January 17, 2014

AoSHQ Podcast: Guest, Tim Carney
— andy

The Washington Examiner's Tim Carney joins Ace and the crew to discuss Tim's recent column on the latest developments in the GOP civil war. They also discuss the latest trillion+ dollar spending bill, the latest developments on Obamacare, and the rush to blame "stand your ground" for a shooting in Florida before finishing up with quick hits and questions from the Moron Mailbag.

Submit your questions & comments here: Ask the Blog

Referenced in this episode:

[MP3 Download] | Subscribe: rss.png[RSS] | itunes_modern.png[iTunes]

Follow on Twitter:
AoSHQ Podcast (@AoSHQPodcast)
Ace (@AceofSpadesHQ)
Drew M. (@DrewMTips)
Gabriel Malor (@GabrielMalor)
John E. (@JohnEkdahl)
Andy (@TheH2 and @AndyM1911)

Open thread in the comments.

Apologies [ace]: This podcast contains no semi-admiring mentions of Hitler. We just had so much to get to, we forgot.

Posted by: andy at 12:30 PM | Comments (278)
Post contains 170 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 12:32 PM (PYAXX)

2 First!

Posted by: Han Shot at January 17, 2014 12:32 PM (jGmEU)

3 I'll go get the others...

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 12:32 PM (PYAXX)

4 Damn you George Lucas!

Posted by: Han Shot at January 17, 2014 12:32 PM (jGmEU)

5 Breaking:  Hot Air post derived from Ace post... film at eleven

Posted by: Dan Rather at January 17, 2014 12:35 PM (Pr6hk)

6 In an attempt to make sure you know who is who in this podcast, all speakers are wearing name tags.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 17, 2014 12:35 PM (oFCZn)

7 A health industry expert on ‘the fundamental problem with Obamacare� Don't need experts for that.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 17, 2014 12:36 PM (lUXJH)

8 Carney is a pseudo-populist moron who thinks govt inevitably benefits the rich, even though that's about the furthest thing from how every new major program in modern history is designed.

Posted by: JL at January 17, 2014 12:39 PM (75uHN)

9 Whenever you are searching for something about Hitler, just remember that he was a vegetarian artist.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 17, 2014 12:40 PM (T0NGe)

10 Posted by: JL at January 17, 2014 04:39 PM (75uHN) You aspire to stupid, don't you? Merely being "stupid" would be a great accomplishment- celebrated by your mommy like when you *finally* learn to tie your shoes. Apropos of nothing: All trolls are Average Joe.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 12:41 PM (PYAXX)

11 OK, got the MP3 running. Now I'll listen to them cast their pods all over the place. First minute: Ace claims to be a ferret, which is a type of weasel.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 17, 2014 12:41 PM (ZshNr)

12 Well, in order for me to follow the podcast, I need to know who's sitting where, so please identify yourselves from left to right...

Posted by: Vortex Lovera at January 17, 2014 12:41 PM (wtvvX)

13 Magic Bus!

Posted by: wheatie at January 17, 2014 12:41 PM (Wq5le)

14 Posted by: AmishDude at January 17, 2014 04:40 PM (T0NGe) Who, it is said, loved dogs.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 12:41 PM (PYAXX)

15 Ha ha they did do a name check!

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 17, 2014 12:41 PM (oFCZn)

16 I'll listen when I get back from dinner tonight. I'm interested to hear the take on the SYG craziness. It's astonishing what some people will argue constitutes a SYG defense.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 12:42 PM (DmNpO)

17 It's astonishing what some people will argue constitutes a SYG defense. Is that guy really trying to claim SYG? I haven't heard any reports that the guy who got shot even started to become violent...

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 12:43 PM (PYAXX)

18 JL , your saying that govt. , especially this govt . ,doesn't inevitably benefit the rich ? You livin' in a fuckin' cave ?

Posted by: awkward davies at January 17, 2014 12:44 PM (WK8VM)

19
The Barret Jackson Auction is on FS 1 and the Mecum Auction is on the Esquire Channel for those that like such things.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 17, 2014 12:44 PM (n0DEs)

20 The SYG defense in the Florida shooting is like the twinke defense in the Harvey Milk shooting. 

Posted by: polynikes at January 17, 2014 12:44 PM (m2CN7)

21 I just submitted a question, it was very easy to do.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 17, 2014 12:45 PM (DpEwG)

22
Tim Carney was great in Dumb and Dumber!

Posted by: Harvey Weinstein at January 17, 2014 12:45 PM (pJF+c)

23 Guy in florida threw some popcorn at the ex cop . Sounds like grounds for killin' to me . /

Posted by: awkward davies at January 17, 2014 12:46 PM (WK8VM)

24 "Florida Theater Shooting Induces Another Round of 'Stand Your Ground' Mania"

One of the Horde pointed out the other day that the retired cop who fired the shots is currently in his seventies. And retired from the force in... 1993.

Commiefornia is stuffed with "public safety" workers who thanks to their union contracts are retiring with full ride lifetime pensions in their early fifties. Seems that Floriduh works the same way.

Nice work if you can get it. Shit, the way that elderly demographics work these days, a certain percentage of those retired cops are going to be drawing full pay for several more decades in "retirement" than they spent actual decades on the job.

Posted by: torquewrench at January 17, 2014 12:46 PM (gqT4g)

25 Is that guy really trying to claim SYG? I haven't heard any reports that the guy who got shot even started to become violent... *** Not that I know of. I'm referring to tweeps arguing for it or claiming that it's proof of what a danger SYG really is.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 12:47 PM (DmNpO)

26 Commiefornia is stuffed with "public safety" workers who thanks to their union contracts are retiring with full ride lifetime pensions in their early fifties. Seems that Floriduh works the same way. I thought he was from NY?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 12:47 PM (PYAXX)

27
Posted by: AmishDude at January 17, 2014 04:40 PM (T0NGe)

Who, it is said, loved dogs.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 04:41 PM (PYAXX)









Word

Posted by: JugEars McFuckstick at January 17, 2014 12:48 PM (TIIx5)

28 True fact:  Hitler was remarkably good at distinguishing the difference between cicadas and locusts. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 12:48 PM (BeSEI)

29 Stitcher

We're Sorry
Site down for maintenance, please come

I see they've personalized the widget for the AoSHQ.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 17, 2014 12:48 PM (nZiT2)

30 so I click the iTunes link and get last weeks podcast.

being in a generous mood, I shall endeavor to persevere until I find the link. (Click everything in sight. one is bound to be correct.)

monkey push buttons, wait for cookie to drop

Posted by: Jerry Old Guy at January 17, 2014 12:48 PM (qnupY)

31 We still don't exist.
 

Posted by: mythical GOP establishment[/i] [/b] at January 17, 2014 12:48 PM (5ikDv)

32 I've got a question for the panel.  When does this blog get html back?

Posted by: Soona at January 17, 2014 12:49 PM (OP7uy)

33 I'm referring to tweeps arguing for it or claiming that it's proof of what a danger SYG really is. Oh. That. I blame MSNBC. Really. They're the ones who tried to conflate a standard self-defense claim (what George Zimmerman really claimed) with a Stand Your Ground claim (which never entered into the argument). Now anyone who shoots anyone will be "fair game" to a certain subset of Nanny-Staters to bring up Stand Your Ground.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 12:49 PM (PYAXX)

34 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 04:43 PM (PYAXX) I don't think we've seen the guy's defense yet. The media is trying to make people think he's taking SYG. (Just like they did with Zimmerman, who didn't take a SYG defense either.) @Lawselfdefense as written at least one thing about why it's entirely inapplicable. I'd be curious to see what the actual numbers of SYG to vanilla self defense claims actually are. If I had to guess, I'd predict a very low ratio. I think most people would try to escape if they thought they had good odds to because you never know how a direct conflict is going to go down. (I'd set aside "castle law" claims since those are really neither SYG or vanilla self defense.)

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 17, 2014 12:49 PM (GaqMa)

35 I thought he was from NY? --------- Couldn't be, he hit what he was shooting at.

Posted by: Adam at January 17, 2014 12:49 PM (Aif/5)

36 After seeing Tim Carney in Stephen King's, 'It', I couldn't sleep for a week. Guy makes a creepy 'Pennywise'.

Posted by: garrett at January 17, 2014 12:50 PM (ZHTYA)

37 I've got a question for the panel. When does this blog get html back? #twoweeks.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 12:50 PM (PYAXX)

38 My question :
Ace, if you could be a tree.......what other trees would you ridicule and bully?

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 17, 2014 12:50 PM (DpEwG)

39 Oh, and speaking of the theater shooting... Dr. Keith Ablow was on FNC the other day and pushing hard (hard!) the idea of 'Data Rage', like road rage. He was selling it so ckfuing hard I'm inclined to think he might have a book coming out on the subject or is trying to coin a new term. He kept repeating it Data Rage...Data Rage...Data Rage and explaining that it happens when a "machine" is involved.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 12:50 PM (DmNpO)

40 Hitler walks into  Barvaria.

Posted by: polynikes at January 17, 2014 12:50 PM (m2CN7)

41 Be very careful before you make up your minds on the Florida theater shooting.  The whole thing  sounds like a setup to me:  guy shoots other guy for texting his child's daycare.

Sounds way too similar to "guy shoots other guy for having skittles." 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 12:51 PM (BeSEI)

42 Asked this morning in headlines thread, didn't see an answer.  Is there a place to get the older podcasts?  In the iTunes store it only goes back to early  November or so.

Posted by: Conservative Crank at January 17, 2014 12:51 PM (sQ0LB)

43 Sounds way too similar to "guy shoots other guy for having skittles." Except for the bits where there were, what are they called again?... Oh, yeah: witnesses.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 12:52 PM (PYAXX)

44 I've got a question for the panel. When does this blog get html back? *** About the same time the horde gets shirts or coffee mugs with the AOS logo. two weeks.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 12:52 PM (DmNpO)

45 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 04:49 PM (PYAXX) Media here tried to conflate SYG with Castle Doctrine. Which I thought was HILARIOUS. Talk about entirely unrelated. Heck, I'd bet if you proposed Castle Doctrine in the most generic terms it'd have incredibly broad support. But for some reason they had to make it controversial .

