Thursday Open Thread

Your turn. All topics welcome.

< DOJ Sues Sheriff Joe Over Racial Profiling | John Edwards: Curing Undue Prejudice >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And I LOVE this song today (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Thu May 10, 2012 at 02:28:20 PM EST
    Well, I love it all the time, but today, I don't know why, it is just charming me double-time.

    QUEEN BEE by Taj Majal.

    Love the Taj.... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu May 10, 2012 at 02:33:29 PM EST
    Dude impressed the hell outta me last summer at the Vibes festival...hottest day of the summer, a sweltering 100 degrees, Taj and his band are on stage mid-afternoon cooking, literally.

    Taj musta kicked that mercury up to 110 with the bluesy grooves.  Insane.


    Looks like me and the Mrs. SUO (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 10, 2012 at 03:07:41 PM EST
    will be seeing Tower of Power, War and Average White Band in a few weeks. Really looking forward to it.

    Nice Trifecta bill... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu May 10, 2012 at 03:24:03 PM EST
    Especially dig War.

    I got some goodies lined up after my vacay.  A tribute to Mike Bloomfield on May 30th featuring Al Kooper and my main man Jimmy Vivino, then the Felice Brothers June 15th.  If cash flow permits Galactic is in town June 1-2nd.

    Hot fun in the summertime...the most wonderful time of the year.


    Bloomfield.. (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Thu May 10, 2012 at 09:54:32 PM EST
    What can you say..

    I only wish he and Butter could've gone easier on the white powder. They were both beautiful, soulful guys and one-of-a-kind musicians..

    People forget how influential that early Butterfield band was. Very unjustly forgotten by way too many people.


    I knew there was something (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jondee on Thu May 10, 2012 at 10:17:20 PM EST
    I liked about you, Dadler..:)

    Taj is a "national treasure" if there is such a thing..

    I could listen to just Stagger Lee, Corinna Corinna and Johnny Too Bad in rotation for a month and consider the time very musically and spiritually well-spent..


    A milestone for prosecution: (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Thu May 10, 2012 at 02:34:19 PM EST
    Good sh*t... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Thu May 10, 2012 at 02:40:18 PM EST
    reassuring to know not all prosecutors are just in it for scalps, some are in it for justice.

    Every prosecutors office in the nation should devote significant resources to reviewing questionable convictions...one innocent in prison is too many, and sullies the whole shebang.


    San Diego County DA's office has (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu May 10, 2012 at 02:41:50 PM EST
    a team doing this also.  State grant.  

    Tax dollars... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu May 10, 2012 at 02:46:23 PM EST
    cannot be better spent, imo.  Every innocent sent to cage makes us all an accessory to a violent crime.

    Shame shame shame... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by kdog on Thu May 10, 2012 at 02:54:48 PM EST
    Shame on Wells Fargo.  Poor lady been working for them for 5 years, they get wind of a 40 year old shoplifting charges (yes, 4 decades), and fire her on the spot..."zero tolerance" rears it's hideous head yet again.

    They're blaming federal regulations for tying their hands, like they ever pay any mind to federal regulations when there is a buck in it for them.  

    The irony kills me...professional master thieves not tolerating 40 year old petty theft. The world has gone mad.

    Would your opinion be the same if you (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Thu May 10, 2012 at 03:25:48 PM EST
    had an account at Wells Fargo?  

    My principles... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Thu May 10, 2012 at 03:42:38 PM EST
    prohibit me from ever having any dealings with Wells F*ckin' Fargo...but you knew that;)

    If any account holder thinks this lady deserved to be sh*tcanned over this is as cruel and inhuman as the damn bank.


    Fired Because of FDIC Regulations (none / 0) (#33)
    by gadfly on Thu May 10, 2012 at 05:19:11 PM EST
    Wells Fargo liked her, but could not keep her because of an idiotic government rule which declares  that banks cannot have employees convicted of theft.

    Your bank would have the same problem in such circumstances.  But given your principles, you can bury your loot in your back yard, I guess.


    Amen... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by kdog on Fri May 11, 2012 at 06:22:21 AM EST
    thats the plan exactly, I'll be damned if I give banksters my money to gamble with and tank the economy.  I sleep much better with the little I got under the mattress.  I feel guilty enough paying taxes...no more accessory to the crime than that.

    I agree this is an idiotic regulation if it senselessly victimizes a human being like this.  The law of unintended consequences....or at least I hope it is unintended, maybe the state does wanna jam up teenage shoplifters for life...tough on certain crimes and all that mess.


    ::snicker:: (none / 0) (#68)
    by sj on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:27:32 AM EST
    If you stick around, you'll know why I'm laughing.

    Our new friends... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by kdog on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:28:22 AM EST
    know not what kinda weirdo they're talking to sj;)

    How's That? (none / 0) (#36)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 10, 2012 at 05:28:16 PM EST
    How is there a buck in it for them? They have to find and train a replacement.

    It seems to me quite likely they were forced to fire her by a regulation, and otherwise would have kept her because their own self-interest. Then you could have complained about the greedy bankers disregarding their customers.

    I haven't read the story, and I'm not really interested in the particular case. I'm just commenting on the logic of your comment.


    I said when there is... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Fri May 11, 2012 at 06:13:58 AM EST
    a buck in it for them, they disregard regulations.  The profit from the crime has to exceed the potential fine, like say when there is drug money to launder.  

    Though they're probably saving a buck here too...the worker's replacement comes in at the starting wage.  Then again, it wouldn't surprise me if Wells never gave the lady a raise in 5 years here in stagnant wage nation.

    One thing I wouldn't complain about is banksters treating their low level employees well.  


    Since it's an election year (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 10, 2012 at 04:24:25 PM EST
    every issue, big or small, real or imagined, important or trivial, will have its 15 minutes before moving on to make room for tomorrow's
    "breaking news."  But, the one issue that has legs, the one issue that is truly important, and the one issue that almost everyone feels is what will determine the ultimate victor, is the economy (and its vital component, jobs.)

    For this issue I am reminded of BTD's numerous exhortations regarding Tim Geithner's disastrous stewardship of our economy. And, if my memory is correct, he stated emphatically that, should Obama lose the upcoming election, the number one reason would be his acquiescence to Geithner's fatally flawed advice.

    Whether you're a Republican or Democrat, knowledgeable or a novice, you instinctively know that the Administration's dealings vis-à-vis the big banks simply stunk to the high heavens. It is THE Big Issue, the elephant in the room, and the stench of Obama's complicity in "the greatest robbery in history" will just not go away.

    Every time I go back and re-read articles regarding those early, turbulent days I find something new or gain an understand of some things I missed before. One of things I didn't realize fully was the total isolation of Geithner's position among Obama's top economic advisors. At the height of the calamity there was almost complete unanimity that the banks caused the problem, that big changes would have to be made, and that the biggest transgressors would have to "be brought to justice."

    It was no secret that Larry Summers and Christine Romer didn't see eye to eye on most issues but here they were tied at the hip. They asked for a rare, twosome meeting with Obama where they spelled out their reasoning for their conclusions. They laid out their strong belief that the American public would demand justice be done, and that there was great public support for the afore-mentioned actions to be taken. It was the right thing to do economically......and politically. They argued that the stars were lined up perfectly and that this unique opportunity would not last long. Act now, and be a hero, or let it slip away and be at the mercy of events beyond one's control.

