Debates
30 Oct 21
09 Nov 21
@no1marauder saidChalk up a win for me, Marauder. I could not be more clear. However,, you are a jumbled mess, interposing the word 'trample' into this clear issue, and also interposing it into the Constitution.
Sorry, I can't make it any clearer then I have made it in my posts already in this thread. If you know any non-idiots, ask them to translate for you.
I can see why you are bailing. You might go help Kev on that other thread, he is saying that improving something is the same thing as fixing something. Help me Rhonda. Shades of Handy Andy.
@averagejoe1 saidI suggest you stay with finger paints and crayons; chalk is a little advanced for someone of your extremely limited "intellect". Your posts are certainly "clear"; they clearly show a profound ignorance of the most basic principles the country was founded on. There's little to be done with someone as stubbornly ignorant as yourself though and I refuse to keep repeating my points just because you are too stupid to understand them.
Chalk up a win for me, Marauder. I could not be more clear. However,, you are a jumbled mess, interposing the word 'trample' into this clear issue, and also interposing it into the Constitution.
I can see why you are bailing. You might go help Kev on that other thread, he is saying that improving something is the same thing as fixing something. Help me Rhonda. Shades of Handy Andy.
@no1marauder saidYou realize, with all due respects, that you say specifically nothing with this post. Our loyal readers will wonder what you mean, and so do I. is it that I am not in line with what you want me to say, or to believe?
I suggest you stay with finger paints and crayons; chalk is a little advanced for someone of your extremely limited "intellect". Your posts are certainly "clear"; they clearly show a profound ignorance of the most basic principles the country was founded on. There's little to be done with someone as stubbornly ignorant as yourself though and I refuse to keep repeating my points just because you are too stupid to understand them.
And you seem angry. We are just having fun here. What did I say in my post which prompted such a response?
Why can't you simply answer my very general-type question above? It would be fun. A burglar gets hurt invading my house, and demands money, damages, whatever. Is my query not a curious approach? How is he different from the aliens doing essentially the same thing? How hard is that?
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@no1marauder saidFunny thing......These guys are
I suggest you stay with finger paints and crayons; chalk is a little advanced for someone of your extremely limited "intellect". Your posts are certainly "clear"; they clearly show a profound ignorance of the most basic principles the country was founded on. There's little to be done with someone as stubbornly ignorant as yourself though and I refuse to keep repeating my points just because you are too stupid to understand them.
proud of their ignorance.
“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
― Benjamin Franklin
09 Nov 21
@averagejoe1 saidI answered your question when I said this: "It seems many of the plaintiffs were legally seeking asylum, but be that as it may even people acting illegally have rights which cannot be trampled on by illegal government action."
You realize, with all due respects, that you say specifically nothing with this post. Our loyal readers will wonder what you mean, and so do I. is it that I am not in line with what you want me to say, or to believe?
And you seem angry. We are just having fun here. What did I say in my post which prompted such a response?
Why can't you simply answer my very g ...[text shortened]... pproach? How is he different from the aliens doing essentially the same thing? How hard is that?
There is a famous case cited in first year tort classes where a property owner set a "spring gun" in an unoccupied building he owned and a burglar was shot by it. The burglar recovered damages under well accepted principles of law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney
"Instruction 5 stated: "You are hereby instructed that one may use reasonable force in the protection of his property, but such right is subject to the qualification that one may not use such means of force as will take human life or inflict great bodily injury. Such is the rule even though the injured party is a trespasser and is in violation of the law himself."
Instruction 6 stated: "An owner of premises is prohibited from willfully or intentionally injuring a trespasser by means of force that either takes life or inflicts great bodily injury; and therefore a person owning a premise is prohibited from setting out `spring guns' and like dangerous devices which will likely take life or inflict great bodily injury, for the purpose of harming trespassers. The fact that the trespasser may be acting in violation of the law does not change the rule. "
https://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/supreme-court/1971/54169-0.html
Thus, even if some of these plaintiffs were acting illegally, that does not excuse or condone illegal government action in violation of their rights.
@no1marauder saidIronic, I was charged with dissecting this very case, Prof Walter McCurdy actually wrote the text book which we used. Of course it is good law, or a guy could just shoot someone for trespassing and knocking on his window! (So said the prof!)
I answered your question when I said this: "It seems many of the plaintiffs were legally seeking asylum, but be that as it may even people acting illegally have rights which cannot be trampled on by illegal government action."
There is a famous case cited in first year tort classes where a property owner set a "spring gun" in an unoccupied building he owned and ...[text shortened]... g illegally, that does not excuse or condone illegal government action in violation of their rights.
So, if we cut these 2 scenarios down to brass tacks, I see this:
The burglar would not have expected a spring-gun, (reasonable man theory), and thus assumed very little risk in entering a vacant house. Being shot was unexpected.
The alien knew what was waiting for him and assumed a HELL of a risk....that he, once over the line, knowing Trump would rip his kids from him, went anyway.
