Specifically, what he saw was Martin on top of him punching him in the head "MMA style". The persons name was John Good. I'm amazed that I remember this. The lacerations to the back of his head were consistent with someone doing this while someone's head is on concrete. Young people lack self control and where/how they are raised plays a big part in how they behave, so I honestly feel bad for him. But this level of violence puts your own safety at risk, and is never okay. I don't see why people find that so hard to accept.
Zimmerman is the perfect example for why the decisions in a court of law, rather than the uneducated, ill informed opinions of forum posters and the masses at large, is the only one that matters. Precisely because he is so unpopular, and people want him to be a murderer so bad, that their entire view is tainted. People you don't like get the benefit of the law too. This is exactly why juries are forbidden from looking at media stories and stick only to the facts in the trial.
For my part, I don't know what to think of him. I think a perfectly legitimate case can be made that he is not a bad person at all, but caught himself up in a terrible situation. I think it is telling that all of his little outbursts happened after the trial, and his record was entirely clean before that. That could just as easily be untrue, and he could be awful. I know for a fact that nothing I say is going to change what people have been programmed to believe.
If this happened in Canada, Zimmerman would have been in jail for minimum seven years. It'd be considered manslaughter with his pathetic "life in danger" excuse.
The whole decision in the court of law thing is one of my biggest gripes about this entire case. There are laws in Florida that shouldn't be laws that allow people to get away with shit like this because of the I-need-my-gun-more-than-another-person-needs-their-life backwater culture that certain people spoon feed to the actual uneducated, ill informed masses of that state.
But what do expect from the hanging chad state? What do expect from the state that wouldn't close down beaches during spring break during a pandemic? What do you expect from a state that suffered 4 mass shootings in the last decade leaving 74 dead and crickets when it comes to protecting their population?
Objecting to the law itself is about the only thing you can do, because it's undeniable it was within the bounds of the law.
I fully support strong self defense laws, myself, and would have it no other way. Go ahead and let old people get killed because they can't defend themselves or run away, if that's what you need to appease your naïve sense of justice. Mass shootings as an anti red state argument is the perfect example of an emotional argument not supported in any way by reality. California has had over a dozen of them in the past 4 years, and the very worst one took place in a swing state that went democratic for the past 12 years.
The correlation between gun ownership and gun violence is a more realistic argument, but even that has significant and numerous exceptions that make claims of causality doubtful at best. There are 7 states where the gun ownership rate is nearly or over 50%, extremely high, while the gun murder rate per capita is 1-3%, low to average. Some states have similar population numbers but differing gun ownership rates, with the lower gun ownership state having the higher rate of gun violence. One place in particular has an overwhelming rate of gun violence, clearly the highest for a number of years, and that's Washington, D.C, with a low rate of gun ownership. Clearly, there are a lot more variables at play when it comes to gun violence, and violence in general, than merely the weapon, that have a more significant impact. Many of these red state hicks you look down upon so much are doing just fine with their gun laws, and have less of a problem than the rest of the nation.
Bear in mind that the thread rules state that your fellow forumites are not acceptable subjects for criticism or negative commentary. This thread is only for discussing political figures, events, ideas, and trends. It is not here for passing judgment on other commenters.
There's a widespread myth that certain cities like Washington DC are the gun violence capitol of the US. Chicago has this same false reputation as well. The problem is that DC and Chicago are large, and so accumulated totals are reported, and not rate stats.
But the actual most dangerous cities in the US are consistently mid-size cities in the Midwest or the South. Which isn't surprising as both regions are wracked by economic issues that do not afflict places like Chicago and the coastal cities as much. The South suffers from long-lived intergenerational poverty, and the Midwest is now suffering from decades of post-industrialization.
If you sort by homicide rate, you'll see DC comes in 19th on this list. And a rate stat very far from the leader (16.72 vs 66-30 for the top cities.) People should challenge their assumptions on this issue and click that link and then sort the list by homicide. Many of these states by the way are very gun-friendly states even if they're swing states or moderately blue states. Midwest Democrats are not necessarily pro-gun control.
Ultimately though it's useless to compare within the US. Especially on a blue-red axis. Crime concentrates in cities, always has since the days of Greek city-states. That's where the capital is. Moreover, it's painless to transfer guns across state lines. Arguing that DC is an example that gun control doesn't work is absurd considering how easy it is to "smuggle" a weapon in from Maryland or Virginia. I'll have more to say on an international comparison, but the data there is super clear -- the US stands as a major outlier on both gun ownership and homicide rates among high-income countries. If nothing else, the idea that gun control cannot work is belied by the existence of so many states with a third to a fifth of the homicide rate of the US.
