so kewl!

Can I go there?

So as the globe warms, will we still have the Northern Lights?

re: #2 ggt

So as the globe warms, will we still have the Northern Lights?

Yes,
But they may have to be led's

quite interesting.

Have no idea about the source.

Time for me to try to work thru more Thomas Merton.

Enjoy the Artic!

For Pennsylvania's Doctors, a Gag Order on Fracking Chemicals

Yeah...this is frightening.

Fracking fluid is "proprietary information" and the wording of the provision suggests that a doctor could face a lawsuit for revealing the contents in the course of diagnosis.

You're not allowed to know what's in your house...and body!...because a company owns it.

Chemicals before people!

We already saw what state socialism looked like, it should follow that state capitalism means you can't post a video of yourself singing your favorite song, or be allowed to know what's killing you, by order of the law.

You know the sick part about all this? All the dopes who voted in Gov. Corbett on the domestic energy platform don't even know (or care) that much of the natural gas won't even staying in the country. Or that they're mining what little resources they have in a market glut.

Not that this isn't anything new in Pennsylvania. See Palmerton, PA where zinc smelting denuded the surrounding mountains and contaminated the soil with heavy metals. I like to call it Mordor, because that's what it looks like.

This sort of state capitalism is what happens when we make politicians a tradeable commodity: they vote in favor of the hightest bidder.

Talking about fracking always makes me think I'm in Battlestar Galactica.

Late night soundtrack as I read for school:

Best news I have heard in a while.

Chocolate can help lower body mass index

A new study has found that eating chocolate more frequently is linked to a lower body mass index (BMI).

Eating chocolate, particularly dark chocolate, has been linked to a range of favourable health outcomes including lower blood pressure and cholesterol.

Because of its high fat and calorie content, chocolate is not usually recommended by health experts.

However a study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine has found a correlation between more frequent chocolate consumption and a lower BMI.

More...

re: #13 ozbloke

"Theobromine" - drink of the gods.

In my rather idiosyncratic diet, dark chocolate (more than 50% chocolate mass by weight) can make up to 25% of my daily calories.

re: #14 freetoken

"Theobromine" - drink of the gods.

In my rather idiosyncratic diet, dark chocolate (more than 50% chocolate mass by weight) can make up to 25% of my daily calories.

I'm a bit of a fiend too.
Looking forward to being in the States, two weeks tomorrow.
Doing the West Coast and Vegas, wanting to try all the American food I saw on TV growing up in Australia.

Good morning Western Lizardia!

Day 2 in Germany.

Yesterday was adventuring in the Rhineland without a GPS, a working knowledge of German, no money converted to Euros (yet), limited directions for finding the place I was staying in, and having gone about 36 hours without any sleep.

Morning, all

Sleep is for the weak!
Or us insomniacs.
Yay.

re: #10 freetoken

I want a few drinks with an old girlfriend at where he's playing.

re: #14 freetoken

No weight gain?

re: #15 ozbloke

Where are you heading?

I've been under the impression (via Aussie TV) that pretty much any food available here is available down there.

Unless you're looking for something exotic like bison or rattlesnake.

re: #21 freetoken

Where are you heading?

I've been under the impression (via Aussie TV) that pretty much any food available here is available down there.

Unless you're looking for something exotic like bison or rattlesnake.

Absolutely I want exotic!
All the junk food I can find, I want a hershey bar, I don't even know what it is, but I want one, no maybe, oh heck probably a box of them.
Also a chilli dog, and deep fried food.

We are landing in LA, I booked a rental car for our whole stay.
We will spend a couple of days in LA, then drive to Vegas to get hitched in an Elvis wedding.

From there its out to Hoover Dam and the Grand Canyon.
Thinking about whether from there to head back to LA, maybe via Phoenix.
Spend a few more days in LA, and then take a few days to make our way up to San Francisco, we will have about a week there.
I want to try to get out to Yosemite National Park, Lake Tahoe, and the Nappa Valley.

Really busting, so excited...

re: #22 ozbloke

You don't have chili dogs??? What's this world come to???

And now something very special, just for the faithful late night crowd - Maynard Ferguson with a special cover:

HAHAHAHAHAHA
Image: fox%20hunger%20games.jpg

re: #24 freetoken

I should have hung on to that tri corder.

I'm now convinced that FoxNews is an elaborate Onion construct meant to troll us all.

re: #23 Varek Raith

You don't have chili dogs??? What's this world come to???

We do in Tasmania, its frigging freezing there in winter.
Cold cats too...

re: #28 ozbloke

We do in Tasmania, its frigging freezing there in winter.
Cold cats too...

Enjoy your stay and the bad for you, but delicious, food.

re: #22 ozbloke

Sounds exciting time. Congratulations!

Not to rain on your parade, but:

"Hershey bars" ought to be available where you are, maybe by mail order (check amazon.) Hershey btw has bought up many candy makers around the world, so you've probably eaten a "Hershey bar" without even knowing it. And, Hershey is now using PGPR in their "chocolates" (except for the really expensive ones) to improve the smoothness, but I don't like it. California does have its own local chocolatiers, which you can find in large cities. The California commercial chocolate candy company "Sees" is the largest chain candy store in the state (decent chocolate too.)

As for deep fried foods - on MasterChef Australia they do deep frying all the time. I'm surprised you've not found some. For chili - it's on the menu in about any restaurant serving "SouthWestern" food, though the Texans tend to be adamant against using beans while here in California it's no big deal and given the nature of California it's common to find vegetarian "chili", which of course uses beans, and which gives die-hard chili fans headaches.

Anyway, one thing you might find here in California that you won't find in Australia is a good authentic fish taco. It came from Baja (Mexico) and worked its way up through San Diego and then to a wider audience.

It's a long ways from the Grand Canyon to the Napa Valley - I think you might be biting off a bit too much.

For Pennsylvania's Doctors, a Gag Order on Fracking Chemicals

A new provision could forbid the state’s doctors from sharing information with patients exposed to toxic fracking solutions.

Sigh. This is just freaking stupid.

re: #23 Varek Raith

You don't have chili dogs??? What's this world come to???

for that, they have pie floaters...

re: #31 Varek Raith

For Pennsylvania's Doctors, a Gag Order on Fracking Chemicals

Sigh. This is just freaking stupid.

They should force doctors to shove an ultrasound wand down the borehole and describe what they see...

re: #30 freetoken

Freetoken,

Thanks for the tips.
We are use to driving long distances here, big land and small populations.
As for the food, I don't know where to start, but anything that sounds American and has plenty of calories would be a good start.

I'm about 165lbs, 5' 10", so I think three weeks of indulging will be ok.

Anyone with suggestions for what food they think is best done in the USA, I'm all ears.

re: #32 Second Amendment Renegation

for that, they have pie floaters...

I think in a South Australian thing.
Outside of SA, I have rarely seen it.

However, meat pies are probably as common as your hot dogs.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

re: #35 ozbloke

If you make as far as the Navajo Reservation, try the green chili and frybreads (seriously carbo and fat-rich) at Kate's Cafe in Tuba City...

If you make as far as the Navajo Reservation, try the green chili and Navajo frybreads (seriously carbo and fat-rich) at Kate's Cafe in Tuba City...

re: #35 ozbloke

Freetoken,

Thanks for the tips.
We are use to driving long distances here, big land and small populations.
As for the food, I don't know where to start, but anything that sounds American and has plenty of calories would be a good start.

I'm about 165lbs, 5' 10", so I think three weeks of indulging will be ok.

Anyone with suggestions for what food they think is best done in the USA, I'm all ears.

Find some good pork BBQ before you leave.

re: #37 Second Amendment Renegation

If you make as far as the Navajo Reservation, try the green chili and frybreads (seriously carbo and fat-rich) at Kate's Cafe in Tuba City...

If you make as far as the Navajo Reservation, try the green chili and Navajo frybreads (seriously carbo and fat-rich) at Kate's Cafe in Tuba City...

Are you suggesting I should try it twice?

I'd also say try red beans and rice as well - but the only place I would recommend it from is in Houston.

My belief about the Texan "no beans in chile" thing is because of red beans and rice. If you put beans in chile the distinction between the two would become very blurry.

one for each chin you want to add to your physiognomy

re: #37 Second Amendment Renegation

If you make as far as the Navajo Reservation, try the green chili and frybreads (seriously carbo and fat-rich) at Kate's Cafe in Tuba City...

If you make as far as the Navajo Reservation, try the green chili and Navajo frybreads (seriously carbo and fat-rich) at Kate's Cafe in Tuba City...

Thanks,
Doesn't look that far from where we will be at Grand Canyon Village.

SomethingAwful actually has a very astute article on social media:

Your Company Sucks at Social Media

The entire concept of having your brand on Twitter-- out in the open and responding to people for everyone to see-- is almost universally done poorly. Not so much because it's a bad concept (it probably is) but it mainly has to do with the people behind the scenes. Not everyone, but the vast majority of people in these roles are very, very bad at it.

The root of the problem pretty obviously lies in the fact that these jokers in question were allowed to get through the door in the first place. Are you the hiring manager for your company looking to hire a social media professional but don't know where to begin? Do you just have a big, numbered list on your desk that says, "1) Get Followers, 2) Get Likes, 3) Money Shoots Out Of Computer Hole"? This article is meant for you! Are you currently involved in or becoming interested in a career in social media? You should read on, too!

re: #43 Obdicut

SomethingAwful actually has a very astute article on social media:

Your Company Sucks at Social Media

Not to mention that keeping up with 2-3 social media set-up will also simply suck down a lot of resource time. One of those things that might look nice on the surface, but doing it well and keeping up with it will take resources that you might want to use elsewhere.

re: #44 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste

It's really amazing how much of advertising is based on really bad data. Most advertising, advertisers don't actually know if it works or not. That's one reason they so constantly poll the public and try to get their reaction to ad campaigns, and why companies are so sensitive to their image.

re: #45 Obdicut

It's really amazing how much of advertising is based on really bad data. Most advertising, advertisers don't actually know if it works or not. That's one reason they so constantly poll the public and try to get their reaction to ad campaigns, and why companies are so sensitive to their image.

Constantly moving target. Target demographics, cultural whims, and trying to keep up. Though an alternate route is to find your niche or build your published image as being stodgy and dependable. (Ex: The old John Houseman Smith-Barney ads.) But you do need to be sensitive to it. If you tie your company to a particular spokesman or association then said association can poison the brand, or at least how it is viewed.

re: #46 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste

And even then, there's no actual firm data on how that perception translates to purchases. Marketing and advertising is mostly based on how well advertisers and marketers can sell their services, not how well it actually functions. A lot of times an advertising campaign will claim credit for success, but deep research may reveal that it was actually a product feature and word of mouth that really got people into something.

It's interesting that as ways to reach consumers have increased, the perceived influence of advertising has decreased.

More private prison brutality:

[Link: www.courthousenews.com...]

