A.M. Links: Special Prosecutor Appointed in Trayvon Martin Case, Robert Bales to Be Charged With 17 Counts of Murder, The NYPD Spied and/or Spies on Everybody

|

  • Florida Gov. Rick Scott has appointed a special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case

  • Robert Bales to be charged with 17 murders
  • EU freezes the bank accounts of Syrian's Asma al-Assad, wife of Bashir.
  • The Pope visits Cuba and Mexico in order to restore Catholic influence (and push back against Protestants and urbanists).
  • The NYPD spied and/or spies on everybody, basically.  
  • Tyler Clementi's lover wants Dharun Ravi behind bars

Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates. 

New at Reason.tv: "Teachers Union and NAACP Sue NY Charter School: An Update on Bob Bowdon's Choice Media TV"

NEXT: Glenn Reynolds, Robert Zubrin Talk "Merchants of Despair" and Environmentalism's Real Agenda

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “REPORT: Nearly 1,000 Pakistani women ‘killed for honor’ last year.”

    http://english.alarabiya.net/a…..02385.html

    Suck me dry, Pakistani shit eaters.

    1. Fucking animals.

      1. A country full of littledicks.

        Oh, and just when I thought this couldn’t be more disturbing, they had to tell us this: “Some victims were raped or gang raped before being killed, the Commission said. Most of the women were killed by their brothers and husbands.”

        1. I hate to advocate killing. But if you do something like that, you have forfeited the right to be considered a human being.

          1. “I hate to advocate killing.”

            I got over that decades ago when I realized that everything that looks like a person isnt what it appears to be.

            1. Either that or people aren’t as good as you thought they were.

            2. THEY LIVE!

              1. Put the glasses on! Put ’em on!

                1. First you must engage in a 15 minute fight scene involving a dumpster.

                  1. While Jimmy and Timmy’s version is hilarious, I think the Roddy Piper David Kieth original is just too awesome to not be the best fight scene ever filed for a wide-release movie.

                    1. I think it dethroned The Quiet Man for the longest movie fight scene.

                      I love, love good Carpenter. I hope he can give us a couple more fun movies before he hangs it up for good.

        2. Four Out of Five People Love It!

          1. Well, the fifth gets killed for dishonoring her family, so her opinion doesn’t matter.

    2. I bet Sandra Fluke thinks they are the lucky ones – no hunting around for affordable birth control.

      1. The Middle East needs a freedom-fighter like Larry Flynt to jolt them into modernity. Of course, Flynt barely survived here among conservative attempts on his life and freedom.

        1. At least let them ease into modernity with their own version of Hugh Hefner first!

        2. Larry Flyn was a child molester who sexually abused his daughter. He might actually be one guy who is worse than Soros, who spent his youth turning in other Jews to the Nazis.

          1. You’re Jerry Falwell to my Larry Flynt. Perfect metaphors for each, no doubt.

          2. His daughter would be more credible if she claimed she was raped by the Duke lacrosse team.

            1. Maybe. But a coke fiend pornographer doesn’t exactly have a lot of credibility either. Flynn is and was a dirtbag. Just because he had good enemies doesn’t make him a good guy.

              1. Why would you say something like that about Flynn?

                1. Sorry, I thought this was the buggery thread.

                  1. One time I had buggery with Larry Flynn and the entire CPUSA.

                    1. I think Shrike needs his own twitter feed.

                  2. shrike hates religion so much, he’d side with a scumbag like Flynt just out of spite.

                    1. I don’t hate religion but I really love tweaking the noses of those that do.

                    2. So do I Restoras. It is funny. I don’t even belong to a church. I drive my Catholic wife and bible reading friends crazy I am such a heretic non conformist about such things. But to crazies like shrike I am a bible thumping evangelical zombie.

                    3. I’ve been an atheist for oh, ~30 years now, but I just don’t get excited about it.

                      I honestly don’t care what religion someone practices, or what they believe, as long as they don’t try to force it on me. That’s when I go into Militant-Asshole-Atheist mode.

                    4. Oh, I’m all for tweaking noses, too, but it gets pretty damn tiresome when shrike can’t even find a good opening for hating religion – he just reflexively shits on the entire concept of religion.

                    5. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he had a particularly bad experience.

                    6. Unless he was molested by a priest, or kidnapped by a cult, I don’t give shrike any benefit of any doubt.

                    7. that is funny! so if you had a bad sexual experience, you make fun of people that enjoy sex?

                    8. No way are you cool enough to be a zombie, John. Just sayin’

                    9. Cool is the last thing I would ever want to be.

          3. Psst. John. Your Neocon is showing.

    3. Fuck you. Respect my diverse culture.

      1. Mohammedfags

    4. The more I learn about Pakistani and Afghani “culture”, the more I think nuke the site from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.

      1. ‘culture’ seems an overstatement but our flaw lies in the misguided belief that we can move 14th century tribes into the 21st century. Not gonna happen. We did what we could do. Get the hell out of there.

        1. You might be able to do it, but it will take 7 centuries.

        2. They’re about three millenia from the 14th century.

    5. As General Napier famously stated when confronted with the practice of burning widows on their husband’s funeral pyres:

      “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

      See, that’s true multiculturalism. You do your thing, barbarians, and we will do ours.

      I believe he was also correct in how to deal with insurgencies and rebellions:

      “The best way to quiet a country is a good thrashing, followed by great kindness afterwards. Even the wildest chaps are thus tamed.”

      While we certainly do the latter, certainly events have proven the necessity of doing at least some of the former.

      1. In your own country, General.

        1. Well, multiculturalism means that adherence to your culture is permitted regardless of where you live, right?

          1. ^This. But only if the culture has been victimized by racism, imperialism or patriarchy.

            1. shit, why make it conditional…
              might makes right, eh?

              1. Multiculturalims depends on moral relativism. So might doesn’t make right, because there is no right.

          2. Well, multiculturalism means that adherence to your culture is permitted regardless of where you live, right?

            No, not really….

            But whatever, I’m not going to the barricades for Pakistani ‘culture’. I still have a grudge about the destruction of Nalanda University and Taxila University.

    6. And this shit is why I loathe fucking feminists. They sit over here on their fat asses with their first world problems, bitching and moaning about bullshit like “othering” and “microaggressions”, while women in the world actually suffer. You want to be truly brave and stand up for the rights of women? Protest this stuff. Do your stupid slut walk down the streets of Kabul or Riyadh…or you can STFU and get TF away from me.

  2. John and MNG busted…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..–gay.html

    1. You say that like it is a bad thing. And you are the one who likes boyish women not me.

      1. Chubby chaser

    2. I saw that on Yahoo News a couple days ago. They were charged, in part, with “buggery.” I don’t think it’s funny at all that these guys were charged with a crime or forcibly deprived of their liberty. But come on – “buggery” as an actual legal term? I gotta admit, I lol’d.

      1. What is the story behind that? Did Winston engage in a little English school boy fun back in the day?

        1. For your reading pleasure, the Buggery Act of 1533:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act_1533

          1. Henry later used the law to execute monks and nuns (thanks to information his spies had gathered) and take their monastery lands ? the same tactics had been used 200 years before by Philip IV of France against the Knights Templar.

            Priests and monks I get, but nuns? Really? Exactly how long has the strap-on been around?

            1. It was all a lie. Henry just wanted to steal the property. Henry was a real monster. It really gets whitewashed.

            2. Priests and monks I get, but nuns? Really? Exactly how long has the strap-on been around?

              And one shudders to think of what such a device might have looked like in the 16th century. I’m picturing unfinished wood, rusty iron, creaking hinges, and rivets. Lots and lots of rivets.

              1. Ivory or bone probably. Nobody likes splinters.

            3. I believe there have been polished stone and jade strap-ons since before Christ.

              1. I’ve seen (in a museum, deviants) a polished jade funereal butt plug. Chinese culture is kind of wacky sometimes.


            4. World’s Oldest Dildo

              I can only imagine strap-on technology followed shortly.

              If only there were an expert on prehistoric culture on these boards…

            5. Got an active gay nun for an aunt. You don’t think they actually listen to the pope outside the walls of the Vatican do you?

          2. for some reason they left out bugs…

    3. Dominica, where sex between two men is illegal

      Why would a gay cruise go to a country where mam on man poo-stabbing is illegal?

      1. What’s the point of being crazy gay if you can’t rub it in the faces of the people who hate teh gayz?

        1. Rub it in the feces of people who hate teh gayz?

      2. I don’t get it either, Loki. No way I’d vacation in one of those places, both out of principle and practicality.

        I see this as more of a typical third-world tourist shakedown, which happens all the time.

        1. No way I’d vacation in one of those places, both out of principle and practicality.

          Principle, I can understand. But practicality? All they had to do was not get spotted, which should be easy enough. But no, they just had to have their buggery on an open balcony, in full view of the docks.

          While I don’t think their behavior is criminal, I do believe that buggery, like any form of sex, should be done in private.

          Sorry, above-decks ass poundery in some third-world hellhole is asking for trouble.

    4. She said “cocktails”, heh heh …

  3. No POTUS Love For Pirates, Ninjas, Zombies Or Robots

    BTW, Hunger Games was is a teen’s political awakening

  4. Ah… the good ‘ol days…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..n-era.html

    1. Those are great. So many spanking and kneeling scenes. Was there anyone in the 1950s not into D/S?

    2. And surely as realistic as ads today!

  5. http://blogs.the-american-inte…..ng-market/

    Interesting comment on the link between the housing bubble and the higher ed bubble. I you go to the nicer neighborhoods in virtually any city, you will find the houses owned almost entirely by baby boomers near the same age. All of those people are going to die or move to retirement homes at nearly the same time. When that happens, there won’t be enough Gen X and millennials to buy those houses at their currently inflated prices. The housing bubble has barely begun to deflate.

  6. Dial a loser!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ed-up.html

    1. I’ve only heard of one of those people, and that’s Tila Tequila. Are people really that desperate to connect to psuedo-celebs?

      1. Who are any of those people?

        1. Tila had one of those Bachelor-esque shows on VH1 where she vetted potential mates. The catch: she’s bi, so there were guys AND girls competing for her affection.

          1. Wow! I bet the christian Talibans didn’t like that one bit! The Middle East needs a Tila Tequila!

            1. In certain parts of the Middle East, Tila Tequila would be stoned to death.

              At least, in America, that shit doesn’t happen.

              1. I tried once but all I ended up doing was passing out watching The Wall on a repeating loop.

            2. “The Middle East needs a Tila Tequila!”

              Thank you, but no. We have plenty of STD’s here already.

      2. Who wouldn’t want to talk to that degenerate infant, Michael Lohan?

    2. I think Principal Belding from Bayside High (aka Richard Haskins) has/had a service to record his voice as your voicemail message. One of these days…

    3. Who really needs to pay Dina Lohan $25 a minute to have her tell them how to fuck up their kids?

  7. Youth is wasted on the young (NSFW)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..akers.html

    1. One stinkin’ photo has to ruin it for everyone.

    2. My initial thought was – that is some serious amount of yummy on that balcony – but on further thought I imagine five minutes after being there and getting a feel for their personalities I would jump screaming from that balcony.

      1. I think I could put up with it for more than five minutes. Especially if some of them were intoxicated enough to find me attractive (falling down drunk).

        1. Actually, I say that because of personal experience. At 30 I went back to school to get a degree in what was my minor the first time around. Upon my arrival on campus and seeing all the fantastically beautiful young women ( and being freshly divorced) I thought I had died and gone to heaven. I soon found out that it was, in fact, hell.

          1. so true, Suth…I went back for a Master’s later in life and found the new generation of coeds had taken vapid to an Olympian level. God bless MILFs..

            1. Yes sir, god bless milfs. Repeatedly.

        2. At that age I wouldn’t have been there getting a feel for their personalities. I would have been there making use of the healthy young women who were willing to help raise the IQ of the next generation.

          1. Just so. Its not their personalities you should be feeling.

  8. The Martin circus that played last night can’t help justice in the slightest. Especially with Al Sharpton appearing in the center ring.

    1. why do they think its wise to uncap ‘the Sharpie’?

      1. If you think its dangerous for a black man to walk around a gated community with his hoodie up, try getting between Al and a camera.

  9. Jos Truit, or, a tranny’s take on the war on women:

    …I’m finding much of the feminist response hurtful in its conflation of “women” and “people who can make babies.”

    There are plenty of women who don’t have what you call a uterus or vagina (though they might use those terms). There are plenty of women who can’t get pregnant or deliver a baby, for tons of reasons. Including cisgender women, intersex women, and transgender women. Being able to make a baby and being a woman are not the same thing.

    There are also plenty of people who are not women and who do have what you call a uterus or vagina. There are plenty of people who are not women who can get pregnant and give birth.

    Not his best work, but meh. Still pretty stupid.

    1. The victimhood card game these people play is beyond words. I can’t find it, but I remember reading a piece a few years ago by a white feminist talking about how sad she was after the black feminists in her group pointed out that they were more authentic than the white women in the group, them being black and all. You couldn’t make this shit up.

      1. You can’t share victimhood and expect to be rewarded with free stuff.

      2. I unwittingly took a college class on Women In Politics which was pretty heavy on 60s and 70s radical feminism. This was an actual topic of much concern and discussion in feminist circles that the victimhood of racism would trump the victimhood of feminism, so they were very leery of admitting black members. They felt balck members might try to push the organizations in a different direction than the (overwhelmingly white) feminists wanted to go.

        1. Unwittingly? Bull. Crap. Your motive was either 1) an easy A, or 2) to get laid by posing as a sensitive, non-patriarchal “man”.

          1. Trying to schmooze it up with bulldog-ugly women who hate you? Sounds like self-defeating behavior to me!

            1. That is only half the class. The other half are probably bi-curious and/or also on the hunt for an easy A.

              1. Then you, sir, might just be a mad genius!

          2. No, I had signed up for a class on Constitutional Interpretation. The department pulled a bait and switch on me. I needed the class, and couldn’t find a different course for the requirement, so I just sucked it up and took the WiP course.

            It did expose me to the absolutely worst thing I had to read in college, though. An insane diatribe about how women control teh means of production (the uterus) for society and all the insane Marxism that followed from that fact. The instructor actually apologized for making us read it and we weren’t tested on it.

            1. Constitutional Interpretation?!?!? Was there dance involved?

              1. lots of people in tights running around doing things while one person with a big ‘G’ on their shirt stands there doing nothing…

        2. Hello-oh. As night follows day.

        3. I unwittingly took a college class on Women In Politics . . .

          I am so sorry. Are you alright?

          They felt balck members might try to push the organizations in a different direction than the (overwhelmingly white) feminists wanted to go.

          Slighty off-point but still in the same vein, I’ve always wondered how black women (who are almost invariably Democrats) leaned during the 2008 Democratic primaries – Clinton or Obama? The election of either one would’ve been a (not “an”) historic event, so I wonder which allegiance was stronger: to race or to gender?

            1. Race.

              I kinda figure that too.

          1. the stronger allegiance is always to race. Black men got the right to vote long before women did.

        4. That tension goes all the way back to the suffragettes. Laura Clay is almost unheard of, despite being just as important to the movement as Susan B. Anthony. But she got disappeared from the polite history because she said that it was wrong that white women still didn’t have the vote when black men did.

        5. I unwittingly took a college class on Women In Politics

          Did you also accidentally vote for Buchanan?

        6. This was an actual topic of much concern and discussion in feminist circles that the victimhood of racism would trump the victimhood of feminism, so they were very leery of admitting black members.

          It’s one reason that the black population, on the whole, really doesn’t like gays. They’re well aware that gays > blacks on the victimhood social ladder, especially right now with all the anti-bullying hysteria in general going on.

    2. She’s not just mad; she cissed

      1. Why do you hate the LGBTC community?

        1. Because of my heteronormative worldview

          1. PATRIARCH!!!!!

    3. Mr. Garrison: The key difference between men and women is that women can have babies. If you can’t have babies, then you’re a man.
      Thompson: Woah, wait, hang on a second. My wife had ovarian cancer, so she can’t have babies.
      Mr. Garrison: Well then get an AIDS test Thompson, ‘cus your wife’s a dude. Faggot!

      1. God: Little boys don’t get periods. Your friends have a

      2. Cartman: My mom says if you want to become a lesbian, you have to lick carpet

    4. He/she is catching on that victimhood is a zero sum game, that elevating one group to extra-special victimy status inevitably moves others down the ladder.

    5. There are plenty of women who don’t have what you call a uterus or vagina
      —————–
      of course, there are plenty of such women but, for practical purposes, we just call them emasculated men who actually bought into the feminist bullshit.

    6. *facepalm*

      Shorter version: Don’t forget the trannies! We’re victims of TEH PATRIARCHY too! We also want MOAR FREE STUFFZ!!!!!11!!!!11!

    7. There are plenty of women who don’t have what you call a uterus or vagina (though they might use those terms). [ed: what exactly would we call them, fetus-nurturing vessels and baby exit-paths?] There are plenty of women who can’t get pregnant or deliver a baby, for tons of reasons. Including cisgender women, intersex women, and transgender women. Being able to make a baby and being a woman are not the same thing.

      Actually, basic biology (you know, science) says that’s exactly what being a woman entails.

      It’s stunning how broken the philosophy of victimology has made this society.

  10. “We want an arrest, we want a conviction and we want him sentenced for the murder of my son,” Martin’s father, Tracy,

    Comin’ right up, Sir. That’ll be just a minute.

    1. he’ll get a fair trial before we hang him!

  11. NPR guy covering Trayvon Martin case said that the Florida stand-your-ground statute permits the use of deadly force “to prevent bodily harm.”

    He left off the important qualifiers “imminent” and “great” — you can use deadly force to prevent “imminent death or great bodily harm.”

    1. I don’t see anything wrong with the law so far. Seems to me that a guy probably killed someone else without sufficient justification and will serve time for it. Maybe not, maybe there are other facts in play, but it takes some political ax-grinding to make this about the law itself.

      1. What’s taken me aback by the Martin killing is that it JUST happened. From all the outrage and rending of garments I’d thought Zimmerman was acquitted due to the SYG law in Florida. It read the reporting on it for about three days, my anger was building at the miscarriage of justice, until I noticed that nothing was about Zimmerman’s court days or jury.

        The police fucked up and didn’t treat the crime scene the way they needed to, and, apparently, don’t understand their own state’s self-defense law.

        1. From all the outrage and rending of garments I’d thought Zimmerman was acquitted due to the SYG law in Florida.

          Well, he was effectively “acquitted” by the police when they announced almost immediately after the shooting that they wouldn’t charge him with anything and stopped their investigation.

          1. That statement was premature, to be sure, but more evidence came in after they said it. All things being equal, I don’t know that it’s safe to assume they were just letting the guy walk, regardless of the evidence.

          2. let’s throw in a wild card – if you have seen Z’s mug shot, he is NOT a garden variety white guy. He fits the definition of Hispanic, at least by the Soledad O’Brien methodology. His mom is a Latina. So Hispanic guy sees black kid and assumes “criminal”. But no one wants to go there.

            1. Everyone knows it was his white half that made him racist. Only whites are capable of hate, afterall.

              1. It also requires people to forget than more than half of the worlds Hispanic population, are white.

              2. No, it’s just that after thousands of years of practice, we’re better at it. Soft bigotry of low expectations and all. We won’t call out minorities for hate until they can compete with us crackers on a level playing field.

                1. They (unfortunately) have CNN on in our lunch room and amid all the endless yammering about the Martin case was a story of an old black man in FLA who shot a white man and is now using the statute as a defense.

                  The description of the events in this case made no fucking sense, so who knows if it’s legit or not. But taking your .38 with you to chase off skateboarding kids seems a bit much.

            2. Combining “White” and “Hispanic” ruins the false conventional wisdom, that “Hispanic” is a race.

              1. no, Hispanic is not a race but it IS a protected class. Yet, it remains curiously absent from this story. Why?

                1. Because Zimmerman isn’t the right kind of Hispanic.

          3. effectively “acquitted”

            Uh, no. Just because he wasn’t immediately charged, doesn’t mean that he won’t be in the future.

            But your fondness for summary “justice” is duly noted. Thanks for stopping by, don’t let the door hit you where the dog done bit ya.

      2. I think that the law may need some adjustment or better clarification, but I agree with you overall.

        I do believe there are other facts and a whole lot of supposition going on here. The local authorities should have put this before a grand jury as quickly as they could get the evidence together.

      3. The usual suspects are taking advantage of the racial angle to attack self-defense laws.

        Sadly, this law is, I think, flawed, for reasons discussed ad nauseum regarding the green light it gives to an aggressor to grease their victim if the aggressor has the misfortune to get punched in the nose.

        1. I disagree with you about that. You still have to be in danger of great bodily harm. Just because I am the “aggressor” doesn’t necessarily give you the right to threaten me with death. Suppose you and I get into an argument. And I push you. I am definitely the aggressor at that point. But then you pull a gun and tell me you are going to kill me. You have so escalated the confrontation, I think you have nullified the fact that I was the aggressor. And I should have a right to defend myself there.

          1. John,
            He didn’t have a gun, he had a bag of candy.

            What if you push me and we get into a fight, and I start giving you a beatdown. At what point does it become an “imminant threat of great bodily harm” to you?

            Very subjective and leaves lots of room to do what Zimmerman did.

            1. I wasn’t talking about this case. i was talking about the law as written. I don’t think it is nearly as bad as RC does.

              In your example, at some point, you can put me in great danger. Where is very fact specific. But yes, at some point I could be in danger and would have a right to respond with deadly force even if I was the one who started the fight. I didn’t start a deadly confrontation. You made it deadly. And that I think vitiates my status as the initial aggressor.

            2. As near as I can tell based on news reports all Zimmerman got was punched in the face and knocked down. If Martin didn’t jump on top of him like a cage fighter and start whaling away or choking him out then there was no “imminant threat of great bodily harm”, IMO. Hell, I’ve been punched in the face before, it’s not a big deal. I think Zimmerman panicked and reached for his 9mm of courage.

              Basically this is a case of someone who really didn’t know what he was doing trying to play cop, or Rambo or something.

              1. It sounds like Zimmerman exceeded whatever rights he had under SYG or self-defense in general to me, too. And he’s probably going to get tried for it.

            3. The SYG law removes the duty to retreat unless you provoke the use of force against you. So you would still have to argue that you reasonably believed your life was in danger and that you exhausted all reasonable means of escape. That’s how it works in places without the SYG law.

              R C Dean is wrong that the law prevents or interferes with the function of common law, imo.

              As to your specific question: at the point that the other person loses the will to fight and you continue to beat them, you begin risking lethal force being used against you deemed justified by prosecutors and jurors.

              Giving people beatdowns carries great risk, as it should.

              1. Yup. If Martin was the person who turned the situation into a physical altercation, then Zimmerman was likely within his rights. I think the main determinant should be based on the actions Martin took after he punched Zimmerman. If he threw the punch, then attempted to leave, then Zimmerman was wrong. If Martin threw the punch, then continued to approach Zimmerman, than that should be enough for a person to presume a reasonable fear of bodily harm.

        2. Even without this law, it’s still part of the analysis. You just don’t get extra oomph that the law provides.

          What strikes me as unusually weird is this idea that the cops not immediately arresting the guy equals exonerating him. They don’t decide who to prosecute, for one, and the accumulation of additional evidence, even without the outcry, likely would have resulted in a criminal action. Again, unless we’re lacking some key facts.

          1. I think we are definitely lacking a lot of key facts. That is where the cops and the DA really failed here. I don’t know that the guy should be prosecuted. They may have made the right call. But they owe the community a complete explanation of why they decided what they did. Instead, they pulled the typical cop DA “fuck you that is why” don’t explain anything or release any information response. And people assumed the worst.

        3. for reasons discussed ad nauseum

          I’m ashamed of you.

        4. I think I can kind of see where someone, as the aggressor, has a right to defend themselves from getting killed. For example, I start a fight with someone I have a history with and it does not go my way. I get my ass kicked, realize I’m getting my ass kicked, and try to surrender/run away. The guy I was fighting ignores that and continues to injure me. It seems like there should be a point in this sequence where I’m not longer the aggressor and actually fearing for my life. It seems I should be able to defend myself, even with lethal force, somewhere in there.

          I don’t think it means I should be free from consquences for my choice to start the fight, but absent some evidence that I started the fight with the intent to kill the other person, I don’t think a murder charge should be in play.

          At least in my opinion.

          1. I agree with what you said 100%. However from what I’ve heard I don’t think Zimmerman was in “imminant threat of great bodily harm”. As I said above, from what I’ve read so far this Martin kid, probably believeing that he was legally defending himself, punched Zimmerman in the face, knocking him dow. At which point Zimmerman shot him. I don’t think getting punched & knocked down once is justification for shooting someone. If turns out that Zimmerman tried to back down from the fight but Martin continued then maybe he was justified (although the lack of eye witnesses would make this impossible to verify).

            I’d suggest that in the future if he wants to play self-appointed cop he should maybe learn how to fight a little and not be such a panicky little bitch that he reaches for his gun as soon things go south. Just my 2 cents.

            1. He’s obviously an amateur wannabe.

              A real cop woulda shot the kid before he threw a punch.

            2. Martin punched Zimmerman, and knocked him down, but what did he do next? If he continued to advance towards Zimmerman, it would be reasonable for Zimmerman to believe that Martin’s intent was to him bodily harm. If that’s how it went down, and assuming that Zimmerman didn’t push, or take a swing at Martin, prior to Martin throwing a punch, then Zimmerman’s actions are justified.

    2. I have yet to comment on this case – perhaps because I don’t care. If Zimmerman did something wrong, then let him take the consequences. But trying to score cheap political points about CCW or whatever is silly. Rotten analogy, but it’s like condemning cars because someone got drunk and killed someone with their Chevy Malibu.

  12. http://online.wsj.com/article/…..OfTheWeb_h

    Linda Greenhouse is still an idiot.

