Re: Creepy ass-crackers

1

I don't know if I've been paying enough attention to be "following", but I've read about this on a few places around the internet, and it's terrible to see how much scorn and derision is being heaped on Rachel Jeantel. She's called to the stand to testify about how her friend was murdered, and she has millions of Americans mocking her speech and demeanor. Fuck that.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 4:38 AM
horizontal rule
2

1: Exactly. The "creepy-ass cracker" thing is just the tip of what should be an iceberg of societal shame. And IANAL but it sure seems that Zimmerman's lawyer has been allowed a very wide-ranging cross-examination. I assume the prosecution has objected to much of it but been overruled?

And one is reminded of the recent result in this Florida case.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 4:56 AM
horizontal rule
3

I thought it was creepy-ass cracker. Creepy ass-crackers sound like they would taste pretty bad.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 4:56 AM
horizontal rule
4

3: From the discussion at the other place, that was alluding to how Ann Althouse wrote a blog post arguing that perhaps "ass-cracker" was a reference to anal sex and that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman because he was homophobic. There is no higher grade of crazy on the internets.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 5:01 AM
horizontal rule
5

4: Oh good lord. I saw a reference to Althouse's inability to understand normal human communication, but I hadn't realized there was a whole theory.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 5:23 AM
horizontal rule
6

4,5: Wow! The concluding paragraph of her post:

Why didn't Martin take Jeantel's advice and run home? The rapist/ass-cracker theory makes sense of Martin's decision to go after Zimmerman. If he saw Zimmerman as a sexual predator, he might think confrontation was a good idea or even an important step: These creeps in the neighborhood need to know that I'm not their prey. It's not enough to run inside daddy's house. My manhood must be established here and now or I can't walk free around here anymore. [emphasis in original]


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 5:28 AM
horizontal rule
7

Actually I was just riffing on the "huge ass-whatever" thing, and hadn't seen the bastion of crazy ass-Althouse over there. But wow.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 5:30 AM
horizontal rule
8

Once at [ DESERT FESTIVAL ] I saw a bunch of very drunk naked women seeing who could hold a (by this point pretty soggy) cracker between their ass cheeks the longest. It wasn't creepy but it was pretty gross. Maybe that's where Althouse got the idea?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 5:31 AM
horizontal rule
9

Rowan refuses to eat crackers in public because someone once called him "a cracker eating a cracker" but they were both eight years old or something at the time and other than that I've never heard of it in the wild as a racial taunt. And yes, people are being awful to Rachel Jeantel and it's made me so sad. Except Ann Althouse, who just enrages me so much there's no room for sadness.


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:04 AM
horizontal rule
10

I followed the Martin case pretty closely when it all first happened. Unless the prosecution pulls off a miracle I just don't see how Zimmerman gets convicted. There's enough evidence that he was in legitimate fear for his life to establish reasonable doubt. Unless something new has popped up at trial (I stopped paying close attention a while ago) the evidence is at least consistent with his story, in which case the Florida law allows him to use his gun.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:04 AM
horizontal rule
11

Yeah. I think what this comes down to is that I don't like reasonable doubt as the self-defense standard, I want it to be (as it is in some jurisdictions) preponderance of the evidence. I don't think a reasonable jury should believe Zimmerman's story, but reasonable doubt is a very low bar to clear.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:18 AM
horizontal rule
12

Surely any evidence that Martin was motivated by racial hostility is relevant. God knows there's been a lot of focus on whether Zimmerman was motivated by racial hostility.


Posted by: caryatis | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:27 AM
horizontal rule
13

Because Zimmerman shot an unarmed teenager.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:32 AM
horizontal rule
14

13: that's not important right now. What's important is: CAKE!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:34 AM
horizontal rule
15

Crackers and cake don't really go together.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:35 AM
horizontal rule
16

Cake is definitely a racial term.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:37 AM
horizontal rule
17

12 - So, just to be clear, the story you are supposing here is that Martin called his girlfriend to inform her that he was being followed by a creepy-ass cracker, then realized that this was his chance to finally deliver the beatdown to whitey that he had been longing to deliver for so long? And that Zimmerman had the bad luck to be the otherwise innocent ofey that the ferocious and swarthy unarmed teenager who weighed 100 pounds less than him chose to assault?


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:38 AM
horizontal rule
18

Man, Zimmerman should have chosen me to be his defense lawyer. Or Althouse.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:38 AM
horizontal rule
19

11: I hadn't thought about the possibility of applying a different standard to self defence cases than to others. I'm going to have to mull that one a bit. I'm generally pretty sympathetic to the idea that a person has the right to defend themselves, and when a person initiates violence they've pretty much surrendered their rights be safe from violence themselves. There are questions of proportionality that I think are arguable, but I don't like the idea of a duty to retreat. That seems to me to cede ground to those most adept at working with violence and threats of violence. Obviously there are cases where retreat is the least bad option, but it should not be required as the default response to a threat in all cases.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:47 AM
horizontal rule
20

11: Unfortunately, you are probably right. I think the only chance of a conviction comes if Zimmerman screws up or loses his cool on the stand.

Of course, in the case in 2.last, the defendant apparently was not allowed to use the stand your ground law since going back into the house to get her car keys to escape showed she was not in fear for her life. But all in all the law is working as is sponsors intended*.

*Actually, I suspect they never thought much about it actually being used, more just letting the people of the right law-abiding color back home know whose side they were on.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:48 AM
horizontal rule
21

My favorite crackers are Wheat Thins and Jimmy Carter.

As for the trial, the prosecution doesn't seem to be presenting a very coherent theory of the case: i.e., something along the lines of "Assistant Deputy Dipshit spotted and followed this teenager, then tried to corner and brace him, tough-guy-esquely, when the teenager tried to evade the Deputy's attentions, then started a fight, Sterling Hayden in The Godfather-style, when the teenager got mouthy."


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:48 AM
horizontal rule
22

The Althouse defense: A legal strategy for use in self-defense cases in which you paint your client as so unattractive, ideally as a pedophilic rapist, that it becomes reasonable for the jury to think that anybody would attack your client.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:48 AM
horizontal rule
23

re 12: Who the fuck is this fucking asshole?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:49 AM
horizontal rule
24

20: Is there any chance that Zimmerman will take the stand? He seems pretty impeachable, even for a Florida prosecutor.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:51 AM
horizontal rule
25

Paula Deen?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:52 AM
horizontal rule
26

25 to 23.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:52 AM
horizontal rule
27

17: ofey

Ofay, please!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:53 AM
horizontal rule
28

Cracka, please.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:53 AM
horizontal rule
29

I'm not following it, but I thought Z had given up SYG as a defense. And was using ordinary self defense.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:53 AM
horizontal rule
30

Don't feed the troll. Let it eat cake. Let Paula Deen feed the troll.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:54 AM
horizontal rule
31

Don't feed Paula Deen.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:55 AM
horizontal rule
32

29: Apparently so, per stories from the end of April.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 6:57 AM
horizontal rule
33

29: that's my understanding. The Florida SYG law is about immunity from prosecution and is a question for the judge. I think Z's lawyers have said they haven't actually waived it and can raise it after trial as well as before if need be, but the trial itself shouldn't address SYG immunity. But I have no idea if the standard of proof is any different for ordinary self-defense in Florida.


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:00 AM
horizontal rule
34

Serious question: I really didn't care about Paula Deen before her recent troubles. Is there any goddamn reason I should care now? I mean, is there an actual, serious issue underlying this, or is it yet another case of the media eating their own?


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:02 AM
horizontal rule
35

It's been a while since I paid attention to this stuff, and I never had any reason to read FL cases, but doesn't ordinary self-defense only justify some kind of proportional response? Like, deadly force is permissible only in response to at least a threat of deadly force?

I feel like the canonical case is that if some dude walks up to me on the street and punches me, I don't get to shoot him.


Posted by: Osgood Yousbad | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:05 AM
horizontal rule
36

34: Diabetes and racism: the new south.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:06 AM
horizontal rule
37

34: It's a sign of how America still has a very large population of dumb racists who will reflexively rally around a dumb racist accused of dumb racism, because her dumb racism is neither dumb nor racist but a sign of elitist (and possibly Jewish) liberal media bias. Other than that? No, unless you like hamburgers served on Krispy Kremes.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:08 AM
horizontal rule
38

17: I'm not telling any story, but all the evidence should be considered.


