Re: How are criminals arrested

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 6/21/2025 2:09 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 6/20/2025 8:50 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/20/2025 6:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 6/20/2025 5:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/20/2025 4:14 PM, Shadow wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:43:10 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 

On 6/20/2025 2:31 PM, Shadow wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 18:41:43 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 

On Fri Jun 20 17:38:58 2025 Beej Jorgensen  wrote:

 
But at least he's going to finally get a day in court. Holy
moly. Maybe
take the easy way next time.

 
    MAGAtards? I doubt it.

 
When was the last time you served on a jury?

 
    Anyone with an IQ higher than a cockroaches' usually manages
to get off a jury. If the suspect is Latino just say you don't care
much for Latinos, but don't actually hate them but would NEVER date
one. His lawyer will reject you.
    It's a PITA. You don't get paid, might even lose your job if
it takes a long time, and sometimes the family will seek revenge, or
worse, friends might think you took the wrong decision.. If you are
self employed, those days are lost.
    You will very rarely see someone with a higher education
serving in a jury here in Brazil.
    As to "Beej Jorgensen" I suspect he would avoid jury duty if
possible.
    []'s
 
    Of course, there are the sociopaths that enjoy being on a
jury. They get off on the power they get to wreck someone's life for
good. The more innocent he is, the bigger the thrill when he's
convicted.
 
    PS changed the subject. There is no such thing as a "illegal"
human being. Look it up in the bibel.

 
I'll take your word on scripture but illegal aliens are
deportable under USA and Brasil statutes, like most if not
all countries.

 
    In Brazil they have a trial. And they can appeal if that goes
against them. But then we're a rich country, we can afford those
little quirks which are practically universal in non- totalitarian
cultures.
    I hear the US is suddenly bankrupt. Maybe you really can't
afford it.
    []'s

 
[sigh]  This country's been broke since before I was born.

How is it, then, that we spend more on military than the next dozen or
more countries combined?
 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures>
 
Oh hey, maybe _that's_ why we're "broke."

 
Nice story, and it's true because we do have more obligations than
anyone else, but it's not singularly why we're broke.
 
We grew up in a healthy economy and a Federal budget of 50% Defense.
Defense is now about 12~14%, see 3d chart here:
 
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-does-the-us-spend-on-the-military/
 
Or as a portion of GNP, now GDP:
https://econofact.org/u-s-defense-spending-in-historical-and-
international-context
 
Actual defense budget over time shows dramatic growth*, but not so much
inflation adjusted, or in comparison to the total economy, nor in
comparison to transfer programs.
 
You can advocate one way or the other, and nearly everyone does, but
comparison to other countries is rife with apples-oranges error.
 
 
 
 
* One driver is repeatedly expanded veterans' medical benefits, which no
one want to cut and few want to slow those expansions.
 
Another is the Pentagon's open admission, over many years, that they
misplace. steal, lose or otherwise piss away about half of their very
large budget.  Less than other Departments, but still a lot of money.

 
That sounds like a lot of "yeah but..."
 
It's likely that other countries have similar factors at play, yet still
spend far, far less than we do.
 
Oh, except one factor most other countries lack is a heavy burden of
veteran medical benefits. Somehow all those other nations have far more
efficient medical systems covering everyone, so veterans are not a
special expense.
 

 
US does for developed countries spend more of a % of its GDP on military
for various reasons ie political mainly, just for defence would be somewhat
lower, after all US has 11 Aircraft carriers which is overkill.
 
Roger Merriman
 
 

 
It's not overkill at all. In fact US Navy is dangerously low
of ships and of personnel. (more seriously in transport than
in combat hulls).
 
We have obligations and threats which UK does not, what with
your single smallish carrier.
 

The obligations and threats are well beyond just defensive measures, which
is why the US needs such a large military, for that role which is well
beyond just defensive.

We have two I believe and are relatively large carriers just not US sized
ones!

That said, our Navy keeps scoring own goals with my money
which is a decades-long series of disappointments:
 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14525529/Why-supposedly-state-art-American-warship-built-Italians-risks-humiliating-US-Navy.html
 
We also promised two Virginia class hulls to Australia which
we are not actually able to build.  Stay tuned.
 

Roger Merriman