Saddam... Saddam... Wasn't he the one who Don Rumsfeld was chummy with in the 80s and who the Reagan Administration was giving tanks, missiles and technology so he could produce chemical weapons? Oh and who also gave him satellite imagery so he could bomb civilian targets in Iran?
Yeah, but that demonstrates nothing about our view of Iraq compared to Saudi Arabia. It only demonstrates our view of Iraq compared to Iran.
For Iraq compared to Saudi Arabia you have to look at how we armed Saudi Arabia. We armed Saudi Arabia with weapons far superior to those we armed Iraq with. F-15s and AWACs for example, although the AWACs had to be US flagged and crewed.
No other species inflicts completely pointless suffering on others like we do.
Have you ever watched a cat play with an animal it caught? Sometimes, they eat them when they are done, but often times they get up and walk away when they can't get it to move any more.
Dolphins too. They will kill for sport not feeding, not defense. They will also rape and commit infanticide.
You'll notice this in all countries where religion is close to state function.
Like the USA which has "In God we trust" on their currency.
That is a slogan with no legal weight. We also have the slogan "A New Order of the Ages", pyramids with all seeing eyes, symbols from ancient Rome (some of which were part of Roman religion), Roman/Greek goddesses, etc.
Where legal weight is concerned all we have is a constitution that says the government can not favor or discriminate against a particular religion.
Untrue. Backups get lost, go bad, or otherwise screwed up. At a previous employer old directories no longer accessed got backed up to tape to free up server space. We used a lot of storage at this company. On multiple occasions some years old files were needed. About half the time we would be told that these files were no longer recoverable by IT. After one of these backup failures I recalled that I had made a backup DVD of one old project we were trying to get a copy of. I went to our archivist and she found the DVD, it was readable.
Save the media. Buy a USB based floppy drive. It makes sense to copy the files on these legacy format to a server for future use but keeping the originals around as a backup is a good idea.
Do not image the media. These image formats may fall out of favor and not be recognizable in the future. Look at the various problems NASA has had with some of its old tapes using formats no longer supported. Create a folder on a server for a particular piece of media and just copy and verify the files from the legacy media to the folder on the server.
Proof that the US government truly has gone evil: They've named their latest drone carrier after the terrorist organization in GI Joe.
Either that or a small predatory water anima. Hydra
Both the DARPA project and this critter are named after the mythological water beast with many heads, a beast the Hercules battled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lernaean_Hydra
This reminds me during WW2 Japenese developed subs that could surface and open a tiny hangar which launched 1-3 small planes. Sometimes scouts, sometimes bombers. The planes could land on water next to the sub, which had a crane to lift the plane back into the hangar.
they were intended to drop incendiary bombs on forests.
There was also a plan to drop fleas infected with bubonic plague on U.S. cities. Test bombings were conducted on the Chinese cities of Ningbo and Changde by Unit 731 of the Imperial Japanese Army. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
"a killing was unnecessary and should not have happened"
Okay, if we agree on this, then we agree on enough to say that it was a criminal homicide. "An unnecessary killing that should not have happened" is pretty much the definition of manslaughter, so okay, we're on the same page. We agree, very good, no need to argue.
No. Unnecessary killings are not necessarily illegal killings. It is unnecessary in the sense that the incident could have been easily avoided by **both** parties. **Both** parties made mistakes, Martin the most serious, the beat down of Zimmerman. Interviewed jurors thought the testimony of Martin's friend who was on the phone with him backed Zimmerman's story. TM: Why are you following me? GZ: What are you doing around here? Thump sound. On the grass sounds. Zimmerman with the grass on his back and the bloody nose.
Zimmerman may have been overzealous in his neighborhood watch activities but his actions were still legal.
Martin did not have to confront Zimmerman, he could have ignored the creepy guy following him (The court stated following was legal. Martin's used the word "follow", repeated in his phone conversation with his friend) and just gone to his Dad's place. According to an interviewed juror, his friend places Martin near his Dad's place at one point. The juror said Martin had to move away from his Dad's place to get to the place where the fight took place. Again, this is from a juror who listened to all the evidence.