" Go ahead and let old people get killed because they can't defend themselves or run away, if that's what you need to appease your naïve sense of justice."
This one line got me.
Old people do not randomly get attacked on the street and if they did, having a lax gun law for them to protect themselves is IMO counter productive to having a stronger police or security presence in the area.
Like am I misinterpreting you here?
I kinda get the rest of your argument but I do not think gun ownership and gun crime should be the comparable. I come from a military family so I grew up around guns and was taught how to properly use them and store them. Surprisingly, I am pro gun ownership. I think 95% of any population would follow gun laws properly however, it's that other 5% that also makes me pro gun control. I do not think a person on a neighbourhood watch should be allowed to carry a gun in public as I have zero idea if they actually know how to use it properly. Every profession who open caries a fire arm, like Brink's truck drivers are trained and retrained on how to use the weapon if they are ever in the unfortunate position to use it. What training did Zimmerman have to go through or Shotgun wielding maniac chasing down a jogger go through? Why are they getting a free pass to act stupid? Oh right. Backwater Laws.
If Zimmerman wasn't armed, he would have been less apprehensive to actually approach Martin and actually wait for the police like he was told to. IMO, there was nothing wrong watching where this kid was going, it was infringing on his liberty where I personally draw the line. In Zimmerman's eyes, Martin was guilty and he had to prove his innocence. The same thing with shot gun toting lunatic. That's not how the law works, that both got away with treating another citizen like that: Backwater Laws.
One problem in the US now is that there is a large contingent that is maximalist on gun freedom. Open carry laws, few limits on the type of firearms that can be sold, and the public displaying of these weapons at the first instance of even moderate attempts at legislation. And this maximalist position is not a fringe position in the US, it's become the mainstream conservative position, advocated by their politicians at the highest levels.
But the second amendment doesn't have to be interpreted as barring any kind of gun control laws whatsoever. Moderate proposals like background checks and permits, bans on high capacity weapons are the only real proposals that Democrats could possibly get thru if they had majority national rule. (Again, many Democrats are pro-gun as well.) And yet these proposals are basically non-starters for almost the entirety of one major party at this point.
So it turns out that Florida's numbers "aren't as bad" because they have been purposefully fudging the data and lying about the numbers. We have no business saying anything about China manipulating stats at this point.
Conservative writer David French eviscerates the story and excuses of the lynch mob in Georgia. Key points, at BEST, some black man was guilty of......walking onto an abandoned construction site. There is no evidence it was THIS black man. May have been, may not have been. There has also been ONE burglary reported in that area since January. That does not under any circumstance constitute "alot of burglaries" or "a string of burglaries" As I predicted, it was simply the default excuse that is used for these situations as sure as the sun rises in the East:
As Arbery approached the truck, he was wearing what looked like workout clothes and running with his hands in clear view. He was not holding a weapon.
If you’ve watched the video, you can already spot one clear problem. The video doesn’t depict McMichael pulling up beside Arbery but instead shows him waiting, blocking the road with his truck. Arbery changed direction to avoid the truck, Travis McMichael moved to intercept Arbery while holding his shotgun, the two scuffled (it’s not clear who initiated contact), and then Travis fired three shots.
Some context: The Brunswick News (thank God for diligent local media) noted that only one burglary had been reported to local police between January 1 and the day of the shooting. On January 1, someone allegedly stole a 9mm handgun from a pickup truck outside Travis McMichael’s home. A Brunswick resident named Larry English also told The Daily Beast that someone stole $2,500 in fishing equipment from his property, an alleged loss he did not report to the police.
.........................
Georgia law does indeed permit a person to execute a citizen’s arrest—in very narrow circumstances. The relevant false arrest statute holds that a “private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.”
Once the citizen’s arrest is properly made, Georgia law requires the citizen to take the suspect before a judicial officer or peace officer “without any unnecessary delay.”
It’s also true, however, that an unlawful attempt to take and hold a person is itself a crime—false imprisonment. Under Georgia law, a person commits the crime of false imprisonment “when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority.”
Moreover, according to Georgia case law, one cannot use the citizen’s arrest statute “to question” a suspect. In fact, stating an intention to question a suspect can be evidence that the individual claiming a right to make a citizen’s arrest is “uncertain and did not have immediate knowledge” that the victim had been the perpetrator of the alleged crime.
Now, let’s apply the law to the facts. On the day Arbery died, a 911 caller said a man matching Arbery’s description was walking inside a vacant construction site. Another caller said, “There’s a black male running down the street.” Gregory McMichael claimed he recognized Arbery from “surveillance video” after “several break-ins in the neighborhood.”
The only “offense” committed in anyone’s presence is the report of a person walking into a construction site. If that merits mounting up an armed three-person, two-vehicle posse to chase a man in broad daylight and menace him with weapons, then many of us are lucky to be alive and free. Just last week I walked into a house under construction in my neighborhood to check out the new floor plans. I didn’t even think to check for an armed gang charging down the street.
The McMichaels’ other possible argument is that the unspecified video footage from unspecified previous break-ins constituted sufficient “immediate knowledge” that a crime had been committed days or weeks ago, and that alleged older crime provided the McMichaels with “reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion that they were pursuing a fleeing felon.”
Justifying armed pursuit on that basis would represent a remarkable application and extension of the law. It would empower vigilantism. It would empower citizens to independently investigate crimes and seek to arrest suspects on their own authority.
But that is, in fact, exactly what HAS been empowered by letting these guys skate without so much as a single charge for MONTHS. The only reason we are even hearing about this is because of (once again) the video. This shit has been going on for hundreds of years. The only thing bringing it into sunlight is technology.
For the record, I have personally seen people looking in car windows with flashlights in the lots of the apartments where I live on numerous occasions because I either walk to the gym or take alot of walks late at night because of my schedule. Each time, those people have simply ran away once they saw me. I didn't make any attempt to pursue them because I don't have delusions of grandeur about being some kind of Wild West deputy, and the possible risk of doing so, first and foremost to me, is not worth the trade-off of "catching" a petty thief.
I'm also mindful of the fact I am only permitted to walk around without fear in the evening because of my height, sex, and skin color. If I wasn't a tall, white male, there would be any number of reasons for me to not walk alone after dark. If I wasn't white, I could be harassed by police for doing so. If I wasn't male, I could be at the mercy of a sexual predator. And even in the unlikely event someone wanted to "mug" me, being 6'2 would likely make them think twice. My life is not everyone else's reality.
The rationale for that appears to be that the investigation should not have started in the first place and therefore any lies told to it are irrelevant: The department said the interview between investigators and Flynn in January 2017 was "unjustified" and not conducted on a "legitimate investigative basis".
The department also said proving someone made a false statement to federal investigators "requires more than a lie. "It also requires demonstrating that such a statement was 'material' to the underlying investigation."
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Russia investigation, I can't see any way to interpret this decision except as a demonstration that the political view of an investigation can trump the judicial one. I could write something long-winded about the dangers of another small move towards the sort of system seen in China - or I could just quote Ian Hislop: "If that's justice, I'm a banana."
The rationale for that appears to be that the investigation should not have started in the first place and therefore any lies told to it are irrelevant: The department said the interview between investigators and Flynn in January 2017 was "unjustified" and not conducted on a "legitimate investigative basis".
The department also said proving someone made a false statement to federal investigators "requires more than a lie. "It also requires demonstrating that such a statement was 'material' to the underlying investigation."
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Russia investigation, I can't see any way to interpret this decision except as a demonstration that the political view of an investigation can trump the judicial one. I could write something long-winded about the dangers of another small move towards the sort of system seen in China - or I could just quote Ian Hislop: "If that's justice, I'm a banana."
Let's ask Mike Flynn himself, who was given EVERY opportunity to raise questions by the judge:
Judge- Do you wish to challenge the circumstances under which you were interviewed by the FBI??
Flynn- No, your honor, I was aware that lying to the FBI was a crime.
Judge- Do you believe you were entrapped by the FBI??
Flynn- No
This is the case in which Bill Barr thinks they can't reasonably secure a conviction. One in which the person has already unequivocally admitted to the said crime. Barr's response yesterday?? "History is written by the victors". I said it during his confirmation hearings, and right up to today. Barr is a dangerous blight on the American justice system. He's not the Attorney General. He's Trump's consigliere. The fact this was done during the middle of an ongoing national health crisis is further proof of their absolute malevolence. He can now get back to threatening legal action against Governors trying to save the lives of their citizens.
Kimmel is absolutely correct about this. Aside from everything else, the crowd in charge here is, above all, lazy and ineffectual. Everything is surface-level branding. The only actual work that goes on behind the scenes is handing money to connected cronies:
Take Trump's rhetoric on this from his own mouth. He says we're at war with the virus. Calls American citizens warriors. Ok, fine, let's play on that field. Let's say Oregon is invaded by North Korea. Does the President of the United States then declare the Governor of Oregon must take full control of the military situation and fight the invasion with nothing but the state national guard?? Apparently. But then that isn't enough. The Governor of Oregon is forced to conscript regular citizens since the ACTUAL military isn't being used by the President. But there are no guns or armor for them.
Trump is the one who has called it a war, himself a wartime President, and every citizen a warrior. Yet he is refusing to "arm" those warriors with anything they need to combat the said enemy. Those things are a coordinated mass testing system, massive amounts of protective equipment, and a FUCKING PLAN. Those are the tanks, missiles, and guns of this conflict. And he is suggesting us "American warriors" head onto the metaphorical battlefield with a loin cloth and a stick.
If the part about democracies having an advantage in fighting a disease is true, then maybe that's a clear indication our democracy is, at best, on life support. And the part about earthquakes in the midwest is reminding me that MAYBE it's just possible we shouldn't be injecting 10s of millions of gallons of water into the Earth through fracking to get oil.
This is actually an area where the right and left are EQUALLY nuts, as about the same percentage of self-identified people on either side believe, for god only knows what reason, that vaccines are the real problem rather than the diseases they are meant to nullify.
So we have:
1.) A federal government who refuses to do anything to mitigate the damage
2.) A half-ass shutdown that was made pointless by armed mobs
3.) A premature reopening fueled in no small part by excessive media coverage of those armed mobs
4.) 1 in 5 people refusing to get inoculated when the time comes.
Yeah, this is going to go just swell. Can't imagine how any of this would cause any problems whatsoever. This country is unfathomably stupid. It's a bunch of people rubbing shit in their hair thinking it's a really nice-smelling shampoo.
We wouldn't be able to eradicate smallpox in 2020, because 20% of the population are lunatics:
This is actually an area where the right and left are EQUALLY nuts, as about the same percentage of self-identified people on either side believe, for god only knows what reason, that vaccines are the real problem rather than the diseases they are meant to nullify.
So we have:
1.) A federal government who refuses to do anything to mitigate the damage
2.) A half-ass shutdown that was made pointless by armed mobs
3.) A premature reopening fueled in no small part by excessive media coverage of those armed mobs
4.) 1 in 5 people refusing to get inoculated when the time comes.
Yeah, this is going to go just swell. Can't imagine how any of this would cause any problems whatsoever. This country is unfathomably stupid. It's a bunch of people rubbing shit in their hair thinking it's a really nice-smelling shampoo.
Jesus or homeopathic medicine (ie: shamans) will protect them!
I had no sympathy for the Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq (who were getting paid ten-fold what actual soldiers were) and the same applies here. If you are putting yourself out as a gun for hire, if you end up dead or captured, that's on you. You put yourself in that kind of deadly game, then you play by those rules.
I'm not sure about leading, but this from the article: Mike Pompeo declined to discuss who might have funded the plot and said the United States government was not “directly involved.”
certainly sounds as if the government was encouraging things (not to mention the recent offering of a $15m dollar reward for Maduro's capture).
This is actually an area where the right and left are EQUALLY nuts, as about the same percentage of self-identified people on either side believe, for god only knows what reason, that vaccines are the real problem rather than the diseases they are meant to nullify.
So we have:
1.) A federal government who refuses to do anything to mitigate the damage
2.) A half-ass shutdown that was made pointless by armed mobs
3.) A premature reopening fueled in no small part by excessive media coverage of those armed mobs
4.) 1 in 5 people refusing to get inoculated when the time comes.
Yeah, this is going to go just swell. Can't imagine how any of this would cause any problems whatsoever. This country is unfathomably stupid. It's a bunch of people rubbing shit in their hair thinking it's a really nice-smelling shampoo.
One of the major reasons people will not take the vaccine is because of safety concerns. ( takes between 5-10 yrs and more than one blind placebo test to make sure it works and is safe.) The others is Bill Gates.
It was already in trouble before COVID-19, but JC Penny falling marks the absolute end of the mall retail store. And by that, I mean the 4 stores that always occupied the corners of the facility. Sears, Macy's, JC Penny, Herberger's. Like the video rental store, it's now on borrowed time, and malls themselves probably aren't far behind. Amazon, Wal-Mart, and Target (and whatever substitutes for Target outside the Midwest) is all that will be available:
It's actually hard to even count the number of chain stores that peppered the landscape throughout the '90s that simply no longer exist that were absolute bedrocks of shopping growing up. But JC Penny possibly disappearing is perhaps the most stark example that we aren't in Kansas anymore.
While she's at it, why not send the tribes a shipment of blankets with COVID-19 on them?? We will take ANY opportunity to fuck over Native tribes. It's like having a hot dog on July 4th:
She refused to do anything or accept any responsibility for the Smithfield plant outbreak. She has praised the company despite their obviously criminally negligent safety standards and blamed the workers (with a heavy insinuation that they were spreading it in their "immigrant communities"). Now the tribes are attempting to protect their people, but we can't have that. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that they don't just not care if minorities get COVID-19, but that they are actively trying to kill as many of them as possible.
What people need to understand is that the conservative charade about local government was never anything more than a talking point. It has been thrown completely out the window in this pandemic. They now believe Governors have no authority, except when they are attempting to nullify tribal sovereignty. Then, of course, it's fine.
It was already in trouble before COVID-19, but JC Penny falling marks the absolute end of the mall retail store. And by that, I mean the 4 stores that always occupied the corners of the facility. Sears, Macy's, JC Penny, Herberger's. Like the video rental store, it's now on borrowed time, and malls themselves probably aren't far behind. Amazon, Wal-Mart, and Target (and whatever substitutes for Target outside the Midwest) is all that will be available:
It's actually hard to even count the number of chain stores that peppered the landscape throughout the '90s that simply no longer exist that were absolute bedrocks of shopping growing up. But JC Penny possibly disappearing is perhaps the most stark example that we aren't in Kansas anymore.
@jjstraka34 absolutely infuriating stuff, to see the pittance of aid at a huge time lag and the swift retribution for trying to make things less dangerous for themselves...just colonialist white supremacy in action, and it's appalling.
While she's at it, why not send the tribes a shipment of blankets with COVID-19 on them?? We will take ANY opportunity to fuck over Native tribes. It's like having a hot dog on July 4th:
She refused to do anything or accept any responsibility for the Smithfield plant outbreak. She has praised the company despite their obviously criminally negligent safety standards and blamed the workers (with a heavy insinuation that they were spreading it in their "immigrant communities"). Now the tribes are attempting to protect their people, but we can't have that. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that they don't just not care if minorities get COVID-19, but that they are actively trying to kill as many of them as possible.
What people need to understand is that the conservative charade about local government was never anything more than a talking point. It has been thrown completely out the window in this pandemic. They now believe Governors have no authority, except when they are attempting to nullify tribal sovereignty. Then, of course, it's fine.
These checkpoints sound harmless. I may actually need to consult a map to figure out where they are and if it is a main transitway (with no other alternatives), but it does sound like the governor is just flexing on them. If national governments are closing borders to stop the spread, I don't see why small local governments can't do it either.
I do hope the tribes stand there ground in this case.
We've now reached the point where not just the lockdown, but completely reasonable safety measures and even BASIC HYGIENE have been turned into a battle in the culture war. But I'm sure it's the fault of "both sides"................
First off, order a toaster online. You'll get it in 3 days. Secondly, the idea that HAND SANITIZER is a bad idea right now but hugs and handshakes are a good one is straight-up cult-like behavior. Pretty soon we'll have these morons reaching into their ass crack and smearing the walls with what they pull out to "own the libs". I mean, what's next here?? Stop showering to show you won't be a slave of the government?? Confiscate the soap from your child's bathroom??
Meanwhile, here are Trump's ACTUAL words about Pence's press secretary testing positive for COVID-19:
“Katie, she tested very good for a long period of time, and then all of the sudden she tested positive ... this is why the whole concept of tests aren't necessarily great ... today, I guess, for some reason, she tested positive."
That's right, he's either saying tests are worthless because they can give different results if circumstances change (say, if you aren't pregnant one month, but are the next) or they are only useful if they give you the results you want. I think this pretty much explains our current situation in one quote. We don't really need to dig any deeper into this.
People like Todd Starnes give me a visceral sort of disgust. I absolutely detest these completely out of touch, utterly banal people with their mind-numbingly stupid takes and how they dominate right wing think tanks and funding. These slimy carnival barkers actually get paid for this sort of verbal refuse.
Comments
Objecting to the law itself is about the only thing you can do, because it's undeniable it was within the bounds of the law.
I fully support strong self defense laws, myself, and would have it no other way. Go ahead and let old people get killed because they can't defend themselves or run away, if that's what you need to appease your naïve sense of justice. Mass shootings as an anti red state argument is the perfect example of an emotional argument not supported in any way by reality. California has had over a dozen of them in the past 4 years, and the very worst one took place in a swing state that went democratic for the past 12 years.