    One man disagreed. One man argued it was the banks that needed protection, not the American people, or even the American economy. That man, the banks' hand picked Trojan Horse, was Tim Geithner.

    Barack Obama had a decision to make. He could take the advice of the majority of his advisors (and a majority of private economists) or succumb to the advice of his Plutocrat Protecting Treasury Secretary.

    The decision he made is the reason this incumbent President needs a Billion dollars for his campaign against an empty suit whose own constituents hate.

    The economy's tepid so-called "recovery appears to have run out of steam. I believe Obama will have to face the whole bailout issue honestly and forthrightly if he is to have any reasonable chance of re-election. Most leading economic indicators have now turned against him.

    It's not too late to appoint a special prosecutor, or, to use the current term, Economic Czar.

    Well said. (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2012 at 06:25:09 PM EST
    why, (none / 0) (#113)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:06:25 PM EST
    thank you, James

    Your welcome, NY (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:18:58 PM EST
    I hope your new locale is agreeing with you.

    To expand, Obama could have had a historic Presidency far beyond race if he had:

    1. Fought for and passed a single payer healthcare system bill.

    2. Demanded that gay marriage be recognized... and took it to the SC.

    3. Established a department dedicated to R&D for alternative energy as in the Manhattan Project.

    He did not. Such is life when the goal is to be in office rather than being THE office.

    Vatican attacks Girl Scouts. (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 11, 2012 at 03:51:12 PM EST
    Continues centuries long war on women.

    Not content with their current efforts to bully America's nuns, the Vatican has now set its sights on the Girl Scouts. Apparently, it is open season on any group of females that is not completely subservient to males.

    What are the unforgivable sins of the Girl Scouts? Well, among the complaints is that they have program materials from the Sierra Club and Doctors Without Borders and Oxfam. And they revised the Girl Scout oath so that girls could substitute the diety of their choice for the word"god". Muslim girls could say "allah" and Buddhist girls could say "buddha" etc. Oh the humanity!

    Not surprisingly, the bullying of both the nuns and the Scouts is being led by two Americans. One is Bernard Cardinal Law, former archbishop of the Boston diocese and currently on the lam and hiding out in the Vatican because of his egregious behavior in regards to the pedophilia scandal. The other is a former St. Louis bishop, Raymond Burke.

    It is no secret around here that, IMO, the Catholic Church hierarchy and its minions should spend the rest of this century doing penance for the pedophilia scandal. They should have neither the time nor the energy to do anything else.

    And, once again, I must ask, why does anyone listen to anything said by anybody connected to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church?

    Boy, the Catholic bishops (none / 0) (#133)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 11, 2012 at 04:33:55 PM EST
    are busy bees.  They are also working very hard to shorten or repeal statutes of limitations on sexual abuse charges.   And, now they have the new intensity of same sex marriages to deal with.  

    These (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 11, 2012 at 07:23:59 PM EST
    people are downright evil if they are working to get the laws changed w/r/t to pedophilia simply to save their own sorry bu**s.

    Somebody needs to take a cleaning instrument to the hierarchy in the catholic church.


    I'm with (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 11, 2012 at 07:22:03 PM EST
    you as to WHY anybody would even care what these bunch of people have to say. Have they EVER come clean about what went on with the pedophilia scandal?

    The Catholic Bishops... (none / 0) (#151)
    by desertswine on Fri May 11, 2012 at 07:48:56 PM EST
    would better spend their time by cleaning up their own filthy house. I turned in my card a long time ago.

    Best Shep Smith FOX moment evah! (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Thu May 10, 2012 at 02:08:40 PM EST
    & a hat-tip on this one to... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Thu May 10, 2012 at 02:13:02 PM EST
    ...my old childhood chum, William K Wolfrum (link). Always a good read.  Check him out.

    Swiss Miss. (none / 0) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 10, 2012 at 02:52:21 PM EST
    Update: Michele Bachman has indicated that she has had  dual US/Swiss citizenship since 1978 when she married Marcus (he of Swiss immigrants).  This is a clarification following reports that she just became a dual US/Swiss citizen, although she affirms that she always pledged allegiance to our one nation under God, the US of A.  How convenient for Romney, perhaps Michele can be a courier for his bank deposits.  

    Mitt Romney: Bully? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 10, 2012 at 03:01:53 PM EST
    What could possibly be the worst story to surface for Mitt Romney's campaign only one day after President Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage?

    The prospective GOP presidential nominee hastens to apologize after reports surface in the Washington Post of his purported bullying of a prep school classmate suspected of being gay.

    To be honest, we've all done things when we were in high school and younger that we naturally regret -- sometimes profoundly -- in our later years. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't give this long-ago incident much attention, except that it concerns the teenaged behavior of a candidate whose campaign thought it important to note that Barack Obama once ate dog meat in Indonesia as a 7-year-old boy.

    And of course, that teenaged bully later became a man who strapped his Irish setter to the roof of a family car for an extended road trip.

    In that respect, Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude.


    Yes, and he is the worse (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 10, 2012 at 03:10:29 PM EST
    for not even remembering the incident.

    Well, now Romney kinda / sorta ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 10, 2012 at 05:24:35 PM EST
    ... "remembers" the incident in question, only because his initial non-denial denial only brought about increased media scrutiny.

    Further, it appears that the Romney campaign already sought to reach out to select former Cranbrook schoolmates to speak up on his behalf, which leads one to believe that the candidate himself saw this story as potentially quite damaging.

    Of course, it certainly didn't help that one of those classmates -- a self-described "old friend" who refused to be identified by name -- has since described Romney's behavior at Cranbrook as "like Lord of the Flies."


    Romney is probably hoping (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 10, 2012 at 05:29:43 PM EST
    that some old classmate will back him up by saying that he didn't think the boy being bullied was gay, he thought the boy was poor.

    It isn't often that (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by sj on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:29:30 AM EST
    a comment strikes me as "droll".

    Funny thing is (none / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:26:18 AM EST
    Mr. Lauber's family is even annoyed with the portrayal of him in the piece.

    And another classmate who is quoted in the WaPo story wasn't even there - but for some reason the Post decided to interview him anyway. Not sure what purpose that was for, as he didn't add anything to the story except to say he was "long bothered by the incident".

    And can you tell for sure that the kid was picked on because he was gay?


    Does it really matter ... (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 11, 2012 at 03:59:15 PM EST
    ... why the victim was bullied?

    The underlying facts remain constant, in that the victim was taken down under tearful protest, pinned to the ground and shorn of his bleach-blond hair by the future prospective GOP presidential nominee, simply because said future nominee didn't like the way the victim looked.

    I suppose we can ignore this story, just like the dog-on-roof story, and silo our thoughts in the appropriate column, because the bottom line issue is, after all, the economy.

    But frankly, and speaking for myself only, these prep school and dog stories cut to the heart of Mitt Romney's character, or lack thereof. Because when confronted with negative reaction, the candidate's first instinct is to either deflect or diffuse his own accountability for his actions. Juxtaposed against the other tales emerging from his personal and professional life, I guess the key question for me about Romney is this:

    Given what we know about him, is this really someone we can trust to call the shots in the Oval Office? Because to me, the sum total of his parts don't add up to anything very substantive, from a socio-political standpoint, and the guy is the personification of Getrude Stein's pithy description of Oakland -- there's no there there.


