text:
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 01:58 PM
Nuclear Unicorn (19,497 posts)
"Legally allowing women to shoot their rapists only encourages murders."
We never hear this one. I wonder why? After all, if the argument says people can abuse SYG statutes to commit murder than why wouldn't a woman falsely claim she was stopping a sexual assault to be legally sanctioned in killing a man? If the potential for abuse is enough to abolish SYG than why not deny women the legal defense to kill would-be rapists?
67 replies, 8102 views
|67 replies
"Legally allowing women to shoot their rapists only encourages murders." (Original post)
|Nuclear Unicorn
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Nuclear Unicorn
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Nuclear Unicorn
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Nuclear Unicorn
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Nuclear Unicorn
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Starboard Tack
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Nuclear Unicorn
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Nuclear Unicorn
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Nuclear Unicorn
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Nuclear Unicorn
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
|Jun 2012
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 02:05 PM
dkf (37,305 posts)
1. Better to be raped or murdered first and then let the legal system handle it.
Yeah right.
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 02:05 PM
Gman (24,780 posts)
2. You never hear about it because
that makes absolutely no sense. That's a very false comparison. You have never needed SYG to defend yourself.
Response to Gman (Reply #2)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:38 PM
ellisonz (27,182 posts)
31. +1
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 02:05 PM
HockeyMom (13,998 posts)
3. Doesn't she have that right without SYG?
Self-Defense. You can kill someone without a gun, you know.
Response to HockeyMom (Reply #3)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 02:18 PM
Nuclear Unicorn (19,497 posts)
4. SYG adds nothing new except the would-be victim is not required to retreat
A woman has no legal or moral obligation to retreat before using deadly force to ward off an attacker; in other words: she can stand her ground. SYG just universally codifies this concept.
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #4)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 03:17 PM
caseymoz (5,763 posts)
9. Again, if homicide is not the last resort
Which resort is it? How easy is it to determine if the homicide was justifiable if, it's say, the first thing you try? A drunk neighbor wanders onto your porch by accident and is fumbling with his keys, a homeowner is allowed to shoot him before trying anything else? Just an example. Is that self-defense, or is that annoyance?
Response to caseymoz (Reply #9)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 03:41 PM
Nuclear Unicorn (19,497 posts)
15. Conversely, what is the first obligation?
What line does the law draw where it says, "You must first do this (and/or that and/or the other thing) before you are legally permitted to use deadly force in defense of self or others."
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #15)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 04:13 PM
caseymoz (5,763 posts)
19. I believe that was treated sufficiently with the law before
I haven't looked, but I don't think our jails were being overrun with people whose self-defense plea had failed. Nor do I think it could be shown that a terrible number of people were dying because they were reluctant to defend themselves thinking about the penalties later on.
I get suspicious that the real reason for Stand Your Ground was to appease paranoia among conservatives and silence any calls that they may make for general reform of our police, judiciary and prison systems. Otherwise they might fear that the tougher sentences, sloppy prosecuting, underfunded defense, and unfettered police and for-profit prison industries might be turned on them. This law is a PR coup, making them feel like they've been recruited into the War on Crime. No, police won't ask too many questions if you kill somebody defending yourself. I have to admit, otherwise just any encounter with the police and the rest of our justice might be considered a punishment.
Response to caseymoz (Reply #19)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 04:38 PM
Nuclear Unicorn (19,497 posts)
21. If more people are killed under SYG and no one is convicted
doesn't that cut into the labor pool for your for-profit prisons?
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #21)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 05:49 PM
discntnt_irny_srcsm (13,743 posts)
23. a thread-killer :)
I can't think of much that's more intellectually offensive than considering the term "for-profit prisons".
Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #23)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 11:16 AM
BiggJawn (23,051 posts)
28. Then why does Corrections Corporation of America exist?
BIG business, having people locked up and warehousing them. CCA lobbies to have more and more stuff made illegal every year so they can increase their Receivables. They won't be satisfied until we're ALL in their grip. Typical corporate thinking.
Sweet deal, the taxpayers build the prison and maintain it, and CCA hires the $12 an hour guards and feeds their "guests" beans and weenies and charge the taxpayer $50,000 a year/head for it.
Response to BiggJawn (Reply #28)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 03:24 PM
discntnt_irny_srcsm (13,743 posts)
33. It just bothers me.
I like to keep an eye on companies like them and others, Reflex Responses for one. As bad as I am at figuring out complex questions of ethics in business, I have a feeling that those boys and others will generally manage to set a bad example.
Another that we all know is Academi under its various former names and also Triple Canopy.
Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #33)
Mon Jun 18, 2012, 12:37 AM
BiggJawn (23,051 posts)
38. Bothers me, too.
Just seems wrong to conduct the detention of criminals as a for-profit enterprise.
What most people don't understand is that when you "privatize" a former government fucntion, a profit motive becomes involved. When I was in Municipal work, the city I worked for farmed its IT functions out to some outfit named SCT, which made a ridiculous low-ball bid, then every 6 months afterwards came before the city council like Oliver Twist with his friggin' bowl going "Please sir, may we have $2 Million MORE? Cost over-runs on these Y2K preparations, y'know..."
The taxpayer gets stuck with maintenance and upkeep, and the "Privateer" pockets all the profit. Socialize the Risks, Privatize the Profit...
Response to BiggJawn (Reply #38)
Mon Jun 18, 2012, 01:57 AM
discntnt_irny_srcsm (13,743 posts)
39. I know what you mean. Not cool!
Response to BiggJawn (Reply #28)
Tue Jun 19, 2012, 12:28 PM
Nuclear Unicorn (19,497 posts)
42. I wasn't commenting on the rightness or wrongness of privately owned prisons
I was commenting on the self-contradicting assertion that SYG laws are part of the same system that promotes privately-owned prisons. His entire 2nd paragraph states SYG is used to avoid addressing what he claims are needed reforms and those reforms aren't being addressed because SYG.
I get suspicious that the real reason for Stand Your Ground was to appease paranoia among conservatives and silence any calls that they may make for general reform of our police, judiciary and prison systems. Otherwise they might fear that the tougher sentences, sloppy prosecuting, underfunded defense, and unfettered police and for-profit prison industries might be turned on them. This law is a PR coup, making them feel like they've been recruited into the War on Crime.
A rather muddled scheme, I must say. Assuming criminals are being killed when good people stand their ground then the PIC loses career criminals to warehouse for profit and cheap labor. Even if bad people exploit SYG laws (or good people use it for self-defense) the poster's assertion says no one is being held to account for the killing so the PIC again loses out on warehousing fees and cheap labor.
Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #23)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 11:37 AM
AtheistCrusader (31,448 posts)
29. Except that it is true.
Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #29)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 03:37 PM
discntnt_irny_srcsm (13,743 posts)
34. True? For sure it is.
Wise? Probably not.
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #15)
Mon Jun 18, 2012, 11:18 AM
Starboard Tack (11,181 posts)
40. Your first obligation is to think.
You seem very confused about SYG and SD. Anyone has the right to self defense. It is a universal right. SYG is a legal right to kill someone who you "reasonably believe is threatening your life", if you say so. SD includes a burden of proof, which is only logical. SYG is a free pass.
Example: Woman is being followed in parking lot by suspected would-be rapist/mugger. She has choices.
Choice 1. (DTR) She changes course, runs, avoids confrontation if at all possible. She doesn't get raped and nobody gets shot.
Choice 2. (SYG) She feels afraid, stops, turns, pulls out a gun, adopts a stance, he keeps approaching, she aims and fires. Kills some guy who was just walking to his car. The judge/DA has to take her word for it, unless there are witnesses to the contrary.
Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #40)
Mon Jun 18, 2012, 09:18 PM
gejohnston (17,120 posts)
41. You are confused about SYG.
No it is not a free pass. You are using a reasonable man standard. Justifiable homicide is not a crime, so you are expecting the accused to prove their innocence. While self defense is a universal right, why did anti gun propaganda during the 1970s include things like it was better not to resist?
Those are two absurd false choices. It operates on the "reasonable man" standard, has nothing to do with her "feeling afraid". How about actually reading the laws and the precedents connected to them
Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #40)
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 08:18 PM
ProgressiveProfessor (22,144 posts)
67. You are the one who is not thinking and is seriously confused about SD and SYG
However your ignorance and misstatements are intentional and therefore inexcusable
Response to caseymoz (Reply #9)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 09:36 PM
gejohnston (17,120 posts)
27. No,
It is called the "reasonable man" standard. What would the "reasonable person" see it as. In this case, SYG or not, your ass is going to jail. No, that is not self defense.
Response to gejohnston (Reply #27)
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 01:28 PM
caseymoz (5,763 posts)
57. "Reasonable man" will not even be applied.
. . . because the statutes affected by SYG do not allow the police to question or arrest once SYG is invoked, and it compromises the investigation.
What if the guy says at the scene, "He was banging on my door cussing at me."
Then he invokes SYG, so interrogating him further becomes impossible.
Don't say it can't happen. I have cited SYG cases on this thread which were even more egregious. If you want, I can cut & paste them for you.
Response to caseymoz (Reply #57)
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 01:33 PM
gejohnston (17,120 posts)
58. not even remotely true
None of that is actually true. There was a lady in Tampa why thought that, and tried to claim SYG for a murder. Problem was, she didn't do it. She was not even in the county when it happened. The police investigated, learned she was not there and not in the county. The question then became "who are you covering for?"
Response to caseymoz (Reply #9)
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 08:15 AM
GreenStormCloud (12,072 posts)
50. Your example fails.
On your porch, fumbling with his keys is not a threat you you. Call 911 that there is a stranger on your porch.
On your porch, kicking in your door is a threat to you. Call 911 first but as soon as he kicks the door in, shoot.
I hope you can see the difference between the two situations.
Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #50)
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 01:09 PM
caseymoz (5,763 posts)
52. Um, I didn't say the two situations were alike
So, you've presented a straw man.
In fact, my point was they're not alike, but the same defense will be invoked with both, and in fact, police probably won't even try to determine of the key rattling was neighbor case was self-defense. If you think the irritable home owner can't get off the hook with the SYG law, that's why we disagree. I encourage you to look up some of the egregious cases where it has been used as a defense before you state I'm wrong. On some of them, the SYG defender, was, in fact, the aggressor. Definitely that's how some citizens are reading the law.
Response to HockeyMom (Reply #3)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 02:32 PM
spin (17,121 posts)
5. Yes that is true ...
But realistically a woman often finds herself at a significant disadvantage against a male attacker because of size, physical strength and sometimes age.
Most women do not have a martial arts background and even those who do find it difficult to stop an attacker who outweighs them by 100 pounds of muscle.
However if a well trained woman did manage to kill her rapist, there would be no reason for her to be first required to retreat. "Stand your ground" law does not only deal with the use of a firearm. It applies to self defense using any weapon or even a lethal blow from a hand or foot.
Of course there are nonlethal methods of self defense such as pepper spray or even a tightly rolled magazine used as a club. Still for a person with the necessary training and mindset, a handgun may well be the most effective self defense tool. Since handguns are not as deadly as shown in the movies or on TV a victim can often stop an attack by shooting the attacker and the wound will not result in death. Often by the victim merely shows that he/she is armed the attacker will be discouraged and the incident will end without any violence.
Response to spin (Reply #5)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 03:23 PM
OneTenthofOnePercent (6,268 posts)
12. Good points...
In high school we had a state champion wrestler on our team - 125/135lb weight class. He was an excellent athlete, fast, and really knew how to wrestle. We also played on the football together. I was a very average wrestler (possibly even below average) but the real difference was that I was a 225lb (lean) defensive end. Despite not being nearly as fast or remotely as skilled of a wrestler... he had no chance at pinning me in the ring. He might evade and outscore me through a wrestling match... but he was not going to win the physical confromtation.
Point being - even with substantial skill and training advantage, the typical physical difference between the victim and her rapist is deciding factor.
Response to HockeyMom (Reply #3)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 03:19 PM
DanTex (17,295 posts)
10. Of course she does.
What SYG does is allow people to use lethal force even when it is not necessary. It's designed by, and for, people for whom killing in "self-defense" is not a last resort, but an act of valor.
Response to DanTex (Reply #10)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 03:33 PM
Nuclear Unicorn (19,497 posts)
14. Should people be convicted if they resort to deadly force
instead of retreating if they are confronted with threat of death or great bodily harm?
Response to DanTex (Reply #10)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 06:50 PM
TPaine7 (4,286 posts)
25. Wrong.
Last edited Fri Jun 15, 2012, 08:14 PM - Edit history (1)
It's designed by, and for, people for whom killing in "self-defense" is not a last resort, but an act of valor.
That's wrong on multiple levels.
Killing in self-defense is not a resort--first, medium or last. The only legitimate purpose of self-defense is to stop the threat. If the assailant is living after being stopped, so be it. If the assailant is dead, so be it. But it is not legitimate to "resort" to killing, per se, only to resort to potentially deadly self-defense.
Beyond that misunderstanding of the basic law of self-defense, has it ever occurred to you that some people might not want to be required, by law, to turn their backs on people offering them credible threats of death, rape or kidnapping? (Or to flee backwards and accept all of the associated risks?)
Could it be that some people think it's unfair that after John is shot trying to kill/rape/kidnap, his intended victim should have to face second guessing by a civil jury, even after being acquitted of any crime? Especially if that jury is composed of people who think that self defense that results in the death of the perpetrator is "valor"? (And, of course, that valor in self-defense is only acceptable in police officers but never in those they exist to serve?)
The macho little picture you paint surely applies to some portion of SYG's supporters, but for many support for SYG doesn't turn on "valor" but on rights and a sense of basic decency.
Response to DanTex (Reply #10)
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 01:10 PM
PavePusher (15,374 posts)
53. You're channeling Hoyt.
COme on, you can do better than that...
Response to DanTex (Reply #10)
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 01:22 PM
hack89 (36,397 posts)
55. The standard for self defense has not changed
you still have to convince the police, the prosecutor, and possibly a jury that your actions were justified.
SYG did not change the legal standards for self defense - it just extended them to public spaces.
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 02:57 PM
caseymoz (5,763 posts)
6. Here's the difference:
SYG stops investigations. That somebody has a right to kill in self-defense was never in question before SYG. Never. It's never been in question for stopping rape, either. Since a person already had the right to use deadly force defending themselves prior to SYG, taking it away would not be the logical equivalent of taking away a woman's right to defend against rape, which she has the right to do as long as it can be determined that was in self-defense.
Since women have that right already, logic would demand that you think of what the equivalent of SYG would give them in addition to that. Giving women the equivalent of SYG would be giving them a right to shoot a guy, in public or private, for making them feel threatened. For giving them a certain look. For being a certain race or above a certain height and asking them out for a date.
I say, if SYG is so great, why don't we apply to other things? Not just to rape. If I hit a kid with my car, hey, I had no criminal intent. I was just in a hurry and he was jaywalking. Hey, officer, stop hassling me. Why should a driver be required to brake and swerve to avoid? The kid didn't have a right to be crossing there.
SYG stops investigations. It interferes with arrests and prosecutions, because police have to give a special deferment to the excuse, at the scene of self-defense. It's not like this was necessary. I mean, we don't massive numbers of people serving in prison because they even arguably killed in self-defense. Yet, we are seeing more homicides where self-defense is the excuse with SYG having been passed.
Another problem is, if homicide is not the last resort, which resort is it? You can't take a more extreme measure than killing somebody. How in the world does anyone determine if its justifiable if it's not the last resort?
There's an inherent problem with the SYG approach. It proceeds from the assumption that normal police and judicial procedures, that is, investigation, interrogation, arrest and trial, are the punishment. Lawmakers must never make a law with that approach. Even if it might be literally true, it's not true according to the assumptions behind our laws. If you want to reform the hardship of investigation and inquiry, which are considerable, it has to be done as a general reform, not by special dispensation-- for homicide, of all extreme things.
Another problem is, SYG implies that some homicides are no big thing. This is morally wrong. Killing somebody, whether in self-defense or not, should be a big thing. It should attract investigation. Questions have got to be asked.
We are becoming barbaric if we think shooting somebody with a gun or stabbing them with a knife when self-defense was possible should receive less investigation than traffic deaths, where there is usually no criminal intent entering the scene.
This is actually a piecemeal solution to our get-tough-on-crime imprisonment society. The problem is, we've made sentences more and more extreme, we've made constitutional protections against police and prosecutor abuse weaker, we've taken away judicial discretion in sentencing, and we have a commercialized jail and prison system that's high on abuse. So, now, guess what, wing nuts have a justified terror of our judicial system.
So, instead of making it any better with reform or by re-asserting constitutional protections, lawmakers give people SYG. It doesn't fix the problem, because they same people who feel better can still be pulled over, get falsely arrested for drugs, have their car seized, and be strip searched in jail. This is at a time where violent crime is generally going down.
Response to caseymoz (Reply #6)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 03:01 PM
Nuclear Unicorn (19,497 posts)
7. "SYG stops investigations"
Demonstrably false, i.e. the man who used the exact same nonsensical reasoning in Texas and was just convicted of murder.
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #7)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 03:05 PM
caseymoz (5,763 posts)
8. True in many other cases.
Demonstrably false in one. One counter-example does not show it has generally been false, there are many other cases where investigation has been stopped cold. Maybe you should read the rest of my message? Pretty lazy of you to stop on your first quibble and answer only that.
Do you disagree that people had a right to self-defense before SYG? How many people were rotting in prison because their self-defense excuse didn't work?
I'd rather not hunt down the other cases I've read where it has clearly gone awry. However, prosecutors and police chiefs warned of that very problem with SYG that I'm citing, before it was passed in Florida. So, I believe what I'm saying is supported by the experts.
People's emotional attachment to this law is-- disconcerting.
Response to caseymoz (Reply #8)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 03:21 PM
Nuclear Unicorn (19,497 posts)
11. I provided an example; you provided wild, unfounded conjecture
and then you insult me by calling me lazy and emotional.
I'm asserting that no one has an obligation to retreat if they are threatened with death or serious bodily harm. Anyone claiming this results in capricous murderers getting away uninvestigated should probably demonstrate their claim.
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #11)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 03:54 PM
caseymoz (5,763 posts)
17. I found your response to be insulting.
Insultingly pat and lazy, taking the case nearest at hand and declaring, with no support, that it must be true of every other case there is, and then dismissing the entire rest of my post out of hand. That's careless. That's lazy, and in matters of life and death, I don't find it respectable. If you feel insulted, well, you know how I felt.
All you've shown is that Texas prosecutors and juries have their limits. But arguably, cases even more flagrant have been allowed to slide. They didn't have a choice but convict this guy, IMO, because he telegraphed his intent to the public, in front of witnesses at the scene. And it looks like he did it on his neighbor's property. So, they could demonstrate he went in with criminal intent. SYG couldn't apply.
Here is proof that one exception, newsworthy because it's an exception, is not representative of what's happening.
Now that I've done a little of your work for you, is that demonstrated enough? Is my word so antagonistic and untrustworthy due to my opinion to you that you couldn't even get curious and search for links to cases on the DU itself, which is where I've read about them?
I've shown you the cases are out there if you want to look for three minutes. I'm not doing any more to spark your curiosity, or shock your conscience, about them.
Response to caseymoz (Reply #17)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 04:37 PM
Nuclear Unicorn (19,497 posts)
20. Saying something is demonstrably false and then providing an example is insulting?
And my refutation of your statement remains true. You said, "SYG stops investigations." That statement remains demonstrably false as each of the cases cited in the article were investigated. From what has been presented in the article -- assuming its facticity -- some crappy decisions were made.
But crappy decisions are crappy decisions and they have no reflection on standards that say a person must be in reasonable fear or death or great bodily harm for themselves or another and they must be lawfully present and not committing a crime. I think those standards are reasonable and none of them precludes an investigation as the government must determine if those standards were met.
Which of those considerations do you demand be struck down and why and what would you demand a person be required to do before they seek to use force to defend themselves?
Response to caseymoz (Reply #8)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 04:05 PM
MicaelS (6,699 posts)
18. "People's emotional attachment" to SYG exists because ...
People don't want to have worry about being financially and emotionally bankrupted when they shoot some criminal. They don't want to have to endure the label of "murderer" that gets slapped on them by police, prosecution, the media and the public, and then get found "Not Guilty" at trial that costs them their life savings, and mental health.
Some don't even like Castle Doctrine. I fully support Castle Doctrine. There should be NO Duty to Retreat from your own home, absolutely none. The idea that someone should have to run away from their own home to avoid shooting someone who violently enters their home is most assuredly injustice. If someone violently enters your home, you should be free to use deadly force.
And I don't always listen to what prosecutors and police chiefs often want, because they can't always be trusted. They is plenty of evidence of prosecutorial, and police misconduct out there.
Police chiefs are often political appointees that exist only at the whim of local officials. Plenty of police chiefs have come out in favor of gun bans, even if the rank and file officers support the RKBA.
After Texas passed the CCW law, some county prosecutors (Harris County D.A.) still refused to follow the spirit of the law, and told their local law enforcement to keep arresting people who had a gun in their car. The Texas Legislature had to make sure these prosecutors understood their jobs was to enforce the law as the legislature wanted, not as they, the prosecutors, themselves wanted.
I have always felt the American legal system was form of religion, where the judges and lawyers were the clergy and they manipulated things for their own benefit, and made things as difficult as possible, at the expense of us lay folks. Let's face it, if the law were simple enough that the ordinary person could understand it, there would no need for the legal priesthood to interpret THE LAW, and they would all have to find other work.
Response to MicaelS (Reply #18)
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 05:48 AM
caseymoz (5,763 posts)
47. Then I think they need general reform
Not a patch of one aspect of the problem, and a manipulative one aimed at appeasing Conservatives, who might otherwise fear the monster they've created with today's criminal justice system. This law wasn't written by citizens, or legislators. No, ALEC created it. Otherwise, Conservatives might actually join liberals in calling for reform of our abusive, oppressive, privatized criminal justice system. SYG makes them feel recruited.
You misunderstand my reference to "emotional attachment." I'm talking about the OP, who supports SYG with the false equivalency of depriving women of the right to defend against rape, which was emotionally loaded, while claiming the Texas case proves SYG works, without informing himself of the cases where cold blooded killers have got off evoking SYG. If he's making false, emotionally laden equivalencies, and if he's not informing himself of the facts before supporting the law, it's because he has an emotional commitment to the law's success. That's my conclusion.
About the Castle Doctrine: yes, it sounds great. You don't have to retreat. Your house is your castle until you don't pay property taxes or until it's taken by eminent domain. It doesn't sound much like castle when I put it like that, but "Castle Doctrine" certainly allows you a lordship fantasy while you blow somebody's brains out like any English Lord would do to a couple poachers.
That aside, which is more disturbing: retreating from your home for a half-hour or hour, or having a very messy dead body in it? Perhaps the latter would create permanent anti-feng shui. Blood splatters tend to lower the value of your art collections and first Editions of Henry James, not to mention your shooting trophies.
Also, in any other case but your home, if you thought that being somewhere else temporarily might prevent somebody from being killed, would you even have a question of doing it?
That's just food for thought. In a fight or flight situation, shit happens, and whether you call it the Castle Doctrine or, as I prefer, The God-Given Right To Blast A Lowlife Burglar's Brains Out, you have some reasonable right to defend yourself and what you own.
As for the police chief and prosecutors being incompetent political appointees, (as though you must assume that's always the case if they oppose SYG), that actually bodes very badly for the law. Because what they're saying when they opposed SYG is: they can't figure out how to apply it competently. Given the way the law has been applied so far, I'd say they proved their point.
You are never going to have law so simple that you won't need lawyers or courts. And this isn't something new to our nation and our times. Medieval Europe, for example, was a lawyers heaven. There were so many entangled obligations to figure out, that lawyers and bureaucrats had plenty of job security. The world you dream of cannot exist. Human beings are complex. Millions and billions of them much more so.
If you want to know, the complexity of the law is mostly a correlation of having a higher population and to a lesser degree, a function of having Separation of Powers, not to mention "artificial persons" like corporations.
I wouldn't say the Justice system is a religion. Too many of its members have other creeds, so it doesn't fit because of that if for no other reason. Unlike a priesthood, they're expertise isn't derived from rituals or faith. They perform a function as a necessary part of their jobs.
The Bar is not a priesthood, however, it is an insular club of people with common interest, and they do band together to protect those interests. That's plain.