  13. Tyler Clementi’s lover wants Dharun Ravi behind bars

    but
    doesn’t hold any malice toward Ravi.

    Sounds like “bias intimidation”.

    1. Wasn’t the boyfriend most of the reason the kid killed himself? Maybe I am wrong but I thought there were a whole lot of other things going on in that kid’s life that drove him to suicide that had nothing to do with Ravi.

      1. I mean, also, wasn’t his boyfriend in his 40s?

        I just find it weird when any 20 something is with a 40 something. Unless I am that 40 something, of course.

        1. There is a really disgusting streak of pederasty in the male gay community. It is one of those things the media doesn’t talk about.

          1. It’s called DILF in porn, I believe.

            1. NAMBLA..worse than DILF.

          2. Spartan culture lives on?

          3. As long as it is consenting adults, why is that disgusting?

            1. A lot of times it isn’t. It is older men and teenagers.

              1. Often, it is an old guy with money supporting a young man in exchange for sex. The old man is what’s known as a chicken hawk.

            2. Because disgusting is a subjective assessment based on inborn biases and tastes. It is a label applied to something that disgusts – a visceral reaction – the speaker. Disgusting things might still be permissible, just not approved of.

              1. +1

                There is nothing in libertarianism that logically requires everyone to think old dudes banging 20 year old dudes (or even just general dude-banging) is awesome.

              2. Thank you very much.

              3. disgusting is a subjective assessment based on inborn biases and tastes.

                This is what I am saying.

                1. No, troll, it’s only part of what you’re saying. I don’t believe in exterminating all those who disgust me.

            3. It’s legal, and should be legal. Doesn’t mean it’s not disgusting.

          4. So, John, what’s your take on the whole frat-boy/cougar scene? Also disgusting?

            And don’t get me started on the “barely legal” prn which is so popular among straight guys.

            1. Yes Tonio it is all disgusting. And the way we sexualize children in this country is also disgusting.

              And the whole “barely legal” stuff is generally called out as being disgusting. But the “barely legal” scene in the gay community seems never to be mentioned.

              My point is that most gay men are not that way. And I don’t understand why the ones who are not never call out those who are.

            2. John, I agree that sexualizing children is wrong. I will absolutely call out anyone for that.

              But I don’t run into that since much I’m not into the smooth, pretty and fluffy.

            3. The former chair of psychiatry at our hospital (long gone, thankfully) insisted there was nothing wrong with sex between older men and teenage boys. Indeed, he said this was how most gay men had their first sexual experiences, and the older men were like helpful mentors.

          5. It is one of those things the media doesn’t talk about.

            Maybe they believe in personal responsibility, not tribalism.

            1. LOL. You are killing me Rhywun. The media believes in personal responsibility and not tribalism? Yeah right.

              1. That was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. But in the end I don’t believe the media or the “tribe” need to call anything out or defend themselves. A pederast is a pederast.

          6. Oh for fuck’s sake. The mystery-man is 32. If it were a 32 year old dude with an 18 year old chick, you’d all be watching it on YouPorn.

        2. I thought that according to that long New Yorker article about the case the boyfriend was only 25, but was not a student at Rutgers. I get the impression that Ravi thought he was older than that, but turns out he wasn’t that much older afterall. Or something like that.

    2. Yeah, dude just hates the guy because he’s a homophobe. Next he’ll claim that “some of his best friends are homophobes.”

    3. The guy is just happy to push this further to keep the attention off himself and however he contributed to this situation.

  14. Michael Bay is so great he doesn’t even need to listen to the titles of movies he is making: discuss.

    1. Michael Bay presents:

      EXPOLOSIANS!!!!!!!! Soming soon to a theater near you!!!!!

    1. Up next in fanfic:

      Rocky, Ivan Drago, Clubber Lang, and Apollo Creed form an unlikely team and head into the jungle to take out Kony with only their fists.

      1. They’ve got the EYE!

      2. Rocky, Ivan Drago, Clubber Lang, and Apollo Creed form an unlikely team and head into the jungle to take out Kony with only their fists.

        Rocky VII: First Blood Part III

    2. That’s Governor Weathers. Soon.

      1. Indeed. It’s fate. No cast member of Predator has ever lost a gubernatorial election.

        1. Next up? The guy in the predator suit.

          1. Pretty sure he’s dead.

            1. Then the suit itself!

            2. Interesting trivia bit: the guy in the suit was originally supposed to be Jean Claude Van-Damne. He dropped out because the suit was too hot for him to wear and he was a whiny bitch.

              1. No governorship for him, then. Loser.

              2. Isn’t JCVD about 5 feet tall?

    3. Whoa, whoa, whoa. There’s still plenty of meat on that bone. Now you take this home, throw it in a pot, add some broth, a potato. Baby, you’ve got a stew going.

    4. Let me tell you a little story about acting. I was doing this Showtime movie, Hot Ice with Anne Archer, never once touched my per diem. I’d go to Craft Service, get some raw veggies, bacon, Cup-A-Soup… baby, I got a stew going.

  15. Tyler Clementi’s lover wants Dharun Ravi behind bars.

    Why can’t he just wish for a pony, like normal people?

    1. Ponies smell.

      1. Ponies smell.

        … so does Clementi’s santorum …

        ***exit, stage right***

    2. Cause it’d be weird to have revenge fantasies about a prisoner forcing himself on a pony?

    3. Why can’t he just wish for a pony, like normal people?

      Because Mr. Hands ruined that everyone.

  16. EU freezes the bank accounts of Syrian’s Asma al-Assad, wife of Bashir.

    How can this be? He’s loyal to the Dragon Reborn!

    1. But Anna Wintour thinks she is groovey. How can this be?

    2. The Wheel weaves as the Wheel wills.

  17. Haven’t been on in a while so I don’t know if this is a re-post. If not, have fun with it…gotta go.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..to-terror/

  18. conflation of “women” and “people who can make babies.”

    Fucking words, et c.

    1. Hey, there’s got to be a significant percentage of women who can’t make babies. Of course, the vast majority of them are because they no longer can.

  19. Oh, also, the most hilarious twitter feed in a while:

    Cool Hand Bruce

    The jailhouse tweets of Doug Bruce, father of TABOR. Also, worst face/advocate for TABOR ever. Good bill, but the dude is a total creep.

    1. I heard about that. Pretty funny.

  20. I would like everyone to take a moment to congratulate me on my very first hateful PM. I received it after posting a hurtful comment about rape showers and the Supreme Court. I feel like I’ve reached a milestone here.

    1. Please post the email! Don’t leave us hanging here, man.

      1. From Andrew Phillips (1andrew.phillips@gmail.com):

        “Rape showers? What a despicable comment.”

        I provide my email, so I’m happy to chat with anyone offline. But if you take issue with something I’ve said, it’s probably more productive to respond on the forum. After all, that’s what it’s for.

        1. I got one once that bitterly attacked me for a clearly–and I mean clearly in the bat-to-the-head sense–sarcastic remark. I responded, saying that my position was exactly the opposite of what he thought it was. Naturally, no response or apology.

          I’m not much for breaching the barriers and directly e-mailing someone if they piss me off. Opinions simply aren’t that important to me.

          1. I’m not much for breaching the barriers and directly e-mailing someone if they piss me off.

            Exactly. After all, what’s the point, on a public forum, of voicing your displeasure in private? Take someone to task on the forum. Mix it up a little, show us what you’re made of. That’s why it’s there.

            1. So I’m wondering, what’s the point of providing your email address in a polemical forum?

              1. So I’m wondering, what’s the point of providing your email address in a polemical forum?

                I don’t know, probably for friendly discussion between like-minded people. I have a few long-standing friendships that began on some of the Usenet forums.

                I mean, it’s not gonna hurt my feelings that someone flames me in private; it just somehow seems to counterproductive. Kind of like revving your engine and jamming to some music while your car is in the garage.

                1. I agree.

              2. So when we make a particularly witty comment you can shower us with cash via Paypal.

                1. That was clever. (BTW, your address bounced my Paypal.)

                2. So when we make a particularly witty comment you can shower us with cash via Paypal.

                  Sure thing. Just PM me your checking account routing number, credit card number, etc. I’ll get it all set up!

                  1. No probs. I’m with First National Bank of Lagos. Will that be an issue?

                    1. I’m with First National Bank of Lagos. Will that be an issue?

                      Afraid so. Better give me your credit card number/expiration date, along with that 3-digit thingy on the back.

                      So I can make deposits to it.

        2. Maybe the proper politically correct term is ‘Brotherly Love Showers’?

          ‘Coercive cleaning’?

          1. Maybe the proper politically correct term is ‘Brotherly Love Showers’?

            Keep your black bukkake porn to yourself, mister. This is a family forum.

        3. maybe I’m twisted, but rape showers was clever.

          1. maybe I’m twisted, but rape showers was clever.

            Maybe I’m twisteder, but the idea of Nancy Pelosi taking one (in the wake of an unfavorable SCOTUS decision, of course) is yummy and sweet.

    2. I detect the foul stench of DISHONOR!

    3. I saw that comment and thought “some idiot is gonna get pissed about that”.

      1. I’ll admit, I was a little flattered.

        1. Just wait until you get your first piece of Battlefield 3 hatemail.

          1. Unlikely, as I don’t play video games 😉

  21. “We want an arrest, we want a conviction and we want him sentenced for the murder of my son,” Martin’s father, Tracy

    “Sentence first, trial after. OFF WITH HIS HEAD!”

    1. “Sentence first, trial after. OFF WITH HIS HEAD!”

      Off with your head
      Dance ’til you’re dead
      Heads will roll, heads will roll
      Heads will roll on the floor

    2. Look, if it were my kid or even a friend of mine’s kid, I’d probably want blood, too. That’s why we have a court system rather than the old blood feud system. But I definitely feel for the parents and won’t jump on them for wanting more than just justice.

      I’m still not sure I get the general uproar, as I’m sure the guy is going to get charged, unless there’s exculpatory evidence we’re not aware of.

    3. I notice that nowhere in there is anything about a trail by a jury of his peers.

      1. *trial, not trail. oops

  22. So what happens when the Hispanic race hustlers show up to stop one of their own from being railroaded to prison? Are we going to have a real live race war?

    1. Whites win! Whites win again!

      1. The media’s heads would explode.

    2. The Hispanic race hustlers won’t bother. Zimmerman isn’t Hispanic Hispanic.

      1. Yes, the z is on the wrong end of his name.

      2. needs more serape and sombrero. /that’s racist!

      3. Latina mother…so, he gets to check the box. But can’t have one protected group at odds with another.

  23. Scott appointed Angela B. Corey, state attorney for the Jacksonville area, as special prosecutor

    Bad move. Corey is white.

    Should have appointed The Reverend Al Sharpton.

    1. Justice demands Al Sharpton!

      1. What am I, chopped liver?

        1. You hadn’t noticed?

    2. It’s a shame they couldn’t have dredged up a black lady with hispanic surname.

  24. Katherine McPhee is still hot!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..dress.html

    1. She looks a little bit like a pre Tom Cruise Katie Holmes there, which is not a bad thing.

    2. For now. I see Inflatable Life Raft Syndrome approaching.

      1. I don’t see it.

        1. Look at her hips and thighs.

          Still hot, though.

          1. Doesn’t get much better than this.

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..ikini.html

            1. I am with you sarcasmic. She is about perfect. I am not seeing the future fat woman thing at all.

            2. In the second picture she looks like she just realized someone was taking pictures of her.

            3. Same hips and thighs.

  25. Courtney Love is still a skank.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..party.html

    John would still fuck her though.

    1. I just don’t expect women to be skeletors. I have never advocated fucking skanks. And if got down to a size 2, don’t tell me you wouldn’t fuck her.

      1. No way in hell.

        1. Even if her tits completely atrophied?

          1. It’s not my fault you’re fat.

      2. do not fuck that crazy bitch

      3. They don’t make enough antibiotics.

    1. “The stunt had to be maliciously planned. If the car travelled too fast, it risked destabilising the ramp, damaging the car, or even launching the motor off the edge.”

      Uh, I’m pretty sure the word the columnist is looking for is meticulously. It would be maliciously planned if there was no way to successfully complete it.

  26. See, it’s not that black feminist academics can’t find sex- they can’t find the kind of sex with the people they want to have sex with:

    Yes, sex is not the only thing that can help us to heal, to celebrate, and to create; Our work can do it; our friendships can do it; our art can do it; our families can do it; but nothing does it quite like good sex.

    And frankly, in my world, a world filled (though not solely or exclusively) with highly-educated single Black women, sex perennially gets the short end of the stick. Most often because of circumstance, not choice.

    One of my close sista prof friends frequently jokes that the last time she had sex, Bush was president. I wish I could say that that she was the exception, but all too frequently among the Blackademic set, she is the rule.


    1. But let me go out on a radical feminist limb here and suggest that straight-up fucking in which folks use each other’s bodies for the sexual labor they provide is not necessarily what me and my homegirls are seeking. For so many of us who followed the good girl script that education should always come before sex and boys, we are confronting a reality in which we achieved our dreams in the most extreme sense. We have more education than we can stand, but the partners that we thought would come from ordering our lives the right way are not forthcoming.Our lives may not depend on good sex , but our livelihoods and our feelings of aliveness certainly do. We are looking for connection, not just physicality.

      But can connection and the intimacy it implies be a casual thing?

      1. what me and my homegirls are seeking

        An academic? A professor? Isn’t affirmative action great?

        1. Also, it should be my homegirls and I damnit!

          1. Um, that was the point of my comment.

      2. when you are a bona fide card-carrying, sign-wearing feminist, the question of why your sex life is limited seems self-answering. Could it be that this woman has had so much education as to have become clueless?

      3. Gads–that sounds like a black woman’s version of the “I Gave Up A Good Man and Now I’m Pushing 40 With Only My Cats For Comfort” article in the Atlantic a few months ago.

      4. Blackademic

        Seriously?

        1. Yeeeeahhh…..I choked on that one too.

        2. That and “sista prof”

          Just yuck.

      5. “feelings of aliveness?”

    2. I don’t know the answer to that. But I do know that’s it’s a dangerous proposition, when one considers capitalist histories of bodily exploitation, particularly as it relates to Black bodies, to ask Black women to engage our bodies in ways that make us feel like someone’s blow up doll. That tell-tale feeling of emptiness is a direct byproduct of feeling like your body is being exploited for its sexual labor, with no concern for your value as a person.

      1. This is the end-game of Marxist morality.

        If anyone else enjoys what you’re doing, you’re being “used” and “exploited”.

        The funny thing is how truly monstrously selfish an attitude she’s showing in response. Essentially she’s saying that the only sex that would be satisfying to her is sex where she gains enjoyment but her partner does not – because if her partner has fun, they are “exploiting a black body for its sexual labor”. Sounds fair. Maybe MNG can come tell us how fair she is.

      2. I love these bitches who are so damn enamored of the victim role that they don’t realize that they can use someone for sex, too. Conservative women have the same view – only men can use women for sex, not vice versa. It’s how my mom feels. I’m glad I realized differently, cause sex is pretty cool.

        1. Ding ding ding!

        2. You should teach a class on that.

        3. It is interesting Kristen how it is totally a crime for a guy to get a woman drunk or lie to a woman to get her into bed. But it is perfectly a ok for a women to use her looks and sexual power to manipulate men. Just fine for a woman to pretend she is going to sleep with a guy to get him to do something she wants. Or for a women to withhold sex from her boyfriend or husband to get him to toe the line.

          Sex is the most powerful weapon women have.

          1. Maybe so. I don’t play politics with sex. I am either horny or not, which means I am either willing to have sex or not. Withholding sex is just plain stupid, because everybody loses, including the withholder.

            1. I agree Kristen. I would think playing those games would be more aggravation than it is worth. But a lot of women disagree.

              I just don’t get the emotion women put into sex. It makes their lives so much less happy.

    3. It is really tough for professional black women. There are fewer black professional men than women. And black men will go for white women. White men will generally not go for black women. It is a real problem.

      1. I’d say white men are open to black women, though. As are Asian and Latino men. It does, however, seem that there is a strong stigma against dating outside the race for black women.

        1. Really? I seem to have known and seen a lot more black men with white women than white men with black women. I wasn’t aware that dating a white guy was taboo among black women.

          1. I definitely remember reading some whining feminist post about how hard it was to date white guys because they didn’t understand black women- stuff like, “Why don’t you wash your hair everyday?” (Curly hair stuff I guess) etc.

            I don’t think there is a stigma associated with black duded dating white chicks, but I have heard anecdotal that some black men are not okay with black women dating white dudes, especially with the historical implications (Sally Hemmings and all that).

            1. A lot of black women are definitely not okay with white women who date black men. There is a whole lot of resentment there.

              1. John, kind of missing my point here, bud: Yes, black women are effing pissed about white women-black men, because they want a black man.

                But also, old black dudes are sometimes super against the idea of their daughters “dating outside the race”.

            2. I’m down with the swirl, but the couple of times I’ve dated black women, I’ve caught MUCH more hell from black men than from white people in general.

              1. Racism, anyone?

                1. I have never known a white guy who dated a black woman. But the white women I have known who dated black men all got much more grief from black people than whites.

                  1. Depends on where you are, John. I’ve seen/met many more black male/white female couples around my area than any other mix, and I live in a pretty conservativish area.

                  2. Your assumptions are not quite right, John. I have seen plenty of white male/black female pairings. However, it is much rarer than the opposite and in many cases. I will admit that it used to bug the hell out of me. My reaction would be instant rage (MIIIIIIIINE!!!!). It didn’t help that the women were usually smart, well-turned out and hot.
                    Then one day one of my woman friends pointed out that I never reacted that way when it was a black male/white female. It took some time, but I got over my previous feelings.

                    1. military towns are full of interracial marriages, and close to 90% are black man / white woman. Most of the rest involve an Asian wife. White man / black woman is the rarest type. That is based on 20 years of anecdotal evidence.

                    2. Ever stationed in Japan, Wareagle? The hatred of Japanese women was high amongst ALL American gals, but the black women were loneliest of all.
                      Some of you guys may be amused to note that lots of American females significantly modified their attitudes and behaviors to become more attractive.
                      Over a decade of observing this has made me dislike radical feminism less. No, it’s the male enablers that piss me off. If guys shut down and rejected the crazies, that crap would die out pretty quick.

                  3. My very good friend (black chick) is married to a white dude (from Nova Scotia, no less).

                    She never mentioned getting any grief about it from anyone, but she also doesn’t come from a poor urban background. I imagine socio-economics has a lot more to do with interracial dating than just race alone.

                    1. Socioeconomics counts for something, but it often doesn’t matter as much from a male perspective.
                      Not saying it doesn’t matter. Just that it seems to be more of barrier from the female side.

                  4. My (white) brother married a black woman. My (white) step-sister married a black man. I don’t think anyone in the family thought much different of either, although both ended in separation and divorce years later.

    4. The Crunk Feminist Collective (CFC) will create a space of support and camaraderie for hip hop generation feminists of color, queer and straight, in the academy and without, by building a rhetorical community, in which we can discuss our ideas, express our crunk feminist selves, fellowship with one another, debate and challenge one another, and support each other, as we struggle together to articulate our feminist goals, ideas, visions, and dreams in ways that are both personally and professionally beneficial.

      Change a few words and you’ve got a mission statement for H&R.

      1. Yeah, but somehow we’d need to fit STEVE SMITH and Warty in their.

      2. The Hit and Run crunk libertarian non-collective will create a space of support and camaraderie for the crunk generation libertarians of one color, queer and straight and rapesquatch, in the academy and mostly without, by building a rhetorical community, in which we can discuss our ideas, express our crunk libertarian selves, fellowship with one another, debate and challenge one another, and support each other, as we struggle together to articulate our crunk libertarian goals, ideas, visions, and dreams in ways that are both personally and professionally beneficial.

        1. It is good that you included the rapesquatch community. They so often feel othered.

          1. STEVE SMITH JUST RAPE AS A WAY TO LASH OUT FROM CONSTANT OTHERING!

          2. That’s why they keen and howl in the night, the cruel othering that occurs when people don’t go camping for fear that their nethers will be obliterated.

            1. Laughed so hard, I almost choked…

            2. Jesus Christ, I just read that in E.B. Farnum’s voice and almost pissed myself…

              1. “Hi, I’m Larry. This is my brother Darryl and this is my other brother Darryl.”

          3. I’ve never heard the word “rapesquatch” before, but for whatever reason, that shit cracked me up. I hope the people outside my office didn’t hear my giggling.

        2. Except for Warty. Fuck that guy

          1. It’s all right. I am a disgusting creature.

        3. Seconded.

    5. And frankly, in my world, a world filled (though not solely or exclusively) with highly-educated single Black women, sex perennially gets the short end of the stick.

      So, she’s surrounded by single black women, and not getting any? Sounds like homophobia, to me.

      straight-up fucking in which folks use each other’s bodies for the sexual labor they provide

      Yer doin’ it wrong. And with an attitude like that, is it any wonder men aren’t lining to, erm, toil in her vineyard?

      1. Do they completely reject the possibility of mutually beneficial transactions?

    6. The good prof needs to move to Croatia. Youtube has taught me that Croatians love Black women.

  27. What a despicable comment.

    “You’re not from around here, are you?”

    1. I just told him his rebuke would be a lot more meanginful (such as it is) here than in a private exchange.

  28. One of my close sista prof friends frequently jokes that the last time she had sex, Bush was president.

    Reality can’t hold a candle to fantasy, I guess.

    1. “sista prof” “blackademic”

      I think I may have found the issue as to why educated professional people may not want to be around you.

      1. Don’t be dissin’ me!

  29. Bill Maher is feeling the heat

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2…..urrection+(Le?gal+In?sur?rec?tion)

    He is right. But as long as his fellow travelers on the left insist on waging the hurt feelings jihad, tough shit Bill.

    1. He can go piss up a rope.

    2. fuck Maher. He doesn’t like it that, finally, the same rules apply to him. It is also indicative of the pussy nature of leftists – they cannot take it when called out for their boorishness.

      1. But it was just a joke! Waaaahhh!

      2. Maher’s just getting creepier by the year. Every time I see him on TV, he looks more and more like a child molestor.

        1. But, Maher is a libertarian!!!!!!!!!!

  30. That tell-tale feeling of emptiness is a direct byproduct of feeling like your body is being exploited for its sexual labor, with no concern for your value as a person.

    Wooooorkin in a coal mine,

    Goin’ down, down, down

    1. Wooooorkin in a coal mine,

      RAAAAAAAAACCCCCCIIIIISSSSSSSS!

      1. Not if you’re using DEVO’s version of that song.

        Loophole!

  31. Question about the Zimmerman case:

    Isn’t self defense an affirmative defense? If yes, doesn’t that mean there is a burden (either of production or proof) on the defendant? What’s known is that he killed the guy intentionally, isn’t it on him to prove the justification defense? And if so, then it does seem strange not to have arrested him.

    1. Generally yes. You have to produce some evidence that you were acting in self defense. But the burden is lower. You don’t have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Only present enough evidence to create a reasonable doubt that you were acting in self defense.

      But the Florida Law is really goofy. I can’t figure out from just reading it if it is an affirmative defense or it is it something the prosecution has to prove.

      1. If it’s an affirmative defense then it seems like the appropriate thing to have done would be to arrest and charge the guy, and then have him meet either a burden of production or proof that it was self-defense.

        But even writing that I’m troubled; if all evidence to the cops seems to confirm it was defense it seems like hassling people to make them then prove it in a trial…

        I dunno.

        1. No. Not if you believed his story. Not everyone who acts in self defense has to go to trial.

          1. Is that how affirmative defenses work?

            I guess they don’t have to because some of them negate an element, a mens rea element, that has to be proven. If the mens rea doesn’t seem to be there to the cops then why charge? On the other hand, it seems like the whole point of having it as an affirmative defense is they person has some burden to prove it…

            1. But the DA makes the decision based on a good faith examination of whether the evidence is there for a conviction. If it is obvious there is an affirmative defense, the DA should not bring the case. Just because the burden is on the accused doesn’t mean the DA can’t take it into account in evaluating the case.

              1. The DA has too much power. Before the law, it was a jury. That is probably what it should be in ALL homicides. Especially that of a minor.

                1. Yeah, Alice, lets make the DA arrest and try everyone he thinks might be guilty of a crime. Lets get rid of the ethical obligation to only bring cases for which he believes there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. That will work out well.

                  Are you really that fucking stupid or do you just pretend that we are?

          2. That is the problem. I can go to Florida, buy a gun, shoot someone in a public area with no witnesses and merely say i was in danger. The burden of proof is on the state to discredit my statement.

            1. As it should be. And that shouldn’t be hard. Just because you are alone doesn’t mean there are not circumstances and factors to be considered. Who did you shoot? Were they a large person capable of inflicting harm? What there any reason to believe that they would attack you? Did you have pre existing motive to shoot the person?

              There are lots of ways to discredit your explanation that do not require another witness.

              1. The only alternative is to not defend yourself, Alice, and hope there’s a security camera or – God forbid – a cop close enough to at least stop the attacker after the fact.

            2. Well duh you dumb shit.

              Here’s a fucking clue: people don’t get attacked in well lit crowded public spaces. You’re much more likely to have to defend yourself against attack when no one else is around.

              Obviously Zimmerman is looking less and less like a responsible gun owner. But that doesn’t invalidate my rights, any more than the Nazis marching through Skokie invalidates the 1st Amendment, or mobsters refusing to talk invalidates the 5th.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-nJR15e0F4

      2. It seems to me that in any shooting where a person claims self-defense, any arrest or prosecution is open to an immediate motion for dismissal by the defense in which the police and prosecutors have to show probable cause as to why they doubted the defendant’s story enough to arrest him. Failing to do so results in immediate dismissal of the murder/manslaughter charge and civil relief for the defendant’s attorney fees. It is most certainly meant to be a bar to arrest and prosecution of borderline cases.

        1. After that, it becomes an affirmative defense for the purposes of the trial.

          Also, sorry about the unclosed bold tag, it was just supposed to highlight the civil relief clause.

    2. He’s made hundreds of calls to 911. I’ll bet he’s on a first name basis with every member of the police force, including the chief.

      I’m thinking that they like him, or at least pity him.
      And that’s why he wasn’t charged.

  32. “coal mine” – RACIST!!!

    Kidding ;-]

  33. But in what constitutes a real war on women’s health, President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services has withdrawn $30 million worth of funding from a Texas Medicaid program that provides health care services for low-income women.

    It did so because Texas recently passed a law that said its Women’s Health Program could not disperse funds to abortion and contraception providers such as Planned Parenthood.

    Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius personally traveled to Houston to make the announcement that the Obama administration would cut funding of the program and would no longer continue the waiver that Texas had previously been given to continue funding of the program temporarily.

    http://news.investors.com/arti…..ogram-.htm

    All class Obama. All class

    1. He won’t win Texas anyway, so the hell with them. Nice bitch slap, personally delivered.

      1. shrike told me Texas was in play earlier in the week. Why would they do this?!

        1. shrike is just hoping for more Team Blue notches on his bedpost.

        2. The last time a “D” won in Texas was 1976. I think this is a warning shot to other states that might think to vary from the course.

    2. They conditioned the reciept of money on the program getting the money following certain guidelines?

      The horror.

      1. It would be like if the feds gave a state money for “midnight basketball” but in the grant they said “this must be offered for making sports available at nightime” and then a state took the funds and only used them to offer daytime sports, so the feds yanked the funds.

        Here what likely is the case is the feds give money for women’s health programs and in part condition that on offering reproductive services. If the state says “we’ll take that money and use it for a health program, but we don’t like reproductive services so we won’t allow that in our programs” then yeah, they can yank that funding.

        1. Sure they can. But they are assholes for doing it. Take your basketball example. Suppose they did that. And the state said “we have curfew laws and we want to run the programs during the day”. Yeah the feds could say fuck you. But it would be pretty stupid and vindictive.

          1. Also, I doubt the federal grant really says “fund abortion”. Health care services is a lot broader than “midnight basketball”.

            1. Since PP does way more than just “fund abortions” I bet you’re right that it doesn’t say that.

              1. In which case it should be fine if they spend the money at another provider who provides health care services, but not abortion.

              2. “Since PP does way more than just “fund abortions” I bet you’re right that it doesn’t say that.”

                ^^This is what a myth looks like.^^

          2. It depends on whether they think having the programs at night (or in this case offering the services PP provides) is fundamental to the reason for the grant. Since many people reasonably think women’s reproductive health is a fundamental aspect of their health overall, I don’t think this is unreasonable on its face.

            1. No one is saying that reproductive health can’t be funded. Just planned parenthood. Since when are they the only authorized providers? Obama is saying “pay up to our massively politicized cronies at planned parenthood or go without”.

              1. IMO, Planned Parenthood should get zero tax dollars. Problem solved.

                1. “IMO, Planned Parenthood should get zero tax dollars.”

                  Do you feel that way about every private agency the government contracts with for services?

                  1. Yes, MNG, I do.

              2. It’s less defensible if it says you must go through PP alone (though there could be a reasonable reason for this, see below). But perhaps PP is the only agency in that area offering those services. Maybe it is the only national agency with regular ties to the government in this area that operates in many areas of the nation and so the grant simply named them as the preferred sources of the services.

            2. I don’t think this is unreasonable on its face.
              ————————
              maybe not, but it is sure as hell transparent on its face. Abortion is a sacrament to the left and THAT is the sum total of this decision. PP is not a govt agency anyway; this would be like a Repub administration yanking funds because a state refused to work with Catholic Ministries or some such group.

              Are there no women’s health services other than abortion?

              1. Sure there are others, and PP provides many of them. And the government may have reason to think they meet a certain standard which furthers the overall goal of the program.

                This no different than saying that a grant must be spent in a way that uses the services of a “Better Business Bureau” approved third party.

                1. And the government may have reason to think they meet a certain standard which furthers the overall goal of the program.

                  Oh come on. There is no evidence of that at all. You are just pulling that out of your ass. But there is evidence that PP is a huge supporter of the Democratic Party and not something Obama wants defunded.

                  1. So let PP fund themselves, instead of taking taxpayer funds.

                    Problem solved.

                  2. It’s certainly as plausible a reason as your instant indictment of the Obama administration.

                    Sometimes the government has done business with a national agency regularly, and so it names it as a preferred source of services to third parties. Usually this is a list I’ll grant, but I’m betting in Texas PP might be the only organization offering some of these kinds of services throughout the states.

                    1. but I’m betting in Texas PP might be the only organization offering some of these kinds of services throughout the states.

                      What kinds of services do you think only PP offers in Texas?

                2. but in this case, the BBB is the feds who, essentially, are laying cover fire for PP. That’s bullshit. I get that federal $$ come with strings but, in some respects, this looks kinda like a money-laundering scheme: hey, PP, we’ll send some money your way thru this grant to TX for low-income women. Ironically, it may be the most transparent thing this administration has done.

                  1. The feds give the states grants to operate programs that take care of women’s health, and reproductive care is part of women’s health, so they mandate that the programs work with a group that offers reproductive care as a condition of the grant.

                    What’s crazy there?

                    1. “The feds give the states grants”

                      That’s the crazy there, MNG.

                      It’s way past time to separate the feds from the private sector.

                    2. PP is an outside group, not to mention a devoted constituent of the Dem Party. And, again, the whole decision hinges on the Party’s treating of abortion as a sacrament. These women are not being deprived of care; the only deprivation is of money to PP. And, by the way, nothing stops PP from providing services it feels so strongly about WITHOUT GOVT MONEY.

                    3. But this complaint stands for EVERY private contractor who gets federal money, not just PP. The current focus on PP comes only from animus to some of the services they provide.

                    4. Some of us would like to see ALL government/private sector collaborations shitcanned, MNG.

                      As it should be, I might add.

      2. Sure. But the guideline is fund planned parenthood or loose all of your funding. They killed off an entire program because they couldn’t fund planned parenthood. All those poor women won’t be getting help because Obama is butthurt over planned parenthood.

        So much for Obama giving a shit about women’s health care.

        1. If there were some other provider of these services that PP provides and the guideline said “you have to go through PP or lose the funding” then it might be bad. But even then the government might have some reason (perhaps they’ve found PP meets certain standards overall and it’s easier to just mandate the programs use them).

          1. MNG,
            who says no other provider exists? No one has made that case, certainly not Sebelius. And who says that abortion is the only service these women want? Nothing stops PP from serving anyone, including these women, but nothing entitles them to govt money. PP is becoming as big a shakedown industry as the NAACP.

            1. Er, no one here knows the specifics here, that goes for you, John, etc.

              “And who says that abortion is the only service these women want?”

              I don’t understand this question. As I said above I bet none of the grant money goes to PP for abortions, it goes for some of the many other things PP does I’d bet.

              1. so no other agency/clinic/organization in TX can provide what PP does? Govt strings mean you can mandate the services to be covered by a grant; I don’t believe they also mean that money has to be steered toward specific groups. And please ignore if those groups happen to be friendly to the White House.

                1. It’s certainly conceviable that in some rural, conservative parts of America PP is the only provider of many womens health services.

                  1. Flying pink elephants are conceivable.

          2. “If there were some other provider of these services that PP provides and the guideline said “you have to go through PP or lose the funding” then it might be bad.”

            http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Texas+Women‘s+healthcare+providers

        2. Wow, John, never thought I’d see you shilling for “free” stuff from the government.

          1. You misunderstand. If the program is going to be there, then it ought to be administered fairly. Just because I disagree with the existence of the program, doesn’t mean it should be run in an unfair and political manor.

            1. But the only proof you have it is being done unfairly is that PP donates to Democrats. There are other perfectly plausible reasons available that don’t involve that. You’re just reaching.

              1. If PP is using money it receives from taxpayers to donate to ANY political party, then that shit needs to stop, too.

          2. So, you’re for gay marriage, now? I mean the program is already in place and the only direct cost to the taxpayers is the government processing more of the same paperwork they already process.

            1. I have no problem with gay marriage. Given the shambles heteros have made of the institution, why should we have all the fun.

            2. I don’t object to gay marriage. I object to courts reading it as a right into the constitution. If state legislatures want to change the definition of marriage, more power to them.

              1. Government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

                1. The government will always be in the marriage business if for no other reason than to enforce contracts. Even if you made marriage contractual, what happens when people don’t sign the contracts or lost them and can’t prove what they said? You would have a default set of marriage laws just like you have today.

