Octopus Overlords

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:25 pm

geezer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:06 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:39 pm My problem isn’t with the legal outcome. My problem is with a system that allows someone to insert themselves into a potentially violent situation with a loaded gun, creating the situation in which they felt the need for self-defense, killed two people and wounded a third - and the system places absolutely no responsibility on that person for the outcome.

It’s gross.

This.

Something interesting, maybe a little tangential (or maybe not)... I was listening to an interview with Dan Abrams (Mediaite and a legal analyst for CNN I think) and he gave the opinion that if one of the three that went after Rittenhouse, believing him to be an "active shooter," had killed Rittenhouse (instead of being killed themselves), that THEY would have *also* been found not guilty.

Stole my bit.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 5:10 pm A thought that's been kicking around my head. If the guy with the skateboard or the jumpkick guy or Glock guy killed Rittenhouse, they would probably get acquitted on self defense grounds as well.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:09 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:25 pm

geezer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:06 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:39 pm My problem isn’t with the legal outcome. My problem is with a system that allows someone to insert themselves into a potentially violent situation with a loaded gun, creating the situation in which they felt the need for self-defense, killed two people and wounded a third - and the system places absolutely no responsibility on that person for the outcome.

It’s gross.

This.

Something interesting, maybe a little tangential (or maybe not)... I was listening to an interview with Dan Abrams (Mediaite and a legal analyst for CNN I think) and he gave the opinion that if one of the three that went after Rittenhouse, believing him to be an "active shooter," had killed Rittenhouse (instead of being killed themselves), that THEY would have *also* been found not guilty.

Stole my bit.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 5:10 pm A thought that's been kicking around my head. If the guy with the skateboard or the jumpkick guy or Glock guy killed Rittenhouse, they would probably get acquitted on self defense grounds as well.

And now I'm visualizing a scenario where armed protestors and armed counter-protestors face each other down and a full-on shooting battle breaks out. Dozens are killed, and both sides can (successfully) claim self defense, because both sides felt themselves faced with active armed aggressors.

It's open season on humans.

Arbery’s mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, left the courtroom after Hogue said that “turning Ahmaud Arbery into a victim after the choices that he made does not reflect the reality of what brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores in khaki shorts, with no socks to cover his long dirty toenails,” referring to the neighborhood where he was killed.

Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 2:06 am Haven't followed this case at all, but I imagine what they are getting at is - joggers do not typically jog in Khakis, nor do joggers go sockless very often, nor do joggers have long toe-nails (I was told that long toe-nails and running shoes just don't go together, I dunno).

I was also told that the defense had done a very good job of showing that Arbery was in fact a burglar who used the jogging excuse as a ruse. (At least that was the opinion of a black lawyer and former prosecutor who had been watching this case closely.)

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:36 am

Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 2:06 am Haven't followed this case at all, but I imagine what they are getting at is - joggers do not typically jog in Khakis, nor do joggers go sockless very often, nor do joggers have long toe-nails (I was told that long toe-nails and running shoes just don't go together, I dunno).

I was also told that the defense had done a very good job of showing that Arbery was in fact a burglar who used the jogging excuse as a ruse. (At least that was the opinion of a black lawyer and former prosecutor who had been watching this case closely.)

I've heard this a couple times now. Last I checked, burglary is not a capital offense with the execution duties relegated to local rednecks with shotguns.

I don't care if dude was walking off with everything not nailed down...it's still not an excuse to murder him.

But in nearly all states, you can't generally use deadly force merely to defend your property. (Texas appears to be an exception, allowing use of deadly force when there's no other way to protect or recapture property even in situations involving simple theft or criminal mischief, though only at night, Tex. Penal Code § 9.42; see, e.g., McFadden v. State (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).) That's where we get the conventional formulation that you can't use deadly force just to defend property.

[2.] This conventional formulation, though, omits an important limitation: In basically all states, you can use nondeadly force to defend your property—and if the thief or vandal responds by threatening you with death or great bodily harm, you can then protect yourself with deadly force. So in practice, you can use deadly force to protect property after all, if you're willing to use nondeadly force first and expose yourself to increased risk.

And in some states, you don't even need to expose yourself to such increased risk, if you reasonably fear at the outset that nondeadly protection of property would be too dangerous. In those states, to quote the Model Penal Code formulation (which some have adopted), deadly force can be used if...

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:36 am

Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 2:06 am Haven't followed this case at all, but I imagine what they are getting at is - joggers do not typically jog in Khakis, nor do joggers go sockless very often, nor do joggers have long toe-nails (I was told that long toe-nails and running shoes just don't go together, I dunno).

