Lurker > red sox 777

If you are a big player who bought a stock that is looking to be a bad decision, there is a way to keep the price from going down in the short run: buy more of the stock. A lot more. Your buying, if in large enough volumes, will prop up the stock. Eventually, you'll end up owning a huge stake in a company that is worth much less than the propped up stock price, and you will lose much more money than you would have if you'd just sold instead of trying to prop up your initial investment. Unless of course, you are able to create demand from others for the stock through your operations. Then you can sell out your holdings to them before the fall comes.

We can look at government spending as an example of investing in the economy to stop it from going down. Is it a good investment at the margin? Probably not. But we already have so much capital invested in it that we are going to spend more to stop the original investment from going down.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

The common laws of England and Scotland are still extremely important in UK law. The only areas where they are not in force are where one of the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or the EU has legislated to overrule it (this position is the same as it was over a hundred years ago - it's just that lots more law is created today than was then).

Certainly, of course. But this is one area where Parliament has seen fit to change things.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

<I actually think it might be possible to make an argument that you SHOULD be able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater...

Legally speaking, of course.

If anyone was actually damaged by your action, a civil suit might be in order here.

If there is a big distinction, it's probably whether it expresses an opinion, not whether someone is damaged. You can give a scathing review to a product that causes lots of lost revenue, for example.

And remember, false facts are not opinions. That's why libel and slander do not fall under free speech.

Just like how I'd invite someone to attempt to sue this kid over his racist tweets in court and attempt to prove to a jury of even twelve ENGLISH people how they suffered monetary damages as a result of his racism.

Pain & suffering.......probably not too hard if that's the standard. But you don't have the right to avoid being offended in the USA or under the old common law of England, which has been abandoned there. Sure there are damages, but there's still no liability. As it should be, because damages are really easy to incur, and indeed, speech that produces no damages probably isn't very offensive, is it? And we know that free speech is just the protection of offensive speech.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Freedom of speech is the freedom of offensive speech. Speech that is not offensive needs no protection. If you don't believe in the protection of offensive speech, you do not believe in freedom of speech.

Why do we need to protect offensive speech? Because otherwise, who will decide what is offensive?

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I wonder... presumably they did an autopsy on Martin, right? I wonder if HE had any signs of a physical altercation at all, if he was beaten or bloodied or whatever. That would probably be relevant, yes?

If it showed something about how the fight started, yeah. Unfortunately the witness who said that Martin was winning the fight and Zimmerman's injuries don't show anything about how it started.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Are you sure? Even in Florida? The evidence Zimmerman offers it the fact that he was beaten and bloodied, and the one witness who claims Martin was winning the fight. The witness is presumably a neutral party, and not someone obviously biased, like say, Martin's girlfriend.

Here's the Florida statute. It creates a few categories where the reasonable fear necessary for self-defense is presumed, so the burden of production is automatically satisfied, but Zimmerman's case doesn't fall into any of them.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

There's also the question of motive. The two didn't know each other. There is zero evidence of Zimmerman being some crazy racist who hates black people, with plenty of evidence that he's NOT that.

This hurts Zimmerman. The situation he needs us to believe is that he followed Martin and spoke to him, did not try to place him under arrest or restrain him from leaving or do anything else. And Martin then attacked him. Why? What motive would he possibly have for that?

Zimmerman on the other hand had a clear motive- to stop a crime in his neighborhood. He said as much himself.

But if you're right, then that would mean that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to get off on self-defense unless there was literally a witness who saw the whole encounter and could back you up, wouldn't it?

For an affirmative defense, you have the burden of producing evidence but not the burden of proof. It's kind of an odd rule, but that's what it is. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove his affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Muffin, I think I misspoke earlier. Self-defense is an affirmative defense, meaning the burden is on the defendant to produce evidence supporting it. Which makes sense, because otherwise it'd be just about impossible to ever convict anyone of murder. Florida's law does create a few categories where the defendant is presumed to have a valid self-defense defense- such as if he was in his house and it was broken into, for example. Unfortunately for Zimmerman, none of them apply in this case, so he's stuck with the burden of producing evidence. And the circumstantial evidence looks really bad for him.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

If he had not yet been confronted with physical violence then yes, absolutely. Unfortunately for the implication you are trying to make, stand your ground ONLY applies in situations where you are confronted with deadly force.

And he was confronted with force. And responded with what appeared to be non-deadly force.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Doesn't matter if he was distressed by being followed. Following someone is not a crime. If he was so distressed, he should have ran. Based on the pictures we've seen of both, and the fact that Martin was apparently winning the fight when things did get physical, it strains credibility to suggest that Martin couldn't have successfully ran away from Zimmerman.

