What pissed you off today?

[Stadler]

I was following a car yesterday, and the dude (assumption, based on the hat) was cruising below the speed limit for a quarter mile or so then as we approached a light... he floored it and went through the light leaving me at the yellow.  Is what it is, life happens, but it annoyed me.

FWIW, if I'm in the city, I cross when I cross, unless traffic is just SO full, or it's multi-lane like in New York City.  I lived in Philly for five years, and I probably gained a month or two of "living" by not waiting for the corner or the lights.  I've never been hit, rarely if ever been beeped at, and only once came close to actually being hit (an electric car which I never heard coming).

[Kotowboy]

The ones I don't understand are the ones who slam on the brakes very 300metres or so when going downhill - no matter how steep or not.

And they drive half the speed limit at all times.

I often wonder why they even bother driving if they're *that* terrified.

Never going above 30 when the speed limit is 60 is just ridiculous.

[pg1067]

I love when you're just walking along the pavement (sidewark) and someone just barrels out of a shop without looking and almost ploughs into you.

Then they glare at you like it's your fault 

It's shocking how many people do this. Or just stand in the doorway of a shop on their phones. Or stand in the aisle of a supermarket with their trolley at arms length etc etc.

It does seem to be the older generation. When you get older - do you just lose the part of your brain that handles spatial awareness ? 

In shopping centers...folks walk out of the store and start to walk into the "street" running in front of the store...without looking.  This happens more often than it should, but not a LOT.  The other two things you mentioned are, sadly ubiquitous.  And I see it among all ages -- particularly the walking into traffic thing, which seems mostly to be about having one's head buried in one's phone.

All of these boil down to the "I am the most important thing in the world" mindset.

We seem now to be veering from "pissed off" into "mildly irritating" territory.

[Kotowboy]

Yes I saw Jay's posts about crossings and it reminded me of stuff

Nothing has really pissed me off today - but it's Sunday so i'm bored out of my mind.

[wolfking]

Yes I saw Jay's posts about crossings and it reminded me of stuff

Nothing has really pissed me off today - but it's Sunday so i'm bored out of my mind.

Doesn't being bored out of your mind piss you off?

[pg1067]

Yes I saw Jay's posts about crossings and it reminded me of stuff

Nothing has really pissed me off today - but it's Sunday so i'm bored out of my mind.

Doesn't being bored out of your mind piss you off?

It's mildly irritating.

[JayOctavarium]

Yahoo's spam filters.


So I've used yahoo for my email since 2004. I have 3 main accounts (for reasons). I've had a Gmail account for like ever, but never use it much for actually email.

Recently, well sometime last year, I made a new Gmail account, and had all of my Yahoo shit forwarded. Gmail's UI has gotten much better over the years, and their spam filters are on point. I've changed info on a lot of things to reflect the new email, but there are also a lot of things that I can't change it on or I just don't want to spend time dealing with it.

Well, yahoo decided that it wants a dollar per month per account to allow me to forward my email. $36 a year doesn't sound like much, but if it weren't for their shitty UI and Spam filters, I wouldn't need my shit forwarded.

[King Postwhore]

Leaving work early to get home for the electrician only to find out when you get home he's not coming because his son has covid.  Do you think you could have given me a heads up before I got up early to get my production to work then drive all the way home to find out in my driveway?!

[jingle.boy]

Main fridge we inherited from previous owners (which is only 5 years old) died yesterday.     Fortunately, with four adults in the house, we have always had a 2nd full-sized fridge in the basement, and also had 2 bar-fridges they kids each had when away at university.  So, we're at least not screwed that way - only screwed with the $1,500 price tag of ordering a new one, and having to do it site-unseen, and now waiting 2-10 business days.

[Dream Team]

In case no one has mentioned this . . .

I can’t begin to express how much I hate the “not guilty” plea option when there are dozens of witnesses and clear full-color video of someone DOING EXACTLY what they’re accused of but getting to plead not guilty anyway thereby wasting A TON of everyone’s time and money. Eff that noise. If there is clear video evidence available right off the bat the case should go immediately to sentencing or at least trial.