The correlation between gun ownership and gun violence is a more realistic argument, but even that has significant and numerous exceptions that make claims of causality doubtful at best. There are 7 states where the gun ownership rate is nearly or over 50%, extremely high, while the gun murder rate per capita is 1-3%, low to average. Some states have similar population numbers but differing gun ownership rates, with the lower gun ownership state having the higher rate of gun violence. One place in particular has an overwhelming rate of gun violence, clearly the highest for a number of years, and that's Washington, D.C, with a low rate of gun ownership. Clearly, there are a lot more variables at play when it comes to gun violence, and violence in general, than merely the weapon, that have a more significant impact. Many of these red state hicks you look down upon so much are doing just fine with their gun laws, and have less of a problem than the rest of the nation.
But the actual most dangerous cities in the US are consistently mid-size cities in the Midwest or the South. Which isn't surprising as both regions are wracked by economic issues that do not afflict places like Chicago and the coastal cities as much. The South suffers from long-lived intergenerational poverty, and the Midwest is now suffering from decades of post-industrialization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
If you sort by homicide rate, you'll see DC comes in 19th on this list. And a rate stat very far from the leader (16.72 vs 66-30 for the top cities.) People should challenge their assumptions on this issue and click that link and then sort the list by homicide. Many of these states by the way are very gun-friendly states even if they're swing states or moderately blue states. Midwest Democrats are not necessarily pro-gun control.
Ultimately though it's useless to compare within the US. Especially on a blue-red axis. Crime concentrates in cities, always has since the days of Greek city-states. That's where the capital is. Moreover, it's painless to transfer guns across state lines. Arguing that DC is an example that gun control doesn't work is absurd considering how easy it is to "smuggle" a weapon in from Maryland or Virginia. I'll have more to say on an international comparison, but the data there is super clear -- the US stands as a major outlier on both gun ownership and homicide rates among high-income countries. If nothing else, the idea that gun control cannot work is belied by the existence of so many states with a third to a fifth of the homicide rate of the US.
This one line got me.
Old people do not randomly get attacked on the street and if they did, having a lax gun law for them to protect themselves is IMO counter productive to having a stronger police or security presence in the area.
Like am I misinterpreting you here?
I kinda get the rest of your argument but I do not think gun ownership and gun crime should be the comparable. I come from a military family so I grew up around guns and was taught how to properly use them and store them. Surprisingly, I am pro gun ownership. I think 95% of any population would follow gun laws properly however, it's that other 5% that also makes me pro gun control. I do not think a person on a neighbourhood watch should be allowed to carry a gun in public as I have zero idea if they actually know how to use it properly. Every profession who open caries a fire arm, like Brink's truck drivers are trained and retrained on how to use the weapon if they are ever in the unfortunate position to use it. What training did Zimmerman have to go through or Shotgun wielding maniac chasing down a jogger go through? Why are they getting a free pass to act stupid? Oh right. Backwater Laws.
If Zimmerman wasn't armed, he would have been less apprehensive to actually approach Martin and actually wait for the police like he was told to. IMO, there was nothing wrong watching where this kid was going, it was infringing on his liberty where I personally draw the line. In Zimmerman's eyes, Martin was guilty and he had to prove his innocence. The same thing with shot gun toting lunatic. That's not how the law works, that both got away with treating another citizen like that: Backwater Laws.
FBI definition tends to be standard now and days. 4 or more victims.
But the second amendment doesn't have to be interpreted as barring any kind of gun control laws whatsoever. Moderate proposals like background checks and permits, bans on high capacity weapons are the only real proposals that Democrats could possibly get thru if they had majority national rule. (Again, many Democrats are pro-gun as well.) And yet these proposals are basically non-starters for almost the entirety of one major party at this point.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/coronavirus/article242552796.html
And even AFTER fully adjusting for the population discrepancy, there is no getting around South Korea's success and our abysmal failure:
https://thedispatch.com/p/a-vigilante-killing-in-georgia
As Arbery approached the truck, he was wearing what looked like workout clothes and running with his hands in clear view. He was not holding a weapon.
If you’ve watched the video, you can already spot one clear problem. The video doesn’t depict McMichael pulling up beside Arbery but instead shows him waiting, blocking the road with his truck. Arbery changed direction to avoid the truck, Travis McMichael moved to intercept Arbery while holding his shotgun, the two scuffled (it’s not clear who initiated contact), and then Travis fired three shots.
Some context: The Brunswick News (thank God for diligent local media) noted that only one burglary had been reported to local police between January 1 and the day of the shooting. On January 1, someone allegedly stole a 9mm handgun from a pickup truck outside Travis McMichael’s home. A Brunswick resident named Larry English also told The Daily Beast that someone stole $2,500 in fishing equipment from his property, an alleged loss he did not report to the police.
.........................
Georgia law does indeed permit a person to execute a citizen’s arrest—in very narrow circumstances. The relevant false arrest statute holds that a “private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.”
