... then running alongside the moving cars placing themselves in the roadway so as to partially obstruct the road resulting in a collision, then your example would be more correct."

Only if you are correct - which you are not.

AND - we have to get back to the intentional ramming and sinking of a small boat by a far larger - and visibly undamaged - whaler.

It STILL comes down to small v large infractions - something you need to be focusing on.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 10:08 AM

BYTEMITE

And I like that Pullman Quote, because those books are freaking amazing. It's a shame that The Golden Compass underperformed so much at the box office, while Narnia gets to go on and have numerous sequels. All because of a campaign those exact same representatives of the authority put together to turn popular opinion against it. But I guess what it comes down to is which message the public thinks is more important, ANOTHER allegory of the Bible in a fantasy setting, or being told to think for themselves.

We were talking about Hero though. Hero is kind of your anti-Frem. I'm pretty sure you're neutral chaotic. I want to put you in chaotic good, because everything you're doing, you doing because it helps people on both the individual and large scale levels, and you've sacrificed a lot to do it. That suggests a good alignment, but it's pretty blurry, and you like it that way, because it gives you more room to maneuver and do some kind of iffy stuff. Anyway.

The thing is, I think you're also actually a lot more neutral on the sliding scale of chaotic versus lawful than you think you are, because you know those arguments you have with other anarchists? Where they're so anti-authority bias that they don't care if there's suffering or death afterwards, they just want to bring down whatever structure they can see (rather than gradually dismantle)? You're not like that. Which is another indication that you might actually fall on the good side of the line, though damn if you don't make it hard to tell.

The reason I didn't score Hero low is because, I mean, think of YOUR lawyer, the man you describe as The Devil Incarnate? It doesn't seem to me like Hero does what he does just because he sees a profit or smells blood in the water. Hero thinks he's doing the right thing, and he thinks his country is doing the right thing, because it's all legal. Also, I don't see that Hero has ever really used any of the people he's gone up against, jailed them, sure, punished them, sure, and yeah, it all pads his reputation as a prosecutor, but I've never seen him say that's his motive. He gives very simple terms to describe his motives, like justice and the law, and in such a way that I think those actually ARE his motives.

Also, a lot of what Hero posts about him messing with people/suspects/opposition I think is him actually trying to get a rise out of the people on the board he sees as "soft-hearted liberals, boo-hooing over the poor criminals."

I think his style of thinking, beliefs, and actions have consequences and that they represent something about our society, but I don't think he's evil. He's just very, very different ideologically speaking than most of the rest of us here. You don't see too many lawful alignments who like Firefly. He's a right wing authoritarian, but clearly he's a human too, and apparently he's got good taste.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 10:16 AM

And Hero, what about those "automatic" sprayers? No reckless endangerment there?
Last time I checked, I couldn't shoot someone in the leg for punching me in the arm...

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
And Hero, what about those "automatic" sprayers? No reckless endangerment there?
Last time I checked, I couldn't shoot someone in the leg for punching me in the arm...

As noted earlier, the sprayers are extremely short ranged, the video is very good at demonstrating this. They are commonly used aboard cargo ships for pirate defense (since cargo ships can't carry weapons).

So while you can't shoot someone for punching you, you probably could spray them with a squirt gun, or use pepper spray, which would seem to be very similar (extremely short range, non lethal, not always effective against a determined or prepared individual).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

So while you can't shoot someone for punching you, you probably could spray them with a squirt gun, or use pepper spray,

A better analogy would be something POTENTIALLY lethal, like a bunch of compressed air for cleaning computers at short range.

And WTF can't you shoot someone for punching you???
"Any of you primates... even TOUCHES me..."

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It doesn't seem to me like Hero does what he does just because he sees a profit or smells blood in the water.

I like to get paid. I'm a professional. Plus its a living, a job. I've got loans to pay like everybody else. The money is good, but lets face it, its govt work. I could make more working in private practice. Heck, my City is in a budget crisis, that means no raise this year, mandatory furlough days, a 2% pay cut.

Quote:

He gives very simple terms to describe his motives, like justice and the law, and in such a way that I think those actually ARE his motives.

I love my job. My biggest perk is the part where I address a Jury and say "I represent the State of Ohio". That means I'm the only person in the room speaking for everyone in the room, including the Defendant. Don't tell anybody...but I'd do it for free if I could figure out how I'd get by.

Adams is my hero, John not Sam (unless I'm drinking). When he says "I am for the law"...I get that. I'd be there to represent the British accused in the Boston Massacre, I'd be there arguing for independence from Britain.

In many ways Sam and John are two sides of our own argument. Sam the radical revolutionary, John the conservative. Sam demands the change, but found himself left behind when John makes the legal argument for independence and builds the new world Sam dreamed of. Sam the rebel, John the revolutionary...liberal and conservative, two sides of the same coin. You can see it repeated over and over again in American history.