Guards at a private prison instigated - and watched - a gang fight that left him brutally beaten and unconscious, says a man who claims that Corrections Corporation of America guards "foster" brutality between inmates, and conceal injuries in the prison's "in-house" medical center.

Jacob Clevenger sued Corrections Corporation of America, CCA Western Properties, and Philip Valdez, warden of the CCA's Idaho Correctional Center, in Federal Court.

Nashville-based Corrections Corporation of America is the largest private corrections company in the country, managing 60 prisons with a total of 90,000 beds.

Clevenger, who claims he was beaten senseless in the prison, claims CCA "has allowed and even fostered systemic conditions of brutality, peril and injuriousness at the ICC."

Clevenger claims he was taken from his cell on Aug. 10, 2010 and placed in another area of the prison where rival gang members were housed.

When the door to his new cell was opened that evening, Clevenger said, he thought guards were bringing him a mattress for his bunk. But he was attacked and beaten.

"Around 8 p.m., Mr. Clevenger's cell door mechanically opened," the complaint states. "Cell doors at ICC were opened mechanically by the officer in the control center. Mr. Clevenger assumed that ICC guards were delivering the mattresses and stepped out of the cell to accommodate them. Suddenly, Mr. Clevenger saw prisoners running towards him. He froze. Seconds later, a number of prisoners, including known gang members, began attacking him.

"Mr. Clevenger suffered significant physical and emotional injuries, including, but not limited to, being punched and kicked so many times in the head that he had lumps everywhere, and receiving a broken front tooth, a fractured eye socket, and a partially torn ear. After a few minutes of being beaten, Mr. Clevenger lost consciousness. A few hours later, Mr. Clevenger was taken to St. Alphonsus Hospital's emergency room.

Sadly, most people won't care about this, because it happened to an inmate.

re: #48 Obdicut

More private prison brutality:

[Link: www.courthousenews.com...]

Sadly, most people won't care about this, because it happened to an inmate.

free-market solutions.

re: #35 ozbloke

Calzones, mmm

re: #49 Second Amendment Renegation

free-market solutions.

Our public prison system has lots of systemic faults as well-- but at least nobody is profiting off the misery.

The amount of money and human potential wasted by our prison system is just staggering. It produces nothing of value. It does not rehabilitate-- in many ways, it exacerbates existing problems. And so many of those who claim to want to cut government spending are also against any improvements to rehabilitation programs, preferring vindictiveness and punishment instead.

re: #35 ozbloke

Rocky Mountain Oysters

re: #50 Tommy's cone of shame

Calzones, mmm

Sounds good to me, thanks.

re: #51 Obdicut

Our public prison system has lots of systemic faults as well-- but at least nobody is profiting off the misery.

The amount of money and human potential wasted by our prison system is just staggering. It produces nothing of value. It does not rehabilitate-- in many ways, it exacerbates existing problems. And so many of those who claim to want to cut government spending are also against any improvements to rehabilitation programs, preferring vindictiveness and punishment instead.

You mean other than removing criminals from the street right?

Rogue, what's your take on the GZ/TM case?

re: #54 We are ANONYMOUS, WE ARE LEGION, we are arrested

You mean other than removing criminals from the street right?

That's not a product-- at most, it's a necessary evil. And I don't even think it does that, in the final estimation. The conditions in prisons are not amenable to prisoners, when they are released, staying off the streets. Most reoffend, and in many ways, this can be directly traced to the conditions in prison and society's reaction to their status as ex-cons. If we had actual rehabilitation programs instead of punitive ones, we'd have a lower recidivism rate, and fewer criminals on the street.

re: #56 Obdicut

Finishing school.

re: #56 Obdicut

That's not a product-- at most, it's a necessary evil. And I don't even think it does that, in the final estimation. The conditions in prisons are not amenable to prisoners, when they are released, staying off the streets. Most reoffend, and in many ways, this can be directly traced to the conditions in prison and society's reaction to their status as ex-cons. If we had actual rehabilitation programs instead of punitive ones, we'd have a lower recidivism rate, and fewer criminals on the street.

I don't disagree with any of your points except that prisons do (at least temporarily) remove offenders from the street and keep them from committing crimes against society. I agree with the importance of rehabilitation in many cases, but some folks just need to go away for the remainder of their lives.

re: #56 Obdicut

I've seen Shawshank Redemption several times, it's a party on the inside !!!
/

re: #58 Darth Vader Gargoyle

I don't disagree with any of your points except that prisons do (at least temporarily) remove offenders from the street and keep them from committing crimes against society. I agree with the importance of rehabilitation in many cases, but some folks just need to go away for the remainder of their lives.

Moon colonies.

re: #59 Tommy's cone of shame

I've seen Shawshank Redemption several times, it's a party on the inside !!!
/

Anyone watching the new series Alcatraz? It is pretty cheesy, but I am really enjoying the historical stuff.

re: #58 Darth Vader Gargoyle

I don't disagree with any of your points except that prisons do (at least temporarily) remove offenders from the street and keep them from committing crimes against society. I agree with the importance of rehabilitation in many cases, but some folks just need to go away for the remainder of their lives.

there will alwys be incorrigibles, but we do not need to create any more...

re: #55 'M AFFN FUN

Rogue, what's your take on the GZ/TM case?

I view it as another sign of our paranoid "if you see something say something" life styles. If George had minded his own business (or at a minimum, stayed in his freaking car) we wouldn't have a family missing their dead kid.

I also find the immediate politicization of a tragedy pretty distasteful.

re: #63 RogueOne

What about the police actions and the SYG law, which also have been points of contention?

re: #55 'M AFFN FUN

Rogue, what's your take on the GZ/TM case?

Also, the immediate calls to arrest and detain someone even if the police/prosecutor doesn't think the charges are merited (or will stick) and just "leave it to a jury" was pretty frightening.

re: #63 RogueOne

I view it as another sign of our paranoid "if you see something say something" life styles. If George had minded his own business (or at a minimum, stayed in his freaking car) we wouldn't have a family missing their dead kid.

I also find the immediate politicization of a tragedy pretty distasteful.

Admit it, you drive around the neighborhood calling 911 everytime you see a black kid walking.
//

re: #65 RogueOne

Also, the immediate calls to arrest and detain someone even if the police/prosecutor doesn't think the charges are merited (or will stick) and just "leave it to a jury" was pretty frightening.

Zimmerman's situation would be better today if the police had made a pretense of giving the death a serious look.

re: #64 'M AFFN FUN

What about the police actions and the SYG law, which also have been points of contention?

If Zimmerman was on his back getting beaten the SYG law isn't applicable. If you don't give a guy the chance to retreat then the SYG rules are pretty irrelevant.

re: #58 Darth Vader Gargoyle

I don't disagree with any of your points except that prisons do (at least temporarily) remove offenders from the street and keep them from committing crimes against society.

But only if you analyze the actual time they're in prison. If you analyze their entire life, I don't think that's true.

I agree with the importance of rehabilitation in many cases, but some folks just need to go away for the remainder of their lives.

That's definitely true for some mentally disturbed people. For those who aren't, I think our current level of ability to rehabilitate makes that true for some people, but it's not something we should ever be comfortable with, and we're not necessarily going to know that about them at the time of their sentencing. There are plenty of murderers who have completely changed in prison.

Aside from actual antisocial personality types, you're not going to be able to determine who should be put away for the rest of their lives. You lose nothing by attempting rehabilitation.

And remember that crimes occur inside prisons, too, at a high rate. Just because the men in there are convicted of a crime doesn't mean the state doesn't have the obligation to protect them against attack.

re: #66 Darth Vader Gargoyle

Admit it, you drive around the neighborhood calling 911 everytime you see a black kid walking.
//

I'm going to start my own "Mind Your Own Damn Business!" party PAC. Want to contribute? We need munchie foods for our meetings.

Where has FBV been?
Haven't seen him posting in a while.

re: #68 RogueOne

If Zimmerman was on his back getting beaten the SYG law isn't applicable. If you don't give a guy the chance to retreat then the SYG rules are pretty irrelevant.

They SYG law isn't just about standing your ground, but legitimizing the use of lethal force because of a reasonable belief that the other person is going to use lethal force. It doesn't have to be an actual use of it, and you don't have an obligation to use a lower level of force if you're able to. Stand your ground law is not just about the right to flee, it also encompasses the right to use lethal force rather than non-lethal.

re: #67 Decatur Deb

Zimmerman's situation would be better today if the police had made a pretense of giving the death a serious look.

If your asking me to defend a PD, you're looking at the wrong person// OTOH, it turned out Zimmerman was detained, taken to the station, questioned, his story matched the witnesses, and they still wanted to charge him with Involuntary Manslaughter.

re: #71 Tommy's cone of shame

I saw him like a week ago, but yeah, I miss his chuckly self.

Morning Lizardim. I didn't check to see how the kerfluffle from last night's Trayvon thread ended. What did I miss?

re: #73 RogueOne

The cops actually corrected the story of a couple of witnesses, there were no witnesses to the start of the fight. The current law, however, as pointed out by Sergey, doesn't even allow them to detain him if they don't have reasonable proof that he wasn't acting in self-defense, which is part of the crazy.

I'm all for the rights of the individual, but the rights of people not to get shot have got to be important as well-- if someone has shot someone else, there needs to be an investigation that includes questioning that person at length as well as a tox screen.

re: #72 Obdicut

They SYG law isn't just about standing your ground, but legitimizing the use of lethal force because of a reasonable belief that the other person is going to use lethal force. It doesn't have to be an actual use of it, and you don't have an obligation to use a lower level of force if you're able to. Stand your ground law is not just about the right to flee, it also encompasses the right to use lethal force rather than non-lethal.

SYG is a modifier for a self-defense claim. Without the law you had to prove you had no other options (including retreating) before using deadly force. If you're on your back getting beaten then retreating isn't an option and if retreating isn't an option then SYG is irrelevant.

re: #69 Obdicut

But only if you analyze the actual time they're in prison. If you analyze their entire life, I don't think that's true.

That's definitely true for some mentally disturbed people. For those who aren't, I think our current level of ability to rehabilitate makes that true for some people, but it's not something we should ever be comfortable with, and we're not necessarily going to know that about them at the time of their sentencing. There are plenty of murderers who have completely changed in prison.

Aside from actual antisocial personality types, you're not going to be able to determine who should be put away for the rest of their lives. You lose nothing by attempting rehabilitation.

And remember that crimes occur inside prisons, too, at a high rate. Just because the men in there are convicted of a crime doesn't mean the state doesn't have the obligation to protect them against attack.

Once again, I don't disagree with anything you say except that prison doesn't provide a product when it obviously does. I know it may only be for the duration of a prisoner's stay if he is not rehabilitated, but it is a product/service never the less. Diet Coke is a product, but doesn't have a long term impact on my life (other than a slow death from cancer some time in the future). Still a product.

re: #75 thedopefishlives

Morning Lizardim. I didn't check to see how the kerfluffle from last night's Trayvon thread ended. What did I miss?

