Juror#8

Very tough call between this one and Detective Kuyon's realization scene (voice-over flashback scene) at the end of Usual Suspects but anyway... When someone yells your name from on top of a mountain, it's a !@#$ing wrap. DRAGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

7.5 But not flounder so I'll pass.

Back up cameras and bull **** sensors. What are you people, !@#$ing French? Mmmmph! I drive a GT500. 3800 pounds of Detroit Muscle. Modular motor. Blown 540 horsepower before the louder whiner. Eats gas buffet style and ***** on hybrids. Anyone who doesn't drive a gas guzzling big block Ford built in the Dearborn, MI is pussyfying this country and hates freedom. We've found the vortex of the American Dream gentlemen. Where are you at?

Afghanistan needed to happen. It has just been pathetically mismanaged by Bush, and now, Obama. I don't think that Obama has what it takes to fix the situation. He just likes throwing around euphemisms like "de-escalation" and "draw down."

In order of talent, not need. 1. RGIII 2. Andrew Luck 3. Matt Kalil 4. Justin Blackmon 5. Morris Claiborne 6. Michael Floyd 7. Trent Richardson 8. Melvin Ingram 9. Johnathan Martin 10.Luke Kuechly

Good luck to him trying to prove damages. I now have to clean Chick-Fil-A sweet tea off the keyboard because I laughed out loud at the wrong time. Absolutely hilarious! I've noticed the same thing. It's like he is twenty seconds ahead of everyone else in the conversation.

Ralph is broke from signing Mario Williams. So Mark Anderson would have to agree to sign for half of his market value. Therefore, while the Bills had Mario Williams visit with Jim Kelly, they took Mark Anderson to visit Jerry Sandusky - to help him work on his stance and technique.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I agree with the reasoning behind the Stand Your Ground Law. But ... there is a grey area around this idea of objective reasonableness. The law exists to punish people who act so impulsively and so selfishly that it offends traditional notions of justice and fair play. There has to be an level of objectivity to the reasonabless consideration. If the standard becomes subjective resaonabless, then every little indiosyncratic thing becomes dispositive. Would the reasonable person with an anxiety disorder feel that they were being threatened? Would the reasonable narcoleptic feel that they were being threatened in the instance when they were worried but not entirely sure so they shot before falling asleep and guessing wrong? There has to be an objective standard. I'm concerned that Florida's law doesn't appear to observe an objective standard of reasonableness. It's all about the subjective standard. Basically they ask: "Is it reasonable to believe that ______ could feel threatened with potential bodily injury given the circumstances thus necessitating the defensive action?" That is waaaay to open-ended and subjective. What you're left with is people who shoot first and think after who are anxious, tense, on-edge, sleep deprived, biased, instigators, etc but who will get off because they, subjectively and in that individualized context, felt threatened. I'm not sure how that protects the citizenry. It should provide immunity when and only when the reasonable person would feel that the level of force was necessary to repel what would otherwise be the commission of a felony against them.

You. Me. But I think it's that way for every president with children. Jenna and Barbara Bush took a couple of European vacations and had Secret Service along. Chelsea Clinton went to Sidwell Friends school in DC and if I remember correctly the school went to France on some kind of rich people field day where she was accompanied by Secret Service agents. I'm not sure that this is anomalous.

I don't like him because I think he is a profiteer and a dilettante. I don't think that he is sincere. I don't think that he is a person who would address under-representation, and disparate treatment, and inequalities if there wasn't a financial gain for himself. He has amassed a significant wealth by being at the site of newsworthy stories, and by presenting himself as the de-facto leader of minority issues. While people like Van Jones, Russell Simmons, Bill and Melinda Gates, Craig Watkins, Cornell West, Melissa Harris-Perry, George Soros, Michael Eric Dyson, etc. have been advocates and have advanced the egalitarian agenda equally as much and without the personal profit and/or self aggrandizing angle.

To be fair to Sharpton, he did rally for Sean Bell. The majority of the police officers involved in that instance were black.

Double-stacked Pancakes from IHOP?

Agree 100%. But funny enough, in the law, there is "the reasonable person who only has a split second to make a decision" standard. Just like there is the "reasonable diabetic" and "the "reasonable microbiophobic," etc. There is no duty to retreat, in any jurisdiction, from someone who has a firearm. A very good legal argument.

My memory of those circumstances says that in as between chattle and human beings, human beings win out. I remember a case in law school about some 70 year old guy setting up a shot gun trap because intruders kept breaking into his barn. The trap was rigged to shoot whomever opened the door. It turns out that local high school kids were burgling neighboring houses. One such young gentleman fell victim to this elderly gentleman's shot gun trap. He was convicted of manslaughter and went to jail for the rest of his life. Prosecutors tried to get him on a M1 arguing that it was premeditated but the jury wouldn't go for it. Analogizing those circumstances, and in cases where there is a duty to retreat and you refuse to protect your wallet, I'd think that you'd lose. Not that it's right though.

