A guy gives you a "warning punch" in a shoulder in the midst on an argument.
There is no such thing legally as a "warning punch", it is battery - a crime. You don't have the right to hit people no matter how much they piss you off in an argument. The only "out" you might get there is "fighting words", but I wouldn't look to it.
If you are smashing someone's head into the concrete pavement you are using potentially lethal force against them and shouldn't be surprised if they do whatever then can to end the threat you pose to them and their life.
If it doesn't appear to be a crime they probably won't be arrested, just a statement taken. Killing someone isn't necessarily a crime. Justified self-defense is not a crime, at least in the United States. In other countries you might be right as there is little if any right to self-defense regardless of circumstances. An Englishman's home used to be his castle, but now you would be lucky to avoid prosecution by the Crown and a long sentence if a robber died of exertion while in the act of beating you half to death, even if it was a repeat visit and beating.
No, I actually don't like repeating myself. Unfortunately idiocy tends to be fully redundant here, when one stupid post fails another is available to carry on the thread. Are you an orphan? I sure hope so.
But apparently Zimmerman was not injured [time.com] as he claims. Surely you must be aware of that, which makes me think bad things about you.
So, you are claiming that the police report - made before this became a controversial case - is false?
"While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head. . . .
Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my police vehicle and was given first aid by the SFD.
Do you have any evidence that the police falsified their report? If you don't, do you think I should think and feel like someone I can quote: "Surely you must be aware of that, which makes me think bad things about you" ?
You do know there are other eyewitnesses who claimed that was not the case? That's your probable cause right there.
Fabulous! New information! I'm for new information. Here is a link showing the eye witness I'm referring to:
In addition, an eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown, told police he saw a man fitting Zimmerman's description lying on the grass moaning and crying for help just seconds before he heard the gunshot that killed Martin.
And here is another report, which seems consistent with the above, and seems to be someone different:
After hearing raised voice, the witness said he peered out of the window and saw two men grappling with each other on the ground, one on top of the other. He said there were two struggles, both of which were on the grass next to a sidewalk. “I heard the yell for help then I heard another as I would describe as an excruciating type of yell. It didn’t even sound like a help it just sounded so painful,” he said. Following the cry, he described hearing “popping” sounds, believed to be multiple gunshots. One of the men then cried out for help.
You do know that Zimmerman was treated at the scene for injuries from havnig his head slammed into concrete by the 6'3" (1.9m) athlete Martin, was taken to the police station in hand cuffs, questioned, and released? You do know that there was at least one eyewitness that corroborated that Zimmerman was on the ground being attacked and calling for help? I'm sure you would know that... if you wanted to.
In 2009 there were 2,867 black males killed in the United States, of which 2,604 were killed by other blacks, 209 killed by whites. Why the outrage in this case? Might it be various people made assumptions about how this would play out?
In addition, an eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown, told police he saw a man fitting Zimmerman's description lying on the grass moaning and crying for help just seconds before he heard the gunshot that killed Martin.
Do you think the court should have any evidence to consider, or should it rule based only on the mobs chants and signs? If you think it should have evidence, then the investigations need to be completed first, and they aren't.
The normal flow is: incident -> investigation -> evidence -> prosecutors decision -> court -> trial -> verdict & (if guilty then punishment)
Right now we are still in the investigation stage and people are already calling for trials and punishment.
I like your statement, "It certainly doesn't look like that is happening." Based on what? It's hard to miss the news on this if you actually look.
If only the guy who shot another person without witnesses would have been actually *investigated*, instead of letting him walk entirely on his own testimony...
In short, you don't know what you are talking about, in pretty much any regard. Well done.
In addition, an eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown, told police he saw a man fitting Zimmerman's description lying on the grass moaning and crying for help just seconds before he heard the gunshot that killed Martin.
Would coudl possibly go wrong with enough people having your level in insight?
When New Black Panther Mikhail Muhammad called for the mobilization of a 10,000-strong black male mob to capture George Zimmerman, we glimpsed into the depths of racial depravity of the organization. “An eye for an eye,” Muhammad threatened. A cash bounty for Zimmerman, “dead or alive,” provided a nasty incentive for thugs across the land.
