>everyone can see the difference between TPB and Google.
If you say so, but you'll need to explain it in terms that can be applied when the parties are not TPB and Google, in particular. How certain are you that "everyone" has an unbiased view of the "difference?"
Anytime I am alone, not expecting someone very specifically, or the least bit apprehensive about going to or through the door.
I've lived in some areas with seriously high crime, and I've been a victim more than once.
As for the flashlight, I use it in a "modified Weaver stance", learned from (aborted) police training. Basically, the light and the pistol are treated as a unit.
Your points are well-taken. My intention for chiming in on this thread was to point out the harsh reality after someone lives out his fantasy of having a dead guy in his living room. It's not something you ever want, and it's going to change your life afterwards. I always encourage people to talk with someone who has been in this predicament. Few will ever mention it, never casually, and some of them you will have to write to in prison to get their story.
I also realize no crisis ever goes as planned. I keep a clear head, and I'm not a "castle" or a "make my day" type of person (at all). I'm actually quite the leftie.
"Even though that household socket can put out 10 A, about 50 times more than would be needed to electrocute you, it probably won't unless you're holding onto a water pipe with the other hand."
You're one of those guys who would install a ceiling fan without even turning it off at the switch, aren't you?
NYC doesn't go all courtroom drama on every simple assault case. Basically the assailant has agreed to plead guilty, and in return, he is getting a deferred adjudication.
The alternative would have been a straightforward hearing, and maybe a week in jail.
This type of assault isn't considered all that serious a crime. It might be different if there was a witness or other evidence to show that the assailant intended to kill the victim, and it would be very different if the assailant had used a deadly weapon.
Otherwise, not so much. This is how they deal with assault cases in New York City, get it?
>>Want to know why medical costs are so high? >> Because hospitals pay out their ass for malpractice suits.
>Really?
It is true, but I know enough medical doctors to be able to temper this notion with more reality than hysteria.
I didn't get the impression that the GP was a medical doctor or hospital administrator or an accountant who deals with this particular sector.
A hospital has many more institutional costs than malpractice insurance / litigation, and for a private practice the cost is significant but certainly not the barrier it's made out to be.
Of course, in a few years I'm going to be the one paying for insurance as my spouse (knock on wood) enters medical practice. Ping me then for an update, yeah?
Right. You get beat up *and* pursued by this guy, in your own home, the assailant has to be subdued by a police officer (where, there *was* one around when you needed one, lucky you!), you have a broken ankle which may heal perfectly and may not... and you're going to just let it go because someone criticizes you for being such a typical American and suing the guy?
Who are you to say he's exaggerating his damage? Whatever evidence he has, will be a matter of record for a court, which will not rule on his say-so, but on the evidence. The testimony of the police officer who had to use force to stop a crime in progress isn't going to hurt one bit.
With all due respect, I strongly believe the low incidence of violent crime in places like Denmark and Switzerland have to do with a generally higher intelligence among the populace, and numerous other cultural and societal differences that make those places not at all comparable to, in this case, New York City.
Certainly, the absence of guns are a factor, but please note, no guns were involved in this incident -- not even with the police officer that was involved!
I've been to both cities, and I can without any doubt assure you, Copenhagen is not Queens.
"If somebody points a gun at you, ya, you can shoot first."
However, in NYC where this story took place, you would *also* be guilty of a felony weapon possession, no matter how strong your self-defense homicide defense may be.
"It's known as jury nullification and is the single most important reason we even have trial by jury."
And if you think the laws that allow a self-defense defense to a homicide are subject to jury nullification in some simple way, you haven't studied the subject very seriously.
The question *will* be addressed, mind you, and probably during voir dire. Good luck!
This is all assuming a grand jury will move a case like that forward. In order for that to happen in the first place, there would have to be some confounding element. A clear case of self-defense in a home invasion will not get past a Grand Jury.
Talking about "jury nullification" without even hearing the specifics of a given case is exactly the kind of prejudice that will cause a mistrial.
"Or do you load a couple rounds and have your gun in hand every time the doorbell rings? Really? "
I do, sort of. We have a fairly detailed home defense plan. I can get away from you, get you away from me, get access to several weapons (not just a firearm), all quicker than you think, in the dark.
It's not at all uncommon for me to answer the door with a.38 ready -- not "in hand" unless I'm already suspicious. If I am suspicious, and I'm looking around the house, it's with a very bright one-handed light and either a.38 revolver or a 12 ga. shotgun. Do you have a problem with that?
As for defense outside my home, that's between me and what's in my pocket.
Juries respond better if you had a self-defense plan and carried it out. They also respond better to the use of ammunition with names like "Federal Personal Defense Ammunition" as opposed to "Black Talons."
So many people have a naive belief about what life is like after using force in self-defense. You should talk to someone who has had to do it, if you can get them to discuss it at all.
You should document your home defense plan. It may very well happen that you need to convince a jury that you considered self-defense to be a last resort, and not something you were eager to do.
I thought the same thing. However, do not be so cavalier on the question of consequences after a self-defense incident. Prisons do hold a number of guys who took for granted a "no-bill".
"What bad things could possibly happen by letting a fellow in that can't happen by opening the door to him to ask for ID?"
It adds a layer between the outcomes of my having to use deadly force to defend myself in my home, or not having to. I am highly motivated to avoid that situation unless forced.
In many places, the law is worded in terms of "detectable amount". Every cop car doesn't need to have a lab - they can drive you where the motorhome lab is parked.
>Make the prices any higher and the customers may start traveling two extra blocks to a chain gas station.
Yes, I did exactly that to get them for $1.20 a pack instead of $1.60. Of course I started smoking when they were 65 cents. I think I quit at $1.75. I can't imagine paying six bucks. That passed the commodity price of tobacco a long time ago, but that's not really the issue. People are not only addicted to nicotine, they are also addicted to the whole experience, which includes the packaging and the point of sale. Buying commodity tobacco at market price and rolling your own cigarettes isn't part of that experience (except for old people and hippies, and I *am* just talking about tobacco in this instance.)
Five ounces of Drum or American Spirit is about $20 still, right?
Most smokers wouldn't recognize a bushel of tobacco leaves if you dropped it on their head.
But people don't just want tobacco, they want *cigarettes*, and they want a certain brand, down to the very strain of tobacco used, the fertilzer used, the climate it's grown in, the way it's cured and dried, the stuff that's added, the shape of the filter, it's even down to the specific crinkle of the cellophane wrapper. Nobody has solved this equation more effectively than Marlboro, and that's why they can get -- my god -- six bucks a pack now -- and not only that, they can get it while giving a three percent margin to the retail outlet. This is amazing.
"Also keep in mind, that "tent city" thing he's got set up doesn't just house convicted criminals, it also houses people who are waiting for their court date to appear, and were unable to make bond."
I am *by no means* a fan of Sheriff Joe, but I want to point out that you're wrong. Nobody goes to Tent City without a conviction.
You are probably conflating two of Sheriff Joe's abuses, between Tent City and the Madison Street Jail which is in Downtown Phoenix. I'm not saying either of these places is more pleasant than the other, especially if you're being detained pre-trial.
I know exactly one person, who is also a longtime slashdotter, who has been an inmate at Tent City (for DUI). It turns out that the stories you read about Tent City are true, and that it's not really as bad as it's been made out to be. If I had to choose between Tent City and a seriously overcrowded brick-and-bars jail, I think I'd go for Tent City, frankly.
He's up for re-election in 2012. If I'm in Phoenix I won't be voting for him.
Nothing will make the case better than the election of Senator Cmdr. Taco.
Just make it happen, and the rest will follow. Nobody who matters is going to listen to a bunch of hypothetical arguments from "academics." But the incumbent Senator who loses against Taco might be able to make things happen.
Slashdot Mirror
>everyone can see the difference between TPB and Google.
If you say so, but you'll need to explain it in terms that can be applied when the parties are not TPB and Google, in particular.
How certain are you that "everyone" has an unbiased view of the "difference?"
>Any law that is involved in a case *that makes it to a jury* is subject to jury nullification.
Yes, but it's not as *simple* as it's made out to be (usually in tax protest and drug legalization circles, and almost never in any other context.)
Good luck with it.
>do you really do this every time?
Anytime I am alone, not expecting someone very specifically, or the least bit apprehensive about going to or through the door.
