Jurors seem deadlocked, 6-6, in trial of man accused of juddering Miami Det. James Walker.
Judge is sending jurors home for evening without Allen charge.
UPDATE: THE CLOSING BEFORE JUDGE TINKLER-MENDEZ WAS INDEED THE HOT ZONE TODAY as reported by @Davidovalle305
David Ovalle @DavidOvalle305 · 5 minutes ago
Prosecutor Abbe Rifkin asking judge for sanctions on defense's David Peckins for twice telling jury state brought to bolster "career"
We were just wondering today how many right-wing-Republican-State's-rights folks are looking to the CDC to make sure we contain the Ebola Virus and prevent an outbreak in Texas (Motto "not afraid of any damn Yankee, but keep dem money-eatin foreigners outta here") and have enough vaccines/treatments for the virus available
(BTW- State's can't have rights, only people. For more on why this is so, try reading Rand's easy:" Man's Rights and the Nature Of Government" in her book The Virtue of Selfishness.)
A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Thus, a non-living entity like a State cannot have a right. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
So as Texas bungles it's way through trying to figure out how to quarantine four people and dispose of a few towels and bedsheets. we're just wondering when all those "shut down the government" people who called for the CDC to be closed will start looking for the CDC to save the human race.
THIS MARKET:
If you followed our advice and sold the market short in August and kept selling short into the dead-cat bounce rallies at the end of August and September, it paid off handsomely for you these last two weeks. We're approaching a bottom and while usually the last few months of the year the market is dominated by Hedge funds taking profits and locking them in for the year, this year may be different as the US becomes the only real safe haven for foreign investors. And BTW, we've been buying Bank of America since it was at 8 (currently 17.50). Look for it to be in the mid-twenties next year. It's a cash machine.
Disclosure: we are long long long on BOA, and we currently have NO position open on the markets in general.
THOSE BROWNS.
Speaking of correct predictions, we told you at the start of the beginning of the football season that Cleveland QB Brian Hoyer was way underrated and would lead the Browns to contender status. The secret is out as of yesterday, as the entire football world saw him lead the Browns to an amazing second half comeback.
THAT TRIAL
As @Davidovalle305 tweeted today, both sides rested in the contentious trial about the tragic murder of Detective James Walker. Tomorrow Abbe Rifkin will give closings for the prosecution, and David Peckins for defense. Judge Tinkler Mendez presiding.
See you in court.
20 comments:
For the last 50 years the market has dropped in October, Duh!
You wanted us to sell sell sell on August 8. On that date NASDAQ was 4370. Peaked on September 18 at 4593. Closed yesterday at 4454. Still up over 2%.
DJIA was 16553 on August 8. Peaked at 17279. And closed yesterday at 16991. Also up over 2%.
You said to buy GLD. ON August 8 price was 126.19. Closed on Friday at 114. Down 10%.
You also said to buy Gold. On August 8 gold closed at 1309. On Friday Gold closed at 1190. Down 119 points. Gold down 9%.
You did get Groupon right. You said buy puts. Price went down from 14.98 to 12.82.
You said to short the NASDAQ. Nope.
You said buy SQQQ. It was 42 when you said to buy. It closed at 36.55 on Friday.. Down over 10%.
Rumpy, don't use yellow text in your posts. I can't read it.
Each year for the last 50 (the last time the Browns won what was then simply called the NFL Championship, shutting out the Colts, 27-0) I have predicted glory for my beloved Browns. While my confidence has never wavered, seldom has it been so strong as this year.
Lead by Mr. Hoyer (He is an honored graduate of my high school alma mater. A coincidence? I think not!), the Browns feel destined for certain triumph.
Your imprimatur is but one more sign that this -- this very year -- is THE year.
Really, a Browns victory in Super Bowl XLIX (pronounced "ex-licks") is the only rational conclusion a sane man imagine to this season.
I am so very pleased to see that you are securing your place on the bandwagon early enough to get a good seat.
States can't have rights? Read the Tenth Amendment. Or, is your copy of the Bill of Rights written in yellow?
LOL at Rump trying to get all phee-lo-sophical as he carts out his tired-ass baby boomer liberalism.
The reality is that either there is a God who endows people with "rights" (and who presumably can endow states or animals or plants with the same if He chooses), or "rights" are a social construct, a linguistic concept invented to allow us to talk about moral obligations. In a prior age, we would have talked about "duty" or "virtue". Now we talk about "rights".