Last I saw, the US and the UK are not at war, yet at least one of those gitmo prisoners whose Habeas Corpus requests were ignored was a British citizen.
If his requests were ignored it was because he had no right to them under existing law. He would have been held due to making war as part of Al Qaeda regardless of his citizenship, much as non-German nationals fighting for the German army would have been held unless there was some special mitigating circumstance. (For example, a variety of POWs were forced, coerced by the German Army to serve various functions in its ranks.)
If said sad British subject had followed the Queen's flag to battle, he would have no issue as the US and UK are not at war as you helpfully point out. He would be happy and safe at home, enjoying Jelly Babies and curries. Unfortunately he joined in an organization that ultimately has the goal of overthrowing the Crown and the British government to make war against America and it's allies, including Britain. His loyalty is not to Crown and country, but to the virtual nation of the Islamic Caliphate and the Muslim people - the Ummah, on whose behalf he took up arms. In short, he is a traitor who took up arms in defiance of his owed allegiance to the Crown.
William Joyce replaced Mittler in 1939. Joyce was American-born and raised in Ireland and as a teenager he informed on the IRA rebels to the British forces during the Anglo-Irish War. He was also a senior member of the British Union of Fascists and fled England when tipped off about his planned internment on 26 August 1939. In February 1940, the BBC noted that the Lord Haw-Haw of the early war days (possibly Mittler) was now rarely heard on the air and had been replaced by a new spokesman. Joyce was the main German broadcaster in English for most of the war, and became a naturalised German citizen; he is usually regarded as Lord Haw-Haw, even though he was probably not the person to whom the term originally referred. . . .
. . . Joyce was captured by British forces in northern Germany just as the war ended,[18] tried, and eventually hanged for treason on 3 January 1946. Joyce's defence team, appointed by the court, argued that, as an American citizen and naturalised German, Joyce could not have been convicted of treason against the British Crown. However, the prosecution successfully argued that, on the basis of a technicality about having lied about his nationality to obtain a British passport and to vote, Joyce owed allegiance to the king.
Minimum sentences are pure insanity and pandering to the voters.
Or are they a completely rational response to Judges that won't enforce the laws they disagree with philosophically? Judged are often beyond recall or reaffirmation as politicians are, so mandatory requirements may be the only legally binding requirement on them.
The problem is that it takes away the option of the prosecutor and judge to give fair sentences, and forces them to hand out minimum sentences for cases where the minimum sentence was never intended.
That isn't really true. Prosecutors have discretion as to what crimes to charge people with. If they think one crime is too harsh for the circumstances, they can charge a lesser crime, or none at all.
I will point out that laws can be, and often are, amended based on experience with them in operation, sometimes in ones own polity, sometimes based on when happened in another.
Not really, no. As soon as you engage in this sort of behavior you are at risk, and you have little control over the risk other than not doing it. Most people know not to do it, Slashdot audience not withstanding.
Minimum sentences as well as private prisons should be entirely unconstitutional.
I'm afraid I'm not as dazzled by your pronouncement as the moderators, so I'll ask, could you expand upon this a bit? Why do you claim this? Why is it unjust for there to be minimum sentences or prisons run by private companies for the government? In most legal systems it is the prosecutor that makes the primary decision about the possible penalties you will face by deciding what crimes to charge you with: none, minor charges, or serious charges, depending upon the merits of the case. Once the prosecutor files charges, the penalties available to the judge tend to be considerably more limited than the options open to the prosecutor in charging. One of the reasons legislatures tend to impose minimum sentences is to ensure more uniform treatment of serious crimes. Also, as to the prisons run for the government by corporations - those tend to hold people convicted of lesser crimes, so there should be fewer issues with them and force. Why is this bad? Why must it be a government employee who counts you daily to make sure you are still in prison?
Do you have any more? The claim here seems to be that this is such a huge, pervasive problem that the situation must change. A single case isn't really going to do it. If your thinking is that government run facilities will be abuse, scandal, and corruption free, you are greatly mistaken. It would be easy enough to find any number of scandals over government run prisons. Where is the evidence of a systematic problem? So far this seems to be a philosophical issue in the main.
I typically don't worry too much about the US bitching about this or that, but when it reaches a critical level, bad things seem to happen in quick succession - and that makes me worried.
Then you should be able to relax. The US was attacked suddenly by Al Qaeda which was headquartered in Afghanistan, there was no gradual build-up. To the extent that there was a build-up it was the US government making demands of the Afghan government which they rejected due to Al Qaeda having the ruling Taliban in their power. As to Iraq, that situation started in 1990 and lasted until 2003 and included many UN resolutions against Iraq. Iraq was subject to special scrutiny due to their invasion and annexation of Kuwait which was rejected by the world. They were driven out by a coalition army of 500,000, crushing the Iraqi Army, and setting the stage for Iraq's disarmament. Iraq had a history of lying and concealing their weapons of mass destruction and their programs. As it was, if you believe it, they still had WMD after repeated denials until they secretly destroyed them in 1998, but continued to pretend as if they still had them on Saddam's orders in order to fool the Iranians. There isn't really anything like either of those cases going on with China. Let us know when the US demands sanctions against China and the Chinese don't use their permanent seat on the UN Security Council to veto them. If you truly are worried about the US and China at the moment, you may have an anxiety problem as there really isn't anything like the above going on.
The United States does have a real left, just like Europe. The far left has been less successful in gaining and holding office than in Europe. That may change as the American center/center-left has been losing the ability to identify and interest in rejecting the far left. America doesn't have the same sort of far right issue that Euope has due to the center/center-rights rejection of the far right fringe since the 50's. America's main political parties have also historically been big-tents, political parties with liberal and conservative wings. The Democrats have mostly driven out their moderates and conservatives and are keeping more of the fringe that used to be rejected. The Republicans still have moderates and the occasional liberal.
There's amendments with lower numbers they ignore all the time.
Why should the 10th be any different?
The actual problem, as generally seen on Slashdot, is that many people fail to understand how they get applied in practice as opposed to their actually being ignored. Prisoners of War, for example, have generally never been subject to Habeas corpus - a subject of perpetual confusion on Slashdot. German and Italian POWs in the UK, US, and Canada didn't have the right to Habeas Corpus in WW2, Al Qaeda members taken prisoner originally didn't either. (Perhaps they now wish Bin Laden hadn't declared War on the US. Of course it took 9/11 for the US to reply in kind, legally.)
This is, of course, utter fantasy mixed with BS. Minimum sentences have been in use going far back into history. Prisons run by corporations account for only about 10% of prison beds, and if there was that sort of corruption I expect we would hear of it constantly (with evidence). And three strikes laws?
The three strikes law significantly increases the prison sentences of persons convicted of a felony who have been previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies, and limits the ability of these offenders to receive a punishment other than a life sentence. Violent and serious felonies are specifically listed in state laws. Violent offenses include murder, robbery of a residence in which a deadly or dangerous weapon is used, rape and other sex offenses; serious offenses include the same offenses defined as violent offenses, but also include other crimes such as burglary of a residence and assault with intent to commit a robbery or murder.This law also penalizes habitual offenders
If you have evidence to support your nonsense, please present it.
Slashdot Mirror
I just happened to have it handy.
A guy gives you a "warning punch" in a shoulder in the midst on an argument.
There is no such thing legally as a "warning punch", it is battery - a crime. You don't have the right to hit people no matter how much they piss you off in an argument. The only "out" you might get there is "fighting words", but I wouldn't look to it.
If you are smashing someone's head into the concrete pavement you are using potentially lethal force against them and shouldn't be surprised if they do whatever then can to end the threat you pose to them and their life.
If it doesn't appear to be a crime they probably won't be arrested, just a statement taken. Killing someone isn't necessarily a crime. Justified self-defense is not a crime, at least in the United States. In other countries you might be right as there is little if any right to self-defense regardless of circumstances. An Englishman's home used to be his castle, but now you would be lucky to avoid prosecution by the Crown and a long sentence if a robber died of exertion while in the act of beating you half to death, even if it was a repeat visit and beating.
No, I actually don't like repeating myself. Unfortunately idiocy tends to be fully redundant here, when one stupid post fails another is available to carry on the thread. Are you an orphan? I sure hope so.
But apparently Zimmerman was not injured [time.com] as he claims. Surely you must be aware of that, which makes me think bad things about you.
So, you are claiming that the police report - made before this became a controversial case - is false?
"While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head. . . .
Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my police vehicle and was given first aid by the SFD.
Do you have any evidence that the police falsified their report? If you don't, do you think I should think and feel like someone I can quote: "Surely you must be aware of that, which makes me think bad things about you" ?
Inconvenient narratives in the Martin case
You do know there are other eyewitnesses who claimed that was not the case? That's your probable cause right there.
Fabulous! New information! I'm for new information. Here is a link showing the eye witness I'm referring to:
And here is another report, which seems consistent with the above, and seems to be someone different:
And of course Zimmerman was treated on the scene for head injuries, which is again consistent with the other reports.
As it was, the police took Zimmerman in for questioning in handcuffs, and released him. They know where he lives.
Do you have a link for me?
You do know that Zimmerman was treated at the scene for injuries from havnig his head slammed into concrete by the 6'3" (1.9m) athlete Martin, was taken to the police station in hand cuffs, questioned, and released? You do know that there was at least one eyewitness that corroborated that Zimmerman was on the ground being attacked and calling for help? I'm sure you would know that... if you wanted to.
In 2009 there were 2,867 black males killed in the United States, of which 2,604 were killed by other blacks, 209 killed by whites. Why the outrage in this case? Might it be various people made assumptions about how this would play out?
Inconvenient narratives in the Martin case
The revelation that pounding the human head against concrete can kill is fairly noteworthy . . . . and news to you?
There is an eye witness that contradicts your statements. Do you have a source?
Trayvon Martin Shooter Told Cops Teenager Went For His Gun
In addition, an eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown, told police he saw a man fitting Zimmerman's description lying on the grass moaning and crying for help just seconds before he heard the gunshot that killed Martin.
Do you think the court should have any evidence to consider, or should it rule based only on the mobs chants and signs? If you think it should have evidence, then the investigations need to be completed first, and they aren't.
The normal flow is: incident -> investigation -> evidence -> prosecutors decision -> court -> trial -> verdict & (if guilty then punishment)
Right now we are still in the investigation stage and people are already calling for trials and punishment.
I like your statement, "It certainly doesn't look like that is happening." Based on what? It's hard to miss the news on this if you actually look.
If only the guy who shot another person without witnesses would have been actually *investigated*, instead of letting him walk entirely on his own testimony...
In short, you don't know what you are talking about, in pretty much any regard. Well done.
NOT BREAKING NEWS on Zimmerman being bloodi
Trayvon Martin Shooter Told Cops Teenager Went For His Gun (Also, watch video)
In addition, an eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown, told police he saw a man fitting Zimmerman's description lying on the grass moaning and crying for help just seconds before he heard the gunshot that killed Martin.
Would coudl possibly go wrong with enough people having your level in insight?
KillZimmerman’ Twitter advocates violence against Martin’s killer
How Many Crimes Did the New Black Panthers Commit in Florida?
When New Black Panther Mikhail Muhammad called for the mobilization of a 10,000-strong black male mob to capture George Zimmerman, we glimpsed into the depths of racial depravity of the organization. “An eye for an eye,” Muhammad threatened. A cash bounty for Zimmerman, “dead or alive,” provided a nasty incentive for thugs across the land.
Paper: Spike Lee tweeted incorrect George Zimmerman address, possibly putting Sanford woman in danger
Inconvenient narratives in the Martin case
Civil rights leaders condemn Sharpton's call for escalated civil disobedience
Sad
It's a wonder that civilization withstands your level of insight as it appears to be all too common.
What does liberal-pacifist-reformist-cretinism "civil disobedience" have to do with workers revolution? You are ignorant, go study Lenin and Trotsky.
Great! You'll be showing up for the march then?
April 1st is International Workers Fools Day
I'm glad we have nothing else to spend money on besides toys for the military.
See this chart: Defense's Share of the Federal Pie and Economy Has Been Declining , in this report.
Last I saw, the US and the UK are not at war, yet at least one of those gitmo prisoners whose Habeas Corpus requests were ignored was a British citizen.
If his requests were ignored it was because he had no right to them under existing law. He would have been held due to making war as part of Al Qaeda regardless of his citizenship, much as non-German nationals fighting for the German army would have been held unless there was some special mitigating circumstance. (For example, a variety of POWs were forced, coerced by the German Army to serve various functions in its ranks.)
If said sad British subject had followed the Queen's flag to battle, he would have no issue as the US and UK are not at war as you helpfully point out. He would be happy and safe at home, enjoying Jelly Babies and curries. Unfortunately he joined in an organization that ultimately has the goal of overthrowing the Crown and the British government to make war against America and it's allies, including Britain. His loyalty is not to Crown and country, but to the virtual nation of the Islamic Caliphate and the Muslim people - the Ummah, on whose behalf he took up arms. In short, he is a traitor who took up arms in defiance of his owed allegiance to the Crown.
How could that work out?
Lord Haw-Haw
William Joyce replaced Mittler in 1939. Joyce was American-born and raised in Ireland and as a teenager he informed on the IRA rebels to the British forces during the Anglo-Irish War. He was also a senior member of the British Union of Fascists and fled England when tipped off about his planned internment on 26 August 1939. In February 1940, the BBC noted that the Lord Haw-Haw of the early war days (possibly Mittler) was now rarely heard on the air and had been replaced by a new spokesman. Joyce was the main German broadcaster in English for most of the war, and became a naturalised German citizen; he is usually regarded as Lord Haw-Haw, even though he was probably not the person to whom the term originally referred. . . .
. . . Joyce was captured by British forces in northern Germany just as the war ended,[18] tried, and eventually hanged for treason on 3 January 1946. Joyce's defence team, appointed by the court, argued that, as an American citizen and naturalised German, Joyce could not have been convicted of treason against the British Crown. However, the prosecution successfully argued that, on the basis of a technicality about having lied about his nationality to obtain a British passport and to vote, Joyce owed allegiance to the king.
So please explain how prisons run by corporations for, and regulated by, the state create repeat offenders whereas a state run institution wouldn't?
Minimum sentences are pure insanity and pandering to the voters.
Or are they a completely rational response to Judges that won't enforce the laws they disagree with philosophically? Judged are often beyond recall or reaffirmation as politicians are, so mandatory requirements may be the only legally binding requirement on them.
The problem is that it takes away the option of the prosecutor and judge to give fair sentences, and forces them to hand out minimum sentences for cases where the minimum sentence was never intended.
That isn't really true. Prosecutors have discretion as to what crimes to charge people with. If they think one crime is too harsh for the circumstances, they can charge a lesser crime, or none at all.
I will point out that laws can be, and often are, amended based on experience with them in operation, sometimes in ones own polity, sometimes based on when happened in another.
FTFY
Not really, no. As soon as you engage in this sort of behavior you are at risk, and you have little control over the risk other than not doing it. Most people know not to do it, Slashdot audience not withstanding.
Minimum sentences as well as private prisons should be entirely unconstitutional.
I'm afraid I'm not as dazzled by your pronouncement as the moderators, so I'll ask, could you expand upon this a bit? Why do you claim this? Why is it unjust for there to be minimum sentences or prisons run by private companies for the government? In most legal systems it is the prosecutor that makes the primary decision about the possible penalties you will face by deciding what crimes to charge you with: none, minor charges, or serious charges, depending upon the merits of the case. Once the prosecutor files charges, the penalties available to the judge tend to be considerably more limited than the options open to the prosecutor in charging. One of the reasons legislatures tend to impose minimum sentences is to ensure more uniform treatment of serious crimes. Also, as to the prisons run for the government by corporations - those tend to hold people convicted of lesser crimes, so there should be fewer issues with them and force. Why is this bad? Why must it be a government employee who counts you daily to make sure you are still in prison?
Do you have any more? The claim here seems to be that this is such a huge, pervasive problem that the situation must change. A single case isn't really going to do it. If your thinking is that government run facilities will be abuse, scandal, and corruption free, you are greatly mistaken. It would be easy enough to find any number of scandals over government run prisons. Where is the evidence of a systematic problem? So far this seems to be a philosophical issue in the main.
Scared yet? You should be.
Why? The Chinese apparatchiks perform to high standards.
And don't forget, where the Chinese fall short, they can usually find someone to help close the gap.
I typically don't worry too much about the US bitching about this or that, but when it reaches a critical level, bad things seem to happen in quick succession - and that makes me worried.
Then you should be able to relax. The US was attacked suddenly by Al Qaeda which was headquartered in Afghanistan, there was no gradual build-up. To the extent that there was a build-up it was the US government making demands of the Afghan government which they rejected due to Al Qaeda having the ruling Taliban in their power. As to Iraq, that situation started in 1990 and lasted until 2003 and included many UN resolutions against Iraq. Iraq was subject to special scrutiny due to their invasion and annexation of Kuwait which was rejected by the world. They were driven out by a coalition army of 500,000, crushing the Iraqi Army, and setting the stage for Iraq's disarmament. Iraq had a history of lying and concealing their weapons of mass destruction and their programs. As it was, if you believe it, they still had WMD after repeated denials until they secretly destroyed them in 1998, but continued to pretend as if they still had them on Saddam's orders in order to fool the Iranians. There isn't really anything like either of those cases going on with China. Let us know when the US demands sanctions against China and the Chinese don't use their permanent seat on the UN Security Council to veto them. If you truly are worried about the US and China at the moment, you may have an anxiety problem as there really isn't anything like the above going on.
What we consider "right" in Europe would fit the center of the US, while our "left" simply doesn't exist on the US radar
I think you underestimate Americans.
SEIU drops mask, goes full commie
Arab Spring protest in S.F.: unexpected twist ending
San Francisco’s naked protest and the ethics of public nudity
The United States does have a real left, just like Europe. The far left has been less successful in gaining and holding office than in Europe. That may change as the American center/center-left has been losing the ability to identify and interest in rejecting the far left. America doesn't have the same sort of far right issue that Euope has due to the center/center-rights rejection of the far right fringe since the 50's. America's main political parties have also historically been big-tents, political parties with liberal and conservative wings. The Democrats have mostly driven out their moderates and conservatives and are keeping more of the fringe that used to be rejected. The Republicans still have moderates and the occasional liberal.
It appears that they have Bradley Manning pretty much dead to rights.
Not so much ambiguity there.
There's amendments with lower numbers they ignore all the time.
Why should the 10th be any different?
The actual problem, as generally seen on Slashdot, is that many people fail to understand how they get applied in practice as opposed to their actually being ignored. Prisoners of War, for example, have generally never been subject to Habeas corpus - a subject of perpetual confusion on Slashdot. German and Italian POWs in the UK, US, and Canada didn't have the right to Habeas Corpus in WW2, Al Qaeda members taken prisoner originally didn't either. (Perhaps they now wish Bin Laden hadn't declared War on the US. Of course it took 9/11 for the US to reply in kind, legally.)
This is, of course, utter fantasy mixed with BS. Minimum sentences have been in use going far back into history. Prisons run by corporations account for only about 10% of prison beds, and if there was that sort of corruption I expect we would hear of it constantly (with evidence). And three strikes laws?
Three strikes law
The three strikes law significantly increases the prison sentences of persons convicted of a felony who have been previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies, and limits the ability of these offenders to receive a punishment other than a life sentence. Violent and serious felonies are specifically listed in state laws. Violent offenses include murder, robbery of a residence in which a deadly or dangerous weapon is used, rape and other sex offenses; serious offenses include the same offenses defined as violent offenses, but also include other crimes such as burglary of a residence and assault with intent to commit a robbery or murder.This law also penalizes habitual offenders
If you have evidence to support your nonsense, please present it.