Mike Chell's Soapbox

[Fifty150]

 

Are we going there?  Are we?  ?  Please!

 

 

Here you go, buddy.  Until the moderators take it down, this thread is all your's.  

[Mike Chell]

?My thread ... and I didn't even start it !!!  I don't care what everyone else say, Fifty ... you're okay.

 

Okay then ... let's start with the latest "stand your ground" case here in Florida!  I am a firm believer in the law, but this case shouldn't be covered.

 

https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/No-arrest-in-fatal-shooting-during-argument-over-handicap-parking-space_170174041

 

Markeis McGlockton was wrong to push the old guy, and should've been punished for assault.  However, he was clearly backing away when he was shot. 

Michael Drejka should be charged with manslaughter, at least.

[Beta Don]

He was pretty violently thrown to the ground . . . . when he had posed no threat at all to anyone in the car . . . . he didn't even get within three feet of the car

 

As the law is written all he needs is to feel threatened for his life and then he is legally OK to use deadly force, plain and simple.  If that guy had thrown me on the ground like that, where my head could have easily been split open, I would sure feel threatened for my life and it doesn't matter a lick if the guy who did it is standing still, backing up or coming forward, to me  -  I feel threatened for my life because he just showed me what he can do and I'm not going to give him a chance to finish the job!!

 

Terrible law, but until it's rewritten (or better yet, just wiped off the books) these sorts of scenarios are what you're going to get.  He just needs to say he feels threatened and he's off the hook, no ifs ands or buts!

 

Don

[DonShockley]

I remember a case that was on TV decades ago that involved a driver ramming his car back and forth in a parking lot, IIRC shoplifter trying to evade store security. A bystander retrieved his weapon and fired because the driver was trying to run down the security coming after him. At trial one juror swung the rest by pointing out that although the guy was definitely trying to run people over, at the instant the shot was fired the car's backup lights were lit and the people were in front of the vehicle. The argument was that at that instant, even though the shooter had no way to know the car was in reverse, the danger did not exist even though the driver had previously backed up multiple times to make another run at his targets. That type of split second video analysis doesn't accurately reflect real self defense situations.

 

I watched that video for the FL case and it's another fraction of a second hair splitting. By my count, it was just 4 seconds from the guy being blind sided until the shot was fired. And from the camera angle, the backward movement was barely noticable so I wouldn't be too sure that it was apparent to somebody on the ground directly in front of them. If you use a comparable example of emergency braking, "A controlled study in 2000 (IEA2000_ABS51.pdf) found average driver reaction brake time to be 2.3 seconds" then you can see how easy it would be for somebody who already believes themselves in a life threatening situation to be unable to stop shoot nerve impulse when the attacker backs off at the last second once they realize the victim has the ability to defend themselves. Regrettable but you do need to consider such human factors in any analysis.

 

https://copradar.com/redlight/factors/index.html

https://copradar.com/redlight/factors/IEA2000_ABS51.pdf

[Mike Chell]

I'm not disagreeing with you guys ... and definitely not with the law, as it stands. 

The "pushee" Drejka was not a threat, agreed.  But he had been in an argument long enough and loud enough for other shoppers to stop and notice.

The pusher McGlockton was most definitely in the wrong by walking up and pushing Drejka like he did.  However, that does not fully communicate a threat to life.  Drejka had plenty of time to assess the situation and decide to pull his gun.  At that moment, he also had time to further assess the reactions of the three people in the line of fire.  Your statement, Don, " ... backward movement was barely noticable ... " is not true.  ALL of them ran or backed away.  McGlockton was even partially turned away when Drejka fired.

 

His decision to pull the trigger, if made without that assessment, is manslaughter at least.  If made WITH that assessment, it should be considered second degree murder.  This is NOT a case of stand your ground.

 

[Fifty150]

Based upon my training and experience, in The State of California, where we have probably some of the strictest gun control laws, "stand your ground" isn't that much different than how we are governed. 

 

Any citizen is allowed to use equal or lesser force to defend his life or the life of another.  In defense of life, we are allowed to use lethal force.  When using lethal force, I must be able to specifically articulate why I felt fear for my life, or that someone else's life was endangered.  Every circumstance is unique.  If a 80 year old woman were smacking you over the head with a cast iron skillet, and I can see your brains spilling out, I can shoot her in the back to preserve your life.  If I were surrounded by a hostile group, and taking a vicious beating, I would fear that they could kill me with their punches and kicks to the head; which would justify why I shot all of them even though I had a gun and none of them were armed.  

 

"Stand Your Ground", for all intents and purposes, is probably the law in all 50 states.  You are always allowed to defend yourself.  I can't think of any state which says that you are legally required to submit to aggression or attack.  