My ruling? If the burglar had known he could be shot, even with a gun in a vacant house, he would have gone to another house!! He could not have known that, .....I rule for the plaintiff burglar.
The alien knew everything (the burglar did not) and assumed the risk of the law of the USA which clearly said we will separate your family. (everyone is assumed to know the law, Adage#276).
My ruling? I rule in favor the United States of America.
Court adjourned.
NOW we are debating. 😉
Sorry to be so cantankerous about sovereignty, it is just a thing with me.
@averagejoe1 saidActually numerous courts have found the family separation policy illegal and ordered the government to reunite families. Read the "legal proceedings" section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy
Ironic, I was charged with dissecting this very case, Prof Walter McCurdy actually wrote the text book which we used. Of course it is good law, or a guy could just shoot someone for trespassing and knocking on his window! (So said the prof!)
So, if we cut these 2 scenarios down to brass tacks, I see this:
The burglar would not have expected a spring-gun, (reasonable ...[text shortened]... OW we are debating. 😉
Sorry to be so cantankerous about sovereignty, it is just a thing with me.
@no1marauder saidWell, you might imagine, the adjacent article on the spring gun really took me back. But there WAS a dissenter, so, that's judgeship for 'ya. I did click also on the Wiki link but it gets off-track of the issue I presented above, being wiki-stuff on Trump and the history of the border regarding his thinking at the time.
Actually numerous courts have found the family separation policy illegal and ordered the government to reunite families. Read the "legal proceedings" section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy
But what is your take on my comparing the Border mess to the spring-gun case? I, myself, agree with the spring-gun court, as he could not have anticipated the risk, and should have been awarded damages.
I say border is different, for reasons typed above, and no money should be given to that particular lawbreaker. He DID anticipate the risk of family separation, and he was not shot in the leg. I know, of course, that DC, as well as pro-openborder folks, do want the money paid, but I was just asking what you think and why.
So, how do you come down on that? That was the question. Mainly, that you compare the two, not just say who gets paid and who doesn't.
11 Nov 21
@averagejoe1 saidName a case where a plaintiff was denied damages because he should have "reasonably" expected the defendant to break the law and you might have something. Has it is, you have nothing.
Well, you might imagine, the adjacent article on the spring gun really took me back. But there WAS a dissenter, so, that's judgeship for 'ya. I did click also on the Wiki link but it gets off-track of the issue I presented above, being wiki-stuff on Trump and the history of the border regarding his thinking at the time.
But what is your take on my comparing the Bord ...[text shortened]... at was the question. Mainly, that you compare the two, not just say who gets paid and who doesn't.
@no1marauder saidWell, I am sure you are right, I (or somebody!)quit looking up cases years ago, but be that as it may, can you not answer me, that you think the cases are different (I guess you do), and can you tell me your thinking.
Name a case where a plaintiff was denied damages because he should have "reasonably" expected the defendant to break the law and you might have something. Has it is, you have nothing.
Marauder, is that not why we are here? To get thoughts, no matter what the thought? For fun? I truly believe what I wrote, I actually hope that you think otherwise, it would be more interesting, rather just agreeing to not pay the aliens. Please tell me why you think how you do. I did it, it is only fair. Did I lay all that out for nothing, for you to send me a Wikilink....And you wonder why I don't like links!!??
What does Marauder think? Why do I feel like you are mad at me all the time? We are just thought-jousting.
I guess you are saying the primary issue would be 'reasonable expectation'. That the alien should be paid, even though it is reasonable to expect that he would break the law, on purpose, and lose contact with the kids. Can you at least sort your thinking for me, I just do not see it.
@averagejoe1 saidI've explained multiple times but you are obviously too thick to understand rather clear principles of law. Why should I waste further time repeating the same thing?
Well, I am sure you are right, I (or somebody!)quit looking up cases years ago, but be that as it may, can you not answer me, that you think the cases are different (I guess you do), and can you tell me your thinking.
Marauder, is that not why we are here? To get thoughts, no matter what the thought? For fun? I truly believe what I wrote, I actually hope that you th ...[text shortened]... e, and lose contact with the kids. Can you at least sort your thinking for me, I just do not see it.
The government violated the rights of these people in an illegal manner.
They suffered damages.
Therefore, they should be compensated.
What else is there to say? You seem to think that because some of them may have been violating the law, the government can do whatever it pleases with them. That is, however, not a principle American law accepts in any area.
@contenchess saidMisdemeanor violations cannot draw $1 million fines.
So fine them 1 million each for breaking the law and tell them the 450K will go towards the fine. 😉
EDIT: "The punishment for illegally entering the U.S. (improper entry) as a first-time immigration offender is either a fine from between $50 up to $250 or a prison sentence of up to 6 months. Repeat offenders are likely to be fined twice as much as the first attempt and may face a new prison sentence of up to 2 years." https://www.usvisaupdate.com/articles/illegal-entry-us
11 Nov 21
@no1marauder
Your logic is insane.
Paying criminals compensation because their criminal actions caused themselves pain and anguish?
You're a fool.