    Yes, it actualyy DOES matter (none / 0) (#134)
    by jbindc on Fri May 11, 2012 at 05:14:49 PM EST
    In as far as this is another piece of shoddy journalism shading a story that would be bad enough if they actually stuck to the facts, but instead tried to play on a popular theme to make it more horrible.  His sisters say they never saw his bangs cut, nor did he ever mention it. Does that mean it didn't happen?  No, but it's now become a theme that Romney bullied a kid for being gay, when more likely, he did it because the kid was a nerd, weak, a hippie, etc.

    The conservative blogs are all over a couple of passages in Obama's books where he appears to bully, or at least make fun of, kids who were weaker or different.  Should the media actually do its job and look into those stories, you would be howling if they changed facts to make Obama look a certain eay.

    So yes, it DOES matter.


    Yes, it does not really (none / 0) (#135)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 11, 2012 at 05:20:19 PM EST
    matter why John Lauber was bullied and we do not know for sure that it was because the boy was gay.  But, we can surmise that it was because the 18 year old Romney, son of the state's governor felt he could and because Lauber was perceived as different.  Lauber was asked to leave Cranbrook.  The Washington Post article by Jason Horowitz does state that Lauber did come out to his family and close friends at some later point.  

    Kinda gives you an insight into (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by scribe on Thu May 10, 2012 at 08:35:31 PM EST
    what it takes to become a Republican presidential candidate, doesn't it?  A proven affinity to torture your fellow man, particularly if he's deemed weaker or lower-status than you (aspire to be).

    Bush II while at Yale was in on that whole frat house branding incident that made the NYT.

    Bush I, well who knows what went on in Skull & Bones back in the 40s.

    And now Mittens.  

    And that's not to say Dems are in the clear on this....  Edwards put up a pretty good front until it all came down and who knows what WJC, HRC or Obama are really like around the house.  All we know of any of them are their manufactured images, and those who know behind the image, know to keep their mouths shut lest bad things befall them.


    Bullying was socially acceptable then (none / 0) (#35)
    by gadfly on Thu May 10, 2012 at 05:27:45 PM EST
    All us old folks learned how to fight for our honor when pushed too far by the bully ... and I certainly taught my sons exactly where to aim when they hit the big bullies.

    What a shame for Romney, then, that ... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 10, 2012 at 05:39:51 PM EST
    ... many of us are viewing his 1964-65 conduct through a 2012 prism.

    It's very telling that several of Mittens' former classmates publicly expressed remorse for their behavior, while the candidate himself intially said he couldn't remember such an incident even taking place. It's not the bullying incident itself that hurts him politically, but his non-denial denial.

    Had he first brought this issue of bullying up himself, rather than allow the media to confront him with it, Romney would not now find himself in the weeds.


    And I suppose you folks can't understand (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2012 at 06:21:07 PM EST
    why the Right points out how the media carries the water for Democrats... Obama in particular.

    I mean..... 1965??? Are you kidding me??

    And if I remember the time line, Obama's dog eating came up after the Demos brought up the dog carrier...


    FYI, Jim, the dog-on-roof story ... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 10, 2012 at 09:56:29 PM EST
    ... was first covered by the Boston Globe in a candidate profile back in 2008, when Mittens was first gearing up to run for president.

    Ironically, the incident was recounted for that paper's reporters by the Romney family themselves, and initially touted by the Romney campaign as an example of Mitt's no-nonsense approach to problem-solving:

    • Seamus the Irish setter is strapped to roof of car for road trip;
    • Seamus unloads his bowels and soils car windows;
    • The Romney sons complain loudly, "Ew! Gross, Dad!";
    • Dad pulls over at nearest service station, sprays down both the car and the dog (who was still strapped to the roof) with a hose; and
    • The Road trip to Quebec continues unabated.

    Only when the Romneys subsequently came under severe criticism by the Globe's readers and other Boston media for the callous manner in which they had treated their dog did Mitt Romney get defensive. He hastily claimed during a 2008 interview with Fox News's Chris Wallace --  who asked Romney about the incident with obvious incredulity, "Seriously, Governor, what WERE you thinking?" -- that the dog liked to ride on the roof of the car in "an airtight kennel" (Mittens' words, not mine).

    The story recently got even more embellished recently when Ann Romney blamed Seamus's loose bowels on a batch of bad dog food.

    So, don't blame the Democrats for the dog-on-roof story, when it was the Romneys themselves who first offered the tale to the media. Instead of highlighting Mitt's no-nonsense approach, however, it served only to underscore his inability to accept public criticism and admit that he made a mistake in judgment.


    They should have eaten (none / 0) (#76)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri May 11, 2012 at 06:08:23 AM EST
    it.  Problem solved, the 2012 media would ignore it then.  

    You mean "ignore" ... (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Yman on Fri May 11, 2012 at 08:43:26 AM EST
    ... the story of a young boy (6-10 years old) who ate the food given to him, as opposed to Romney - an adult making decisions for himself?

    Weird, huh?


    Mitt was 18 in 1965. (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 10, 2012 at 10:15:05 PM EST
    And in the following year at Stanford University, Mittens was participating in a conservative counter-demonstration in favor of the military draft -- even though he had received an exemption from the draft because of his pending religious mission to France.

    So yeah, it's fair game -- especially when Republicans went out of their way over the past decade to falsely impugn and malign the wartime activities of certain Democrats like John Kerry and Max Cleland who, unlike your precious GOP chickenhawks, actually served their country on the front lines in Vietnam.

    So, whine all you want about 1965, and revel in your double standards. Karma is a harsh taskmaster, and will seek its political due.


    Donald, then by your logic (2.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:56:33 AM EST
    all females who demonstrated against the draft and all males who had been deferred and still demonstrated against the draft  were being hypocritical?

    Is that your point?


    You don't think (none / 0) (#112)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:04:29 PM EST
     that promoting a draft while you, yourself, obtained a deferment isn't being hypocritical?

    And, if I might make a small criticism in your logic. When someone is referring to one person, why do you have the habit of extrapolating it to mean all persons? The issue is Romney, not all people.

    I realize you didn't ask me, but, just saying.


    The point that Donald was making was (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:08:19 PM EST
    that Romney was being a hypocrite by protesting after he had been deferred.

    My point was that if that was true then women, who were not being drafted, were also in the same category as was men who had been deferred who protested against the draft.

    Your "referring to one person" note, IMO, is just a way of saying, you can't make a counter point or defend the other's actions.

    Actually, I think Romney had a right to demonstrate and the women/men demonstrating on the other side had the right.


    "All people" aren't running ... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 11, 2012 at 04:03:09 PM EST
    ... for president. Mitt Romney is. Please stay on point.

    I was dead on point. (none / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2012 at 06:07:34 PM EST
    Your point was that Romney had no right to demonstrate because he was deferred. He was a hypocrite.

    Using your own logic "people" who were not going to be drafted had no right to demonstrate against the draft. They were hypocrites, again using your own logic.

    And I further think your bias is showing. But no problem. You are a Demo and that is expected, just as the Repubs are biased.

    Me?? I think both sides had a right to demonstrate. But then I'm a Social Liberal.

