NeutiquamErro

Wait. You’re male?

Just to be random…

Does anybody know who votes for who in the magical community, or are all the leaders appointed. Because there is no mention whatsoever of voting or democracy. But public opinion is still a major factor in magical politics. And who funds the Ministry? The magical community seems to rely on it for a large portion of their employment opportunities, when you consider the population size (as evidenced by the Hogwarts intake). They do not style themselves as a government, rather as a department, meaning that there is a strong chance they are funded by the muggle taxpayer, which doesn’t seem very fair. There appears to be an independent Executive and Legislature, but the Judiciary is a strange amalgamation of both, which leads to obvious questions as far as accountability and anti-corruption measures are concerned. Who judges the Minister? Are they technically accountable to the Prime Minister, and therefore to the Crown? Is Her Majesty aware of their existence? If so, can legal recourse be taken by a member of the magical community in the Muggle courts, or vice versa? And, is the magical community governed by consent, or does being born with magical blood make you subservient to this apparently unaccountable, undemocratic quango? Basically (and bear in mind this is all conjecture) what really is the Ministry of Magic? Any opinions on this?

And you’re not going to elaborate on that?

In much the same way many of the characters in Hogwarts are fundamentally British, we can see that wizards and witches have specicifc national identities. So why should this not apply to the American magical community? We know that they aped their Muggle companions in turning an established, skilful, international game into a crude, simplified local version. So the comparison appears to hold up.

My house is decorated with dead cats. Can’t see any problem with that.

Joseph beat me to the punch. I am frankly astounded at all the posts claiming or insinuating it theft or the like, and it is simply a matter of ethics. To’us akum is muttar legamra. It is a kiddush hashem to return it, therefore you should, but make sure it is noticeable that you are Jewish, or even make it clear that you are returning it because you are Jewish.

It takes ten seconds to reach that speed. If you take into account acceleration and the length of the field, they wouldn’t spend any time at 150 mph, when you consider that they have to turn, twist, etc. Also, this acceleration is also not necessarily whilst gaining height or indeed in real world conditions, such as against wind. Also, since is impractical to play at that speed, they probably simply just don’t, much in the same way your car can accelerate very fast but you can still make your way comfortably out of a car park.

If you’re actually in KJ, you shouldn’t be drinking on Shushan Purim.

Well, let’s not let it die an ignominious early death, and keep it alive for as long as possible.

And as far as the point regarding Gringotts, it is not particularly shver. From here I drift into conjecture, but…

Enter, stranger, but take heed

Of finding more than treasure there.

The motto of Gringotts tells us all we need to know about it’s ethos. It is, as far as we know, impenetrable to true thieves, those who act out of, and I quote, ‘greed’, and ‘those who take, but do not earn’, ‘a treasure that was never yours’.

And if Dumbledore taught us one thing, it is that magic is not black or white, but contains many shades of grey. When one comes up against magical protections, their daas is taken into account, this being the reason Harry could get the Philosopher’s Stone and Quirrell couldn’t. So if we can make the connection, we find that the protection Gringotts promises will guard the treasures the client earned, against those who do not deserve it and desire it out of greed. But the creed does seem to suggest that it would be easier for a selfless thief such as Harry, to take from the Malfoys’ vault that which itself was originally stolen. Essentially, that the magical protection does not apply to hagoinav min haganov.

At this point, you probably will taineh that the metzius was that the plan Harry devised worked, and why should that not be the case for your average thief. To this I will defend my earlier point by saying that what’s to say your average thief will find it as easy, and not encounter as yet unknown magical protections activated by evil intentions. And furthermore, Harry had incredible luck in succeeding, not to mention the help of a former employee, and 99.9% of thieves would probably have been foiled by the extensive protections.