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 17, 2014 12:52 PM (GaqMa)

46 He kept repeating it Data Rage...Data Rage...Data Rage and explaining that it happens when a "machine" is involved. Wasn't that a Next Gen Episode? Or was that an 'Evil Twin' thing?

Posted by: garrett at January 17, 2014 12:52 PM (ZHTYA)

47 Is there a place to get the older podcasts? In the iTunes store it only goes back to early November or so. *Currently Awaiting Re-Press*

Posted by: garrett at January 17, 2014 12:53 PM (ZHTYA)

48 Asked this morning in headlines thread, didn't see an answer. Is there a place to get the older podcasts? In the iTunes store it only goes back to early November or so. *** Scroll down the homepage here and click on the month you're interested in then do a ctrl-f for podcast.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 12:54 PM (DmNpO)

49 Talk about entirely unrelated. Heck, I'd bet if you proposed Castle Doctrine in the most generic terms it'd have incredibly broad support. Forget "in the most generic terms." It has incredibly broad support anyway. "Should you have the option of using deadly force to defend yourself while within your home" is really a settled question (to most). It's only by trying to muddy the issue that Liberals get any support for their position at all.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 12:54 PM (PYAXX)

50 Conservative insurgents strike blow against GOP Establishment More, please. LOTS more.

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at January 17, 2014 12:54 PM (itCai)

51 43 -

Right.  And  where are we getting our information regarding what said witnesses witnessed?  Oh, the media. 

Sorry,  my mistake.   Convict him already. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 12:55 PM (BeSEI)

52 Thanks NDH, will look into downloading those later.

Posted by: Conservative Crank at January 17, 2014 12:55 PM (sQ0LB)

53 He kept repeating it Data Rage...Data Rage...Data Rage and explaining that it happens when a "machine" is involved. Next time the Pepsi machine steals my last .75, you'll see Rage.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 17, 2014 12:57 PM (lUXJH)

54 Screw the castle doctrine.  In Texas "He needed killin" is a valid defense.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at January 17, 2014 12:57 PM (o9Rp5)

55 Right. And where are we getting our information regarding what said witnesses witnessed? Oh, the media. Please. There is such a thing as taking things too far. What I heard were recorded quotes- not representations of quotes- wherein witnesses said the guy who pulled the gun had never been physically threatened. So, unless you want to suggest those quotes were faked, I think we have enough to go on with this one. Is it *possible* that the guy texting during a movie then threatened the shooter? Yeah, but since none of the witnesses have said so, I'm going with "not likely."

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 12:57 PM (PYAXX)

56 Posted by: Conservative Crank at January 17, 2014 04:51 PM (sQ0LB) I thought I had them all, but I had my podcast saver set wrong after Andy moved the RSS feed. In any case, he's hosting them off the dev blog here: http://dev.aoshq.com/blog/ That looks to be many/all of them.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 17, 2014 12:58 PM (GaqMa)

57 23 Guy in florida threw some popcorn at the ex cop .
Sounds like grounds for killin' to me . Posted by: awkward davies at January 17, 2014 04:46 PM (WK8VM)
Only if it was cooked in coconut oil.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 17, 2014 12:58 PM (m2Izr)

58 and he hated smoking.

Posted by: irright at January 17, 2014 12:58 PM (8GKDa)

59 Right. And where are we getting our information regarding what said witnesses witnessed? Oh, the media.

Sorry, my mistake. Convict him already.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 04:55 PM (BeSEI)

 

Unless the media is dubbing in the words for the witnesses ,  the guy used deadly force when  he  had  no  legal  right  to  do  so.     The wife got shot at the same time. 

Posted by: polynikes at January 17, 2014 12:59 PM (m2CN7)

60 Guy in florida threw some popcorn at the ex cop . Sounds like grounds for killin' to me . Posted by: awkward davies at January 17, 2014 04:46 PM (WK8VM) Only if it was cooked in coconut oil. *** Did Bloomberg ever get around to banning movie theater popcorn?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 12:59 PM (DmNpO)

61 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 04:54 PM (PYAXX) Eh, that's what I meant by "generic terms." I've seen it muddied with really weird prompts designed to illicit little more than a confused emotional rejection to the question.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at January 17, 2014 01:00 PM (GaqMa)

62 People, this is supposed to be a 'appy occasion.  Let's not argue over who killed who.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at January 17, 2014 01:01 PM (o9Rp5)

63 55 -

Funny thing is, although I know criminology is one  of those pesky social "sciences,"  what is  generally considered essentially settled science is that eyewitness accounts are  shite. 

Even in courtrooms.  But you go ahead and believe everything you've heard so far in the media.  I'm sure they got it right.  This time. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 01:02 PM (BeSEI)

64 Did Bloomberg ever get around to banning movie theater popcorn? Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 04:59 PM
----------------------------

Don't worry, the selling of popcorn will be covered by de Blasio's banning of capitalism.

Posted by: irright at January 17, 2014 01:02 PM (8GKDa)

65 I've seen it muddied with really weird prompts designed to illicit little more than a confused emotional rejection to the question. How... Wha... Huh? I seriously don't even see how it's a question. What kind of "prompt" could make it *not* okay to defend yourself in your own home? Now, I'll admit that extending Castle Doctrine to your car might be controversial- but at least for your own home? Wha?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 01:03 PM (PYAXX)

66 Popcorn was cooked in Peanut oil .. Ex cop was allergic . Justifiable homicide . /

Posted by: awkward davies at January 17, 2014 01:03 PM (WK8VM)

67 Popcorn was cooked in Peanut oil .. Ex cop was allergic . Justifiable homicide . *** Bullshit defense. If he were truly allergic he would have been in shock and unable to defend himself.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 01:05 PM (DmNpO)

68 PopCorn Triggered a PTSD Flashback.

Posted by: garrett at January 17, 2014 01:06 PM (ZHTYA)

69 59 -

Did she?  All I heard was he put one round in  the guy's chest, but then I got that from the media, so... you know, could be wrong. 

 I hope the guy gets a fair trial, is all I'm saying.  What we're doing now,  of course, is not that. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 01:06 PM (BeSEI)

70 Right. And where are we getting our information regarding what said witnesses witnessed? Oh, the media.

Sorry, my mistake. Convict him already.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 04:55 PM (BeSEI)

 

 

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

 

 

I think with the MFM we need to enforce the 6-months rule.  Even then I doubt they'd get it right.

Posted by: Soona at January 17, 2014 01:07 PM (OP7uy)

71 About the same time the horde gets shirts or coffee mugs with the AOS logo.

two weeks.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 04:52 PM (DmNpO)


WTF? I was told that I'd get both when I signed up for the platinum Membership! ...and I'd have my own room of the blog, and here I am stuck with the unwashed masses.

Posted by: Guido 'H8tr extraordinaire' at January 17, 2014 01:07 PM (N3Y73)

72 "I thought he was from NY?"

Tampa.

Posted by: torquewrench at January 17, 2014 01:08 PM (gqT4g)

73

Did she? All I heard was he put one round in the guy's chest, but then I got that from the media, so... you know, could be wrong.

The media reported that she was shot  through the hand that he had over her husbands chest.  

Posted by: polynikes at January 17, 2014 01:08 PM (m2CN7)

74 Its racism I tell you!

Posted by: Guido 'H8tr extraordinaire' at January 17, 2014 01:08 PM (N3Y73)

75 WTF? I was told that I'd get both when I signed up for the platinum Membership! ...and I'd have my own room of the blog, and here I am stuck with the unwashed masses. *** You might consider emailing the customer service department.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 01:10 PM (DmNpO)

76 Just dropping in to say that BenK has a great voice. You should have him back on. And I really appreciated his views on the weed legalization issue. (I know I'm a week late.)

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at January 17, 2014 01:12 PM (r+7wo)

77 73 -


Hmmmm... sounds like evidence she was trying to hold her husband back! 

I think we have a clear case of the "it's coming right for us" defense. 

http://tinyurl.com/4nn6vqr

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 01:12 PM (BeSEI)

78 Just an observation.  I think the MFM has their agenda and they're going to run with it, no matter if this old man is guilty or not.   They'll change the context as they please.  It's how they roll.

Posted by: Soona at January 17, 2014 01:13 PM (OP7uy)

79 Of greatest concern was the conspicuous lack of love for Chevron. What the hell guys?

Posted by: Austin in TX at January 17, 2014 01:13 PM (G70+6)

80

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 05:06 PM (BeSEI)

 

Seriously BurtTC you  can't offer a simple opinion on whether you believe the guy was in the right or wrong based on the facts that you do know as released by the police and not the media.  

 

The victim was unarmed.  It was an argument over texting.  The victim threw his popcorn at shooter.    The shooter pulled his gun and shot that man in the chest through  the victim's  wife's hand that was on her husband's/ victims  chest.  

Posted by: polynikes at January 17, 2014 01:13 PM (m2CN7)

81 >>>Funny thing is, although I know criminology is one of those pesky social "sciences," what is generally considered essentially settled science is that eyewitness accounts are shite. yup. so called "direct witness testimony" (I saw x happen myself) is notoriously flawed. When you don't know the people involved, it's terribly flawed, because people really don't remember strangers' faces very well at all. Especially strangers of other races. When you know the people involved, there's no problem at all with facial recognition, but if you know the people involved, there's that pesky little problem of "maybe having a reason to lie." Even though so-called direct evidence is in the public mind as the top sort of evidence, and "mere" circumstantial evidence dismissed as just happenstance, I think a good circumstantial case is much more likely to be accurate than one based on an eyewitness identification.

Posted by: ace at January 17, 2014 01:13 PM (/FnUH)

82 That said, people are able to tell "Who shot who." I don't think Burt is correct to suggest that maybe the witnesses are all wrong about who shot who, and whether or not it's justified to return some thrown popcorn with gunfire.

