Does Anyone Know if CGC Will Close? 4 4

[wilbil]

7 minutes ago, Red84 said:

My use of the ignore function is getting a workout today. When people tell you who they are, listen.

that is not the way to avoid a lawful order of martial law by a federal republic. what is wrong with you. get with the program.

signed: kent state committee.

[wilbil]

9 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

then you face civil liability and jail time. 

a slight correction: if you knew you were a carrier and your action was deliberate.

[sfcityduck]

2 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Fact: I don't knowingly have COVID, so the comparison is irrelevant.

There's nothing to enforce. I can just tell the bois that I'm going out for a loaf of bread. Anyone can. What're they gonna do? Nothing - as they should.

You know you potentially have COVID.  The government stay at home is designed to prevent social spread by folks who are "silent carriers."  By knowingly disobeying stay at home orders to do "D2D," which I infer is "door to door", you are knowingly risking spreading the disease.  If you test positive at a later date, yes, you could find yourself in some legal or civil hot water.

More importantly, there's a moral implication which apparently does not matter to you.

 

[VintageComics]

4 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

You wanna go so low as attempting to insult someone because you think your opinions are the be-all end-all of any moral quandary? That's a good example of hypocrisy, man.

Respectful discourse is in short supply these days.

Edit: As usual, of course, the ad hominem begins when you've lost and cannot defend your perception.

I had 6 teenagers and you sound exactly like one. Circular logic, no regard for others.

I've actually thought you were under age since you got here but if you're an adult then I suppose I feel sorry for the people around you.

If you were spouting these things about how you're handling the pandemic with a real name attached you'd probably already be in legal trouble but it's easy to be really macho and idealistic when you're anonymous.

[sfcityduck]

1 minute ago, wilbil said:

a slight correction: if you knew you were a carrier and your action was deliberate.

The action (having sex with someone) has to be deliberate, you do not have to intend to spread the disease to face civil or criminal liability.

[theCapraAegagrus]

3 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

You know you potentially have COVID.  The government stay at home is designed to prevent social spread by folks who are "silent carriers."  By knowingly disobeying stay at home orders to do "D2D," which I infer is "door to door", you are knowingly risking spreading the disease.  If you test positive at a later date, yes, you could find yourself in some legal or civil hot water.

More importantly, there's a moral implication which apparently does not matter to you.

Anyone potentially has anything. Relinquishing freedom because of fear sets a bad precedent. I'm free to travel as I desire, and anyone else is free to hide at home. Sounds fair to me.

FYI: D2D is day-to-day. Not "door-to-door".

Morality is a flaw. Getting into that discussion will certain raise the ban-hammer.

[wilbil]

1 minute ago, sfcityduck said:

there's a moral implication

this is a better explanation for compliance, than the explanations to date concerning the extent, intent, enforcement, the right of enforcement and the responsibility for enforcement and compliance of same.

in fact, the moral implication should be and is enough, for the simple reason that our own fleah and blood is at risk. forget about the other guy, ok i got it. but, our own flesh and blond? i don't think so. i, of course, exempt mothers-in-law from my morality tests, as always.

[god503]

10 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

You know you potentially have COVID.  The government stay at home is designed to prevent social spread by folks who are "silent carriers."  By knowingly disobeying stay at home orders to do "D2D," which I infer is "door to door", you are knowingly risking spreading the disease.  If you test positive at a later date, yes, you could find yourself in some legal or civil hot water.

More importantly, there's a moral implication which apparently does not matter to you.

 

True to a certain point.  But the legal threshhold is the key word "knowingly"  many times judges dont convict or jurys without that premise.  As for general responsibily as a citizen...  wear a mask if you go out.  The mask does poop for your protection  Its for the protection of others!!

Edited April 6, 2020 by god503

[theCapraAegagrus]

8 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

I had 6 teenagers and you sound exactly like one. Circular logic, no regard for others.

I've actually thought you were under age since you got here but if you're an adult then I suppose I feel sorry for the people around you.

If you were spouting these things about how you're handling the pandemic with a real name attached you'd probably already be in legal trouble but it's easy to be really macho and idealistic when you're anonymous.

You're making a swift judgment about someone you don't know because you disagree with them. Hurling insults is definitely the mature way of dealing with that.

I'm disappointed in your lack of self-reflection.

No; I won't be in any legal trouble.

Edited April 6, 2020 by theCapraAegagrus
Typo.

[Hollywood1892]

....so CGC is staying open then?

[wilbil]

6 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

has to be deliberate,

 

7 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

to intend to spread the disease to face civil or criminal liability.

now you are reaching for a wise old owl comparison. my rebuttal would be if you can flock without intent, you are giving a whole new definition of virgin birth.

[sfcityduck]

2 minutes ago, god503 said:

True to a certain point.  But the legal threshhold is the key word "knowingly"  many times judges dont convict or jurys without that premise. 

Based on my litigation experience, I would conclude that in today's media environment, it would be next to impossible to fail to prove a "knowing" violation of a stay at home order.  I also think it would be hard not to get a jury pre-disposed against people who disobeyed orders that the jury respected.

[god503]

3 minutes ago, Hollywood1892 said:

....so CGC is staying open then?

was informed by email they are all working from home.  no one or very little are at the wharehouse

Edited April 6, 2020 by god503

[musicmeta]

2 minutes ago, Hollywood1892 said:

....so CGC is staying open then?

I think so..Hope so anyway.

[wilbil]

6 minutes ago, wilbil said:

this is a better explanation for compliance, than the explanations to date concerning the extent, intent, enforcement, the right of enforcement and the responsibility for enforcement and compliance of same.

in fact, the moral implication should be and is enough, for the simple reason that our own fleah and blood is at risk. forget about the other guy, ok i got it. but, our own flesh and blond? i don't think so. i, of course, exempt mothers-in-law from my morality tests, as always.

thats great...flesh and blond. oops. my wife is a brunette. she aint gonna like that post.

[god503]

1 minute ago, sfcityduck said:

Based on my litigation experience, I would conclude that in today's media environment, it would be next to impossible to fail to prove a "knowing" violation of a stay at home order.  I also think it would be hard not to get a jury pre-disposed against people who disobeyed orders that the jury respected.

not about the order...  about being positive.

[wilbil]

1 minute ago, sfcityduck said:

Based on my litigation experience, I would conclude that in today's media environment, it would be next to impossible to fail to prove a "knowing" violation of a stay at home order.  I also think it would be hard not to get a jury pre-disposed against people who disobeyed orders that the jury respected.

it would also be difficult to flock without intent.

[sfcityduck]

Just now, god503 said:

not about the order...  about being positive.

I think it is a safe assumption that everyone knows today that they could potentially be a COVID-19 carrier.  That is the entire rationale behind stay at home orders, and that's what the media and the government have been explaining for weeks.  I do not think that a "bury your head in the sand" defense would fly with jurors where I live.

[wilbil]

3 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

fail to prove a "knowing" violation of a stay at home order. 

why? the only witness i would call in rebuttal was a governor that did not know what the heck was going on, when everybody else did. i don't see a warrant issued for him. maybe it should have been, but still.....

[god503]

Just now, sfcityduck said:

I think it is a safe assumption that everyone knows today that they could potentially be a COVID-19 carrier.  That is the entire rationale behind stay at home orders, and that's what the media and the government have been explaining for weeks.  I do not think that a "bury your head in the sand" defense would fly with jurors where I live.

but regards to the law assuming does mean anything,  the key word is knowingly.  beyond a reasonable dought  the basis of our entire legal system