    And don't try and tell me what to do. You ain't the Captain of this ship.


    No. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 11, 2012 at 06:27:08 PM EST
    Young Romney certainly had every right to demonstrate in favor of the military draft. My point was that his recently obtained deferment rendered him a hypocrite for do so. He had every right to be a hypocrite, just as it's my right to point it out.

    Further, Jim, ... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 11, 2012 at 06:43:44 PM EST
    ... I'm getting really tired of your verbal contortions, which you perform whenever you take people out of context.

    Once again, you've deliberately misconstrued what I said, and once again I've had to correct you regarding what I DID say. Why is it that most everyone else seems to get it, except for you?


    Well, I wouldn't want you to get tired.... (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2012 at 07:22:00 PM EST
    No. I did not. You claim:


    My point was that his recently obtained deferment rendered him a hypocrite for do so. He had every right to be a hypocrite, just as it's my right to point it out.

    My point is that if you think that made him a hypocrite then by the same logic, others who were deferred and/or not going to be drafted were hypocritical to demonstrate against the draft.

    Why? Because, according to your logic, if you are not personally affected by something then you can't demonstrate against it.

    As I wrote, I think everyone had the right to demonstrate.


    Karma doesn't exist (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2012 at 08:46:31 AM EST
    Except as an excuse for bad behavior.

    What we have here is a coordinated effort by the Obama team and the WaPost to provide some distraction from Obama's announcement re gay marriage.

    I thought we had seen the worst possible in campaigns during 2008 re Palin.

    But, as the man said, "You ain't seen nothing yet."


    I might agree about the falsity (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by brodie on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:28:47 AM EST
    of karma, but it's highly unlikely the center-right GOP-friendly WaPo was coordinating anything with the centrist Dem Obama camp.  I dont think they've coordinated anything with a Dem admin since they checked their VN and MLK stories with Lyndon's press office.

    Donald is right about this story being fair game given the other side's long history in often unfair character assassination against Dems, particularly concerning their activities in the turbulent sixties which the GOP manages to distort or misrepresent.  And if anything Romney has gotten a pass so far on his hypocritical pro-draft demonstrating in college.  I think our side needs to highlight that one much more.

    Nothing wrong with bringing up these events from the past and presenting them truthfully.  The public is entitled to know and can decide how much weight to give them.


    Well, there is nothing like (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:17:01 AM EST
    forgetting the attacks on Palin and claiming:

    Donald is right about this story being fair game

    Fair and balanced takes on a new meaning.



    Given her disparaging treatment ... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 11, 2012 at 04:09:33 PM EST
    ... of many people around her while Alaska governor and Wasilla mayor, including her former borther-inlaw whom she tried to have fired simply out of spite, that little North Pole Know-Nothing got exactly what she deserved in the 2008 campaign. As I said, karma is a harsh taskmaster.

    Jumpin' Jesus.. (none / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:29:49 AM EST
    that from the guy who "honored Kerry's service" by posting links to Nixon-as*licker/dirty tricks boy John O'Neill's purple bandaid site a few times a week in '04..

    You mean the story ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Yman on Fri May 11, 2012 at 08:44:32 AM EST
    ... of when Obama ate the food given to him as a young boy?



    Child sex abuse (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Thu May 10, 2012 at 03:40:22 PM EST
    It's just not for Catholic priests anymore.

    The first shock came when Mordechai Jungreis learned that his mentally disabled teenage son was being molested in a Jewish ritual bathhouse in Brooklyn. The second came after Mr. Jungreis complained, and the man accused of the abuse was arrested.

    Old friends started walking stonily past him and his family on the streets of Williamsburg. Their landlord kicked them out of their apartment. Anonymous messages filled their answering machine, cursing Mr. Jungreis for turning in a fellow Jew. And, he said, the mother of a child in a wheelchair confronted Mr. Jungreis's mother-in-law, saying the same man had molested her son, and she "did not report this crime, so why did your son-in-law have to?"

    By cooperating with the police, and speaking out about his son's abuse, Mr. Jungreis, 38, found himself at the painful forefront of an issue roiling his insular Hasidic community. There have been glimmers of change as a small number of ultra-Orthodox Jews, taking on longstanding religious and cultural norms, have begun to report child sexual abuse accusations against members of their own communities. But those who come forward often encounter intense intimidation from their neighbors and from rabbinical authorities, aimed at pressuring them to drop their cases.

    Abuse victims and their families have been expelled from religious schools and synagogues, shunned by fellow ultra-Orthodox Jews and targeted for harassment intended to destroy their businesses. Some victims' families have been offered money, ostensibly to help pay for therapy for the victims, but also to stop pursuing charges, victims and victims' advocates said.

    I saw this on another site. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 10, 2012 at 04:15:39 PM EST
    There is something with fundamentalism and child abuse. I'm not sure of what causes the connection but it's there.

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by jbindc on Thu May 10, 2012 at 04:17:49 PM EST
    It's about power and domination vs. subservience.

    Interesting. Do you have some data (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 10, 2012 at 05:28:53 PM EST
    that child sex abuse is more common among religious fundamentalists than the population at large?

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 10, 2012 at 07:55:40 PM EST
    not vs. the population at large but fundamentalists in religion have a pretty good record of sex abuse. Fundamentalist Catholics, evangelicals take your pick. I don't know what the attraction is but I think fundamentalists and their wacko views on sex are the root of some of these problems.

    So the answer is.... (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2012 at 08:12:38 PM EST
    No. You don't.

    Do tell (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 10, 2012 at 08:35:52 PM EST
    why are fundamentalists so much involved in sex abuse cases?

    convicted religious leaders

    Evangelical Free Church in Fullerton CA

    Then there's the evangelical minister who purportedly molested 30 children link

    Here's a complete list: link

    Happy reading and learning!


    SUO's question was: (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2012 at 08:59:26 PM EST
    Interesting. Do you have some data that child sex abuse is more common among religious fundamentalists than the population at large?

    You danced well and tried the reframe trick in your answer:

    Perhaps not vs. the population at large but fundamentalists in religion have a pretty good record of sex abuse. Fundamentalist Catholics, evangelicals take your pick.

    Of course that wasn't SUO's question.

    So my comment was accurate. Yet you continue to act like you have responded.

    You haven't.

    Instead you have smeared a whole class of people based on anecdotal information.

    That's just wrong. Totally.


    Jim asking for "data" ... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Yman on Fri May 11, 2012 at 08:46:14 AM EST
    ... to support claims, as opposed to just saying "everybody knows... ".

    Funny how that's a one-way street...


    red state porn addiction.. (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Thu May 10, 2012 at 09:38:33 PM EST
    THAT was discussed recently, and it's prevalence verified by data that was far from "anecdotal", as I recall..

    Seems to be that with fundamentalist-influenced culture, when it comes to "the ways of the flesh", we're heavily into physician-heal-thyself country..

    Alot of religionists in this country have, for a long time, had problems with open discussions of sexuality in our schools, and their look-the-other-way, prayer-based-repression approach obviously has major problems as well..  



    Your comment has nothing to do with (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2012 at 10:39:02 PM EST
    what GA6 wrote.

    the connection is that (none / 0) (#99)
    by jondee on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:34:39 AM EST
    people who value anti-intellectualism and sexual repression (ring any bells?) end up screwed up about sex.

