Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » How to kill a child and get away with it (Page 9)

  This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  23  24  25   
Author Topic: How to kill a child and get away with it
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
my state (Cali).

arrrrgggg!

*THWAP*

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Huh?
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I still disagree, but at least with rewording it doesn't sound so god awful.
I didn't reword it. This is what I was saying from the start, specifically in reference to Zimmerman strapping up to go to the grocery store. If he has a reason to feel he needs a concealed weapon, none has been put forward, though that may change. Yknow, since we're talking about 'skipping points'. Please.

As for sarcastic jabs, if you'll stop doing things like compare pipe bombs and firearms, and straightforwardly misstating what I said about the grocery store, I'll be sure to try and keep my sarcasm under better control. Until such time, though, as you stop doing things like that, as well as complaining of emotionally biased phrasing while using it (in the same paragraph, no less), well, I'm not going to speak as though your arguments are solid and well reasoned just because you hold them with no ill intent.

Case in point: your thoughts on what's necessary to obtain a concealed permit in this country, it would've taken under five minutes to *start* the process of being well-informed on the subject. You didn't want to do that, though. Instead you made repeatedly general statements, and then when challenged pivoted back to 'in my state'. I could go on, but I already have. It's just that I'm not asking you to stop being mean.

---------

As for gun control and gun rights overall, I don't say they ought to be banned universally, right now. That wouldn't work. But you know what would start to help? If we could start working on the idea that *perhaps* we ought to reconsider whether or not we ought to be defaulting to the idea that anyone and everyone should be able to use a gun for any or no reason, and it ought only be restricted if we can prove they're dangerous. We don't do that for cars, boats, planes, medication, all kinds of other things. But for some reason, the things designed to kill living things, animals or people, are different. It's somehow *wrong* to insist that a person ought to somehow demonstrate they ought to be trusted with a gun, and it's wrong to ever take steps towards making it a reality. Because we can't do it INSTANTLY, it's wrong to do it gradually.

[ April 15, 2012, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]

Posts: 16395 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I know you like to "mix it up" but I really don't. So please cut the boxing match out, no one is keeping track of points.

I am!

---

Also, Rivka thwapped you because you abbreviated CA to "Cali" like some ignorant plebe from a flyover state.

Let me guess: you're not a California native?

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Rivka thwapped you because you abbreviated CA to "Cali" like some ignorant plebe from a flyover state.

Oh, well said. That's exactly right.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bah, fourth generation born and raised (except for 5 years in Minnesota as a teen).

Cali is not thwap worthy. I know plenty of people who call it that who, like me, are born and raised here.

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I didn't reword it.

You know, I forget from time to time how abysmal is to try and talk to you, how you will argue every little detail to death even when clearly in the wrong, how nearly every single second I spend trying to communicate with you I will never get back.

Trust that I won't be making that same mistake any time soon.

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't trust that, actually, a skepticism founded on experience. Anyway, like I said, I didn't reword it. Only if you took my original statement to mean 'any concealed permit carrier in any circumstances' could I be said to have reworded it.

Since I clearly didn't mean that, since it would take either a malicious or seriously obtuse or both reading to think I meant that, yup, I didn't reword it.

Posts: 16395 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On one hand I think everyone owning a gun for little to no reason is stupid.

On the other hand I love guns and the idea of owning vintage WWII weaponry and to be able to fire them on my private property.

I cannot at this time think of a way to make them inclusive goals. [Frown]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Cali is not thwap worthy.

Slow learner, huh?

*THWAP! THWAP!*

quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I know plenty of people who call it that who, like me, are born and raised here.

Just bring them close enough.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Also, Rivka thwapped you because you abbreviated CA to "Cali" like some ignorant plebe from a flyover state.

Let me guess: you're not a California native?

There are some famous and influential rap/hip-hop artists (especially from the west coast) that say "Cali" and they aren't ignorant plebes from a flyover state.

I've also heard long-time California natives refer to their state as "Cali" while around other long-time natives and no thwapping occurred.