Should think it has been one long, slow kerfluf. I'm in the summation phase of the outrage cycle.

re: #77 RogueOne

SYG is a modifier for a self-defense claim. Without the law you had to prove you had no other options (including retreating) before using deadly force. If you're on your back getting beaten then retreating isn't an option and if retreating isn't an option then SYG is irrelevant.

No, again, this particular law also enables the use of lethal force because of a belief that lethal or near-lethal force will be used against you. Compare it to other laws, which instead mandate you must use only the amount of force available to you in order to end the situation. First of all, there shouldn't be a presumption that someone beating you up is getting anywhere close to using lethal force on you, that shouldn't be called a 'reasonable' assumption, but it has been ruled as such in Florida, so that battle is lost already. Given that that is the case, the law really needs to be modified to account for the lack of need to use lethal force.

Otherwise, this law means you can subtly provoke someone into a fight (in a way that would only be provable by the now-dead-guy) and shoot him after you 'think' he's going to stab you with a knife you haven't seen but believe he has on him.

re: #77 RogueOne

SYG is a modifier for a self-defense claim. Without the law you had to prove you had no other options (including retreating) before using deadly force. If you're on your back getting beaten then retreating isn't an option and if retreating isn't an option then SYG is irrelevant.

Of course the other issue is that the only reason Georgie was on his back (if he was) is that he put himself in that position after being instructed by the dispatcher not to follow Martin.

If you have a CCW license you have a much higher obligation to avoid confrontations, not a license to seek them out.

re: #73 RogueOne

If your asking me to defend a PD, you're looking at the wrong person// OTOH, it turned out Zimmerman was detained, taken to the station, questioned, his story matched the witnesses, and they still wanted to charge him with Involuntary Manslaughter.

re: #77 RogueOne

SYG is a modifier for a self-defense claim. Without the law you had to prove you had no other options (including retreating) before using deadly force. If you're on your back getting beaten then retreating isn't an option and if retreating isn't an option then SYG is irrelevant.

Everywhere I read, I haven't seen a mention of his detention (rather the opposite), although I did read the police reports about him being handcuffed for sometime at the scene.

Moreover, SYG law is not only a modifier, it also forbids any arrest and detention without first showing a probable cause.

Between the wording of the law and the negligent-to-culpable actions of the police, there is almost no way they will be able to obtain any sort of conviction in this case.

And that is another tragedy in itself.

re: #80 Obdicut

No, again, this particular law also enables the use of lethal force because of a belief that lethal or near-lethal force will be used against you. Compare it to other laws, which instead mandate you must use only the amount of force available to you in order to end the situation. First of all, there shouldn't be a presumption that someone beating you up is getting anywhere close to using lethal force on you, that shouldn't be called a 'reasonable' assumption, but it has been ruled as such in Florida, so that battle is lost already. Given that that is the case, the law really needs to be modified to account for the lack of need to use lethal force.

Otherwise, this law means you can subtly provoke someone into a fight (in a way that would only be provable by the now-dead-guy) and shoot him after you 'think' he's going to stab you with a knife you haven't seen but believe he has on him.

Ex-SIL is being a pain in the ass. I need to take him drinking down in Panama City.

re: #78 Darth Vader Gargoyle

Once again, I don't disagree with anything you say except that prison doesn't provide a product when it obviously does.

Look at it this way: You've got a fleet of trucks. If you use a certain mechanic, you find that the trucks will run well for a couple of years, and then suffer increasing catastrophic breakdowns, so their time out of service keeps increasing. Out of thirty years of owning a truck, you'll get ten years actually on the road, and spend a lot of money fixing them. The reason for this is the way in which he fixes them, which makes them more vulnerable to damage down the road, and makes them need repair more often, which makes them fall apart faster.

Is he providing you with a product or service? I guess so. But it's one that's actively detrimental. So if it is a product, the current method of delivery of that product is so bad as to make the conditions that require the product even worse. It's like a medicine that causes a disease to go into remission for a few years and then come back with larger symptoms.

re: #85 Obdicut

Look at it this way: You've got a fleet of trucks. If you use a certain mechanic, you find that the trucks will run well for a couple of years, and then suffer increasing catastrophic breakdowns, so their time out of service keeps increasing. Out of thirty years of owning a truck, you'll get ten years actually on the road, and spend a lot of money fixing them. The reason for this is the way in which he fixes them, which makes them more vulnerable to damage down the road, and makes them need repair more often, which makes them fall apart faster.

Is he providing you with a product or service? I guess so. But it's one that's actively detrimental. So if it is a product, the current method of delivery of that product is so bad as to make the conditions that require the product even worse. It's like a medicine that causes a disease to go into remission for a few years and then come back with larger symptoms.

So you are back-tracking on your previous claim that prisons don't provide a product?
//

re: #81 Darth Vader Gargoyle

If you have a CCW license you have a much higher obligation to avoid confrontations, not a license to seek them out.

This case is going to up the level of fear that people have of those who are carrying guns. Which, ironically, may make confrontations like this one more common. If I was being followed around by a guy with a gun, if I didn't keep my cool I might well jump him and try to get it away from him.

re: #86 Darth Vader Gargoyle

So you are back-tracking on your previous claim that prisons don't provide a product?
//

I'm back-tracking while moving forwards.

re: #88 Obdicut

I'm back-tracking while moving forwards.

I think that is the moonwalk./Michael Jackson/
//

re: #80 Obdicut
The statute in question:
[Link: www.leg.state.fl.us...]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

My reading of the statute is different. It reads to me that Zimmerman would have a claim to the self-defense clause even without the addition of the "does not have a duty to retreat".

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

...but the damage has already been done. For my part, I had called the ADL. What's next, claiming that Jews may be killing Christisn babies for Passover?

re: #91 ReamWorks

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

...but the damage has already been done. For my part, I had called the ADL. What's next, claiming that Jews may be killing Christisn babies for Passover?

They already control world-wide banking, now the Jews want to be cowboys!!??
//

Off to class.

re: #54 Darth Vader Gargoyle

You mean other than removing criminals from the street right?

Yes, and treating them like shit while off the streets. Then releasing them back into the streets with a bigger chip against society than they had when first incarcerated (because of the treatment "society" placed upon them during incarceration). Sounds like a solid business plan. Always have repeat business.

re: #90 RogueOne

Well, I'd completely disagree that getting beaten up is reasonable reason to fear that you're going to die or incur great bodily harm-- though, as I said, Florida courts have already ruled that even thinking a guy is going to stab you without even seeing a knife is reasonable fear, which is just... yeah.

But what I'm pointing out is what the law lacks: a mandate that you use force proportional to that being used against you, not based on some panicky assessment of what's going to happen in the situation.

re: #81 Darth Vader Gargoyle

Of course the other issue is that the only reason Georgie was on his back (if he was) is that he put himself in that position after being instructed by the dispatcher not to follow Martin.

If you have a CCW license you have a much higher obligation to avoid confrontations, not a license to seek them out.

The only thing we really know for sure is that if Zimmerman would have stayed in his car Martin would still be alive. OTOH, nothing Zimmerman did that night (up until the shooting) was illegal.

I don't carry (or own) a pistol but my spouse does. I don't have any problem making prosecutors prove someone used unreasonable force before they're arrested and tried.

Basically: If Zimmerman's defense is that Martin was trying to get his gun, then that's an admission that if you're in a fight with someone who has a gun, you have reasonable belief that he may use it and you can use lethal force against him. I don't think people who carry guns really want that to be established in law.

re: #95 RogueOne

I don't carry (or own) a pistol but my spouse does. I don't have any problem making prosecutors prove someone used unreasonable force before they're arrested and tried.

Arrested is different than charged-- you really think that after a lethal shooting, there shouldn't even be a period of holding the guy and questioning him? Not even for twenty-four, forty-eight hours? And collecting evidence?

re: #94 Obdicut

Well, I'd completely disagree that getting beaten up is reasonable reason to fear that you're going to die or incur great bodily harm-- though, as I said, Florida courts have already ruled that even thinking a guy is going to stab you without even seeing a knife is reasonable fear, which is just... yeah.

But what I'm pointing out is what the law lacks: a mandate that you use force proportional to that being used against you, not based on some panicky assessment of what's going to happen in the situation.

Who would you rather make the determination of what is "reasonable" force, a prosecutor or a family member?

"Better that ten guilty people go free than one innocent suffer". -- Blackstone

re: #97 Obdicut

Arrested is different than charged-- you really think that after a lethal shooting, there shouldn't even be a period of holding the guy and questioning him? Not even for twenty-four, forty-eight hours? And collecting evidence?

In this case zimmerman was detained and his story matched the witness accounts. That's not to say the PD investigation was pristine, or even competent, but what reasoning would they have for keeping him any longer? If, at a future date, they felt they had a case against him he was still available to arrest and charge.

re: #90 RogueOne

The statute in question:
[Link: www.leg.state.fl.us...]

My reading of the statute is different. It reads to me that Zimmerman would have a claim to the self-defense clause even without the addition of the "does not have a duty to retreat".

You can't follow someone and confront them and then claim self defense. That is totally ass backwards. Once you confront, you become the aggressor. He had no authority to confront nor try to detain this person, his obligation even as a watch person was to report to the police what he was 'watching'.

re: #99 RogueOne

In this case zimmerman was detained and his story matched the witness accounts. That's not to say the PD investigation was pristine, or even competent, but what reasoning would they have for keeping him any longer? If, at a future date, they felt they had a case against him he was still available to arrest and charge.

He just SHOT a man - no, not even a man, a TEENAGER. If they can throw a drunk in the drunk tank overnight, they can keep a man who has shot and killed someone for a day or two.

re: #96 Obdicut

Basically: If Zimmerman's defense is that Martin was trying to get his gun, then that's an admission that if you're in a fight with someone who has a gun, you have reasonable belief that he may use it and you can use lethal force against him. I don't think people who carry guns really want that to be established in law.

It wouldn't surprise me that is exactly what happened in this situation. Martin confronts some asshole who is following him, notices he has a freaking gun, and decided his best defense against a stalker was a good offense. If anything the SYG law should have protected Martin if he had managed to get the gun away from zimmerman and shot him.

re: #98 RogueOne

Who would you rather make the determination of what is "reasonable" force, a prosecutor or a family member?

That's not the decision-making, though. A prosecutor doesn't get to decide that and then send the person to jail. There's a trial. I have no problem with a family member having to demonstrate that they had good reason to use the force that they did in an altercation. I also think that the extent to which they caused it should be taken into account.

"Better that ten guilty people go free than one innocent suffer". -- Blackstone

If we took that literally, we would arrest no-one for anything, though. It's a nice phrase, and I firmly believe that it's very important not to punish the innocent, but it is obviously important not to make it too easy for murderers to claim self-defense. We can't pretend that this law isn't open to abuse.

