| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 36:04:51 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,010 |
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
[...]
Tyler Robinson grew amore pro-gay and trans-rights-orientedA, [...]
David, you are announcing 8859 in your headers and giving us UTF-8 in
the body. Please update one of these. (Myself, I use a macro to render >Unicode nonsense 7-bit clean, though that's not strictly true as I
usually preserve diacriticals.
Anything I compose myself will be in pure 7-bit ASCII, but when I copy'n'paste, there is liable to be some 8-bit stuff. My newsreader's
editor turns a lot of it into garbage that I remove by hand, but
sometimes it leaves things like curvy quotation marks and apostrophes
as-is. Tell me what you recommend that I do, preferably other than
more editing by hand. E-mail me if it makes more sense.
David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
Anything I compose myself will be in pure 7-bit ASCII, but when I copy'n'paste, there is liable to be some 8-bit stuff. My newsreader's editor turns a lot of it into garbage that I remove by hand, but
sometimes it leaves things like curvy quotation marks and apostrophes as-is. Tell me what you recommend that I do, preferably other than
more editing by hand. E-mail me if it makes more sense.
For cleaning text before posting, I use this utility:
https://dan.hersam.com/tools/smart-quotes.php
That may be more trouble than you'd want to go through, though.
For cleaning text before posting, I use this utility:
https://dan.hersam.com/tools/smart-quotes.php
That may be more trouble than you'd want to go through, though.
Upon review, that last bit might read a little snarky. I really
didn't intend it as such. I mean, it is indeed what I use, but I
acknowledge that it's a bit of a pain in the butt.
For Send Usenet As, I have eight other options to choose from.
Western strict, Western allow Unicode, Western no Unicode, Unicode
UTF-8, Unicode UTF-7, ASCII-only, and a couple of sketchy-sounding
Euro ones.
Mark Shaw <mshaw@panix.com> wrote:
That may be more trouble than you'd want to go through, though.
Upon review, that last bit might read a little snarky. I really
didn't intend it as such. I mean, it is indeed what I use, but I
acknowledge that it's a bit of a pain in the butt.
David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
Anything I compose myself will be in pure 7-bit ASCII, but when I >>copy'n'paste, there is liable to be some 8-bit stuff. My newsreader's >>editor turns a lot of it into garbage that I remove by hand, but
sometimes it leaves things like curvy quotation marks and apostrophes >>as-is. Tell me what you recommend that I do, preferably other than
more editing by hand. E-mail me if it makes more sense.
For cleaning text before posting, I use this utility:
https://dan.hersam.com/tools/smart-quotes.php
That may be more trouble than you'd want to go through, though.
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:53:26 -0500, David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
https://
all dead people are saints
David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
"After this press conference, I will be filing notice of intent to
seek the death penalty. [...]"
I don't think the death penalty will hold up. There is only one
element in the statute that even arguably applies: creation of risk
of death to innocents. I won't go into detail, but it's what
(pretentious) lawyers call a "scienter" element: it requires actual >knowledge and belief that a "great risk" is being created.
The defense against this is strong: the shot was not especially
tricky and for even a low-end "marksman," the possibility of the shot
going wide and killing someone else was very low. And even if you
could probe that it objectively was high, you have to prove that the
shooter thought that, too. There's really no way.
(Not that Gray shouldn't charge it. It isn't frivolous to do so. But I
don't think it has much of a chance of sticking.)
Is it the correct murder charge even if not eligible for the death
penalty?
I guess I'm surprised that murder with intent and premeditation
isn't death penalty eligible without additonal aggravating factors.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Is it the correct murder charge even if not eligible for the death
penalty?
There are two ways to interpret that question.
It's the correct murder charge in the sense that it isn't "wrong" --
failure to prove aggravated murder still leaves open the "lesser
included offense" of regular old garden-variety murder. (Not what the
statute is actually called.)
It's (arguably) not the correct murder charge because (I don't think)
the aggravating factor can be proven.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2. . .
I guess I'm surprised that murder with intent and premeditation
isn't death penalty eligible without additonal aggravating factors.
I don't think the death penalty will hold up. There is only one
element in the statute that even arguably applies: creation of risk
of death to innocents
J.D. Baldwin <news@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:
David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
"After this press conference, I will be filing notice of intent to
seek the death penalty. [...]"