Agreed on the carelessly written part. The problem that seems to be coming out of Florida is that the law seems to be exercised VERY liberally because of very opened-ended language.

States that have a "duty to retreat" usually only ask that if the "reasonable person" could retreat in such a way that wouldn't cause additional harm to themselves or others, then they should do so before causing aggravated bodily injury to an advancing entity. And most states that have a "duty to retreat" observe a castle doctrine. In effect, you have a "duty to retreat" in every place accept for your home. That is how the laws were in NC and NY (where I'm licensed) 10 years ago and I can't imagine that they changed much in the last decade. Do you not think that that is reasonable?

I would be interested to know people's thoughts on the law itself. Hoping not to discuss the Trayvon Martin case too much here so as not to overlap with the other thrread. Just want to know your general impressions of the law and similar such pieces of legislation. Agree? Disagree? I really tried to find some articles that provide a "pro" stance, but couldn't find much, if anything; likely because of all the negative attention around the Trayvon Martin case. A few tidbits though: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/03/19/anti-gun-advocates-use-teens-death-to-blast-the-nra-says-911-calls-prove-it-wasnt-self-defense/ http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2012/01/iowa-stand-your-ground-legislation-passes-committee!.aspx Interesting article (in opposition): http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1220845.ece Anyone have anything substantive about the intent/origins of the law?

I'm really hoping that you're wrong and that he can win. If he doesn't win, I'm hoping that he can leverage his support into a post in a GOP White House. Maybe he can then parlay that into a strong run in 2020.

Exactly. And that is where prosecutors will have to pin their hopes. Per the language: "reasonably believe it will prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." Was it, in fact, reasonable, for Zimmerman to believe that he was at great risk given that he followed a retreating entity? A GREAT defense counsel will argue that the risk didn't present itself until after Zimmerman caught up with Martin. Based on my review of some precedent in FL, those circumstances would present a case of first impression in Florida.

Any intrepid prosecutor should be glad to have this case and provide justice for his family given the facts. 1. Who started the struggle - the only one who knows that is Zimmerman (assuming that if there were eye-witnesses with substantive details it would have led to Zimmerman's arrest). The court, though, is obliged to draw inferences based on circumstantial data. a. The victim, by all accounts and in consideration of the 911 tape, was retreating what he felt was an escalating situation. Zimmerman, in consideration of the same data, wasn't going after Martin to ask him to stop by and play Madden. There is enough circumstantial data to suggest that Zimmerman had already escalated the matter by going against the police's admonitions. The reasonable person can infer that Zimmerman continuing that escalation in his confrontation with Martin. b. Juries are asked everyday to draw inferences based on an appraisal of presented data

Exactly. There are a few words that actually have meaning there - the most important of which is "reasonably." The law is so much predicated on a "reasonable person standard": the "reasonable" man (if you will). Rob'sHouse can probably tell you all about it since he is actively dealing with that madness whereas I'm almost a decade out of LWorld. But I digress...the dispositive legal questions are: 1. Would the "reasonable person," if feeling threatened with immigent physical harm, follow a retreating entity? (Keep in mind, even though FL has no duty to retreat and doesn't necessarily follow the traditional narrowly defined "Castle doctrine," can you still escalate an otherwise diffused circumstance there...) 2. Would the "reasonable" 250 lbs, 6'0" man feel threatened by a 5'10" 150 lbs. man? (Keep in mind - it doesn't matter if *you* would feel threatened, it just matters whether or not the "reasonable person" would consider that a threatening circumstance given those variables? 3. Then you add that the victim did not have a weapon. Wow. A non-legal analysis - Zimmerman is a pathetic ghetto thug.

It's a dispositive point that ALWAYS arises in claims of self-defense...as I'll mention when I address the "reasonabless" issue.

And based on your understanding of that law, how do you feel that it fits the facts and circumstances of this case...as you understand them.

Will do Skeeter. There were plenty of politicians who were unsuccessful behind someone else and turned out later to be successful. And Roemer's political gains and losses does not implicate Romney's ability to be a good leader or win a political contest. I'm supporting Roemer because his vision is more aligned with the direction that I feel the country should be taking. And he is sincere...in my opinion.

I have disliked Romney since 2008 so I am certainly biased. Romney lost those southern states because he can't close the deal. He will numb enough of the base that they won't vote in the general election. GOP statements in recent months will be an albatross that will sink his efforts to interest the largest voting demographic, women. He will get Gored as some saturnine business-savy automaton - a characteristic which has never attracted any significant independent contingent. He is running against an improving economy (which most voting persons are too doltish to put in proper context - they just attribute it to presidential policies). I'm supporting BUDDY ROEMER. I'm even handing out informational brochures at DC, VA, MD metro stations on behalf of his campaign on weekends beginning in August. Gotta go grassroots! Volunteers always wanted: http://www.buddyroemer.com/promote info@buddyroemer.com