                  When you say “get the government out of marriage” what you are really saying is “let people determine the conditions of their marriage”, which is slightly different and makes a better point.

                  1. Well, yeah. But it’s still a good way to put it, John.

            3. “So, you’re for gay marriage, now?”

              Not if they’re gay strawmen.

  34. For the third time in the past two years, an ATM has given me money with blood on it. And those are the ones I noticed. It’s not like I inspect every bill I receive.

    1. Maybe the midget they keep inside to hand you the money got his fingers caught in some of the gears?

      I dunno how those things work.

      1. +1

      2. It’s not a midget, it’s an alien.

      3. Not all of us have those fancy Andrew Jackson tampons, like you do down in the holler.

      4. It couldn’t possibly be a midget, Obama told me that ATM’s cost jobs.

    2. You’re well known to to weak and vulnerable to candy (as well as various other foods). Are you sure you didn’t just cut your delicate hands on the paper?

      1. My blood is too delicious to waste on fiat paper.

        1. If it pricks you, do you not bleed?

    3. What kind of libertarian are you? Shouldn’t you have a vault full of third-world children counting out your per diem for you? And shouldn’t you be using their tears to buff your perfectly manicured, soft, never-done-a-hard-days-work hands?

      Please turn in your top hat and monocle.

      1. I’m really more of frontier libertarian, roughing it for the experience. And I let all the children get deported. It was sometimes costing my up to a dollar a day to feed the whole lot of them. What Obama has done to this economy is shocking.

    4. All United States currency has blood on it. The blood of the 99%.

      1. If only a puppeteer with a Master’s degree in puppetry was here to make this concept clearer.

      2. Is that how the coke gets on all of it?

  35. We dodged a bullet. Larry Summers did not get the World Bank job.

  36. All Power to the Imagination!

  37. In the private sector, that would be called “extortion”.

    1. Shit… that was for John’s “Obama v. Texas” comment. Either I need less coffee… or MORE coffee.

  38. day off – enjoy life without the patented LH links.

    I’m heading North to my other compound – hauling wood, walking the beach, and forgetting all about life as a Sr. Business Analyst.

  39. “””The only threat was the threat of ideas,” he said. “I think this idea of secret police following you around is terrifying. It really has an effect of spreading fear and squashing dissent.”””

    Putin would be proud.

    1. Putin is a good man.

  40. District court judge directs Idaho county to raise taxes beyond state law limits and sue the state to do so.

    Federalism dies a little more. Surprised that Judge Windmill didn’t order residents not to move out of the county.

  41. The proof is trivial! Just view the problem as a
    rational
    hypergraph
    whose elements are
    thrice-differentiable
    DAGs

    1. Linking this on the iPhone so I can whip it out in bar arguments.

    2. Shit, the one I got just summed up politics perfectly:

      The proof is trivial! Just view the problem as a nondeterministic algebra whose elements are pointless tournaments.

    3. The proof is trivial! Just view the problem as a semi-decidable semigroup whose elements are combinatorial groups.

      I like it because it reuses words.

    1. My nasty suspicious mind wonders about Ms. Kardashian’s getting so gently attacked at what would have been a minor media event, since the attack made it a much bigger media event, makes her look sympathetic and noble, since she didn’t press charges.

  42. Good for Gary Stein:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..f=politics

    Dig the knee-jerk Obama supporters in the comments section, and ponder whether they’d be as supportive of an (R) president under the same circumstances (actually, in all fairness, NO president should be treated like someone who’s a’special)…

    1. Stein is wrong. However, some of the commenters are wrong as well. There IS such a thing as an unlawful order, and a good service member will NOT obey when something is unlawful. Of course, that can make things hard for a person, but that’s where courage and integrity count the most.

      1. Why is he wrong?

        1. He is clearly tying his service to his political message. That is a big no-no. He was smart to remove his uniform while speaking, but he’s still over the line. Had he made no mention of any military affiliation, or were he no longer on active duty, he’d have no problems.

          1. I get that in principle, but IMO the only reason he’s catching hell for it is due to the current Oval Office occupant.

            1. If he were one of my guys, he’s already have been through NJP, regardless of who’s the President. Wrong is wrong.

              1. Punishment for not rubber-stamping what a president says or does?

                That’s harsh.

                1. I think the guy crossed a bit of a line by doing what he did so pointedly. He hadn’t been given an unlawful order, so he basically just gave the President the finger by implying that he would. His directness (addressing it to Obama by name) also created a sense of insubordination. Had he just said he would not obey any unlawful order (like the Oath Keepers), I don’t think I’d have a problem with it.

                  1. Having read many anti-Oath Keepers bullshit, I think you are one of the few who don’t view that organization as a threat to society.

                    IMO, saying he wouldn’t follow unlawful orders, was just a good preemptive measure. Obama either has several months left in office, or four more years… either way, plenty of time to engage in tomfoolery.

                    1. No, I support them in principle. I’m not a joiner by nature, though.

      2. There’s a school of thought that enlisted are bound by oath to follow all orders, while officers are the ones free to screen orders for lawfulness. I don’t agree with the idea; enlisted are bound equally to the Constitution which is superior to all order-givers.

        1. Really? When I was but a lowly enlisted troop, they drummed it into our heads that we were expected to refuse to follow unlawful orders. Of course, at the same time, there was a pointed reminder that we had better be sure it was unlawful. There was definitely an attitude that us dumb joes should err on the side of obeying the order and let the officers figure out the grey areas.

          1. As an officer, we do spend a lot of time talking about what constitutes an unlawful order. Enlisted receive a lot of training as well, but are held to a more forgiving standard.
            The bottom line is that officers are paid more because they are ‘responsible’.

  43. Headline:
    “Health care law unlikely to ignite voter passion”
    Which is almost immediately contradicted by the story, but here’s the germane comment:
    “Yet, when pressed, many respondents are ignorant of the details of the law beyond the partisan sound bites.”
    Which is likely in that those who passed it still don’t know what it means.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/……DTL&tsp=1

    1. I learned one thing about the law yesterday. A family of four making

      1. Weird. Must have read the less than sign as a tag.

        … less than $92K is eligible for an insurance subsidy.

  44. Obama: “If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon.” Is the president racist because he thinks that matters, or not because only people of fully Western European ancestry have the power to be racist?

    1. Obama was pandering, and it was painful to read.

      1. Obama was pandering doing the one thing he does well, and it was painful to read.

        1. I got FIFY’d. lol

          One shiny internet for you, Loki.

    2. So, if Obama had a son, he’d be cold and dead and six feet under right now?

  45. “But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin: If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon. And I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are gonna take this with the seriousness it deserves and that we’re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

    Maybe I’m just an elitist, cocktail-swilling Cosmotarian, but when the fuck did “gonna” become a word?

    1. “If the President says it, it is not improper.”

      1. So soon we’re all gonna have a Barcelonian lisp?

    2. Maybe I’m just a federalist, beer-swilling libertarian, but when the fuck was it the president’s job to stick his nose into a local law enforcement matter?

      1. He acted stupidly.

        1. We’re talking about modern-day presidents, who view EVERYTHING as nose-stickable.

  46. If this story is right, and that is a big if, will it matter to the narrative about Zimmerman/Martin?

    True?

    1. It should…but it won’t.

    2. I hadn’t heard that Martin was on top of Zimmerman punching him when he was shot. The way other stories make it sound is that Martin punched him in the face once, then Zimmerman shot him. If this story’s true then I’d say Zimmerman was justified in shooting him.

      Although I’d still recommend that he learn how to fight in the future so that he doesn’t have to rely on his gun.

    3. Interesting. Hadn’t seen that.

      It helps, some. It still leaves Zimmerman in the position of arguing that someone who is losing a fistfight should be able to gun down their opponent.

      I’m a CCW holder, and a big self-defense proponent, but that doesn’t sit right with me. One thing about self-defense is, you generally have the right to use lethal force in defense of yourself or someone else to prevent death or serious bodily harm.

      So, does anybody think that a third party, if they see someone losing a fistfight, should be able to shoot the guy winning the fistfight? The standards are about the same whether you are defending yourself or someone else.

      1. Agreed.

        Unless there is a witness to the whole altercation, Martin could have been standing his ground.

        Something else in the article.

        “In fact, the local homeowners’ association reports that George Zimmerman actually caught one thief and aided in the apprehension of other criminals”

        I wonder what caught means in that case. If Zimmerman tried to catch Martin, in a physical sense, then Martin had a right to stand his ground.

  47. http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/23/…..google_cnn

    This is all you need to know about this case. The facts don’t matter. It is a way to gin up outrage in order for certain people to score political points, and for the family to score. Enjoy the new world we live in.

    1. Sweet Jesus. This president is just a complete joke now.

      1. Replace ‘is’ with ‘has always been’, eliminate ‘now’, and you are right on the money.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.