Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 04:56 PM) The interesting thing about this case is that the thief had previously been holding a gun to the homeowner. I wonder how much that changes things legally, and more importantly to any potential grand jury or jury. Sadly in Ohio I don't think it does at all. He had the duty to be inactive instead of reactive in a deadly situation.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 04:56 PM) If they try to come back, he is still armed. If the facts are that he chased them out of the house, into the yard and continued to fire as they were fleeing away from his house, yes, he should be imprisoned for killing this guy. That's insane. You're putting the rights of a s***ty criminal that just threatened someone's life over the rights of a victim of said threat. That criminal should lose every time. If you're that dumb and immoral, getting shot and killed is an appreciated risk.

This dude needs to get a haircut and a suit ASAP http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/ak...vasion-shooting

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 04:47 PM) No, to me it's more about actually starting to give chase and following them. "Stand your ground" means you don't need to try to remove yourself from the situation before using deadly force, but it also doesn't mean you get to prolong the situation by chasing them after they're fleeing. Those guys can't easily turn around and shoot you if you're not following them out the door. But how can you say that if he had not given chase they would have hung out in the front yard or tried to come back? Again, that's the problem looking at these situations totally removed. We can't possibly know how he was feeling/thinking, and it's pretty s***ty to place on him the expectation of perfect judgment in such a situation. And not even perfect judgment - the potential life or death decision of letting the guys leave and then hoping they don't come back. Let's ignore the law and talk principles - do you really think this guy should go to jail for decades for killing this guy?

Looks like Ohio is a duty to retreat state. And generally "yards" are part of your property when it comes to the castle doctrine. That'd be pretty f***ed up if he goes to jail for killing a deadbeat criminal.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 04:37 PM) That's where it's no longer "stand your ground" or self defense. He gave chase, including chasing them out of the house. But that's not a literal term. Are you saying if you take a step of one inch towards the person you're shooting you'd be in violation of the SYG law, because you're not literally standing on the same ground you were when you felt threatened? There's a grey area there, which is why this is an interesting case. To me just outside of your home and while still on your property - just after someone pointed a gun at you and could easily turn around and shoot you - is still SYG and not retreating.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 04:35 PM) The thing that confuses me is why the hell do you pull your gun when two guys have guns pointed at you at point blank. In that situation, I'd cower, pee and poop myself all that the same time and tell them take whatever they want just don't hurt me. I'd figure if I pulled my gun, I'd be dead, so in the scenario where they take what they want, maybe I don't get shot. I agree, that's the part that confuses me too.

Yeah but they have guns and they already pointed them at you. What's to stop them from running way for a minute and then coming back? It's not like this guy waited 20 minutes or even shot at them 100 yards down the road. It reads like they run, he went after them, still on his property, and shot as they were running. This is a perfect example of heat of the moment decisions of this guy v. what we all think he should have done in hindsight. How can we really judge him when he's probably scared s***less, running on adrenaline after getting a gun pointed at him by two guys that invaded his home? Throw in this guys loser life criminal history and it's not like he killed a nun. When you commit an armed robbery, being shot before/during/shortly after the attempt should be an appreciated risk.