 

Every state has clearly written "letter of the law", and "spirit of the law" is defined via case law, in which a jury is allowed to examine facts in evidence.  I can't tell you what the shooter's mindset was, or whether he in fact felt fear for his life.  This is clearly a case that should have gone before a jury, as it would help define the law in spirit.  I think that the local law enforcement body (police or sheriff), should have furthered the investigation, and submitted the case to the court system.  

Clearly, we have a homicide.  Was the taking of life willful, intentional, and with malice aforethought?  A lot of legal questions.  

 

Without a doubt, there will be a civil trial.  Civil law allows for finding financial responsibility, with a preponderance of evidence.  A civil jury will determine that the action of the shooter, caused the death of the deceased.  This fact will not be disputable, since the shooter shot the deceased.  A civil jury will then weigh the claims, and determine if there was a monetary loss suffered, and if recompense is due.  Whereas a criminal trial would have required a burden of proof beyond a reasonable cause, indicating guilt in violation of criminal statutes punishable by imprisonment and fine.  Think:  O.J. Simpson.  Not enough evidence to convict criminally.  Civil jury found that there was a 51% or greater probability that Simpson could have done it, and awarded a financial judgment to the victims families.

 

 

[Fifty150]

11 hours ago, Beta Don said:

 

Terrible law, but until it's rewritten (or better yet, just wiped off the books)

 

 

Or as with every law, tried in a court to more clearly define the spirit of the law, and a legal precedent is set forth.  

 

Think Miranda v Arizona.  Up to 1966,  the police would question you without your attorney, deprive you of access to legal counsel, coerce testimony, beat a confession out of you, or flat out lie and say that you confessed.  Yet, your constitutional rights were framed into The Constitution hundreds of years ago.  We have all watched enough TV to know that you have the right to remain silent, and to have an attorney present during questioning.  

 

If anybody really thinks that your Miranda Rights means anything: think again.  It really only clears the police department to legally break the rules, as defined by case law.  Only under the anonymity of being a 5150, dare I post the following memorandum.  Bear in mind that this memo is posted on the world wide web, and not confidential.  Meaning that they don't care who knows the law, and how well you know the law, because the bad guys are stupid.  A District Attorney's office clearly counseling law enforcement on how to justify further conversation without your attorney present, despite the fact that you invoked your Miranda Rights.

 

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/files/MIRANDAPOSTINVOCATION.pdf

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by Fifty150

[Fifty150]

19 minutes ago, Fifty150 said:

Whereas a criminal trial would have required a burden of proof beyond a reasonable cause,

 

 

 

 

I meant "reasonable doubt".

[Mike Chell]

 

Fifty, "Stand your ground" is NOT a law in every State.  In Florida, the Stand your Ground Law was enacted to offset the previous "Duty to Retreat".

 

Without getting too long (I'm a follower of TLDR), here's an excerpt from a discussion on the SYG Law.

"At common law, self-defense claims are not valid if the defendant could have safely retreated from danger (duty to retreat). The castle doctrine is an exception to this.  ...  The duty to retreat is a legal requirement in some jurisdictions that a threatened person cannot stand one's ground and apply lethal force in self-defense, but must retreat to a place of safety instead."

[BSUPC]

I will say this. The laws in Florida are different than those here in North Carolina. But from the unedited video I have seen , here in NC it would not be considered a self defense case as when the guy on the ground starts to draw his weapon the attacker begins to retreat. At that point our laws state that you have removed the threat at that point and any further actions are not needed. So firing the weapon is now a unlawful assault with a deadly weapon by the guy on the ground. 

 

Also how can we hold our Law Enforcement Officers to one standard on this and civilians to another. A LEO can not fire on a fleeing suspect, so why should a civilian be allowed to ? If this was a cop laying on the ground shooting and killing a fleeing suspect then the Officer would be charged. 

 

I am a firm believer in self protection and the 2A, but this one is all messed up. But it all has to do with the laws of the state, so Florida will have to figure this one out own their own. 

 

 

[OLDSCHOOLFOOL]

It seems to me that he had time to make a better decision than to shoot the guy. At the same time I suspect things can look a bit different from the ground when someone has just bum-rushed you. Sometimes I think and sometimes I don't know. 

[Mike Chell]

6 hours ago, BSUPC said:

But from the unedited video I have seen , here in NC it would not be considered a self defense case as when the guy on the ground starts to draw his weapon the attacker begins to retreat.

I am a firm believer in self protection and the 2A, but this one is all messed up. 

 

19 minutes ago, OLDSCHOOLFOOL said:

It seems to me that he had time to make a better decision than to shoot the guy. 

 

It's not murder, because of that "point of view" issue.  But he should be charged with 2nd degree manslaughter, at least.