And lastly, just to cover my back, maybe the involvement of the Death Eaters in Gringotts (remember, that’s why goblins such as Griphook left in the first place) led to issues with security at the bank. This could be due to: The Death Eaters messing around with the ancient protections, the best goblins such as Griphook leaving, those goblins sabotaging security before they left, and lack of motivation among the remaining goblins.

It’s a very good look, both because it simply looks good, and because in comparison to some of the trash people wear it makes the wearer look respectable and refined in comparison.

BTW, this applies to all tznius and sensible, smart clothing, for any gender and any age (well, definitely the latter point).

edited

Irony detector broken

To focus on the original point – I think a boycott would be a justified, if ultimately doomed, venture.

There is no question that the premium one pays for a Bors is unjustified. There was a time when Brandolinos were virtually the only viable competitor, and even then they were poor quality. At that time (about ten years ago), Borsalinos were much fairer priced, as it was accepted you were paying for quality, much as you would for a Lexus. But Brandolino have improved vastly, and can now offer some quality hats, and the market has opened up significantly. Both the choice and standard has improved over recent years.

Taking this into account, Borsalino’s prices begin to look extravagant. Whereas in the past there were few viable alternatives and they truly offered a better product, in current times they are trading as much on the name as on quality. Bochurim, among others, will buy a borsalino as much for the lining as for the rest of it, and that is the problem. In such a situation, it is a perfect example of free market economics for a consumer group to take their custom elsewhere and thereby, with the frum market being one of the main consumers of black felt fedoras, the Borsalino company would have little option but to lower their prices to a more reasonable rate.

The reason why the move is ultimately doomed is because I cannot see many, myself included, being the korban, especially as if one can afford it one has little to gain from the boycott.

Nano 7th Gen

It’s the middle of zman. Give it two months.

Preparing the house for Shabbos is, to me, a spectator sport.

X is the expected average time required to shower, shave and dress. Y is the expected leeway time that should be left in case of emergency. Z is the shortest possible time one can get ready if nothing goes wrong.

X/2 + Y = Z

Most chevra end up with Z, if they’re lucky.

I handed a young child my simple, buttons only, small screen, call and text only phone. The kid, about 1 and a half years old, picked it up, stared at it for a few seconds, and then swiped at the screen got confused and stared at me. So, Poster, agreed. It’s just weird.

Thanks, it was a good debate. I wish I’d be able to answer your last post, but I’m calling it a day now.

But…

Whilst I think a jury could be wrong, I don’t think it was. I was just saying that that is what can and occasionally will happen in a free and fair system, hence OJ. But I explained why I believe the margin for error here is very small, as it was not a judgement call but a matter of law, and bias couldn’t practically make that much of a difference, unless they were set out from the beginning to find white men innocent. I also do not think this is a race issue.

I think it’s a bit much to pin the entire problem here on the juries. I think it is a bit too much to insinuate the juries are all biased, as those in charge of arranging them have processes, and even if they aren’t as extensive as in an actual trial, they do ward off bias.

And furthermore, if the officer was in clear contravention of the law, do you honestly believe it still would not go to trial? I trust a man whose profession is the law to guard his own integrity and follow the law, especially in a modern state like NY.

Manslaughter is culpable/negligible homicide, you just don’t call it that there in the USA.

And lastly, the video does not show the entire story. It doesn’t tell you what method of arresting someone is legal or not, it does not tell you what the law is when faced with this situation, and it does not say what happens when a police officer accidentally kills someone whilst arresting them. Those details, plus more, were considered in the court of law, and he was not found to have even possibly committed a crime, as it didn’t even go to trial. And had it, it would almost definitely have been not deemed a crime.

The system isn’t the problem. Neither are the police. What happened was a freak accident, a combination of many different factors including stupidity and medical issues, and that led to the death. He could not have resisted arrest. The police could have used a different tactic. He could not have had those medical issues. They could have realised the problem sooner. All mistakes, not brutality or racism. It’s not institutional, just unfortunate.

Anyway, that’s all from me. I’ll assume you disagree, have a good one!