Posted by: caryatis | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:09 AM
horizontal rule
39

38: "Evidence" does not mean what you think it means, at least not in the context of a trial.

35: Ordinarily, yes; in Florida, no idea. But my understanding (and I haven't been paying close attention) is that Z is arguing he was facing a threat of deadly force, which, if credited, would make his response proportional. Or something along those lines.


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:11 AM
horizontal rule
40

Jamison Foser tweet has it right: Pretty rude of that teenager to call the adult who followed him in a car at night and then killed him "creepy."


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:13 AM
horizontal rule
41

39: Why not? Testimony is part of the evidence.


Posted by: caryatis | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:19 AM
horizontal rule
42

That Ann Althouse post has made my day.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:21 AM
horizontal rule
43

41: Not all testimony is evidence. You don't get to introduce "evidence" of whatever the fuck you want, it has to have relevance to something material to the charges (and even then there are all kinds of limitations). Absurd, prejudicial speculations about Martin's "motivations" don't tell you anything about whether or not he used deadly force on Z that would justify Z's use of deadly force in response.


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:23 AM
horizontal rule
44

39.2: And I guess this is why LB was talking about the applicable standard of proof back in 11. Also, I have hazy memories of talking about whether the defendant's fear that his life is in jeopardy has to be objectively reasonable or not.. so even on a "reasonable doubt" standard, the question could be "were you in fact getting beaten to death" or "did you think you were getting beaten to death," which are different things for the prosecution to have to disprove.


Posted by: Osgood Yousbad | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:24 AM
horizontal rule
45

35,39: Zimmerman's claim is that Martin was repeatedly slamming his head into a concrete sidewalk. That's enough to kill a person. There's some evidence to support this claim (injuries to Zimmerman's head).


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:26 AM
horizontal rule
46

<insert Tobias Fünke joke that I can't think of here>


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:30 AM
horizontal rule
47

35, 39: Yes, there's generally a duty of proportionality/duty to retreat where possible, I'd have to remind myself of Florida standards. But the story that it seems as if it'd be hard to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt is: physical fight starts somehow, and that can be all Zimmerman's fault without, I think, changing the self-defense calculus going forward. At some point Zimmerman finds himself on the ground, pinned, with his head being banged against the concrete. At that point, he can't retreat, and he's in actual fear of death or serious injury, which allows him to use deadly force in self-defense.

This isn't a story I find believable, in the more likely than not sense. But it seems possible enough to me to be hard to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt -- that a teenage boy might respond violently to being threateningly stalked, and possibly physically attacked, is hard to rule out regardless of who the kid in question is.

I can imagine physical evidence that would torpedo it -- if they can tell how far the gun was from Martin when it was fired, I'd think anything over an inch or two would be inconsistent with that story. But without physical evidence, if that's Zimmerman's story, I think it'd be hard for a jury applying a reasonable doubt standard to convict.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:30 AM
horizontal rule
48

I feel like the canonical case is that if some dude walks up to me on the street and punches me, I don't get to shoot him.

I don't?

What if it is the Rock? (or someone his size and speed), and understanding I am 5'4 and 60+.

And even if people are not in fear of their lives in an altercation, people can get hurt bad and permanently. Lose eyes and teeth, brain damage, limps. A kid famously got blinded here and his attacker got a suspended sentence.

These things are not so predictable. I would do a lot to keep my sight.

Not that I am defending Z.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:31 AM
horizontal rule
49

Meh. While it's true that it is possible to kill someone by banging his head on the ground, it seems clear we were nowhere near that point in this particular fight. Zimmerman didn't even lose consciousness.

So Zimmerman picks a fight with Martin. Martin's allowed to defend himself (setting aside the question of whether the right to self-defense extends to young black men), so he fights back. He's got Zimmerman on the ground but hasn't managed to knock him out yet, and we're calling this deadly force sufficient to justify Zimmerman, the aggressor, pulling a gun?

I realize I'm straying far from the law here, but that's BS.


Posted by: Osgood Yousbad | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:37 AM
horizontal rule
50

45, 47: Right, but as I think I argued last time we discussed this (can't find it in the archives), just because Z's story could conceivably be true doesn't necessarily get him to reasonable doubt (if that's the proper standard); the jury still has the option of deciding he his story is not credible. Not that I'm suggesting the jury should/would do so here, just that "conceivable explanation that can't be conclusively disproved" does not automatically get you to "reasonable doubt".


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:38 AM
horizontal rule
51

physical fight starts somehow, and that can be all Zimmerman's fault without, I think, changing the self-defense calculus going forward

This is the part that I do not understand. Armed in a car, then choosing to stop the car, get out still armed and start a fight, then shoot the other guy when he hits back-- honestly, this is a defense? If so, why don't more people choose to do this, it seems like a way to kill someone inconvenient or irritating without prison as a consequece.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:39 AM
horizontal rule
52

What, the stranger is going to punch you once, give you a black eye or split lip, and walk away?

Or he will get a lucky hit, knock you down or out, sit on your chest and beat you to death?

The cops know better how violence works. Someone comes at you with intent to hurt, you don't gamble. You stop them.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:39 AM
horizontal rule
53

Zimmerman didn't even lose consciousness.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, if you're going to draw your gun and shoot someone in self-defense, the ideal time to do it is before you lose consciousness.


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:40 AM
horizontal rule
54

19: The idea is that there should be, or can be, a different standard for proving the elements of the offense (beyond a reasonable doubt), and proving an affirmative defense (like self-defense). Once you're talking about self-defense, you've admitted that you intentionally committed acts that would generally constitute a crime -- you intentionally killed someone (or intentionally fired a gun at them knowing that it's the sort of thing that kills people, whether or not you wanted them dead). At that point, it seems reasonable to me that your story explaining that you had a good reason for what you did should have to be not just possible, in the sense that it's hard to rule out, but more likely than not.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:40 AM
horizontal rule
55

So Zimmerman picks a fight with Martin. Martin's allowed to defend himself (setting aside the question of whether the right to self-defense extends to young black men), so he fights back. He's got Zimmerman on the ground but hasn't managed to knock him out yet, and we're calling this deadly force sufficient to justify Zimmerman, the aggressor, pulling a gun?

I admit I haven't followed all of this very closely, but I thought this was more or less the agreed narrative and so your question was exactly the entire question to be decided in the case. Is that wrong?


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:45 AM
horizontal rule
56

if you're going to draw your gun and shoot someone in self-defense, the ideal time to do it is before you lose consciousness.

Well, sure. Here I'd be interested to know how often, in the scenario where an unarmed dude is beating up another dude on the street, the guy getting beaten winds up dead. I'm not saying it's *never*, but I don't know if it's a reasonable thing to be afraid of.

I mean, I have never been in a fight nor seen one in person so I'm clearly not an authority here. But the large volume of street fights on youtube suggests that it's a thing that happens very very frequently, and I don't have the impression (again, I'm uninformed!) that it's often fatal.


Posted by: Osgood Yousbad | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:46 AM
horizontal rule
57

53 to 49. You're not required to have been actually killed or injured before you defend yourself, just reasonably (and I'd have to look up the actual standard again) afraid that you will be. How else could it work?

51: That's where duty to retreat comes in. If you started the altercation, or under any circumstances if there's no stand your ground law, you're required to leave rather than kill the other guy if you have that option. For an aggressor to cry self-defense, they need to tell a story that says that they couldn't get away.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:46 AM
horizontal rule
58

55: That's pretty much my understanding.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:47 AM
horizontal rule
59

your question was exactly the entire question to be decided in the case. Is that wrong

Maybe my incredulity didn't come through. Would it help if I added a "Seriously?!" at the end?


Posted by: Osgood Yousbad | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:47 AM
horizontal rule
60

50: Sure, but reasonable doubt doesn't mean that the jury has to find Zimmerman credible in the sense that they actually do believe him -- that would be preponderance of the evidence. They just have to find him plausible enough that they're not comfortable ruling his story out as a possibilty: they're in some 'doubt' as to whether or not it's true. That's a low, low, low standard.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:48 AM
horizontal rule
61

55 -- I'm not sure Zimmerman on the ground at the moment of the shooting is firmly established. There's still the bit about who was screaming for help, right?

