StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:59 PM) They didn't write the PPACA themselves, either. The guy who wrote the conservative Mass. law that was based on the Heritage recommendations said that the PPACA was the "same f***ing bill." My point wasn't to give conservatives all of the credit or blame for the bill, though. Just pointing out that the attempt make a more bipartisan solution resulted in the garbage bill we got, which admittedly is better than what we had before.

Better to confront people with loaded firearms when a crime isn't even being committed then.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:51 PM) I want a new hat. made of diamonds and platinum

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:47 PM) Call the police because, you know, it's their job...why the f*** have cops if we are gonna do their jobs? and the true motivations are revealed!!!!

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:48 PM) Right, because the conservatives of this nation, throughout history, all by their little bitty selves, founded, implemented and wrote all the laws surrounding what we have. I was referring to the PPACA, not the existing structure.

The funny thing is that a fully socialized healthcare system is plainly constitutional but this cobbled together patch based on conservative thinktanks is what we get instead.

What he wants is for the law to be different than it is.

abolish for-profit health insurance, single-payer medicare for everyone

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:24 PM) There have been plenty of legal scholars that have said the opposite, too. A pretty strong majority have said that it is obviously constitutional.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:22 PM) Just because the cops and the county prosecutors failed to do their jobs until it became a national story doesn't make the law bad. That's ridiculous. There's nothing in that law that says "if someone claims self defense stop all investigation and believe them without question." It says presume they acted in self-defense unless you have good reason to believe otherwise.

and make sure you're packing

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:15 PM) Hey, you can DO anything you want. Whether or not 12 people think it was legally warranted is an entirely different question. And i meant for that to be an example about how kids say some crazy s***. It's not really reasonable to rely on what a kid is screaming on a playground as a basis to shoot someone. Ok then you can never really determine if it's a kidnapping since "the little brat is just lying, he doesn't want to come home for dinner." At what point does it become reasonable to assume that a forcible felony is going on and for you to draw a weapon to stop it? Why do we want individuals with minimal training doing this?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:12 PM) ...in every industry, so that's irrelevant. Profit margins are profit margins are profit margins. Fact remains that health insurers aren't making tons of money like everyone continuously claims they are. Most (not all mind you), but most make profits...but not massive profits that people presume. I remember asking kap this way back when, but why? What's the point of the for-profit insurance industry? What innovations are there? What social good does it serve? What benefits does it actually offer over single-payer aside from ideological preferences. the overhead costs at private insurances are typically significantly higher than Medicare, so there's no gains there.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:07 PM) Jenks, Unfortunately my reasonable interpretation of the events was that if I didnt shoot you immediately that you would kidnap the child. /shrugs The bottom line is that it shouldnt even be a question, I should not have a right to intervene. The law is terrible and I cant really see any justification for it. But if you legitimately see someone beating a child or raping someone, you should imo. It's a giant mess.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:07 PM) A little off topic but doesn't it seem that these new stories that go viral seemingly come from Florida more than any other state. Have this case, the Casey Anthony case, and the case a few years ago about who had custody to pull a woman off life support cant remember names. That's just off the top of my head too. Terry Schaivo. Jimmy Kimmel does or used to do a segment called "Germany or Florida"

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:03 PM) I would think without you attempting to verify the truth of that statement, it's not reasonable to believe what a kid screams, especially since i'm not going to pick him up and run away. I'm going to stand there and let him make a fool of himself and if someone asks questions I'll stick around to answer them. What you would do with the child isn't really the question. What someone might do is. You can't say "well I would act this way" and negate the entire hypothetical. But if you reasonably believed that there was a kidnapping in progress, you'd be legally good to shoot to kill And the teacher is legally required to report that and others are legally required to investigate. Not sure what it really has to do with SYG laws, though!

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:02 PM) If the case turns out the way it's looking, the better way to put it would be that Martin would be alive today but for his decision to use force against Zimmerman. Or Martin would be alive today but for his suspension from school, etc. "The way it's looking" is still entirely based, of course, on Zimmerman's claims and contradicts what another witness (via phone) claims to have heard.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:58 PM) It would have to be reasonable. Whipping out a gun on a playground (felony btw right?) and shooting me just for seeing me talk to a kid isn't going to fly as "reasonably necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." Moreover you'd have to establish that you know I was about to commit a kidnapping. How are you going to establish that unless I scream "I'm kidnapping this kid and you can't stop me!" Be consistent, you already established yourself that you were taking a kid. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:50 PM) They couldn't just shoot me for taking a kid. That's not putting their lives at risk as all of these laws talk about.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:55 PM) but he has the duty to retreat! run faster!!! I think we need to be clear when we're being descriptive of the situation that exists and the laws as they are and prescriptive. But I think this flail acknowledges Balta's point.

Airplane Piracy is also a forcible felony. I'd like to know what that is.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:52 PM) Oh please, that it is a stretch. No it isn't, that is what actually happened and no one disputes.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:50 PM) They couldn't just shoot me for taking a kid. That's not putting their lives at risk as all of these laws talk about. kidnapping is a forcible felony. fire at will.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:47 PM) See this is my problem. There's been this crazy outrage before the facts are even clear. You said chase, which would lead people to think that he was literally running him down, which would make the Martin-self defense claim much more believable. But if he's just walking? If he's just seeing if the guy is going to cause trouble? Yeah, it might be racist to see a black kid and assume he's up to no good, but there's no law against that. So because he was curious about what the kid was up to, and a confrontation ensued (cause unknown) he loses any right to claim his actions were in self defense? Since he followed this kid around the neighborhood and approached him for no good reason, yeah, I think he should lose the right to claim self defense. I don't want laws that encourage the actions Zimmerman took.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:36 PM) And there's a law already on that, and it's the aggressor exception to all of this. And did he "chase" him? Or did he follow him? He was following him on foot. The current law may or may not cover Zimmerman's actions based on what we know. Based on what we know, I think the laws should be written such that they would.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:33 PM) But who I consider to be a creep might just be some random middle aged guy. I could be stereotyping wrongly too. I don't think being a racist or a bigot suddenly makes you less deserving of protection. Thanks for refuting your own argument, I guess? That's another great reason why confronting people who aren't committing any crimes with loaded weapons is a dumb idea and should remove self-defense claims.