General discussion


Can you buy a judge?

By jdclyde ·
In Michigan it has that appearance.

Wayne Circuit Court Judge Susan D. Borman is the judge that is ruling over the case concerning the striking teachers in Detroit.

There is clear law stating that it is illegal for the public school teachers to go on strike, yet Judge Borman has again delayed ordering the teachers to return to work.

Guess where a lot of the funding came from that got this judge elected to her post? You got it, unions, and specifically, DFT, the Detroit Federation of Teachers. Conflict of interests here anybody?

This judge is there to uphold the laws or strike them down, not ignore them as she chooses because it helps her politically.

Bought justice? You decide.

Oh, if you want to try to distract from the facts of the case by crying about how unfair it is that the poor teachers can't strike, then THAT law should be challenged and struck down if it is a violation of the teachers rights. No where is there room for ignoring laws when it is convenent. I hope she is brought up for review for her clear conflict and resulting handling of the case.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

48 total posts (Page 3 of 5)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I would do

by maecuff In reply to any and all

anything to protect my family. I stepped between two men fighting with each other in a parking lot because they were scaring my kid (this was years ago, when my older son was around 6 years old). I read them the riot act, told them to grow up and act like adults. Fortunately, they stopped. Looking back, I'm lucky I didn't get the snot pounded out of me. In situations like that, I react before I think. This drives my husband insane. He's absolutely sure I'm going to get him into a fight one day because I can't seem to keep my opinion to myself in some cases.

Collapse -

I think I pretty much summed it up

by jdclyde In reply to I would do

in the reply to your other post. I don't doubt for a minute anyone that was a threat to your family would regret it.

Collapse -

If only that were true

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to any and all

In the UK, it's most definitely not.

Called reasonable force over here. Very ambiguous definition. The gooders have been having a field day for a while.

You see, you knew it was wrong, your 'victim' is a poor misunderstood person who was subjected to too much violence on tv.

Got to work on my liberal outlook, I must be confusing the people who've pigeon holed me.

Collapse -

poor you

by jdclyde In reply to If only that were true

There used to be a standard that you had to try to retreat first (even in your home) and then had to pretty much already have that gun pressed against your temple before you could retaliate.

Recently in Michigan and many other states they fixed this. It is finally understood that you have a RIGHT to be safe and secure. Anyone is breaking into your home, this is a threat and can be dealt with.

Of course most homes this doesn't make a lot of difference to as the majority of households do NOT have loaded weapons just laying around for home defense. (no matter what you have heard) I recognise there is a higher chance that my boys of a friend could find and play with said weapon and shoot each other, than that someone would break in WHILE I am home AND I will be closer to that weapon than they are. They are all under lock and key.

I DO have several compound bows laying around the house though, as well as an old golf club in just about every room. It would not be a good idea to come in a window or my puppy will chew on your fingers! aw man. bad dog! Sitting here in the front room with my laptop and she started farting. BAD DOG! :0

Collapse -

That's probably the major difference

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to poor you

In the UK you can't assume that your assailant is carrying a weapon and therefore that the threat they pose is extreme and warrants a similar response from your self.

Once they shoot you or stab though, you are allowed to use more force.
If you are still capable of course.
You may not go down for it, but you will end up with a conviction and a record in most cases.

Got to be careful with the dog as well, it's classed as a weapon that they can execute.

Collapse -

They are finally fixing that too here

by jdclyde In reply to That's probably the major ...

It used to be someone could break into your home, get bit by the dog, and after they sue you, you have to have your dog "put down". What stupidassclown could ever come up with such a stupid idea?

The criminals are finally not walking in with more rights then the civilians.

Of course, of that person has your TV and is running away, they are no longer a threat and force can not be used to stop them. got to catching them coming in, and then just the fact they broke into your home is enough of a threat that you can defend yourself and your home as you see fit. One iron upside the head anyone?

I hope someday crimials in your area will lose the RIGHT to do as they please with your home and your posessions.

Collapse -

Oh that's not a right, more of a

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to That's probably the major ...


We have that law for dogs, you have to put a beware of the dog sign up to warn burglars otherwise your 100 lb german shepherd with a bark that gets you into trouble with the local noise abatement society is a concealed weapon!

My dog doesn't do concealed, not even when he savaged my lawn mower and sweeping bush.

Collapse -

Price = Principle ?

by onbliss In reply to Of course a judge can be ...

Once I was asked, what would be my price for eating meat as I am a lacto-ovo-vegetarian. At the moment, thinking I was some great guy standing behind his principle at any cost, I answered I would eat meat only to ward off any physical harm to my family members.

Later I realized that I could set a high dollar amount as the price, and use the dollars for my pet causes or charity. Would'nt that be smarter? But would I be sacrificing one set of principles for another set of principles or priorties.

It was personally revealing to me that price was'nt just monetary, it could be principles, interests or priorities.

Collapse -

That's admirable

by maecuff In reply to Price = Principle ?

personally, I'd sell out just so I wouldn't have to work anymore.

Collapse -

That's what you think....

by onbliss In reply to That's admirable

...but when that moment comes, it is tough to predict now, how you would react then. It might turn out that I might cop out and succumb to greed; whereas you might hold onto your principles and come out shinning. You see, unless the software code is tested, we really can not say if it is good or bad code :-)

That is why we have Powerball for not having to work anymore :-) I have just bought once or twice Powerball tickets. Knowing me, and knowing how addictive it is to buy lottery tickets, and knowing how remote it is to even get one dollar out of the system; I rather put it in money market account :-)

Oh how many times I have gone through in my mind and with my wife what we could do with the lottery money.

edited: typo

Back to Community Forum
48 total posts (Page 3 of 5)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums