Y2HH

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 03:32 PM) And frankly, if a guy was following me around in a truck yelling at me or something like that, and I tried and failed to outrun him, that would seem like a reasonable thing to do if he stopped. From what I gather, he had gotten away...and Zimmerman was heading back to his truck when it went down. So...what you just said doesn't add up...he WAS successful in getting away. Where you come up with him failing to outrun...I have no idea, because not a single report shows that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 03:32 PM) But the initial reports of violent looting and shootings were seriously overblown. Frontline went into this on their investigation into the Danzinger Bridge shootings. Thats because sensationalist media is sensational.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 03:28 PM) Clearly Martin had to strike Zimmerman at some point, Zimmerman wound up with an injury. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-0...gated-community Witnesses are saying Martin was the aggressor, not just that he struck him.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 03:23 PM) And he has all of the evidence he needs. He was injured. Martin clearly struck him or struggled with him. Barring a whole lot stronger details coming out which would contradict his statements...he has more than enough evidence. This law has been applied in a lot weaker cases than this, bar fights and such, and still held. Supposedly eye witnesses say Martin struck him, but I'm not sure how accurate the report is or isn't.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 03:06 PM) The extent to which it was covered on TV was seriously overblown. Also hilarious was which groups were "foraging for supplies" and which groups were called "looters." This is just hilarious. "Foraging for supplies?!". If said supplies weren't theirs, regardless of the surrounding circumstance, it's stealing/looting. I'm sure it was overblown by some, but it still happened, and any attempt to claim it didn't happen at all is revisionist history...not to mention ignorant.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 01:09 PM) ok lets call a spade a spade though. you don't ACTUALLY work for beachbody.com. You're an independent coach, who, if you sell their products, makes a commission. but my guess is that you became a coach just to make shakeology cheaper. Correct? If you haven't finished the program yet, it's hard to figure you have all that much credibility on the coaching side of things... NOT to discredit your results - which have been great so far. Congrats on that! But it comes across disingenuous to try and sell a product you've been familiar with for only two weeks. Now you see, you've made me go and agree with Reddy. Somewhere in our solar system, a black hole was just created. :/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 25, 2012 -> 01:50 PM) Calling it the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" didn't show up until right around the time the final bill was passed either. The bill wasn't written by Obama, so calling it Obamacare, IMO, is baseless, whether they decided to own the name or not. And the patient protection/ACA showed up after it was passed because at the time they knew it was nothing like "Obamacare", so they tried to get people to stop calling it that...now, since people didn't stop, they're deciding to own it. It just shows you that the circus that is our congress/senate/presidency is a bunch of f***ing school children yelling 'you suck' at each other, all while solving nothing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 24, 2012 -> 03:37 PM) Obama campaign officially embraces "Obamacare" moniker for the law. For political reasons, not reality reasons. Obamacare, in it's original intent, looked nothing like what was eventually passed. So sure, they can own the name, which is just more political games for the cameras, but it means nothing.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:35 PM) Because anyone could claim "but judge, I didn't know!"? I can't imagine a functional legal system where ignorance is a legit defense. No, that part makes perfect sense...but the politicians realized that they could just create crazy obscure laws on top of laws on top of laws and make it impossible for people to be aware of all the laws. That's what they did on purpose.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:33 PM) Right but that's still not a defense against breaking the law. And they did that on purpose.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:26 PM) Ignorance of the law is no excuse, good sir. If it's something obvious, I'd agree...but ignorance of the law is pretty common these days...there is no way around is because there are so many laws. 90%+ of laws in your state, I guarantee you've never heard of or read...but I assure you they exist.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:22 PM) Geraldo is playing giant blame-the-victim dummy who is also apparently completely oblivious to how ubiquitous hoodies are in all segments of society. To be fair, he's not just blaming the victim...he's blaming both.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:17 PM) By the way, Geraldo has doubled-down on his blame-the-victim stance in a follow-up column. http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/.../#ixzz1pxSySChX This is the exact same terrible argument that those sluttly sluts wouldn't have been raped if they didn't dress so slutty. Geraldo is trying to play the peacekeeper here since neither of them is a white guy. While I shouldn't do this...I will anyway. If one of them was white, Geraldo would be placing 100% of the blame on them instead of doing what he's doing now with the shared blame garbage.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:15 PM) the way I understand it, and it could be very wrong since I have zero legal training, is that "duty to retreat" gives restrictions under which you have reasonable necessity to use deadly force. If you could have retreated but did not, self-defense isn't justified. With SYG, it is still justified. And my point from earlier, how are you supposed to know this? If you could know it with absolute 100% certainty, I'd agree with you. But I don't see how you could.