In this case...its people like these protestors that fight whaling...its people like me that eliminate whaling. Its when you get folks like me on your side that the change happens...you liberals are fighting the wrong battle and forgetting we are on the same side.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 4:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

you liberals are fighting the wrong battle and forgetting we are on the same side.

Nicely put Hero, but extralegal measures are a recognized & approved method dating back to, oh, the founding of our nation-? Don't forget the backing of the Contras-? The invasion of Iraq-? The "enhanced interrogation" of detainees at Gitmo, & the TORTURE of same out of country (we can call it that if it's not US doing it)-?
I believe in law, but it must apply to EVERYONE, or it means nothing, do you understand!?
*whoah, a near "Kirk" rant there...*

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 9:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA

For what it's worth, Byte - the Archbishop of Canterbury thought Pullmans work a fine tale, full of vital lessons about the dangers of unquestioned dogma no matter who's it is... alas this was not the reaction of less reasonable elements, which in my opinion just proves Pullman all that much more correct about those dangers.

As for the rest, it's actually simpler than that...

Just remove the good/evil equation and look at it straight across.

We're diametrically opposed melodramatic overlord types, Law and Chaos, as a cause, and thus utterly unable NOT to stick pins in each other every bloody chance we get - and this is where I mention his 'hero' (pun intended) John Adams was also responsible for our first stab a "Patriot Act", the Feudo-Fascist-Federalist bastard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

But I digress, it's not so much personal so much as we are utterly opposed to all the other represents, is all.

Although for mine own, I am very well aware of the dichotomy there, without chaos there is no creation, only deterioration, but without order there is no lasting improvement or structure to be improved - to tip the balance too far to either side beckons disaster.

Our primary disagreement is WHICH side it's leaning too far towards, as we shove it towards the other with all our might.

And it's not like we don't both cheat, neither, leastways I happen to be honest enough to friggin admit it.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
And Hero, what about those "automatic" sprayers? No reckless endangerment there?
Last time I checked, I couldn't shoot someone in the leg for punching me in the arm...

As noted earlier, the sprayers are extremely short ranged, the video is very good at demonstrating this. They are commonly used aboard cargo ships for pirate defense (since cargo ships can't carry weapons).

So while you can't shoot someone for punching you, you probably could spray them with a squirt gun, or use pepper spray, which would seem to be very similar (extremely short range, non lethal, not always effective against a determined or prepared individual).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

I've missed the last part of this debate because I have a job and a small child, but I have to weigh in on "Hero's" stupidity and hypocrisy. Gorram it "Hero" did you learn no processes of logic in law school? I know from several friends that they actually do teach such things in law school, but you seem to have completely managed to evade them (much like Jayne - if he'd wanted schooling, he'd have gone to school).

What is wrong with you that you can't recognize that the whaling ship continued to FIRE ON a clearly disabled ship on the high seas (note that I am using capital letters in case you have literacy issues, which appears to be the case). This was a life-threatening situation in an extremely dangerous, cold-water environment, and you defend criminal behavior because it fits your personal views.

I ask again: Have you no decency sir? No decency whatsoever?

As best I can tell, the answer is NO. Well, better put, it's HELL NO.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:17 PM

damn double post! sorry......

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Since the Protest boat was breaking the law and endangering both craft, any death's would have been on the protest boat Captain and crew and possibly the head of the protest group. Its the Felony Murder Rule, if a person dies during the commission of a Felony, then the suspect can be tried for murder.

You make it sound like they rammed the boat, turned around passed it again to spray more water on the boat. The video shows the boat approaching the ship, the ship had its automatic sprayers on. The boat is sprayed by the bow sprayers as they pass by, the boat is struck, the aft sprayers hit it as the ship continues on, this is all over the course of seconds, not minutes. AND the boat had already been sprayed during other close approaches. Those water cannons don't shoot far...its extremely close range.

I really try to avoid ad hominem, but you make it imposslibe at times. YOU EFFING IDIOT!! Are you really so stupid as to not notice the size disparity between the vessels? Or that the whalers were physically attacking a vessel that had only approached them? (And yes, I do recognize that they were trying to interfere, and I even disagree with them - that doesn't allow the whalers to attack them). Does your obviously limited education and vocabulary not understand that such attacks are internationally recognized as piracy? And apparently you think it would be OK for me to shoot you with a .22 pistol - after all, it doesn't have much range. And if you think that's different than spraying zero-degree seawater on a human body, then you are even more ignorant than I already think (and to clarify for your ignorance, I'm using Celsius temperature, like everyone but ignorant Americans). I thank the gods my students are so much more capable of thinking than you are. It gives me some hope for the future. You certainly do not...............