Posts: 536 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rap and hip-hop "artists" frequently speak a language only tangentially related to standard American English.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Rap and hip-hop "artists" frequently speak a language only tangentially related to standard American English.

That doesn't make them any less "correct" or influential.
Posts: 536 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
She did say 'standard', and I think when being a curmudgeon about state name abbreviations, tradition is rather a requirement.
Posts: 16395 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
She did say 'standard', and I think when being a curmudgeon about state name abbreviations, tradition is rather a requirement.

Cali isn't a formal state name abbreviation like CA. It's a slang abbreviation, which is therefore, by definition, both non-standard and non-traditional.
Posts: 536 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
lets all fight over it
Posts: 14069 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm still not sure who's serious and who ain't.
Posts: 16395 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey, we can get everyone from Frisco and Shy-Town and the Big Apple and the City of Angels together and they can fight over which city nickname is the least used by the actual inhabitants of that city.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(Plus other cities I can't think of right now)
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
It would be highly, highly unethical for the DA to ask for an indictment and to charge someone with a crime unless he believes that person to be guilty, and guilty of that specific crime.

Which is not what I said. They can absolutely believe all of the following:
  • that Zimmerman committed murder 2;
  • that they (the DA's office) have enough evidence to bring Zimmerman to trial on that charge, and with a decent chance of conviction;
  • that a deal for a lesser charge, such as manslaughter, is a better use of the city's resources than a chance, however decent, of a conviction

I suppose I was responding more to the implication, taken from Lyr's comment but not dismissed entirely by yours, that the charge would be anything but sincerely brought.

Sadly that does happen in our united states, but it is nevertheless a huge no-no. I'm not entirely clear on the ethics of charging for a crime with foreknowledge of the likelihood of a plea, but I imagine the important distinction is whether or not the charge being brought is legitimate, and not whether the prosecutor sees an actual verdict as likely.

Posts: 9553 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it is less Lyr's implication, and more your inference. You can think you don't have a hope in hell of making a charge stick, and still decide to sincerely bring that charge -- for political reasons, or any others.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, you *can* yes. My only concern was pointing out that you are *not* supposed to. But then, I'd be a fool to believe the Rodney King Indictments weren't political either- the state's attorney wouldn't have filed those charges but for enormous pressure following the dismissals from the local courts.
Posts: 9553 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd like to hear why people think voluntary manslaughter or negligent homicide would be more appropriate charges than murder 2.

If what I've found on the internet is accurate, if you fire a gun in the commission of a crime in Florida, it automatically raises the charge one degree. If you kill someone with a firearm in Florida (even if it might be considered negligent homicide), there is a minimum sentence of 25 years. This isn't some kind of liberal anti-gun hysteria, Jeb Bush originated this law.

Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While on the topic of excessive use of force, the report from the pepper spray incident is in and pretty damning.

http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/459368.html


quote:

You know how every time somebody in law enforcement does something that looks bad, we're told that we should "wait until the facts are in" before passing judgment? Well, after Lieutenant Pike of the UC Davis Police Department became an internet meme by using high-pressure pepper-spray on peaceful resisters, the campus hired an independent consulting firm to interview everybody they could find, review all the videos and other evidence, review the relevant policies and laws, and issue a final fact-finding report to the university. The university just released that report, along with their summary (PDF link), and the final report is even worse than the news accounts made it seem.

You probably weren't aware that the protesters warned the university that they were going to be protesting two weeks in advance, were you? The campus, and campus police, had two weeks' notice to plan for this, and yes, on day one, one question they addressed was, "What if the protesters set up an Occupy encampment?" Two weeks in advance they planned, well, if they do that, then we'll send in police to remove the tents, and to arrest anybody who tries to stop them. Now, under California law, when planning an operation like this, there's a checklist they're supposed to follow when writing the operational plan, specifically to make sure that they don't forget something important. Had they done so? They would have avoided all four of the important steps they screwed up. When asked about it? Nobody involved was even aware that that checklist existed.

