CNN losing credibility as each day passes... Its pure propaganda at this point

[Azalin]

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

 Sonderkraftautomatischekraftfahrzeug-Hitler

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

11 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

 

 

Oh, come on, man.  What part of "Sonderkraftautomatischekraftfahrzeug" or "Panzerkampfmaschinegehilfer" do you not understand?  How can you call that a "Special Forces Automatic Motor Vehicle Hitler," when it's clearly the "Armored Battle Machine-Walker Hitler?"  I mean...does it look like a motor vehicle?  Do you even see the legs?  

 

(Yes, those are the translations of the names I typed.)

[Kevbeau]

5 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

Much better

 

I’d like to buy a vowel please

[Azalin]

4 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Oh, come on, man.  What part of "Sonderkraftautomatischekraftfahrzeug" or "Panzerkampfmaschinegehilfer" do you not understand?  How can you call that a "Special Forces Automatic Motor Vehicle Hitler," when it's clearly the "Armored Battle Machine-Walker Hitler?"  I mean...does it look like a motor vehicle?  Do you even see the legs?  

 

(Yes, those are the translations of the names I typed.)

 

 

      Ich bin beschämt -  Ich wurde um ein korrigiert superciliöse anale Öffnung.

[DC Tom]

9 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

 

      Ich bin beschämt -  Ich wurde um ein korrigiert superciliöse anale Öffnung.

 

Meine hovercraft ist fullen of eelen.

Edited July 27, 2018 by DC Tom

[Azalin]

45 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Meine hovercraft ist fullen of eelen.

 

 

I deserve that. Relying on Google to translate is pretty much the equivalent of using Yalt's English/Hungarian phrasebook.

 

Thanks - I got a great laugh out of that.

[DC Tom]

26 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

 

I deserve that. Relying on Google to translate is pretty much the equivalent of using Yalt's English/Hungarian phrasebook.

 

Thanks - I got a great laugh out of that.

 

Yeah, well my German is strictly limited to two things: real designations of German World War 2 military equipment, and fake designations of German World War 2 military equipment.

 

But I can fake the hell out of them: Sondersturmkampfzestoererflugzeug-Goering.  "Special Battle Storm Destroyer Aircraft Goering."  God, German is an awful language.

[row_33]

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Yeah, well my German is strictly limited to two things: real designations of German World War 2 military equipment, and fake designations of German World War 2 military equipment.

 

But I can fake the hell out of them: Sondersturmkampfzestoererflugzeug-Goering.  "Special Battle Storm Destroyer Aircraft Goering."  God, German is an awful language.

 

back in the day i wrote a major paper on Guderian, he is probably happy he still managed to slipped out of the limelight

[DC Tom]

Just now, row_33 said:

 

back in the day i wrote a major paper on Guderian, he is probably happy he still managed to slipped out of the limelight

 

Heinz was a classic Prussian general in the "Find the French, attack the French, Kill the French" style of Bluecher - "Marschal Vorwaerts."  But he was a bit overrated.  Hermann Balck...he was a Panzer Commander. 

 

Or Hanz Hube.  It's stereotypical that soldiers refer to their Generals as "The Old Man" - "Der Alte Mann."  Hube, his soldiers just called him der Mann - "The Man."  

[row_33]

10 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Heinz was a classic Prussian general in the "Find the French, attack the French, Kill the French" style of Bluecher - "Marschal Vorwaerts."  But he was a bit overrated.  Hermann Balck...he was a Panzer Commander. 

 

Or Hanz Hube.  It's stereotypical that soldiers refer to their Generals as "The Old Man" - "Der Alte Mann."  Hube, his soldiers just called him der Mann - "The Man."  

 

he twice refused suicidal orders from Hitler, he made sure to be detained by the US, never even went on trial...

 

 

[GG]

16 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Heinz was a classic Prussian general in the "Find the French, attack the French, Kill the French" style of Bluecher - 

 

 

Finally, something I can comment on.

 

[reddogblitz]

I couldn't stand Hienz Ward when he was playing.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Teddy KGB]

Saw 10 mins or so of CNN while dining out last night 

 

Saw a few minutes of panel trashing trump followed by an hour long special on Putin’s reach.  

 

Tweet along at #putinsreach 

 

??‍♂️????

[row_33]

CNN fails to make the same lame card trick work for the 213th straight time, but compels liberals to continue sitting there hoping it works

 

 

[B-Man]

CNN Mangles “Stand-Your-Ground” Law Yet Again

 

Posted by Andrew Branca  

 

When I tell you that you must assume that everything the news media has to say about self-defense law and events is 100% wrong until proven otherwise, this is why: CNN: “What you need to know about ‘stand your ground’ laws”.

 

The errors on “Stand-Your-Ground” in particular and self-defense law in general, whether these errors are borne of ignorance or malice, are almost too numerous to count. But let us make the effort, shall we?

Cases of self-defense aren’t always simple — especially in states with a “stand your ground” law.

 

Actually, cases of self-defense are simpler in states with a “stand your ground” law, all other things being equal, because in those SYG states self-defense must be evaluated on only four elements–innocence, imminence, proportionality, and reasonableness–rather than five elements–the addition of the element of avoidance.