I don't think the death penalty will hold up. There is only one
element in the statute that even arguably applies: creation of risk
of death to innocents. I won't go into detail, but it's what
(pretentious) lawyers call a "scienter" element: it requires actual >>knowledge and belief that a "great risk" is being created.
The defense against this is strong: the shot was not especially
tricky and for even a low-end "marksman," the possibility of the shot
going wide and killing someone else was very low. And even if you
could probe that it objectively was high, you have to prove that the >>shooter thought that, too. There's really no way.
(Not that Gray shouldn't charge it. It isn't frivolous to do so. But I >>don't think it has much of a chance of sticking.)
Is it the correct murder charge even if not eligible for the death
penalty? I guess I'm surprised that murder with intent and premeditation isn't death penalty eligible without additonal aggravating factors.
https://nypost.com/2025/09/16/us-news/tyler-robinson-charged-with-7-counts-including-aggravated-murder-in-charlie-kirk-assassination-death-penalty-will-be-sought/
Tyler Robinson grew ?more pro-gay and trans-rights-oriented?, mom told
cops as Charlie Kirk suspect charged, could face firing squad
By Chris Nesi
Published Sep. 16, 2025, 2:22 p.m. ET
Both counts of witness tampering relate to instructions Robinson
relayed to his live-in boyfriend, a transgender man, directing him to
delete his text messages and to stay silent if police questioned him.
It should be noted that the person in question is what "trans rights" >advocates call a "trans woman" and "gender critical" types (I am one)
call a "trans-identified male"...genetically male and seeking to be
treated as if actually female.
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
It should be noted that the person in question is what "trans rights" >>advocates call a "trans woman" and "gender critical" types (I am one)
call a "trans-identified male"...genetically male and seeking to be
treated as if actually female.
No, it should NOT be so noted.
In another followup, you stated that no crime should be eligible for the death penalty. Well, I beg you to reconsider your opinion. There are
people out there willfully using English as a blunt instrument to
destroy all communication and create misunderstanding. The portion of
the trans community that lectures everyone else that they must keep
track of this massive taxonomy of groupings, classifcations, and
variants, using them in every day speech, else someone else will
officially take offense on behalf of another and shame the speaker for
being trasphobic ARE ABSOLUTELY COMMITTING CRIMES THAT SHOULD BE DEATH PENALTY ELIGIBLE.
I realized what was going on. When I hear "trans male", I sort of
understand that someone has made the transition from female to male.
But the media referred to the roommate as a trans male, apparently still
male but considering transitioning but not having yet taken steps.
It wasn't a mislabel because that's the ordinary use of language.
You used "trans woman" and "trans-identified male" in the same sentence, claiming they mean the same, and stated for a fact that the roommate
wanted others to treat him as a woman.
Well, for a fact, YOU don't know how far along he is and, given his age,
may either be going through a phase or will really and truly pursue it
all the way with medical and surgical treatment.
I may defend to the death your right to say things I disagree with, but
I will defend the English language itself against anybody and everybody
who would use it to destroy communication and sew misunderstanding.
Being transgender is an individual choice (and no, that there's
some permanent biological condition that's impossible to treat with psychology under any and all circumstances is inapplicable to the vast majority choosing trans) and can be done successfully regardless of how anybody else uses trans terms that some in the trans community demand everyone else uses.
This discussion of the roommate is the perfect example of why avoiding
the use of English as intended created misunderstanding.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
It should be noted that the person in question is what "trans rights" >>>advocates call a "trans woman" and "gender critical" types (I am one) >>>call a "trans-identified male"...genetically male and seeking to be >>>treated as if actually female.
No, it should NOT be so noted.
You want the writer's usage,which does not comport with that
by people on either side of the issue and can only confuse,
to stand without comment?
In another followup, you stated that no crime should be eligible for the >>death penalty. Well, I beg you to reconsider your opinion. There are
people out there willfully using English as a blunt instrument to
destroy all communication and create misunderstanding. The portion of
the trans community that lectures everyone else that they must keep
track of this massive taxonomy of groupings, classifcations, and
variants, using them in every day speech, else someone else will
officially take offense on behalf of another and shame the speaker for >>being trasphobic ARE ABSOLUTELY COMMITTING CRIMES THAT SHOULD BE DEATH >>PENALTY ELIGIBLE.
There can never be any justification whatsoever for
a government to kill an unarmed prisoner who is at
its mercy.