False arrest is a crime. And this is Florida, so Martin had no duty to retreat.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Because you don't waste your time arresting someone you can't possibly convict.

I hope all you people feel the exact same way about being arrested if you're ever suspected of a crime...

I'm much more scared of being arrested for a crime than being the victim of the same crime in 99% of cases, but not this one. If I shot and killed someone when I initiated the confrontation, I wouldn't really feel my rights were violated if the matter were tried in court.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

He may have started the encounter but there is no proof he started a physical altercation. Following someone, on foot or in your car, is not illegal and does not merit a violent response.

You sure about that? How about if a random stranger came up to you and said, "sir, I'm placing you under arrest for stealing my gold bars." Are you justified in using force to escape? If you do so, is he justified in shooting you?

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

How do you know?

Because he said so himself! He called the police dispatcher saying as much.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

So, why doesn't the media refer to Justice Sotamayor as the first white hispanic supreme court justice?

Because she's not the first white Supreme Court justice. For this case, it really doesn't matter that Zimmerman is Hispanic. It does matter (for public opinion, not for his guilt or innocence at law) that he was not black.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Zimmerman started it. Trayvon was probably justified in defending himself from false arrest.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

So what else can they be? black hispanics? samoan hispanics? hispanic hispanics?

Black hispanics are possible. Samoan hispanics are possible too. Hispanic hispanics is redundant- obviously hispanics are hispanic.

Hispanic means having ancestors from Latin America (and maybe Spain/Portugal, not sure if that officially counts).

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Because most Hispanics are white.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Tuesday.pdf

Today's argument in the Supreme Court on the healthcare law. Looks fairly good for striking it down. Justice Scalia is great as usual.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

In theory, yes. In the real world that actually exists however, it would be very hard for a film to get released in many theaters without a MPAA rating. I don't see how the studios would be "forced" to use the government's rating if it did exist anyway. Like I said earlier, I don't think the ratings should lead to enforcements on how movies are show. The ratings would just exist on a government web site somewhere. If someone wanted an alternative system they would be free to make one themselves.

Theaters can refuse to use the MPAA if they want. Theaters will want to turn down the MPAA if their customers want it. The reason they don't usually is because customers are happy with the MPAA.

If the government's rating is non-binding, I guess that amounts to almost the same thing. I'd still trust them less, however, because they are not hurt if customers don't like their ratings. If no one uses the government rating, that agency will still get funded by the government, and thus by the taxpayers. They are still less accountable.

And in practice I don't know of any government agencies that operate on a voluntary basis like that. Even the ones that don't force you to listen to them (like the Post Office) have mandated monopolies.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

When did I say anything about making a citizens arrest?

If you approach someone on a public road because they look suspicious and to try to stop them from committing a crime, you probably started the fight, whether you used the words "citizen's arrest" or not.

In any case, if your point is that self-defense laws are the same in Florida (which has liberal concealed carry, castle doctrine, AND stand your ground) as they are in new york (where a tourist who walks up to a police officer and asks 'hey where do I check my gun' gets charged with a felony) then I guess that just proves me even more correct that stand your ground is irrelevant to this case.

Most of those differences aren't relevant here. Stand your ground.........kind of is, now that I think about it. This case would be open and shut in New York, whereas in Florida Zimmerman can make a case that Martin was the one who first escalated the encounter with force. In NY the prosecution could say, "okay, so what if he was acting in legitimate self-defense. So what if Martin attacked him first. He had a duty to retreat anyway." In Florida a jury needs to weigh the evidence on the core of self-defense, whereas in New York a jury could ignore all of it and convict on lack of retreat.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

The private entity is more accountable because people can refuse to use it.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Timjab does indeed know what he is talking about. The law on self defense is very similar in the different states. You on the other hand do not, because you keep pointing out things that are irrelevant legally.

Hint: you do not have the right to make a citizen's arrest without cause. If you try.....you probably started the fight!

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Self regulation has the same problem as all regulation. It is anticompetitive. The best way is competition.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

IMO, what I wrote there is a lot less speculative than government mandated gun training including lessons on good judgment that actually manage to make a difference.

But you do realize that I'm just giving ideas for why the data might be what it is, right? You expressed surprise that the data was what it is. I'm just giving possible explanations. Having not read the source, I make no claims on the accuracy of that study. But if you think about it, it's not that surprising.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Another possibility: people who have been "approved" by the government to use guns feel that they are safe using them and don't actually use them carefully.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

The data supports what it supports. I'm just saying that there's an easily understandable explanation for it. Which might not be the right one.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

A theory (allowing guns = more violence) can be invalidated by one data point, yes.