The most important thing that the checklist would have warned them about was do not screw up the chain of command. Let me make clear who was in the chain of command. Under normal circumstances, it runs from university Chancellor Katehi, to campus police Chief Spicuzza, to campus police Lieutenant Davis, to his officers, including one I'll call Officer Nameless. (The report refers to him by a code letter.) Once the cops arrive on the scene, there's supposed to be one and only one person in a position to give orders to the other officers on the scene, including any higher-ups who are there (if any). Officer Nameless, who wrote the plan, was put in charge of the scene by Lt. Pike. By law, the officer in charge of the scene is not supposed to get directly involved. He or she (in this case, he) is supposed to stand back where he can see the whole scene, and concentrate on giving orders, and everybody else is supposed to refrain from giving orders. Officer Nameless instead ignored his responsibilities, and waded in, and so did Lt. Pike; Chief Spicuzza sat in her car half a block away, communicating with the radio dispatcher by cell phone, and at one time or another, all three of them, Officer Nameless and Lieutenant Pike and Chief Spicuzza were yelling out contradictory orders.

But before it even came to that point, the student protesters had, with the help of Legal Services, gone over all the relevant state laws, city ordinances, campus ordinances, and campus regulations and concluded that no matter what the Chancellor thought, it was entirely legal for them to set up that camp. When the university's legal department found out that Chancellor Katehi was going to order the camp removed, they thought they made it clear to her that the students were right.

I kept having to stop and slap my forehead over that one repeated phrase in the report: (this person or that) was under the impression she had made it clear that (some order was given), but nobody else present had that impression. Anybody who is "under the impression that they made it clear" that some order was given who who didn't put it in writing and who hasn't had that order paraphrased back to them? Should be slapped. Or at the very least demoted. Unless you actually said it, you didn't "make it clear."

It turns out that it is illegal for anybody to lodge on the campus without permission, but the relevant law only applies to people trying to make it their permanent dwelling. The law prohibits non-students from camping on campus for any reason, but neither student affairs nor the one cop sent to look could find any non-students who were there overnight. A campus regulation says that students can't set up tents without permission, but that regulation is not enforceable by police, only by academic discipline. Campus legal "thought they made it clear" that the law was on the students' side, but according to multiple witnesses, what they actually said was "it is unclear that you have legal authority to order the police to do this" and Chancellor Katehi heard that as "well, they didn't say I don't have that authority, only that it's not clear."

Chancellor Katehi, on her part, "thought she made it clear" that when police ordered the students to leave, they were (a) not to wear riot gear into the camp, (b) not to carry weapons of any kind into the camp, (c) were not to use force of any kind against the students, and (d) were not to make any arrests. But all that anybody else on that conference call heard her say out loud was "I don't want another situation like they just had at Berkeley," and Chief Spicuzza interpreted that as "no swinging of clubs."

Chief Spicuzza "thought she made it clear" more than once that no riot gear was to be worn and no clubs or pepper sprayers were to be carried. What Lieutenant Pike said back to her, each time, was, "Well, I hear you say that you don't want us to, but we're going to." And they did, including that now-infamous Mk-9 military-grade riot-control pepper sprayer that he used. Oh, funny thing about that particular model of pepper-sprayer? It's illegal for California cops to possess or use. It turns out that the relevant law only permits the use of up to Mk-4 pepper sprayers. The consultants were unable to find out who authorized the purchase and carrying, but every cop they asked said, "So what? It's just like the Mk-4 except that it has a higher capacity." Uh, no. It's also much, much higher pressure, and specifically designed not to be sprayed directly at any one person, only at crowds, and only from at least six feet away. The manufacturer says so. The person in charge of training California police in pepper spray says that as far as he knows, no California cop has ever received training, from his office or from the manufacturer, in how to safely use a Mk-9 sprayer, presumably because it's illegal. But Officer Nameless, when he wrote the action plan for these arrests, included all pepper-spray equipment in the equipment list, both the paint-ball rifle pepper balls and the Mk-9 riot-control sprayers.