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:20 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
...and you defend criminal behavior because it fits your personal views.

There seems to be plenty of that on both sides of this issue, if we're being brutally honest.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:47 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
and this is where I mention his 'hero' (pun intended) John Adams was also responsible for our first stab a "Patriot Act", the Feudo-Fascist-Federalist bastard.

Yeah, I know, that's a wincing point for me too, and I don't really believe the HBO whitewashing of it that the other Federalists were pushing him. But it's probably just a belief in the legend of the founding fathers that we Americans have built up. If trying to change minds, it's probably about as useful to call out the human failings and mistakes of the founding fathers as it is to argue that the Biblical God is an entirely human creation. To anyone who believes, merely questioning such sanctified figures immediately destroys any credibility you might have.

That's not to say you can't discuss things from another angle, where they might be more receptive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
...and you defend criminal behavior because it fits your personal views.

There seems to be plenty of that on both sides of this issue, if we're being brutally honest.

I can concur. The difference I see is, SOME of us are avoiding certain facts ENTIRELY.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
What is wrong with you that you can't recognize that the whaling ship continued to FIRE ON a clearly disabled ship on the high seas (note that I am using capital letters in case you have literacy issues, which appears to be the case). This was a life-threatening situation in an extremely dangerous, cold-water environment, and you defend criminal behavior because it fits your personal views.

One, it was not "fire on" it was spray. Non-lethal seawater commonly used by ships to repel pirates who come extremely close.

Second, the video speaks for itself. The ship is in the process of passing the boat, the sprayers are on, the boat is sprayed by the bow sprayers, hit by the ship and then catches the aft aft sprayers as the ship passes by. This is all a matter of seconds, not minutes. There is no turn, no second pass, just a continuation of the first pass. Given the speed of the events and the disparity in the size of the two ships it is likely the whaler, or at least the Captain, could be certain the ship struck the boat or if it did strike there was no way to no the extent of the damage. Again, even if the knowledge was there, then the order to turn off the sprayers would have to be given and the sprayers turned off (likely some kind of big wheel, not merely pressing a button). This would also take time, something the video shows they clearly do not have.

There is also nothing wrong with continuing to spray a pirate ship until you are certain the threat has abated. While these pirates may not have been armed with weapons, they were seeking to disable the whaler and perhaps board her for whatever reason (like they had done or attempt on other occaisons).

And some people have asked about the failure to render aid. The ship has a lot of momentum, so stopping on a dime is not going to happed. The video reflects that they turned and stood by ready to lend aid, but the boat was not sinking fast and Bob Barker was right there to help them out.

You should all watch a Discover channel show about a Mersk cargo ship's journey from Asia to Spain. That's how I learned about sprayers and navigational problems with large ships vs. small ones. Plus, its just damned interesting.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
And apparently you think it would be OK for me to shoot you with a .22 pistol - after all, it doesn't have much range.

If I commit an illegal act such as trying to impede you, seize you, or run into you...then a water pistol would likely be ok, even in cold weather.

Quote:

And if you think that's different than spraying zero-degree seawater on a human body, then you are even more ignorant than I already think (and to clarify for your ignorance, I'm using Celsius temperature, like everyone but ignorant Americans).

Perhaps if we look at the video...yep, they were already sprayed (when the approached the ship prior to the collision). If you look close you'll notice the cold weather gear all the boat's crew is wearing. You'll also see them all standing outside to get sprayed rather then taking cover.

You claim the whaler was attacking them. They had a fracking speed boat...all they had to do was move away. Whalers are slow, ponderous to turn. Speed boats are fast...especially one the set a fracking speed record. If they got run down...its because they let it happen or the made it happen. It'd be different if they didn't see the ship coming or they could not move out of the way. That is not the case here.

The whalers turn the sprayers on when the boat gets too close. Why? I wonder what could possibly happen when two ships get close to one another? And why would they assume a boat is hostile just because of a few prior attempts to board, disable, or ram them?

This was political piracy and should be prosecuted as such.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Second, the video speaks for itself. The ship is in the process of passing the boat, the sprayers are on, the boat is sprayed by the bow sprayers, hit by the ship and then catches the aft aft sprayers as the ship passes by.

Yes, the video speaks, but you will not hear. Let's say the sprayers WEREN'T manned (tho it looks like the aiming changed at certain points)- the Japanese ship is CLEARLY not traveling in a straight line.
Is THAT something that escapes your poor vision or something?? The little boat was drifting forward (or powering forward) SLOWLY, and the big ship veers INTO its path. A veer in the opposite direction would have avoided collision. Ah, but they WANTED to teach the whale-huggers a lesson, eh?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 10:38 AM