http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/u-s-and-world/9433747-story http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/18/ohio-man...ooting-burglar/ Interesting case on the duty to retreat, defense of life/property debate. You're in your home. Two intruders come in and point a gun at you, trying to rob you. You pull your gun out, they run out of the house. You chase. You shoot at them outside of the home, in your yard (allegedly). One is killed and found a couple houses away. Now you're being charged with voluntary manslaughter. How many people here convict him (obviously the full set of acts aren't available yet, so based on this fact pattern alone). I think if he shot the intruder from his own yard, and the intruder was shot within or within close proximity to his property, there's no way in hell i'd convict him. If he ran outside, the guy was running 2 houses away and he shot, I still probably wouldn't, but it's much more of a 50/50 for me.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 11:58 AM) And they keep their little deals with China going because China knows the U.S. will continue focusing on the North Korean issue as long as the U.S. and the North have their issues. They can then use the U.S. interest in the North Korean issue to extract concessions from the U.S. in other ways - allowing China to keep their currency undervalued for example. Everyone knows that, so "crippling trade sanctions" again means you're basically willing to start a trade war with China over the issue. Ditto any obvious "assassination" campaign. Right, because China would go to war with us, in any sense, over NK. Without us their entire balloon economy collapses. They know it and we know it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 11:52 AM) What grounds does the US have to tell a sovereign nation to change it's government? Grave human rights violations? Threats to allies? There are a number of valid reasons to interfere.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 11:50 AM) Because North Korea's economy is strong and heavily involved in international trade? GMAB. They trade a bit of money with China for electricity and then receive food aid to keep their people from starving. No, but they rely on the world for their food. That'd hurt after a while. And their people are already dying and living horrible lives. But yes, that's why assassination would have been a better solution.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 11:20 AM) You guys remember when Clinton was appeasing North Korea too much and then Bush came in and we broke off communications to make it so much tougher on them and then they had an atomic bomb. They really respected the harder line. Not talking isn't exactly a hard line. I totally agree though, Bush didn't do enough. I would have enacted crippling sanctions and ok'd some assassination attempts.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 11:07 AM) On immigration: Deportations have increased under Obama. And those numbers have been roundly criticized. http://cis.org/ICE-Illegal-Immigrant-Deportations But even if true, you can’t deny the influx of immigrants that have come into the country recently and his pretty lax attitude towards illegal immigration in his 2nd term. The point here is that even with that lax attitude, immigration supporters are still b****ing about the problem. The whole premise of the article is if you give an inch, they want a mile. That’s exactly what’s happening with immigration. X is never enough. I don’t think they’d cower in fear, but I do think we look weaker for this agreement than before. We caved. The ayatollah said as much. It’s not like his statement on the deal was “oh great, we’re cool with the US and Israel now!” No, he doubled down on death to Americans/Zionists talk. This was his one bad example, other than his citation to Carter who was woefully inadequate in responding to the hostage situation. Again though, give an inch, ask for millions in reparations and refuse to change. What did the US achieve there? How does the US benefit? Hey, whatever worked. Putin didn’t act so arrogantly 10 years ago. He was appeasing those who thought getting rid of Ghaddafi was beneficial to Libya (and us). Would ISIS have taken over areas of Iraq if we were still present there? Our departure certainly didn't help. I agree it's wrong to claim that we couldn't have also been an irritant/radicalizing force, but certainly not to the degree that was being claimed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 10:01 AM) IAEA says access to Iran's Parchin military site meets demands Right, so again, we're relying on a country whose leader has called for the destruction of entire peoples to provide the IAEA with legitimate samples/data.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 09:59 AM) Because if they want to initiate this procedure the inspectors still seemingly have the right to demand samples from the site. Nothing in the AP's article implies that isn't the case and it certainly doesn't say so in clear text. The AP article suggests that there is a process required for those type of inspections where site personnel would receive instructions and the IAEA would still be able to get what it needs with fairly small delays. Again, since the AP text is so vague I can't say for 100% certain that there is not some other detail buried in there, but limited access to military sites is something that every country is going to demand if they want to keep their conventional arms capabilities from being inspected and the IAEA has to develop procedures that work in those cases. The IAEA's job is not to inspect conventional arms except to the degree they are built as triggers for nuclear development. The IAEA needs to have procedures that make these type of inspections of military facilities workable and that seems to me to be the likeliest explanation for this set of clauses. But you're still relying on Iran to provide the IAEA with samples, right? The IAEA can't collect them themselves, which is sort of the point when you have an independent agency. This is all still based on trust of Iran to tell the world the truth, which is the whole moronic thing about this deal. It's slightly better than having no idea what they're doing, except now we've lifted economic sanctions, which could potentially ramp up their efforts rather than stop it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 09:51 AM) One thing to emphasize about this whole 24 day review outrage, is this is only referring to suspected nuclear sites, not known nuclear sites. Which basically means people expect iran to allow inspectors into any area of their country immediately. a) Iran has a military and military secrets, allowing inspectors into confidential rooms would be untenable for any independent country b) the 24 day appeal process by Iran can be overruled by US earlier in the process It is worth repeating that the US has a lot of control here, the US can effectively force the snap back by itself, and can overrule almost every appeal by Iran without support from others in the agreement. Parchin is a suspected site that the IAEA can not inspect per this side agreement. They have to rely on Iran's inspections, even for photos and videos. So a secret site that the world suspects was used for their nuclear program is now off limits. What sense does that make if we're trying to make sure they've shut down their nuclear program?