The students set up their tents on a Thursday night. Chancellor Katehi ordered the cops to (a) only involve campus police, because she didn't trust the local cops not to be excessively brutal, and (b) get them out of here by 3 AM Thursday night. Chief Spicuzza had to tell her that that wasn't physically possible, they couldn't get enough backup officers from other UC campuses on that short notice, it was going to have to be Friday night at 3 AM. Chancellor Katehi said "no can do," that they had to be out of there before sunset Friday night, so that the camp wasn't joined by drunken and stoned Friday night partiers that would endanger the camp and even further endanger cops trying to deal with them -- arguably an entirely reasonable objection. So she ordered Chief Spicuzza to get them out of there by 3 PM Friday afternoon. Chief Spicuzza "was under the impression" (oh, look, there's that phrase again) that she made it clear to the Chancellor that for one thing, it couldn't be safely done, at 3:00 PM the protesters and passers-by would way outnumber her officers, and for another, it couldn't be legally done, because there was no way to legally arrest someone for "overnight camping" in the middle of the afternoon. Nobody else who was in that meeting thinks she made that clear, only that she made it clear that she didn't want to do it but couldn't explain why not. Still, when she gave the order to Lieutenant Pike, he very definitely did raise the same objections, clearly and unambiguously, backed up by multiple witnesses, who all agree that Chief Spicuzza told him, "This was decided above my level, do it anyway."

So, there's Lieutenant Pike. (Who, by the way, for obvious legal reasons since he's still being investigated by internal affairs and, last I heard, still being sued by his victims, refused to be interviewed by the consultants, so everything we know about his side of this comes from what he told other people and what he wrote in his reports.) As far as he's concerned, he's been given an illegal and impossible order: take 40 or so officers - unarmed and unarmored officers - into an angry crowd of 300 to 400 people who aren't doing anything illegal and make that crowd go away without using any force or getting any of your officers injured. For reasons Stanley Milgram could explain, it does not occur to Lieutenant Pike to disobey this order, so instead, he does the best he can, using his own judgement to decide which parts of his orders and which parts of the law to ignore. Unsurprisingly, it goes badly. Backed into a corner by an angry crowd (which has, by the way, demonstrably left him room to retreat, even with his prisoners, contrary to what he says in his report) that is confronting him with evidence that he is the law-breaker here, not them, he snaps. And rather than take it out on the more-powerful people who put him in this situation, he takes it out on the powerless and peaceful people in front of him, using a high-pressure hose to pump five gallons of capsacin spray into the eyes and mouths of the dozen or twenty people in front of him ... and he would have used more if he'd had it, he only stopped when he did, halfway through his third pass down the line, because the sprayer emptied. When he gets back to the station, Chief Spicuzza (who has no idea what's just happened) congratulates him in front of half the department for how well he just did. And now, as far as he's concerned, he's being hung out to dry. We're apparently supposed to ignore the fact that multiple video sources contradict almost everything about his after-incident report because apparently, in his opinion, he was only following orders.

This is not better than the initial media reports. This is worse. This is an epic textbook in official-violence failure.

http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/459671.html

quote:

In the interest of brevity, when I wrote yesterday's journal entry about the UC Davis report (PDF link) on the still-infamous "pepper spraying cop" incident, I left one of the interesting unanswered questions of the report out of it: what were the cops even doing there, when everybody, and I mean everybody, that they interviewed knew in advance that this was not a police matter, and when everybody, and I mean literally everybody, who was involved in the planning of this was present at at least one meeting where that was brought up?

I mean, after all, this is the University of California system that we're talking about, here! This is not the first campus protest they've had to deal with, to put it mildly. The University of California system has been dealing with disruptive campus protests since shortly after World War II. They have been dealing with disruptive protests, including ones that violate campus regulations, including ones that go farther than this one did and explicitly broke the law, ever since the Berkeley Free Speech Movement days. They have procedures for this. Those procedures were not followed. Why not? The report doesn't say. And the report does say that this question was asked in advance.