If I asked you Rump whence you got your "rights", where would you point? Some social contract? A government? Where did they get rights to pass out?
Rights language is facile, so long as you don't question it.
The absurdity of believing in universal "human" rights begs the question as to why no one, anywhere in the world, in the history of humanity, ever noticed they had these universal rights until some europeans started talking about them a few centuries ago.
Long story short, Rump, those "states rights" repubs are probably smarter than your run of the mill "gay rights" "minority rights" "abortion rights" "right to marry" liberals.
I won't hold my breath for you to criticize them with some philosophy.
A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a person's right to their own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
Uh, I think only mdl picked the Browns so far.
Thinking I would say government or a social contract shows me you know NOTHING about metaphysics, epistemology and ethics and certainly have NO idea about my metaphysics and epistemology. Knuckle head, go back to your high school philosophy course where you can try to sleep with your students by impressing them with your kant-moral-imperatie poppycock.
Why isn't there a mandatory county court rotation? We need to have some new faces. Send Newman, Serafín, and Hague to civil, bring cuesta gonzalez and barakat to criminal
But Rump, if corporations are people, then states can have rights. Just saying.
So Rump old chap, you reject Locke ?
Isn't the US Constitution a Social Contract?
Republicans are all about state's rights, until they're not. Gun control --->Heller, gay rights --->DOMA, legalization of drugs, Terri Schiavo; federal tort reform. They all run to the federal government when they need to.
The US constitution comes closest to embracing the definition of rights because it defines them best and guarantees the right to your life and liberty - see my comment above
- and the PURSUIT of happiness. Social contracts are as mystic as rights being bestowed by a witch doctor or an idol or other such nonsense.
LMFAO at 934.....I'm not going to get into the philosophical debate between you and Rump. I will say, however, that I was more than amused by your argument that:
"The absurdity of believing in universal "human" rights begs the question as to why no one, anywhere in the world, in the history of humanity, ever noticed they had these universal rights until some europeans started talking about them a few centuries ago."
The question is ridiculous. Society is constantly moving forward and developing new philosophies, ides, and, yes, products. Would you go back to the days of ancient civilizations and their notion of rights? I think not. Let's remember that the state rights we hold dear also didn't exist under our Constitution was written (hundreds of years after the Europeans began discussing human rights).
I'm also disgusted by how our politically correct we've become and how far our leadership has swung to the left, but, if you're going to discuss the issues, at least do so in an intellectually honest fashion.
BTDT
10/8/14@7:48 am makes a very insightful point.
Wow … David Peckins has been trying murder and death penalty cases for so many years. He should be awarded a medal for protecting the toughest and least likable clients at the Justice Building.
He should be a Judge -- as I know he really wants to be.
Congratulations DAVID PECKINS on one heck of a career and being a REAL LAWYER.
I'll point out Rump that I only asked one real question and you didnt answer it.
Whence do "rights" come from? You can define them up and down all day, but if you met a true skeptic who told you he didnt believe in the existence of natural rights and furthermore didnt think you had any, what would you say if you wanted to justify your faith in them?
You can define anything, even unicorns. But can you point to where you get these natural "rights" you claim?
Of course you can't, and that's my point, and that's the question you avoided. You avoided it so blatantly you went ad hominem.
So.... whence your rights? Did God endow you with them? (But you don't subscribe to that). Did some contract give you them? (But then they wouldnt be natural or universal). Whence do they come?
BTDT to your comment, the point is that believers in "human rights" or "universal rights" or "natural rights" or the "rights of man" claim that these are not just social constructs or moral language -- they claim these rights actually exist and are universal for all humanity forever.
So my point about europeans is that it is odd that over the history of humanity only one culture and only in the last few centuries discovered this fundamental fact about human nature. And this isnt like examining DNA or something -- you don't need tech to investigate moral obligations.
The truth is every age loves to imagine that transient aspects of its own culture and morality are somehow "universal" and bigger than they themselves. The idea of human rights is no different.
12:13.......You're missing my point.........things exist long before they are discovered. Further, we, as human beings, are more than capable of creating new things (good and bad).
Regardless, it doesn't much matter to me whether one views rights as something God created or a social construct so long as they are respected.
BTDT
Post a Comment