I haven't been following, and am not going to.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:51 AM
horizontal rule
62

56: Huh. I'd rate the risk of serious injury or death from being pinned down with someone banging your head on concrete pretty high. But I have no direct experience of violence (not involving sibling fights) so maybe I'm wrong.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:51 AM
horizontal rule
63

You're not required to have been actually killed or injured before you defend yourself, just reasonably (and I'd have to look up the actual standard again) afraid that you will be. How else could it work?

The part of this that I have trouble with is the "deadly" part. If Zimmerman had punched Martin back and was on trial for assault, sure. Or if Martin had pulled a knife while Zimmerman was pinned down on the ground, no problem. I just don't see a gun as a proportional, justifiable response to fists, at least not where the shooter outweighs the puncher by 100lbs. (so, bob, maybe it is different if a pro wrestler starts whaling on you. that's not this case.)


Posted by: Osgood Yousbad | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:52 AM
horizontal rule
64

60: It may be a low, low standard in principle (although nobody really knows precisely how low), but that "comfortable" is doing a lot of work and in practice I don't believe it's nearly as low as all that (speaking here as a layperson, I have no professional insight whatsoever into anything having to do with juries).


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:53 AM
horizontal rule
65

61: I understood 'the agreed narrative' to mean 'the defense story'. If what was meant that everyone agrees on that version of the facts, you're right that I don't think they do (including me. I don't find the defense story plausible, it just seems like it might make it over the reasonable doubt bar.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:54 AM
horizontal rule
66

Swinging fists in an altercation vs. pinning someone down and banging their head on the ground seem to me to be two very different things. The first suggests and intent to harm, but it's one that is consistent with doing only enough harm to get oneself to safety. And one that, absent unusual circumstances (trained boxer, etc.), isn't likely to do grave injury to the other party. Pinning someone down and slamming their head on concrete seems to be an unambiguous attempt to cause grave bodily injury.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:56 AM
horizontal rule
67

54: That makes sense.

55: Is the agreed narrative that Zimmerman initiated the violence? I was under the impression that Zimmerman is claiming the physical part of the altercation was initiated by Martin.

63: The 100 lbs thing is a bit of a distraction. There are thousands, if not millions of people 100 lbs lighter than me who could take me in a fight without breaking a sweat. Pudgy middle aged guys are not necessarily much of a match for young men in their prime.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:57 AM
horizontal rule
68

Ah, if only the court could subpoena the video footage from the NSA surveillance drone that was hovering overhead . . .


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:58 AM
horizontal rule
69

67.2: I think everyone agrees that Zimmerman initiated the interaction -- that if he hadn't been following Martin, nothing at all would have happened that night. I don't know if the defense has put out a clear enough story to establish who they claim touched whom first.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:01 AM
horizontal rule
70

67.2 illustrates the problem with 65(a).


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:02 AM
horizontal rule
71

62: Your sister was a slacker.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:03 AM
horizontal rule
72

That's where duty to retreat comes in. If you started the altercation, or under any circumstances if there's no stand your ground law, you're required to leave rather than kill the other guy if you have that option. For an aggressor to cry self-defense, they need to tell a story that says that they couldn't get away.

LB's breakdown is my understanding as well. I think these shifting presumptions related to "starting" and "can't get away" lowered or highered depending on the race of the person so that I think Z doesn't get acquitted.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:05 AM
horizontal rule
73

66: Maybe. This is where my lack of expertise comes through. My guess is that Martin would've been in a panic, so maybe the danger was real; absent that he probably just wanted to make sure this lunatic wouldn't keep following him. Unconsciousness seems like a place where he'd be aiming, not death. But yes, I'm 100% speculating here.

67.3: Yeah, but "take me in a fight" != "kill me with his bare hands." The question isn't whether it's plausible that Martin was winning the fight, it's whether he was about to kill Zimmerman. There I'm pretty sure the size mismatch is relevant.


Posted by: Osgood Yousbad | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:05 AM
horizontal rule
74

The obvious takeaway from all the publicity this case has received is that, if you're a black male in a stand-your-ground state and a creepy-ass cracker is following you around, it's reasonable to expect your life is in danger. After all, look what happened to Trayvon Martin. You'd better go ahead and shoot the cracker, before he shoots you.

(And, going one step further, if you're a creepy-ass cracker in a stand-your-ground state and you happen upon a black male, you should be aware that he's now going to have a reasonable belief that his life is in danger. He may consider this reason to shoot you. You'd better shoot first.)


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:06 AM
horizontal rule
75

74: Agreed.


Posted by: Osgood Yousbad | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:08 AM
horizontal rule
76

White guy follows black kid doesn't equal initiated the confrontation.

Black kid follows/approaches white guys equals initiated the confrontation.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:08 AM
horizontal rule
77

Z got out of the safety of his car, after being told to go home. There is so much about Z;s claims that is crazy and unverifiable but which must all be seen to be exactly as he says: Z is standing by his car thinking about daisies when the kid attacks him unprovoked and doesn't just knock him down but pins him.

Seriously, if Z can say this, why not anyone who wants to hurt someone else?


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:09 AM
horizontal rule
78

73: Unconsciousness seems like a place where he'd be aiming, not death.

Again, I've got no expert knowledge of violence here. But I think the distinction between "the guy banging my head on the sidewalk is trying to knock me out" and "is trying to kill me" is fine enough that one is not required to make it in determining whether deadly force in self-defense is justified.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:11 AM
horizontal rule
79

74: Shit, now I've got Tom Petty's "I Won't Back Down" running through my head.


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:12 AM
horizontal rule
80

Jesus, I really don't want to start following this closely or paying too much attention to details, but what exactly is Zimmerman's story for how the altercation started? He got out of his car... why? To question Martin about what he was doing... because he "looked suspicious"? And Martin just attacked him? Is that it or is there something else?


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:14 AM
horizontal rule
81

77.1: I hate arguing on this side -- I guess mostly I'm trying to explain what I expect to be an acquittal verdict. But if I've got the law straight, Zimmerman's defense works even if he took the first swing at Martin, while shrieking racial epithets -- all he needs is to somehow get to the position where he's in fear for his life and can't get away, even if he's completely culpable for getting to that position. However he ended up in fear of death or serious injury without the option of retreat, at that point he can use deadly force in self-defense.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:14 AM
horizontal rule
82

White guys get to approach black kids to find out whether they are causing trouble. Black kids need to be respectful to the white guys or else: It is a well-known fact. I wish this video played on a constant loop: http://now.msn.com/hidden-camera-captures-racial-profiling-in-viral-video-involving-bike-theft


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:17 AM
horizontal rule
83

So Zimmerman picks a fight with Martin.

Following, yelling insults, "picking a fight" ...what is key to me is who initiated physical contact (or first threatened to.) There is a huge and critical difference.
I would not send Z to jail for decades for following Martin in his truck, "picking a fight" and I find it tragic* that so much emotion seems to focus on it.

I am not as positive as who initiated physical contact as the rest of you.

*the whole damn thing is tragic, including the social reactions. Hard cases make bad law. Zimmerman, from all I can tell, is not fucking Byron De La Beckwith, however much fun it is for the anti-racism crowd to paint him as such.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:17 AM
horizontal rule
84

Again, I've got no expert knowledge of violence here. But I think the distinction between "the guy banging my head on the sidewalk is trying to knock me out" and "is trying to kill me" is fine enough that one is not required to make it in determining whether deadly force in self-defense is justified.

I think we've established that your intuition about this and mine are different, and since we agree that they're both unfounded, that might be about as far as we can go. (to be fair I guess I should acknowledge that a couple other people have chimed in on your side, but not with any evidence, so I am not convinced.)


Posted by: Osgood Yousbad | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:20 AM
horizontal rule
85

Unconsciousness seems like a place where he'd be aiming, not death.

I don't give a shit where he's "aiming". And you also seem weirdly focused on "death"--someone doesn't have to be actually definitely going to kill you in order for lethal self-defense to be justified. If they're going to cause grave bodily-injury, that's enough. And having your head beaten on cement until you're unconscious is unquestionably grave bodily injury. It's the sort of thing that could easily kill you, and even if it doesn't kill you it's quite possible it's going to cause permanent injury.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:20 AM
horizontal rule
86

Sure, I understand that there's a legal basis which might apply in some circumstances. All I am trying to say is that believing that this poor kid's death meets those circumstances requires an acttive suspension of judgement, which would lead to open warfare if it were applied everywhere.