I didn't know this, but it turns out that under UC rules, no campus protest is a police matter. By long-standing policy, no protest that is defined as a campus protest is a matter for the university to involve state, local, or even campus police in. The consultants who wrote the fact-finding report couldn't find an official definition of the term campus protest, as separated from an outside protest, one for the cops. But the department that is supposed to handle campus protests is the Student Affairs office, and when interviewed, they said that they use the same rule that the university system uses for defining campus clubs: three quarters or more of the attendees must be current students of that campus, alumnae of that campus, or faculty of that campus, and all leadership roles must be filled by students, alumnae, or professors. It seems like a good rule of thumb, and nobody had a contradictory definition. So if a protest happens on campus, and it meets that definition, then the campus police (and, in the university system's opinion, all other police) are supposed to stand back and let Student Affairs handle it.

At the previous protest, the one where this protest was decided upon and scheduled, there was someone from Student Affairs there monitoring it, as part of her job. She reported that during the day, she couldn't get a good count, but it seemed to her like it was more than three quarters students, not even counting alumnae and faculty. When they were occupying the admin building overnight, she did get an approximate count: 20 to 25 students, 10 to 15 alumnae, and one non-campus person, some kind of legal adviser who was there in case there were mass arrests, well within the guidelines. However, one campus police officer went by briefly and he reported to the Chancellor, the next day, that almost none of them were students. In that same meeting, after questioning him, the Chancellor said that she didn't believe him, because he admitted that he had somehow forgotten that UC Davis has a grad school and plenty of older students; he had assumed that anybody who looked older than 20 couldn't possibly be a college student. Nevertheless, she seems to have forgotten this by the time of later meetings, and in every meeting thereafter she stated that her concern was that she had a report from campus police that "most" of the protesters were from off campus, from Occupy Davis, who had come over to campus to make trouble.

But before that meeting even occurred, the head of Student Affairs had gone to the Chancellor and said "we have this under control, let us handle this" and the Chancellor agreed. In that meeting, Student Affairs again contradicted the one cop who said otherwise, and said, "we have this under control, we have a plan, it's worked before, let us handle this." I can't remember the circumstances, but I remember reading that there was one more meeting or voice conference of the "leadership team" set up to deal with the protests where it was said, yet again, that this was Student Affairs' responsibility, why are the campus cops dealing with this? The day of the incident, the Vice Chancellor, when it was her turn to speak, gave an impassioned 20 minute speech about how involving the cops in this and evicting the protesters was a bad idea, that they were on the wrong side of history, that using cops against protesters has never worked well for the University of California, we should not be doing this, we should let Student Affairs deal with this. Everybody who was on that conference call remembers this ... and the awkward silence that followed it ... and then everybody else ignoring the Vice Chancellor and going on with planning the police raid. And in the car on the way to the raid the incident commander (the one I called "Officer Nameless" yesterday) and his superior, the now-famous Lieutenant Pike, say that it occurred to them to ask each other, "Wait, why are we even being asked to do this? Isn't this Student Affairs' job?"

So, was it Student Affairs' responsibility? Well, Lieutenant Pike and his officers arrested 10 randomly-selected people: 8 students, 1 alumnus, 1 outsider. So, yes.

(What was Student Affairs' plan, if they had been allowed to use it? Politely wait them out, basically. Instead of paying overtime to every other campus police agency for one big raid, pay one local campus officer overtime on Friday and Saturday nights at bar-closing time to be on hand to keep rowdies from disturbing the camp. At other times have one Student Affairs staff member or volunteer at the protest to monitor it for safety issues and politely bring those issues up with the protesters. Student Affairs said that their experience was that when handled this way, campus protests always dry up and blow away, usually after the first rain, but if not then, then always by finals week.)