Posted by: ace at January 17, 2014 01:14 PM (/FnUH)

83 what is generally considered essentially settled science is that eyewitness accounts are shite. Actually, what is essentially settled science is that eyewitness accounts are *wrong.* However, when you have multiple eyewitness accounts which all agree on the major points of an event? *That* tends to be highly reliable. Has anyone even *suggested* another story? Does the story as told seem implausible (say- crying racism against a man who has shown great care for those of the race he is supposedly racist against)? I can't even catalog all the differences between Zimmerman and this one, but here's a short list: 1) Multiple Witnesses- there were none to what started the fight between George Zimmerman and Traytable. Such witnesses as *did* exist to that event all corroborated Zimmerman's account. 2) Defense v Offense- no one ever claimed that George Zimmerman was not in a fight with Traytable, or that he was losing (well, some really fringe weirdos did- but we can discount them). This guy (according to witnesses) was never physically threatened. 3) Situation- George Zimmerman had plenty of reason to be suspicious of a roughly six-foot male on a rainy night looking like he didn't belong in the neighborhood. This guy got mad that someone was texting during a movie. Now, on to *why* I think it's silly to cry "But the media!!!" on this one. 1) The witness accounts all tell basically the same story. 2) The media wins on either set of facts- so why fabricate? Either this was "another tragedy due to SYG" or it was "an unprovoked homicide by one of those icky guns." Now, they're really going with *both* but their own account doesn't back up SYG- which you'd think it would if they were just making stuff up. 3) We don't owe the shooter anything (we didn't with George Zimmerman, either). He shot a man who demonstrably had no weapon and who *witnesses claim* never visibly threatened him. 4) Claiming you don't believe this account *just because its what the media says* gives them ammo (if it were widely accepted in conservative circles) to paint *us* as the crazies. They'll try that anyway, but I have no desire to give them ammunition. Now- if you have some real reason to disbelieve the story, that's different. But just "well, the media says it, so I don't believe it?" No sale.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 01:14 PM (PYAXX)

84 The right to bear arms is based on the right of self-defense, not to execute people who annoy you for five minutes.

Posted by: ace at January 17, 2014 01:15 PM (/FnUH)

85 Just a thought, Gabe, but I could have helped you guys on the podcast bring a lot of clarity to SYG, and would have been happy to. Also about the misnomered "warning shot" bill in FL. Just a thought. :-) --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 01:15 PM (8gaTv)

86 You might consider emailing the customer service department.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 05:10 PM (DmNpO)


I keep getting  a return Email from Nairobi asking me for my bank account number so they can deposit money for some poor slob that needs to move his inheritance over here. I'll get to keep a million bucks. Sweet. Then I can have Pixy build me a blog.

Posted by: Guido 'H8tr extraordinaire' at January 17, 2014 01:15 PM (N3Y73)

87 Her husband was a very big guy. Both he and his wife stood up. I could see that as threatening right there. A lot more words were exchanged than being reported. Also, if it was dark he may have not known what was thrown at him.

Posted by: Rumpologist at January 17, 2014 01:16 PM (Qev5V)

88 sorry to defend Burt's point -- when I read it, I thought he was making a point about the last post (expertise). I didn't at first realize he was suggesting that this guy might not be guilty of shooting a guy with almost no provocation at all. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable as far as descriptions of people. I don't think its unreliablity extends as far as such simple and basic things as who shot who.

Posted by: ace at January 17, 2014 01:17 PM (/FnUH)

89
"Conservative insurgents strike blow against GOP Establishment"

As you can see, my young apprentice, your friends have failed. Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational Amnesty. Fire at will, Commander!

Posted by: The GOP Establishment at January 17, 2014 01:17 PM (gqT4g)

90 some people seem to really think the right to defend yourself extends to just "Winning an Argument by Gunfire." Jesus Christ.

Posted by: ace at January 17, 2014 01:17 PM (/FnUH)

91 80 -

No.  I can't offer an opinion about a case of homicide, based on media reports of what supposedly happened, based on the accounts of eyewitnesses in a darkened theater, who were watching the previews, rather  than studying the encounter between these two men.

And if you  think you know what happened, BEFORE this gets into a courtroom, and the guy has a chance to defend himself,  you have no idea what you're talking about. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 01:18 PM (BeSEI)

92 Oofah, the more I listen to that segment of the podcast, the more I'm wincing. Haha! :-) --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 01:18 PM (8gaTv)

93 Her husband was a very big guy. Both he and his wife stood up. I could see that as threatening right there. A lot more words were exchanged than being reported. Also, if it was dark he may have not known what was thrown at him.

Posted by: Rumpologist at January 17, 2014 05:16 PM (Qev5V)

 

Everything  you just said is not even close to providing justification to pull your gun and shoot someone.

Posted by: polynikes at January 17, 2014 01:18 PM (m2CN7)

94 The victim was unarmed. It was an argument over texting. The victim threw his popcorn at shooter.The shooterpulled his gun and shot that man in the chest through the victim's wife's hand that was on her husband's/ victims chest.

Posted by: polynikes at January 17, 2014 05:13 PM (m2CN7)

 

 

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

 

 

I have another theory.  Unintentional discharge of the weapon.  He's 71 years old.  He might  have just wanted to scare the popcorn guy, and then.....oops.   Shaking hands and trigger finger.

Posted by: Soona at January 17, 2014 01:19 PM (OP7uy)

95 Jeezus.  Horror stories.  Lord knows I never ever ever want to have to pull out a pistol or a rifle and aim it at another human being.

Not to say I can't or wouldn't, just don't ever want to.

I would go happily to my grave never having had to harm another living creature.

Ok:  1 exception, George Lucas.  Kill On Sight.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 01:19 PM (x3YFz)

96 >>>Everything you just said is not even close to providing justification to pull your gun and shoot someone. this seems to just be an argument that whoever wins a gunfight -- even if the other guy doesn't have a gun -- must be right, because the guy with the gun is always right.

Posted by: ace at January 17, 2014 01:19 PM (/FnUH)

97 84 The right to bear arms is based on the right of self-defense, not to execute people who annoy you for five minutes.

Posted by: ace at January 17, 2014 05:15 PM (/FnUH)


I know that but i wish it wasn't true. i had a guy lean on my car once, and he like... deserved to die, and then I saw a fucking lib bumper sticker that enraged me like a squat lesbo with a hooha mowhawk, and well they needed killin. I could thin the herd significantly if only....

Posted by: Guido 'H8tr extraordinaire' at January 17, 2014 01:19 PM (N3Y73)

98 Oofah, the more I listen to that segment of the podcast, the more I'm wincing. Haha! :-) --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense *** At what point does that portion kick in? I might have time to listen before I run out for the evening.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 01:20 PM (DmNpO)

99 Tim Carney was hilarious in those Dorf videos.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 17, 2014 01:20 PM (oFCZn)

100 Posted by: Rumpologist at January 17, 2014 05:16 PM (Qev5V) Possibly- and *that* is a scenario I'd be willing to entertain. But a simple "no, the media says its one way, so it must be the other" is simplistic and silly. That said... I don't think I'd buy it as a self defense claim. The ex-cop started the altercation (he *could* have asked one of the ushers to take care of it- that's kind of their job), so up until physical violence was reasonably believed to be immanent (I don't think throwing popcorn counts- maybe a jury would disagree), he had no self defense claim.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 01:20 PM (PYAXX)

101 99 That was Brian Dennehy.

Posted by: steevy at January 17, 2014 01:21 PM (zqvg6)

102 apparently we're extending the right to shoot someone from "well-founded belief that one's life is threatened" to "completely, ridiculously mistaken belief that one's life was being threatened" to even "guy was moderately annoyed and he had a gun so fuck it why not kill a guy" Crazy.

Posted by: ace at January 17, 2014 01:21 PM (/FnUH)

103 I have another theory. Unintentional discharge of the weapon. He's 71 years old. He might have just wanted to scare the popcorn guy, and then.....oops. Shaking hands and trigger finger. *** While I'm sure you're joking, don't pull a gun unless you intend to use it.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 01:21 PM (DmNpO)

104 Also from the "conservative insurgents vs. The GOP Establishment" link:

"Beyond these new pipelines of campaign cash, the insurgents now control institutions – institutions they created, and ones they took over. Jim DeMint, who founded the Senate Conservatives Fund in 2008, left Congress in 2013 to head the Heritage Foundation. Heritage used to be a faithful ally of the GOP – at least when it counted most."

Heritage doesn't need to be subverted. Heritage needs to be made an example of. Turned into a wasteland of utter destruction and agonizing pain such that for the next hundred years, establishment RINOs will blanch with fear and change the subject at the mere mention of the name.

Obamacare basically IS Heritagecare. The "individual mandate" crap was their big brainstorm. Their matchless contribution to the nation. Thanks so much guys. What a gift. You shouldn't have. Really, you shouldn't have.

Posted by: torquewrench at January 17, 2014 01:21 PM (gqT4g)

105 88 -

I'm not questioning who shot who.  I'm saying we  don't know why.

Everyone around here seems to think they know. 

Fine.  You all know.  The prosecution would LOVE  to put you on the jury. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 01:22 PM (BeSEI)

106 93 Her husband was a very big guy. Both he and his wife stood up. I could see that as threatening right there. A lot more words were exchanged than being reported. Also, if it was dark he may have not known what was thrown at him. Posted by: Rumpologist at January 17, 2014 05:16 PM (Qev5V) Everything you just said is not even close to providing justification to pull your gun and shoot someone. Posted by: polynikes at January 17, 2014 05:18 PM (m2CN7) I didn't argue it was, asshole.

Posted by: Rumpologist at January 17, 2014 01:22 PM (Qev5V)

107
I know that but i wish it wasn't true. i had a guy lean on my car once, and he like... deserved to die, and then I saw a fucking lib bumper sticker that enraged me like a squat lesbo with a hooha mowhawk, and well they needed killin. I could thin the herd significantly if only....

Posted by: Guido 'H8tr extraordinaire' at January 17, 2014 05:19 PM (N3Y73)

If you're "play acting" your nic here.... then I offer it's not funny.