I realized what was going on. When I hear "trans male", I sort of >>understand that someone has made the transition from female to male.
But the media referred to the roommate as a trans male, apparently still >>male but considering transitioning but not having yet taken steps.
It wasn't a mislabel because that's the ordinary use of language.
The "trans rights" types believe that whenever a Y-chromosomed
person decides he is a woman,he always has been one,and continues
to have always been one until he changes his mind.
You used "trans woman" and "trans-identified male" in the same sentence, >>claiming they mean the same, and stated for a fact that the roommate
wanted others to treat him as a woman.
Well, for a fact, YOU don't know how far along he is and, given his age, >>may either be going through a phase or will really and truly pursue it
all the way with medical and surgical treatment.
I may defend to the death your right to say things I disagree with, but
I will defend the English language itself against anybody and everybody
who would use it to destroy communication and sew misunderstanding.
Would you rather misunderstanding be sewn than sown?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2Being transgender is an individual choice (and no, that there's
some permanent biological condition that's impossible to treat with >>psychology under any and all circumstances is inapplicable to the vast >>majority choosing trans) and can be done successfully regardless of how >>anybody else uses trans terms that some in the trans community demand >>everyone else uses.
This discussion of the roommate is the perfect example of why avoiding
the use of English as intended created misunderstanding.
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
It should be noted that the person in question is what "trans rights" >>>>advocates call a "trans woman" and "gender critical" types (I am one) >>>>call a "trans-identified male"...genetically male and seeking to be >>>>treated as if actually female.
No, it should NOT be so noted.
You want the writer's usage,which does not comport with that
by people on either side of the issue and can only confuse,
to stand without comment?
The comment made the initial misunderstanding ever so much worse. From
the words themselves, "gender critical" imparts no meaning at all, yet
you say you are of that type.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
It should be noted that the person in question is what "trans rights" >>>>>advocates call a "trans woman" and "gender critical" types (I am one) >>>>>call a "trans-identified male"...genetically male and seeking to be >>>>>treated as if actually female.
No, it should NOT be so noted.
You want the writer's usage,which does not comport with that
by people on either side of the issue and can only confuse,
to stand without comment?
The comment made the initial misunderstanding ever so much worse. From
the words themselves, "gender critical" imparts no meaning at all, yet
you say you are of that type.
See for example >http://hollylawford-smith.org/what-is-gender-critical-feminism-and-why-is-everyone-so-mad-about-it/
Being GC means being a critic of gender-identity ideology.
Both counts of witness tampering relate to instructions Robinson
relayed to his live-in boyfriend, a transgender man, directing him
to delete his text messages and to stay silent if police
questioned him.
[...]
Is advising someone to exercise a Miranda right tampering?
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
Both counts of witness tampering relate to instructions Robinson
relayed to his live-in boyfriend, a transgender man, directing him
to delete his text messages and to stay silent if police
questioned him.
[...]
Is advising someone to exercise a Miranda right tampering?
No. But telling someone "Don't tell the police what you know about me
and the things I have admitted to you" is pretty far afield from what
Miranda dictates[1]. And asking someone to delete existing text
messages is definitely solicitation of evidence destruction, not at
all protected by any constitutional right.
[1] You're not talking about "Miranda rights," anyway, there really
isn't any such thing. Miranda is a court decision that says the
cops have to give you free legal advice before a "custodial"
questioning. Your Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights are completely
independent of, and pre-date, the Miranda decision.
(Which, BTW, wasn't even the point of the Miranda decision. It's a
bit of a long and weird story, but the affirmation of Miranda in
Dickerson v. U.S. is the real controlling law. One of the more
bizarrely nonsensical bits of jurisprudence to come out of the
Supreme Court, even by Warren Court standards.)
In the previous article, Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
Both counts of witness tampering relate to instructions Robinson
relayed to his live-in boyfriend, a transgender man, directing him
to delete his text messages and to stay silent if police
questioned him.
[...]
Is advising someone to exercise a Miranda right tampering?
No. But telling someone "Don't tell the police what you know about me
and the things I have admitted to you" is pretty far afield from what
Miranda dictates[1]. And asking someone to delete existing text
messages is definitely solicitation of evidence destruction, not at
all protected by any constitutional right.
[1] You're not talking about "Miranda rights," anyway, there really
isn't any such thing. Miranda is a court decision that says the
cops have to give you free legal advice before a "custodial"
questioning. Your Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights are completely
independent of, and pre-date, the Miranda decision.