Response to caseymoz (Reply #6)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 05:39 PM
PavePusher (15,374 posts)
22. "SYG stops investigations."
No, it doesn't.
It merely makes the police and prosecuter have to meet a standard of evidence to take a case to trial. i.e., they have to have evidence that a crime was commited before filing charges.
And I'm not sure how that's a bad thing.
Response to PavePusher (Reply #22)
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 04:30 AM
caseymoz (5,763 posts)
44. You are misinformed.
Because that has always been the criteria for filing charges-- for anything.
You think they have the right to file charges without evidence?
You probably haven't seen this part of SYG because it's actually in a different statute Florida statute, but one altered by the same SYG bill to accommodate the main law:
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force... (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
It makes people immune from arrest or prosecution if it's determined that it was self-defense. Or that's apparently the way some police departments have been interpreting it.
Response to caseymoz (Reply #44)
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 01:20 PM
PavePusher (15,374 posts)
54. No, I'm not "misinformed".
You said "SYG stops investigations.". Yet, by the evidence you posted yourself, that is demonstratably untrue.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1)
Response to caseymoz (Reply #6)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 05:55 PM
PavePusher (15,374 posts)
24. Arrest and trial ARE punishment, if one hasn't actually done something wrong.
It's the duty of the state to prove wrong-doing, not the duty of the Citizen to prove innocence. And that is the whole point of the SYG laws.
Response to PavePusher (Reply #24)
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 04:49 AM
caseymoz (5,763 posts)
45. I agree, but that's not the assumption behind our laws.
The purpose of arrest and trial are to determine whether to punish. That's a bedrock, cornerstone of our criminal justice system. Lawmakers can't write laws without that assumption.
But I agree with you this is not literally true; it's far from the truth. Yet, the criminal justice system has no other procedures it can use to investigate. If it isn't literally true, lawmakers have to do their best to make it so, by protecting people's constitutional rights against arrest: like the 4th Amendment.
So, rather than strengthening general protections against arrest and trial, our courts and lawmakers have weakened or knocked them. So, now that our criminal justice system has become a weapon terror, they've begun to write exceptions, so the Conservative base thinks the law is on their side. It makes them feel recruited into the War on Crime. That way, Conservatives don't feel frightened of the system they've created, and they aren't motivated to call for general reform, that would threaten our privatized and remarkably profitable prison industry. The gun industry loves it, too.
SYG is a contemptible manipulation, IMHO. It's why ALEC wrote it. What's an industrial think tank doing creating this law? Ever ask that question?
Response to caseymoz (Reply #45)
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 01:24 PM
PavePusher (15,374 posts)
56. I think I see the problem here.
You appear to be continually conflating "investigate" with "arrest and trial". They are manifestly not the same, nor is eithe a subset of the other, and you do not do "arrest and trial" prior to "investigation".
Response to PavePusher (Reply #56)
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 01:45 PM
caseymoz (5,763 posts)
59. If you insist on legally accurate terms
But trial is how a judge and jury "investigate" the investigation. The police have their investigation, then if the prosecutor determines that there was a crime and who was likely responsible, they indict and gather evidence with further investigation.
Then the judge and jury "investigate" the investigation, partially by having the defense poke holes in the People's scenario. Normally, rather than confuse people by using the same term, we call this a trial. But it's still an investigation, the way the courts, as opposed to The People, scrutinize a case and come to a conclusion.
So, besides the fact that you're calling me an idiot because I'm literally right but deliberately didn't use the correct term, just how do you think this undercuts my argument? Trial is how the court investigates anything. If it's homicide it must be investigated at least to the prosecuting level. And if it's so clearly self-defense, sometimes they won't prosecute it. There's no sense in trying a case if the jury returns self-defense.
I don't mind that discretion. But it has to reach at least that level.
Response to caseymoz (Reply #59)
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 03:17 PM
PavePusher (15,374 posts)
60. "Idiot"? Not at all. "Confused", maybe. Or possibly, by your own admission, "misleading".
And the law, as you cited in post 44, specifically speaks to a law enforcement agency investigation.
Response to caseymoz (Reply #6)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 06:59 PM
TPaine7 (4,286 posts)
26. As far as I know, there is no "right to kill" in self-defense. If you were to claim such a right
in open court, you would need a very good lawyer to mop up that mess, if it were even possible
You have a right to use potentially deadly force to stop a serious threat, not a right to kill.
Response to TPaine7 (Reply #26)
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 05:06 AM
caseymoz (5,763 posts)
46. As far as you know?
Last edited Tue Jun 26, 2012, 06:52 AM - Edit history (1)
First of all, that's self-contradictory. "Potentially deadly force" implies that some people are going to die from it. There's no way that can the law allow potentially deadly force and then presume that nobody will get killed. So, there's something wrong with your information there.
Perhaps you should do more research before you make an assertion? Self-defense has been an accepted basis for acquittal of homicide in Britain since at least the 16th century, and Britain is where lifted our criminal justice system, with almost no reform. Our courts still refer to prior British case law. Since Independence, our system has been even more lenient about self-defense than Britain.
The one thing the law is clear about is that you can't premeditate killing somebody even in self-defense.
Maybe you should get a firmer grounding of what the law was before you presume SYG fixes it?
Response to caseymoz (Reply #46)
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 08:10 AM
TPaine7 (4,286 posts)
49. Yes, and as far as you know, and as far as anyone knows in US law.
The one thing the law is clear about is that you can't premeditate killing somebody even in self-defense.
There is no right to kill, just as I said. Otherwise, there would be no problem with premeditatedly killing. You can legally premeditate speech, worship, petition, and anything else you have a right to do.
My words were clear; you are picking nonexistent nits.
Response to TPaine7 (Reply #49)
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 12:50 PM
caseymoz (5,763 posts)
51. Oh, so you're nitpicking on my wording.
Since you've demanded a high standard for the word right, that it can only be referred to as such if it's explicitly described in the Constitution then no, I'm sorry I confused you so much with the word "right."
Notwithstanding my misnomer, everybody has a Constitutional right to life. Implied in that is the right to self-preservation and self-defense. It's a very narrowly defined "right to kill" and that's the way the courts have always seen it. Prosecutors won't even present the case to the court if they're satisfied that it was self-defense.
However, since this right to kill is so narrow, cases with that defense have always centered on "was the defendant's life threatened?" It's innocence till proven guilty, but a court first determines if a homicide took place (defined as a person killing another person for any reason or by accident). Once that has been established, they then determine if the suspect did it. After that, they'll determine if it was justifiable or if there were extenuating circumstances, and that can be the sticky part, because by that time, the defendant has already been determined to be responsible, if not necessarily guilty, so presumption of innocence no longer follows. Now, I would be all for a change in the presumption here. But not SYG, which is the wrong fix.
There has never been any doubt that the person has a right to life and therefore a right to self-preservation and self-defense. What it always comes down to is proving it to court after the prosecution has proved it was a homicide and who was responsible.
If you're not convinced, look it up yourself. I've given you my case. I rest. I'm not going to argue it with you anymore. If you come out of the dark, you'll find that everything I've said is true.
Response to caseymoz (Reply #6)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 11:43 AM
AtheistCrusader (31,448 posts)
30. Errors.
In many states, SYG offers civil immunity in any case where the victim was not criminally charged for killing his or her attacker. That was most definitely in question prior to many SYG laws, in many states.
Several states also had a 'duty to retreat'. A silly requirement.
'last resort' is sort of begging the question. It's like the saying, 'your keys are always in the last place you look', because well, duh, you'd be an idiot if you kept looking after you found them.
"Yet, we are seeing more homicides where self-defense is the excuse with SYG having been passed."
Florida has had a small increase in justifiable homicides. Not quite a doubling, to about 200 per year. They also have a declining murder rate. Care to establish whether or not some of those justifiable homicides are not simply un-just murder charges that were re-classified? In the presentation of racial bias in the application of SYG laws, there have been several instances of people who appeared perfectly justifiable going to jail anyway.
Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #30)
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 06:47 AM
caseymoz (5,763 posts)
48. Um, no. Because your car keys aren't going to kill you.
You're reading an idiomatic phrase literally, and unless English isn't your first language, you have no excuse. "Last resort" is not the logical equivalent to the last place you looked for your keys. It's understood as a Hobson's Choice, or a choice of a smaller catastrophe or a larger one. That is, it's understood by most English speakers who aren't trying to bend the language to win an argument.
"Duty to retreat" is not silly or frivolous when you're talking about avoiding loss of life. You're lighthearted dismissal of it is disturbing. It's the standard we apply in every other case where life could be lost. But it's silly here, why? And how?
Even if the guy is a lowlife burglar, he has friends and relatives who value him, or at least have hopes for him that will be dashed when he's shot to death. And though you have no reason to respect him, you should have nothing against them. You're an atheist like me. His life will be over, but they will suffer. I presume you see that point.
Homicide cannot be treated as something minor. No, if someone breaks into a house and the owner shoots him, it has to be investigated. In a civil society, as opposed to a war zone, his life can't be treated as worthless. To do so invites a war zone.
I'll point out also, a doubling of "justifiable" homicides is not a "small" increase. Close to doubling is, in my mind, an 80-100 percent increase. That's significant any way you do the math. Though you may bring up the point that the numbers are not overwhelming. No, but they also weren't happening before.
A declining murder rate in Florida would mean something if the nationwide murder rate weren't falling as well, SYG notwithstanding. Now, if you could show it's falling at a statistically significant faster rate due in states that have SYG then that would mean something.
". . . . Care to establish whether or not some of those justifiable homicides are not simply un-just murder charges that were re-classified? In the presentation of racial bias in the application of SYG laws, there have been several instances of people who appeared perfectly justifiable going to jail anyway."
I can't answer these because I don't know what you're asking. The "whether or not. . . not . . . un-" triple-and-a-half-negative-hypothetical construction has me confused. I don't know why.
In the second, what's a presentation of racial bias? One might commit racial bias, but what does presenting it mean? ". . . in the application of SYG law": So, you have a presentation in an application. I don't know what the first is, and I don't know if you mean application as in a criminal defense, or the practical application of shooting an assailant.
Then lastly, ". . . there have been several instances of people who appeared perfectly justifiable going to jail anyway." Apparently you don't mean "people" are justifiable. But it gets worse. Was their going to jail justifiable anyway, or were they justifiable but went to jail anyway?
Of course I could guess. Any one of these conundrums are solvable, but I'd rather not take the trouble answering the wrong question.
Response to caseymoz (Reply #48)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 12:49 AM
AtheistCrusader (31,448 posts)
61. 'presentation'
I apologize, I normally proofread my posts, and it appears that night I did not. I don't recall what word I was going for there, appearance, perhaps? Whatever it was, looks like autocomplete or autocorrect mangled it, or maybe it was just late and I went goofy for a bit. Apologies.
""Duty to retreat" is not silly or frivolous when you're talking about avoiding loss of life."
Absolutely it is, because it puts an undue burden upon the victim. In order to flee (classic flight option), you must turn your back on a deadly threat. Those words have meaning. In florida, we just saw a woman sentenced to 20 years for firing a warning shot, rather than shooting her ex husband, because a warning shot is prima facie evidence that you are not in fear for your life. You see, in order to do it, you have to be willing to turn your weapon away from your attacker to do it. (They also try to actively discourage that because it is extremely hazardous to bystanders) In order to flee, you must abandon all pretense of a defensive posture, and likely, turn your back on a deadly threat. Unacceptable requirement of a victim. If the victim has a legal right to be in the location they are in, and they are in no way the aggressor, requiring them to flee 'if possible' is a horrible burden.
"Even if the guy is a lowlife burglar, he has friends and relatives who value him, or at least have hopes for him that will be dashed when he's shot to death."
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The burden is upon the burglar not to do whatever unlawful act led to another person being honestly justifiably in fear for their life.
HOWEVER, I will grant that some state's implementation of Castle Doctrine goes too far in relaxing investigations. It seems to me that at least in theory, it might be easy for someone to lure someone into their house intentionally, for the purposes of 'defensively' shooting that person, OR for illegal activities like a drug deal 'gone wrong'. There really SHOULD be some sort of investigation, with a very low threshold of evidence to kick over to a grand jury for more in-depth analysis, and possible recommendation of charges. In this, I feel some state's SYG/CD laws go too far in creating conditions in which 'dead men tell no tales', etc. "And though you have no reason to respect him, you should have nothing against them." I disagree. I have quite a lot against people who would recklessly create conditions in which another person might be justified in responding with deadly force. Burglary, assault, rape, attempted murder, all of these situations are extremely deplorable, because all too often, the victim IS injured in some way, physically or mentally, and in some cases, killed. The aggressor has the burden of not entering into this situation to start with. I will not in any way fault victims who fight back, as long as a credible threat was presented.
"No, if someone breaks into a house and the owner shoots him, it has to be investigated." Again, I do agree with you here. With one party dead, the burden upon the investigators to establish it was truly a lawful exercise of lethal force in self defense is extremely high. Is it always worthwhile or proper to haul the purported victim in front of a grand jury? I would think not, at least not if the facts are plainly obvious, good witnesses, maybe security video, etc, but I agree, some investigation must happen. (And Florida might actually be a good example, as the investigating officer at Trayvon Martin's death DID indeed recommend manslaughter charges the night of, and the DA overruled. Perhaps remove the DA from the picture, and automatically remand such a case to a grand jury, and if the grand jury recommends indictment, the DA should not be free to refuse, etc, there are a few possible fixes to that problem)
"I'll point out also, a doubling of "justifiable" homicides is not a "small" increase."
It is incredibly small compared to the overall homicde rate with firearms. (Though we should also include non-firearm deaths, as it is not necessary to have a gun to kill either offensively, or in self defense) As a percentage, it's not even a whole number.
"Now, if you could show it's falling at a statistically significant faster rate due in states that have SYG then that would mean something."
I see your point. One critical of SYG laws could also attempt to show that the murder rate is falling in Florida slower than a non-SYG state, but of course, there are always additional factors. Very difficult to get an apples to apples comparison, from the pro or anti side of this issue. In absolute good faith, I would support tightening up some state's SYG investigation practices, to ensure we aren't seeing unjustified 'justifiable homicides'. My state has no SYG law, nor do we have a duty to retreat, investigations are always performed, and grand juries are used in any case where the police investigators 'don't buy it'. I like that balance. I think SYG in other states represents a strong reaction to laws that placed far too great of a criminal or civil burden upon victims, for far too long. When these things go unaddressed for a long period of time, people react, and can over-react. I would absolutely NOT support altering my state's self-defense related laws to mimic Florida, for instance. So I hope you can see that I appreciate at least some of your concern.
"there have been several instances of people who appeared perfectly justifiable going to jail anyway"
Good grief, how did that happen. I swear, I don't even drink. What I meant was, I can see some cases where people who appeared completely justified in using lethal force in self defense, have been prosecuted in either civil or criminal court, and it has, at the very least, the appearance of racial bias. For instance, there was recently a case in Texas, where all signs pointed to 'justifiable', and the DA initially declined to indict, but a year later, filed charges, and won a conviction. It seemed entirely racially motivated. That is a huge concern to me, because at the end of the day, my interest is in Justice, and nothing else. As is so often the case, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle, neither in a SYG law, nor in a Duty To Retreat law, but more like Washington State's model, where we have neither, but grand juries are only convened if the investigating officers feel some foul play was afoot.
What I would like to see our state gain, is some sort of civil immunity in any case where the person who justifiably used lethal force in self defense is not convicted of a crime associated to the shooting.
Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #61)
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:35 AM
caseymoz (5,763 posts)
62. Short for now.
""Duty to retreat" is not silly or frivolous when you're talking about avoiding loss of life."
Absolutely it is, because it puts an undue burden upon the victim. In order to flee (classic flight option), you must turn your back on a deadly threat. Those words have meaning. In florida, we just saw a woman sentenced to 20 years for firing a warning shot, rather than shooting her ex husband, because a warning shot is prima facie evidence that you are not in fear for your life. You see, in order to do it, you have to be willing to turn your weapon away from your attacker to do it. (They also try to actively discourage that because it is extremely hazardous to bystanders) In order to flee, you must abandon all pretense of a defensive posture, and likely, turn your back on a deadly threat. Unacceptable requirement of a victim. If the victim has a legal right to be in the location they are in, and they are in no way the aggressor, requiring them to flee 'if possible' is a horrible burden.
I'll bend this far with it: if you determine you can't flee safely, such as, you're already in direct confrontation (not the only condition) then you shouldn't be required to flee. If you're surprised, or if you're already in a pitched fight, it goes without saying choosing the flee could be the worst thing you can do. If, however, you come home, and determine somebody is in the back of your house, but you haven't confronted them, that's where fleeing would be required. Picking up a gun and going back would be the worst option.
You must consider two things: first, how dysfunctional are judicial system has been allowed to get; second, is more for the courts, how trying to reason this out beforehand and apply laws to it is a different mental condition than actually being in a confrontation fearing for your life. I know victims who weren't prepared for a confrontation can't be expected to come up with the optimum choice. So what I come up with being able to take my time and think about it is something that has to be considered a general principle, not an ironclad rule. Worse, it's hard to get to the mental state involving a fight-or-flight situation when you're sitting at your computer contemplating and writing.
I wish legislatures would give judges and juries more latitude. What's really wrong here is, that has been taken away. There are many other things that have gone wrong, too. Like the woman you describe, I bet she did not have a good defense attorney. Was it a public defender? States like Florida have cut funding to them.
I'm afraid to say, SYG is the wrong solution. The problem is broader than that. In fact, I think ALEC brought it in just so conservatives would not feel paranoid about our criminal justice system and demand reform along with progressives. I can't think of any other reason why.
I'll answer the rest later. Unfortunately, that's all I have time for.
Response to caseymoz (Reply #62)
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:46 AM
gejohnston (17,120 posts)
63. I don't know about the lady's defense lawyer
but the DA was the same as the one going after Zimmerman. Then there is Florida's 5-10-20 law. One thing:
I'm afraid to say, SYG is the wrong solution. The problem is broader than that. In fact, I think ALEC brought it in just so conservatives would not feel paranoid about our criminal justice system and demand reform along with progressives. I can't think of any other reason why.Just look at the history of the labor movement in the US, Oligarchs don't like the rest of us with guns. ALEC only does what member groups wants it too. That is what member groups pay for. The NRA figured "if the Kochs can do it, we can too." So the NRA joined ALEC. SYG is older than ALEC. Illinois has been SYG since 1961. Other states, by judicial precedent, even older. California and Utah for example. On the federal level, SYG has been precedent since 1895.
Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895))
Brown v. United States (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921))
Response to gejohnston (Reply #63)
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 03:49 PM
caseymoz (5,763 posts)
65. lol. Don't like the rest of us with guns?
They can hire whole armies, with body armor. In theory, at least, they can get nuclear weapons. Are you telling me that big corporations like Smith & Wesson and their oligarch executives don't like people with guns but sell them to us anyway? Somehow, I can't reconcile this. Please explain it. As for the NRA, it has it's fingers in a lot of big business pies.
Don't trick yourself. Guns are openly available now now because the oligarchs have everyone else beaten by a couple laps in the arms race, and also, they know how to manipulate an armed populace to work for them, or at least they believe so. For good reason, for even the most intelligent people can get tripped up in their propaganda.
Besides, what does SYG have to do with armed rebellion against the oligarchy anyway? Nothing, except guns. The fact that the discussion one brings automatically chime in with the other tells me that you're more informed by dubious social theories and hypotheticals than any facts. If you're so numb to relevance, I don't think you can read a case or a law right even if you can cite it correctly.
Unless you can tell me why the oligarchs sell us so many guns when they don't want us to have them, and how SYG has anything to do with the class struggle against them, you're same level of credibility with me as Big Foot witnesses, Birthers, 9/11 revisionists and Scientologists. And I bet you think I'm a jerk because you're likely one of those, too.
Response to caseymoz (Reply #65)
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 05:33 PM
gejohnston (17,120 posts)
66. Smith and Wesson is not a big corporation.
In fact, I doubt the all of the gun companies in US and Europe combined are "big corporations" on the level of BP or Koch.
Don't trick yourself. Guns are openly available now now because the oligarchs have everyone else beaten by a couple laps in the arms race, and also, they know how to manipulate an armed populace to work for them, or at least they believe so. For good reason, for even the most intelligent people can get tripped up in their propaganda.Umm, no. Actually, look at the membership or donors of Brady and VPC. One foundation and a couple of million and billionaires. Even some right wing celebs like Sly Stallone. Some left leaning ones like Rosie O' Donnell too. What you don't see is a grassroots movement of any kind. Your problem is not the NRA, ALEC or any other boogeyman. Your problem is stringing together various logical fallacies and distortions and trying to make arguments out of it.
Besides, what does SYG have to do with armed rebellion against the oligarchy anyway? Nothing, except guns. The fact that the discussion one brings automatically chime in with the other tells me that you're more informed by dubious social theories and hypotheticals than any facts. If you're so numb to relevance, I don't think you can read a case or a law right even if you can cite it correctly.How do you think most gun control laws were passed in the day? Europe, Canada, and Australia it was mostly the red scare in the 1920s. Before the 1960s, the south had the strictest gun laws other than New York. None of them were for what we would agree would be the right reasons.
Unless you can tell me why the oligarchs sell us so many guns when they don't want us to have them, and how SYG has anything to do with the class struggle against them, you're same level of credibility with me as Big Foot witnesses, Birthers, 9/11 revisionists and Scientologists. And I bet you think I'm a jerk because you're likely one of those, too.Oligarchs might make them, but they are not selling them. None of them are bankers or oil companies. Read up on Blair Mountain and Haymarket riots and think about it.
No I'm not. What bigfoot witnesses have to do with it, I have no idea. New species are discovered all the time. I am not saying they do or do not exist. I am simply agnostic. As for your birther smear, that may be against the TOS. I'm not a Scientologist. My father was a Mormon (and went through the motions when I was a kid) and my daughter is a Wiccan, so I detest religious bigots on the left as much as I do the ones on the right.
Oh yeah, You can read them for yourself here.
Response to caseymoz (Reply #62)
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:09 AM
AtheistCrusader (31,448 posts)
64. Most of the SYG laws in play are older than ALEC.
"If, however, you come home, and determine somebody is in the back of your house, but you haven't confronted them, that's where fleeing would be required. Picking up a gun and going back would be the worst option."
I disagree, but the circumstances might make this highly variable. I would immediately begin by contacting the police, and then attempting to find my wife and son. Not everyone has family, if I were alone, I would probably seek to contact the police, and then remain exactly where I am. Maybe fortify my position. If there is one person inside my home, there may be more. Might have a buddy out front that saw me come in, etc. I would not prefer to hunt down the person in my home, nor would I prefer to flee, because flight entails significant risk.
Sheltering in place with a firearm is actually a pretty good option.
The woman in florida actually made the mistake of speaking to the police when they arrived. Sad business, that. Never speak to the police, even if you are purely innocent. She admitted to firing a warning shot, believing it to be the honorable, acceptable thing to do. It got her 20 years in jail. Very sad. No good deed goes unpunished. If she had shot her ex, she would be free today.
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 03:32 PM
rrneck (17,671 posts)
13. How fast can you run?
Unless you can outrun your attacker, the concept of retreat is moot.
"I was in fear of death or serious bodily harm."
"I didn't think I could escape".
Both statements are functionally equal and almost impossible to disprove.
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 03:50 PM
WingDinger (3,690 posts)
16. Plant throwdown skittles and tea on them.
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:48 PM
sarisataka (8,564 posts)
32. We have been told here
It's easy to point to others and say they are criminals, but as far as I am concerned, if you carry a gun and use it to harm someone who is not carrying a gun, you are a criminal.
Response to sarisataka (Reply #32)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 04:24 PM
spin (17,121 posts)
35. I wonder if the poster would feel that a 100 pound woman ...
who was attacked by a 200 pound unarmed man in top physical condition, who had the intention of raping her, should be considered a criminal because she used her legally carried handgun to defend herself.
To be fair, I often read foolish comments here in the Gungeon by those on both sides of the gun control debate.
Response to spin (Reply #35)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 04:47 PM
sarisataka (8,564 posts)
36. It is good to be aware
Of what you write and how it can be interpreted.
That is why I never ever make absolute statements
Response to sarisataka (Reply #36)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 05:06 PM
spin (17,121 posts)
37. Good point. (n/t)
Response to sarisataka (Reply #36)
Tue Jun 19, 2012, 01:39 PM
Glassunion (10,159 posts)