As you completely correctly say, the biggest problem in this case is Zimmerman cruising around looking for trouble. But even if this went down in the most favorable possible way to Zimmerman-- if Martin, spooked by the guy following him with a gun, jumped him and tried to take the gun away-- the law is still highly problematic. If you and I met in a dark alley, under this law you could simply shoot me and if there were no witnesses, claimed that I'd tried to grab the gun from you, and the cops would not even be able to question you over it, or take any physical evidence from you.

re: #96 Obdicut

Basically: If Zimmerman's defense is that Martin was trying to get his gun, then that's an admission that if you're in a fight with someone who has a gun, you have reasonable belief that he may use it and you can use lethal force against him. I don't think people who carry guns really want that to be established in law.

The law has achieved a reduction in the Florida murder rate. The frequency of Unfortunate Occurrences has suffered, however.

The situation a couple weeks ago was not tolerable. The outcry increases the risk and inconvenience to Zimmerman, who is a (possibly innocent) idiot. Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to have been done.

re: #101 thedopefishlives

He just SHOT a man - no, not even a man, a TEENAGER. If they can throw a drunk in the drunk tank overnight, they can keep a man who has shot and killed someone for a day or two.

So you think the standard should be even if the cops don't think someone violated the law and the prosecutor doesn't think they have any evidence to charge someone...they should be tossed in jail anyway just to make sure? I don't think that's the standard we want to set.

re: #99 RogueOne

In this case zimmerman was detained and his story matched the witness accounts.

No, it doesn't. Nobody witnessed the start of the altercation. Please stop saying his story matched the witness accounts. Part of his story matched a couple of anonymous witness accounts. In addition, several witnesses said that they said something that contradicted his story, and the police 'corrected' them.

That's not to say the PD investigation was pristine, or even competent, but what reasoning would they have for keeping him any longer?

Because he shot a guy under completely unclear circumstances. I'm not sure he even gave a deposition-- I don't think they can even force him to give a deposition under this law. I think they'd at least have to get a subpeona, giving him time to think up what he wants to say.

If, at a future date, they felt they had a case against him he was still available to arrest and charge.

The law prevents them from obtaining physical evidence from him, since they can't arrest him, and you know that the first period of time after a crime is the key time for it getting solved.

Again, what is the large harm in detaining him for 24 or 48 hours? Is this an absolute ideological line for you?

re: #105 RogueOne

So you think the standard should be even if the cops don't think someone violated the law

It's not about what the cops think, it's what they can show reasonable proof for-- and the law prevents them in a lot of ways from gathering the evidence that would show that reasonable proof.

re: #106 Obdicut

In addition, several witnesses said that they said something that contradicted his story, and the police 'corrected' them.

Wasn't that 1 witness though?

Dog has pointed out that the sun is well up. BBL.

re: #22 ozbloke

Absolutely I want exotic!
All the junk food I can find, I want a hershey bar, I don't even know what it is, but I want one, no maybe, oh heck probably a box of them.
Also a chilli dog, and deep fried food.

We are landing in LA, I booked a rental car for our whole stay.
We will spend a couple of days in LA, then drive to Vegas to get hitched in an Elvis wedding.

From there its out to Hoover Dam and the Grand Canyon.
Thinking about whether from there to head back to LA, maybe via Phoenix.
Spend a few more days in LA, and then take a few days to make our way up to San Francisco, we will have about a week there.
I want to try to get out to Yosemite National Park, Lake Tahoe, and the Nappa Valley.

Really busting, so excited...

Two words: Taco trucks.

re: #108 'M AFFN FUN

Wasn't that 1 witness though?

Nope, two, who said that they heard Trayvon pleading and when they came out saw Zimmerman standing over Trayvon.

Witness testimony is often confused and jumbled. It is entirely possible that during the scuffle, at different times, both Trayvon and Zimmerman had the upper hand. In my estimation, the testimony from two witnesses that they heard Trayvon plead should have been 'probable' enough for the cops to arrest him, anyway. Even under this law, if Zimmerman got the upper hand in the scuffle it would not have been legal for him to shoot.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Mary Cutcher and her roommate said they heard Trayvon pleading. Then they heard a gunshot. They rushed outside and saw Mr. Zimmerman standing over the teenager. Ms. Cutcher said she did not think it was self-defense and added that the police took only a brief statement, despite her efforts to go into detail.

re: #100 RayFerd

You can't follow someone and confront them and then claim self defense. That is totally ass backwards. Once you confront, you become the aggressor. He had no authority to confront nor try to detain this person, his obligation even as a watch person was to report to the police what he was 'watching'.

What about the law substantiates that statement? As far as I can tell, the only thing that makes it so that you can't claim self-defense is if you do something illegal.

I have read many, many people say that Zimmerman can't claim self defense because he followed Martin (or because he outweighed him by 100 lbs). I have yet to see anyone provide a legal basis for that conclusion. Do you have one?

re: #103 Obdicut

That's not the decision-making, though. A prosecutor doesn't get to decide that and then send the person to jail. There's a trial. I have no problem with a family member having to demonstrate that they had good reason to use the force that they did in an altercation. I also think that the extent to which they caused it should be taken into account.

If we took that literally, we would arrest no-one for anything, though. It's a nice phrase, and I firmly believe that it's very important not to punish the innocent, but it is obviously important not to make it too easy for murderers to claim self-defense. We can't pretend that this law isn't open to abuse.

As you completely correctly say, the biggest problem in this case is Zimmerman cruising around looking for trouble. But even if this went down in the most favorable possible way to Zimmerman-- if Martin, spooked by the guy following him with a gun, jumped him and tried to take the gun away-- the law is still highly problematic. If you and I met in a dark alley, under this law you could simply shoot me and if there were no witnesses, claimed that I'd tried to grab the gun from you, and the cops would not even be able to question you over it, or take any physical evidence from you.

Making someone pay for an attorney and spend time in jail waiting for trial is punitive. Unless the prosecutor can prove the person used "unreasonable" force beforehand they shouldn't be allowed to arrest someone.

For example, last month in Iowa:
[Link: www.radioiowa.com...]

A man who’s now at the center of the legislature’s debate over gun laws spent 112 days in jail before he was found “not guilty” of defending himself after two men chased him down in West Des Moines.
....
Lewis, a native of Kansas, is black. Because of his time in jail, Lewis lost his job and his home. Lewis lost all his worldly possessions, too, because apartment managers piled his belongings out on the curb for passersby to sift through and take away.

“You know, trying to keep things in perspective, I’m still trying to rebuild my life and it’s very difficult, but it’ll soon turn out all right,” Lewis said. “I’m pretty sure.”

After his release from jail, Lewis spent two nights sleeping in a car before a Des Moines church became aware of his situation and rented him a hotel room. Wearing donates clothes, Lewis made his way to the Iowa Senate Tuesday as Senator Sorenson cited the case as a reason for the Senate to take up a bill that cleared the House last week — legislation that would give Iowans the right to use “reasonable force” to stop a crime in a public place.

“This is a real person that is dealing with an issue now and the after-effects of that,” Sorenson said. “He just did his God-given right of defending himself. We need to take action.”

Lewis supports the bill that would allow people to use “reasonable force” to stop a crime in public. Current law — which stipulates that Iowans are to first try to get away from danger — isn’t always workable, according to Lewis.

“You see what happens when you’re held to a duty to retreat,” Lewis said. “Sometimes it’s not feasible to retreat and sometimes, as in my case, I did retreat and it did no good and yet the prosecution was still trying to hammer me for failing to retreat after I’d already retreated. I fact, I’d already retreated twice.”

Infuriatingly enough the prosecutor in the Iowa case said, after losing the trial, "the law wasn't the problem, the problem was with the truth". Meaning he knew full well this poor guy was defending himself and still arrested, imprisoned, and charged the guy anyway.

re: #112 Talking Point Detective

There is vague-language that if you 'provoke' the altercation then you can't use self-defense. But even that gets stripped away if the 'attacker' continues to attack.

re: #113 RogueOne

Making someone pay for an attorney and spend time in jail waiting for trial is punitive.

Why do you keep mixing up 'arrest' and 'charge'? You know the difference.

re: #104 Decatur Deb

The law has achieved a reduction in the Florida murder rate. The frequency of Unfortunate Occurrences has suffered, however.

How are you isolating variables to make that conclusion. Many states have had concurrent lowering of murder rates. Some have similar laws and some don''t.

re: #105 RogueOne

So you think the standard should be even if the cops don't think someone violated the law and the prosecutor doesn't think they have any evidence to charge someone...they should be tossed in jail anyway just to make sure? I don't think that's the standard we want to set.

Honestly, if you kill somebody - even in self-defense - that is a serious matter. I don't want them necessarily traumatized or punished, but just saying, "Oh, it's okay, you were defending yourself, here you go"? That sets a precedent.

re: #116 Talking Point Detective

How are you isolating variables to make that conclusion. Many states have had concurrent lowering of murder rates. Some have similar laws and some don''t.

He was being ironic, I think-- a lot of what would have previously been called murders are now just unfortunate incidents.

re: #114 Obdicut

There is vague-language that if you 'provoke' the altercation then you can't use self-defense. But even that gets stripped away if the 'attacker' continues to attack.

In the SYG law?

re: #115 Obdicut

Why do you keep mixing up 'arrest' and 'charge'? You know the difference.

I don't think I'm mixing it up. There has to be a violation of the law in order to arrest someone. You can't just arrest someone because you have a hunch that they might have violated something but you don't know what yet.

re: #119 Talking Point Detective

In the SYG law?

In that section, yes.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

And the 'unless' got changed by SYG. It used to be unless you can show you exhausted means to escape or lesser uses of force and the attack continued on you so that you were in fear for your life. Now it's just if the attack continues and you're in fear for you life.

re: #105 RogueOne

So you think the standard should be even if the cops don't think someone violated the law and the prosecutor doesn't think they have any evidence to charge someone...they should be tossed in jail anyway just to make sure? I don't think that's the standard we want to set.

The problem is that you have to view this situation in context. How about requiring some time of evidence that you used deadly force as a last resort?SYG was designed, specifically, to change that requirement.

re: #117 thedopefishlives

Honestly, if you kill somebody - even in self-defense - that is a serious matter. I don't want them necessarily traumatized or punished, but just saying, "Oh, it's okay, you were defending yourself, here you go"? That sets a precedent.

I agree. The only point I'm making is I would rather the prosecution have to prove you used "unreasonable" force before you're put on trial for defending yourself.

re: #120 RogueOne

I don't think I'm mixing it up.

Really? Okay. When someone is arrested, they are not yet charged. They are informed of what the charges are expected to be, but those may actually change. The police have to have a reasonable idea that a crime has occurred and that the person was a party to it. After a period of time which varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction-- 24 in some, 48 in others, and it can be forced by a writ of habeas corpus-- charges must be brought, in a sworn affidavit signed by the police officers. The charges may be different than what the person was arrested for. You might get arrested for assault, and then charged with rape. You might get arrested for murder, and charged with negligent homicide. A judge must approve the charges. Often, people are arrested and then released without charges.