I've lived in some areas with seriously high crime, and I've been a victim more than once.
As for the flashlight, I use it in a "modified Weaver stance", learned from (aborted) police training. Basically, the light and the pistol are treated as a unit.
Your points are well-taken. My intention for chiming in on this thread was to point out the harsh reality after someone lives out his fantasy of having a dead guy in his living room. It's not something you ever want, and it's going to change your life afterwards. I always encourage people to talk with someone who has been in this predicament. Few will ever mention it, never casually, and some of them you will have to write to in prison to get their story.
I also realize no crisis ever goes as planned. I keep a clear head, and I'm not a "castle" or a "make my day" type of person (at all). I'm actually quite the leftie.
"Even though that household socket can put out 10 A, about 50 times more than would be needed to electrocute you, it probably won't unless you're holding onto a water pipe with the other hand."
You're one of those guys who would install a ceiling fan without even turning it off at the switch, aren't you?
NYC doesn't go all courtroom drama on every simple assault case. Basically the assailant has agreed to plead guilty, and in return, he is getting a deferred adjudication.
The alternative would have been a straightforward hearing, and maybe a week in jail.
This type of assault isn't considered all that serious a crime. It might be different if there was a witness or other evidence to show that the assailant intended to kill the victim, and it would be very different if the assailant had used a deadly weapon.
Otherwise, not so much. This is how they deal with assault cases in New York City, get it?
>>Want to know why medical costs are so high?
>> Because hospitals pay out their ass for malpractice suits.
>Really?
It is true, but I know enough medical doctors to be able to temper this notion with more reality than hysteria.
I didn't get the impression that the GP was a medical doctor or hospital administrator or an accountant who deals with this particular sector.
A hospital has many more institutional costs than malpractice insurance / litigation, and for a private practice the cost is significant but certainly not the barrier it's made out to be.
Of course, in a few years I'm going to be the one paying for insurance as my spouse (knock on wood) enters medical practice. Ping me then for an update, yeah?
Right. You get beat up *and* pursued by this guy, in your own home, the assailant has to be subdued by a police officer (where, there *was* one around when you needed one, lucky you!), you have a broken ankle which may heal perfectly and may not... and you're going to just let it go because someone criticizes you for being such a typical American and suing the guy?
Who are you to say he's exaggerating his damage? Whatever evidence he has, will be a matter of record for a court, which will not rule on his say-so, but on the evidence. The testimony of the police officer who had to use force to stop a crime in progress isn't going to hurt one bit.
I've seen them put holes in artisan masonry and other irreplaceable materials.
You'd probably be amazed at people who can sail with sextant navigation skills also. (I certainly am, and I feel safer with them than with GPS.)
"I would have had your ass evicted."
Not so fast. The "maintenance man" broke the law, unless he was responding to a legitimate emergency.
"One day while home from work, I heard a knock at the door, a muffled \"maintenance\" and someone start to key their way in."
That's trespass where I live, even for the property owner. I'm speaking as a landlord/property owner.
With all due respect, I strongly believe the low incidence of violent crime in places like Denmark and Switzerland have to do with a generally higher intelligence among the populace, and numerous other cultural and societal differences that make those places not at all comparable to, in this case, New York City.
Certainly, the absence of guns are a factor, but please note, no guns were involved in this incident -- not even with the police officer that was involved!
I've been to both cities, and I can without any doubt assure you, Copenhagen is not Queens.
"If somebody points a gun at you, ya, you can shoot first."
However, in NYC where this story took place, you would *also* be guilty of a felony weapon possession, no matter how strong your self-defense homicide defense may be.
"You can be charged with assault even if you did not batter the victim."
Or if you restrain them against their will, or give them a reasonable apprehension that they are in imminent danger.
"It's known as jury nullification and is the single most important reason we even have trial by jury."
And if you think the laws that allow a self-defense defense to a homicide are subject to jury nullification in some simple way, you haven't studied the subject very seriously.
The question *will* be addressed, mind you, and probably during voir dire. Good luck!
This is all assuming a grand jury will move a case like that forward. In order for that to happen in the first place, there would have to be some confounding element. A clear case of self-defense in a home invasion will not get past a Grand Jury.
Talking about "jury nullification" without even hearing the specifics of a given case is exactly the kind of prejudice that will cause a mistrial.
"Or do you load a couple rounds and have your gun in hand every time the doorbell rings? Really? "
I do, sort of. We have a fairly detailed home defense plan. I can get away from you, get you away from me, get access to several weapons (not just a firearm), all quicker than you think, in the dark.
It's not at all uncommon for me to answer the door with a .38 ready -- not "in hand" unless I'm already suspicious. If I am suspicious, and I'm looking around the house, it's with a very bright one-handed light and either a .38 revolver or a 12 ga. shotgun.
Do you have a problem with that?
As for defense outside my home, that's between me and what's in my pocket.
Juries respond better if you had a self-defense plan and carried it out. They also respond better to the use of ammunition with names like "Federal Personal Defense Ammunition" as opposed to "Black Talons."
So many people have a naive belief about what life is like after using force in self-defense. You should talk to someone who has had to do it, if you can get them to discuss it at all.
You should document your home defense plan. It may very well happen that you need to convince a jury that you considered self-defense to be a last resort, and not something you were eager to do.
I thought the same thing. However, do not be so cavalier on the question of consequences after a self-defense incident. Prisons do hold a number of guys who took for granted a "no-bill".
In this same situation, assaulting me in my house, assuming the story is true, the guy would be dead.
"What bad things could possibly happen by letting a fellow in that can't happen by opening the door to him to ask for ID?"
It adds a layer between the outcomes of my having to use deadly force to defend myself in my home, or not having to. I am highly motivated to avoid that situation unless forced.
"As a result, we will not take further action"
They will, if he is convicted of assault and battery.
In many places, the law is worded in terms of "detectable amount". Every cop car doesn't need to have a lab - they can drive you where the motorhome lab is parked.
>Make the prices any higher and the customers may start traveling two extra blocks to a chain gas station.
Yes, I did exactly that to get them for $1.20 a pack instead of $1.60. Of course I started smoking when they were 65 cents. I think I quit at $1.75. I can't imagine paying six bucks. That passed the commodity price of tobacco a long time ago, but that's not really the issue. People are not only addicted to nicotine, they are also addicted to the whole experience, which includes the packaging and the point of sale. Buying commodity tobacco at market price and rolling your own cigarettes isn't part of that experience (except for old people and hippies, and I *am* just talking about tobacco in this instance.)
Five ounces of Drum or American Spirit is about $20 still, right?
Most smokers wouldn't recognize a bushel of tobacco leaves if you dropped it on their head.
But people don't just want tobacco, they want *cigarettes*, and they want a certain brand, down to the very strain of tobacco used, the fertilzer used, the climate it's grown in, the way it's cured and dried, the stuff that's added, the shape of the filter, it's even down to the specific crinkle of the cellophane wrapper. Nobody has solved this equation more effectively than Marlboro, and that's why they can get -- my god -- six bucks a pack now -- and not only that, they can get it while giving a three percent margin to the retail outlet. This is amazing.
"Also keep in mind, that "tent city" thing he's got set up doesn't just house convicted criminals, it also houses people who are waiting for their court date to appear, and were unable to make bond."
I am *by no means* a fan of Sheriff Joe, but I want to point out that you're wrong. Nobody goes to Tent City without a conviction.
You are probably conflating two of Sheriff Joe's abuses, between Tent City and the Madison Street Jail which is in Downtown Phoenix. I'm not saying either of these places is more pleasant than the other, especially if you're being detained pre-trial.
I know exactly one person, who is also a longtime slashdotter, who has been an inmate at Tent City (for DUI). It turns out that the stories you read about Tent City are true, and that it's not really as bad as it's been made out to be. If I had to choose between Tent City and a seriously overcrowded brick-and-bars jail, I think I'd go for Tent City, frankly.
He's up for re-election in 2012. If I'm in Phoenix I won't be voting for him.
Nothing will make the case better than the election of Senator Cmdr. Taco.
Just make it happen, and the rest will follow. Nobody who matters is going to listen to a bunch of hypothetical arguments from "academics." But the incumbent Senator who loses against Taco might be able to make things happen.