text:
You have no items in your shopping cart.
Angela Funovits (Internationally Renowned Thought-Reader and Star of NBC's Phenomenon) elegantly breathing life into the Arcanes with style.
Lee Asher (Expert on High Quality Playing Cards) performs the legendary Thunderbird Ace production with Arcanes.
Tony "The Cardfather" Picasso (Ph.D in propositions and hustles ) The professor of honest deception displays his acclaimed dark art.
Marc DeSouza (Internationally Acclaimed Pro & Instructor) refuses to let anyone touch his Arcane deck.
Lonnie Dilan (Card Artist , DJ & Magician) throws the Arcanes into the break beat digital parallel
Ekaterina Dobrokhotova (Card Artist & Magician) displays her surreal and arial card work using the Arcanes
Contact Us
Never miss a trick Sign up to our newsletter
At Ellusionist, we have one goal: to give you the power to perform magic beyond belief. We want to make you the life of any party. We want to make you into a performer. Composed of 12 individuals, we barely sleep, and we will do anything necessary to bring you the best magic, the best talent, the best training and playing cards possible.
We manufacture many of our own magic supplies, tricks, effects, and custom playing cards. We strive to create the very best magical products the world has ever seen. We work with the United States Playing Card co and have produced 14 lines of playing card decks that are repeatedly acclaimed by top industry pros and magic enthusiasts all over the world.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Contained Places
Paris is a town in Oneida County, New York, USA. The town is in the southeast part of the county and is south of Utica. The population was 4,411 at the 2010 census.[1] The town was named after an early benefactor, Colonel Isaac Paris.
The town was formed in 1792 from part of the town of Whitestown. In 1795, part of Paris was used to found the town of Sherburne (now in Chenango County).
The St. Paul's Church and Cemetery at Paris Hill was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1996.
Research Tips
External Links


text:
South Boston, formerly Boyd's Ferry, is a town in Halifax County, Virginia, United States. The population was 8,142 at the 2010 census.
On December 8, 1796, the General Assembly authorized eight commissioners to establish at Boyd's Ferry on the south side of the Dan River the town of South Boston, named for Boston, Massachusetts. Because this site proved vulnerable to flooding it was eventually abandoned in favor of a new settlement on the north side. By the 1850s the Richmond and Danville Railroad passed through South Boston, which eventually developed into an important market for brightleaf tobacco. In 1884 it was incorporated as a town; in 1960 it became an independent city by court order. South Boston became a town again and rejoined Halifax County on July 1, 1995.
The Berry Hill Plantation, E. L. Evans House, Fourqurean House, Glennmary, Reedy Creek Site, Seaton, South Boston Historic District, and Tarover are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Research Tips


text:
This 1963 MGB was spotted by our man on the ground at Goodwood last weekend. The members car park was filled with 1000+ vintage cars that were driven to the event. For Sale signs were scarce, but this MGB driven in the Classic Marathon by Stirling Moss was a standout. Check out the photos below for the contact info. No price was given, a peeve of ours that is only overcome by the fact that it was driven and parked at Goodwood.
it is no surprise that these cars look great in rally trim. Perspex covered headlights, deleted bumpers, gumball, and hardtop make it a wunner, but the legitimate race-prep means that this one is much more than a cosmetic attempt. Check out the rally history on the fender of that Porsche 911 on the far side as well.
The photo below comes from the cover of the video documenting the 1989 Pirelli Classic Marathon, in which this car was campaigned by Sir Stirling himself. Check out this page for the video.
The sign references that the car was built by Brown & Gammons, a large MG parts supplier in the UK.
We love that this one was parked in the lot along with the other obscure British equipment. We can't imagine going to races in North America and seeing cars driven by racing champions in the regular lot.
Did you mean to enter this number as a bid? If so please use the bidding box above.