Allowing Z a life of freedom seems inconsistent with the categorical imperative-- if it's possible to kill someone this way, then everyone who wishes to would do it.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:20 AM
horizontal rule
87

81: Could he be acquitted of murder but convicted of assault for what happened before the murder?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:20 AM
horizontal rule
88

ISTM that if you're on the ground with your head being banged into the sidewalk, and what you do is not flail about with your arms and try to stop it as pure reflex, but manage to pull a gun and shoot while your head is thudding into the pavement again and again, you must be Jason Bourne. In which case you didn't need the gun to ensure your safety.


Posted by: Awl | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:20 AM
horizontal rule
89

81: However he ended up in fear of death or serious injury without the option of retreat, at that point he can use deadly force in self-defense.

Is that really all it takes? In that little moment, basically free of the context of all the preceding events?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:21 AM
horizontal rule
90

81: But the point I would take from 77 is that Z's story from start to finish is so implausible and unreasonable that it gives the jury a perfectly reasonable basis not to credit any of it, including his insistence that he was on the receiving end of deadly force at some point. Even if there is some physical evidence not inconsistent with that part of the story, and even if there's no physical evidence conclusively disproving it. His story reeks of self-serving bullshit, and a jury can properly notice that. There certainly doesn't appear to be any physical evidence that, standing on its own, would give rise to a reasonable doubt. So if you decide that Z's account itself (or whatever testimony they're introducing to create that account, assuming he's not testifying himself) has no evidentiary value because it's bullshit, you don't have a reasonable doubt.


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:21 AM
horizontal rule
91

And yeah, Martin's dead. All fucking sucks.

Hard cases, unclear situations, generate all the emotional energy, because they are fun to argue and analyze.

But this is also fucking tragic.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:23 AM
horizontal rule
92

Because starting a fight with a teenager is a serious crime, often.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:23 AM
horizontal rule
93

90: True. If I were on the jury, I'd be more likely to acquit if Zimmerman testified to a version of the facts that made him sound like a racist maniac (that is, that Zimmerman did start a physical fight), because it'd be more plausible. That all comes down to exactly what the case put forth is.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:24 AM
horizontal rule
94

43: Judging from the news story, the judge allowed testimony and questions on the "cracker" term. Yes, it's a detail which doesn't tell us much by itself, but trials commonly include a lot of minor details. The intent is to draw the whole picture of what happened.

And to be consistent, those who think that no attention should be paid to Martin's use of the term should also think no attention should be paid to Zimmerman's possible racially prejudiced motivations.


Posted by: caryatis | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:24 AM
horizontal rule
95

94.2: I'm not seeing any cake at all here. We do have standards.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:26 AM
horizontal rule
96

Something with nuts, maybe?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:27 AM
horizontal rule
97

CAAAAAAAKE


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:30 AM
horizontal rule
98

Gah. Just deleted a wall of text because my intuition is shifting as people post. I kind of want there to be a standard where the person who first crosses the threshold of violence bears the weight of responsibility for what happens next, and I don't find it implausible that Martin was throroughly pissed off by the actions of Zimmerman to the point of slugging him.

On the other hand all of this is taking place in a context where Zimmerman knows he has the gun to fall back on. He's escalating things by getting out of the car and generally behaving in a way he almost certainly would not if he was not armed. He's the one who introduced the potential for deadly force into the situation. That has to count for a lot regardless of other details of how things unfolded.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:30 AM
horizontal rule
99

I'd try that.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:31 AM
horizontal rule
100

head beaten on cement

Where did this come from?

Getting punched in the head hard enough to knock you down is not incapacitating, easy to get up. Z did not have broken bones in his face or lost teeth, not disabling. Punching someone that hard in the face damages the knuckles-- were M's right hand knuckles split?, elbow is much better. Tackle is not credible either, M was too light.

I don't know about guns. Possibly the trajectory of the bullet would be inconsistent with two men on level ground, or with a big guy under a small one.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:31 AM
horizontal rule
101

"if it's possible to kill someone this way, then everyone who wishes to would do it"
Well, you do have to make sure there are no witnesses. Or kill them too.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:32 AM
horizontal rule
102

I haven't followed it, but if I had the time (instead of commenting here), I would be interested in following how the lawyers and judge handled the defenses attempt to use the gf to paint Martin as a thug and dangerous. I am curious about how active the judge was in allowing the promotion (or discouragement) of that narrative.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:32 AM
horizontal rule
103

85: It's true that I have been talking about death as though it were all that mattered, and you're right that "grave bodily injury" does the job as well. Also fair to question whether Martin's goals are relevant -- that was me wandering away from the actual point, which is what was likely to happen to Zimmerman in this scenario. However:

And having your head beaten on cement until you're unconscious is unquestionably grave bodily injury.

Really? Being in a fight and getting knocked out is an injury, but I'm not at all convinced that it's "grave bodily injury" sufficient to justify deadly force, let alone "unquestionably" so. That's a question of law, at any rate, that has an answer that I certainly don't know off the top of my head and I don't think you do either.

But I think if you wind up with bumps and bruises but are physically fine a week or two later, you have not suffered a grave bodily injury. That's why I was focusing on (and using "death" as a shorthand for) something much worse than just getting knocked out and left unconscious on the sidewalk. That is what would need to be in the offing to justify deadly force in response.


Posted by: Osgood Yousbad | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:32 AM
horizontal rule
104

96, 99: Clearly calls for karydopita.


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:36 AM
horizontal rule
105

While it's possibly to escape grave injury when someone is pounding your head against concrete, surely one could reasonably fear, in the midst of it, that grave injury may well be the result. That is, not following anything, I think if the jury believes that M was pounding Z's head on the concrete, Z gets acquitted.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:43 AM
horizontal rule
106

103: Knocked unconscious seems to be to be a big physical deal. Both in itself (in that it involves slamming your brain against the inside of your skull until it temporarily stops working) and in that it leaves you unable to defend yourself in the presence of someone who has just hurt you badly enough to render you unconscious. I really don't think it's viable to draw a distinction, from the point of view of someone considering defending themselves, between "I am about to be knocked unconscious" and "I am about to be gravely injured."


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:44 AM
horizontal rule
107

103: If you're in a fight and the other guy is repeatedly banging your head against a concrete sidewalk (and I'm not conceding that this is necessarily the situation Zimmerman was in), you are probably not in a frame of mind to calmly assess whether your chances of sustaining a long-term brain injury are 80 percent or only 15 percent.


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:45 AM
horizontal rule
108

105 seems exactly right to me -- if the defense can keep the prosecution from ruling out "Martin was pounding Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk" beyond a reasonable doubt in the jury's eyes, Zimmerman's going to walk.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:46 AM
horizontal rule
109

I'm not at all convinced that it's "grave bodily injury" sufficient to justify deadly force, let alone "unquestionably" so. That's a question of law, at any rate, that has an answer that I certainly don't know off the top of my head and I don't think you do either.

No, actually, it's a question of fact, not a question of law. And I don't think there's a jury anywhere in America that would consider someone whose head is being slammed against concrete to not be in reasonable fear of imminent grave bodily injury.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:49 AM
horizontal rule
110

Here is where I admit in a forum populated by an unnatural proportion of lawyers that during the course of some ass-cracker-related searching that I learned that "aggravated assault" is *not* an assault charge that is somewhat lessened by mitigating (aggravating) circumstances as i had always imagined, but rather a more serious form of assault. The shame is crushing... (not really, what a totally stupid fucking use of language).


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:52 AM
horizontal rule
111

Yeah, you all are probably right. I'm inclined to resist this conclusion because while it is true that Knocked unconscious seems to be to be a big physical deal, it is not in the same zip code as *shot to death*, so I have a hard time seeing it as a proportional response.

But that probably just means I'm not satisfied with the law and/or the prevalence of guns on the streets.

109: No, actually, it's a question of fact, not a question of law.

No, what counts as "grave bodily injury" is a question of law. What happened on the ground is a question of fact. But I'm done with this.


Posted by: Osgood Yousbad | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:54 AM
horizontal rule
112

110: How is that language unclear?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:55 AM
horizontal rule
113

the prevalence of guns on the streets

This, this, this, this, this. What makes the self-defense doctrine so horrifying in this case is that Zimmerman had a gun. If neither of them had been armed, ninety-nine out of a hundred this would have been at worst a scuffle that left bruises, and much more likely Zimmerman would have had the sense to not be an aggressive ass.