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:12 PM) Where have I said undo all laws? Ive consistently said that this type of law and further codification of question of fact, is stupid. That there is already something like 200-500 years of case law on this point and anyone who deals with it on a pretty consistent basis knows the rules, they dont need some legislature to try and define it better. I didn't say you said to undo all laws. It was just a point that undoing this law because of technicalities could easily mean that there are a billion other laws where we can apply the same logic. It looks like we actually agree, however, in that neither are necessary. I'm not saying this law "needs" to exist...but I know for sure NO law citing the duty to retreat should exist then, either...because it opens room for error in the courts.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:08 PM) In court via testimony and evidence? Which you might lose...even though you shouldn't? No thanks. I've sat on jury duty, and trust me when I say you NEVER want to leave it up to a modern jury via testimony and evidence. You're better off having a law that's clearly written you can hide behind than to leave it in the hands of a bunch of people that don't give a s*** about anything other than going home. It was one of the most disappointing and infuriating times of my life how much none of them gave a s***.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:07 PM) This makes no sense with your first point. The case of Treyvon Martin cant go to a judge or jury because the codification of the law made the police believe that they could not arrest Zimmerman. No idea what you are trying to get at here. It's obvious they botched this...so citing a one off case where things went wrong is what you base your entire point on? There are plenty of botched crime scenes non-arrests because people make mistakes. Should we undo all of those laws, too?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:04 PM) damnit, well change it to a heavy, bludgeoning object instead of an ax that could be thrown. It's just a hypothetical to illustrate a scenario where "duty to retreat" isn't some unreasonable burden. So how do you prove it was or wasn't your duty to retreat sans video evidence?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:00 PM) Because there is absolutely no reason to codify it. Self defense is self defense is self defense. The law has consistently recognized that if you have a fear for your life, you may use lethal/deadly force if it is reasonable. Why do we need to codify anything more than that? Ultimately reasonableness is a question of fact, which should be left to the jury. You guys keep bringing up fact situations, the answer should always be: "Depending on the facts it may or may not be justified." For example, the axe thrower situation. In most situations you would believe that a reasonable person would not shoot a person who was 1,000 yards away who was threatening them with an axe. But what if there was evidence that the previous day the axe wielder hit the mans house from 2,000 yards. Wouldnt that now change what reasonable is? That is the problem with the law, that it somehow takes a question of fact from the jury and puts it in the police's hand. The police should be able to arrest the person the same way theyd arrest anyone else. Depending on the state, the burden may then shift to the Defendant to prove that it was actually justified. But in no way does it make sense for the police to have to make this decision. So your argument is that it since it's "implied law", it shouldn't need to be codified? How about our judges and juries do their damned jobs and prevent slick lawyers/ambulance chasers from abusing laws as written, or rewrite them to close off any unforeseen loopholes to prevent further abuses? I mean, we wouldn't want do to that or anything.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:54 PM) If you're in a hand-to-hand situation, you can't know that you can completely safely retreat from your assailant. Turning and fleeing can still result in harm to you or others. Maybe we have crossed signals here, because that's what I mean. These are the usual scenarios in these situations, close quarters, etc...the situations you're speaking of are almost unheard of...if a dude has an axe 100 feet away from me and audibly threatening me, of course I'll get the hell out of there...but that would be like winning the f***ing lottery of bad situations. More often than not, the situation will be nothing like that. As a matter of fact, of all the confrontations I've ever been in, they were nothing like any you posed where retreat was even an option. So, that's great, maybe we should concentrate on the 0.00001% of the real world situations where retreat is viable instead of the 99.9% where they aren't.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:53 PM) I, for one, have enjoyed the debate. I just have a hard time believing there is that much downside to codifying that there is no longer a duty to retreat when faced with someone committing a forcible felony against you. I agree with this. Can it be abused? Possibly...but not nearly as much as criminals abusing law abiding citizens knowing they have the advantage of getting to ignore the rules.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) And those would still be defensible under "duty to retreat." I don't see how.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:42 PM) I'm pretty sure someone threatening you with a knife is engaged in an unlawful activity and poses a threat to your life. You guys are refusing to consider any scenario that wouldn't immediately preclude an ability to completely safely retreat. If someone is threatening you with a knife from 100 feet away, odds are you wouldn't see them doing it...unless they narrated their actions from afar. The only way you could be threatened by a knife is in pretty close proximity...and in such a case...retreat would probably be your best option. But that's not what we're talking about in MOST situations like this. Most of the time, the assailants are within hand to hand range...the scenarios you are laying out are unlikely at best, or all involve weapons such as guns where your odds of survival are already almost zero unless the assailant ALLOWS you to live (such as in a car jacking scenario).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:41 PM) Tell me more stories about ax-wielding hockey players going 100 ft/s. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080761/ There are about 12 more of them for reference.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:40 PM) I'm pretty sure someone threatening you with a knife is engaged in an unlawful activity and poses a threat to your life. It's not illegal to carry a knife in many states. Having a knife on you and threatening someone with it are two different things.