OK, I’m taking an extended break from the CR in about two hours, so let’s get this over with as soon as possible.

Let’s leave our personal views aside for one moment, and look at the facts. The facts were that a legal process determined by years of democracy was carried out, and there was not deemed enough evidence to go to trial on. Incidentally, it takes a lot less evidence to indict than to convict, so it is safe to say that in a similar courtroom scenario it would have been even less likely he would be found guilty of a crime.

You believe the Jury was wrong. It’s possible, I’ll grant you that. But the fact is, both of us have acknowledged that we are unsure of the law in this case. For example, you have gone from calling it murder to manslaughter over the last few posts. You have admitted that you do not know the legal status of the chokehold, and neither do I. We have both got our colouring of the case from the media. which will always look for a story and is hardly a reliable source, and an edited video on YouTube (and you haven’t contested that it’s obviously edited). This is not clear evidence, and neither of us have all the facts. The Jury certainly got access to clearer and more evidence than we did. And therefore, when they make a decision, based on more evidence than we had, and with clear guidance on what the law is, which we definitely don’t have, don’t just write them off as biased or misinformed.

And even if you will stick to your assertion that the Jury was mistaken in some way, and that you know better, can you think of a better system? This mimics a court system, and is as impartial as humanely possible. You said you have ideas. They are on topic, so let’s hear them.

That is what Congress is for (Yes, of course it was a joke, is there any other way you can read it? OH, and thanks). The country votes for (officially) clever people whose job it is to represent their constituent’s, and who come up with the relevant laws.

And yes, you have a right to protest about this, and I have a right to protest about the offside rule and marshmallows. But having an idea of what needs to be fixed lends your case legitimacy. You can see what you perceive to be injustice, but don’t know what justice should look like. With details, please.

And as concerns the asthma, they didn’t see him panting or being unable to run. They didn’t chase him. They arrested him. And in the moments prior to the arrest, he appears to be healthy. Overweight, but not obviously asthmatic or in any way ill enough that the chokehold would kill him. And they had the right to arrest him, and he was resisting arrest. All that is clear from the video. Whether what they did was illegal is not. And a jury with access to guidance from a judge, who does know. And access to clear evidence, which is not apparent from an edited video. So it is not a stretch to trust their decision. And process was followed, which is what must happen in a democracy, not a lynching.

And let’s put OJ to one side for a moment. I don’t know that much about this case, not being American. But from what I know, comparisons are unfair. Firstly, that was a trial based on evidence. The jury was there to make a judgement call as to whether the evidence available tied OJ to a crime. And the decision was wrong, but that will happen in a democracy, where we put people through a process to decide if they have committed a crime, not the court of public opinion. And in that process, mistakes can be made, and occasionally are. But in the Garner case, the evidence was clear and uncontested. We know who did what to whom where and when. What is in question here is whether a crime was committed. And that is much less of a judgement call, as it is a question of Law. Therefore, the chances of Jury error are far smaller. Secondly, they were simply there to look at the law and decide if there was even the remotest possibility that it had been broken, just enough to go to trial, and they decided there wasn’t. And that was not in a courtroom where it is a yes/no question (I was going to say black/white but decided against it), but simply a question of balance. And they, far better informed (by which I mean, access to more information) than either of us, decided no. And that is that. Do you have any actual suggestions as to what should be improved here that would change the process?

The law states that in a case such as this, the Prosecutor determines, through his choice of one of several processes, whether to indict. He chose the Grand Jury, probably the most open and clear of the available procedures. The Jury decided that there was no case to answer. Therefore the law has been adhered to. You admit to not knowing the legal status of the chokehold. Now, if the chokehold was illegal, he would have been charged. So we see that the status of the chokehold is contested, and the Prosecutors decision is probably the best authority to go on, and the Jury’s verdict is doubtless better informed that mine or yours’. The law has certainly been followed, as such adhered to.