There is an incredibly stupid Heinlein line that gun-rights people quote: "An armed society is a polite society." And it's exactly backwards -- because Zimmerman was armed, he felt safe being aggressively rude and offensive toward Martin, because his gun made him feel invulnerable to repercussions.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:58 AM
horizontal rule
114

110: Wait, what? "Aggravating" means exactly the opposite of "mitigating" in normal-English, not just lawyer-English.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:58 AM
horizontal rule
115

Speaking of head-on-ground etc., ttaM's comments from a martial arts perspective would be interesting here; I know enough to know that I don't know much more than to suspect that in hand-to-hand combat people* can do both more and less damage to one another than either side might predict.

* Excluding professional MMA fighters and people like Christian Tissier, I guess (the YouTube video of Tissier vs. the karate guy is pretty cool).


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:59 AM
horizontal rule
116

111: I would think that in the context of a self-defense claim, the key is what you could reasonably have feared would happen to you.

If someone has you pinned on the ground and is slamming you're head into the pavement, I think it's completely reasonable to fear that they might kill you.

I'm inclined to agree with 89 that context should matter somehow. The idea that you can start a physical altercation and then get off on self-defense seems not quite right. But that's pure gut instinct, not legal reasoning of any kind.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:00 AM
horizontal rule
117

Stormcrow was reading "Aggravated assault" as "Assault committed by someone who was emotionally aggravated, to the point where the defendant's emotional aggravation provided a partial defense to the severity of the crime." It wouldn't ever have occured to me to read it that way myself, but I can follow his thinking.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:00 AM
horizontal rule
118

nd it's exactly backwards -- because Zimmerman was armed, he felt safe being aggressively rude and offensive toward Martin, because his gun made him feel invulnerable to repercussions.

Yes! Agreed. The rule should be "Don't go somewhere with a gun that you would not go without a gun."


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:01 AM
horizontal rule
119

112, 114: So maybe it's me. I read it as the perpetrator having been "aggravated" into assaulting the victim. Potentially relevant in this and many other situations. I was wrong. But the language is wronger (to me).


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:02 AM
horizontal rule
120

Don't take your guns to town, son, leave your gun at home.


Posted by: Johnny Cash | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:02 AM
horizontal rule
121

Or LB in 117. For some reason ( in my youth) that is how I first read it, since it seemed to come up a lot in bar fights etc.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:03 AM
horizontal rule
122

119: Under the rule set forth in Stick v. Stone, being aggravated isn't generally a justification for assault.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:03 AM
horizontal rule
123

No, what counts as "grave bodily injury" is a question of law. What happened on the ground is a question of fact.

In what jurisdiction? Not in any I'm familiar with. A jury is just instructed that a defendant who claims self-defense must have acted in the reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm. It's up to the jury to decide whether the facts on the ground add up to self-defense. Whether a particular act of aggression, such as having one's head slammed against the ground, is or is not something that poses a risk of death or grave bodily harm is a question for the jury. It is not a matter of law.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:05 AM
horizontal rule
124

116.3 -- New York law is pretty clear about this. Florida is probably murkier.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:10 AM
horizontal rule
125

I mean, the definition of grave bodily injury is a matter of law--usually something like "any impairment of a person's physical condition that creates a substantial risk of death", but it's up to a jury to decide whether any particular facts satisfy that standard.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:12 AM
horizontal rule
126

I haven't been following it much at all, recently, but I'll bet $50* to charity that Z is convicted, if anyone wants to take the bet. Obviously, having your head smashed into the ground is sufficient reason for using deadly force in self defense. But Z as instigator goes directly to the credibility of this story and the jury's assessment of the proportionality of his response. Plus, from the articles I've quickly skimmed, it seems his lawyers are terrible.

*subject to my standard "no libertarian charity" condition, which has kept PGD from assigning $50 to any charity at all.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:19 AM
horizontal rule
127

Here's the Florida code section on the use of force by an agressor:

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:19 AM
horizontal rule
128

126: I'll take the bet!


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:21 AM
horizontal rule
129

Done! Hopefully Florida prosecutors are better than the 2012-13 Lakers.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:22 AM
horizontal rule
130

it seems his lawyers are terrible

The decision to include a knock-knock joke in the opening argument seems like a questionable one.


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:23 AM
horizontal rule
131

127 sounds like the common law rule on this that I hazily remember from law school.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:24 AM
horizontal rule
132

That was 776.041. Here's the whole thing: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html You can easily see what was essentially a codification of the common law, and what was added in 2005 as the SYG statute.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:28 AM
horizontal rule
133

Under the rule set forth in Stick v. Stone

Just to spell it out, this is a joke, right?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:28 AM
horizontal rule
134

Stick v. Stone

Was that the same Stone who filed an amicus brief in Paper v. Scissors?


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:31 AM
horizontal rule
135

Not a good joke, or a new joke, but a joke. I think I've appealed to the other leading case, Goose v. Gander, here as well.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:33 AM
horizontal rule
136

Caryatis feels the defense should be allowed to bring up Rubber v. Glue.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:38 AM
horizontal rule
137

Okay, once more. Yes, what I meant was that the definition of "grave bodily injury" is a matter of law; of course it's up to the jury to apply the law to the facts. If the definition is something like what urple says in 125, including a "substantial risk of death," then I still maintain that getting knocked unconscious should not meet that definition.

Where I seem to stand alone is on the question of whether a guy who's losing a street fight and getting his head banged into the ground is in reasonable fear of something worse than getting knocked out. I pointed to my super-scientific YouTube evidence for the proposition that the odds of death or, indeed, anything bearing a "substantial risk of death," in that scenario are low (I'd guess under .1%?), but then disclaimed any actual knowledge or expertise.

I'm not saying that if I were in that position I'd be calmly and rationally weighing the odds, not by any means. Just that pulling a gun and shooting a guy is a BFD and you should have to be in seriously dire straits before it's justified. And I'm not sure this rises to what should, in my mind, be a very very high bar.

But everybody disagrees with me about that, so fine. Consider the white flag waved.


Posted by: Osgood Yousbad | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:39 AM
horizontal rule
138

"Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm..."

Which is why you should download all the articles about concussions and subsequent brain damage, print them, and interleave them with your Guns & Ammo magazines. (Hell, getting hit in the head hard enough to warrant just an overnight stay for observation was known almost half a century ago to forecast some serious problems.)

(From here it looks as if Z's lawyers and the prosecution are both trying for "Incompetent of the Year" awards from the local bar association.)


Posted by: biohazard | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
139

There is an incredibly stupid Heinlein line that gun-rights people quote: "An armed society is a polite society."

"Polite" does not seem the proper descriptor: A 12-year-old fatally shot his 9-year-old half-brother at their grandparents' home in Jackson County, Ohio on Wednesday, before shooting himself dead with a gun he placed under his chin.


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
140

Semi-OT, I considered buying a gun for self-defense, but then I remembered that I hate how fucking loud they are. I think I'm going to get a bow and some arrows instead. (No pesky permit or license required!)


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:50 AM
horizontal rule
141

Just that pulling a gun and shooting a guy is a BFD and you should have to be in seriously dire straits before it's justified.

I know you've already waived the white flag, but I'm still completely boggled that you apparently don't consider someone whose head is being violently smashed against hard concrete with an intent to render them unconscious to be in "seriously dire straights".


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:53 AM
horizontal rule
142

Or, you know, straits.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:53 AM
horizontal rule
143

"Seriously dire straights" sounds like a hipster's way to describe ugly pants.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:54 AM
horizontal rule
144

138.last: Because Florida.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:54 AM
horizontal rule
145

140: Planning on changing your pseud to Hawkeye? It'd go with the fire-eating/circus-arts thing.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:57 AM
horizontal rule
146

Also, I demand that you set up video cameras in your house so that we can see what happens if someone breaks in and you defend yourself with a longbow.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:58 AM
horizontal rule
147

"Seriously dire straights" sounds like a hipster's way to describe ugly pants.

Or a way to describe the supporters of California's Proposition 8?