When interviewed after the fact, neither UC Davis Chancellor Katehi, nor US Davis campus PD Chief Spicuzza, could explain why the police were there, what campus policy or state law made it a campus police matter. Nobody said it, but I will: Student Affairs, the Vice Chancellor, the consulting firm who ran the investigation, and all of us who are appalled by this, we all have "a pre-9/11 mentality." Since the Bush administration, "coddling" protesters (and by "coddling protesters" what I mean is "obeying the law" and "following good standard procedures") is just not what "real Americans" (and by "real Americans" I mean "people with authoritarian personality and social dominance orientation") do.

http://reynosoreport.ucdavis.edu/reynoso-report.pdf
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Rap and hip-hop "artists" frequently speak a language only tangentially related to standard American English.

That doesn't make them any less "correct" or influential.
Influential......maybe. Correct?

WRONG!


Doesn't matter how many morons walk around imitating them, that doesn't mean they are right. Ever. [Wink]

Posts: 14994 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Doesn't matter how many morons walk around imitating them, that doesn't mean they are right. Ever. [Wink]
Why aren't you speaking Old English?
Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gradual changes to language are wrong, and should be hated, what?
Posts: 16395 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T:man
Member
Member # 11614

 - posted      Profile for T:man   Email T:man         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Hey, we can get everyone from Frisco and Shy-Town and the Big Apple and the City of Angels together and they can fight over which city nickname is the least used by the actual inhabitants of that city.

Shy-Town?

Don't you mean Chi-Town?

*THWAP*

Posts: 1568 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Cali is not thwap worthy.

Slow learner, huh?

*THWAP! THWAP!*

quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I know plenty of people who call it that who, like me, are born and raised here.

Just bring them close enough.

This may be an amusing time to tell you that the original Arizonan capitol Prescott is pronounced "Preskit" by all of its citizens going back farther than anyone on Whiskey Row can remember.

Prescott, it rhymes with biscuit.

Posts: 2295 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
boy it's hella cali in here bros. what-ever
Posts: 14069 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy   Email Jon Boy         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Why aren't you speaking Old English?

What are you, some kind of anything-goes language hippie? Let's go back to Proto-Indo-European. I think the language founders got it right the first time.
Posts: 9776 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0419/Trayvon-Martin-shooting-a-turning-point-in-gun-rights-debate

Here's the long and short of it: many of the legal supporters of the stand your ground law understand that if zimmerman gets off free in this case without even so much as a manslaughter charge, SYG is doomed. As a result, prosecution of Zimmerman is even being done by people who are trying to SAVE the SYG law, as part of an attempt to prevent its destruction on account of this vigilantist farce.

Posts: 14069 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lets hope he gets off scott free then, I can accept Accelerationism here.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Doesn't matter how many morons walk around imitating them, that doesn't mean they are right. Ever. [Wink]
Why aren't you speaking Old English?
How do you know I am not? Maybe I am just TYPING in "modern English"!!!
Posts: 14994 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's new information out concerning a cell phone picture showing that the back of Zimmerman's head was indeed bloody. If this evidence is held up in court it could add significantly to his defense.
Posts: 536 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
There's new information out concerning a cell phone picture showing that the back of Zimmerman's head was indeed bloody. If this evidence is held up in court it could add significantly to his defense.

Not if it can be shown that he started the fight. The stand your ground law quite clearly states that the law does not apply if you started the fight.

And even if that can't be shown, a bloody nose and a scrape on the back of the head are not life threatening injuries. For it to be self defense, Zimmerman needs to show that he had reason to believe his life was in imminent danger.

He was fighting an unarmed teenager who he outweighed by at least 80 pounds. How many people are there who could kill some one that much bigger than them with their bare hands?

Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.blakedorstenlaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1687102.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/317624/20120321/floirda-stand-ground-law-explained.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/opinion/bellin-stand-your-ground-law/index.html

A few looks at what our Stand Your Ground law actually means (I see it mis-explained frequently elsewhere) that I found pretty informative. To be clear, I don't put these forward as objective, authoritative sources-I just thought they might provide interesting reading.