Again, and most importantly, Martin did not have to beat down Zimmerman once they were face to face and talking. Again, the testimony of the friend on the phone. What happened is not even manslaughter because Martin's act of beating down Zimmerman gave Zimmerman the right to self defense. The beat down was unnecessary, a creepy guys follows you and asks what you are doing around here, that is why the killing was unnecessary.
Trayvon suddenly decided for no reason that instead of running away and hiding, oh what the heck I'll just go kill the cracker. It is preposterous, so George's story is preposterous...
According to the girl who was on the phone with Martin she heard Martin say "Why are you following me for?". She then heard the other guy say "What are you doing around here?". Then she hears a "bumb" and sounds like someone on the grass. Zimmerman had the bloody face, the bloody head. Zimmerman had the grass on his back. The girl's testimony, Martin's friend, backs Zimmerman's story
Throughout her interview she repeatedly said that Martin used the word "following". Following is not hunting. The words exchanged are perfectly normal and reasonable words. Get over it. Just because a killing was unnecessary and should not have happened does not mean you should let your anger blind you to the facts and embrace a fantasy promoted by those trying to politicize this tragedy.
It depends on the circumstances that led to the creepy guy brandishing the firearm. If he is operating under a *reasonable* fear of severe bodily injury or death it may be legal for him to be brandishing. You grabbing for the gun may give him the right to self defense. If the circumstances are that you are a stranger who forced your way into the creepy guy's home then your legal options are to surrender or to retreat. That is a pretty extreme scenario but it illustrates the point.
In other scenarios things become much less clear. If the creepy guy had a *reasonable* reason to brandish then he would have the right to self defense if you grabbed for the gun. If you were committing no crime and did not understand the creepy guy's true reason for brandishing you may also have a *reasonable* fear of severe bodily injury or death and have the right to self defense. Yes, both parties could have a *reasonable* fear and the right to self defense. A *reasonable* fear is not necessarily an absolutely correct fear, there is room for misunderstanding. So in this scenario whoever ends up with the gun and uses it may have legally done so in self defense.
Yes, that is pretty crazy sounding. Both guys in a fight could be acting in self defense. Not likely but possible.
I am not a lawyer. I am not a police officer. However I used to volunteer for the county search and rescue team. Since we might discover or handle evidence the county wanted us to take a law class that the state requires for all law enforcement personnel. While not applicable to me since I would not be arresting anyone nor would I carry a weapon, the class did cover the use of deadly force. The preceding is my understanding from this class. It was stressed in the class that a *reasonable* fear was required, not a factually correct fear, and that an *imminent* threat was required.
"If Martin ignored the creepy looking guy and just kept on walking home he would be alive."
What makes you say that?
The evidence presented in court. Both the police and the jury believed the evidence supported GZ's story that TM started the physical fight and had GZ on his back and was pounding him into the ground.
Now add the evidence not presented in court, TM getting suspended for fighting. TM texting his friends about taking a guy out with one punch to the face (the sort of thing GZ claimed TM started the fight with), about several fights, about a "rematch" for one of these fights. All this also supports GZ's story, TM trying to take a guy by surprise and ending a fight in one punch to the face.
Creepy guy with a gun hunts you through the night, and you have to just wait for him to shoot you in the back?
There is no evidence at all that GZ drew his gun before being on his back on the ground. If GZ's gun had been visible or in his hand TM would not have started the fight. You describe a fantasy that is contrary to the evidence.
*After* running away from Zimmerman, Martin was *still* pursued.
After TM walked around a corner heading out of the complex GZ lost sight of him, he was on the phone with the police. GZ walked in a different direction and TM confronted him on the interior of the complex. TM lost GZ and circled back around apparently to teach the creep a lesson. Again, you describe a fantasy that is contrary to the evidence.
