You go Buzz Aldrin - Page 6 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmac2012 · #76 07-24-2014, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Could be? He was an intrusive ass. Not a question. But what if it wasn't Buzz but some drunk instead? Should we extend him the same courtesy? If so, fine. If not, we are playing favorites.

Yes we should. And we do. No two cases are the same.

cmac2012 · #77 07-24-2014, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Not at all.

I can say from experience that getting hit in the face by an adult man really really hurts.

This cries out for some elaboration by the way .

aklim · #78 07-24-2014, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Yes we should. And we do. No two cases are the same.

So why even have a rule? Why not make it up as you go along? Cop costs less than a judge so let the cop of the moment decide what to do with the offender.

t walgamuth · #79 07-25-2014, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

This cries out for some elaboration by the way .

There was alcohol involved.

t walgamuth · #80 07-25-2014, 07:03 AM

In the final analysis, the fellow was assaulting Buzz by preventing him from going where he wanted. Buzz acted in self defense.

MS Fowler · #81 07-25-2014, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

In the final analysis, the fellow was assaulting Buzz by preventing him from going where he wanted. Buzz acted in self defense.

Simple and sensible analysis.
We agree.

cmac2012 · #82 07-25-2014, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

So why even have a rule? Why not make it up as you go along? Cop costs less than a judge so let the cop of the moment decide what to do with the offender.

One size does not fit all. Get used to it.

aklim · #83 07-25-2014, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

One size does not fit all. Get used to it.

Doesn't answer the question of why not just make it up as you go along. I would say I accept it as part of the human frailties and it gives people leeway to grumble about something when the "one size does not fit all" thing goes against what they want. Much like the SCOTUS is scum when it rules against them and wonderful when it rules with them. I mean, without that wonderful saying of one size, how could we have something to grouse about?

cmac2012 · #84 07-26-2014, 02:58 AM

Making it up as you go along would be way to much room for bizarre out in the field rulings. It's never going to be perfect. Finding a sense of the spirit of the law is always going to be a challenge but not trying at all results in too much policing of average people, and congested courts.

aklim · #85 07-26-2014, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Making it up as you go along would be way to much room for bizarre out in the field rulings. It's never going to be perfect. Finding a sense of the spirit of the law is always going to be a challenge but not trying at all results in too much policing of average people, and congested courts.

It will never be perfect as long as we have humans. That much is certain. You are right that there will be bizarre rulings if we allow officials to make it up as they go along. Problem with "Spirit of the law" is that it wholly depends on the honesty of the person. It sounds nice in theory. The SCOTUS decided Bush's case was valid. Many disagreed and called them scum. What I have seen of human nature is that unlike Jimmy Johnson who flat out said in an interview that he would have let Troy Aikman skate for sleeping during a meeting and cutting John Roper who did could also be said to be "Spirit of the law". At least he had the guts to admit he would be unfair. Most seem to want to sound fair and just, that is, until it goes against their interests.

Most would be fine if I enforced the "3 strikes" rule against a Klansman but would want me to bend it to "4 or maybe 5 strikes" if it is some unfortunate mother of 3. IF you want to talk disputes, THAT is going to cause more disputes than anything when an employee comes back and says "Why did I get fired when that other person can still work?". Don't we have enough celebrities that cause trouble that skate and we grumble about it? Yet, OTOH, we want our favorite people to skate. Sounds VERY inconsistent to me. Sounds to me like we want to talk the talk about being nice and good but we are afraid to make the sacrifices when it comes down to our favorites. This is why I feel that we make nebulous statements. So it sounds good but really means "wiggle room for my favorites". We can have our cake and eat it. We can sound good and pat ourselves on the back and yet not have to make tough choices with our favorites. More to the point, we can even use them to convince ourselves that we are good people when we are not willing to do the work to be good.

P.C. · #86 07-26-2014, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Simple and sensible analysis.
We agree.

Who is "we"?