Rob's House

I wasn't sure if they went before or after rapists so I just omitted the category.

Tim Graham left because he's a kitty. There was a poster who for some reason felt the need to insult ESPN and its writers, who at the time were TG's employer and colleagues. Rather than putting him in his place, reporting his displeasure to the mods, or warning that he didn't care to engage with those insulting his friends and coworkers he responded to one lone poster by throwing a little B word fit, taking his ball and going home. Yeah, it was a dick move to throw those insults a guy who came here to share what he knew, and I did enjoy his posts, and didn't blame him for having a problem with those posts (personally I cringed for fear they would ultimately run him off), but the way he left outed him as petty and thin-skinned and his twitter behavior and subsequent articles have done little to dispell that image.

This is a ridiculous standard that no sane person would ever use if they hadn't been emotionally drawn to a particular side of the equation before being informed of the facts. Let's test the logic of your proposed standard using a separate hypo. Let's say I see someone who appears to have broken into a car. It could be his car and he just lost the keys, but it could be that he just broke into it and is making off with stolen property. I call the cops, but he's off to another block where I can't see him. I get out and follow behind him to see where he's going so I can tell the cops where to find him. He sees me, comes back and asks me why I'm following him. I ask him if he just broke into that car. He then punches me in the face, knocking me to the ground, sits on my chest, and starts pounding my face with his fist telling me I'm going to die today. What have I done wrong at this point, and why should I not be allowed to defend myself?

Hieriachy of scum in America (in ascending order): Petit thieves Drunk Drivers Domestic abusers Rapists Murderers Child molesteers Child killers People who have said the "N-word" out loud.

Another ignorant moron sharing the idiocy with the rest of us. Thank you for reminding me that the rest of humanity has a median IQ of 100. First off, as I've stated countless times, this case has nothing to do with "stand your ground". Your assumption that TM was "chased" down is pure uncorroborated speculation on your point, you conveniently overlook the evidence that overwhelmingly suggests TM forewent the opportunity for safety in order to confront Zimmerman. Then you conclude your argument with you unsubstantiated assumption that TM was this frightened child in the night searching for safety reluctantly forced to confront and attack this strange man, when all the facts we do know seem to indicate otherwise. But while you've contributed nothing of value to the analysis of the situation, you've provided yet another case study into how people (particularly libs, it seems) just make **** up to confirm their biases. So for that I thank you.

This is where I get irritated. This is not a legal argument. This is the semi-coherent ramblings of an ignoramous who thinks his argument has merit; enough merit in fact that he choses to share it with others. Maybe Zimmerman does or does not deserve punishment for something, but your post offers nothing to push that needle in one direction or the other. Whether Trayvon Martin deserved to die has nothing whatsoever to do with whether George Zimmerman committed a crime or deserves punishment. What would have been objectively reasonable at the time he pulled the trigger is the determining factor, and so far I have yet to see you or anyone else establish the necessary mens rea with anything other than baseless conjecture. And if you think GZ getting out of the car when the dispatcher said he didn't need him to follow TZ is dispositive of guilt, you're a !@#$ing tard. So is there more to your analsysis or is that it?

This pretty well sums it up.

If the prosecution uses evidence of TM's good character to show that he wouldn't have been the initial aggressor, the defense can present evidence of his character to show otherwise. I don't see that happening though.

His reputation would be relevant, not to show that he had a propensity for killing, but to show that you were reasonable in fearing for your safety.

Dude, the Bible's a living breathing document. In Your Face DC Tom!!! I'm not the only person who quotes Kingpin.

Oh, an observation? Well who the !@#$ are you, man, Isaac Newton? They should google "Paula Deen".

The problem with critical race theory, which Tasker touched on but I'll expound on, is that it treats people as groups rather than individuals. My conlaw professor (who taught CRT rather than conlaw) said you have to hold back the white people to help the black people catch up b/c the white people have a head start. This ignores the reality that individuals rise and fall rather than groups. Should a white kid born into lower economic status take comfort in the fact that other people his color are doing well?

The Chinese say that the brave die one death but cowards die 1000. I'm not sure how many times people who allow others to talk **** die, but it's probably a lot.

Aren't we quick to judge. You don't even know the context. Maybe the other guy was talkin ****.

If that's all it was the attempted murder charge probably gets dropped before trial. We had a guy in Richmond who punched a cop 3-4 times (cop was admittedly harassing him at the time) & the CA brought an attempted murder charge. It was dropped before trial & he was convicted of malicious wounding. There's either more to this or just an overzealous prosecutor looking for headlines.

No, that's Brit Hume

Your analysis is still pretty vague. If I have the time and inclination tomorrow I'll look over FL case law, but I'm not really seeing the problem. I'm not sure why I shouldn't be allowed to defend myself against someone simply because we're acquainted, and it's unclear which irrebuttable presumptions you're referring to.

!@#$ AZ. Dirty cheating fascist bastards put speed check cameras on the side of the road so that when you go to the Grand Canyon you come home to a $200 ticket with a picture of you going 12 over in your rental car on the way back to Vegas. At least with a real cop in a cop car you've got a chance. These candy asses take the sport out of it. I bet the AZ state pastime is spotlight hunting.

What kind of tweaking? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but the fact that a politician who managed to get himself elected said so doesn't really carry a lot of weight around here. What specifically needs to be changed?

I don't know what state you're in, or how the case law defines the details in FL, so I won't dispute what you're saying, but generally speaking all stand your ground means is that you don't have to retreat in order to maintain your right to self-defense. I've never heard of a jurisdiction or a case where the initial aggressor retains a right to use deadly force in self-defense.

No, you're thinking of Blaine Bishop.

My record is 50 ft +/- and at that height you have to cup your balls and point your toes or you'll wish you did. 175 makes me a little queasy just thinking about it.

You're thinking of Desmond Howard.

"The Storm in Placid Lake" is a well made off beat satirical dark comedy about a normal kid dealing with the pitfalls of growing up, particularly in the context of being a scrawny kid raised by eccentric hippie parents. Sounds dull, I know, but it's actually a really good movie and is available periodically on Netflix.

I'm not sure I'm ready to declare the guy a hero, because I do have reservations about those trusted with classified info releasing it, and if these were secrets of military positioning, weaponry, or something equivalent I'm sure I'd be singing a different tune, but as of now I do hope he avoids extradition. I thus far do not see how the information he's released amounts to espionage or treason. Light treason, maybe, but since no one's taken the bait thus far I doubt you'll start now.