    Connect the dots, Mr Einstein.


    Simply put (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:10:03 PM EST
    After years of personal attacks by jondee and his continual demonstration of an inability to debate the issues I am forced to note that discussing anything with him is not worthwhile. Simply put, he is incapable of a reasoned debate.

    I never (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:16:56 AM EST
    said that fundamentalists were exclusively guilty of sexual abuse but that they ARE guilty of a lot of sexual abuse. Now if you want to continue to defend these people then have at it.

    No you were commenting on (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:50:20 AM EST
    Child sex abuse (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc

    And you wrote:

    I saw this on another site. There is something with fundamentalism and child abuse. I'm not sure of what causes the connection but it's there.

    When challenged for data by SUO you responded:

    Perhaps not vs. the population at large but fundamentalists in religion have a pretty good record of sex abuse.

    Then when I noted you had none you responded:

    Do tell  why are fundamentalists so much involved in sex abuse cases?

    And followed with an anecdotal list that mixed various types of abuse and misconduct.

    When I pointed that out you changed your position.

    I never said that fundamentalists were exclusively guilty of sexual abuse but that they ARE guilty of a lot of sexual abuse. Now if you want to continue to defend these people then have at it.

    So now you are saying that you don't have any data on the percent of child sex abuse by "fundamentalists in religion." Okay, that's progress.

    Now. Do you have any data, besides anecdotal, that demonstrates that the percentage of "fundamentalists in religion" are guilty of more sexual abuse than the general population?

    And I am defending no one. I just like to see a few facts in these attacks on Christianity and religion which have greatly increased since the Tea Party flexed its muscles.


    What I want to know is (none / 0) (#110)
    by jondee on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:44:41 AM EST
    is "Jesus's took away all 'a mah sins" an excuse for bad behavior..

    Or can alot of it just as easily be attributed to too much sun, bad whiskey, and inbreeding?


    Simply put (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:11:27 PM EST
    After years of personal attacks by jondee and his continual demonstration of an inability to debate the issues I am forced to note that discussing anything with him is not worthwhile. Simply put, he is incapable of a reasoned debate.

    Fortunately (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by jondee on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:19:34 PM EST
    and for good reason, you're not the world's final arbiter of what constitutes reason and reasoned debate..

    The biggest difference to me (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:43:36 AM EST
    about these types of stories vs. regular run-of-the-mill child abuse, is the cover-up.  People are not usually inclined to cover for child-abusers unless they have some kind of power over the community, be it religious power, or in the case of Penn State a different kind of cultural power.  I think political power would also be a factor.  That to me is what sticks out.

    If these were average-joe-plumbers-child-abusers, no one would be punished for being a whistle blower.


    Yuck. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Zorba on Thu May 10, 2012 at 03:42:26 PM EST
    I just read it.  Now I need to go bleach my eyeballs.
    I emailed Jeralyn to give her a "heads up."

    I zapped that (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 10, 2012 at 10:39:54 PM EST
    comment and banned the commenter.

    For the legal eagles (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 10, 2012 at 04:24:53 PM EST
    Right now we have gay marriage in some states and not others. If someone is legally married in say MA and moves to GA I guess GA does not recognize their marriage? And what about the feds? Can the people who are recognized as being married in MA and have probably been filing as a married couple there still file as a married couple in GA even though GA doesn't recognize their marriage? A lot of questions just popped into my mind about all this today.

    Good question (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CST on Thu May 10, 2012 at 04:32:25 PM EST
    I think the answer depends on the state where they move.  It's come up in a recent case where a same-sex couple was unable to divorce because their home state does not recognize the marriage, and they can't get divorced in the state they don't live in.  So I think the answer today is no, GA probably doesn't recognize the marriage (depends on the law in GA, some states do, some don't, I'm guessing they don't).  Whether that will pass a court challenge is a seperate question - I'm not aware of anything on that issue though.

    Actually it's a big deal because the DOMA challenge in MA is coming on the grounds that the federal government is discriminating against a legally married couple based on their sexual orientation.  In other words, it's not a question of whether they have a "right" to get married - the state has said that they do, and they are in fact married.  The federal government is in the position now of discriminating against a legally married couple.  It's a much narrower challenge than the one from California, but it's also a much more straight-forward legal argumant.

    So, not a legal eagle, but that's the best explanation I can give for the murkiness of the situation right now.  I imagine that the courts will ultimately be the ones to figure it all out.  But right now, I believe the answer is no, GA doesn't recognize the marriage (assuming that is the state law), and neither do the feds.


    DOMA (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by dk on Thu May 10, 2012 at 04:33:55 PM EST
    Due to DOMA, the federal government does not recognize any same sex marriages.  So, a same sex married couple in MA, for example, file joint state tax returns in MA, but have to file separate single federal tax returns.  

    Also due to DOMA, no state has to accept same sex marriages performed in other states.  Thus, if a same sex couple from MA moves to GA, the marriage is not recognized in GA and any GA state tax filings would have be done as single people.


    That's (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 10, 2012 at 07:52:40 PM EST
    what I was thinking but I'm also thinking that it's not going to hold because you can't recognize some marriages and not others. I live in GA but wasn't married in GA so technically my marriage could be called into question with the same line of thinking.

    No (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Thu May 10, 2012 at 08:17:18 PM EST
    (Assuming you are in a heterosexual marriage).  The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution guarantees thst your marriage will be recognized in Georgia.

    The Full Faith & Credit Clause (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Peter G on Thu May 10, 2012 at 10:07:54 PM EST
    of the federal Constitution should also lead to the conclusion that DOMA is unconstitutional.  In addition to what JBinDC said, which is correct.

    DOMA (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jbindc on Thu May 10, 2012 at 04:39:04 PM EST
    Does not allow for married gay couples to file jointly. They may file jointly in the states that recognize same sex marriage, but they cannot file jointly for federal purposes.

    And there is currently a case before the Maryland Court of Appeals concerning a lesbian couple that was married in California, but now live in Maryland and want a divorce.  Maryland does not yet recognize same-sex marriage, so the judge has refused to grant them a divorce, since the state  cannot grant a divorce to couples who are not legally married. (Apparently, judges in Maryland have been inconsistent in applying this, so some gay couples have been granted divorces, while others have been refused).


    DOMA defines marriage as a (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 10, 2012 at 05:13:21 PM EST
    legal union of one man and one woman.  No state may be required to recognize a marriage considered as such in another state.   So,  a state that does not itself permit same sex marriage could, but is not required, to recognize another state's marriage (most do not).   Section 3 of DOMA sets forth non-recognition for all federal purposes, insurance benefits, social security survivor benefits, and filing of joint tax returns. This section has been challenged as being unconstitutional in MA and CA, and these cases are on appeal.  

    My gay married friends (none / 0) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 10, 2012 at 11:59:07 PM EST
    here in VT have to file as a couple for state taxes but as separate individuals for federal.  THe Feds do not recognize same-sex marriages (though I wonder how they'd even know if the first names were sufficiently ambiguous) as a result of DOMA.

    Most states do not recognize same-sex marriages from other states. If I recall right, even Mass. doesn't recognize same-sex marriages from other states, or didn't by the time I left about 6 years ago.