I realize plea options were created before the advent of video - what the hell’s wrong with rewriting some laws based on available tech?

I know the usual suspects will chime in defending scumbag criminals, but I really am interested in balanced viewpoints on this matter. Every SINGLE time I hear about some lowlife being caught in some heinous act, it’s followed by “not guilty”. Every. Friggin. Time.

Oh yeah - and everyone has to say “alleged” even with clear video evidence. 

[TAC]

It's funny but I was thinking about this very thing the other day.

[Dublagent66]

If there is clear video evidence available right off the bat the case should go immediately to sentencing or at least trial.

Well, immediate sentencing only happens if they plead guilty.  A plea of not guilty means it goes to trial.  So, I'm kinda confused by your statement.

[cramx3]

If there is clear video evidence available right off the bat the case should go immediately to sentencing or at least trial.

Well, immediate sentencing only happens if they plead guilty.  A plea of not guilty means it goes to trial.  So, I'm kinda confused by your statement.

I'm not sure I understand either.  And also, sometimes what seems to be clear evidence sometimes is not once it gets scrutinized in trial. 

However, there are certain things that make little sense like the Boston Marathon bomber for example.  There's no doubt the guy did what he did, but everyone does deserve their day in court.  Sometimes we sacrifice stupid things in the sake of having our freedoms in place.

[TAC]

If there is clear video evidence available right off the bat the case should go immediately to sentencing or at least trial.

Well, immediate sentencing only happens if they plead guilty.  A plea of not guilty means it goes to trial.  So, I'm kinda confused by your statement.

I'm not sure I understand either.  And also, sometimes what seems to be clear evidence sometimes is not once it gets scrutinized in trial. 

However, there are certain things that make little sense like the Boston Marathon bomber for example.  There's no doubt the guy did what he did, but everyone does deserve their day in court.  Sometimes we sacrifice stupid things in the sake of having our freedoms in place.

[pg1067]

If there is clear video evidence available right off the bat the case should go immediately to sentencing or at least trial.

Well, immediate sentencing only happens if they plead guilty.  A plea of not guilty means it goes to trial.  So, I'm kinda confused by your statement.

I say the following without knowing if the original post on this topic was motivated by a particular event (which I obviously know nothing about):

This is a potentially MASSIVE can of worms, and it really boils down to this:  Who gets to decide when the evidence is such that we should dispense with a trial?

ALSO, just because a particular act has been committed doesn't mean the person who committed the act is guilty of a particular crime.  Most crimes have two components:  the act (actus reus) and the criminal state of mind (mens rea).  ADDITIONALLY, even if both the act and the state of mind exist, there may be defenses.  Dispensing with the process just because there is "clear full-color video of someone DOING EXACTLY what they’re accused of" does away with the potential defenses.

These are some of the most fundamental of our constitutional protections, and advocating that we do away with the criminal process is tantamount to advocating that we tear up the Constitution.

[Stadler]

If there is clear video evidence available right off the bat the case should go immediately to sentencing or at least trial.

Well, immediate sentencing only happens if they plead guilty.  A plea of not guilty means it goes to trial.  So, I'm kinda confused by your statement.

I say the following without knowing if the original post on this topic was motivated by a particular event (which I obviously know nothing about):

This is a potentially MASSIVE can of worms, and it really boils down to this:  Who gets to decide when the evidence is such that we should dispense with a trial?

ALSO, just because a particular act has been committed doesn't mean the person who committed the act is guilty of a particular crime.  Most crimes have two components:  the act (actus reus) and the criminal state of mind (mens rea).  ADDITIONALLY, even if both the act and the state of mind exist, there may be defenses.  Dispensing with the process just because there is "clear full-color video of someone DOING EXACTLY what they’re accused of" does away with the potential defenses.

These are some of the most fundamental of our constitutional protections, and advocating that we do away with the criminal process is tantamount to advocating that we tear up the Constitution.

