Father of Michigan school shooter found guilty of manslaughter weeks after mother’s conviction

[Toggle Almendro]

Unlikely.

Reality is always inconvenient for the left, but it is never unlikely.

The NRA put a stop to itself.

That is incorrect. It was the gun control movement that put a stop to gun liability insurance.

It seems likely though that the Supreme Court will again stomp on the gun control movement. So maybe gun liability insurance will soon be offered again.

Gun owners oppose an insurance requirement.

Maybe so. But it is the gun control movement that actually eliminated gun liability insurance.

No "gun control groups" to my knowledge, oppose firearm insurance.

You were just given a couple links to articles about a case that was heard in the Supreme Court just a few days ago, where the gun control movement was challenged over abolishing gun liability insurance.

You are wrong again on both issues--- which group is opposed to is and that is does not exist.

That is incorrect. Everything that I say is true. That's why no one can point out any untrue statements in my posts.

(from previously referenced article)
"Gun owners oppose the San Jose ordinance, not only because of the insurance requirement—which may not be enforceable—but because it imposes a “gun, harm reduction fee” on them…. a few small insurers, such as Lockton Affinity, have a specific gun liability policy.."

Some gun owners may well oppose a mandate, but it is the gun control movement that actually abolished gun liability insurance.

At least for now. As noted above, the Supreme Court may be about to stomp on the gun control movement again.

 

[Individual]

I as well am part of the group "everyone".

The fact that I can be wrong is one of the reasons why I don't advocate executing people, and especially not without any appeal.



I'm sure that admission would be a great comfort to an innocent person who you've already had executed.



The thing about being wrong is, people who are wrong do not understand that they are wrong.



No Michigan court will ever condemn someone to death.

"Michigan's death penalty history is unusual, as Michigan was the first Anglophone jurisdiction in the world to abolish the death penalty for ordinary crimes.[1][2] The Michigan State Legislature voted to do so on May 18, 1846, and that has remained the law ever since.[3] Although the death penalty was formally retained as a punishment for treason until 1963, no person was ever tried for treason against Michigan. Thus, Michigan has not executed any person since before statehood."

Capital punishment in Michigan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You keep repeating yourself.

We are talking about just one person.

Show some evidence it is possible someone else was the shooter in this one case.

I'm not trying to change Michigan law, simply stating I don't agree with it, and there are instances where guilt can be known with absolute certainty and this IMO is one.

 

[Spock]

Reality is always inconvenient for the left, but it is never unlikely.



That is incorrect. It was the gun control movement that put a stop to gun liability insurance.

It seems likely though that the Supreme Court will again stomp on the gun control movement. So maybe gun liability insurance will soon be offered again.



Maybe so. But it is the gun control movement that actually eliminated gun liability insurance.



You were just given a couple links to articles about a case that was heard in the Supreme Court just a few days ago, where the gun control movement was challenged over abolishing gun liability insurance.



That is incorrect. Everything that I say is true. That's why no one can point out any untrue statements in my posts.



Some gun owners may well oppose a mandate, but it is the gun control movement that actually abolished gun liability insurance.

At least for now. As noted above, the Supreme Court may be about to stomp on the gun control movement again.

You quote two stories about the same presentation before SCOTUS that concerned the assessment of the NRA (a troubled business) by a state. That was not about the concept of firearm liability insurance. It was about state authority over a business and issues of business speech.
T

 

[Toggle Almendro]

You quote two stories about the same presentation before SCOTUS that concerned the assessment of the NRA (a troubled business) by a state.

The NRA is a civil liberties organization. They are what the ACLU only pretends to be.

Their only trouble is that progressives hate America and want to damage the organizations that defend America.

The courts will ease those troubles by requiring the taxpayers of New York to pay millions of dollars in damages to the NRA.

That was not about the concept of firearm liability insurance. It was about state authority over a business and issues of business speech.

That is incorrect. Destroying the gun liability insurance programs organized by the NRA is a key part of the witch hunt that the left is waging against them.


Note the following quotes from one of the articles:

"the National Rifle Association alleges that a New York official violated the group’s right to freedom of speech by urging banks and insurance companies that worked with the NRA to cut ties with the group."

"The dispute dates back to 2017, when New York’s Department of Financial Services, which oversees banks and insurance companies in the state, opened an investigation into insurance programs, endorsed by the National Rifle Association, to provide coverage for injuries caused by guns."