The world you just described is a world where Martin has to let Zimmerman shoot him in cold blood without ever a chance to save his own life.
Wrong. Martin would not have been shot if he had not beat down Zimmerman. If Martin ignored the creepy looking guy and just kept on walking home he would be alive.
In our world, Martin has the right to defend himself against Zimmerman's assault.
Wrong. In the real world, the world of evidence, there is no evidence that Zimmerman initiated a physical altercation. Seriously, you really need a new source of info, someone is feeding you a narrative pretty far from reality.
"being followed does not create a reasonable belief of imminent threat"
I disagree. I think a reasonable person would fear for their safety when an unknown creepy-ass cracker hunted. them across many streets at night for no reason.
You don't know what is in the other person's mind. Perhaps you are a stranger to a neighborhood and a resident of that neighborhood wants to know what you are up to. A perfectly reasonable and legal thing for that resident to want to know. They are free to follow, free to ask questions. You are free to ignore them, free to continue on home. You are not at liberty to beat them down because you feel uncomfortable for being followed, disrespected for being asked questions.
In my opinion, only an unreasonable person would deny something so obvious.
The only thing obvious is that if you attack the creepy person the law says they have the right to self defense. Seriously, you desperately need a new source of info on the law.
Martin was defending himself against an assailant, a person who committed assault, by hunting him through the night...
You are severely misinformed, following is not an assault. It was specifically brought up at trial that GZ following TM was perfectly legal. A poor decision, unnecessary, yet still perfectly legal.
... And the outcome of the situation supports the validity of his fear, considering the creepy-ass cracker did, in fact, murder him.
No, the outcome of the situation is due to his misguided idea to beat down on the creepy guy, giving the creepy guy the legal right to use deadly force to defend himself. Without the beat down there would have been no legal right to use the gun.
So it's not a question of feeling in danger, but actually being in danger to your life?
No, its a *reasonable* belief that one is in *imminent* danger of severe bodily injury or death. "Reasonable" often defined by what a prosecutor and/or jury believes.
That creates a funny situation in which I don't see a way of defending yourself from an armed stalker. Until he actually attacks you or pulls a weapon on you you're not allowed to defend yourself.
That's sort of the situation. People have the right to look creepy or scary. Consider the "castle doctrine" where in some states you are presumed to be in imminent danger of death or severe bodily injury when a stranger forces their way into your home. This presumption disappears if there is evidence to the contrary. Bullet entry woulds in the stranger's front, then the law says there is a presumption of imminent threat, of self defense. Its not a matter of a prosecutor's discretion, state law say it is so. Bullet entry wounds in the back and now we have evidence to the contrary and the homeowner has no right to self defense since there is no imminent threat, the invaders back is towards the homeowner. The short story, the threat *has to be* imminent. A possible threat existing is not enough. A simple act like the invader turning his back removes the right to self defense.
But if you pull a weapon on him, he can shoot you (since you're threatening his life).
In the creepy guy following you scenario, yes. A person can actually attack you, you can defend yourself, they can express a desire for peace and if you continue to fight they now have the right to self defense. That is how the law works in most states. When the imminent threat disappears, the attacker calls for peace in some manner, the right to self defense also disappears.
Again, the right to self defense often requires a *reasonable* belief and an *imminent* threat.
Merely being followed does not create a reasonable belief of imminent threat to life or severe bodily injury. So self defense does not exist. If you commence a beat down at this point you are legally the aggressor and the creepy guy has the right to self defense.
Getting followed by a creepy guy does not give you the right to beat him down. Being just or unjustly followed does not matter. When you beat down a person you give him the legal right to self defense.
Card is half right, the government should not be marrying anyone -- straight or gay. The traditional marriage folks are correct in the sense that marriage is historically a religious institution to a large degree. Government should not perform marriages due to the concept of separation of church and state. What government should do is perform civil unions, straight or gay, and these civil unions should embody *all* legal rights and privileges. Members of the clergy should also be allowed to perform these civil unions, the civil union being implicitly part of a clerical marriage ceremony. However the marriage itself only conveys church rights and privileges, all the civil stuff comes from the implicit civil union. Now regarding gay marriage, that is now a church issue. If its OK with church doctrine its a go, if not its a no go.
