Ok, well then find me someone on this board who actually says that. I imagine you’d have a hard time finding someone *off *the board who’s said that. Meanwhile, as we’ve seen from links to past discussions, you’ve apparently been debunking the assumption that Law broke then-extant Massachusetts law for *years *now, which should be a pretty good indication that said assumption is widespread.
People watch Law & Order and get the sense that the bits and pieces they’ve picked up allow them to offer opinions on the law that are equally as valid as an expert’s (or an Attorney General’s). You of all people must have noticed this by now.
More broadly: this is how debates on the internet work. Virtually no one just up & admits they’re wrong right there in the thread.
Tom: “As we’ve seen, X, therefore Y.”
Dick: “Actually, not X.”
Tom: “Yes, X, you partisan hack.”
Dick: “No, look, factually not X, because of cite, cite, and cite.”
Tom: “Oh please, you’re not taking into account [my layman’s understanding I picked up from that half of a Gawker article I read].”
Dick: "No, seriously: cite, cite.
Harry: “Yeah, Dick is right, look’s like not X, so I’m thinking not Y.”
Tom: “What?! Even if it were not X, which has hardly been established, it would still obviously be Y because of A, B, and C!”
And then 6 months later, when the topic comes up again, Tom doesn’t claim X when he’s arguing for Y, but nor does he admit that he was wrong or credit Dick with enlightening him.
The only law the MA AG has cleared Law of is the mandated-reporter one, because it didn’t apply to priests at that time. Others have been brought up and discussed in this very thread, and it doesn’t take much to think of what they might be.
Bricker’s claim that *no *applicable law has been broken, and that the AG has said so, is another of his, oh, let’s call them “gratuitous assertions.” Anyone giving him credit for being a neutral and informed analyst, especially on this subject, should be ready for embarrassment.
You’re playing with semantics here. They’re arguing for a trial, AND no actual law has been violated. Though it can be phrased this way, that’s not the same thing as arguing for a trial *without *a law being violated.
In reality, someone who is aware of that report and continues to insist that Law be tried is overwhelmingly likely to be arguing that the AG’s office is wrong or missing something or politically influenced. (You don’t have to take my word for it – they’re here, ask them.) I assume they’re mistaken, and if you want to call them stubborn or even thick-headed I won’t object. Nonetheless, the error is a factual one (wrong about the law), not a moral one (eager to deprive an opponent of constitutional rights).
And extrapolating from this that liberals in particular have a phony or selective love of constitutional freedoms remains dumb.
I must be missing something here. Seemed to me that the main focus of Bricker’s contempt was the notion that dummy-dumb liberals wanted Law tried for violating a statute that did not exist. He cannot be tried for violating the statute against unicorn abuse because there was no such thing.
But then he offers us the AG report, cited above, with flourish of trumpets and tympani, as the absolute rock solid proof. But the report, to my eye, says that, yes, such statutes exist, but finds no basis for prosecuting Law, apparently as an evidentiary matter. Which, of course, leaves open the question that such a conclusion was affected by political concerns, as well it might.
Main reason that concerns me relative to my fading mental capacities is that it seems so obvious, yet continues to be argued with ferocity.
Are there laws that exist? Sure. There’s a law against having sex with a child. Law could not be prosecuted under it, however, because there is no evidence he had sex with a child.
Is there a law against being an Accessory Before the Fact to a Felony? Sure. But Law could not be prosecuted under it, because there is no evidence for at least one of the elements of that crime (specifically, that Law shared the intent to abuse children that the principal actor had).
Is there a law against arson? Sure. But law could not be prosecuted under that law, because there was no evidence that he set fires.
So the AG’s report listed out the laws they thought might be useful in prosecuting Law and shows that they did not find evidence to support charges under any of those laws.
Now you mention political concerns? Maybe there’s full-color motion picture of Law fucking a antelope while fondling an immature bonobo, and it was suppressed for these “political concerns” you mention. But if you don’t know about that evidence, I don’t know about the evidence, and the Massachusetts AG doesn’t know about the evidence, then how can you say Law should be prosecuted under the evidence?
See: here’s exactly what I mean. elucidator is (a)liberal, (b) wants Law prosecuted, and (c) is absolutely undeterred by a lack of an available criminal statute that Law violated.
No, no – because that same person, faced with a different offender and a different crime – would vociferously insist that the bedrock of our society involves facts that can support criminal prosecutions.
In a thread last month, we discussed whether probable cause existed to charge journalists with failure to disperse after police ordered them to leave a McDonald’s during the Ferguson riots. In that conversation, people bent over backwards to find reasons that the journalists did not violate the law. One poster opined that as long as the journalist was making some movement towards leaving, he could legally stay for hours. Why doesn’t every potential criminal defendant deserve the same treatment by the government, regardless of our like or dislike for his cause?
And if they’re suggesting the AG’s office is missing something – what? No one has offered up a sustainable suggestion about what law the AG’s office missed.
Right, people may be more eager to find Cardinal Law legally culpable than a journalist or a protester, but their opinions are still sincerely held and not some attempt to sneakily promote an abrogation of Law’s constitutional rights. This is firmly within the realm of “people see what they want to see.” They despise Law and his actions, so they would very much like for there to be an offense he could prosecuted under. People give the benefit of the doubt to people they like or agree with, and judge quite strictly those they don’t. It’s laudable when we’re able to resist that impulse, but sadly it seems to be the exception.
Do you think that the posters here who think there is an applicable statute are actually lying?
A matter which, unfortunately, could not have been resolved due to Law having found he had urgent business in Rome immediately after learning he was going to get subpoenaed by the grand jury. Urgent business that detains him still, btw.
Even doing what was done took big ones, here in Boston.
Please provide the evidence that the conclusion was based on politics. I’ll accept as possible evidence close political, personal, or financial ties between the Massachusetts AG and Law. I’ll also accept evidence that Law actually broke the laws referenced in the AG report.
I would suggest that you no longer defend shithead’s view, and instead go back to telling jokes.
Not quite. Your correspondent from the conservative wing of the extreme left is A) a radical who’s bemused alliance with liberals is a matter of political necessity B) does not particularly care if Law is prosecuted or not, so long as his heinous behavior is a matter of public record and C) has, therefore, no agenda to be deterred* from*, since those concerns have already been largely met.
So, other than being entirely wrong, you’re quite right. My primary concern with posting the question was my suspicion that I must be mistaken, that you cannot have actually gone full retard, that you could not possibly expect to get away with that. I forget that you would sell a blind man a rat’s asshole for a wedding ring if it might “win” you an argument.
So he says, sure. But upon what possible rationale could he rest that conclusion? He says that “political” forces might be at work, but doesn’t explain how these political forces could shoehorn the acts Law did into fitting the statutes the legislature passed.
(I grant that the existence of laws worded a certain way is arguably “political.”)
Wait, wait. You’re arguing here that your only goal is to ensure that Law’s lack of moral behavior is on record. Well, it is; it has been. Law is morally heinous.
Is he criminally liable? Your previous post argued that you did care that Law was not prosecuted in Massachusetts, as the AG’s report was politically suspect.
Yes, I do. They have had ample opportunity to examine the statute and caselaw themselves, and to read the reports of those whose job it to do so in case they find the former task daunting.
They must know that there’s a singular lack of evidence on key statutes.
So their continued insistence otherwise means that they’re willing to disregard the Constitutional protections afforded accused people when the accused are people they dislike. This “disregard” can arise from either a conscious lie, or a willful blindness to the lack of existing law, but either outcome is still a willingness to toss out the Constitution.