text:
It's that time of year again when fireworks color the sky on sultry summer nights.
A centuries-old summer entertainment, fireworks draw crowds, many sporting light "yukata" kimono, to enjoy not only the heavenly spectacle but also the yakitori and "yakisoba" fried noodles sold at the innumerable stalls. And what fireworks display would be complete without beer?
Finally, the true fireworks aficionado takes public transportation (there's not place to park, after all) and joins the throng of revelers meandering slowly from station to venue.
The following is a guide to some of the major fireworks displays around the Tokyo area and across Japan:
July 20 — 19:30 to 20:40 Launched from barges off Yamashita Park, the fireworks can best be viewed from Rinko Park, Red Brick Warehouse and Yamashita Park accessible from Minatomirai, Bashamichi and Nippon-Odori stations on the Minatomirai Line. This year marks the 150th anniversary of the opening of Yokohama port.
Number of fireworks: 6,000
For more information, call: (0180) 99-4045
Katsushika, Tokyo
July 22 — 19:20 to 20:20 This display launches from the banks of the Edo River near Shibamata Station on the Keisei Kanamachi Line or Shin-Shibamata Station on the Hokuso Line.
Number of fireworks: 10,000
Call (03) 3838-5558
Adachi, Tokyo
July 24 — 19:15 to 20:45 Come to the banks of the Arakawa River near Kita-Senju Station by the JR Joban Line, or take the Hibiya or Chiyoda subway lines, or the Tobu Isesaki and Tsukuba Express lines, to Kosuga, Gotanno or Umeshima stations on the Tobu Isesaki Line.
Number of fireworks: 15,000
Call (03) 3880-5853
Sumida River, Tokyo
July 26 — 19:10 to 20:30 At two locations on the banks of the Sumida River, on the border of Taito and Sumida wards in Tokyo, near Asakusa Station via JR or subway lines. Most consider this the No. 1 display.
Number of fireworks: 20,000
Call (03) 5608-6951
Tachikawa, Tokyo
July 26 — 19:20 to 20:30 Showa Kinen Park near JR Tachikawa Station.
Number of fireworks: 5,000
Call (042) 527-2700
Kanagawa Shimbun, Yokohama
Aug. 1 — 19:15 to 20:30 At Rinko Park near Minatomirai Station on the Minatomirai Line.
Number of fireworks: 8,000
Call (045) 227-0744
PL Fireworks in Tondabayashi, Osaka Prefecture
Aug. 1 — 19:45 to 20:45 At Hikarigaoka Country Club near Tondabayashi Station on the Kintetsu-Nagano Line.
Number of fireworks: 20,000
Call (0721) 24-1111
Edogawa, Tokyo
Aug. 2 — 19:15 to 20:30 On the banks of the Edo River near Shinozaki Station on the Toei Shinjuku Line.
Number of fireworks: 14,000
Call (03) 5662-0523
Toda, Saitama Prefecture, and Itabashi, Tokyo
Aug. 2 — 19:00 to 20:45 On the banks of the Arakawa River, on the border of Saitama and Tokyo, near Toda Koen Station on the JR Saikyo Line.
Number of fireworks: 10,000
Call (048) 431-0206
Nagaoka, Niigata Prefecture
Aug. 2 and 3 — 19:25 to 21:20 both days On the banks of the Shinano River near Nagaoka Station on the Joetsu bullet train and other JR lines. One of the largest firework events in Japan.
Number of fireworks: 20,000
Call (0258) 39-2221
Enoshima, Fujisawa, Kanagawa Prefecture
Aug. 5 — 19:15 to 20:15 On Enoshima Island near Katase-Enoshima Station on the Odakyu Line and Enoshima Station of the Enoden Line.
Number of fireworks: 5,000
Call (0466) 22-4141
Kumagaya, Saitama Prefecture
Aug. 9 — 19:00 to 21:00 On the banks of the Arakawa River near Kumagaya Station on the JR Takasaki and Chichibu Railway lines.
Number of fireworks: 10,000
Call (048) 524-1111
Naniwa Yodogawa, Osaka
Aug. 9 — 19:50 to 20:40 On the banks of the Yodo River near Tsukamoto Station on the JR Tokaido Line or Juso Station on the Hankyu Line.
Number of fireworks: 20,000
Call (06) 6307-5522
Tokyo Bay
Aug. 10 — 19:00 to 20:20 At Harumi Wharf Park near Kachidoki Station on the Oedo subway line or Tsukishima and Toyosu stations on the Yurakucho subway line.
Number of fireworks: 12,000
Call (03) 3248-1561
Kamakura, Kanagawa Prefecture
Aug. 11 — 19:00-20:20 At Yuigahama and Zaimokuza beaches near Kamakura Station on the JR Yokosuka Line or Yuigahama and Wadazuka stations on the Enoden Line. When the pyrotechnics barge is being reloaded, a fishing boat drops fireworks into the water, creating mirror-like explosions.
Number of fireworks: 4,000
Call (0467) 23-3050
Tama River, Setagaya Ward, Tokyo and Takatsu Ward, Kawasaki
Aug. 16 — 19:00 to 20:00 On the banks of the Tama River near Futako-Tamagawa and Futako-Shinchi stations on the Den-En-Toshi Line.
Number of fireworks: 12,000
Call (03) 3482-2169
Daisen, Akita Prefecture
Aug. 23 — 17:00-17:40, 18:50 to 21:30 On the banks of the Omono River near Omagari Station on the Akita bullet train and other JR lines. One of the largest fireworks displays in Japan.
Number of fireworks: 15,000
Call (0187) 62-1262
Tsurumi River, Yokohama
Aug. 23 — from 19:30 At Tsukuno Park near Tsurumi Station on the JR Keihin-Tohoku Line.
Number of fireworks: 1,000
Call (045) 521-5530
Kanazawa, Yokohama
Aug. 23 — 19:00-20:00 At Umi-no-Koen (Sea Park) in Kanazawa Ward, Yokohama, near Umi-no-Koen Shiba-Guchi, Umi-no-Koen Minami-Guchi and Nippon-Odori stations on the Seaside Line.
Number of fireworks: 3,500
Call (045) 788-7801
Tsuchiura, Ibaraki Prefecture
Oct. 4 — 18:00-20:30 On the banks of the Sakura River near Tsuchiura Station on the JR Joban Line. One of the largest fireworks displays in Japan.
Number of fireworks: 20,000
Call (029) 824-2810


