StrangeSox

Book 2 so far bears striking similarities to a NatGeo documentary I saw about NK, how this one guy made one minor mistake and knew he had to flee for his life, escaping under an electrified fence and his knowing that the family he left behind was likely dead or in a concentration camp.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:20 PM) So people never get into situations they might regret later? That should be held against them if a verbal spat turns into a life-threatening situation? They shouldn't be able to protect themselves? If someone performs the actions Zimmerman did and it leads to them shooting someone to death, they shouldn't be given legal immunity.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:16 PM) So if I see someone lurking around a local playground, I shouldn't be allowed to follow him around to see what he's up to? I should run away to avoid any possible confrontation? Well, you've already changed the scenario to turn it into creepy-dude-around-children, which isn't fair. But no, you shouldn't exit your vehicle with a loaded firearm and confront the individual unless you see a crime being committed and are trained to handle such situations.

You also have an overwhelming number of legal scholars who, until today, felt pretty sure that the SC would find that mandate clearly constitutional. So you can't fault the liberal justices for supporting what most constitutional scholars believed was the proper interpretation of the commerce and N&P clauses. Kennedy's concern appears to be over the government defining a "limiting principle," but previous Commerce rulings required no such standard and, besides, limiting principles already exist in previous conservative rulings and aren't expanded by the ACA.

Interpretation of laws is guided by judicial philosophies, though. There isn't One True Interpretation. Some people believe in using legislative intent while others don't, so their jurisprudence will guide them to different rulings. That's different than ruling from political outcomes (cough Bush v Gore cough). FWIW I don't think most cases are 5-4, just the big ones you hear about.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:04 PM) Yea, I'm not a fan of that court...either side of it. Because there should be no "sides" on that panel. I dislike the fact that 4 are "liberals" and 5 are "conservatives". If you are either, you shouldn't be allowed on that bench. Period. If at any point in your history as a lawyer or judge, you based a decision on any sort of liberal/democrat/republican/conservative idealism, you should never be allowed on the supreme court...and that can be shown about each and every one of them. That's kinda silly, everyone has personal political and judicial philosophies that guide their decisions. That doesn't mean they are making rulings that they know aren't correct interpretations of the law but are being explicitly politically partisan. BTW that's why elected judges are such a dumb idea! Some more great reasoning from Scalia: So much for making reasoned, legal arguments and not dumb polemics.

I'm reading that the arguments today pretty much ignored precedence. Good thing we all hate activist judges. edit: jesus christ Scalia actually brought up the "broccoli mandate" GOP talking point. I don't think I can view this court as having any real, objective legitimacy any more, regardless of the final ruling.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:52 PM) You realize that the government can't even afford medicare/medicaid right now, but you think they'll magically be able to afford socialized coverage? LOLz. Be ready for income tax rates upwards of 50%, not to mention various other taxes, fees, and fines...which of course, you aren't EVER getting through congress at this point. Our entire tax system, from the local all the way to national, would need massive reform for that to EVER happen. TL;DR, even if our system implodes...not happening. They'd sooner revert back to what it was before you ever see that kind of overall systemic reform happen. We're stuck with our dumbest-in-the-advanced-world system forever, aren't we

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:17 PM) I just want Medicare for everyone, but ditto. If this leads to our really, really dumb for-profit insurance system imploding and being replaced by socialized coverage, I'm down.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:38 PM) You should invent a jump to conclusions mat. It's obvious you want Zimmerman to be guilty, unfortunately, that's not how the law works. You also reek of racial bias, by the way. I wish the law was clear that someone how performed the actions Zimmerman did was guilty of at least manslaughter for initiating the confrontation even if he may not have initiated physical contact.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:32 PM) I know you don't like it, because it's grey area...but that's not initiating. I know you really really really want it to be...but it's not. If it was that cut and dried, he'd have been f***ing charged by now with the national attention on this...it's obvious a touch more complicated than you want it to be. I was unclear, sorry. I was not referring to the legality but to what actually happened, call it moral responsibility maybe. Trayvon Martin would be alive today but for Zimmerman's rash actions. There really is no doubt about this.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:27 PM) Nobody knows who initiated the confrontation, that's the problem. People are assuming Zimmerman did. They don't actually know that, though. Sure we do. Zimmerman followed him around the neighborhood and chased him on foot. He doesn't do that, no one is dead.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:05 PM) Son of a b**** to your face for making me defend Tex, but all he was doing was posing questions about an uncertain circumstance...his post wasn't bad just because he asking questions you don't want asked. Tex's questions are completely valid due to the complete lack of factual evidence in this case...not to mention the over reaching law that's standing before Zimmerman's arrest, whether you, I, or anyone else agrees with the poorly worded law or not...it's a law, and the police CANNOT just supersede it because "they feel like it". He was saying dumb things, my guess is intentionally. Neighbirhood watch five-star generals shouldn't be pursuing people with guns, period. There was no crime and no victims until Zimmerman chased Martin.