Did you not know that?

In this case, that there were witnesses who said that they heard Trayvon pleading would seem to me to be reasonable cause for the police to suspect Zimmerman had committed a crime.

re: #121 Obdicut

In that section, yes.

And the 'unless' got changed by SYG. It used to be unless you can show you exhausted means to escape or lesser uses of force and the attack continued on you so that you were in fear for your life. Now it's just if the attack continues and you're in fear for you life.

Right - so that's what I was going for. Maybe I'm jumping in without getting the background of the discussion. In effect, with SYG - you eliminate the "last resort" aspect by providing an out for the exclusion for someone who was the aggressor.

Therefore, people who say, as does Baxley who co-sponsored the law, that by following Martin,Zimmerman negated the SYG defense, are not arguing consistent with the law.

re: #123 RogueOne

I agree. The only point I'm making is I would rather the prosecution have to prove you used "unreasonable" force before you're put on trial for defending yourself.

I'm not disagreeing with that, either. I think we're talking past each other a little bit here.

re: #123 RogueOne

I agree. The only point I'm making is I would rather the prosecution have to prove you used "unreasonable" force before you're put on trial for defending yourself.

The alternative could be an expectation that you used deadly force only as a last resort. That expectation was the specific target of SYG. That is why law enforcement officials largely objected to SYG.

re: #124 Obdicut

To emphasize Obdicut's point, the onus is still on the prosecution to prove enough of a case to get the charges approved by a judge. If they can't disprove your self-defense defense, they have to let you go.

re: #122 Talking Point Detective

The problem is that you have to view this situation in context. How about requiring some time of evidence that you used deadly force as a last resort?SYG was designed, specifically, to change that requirement.

If you're being attacked, mugged, or robbed I don't think you have any obligation to retreat. The sticking point is "the person reasonably believes" qualifier in the law. If the prosecution/police believe the situation doesn't rise to what would be a "reasonable" belief then they have every right to arrest and charge someone.

One of the examples going around is the story about the guy who stabbed someone after chasing him a block down the street. Even though the case was tossed that guy was still arrested and charged.

re: #128 thedopefishlives

To emphasize Obdicut's point, the onus is still on the prosecution to prove enough of a case to get the charges approved by a judge. If they can't disprove your self-defense defense, they have to let you go.

Well, they don't have to disprove it-- not beyond reasonable doubt-- just probable cause to suspect you. But that's the general idea.

re: #118 Obdicut

He was being ironic, I think-- a lot of what would have previously been called murders are now just unfortunate incidents.

Ah, ok. It seemed like a comment that didn't match the commenter.

re: #129 RogueOne

If you're being attacked, mugged, or robbed I don't think you have any obligation to retreat.

The problem is that you can't just wish that requirement away without having consequences in doing so. You eliminate that requirement, and you get stuff exactly like this.

Law enforcement officials predicted such. It was a foreseeable outcome.

re: #132 Talking Point Detective

Especially when you also fail to include any need to use reasonable force to defend yourself, instead okaying lethality even if you could use a less-lethal alternative.

re: #130 Obdicut

Well, they don't have to disprove it-- not beyond reasonable doubt-- just probable cause to suspect you. But that's the general idea.

You got the point. They have to show enough of a disjoint in your defense that they have probable cause to charge you with manslaughter/murder. The burden of proof, such as it is, is still on the prosecution.

re: #134 thedopefishlives

Yes, and in this case, I'd say having two witnesses that told the police they heard Trayvon pleading would be probable enough for at least the original arrest, if not to bring charges.

re: #129 RogueOne

If the prosecution/police believe the situation doesn't rise to what would be a "reasonable" belief then they have every right to arrest and charge someone.

Barring evidence one way or the other, what that comes down to is simply that someone claims self-defense. As I see it, if there isn't obviously contradictory evidence, the cops have no obligation - and I suspect no authority - to aggressively investigate otherwise.

re: #112 Talking Point Detective

What about the law substantiates that statement? As far as I can tell, the only thing that makes it so that you can't claim self-defense is if you do something illegal.

I have read many, many people say that Zimmerman can't claim self defense because he followed Martin (or because he outweighed him by 100 lbs). I have yet to see anyone provide a legal basis for that conclusion. Do you have one?

By the law being applied here it doesn't. The law being applied here stinks on ice. Law of the street says if you don't want to get fucked with, don't fuck with other people (doesn't always work that way but that is a good start). You follow someone as if you are their superior and have control over them for some reason, you are in the wrong (human law, not NRA law). Again, nothing in this law substantiates it, but this law is a steaming pile of NRA shit.

re: #133 Obdicut

Especially when you also fail to include any need to use reasonable force to defend yourself, instead okaying lethality even if you could use a less-lethal alternative.

Yes - a clearly stipulated requirement of proportionality would improve this law. It would make it somewhat less likely to result in this type of incident, but only somewhat so.

So in the end, it comes down to weighing the down side of a last resort requirement against the down side of people who can kill someone by simply claiming a need of self-defense.

From what I've seen, the vast majority of law enforcement prefer the first down side over the second, and there's a reason for that.

re: #124 Obdicut

Really? Okay. When someone is arrested, they are not yet charged. They are informed of what the charges are expected to be, but those may actually change. The police have to have a reasonable idea that a crime has occurred and that the person was a party to it. After a period of time which varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction-- 24 in some, 48 in others, and it can be forced by a writ of habeas corpus-- charges must be brought, in a sworn affidavit signed by the police officers. The charges may be different than what the person was arrested for. You might get arrested for assault, and then charged with rape. You might get arrested for murder, and charged with negligent homicide. A judge must approve the charges. Often, people are arrested and then released without charges.

Did you not know that?

In this case, that there were witnesses who said that they heard Trayvon pleading would seem to me to be reasonable cause for the police to suspect Zimmerman had committed a crime.

Which is what I said. In order to arrest someone there has to be probable cause which means they have to have a reasonable belief that a crime was committed. If they're not sure there was an actual violation of the law they cannot arrest you.

In this case the only eyewitness reports (before the shooting) said Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was the one screaming for help. At that point the question becomes did Zimmerman "reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself"? If the police/prosecutors can't overcome that threshold then an arrest would be illegal.

re: #138 Talking Point Detective

Yes - a clearly stipulated requirement of proportionality would improve this law. It would make it somewhat less likely to result in this type of incident, but only somewhat so.

So in the end, it comes down to weighing the down side of a last resort requirement against the down side of people who can kill someone by simply claiming a need of self-defense.

From what I've seen, the vast majority of law enforcement prefer the first down side over the second, and there's a reason for that.

And I'll note that Baxley says that a "meet force with force" requirement stipulates proportionality. I don't see how he supports that statement.

re: #111 Obdicut

I only know of 1 witness who was "corrected":

The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.

Who is the other one? There is no claim of correction at the link you gave.

re: #139 RogueOne

Which is what I said. In order to arrest someone there has to be probable cause which means they have to have a reasonable belief that a crime was committed. If they're not sure there was an actual violation of the law they cannot arrest you.

No, you also talked about being arrested as awaiting trial, which is not true. You're awaiting charges, after you're arrested, not trial. That was how you were mixing it up-- presenting the idea of being arrested as then having to hire a lawyer and go to trial. That isn't true.

And the cops do not have to be sure that there was a violation of the law, but have a reasonable belief that there was.

In this case the only eyewitness reports (before the shooting) said Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was the one screaming for help.

Again, this is not true. Two witnesses said it was Trayvon screaming. Are you just missing that part? Or are you using 'eyewitness' in a technical manner? Because aural evidence is still evidence.

re: #141 'M AFFN FUN

Sorry, you're right. One says she was corrected, the other one hasn't said she was but did say that the police did not take a full statement from her.

re: #135 Obdicut

Yes, and in this case, I'd say having two witnesses that told the police they heard Trayvon pleading would be probable enough for at least the original arrest, if not to bring charges.

I'm not sure. I think it's possible that the cops screwed up here. But the law is bad enough that I think it's possible that they didn't: that they acted according to what the law stipulates. That's why the law is fucked up.

re: #144 Talking Point Detective

Those witnesses also say that the cops didn't take their full testimony. There's nothing in the law saying they have to ignore what witnesses are saying.

BTW, I see that pretty substantive and "dry" discussions continue, thus rebutting the claim that somehow we're all about the race and outrage angle here.

re: #145 Obdicut

Those witnesses also say that the cops didn't take their full testimony. There's nothing in the law saying they have to ignore what witnesses are saying.

Yeah - the determination of whether they acted properly lies in the details. What I'm saying is that the law infringes on law enforcement doing what I think is a reasonable expectation - doing a thorough investigation behind the claim of self-defense. If you have a "last resort" requirement, then law enforcement is obligated to do the research to confirm that stipulation. If all someone has to do is claim self defense, then it gets hairy for law enforcement because they don't exactly have the authority to investigate further. If evidence hits them over the head that he wasn't acting in self-defense, they the door is opened, but if has a broken nose and at least some witnesses say that he was shouting for help, then it could be that the cops' hands are essentially tied.

I certainly wouldn't assume there wasn't some racist element on the part of the cops - apparently one of the cops involved has a history of being accused of racial bias. I'm just pointing to the fucked-up nature of the law in that it makes a determination of whether the cops acted properly that much more difficult.

re: #61 Darth Vader Gargoyle

Anyone watching the new series Alcatraz? It is pretty cheesy, but I am really enjoying the historical stuff.

I've been following it. LOST + CSI, how can you lose? I liked the way they worked a remake of the "Bullitt" car chase sequence into last night's episode, better than an actual Mustang commercial.

The show itself can be summed up: Time-traveling felon of the week.

re: #146 'M AFFN FUN

Something I've seen a lot is confusion when people are using this case-- properly, like SFZ-- to talk about the existing racial imbalances in the justice and legal system. Some people are reacting to any conversation about race in this topic as though it's an accusation that Zimmerman was a KKK-hood wearing guy who wanted to kill black people, when even most of the people talking about racism as a motivating factor just mean the 'casual' racism of his suspicion of black strangers. And some people, of course, are in denial that the legal and justice system is still biased against black people.

The latest right-wing outrage this morning, as heard on my XM radio, is over the fact that Treyvon Martin's mother has (allegedly) been saying "They killed my son."

Ignoring the fact that it's in very bad form to criticize the comments that a mother whose son has just been murdered makes, I actually think she's right!

But for the fact that some lawmakers passes an overreaching "vigilante" law, instead of just allowing people to defend themselves, say, inside their homes, Mr. Martin would be alive today. So there is a great big "they" here.

re: #142 Obdicut

No, you also talked about being arrested as awaiting trial, which is not true. You're awaiting charges, after you're arrested, not trial. That was how you were mixing it up-- presenting the idea of being arrested as then having to hire a lawyer and go to trial. That isn't true.