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 9:58 AM
horizontal rule
148

For home defense, you want don't want a longbow. You want a bow you can use to do this (posted here a ways back). Must learn.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:01 AM
horizontal rule
149

Misfire.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:02 AM
horizontal rule
150

146: I can't imagine I'd use it in my house.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:03 AM
horizontal rule
151

So you're planning to carry a bow with you at all times? This gets better and better. Little green hat?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:05 AM
horizontal rule
152

151: no, not at all times. Just when I might need it. I realize this is not completely practical. But guns are too damn loud; I can't stand stooting ranges, even with ear protection. I enjoy shooting arrows.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:07 AM
horizontal rule
153

You laugh, but I won second place at an archery competition in summer camp when I was 12 or so.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:09 AM
horizontal rule
154

Just when I might need it.

Reports of Sir Guy of Gisbourne in the area?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:11 AM
horizontal rule
155

I feel like you're mocking me.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:12 AM
horizontal rule
156

153: Don't tell anyone else or it'll hurt their feelings, but you know you're my favorite commenter, right?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:13 AM
horizontal rule
157

I am pretty sure you can get little crossbows, the size of a dinner plate, that would do the job inside a house. Sword or spear would also work, with practice.

Or wait a few years for the quadcopter with air-compressed poison darts.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:16 AM
horizontal rule
158

Perhaps you could acquire a squire to follow you and carry your archery gear? Or if a long bow is too unwieldy, maybe get one of those one-handed, pistol-sized crossbows?


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:16 AM
horizontal rule
159

Pwned. It's totally a good idea, though.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:18 AM
horizontal rule
160

But as the Duke said:"It ain't the quickness or the accuracy, but the willin'."


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:19 AM
horizontal rule
161

Oh, stop talking and get to work:

http://specialized-weapons.wonderhowto.com/inspiration/worlds-first-pneumatic-cannon-with-android-powered-scope-0128232/


Posted by: biohazard | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:20 AM
horizontal rule
162

Perhaps you could acquire a squire to follow you and carry your archery gear?

I don't think a bow is a knightly weapon, so he wouldn't rate a squire, exactly. Maybe something in a varlet?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:23 AM
horizontal rule
163

Would you think it less worthy of mockery if I described it as just getting a bow to shoot arrows for fun, instead of as a tool for self-defense? I don't think guns are fun; they're too loud. Arrows are quiet. And I can just go shoot them at the park right by my house.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:27 AM
horizontal rule
164

Or a knave, if he could get his hands on one.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:27 AM
horizontal rule
165

Would you think it less worthy of mockery if I described it as just getting a bow to shoot arrows for fun, instead of as a tool for self-defense?

Yes.

And I can just go shoot them at the park right by my house.

This has potential.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:28 AM
horizontal rule
166

I don't think a bow is a knightly weapon

It was in Japan, you Occidentalist, you.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:31 AM
horizontal rule
167

Wouldn't the knave be the member of the posse that brings the illegal handgun crossbow into the nightclub and accidentally shoots himself in the leg?

Verlet seems promising, but apparently it can be a synonym for a rogue? Which is totally not a useful skillset. Maybe we should just go with something like "personal archery assistant." Burdensome, but neither gendered nor tied down by confusing feudal structures.

Of course, PAA brings its own archaicness, so hopefully we can soon move forward to a future where we all have bow-sharing apps on our phones.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:32 AM
horizontal rule
168

Varlet. Verlet is something entirely different.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:34 AM
horizontal rule
169

Prior relevant art, if anyone doesn't remember it.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:35 AM
horizontal rule
170

169: That was hilarious.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:42 AM
horizontal rule
171

Semi-OT, I considered buying a gun for self-defense

Not a typical Unfogged-commenter thing to do, but I guess if...

Posted by: urple

Oh god no. DON'T DO IT MAN!


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:48 AM
horizontal rule
172

122: Under the rule set forth in Stick v. Stone, being aggravated isn't generally a justification for assault.

Not justification, just mitigating circumstance. See Confused Man v. Language.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:49 AM
horizontal rule
173

Letter Re: Archery Equipment for Those Living in Gun-Deprived Locales

Psychologically, if you shoot an individual with an arrow, you have just got "medieval" on them and the shock of seeing an arrow sticking out of their body will likely put an end to the confrontation. Modern man in North America and Europe is just not psychologically prepared for being impaled like they used to be.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:56 AM
horizontal rule
174

153- sounds like a good plan, until you run into the winner in a dark alley.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:58 AM
horizontal rule
175

I have a compound bow, but no arrows.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
176

related to OT:

I sort of understand the use of a self defense or STG type of argument for a case like zimmerman. What I don't understand (and dont' know enough about the case to see if it actually applies or just sounds like it applies) is this:

If you are are out and about voluntarily and armed, and you cause an altercation that eventually results in someone's death, why isn't this worthy of a charge similar to felony murder?


Posted by: delurking | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 11:02 AM
horizontal rule
177

163 And I can just go shoot them at the park right by my house.

Now I need to know which park you live near.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 11:06 AM
horizontal rule
178

If you are are out and about voluntarily and armed, and you cause an altercation that eventually results in someone's death, why isn't this worthy of a charge similar to felony murder?

Because simply causing an altercation is not typically a felony?


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
179

176: 178: Yeah. Being nasty to a waiter 'cause the soup is cold isn't a felony or even a misdemeanor. It's what happened during the escalation to the shooting that's considerably more relevant.


Posted by: biohazard | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 11:15 AM
horizontal rule
180

178: but that's sort of what I'm asking:

If J. Smith goes out looking for trouble, J. Smith causes that trouble to happen, J. Smith escalates the situation, but K. Miller ends up dead (with or without it being by direct action of J. Smith)

Why, in this case, is this not a felony for J. Smith? (Or is it and I just don't understand that part)


Posted by: delurking | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 11:18 AM
horizontal rule
181

Wouldn't a sharp sword be better and more practical for home defense?


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 11:20 AM
horizontal rule
182

Halford, you clearly haven't watched the video in 149.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
183

180: As I understand it, the felony murder charge applies when a death occurs during the commission of a felony. For example, you are robbing a bank (a felony), and the security guard tries to shoot you but misses and instead kills one of the bank customers. You (the bank robber) can be charged with felony murder. Even though you did not shoot and kill the customer, that customer's death was a direct result of you robbing the bank, which is a felony.

In your example, looking for trouble and causing trouble to happen are not felonies. If "escalating the situation" involves the commission of a crime that is a legitimate felony, then a felony murder charge might apply.


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
184

Why didn't Martin Zimmerman take Jeantel's the 911 operator's advice and run home back the fuck off?


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
185

180: It has to do with who escalated, how they did it, and all that. It's not just a simple finding of "he started it" with the kids bugging each other in the back seat.


Posted by: biohazard | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
186

Prior relevant art, if anyone doesn't remember it.

Reminds me. LB needs to revise her patent to cover physical hunting as well as virtual. There was a guy in Sacramento (home of fun) who recently got arrested for trying to spear a car.


Posted by: md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 11:30 AM
horizontal rule
187

183: In your example, looking for trouble and causing trouble to happen are not felonies.

Yes I understand why it is not felony murder, i was asking why something similar didn't exist.

I guess this is the part I don't understand. If you are wilfully creating a dangerous situation involving weapons, this seems completely worth of a felony charge all on its own, to me, if things go badly.


Posted by: delurking | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
188

From the photos of him, Zimmerman is less of a cracker than pretty much anyone who posts on Unfogged. Whoever was in the right, this was a brown guy shooting a black guy.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 11:34 AM
horizontal rule
189

187: In such a situation, I think something like "reckless endangerment" would apply, which I believe could be a felony if deadly weapons are involved.


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 11:39 AM
horizontal rule
190

189: that would make sense, so the reason that this doesn't apply for the OT is because there is already a 2nd degree charge?


Posted by: delurking | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 11:43 AM
horizontal rule
191

Where I seem to stand alone is on the question of whether a guy who's losing a street fight and getting his head banged into the ground is in reasonable fear of something worse than getting knocked out.

If you're in danger of getting knocked out from having your head slammed against concrete, then you're by definition in some danger of death or serious brain injury -- contrary to the movies getting knocked unconscious by a blow to the head is a really dangerous thing.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 11:51 AM
horizontal rule
192

190: Right. Charging someone with felony murder on the grounds that they killed someone while committing second-degree murder would amount to double-jeopardy.