You said earlier that the law is wrong, and that is why you must protest. Now, protesters usually push for reform, but you appear unclear as to the process, and freely say that you have no idea how the law can be improved. Basically, you see what you determine to be injustice, but don’t actually seem to know why, as it’s ‘not your job’. Well, how about we come up with a system for choosing people whose job it is to sort out these processes and implement them, maybe, I don’t know, getting together every few years to pick a guy to represent your interests in a wider forum, and call it, let’s think of something random, Congress? And then, the next time a contested situation such as this comes up, we can determine it using the processes thought up by those whose job it is to do so. Wait a second, that sounds familiar…

Furthermore, the Jury almost certainly had evidence not freely available, such as witness testimony, participant testimony, the ability to question those involved as to the justification for their actions, the relevant laws as presented by impartial experts, the relevant police policy presented by impartial experts, the medical reports from unbiased experts, and probably the extended videotape not available online, as well as character assessments and profiles on those involved. That enough for ya’?

And I will always support the right to protest, even if I believe there is nothing to protest about or that those protesting aren’t sure as to the aims of their protest (see above). As the quote often wrongly attributed to Voltaire goes, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. And I don;t think anybody here has as of yet disagreed with that explicitly (The first post does not count, it is obviously not literal).

And being stupid isn’t a crime, unlawfully killing someone is. And in this case, when looked at by a jury, it was not deemed to be unlawful. Therefore, it must be that the tactics used were deemed permitted for an officer arresting a non-compliant suspect to carry out. When I said they were stupid, I meant that common sense should have told them that this tactic, whilst not illegal, was probably unnecessary in that scenario.

And the officers had no way of knowing he had asthma, so to say they are more culpable because of this is going too far. They don’t have to consider possible ailments every time they arrest someone. It either makes them less culpable or doesn’t make a difference, but certainly not more.

And I am not clued in fully as to the events of the OJ trial, mainly because I’m not American. But the system then was not the system of today, and so saying that that case is evidence of a possible incorrect jury ruling is both conjecture and inaccurate.

In both cases the law has to decide if there was a case to answer, as per due process. In both cases the decision whether or not to indict was given over to a Grand Jury. This was as open as the decision could be, left up to the discretion not of a federal prosecutor with an agenda, but to a jury of his peers, exactly the same as he would face in court. In both cases they decided there was not grounds to indict. This means a jury decided both that they did not believe there was a case to answer, and that in a court the officer would be found innocent. That is democracy, that is law. It is not a miscarriage of justice, as the law was followed to the letter. What would be a miscarriage of justice would be if the case was reopened on the frankly ridiculous grounds that this is somehow a civil rights issue.

I am also sure that whatever evidence was provided to the juries, it was far fairer and more accurate than whatever has appeared in the media. Therefore, respecting their decision is not only respecting the law, but respecting the fact that not everything is as simple as it appears to be on YouTube.

I would like to note two moderations, both on this thread. That’s gotta be some kind of record. And, in order that my third thread won’t get deleted too, I won;t mention the content. Any mods can tell me why?

From the rules:

2 – If your post was deleted, please don’t post asking us why your post was deleted. It was deleted because we felt that there was something inappropriate, off topic etc. Do not resubmit deleted posts

Tibi adsentior, plerumque (I’ve gotta stop that). But texting is not quite the same as Facebook, for there is no question that one is far more of a poretz geder than the other.

Thank you

Never knew it was a link. Yep, I had already noticed that one, thanks. I’ve still got a few more achievements to achieve, but it’s good to get a big one like that out of the way, thanks #poster.

And #poster, you gonna answer me anytime?

Sorry, what ‘achievement’?

I adulari ad decieve. Putas tibi loquentes lingua?

Ut ipse tu cernis, non possum. Responsum est, sicut me, si non, unde scietis his.

Et quod magis. Aequum est dare moderatores quaeritur?

Gratias, nocte ac bonum.