I was also told that the defense had done a very good job of showing that Arbery was in fact a burglar who used the jogging excuse as a ruse. (At least that was the opinion of a black lawyer and former prosecutor who had been watching this case closely.)

I've heard this a couple times now. Last I checked, burglary is not a capital offense with the execution duties relegated to local rednecks with shotguns.

I don't care if dude was walking off with everything not nailed down...it's still not an excuse to murder him.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:25 pm I read an opinion from a civil rights lawyer stating that he felt the "long dirty toenails" line is dangerously close to "escaped slave" in its context.

Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:45 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:25 pm I read an opinion from a civil rights lawyer stating that he felt the "long dirty toenails" line is dangerously close to "escaped slave" in its context.

It's seems quite obvious to me that "long toe-nails" is in reference to "Jogger's Toe", a very common ailment.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:25 pm I read an opinion from a civil rights lawyer stating that he felt the "long dirty toenails" line is dangerously close to "escaped slave" in its context.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:40 pm I know the point isn't really being argued, but I would like to point out that not dressing (or manicuring) as expected for a runner does not necessarily mean you're a thief disguised as a runner.

There was a guy in my old neighborhood that I used to see when I was out jogging. This guy always had on long khaki pants, slip on dress shoes, and a polo shirt. And this dude could run circles around me. I'd go out for 3 mile runs around a loop near my house, and this guy would be running when I got there and still running when I left.

Some people may not be able to afford the proper clothes and shoes. Some may just choose to wear what's comfortable. All I know is me in my $150 running shoes, Nike shorts and Under Armour shirt didn't mean jack shit when it came down to which of us was the better runner.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:59 pm

Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:45 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:25 pm I read an opinion from a civil rights lawyer stating that he felt the "long dirty toenails" line is dangerously close to "escaped slave" in its context.

It's seems quite obvious to me that "long toe-nails" is in reference to "Jogger's Toe", a very common ailment.

To me, THAT takeaway sounds utterly ridiculous. Unless you're being sarcastic perhaps?

Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:11 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:40 pm I know the point isn't really being argued, but I would like to point out that not dressing (or manicuring) as expected for a runner does not necessarily mean you're a thief disguised as a runner.

There was a guy in my old neighborhood that I used to see when I was out jogging. This guy always had on long khaki pants, slip on dress shoes, and a polo shirt. And this dude could run circles around me. I'd go out for 3 mile runs around a loop near my house, and this guy would be running when I got there and still running when I left.

Some people may not be able to afford the proper clothes and shoes. Some may just choose to wear what's comfortable. All I know is me in my $150 running shoes, Nike shorts and Under Armour shirt didn't mean jack shit when it came down to which of us was the better runner.

No one would say, "If you see Bozo the Clown running through your neighborhood, you don't have the right to shoot him." Of course you do. And no one would say, in your example, that you don't have the right to shoot a guy who is wearing khaki pants and a slip on dress. Again, of course you do. But I'm going to have to disagree with you that you can shoot Arbery for his poor dress choices. I can see why you would want to, but you really can't.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:14 pm I'm totally ignorant of my surroundings. I'd be hard pressed to notice a jogger wearing khaki shorts much less exposed toes much less exposed toe with regard toe nail hygiene.

That said, jogging sockless in sandals is a thing, even if I would never notice it.

First site I found:

https://xeroshoes.com/sandals/running/

I only know this because I saw an episode of someone hawking this trend on a Sharktank rerun on CNBC once.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:20 pm He wasn't wearing open-toed shows though, was he?

Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:11 pmNo one would say, "If you see Bozo the Clown running through your neighborhood, you don't have the right to shoot him." Of course you do. And no one would say, in your example, that you don't have the right to shoot a guy who is wearing khaki pants and a slip on dress. Again, of course you do. But I'm going to have to disagree with you that you can shoot Arbery for his poor dress choices. I can see why you would want to, but you really can't.

Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:16 pm Really? You're unaware that Jogger's Toe is caused, in part, by long toe-nails? I honestly thought that you were being disingenuous when you claimed to see no connection.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:15 pm This discussion is turning surreal.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:50 pm Does "dirty" have any relevance?

LordMortis wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:23 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:20 pm He wasn't wearing open-toed shows though, was he?

How else would you know he had long dirty toe nails and use that as evidence to judge his worthiness as a jogger in your neighborhood?

Dan256 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:24 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:50 pm Does "dirty" have any relevance?

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, even though I agree with your implication that saying "dirty" is outright dirty in this context. But, you could make the stretch (and it's a stretch,) that a "true" jogger would know about jogger's toe and would also know that having jogger's toe with dirty nails is worse that having jogger's toe with clean nails because of obvious concerns of infection.