No. There aren't any data points where gun control is the only factor. It's not as easy to invalidate models with multiple variables.

The statistics also show that the more stringent the training requirement, the lower the benefits of concealed carry are.

Regulation is bad, so that makes sense. The more stringent the training requirement, the more opportunity there is for the state to mess things up.

Alternatively, the more stringent the training requirement, the less people have concealed carry, so the less benefits will flow from it.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I'd go with California for the bigger economy and most importantly better technology. Population itself isn't going to be too important when it's only a 3:2 ratio.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

It's complicated and very dangerous.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

No comment on concealed carry in general, but for this specific example, small sample size and lack of info on other variables. No meaningful conclusions to draw.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

But you're okay with the cops being able to do that?

Nope, but I'd sure rather have 1% of the population able to do that than 100%. Also, cops should get some more deference because it is easier to hold them accountable, but we don't even need to go that far for this one.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Also, while you keep comparing him to a police officer, he was not a police officer. He faces a much harsher standard for discretion in use of force. As it should be, because I sure don't want ordinary citizens to be able to shoot me legally merely because they think I might attack them.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

What are you making that presumption on? Would you care to list the "more evidence"? As far as I can tell, really the ONLY evidence against Zimmerman is that he disobeyed the dispatcher's instructions to not pursue. From that, you can POSSIBLY infer that he could very well have been the one who started the physical confrontation, but barring any eyewitness testimony, it's impossible to know for sure.

If the prosecution presents no more evidence than what you listed, the jury should acquit.

But once again, I think you are misunderstanding the rule. The prosecution does not have to show that Zimmerman did not honestly believe he was in danger. All they have to show is that it was unreasonable for him to believe he was in danger.

And I don't think it will be too hard to show that, because he was not actually in danger. He had a weapon, Trayvon Martin did not. He initiated contact. Those are very strong facts against him.

Again, if you are going to shoot someone, you had better be careful. If you are wrong, it's possible that you were still reasonable and didn't actually make a mistake, just were unlucky, but you're already in a pretty bad position.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Only the Jedi deal in absolutes.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

And while I obviously haven't seen all the evidence, I'm not too sympathetic to Zimmerman here, and I usually am to defendants in general. The facts are that he shot and killed an unarmed kid who was not committing any crime. Before you pull the trigger to take someone's life you had better be careful about what you are doing. I find the reasonableness standard quite fair here.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Some things are just necessary enough that we accept the risks, like driving. If you want to argue that abortions are necessary enough to accept the non-zero risk of a bad abortion, that's fine, but don't try to argue that everything has a non-zero risk always.

Everything is desirable enough to take some non-zero risk.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Except for a few things.

* Witnesses reported seeing a struggle, and at one point Martin was on top of Zimmerman.
* Zimmerman was bloodied and had grass stains on him.
* The police didn't "just let him go," they interrogated him for several hours and decided his story fleshed out with the witnesses and 911 tapes.
* Zimmerman has previously volunteered as a mentor for two black children.

It seems to me that the people who know the most about what happened, other than Zimmerman himself of course, are the police. They decided that it was a justifiable use of deadly force due to self defense. I suppose you can assume they only decided that because they're racist if you want, but you have to keep in mind that means they're SO racist against blacks that they're willing to let a hispanic get away with murder.

However, let's play your hypothetical little game. Let's say you take someone out in the woods and they attack you. At one point during the fight, they are on top of you reigning blows upon you and you think they've already broken your nose. You also happen to have a gun within reach. If you use the gun to end the assault, does that count as killing someone in cold blood? Or are you justified?

Just because Zimmerman "pursued" Martin does not necessarily mean that he was the one who started the physical confrontation. Let's say that he's running after Martin and right when he's about to catch him, Martin turns around and decks him in the head, knocking him to the ground.

Obviously I'm engaging in rampant theorycraft here, but the point is, so are all of the people who are ready to declare this an obvious homicide. Nobody KNOWS exactly what happened here. The witness accounts are all very shady at best, nobody seems to have gotten a good look at the ENTIRE chain of events, or the actual shooting itself at all. Given the established doctrines of "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" it seems to me that, barring any new evidence, Zimmerman should probably go free, or, like I said, go on trial for manslaughter AT THE WORST.