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 11:58 AM
horizontal rule
193

I think of cracker as much more a class insult than a racial one, even though it originated when the class and race lines were drawn a little differently. Pretty close to `varlet', in fact, dismissive in a way slightly unlike `villein'.

William Morris uses `carle' a lot. Maybe we can bring that back.


Posted by: clew | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 12:02 PM
horizontal rule
194

193: I hear "parking varlet" frequently in L.A. They're considered a necessary evil or at best a convenience, I think, not seen as individuals.


Posted by: biohazard | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 12:14 PM
horizontal rule
195

||

It depresses me somewhat that when I come back to work Monday morning I won't be able to open up Google Reader. I'd better decide on a replacement real soon.

|>


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 12:37 PM
horizontal rule
196

||

Has this been linked yet? I think I read at least half of them on unfogged at one point or another.

|>


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 12:37 PM
horizontal rule
197

My prediction at the time was either full acquittal or at worst a slap on the wrist suspended sentence, right?

Is there still the possibility, in case of an acquittal, of a federal prosecution like the ones in the 60s for denying Martin his civil rights? Probably not, huh?


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 12:38 PM
horizontal rule
198

Reminds me. LB needs to revise her patent to cover physical hunting as well as virtual.

Maybe LB and I can collaborate to monetize my "I Hunt You for Sport" and complementary (for groups, birthday parties, corporate events, etc.) "You Have a Price on Your Head" personal training/teambuilding services. I think they need a social media/mobile iteration for traction in the VC sector.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 12:40 PM
horizontal rule
199

197: I actually wouldn't expect a slap on the wrist -- either an acquittal or a serious sentence is what I'd expect.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 12:47 PM
horizontal rule
200

The Most Dangerous Wii


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 12:48 PM
horizontal rule
201

I'm also on team "there's gotta be felony murder here somewhere." Battery while carrying a deadly weapon? Hate crime laws? Committing a crime at night? Something...

As we keep learning from the news, everything's a felony. So they ought to be able to find something that applies in LB's scenario.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 12:57 PM
horizontal rule
202

I don't know, eyewitness testimony today that M was atop Z raining blows on him. And that Z called for help. Was this a prosecution witness?


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:01 PM
horizontal rule
203

Popular sentiment my office seems to be "Trayvon Martin called this guy a "cracker", yet it's Paula Deen who gets fired. There's justice for you."


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:10 PM
horizontal rule
204

203: Did you explain to them that Travyon Martin is dead? Would that restore their faith in justice?


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:13 PM
horizontal rule
205

Seems it was. I guess the state is going to try to make the distinction OY wants to make above.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:16 PM
horizontal rule
206

203: Jesus, ned, where the fuck do you work?


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:17 PM
horizontal rule
207

If so, why don't more people choose to do this, it seems like a way to kill someone inconvenient or irritating without prison as a consequence.

Because it only reliably works on Black people?


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:22 PM
horizontal rule
208

Oh hey, look: So far, three former residents have testified for the prosecution that they saw someone who appeared to be Zimmerman on top during the incident


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:25 PM
horizontal rule
209

Because it only reliably works on Black people

And even then you have to go through the hassle of a trial, the scrutiny of national media attention, and withering mockery in Unfogged comment threads, so its not like there are no consequences at all.


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:25 PM
horizontal rule
210

202: the account I saw said that the testimony was that Martin was on top of Zimmerman during a tussle, but did not see Martin smashing Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk. So I'd guess the prosecution is planning to argue not that head-smashing isn't deadly force, but that this didn't reach that level.

What happens if the jury does think Martin was using deadly force, but only did so because he was reasonably afraid of deadly force (because, e.g., Zimmerman was threatening him with a fucking gum)?


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:26 PM
horizontal rule
211

Oh god it's like I'm in a Woody Allen movie. Gun, not gum.


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:26 PM
horizontal rule
212

210: Well, if Martin had a workable self-defense claim, then it was darn foolish of him to go and get killed like that, wasn't it?


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:29 PM
horizontal rule
213

210 -- pretty sure that in that scenario they convict Z, which is why I was comfortable betting $50.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:31 PM
horizontal rule
214

From the link in 173:

Arrows do not have even remotely the shattering effect on bone that bullets do (making people on drugs physically unable to move a shattered limb) but can, in a certain way, can put a person down as efficiently as a bullet. This appears to be true in my own personal experience with deer but it is tempered with the fact that I have also figuratively knocked deer off their feet with a deer slug, which is not going to happen with an arrow.

Does "figuratively" in this excerpt mean "literally"? Have the definitions of "figuratively" and "literally" literally switched places with one another?


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:34 PM
horizontal rule
215

reading through this stuff just reminded me what absolute bullshit SYG laws are.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:36 PM
horizontal rule
216

210, 213 -- I don't think so -- it looks to me like we only measure Z's choice at the time he made it. If both were using justified force, which isn't an outlandish conclusion, then Z walks. Because it doesn't matter in this case whether M's force was justified, motivated by ill will, or whatever.

I might pay some attention to the jury instructions when they're finally settled.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:37 PM
horizontal rule
217

214: In this case "figuratively" is the opposite of "abstractly".


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:37 PM
horizontal rule
218

It depresses me somewhat that when I come back to work Monday morning I won't be able to open up Google Reader. I'd better decide on a replacement real soon.

Feedly's Google Reader replacement back-end and API is up and running and seems to be fine*. A lot of the best RSS apps are being updated to work with it (for Android, both gReader and Press do).

*Apart from a weird feed truncation issue I'm having with Wonkette.


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:40 PM
horizontal rule
219

218: Doesn't feedly require a browser plug-in? That doesn't work for me.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:41 PM
horizontal rule
220

213, 216: I'd hope 213 is right, otherwise you can beat a murder charge if you provoke your victim into a show of lawful deadly force with your initial show of unlawful deadly force, but I don't see how you get there from the statute in 127. A quick look at the cases is not illuminating.


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:48 PM
horizontal rule
221

216, 220: So suppose Z starts the fight, then Martin escalates to the point where deadly violence is justified, then Z kills him. Even if the killing were justified, shouldn't Z still be guilty of assault and battery for taking the first swing? That wouldn't be a very satisfying verdict, but at least you don't get off scot-free...

And while the prospect of a scheme where you can have a premeditated murder that turns out to be "justified" is pretty gross, but in theory you'd need to put yourself in real danger--not just trumped-up make-the-case danger--for the justification defense to work. So it shouldn't be a very appealing plan on the whole.


Posted by: Osgood Yousbad | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:54 PM
horizontal rule
222

218: Doesn't feedly require a browser plug-in? That doesn't work for me.

Not any more.


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 1:57 PM
horizontal rule
223

221.1: But Z isn't being charged with battery, and there isn't much evidence with which you could prove battery.

221.2 Correct, no reasonable person would set out to beat a murder rap this way. Whether provably guilty of murder or not, Zimmerman is obviously a dangerous asshole.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
224

221.2: No, it wouldn't be a very good plan for premeditated murder, but I would think that a non-trivial number of homicides could unfold in a way that could be exploited after the fact. If I strangle you to death, I shouldn't be acquitted just because you managed to get your hands around my throat for a few seconds.


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 2:03 PM
horizontal rule
225

If I strangle you to death, I shouldn't be acquitted just because you managed to get your hands around my throat for a few seconds.

But you were genuinely in fear for your life!


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
226

||

Is there a name for the stage after shark-jumping?

|>


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 2:09 PM
horizontal rule
227

224 -- Looking at the justification statute quoted in 127, it seems to me that you could start a fight, be very vicious, throw the person down, then say 'I'm done with you [expletive] [demeaning phrase] [expletive]' -- and when he comes at you, shoot him.

IANAFL. Not intended as legal advice!


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 2:17 PM
horizontal rule
228

Maybe it's "figuratively" because deer have hooves, not feet, and saying "knocked deer off their hooves" sounds funny.


Posted by: Awl | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 2:21 PM
horizontal rule
229

Just because I feel like wallowing in my humiliation a bit more am somewhat fascinated by having had this *so* wrong for so long, I see that I literally* had it backwards, An aggravating circumstance is a kind of attendant circumstance and the opposite of an extenuating or mitigating circumstance, which decreases guilt.

*For some values of "literally."


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 2:24 PM
horizontal rule
230

228: Or maybe because the writer is the kind of person who writes into Survivorblog about the practicality of using bow-and-arrow for self-defense.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 2:25 PM
horizontal rule
231

231: Maybe to get a more learned opinion which still shares the writer's mindset to some extent, we should probably ask someone who writes into an eclectic web-magazine about the practicality of using bow-and-arrow for self-defense?


Posted by: Awl | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 2:29 PM
horizontal rule
232

Ugh, I should possibly maybe probably preview sometimes.


Posted by: Awl | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 2:30 PM
horizontal rule
233

||
Off topic, but my god what assholes beyond measure:

Senate Republican leaders have sent letters warning six professional sports leagues not to provide the Obama administration any assistance in promoting Obamacare.
The letters, dated June 27, warn the chiefs of the National Football League, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, Professional Golf Association and NASCAR that partnering with the administration to publicize the benefits of the health care law would damage their reputations.
The richest part is where they warn about threats for the administration. We have long been concerned by the Obama Administration's record of using the threat of policy retaliation to solicit support for its policies or to silence its critics

Obamacare, it's the law!
|>


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 2:58 PM
horizontal rule
234

I have just applied crushed corn flakes to the top of a dish. While drinking Bud Light.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 3:09 PM
horizontal rule
235

Moby: Objectively pro-Paula Deen


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 3:11 PM
horizontal rule
236

And now I'm going to make guacamole from a mix. When the queen goes to Scotland, she becomes Presbyterian. When I go to Nebraska....


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 3:16 PM
horizontal rule
237

I guess this is more Methodist cuisine.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 3:22 PM
horizontal rule
238

224 -- without reading a single case, I would bet very heavily that that's not the law.

227 -- as I recall, if you use deadly force first, you either need to try to escape and actually reasonably exhaust all means of escape, or unambiguously indicate that the fight is over and you're not continuing with it, before you can claim a self defense justification for homicide. Think about it -- there is no way that the law is that if I (without provocation) shoot at you, miss, you shoot back, miss, and then I shoot you again and hit, I'm exonerated of murder.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
239

I was kind of on Team They're Gonna Convict based on the jury makeup, but since Halford's betting that way I'm rethinking.

Is there still the possibility, in case of an acquittal, of a federal prosecution like the ones in the 60s for denying Martin his civil rights? Probably not, huh?

I'd say yes, actually. This administration's DOJ did something similar in an infamous case up here, in Shenandoah, PA. White teenagers beat a Mexican immigrant to death; got acquitted; feds retried them on hate crime charges.* The whole thing was complicated by the fact that the town police chief (!) was also found guilty of lying and coverup. But still, he was one of the less-sympathetic murder victims you could think of, and DOJ nevertheless took up the case and got convictions.

*I have extremely conflicted feelings about hate-crime legislation, but that's another story.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 3:41 PM
horizontal rule
240

partnering with the administration to publicize the benefits of the health care law would damage their reputations.

Wait, seriously? That's hilarious. It's like the class creep telling a girl he has a crush on that if she goes out with someone else she'll Damage Her Reputation!


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
241

Double jeopardy doesn't apply when the perpetrator is white and the victim is not?


Posted by: bjk | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 3:44 PM
horizontal rule
242

Or, I should say, not just deadly force (which would obviously also be felony murder). If you start the fight, you need to either (a) reasonably try and escape and be faced with deadly force and have no reasonsble means of escape or (b) really for real clearly indicate that you are no longer fighting.

Anyhow, while I haven't been following this, I didn't think either was Zimmerman's defense. I thought his story was that he didn't provoke the fight at all, was assaulted and pinned down, and had to fight for his life.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 3:44 PM
horizontal rule
243

241: 2009 called and wants its chilling effect back.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 3:52 PM
horizontal rule
244

Based on all the racial hatred in this thread, I though the correct opinion was to be for double jeopardy. Which is it? Here is the Guardian:

"In a far-sighted recommendation, the Macpherson inquiry recommended in 1999 that the double jeopardy principle deserved "debate and reconsideration", perhaps by the law commission.

The government's law reform advisers did indeed recommend reform of the double jeopardy rule in 2001 and the law was changed in the Criminal Justice Act 2003."

So no more double jeopardy in the UK.


Posted by: bjk | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 4:08 PM
horizontal rule
245

@ 140

May I recommend the Oxford Companion to Food by Alan Davidson instead? And a good cookbook which covers all the basic techniques.


Posted by: Tiny Hermaphrodite, Esq. | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 4:50 PM
horizontal rule
246

The Althouse Anal Affair is cracking me up.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 5:40 PM
horizontal rule
247

148/149: what in the hell is wrong with the audio on that video?


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 5:53 PM
horizontal rule
248

239* would make a good guest post, if you're so inclined. (Biscuit)


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 5:56 PM
horizontal rule
249

241 -- Right, that's exactly what the governing law is.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
250

Well. In other delightful news, the full-grown daughter of Zimmerman's defense lawyer apparently has neither manners nor judgment.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:31 PM
horizontal rule
251

Yeah, poor choice of hashtag there, lady- why not get skittles on your cones too.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 7:45 PM
horizontal rule
252

OT: I'm watching Deadline at Dawn. It's like Our Town mixed with The Big Sleep mixed with acid.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
253

And something French.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
254

The one guy keeps saying "Statistics tell us" and acting all existential and deep.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-28-13 8:48 PM
horizontal rule
255

||

Hell dead thread

Speed Tribes by Karl Taro Greenfield is a little old and maybe not entirely trustworthy, but a ton of fun. Without necessarily agreeing in toto:

But it is as if instead of trading actual cards, card collectors were to trade only information about cards. ("Did you know that Hank Aaron had to pose seven times for 1970 Topps baseball card number 500 before they were happy with the shot and that the bat he was holding actually belonged to Eddie Mathews?") The objects themselves are meaningless to otaku--you can't send Ultraman or a German tank through a modem, but you can send every piece of information about them.

"The otaku are an underground, but they are not opposed to the system per se," says Volker Grassmuck. "They change, manipulate, and subvert ready-made products and ideas, but at the same time they are the apotheosis of Japanese consumerism, and an ideal work force for contemporary capitalism. When you have a society where the best test-takers go to the top, and the tests are all fill-in-the-blank sort of things, then you end up with a society more comfortable with data than analysis. That's an otaku society."

It is the differentiation among commodities that creates exchange-value, and...never mind.

Did someone mention Girls und Panzers? Started watching it on animeplanet. Banzai!

The Tatami Galaxy only gets 9/10. but GuP is perfect, 10/10.

State-of-the-art production, gorgeous art, a truly class act, tons of fun with no ec/chi and few males, entertaining and recommended.

And classic otaku bait. Maybe 50-100 unique named girls with distinctive attributes, as many classic tanks referencing famous battles, 25? teams with distinctive uniforms, a built world of originality. All in 11-13 25 minute episodes. This sucker goes fast. With a cliched plot and tropish characters, but this is also the point. Plot points and personality traits are no more and no less data than tank treads and epaulets.

Merchandising possibilities to infinity.

Way too much information onscreen to absorb, and what's more important, the show can be best appreciated by researching tanks and battles, by mixing and matching uniforms and hair and personalities as distributed data. Etc.

The text is not on the screen but created by the audience of otakus.

Girls und Panzers is an *index*

|>


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-30-13 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
256

|?

And the reason the Zimmerman trial is headlines is because they/you want us/them to differentiate, to discover and create difference in order to consume and produce politics. Gradients as energy sources.

How could Obama bring us together if we aren't all fall apart?

|>


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-30-13 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
257

222: well, okay then--that's good to know. That would indeed make it an attractive alternative, except that I've spent the last 48 merely trying to load the page and have so far been unsuccessful. I'm guessing they're getting too much traffic...? Hrmph. g2reader is doing the same thing--I can load the page, but can't import my old feeds because their servers are overloaded. So, I'm using The Old Reader, which seems ok but clunky, and also I don't think there's a decent mobile version.

I suppose this would be a convenient time to go ahead an unsubscribe from apostropher's rss feed. His website seems to have devolved into chinese spam, which is probably the ultimate fate of all urls.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-30-13 3:10 PM
horizontal rule
258

Maybe they had a last minute rush - I didn't have any problems at all importing into Feedly mid-last week. I know they had server issues when the Google Reader announcement was first made though.l


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 07- 1-13 4:41 AM
horizontal rule