And the cops do not have to be sure that there was a violation of the law, but have a reasonable belief that there was.

Again, this is not true. Two witnesses said it was Trayvon screaming. Are you just missing that part? Or are you using 'eyewitness' in a technical manner? Because aural evidence is still evidence.

I'm using eyewitness in a technical manner. Two witnesses said they "heard" Martin screaming but did not "see". (Even Trayvons father told the police it wasn't his sons voice screaming in the background of the 911 call: [Link: news.yahoo.com...] The only 2 people who actually saw what was going on before the shots said it was zimmerman on the ground screaming for help. One of those witnesses said he was yelling at them to stop before he went to call 911.

re: #146 'M AFFN FUN

BTW, I see that pretty substantive and "dry" discussions continue, thus rebutting the claim that somehow we're all about the race and outrage angle here.

I don't see how anyone could think that about LGF. But, then, we are blessed with our own cadre of wingnut stalkers, who believe whatever they want, I suppose.

re: #146 'M AFFN FUN

BTW, I see that pretty substantive and "dry" discussions continue, thus rebutting the claim that somehow we're all about the race and outrage angle here.

Personally I think the SYG laws are a net benefit to minorities. I don't think race played any role in this situation but I can't help but feel if Zimmerman were poor and black the outcome with the PD/prosecutors would have been different.

re: #151 RogueOne

Yeah, but aural evidence is still evidence. And Trayvon's father, once presented with audio that had been cleaned up, did say it was his son's voice.

The only 2 people who actually saw what was going on before the shots said it was zimmerman on the ground screaming for help. One of those witnesses said he was yelling at them to stop before he went to call 911.

But neither of them saw what came before, or the actual shooting. So saying that they support Zimmerman's story is only very thinly true. They support a small portion of his story, and one of them is a thirteen year old kid. I'm not saying what they're saying isn't evidence, but it's entirely possible that first Martin was on top, and then Zimmerman was.

re: #153 RogueOne

Personally I think the SYG laws are a net benefit to minorities. I don't think race played any role in this situation but I can't help but feel if Zimmerman were poor and black the outcome with the PD/prosecutors would have been different.

That paragraph contradicts itself. And it's reasonable to look at the SPD history, including that the investigating officer on this case previously was involved in a scandal where he didn't charge a white son of a police lieutenant for assaulting a homeless man, even though the attack was caught on video. In addition, that Travyon remained as a John Doe and apparently no great effort was made to identify him has got to be explained.

re: #154 Obdicut

Strictly speaking, the aural witnesses were engaging in speculation - I gotta agree with Rogue here. Unless there is a pretty clear difference in voices, like a small child and an adult - they really didn't have anything to determine who it was that was crying out.

re: #153 RogueOne

Personally I think the SYG laws are a net benefit to minorities. I don't think race played any role in this situation but I can't help but feel if Zimmerman were poor and black the outcome with the PD/prosecutors would have been different.

You have to acknowledge that's kind of condescending if minorities don't agree with your assessment. You also have to acknowledge that law enforcement, for the most part, disagrees with that assessment: they think that the law just sucks.

I also don't think it matters what Trayvon Martin was up to, who screamed first, or whether or not he beat the crap out of George Zimmerman. Even if he did, and Zimmerman felt he had no choice but to shoot because he was being beaten up, it was still a 100% avoidable situation.

George Zimmerman was playing policeman, and Trayvon Martin had no way of knowing it--as he would have if there would have been an actual police car, uniform, and procedure followed.

Even if Trayvon Martin decided--hypothetically--to pick a fight with a person who was following him, in the context of a high-school student who's out for a walk in his father's neighborhood, this isn't so unusual for young people to do. Martin would have simply thought this was a skirmish between two young men, no different from a pushing match in a high school hallway. He had no idea that Zimmerman was playing detective, with a gun in his pocket, itching to use it.

I am all for gun ownership. But I do not want private citizens out on the street enforcing the law.

re: #156 'M AFFN FUN

Strictly speaking, the aural witnesses were engaging in interpretation - I gotta agree with Rogue here. Unless there is a pretty clear difference in voices, like a small child and an adult - they really didn't have anything to determine who it was that was crying out.

I consider eyewitness testimony of all kinds to be incredibly dubious at best, but if we're using any of it, I don't think that aural evidence should just be discarded like that. And in American jurisprudence, it isn't, in general.

In addition, there's the problem that both of them say the police didn't take their full testimony. That is obviously the biggest problem there.

re: #158 ReamWorks

It was certainly a sort of criminal negligence, and I think there should be a legal punishment for that.

re: #155 Obdicut

That paragraph contradicts itself. And it's reasonably to look at the SPD history, including that the investigating officer on this case previously was involved in a scandal where he didn't charge a white son of a police lieutenant for assaulting a homeless man, even though the attack was caught on video. In addition, that Travyon remained as a John Doe and apparently no great effort was made to identify him has got to be explained.

Yes - the question of whether it is "good for minorities" is certainly contingent on context. Which is why minorities (I would guess) don't support this law on the whole.

re: #102 RogueOne

It wouldn't surprise me that is exactly what happened in this situation. Martin confronts some asshole who is following him, notices he has a freaking gun, and decided his best defense against a stalker was a good offense. If anything the SYG law should have protected Martin if he had managed to get the gun away from zimmerman and shot him.

Exactly. The worst thing that could be said about Martin is that he stood his ground.

re: #160 'M AFFN FUN

It was certainly a sort of criminal negligence, and I think there should be a legal punishment for that.

Unfortunately, the state of gun rights in Florida I don't think have any measures about carrying them around responsibly. If the police had directly told him not to follow Trayvon, there might be a charge, but they failed there, too. As soon as the dispatcher realized he was following him, she should have told him to go home, to stay in his car, something.

re: #158 ReamWorks

I also don't think it matters what Trayvon Martin was up to, who screamed first, or whether or not he beat the crap out of George Zimmerman. Even if he did, and Zimmerman felt he had no choice but to shoot because he was being beaten up, it was still a 100% avoidable situation.

When you eliminate a "last resort" requirement, you remove the obligation to "avoid" this kind of outcome.

I can understand, at some level, the objection to a "last resort" requirement, but in reality there are consequences when you remove it.

re: #159 Obdicut

Why it shouldn't be discarded? They didn't know who was crying out.

re: #164 Talking Point Detective

Remove the "last resort", by all means, when you're inside your own home. That's the only case where an expedited process to keep you out of jail, etc, is appropriate (though there still should be some review to make sure the situation was as it appeared to be).

I don't want to see anyone get in trouble for shooting and killing an unarmed intruder in a home. Any other situation should require judicial review and/or a trial.

re: #153 RogueOne

Case in point:
The Cost Of Self-Defense: The John McNeil Story
[Link: www.naacp.org...]

That's 3 cases this morning I've linked. In all 3 cases the prosecution/judges admitted the men were only defending themselves and yet, because they didn't retreat, they all went to jail. 2 Black and 1 Hispanic males. If you believe, like I do, that our system discriminates against the poor and minority communities then it stands to reason that a SYG law would keep poor/minorities out of jail unless the prosecution can prove they behaved "unreasonably".

re: #165 'M AFFN FUN

Why it shouldn't be discarded? They didn't know who was crying out.

Because there is a difference in the sound of a voice of a 17 year old black male and a 28 year old white male. If nothing else, they could have done what is often done, and have Zimmerman 'scream' and see if they say that it was or wasn't the voice they heard.

I don't think the SYG law is good for minorities. At best it's nothing more than a license to escalate any confrontation or misperceived threat to a deadly end. This is not good for anyone.

re: #167 RogueOne

That's terrible logic. There's no reason to believe the SYG defense wouldn't be applied unevenly like most of the rest of the laws in our justice system to minorities, and that the law wouldn't also allow the murderers of minorities to go free in higher rates.

You're acting like the only thing that minorities care about in reference to this law is the extent to which they can use it in self-defense. That's not the only factor.

re: #167 RogueOne

Case in point:
The Cost Of Self-Defense: The John McNeil Story
[Link: www.naacp.org...]

That's 3 cases this morning I've linked. In all 3 cases the prosecution/judges admitted the men were only defending themselves and yet, because they didn't retreat, they all went to jail. 2 Black and 1 Hispanic males. If you believe, like I do, that our system discriminates against the poor and minority communities then it stands to reason that a SYG law would keep poor/minorities out of jail unless the prosecution can prove they behaved "unreasonably".

Except you have to look at the context of who promotes these laws, and why. I assume it isn't lost on you, for example, Baxley's political affiliations.

It seems like you keep wanting to look at the down sides of the two sides of this issue in isolation from one another. They aren't. They are inextricably linked.

re: #157 Talking Point Detective

You have to acknowledge that's kind of condescending if minorities don't agree with your assessment. You also have to acknowledge that law enforcement, for the most part, disagrees with that assessment: they think that the law just sucks.

I don't think it's at all condescending to minorities and of course law enforcement disagrees but you can't argue with the numbers. If you're a white defendant or can afford an attorney you're going to have a shot at beating the rap. If you're poor or black, you're going to get the book thrown at you. Look at the FBI crime numbers, I don't think it's much of a debate.

re: #168 Obdicut

Because there is a difference in the sound of a voice of a 17 year old black male and a 28 year old white male.

Not necessarily in general, not necessarily in this situation.

If nothing else, they could have done what is often done, and have Zimmerman 'scream' and see if they say that it was or wasn't the voice they heard.

Are they allowed to do it?

re: #164 Talking Point Detective

I think in some ways this could be handled by gun laws, but of course the gun rights fanatics wouldn't like that. I support the right of people to be armed, but, especially for reasons like this, I feel that you should have a reason for going around armed, not just 'cuz I felt like it, why not?'. Following a guy around while armed is irresponsible behavior that reflects badly on weapon holders who need their guns for reasonable purposes.

re: #162 Aye Pod

Exactly. The worst thing that could be said about Martin is that he stood his ground.

but you just know that had that been the case Trayvon would have gone to jail waiting for his trial.

re: #173 'M AFFN FUN

Not necessarily in general, not necessarily in this situation.

There is always a difference between two voices.

Are they allowed to do it?

That's a severe lawyer question. They can certainly get a subpoena for it, even if they didn't arrest him.

That's another thing being left out of this: the law that prohibits arrest does not prohibit subpoenas, as far as I can tell. The police should have immediately, immediately started subpoenas for Zimmerman's clothing, as well as getting a deposition for him. I haven't seen any evidence at all that they did the former, and getting a statement is not the same thing as getting a deposition.

Have to share this...good morning, everyone.

What I see people doing here is looking at the "last resort" requirement and saying that there's something, in the abstract, wrong with requring someone innocent under attack to retreat.

