It’s pretty reasonable to assume people that get into a club will have been IDd on the door and thus of legal drinking age.
I’ll start studying my mod.
To be fair, a lot of them were sold at illegal raves, but there was no need or inclination to sell one to an obvious young un, who was more than likely tuned in already by their own brother or something.
If you want to imagine how reckless my activities were, you need to imagine how many raves were going on back then and how mant times you heard of someone being found dead, or some young child corrupted, after these events.
ps. It’s “Never,” if anyone is wondering what the answer is.
That’s a pretty recent development in the UK - I was in clubs less than 20 years ago (just) when I was underage, and I doubt anyone was ID’d then. I get the strong impression dimmy is talking about that period, or probably somewhat earlier.
If you gave anyone drugs that made them like the “music” played at those raves, you corrupted them beyond repair.
Hey, it wasn’t that techno “bang the fuck out of a biscuit tin” music when I was spreading the party vibe. It was Phuture Phantasy Club’s “Slam,” Marshall Jefferson’s house, and Reese And Santonio’s energy that were rocking the decks.
Unless you’ve been in say, the Thunderdome - formerly in Collyhurst, now demolished - and saw roughnecks of every flavour and size freaking out to The 900 Number or Don’t Scandalise Mine, you can’t really appreciate why E was called “the love drug.”
I prefer music I can listen to without drugs.
That said, most of the stuff I listen to would have normal people reaching for something, either a mind altering substance or the off switch.
I’m not anti drugs as such, in that I think people should have the right to make that choice. But I do think, from some personal experience and a lot of what I’ve seen in others, it usually ends up being a bad choice. And the idea of a drug dealer being some sort of fight-the-power good guy is fucking laughable.
You probably see the words “drug dealer” as one all-encompassing package, don’t you? And you have the front to call anything laughable, with your poncy “Ewww… drugs and music? You don’t do that, do you?” self-congratulatory wankery.
I think drug dealing is, at it’s very best, morally neutral, and far more often associated with genuinely serious criminality*, and organised crime. Given where I live, I know a bit about drug-related gang violence.
That, combined with your admitted violent tendencies, make me doubt you’re on the neutral side.
But I’ll cop to being a pretentious wanker when it comes to music.
*That, by the way, is in my opinion a strong argument for legalising most drugs.
Perhaps you have not paid attention to the thread in question. I’ve posted in that thread given my actual legal-type analysis. I am sorely disappointed in myself that I’ve read the entire thread.
You, uh, also didn’t answer my question. Odd.
I’m always amused when people think they know everything about the law because they served on jury once. Serving on jury definitely makes you a legal expert… GAG! Everyone thinks they are an expert these days. It reminds of my times in college where people thought they were experts in the field of psychology for taking ONE class in psychology.
Has there even been any new information on this case in the last four months? What is there to argue about until the trial starts?
Tell me about it. Shots were fired by a passenger on a motorbike at the front door of a house just round the corner. I assume they’d upset someone.
If you’re coming to that conclusion based on my hooligan admission, I think it’s a bit harsh considering my hooly days were between the ages of 17 and 21, almost 30 years ago.
That’s a shame. That could have been the one thing we shared common ground on.
It certainly is.
Wait up a sec… did I just agree with you?
Z’s put on another 20lbs in cheetos. The argument is, will his bum look fat in prison issue clobber.
I do not see any reason why we are obligated to approach such questions according to the legal technicality involved. Language means what it means to the people who use it, for most of us, “manslaughter” is killing someone without planning to. It’ll do.
In my current estimation, based on what I’ve seen and keeping open that I might see something tomorrow, Martin was a victim of manslaughter. If there is a legal technicality that entitles someone to commit manslaughter and face no criminal penalties, I am neither surprised nor impressed. That someone may know the exact details of that entitlement rates but the slightest raising of an eyebrow and a mild “well, good for you!”
Now, if I were on a jury, the game changes totally. I could not convict anyone on what I currently know, my judgement is personal, not legal. If I become a juror I promise to try to become a different person, one who is utterly unbiased and innocent of prejudice. I promise to consider only the evidence presented, and nothing else. If I can swear that I am certain someone is guilty, I can convict, otherwise, I must acquit.
But those special circumstances only apply within their very narrow context. There is only one situation of justifiable homicide, and that is when there is no other choice. Not even a broken nose, dire as that may be, entitles one to kill.
I think it will; orange really isn’t flattering on anyone.
“Don’t be a jerk” is the usual procedure. Your posts that garnered you those warnings were fairly obvious as jerkish posts.
It has nothing to do with my colors or masts. I simply made a prediction of what my reaction will be to the likely outcome of your asinine behavior on this board.
“Whut?” “Reasonable doubt, dammit!” “Whut?”
Jackmannii, or any (other) lawyers [sorry, I don’t know if Jack’s a lawyer or not]: For civilian courts, are the judge’s instructions also written instructions? Every court-martial with a jury I’ve observed, the judge read out his instructions and then the instructions were handed to the jury foreman. There was no reason to ask the judge to repeat the instructions.