(Which, BTW, wasn't even the point of the Miranda decision. It's a
bit of a long and weird story, but the affirmation of Miranda in
Dickerson v. U.S. is the real controlling law. One of the more
bizarrely nonsensical bits of jurisprudence to come out of the
Supreme Court, even by Warren Court standards.)
I was of course alluding to the "and to stay silent if police
questioned him",not the deletion of text messages.
Miranda is a hell of a lot more than that. It forced the police to acknowledge to both themselves and the detainee that the questioning
is taking place in custody, it's not voluntary, and the detainee is
not free to leave. None of this blurry line nonsense that the
individual isn't free to leave but not formally in custody and
rights at arrest therefore don't apply.
It's a practical decision regardless of whether the Constitution is tue
basis for it and it's judicial activism. The cops fucked around way too
much prior to Miranda.
Let's see. Gideon was 1963; Miranda was 1966. I looked it up. But
Katz, an unlawful search case and therefore about privacy rights
before arrest, wasn't until 1967, so no, the Warren Court wasn't
finished with recognizing rights in interactions with police.
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
I was of course alluding to the "and to stay silent if police
questioned him",not the deletion of text messages.
Again: That's a Fifth Amendment right, not a "Miranda right."
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Miranda is a hell of a lot more than that. It forced the police to >>acknowledge to both themselves and the detainee that the questioning
is taking place in custody, it's not voluntary, and the detainee is
not free to leave. None of this blurry line nonsense that the
individual isn't free to leave but not formally in custody and
rights at arrest therefore don't apply.
And yet police still blur those lines (free to leave / detained) all
the time and are not really held to account for it ... because it
really has nothing to do with Miranda or even Dickerson.
It's a practical decision regardless of whether the Constitution is tue >>basis for it and it's judicial activism. The cops fucked around way too >>much prior to Miranda.
No argument there; inventing "rights" that just complicate matters is
not the solution. Holding the police to a "bright line" standard and
holding them accountable is. The Warren Court was just lazy and
cowardly.
Let's see. Gideon was 1963; Miranda was 1966. I looked it up. But
Katz, an unlawful search case and therefore about privacy rights
before arrest, wasn't until 1967, so no, the Warren Court wasn't
finished with recognizing rights in interactions with police.
I'd say that Terry is more important than any of those. (As a bonus,
it's actually based on the Constitution!) I personally consider Hiibel
to be *much* more important than any of those. Any cop who's been on
the force more than a month knows that when someone invokes that case,
he'd better cross every "t" and dot every "i" if he doesn't want the
headache and expense of a colorable 1983 suit.
Hiibel gives me rights? Terry is the decision in which the cop must
have "reasonable suspicion" and have "articulable facts" that the
person being stopped but not seized is connected to a crime.
Hiibel doesn't apply unless I'm in a state that reuires me to
identify myself, and if that identification in and of itself is self incriminating, uh, they never ruled on how I might avoid the
conflict.
A state law forcing me to identify myself where Terry applies isn't unconstitutional.
I don't see what Hiibel does for me beyond that.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Hiibel gives me rights? Terry is the decision in which the cop must
have "reasonable suspicion" and have "articulable facts" that the
person being stopped but not seized is connected to a crime.
To borrow from a friend, you couldn't be more wrong if you covered
yourself in wrong musk and ran naked into a field of horny wrongs.
There is no such thing as "stopped but not seized." A stop is a
seizure. The Terry opinion is not ambiguous on this point.
Hiibel doesn't apply unless I'm in a state that reuires me to
identify myself, and if that identification in and of itself is self >>incriminating, uh, they never ruled on how I might avoid the
conflict.
Hiibel applies everywhere. It's *particularly* important in states
without a "provide ID on demand" statute.
A state law forcing me to identify myself where Terry applies isn't >>unconstitutional.
Of course not.
I don't see what Hiibel does for me beyond that.
It prevents police from arresting you for refusing to identify
yourself absent the relevant factors. I see a good number of police
bodycam videos where they stop a driver for a traffic infraction (OK),
demand the driver ID himself (totally OK), *then demand ID of the
passenger and arrest him if he refuses* (very not OK). What Hiibel
does is a) declare unambiguously that the passenger has a right to
refuse to identify himself and b) make it so that a citizen so wronged
has unambiguous recourse under sec 1983.