I can understand that. But the problem is that when you eliminate that requirement, what you wind up with is people getting shot by someone who basically just wanted to shoot them but later claimed self-defense.

If you want to evaluate the benefit of eliminating a "last resort" requirement, you have to consider the down side of bogus claims of self defense.

re: #178 Talking Point Detective

Which is where the "reasonable belief" portion of the law comes in. The police still have the opportunity to arrest you if they feel you acted "unreasonably". Not retreating isn't unreasonable in my mind. As a matter-of-fact, I find expecting people to retreat from a threat is unreasonable.

Does Florida law let killers go free?

Another case under litigation in Florida highlights the effect of the law. In September 2010, David James was playing basketball with his 8-year-old daughter on an outdoor court in Valrico. A boy was skateboarding on the court at the same time, and Trevor Dooley, a man who lived in the area, told the boy he shouldn't be skateboarding there. James stood up for the boy, and he and Dooley had a confrontation.
Dooley was carrying a gun and wound up shooting James dead. Dooley asserted that he felt threatened by James, and has asked that the case be dismissed before trial under the "stand your ground" law. (The judge will soon make a ruling.)

In both of these cases -- in the deaths of both James and Martin -- the legal defense for the shooters appears to rely almost completely on the "stand your ground" law. In the death of David James, prosecutors are doing their best against tough odds. In the death of Trayvon Martin, it's prosecutors who are taking the heat for failing, thus far, to bring any charges against George Zimmerman.

BTW, I did a search. This is David James:

Image: 100926105518_david-james.jpg

This is Trevor Dooley:

Image: dooley.jpg

Dooley was arrested for shooting James despite claiming he felt threatened and that he stood his ground. He has since gone to court.

In the Martin case, Zimmerman will likely never see the inside of a court room. I wonder why?

re: #179 RogueOne

Retreating from threat is the absolute best thing to do. It's what you should always do if you can.

Edit: Obviously not if the guy is threatening an adorable baby who will grow up to cure cancer.

Well it's another hot sunny day here. In Scotland, one never knows if this hot sunny day will be the last one of the year. Time to outside and listen to some summertime music...

re: #181 Obdicut

Retreating from threat is the absolute best thing to do. It's what you should always do if you can.

But you don't have to if you have a gun.//

re: #180 Lidane

Does Florida law let killers go free?

BTW, I did a search. This is David James:

Image: 100926105518_david-james.jpg

This is Trevor Dooley:

Image: dooley.jpg

Dooley was arrested for shooting James despite claiming he felt threatened and that he stood his ground. He has since gone to court.

In the Martin case, Zimmerman will likely never see the inside of a court room. I wonder why?

Maybe because there were witnesses that said Dooley was the aggressor and saw Dooley pull a gun during a verbal altercation?

re: #176 Obdicut

There is always a difference between two voices.

But that's not my point. My point is whether 28 y.o. males never cry out like 17 y.o., or vice versa. I think sometimes they do. Moreover, I'm inclined to believe the witnesses who said that it was GZ who was crying for help, since they're literal eyeball-witnesses. And if they're right, this demonstrates my point better than anything - yes it is possible to confuse shouts of a 28 y.o. white male and a 17 y.o. black male (not that the possibility is not obvious a priori). I think the police reasoned in the same vein.

So I don't think their bare testimony is probative. Whether a voice test could make it such is questionable, as one would also have to have Trayvon's voice for comparison, to exclude similarity (as well as some third voice, or more, like in an id lineup). Why would the police bother with such a complex procedure if they had direct eyewitnesses?

That's another thing being left out of this: the law that prohibits arrest does not prohibit subpoenas, as far as I can tell. The police should have immediately, immediately started subpoenas for Zimmerman's clothing, as well as getting a deposition for him. I haven't seen any evidence at all that they did the former, and getting a statement is not the same thing as getting a deposition.

Good point.

re: #181 Obdicut

Retreating from threat is the absolute best thing to do. It's what you should always do if you can.

Edit: Obviously not if the guy is threatening an adorable baby who will grow up to cure cancer.

Your obligation is to survive by ending the threat as quickly as possible. Whether that means retreating or shooting depends on the situation.

re: #185 'M AFFN FUN

But that's not my point. My point is whether 28 y.o. males never cry out like 17 y.o., or vice versa. I think sometimes they do.

I'm not saying it's not possible to confuse them, though. Anyway, it didn't happen, and it's obviously something that could go either way at best.

Why would the police bother with such a complex procedure if they had direct eyewitnesses?

Because direct eyewitnesses are massively unreliable.

Good point.

Yeah, I'm really interested in if they even tried to get a subpoena for his clothing. Since such a request would probably be quickly granted and it's been reported that he still has the clothing he wore, I doubt it.

re: #184 RogueOne

Maybe because there were witnesses that said Dooley was the aggressor and saw Dooley pull a gun during a verbal altercation?

If that's what helps you accept the SYG law, okay.

re: #186 RogueOne

Your obligation is to survive by ending the threat as quickly as possible.

No, that's incredibly facile. For example, you might be able to end the threat quickly by firing a bunch of shots at the guy, but he might be standing against a background of other people and you might kill one of them, too. Your own survival is not the only obligation you have. In addition, being human, you might be totally wrong about the threat, and acting on your own panicky instincts with lethal force is always something you should be as cautious as you can about.

re: #179 RogueOne

Which is where the "reasonable belief" portion of the law comes in. The police still have the opportunity to arrest you if they feel you acted "unreasonably". Not retreating isn't unreasonable in my mind. As a matter-of-fact, I find expecting people to retreat from a threat is unreasonable.

But this is what I think this really boils down to - differences of opinion about a requirement to retreat. That requirement is also mitigated by an assessment of what is reasonable.

In my view, it is easy to assess a reasonable attempt to retreat than to assess what is a reasonable need for self-defense. The latter, in my view, is much more easily subject to bullshitting.

But I think this gets deeper to a philosophy of life kind of distinction - kind of a "liberal" vs. "conservative" framework. Conz think that libz are pussies because they think that you should have an expectation to do everything you should to avoid a violent confrontation. Libz think that conz are cave men because they will shoot someone with little provocation.

re: #190 Talking Point Detective

Actually, I just think people who choose confrontation when they could escape are idiots. I doubt cavemen were that dumb, they would have died out.

/

re: #187 Obdicut

Because direct eyewitnesses are massively unreliable.

10x times true for indirect witnesses like in this case. So bothering with such a procedure (quite an unreal one, since, again, they wouldn't have been able to get Trayvon's voice, and without this there would be no telling who they really heard) to get results that still wouldn't be more conclusive than the direct eyewitnesses would have been foolish.

re: #185 'M AFFN FUN

But that's not my point. My point is whether 28 y.o. males never cry out like 17 y.o., or vice versa. I think sometimes they do. Moreover, I'm inclined to believe the witnesses who said that it was GZ who was crying for help, since they're literal eyeball-witnesses. And if they're right, this demonstrates my point better than anything - yes it is possible to confuse shouts of a 28 y.o. white male and a 17 y.o. black male (not that the possibility is not obvious a priori). I think the police reasoned in the same vein.
...

I've heard grown men wail like a child twice in my life. One dead, one lost limb. Hearing a guy wail like that before they die is something that sticks with you.

re: #193 RogueOne

Well, that, plus I kinda expect GZ to wail like a child ;)

re: #192 'M AFFN FUN

10x times true for indirect witnesses like in this case.

Actually, no, from what I've read. I'm not an expert, but in some cases, indirect witnesses can be more accurate. For example, it's easier to analyze whose voice was stressed in a conversation if you're not looking at the people, because you're not influenced by posture and the rest. It's also easier to tell if someone is lying over the phone than it is when you're in their physical presence, which implies all sorts of really interesting things about human communication.

Anyway, I'm much more concerned with the lack of seeking of evidence by the police. I'll agree my attempts to get some situation where they could have made an arrest is probably futile wish-thinking.

re: #188 Lidane

If that's what helps you accept the SYG law, okay.

It's what happened. The old guy didn't like the skateboarder. James told him to mind his own business. There was a verbal argument and the old guy flashed a gun. The SYG law worked, Dooley did not act "reasonably" according to all the witnesses.

re: #194 'M AFFN FUN

Well, that, plus I kinda expect GZ to wail like a child ;)

There's some truth to that. If you let a punch from a 17 yr old kid who is 100lbs lighter than you knock you on your back....you probably cry like a girl////

re: #186 RogueOne

Your obligation is to survive by ending the threat as quickly as possible.

Ending a threat and as quickly as possible can often be in conflict. Your statement indicates that ending the threat implies as quickly as possible, and it doesn't. And "ending the threat" also hides a lot of relative values.

If I come up to you and insult your intelligence, I might be threatening your self-esteem. Should you shoot me because it's the quickest way to end the threat?

Hyperbolic, for sure, but it helps to prove the point. A requirement of "last resort" works for a wide variety of circumstances. And again, "last resort" requirements also have a stipulation of "reasonable."

re: #197 RogueOne

There's some truth to that. If you let a punch from a 17 yr old kid who is 100lbs lighter than you knock you on your back...you probably cry like a girl///

I think he jumped onto his back and scratched his head on the sidewalk after he shot Trayvon. But that's just the cynic in me. The 911 tape convinces me that he was huntingstalking the kid.

re: #196 RogueOne

It's what happened. The old guy didn't like the skateboarder. James told him to mind his own business. There was a verbal argument and the old guy flashed a gun. The SYG law worked, Dooley did not act "reasonably" according to all the witnesses.

What if there were no witnesses?

re: #196 RogueOne

The point is that Dooley got arrested at all. Zimmerman is still a free man despite there being a dead body and a confrontation and he fired his weapon.

There were no tests for drugs or alcohol. No gathering of physical evidence. No substantive questioning of Zimmerman over his actions. Why?

re: #197 RogueOne

There's some truth to that. If you let a punch from a 17 yr old kid who is 100lbs lighter than you knock you on your back...you probably cry like a girl///

A question. Why do you suppose that a lot of people in law enforcement, who have been on the ground for decades in these situations, oppose SYG?

Let's compare: Zimmerman arrested 4 battery on P.O./accused of domestic violence. #Trayvon suspended 4 scribbling on locker/trace of weed.

— Charles M. Blow (@CharlesMBlow) March 27, 2012

re: #201 Lidane

There were no tests for drugs or alcohol. No gathering of physical evidence. No substantive questioning of Zimmerman over his actions. Why?

Because the law sucks. It eliminates the need to assess the situation.

re: #177 darthstar

Have to share this...good morning, everyone.

Morning? Morning? Heck, I'm off to drink beer in an hour or so. (It's 4:30pm here almost.)

GZ has the makings of a police occifer.

re: #203 Gus

And how do we know whether Zimmerman smokes weed, is a drunk, etc.?

re: #201 Lidane

The point is that Dooley got arrested at all. Zimmerman is still a free man despite there being a dead body and a confrontation and he fired his weapon.