Once the citizen’s arrest is properly made, Georgia law requires the citizen to take the suspect before a judicial officer or peace officer “without any unnecessary delay.”
It’s also true, however, that an unlawful attempt to take and hold a person is itself a crime—false imprisonment. Under Georgia law, a person commits the crime of false imprisonment “when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority.”
Moreover, according to Georgia case law, one cannot use the citizen’s arrest statute “to question” a suspect. In fact, stating an intention to question a suspect can be evidence that the individual claiming a right to make a citizen’s arrest is “uncertain and did not have immediate knowledge” that the victim had been the perpetrator of the alleged crime.
Now, let’s apply the law to the facts. On the day Arbery died, a 911 caller said a man matching Arbery’s description was walking inside a vacant construction site. Another caller said, “There’s a black male running down the street.” Gregory McMichael claimed he recognized Arbery from “surveillance video” after “several break-ins in the neighborhood.”
The only “offense” committed in anyone’s presence is the report of a person walking into a construction site. If that merits mounting up an armed three-person, two-vehicle posse to chase a man in broad daylight and menace him with weapons, then many of us are lucky to be alive and free. Just last week I walked into a house under construction in my neighborhood to check out the new floor plans. I didn’t even think to check for an armed gang charging down the street.
The McMichaels’ other possible argument is that the unspecified video footage from unspecified previous break-ins constituted sufficient “immediate knowledge” that a crime had been committed days or weeks ago, and that alleged older crime provided the McMichaels with “reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion that they were pursuing a fleeing felon.”
Justifying armed pursuit on that basis would represent a remarkable application and extension of the law. It would empower vigilantism. It would empower citizens to independently investigate crimes and seek to arrest suspects on their own authority.
But that is, in fact, exactly what HAS been empowered by letting these guys skate without so much as a single charge for MONTHS. The only reason we are even hearing about this is because of (once again) the video. This shit has been going on for hundreds of years. The only thing bringing it into sunlight is technology.
For the record, I have personally seen people looking in car windows with flashlights in the lots of the apartments where I live on numerous occasions because I either walk to the gym or take alot of walks late at night because of my schedule. Each time, those people have simply ran away once they saw me. I didn't make any attempt to pursue them because I don't have delusions of grandeur about being some kind of Wild West deputy, and the possible risk of doing so, first and foremost to me, is not worth the trade-off of "catching" a petty thief.
I'm also mindful of the fact I am only permitted to walk around without fear in the evening because of my height, sex, and skin color. If I wasn't a tall, white male, there would be any number of reasons for me to not walk alone after dark. If I wasn't white, I could be harassed by police for doing so. If I wasn't male, I could be at the mercy of a sexual predator. And even in the unlikely event someone wanted to "mug" me, being 6'2 would likely make them think twice. My life is not everyone else's reality.
The rationale for that appears to be that the investigation should not have started in the first place and therefore any lies told to it are irrelevant:
The department said the interview between investigators and Flynn in January 2017 was "unjustified" and not conducted on a "legitimate investigative basis".
The department also said proving someone made a false statement to federal investigators "requires more than a lie. "It also requires demonstrating that such a statement was 'material' to the underlying investigation."
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Russia investigation, I can't see any way to interpret this decision except as a demonstration that the political view of an investigation can trump the judicial one. I could write something long-winded about the dangers of another small move towards the sort of system seen in China - or I could just quote Ian Hislop: "If that's justice, I'm a banana."
Let's ask Mike Flynn himself, who was given EVERY opportunity to raise questions by the judge:
Judge- Do you wish to challenge the circumstances under which you were interviewed by the FBI??
Flynn- No, your honor, I was aware that lying to the FBI was a crime.
Judge- Do you believe you were entrapped by the FBI??
Flynn- No
This is the case in which Bill Barr thinks they can't reasonably secure a conviction. One in which the person has already unequivocally admitted to the said crime. Barr's response yesterday?? "History is written by the victors". I said it during his confirmation hearings, and right up to today. Barr is a dangerous blight on the American justice system. He's not the Attorney General. He's Trump's consigliere. The fact this was done during the middle of an ongoing national health crisis is further proof of their absolute malevolence. He can now get back to threatening legal action against Governors trying to save the lives of their citizens.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/05/07/experts-knew-pandemic-was-coming-what-they-fear-next-238686
Take Trump's rhetoric on this from his own mouth. He says we're at war with the virus. Calls American citizens warriors. Ok, fine, let's play on that field. Let's say Oregon is invaded by North Korea. Does the President of the United States then declare the Governor of Oregon must take full control of the military situation and fight the invasion with nothing but the state national guard?? Apparently. But then that isn't enough. The Governor of Oregon is forced to conscript regular citizens since the ACTUAL military isn't being used by the President. But there are no guns or armor for them.
Trump is the one who has called it a war, himself a wartime President, and every citizen a warrior. Yet he is refusing to "arm" those warriors with anything they need to combat the said enemy. Those things are a coordinated mass testing system, massive amounts of protective equipment, and a FUCKING PLAN. Those are the tanks, missiles, and guns of this conflict. And he is suggesting us "American warriors" head onto the metaphorical battlefield with a loin cloth and a stick.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2020-05-07/democracies-have-edge-fighting-wars
If the part about democracies having an advantage in fighting a disease is true, then maybe that's a clear indication our democracy is, at best, on life support. And the part about earthquakes in the midwest is reminding me that MAYBE it's just possible we shouldn't be injecting 10s of millions of gallons of water into the Earth through fracking to get oil.
This is actually an area where the right and left are EQUALLY nuts, as about the same percentage of self-identified people on either side believe, for god only knows what reason, that vaccines are the real problem rather than the diseases they are meant to nullify.
So we have:
1.) A federal government who refuses to do anything to mitigate the damage
2.) A half-ass shutdown that was made pointless by armed mobs
3.) A premature reopening fueled in no small part by excessive media coverage of those armed mobs
4.) 1 in 5 people refusing to get inoculated when the time comes.
Yeah, this is going to go just swell. Can't imagine how any of this would cause any problems whatsoever. This country is unfathomably stupid. It's a bunch of people rubbing shit in their hair thinking it's a really nice-smelling shampoo.
Jesus or homeopathic medicine (ie: shamans) will protect them!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/world/americas/venezuela-failed-overthrow.html#click=https://t.co/OAutn0wHWr
I had no sympathy for the Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq (who were getting paid ten-fold what actual soldiers were) and the same applies here. If you are putting yourself out as a gun for hire, if you end up dead or captured, that's on you. You put yourself in that kind of deadly game, then you play by those rules.
I'm not sure about leading, but this from the article:
Mike Pompeo declined to discuss who might have funded the plot and said the United States government was not “directly involved.”
certainly sounds as if the government was encouraging things (not to mention the recent offering of a $15m dollar reward for Maduro's capture).
One of the major reasons people will not take the vaccine is because of safety concerns. ( takes between 5-10 yrs and more than one blind placebo test to make sure it works and is safe.) The others is Bill Gates.
It's actually hard to even count the number of chain stores that peppered the landscape throughout the '90s that simply no longer exist that were absolute bedrocks of shopping growing up. But JC Penny possibly disappearing is perhaps the most stark example that we aren't in Kansas anymore.
She refused to do anything or accept any responsibility for the Smithfield plant outbreak. She has praised the company despite their obviously criminally negligent safety standards and blamed the workers (with a heavy insinuation that they were spreading it in their "immigrant communities"). Now the tribes are attempting to protect their people, but we can't have that. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that they don't just not care if minorities get COVID-19, but that they are actively trying to kill as many of them as possible.
What people need to understand is that the conservative charade about local government was never anything more than a talking point. It has been thrown completely out the window in this pandemic. They now believe Governors have no authority, except when they are attempting to nullify tribal sovereignty. Then, of course, it's fine.
Naw, they've disappeared from Kansas too
These checkpoints sound harmless. I may actually need to consult a map to figure out where they are and if it is a main transitway (with no other alternatives), but it does sound like the governor is just flexing on them. If national governments are closing borders to stop the spread, I don't see why small local governments can't do it either.
I do hope the tribes stand there ground in this case.
First off, order a toaster online. You'll get it in 3 days. Secondly, the idea that HAND SANITIZER is a bad idea right now but hugs and handshakes are a good one is straight-up cult-like behavior. Pretty soon we'll have these morons reaching into their ass crack and smearing the walls with what they pull out to "own the libs". I mean, what's next here?? Stop showering to show you won't be a slave of the government?? Confiscate the soap from your child's bathroom??
Meanwhile, here are Trump's ACTUAL words about Pence's press secretary testing positive for COVID-19:
“Katie, she tested very good for a long period of time, and then all of the sudden she tested positive ... this is why the whole concept of tests aren't necessarily great ... today, I guess, for some reason, she tested positive."
That's right, he's either saying tests are worthless because they can give different results if circumstances change (say, if you aren't pregnant one month, but are the next) or they are only useful if they give you the results you want. I think this pretty much explains our current situation in one quote. We don't really need to dig any deeper into this.
/rant