    The IRS probably doesn't know, (none / 0) (#83)
    by me only on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:02:23 AM EST
    but if you were ever audited, yeah, that wouldn't look too good.

    Was gay marriage around (none / 0) (#86)
    by CST on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:11:33 AM EST
    in other states 6 years ago?  Honest question.

    I think there were some issues with how to handle civil unions, and when Romney was governor he decided since he couldn't stop gay-marriage he would enforce every archaic marriage law on the books in MA that hadn't been enforced in decades.  Like no out-of-state unions, etc...  But most of that changed with Patrick.  Which in fairness was about 6 years ago.  I'm just wondering who's marriages weren't being recognized?


    Yes, you're right (none / 0) (#156)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 12, 2012 at 10:07:43 PM EST
    that was at the end of the Romney nightmare and a few months before Patrick won and took office.

    But just the point being that allowing same-sex marriage and recognizing it from other states are two separate issues.


    Weird happenings here in Portland. (none / 0) (#42)
    by caseyOR on Thu May 10, 2012 at 07:20:59 PM EST
    Over the last several days, envelopes containing a white powder have been found at various locations around the city. HazMat teams get called out, buildings get evacuated, people get scared.

    These envelopes have been found at a shopping mall, the Port of Portland offices at the airport, the federal building, the downtown Hilton, and today, at Portland State University.

    Thank goodness, the powder has been harmless. Still, this is very disconcerting. It is also very disruptive.

    So far, no one, well except the person delivering the envelopes, has any idea what the game is.

    It is all kind of creepy.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 10, 2012 at 09:48:21 PM EST
    Sounds pretty sucky

    Jeralyn Please Comment (none / 0) (#43)
    by RickyJ on Thu May 10, 2012 at 07:25:16 PM EST
    After reading up on the Martin-Zimmerman case, I have come to certain conclusions about the current status of things.  Please let me, a non lawyer, know where I am right and wrong.  Thanks.

    1. Zimmerman was not indicted but still arrested for 2nd degree murder. This is because the US Supreme Court has never held that the 5th amendment requirement, that serious crimes can only be prosecuted after a Grand Jury indictment, applies to the states.

    2. Instead the prosecutor filed an Information, also called Affidavit of Probable Cause under Florida statute 923.03. It was accepted by Judge Mark E Herr on April 12, leading to Zimmerman's arrest.

    3. The statute requires that somebody swears, in front of the prosecutor, to the truth of a set of facts that, if true, would establish the guilt of the accused of the crime (murder in the second degree). The two people who so swore were investigators, T.C. O'Steen and Dale Gilbreath.

    4. At the bail hearing on April 20, Gilbreath admitted that he didn't know whether or not some of the items he had sworn to be true were in fact true, in particular that Zimmerman had ignored the dispatcher's request that he return to his vehicle and that he confronted Martin rather than the other way around.

    5. If they so desired, Zimmerman's attorneys could ask the court to dismiss the case based on the faulty affidavit.

    I'm not Jeralyn (nowhere near)... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Gandydancer on Thu May 10, 2012 at 08:42:15 PM EST
    but I can answer some of your questions, to a degree.

    1 - The Fifth Amendment requires a Grand Jury for "capital, or otherwise infamous crime[s]", not "serious" ones. Not sure what "infamous crimes" are, but 2nd degree murder isn't capital.

    2 - Zimmerman was arrested before the hearing. That triggered a requirement for the hearing within 24 hours, iaw the Fourth Amendment. Judge Herr concluded, one minute into the hearing, "After reviewing the short Affadavit for Probable Cause I do find that probable cause [exists] for the charge as put in the information."

    3 - The Affadavit was notarized, not sworn in front of the prosecutor.

    4 - The Affadavit does not assert that Zimmerman confronted Martin, merely that Z pursued M and a confrontation "ensued". Neither does it clearly assert that the dispatcher requested Z to return to his vehicle, though that falsehood is clearly implied, IMHO.

    5 - I thought I ran across someone saying that this could be raised at the same hearing as SYG, but I think the remedy would be merely to convert bail to OR, whereas a positive SYG ruling would end the case.


    Reply to Gandydancer (none / 0) (#53)
    by RickyJ on Thu May 10, 2012 at 09:30:34 PM EST
    This is what 923.03 says.  Was it satisfied?

    "An information shall be in the same form and signed by the state attorney who shall also append thereto the oath of the state attorney to the effect following: Personally appeared before me  (official title of state attorney) who, being first duly sworn, says that the allegations as set forth in the foregoing information are based upon facts that have been sworn to as true and which, if true, would constitute the offense therein charged. The affidavit shall be made by the state attorney before some person qualified to administer an oath".

    Here the exact quote from the affidavit. "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."  Previous to that there was this sentence with three claims, "Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home".

    At the bail hearing it seems that Gilbreath contradicted the first two claims with:

    O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?



    GZ walked TOWARDS his car. He never got there (none / 0) (#63)
    by willisnewton on Thu May 10, 2012 at 10:21:50 PM EST
    I don't get what all this fuss is about.  GZ told the investigators he was "returning to his car"  and Gilbreath doesn't deny that Zimmerman TOLD investigators those words.  They don't have to be true for him to agree those words came out of his mouth.  They aren't.  That's because he never got there.  Instead, he ended up standing over a dead unarmed teenager he admits he shot.  

    What's going to become clear at trial is that GZ walked PAST TM at first, and then on his way back TOWARDS his car finally found the kid he was following.  

    His alibi about looking for a street sign and returning to his truck won't hold up since there were two people who had independent innocent pathways they could take but still they met up.  One diverted from the innocent route and met the other.   And the body was found on Trayvon's path, not Zimmerman's path back to his truck.  


    Or it was under the tree. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Gandydancer on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:44:11 AM EST
    I assume the 923.03 reqirement... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Gandydancer on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:42:58 AM EST
    ...you quote is satisfied by the SA's oath attached as a cover letter for the Affadavit proper. It should be in the court documents already released.

    The question is how the assertion "the allegations as set forth in the foregoing information are based upon facts that have been sworn to as true and which, if true, would constitute the offense therein charged" is tested. To satisfy the Fourth Amendment's requirements I should think that that was Judge Herr's duty, but he appears to have just rubberstamped the POS Corey threw on his desk. And that appears to be perfectly normal in the degraded state of Florida criminal procedure.

    We have the following sentences in the Affadavit: (1) "The police dispatcher informed Zimmerman that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer." And, (2) "When he police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued  to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home." (3) "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued." The bolded parts are things Gilbreath does not know or that we know to be false from Zimmerman's call. The sentence structure is so poor that, if diagrammed, it is not entirely clear that it is being alleged that the dispatcher told Zimmerman to meet the officers at his car, but it is both the natural reading and the clearest falsehood.

    Herr had before him, and left unquestioned, a document that did not, even if true, have the elements of the defense charged, and contains falsehoods and omissions that the non-adversarial hearing could not reveal.

    It is still not clear to me why the Affidavit, and only the Affadavit, was in evidence from the prosecution at the point O'Mara began arguing his motion.