"The companies agreed not to provide any NRA-endorsed insurance programs to New York residents"

"the head of the department, Maria Vullo, issued a press statement and “guidance” letters in which she called on banks and insurance companies doing business in the state to consider the risks of doing business with the NRA and other organizations that promote guns. Vullo also urged the banks and insurance companies to “join” companies that had cut ties with the NRA."

"When several insurance companies stopped doing business with the NRA,"

"the banks and insurance companies that Vullo was charged with regulating “heard her message loud and clear,” the NRA charges, with many either cutting ties with the NRA or withdrawing bids that they had submitted for the NRA’s business."

 

[Toggle Almendro]

You keep repeating yourself.

I keep having to respond to the same points.

We are talking about just one person.

That will always be the case when you are talking about executing someone without appeal.

You will eventually be wrong.

Show some evidence it is possible someone else was the shooter in this one case.

Why would that matter?

I'm not trying to change Michigan law, simply stating I don't agree with it,

Here in Michigan we like it this way. Being the first to abolish the death penalty is a point of state pride.

and there are instances where guilt can be known with absolute certainty

Not really. It is always possible to be wrong.

and this IMO is one.

And if you are wrong?

 

[Individual]

I keep having to respond to the same points.

As do I.

That will always be the case when you are talking about executing someone without appeal.

You will eventually be wrong.

We're only talking about this one case.

Why would that matter?

Because if there is any possibility of this individual not being guilty, then there would be someone else who is.

Here in Michigan we like it this way. Being the first to abolish the death penalty is a point of state pride.

Has nothing to do with my opinion.

Not really. It is always possible to be wrong.

Not when absolute certainty exists.

And if you are wrong?

You would then be able to provide me with some reason for doubt.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

We're only talking about this one case.

Every time you talk about executing someone without appeal, you will always be talking only about that one case.

You will eventually be wrong.

Because if there is any possibility of this individual not being guilty, then there would be someone else who is.

What does that have to do with the conversation that we are having here in this thread?

Not when absolute certainty exists.

There is no such thing. It is always possible to be wrong.

You would then be able to provide me with some reason for doubt.

I'm not an all-knowing oracle who can tell you every time that you are wrong.

 

[Spock]

The NRA is a civil liberties organization. They are what the ACLU only pretends to be.

Their only trouble is that progressives hate America and want to damage the organizations that defend America.

The courts will ease those troubles by requiring the taxpayers of New York to pay millions of dollars in damages to the NRA.



That is incorrect. Destroying the gun liability insurance programs organized by the NRA is a key part of the witch hunt that the left is waging against them.


Note the following quotes from one of the articles:

"the National Rifle Association alleges that a New York official violated the group’s right to freedom of speech by urging banks and insurance companies that worked with the NRA to cut ties with the group."

"The dispute dates back to 2017, when New York’s Department of Financial Services, which oversees banks and insurance companies in the state, opened an investigation into insurance programs, endorsed by the National Rifle Association, to provide coverage for injuries caused by guns."

"The companies agreed not to provide any NRA-endorsed insurance programs to New York residents"

"the head of the department, Maria Vullo, issued a press statement and “guidance” letters in which she called on banks and insurance companies doing business in the state to consider the risks of doing business with the NRA and other organizations that promote guns. Vullo also urged the banks and insurance companies to “join” companies that had cut ties with the NRA."

"When several insurance companies stopped doing business with the NRA,"

"the banks and insurance companies that Vullo was charged with regulating “heard her message loud and clear,” the NRA charges, with many either cutting ties with the NRA or withdrawing bids that they had submitted for the NRA’s business."

The NRA is a civil liberties organization. They are what the ACLU only pretends to be.

Their only trouble is that progressives hate America and want to damage the organizations that defend America.

The courts will ease those troubles by requiring the taxpayers of New York to pay millions of dollars in damages to the NRA.



That is incorrect. Destroying the gun liability insurance programs organized by the NRA is a key part of the witch hunt that the left is waging against them.


Note the following quotes from one of the articles:

"the National Rifle Association alleges that a New York official violated the group’s right to freedom of speech by urging banks and insurance companies that worked with the NRA to cut ties with the group."