There were no tests for drugs or alcohol. No gathering of physical evidence. No substantive questioning of Zimmerman over his actions. Why?

It's a mystery. I cannot perceive any difference between the two cases.

They even both involve one black man and one white man!

re: #207 Talking Point Detective

And how do we know whether Zimmerman smokes weed, is a drunk, etc.?

He could very well be! Maybe we can get that douche, Tucker Carlson, to find out. No wait. They're too busy posting TM's Tweets.

re: #205 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste

Morning? Morning? Heck, I'm off to drink beer in an hour or so. (It's 4:30pm here almost.)

You been in Koeln already?

re: #198 Talking Point Detective

Ending a threat and as quickly as possible can often be in conflict. Your statement indicates that ending the threat implies as quickly as possible, and it doesn't. And "ending the threat" also hides a lot of relative values.

If I come up to you and insult your intelligence, I might be threatening your self-esteem. Should you shoot me because it's the quickest way to end the threat?

Hyperbolic, for sure, but it helps to prove the point. A requirement of "last resort" works for a wide variety of circumstances. And again, "last resort" requirements also have a stipulation of "reasonable."

The standard is "He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. In that situation your duty to yourself and your family is to survive by ending the threat as quickly as possible. If that means giving up your wallet during an armed robbery (which is the smart thing) then that's what you do. If, OTOH, you have the opportunity to end the threat by shooting someone then you shouldn't have to hesitate. That decision should be left to the victim, not the prosecution, unless there is evidence that they behaved "unreasonably".

Twitchy.

re: #212 Gus

Twitchy.

The thirteenth dwarf that was cut from Snow White?

re: #200 'M AFFN FUN

What if there were no witnesses?

That's a good question. If there were no witnesses it would be the live guys word against no one.

Saw the Trayvon thing on the Daily Show earlier. Meh. Kind of sucked.

re: #213 Obdicut

The thirteenth dwarf that was cut from Snow White?

Internment camps for those that do not Tweet according to the morals of "conservative wymyns!"

//

re: #210 'M AFFN FUN

You been in Koeln already?

Not yet. I'm staying in a little town just south of there a bit west of the plant I'm working at. Last night was used up in finding the place I am staying at without using a GPS, and then catching up on my sleep.

Tonight will be a nice dinner and seeing what the local brews are like. Apparently kolsch is the local style, and I generally like the US versions.

re: #216 Gus

If I had to judge people solely by their tweets... Dan Riehl would be in a very bad place.

re: #202 Talking Point Detective

A question. Why do you suppose that a lot of people in law enforcement, who have been on the ground for decades in these situations, oppose SYG?

Because the police/prosecuters want to be the sole purveyors over what is considered to be an acceptable amount of force? Of course they don't like the law, it makes it harder for them to incarcerate people. I don't see that as a bad thing.

re: #218 'M AFFN FUN

If I had to judge people solely by their tweets... Dan Riehl would be in a very bad place.

I can think of several others too while we're at it. It's a strange form of postmortem voyeurism in this case seeking some kind of "goofy evidence" that Trayvon was up to "no good." It's irrelevant. Unless it was specific to the case in either individual it's irrelevant.

re: #211 RogueOne

The standard is "He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. In that situation your duty to yourself and your family is to survive by ending the threat as quickly as possible. If that means giving up your wallet during an armed robbery (which is the smart thing) then that's what you do. If, OTOH, you have the opportunity to end the threat by shooting someone then you shouldn't have to hesitate. That decision should be left to the victim, not the prosecution, unless there is evidence that they behaved "unreasonably".

So let's boil this down. Someone says "I have a knife in my pocket. Give me your wallet or I will stab you."

You have a gun and calculate that pulling the trigger will take 1 second but handing over your wallet will take 15 seconds. On that basis, you're obligated to shoot, because you owe it to your family?

Look - you may view your family obligations in that way. It's your right, I suppose, but the bottom line is what does this mean in the larger context - which I think you keep ducking.

If the expectation is that I do what is reasonable to avoid confrontation before using lethal force, there is a different range of potential for abuse than if there is no such expectation. You can't just wish that away because you're personally offended that some pussy is telling you that you have an obligation to use lethal force only as a last resort.

The amount of racism this case has uncovered among the wingnuts is even worse than the amount of sexism the Rush episode revealed.

re: #219 RogueOne

Because the police/prosecuters want to be the sole purveyors over what is considered to be an acceptable amount of force? Of course they don't like the law, it makes it harder for them to incarcerate people. I don't see that as a bad thing.

So if someone lives in Florida, provokes someone into a confrontation then shoots them, then claims self-defense under the SYG law, keeping them out of jail, you'd be okay with that?

And I know someone else that was drinking beers, smoking weed, and snorting coke including giving the finger to the camera well into his 30s.

re: #224 Gus

And I know someone else that was drinking beers, smoking weed, and snorting coke including giving the finger to the camera well into his 30s.

You and GWB? //

re: #219 RogueOne

Because the police/prosecuters want to be the sole purveyors over what is considered to be an acceptable amount of force? Of course they don't like the law, it makes it harder for them to incarcerate people. I don't see that as a bad thing.

A badly-regulated militia, being necessary for a fucked-up country where you can shoot black people on a whim, the right of people to carry shotguns around and use them whenever they like shall not be abridged.

re: #202 Talking Point Detective

A question. Why do you suppose that a lot of people in law enforcement, who have been on the ground for decades in these situations, oppose SYG?

For example, the poor bastard in Iowa. The prosecutor knew the man was defending himself and knew the guy who was shot was the aggressor, and yet they still put him in jail for 4 months and tried to get him imprisoned for much longer. Prosecutors have enough power in this country, the people who put them in power and pay their salaries get to decide what the standards should be, not the people who work for them.

re: #225 'M AFFN FUN

You and GWB? //

I never inhaled.

//"What's that weird post nasal drip thing I've got going on here. Damn, it's giving me all sorts of energy too! Tastes funny though.

//

re: #225 'M AFFN FUN

You and GWB? //

Image: bush_flipping_finger.jpg

re: #229 Gus

Image: bush_flipping_finger.jpg

Who is that hoodlum?! *clutching pearls*

re: #219 RogueOne

Because the police/prosecuters want to be the sole purveyors over what is considered to be an acceptable amount of force? Of course they don't like the law, it makes it harder for them to incarcerate people. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Ok. I can understand that. I'm a pretty cynical dude, but I don't go quite that far. I can get it, though. Cops do, on the whole, have an authority complex.

There is something to be said, however, that people who are trained to assess these situations by virtue of using a highly designed legal system with built in failsafes is a better way to go than street justice.

The problem, as I see it, is that people apply a binary mentality. They say that there is a problem with a "last resort" requirement (I agree that there is), but then substitute another more flawed system in it's place.

I don't see it as coincidental that libertarians, who on the whole are stuck in a binary mindset about "authority," tend to favor shit like SYG. I am no fan of authority - but I can recognize that a system of laws will always have downsides but in the end can still present a favorable outcome on average.

re: #221 Talking Point Detective

Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
/

re: #230 'M AFFN FUN

Who is that hoodlum?! *clutching pearls*

Neither. Some would argue otherwise. I think it's funny how these people that live in glass houses are so prone to throwing stones. I seem to remember some other famous right-wing "leader" that was prone to many outbursts and seemed to be junked up on something every time he was in front of the camera.

re: #227 RogueOne

For example, the poor bastard in Iowa. The prosecutor knew the man was defending himself and knew the guy who was shot was the aggressor, and yet they still put him in jail for 4 months and tried to get him imprisoned for much longer. Prosecutors have enough power in this country, the people who put them in power and pay their salaries get to decide what the standards should be, not the people who work for them.

You can't just point to isolated examples and extrapolate patterns to create an overall assessment. You have to look at comparative systems and evaluate which one is more likely to be abused.

Fight or Flight?!

re: #235 Tommy's cone of shame

Fight or Flight?!

Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Don't forget. Seeing black people as "junked up on crack" and "deserving" of something or another is big with racists and even average white people. It's the way people are conditioned to see "the other in society." A black man with red eyes is seen as stoned while the white guy with red eyes is probably just having a bout of hay fever.

Puke-nukem.

I hate spoiled kids:
[Link: www.timesunion.com...]
I'm sure it was just a conversation piece.

re: #239 Tommy's cone of shame

He obviously was mad because it was just a friends and he was holding onto it for them.

/

re: #221 Talking Point Detective

So let's boil this down. Someone says "I have a knife in my pocket. Give me your wallet or I will stab you."

You have a gun and calculate that pulling the trigger will take 1 second but handing over your wallet will take 15 seconds. On that basis, you're obligated to shoot, because you owe it to your family?

Look - you may view your family obligations in that way. It's your right, I suppose, but the bottom line is what does this mean in the larger context - which I think you keep ducking.

If the expectation is that I do what is reasonable to avoid confrontation before using lethal force, there is a different range of potential for abuse than if there is no such expectation. You can't just wish that away because you're personally offended that some pussy is telling you that you have an obligation to use lethal force only as a last resort.

Absolutely. If in my mind you think there's a possibility you're going to get stabbed, because they've articulated that intention, then you have every right to shoot. I dont think the person who is threatening to take the life and liberty of someone has more of a right to live than the victim.

Would your belief change if in your scenario I was a 115lb female?

re: #232 Tommy's cone of shame

Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
/

I don't want to sound like I'm bloodthirsty or an ITG but If someone articulates that type of threat to my wife the only question in my mind is how tight of a shot group did she leave in his chest. Your right to breath ends as soon as you threaten to kill someone for their wallet.

re: #236 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste

Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

But is it quicker?

re: #241 RogueOne

Would your belief change if in your scenario I was a 115lb female?

What about a confrontation between a 140lb kid and a 250lb adult?

re: #242 RogueOne

What if she missed with one of her shots and killed a passerby?

*gives the finger*

*thinks*

*takes it back*

*my preciousss*

re: #243 Talking Point Detective
Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker.

re: #245 Obdicut

Gun control is using two hands

re: #245 Obdicut

What if she missed with one of her shots and killed a passerby?

That passerby would have been OK if only he'd been armed and able to shoot her first!

re: #234 Talking Point Detective

You can't just point to isolated examples and extrapolate patterns to create an overall assessment. You have to look at comparative systems and evaluate which one is more likely to be abused.

Abused by whom? I don't think prosecutors have too little authority regardless of the SYG laws. If pushed it wouldn't bother me to make the prosecution prove they have a case beyond the "reasonable cause" standard regardless of the crime.

We've been mostly discussing what the case means, what the law means, what the facts are, what should have been done or not done.

So what is your most probable scenario of what happens now?

The FBI investigation - ?
Afterwards - ?

re: #248 Tommy's cone of shame

Gun control is using two hands

Heh. Yeah, but nobody is a perfect shot every time, especially in a panicky situation.