    This may be the "cover letter"... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Gandydancer on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:52:32 AM EST
    for the Affadavit, satisfying 923.03: zimmerman.charges.pdf

    Did Charging Zimmerman Satisfy Florida Law? (none / 0) (#107)
    by RickyJ on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:18:24 AM EST
    I see that Bernardo de la Rionda swore to something in the Information and T.C. O'Steen and Dale Gilbreath swore to something in the affidavit. Both were sworn on April 11 in front of the same notary.  I gather that I was mistaken that somebody had to swear that they personally believe that the elements of the charges are true.  Apparently under 923.03 they only need to swear that they have collected sworn statements from others and if these latter statements were true, the elements of the charges are satisfied.  For example, the affidavit mentions Ms. Fulton's identification of the screaming voice as Trayvon's.  Did she swear to that under oath?  Maybe then it helps satisfy the 923.03 requirements but it is a joke as far as probative evidence is concerned, in view of the fact that Zimmerman's friends and relatives have made the opposite determination.

    But there is something else missing from both the Information and Affidavit.  How do they satisfy Florida 776.032?  It contains:

    Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.-- (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, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, ... As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

    776.013 says:
    A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    In interests of full disclosure, I used http://www.black-and-right.com/2012/04/10/florida-law-in-re-zimmerman/ in preparing these questions.


    Err.. "elements of the offence..." (none / 0) (#74)
    by Gandydancer on Fri May 11, 2012 at 04:29:17 AM EST
    Another Forum on the Affidavit (none / 0) (#58)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 10, 2012 at 09:58:36 PM EST
    Discussion of this at another forum. The link is to the post that stimulates the discussion. The affidavit comes up in the last paragraph.

    As to your question #1 (none / 0) (#61)
    by Peter G on Thu May 10, 2012 at 10:15:09 PM EST
    you are exactly correct.  Gandydancer's answer (about what "infamous" or "serious" means) is irrelevant, because this is a state case.  I am not into the details of the Martin/Zimmerman case enough to help with any of your other questions.

    You're on a roll. (2.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Gandydancer on Fri May 11, 2012 at 04:08:11 AM EST
    In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Gandydancer, please. You're new here. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Peter G on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:07:31 AM EST
    You don't know me.  You seem to be trying to score points or something in a field where you clearly don't have the expertise. When I comment on TalkLeft I am not trying to show off, or show anybody up. I am sharing my knowledge, based on education and 35 years' experience, in my area of professional specialization.  If you don't want to discuss the issues in a spirit of mutual respect, where everyone can learn from one another, you are not going to do well at this site.  (What I wrote about the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment is correct. You learn more about this subject here, among many other places, if you're interested.)

    Sorry, I've been following (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 10, 2012 at 10:43:37 PM EST
    Edwards this week and haven't had time to spend on Zimmerman. I thought I'd wait until some new information was revealed. If I can, I'll weigh in on your questions this weekend.

    Heard Nate Silver opining on NPR (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Thu May 10, 2012 at 08:53:01 PM EST
    re fairly even split of opinion re same sex marriage.
    Although I agree w/his opinion the gradual change is due to people under 30 having a broader perspective due to shows like Glee, movies, acquaintances and friends, isn't he a statistician?

    Didn't know you had a P19 scenario, too, Willis (none / 0) (#75)
    by Mary2012 on Fri May 11, 2012 at 05:18:38 AM EST
    [The current post is in ref to what you posted in a previous thread: willisnewton, Friday May 4, 2012, Friday Open Thread]

    I didn't realize you were working on two scenarios.  I know it can't be mine because it bears no resemblance to my scenario so it must be yours?  As such, I refer to it below as "your scenario #2".

    For the most part however, since the questions I asked centered on your "cut-through" scenario, I attempted in my comments to extract it from your scenario #2.

    Re: Why use the word down

    "Down the street" is essentially how I was taking GZ's words anyway and yet I was satisfied with your answer, though I'm not sure why you aren't willing to apply it to your scenario #2 where you write the following [emphasis below is mine]:

    [ducking behind P19] I don't see that as a probable action, and if it were the truth, then GZ would mention he was off the road and sidewalk and given a description that was more about the pond than about the back entrance. His directions are in part to explain a route for the police to follow, so he uses streets directions. I think "down" is not south, but "he's running down the street" (that eventually winds to the back entrance).

    I would think it'd be basically the same thing -- wouldn't it?

    There are sidewalks and cut throughs behind the P19 townhouse unit (the crosswalk painted on Twin Trees connects the cut through in your first scenario with one of the cut-throughs located behind the P19 townhouse unit).  

    You can also get to the back entrance going that route -- I mean, I don't have TM going that way/ direction myself but -- one can go that way to get to the back entrance.  

    Re the pond: the same could be said for TM heading toward Retreat View Circle (using the cut through).  

    There are many ways to get to the back entrance from where GZ and TM are positioned on Twin Trees but according to what you've said, it should be the same thing, no?    


    Re the foot-chase:

    So you have GZ & TM going in a circle and they're still at L27.  Okay thanks.

    Re traveling north on Retreat View Circle:

    My question re "why would GZ travel north on Retreat View Circle when the back entrance is to the south?" stems from what you'd written:

    GZ looks up and down Retreat View, moving as far south as M33, then north to the corner to look back west from D32. He's eaten up much of the missing time here, walking N and S on Retreat View.

    which can be found here: here.

    My apologies for the lack of clarity when asking my question initially, but what I am meaning here is "Why stop at M33 traveling south on Retreat View Circle?"  I think the back entrance is just below where your diagram ends but not sure how far -- maybe to "T33"?

    I was curious re the significance of stopping at M33 while going as far north as he could in the other direction -- the significance of that to your scenario.

    It just seemed to me GZ would most likely head south as far as he could to the back entrance -- which is where he suspected TM to be headed --- then either retrace his steps OR head up through the walkway between the back to back townhouses, OR ... (there's probably a number of ways he could've returned) and then head north if need be.


    Re GZ not calling dispatch once at Retreat View Circle

    I see better now what you are saying -- I think. IOW, because he didn't call in with an address, it shows his story re looking for an address was made up?

    If I'm understanding this correctly, I could see him calling in the address anyway IF he intended to 'call it a day' and go home and actually did go home immediately after that.  However, the way it was left -- as NoMatter has pointed out -- GZ was not under any obligation to call the dispatcher back.


    Is it just me (none / 0) (#85)
    by CST on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:08:04 AM EST
    or does anyone else see no problem with eating dog?

    There is a huge difference in my mind between torturing a live animal and eating a dead one.  I mean I know that dogs are not typically eaten in this country, but is there a good reason to be against it?  I mean if you eat meat... you are okay with killing animals for food.

    I dunno.  Maybe it's that I hung out with some cows before I ate them, even named them and raised them from babies feeding them milk, etc...  But we still ate them.  I just don't see a big difference between that and eating dog.  Also, I'm more of a cat person, and I'm 70% sure I've unintentionally eaten cat.

    Nevermind the age in question, if I were in Indonesia today and someone offered me dog to eat I would eat it rather than turn it down and be rude about it.  Can't be worse than snails.