By the way it is absolutely appropriate to second-guess, that is the point of the "reasonable" legal standard.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 01:36 PM) I still think you guys are blowing this whole thing out of proportion. I'd like a Florida attorney or law student to actually look through the history of all the cases using this statute and find out how the courts have interpreted it. I don't see a broad, open ended right granted by this thing to start shooting people that look at you funny. I see it as I high hurdle of "reasonably necessary" such that people are given the authority to protect themselves in dire situations. In 40 pages not a single person has answered my question about why it's better to give criminals an extra layer of protection over innocent people. The incredibly rare instance where some vigilante gets away with murder based on the statute (if that could ever happen) is not more important than the right of people to protect themselves. How people think it's appropriate to second guess what someone feels is appropriate in a life or death situation is beyond me. Moreover, the statute doesn't create some new right, it just codified existing law. Is the wording perfect? No, but I don't think any law is. Ok this post is worse than tex's

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 01:13 PM) Wow, this is interesting. So now a neighborhood watch should hide and call the police? That's exactly what the voters in Florida were sick of when they passed this law. They gave potential crime VICTIMS the opportunity to go do something about it! Yeah, it hasn't really worked out. Are we really going to accept as fact the testimony of Martin's girlfriend? Would we Zimmerman's? I don't see how Zimmerman gets a fair trial. I don't know why exactly, but this post really annoys me. Zimmerman wasnt a victim. No crime was being committed.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 10:58 AM) Now, given that FACT, I FEEL Zimmerman should be punished since he was out looking for trouble and found it. When it results in someone dying, that alone is criminal enough for me. Sadly, it won't be for the justice system. ^^^^

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 10:32 AM) That's an interesting thing as well...don't you think it's a bit naive or foolish to dismiss what your biologically-evolved instincts tell you in an effort to be more politically correct? No, because the human brain is full of imperfections and very much prone to false reasoning.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:45 AM) As was stated earlier, if the majority of crime in that area is perpetrated by people who look and dress exactly like Martin, profiling or not, he could have a reasonable belief that something had happened or was about to happen. And I guess he'd be right But I agree with this: But this case highlights why racist profiling is dumb and ineffective

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:43 AM) Like I said, brush aside. And if the guy physically puts his hands to you, it's fine to attack. You've still initiated physical contact. If someone really wants to be in your way, you'll have to physically move them by pushing or shoving your way past.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:41 AM) And Zimmerman could be under the impression that he's following a criminal, who then turns around and pushes him to the ground and gets on top of him. In this situation (which is probably exactly what happened), both are at fault and there is no legal recourse. Zimmerman had no reason to reasonably believe that Martin had done anything wrong.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:36 AM) But legally, he doesn't have to. Martin also has no legal duty to step back from a confrontation and try to get away. And frankly, as for example he thought someone was going to try to mug him/steal his phone, you can come up with lots of scenarios where "keeping walking" would be a mistake that would put him at greater risk. See, that's a key point. From a third-party perspective, Zimmerman's actions (stalking someone, confronting them) are far more suspicious than Martin's (walking on a public sidewalk). Martin had every right to reasonably fear this guy who was following him while he was walking home.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:33 AM) And as I said, he could ignore him and keep walking. If he walks in front of your path?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:24 AM) He sure does, but he doesn't have the authority to tell him to go f*** himself, push/punch him down, and then proceed to beat him further. If someone is literally toe-to-toe with you, I'd hope you have the right to get them out of your face.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:19 AM) And if the cops take forever to show up, or don't come at all? Perhaps by following him, he can get a more accurate description. From the sounds of it ("they always get away with this"), it wouldn't be the first time that he called the cops only to have nothing happen because "they" are always gone by the time they show up. There's logs of what he called in floating around out there that can be google'd up. He called in a bunch of dumb bulls*** like kids playing basketball in the street, noisy parties and suspicious vehicles playing loud music (because criminals love to announce themselves?). But most importantly, "they" would have been back at their father's house, eating skittles and drinking ice tea and playing Xbox. Regardless of legality, Zimmerman created this situation.