Everyone has the same civil rights. Every church if free to interpret marriage according to their culture.
Sadly this would deprive both sides of a favorite political wedge issue.
3,142 people have summited Everest a total of 5,104 times. Two hundred and nineteen people have lost their lives, with a quarter dying after reaching the summit. That's a 6.97% fatality rate. It's hardly something to joke about.
With today's ultralight gear and portable O2 its not quite the same climb that it used to be. And if you are paying a "guide" to carry your gear and extra O2 tanks its even less so. Not everyone who get their photo taken at the summit has "truly" climbed Everest.
You sound like the sort of person who's only slightly less bad than those who support nonsense such as the TSA. It is thanks to those with your mentality (as well as apathy) that such abuses are even happening. Congratulations.
Actually I'm the sort who has read his grandfather's letters during WW2. Nearly every letter was censored. A violation of his and my grandmother's privacy? Yes. A temporary wartime necessity? Yes. In contrast my father's letters to my mother are uncensored, he served during peacetime.
I was merely responding to "It was a temporary and partial loss of freedom in order to help win a far more fundamental freedom for others." I think such a mentality is poisonous, so I replied. I don't care about semantics.
Actually it seems you don't care about reality, context nor proportionality. The world is not black and white, its gray. Wartime privacy is a gray topic, the cost of too much principals are human lives? Where do we yield a little on our principles, at one life, at a thousand lives, at a million lives, or never? Our principals are our suicide pact?
Fighting and losing while keeping your principles is far better than being a sniveling coward.
In the real world brave men do things in wartime they know to be wrong, things against their principles, so that they and others may live in peace, freedom and once again according to their principles at a future date.
You sound like a naive sheltered fool who has no clue what bravery is, merely a Sansa-like romantic fantasy of bravery.
""The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact
Don't harm innocent people (in this case, by taking away their freedoms)...
Reading a telegraph was harm in Lincoln's day? A message that by its very nature was read by miscellaneous strangers in the course of its creation and receipt?
It was a temporary and partial loss of freedom in order to help win a far more fundamental freedom for others.
Don't harm innocent people (in this case, by taking away their freedoms) in order to defeat the bad guys; cowards do that.
"Gentlemen don't read other gentlemen's mail."
Henry L. Stimson, U.S. Secretary of War during the Pearl Harbor attack and the former U.S. Secretary of State who in 1929 shut down the office in the U.S. State Department responsible for breaking codes to read messages sent between embassies of other countries and their capitals.
Stimson's naivety seems alive and well.
Open Source is similar to the Tea Party ...
on
The IRS vs. Open Source
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Open Source is similar to the Tea Party. It advocates for individual involvement, responsibility and rights. It wishes to downplay the involvement and power of government and corporations.
I realize many of you are flipping out at the comparison to the Tea Party. Don't let politics blind you. While political beliefs may differ wildly there are these shared basic concepts. These concepts are inherently a threat to the government/corporate status quo.
Don't you understand what just happened? We are now entering a trade war...
We have already been in a trade war with China for many years. Its merely been a one side trade war allowing China to do as they please...
It starts with a 20-30% price discount on all goods and services due to currency manipulation. It continues with dumping products in targeted industries below "cost". Sometimes literally, sometimes indirectly by not enforcing Chinese wage and pollution laws. Yes such laws exists, they are merely selectively ignored for strategic industries and markets. It then continues with barriers to entry for US goods and services, entry may only be allowed with domestic partnerships and technology transfers (free R&D).
Slashdot Mirror
Saddam... Saddam... Wasn't he the one who Don Rumsfeld was chummy with in the 80s and who the Reagan Administration was giving tanks, missiles and technology so he could produce chemical weapons? Oh and who also gave him satellite imagery so he could bomb civilian targets in Iran?
Yeah, but that demonstrates nothing about our view of Iraq compared to Saudi Arabia. It only demonstrates our view of Iraq compared to Iran.
For Iraq compared to Saudi Arabia you have to look at how we armed Saudi Arabia. We armed Saudi Arabia with weapons far superior to those we armed Iraq with. F-15s and AWACs for example, although the AWACs had to be US flagged and crewed.
No other species inflicts completely pointless suffering on others like we do.
Have you ever watched a cat play with an animal it caught? Sometimes, they eat them when they are done, but often times they get up and walk away when they can't get it to move any more.
Dolphins too. They will kill for sport not feeding, not defense. They will also rape and commit infanticide.
Like the USA which has "In God we trust" on their currency.
That is a slogan with no legal weight. We also have the slogan "A New Order of the Ages", pyramids with all seeing eyes, symbols from ancient Rome (some of which were part of Roman religion), Roman/Greek goddesses, etc.
Where legal weight is concerned all we have is a constitution that says the government can not favor or discriminate against a particular religion.
Re:Is there any benefit?
No. Image and discard.
Untrue. Backups get lost, go bad, or otherwise screwed up. At a previous employer old directories no longer accessed got backed up to tape to free up server space. We used a lot of storage at this company. On multiple occasions some years old files were needed. About half the time we would be told that these files were no longer recoverable by IT. After one of these backup failures I recalled that I had made a backup DVD of one old project we were trying to get a copy of. I went to our archivist and she found the DVD, it was readable.
Save the media. Buy a USB based floppy drive. It makes sense to copy the files on these legacy format to a server for future use but keeping the originals around as a backup is a good idea.
Do not image the media. These image formats may fall out of favor and not be recognizable in the future. Look at the various problems NASA has had with some of its old tapes using formats no longer supported. Create a folder on a server for a particular piece of media and just copy and verify the files from the legacy media to the folder on the server.
Proof that the US government truly has gone evil: They've named their latest drone carrier after the terrorist organization in GI Joe.
Either that or a small predatory water anima. Hydra
Both the DARPA project and this critter are named after the mythological water beast with many heads, a beast the Hercules battled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lernaean_Hydra
This reminds me during WW2 Japenese developed subs that could surface and open a tiny hangar which launched 1-3 small planes. Sometimes scouts, sometimes bombers. The planes could land on water next to the sub, which had a crane to lift the plane back into the hangar.
they were intended to drop incendiary bombs on forests.
There was also a plan to drop fleas infected with bubonic plague on U.S. cities. Test bombings were conducted on the Chinese cities of Ningbo and Changde by Unit 731 of the Imperial Japanese Army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
"a killing was unnecessary and should not have happened"
Okay, if we agree on this, then we agree on enough to say that it was a criminal homicide. "An unnecessary killing that should not have happened" is pretty much the definition of manslaughter, so okay, we're on the same page. We agree, very good, no need to argue.
No. Unnecessary killings are not necessarily illegal killings. It is unnecessary in the sense that the incident could have been easily avoided by **both** parties. **Both** parties made mistakes, Martin the most serious, the beat down of Zimmerman. Interviewed jurors thought the testimony of Martin's friend who was on the phone with him backed Zimmerman's story. TM: Why are you following me? GZ: What are you doing around here? Thump sound. On the grass sounds. Zimmerman with the grass on his back and the bloody nose.
Zimmerman may have been overzealous in his neighborhood watch activities but his actions were still legal.
Martin did not have to confront Zimmerman, he could have ignored the creepy guy following him (The court stated following was legal. Martin's used the word "follow", repeated in his phone conversation with his friend) and just gone to his Dad's place. According to an interviewed juror, his friend places Martin near his Dad's place at one point. The juror said Martin had to move away from his Dad's place to get to the place where the fight took place. Again, this is from a juror who listened to all the evidence.
Again, and most importantly, Martin did not have to beat down Zimmerman once they were face to face and talking. Again, the testimony of the friend on the phone. What happened is not even manslaughter because Martin's act of beating down Zimmerman gave Zimmerman the right to self defense. The beat down was unnecessary, a creepy guys follows you and asks what you are doing around here, that is why the killing was unnecessary.
Trayvon suddenly decided for no reason that instead of running away and hiding, oh what the heck I'll just go kill the cracker. It is preposterous, so George's story is preposterous ...
According to the girl who was on the phone with Martin she heard Martin say "Why are you following me for?". She then heard the other guy say "What are you doing around here?". Then she hears a "bumb" and sounds like someone on the grass. Zimmerman had the bloody face, the bloody head. Zimmerman had the grass on his back. The girl's testimony, Martin's friend, backs Zimmerman's story
Throughout her interview she repeatedly said that Martin used the word "following". Following is not hunting. The words exchanged are perfectly normal and reasonable words. Get over it. Just because a killing was unnecessary and should not have happened does not mean you should let your anger blind you to the facts and embrace a fantasy promoted by those trying to politicize this tragedy.
It depends on the circumstances that led to the creepy guy brandishing the firearm. If he is operating under a *reasonable* fear of severe bodily injury or death it may be legal for him to be brandishing. You grabbing for the gun may give him the right to self defense. If the circumstances are that you are a stranger who forced your way into the creepy guy's home then your legal options are to surrender or to retreat. That is a pretty extreme scenario but it illustrates the point.
In other scenarios things become much less clear. If the creepy guy had a *reasonable* reason to brandish then he would have the right to self defense if you grabbed for the gun. If you were committing no crime and did not understand the creepy guy's true reason for brandishing you may also have a *reasonable* fear of severe bodily injury or death and have the right to self defense. Yes, both parties could have a *reasonable* fear and the right to self defense. A *reasonable* fear is not necessarily an absolutely correct fear, there is room for misunderstanding. So in this scenario whoever ends up with the gun and uses it may have legally done so in self defense.
Yes, that is pretty crazy sounding. Both guys in a fight could be acting in self defense. Not likely but possible.
I am not a lawyer. I am not a police officer. However I used to volunteer for the county search and rescue team. Since we might discover or handle evidence the county wanted us to take a law class that the state requires for all law enforcement personnel. While not applicable to me since I would not be arresting anyone nor would I carry a weapon, the class did cover the use of deadly force. The preceding is my understanding from this class. It was stressed in the class that a *reasonable* fear was required, not a factually correct fear, and that an *imminent* threat was required.
"If Martin ignored the creepy looking guy and just kept on walking home he would be alive."
What makes you say that?
The evidence presented in court. Both the police and the jury believed the evidence supported GZ's story that TM started the physical fight and had GZ on his back and was pounding him into the ground.
Now add the evidence not presented in court, TM getting suspended for fighting. TM texting his friends about taking a guy out with one punch to the face (the sort of thing GZ claimed TM started the fight with), about several fights, about a "rematch" for one of these fights. All this also supports GZ's story, TM trying to take a guy by surprise and ending a fight in one punch to the face.
Creepy guy with a gun hunts you through the night, and you have to just wait for him to shoot you in the back?
There is no evidence at all that GZ drew his gun before being on his back on the ground. If GZ's gun had been visible or in his hand TM would not have started the fight. You describe a fantasy that is contrary to the evidence.
*After* running away from Zimmerman, Martin was *still* pursued.
After TM walked around a corner heading out of the complex GZ lost sight of him, he was on the phone with the police. GZ walked in a different direction and TM confronted him on the interior of the complex. TM lost GZ and circled back around apparently to teach the creep a lesson. Again, you describe a fantasy that is contrary to the evidence.
The world you just described is a world where Martin has to let Zimmerman shoot him in cold blood without ever a chance to save his own life.