    While I would not personally (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Zorba on Fri May 11, 2012 at 07:48:58 PM EST
    want to eat dog meat, or cat meat, for that matter, I realize that this is a cultural thing.  My dad used to tell us that, when he was a child in a small, very poor town, there were people who used to cook cat meat (when they could shoot or otherwise kill the many stray cats in the town), and they called the cat meat "roof rabbit."
    Horse meat is also not frowned upon, depending upon the country.  It's certainly not favored here.
    And, yes, we used to raise beef cattle.  They had names, and we still sent them to the market, or had them slaughtered.  Although, I must say, while they were being raised, they were free-range, no added hormones or anything, no feed-lots, and I prefer this existence for any meat that is eaten.  I don't believe in abusing animals while raising them to be eaten, but I have no problem with killing them otherwise to eat them.  And I always try, as much as possible, to know where my meat comes from.  (And that includes the fact that we eat a whole lot of venison, from our very property.)

    I think (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:28:34 AM EST
    the eating of a dog kind of thing grosses people out because we would never eat a dog here in the US. Of course, there's a lot of things that people in other countries that we probably would not eat either.

    I don't know that either of these stories really make a difference with a lot of people.


    It would not surprise me to learn that (none / 0) (#128)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 11, 2012 at 04:02:50 PM EST
    to Hindus our eating beef is appalling. And, while they may no longer be repelled by those who eat pork, Jews and Muslims who practice the dietary restrictions of their religions do not eat pork or shellfish.

    I would probably find it difficult to eat dog, but only because in our culture dogs are beloved family pets. I grew up playing with the calves and lambs on my grandparents' farm. To date, I have never eaten veal, and I had my first taste of lamb just last month. And all because the little calves and lambs were childhood playmates.

    I would not be surprised to learn that we have any number of cultural food practices that other people find disgusting.


    Not just you... (none / 0) (#90)
    by kdog on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:40:35 AM EST
    Of course there is nothing wrong with eating dog, it's all a matter of taste and cultural differences.

    According to mother nature's rules, we're all fair game to be eaten.  


    Even if I were in a starvation (none / 0) (#91)
    by brodie on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:51:30 AM EST
    situation and the only edible things left to eat were creatures we normally consider household pets, I would prefer to starve.  

    And unless my foreign hosts are kidnappers forcing me to eat what they serve, normally I am going to make some doctor's-instructions excuse about having to stick to a strict vegetarian diet.  And if they are so rigid minded, thin skinned and self-absorbed as to be offended, then I dont want to associate with them anyway.

    Meanwhile, our food scientists need to pick up the pace on growing meat in the lab from animal cells.  It's a real crime how many millions of innocent animals have to suffer to satisfy the tastes of so many humans.


    Let freedom ring... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:00:35 AM EST
    it's all good brodie...more meat for us;)

    I wouldn't be offended if somebody refused to break bacon with me, I don't easily take offense...but as a guest myself I'm with CST, my moms drilled it into me that when you're invited as a guest for a meal, you eat what is served and better damn well eat it all, no matter how much you may not like the fare.    


    Our moms also drilled (none / 0) (#101)
    by brodie on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:44:10 AM EST
    into us a bunch of other nonsense, like Eat everything on your plate:  there are millions of people starving in China.  And in school we had drilled into us the bogus food pyramid -- heavy on meat and dairy servings.  Probably put out by the Cattle and Dairy Association.

    Most people of my acquaintance today either let the guests know in advance what they're serving or, even more politely, ask what range of foods the guest likes or can't eat.  It's no longer the neanderthal era of eating -- one size fits all -- as it was in the fifties when many of us were growing up.  People are a lot more discriminating and sophisticated about what they consume today, at least in my circle of liberal elitists, and previous standard social rules no longer are in effect.


    Liberal elitists... (none / 0) (#106)
    by kdog on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:06:35 AM EST
    don't eat everything on their plates?  It's still a sin to waste food ain't it? ;)

    Modern American eating establishments have made this impossible, I grant you...most times I go out to eat I have a meal and bring home two more...the gargantuan portions are ridiculous.  Another oldie but goodie golden rule of mine is better to leave the table a little hungry than to cook too much and throw it away.


    Go to expensive (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by jbindc on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:03:54 PM EST
    "frou-frou" restaurants.  They give you huge plates and 3 bites of food - and then charge you an arm and a leg.

    No waste!


    Why? (none / 0) (#93)
    by CST on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:11:00 AM EST
    I understand if you're an actual vegetarian who doesn't eat meat, but why are some animals more okay than others?

    My personal feeling about meat is that if they live a solid life while they are alive (free range, etc...) I'm okay with it.  I mean, shoot, even our pets eat meat.  Animals eat other animals, it's part of life.  I am all for trying to be sustainable and as kind as possible about it, but I don't see where some meat is superior or more important than other meat.  They are all living creatures in the end.

    Everyone here the other day was giving Jim a hard time for eating his neighbor's pet hogs.  But other than the fact that some human decided to interact with them, how is it different from eating any other kind of pork?  I dunno, in some way I feel like we are unnecessarily elevating the human relationship factor.  Just because cows don't sit when we tell them to doesn't mean they are less-worthy of our respect.  In India the cow is sacred, here it's dogs in a way.  I just don't see the difference.


    Re eating some animals such (none / 0) (#104)
    by brodie on Fri May 11, 2012 at 10:55:16 AM EST
    as you mentioned I'm not sure I was arguing for other than social conditioning being at the root of my reluctance.

    As for the rest I just argue for humane treatment -- not the profit-driven brutal conditions of factory meat farms -- and hope the research into growing lab meat is greatly accelerated.  I don't think that day is too far off when we no longer will need to slaughter any animal for food.

    Then having cleared the decks of that moral problem, we can perhaps more easily undertake the problem of humans slaughtering humans.  I don't expect that one to be solved in my lifetime however.


    No, it's not just you. (none / 0) (#154)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 12, 2012 at 05:37:22 PM EST
    It's just cultural differences.

    oh, I forgot: ;) (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Fri May 11, 2012 at 11:35:32 AM EST

    While sport fishing (none / 0) (#114)
    by fishcamp on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:48:19 PM EST
    in Costa Rica all the stray dogs disappear when the Asian long liners are around.

    Do they come back later? (none / 0) (#124)
    by sj on Fri May 11, 2012 at 02:39:22 PM EST
    The dogs, that is.

    I think he's implying that the dogs are (none / 0) (#125)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 11, 2012 at 03:40:27 PM EST
    stir fried...

    ::sigh:: (none / 0) (#131)
    by sj on Fri May 11, 2012 at 04:23:03 PM EST
    I am clearly losing my cognitive abilities at this point.  I've been missing the obvious all week.  Thanks for keeping my eyeballs from spinning in my head.

    Hopefully I'll actually get some R&R this weekend.


    In my world (none / 0) (#132)
    by sj on Fri May 11, 2012 at 04:26:40 PM EST
    One of the options was that the stray dogs were brilliant and insightful and knew to stay away. :\

    But probably only my girl is smart enough for that.  Yeah, probably.


    whoops...the stray dogs (none / 0) (#115)
    by fishcamp on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:50:38 PM EST
    wen't sport fishing...I was.

    Military using anti-Muslim materials ... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Yman on Sat May 12, 2012 at 06:42:12 PM EST
    ... to train soldiers.  

    The materials, first detailed by Wired.com, used in an elective course at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Va., promoted "total war" against Muslims in order to stave off terrorism. The course, "Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism," raised the option of "taking war to a civilian population," in disregard of the Geneva Convention of 1949, and possibly destruction of Mecca and Medina, Islam's holiest sites.

    Wonder how this stayed under the radar for so long.