Oscar Pistorius (Blade Runner) Arrested (Read 548 times)

     

    The pain that hurts the worse is the imagined pain. One of the most difficult arts of racing is learning to ignore the imagined pain and just live with the present pain (which is always bearable.) - Jeff

     

    2014 Goals:

     

    Stay healthy

    Enjoy life

     


    Feeling the growl again

      "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

       

         

        But he never tested positive.... Smile

         

        I know, right? Ughhhh.


        Fast is better than long

          Amazing, the turns that this story has taken since first breaking. Unrealted to anything in the thread, I found the caption of the picture of her in a bra against the black marble disconnected and unneeded.

           

          Curious that a possible theory is that she used the cricket bat to defend herself when she had the skull wounds. Apparently the UK did not export their Scotland Yard prowess as they colonialized the globe.

           

          Steroids also found in Pistorius' home.

          2014 Goals: 2500 miles / sub 2 800m / 4:30 mile / sub 16:30 5K

           

          Give a man a fire and he'll be warm the rest of the night;
          Set a man afire and he'll be warm the rest of his life.

          What in the Jehu?


          Right on Hereford...

             

            Some people will get priced out of what is supposed to be an inherent right.

             

            Exactly. The 2nd Amendment clearly states:

             

            A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Furthermore, no citizen shall be denied access to arms due to lack of financial means.

            zonykel


              I'm sure those were just medicinal steroids. If he wanted to cheat, he would have tweaked the spring constant in his blades. Wink

              Steroids also found in Pistorius' home.


              Feeling the growl again

                 

                Exactly. The 2nd Amendment clearly states:

                 

                A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Furthermore, no citizen shall be denied access to arms due to lack of financial means.

                 

                Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause:

                 

                "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

                 

                I am not a Supreme Court Justice or even a lawyer, but I would be surprised if it were determined that those of lower financial ability are lesser protected under the 2A.  See poll tax abolishment.  Current Democratic arguments against voter ID laws rely heavily on the argument that the need to travel to ID-issuing offices and pay modest fees (say, $25 for a birth certificate) unfairly deprive a group of citizens disproportionately elderly, disabled, and minority of their rights.  My example was in reference to the same population.

                 

                There will clearly be room for reasonable steps.  Indiana's voter ID law was upheld by the Supreme Court.  One must consider the motivation behind the move, the real impact of the inconvenience/cost put on a person, etc etc.

                "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                 

                  Some people will get priced out of what is supposed to be an inherent right.  One major reason voter IDs were struck down as it was deemed too inconvenient for people to get to a DMV office to get one and overly burdened a Constitutional right; very similar issue.

                  I believe it's the opposite (majority opinion):

                  For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.

                   

                  Poll taxes were shot down because they related to voter affluence, which in turn is wholly unrelated to voter qualification (the statute's goal was to reduce election fraud, to which the ability to pay a poll tax was not shown to correlate).

                   

                  MTA the general approach taken by the Court:

                  A court considering a state election law challenge must weigh the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the precise interests put forward by the State as justification for the burden imposed by its rule, taking into consideration the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff's rights.

                  “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman


                  Feeling the growl again

                    I believe it's the opposite (majority opinion):

                     

                    For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.

                     

                    Poll taxes were shot down because they related to voter affluence, which in turn is wholly unrelated to voter qualification (the statute's goal was to reduce election fraud, to which the ability to pay a poll tax was not shown to correlate).

                     

                    Sorry, should have been clear I was referring to some of the lower cases.  Doesn't appear to be totally resolved yet.  Perhaps you have better knowledge of it than me.

                     

                    I brought up the poll tax issue because the example I was supporting was related to gun user affluence as well.  As I think it is reasonable to pay $25 for a birth certificate and stand in line at the BMV for a photo ID, I don't balk at $25 for a firearm transfer fee and waiting around for a background check.  But passing a law for gun ownership -- not carry rights -- mandating training costing a hundred dollars on up (plus >$100 in other costs), and making sure it cannot take place within a reasonable geographic distance of a population dependent on public transportation, is another story.

                     

                    MTA re: your MTA Smile  Thanks for the legalese, that was what I was trying to communicate but much clearer.

                    "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                     

                    C-R


                      As was feared, OP had some major issues. A sad story all around. Should he have had weapons in the house? Seems he was unable to control himself under any cuircumstance (gun, bat, hands). So the limitation discussions aren't applicable to this instance IMO. Likely he will get much time to meditate on what he's done in a 6x6 which is more than one can say for his GF. Lots of lives destroyed and yet another reason to not place these athletes on pedestals of awe and worship.

                       

                      I do have a question for the proponents of added limitations and regulations or elimination of the ability to have firearms (btw - I'm all for background checks and keeping legal guns from mentally ill or criminals). Why is this right so bothersome? The people that want to eliminate/severly restrict guns are the same groups that howled for any limitation of the 4th (searches under Patriot Act - I'm not a big fan of these either) or the limitation of Occupy Wall Street to "express" themselves or that voter id's are against the right of equal protection. Why is it ok to treat one right better than another because you find it uncomfortable. Why is there a desire to have one group less able to access this right than another as spaniel indicated. If it is so bad, should'nt there be a change to the Constitution if the majority are in favor of restrictions.

                       

                      There are many things said that make my blood boil but I will defend their right to say it. I'm curious as this question is rarely answered and perhaps someone here might indulge me.