Wrong. Martin would not have been shot if he had not beat down Zimmerman. If Martin ignored the creepy looking guy and just kept on walking home he would be alive.
In our world, Martin has the right to defend himself against Zimmerman's assault.
Wrong. In the real world, the world of evidence, there is no evidence that Zimmerman initiated a physical altercation. Seriously, you really need a new source of info, someone is feeding you a narrative pretty far from reality.
"being followed does not create a reasonable belief of imminent threat"
I disagree. I think a reasonable person would fear for their safety when an unknown creepy-ass cracker hunted. them across many streets at night for no reason.
You don't know what is in the other person's mind. Perhaps you are a stranger to a neighborhood and a resident of that neighborhood wants to know what you are up to. A perfectly reasonable and legal thing for that resident to want to know. They are free to follow, free to ask questions. You are free to ignore them, free to continue on home. You are not at liberty to beat them down because you feel uncomfortable for being followed, disrespected for being asked questions.
In my opinion, only an unreasonable person would deny something so obvious.
The only thing obvious is that if you attack the creepy person the law says they have the right to self defense. Seriously, you desperately need a new source of info on the law.
Martin was defending himself against an assailant, a person who committed assault, by hunting him through the night ...
You are severely misinformed, following is not an assault. It was specifically brought up at trial that GZ following TM was perfectly legal. A poor decision, unnecessary, yet still perfectly legal.
... And the outcome of the situation supports the validity of his fear, considering the creepy-ass cracker did, in fact, murder him.
No, the outcome of the situation is due to his misguided idea to beat down on the creepy guy, giving the creepy guy the legal right to use deadly force to defend himself. Without the beat down there would have been no legal right to use the gun.
So it's not a question of feeling in danger, but actually being in danger to your life?
No, its a *reasonable* belief that one is in *imminent* danger of severe bodily injury or death. "Reasonable" often defined by what a prosecutor and/or jury believes.
That creates a funny situation in which I don't see a way of defending yourself from an armed stalker. Until he actually attacks you or pulls a weapon on you you're not allowed to defend yourself.
That's sort of the situation. People have the right to look creepy or scary. Consider the "castle doctrine" where in some states you are presumed to be in imminent danger of death or severe bodily injury when a stranger forces their way into your home. This presumption disappears if there is evidence to the contrary. Bullet entry woulds in the stranger's front, then the law says there is a presumption of imminent threat, of self defense. Its not a matter of a prosecutor's discretion, state law say it is so. Bullet entry wounds in the back and now we have evidence to the contrary and the homeowner has no right to self defense since there is no imminent threat, the invaders back is towards the homeowner. The short story, the threat *has to be* imminent. A possible threat existing is not enough. A simple act like the invader turning his back removes the right to self defense.
But if you pull a weapon on him, he can shoot you (since you're threatening his life).
In the creepy guy following you scenario, yes. A person can actually attack you, you can defend yourself, they can express a desire for peace and if you continue to fight they now have the right to self defense. That is how the law works in most states. When the imminent threat disappears, the attacker calls for peace in some manner, the right to self defense also disappears.
Again, the right to self defense often requires a *reasonable* belief and an *imminent* threat.
What if you feel he's a danger to your life?
Merely being followed does not create a reasonable belief of imminent threat to life or severe bodily injury. So self defense does not exist. If you commence a beat down at this point you are legally the aggressor and the creepy guy has the right to self defense.
Getting followed by a creepy guy does not give you the right to beat him down. Being just or unjustly followed does not matter. When you beat down a person you give him the legal right to self defense.
Card is half right, the government should not be marrying anyone -- straight or gay. The traditional marriage folks are correct in the sense that marriage is historically a religious institution to a large degree. Government should not perform marriages due to the concept of separation of church and state. What government should do is perform civil unions, straight or gay, and these civil unions should embody *all* legal rights and privileges. Members of the clergy should also be allowed to perform these civil unions, the civil union being implicitly part of a clerical marriage ceremony. However the marriage itself only conveys church rights and privileges, all the civil stuff comes from the implicit civil union. Now regarding gay marriage, that is now a church issue. If its OK with church doctrine its a go, if not its a no go.