Great, so again this deal has less teeth than we were told. Iran gets a loophole on inspections. If the whole point here was to lift sanctions in exchange for full disclosure and an end to their nuclear ambitions, we didn't really get that if they're able to set up these exceptions. What's to stop Iran from basically telling the IAEA "no, uh, that building over there is for, uh, other military equipment. You can't go in there. Our inspectors have checked it though and they say it's totally fine! Nothing to see here, move along."

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 08:47 AM) I just think it's pretty ignorant to say that the situation with Iran is anything like what was going on in post World War 1 Europe or that every conflict with another country well end up like Nazi Germany. Article just uses dumb cliches. So you basically didn't read it. He brings up other examples (immigration and immigration supporters), Castro and his brother, Putin, Libya, etc. His mention of Nazi Germany was pretty short. Give me an example of when Obama "played nice" and the situation has dramatically changed for the better in terms of US interests.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 09:02 AM) So, the AP article on this issue is actually surprisingly vague and weak on details. Let me give a few direct example quotes: None of these details appear all that different from procedures the IAEA has previously used during inspection of military facilities in the past. Note for example that the AP version does not state that the IAEA will be barred from the sites, it sets up a procedure for military situations where the IAEA is present and conducts a sampling and monitoring using cleared Iranian personnel. The AP article gives basically no details about the actual details of the inspection other than "photos and videos are required" but they don't say what those photos and videos are needed to document. Based on a bit of reading, my guess is the most likely thing they'd want to document is the sampling process. According to the non-profit Arms Control Association the IAEA has established procedures for obtaining appropriate samples from such sites. Given appropriately documented samples collected using standardized procedures, the ability of Iran to cover up enrichment work would remain effectively zero. What's the point of being able to select your own inspectors if the IAEA is still going to perform inspections?

QUOTE (Brian @ Aug 19, 2015 -> 03:27 PM) Blue Mountain State update http://www.enstarz.com/articles/92439/2015...ating-photo.htm I enjoyed the show but it was a one trick pony. Not sure I could sit through 1.5 hours of it.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 19, 2015 -> 03:43 PM) Those Tea-party bastards at AP don't like the deal much. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a9f4e408039...-nuke-work-site VIENNA (AP) — Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press . . ."International inspections should be done by international inspectors. Period. The standard of 'anywhere, anytime' inspections - so critical to a viable agreement - has dropped to 'when Iran wants, where Iran wants, on Iran's terms,'" said U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce in a reaction typical of opponents of the broader deal. Yeah, an agreement with some TEETH! What difference is there between this and 'letting it crumble' as you say? We should at least be keeping that cash and not returning it. Call it payment for all the inspections we don't get to do. The end result here is basically we just lifted their sanctions. And got nothing for it other than "trust us!"

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Aug 19, 2015 -> 04:11 PM) This is one of the worst things I have ever read. I had to read it twice, because I thought I missed the punchline the first go around. Great analysis! It's not really complicated: history shows that when you try to play nice and appease your enemy (or people who are acting in ways you don't like) they never see the appeasing act as some olive branch being extended, they view it as a sign of weakness. You'll note in this example with Iran, of course, that we're trying to play nice with them in an effort to curb their nuclear ambitions and yet the first thing they did was to declare that we're weak and that we should all still die. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/21/...N0PV1B320150721 Now we have reports that the deal would allow Iran to inspect their own facilities and then report their totally neutral, independent findings to the IAEA. I have as much faith of that being a fair and accurate process as I do with the NFL hiring independent experts to talk about deflated footballs.

I just read this (good read) yesterday. What timing given that side deal news: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4226...-foreign-policy

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 19, 2015 -> 01:42 PM) That's it? I thought he got a helluva lot more than that out of the sheer number of usages of his image. That's a number quoted in an article from some random "celebnetworth.com" website. Who knows if that's accurate.