"The dispute dates back to 2017, when New York’s Department of Financial Services, which oversees banks and insurance companies in the state, opened an investigation into insurance programs, endorsed by the National Rifle Association, to provide coverage for injuries caused by guns."

"The companies agreed not to provide any NRA-endorsed insurance programs to New York residents"

"the head of the department, Maria Vullo, issued a press statement and “guidance” letters in which she called on banks and insurance companies doing business in the state to consider the risks of doing business with the NRA and other organizations that promote guns. Vullo also urged the banks and insurance companies to “join” companies that had cut ties with the NRA."

"When several insurance companies stopped doing business with the NRA,"

"the banks and insurance companies that Vullo was charged with regulating “heard her message loud and clear,” the NRA charges, with many either cutting ties with the NRA or withdrawing bids that they had submitted for the NRA’s business."

You do not understand that the state was opposed to the NRA involvement in insurance (and other financial matters concerning banking). The issue was not INSURANCE. The state was not opposed to firearm liability insurance; it was opposed to the NRA involvement in that process in THAT state. By your reasoning, the state must also be opposed to banking as that was mentioned.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

You do not understand that the state was opposed to the NRA involvement in insurance (and other financial matters concerning banking).

Sure I do. That's my main point.

Since the NRA was the driving force behind the programs in question, preventing NRA involvement with insurance ended those programs.

The issue was not INSURANCE. The state was not opposed to firearm liability insurance;

That is incorrect. They specifically said that gun liability insurance is illegal in New York state. I don't know if they were lying or not.

it was opposed to the NRA involvement in that process in THAT state.

That is incorrect. They opposed NRA involvement with insurance anywhere in the world.

By your reasoning, the state must also be opposed to banking as that was mentioned.

That is incorrect. They did not act to prevent people in general from accessing banking. They only worked to prevent the NRA from having a banking account.

 

[Spock]

Sure I do. That's my main point.

Since the NRA was the driving force behind the programs in question, preventing NRA involvement with insurance ended those programs.



That is incorrect. They specifically said that gun liability insurance is illegal in New York state. I don't know if they were lying or not.



That is incorrect. They opposed NRA involvement with insurance anywhere in the world.

The case is literally a free speech case, not a 2A case and does not concern the prevent the NRA doing business outside NY state.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/...against-new-york-financial-services-official/

Justices to hear NRA’s free speech argument against New York financial services official

… The NRA is represented in the Supreme Court by (among others) Eugene Volokh, a libertarian law professor at UCLA and First Amendment scholar, and the American Civil Liberties Union. In its brief on the merits, the NRA stresses that Vullo could not directly penalize NRA because she disagreed with its support of gun rights. Although she could have criticized the NRA or reminded insurance companies and banks about their legal obligations without violating the First Amendment, they observe, the Supreme Court ruled in 1963 in Bantam Books v. Sullivan that “informal, indirect government efforts to suppress or penalize speech by threatening private intermediaries violate the First Amendment.”

Therefore, the NRA writes, when Vullo used her power over banks and insurance companies to get them to blacklist the NRA, she violated the First Amendment. …

 

[Toggle Almendro]

The case is literally a free speech case, not a 2A case

That does not prevent the case from being used as evidence that the gun control movement has blocked the gun liability insurance plans that the NRA had been arranging.

and does not concern the prevent the NRA doing business outside NY state.

That is incorrect. When the gun control movement pressures banks to not offer accounts to the NRA, that involves business outside NY state.

When the gun control movement pressures insurance companies to not help the NRA offer gun liability insurance, that involves business outside NY state.

 

[Spock]

That does not prevent the case from being used as evidence that the gun control movement has blocked the gun liability insurance plans that the NRA had been arranging.



That is incorrect. When the gun control movement pressures banks to not offer accounts to the NRA, that involves business outside NY state.

When the gun control movement pressures insurance companies to not help the NRA offer gun liability insurance, that involves business outside NY state.

You are clearly mixed up. You have equated NY financial regulators with "the gun control movement" and equated an issue of speech with firearm regulation.
The ACLU does not get involved in 2A cases and ACLU is involved with this speech case.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

You are clearly mixed up.

That is incorrect. Everything that I said is true.

The gun control movement has made gun liability insurance difficult to acquire, and now they cannot mandate gun liability insurance without violating the Constitution.

You have equated NY financial regulators with "the gun control movement"

Rightly so.

and equated an issue of speech with firearm regulation.