Everyone has the same civil rights. Every church if free to interpret marriage according to their culture.
Sadly this would deprive both sides of a favorite political wedge issue.
Yep. gcc -O2 makes a huge difference.
Perhaps in George Mallory's day, but any serious modern climber will be using clang -O2.
3,142 people have summited Everest a total of 5,104 times. Two hundred and nineteen people have lost their lives, with a quarter dying after reaching the summit. That's a 6.97% fatality rate. It's hardly something to joke about.
With today's ultralight gear and portable O2 its not quite the same climb that it used to be. And if you are paying a "guide" to carry your gear and extra O2 tanks its even less so. Not everyone who get their photo taken at the summit has "truly" climbed Everest.
You sound like the sort of person who's only slightly less bad than those who support nonsense such as the TSA. It is thanks to those with your mentality (as well as apathy) that such abuses are even happening. Congratulations.
Actually I'm the sort who has read his grandfather's letters during WW2. Nearly every letter was censored. A violation of his and my grandmother's privacy? Yes. A temporary wartime necessity? Yes. In contrast my father's letters to my mother are uncensored, he served during peacetime.
I was merely responding to "It was a temporary and partial loss of freedom in order to help win a far more fundamental freedom for others." I think such a mentality is poisonous, so I replied. I don't care about semantics.
Actually it seems you don't care about reality, context nor proportionality. The world is not black and white, its gray. Wartime privacy is a gray topic, the cost of too much principals are human lives? Where do we yield a little on our principles, at one life, at a thousand lives, at a million lives, or never? Our principals are our suicide pact?
Losing a war equals losing your freedom.
Fighting and losing while keeping your principles is far better than being a sniveling coward.
In the real world brave men do things in wartime they know to be wrong, things against their principles, so that they and others may live in peace, freedom and once again according to their principles at a future date.
You sound like a naive sheltered fool who has no clue what bravery is, merely a Sansa-like romantic fantasy of bravery.
""The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact
Don't harm innocent people (in this case, by taking away their freedoms) ...
Reading a telegraph was harm in Lincoln's day? A message that by its very nature was read by miscellaneous strangers in the course of its creation and receipt?
In the case of that war, yes, it was okay.
No, it wasn't.
It was a temporary and partial loss of freedom in order to help win a far more fundamental freedom for others.
Don't harm innocent people (in this case, by taking away their freedoms) in order to defeat the bad guys; cowards do that.
"Gentlemen don't read other gentlemen's mail."
Henry L. Stimson, U.S. Secretary of War during the Pearl Harbor attack and the former U.S. Secretary of State who in 1929 shut down the office in the U.S. State Department responsible for breaking codes to read messages sent between embassies of other countries and their capitals.
Stimson's naivety seems alive and well.
Open Source is similar to the Tea Party. It advocates for individual involvement, responsibility and rights. It wishes to downplay the involvement and power of government and corporations.
I realize many of you are flipping out at the comparison to the Tea Party. Don't let politics blind you. While political beliefs may differ wildly there are these shared basic concepts. These concepts are inherently a threat to the government/corporate status quo.
Don't you understand what just happened? We are now entering a trade war ...
We have already been in a trade war with China for many years. Its merely been a one side trade war allowing China to do as they please ...
It starts with a 20-30% price discount on all goods and services due to currency manipulation. It continues with dumping products in targeted industries below "cost". Sometimes literally, sometimes indirectly by not enforcing Chinese wage and pollution laws. Yes such laws exists, they are merely selectively ignored for strategic industries and markets. It then continues with barriers to entry for US goods and services, entry may only be allowed with domestic partnerships and technology transfers (free R&D).
A very interesting read on this topic:
http://www.amazon.com/Death-China-Confronting-Dragon-Global/dp/0132180235/ref=sr_1_1