100% agreement with all of this.  This is a FUNDAMENTAL aspect of our jurisprudence system.   The premise is now and always has been "it's better than 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned", and while that sounds naive in the context of the social justice discussions of 2021, this is how we do that. 

[PetFish]

I can’t begin to express how much I hate the “not guilty” plea option when there are dozens of witnesses and clear full-color video of someone DOING EXACTLY what they’re accused of but getting to plead not guilty anyway thereby wasting A TON of everyone’s time and money. Eff that noise. If there is clear video evidence available right off the bat the case should go immediately to sentencing or at least trial.

Totally.  I've even seen recently that a judge can throw out police bodycam footage for some reason.  So what's the point of having bodycams if the evidence they contain can be ignored?

Oh yeah - and everyone has to say “alleged” even with clear video evidence. 

OH MY GOD I RAGE AT THIS EVERY DAMN DAY

I get it.  It's "alleged" that "Individual 1" did something but it hasn't been proven in court yet.  But I constantly see on the news where there's video of an assault, from a phone or a security cam or both or whatever, and they always say, after showing the video, that "the alleged assault happened here and on blah blah blah"... IT'S NOT AN ALLEGED ASSAULT, IT'S A DAMN ASSAULT.  The only "alleged" thing would be if they said "so-and-so who is ALLEGEDLY responsible for the assault was taken into custody and blah blah blah".

[Stadler]

I can’t begin to express how much I hate the “not guilty” plea option when there are dozens of witnesses and clear full-color video of someone DOING EXACTLY what they’re accused of but getting to plead not guilty anyway thereby wasting A TON of everyone’s time and money. Eff that noise. If there is clear video evidence available right off the bat the case should go immediately to sentencing or at least trial.

Totally.  I've even seen recently that a judge can throw out police bodycam footage for some reason.  So what's the point of having bodycams if the evidence they contain can be ignored?

I would suggest not looking at this as a binary, "yes/no" issue.  ANYTHING can be excluded if the veracity isn't confirmed, if the chain of custody isn't confirmed, if the evidence is overly prejudicial (not likely in terms of body cam) or any of the other rules of evidence that are WELL established, and well-known to judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike.

It's like the Zapruder film; it's crystal clear, right?   26.6 seconds of history.  But what about that time before the film started?  There's a theory that there was a shot BEFORE the film, that hit one of the light stantions, and skidded off, but still impacting the analysis of EVERYTHING that came after.

Oh yeah - and everyone has to say “alleged” even with clear video evidence. 

OH MY GOD I RAGE AT THIS EVERY DAMN DAY

I get it.  It's "alleged" that "Individual 1" did something but it hasn't been proven in court yet.  But I constantly see on the news where there's video of an assault, from a phone or a security cam or both or whatever, and they always say, after showing the video, that "the alleged assault happened here and on blah blah blah"... IT'S NOT AN ALLEGED ASSAULT, IT'S A DAMN ASSAULT.  The only "alleged" thing would be if they said "so-and-so who is ALLEGEDLY responsible for the assault was taken into custody and blah blah blah".

That's grammar though; maybe the ASSAULT happened, but the culpability of the person doing it is still an allegation.

Funny story on that:   there was an incident in Georgia where the police chased - low speed; at one point the car had no tires so you can imagine that they weren't moving that fast - a guy they KNEW to be armed and intoxicated from his house in a suburb north of Atlanta down into the city via the interstate.  They finally got the guy pulled over and my brother and another officer were the first to the vehicle.   The guy was pulled out, and fell down with his hands under him and down by his groinal area.   My brother was calling for him to put his hands out to the side, and the guy wouldn't.   So my brother was punching his arm (we called them monkey bumps when I was in grade school; you hit the arm in the forearm near the elbow and it makes your hand open and you get this little temporary bump in that area.   I'm watching all this on the nightly news and they go to the newscaster and they show the helicopter footage of my brother hitting the arm of the suspect and the lead was "we have footage of the officer assaulting the alleged perpetrator".    My brother went through the entire process of review and was not only cleared of any wrong-doing but received a commendation for his handling of a sticky matter.   The "perp" was found guilty of driving while intoxicated and several weapons charges (he DID have a gun with him).

I wrote a letter to the news station.

[Ben_Jamin]

I can’t begin to express how much I hate the “not guilty” plea option when there are dozens of witnesses and clear full-color video of someone DOING EXACTLY what they’re accused of but getting to plead not guilty anyway thereby wasting A TON of everyone’s time and money. Eff that noise. If there is clear video evidence available right off the bat the case should go immediately to sentencing or at least trial.

Totally.  I've even seen recently that a judge can throw out police bodycam footage for some reason.  So what's the point of having bodycams if the evidence they contain can be ignored?

Oh yeah - and everyone has to say “alleged” even with clear video evidence. 

OH MY GOD I RAGE AT THIS EVERY DAMN DAY

I get it.  It's "alleged" that "Individual 1" did something but it hasn't been proven in court yet.  But I constantly see on the news where there's video of an assault, from a phone or a security cam or both or whatever, and they always say, after showing the video, that "the alleged assault happened here and on blah blah blah"... IT'S NOT AN ALLEGED ASSAULT, IT'S A DAMN ASSAULT.  The only "alleged" thing would be if they said "so-and-so who is ALLEGEDLY responsible for the assault was taken into custody and blah blah blah".

They're having to say it because people will accuse them of spreading false information as that person is not guilty until proven guilty.

Until a person is proven guilty, what they did is alleged. Unless, they admit to doing it then the verdict is by own admission guilty and they will get a hearing on what type of punishment that person is justified in receiving. Is that how it works?...

Or you may end up with what Stads mentions. The media accusing the officer of assault without saying...Alleged assault, as if he is guilty already of assault. Without knowing what the entire process entails for these allegations.

[PetFish]

They're having to say it because people will accuse them of spreading false information as that person is not guilty until proven guilty.

It's the classic "it's not what you say, but how you say it" for me.

eg. The assault DID HAPPEN, it didn't "allegedly" happen.  We see it right there on video.  But they've apprehended the ALLEGED assaulter.  The actual act of assault isn't debatable, but the person(s) who did the assault are ALLEGED to have done it and until they go through the case they'll continue to have allegedly done it.

[Dream Team]

It's one of the realities of living under a system where the defense of criminals has gotten disproportionately way stronger than it needs to be compared to justice for victims. Lowlifes should be VERY grateful they live under such a criminal-friendly system.

[Ben_Jamin]

It's one of the realities of living under a system where the defense of criminals has gotten disproportionately way stronger than it needs to be compared to justice for victims. Lowlifes should be VERY grateful they live under such a criminal-friendly system.

It's not just that. Theres more that plays into how these decisions are made in court. The prosecutor is there to prove the alleged criminal did in fact do what he did to be labeled a criminal by others. They gather evidence, and this would be the video and the witnesses.

The defense is there to prove his defendants innocence and that he was not the one who did what they say he did to be labelled and assumed a criminal.


This relates back to the Salem Witch Trials, where they used justice under the justification of religion to condemn and criminalize people by labeling them witches.



What happens when the prosecutor is inept and can't prove the person is guilty. And what happens when the defense is inept they can't prove their defendant is innocent.

Sadly, the defendants are offered only Lionel Hutz, as they can't afford to pay a good lawyer that can meddle their way by utilizing laws and regulations to prove their defendant is innocent. This leads to imprisonment of innocent people and also, to other less fortunate people whom would have gotten off if they were to have afforded a good lawyer.

This system relies on people and how they can convince people. And it also, doesn't take much for people to assume guilt and place the blame before actually looking at the evidence with an unbiased mind.

[Cool Chris]

Just to clarify Ben, the defense doesn't have to *prove the defendent is innocent."

[pg1067]

The defense is there to prove his defendants innocence and that he was not the one who did what they say he did to be labelled and assumed a criminal.

That is NOT the defense attorney's job (at least not in every case), and I think you have to draw a line between MOST cases and high profile cases.  MOST cases are handled by public defenders and don't make headlines.

The primary job of a criminal defense attorney is to ensure that defendant receives a fair trial that meets minimum constitutional standards.  The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  The defense does not have to -- and, in most cases, does not try to -- prove anything.  Criminal defense attorneys do not, for the most part, ask the defendant, "did you do it?"  What they do seek to do is try and poke holes in the prosecution's case.  For example, was the witness in a good place to observe what she claims to have seen?  The only time I sat on a jury was a criminal case for simple possession of crack.  The defendant did not testify, and the public defender offered no witnesses.  She did, however, cross-examine the heck out of the arresting officers, and this led some on the jury to have doubt about whether the officers had planted the drugs on the defendant.  We eventually convicted the guy, but it took a lot more deliberation than I expected when we began, and that's because the public defender did a good job.

Of course, if the defendant is claiming, for example, entrapment, then he/she will have the burden of proving that.  But that stuff doesn't happen all that often (and, as with a lot of legal issues, the general public doesn't have a good grasp as to what entrapment actually is).

the defense of criminals has gotten disproportionately way stronger than it needs to be compared to justice for victims.

I don't agree with that at all.  Most criminal defendants plea bargain (which entails an admission to the crime), and most defendants who to go trial are represented by public defenders.  By and large, PDs are good at their jobs, but they are almost universally underpaid and overworked.

[Ben_Jamin]

The defense is there to prove his defendants innocence and that he was not the one who did what they say he did to be labelled and assumed a criminal.

That is NOT the defense attorney's job (at least not in every case), and I think you have to draw a line between MOST cases and high profile cases.  MOST cases are handled by public defenders and don't make headlines.

The primary job of a criminal defense attorney is to ensure that defendant receives a fair trial that meets minimum constitutional standards.  The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  The defense does not have to -- and, in most cases, does not try to -- prove anything.  Criminal defense attorneys do not, for the most part, ask the defendant, "did you do it?"  What they do seek to do is try and poke holes in the prosecution's case.  For example, was the witness in a good place to observe what she claims to have seen?  The only time I sat on a jury was a criminal case for simple possession of crack.  The defendant did not testify, and the public defender offered no witnesses.  She did, however, cross-examine the heck out of the arresting officers, and this led some on the jury to have doubt about whether the officers had planted the drugs on the defendant.  We eventually convicted the guy, but it took a lot more deliberation than I expected when we began, and that's because the public defender did a good job.

Of course, if the defendant is claiming, for example, entrapment, then he/she will have the burden of proving that.  But that stuff doesn't happen all that often (and, as with a lot of legal issues, the general public doesn't have a good grasp as to what entrapment actually is).

the defense of criminals has gotten disproportionately way stronger than it needs to be compared to justice for victims.

I don't agree with that at all.  Most criminal defendants plea bargain (which entails an admission to the crime), and most defendants who to go trial are represented by public defenders.  By and large, PDs are good at their jobs, but they are almost universally underpaid and overworked.

You know a public defender told my brother...."You're gonna make me work?" Because my brother told him that the cops that arrested him did not have jurisdiction and they did not call the Tribal Police, which is what the cops should have done.

He still got off because the cops never showed up. But it shows how little a public defender will do for someone, because of the reason for not being paid enough for how much they actually work.

It's almost as if that public defender was showing they're underpaid by pretty much stating...Why do the work when I'm not getting paid for it?...

[Stadler]

It's one of the realities of living under a system where the defense of criminals has gotten disproportionately way stronger than it needs to be compared to justice for victims. Lowlifes should be VERY grateful they live under such a criminal-friendly system.

How do you come to that conclusion?   It's arguable that exactly the opposite is the case, given the advances in technology.

You're just seeing the sausage-making more with the advent of televised court cases, the manufactured rage of activists, the victim-culture we live in, and what not.

I was on a jury trial as well, and mine went VERY similarly to the one PG relates.   Granted the defendant had a well-known (around here) defense attorney - Norm Pattis, he's worth looking up; quite the character - but still.

[Dublagent66]

Power went out for the 3rd time in a week.  No storms or anything like that.  Fucking modern infrastructure.  JUNK!!

[cramx3]

Power went out for the 3rd time in a week.  No storms or anything like that.  Fucking modern infrastructure.  JUNK!!

One reason why I support an infrastructure plan.  We badly need it.  Our power grid (ours being generally in the US) is complete shit from my understanding. 

[Dublagent66]

Power went out for the 3rd time in a week.  No storms or anything like that.  Fucking modern infrastructure.  JUNK!!

One reason why I support an infrastructure plan.  We badly need it.  Our power grid (ours being generally in the US) is complete shit from my understanding.

Yeah, I was pissed.  Called the power company and gave them an earful.  3 times in a week?  Really?  Never happened to me before in the history of paying utility bills.  There's really no legitimate reason for it.

[Ben_Jamin]

Power went out for the 3rd time in a week.  No storms or anything like that.  Fucking modern infrastructure.  JUNK!!

One reason why I support an infrastructure plan.  We badly need it.  Our power grid (ours being generally in the US) is complete shit from my understanding.

Before a big CME event comes and fries the entire grid.

Because our atmosphere absorbs most of these dangerous rays, terrestrial systems are fairly safe from solar flares. But another solar event called a coronal mass ejection (CME) can cause serious problems for electrical systems here on Earth. During a CME, the fluctuations of the sun's magnetic fields cause a large portion of the surface of the sun to expand rapidly, ejecting billions of tons of particles out into space. Sometimes CMEs accompany solar flares -- but not all solar flares produce CMEs and not all CMEs accompany solar flares.

Unlike a solar flare, a CME doesn't produce intense light. But it does produce a magnetic shockwave that extends billions of miles out into space. If Earth is in the path of that shockwave, our planet's magnetic field will react to the event. It's similar to what happens if you put a weak magnet next to a strong one. The weak magnet's field will align itself to the strong magnet's field. A magnetic shockwave from the sun could cause the alignment of the Earth's magnetic field to shift unpredictably.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-flare-electronics.htm

[Harmony]

Out of curiosity - and because I'm trying to convince my husband we should get one - who here has a generator?

If you do have it, do you use it much?

I don't really know much about them so I watched a YouTube video on them and I was surprised at how complicated they were.  FTR, I'm not mechanically inclined.  But it seems like there is a lot of ways to screw up with them.

[jingle.boy]

I have one - not a portable one though. Fixed, and hardwired into the electrical panel, runs in natural gas. Only had it kick on a couple of times. We have it for the septic system, and sump pumps.  Wintertime we’ve had a few outages of multiple hours, once overnight.

[TAC]

We have a portable one that does the trick if needed. We've talked about wiring one into the house. My wife would like to get a fixed one.

[Stadler]

My new house (closed June 30) is wired for a portable one, and I will probably purchase a portable one to connect to it.  Where I am, if I lose power it could be for days at a time, and I have a well pump and heat to accommodate.   My challenge is sizing it; the guy before had a 6500 and said it was "fine", but my math - and my father-in-law's math, who's a licensed electrician - isn't adding up.

[cramx3]

What pissed me off, not today, but last night was getting into a twitter argument with Wolfie Van Halen.  The guy seems to love calling out all the people who make nasty comments about him on social media.  It's kind of weird if you ask me.  I asked why he does it and he got super defensive.  You can read through it here https://twitter.com/Cramx3/status/1425217643418554372 kind of makes me not like him, at all, as a person.  Which sucks because I thought he was pretty good live and I want to see him overcome the hate he gets for being the son of Eddie.  I don't think he deserves the hate, but at the same time, I don't think responding to hate with hate is a good look either.  I guess I should have kept my mouth shut, but man his attitude is such a turn off from liking him.  Almost makes me want to be a hater towards him, but I'm not that kind of guy so I'll just not engage him at all ever again. (although I have a ticket to see him in September at a festival)