Although critics say Drejka’s use of deadly force was uncalled for, the Pinellas County sheriff declined to arrest him, citing the state’s “stand your ground” law, which gave him immunity. The decision sparked outcry and calls for reform.

Oh, I see: “Although critics say …” Well that’s a convincing anonymous argument.

 

Also, “stand-your-ground” is not “self-defense immunity.” Indeed, these are not only entirely distinct legal doctrines, they’re found in entirely distinct Florida statutes: SYG in §776.013 and self-defense immunity in §776.032.

 

Then CNN helpfully supplies it’s own demented definition of what it thinks “stand-your-ground” law is:

Generally, “stand your ground” laws allow people to respond to threats or force without fear of criminal prosecution.

There is no universe in which that is a true statement. There is always a risk of criminal prosecution if you “respond to threats or force” with defensive conduct. That risk may be great or it may be slight, but it is never zero.

Most self-defense laws state that a person under threat of physical injury has a “duty to retreat.” If after retreating the threat continues, the person may respond with force.

This is an abject untruth. A large majority of about 36 states are effectively “stand-your-ground” states in that they do not impose a legal duty to retreat before acting in self-defense.

Indeed, only a small minority of about 14 states impose a legal duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, and most of those impose that duty only in the context of the use of deadly defensive force. Fewer than a handful of states impose a legal duty to retreat before non-deadly defensive force may be used.

 

The article then includes several quotes from Mark O’Mara, who was co-counsel for George Zimmerman, and not surprisingly O’Mara’s statements on the law are completely accurate, which I’ll skip over for our purposes. None of O’Mara’s statements make CNN any smarter, also not surprisingly.

 

CNN then again mistakes the prevalence of “stand-your-ground” laws across the 50 states. Even more remarkably, they seem to not know that every single state provides “some form of legal protection in cases of self-defense,” to wit, if your use of force was in fact lawful self-defense you have zero legal liability for that use of force.

While most states provide some form of legal protection in cases of self-defense, 25 have enacted “stand your ground” laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

Then the article gratuitously suggests that “Stand-Your-Ground” is rooted in racism:

The laws in at least 10 of these states, mostly in the South, literally say that you can “stand [your] ground.”

“Mostly in the south”? Yeah–so, that “southern” “deep-red” state California, the one in which Hillary beat Trump by a full 30% of the vote? Yeah, well, um … California is one of the most vigorous “stand-your-ground” states in the country. Quoting now from California jury instruction CALCRIM 505:

A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/ ) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.

How about Washington state, where Hillary beat Trump by ~14% of the popular vote? Stand-your-ground state. Oregon, where Hillary beat Trump by ~10%? Stand-your-ground state. Nevada, won by Hillary? Stand-your-ground state. New Hampshire, won by Hillary? Stand-your-ground state. Maine, won by Hillary? Stand-your-ground state. I could go on, but I’ll soon run out of states won by Hillary (thank God). And note that none of those states cited are “in the south.”

CNN then suggests that there’s something substantively unusual about Florida self-defense law:

[Florida] passed its “stand your ground” law in 2005, allowing people to meet “force with force” if they believe they’re under threat of being harmed.

Every state allows people to meet “force with force” if they reasonably believe they are under threat of being harmed, and meet the other conditions of self-defense. No state, including Florida, allows people to use defensive force if they subjectively but unreasonably believe they are under threat of being harmed (the best that can be hoped for in such a case is the mitigation of murder to manslaughter.

 

{snip}

 

Naturally CNN cannot complete the piece without mischaracterizing the George Zimmerman trial.

Zimmerman defied an order to not approach the teen.

As anyone who actually watched the trial would know, and which I’ve documented at length, including winning a $100 bet with (then CNN legal analyst) Sonny Hostin on this issue, who to this day refuses to make good on her lost wager, Zimmerman never defied any police order in any way. Indeed the police dispatcher who was on the phone with Zimmerman testified at trial that he never gave Zimmerman any order whatever.

[DC Tom]

3 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

Most self-defense laws state that a person under threat of physical injury has a “duty to retreat.” If after retreating the threat continues, the person may respond with force.

 

"You have no right to defend yourself, you only have a right to run away."

 

Well, that ought to be a comfort to rape victims everywhere.  

[Cinga]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

"You have no right to defend yourself, you only have a right to run away."

 

Well, that ought to be a comfort to rape victims everywhere.  

 

[/dev/null]

13 hours ago, B-Man said:

Most self-defense laws state that a person under threat of physical injury has a “duty to retreat.” If after retreating the threat continues, the person may respond with force.

 

 

9 hours ago, DC Tom said:

"You have no right to defend yourself, you only have a right to run away."

 

Well, that ought to be a comfort to rape victims everywhere.  

 

 

 

[Koko78]

The duty to retreat only goes so far as it being safe to do so. You have no duty to retreat when someone pulls a gun, as you're not outrunning the bullets. You do have a duty to retreat if someone pulls a knife on you from 30 feet away, and you have somewhere to go. You can only blow the bastard away if he advances on you as you are trying to retreat or if you are backed into a corner with no avenue of egress.

 

Then there's the castle doctrine: You have no duty to retreat from your home or business.