That is incorrect. I have not done any such thing.

The ACLU does not get involved in 2A cases

That's because the ACLU doesn't actually care about civil liberties.

The NRA is what the ACLU pretends to be.

and ACLU is involved with this speech case.

Even a broken clock is right once in awhile.

 

[Individual]

Every time you talk about executing someone without appeal, you will always be talking only about that one case.

You will eventually be wrong.

But can you show it wrong in this instance?

What does that have to do with the conversation that we are having here in this thread?

Because people were killed, and we're talking about the guilt/innocence of the individual convicted of killing them. If there is ANY possibility of his being innocent, then the real killer remains free.

There is no such thing. It is always possible to be wrong.

Obviously there is, I am absolutely certain that we are not going to reach agreement in this discussion. Prove me wrong.

I'm not an all-knowing oracle who can tell you every time that you are wrong.

Then cease trying.

 

[Spock]

That is incorrect. Everything that I said is true.

The gun control movement has made gun liability insurance difficult to acquire, and now they cannot mandate gun liability insurance without violating the Constitution.



Rightly so.



That is incorrect. I have not done any such thing.



That's because the ACLU doesn't actually care about civil liberties.

The NRA is what the ACLU pretends to be.



Even a broken clock is right once in awhile.

Inconsistent claims and persistent confusion routinely undermine your posts.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Inconsistent claims and persistent confusion routinely undermine your posts.

That is incorrect. My claims are always consistent, I am naturally immune to confusion, and everything that I say is true. That is why no one is able to challenge any of my claims.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

But can you show it wrong in this instance?

Irrelevant.

Because people were killed, and we're talking about the guilt/innocence of the individual convicted of killing them. If there is ANY possibility of his being innocent, then the real killer remains free.

Perhaps, but so what? How is that relevant to the conversation here?

Obviously there is,

There isn't. It is always possible to be wrong.

Then cease trying.

I have never tried to point out every error that you've ever made.

 

[Individual]

Irrelevant.

The guilt/innocence of the accused is ALL that is relevant.

Perhaps, but so what? How is that relevant to the conversation here?

Because the conversation I'm having is based on nothing more than the guilt/innocence of one individual.

There isn't. It is always possible to be wrong.

Always?

I have never tried to point out every error that you've ever made.

You've not pointed out ANY error I've made.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

The guilt/innocence of the accused is ALL that is relevant.

That does not change the reality that the question of "whether I can demonstrate that there is an error in this particular case" has zero relevance to the question of "whether errors are possible".

Because the conversation I'm having is based on nothing more than the guilt/innocence of one individual.

Every time you talk about executing someone without appeal, you will always be talking only about that one case.

You will eventually be wrong.

Always?

Correct.

You've not pointed out ANY error I've made.

That does not change the reality that you are not infallible.

 

[Individual]

That does not change the reality that the question of "whether I can demonstrate that there is an error in this particular case" has zero relevance to the question of "whether errors are possible".



Every time you talk about executing someone without appeal, you will always be talking only about that one case.

You will eventually be wrong.



Correct.



That does not change the reality that you are not infallible.

In this case there is no doubt of the accused being guilty.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

In this case there is no doubt of the accused being guilty.

There is no such thing as absolute certainty. It is always possible to be wrong.

 

[Individual]

There is no such thing as absolute certainty. It is always possible to be wrong.

Yes, the possibility exists, though in this one case it does not. An innocent person would not be executed.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Yes, the possibility exists,

Correct.

though in this one case it does not.

The possibility always exists.

Every time you talk about executing someone without appeal, you will always be talking only about that one particular case.

You will eventually be wrong.

An innocent person would not be executed.

Even accepting that he is guilty, I'm still not seeing any justification for treating him as if he was some kind of monster.

This was a kid who needed help, asked for help, and didn't get any help.

 

[Individual]

Correct.



The possibility always exists.

Every time you talk about executing someone without appeal, you will always be talking only about that one particular case.

You will eventually be wrong.



Even accepting that he is guilty, I'm still not seeing any justification for treating him as if he was some kind of monster.

This was a kid who needed help, asked for help, and didn't get any help.

So there is a possibility this boy is actually innocent of the killings he has been convicted of?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

So there is a possibility this boy is actually innocent of the killings he has been convicted of?

Correct.