No, that means he should go on trial for murder if the district attorney chooses to prosecute and the jury should decide. Also,presumably there is more evidence than you are stating here. And there are certainly other inferences to draw than your conclusions. The 4 things you mentioned specifically are all not dispositive and easily overcome by other evidence.

Again, it does not matter if Zimmerman honestly believed he was in mortal danger, if the belief was not reasonable. The question is not whether his belief was honest.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I'd be more worried about the reverse, actually. That the jury would convict him despite the case not being fully proven. With the media circus this has become, I doubt this guy can get a fair trial ANYWHERE at this point.

There's something like 20 million people in Florida, I'm sure they can get a jury to hear the case. Casey Anthony won her case after a media firestorm after all. And yeah, juries convicting too easily is a major problem in the US.

By the way, I don't think it's enough for a defense legally even if Zimmerman honestly believed Trayvon was about to pull a gun on him. The belief has to be reasonable too. It'd be really hard or impossible for the prosecution to prove Zimmerman's subjective beliefs, but it is far easier to show that that belief was unreasonable.

There was a case back in the 80s, where a white man shot 4 black teens on the NYC subway and later claimed self-defense. The jury acquitted, much to the despair of many people who said the jury was reasoning, "it is reasonable to expect that a black man on the subway will attack you." The defendant's case there was stronger because he was not the one to initiate contact, however.

Also, doctrine is law. Law is statutes + precedent. Doesn't need to imply any illegal action. For example, is the 21st Amendment (repealing Prohibition) law?

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I'm not sure how being Hispanic changes anything. It's still one race and another. Besides, Hispanics (at least the ones with full-blooded or close enough parentage in Spain/Portugal) have been regarded as white for centuries, until very recently. Try telling Hernan Cortez that he's not white.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Right. Innocent until proven guilty exists IN THEORY. Although IF this thing goes to trial, it means the police have already collected enough evidence for a reasonable suspicion that murder happened. It'd be tough for Zimmerman, given some basic facts of the case that are not in dispute, even from his side. That he shot an unarmed man, and that he pursued after being told by the dispatcher to not pursue.

If it goes to trial, it means the two sides were not able to reach a settlement. As this is a criminal case, the only possible realistic settlement is a plea bargain. If one is not reached, it could be because either there isn't that much evidence so Zimmerman turns down the plea bargain thinking he can win, or there is a lot and the prosecution refuses to compromise. Probably more likely the former IMO, because the prosecution isn't risking being executed here.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Well, here's what I'll concede. The existence of stand your ground puts the burden of proof squarely on the officers. As I said, Zimmerman can plead the same defense that police officers do whenever they shoot anyone, which is "I thought he was pulling a gun on me, turned out to be skittles but I didn't know that at the time."

Except he's not a police officer, so that won't go well for him unless his case is a lot stronger than a police officer would need to win. The legal standard is different too, even with stand your ground.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Zimmerman is the defendant, he doesn't have to prove anything to a jury. The prosecution has to show that he was not acting in self-defense.

If people are worried about juries misapplying the stand your ground law, perhaps that's a reasonable worry. As this is a criminal case instead of a civil case, the judge cannot overrule the jury by saying, "nope, you guys must have misunderstood the law." Whatever the jury says goes, even if the jury decides, "we don't care what the law is, we're acquitting because he's white and the other guy was black."

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Um, it's obvious that Zimmerman won't get off by claiming he was standing his ground. Unless we have a very gullible jury anyway.

Not sure what more you are saying.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Cloud would be contest champion.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I'm sorry, guessing the Court of Appeals didn't work out because the trial court/jury screwed up on issues of fact rather than law, and there's essentially no way to overturn factual findings.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

But see, if you're going to use probability distributions arising in nature in the first place, asking for certainty is going to sink the whole approach by setting it way closer to an extreme than you'd like.

Asking for certainty isn't done in science. It's always about getting it below some minimum probability.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

If it's really a normal distribution, then 0 is going to be the moment of conception. If it's not actually a true normal distribution (and it probably isn't), then it could be something else.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

That is why it is not discussed. But it is the test that everyone is thinking about.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

It's the real criterion that is always in everyone's mind but that no one brings up.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Doesn't seem to me that "can feel pain" should matter. People in comas can't feel pain either.

The real criterion of course is when the soul enters the body. But of course no one knows the answer to that except God.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/21/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against

You don't see 9-0 SCOTUS decisions all that often. Suck it, EPA.

Excellent decision. I think 9-0 decisions are somewhat more common than the perception is because they usually don't make the news. Though, the other reason they aren't common is that SCOTUS only takes hard cases (usually that lower courts have disagreed upon) to start with.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.