Relevant to a discussion earlier, though:
quote:
While Florida currently imposes a three-day waiting period on handgun purchases and inflicts liability on individuals who make their firearms accessible to children, the state still has relatively loose gun control regulations. For instance, Florida does not require firearm dealers to obtain state licenses, does not mandate firearm registration, does not limit the number of guns that may be purchased at one point, and does not regulate the sale of assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles or large capacities of ammunition magazines, according to the Legal Community Against Violence.


Even setting aside the problem of someone having a gun to hand anytime they get drunk, or catch their spouses cheating, or see a minority with a hoodie on a dark night, or get rear-ended after hours of gridlock...yeah, the whole 'it's already against the law, so what will more laws do?' argument is just plain nonsense. You can buy as many firearms as you wish, for any or even no reason at all, from someone who apparently isn't even licensed much less monitored by the local government. Local government, there, for fears of big government intrusion.

Hell, when I go into a damn barber shop, I'll see something somewhere bearing a State of Florida seal on it.

------------

quote:
There's new information out concerning a cell phone picture showing that the back of Zimmerman's head was indeed bloody. If this evidence is held up in court it could add significantly to his defense.
Much depends on if there is any evidence illuminating what happened shortly before the fight started, including who started it. If it turns out that there is no conclusive evidence illuminating that stretch of time, or if the evidence that might come out could be somehow cast into doubt...under the law as it appears to read to my non-lawyerly eyes, I could certainly see Zimmerman walking, even aside from any questions of what sort of jury he were to receive.

It seems to me that the law really does add a presumption in favor of the one left standing at the end of things, unless there is some compelling evidence directly relevant to how they actually came to be the one left standing.

Posts: 16395 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/20/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Hmm. Criminal law punidtry will have to enlighten us whether this might mean anything, I guess.

While it seemed...peculiar to describe being named in a domestic violence injuction as 'run of the mill', I suppose perhaps it really IS run of the mill in terms of bond hearings. And the police thing was dropped.

Posts: 16395 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Recent developments in the Treyvon Martin case:

- Witnesses and photos lend credibity to Zimmerman's recounting of the event

- "A toxicology report performed on Mr. Martin’s body found traces of THC"

It's likely more will be revealed after the large amount of evidence released has been analyzed.

Posts: 536 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seems somewhat shoddy reporting in the first link, as the physical evidence does to an extent bolster Zimmerman's recounting-but not actually of the events that would tell whether this was murder, manslaughter, self defense or an accident.

As to the trace amount of THC, that's not a surprise. I'll be interested to see what public and media response to that will be, though. It puts a ding in the notion of totally wholesome bystander Martin, for some at least. Not that I've ever known or heard of anyone becoming hostile or violent under the influence of pot (though I don't actually know, really).

I still am very curious to see whether or not Zimmerman was actually returning to his car when the altercation began, whether he actually did get out of the car to locate himself (possible, but man, seems fishy), and just how exactly Martin came to know Zimmerman had a firearm...for, y'know, the reasonably frightening task of a trip to Target.

I don't know if evidence to shed light on those things will ever come out, though, or rather that it even exists. I hope so, one way or another. At least there seems to be some political fallout for gun rights folks with respect to this damn law, though.

Posts: 16395 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James Tiberius Kirk
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for James Tiberius Kirk           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Seems somewhat shoddy reporting in the first link, as the physical evidence does to an extent bolster Zimmerman's recounting-but not actually of the events that would tell whether this was murder, manslaughter, self defense or an accident.

As to the trace amount of THC, that's not a surprise. I'll be interested to see what public and media response to that will be, though. It puts a ding in the notion of totally wholesome bystander Martin, for some at least. Not that I've ever known or heard of anyone becoming hostile or violent under the influence of pot (though I don't actually know, really).

I still am very curious to see whether or not Zimmerman was actually returning to his car when the altercation began, whether he actually did get out of the car to locate himself (possible, but man, seems fishy), and just how exactly Martin came to know Zimmerman had a firearm...for, y'know, the reasonably frightening task of a trip to Target.

I don't know if evidence to shed light on those things will ever come out, though, or rather that it even exists. I hope so, one way or another. At least there seems to be some political fallout for gun rights folks with respect to this damn law, though.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/17/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?c=homepage-t&page=1

It should make everything about as clear as mud. From the above link: THC can apparently persist in the body for days, serum and urine levels can vary greatly after death, and the measured quantity isn't anywhere near what you'd expect in someone who'd just smoked a joint - odds are Martin wasn't intoxicated at the time. And then there's this:

quote:
Just over two weeks after the fatal shooting, and less than a month before an arrest was made, police in Sanford, Florida, urged prosecutors to take George Zimmerman into custody after arguing his killing of Trayvon Martin was "ultimately avoidable."

...

"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog (sic) in an effort to dispel each party's concern" the request said. "There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity."

But we knew that already.
Posts: 3607 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can't imagine why THC is interesting or relevant, here.
Posts: 3991 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I can't imagine why THC is interesting or relevant, here.
You'll notice, too, that they're using the scary acronym instead of saying "the kid ingested pot at some point over the last week or so."
Posts: 36934 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
THC...is that like LSD?
Posts: 10609 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder how long it will take (actually, I'd be surprised if it hadn't happened already) if some circle of 'pundits' (thinking especially of Fox and Friends here) were talking about this case in breathless voices, offering up with the appropriate ass-covering we-can't-be-sures, "Look, this young man Martin was high, he was acting suspiciously..."

It'll play really well, unfortunately, and has the virtue of being in the neighborhood of partially true.

Posts: 16395 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheHumanTarget
Member
Member # 7129

 - posted      Profile for TheHumanTarget           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
...ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement...
The difficulty with a statement like that is that no one knows if it was ultimately avoidable. Likely avoidable? Yes. Ultimately? Sounds speculative to me.

quote:
..if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog (sic)..."
Do we know that this didn't occur?

I haven't followed the case closely, but from what I have seen it seems like a series of bad decisions were made by everyone involved.

Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
but from what I have seen it seems like a series of bad decisions were made by everyone involved.
Hence--
quote:
ultimately avoidable
It seems that an armed and larger Zimmerman threatened Martin. Martin acted in the spirit of "Stand your ground", but without the help of a gun, and died. Zimmerman acted in the spirit of the Old West as portrayed by Hollywood, played vigilante, and killed someone.

Simple mistakes, made by everyone? except one person died.

Zimmerman wanted to be Batman--but without wasting time on training, detective work, or consideration of the facts. He tried intimidation by walking up to Martin and being rude. When that was not successful, and Martin proved to by way more intimidating with his fists than Zimmerman, he went to his utility belt--which consisted of just one thing--a gun.

Posts: 1857 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheHumanTarget
Member
Member # 7129

 - posted      Profile for TheHumanTarget           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Zimmerman wanted to be Batman--but without wasting time on training, detective work, or consideration of the facts. He tried intimidation by walking up to Martin and being rude. When that was not successful, and Martin proved to by way more intimidating with his fists than Zimmerman, he went to his utility belt--which consisted of just one thing--a gun.
See, when I read things like this it makes me wonder:

Where exactly were you standing during the altercation, and why didn't you do something to stop it?

Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I can't imagine why THC is interesting or relevant, here.

Don't you know? THC is well known for its qualities of making a person much more aggressive and likely to fight without provocation..

If the kid would just have chilled out and smoked some weed instead, he wouldn't have been dead.

Posts: 14069 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James Tiberius Kirk
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for James Tiberius Kirk           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote:
...ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement...
The difficulty with a statement like that is that no one knows if it was ultimately avoidable. Likely avoidable? Yes. Ultimately? Sounds speculative to me.
I can't read the writer's mind, but I also can't think of believable scenario where Martin meets Zimmerman if Zimmerman is still in the car.

quote:
quote:
..if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog (sic)..."
Do we know that this didn't occur?
That report was written by officers two weeks after the incident, after Zimmerman was interviewed - so, presumably, yes. I admit, that surprises me.
Posts: 3607 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  23  24  25   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2