… while California growers were left without resources after fires destroyed their homes and crops. Thank you, fed prohibitionists.
Spot fake reviews on Amazon, Yelp, TripAdvisor, and other popular sites. (H/T MJ)
The solution to F*c*b**k overload is not more F*c*b**k. And certainly not more power for FB.
Reports say that several hundred people have been killed in a tunnel collapse at North Korea’s hydrogen bomb test site. If true, here’s hoping their key nuclear scientists and engineers are among the dead.
Hilariously awful, if true. Harvey Weinstein might have a case against the Weinstein company because his employment contract had a clause protecting him … oh, you’ve got to read it to believe it.
Gun store robber claims self defense for killing one of his victims. (Perps say this sort of thing all the time, but that this is being allowed in court is nutz!)
I’ve been wanting to say something about this travesty, but George Will said it better: Boeing, Bombardier, and the damage of protectionism.
The alcohol companies getting into cannabis? Remember when the paper people managed to get control of hemp production. They used government to destroy that market. The alcohol people could possibly do the same to cannabis. Or not? 🙂
Comrade XOctober 31, 2017 2:11 pm
If the robber can get a self defense ruling then can he therefore go after the person (or their estate) who shot him in civil court because of that ruling?
There could be an unintended consequences to courts behaving like this whereas good guys may have to just eliminate bad guys and not leave them around to testify/sue or whatever later.
If the robber can get a self defense ruling then can he therefore go after the person (or their estate) who shot him in civil court because of that ruling?
Anybody can sue you for anything, but in Texas, at least, state law prohibits awarding civil damages against you if you were justified in defending yourself. There’s also a provision stating that his use of force is not justified if he provoked the force you used against him. Armed robbery would seem to me to be a “provocation.”
There could be an unintended consequences to courts behaving like this whereas good guys may have to just eliminate bad guys and not leave them around to testify/sue or whatever later.
I keep hearing that. “Make sure the bad guy can’t testify against you.” Three problems:
1. Him being dead just means his next of kin can sue you.
2. You really don’t want witnesses telling your jury that you advocate “eliminating bad guys.”
3. It’s a bad mindset. There was a fairly recent case of a store owner convicted of murder because he shot a robber, went outside to shoot at the other robber, then went and got another gun to finish off the first, incapacitated robber.
Comrade XNovember 1, 2017 8:06 am
“It’s a bad mindset.”
I agree but the unintended consequences of bad behavior by courts may create bad mindsets methinks. Of course I would never advocate a bad mindset.
ExpatNJNovember 1, 2017 3:56 pm
Reply to larryarnold October 31, 2017 4:55 pm:
There is a certainly a difference between public and private self-defense. Lincoln said, “Public perception is everything”. So public eye-witnesses could very well bury an overzealous defender.
But, in one’s own home – regardless of any ‘Castle Doctrine’ or ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws – it makes sense to ensure a home invader cannot testify against a homeowner. The criminal could say s/he was merely visiting, and homeowner “went nuts”, “just started shooting me for no reason”, etc. To prevent that, a simple phrase is worth remembering: “Shoot. Shovel. Shut up”.
In my neck o’ the woods, a woman some years ago went on trial for shooting her ex-husband/boyfriend, a home intruder. When asked why she shot him THIRTY-SEVEN times (with a .357 magnum), she replied, “Cause every time I shot him, he jumped/moved”. She was acquitted. He lived.
[NOTE: This is not – nor is it intended to be – legal advice. I am not an attorney-at-law, nor am I admitted to The Bar in any state, nor do I play one on TV. Caveat Emptor. YMMV.]
Inevitable: the liquor industry is getting in on cannabis.
Constellation Brands Inc. has it’s headquarters in Victor, NY, a suburb of Rochester.
I didn’t realize Fakespot covered anything other than Amazon. Thanks for the tip!
The alcohol companies getting into cannabis? Remember when the paper people managed to get control of hemp production. They used government to destroy that market. The alcohol people could possibly do the same to cannabis. Or not? 🙂
If the robber can get a self defense ruling then can he therefore go after the person (or their estate) who shot him in civil court because of that ruling?
There could be an unintended consequences to courts behaving like this whereas good guys may have to just eliminate bad guys and not leave them around to testify/sue or whatever later.
If the robber can get a self defense ruling then can he therefore go after the person (or their estate) who shot him in civil court because of that ruling?
Anybody can sue you for anything, but in Texas, at least, state law prohibits awarding civil damages against you if you were justified in defending yourself. There’s also a provision stating that his use of force is not justified if he provoked the force you used against him. Armed robbery would seem to me to be a “provocation.”
There could be an unintended consequences to courts behaving like this whereas good guys may have to just eliminate bad guys and not leave them around to testify/sue or whatever later.
I keep hearing that. “Make sure the bad guy can’t testify against you.” Three problems:
1. Him being dead just means his next of kin can sue you.
2. You really don’t want witnesses telling your jury that you advocate “eliminating bad guys.”
3. It’s a bad mindset. There was a fairly recent case of a store owner convicted of murder because he shot a robber, went outside to shoot at the other robber, then went and got another gun to finish off the first, incapacitated robber.
“It’s a bad mindset.”
I agree but the unintended consequences of bad behavior by courts may create bad mindsets methinks. Of course I would never advocate a bad mindset.
Reply to larryarnold October 31, 2017 4:55 pm:
There is a certainly a difference between public and private self-defense. Lincoln said, “Public perception is everything”. So public eye-witnesses could very well bury an overzealous defender.
But, in one’s own home – regardless of any ‘Castle Doctrine’ or ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws – it makes sense to ensure a home invader cannot testify against a homeowner. The criminal could say s/he was merely visiting, and homeowner “went nuts”, “just started shooting me for no reason”, etc. To prevent that, a simple phrase is worth remembering: “Shoot. Shovel. Shut up”.
In my neck o’ the woods, a woman some years ago went on trial for shooting her ex-husband/boyfriend, a home intruder. When asked why she shot him THIRTY-SEVEN times (with a .357 magnum), she replied, “Cause every time I shot him, he jumped/moved”. She was acquitted. He lived.
[NOTE: This is not – nor is it intended to be – legal advice. I am not an attorney-at-law, nor am I admitted to The Bar in any state, nor do I play one on TV. Caveat Emptor. YMMV.]
I guess not all hazing is bad: https://thetab.com/us/2017/09/29/puppy-pledges-hazing-72351?utm_source=transactional&utm_campaign=recommendednext&utm_medium=youmayalsolike
jc2k — That is somewhere beyond fabulous. Thank you for bringing it here.