                      "He conquers who endures" - Persius
                      "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel

                        I do have a question for the proponents of added limitations and regulations or elimination of the ability to have firearms (btw - I'm all for background checks and keeping legal guns from mentally ill or criminals). Why is this right so bothersome? The people that want to eliminate/severly restrict guns are the same groups that howled for any limitation of the 4th (searches under Patriot Act - I'm not a big fan of these either) or the limitation of Occupy Wall Street to "express" themselves or that voter id's are against the right of equal protection. Why is it ok to treat one right better than another because you find it uncomfortable. Why is there a desire to have one group less able to access this right than another as spaniel indicated. If it is so bad, should'nt there be a change to the Constitution if the majority are in favor of restrictions.

                         

                        There are many things said that make my blood boil but I will defend their right to say it. I'm curious as this question is rarely answered and perhaps someone here might indulge me.

                         

                        I think the main answer to your question is that people really disagree on what is a fundamental right. Some people think health care is a fundamental right. Some people think speech is a fundamental right. Some people think owning a gun is a fundamental right.

                         

                        I have an opinion on this: I think that the language of rights is actually quite detrimental to public discourse. It's good for activism, but bad for reason exchange because all people do is "assert their rights" or make reference to a pre-existing right, rather than analyze consequences of laws. Saying that we have a "right to X" is really the equivalent speech act of saying "I really like X."

                         

                        So, yeah it might appear to be inconsistent to be in favor of expansion of certain rights or diminishment of other rights, but I don't really see an inconsistency there because our rights are not really rationally derived. They are simply the collection of principles that we agreed in the past to be really important as a basis for social legislation.

                          I do have a question for the proponents of added limitations and regulations or elimination of the ability to have firearms (btw - I'm all for background checks and keeping legal guns from mentally ill or criminals). Why is this right so bothersome? The people that want to eliminate/severly restrict guns are the same groups that howled for any limitation of the 4th (searches under Patriot Act - I'm not a big fan of these either) or the limitation of Occupy Wall Street to "express" themselves or that voter id's are against the right of equal protection. Why is it ok to treat one right better than another because you find it uncomfortable. Why is there a desire to have one group less able to access this right than another as spaniel indicated. If it is so bad, should'nt there be a change to the Constitution if the majority are in favor of restrictions.

                           

                          Because I think gun ownership, as permitted in the US today, is larger than the right to bear arms that is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. I know in some respects the current Supreme Court disagrees with me, which is a shame.  But I think there are lots of additional "burdens" that could be placed on gun ownership without implicating the extent of the right in the Constitution.  And neither of us can claim to know how the Supreme Court would rule on other restrictions.  They have held that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."  So, it is the law that gun ownership restrictions are permitted under the Second Amendment.


                          HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                            ... Why is it ok to treat one right better than another because you find it uncomfortable....
                            . I'm curious as this question is rarely answered and perhaps someone here might indulge me.

                             

                            I'm not weighing in on any side of this, but I thought I'd point out something that may help you get answers. Notice how you've used the rather dismissive word "uncomfortable" in your question -- by putting it into a strawman phrasing like that, you may be implying that you prejudge any answer to be unwothy of your consideration, and that may discourage people from bothering to answer -- they may misunderstand, thinking that the appearance of a strawman setup means you're simply being rhetorical, and not really interested in any answer.

                             

                            Someone else on the other side of this debate did something similar in earlier pages -- I considered pointing it out, but didn't get to it until too many pages had gone by. They dismissed the pro-gun people as being motivated by inconvenience, which is not the type of phrasing to encourage rational discussion. I may be misremembering - but it was something dismissive like that, entirely on the other side.

                            It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

                            C-R


                               

                              I think the main answer to your question is that people really disagree on what is a fundamental right. Some people think health care is a fundamental right. Some people think speech is a fundamental right. Some people think owning a gun is a fundamental right.

                               

                              I have an opinion on this: I think that the language of rights is actually quite detrimental to public discourse. It's good for activism, but bad for reason exchange because all people do is "assert their rights" or make reference to a pre-existing right, rather than analyze consequences of laws. Saying that we have a "right to X" is really the equivalent speech act of saying "I really like X."

                               

                              So, yeah it might appear to be inconsistent to be in favor of expansion of certain rights or diminishment of other rights, but I don't really see an inconsistency there because our rights are not really rationally derived. They are simply the collection of principles that we agreed in the past to be really important as a basis for social legislation.

                              Interesting take on "rights" and I agree that there isn't a consistent definiton. I read your definition of rights to be more of a macro view where I am looking at the "rights" as something guranteed in our legal contract with government (free speech, equal protection, bearing arms, etc.) in the First 10 Ammendments. So if the word "right" is a sticking point than perhaps it would help to expand and say "guarnateed freedom under our Constitution". On a macro view I tend to be more of a life, liberty and pursuit of happiness guy but that is another conversation.

                               

                              Now those laws provide us a freedom that can be limited by process and agreed to by the SCOTUS or it can be changed by the process of ammendment. There have been some limitations to free speech, equal protection, arms, etc.) already and usually it's the contention that there are limitations in place but you can't outright abdridge the freedom without making an ammendment. Which goes directly to your point fo past agreed upon principles. The pathway is there but it should not be an easy one. It should be done with robust discussion and value of input from all sides and implemented through the agreed upon processes. This is one of my issues with the inconsistency as it attempts to place one freedom superior to another freedom which is situationally motivated. By that I mean that today, my first ammendment freedom of speech might be more important to me than my fifth ammendment right of self incrimination. However, as circumstances in my life changes so do the needs for these freedoms for me. A few weeks ago a horrible tragedy made people want to add limits to a freedom but in 20 years those same limits may cause problems not anticipated.


                              "He conquers who endures" - Persius
                              "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel