No it’s not stiff. Had he not tried to steal her purse, she would have lived. Because he did, she died — doesn’t matter if from a fall or shot in the face — dead is dead and he was the sole cause.

Porktown

EMitch
I think that's where the felon was not the actual murderer or killed in the commission of another crime), saying that if said felon did not actually intend to take a life, then the Commonwealth should not take his by incarceration for life.

That is what it is. Like most things, I think the other details are what matters. There was an example of someone spending life without parole for stealing a purse. The 84 year old victim in poor health, died from injuries from falling in the process. No doubt the guy is scum for stealing from an old lady. But life in prison is stiff.

This is not a good example to illustrate the real problem.

The individual does not even have to be directly involved in taking another person’s life. They only have to an accessory to a crime where a life was taken to be sentenced to life in prison under this statute.



From the link I posted:

“More than 1,000 people are sitting in jail right now on what amounts to a death sentence despite never having taken a life,” Fetterman said. “That’s not because a judge thought the sentence was deserved. It’s because a one-size-fits-all law makes it mandatory. Any reasonable person who looks at the unfairness of these sentences will acknowledge the need for change.”

DarDys
No it’s not stiff. Had he not tried to steal her purse, she would have lived. Because he did, she died — doesn’t matter if from a fall or shot in the face — dead is dead and he was the sole cause.

2 guys decide to rob a convenience store. Guy #1 is gonna be the lookout, Guy #2 is gonna go in the store and hold it up. Guy #2 tells #1 he is going to pass a note and pretend to have a gun, but instead he decides to secretly bring a real gun and because he doesn’t know how to properly handle a firearm he accidentally shoots and kills the clerk. Guy #1 goes to jail for the rest of his life just for standing outside convenience store and having no knowledge an actual weapon was going to be used in the crime.

That’s how this stature works, and there are people in jail in PA under circumstances similar to what I described above. Is that justice?

MyWar

DarDys
No it’s not stiff. Had he not tried to steal her purse, she would have lived. Because he did, she died — doesn’t matter if from a fall or shot in the face — dead is dead and he was the sole cause.

2 guys decide to rob a convenience store. Guy #1 is gonna be the lookout, Guy #2 is gonna go in the store and hold it up. Guy #2 tells #1 he is going to pass a note and pretend to have a gun, but instead he decides to secretly bring a real gun and because he doesn’t know how to properly handle a firearm he accidentally shoots and kills the clerk. Guy #1 goes to jail for the rest of his life just for standing outside convenience store and having no knowledge an actual weapon was going to be used in the crime.

That’s how this stature works, and there are people in jail in PA under circumstances similar to what I described above. Is that justice?

No it’s a hypothetical. Deal in the real world, not the one in your mind.

DarDys

MyWar

DarDys
No it’s not stiff. Had he not tried to steal her purse, she would have lived. Because he did, she died — doesn’t matter if from a fall or shot in the face — dead is dead and he was the sole cause.

2 guys decide to rob a convenience store. Guy #1 is gonna be the lookout, Guy #2 is gonna go in the store and hold it up. Guy #2 tells #1 he is going to pass a note and pretend to have a gun, but instead he decides to secretly bring a real gun and because he doesn’t know how to properly handle a firearm he accidentally shoots and kills the clerk. Guy #1 goes to jail for the rest of his life just for standing outside convenience store and having no knowledge an actual weapon was going to be used in the crime.

That’s how this stature works, and there are people in jail in PA under circumstances similar to what I described above. Is that justice?

No it’s a hypothetical. Deal in the real world, not the one in your mind.

It’s not a hypothetical. It’s how the law is written.

Go ahead and read the assessment of the statute, written by lawyers. It clearly explains that this is how the law in this state works.

https://www.plsephilly.or...-Audit-Jan-19-2021.pdf

DarDys

Okay, I’ll make all y’all a deal. I’ll answer your hypothetical with a hypothetical if you then answer my hypothetical.

If the person sitting in jail for whatever period of time has been in school if they were of that age; at work if they were of that age; at home taking care or being with their family; or basically anywhere on earth other than committing or being an accomplice to a felony crime, let alone a planned, premeditated felony crime would the person still be dead because the accomplice found another to take their place; would the accomplice backed out without them; or would they not be in jail for being nowhere near where a felony was occurring?

Now here is my hypothetical. Full disclosure — couldn’t stand Oz when he was on Oprah. Couldn’t stand Oz when he had his own show (only ran into either when visiting my M-I-L). Can’t stand him as a candidate — did vote for him.

But back to the hypothetical. In Fetterman’s commercials he claims to have become a public servant (not using his Master’s from Harvard — so much for being an “every man” — to find gainful employment and living off his parents until into his 50’s because they are that wealthy from the insurance business) in order to fight for public safety for about a decade, then why in his commercial does he state that “Oz wouldn’t last two hours in Braddock?”

Is it because he did a lousy job with public safety or is this a threat that his followers would do harm to another candidate — hypothetically speaking?

It’s almost as if you are just trying to avoid directly discussing the actual issue.

DarDys

DeadGator401

Porktown

EMitch
I think that's where the felon was not the actual murderer or killed in the commission of another crime), saying that if said felon did not actually intend to take a life, then the Commonwealth should not take his by incarceration for life.

That is what it is. Like most things, I think the other details are what matters. There was an example of someone spending life without parole for stealing a purse. The 84 year old victim in poor health, died from injuries from falling in the process. No doubt the guy is scum for stealing from an old lady. But life in prison is stiff.

DarDys
No it’s not stiff. Had he not tried to steal her purse, she would have lived. Because he did, she died — doesn’t matter if from a fall or shot in the face — dead is dead and he was the sole cause.

Things aren't always that Black and White. 

DarDys

MyWar

DarDys
No it’s not stiff. Had he not tried to steal her purse, she would have lived. Because he did, she died — doesn’t matter if from a fall or shot in the face — dead is dead and he was the sole cause.

2 guys decide to rob a convenience store. Guy #1 is gonna be the lookout, Guy #2 is gonna go in the store and hold it up. Guy #2 tells #1 he is going to pass a note and pretend to have a gun, but instead he decides to secretly bring a real gun and because he doesn’t know how to properly handle a firearm he accidentally shoots and kills the clerk. Guy #1 goes to jail for the rest of his life just for standing outside convenience store and having no knowledge an actual weapon was going to be used in the crime.

That’s how this stature works, and there are people in jail in PA under circumstances similar to what I described above. Is that justice?

No it’s a hypothetical. Deal in the real world, not the one in your mind.

Cmon. 

Okay, I’ll make all y’all a deal. I’ll answer your hypothetical with a hypothetical if you then answer my hypothetical.

If the person sitting in jail for whatever period of time has been in school if they were of that age; at work if they were of that age; at home taking care or being with their family; or basically anywhere on earth other than committing or being an accomplice to a felony crime, let alone a planned, premeditated felony crime would the person still be dead because the accomplice found another to take their place; would the accomplice backed out without them; or would they not be in jail for being nowhere near where a felony was occurring?

Now here is my hypothetical. Full disclosure — couldn’t stand Oz when he was on Oprah. Couldn’t stand Oz when he had his own show (only ran into either when visiting my M-I-L). Can’t stand him as a candidate — did vote for him.

But back to the hypothetical. In Fetterman’s commercials he claims to have become a public servant (not using his Master’s from Harvard — so much for being an “every man” — to find gainful employment and living off his parents until into his 50’s because they are that wealthy from the insurance business) in order to fight for public safety for about a decade, then why in his commercial does he state that “Oz wouldn’t last two hours in Braddock?”

Is it because he did a lousy job with public safety or is this a threat that his followers would do harm to another candidate — hypothetically speaking?

I'm gonna be honest here I kinda lost ya. 

But I'll do my best to answer. I don't think it's a threat or anything that has to do with public safety?

Braddock is a blue collar place, like Pittsburgh in general. OZ is a rich celebrity from Hollywood. Saying he "Wouldn't last 2 hours here" is essentially saying "This ain't the kinda place for you." Which it isn't. Fetterman wouldn't last an hour in Hollywood either.

My "Cmon" was more towards the point how your comment seemed. MYwar gave a legit hypothetical that was relevant to the topic. You dismissed it in a weird way, that seemed more like a dig at him, than his point. 

BloodyHand
Here's a thought. Hypothetically speaking of course. If anyone involved in an armed robbery, gets to go to jail for life. Even if no one was murdered. 
Maybe guy #1 should have realized how much of a POS guy #2 really is........
 
BH

Yeah. While we're at it, anyone who drives in a car with a Drunk Driver - Lifetime sentence. 
Those 4 year olds shoulda taken mums keys.....

DG

DeadGator401

BloodyHand
Here's a thought. Hypothetically speaking of course. If anyone involved in an armed robbery, gets to go to jail for life. Even if no one was murdered. 
Maybe guy #1 should have realized how much of a POS guy #2 really is........
 
BH

Yeah. While we're at it, anyone who drives in a car with a Drunk Driver - Lifetime sentence. 
Those 4 year olds shoulda taken mums keys.....

DG

And right here is why there cannot be a rationale discussion on this forum — when presented with a debatable point, someone takes it to the ridiculous because they cannot provide a valid counterpoint and instead of conceding, they end the conversation by providing something that is worth anyone countering because it is so far from reality (hypothetical?).

There is a vast difference between a 4-year-old involuntary being strapped in a car seat and a 12-year old plus (just going that low because it happens even though, unless they did the actual killing, it’s juvvy for them) or realistically an 18-year old plus knowingly and willingly participating in a felony and something happens where someone ends up killed.

But because there is no logical, valid rebuttal, the response is something totally off the charts just to keep from admitting someone else has a point to be considered.

Until the climate changes to not needing to win every debate; be on the exact opposite side of every issue just to be in the opposite side; and common sense can be admitted, not mocked, this country will continue for evermore to be ping pong balled as parties switch power. And that’s too bad.

DarDys


But because there is no logical, valid rebuttal, the response is something totally off the charts just to keep from admitting someone else has a point to be considered.

Until the climate changes to not needing to win every debate; be on the exact opposite side of every issue just to be in the opposite side; and common sense can be admitted, not mocked, this country will continue for evermore to be ping pong balled as parties switch power. And that’s too bad.

Sure dude. You’re the voice of reason. You’re the voice of sanity.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say it’s safe to assume you support this guy too:

https://www.nbcnews.com/p...01?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

So you’ll have to excuse me when I find it extremely difficult to take your pleas for “common sense” seriously when these are the kind of nutjobs that republican voters are selecting to represent them in our government.

Just trying to curb the criminals. Stiffer sentencing guidelines obviously isnt the answerer. Oh, I forgot, they're the victims. Oh, and lets get some bail reform in our state. We need to let these criminals right back out on the street with cashless bail right after they commit a crime.
 
BH

https://www.hagerty.com/media/news/packard-plant-demolition-begins-today/

Read down a few paragraphs and see where the funding is coming from.

Can someone please explain the direct correlation between the action and the funding source?

DarDys
https://www.hagerty.com/m...molition-begins-today/

Read down a few paragraphs and see where the funding is coming from.

Can someone please explain the direct correlation between the action and the funding source?

Most likely the City and possibly other overlapping jurisdictions dedicated a portion of their American Recovery Act funding to the demo project.  This would have been an eligible activity under several different federal programs.  That might include the Community Development Block Grant  program, brownfield redevelopment, Michigan iterations of those programs or even IRS tax credits. $1.7 million is a rounding error in relation to the amount of federal funding this area receives on a yearly basis.  The Packard plant is essentially an absentee landlord issue on a grand scale.  Landlord/developer purchases the property with a vision for redevelopment, using OPM, which overly appreciative locals fall for.  Despite generally favorable economic conditions (for Detroit), he fails to deliver on anything and property falls further into disrepair...if that's even possible.  Tax/municipal liens pile up...it goes to court, think public taking...eminent domain, and city steps in to begin promised clean-up.  The Recovery Act funding was a handy source.  Municipal authorities will end up owning this property again.
 
If your question is really closer to "what does demolition have to do with Covid relief?" the answer is simple.  Recovery/stimulus Acts use existing pathways and agencies to deliver federal funds.  The legislation language prescribes what's an eligible activity.  Congresspersons are pressured to write that language (which is actually written by 26-year old interns) as broadly as possible to facilitate good opportunities for ribbon cuttings and speachifying at campaign time.
 
 

Dark Brandon has begun the transition into Dank Brandon.