Dealing with psychopath nutjobs

[ideologue08]

You're welcome to your opinion of course. For me, it's a question of "what can I live with?". If the asshole escalates to physical violence (as he has done many, many times in the past), and I do nothing to prevent it, can I live with that decision?

Regarding it being a domestic dispute, these people are family to me, and I to them. More so than the abusive ex. The only reason he is even in the picture is because of the custody agreement involving her 13 year old. The other son has disowned him and wants nothing to do with him.

The guy is a sperm donor with a court order, taking an opportunity to revisit terror on two of his former victims, not part of a domestic unit.

Calling it a domestic dispute is laughable.

I'm just happy nobody pulled a gun out, something which is apparently common in the US. Pointing a weapon like a baseball bat at someone can get very ugly, so I'm glad things worked out in the end. I made a thread about a man who was shot dead by the FBI for apparently charging one of them with a broomstick/pole http://atheistforums.org/thread-19157.html It turns out he was unarmed but still, you get the point.

[The Grand Nudger]

........lol.

[Jackalope]

You're welcome to your opinion of course. For me, it's a question of "what can I live with?". If the asshole escalates to physical violence (as he has done many, many times in the past), and I do nothing to prevent it, can I live with that decision?

Regarding it being a domestic dispute, these people are family to me, and I to them. More so than the abusive ex. The only reason he is even in the picture is because of the custody agreement involving her 13 year old. The other son has disowned him and wants nothing to do with him.

The guy is a sperm donor with a court order, taking an opportunity to revisit terror on two of his former victims, not part of a domestic unit.

Calling it a domestic dispute is laughable.

I'm just happy nobody pulled a gun out, something which is apparently common in the US. Pointing a weapon like a baseball bat at someone can get very ugly, so I'm glad things worked out in the end. I made a thread about a man who was shot dead by the FBI for apparently charging one of them with a broomstick/pole http://atheistforums.org/thread-19157.html It turns out he was unarmed but still, you get the point.

A broomstick can be a weapon, every bit as much as a bat. He was hardly unarmed. Not saying it was a legitimate shoot, though. Not enough information for that.

[ideologue08]

A broomstick can be a weapon, every bit as much as a bat. He was hardly unarmed. Not saying it was a legitimate shoot, though. Not enough information for that.

That's true yeah, but according to the Washington post link I gave, a "law enforcement" official said he was unarmed. I always found that phrase weird, "law enforcement", what's that meant to be, the courts? The police? They all enforce the law, it's a pretty vague term.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here, the police enforce the law, and the courts handle those areas where it has been breached. The cops don't hand out sentences, and the courts don't stand you off at gunpoint, essentially.

Police, for example, don't care if you are guilty or innocent, only if you are present.

The courts don't care if you were present, only if you are guilty or innocent.

[Whateverist]

modern society is "psychopathic".

"When you have beauty seeing eyes, everything you see is beautiful." Must work in reverse too.

[ideologue08]

Here, the police enforce the law, and the courts handle those areas where it has been breached. The cops don't hand out sentences, and the courts don't stand you off at gunpoint, essentially.

Police, for example, don't care if you are guilty or innocent, only if you are present.

The courts don't care if you were present, only if you are guilty or innocent.

Fair enough. There are quite a few things off the top of my head that I find intriguing. I'm still trying to work out though what happens when something is legal according to State law, but illegal according to Federal law. If I'm not mistaken, like Colorado... they legalised pot but I don't think it's legal Nationwide, so what is the point of federal law if States can tell it to f off? US law needs to be simplified, but then again, I don't plan to be a lawyer in the US so it's not essential to me.

[Jackalope]

Here, the police enforce the law, and the courts handle those areas where it has been breached. The cops don't hand out sentences, and the courts don't stand you off at gunpoint, essentially.

Police, for example, don't care if you are guilty or innocent, only if you are present.

The courts don't care if you were present, only if you are guilty or innocent.

Fair enough. There are quite a few things off the top of my head that I find intriguing. I'm still trying to work out though what happens when something is legal according to State law, but illegal according to Federal law? If I'm not mistaken, like Colorado? They legalised pot but I don't think it's legal Nationwide, so what is the point of federal law if States can tell it to f off?

Federal law is concerned (ostensibly) in matters of interstate law, not intrastate law. The vast majority of criminal cases are tried by state courts, under state laws.

Washington state (where I live) also legalized pot - the law was crafted in such a way to avoid interstate issues as much as possible. That won't necessarily stop the federal government from stepping in, but they have so far shown no interest in doing so - and it's questionable whether they have the authority to do so.

[thesummerqueen]

Fair enough. There are quite a few things off the top of my head that I find intriguing. I'm still trying to work out though what happens when something is legal according to State law, but illegal according to Federal law. If I'm not mistaken, like Colorado... they legalised pot but I don't think it's legal Nationwide, so what is the point of federal law if States can tell it to f off? US law needs to be simplified, but then again, I don't plan to be a lawyer in the US so it's not essential to me.

All you need to know is that the US likes to create what they call "checks and balances" between governing bodies (judicial, executive, congressional, or state vs federal, etc), ostensibly to keep one body from having more power than the other, but really only to justify not getting shit all done.

[The Grand Nudger]

You'll have to remember, Ideo, that our laws (in this regard) were initially established by a bunch of people who could agree on little else except that they'd like to give the crown the boot (and even there they disagreed)

-some measure of confusion is bound to arise between state and federal law.

What is illegal in one state may not be illegal in the next, what is illegal federally is widely taken to be illegal everywhere - though enforcement of those laws is the operative bit - not their existence (the same is true of state laws).

It's a labyrinthine maze of obfuscation - that's why there's so much money to be made in the service of it.