If you're Obvious Troll, then fuck you.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 01:22 PM (x3YFz)

108 >>>While I'm sure you're joking, don't pull a gun unless you intend to use it. is he?

Posted by: ace at January 17, 2014 01:22 PM (/FnUH)

109 >>>The right to bear arms is based on the right of self-defense, not to execute people who annoy you for five minutes.


-----

Totally agree in this case, however, for people who leave their shopping carts in the middle of the aisle?  Fucking open season on them!

Posted by: Duke Lowell at January 17, 2014 01:22 PM (o9Rp5)

110 I have another theory. Unintentional discharge of the weapon. He's 71 years old. He might have just wanted to scare the popcorn guy, and then.....oops. Shaking hands and trigger finger. Doesn't matter. In TX (and I'm pretty sure FL) you're responsible for whatever happens once you pull your weapon. Accidental discharge? Purposeful discharge but you missed? Doesn't matter- at the least it's negligent homicide.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 01:23 PM (PYAXX)

111 101 99 That was Brian Dennehy. Posted by: steevy at January 17, 2014 05:21 PM (zqvg6) Brian Dennehy playing Tim Carney playing Dorf? The man is a genius!

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 17, 2014 01:23 PM (oFCZn)

112 is he? *** I hope so.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 01:23 PM (DmNpO)

113 >>>I'm not questioning who shot who. I'm saying we don't know why. Everyone around here seems to think they know. ... we actually are not saying we know. What we're saying is that the law provides specific circumstances in which the use of deadly force is permissible and they are simply absent here. You don't get to fucking shoot someone because you got into a snit with him and he threw some popcorn at you.

Posted by: ace at January 17, 2014 01:23 PM (/FnUH)

114
I didn't argue it was, asshole.

Posted by: Rumpologist at January 17, 2014 05:22 PM (Qev5V)

//begins playing Roll Out The Barrel

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 01:24 PM (x3YFz)

115 I thought Tim Carney was hysterical in 'Ladies Man'.

Posted by: garrett at January 17, 2014 01:24 PM (ZHTYA)

116 Doesn't matter. In TX (and I'm pretty sure FL) you're responsible for whatever happens once you pull your weapon. Accidental discharge? Purposeful discharge but you missed? Doesn't matter- at the least it's negligent homicide. *** Andrew, LOSD is in the house. I bet he knows.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 01:24 PM (DmNpO)

117 If you're "play acting" your nic here.... then I offer it's not funny.

If you're Obvious Troll, then fuck you.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 05:22 PM (x3YFz)


And who he fuck are you? blow me.

Posted by: Guido 'H8tr extraordinaire' at January 17, 2014 01:24 PM (N3Y73)

118 I thought Tim Carney was hysterical in 'Ladies Man'. *** LOL

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 01:24 PM (DmNpO)

119 The guy was unarmed and offered no violence. I assume that if the victim had punched him, drawn a knife or gun, the shooter and his wife would have mentioned this by now...?

Posted by: ace at January 17, 2014 01:24 PM (/FnUH)

120

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 05:18 PM (BeSEI)

 

Does this only apply to  the subject  of   homicide in your world?   Just checking for future  posting. 

Posted by: polynikes at January 17, 2014 01:25 PM (m2CN7)

121 While I'm sure you're joking, don't pull a gun unless you intend to use it.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 05:21 PM (DmNpO)

 

 

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

 

 

He's an ex-cop.  Cops draw their weapons many times for intimidation factor only (I know from experience).  If I were his attourney I'd at least give this some consideration as a defense.

Posted by: Soona at January 17, 2014 01:25 PM (OP7uy)

122 Obamacare basically IS Heritagecare. The "individual mandate" crap was their big brainstorm. Their matchless contribution to the nation. Thanks so much guys. What a gift. You shouldn't have. Really, you shouldn't have.

Posted by: torquewrench

Have you read that Heritage white paper?

Have you read even one page of it?

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 17, 2014 01:25 PM (nZiT2)

123 That said, I'm withholding judgment until I find out what the race of the victim was (this is a joke, people)

Posted by: ace at January 17, 2014 01:25 PM (/FnUH)

124 >>Florida Theater Shooting Induces Another Round of "Stand Your Ground" Mania

All over the news today in Utah is the report of a 34 year old cop who shot and killed his family: wife, kids, mother-in-law. Didn't show up for his night shift, no signs indicating problems (isn't that always the way, until you realize there were.) Comes days after another murder-suicide by a Utah mom. He did it at home, not in a theater, so not sure if is making news anywhere else.

But yeah, cops and feds should be the ONLY ones with access to guns, ever. /sarc

Posted by: LizLem at January 17, 2014 01:26 PM (BF+2f)

125 "Worse, it’s dangerous. The death of expertise is a rejection not only of knowledge, but of the ways in which we gain knowledge and learn about things. Fundamentally, it’s a rejection of science and rationality, which are the foundations of Western civilization itself." Absolutely. The people who founded the city of Rome? Theists. The soldiers who expanded its borders? Theists. The missionaries who expanded its borders much farther still? Theists. The Founding Fathers? Theists. But Atheists did succeed in burning everything to the ground because it was "unscientific" and "irrational" and because St. Darwin and St. Marx told them it was a brilliant idea, so there's that.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 17, 2014 01:26 PM (4hZFd)

126 He's an ex-cop. Cops draw their weapons many times for intimidation factor only (I know from experience). If I were his attourney I'd at least give this some consideration as a defense.

Posted by: Soona at January 17, 2014 05:25 PM (OP7uy)

No.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 01:26 PM (x3YFz)

127 some people are REALLY basically pushing to make the law "if you annoy an old guy, he gets to kill you"

Posted by: ace at January 17, 2014 01:27 PM (/FnUH)

128 I didn't argue it was, asshole.

Posted by: Rumpologist at January 17, 2014 05:22 PM (Qev5V)

 

What are you arguing then ?  also you words are hurtful. 

Posted by: polynikes at January 17, 2014 01:27 PM (m2CN7)

129 And who he fuck are you? blow me.

Posted by: Guido 'H8tr extraordinaire' at January 17, 2014 05:24 PM (N3Y73)

Oh joy!  A live one!

Let's play with it a bit before we kill it this time.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 01:27 PM (x3YFz)

130 We're just a bunch of morons on the internet.  Who decided we are required to act as if were on a jury?

Posted by: irright at January 17, 2014 01:27 PM (8GKDa)

131

 Doesn't matter. In TX (and I'm pretty sure FL) you're responsible for whatever happens once you pull your weapon. Accidental discharge? Purposeful discharge but you missed? Doesn't matter- at the least it's negligent homicide.

 

 

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

 

 

Negligent homicide is better than murder  II. 

Posted by: Soona at January 17, 2014 01:28 PM (OP7uy)

132 (this is a joke, people) *** No you did not feel the need to clarify that!

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 01:28 PM (DmNpO)

133 Well I think withholding some judgment is necessary because of how often the media are wrong in reporting basic facts. If we're saying is it ok to shoot someone for annoying you and throwing popcorn at you? And if that is the entire story as reported? Uhhh...no.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 17, 2014 01:28 PM (oFCZn)

134 some people are REALLY basically pushing to make the law "if you annoy an old guy, he gets to kill you" That would certainly had made The Muppet Show a lot more entertaining.

Posted by: garrett at January 17, 2014 01:28 PM (ZHTYA)

135 100 -

You are aware that he did just that?  According the eyewitness reports, I mean.  The shooter supposedly got up, left the theater to complain to management about the guy who wouldn't turn his phone off.

Allegedly, according to  the  eyewitnesses, the altercation started up again, after he returned to his seat. 

Again, you don't know what happened   between the time the guy who shot the other guy returned, and the guy got shot.  You think you know, because you've been told already, but you don't. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 01:28 PM (BeSEI)

136 That said... I don't think I'd buy it as a self defense claim. The ex-cop started the altercation (he *could* have asked one of the ushers to take care of it- that's kind of their job), so up until physical violence was reasonably believed to be immanent (I don't think throwing popcorn counts- maybe a jury would disagree), he had no self defense claim. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 17, 2014 05:20 PM (PYAXX) I think he did try to get someone but when he returned without an usher, the big guy made comments about the old guy reporting him. Again, as I said, the old guy may have not have known what was thrown at him. We also don't know everything that was said. But I do get the impression that a lot more was said than being reported, this based on wits statements that words were said and then more words were said, etc. There appears to be very little reporting as to what was said and by who.

Posted by: Rumpologist at January 17, 2014 01:28 PM (Qev5V)

137 Damn, my 'Statler or Waldorf' sock fell off.

Posted by: garrett at January 17, 2014 01:29 PM (ZHTYA)

138 also you words are hurtful.

Posted by: polynikes at January 17, 2014 05:27 PM (m2CN7)


oooh... luring him in.  You've gotten good at this, haven't you?

I was going to bail but evidently we've both got bites on our trout lines so I'll send cooter for more beer. 

Someone start a fire.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 01:29 PM (x3YFz)

139 Of course, the most "scientific" and "rational," and therefore the most Western, Progressive, and Ultraawesome country ever? The Soviet Union. Coincidentally, it was also full of brilliant "experts" capable of parroting the latest buzz words and politically-correct Nihilistic slogans they had read in Pravda that morning while in the crapper.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 17, 2014 01:30 PM (4hZFd)

140 123 That said, I'm withholding judgment until I find out what the race of the victim was

(this is a joke, people)

Posted by: ace at January 17, 2014 05:25 PM (/FnUH) 


Can't joke in this one Ace.  catch you in the next post.

Posted by: Guido 'H8tr extraordinaire' at January 17, 2014 01:30 PM (N3Y73)

141 [93] polynikes writes: "Everything you just said is not even close to providing justification to pull your gun and shoot someone." And nails it. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 01:30 PM (8gaTv)

142 Statler and Waldorf take on Uncle Milty http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGfx3QAV64M

Posted by: garrett at January 17, 2014 01:31 PM (ZHTYA)

143 [94] Soona writes: "I have another theory. Unintentional discharge of the weapon." How's that help a 71-year-old? Criminally negligent homicide, negligence with an inherently dangerous instrument. Anyway, with his cop/SWAT background, talk about a hard sell. In any case, at 71yo, would still a life sentence. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 01:32 PM (8gaTv)

144 113 -

Again, you seem to be arguing as if you know what happened, when you don't. 

If you already know,  then why have a trial?  What is the purpose of having lawyers, if we're going to try these cases in the media? 

All the facts  are known.  Let's save the state a lot of money, and just convict people based on media accounts. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 01:32 PM (BeSEI)

145 Did the popcorn have that fake butter on it, cause you know...

Posted by: Christopher Parmegeano at January 17, 2014 01:32 PM (nTgAI)

146 Those assholes that block the gas pumps when they're not getting gas . Yeah, they need a .40 in the ear . Teach 'em a fuckin' lesson .

Posted by: awkward davies at January 17, 2014 01:32 PM (WK8VM)

147 57 23 Guy in florida threw some popcorn at the ex cop. Sounds like grounds for killin' to me. Posted by: awkward davies at January 17, 2014 04:46 PM (WK8VM) Only if it was cooked in coconut oil. Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 17, 2014 04:58 PM (m2Izr)

Mmmm, coconut oil. I have a popcorn popper machine and made some popcorn last night, 1/2 cup of kernels, then seasoned with coconut oil and salt. Was heavenly.

A study funded by Big Canola about the dangers of coconut oil is the reason it was banned for so long. Now coconut oil is good again, and news about risks of cooking with canola oil are trickling out. Karma, she will bite you. This is why I just eat what I want, no one knows for sure.

Posted by: LizLem at January 17, 2014 01:33 PM (BF+2f)

148 120 -

That's a pretty dumb question, Polynikes.  Do you really need an answer? 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 01:34 PM (BeSEI)

149 How's that help a 71-year-old? Criminally negligent homicide, negligence with an inherently dangerous instrument. Anyway, with his cop/SWAT background, talk about a hard sell.

In any case, at 71yo, would still a life sentence.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 05:32 PM (8gaTv)

Yeah, pretty much all of his training and expertise run at a right angle to what he chose to do.  Not a defense, but even more of a reason for condemnation.  The DA could have Snoopy prosecute this one and win.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 01:34 PM (x3YFz)

150 All the facts are known. Let's save the state a lot of money, and just convict people based on media accounts.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 05:32 PM (BeSEI)

 

You keep saying media accounts.  Why do you not accept law enforcement accounts? 

Posted by: polynikes at January 17, 2014 01:35 PM (m2CN7)

151 [98] Niedermeyer's Dead Horse writes "At what point does that portion kick in? I might have time to listen before I run out for the evening." Right around 1:04

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 01:35 PM (8gaTv)

152

124...But yeah, cops and feds should be the ONLY ones with access to guns, ever. /sarc

 

----------

 

Good point, LizLem.

 

People like Harvey Weinstein want to disarm us and have cops/feds be the only ones with guns.

 

But who protects us from them?

Posted by: wheatie at January 17, 2014 01:35 PM (Wq5le)

153 Thanks Andrew

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 17, 2014 01:35 PM (DmNpO)

154 [102] ace writes: " apparently we're extending the right to shoot someone from "well-founded belief that one's life is threatened" to "completely, ridiculously mistaken belief that one's life was being threatened" to even "guy was moderately annoyed and he had a gun so fuck it why not kill a guy" " Except, we're not, really. This guy isn't going to win on a self-defense claim, absent an abrupt change in evidence. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 01:36 PM (8gaTv)

155 No one on the internet is allowed to speculate about stuff.  Because juries.

Posted by: irright at January 17, 2014 01:36 PM (8GKDa)

156

All the facts are known. Let's save the state a lot of money, and just convict people based on media accounts.
Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 05:32 PM (BeSEI)

Were you able to make a judgement on the Colorado theater shooting?  Or is it just certain homicides and killings you don't make judgements about before trial.  

Posted by: polynikes at January 17, 2014 01:36 PM (m2CN7)

157

"Never point the muzzle at something you are not willing to destroy".

 

That's one of the very few, very simple rules to keep you from killing someone who oughtn't be killed.  There are lots of lawyers in the thread, so I won't opine on what the charges should be, but a guy got dead who oughtn't have got dead. 

 

Shooter being an ex-cop counts against him in my opinion.  I love the DiCaprio line in Departed, "an air of scumbag entitlement".

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at January 17, 2014 01:37 PM (A0sHn)

158 I'll listen at home. I don't bring ear pods with me. I should leave at work so I can listen here.

Posted by: Carol at January 17, 2014 01:37 PM (IyKYr)

159 "Have you read that Heritage white paper? Have you read even one page of it?"

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the 1989 Heritage policy document.

The one that said GUARANTEEING access to affordable health care for EVERYONE needed to be enacted as official federal government policy. State level responsibilities and "laboratories of democracy" be damned.

(Um, well, started looking in the Constitution back in '89 for the enumerated responsibility of the feds to do any such thing, wasn't finding it then, just looked again now, still am not finding it, guess my copy must be old and busted or something. Maybe someone can pull out their New Hotness version and show me where that was added.)

And that was the same paper pushing the individual mandate as the vehicle.

This helped ignite Hillarycare in the 1990s, it was a blueprint for Romneycare later on, and it was central to Obamacare.

Posted by: torquewrench at January 17, 2014 01:37 PM (gqT4g)

160

How's that help a 71-year-old? Criminally negligent homicide, negligence with an inherently dangerous instrument. Anyway, with his cop/SWAT background, talk about a hard sell.

In any case, at 71yo, would still a life sentence.

 

 

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

 

 

I'm not saying that's what happened.  I'm going with what most  people are saying and that's we don't really know anything yet.

 

I was just throwing that out there as a possible recourse for the defense.  And I'm also  not disregarding the rules of drawing a weapon to begin with.

Posted by: Soona at January 17, 2014 01:37 PM (OP7uy)

161 But, since someone mentioned science and rationality, let's see where it goes. Bend over. What is a human being? A human being is an intelligent, talking primate who wears clothes. What is a primate? A primate is a social animal. What is a social animal? A social animal is an animal obsessed with submitting to and dominating other animals of the same species. What is an animal? An animal is a sexually-obsessed material entity. What is a material entity? A material entity is a collection of organized matter which functions in accordance with the fundamental principles of physics. Ok, back to the important part. A social animal. An animal obsessed with submitting to and dominating other animals of the same species. What are Atheistic "experts" usually up to? Pretty much exactly that. Science itself condemns them. And were they a lot more intelligent, they would understand as much.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 17, 2014 01:38 PM (4hZFd)

162 You don't get to fucking shoot someone because you got into a snit with him and he threw some popcorn at you. Posted by: ace at January 17, 2014 05:23 PM (/FnUH) No one is saying they do. But you don't know everything that happened or that was said. The details are very sketchy and one sided. After the Zimmerman bullshit, you would think people would know better.

Posted by: Rumpologist at January 17, 2014 01:38 PM (Qev5V)

163 [113] ace writes: "You don't get to fucking shoot someone because you got into a snit with him and he threw some popcorn at you." This. You choose to carry a gun, not a case of not having to take shit from anybody. You have to take shit--including thrown popcorn--from EVERYBODY. Except the felony aggressor. HIM, you can deal with. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 01:38 PM (8gaTv)

164 What is a human being? A miserable little pile of secrets!

Posted by: Dracula at January 17, 2014 01:39 PM (53Nsb)

165 People like Harvey Weinstein want to disarm us and have cops/feds be the only ones with guns. But who protects us from them? Posted by: wheatie at January 17, 2014 05:35 PM (Wq5le)

The cops, the feds, AND personal bodyguards, FIFY. Only ones in their minds who deserve to carry. I have no doubt Weinstein has hired personal bodyguards at some point, as do most celebs; one of the luxuries of living in the 1% us proles don't have access to.

Posted by: LizLem at January 17, 2014 01:40 PM (BF+2f)

166 Are we saying you can't shoot someone who tries to blind you with popcorn?

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 17, 2014 01:40 PM (DpEwG)

167 [116] Niedermeyer's Dead Horse writes: "Doesn't matter. In TX (and I'm pretty sure FL) you're responsible for whatever happens once you pull your weapon. Accidental discharge? Purposeful discharge but you missed? Doesn't matter- at the least it's negligent homicide." If you have a self-defense justification for firing the shot, and an innocent person is accidentally hit and killed, the justification covers that accidentally struck person as well. If you DO NOT have a self-defense justification for firing the shot, sure, you're looking at criminally negligent homicide at the least. This case looks like the latter. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 01:40 PM (8gaTv)

168 You choose to carry a gun, not a case of not having to take shit from anybody. You have to take shit--including thrown popcorn--from EVERYBODY. Just another example of why you shouldn't be a duck to anyone. You never know what they're carrying or what's going to cause them to snap. Be excellent to each other, dude!

Posted by: Theodore J. Preston. Esquire at January 17, 2014 01:41 PM (yz6yg)

169 I don't know the specifics here but Tampa cops , they're not known for quality policing . Ex Tampa swat cops , really not impressed . Course , this angry old fuck could be an exception . Full disclosure , I have two Tampa cops as inlaw family . Both drummed out early under shadowy circumstances .

Posted by: awkward davies at January 17, 2014 01:41 PM (WK8VM)

170 What is a human being? This is an interesting question...

Posted by: Dr, Leo Marvin at January 17, 2014 01:42 PM (ZHTYA)

171 --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 05:40 PM (8gaTv)

link in your sig is obamacared.  (i.e. 404)

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 01:42 PM (x3YFz)

172 So, from an "intelligent, talking primate" to "another" intelligent, talking primate, you're not as intelligent as you think, and the rest of your "insight" is probably just as stupid, because you, yourself, are quite stupid. Which, by the way, is the crux of "experts'" "argument" against "nonexperts," "explicated."

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 17, 2014 01:43 PM (4hZFd)

173 Btw, Andrew @LoSD, welcome to the thread.  I followed you relentlessly during the Zimmerman thing.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at January 17, 2014 01:43 PM (A0sHn)

174 169 You choose to carry a gun, not a case of not having to take shit from anybody. You have to take shit--including thrown popcorn--from EVERYBODY.

Just another example of why you shouldn't be a duck to anyone.

You never know what they're carrying or what's going to cause them to snap.

Be excellent to each other, dude!

Posted by: Theodore J. Preston. Esquire at January 17, 2014 05:41 PM (yz6yg)

 

Especially around Phil Robertson and his sons.

Posted by: buzzion at January 17, 2014 01:44 PM (LI48c)

175 [119] ace writes: "The guy was unarmed and offered no violence. I assume that if the victim had punched him, drawn a knife or gun, the shooter and his wife would have mentioned this by now...?" Well, he offered SOME violence--the throwing of the popcorn IS a simple battery. But it's clearly a non-deadly degree of violence, and as such not warranting a deadly-force defensive response. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 01:44 PM (8gaTv)

176

I also followed you during the Zimmerman trial. Great coverage.

Thanks

Posted by: The Jackhole at January 17, 2014 01:45 PM (nTgAI)

177 There is, of course, an actually coherent argument in favor of "experts," and that would be that "the masses" are even dumber than most "experts." But "experts" are reluctant to think of things in those terms.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 17, 2014 01:45 PM (4hZFd)

178 So I finished changing out the flux capacitors on the time machine and I just got back from the year 2017, and here's the executive summary on how the theater shooting case finally shook out.

The retired cop went to trial and was found guilty of murder.

This of course means as a corollary conclusion that OMG TEH "JUSTICE" SYSTEM IS TEH RACIST ELEVENTY.

Because, you see, when this white retired cop shot a white guy in Florida, the white shooter was convicted on murder charges. But earlier in Florida when Saint Trayvon of the Bloodied Hoodie was for no reason at all cold-bloodedly chased down and executed by a "white Hispanic", the white guy _got off scot free_. Thus proving beyond any argument that the lives of blacks are considered worth less than those of whites.

Quod erat demonstrandum, as they used to say. And don't tell me none of you saw that line of logic coming. As predictable as a wet fart after a truck stop microwave burrito.

Posted by: torquewrench at January 17, 2014 01:45 PM (gqT4g)

179 [121] Soona writes: He's an ex-cop. Cops draw their weapons many times for intimidation factor only (I know from experience). If I were his attourney I'd at least give this some consideration as a defense." Hahaha! No. Not even if I was his attorney. How's that support reasonableness? "He did it, your honor, because he has a long track record of waving around a gun to intimidate people." Prosecution thought bubble: "Thankyouthankyouthankyou." --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 01:46 PM (8gaTv)

180 Well, he offered SOME violence--the throwing of the popcorn IS a simple buttery. Fixed for fun.

Posted by: garrett at January 17, 2014 01:47 PM (ZHTYA)

181 Well, he offered SOME violence--the throwing of the popcorn IS a simple battery.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 05:44 PM (8gaTv)

My personal definition of "battery," I think, does not extend to a bit of harmless fluffy popcorn.  Key word:  "bat"  as in:  I feel like I just got hit by one.


Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 01:47 PM (x3YFz)

182 [132] Soona writes: "Negligent homicide is better than murder II." I'd suggest not in any way relevant to a 71-year-old. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 01:48 PM (8gaTv)

183 It might even be A Salt and Buttery, I haven't read the indictment.

Posted by: garrett at January 17, 2014 01:48 PM (ZHTYA)

184
Prosecution thought bubble: "Thankyouthankyouthankyou."

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense




Right!?  If it were only that easy.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 01:49 PM (x3YFz)

185 176 -

Clearly I haven't been following this case as closely as others, so I really don't know.  Are we certain there was  nothing more provocative than the throwing of popcorn? 

From what I heard, the man himself hasn't said much of anything, other than whatever kind of cursory response  that was necessary the first time he went into court. 

I'm not going to argue I know one way or another as to whether this  man is guilty of a crime or not, I'm just astonished that there are people  here who have  already convicted him, and are already convinced  they know everything they need to know about  what  happened in that theater. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 01:49 PM (BeSEI)

186 Well, he offered SOME violence--the throwing of the popcorn IS a simple battery buttery. Fixed.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 17, 2014 01:49 PM (lUXJH)

187 I'm all for the shooting of people who ought to be shot.  But there are simple rules from another discipline, too. Martial arts.  (1) Don't be in a place or position where you are likely to run into trouble, (2) if you do find yourself in trouble and can run away, run away.  From (3) on out there are a lot of good uses of body parts to seriously hurt the other guy so that he stays hurt, but if you're trained in confrontation you should at all costs avoid confrontation.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at January 17, 2014 01:49 PM (A0sHn)

188 This guy needs a full medical including psych and neurological workup. At 71 it would not be unheard of to have had some neurological changes that may have affected his judgement.

Posted by: Rumpologist at January 17, 2014 01:49 PM (Qev5V)

189 167 Are we saying you can't shoot someone who tries to blind you with popcorn? Posted by: Dr Spank at January 17, 2014 05:40 PM (DpEwG) Well I know I'm going to rethink taking my popcorn cannon to the theater from now on.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 17, 2014 01:50 PM (oFCZn)

190 I'm having very late lunch. CNN is on restaurant television Every time I glanced up at it.Jeb was on & questions of would he listen to Mom who said there have been enough Bushes & let someone else run.

Posted by: Carol at January 17, 2014 01:50 PM (ZZPs4)

191 It might even be A Salt and Buttery, I haven't read the indictment.

Posted by: garrett at January 17, 2014 05:48 PM (ZHTYA)

 

good one. 

Posted by: polynikes at January 17, 2014 01:51 PM (m2CN7)

192 O-Care isn't going anywhere. I think we all need to come to this realization. Best case scenario is some changes are done to it like allowing catastrophe only plans, not requiring 50 year old men to have maternity coverage, etc. But that's about it. There is a less than 0% chance it will ever be repealed. As for the courts, they have pretty much said fuck you to anyone looking to have any of it struck down, let alone the whole thing.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 17, 2014 01:52 PM (0LHZx)

193 simple battery buttery.


Fixed.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 17, 2014 05:49 PM (lUXJH)

THERE we go.  +1 rick

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 01:52 PM (x3YFz)

194 Of course, an "expert" might argue 'I'm really, really dumb, but at least I've devoted a lot of my time to thinking about one single issue/topic, and therefore I have something to add' and that might be true. And those who truly have something to add should do so. But a lot of "experts" would much rather suck their own cock, and the cocks of other "experts," because that's how "experts" tend to roll, rather than say something intelligent.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 17, 2014 01:53 PM (4hZFd)

195 [137] Rumpologist wrote: "But I do get the impression that a lot more was said than being reported, this based on wits statements that words were said and then more words were said, etc." There's very little that can "be said" that would justify a deadly force response. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 01:53 PM (8gaTv)

196 Which is to say, "experts" tend to be fags.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 17, 2014 01:54 PM (4hZFd)

197 176 >> Well, he offered SOME violence--the throwing of the popcorn IS a simple battery.
 
Andrew, the cop's lawyer today suggested that a different, 'unknown' dark object was thrown at the cop, justifying his using force. Daily Mail has the claim. The investigating cops ain't buying it though.

Posted by: GnuBreed at January 17, 2014 01:54 PM (cHZB7)

198 NTTAWWT.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 17, 2014 01:54 PM (4hZFd)

199 In fact, it's quite Progressive.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 17, 2014 01:54 PM (4hZFd)

200 All "experts" agree.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 17, 2014 01:55 PM (4hZFd)

201 By the way, for those who don't realize it, Andrew @LoSD has actually written a book on this difficult but extremely important subject.

He's too much of a gentleman to come on ace's blog and immediately start pimping his own work, but since I've never been accused of being a gentleman, let me do that on his behalf.

If you are or if you may be in a situation where you might have to contemplate the use of force in defense of your person, one thing you had really better do is have an idea of the legalities involved, of what you can and can't do, of what and when. Andrew's book will help get you up to speed on those questions.

Posted by: torquewrench at January 17, 2014 01:55 PM (gqT4g)

202 There's NOTHING that can "be said" that would justify a deadly force response.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 05:53 PM (8gaTv)

Fixed.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 01:55 PM (x3YFz)

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 01:56 PM (x3YFz)

204 THERE we go. +1 rick To be fair, Garrett beat me. But, I am driving, so......

Posted by: rickb223 at January 17, 2014 01:56 PM (lUXJH)

205 184 It might even be A Salt and Buttery, I haven't read the indictment. Posted by: garrett at January 17, 2014 05:48 PM (ZHTYA) ------------------------ THIS! No more need be said.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at January 17, 2014 01:56 PM (dfYL9)

206 ^^^ oops?  Did I fat mouse the post button?  sorry.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 01:57 PM (x3YFz)

207 [145] BurtTC writes: "Again, you seem to be arguing as if you know what happened, when you don't." And where the hell would this, or any, blog be if people only talked about things for which they had absolute certainty? Sounds boring. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 01:57 PM (8gaTv)

208 Let's all go to the lobby,.... Let's all go to the lobby,...Let's all go to the lobby, and get ourselves not shot.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 17, 2014 01:57 PM (ZshNr)

209 There's very little that can "be said" that would justify a deadly force response. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense "Hey look at these naked pics of Lena Dunham!" *bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, click, click, click...*

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 17, 2014 01:58 PM (oFCZn)

210 And how could all "experts," people prone to doing little more than sucking each others' cocks and agreeing with each other just because they all agree with each other and are therefore right about the things about which they all agree, ever be wrong? That would be unpossible.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 17, 2014 01:58 PM (4hZFd)

211 204 -

Really?  Not even, "I'm going to  come over there  and  kill you with my bare hands?"

Or is it necessary for the person who is threatening you to announce they are carrying a deadly weapon before you  can take out your weapon and use it?  

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 01:59 PM (BeSEI)

212 197 [137] Rumpologist wrote: "But I do get the impression that a lot more was said than being reported, this based on wits statements that words were said and then more words were said, etc." There's very little that can "be said" that would justify a deadly force response. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 05:53 PM (8gaTv) But you are saying that some things can be said that would justify a deadly force response. And since there is a mental element of the crime that has to be proved, how do you know the old guy had the requisite mental intent? Again, at his age he may have a mental impairment. We don't know. But god forbid that we allow his lawyer to investigate a defense.

Posted by: Rumpologist at January 17, 2014 01:59 PM (Qev5V)

213 If I could just gasp one more kernel of truth, I'd solve this case in a Jiffy.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 17, 2014 01:59 PM (ZshNr)

214 209 [145] BurtTC writes: "Again, you seem to be arguing as if you know what happened, when you don't."

And where the hell would this, or any, blog be if people only talked about things for which they had absolute certainty?

Sounds boring.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 05:57 PM (8gaTv)

the dead guy had popcorn.  The live guy had and used gun on dead guy.

It ain't rocket surgery.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 01:59 PM (x3YFz)

215 grasp

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 17, 2014 02:00 PM (ZshNr)

216 All "experts" agree. It would be unpossible. And all "experts" are always right, especially when they all agree. And therefore it is unpossible. Because Logic.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 17, 2014 02:00 PM (4hZFd)

217

197...There's very little that can "be said" that would justify a deadly force response.

 

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

 

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

 

Yes...usually.

 

But saying "I'm going to kill you" in a dark theatre might be a bit more intimidating than out in broad daylight.

 

Not saying that's what happened in this case, though.

 

Posted by: wheatie at January 17, 2014 02:00 PM (Wq5le)

218 209 -

You're right.  I'm getting bored. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 02:00 PM (BeSEI)

219 [167] Dr Spank writes: "Are we saying you can't shoot someone who tries to blind you with popcorn?" I'm telling you that if you do, self-defense is going to be a hard sell. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:00 PM (8gaTv)

220 Really? Not even, "I'm going to come over there and kill you with my bare hands?"

Or is it necessary for the person who is threatening you to announce they are carrying a deadly weapon before you can take out your weapon and use it?

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 05:59 PM (BeSEI)

Nope.  Not even close.  You shoot an unarmed person who doesn't attack you and you go to prison.  Not jail.  Prison.  FMITA Prison.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 02:01 PM (x3YFz)

221 But really, there's no need to defend "experts." The fruits of their "brilliance" speak for themselves. Later, all. God bless. :-)

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at January 17, 2014 02:02 PM (4hZFd)

222 You're right. I'm getting schooled.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 06:00 PM (BeSEI)

Fixed.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 02:03 PM (x3YFz)

223 [172]: tangonine writes: "link in your sig is obamacared. (i.e. 404)" Weird, when I cut-and-paste it, works for me, but when I click it, it 404s like you say. Anyway, it's www.lawofselfdefense.com --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:03 PM (8gaTv)

224 221 [167] Dr Spank writes: "Are we saying you can't shoot someone who tries to blind you with popcorn?"

I'm telling you that if you do, self-defense is going to be a hard sell.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense Posted by: Law of Self Defense


Yeah, that was a joke.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 17, 2014 02:04 PM (DpEwG)

225 222 -

I see.  So the  guy who feels his life is being threatened by the guy who just threatened his life, can't defend himself until the guy doing the threatening has actually, you know, attacked  him?

How many times does he have to hit you?  Once?  Three times?  Sixty? 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 02:04 PM (BeSEI)

226 [174] Frumious Bandersnatch writes: "Btw, Andrew @LoSD, welcome to the thread. I followed you relentlessly during the Zimmerman thing." Thanks! (You know the best way to say thanks, right? www.lawofselfdefense.com) :-) --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:05 PM (8gaTv)

227 224 -

You're act does get tiresome, tango.  You don't have an argument, so you play with the text. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 02:05 PM (BeSEI)

228 Now if you throw Twizzlers at me, I will shoot dead in the face.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 17, 2014 02:05 PM (DpEwG)

229 [177] The Jackhole writes: "I also followed you during the Zimmerman trial. Great coverage. Thanks" It was a labor of love, truly. Hope that showed through. :-) --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:06 PM (8gaTv)

230 Now if you throw Twizzlers at me, I will YOU shoot dead in the face.

Fixed.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 17, 2014 02:06 PM (DpEwG)

231 So the guy who feels his life is being threatened by the guy who just threatened his life, can't defend himself until the guy doing the threatening has actually, you know, attacked him? There's an ocean of difference between saying, while seated, "I'm going to throttle you." and getting up with your hands extended. "But your Honor, I thought he was one of those quick-draw hand throttling artists" is not a good argument.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 17, 2014 02:06 PM (P7Wsr)

232 For all we know, the popcorn carton was semi-automatic. Maybe even a Redenbacher 47 with butter splatter capability and sodium modifications.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 17, 2014 02:06 PM (ZshNr)

233 You're act does get tiresome, tango. You don't have an argument, so you play with the text.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 06:05 PM (BeSEI)

Your ignorance of shoot/don't shoot is tiresome and trumps any of my textual manipulations.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 02:07 PM (x3YFz)

234 Nood

Posted by: rickb223 at January 17, 2014 02:08 PM (lUXJH)

235 BurtTC,

I honestly, without sarcasm, really hope you don't carry.  I really really do.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 02:09 PM (x3YFz)

236 There's an ocean of difference between saying, while seated, "I'm going to throttle you." and getting up with your hands extended. "But your Honor, I thought he was one of those quick-draw hand throttling artists" is not a good argument. Posted by: bonhomme at January 17, 2014 06:06 PM (P7Wsr) The guy did stand up and turn around. He was shot in the chest, remember. The wife was also standing.

Posted by: Rumpologist at January 17, 2014 02:09 PM (Qev5V)

237 Every time I glanced up at it.Jeb was on & questions of... Christie's replacement.

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at January 17, 2014 02:10 PM (itCai)

238 [188] Frumious Bandersnatch wrote: "(1) Don't be in a place or position where you are likely to run into trouble, (2) if you do find yourself in trouble and can run away, run away." My Dad always told me: Don't go to stupid places, don't hang out with stupid people, don't do stupid things." Took me until about 40 to get it, but now it's a key message in all my Law of Self Defense Seminars. People often respond, "Well, duh, of course." But the large majority of self-defense cases I come across that involve an otherwise law-abiding person claiming SD justification for killing another person--he broke one of those three rules. A LARGE majority. People have bad days, we all do. The consequences for having a bad day can be severe if you carry a handgun around with you. Therefore the standard of conduct needs to be higher than for someone who doesn't carry. Just ask poor Curtis Reeves (and the wife of Chad Oulson). --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:10 PM (8gaTv)

239

No matter what happened, I think the shooter is in a world of shit.

Posted by: Soona at January 17, 2014 02:11 PM (OP7uy)

240 233 -

I was actually speaking hypothetically,  because tango tells me I can't use deadly force on someone who is "just" threatening me, he has to actually start using deadly force on  me before I can defend myself.

But sure, in  this situation, as I was told up-thread, the guy who got shot was shot in the chest, while his wife had her hand on his chest.  So he obviously wasn't just sitting there.  He was facing the man with the gun, and had managed to throw SOMETHING  at him, whether it was popcorn or something else. 

So I'm thinking there was some amount, above and beyond just  a  verbal threat.  Enough to justify shooting?  I don't know.  Maybe not.  But maybe. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 02:11 PM (BeSEI)

241 My Dad always told me: Don't go to stupid places, don't hang out with stupid people, don't do stupid things."



--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

In the military, we have a similar saying:  "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 02:13 PM (x3YFz)

242 235 -

You have no idea what I  do  and don't know, genius.

And yes, I do have a concealed carry license. 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 02:13 PM (BeSEI)

243 [199] GnuBreed writes: "Andrew, the cop's lawyer today suggested that a different, 'unknown' dark object was thrown at the cop, justifying his using force. Daily Mail has the claim. The investigating cops ain't buying it though." Were I defense, I'd be arguing the same thing. Need to try to come up with SOME reasonable basis for a fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm. But purely speculative fears don't count, and in the absence of this mystery "object" actually being in evidence . . . well, I'd be feeling in a pretty strong position if I were the State. And you probably know how I feel about some of those State prosecutors in Florida (though I don't know much about the ones in Tampa). --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:13 PM (8gaTv)

244 [203] torquewrench: "By the way, for those who don't realize it, Andrew @LoSD has actually written a book on this difficult but extremely important subject." This IS how I "pimp" my book! I come share the knowledge. :-) I figure if people like what they see, they'll look me up. But thanks for the plug, appreciated, truly. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:15 PM (8gaTv)

245

My Dad always told me: Don't go to stupid places, don't hang out with stupid people, don't do stupid things."

 

 

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

 

 

As far as the stupid people are concerned, they've invaded everywhere.   Can't swing a dead cat without hitting one.  But the "don't do stupid things" is a good one.  Always remember that there's consequences to your actions. 

Posted by: Soona at January 17, 2014 02:16 PM (OP7uy)

246 [204] tangonine: "There's NOTHING that can "be said" that would justify a deadly force response. " Strictly speaking, true, but it gets more gray if defender starts describing conduct consistent with carrying out the threat--e.g., reaching under a jacket. Speech combined with such conduct will get you to home base. --Andrew @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:18 PM (8gaTv)

247 [211] Dack Thrombosis writes: "*bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, click, click, click...*" Ah, a wheel gun man. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:19 PM (8gaTv)

248 244 235 -

You have no idea what I do and don't know, genius.

And yes, I do have a concealed carry license.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2014 06:13 PM (BeSEI)

well, that's unfortunate.

I have a bit of an idea of what you don't know by what you've posted today, so at least that much is clear.  Evidently you think it's ok to shoot someone who says they're going to kill you, based solely on that. 

Which will land your ass squarely in prison.