text:
Earth to Pope Francis – Yes, Religions do Make War and No, Church Secretaries are Not Disciples of Satan
Posted by Susan Matthiesen on 8/31/16
Parish secretaries scare me, like…like…they are disciples of Satan or something.
While we're here on earth with our feet firmly planted on the ground, Pope Francis flies around the world on his airplane from place to place making what the media takes to be Francis' latest ex cathedra statements. I suppose we should get used to the fact that every time he's in flight, he makes mind-boggling off the cuff statements, so mind-boggling that by now we don't pay much attention to what he says way up there the air. Why bother? We have the Catechism and Canon Law to consult right here on earth.
It's as if, weighed down by woes and worries of the universal Church, Francis thinks himself not free to speak his mind but as soon as he's on the plane he's suddenly transformed into a spouting fountain of floating thoughts clouding his intellect.
This brings us to the July 27, 2016, "ex cathedra" statement of the pope speaking to more than 70 reporters from 15 different countries while flying through the air to Krakow, Poland which was: "This is war, but not a war of religion.
When asked about the vicious July 26th murder of Fr Hamel in Normandy, France by two evil Islamic demoniacs who slit his throat while celebrating Holy Mass, Francis said that the world is at war:
"A word that is often repeated is insecurity. But the real word is war. For some time we have been saying: 'The world is fighting a war piecemeal.' This is war. There was the war of '14, with its methods; then that of '39-'45, another great war in the world; and now there is this one. It is not perhaps so organic; organized, yes, but organic… I say… But it is war. This holy priest, who died in the very moment when he was offering prayer for the whole Church, is one (person): but how many Christians, how many innocents, how many children. We think of Nigeria, for example. But that is Africa. It is war. Let us not be afraid to say this truth: the world is at war, because it has lost peace.
"I would like to say just one word to be clear. When I speak of war, I speak of real war, not of a war of religion, no. There is war for interests, there is war for money, there is war for the resources of nature, there is war for the domination of peoples: this is war. Someone may think: 'He is talking about a war of religion'. No. All the religions, we want peace. [No, Holy Father, not all religions want peace.] Others want war. Do you understand? [Well, I understand that you do not understand Islam.]"
Then to top off ignoring Islam's war on other religions, on the same trip to Krakow the pope offended Catholic Church parish secretaries around the globe by describing them as "disciples of Satan". He has only met a handful of church secretaries in his life. I don't know what goes on in Argentina's parish offices, but Pope Francis has never met our sweet amazing secretary, who by the way would never call anyone a disciple of Satan, unless of course she were talking about Muhammad.
Here's what happened (excerpt from Catholic News service): Unlike previous trips where the Pope has given public speeches upbraiding national hierarchies, Francis chose a closed-doors meeting with the 117-member bishops' conference in the Kraków cathedral. The released transcript is of the question-and-answer portion of the 90-minute meeting.
Answering a question from Polish Auxiliary Bishop Leszek Leszkiewicz on whether parishes are still the best way to reach people and on how to build up missionary zeal, the Pope stressed that the parish "is the house of the people of God" and must have its doors wide open to receive people.
But he warned: "There are parishes with parish secretaries who seem to be 'disciples of Satan' and scare people; parishes with closed doors," he said.
The highly anticipated meeting came at a time of reported disagreements within the Polish Church over certain aspects of the Pope's teaching, including his appeals for sheltering refugees.
Auxiliary Bishop Krzysztof Zadarko of Koszalin-Kolobrzeg asked the Pope not only how to help the large number of refugees coming into Europe, but how to overcome "the fear of a possible invasion or aggression that has paralyzed society."
So I suppose instead of saying, "The beatings will continue until morale improves," Pope Francis' basic theme seems to be, "The beratings will continue until orthodox Catholics improve," which basically means until they stop being orthodox and become liberals.


text:
LocationGranada Theater
3524 Greenville Ave. Dallas, TX 75206
Get Directions »
Get Directions »
214-824-9933 (phone)
Neighborhood: Lower Greenville
Category: Music
- November 7, 2012 7pm
Celine Dion. Carly Ray Jepsen. A woman named Lights. What do all these humans have in common? Canadian citizenship and varying degrees musical talent. Lights, aka Valerie Poxleitner, is the one paying us a visit this month, however, so show up and do the head bob to her chill mix of synth pop and alt-rock. Arkells opens.
See Tickets
$20 advanced, $24 day of show
What's Nearby
- Snuffer's Burgers 0 miles away
- Snuffer's Restaurant & Bar Burgers 0 miles away
- Sundown at the Granada Casual 0 miles away
- Aw Shucks Seafood 0 miles away
- The Blue Fish Japanese 0 miles away
Granada Theater Live Music 0 miles away
- Sundown at Granada Pubs & Taverns 0 miles away
- OT Tavern Restaurant Bars 0.1 miles away
- Kinki Lounge Lounges 0.1 miles away
- Kismet Lounge DJ-Dance 0.1 miles away
Oak Clips Pets 0 miles away
- Oak Clips Pets 0 miles away
Unique Tailor 0.4 miles away
- Art and Frame Expo Furniture and Accessories 0.4 miles away
H.D.'s Clothing Company Mens 0.4 miles away


text: II: Against Silence by Born Gold published on 2012-10-10T22:05:07Z I: Ferocious Body oh, will you say i'm old you ferocious body? inside this cruel winter's digits how did you hide your fever? hiss like black wasps above the crest of thighs slumbering half-shut your white wide-open eyes hiss like black wasps i couldn't shake the sense we were just circumstance i couldn't shake the ashes from your cigarette oh, will you say i'm old with a weakling's fever? oh, will you say i'm old? Genre Terror Comment by Faith Moore LOVE the heavy bass 2014/04/19 09:27:30 +0000 Comment by HÅX mad crunk, this is dope 2013/08/30 20:38:29 +0000 Comment by Stunnaisland drummies 2013/08/20 03:19:23 +0000 Comment by K U Z C O Hey, this is wierd <3 2013/07/01 08:42:24 +0000 Comment by nonspeaknasa you have the best sound set 2013/05/05 20:41:05 +0000 Comment by Christos Sakellaridis Great development! 2013/05/03 16:07:21 +0000 Comment by Stereo Silence just great 2013/04/30 21:46:25 +0000 Comment by Vortex in a Bag Great build ! nicely done ... 2013/03/11 22:05:42 +0000 Comment by Myth in Mass Love it 2013/02/11 05:46:11 +0000 Comment by S N D S Hoochy 2013/01/17 07:42:08 +0000 Comment by jjna13 the build-up throughout is beautiful, awesome track 2012/12/31 07:19:52 +0000 Comment by d bene tleilax prettiness 2012/11/14 22:23:01 +0000 Comment by Thisisacrazyman crazy hats! 2012/11/12 07:45:37 +0000 Comment by Drowning The Colossus The vinyl better come with a digital download. This is amazing 2012/10/25 16:50:13 +0000


text:
A Cheater? Christina Aguilera Officially Files For Divorce
While Christina Aguilera was spotted yesterday heading to the costume shop with her son Max, her lawyers were apparently busy working on her divorce papers.
Filed today, the divorce cites "irreconcilable differences" in her petition which has been obtained by TMZ. The divorce petition asks that "Earnings and accumulations of [Aguilera] before marriage, during marriage and from and after the date of separation" be considered separate property and that husband Jordan Bratman's ability to get spousal support be terminated.
Aguilera is seeking joint physical and legal custody of their son. Sources connected with the couple tell TMZ the marriage fell apart after Aguilera allegedly cheated on Bratman.
Well, well, well…if all this is true, I won't be surprised or shocked. But sinisterly delighted.


text:
It was thought that Manu Ginobili retired from playing for the Argentinian national team after the 2012 Olympics, but that may not be the case. Argentina is participating in the 2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup and Ginobili is still pondering the possibility of playing in the tournament.
Rumor Central: Nate Wolters to join Jazz


text:
On Wednesday, July 06, 2011 President Obama held the first ever Twitter town hall meeting. Using Twitter marks a major milestone in the intersection of social media, technology, and politics. President Obama introduced a new way to reach not only his target audience but those who may be curious about his policies or on the fence with their support. Using Twitter increased his accessibility, and allowed for personal expression (limited to 140 characters) that was seen by everyone following with or without a Twitter account.
What does this have to do with a home based business or small business?
Why is this important to your business?
The same benefits President Obama received your business can too…using Twitter as an online marketing strategy is a cost effective way to reach a larger audience.
Twitter, at 8 years old, is still one of the fastest growing social networks with more than 175 million users. Many home based business and small business owners view Twitter as an indispensible marketing tool. However to some business owners Twitter is nothing more than an overhyped timewaster.
You've tinkered around with the notion you might want to use Twitter a bit, sent a tweet about your business – where you had lunch, or maybe even that awesome quote you just heard. So many people are tweeting, why not you?
But then the questions pop up… Why would you want to use Twitter? For what purpose, and where would it get your business? Maybe it's all a waste of time. Or is it?
Are you maximizing Twitter's huge potential to boost your marketing mojo? If you answer NO, I'd like to call your attention to these three articles:
1. 5 Stupid Reasons Not To Use Twitter For Business
Many small businesses look at Twitter as just another thing on their "to-do" list. Don't let one of these 5 stupid reasons for not using Twitter for business keep you from embracing this new media as a way to attract new clients.
2. Social Media Is THE New "Word Of Mouth"
For small business owners with big ideas (and small budgets), social media is THE new 'word of mouth'. Social media is perfect for business owners looking to use marketing and promotion to expand their business and increase their exposure.
3. Some Things Can't Wait-5 Reason To Use Twitter Now
The opportunities for a business to create the ultimate word-of-mouth buzz, build brand awareness and sales are plentiful. The easiest way to make your brand thrive is to strategically use "Twitter For Business".
Still "Don't get Twitter"? Take charge, download my free report guaranteed to reveal why Twitter is a priceless effective business tool for women owned businesses, entrepreneurs, home based businesses and small business owners. You'll get answers to the top "I don't get Twitter" frequently asked questions (FAQ) on how to get greater results using Twitter for business.
Copyright © 2014 Rising Star Ideas, LLC. All Rights Reserved Worldwide
Photo courtesy: microsoft.com


text:
Tonight the Yankees return to Fenway looking for the first victory of 2009 against the Sox. And apparently, the Yankees won't be the only team in the park with a defensively limited shortstop.
With Jed Lowrie recovering from wrist surgery, and Nick Green playing like Nick Green, Julio Lugo has been the Sox' starting SS most of the last month. And the Boston Herald's Sam McAdam has seen enough. Which in turn prompted Deadspin to link to the article under the headline Sean McAdam Is Not A Fan Of Julio Lugo's Defense, which is interesting, because Julio Lugo is not a fan of his wife's self-defense.
Derek Jeter may also have limited range, but at least he can hit something other than a woman.
Rumors abound about the Sox making a move for a SS. Given their affinity for employing men with a history of domestic violence at the position, they may want to consider dealing for the Royals' Alberto Callaspo.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
On the Red Sox, SS stands for "Spouse Slugger"
Posted by Matt at 1:00 PM
3 comments:
Don't think Cordero ever played shortstop for the Sox. Baseball Reference has him playing many postions for Boston, but not SS. He was with the Sox in 1996 and 1997, and there was another guy manning the position back then.ReplyDelete
You're right Tad. Cordero did not play SS for the Sox, but he did when he was with the Expos the first time, and he just fit too nicely into the post for me to let him pass.ReplyDelete
The guy who played SS for Sox in 1997 turned out to be a wife stealer, not a wife beater.
Ah-hah! Never let the facts get in the way...;)ReplyDelete
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Where can I see this model? I'd like more info about this model
Hey you
Hey you
Yeah, you!
You're beautiful and I love you!
Design by Hans Daalder
Download sizes & details brochure
Download the technical brochure here.
Want to know more about this product?
Do you want to see this sofa in real life? Want to feel its comfort? Want to touch its fabric?
Contact us, and find your nearest dealer!
Technical Description
Download the technical brochure here.
This file contains any possible configurations, dimensions and sizes of this product.


text:
Huh, Yesol, Machines vs. Machines: High Frequency Trading and Hard Information (March 4, 2014). FEDS Working Paper No. 2014-33. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2436048
"In today's markets where high frequency traders (HFTs) both provide and take liquidity, what influences HFTs' liquidity provision? I argue that information asymmetry induced by liquidity-taking HFTs' use of machine-readable information is important. Applying a novel statistical approach to measure HFT activity and using a natural experiment of index inclusion, I show that liquidity-providing HFTs supply less liquidity to stocks that suffer more from this information asymmetry problem. Moreover, when markets are volatile, this information asymmetry problem becomes more severe, and HFTs supply less liquidity. I discuss implications for market-making activity in times of market stress and for HFT regulations."


text:
I Want to...
Search the Health Library
Get the facts on diseases, conditions, tests and procedures.
Patient Care
I Want To...
I Want To...
Find Research Faculty
Enter the last name, specialty or keyword for your search below.
School of Medicine
I Want to...
Apply for Admission
Dome - Hospitalists Set the Standard
Dome July/August 2014
Hospitalists Set the Standard
Date: July 8, 2014
New program helps establish universal clinical guidelines.
Eric Howell's formula for better care.
Eric Howell, director of hospitalist programs at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Suburban Hospital and Howard County General Hospital, says it's impossible to improve the quality and reduce the cost of inpatient care without finding a way to answer some fundamental questions.
What, for example, does a decrease in patient lengths of stay in one hospital mean without a comparison to another hospital's numbers? Does hospitalist care cut down on the hospital costs for each patient?
"In medicine, for better or for worse, there is a lot of individual variation from physician to physician," Howell says. "We want to figure out how to reduce unwarranted variation that is harmful to improving the quality of care." Now, in partnership with the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Howell and his colleagues have embarked on a quality improvement project to reduce such differences.
The program, called EQUIP (Excellence in Quality, Utilization, Integration and Patient-Centered Care), identifies successful care models through a dashboard that measures the quality and cost of care by individual hospitalists at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Hopkins Bayview, and Howard County General and Suburban hospitals. By establishing standard clinical guidelines in such areas as patient handoffs, discharge planning and consultation wait times, Howell and his team hope to shorten expensive hospital stays whenever possible, potentially saving $2 million a year.
EQUIP exemplifies the dedication that is required of employees to achieve the institution's performance goals, says Rich Grossi, senior vice president and chief financial officer for Johns Hopkins Medicine. "It is critically important for members of our workforce to step forward with projects they feel can help us meet strategic priority targets," he says. "This is why I was thrilled when Eric Howell and his hospitalist colleagues proposed EQUIP to improve inpatient care and reduce costs."
—Stephanie Shapiro


text:
Receive alerts from our resorts.
Receive snow alerts, and check out quickly and easily.
If you own a PEAKS card or Season Pass, you're already in our system.
Please wait a moment while we load your cart.
There was an error with your request.Please refresh the page and try again.curr =kirkwood
Save time by renting your equipment online.
Come play in the snow with a group of friends, family or
colleagues. We offer group discounts on anything from lodging to snowshoe treks
and, of course, lift tickets! Group discounts are available when you purchase
20 or more lift products, using one form of payment
Find out more»
Kirkwood Mountain Resort is the perfect destination for
your next event with a variety of group venues, onsite catering and event
coordination. We offer discount rates on a variety of accommodations, mountain
activities and can customized options to fit your group needs. We offer discount rates on a variety of accommodations,
mountain activities and can customized options to fit your group needs
Find out more>>
This is a great read for all Group Leaders. In this document you will find helpful
information about Kirkwood Mountain Resort. The Group Leader Information Sheet is
a great tool to help you plan your mountain activities during your stay at
To get the best possible experience using our websites we recommend that you upgrade to a newer browser. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Click on an icon to go to the download page.


text: RT Book, Whole DB /z-wcorg/ DS http://worldcat.org ID 53796910 LA English T1 Kepler's witch : an astronomer's discovery of cosmic order amid religious war, political intrigue, and the heresy trial of his mother A1 Connor, James A., PB HarperSanFrancisco PP San Francisco YR 2004 SN 0060522550 9780060522551 0060750499 9780060750497 AB This largely untold story of the "Protestant Galileo," Johannes Kepler, vividly brings to life the tidal forces of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, revealing Kepler's neglected role as a hero of conscience. The doorway into Kepler's life and times begins with the sensational witchcraft trial of his elderly mother, Katharina, an eccentric woman who, like Kepler, was too smart for the world she lived in. The story is filled with crooked judges, sadistic bailiffs, and nasty neighbors bent on the destruction of this single, half-mad old woman. In the seventeenth century, witches were the terrorists of their day, and thousands--mostly women--had gone to the stake by the time of Katharina Kepler's trial. Thus Kepler was concerned with more than scientific discoveries and achievement--he fought for religious peace and reconciliation, even when it nearly cost him his life.--From publisher description.


text:
4. Twisted Bun
This is another one for the longer haired girls.
A bun is a great way to keep your hair in one place and off of your neck.
This twisted bun is – well a twist on the classic bun!
Just twist your hair up and twirl it into a bun.
Secure it with a few bobby pins and you've got a great look!


text:
Hwang Jung Eum's recent outfit created quite the controversy among the viewers of 'I am a Singer 2'.
The first episode of 'I am a Singer 2' aired in Korea on the 29th with Park Myung Soo, Hwang Jung Eum, and Park Eun Ji as the MC's. However, what the viewers were concerned about was the revealing, low-cut navy dress Hwang Jung Eum wore. They pointed out how uncomfortable they were whenever the camera was directed at Hwang Jung Eum.
Viewers commented with, "Her outfit would look good on a red carpet, but it was too much", "Felt awkward watching the show with my children", and "She looked like she should have been one of the singers."
Do you agree with the viewers of 'I am a Singer 2'? Let us know in the comment box below!
Source + image via Naver


text:
LAS VEGAS, N.M. (AP) One man was killed Sunday when the single engine airplane he was flying crashed south of Las Vegas.
The pilot was identified as Ralph Steenson, state police Lt. Rob Shilling said. Shilling did not know Steenson's age or hometown but said he had family in Albuquerque.
"The pilot was the only occupant of the plane," Shilling said.
Steenson was flying a Cirrus SR20 from Fargo, N.D., to Albuquerque when he crashed near McAllister Lake Wildlife Refuge between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m., said John Clabes, spokesman for the southwest region of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Two FAA investigators and one investigator from the National Transportation Safety Board would be sent to New Mexico to determine the cause of the crash, Clabes said.
Steenson "was not talking to any air traffic controllers or anything" before the crash, Clabes said.
Steenson had not filed a flight plane, he said.
© 2017. All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us


text:
LOS ANGELES (Aug. 31)
The City College of Los Angeles is offering during the coming fall, credit courses in elementary and intermediate modern Hebrew.
The courses include reading, writing and essentials of Hebrew grammar and also content an the geography, customs and culture of Israel. Each course will meet five times a week and will enable students to earn four college credits for each semester.


text:
Skip to content
Convert Currency:
Business shop > > Postage supplies & stationery > Postal stationery > Stationery Products > General Stationery Products > Basics Sponge Dampener in Blue
Your shopping basket is empty.
Catalogue code: VOW_834-6535
This Basics Sponge Dampener in blue is ideal for those who have to do a lot of bulk mailing. The small round tray has a sponge head inside, so you can use the sponge instead of your tongue while mailing; saving you time and also being more hygienic. This KF15024 dampener has a plastic moulding so you can be assured that it will be durable and will last. The dimensions of this dampener are H23mm x 85mm in diameter, easy to store in your drawers or just have on your desk.


text:
Please wait...
One-Shot Series: Psy Trance FX
'One-Shot Series: Psy Trance FX' from Equinox Sounds is a sample library featuring 100 mind altering Psy Trance FX samples to give your productions a whole new level of premium sound. This sample pack contains sweeps, lasers, down FX, explosions bassdrums, downfilters and more, all rendered at a pristine 24-Bit quality. 'One-Shot Series: Psy Trance FX' offers 100 professional one-shot FX samples in WAV format for producing Psychedelic Trance, starting from Full-On and going to Full-Power. Featuring sweeps, lasers, down FX, explosions bassdrums, downfilters and more, these samples will emphasise your creative potential!
Royalty-Free: All of the content in this download is 100% royalty-free. Once purchased, you can use these sounds in your own commercial music releases with no restrictions.
Quick Links: Browse By Genre | WAV Sample Packs | MIDI Packs | Construction Kits | REX Loops | Combi Packs | Reason Refills | Apple Loops
• Format: WAV Sample Pack
• 100 Psy Trance FX Samples
• 24-Bit/44.1kHz WAV Files
• 125 MB (Uncompressed)
• Royalty Free
• Instant Download
Works with All DAW Software including Cubase, Logic, Ableton Live, Pro Tools, Reason, Traktor (WAV), Reaper, Sonar, Studio One, Mixcraft, FL Studio, Garageband, Samplitude and many more...
PC & Mac Compatible


text:
USC Moore School of Business Professional MBA Information Session
University of South Carolina Darla Moore School of Business
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 from 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM (EDT)
Who's Going
San Francisco, California
London, United Kingdom
Florence, Italy
Event Details
You are invited to a Professional MBM (PMBA) Program information session Lunceon.There is no cost to attend.
Libby Hendley, Director of PMBA Recruiting, will provide an overview of the program including curriculum, career management services, and admissions. We will aslo have several Alumni that have been through the program and can speak to their experiences. This 45-minute session will conclude with Q&A.
If you cannot attend Monday, stay posted to the USC PMBA Recruiting Events webpage for a list of new events.
We look forward to you joining us for Lunch!
If you have any questions please contact:
Paul Allen, Assistant Director of Recruiting, PMBA Program
When & Where
BlackFinn American Saloon
210 East Trade Street
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 from 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM (EDT)
Add to my calendar
University of South Carolina Darla Moore School of Business
The Professional MBA (PMBA) program at the Darla Moore School of Business is designed for working professionals who want to earn an MBA without interrupting their careers. The program is available in multiple locations around South Carolina as well as in Charlotte, NC.
Students develop a strong foundation in the business functional areas through the core courses. Students may focus in areas such as marketing, management, global supply chain and finance. Building on the Moore School's reputation in international business, an optional international business concentration is available.