I'm no "expert"  (heh) but come from a military/LE family with decades of experience, so I've seen this movie.

Unless there is a direct threat (and that threat needs to be quantifiable in court... "I'll kill you!"  ain't it) to your life or another's life, you don't pull.  Period.

If a guy approaches you with fists up?  Don't pull.  Just fight!  I'd rather get my ass kicked once than spend 25 years in a federal penitentiary for misusing deadly force.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 02:21 PM (x3YFz)

249 [213] BurtTC: "Really? Not even, "I'm going to come over there and kill you with my bare hands?" Or is it necessary for the person who is threatening you to announce they are carrying a deadly weapon before you can take out your weapon and use it?" You don't get it. None of those "words" can hurt you. You can't use deadly force against someone unless you're facing a deadly force threat. Words are not deadly. Sticks and stones, yes? When those kinds of words are combined with conduct from which an intent to carry them out can be reasonably inferred--reaching under a jacket, as if for a weapon--then the whole game changes. And, likely, gets loud. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:22 PM (8gaTv)

250 [214] Rumpologist writes: "But god forbid that we allow his lawyer to investigate a defense." Who is denying his lawyer that opportunity? --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:23 PM (8gaTv)

251 [227] BurtTC writes: "I see. So the guy who feels his life is being threatened by the guy who just threatened his life, can't defend himself until the guy doing the threatening has actually, you know, attacked him? How many times does he have to hit you? Once? Three times? Sixty?" I spend a lot of my time clarifying the law of self-defense for folks who genuinely want to understand it better. I like doing that, and I do a ton of that for free. It makes me feel good. But if you're just going to be a dick, f'off. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:25 PM (8gaTv)

252 252 [214] Rumpologist writes: "But god forbid that we allow his lawyer to investigate a defense." Who is denying his lawyer that opportunity? --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 06:23 PM (8gaTv) The people who are saying that based on nothing more than what they heard from the tabloids that he is guilty and nothing else matters, that's who.

Posted by: Rumpologist at January 17, 2014 02:26 PM (Qev5V)

253 Strictly speaking, true, but it gets more gray if defender starts describing conduct consistent with carrying out the threat--e.g., reaching under a jacket. Speech combined with such conduct will get you to home base.

--Andrew @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 06:18 PM (8gaTv)

 

 

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

 

 

And another good piece of advice.  Please try to have  a conflict like this in front of as many witnesses as possible.   Because if not.........

Posted by: Soona at January 17, 2014 02:27 PM (OP7uy)

254 [242] BurtTC writes: "I was actually speaking hypothetically, because tango tells me I can't use deadly force on someone who is "just" threatening me, he has to actually start using deadly force on me before I can defend myself." There's not a person in this thread who told you that, you jackass. Sheesh, if you stopped looking at your lower colon, you could learn something. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:27 PM (8gaTv)

255
The people who are saying that based on nothing more than what they heard from the tabloids that he is guilty and nothing else matters, that's who.

Posted by: Rumpologist at January 17, 2014 06:26 PM (Qev5V)

And these "people who are saying..." have denied his lawyer opportunities at defense... how, again?

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 02:28 PM (x3YFz)

256 [244] BurtTC writes: "And yes, I do have a concealed carry license." Was it hard to draw? --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:28 PM (8gaTv)

257 There's not a person in this thread who told you that, you jackass. Sheesh, if you stopped looking at your lower colon, you could learn something. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 06:27 PM (8gaTv) That's uncalled for.

Posted by: Rumpologist at January 17, 2014 02:29 PM (Qev5V)

258 [250] tangonine writes: "If a guy approaches you with fists up? Don't pull. Just fight! I'd rather get my ass kicked once than spend 25 years in a federal penitentiary for misusing deadly force." Situations like that is why God invented capsaicin. And the propellant for it. :-) Good God, last thing in the world I ever want to do is touch one of these creeps, even with accelerated knuckles. There's a reason cops carry those blue gloves. Thugs are f'ing disgusting. Of course, if you MUST--well then, get some body behind it, strong wrist, a little snap, if you know how. :-) (That last not for you, tangonine, I figure you know how.) --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:32 PM (8gaTv)

259 Does this podcast have any swooning over Michelle Obama's 50th birthday?

I'm celebrating with a bag of Jack Link's jerked beef.

Posted by: Fritz at January 17, 2014 02:32 PM (UzPAd)

260 That's uncalled for.

Posted by: Rumpologist at January 17, 2014 06:29 PM (Qev5V)

from the guy who calls himself "Rumpologist"

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 02:32 PM (x3YFz)

261 [254] Rumpologist writes: "The people who are saying that based on nothing more than what they heard from the tabloids that he is guilty and nothing else matters, that's who." Exactly HOW does that impede Reeves' legal counsel from providing him with a vigorous defense? Are those same people invading the law office and abducting his lawyers? --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:34 PM (8gaTv)

262 Everyone should be shot by everyone else.  There.

Posted by: Null at January 17, 2014 02:34 PM (DuH+r)

263 [259] Rumpologist writes: "That's uncalled for. " Sorry, Dad. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:36 PM (8gaTv)

264
   Yes.  Everyone should be shot by us old men.

    Repeatedly.

Posted by: irongrampa at January 17, 2014 02:37 PM (SAMxH)

265 Whew, looks like I finally caught up to the end of the thread. :-) Thanks folks, been fun. Tip waitresses, try veal, not around all week but usually peek in once a day or so. :-) --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:37 PM (8gaTv)

266 I'm done, Andrew. I'm not going to play word games with you. This isn't twitter with your one liners. A few people believed not all the facts are in and for that were subjected to personal insults. Now, you are joining in. Have at it. I don't give a shit.

Posted by: Rumpologist at January 17, 2014 02:39 PM (Qev5V)

267 [268] Rumpologist writes: ". . . ." OK. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:42 PM (8gaTv)

268 BurtTC,

A bit of jousting is good.  I have to think you're a good guy.  I got a little frisky in my comments above, and we may differ on specifics, but I think we're in the same camp.  I don't know you, you don't know me.

But, I'll always give a fellow Moron the benefit of the doubt.

Wisdom is a funny little critter.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 02:43 PM (x3YFz)

269 personal insults. Now, you are joining in. Have at it. I don't give a shit.

Posted by: Rumpologist at January 17, 2014 06:39 PM (Qev5V)

You have GOT to man up a bit.  Sweet, low-crawling Jesus!  Want a tissue?

This is AoSHQ.  Wear a cup.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 02:45 PM (x3YFz)

270 The Sheriff in this theater case isn't buying SYG or self-defense. I carry. A lot. In a case like this, I'm moving seats. According to the Sheriff the movie theater was sparsely populated at the time. If you carry (and you are smart) you go out of your way to avoid confrontation. DAs and juries will look for reasons to put you away. Don't give them the opportunity. Save the gun for when you REALLY need it.

Posted by: AZ Hi Desert (All my Hate cannot be found) at January 17, 2014 02:52 PM (ial2b)

271 I don't even know what the insult was. Did I call him a dick? Really don't recall, but happy to apologize if I did. But if it was simply that he didn't like his "personally favored way the law should be" being punctured by how the law actually IS? Yeah, not apologizing for THAT. Pretending the law of self-defense is other than it actually is, well that's just a way to send well-intentioned people to jail for a long, long time. My life's work is to keep exactly those people OUT of jail. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 02:54 PM (8gaTv)

272 [272] AZ High Desert writes: "The Sheriff in this theater case isn't buying SYG or self-defense. I carry. A lot. In a case like this, I'm moving seats. According to the Sheriff the movie theater was sparsely populated at the time. If you carry (and you are smart) you go out of your way to avoid confrontation. DAs and juries will look for reasons to put you away. Don't give them the opportunity. Save the gun for when you REALLY need it." This. --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at January 17, 2014 03:00 PM (8gaTv)

273
I carry. A lot. In a case like this, I'm moving seats. According to the Sheriff the movie theater was sparsely populated at the time. If you carry (and you are smart) you go out of your way to avoid confrontation. DAs and juries will look for reasons to put you away. Don't give them the opportunity. Save the gun for when you REALLY need it.

Posted by: AZ Hi Desert (All my Hate cannot be found) at January 17, 2014 06:52 PM (ial2b)

I pretty much keep saying that, but there's folks around here looking for a reason to pull.

Try to point out to them that that particular approach isn't smart and they get all pissy.

Ain't my job to fix them.  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 03:05 PM (x3YFz)

274 I carry also, a lot.  Sometimes I leave the gun at home.

I do a checklist kit inventory before I pull out of the garage:

kinfe - check
medkit - check
firearms -check

Last, and most importantly:

brain - check.

Your brian is the most valuable piece of kit you have.  I've left FOB Tango more than once light a firearm.  I don't go back to get it.  Still have my brain.

Run your OODA loop based on the kit you have, and training and experience take care of the rest.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 03:15 PM (x3YFz)

275 Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 07:15 PM (x3YFz) Your brain is your first line of defense. Forget to pack that and you are hosed.

Posted by: AZ Hi Desert (All my Hate cannot be found) at January 17, 2014 03:18 PM (ial2b)

276 Your brain is your first line of defense. Forget to pack that and you are hosed.

Posted by: AZ Hi Desert (All my Hate cannot be found) at January 17, 2014 07:18 PM (ial2b)

Not to mention it's really crappy when you leave it in the freezer.

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 03:19 PM (x3YFz)

277 Brain freeze does suck.

Posted by: AZ Hi Desert (All my Hate cannot be found) at January 17, 2014 03:21 PM (ial2b)

278 279 Brain freeze does suck.

Posted by: AZ Hi Desert (All my Hate cannot be found) at January 17, 2014 07:21 PM (ial2b)

Dammit, now I want a slushie!

Posted by: tangonine at January 17, 2014 03:23 PM (x3YFz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
227kb generated in CPU 0.2491, elapsed 0.3929 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3426 seconds, 406 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 13469
  • Files: 201
  • Bytes: 342.5M
  • CPU Time: 15:36
  • Queries: 387884

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5953260

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0