[Mike Chell]

ON another note.

Please, please, PLEASE ... automakers ... build your cars so that they are Faraday Cages.  No phone, text or wifi signals allowed.

 

I am just a few more distracted drivers away from throwing ball bearings out of my window on the interstate !!!

[OLDSCHOOLFOOL]

8 hours ago, Mike Chell said:

It's not murder, because of that "point of view" issue.  But he should be charged with 2nd degree manslaughter, at least.

 

Perhaps so.

But the pusher deserved at least one in the kneecap for his trouble. Two might gain him legitimate access to that handicapped parking spot.

[Beta Don]

11 hours ago, OLDSCHOOLFOOL said:

It seems to me that he had time to make a better decision than to shoot the guy. At the same time I suspect things can look a bit different from the ground when someone has just bum-rushed you.

Sure he did . . . . but Florida has this law that protects him, so he doesn't have to think about it  -  All he must do is say "I felt my life was in danger" and then he can LEGALLY kill the guy without having to worry about being charged with ANY crime

 

Trayvon Martin was unarmed, about half the size of George Zimmerman and that one went to trial and he was found INNOCENT due to 'Stand Your Ground'  -  You don't have to retreat or think about it . . . . you can just shoot and the law will protect you.  Now, prosecutors are not bothering to take any cases to trial and waste a bunch of the county money, because any half brained lawyer can get anybody off, citing that law and the precedents already on the books

 

Don

[Mike Chell]

I'm not defending Zimmerman, the guy has since turned out to be a nutcase.  But Martin WASN'T "about half the size" of Zimmerman.  Martin was a few inches taller, younger and in better shape than Zimmerman.  The popular picture of Martin is from when he was 12 or 13.  When the shooting happened, he was 17.  When I was seventeen, I could drop a fat, short Zimmerman in a few seconds.

Martin WAS sitting on Zimmerman's chest and hitting him.  Zimmerman had reason to fear for his life.  That was "probably" a justified SYG case.

 

This one ... "ain't" ... and the video is proof.  Something else that wasn't in evidence in the Martin trial.

[Fifty150]

On 8/7/2018 at 1:06 PM, BSUPC said:

 

LEO can not fire on a fleeing suspect

 

Varying circumstances will allow for shooting a fleeing suspect in the back.

 

It happens. Just a few weeks ago, a cop shot a guy in the back, as the suspect was running away.  

 

At a community meeting after the shooting, where citizens are allowed an audience with the police chief, there were just as many supporters as there were protestors.  All had an opinion based on emotions and biased by what they learned from watching TV.   But the important thing is that no officer involved shootings are swept under the rug.  There's transparency.

[DonShockley]

Regarding all the hair splitting about when/if a life threatening situation existed:

 

1. I am sure almost everybody, on which ever side, did the same thing I did which was replay the video trying to see exactly what happened. When trying the case in court or in the court of public opinion, we need to remember that the people involved didn't have that option. You have to go with what the situation was for the people involved at that time and judge accordingly.

 

2. A simple push or punch ends lives all the time, intentional or not. When it happens, there's usually a call for leniency because it was an "accident" and there was no intention to kill. But we have laws against assault because the standard expectation is that you have zero right to initiate force against another person. To start splitting hairs about the results of that force, or the force used in defense of that initial attack, is a bit silly. But if you are going to go there, the benefit of the doubt has to go to the person attacked and not the attacker.

https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/man-dies-after-being-shoved-to-the-ground-outside-downtown-bar
https://www.boston25news.com/news/ayer-man-killed-after-hitting-his-head-following-single-punch/646997918
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/harrow-school-boy-died-from-single-punch-after-telling-club-promoter-youll-work-for-me-one-day-a6991941.html
https://www.msn.com/pt-pt/desporto/video/cambridge-student-dies-after-being-pushed-hitting-head/vi-AAAmJBY
https://www.theroot.com/man-who-landed-fatal-punch-after-victim-called-him-the-1824992681

[Mike Chell]

As with most issues of this kind ... everybody has their minds made up, and nothing will change that.  That is exactly the reason political threads usually lead to arguments and name calling.  Thank you, everyone, for keeping this a civil conversation.

I think we should let this particular dog go to sleep ... and leave it be.

 

Now, onto the other dog I introduced ... cell phone usage while driving.

Texting is wrong, and a distraction that no one can deny.  Some may think they can do both, but it's always a dangerous risk.

Talking while holding the phone in one hand is distracting, and keeps one hand off the wheel, but a lot of us drive with only one hand on the wheel anyway.

I firmly believe it is the "talking" ... and concentration on the conversation ... not the phone in one hand that causes the distraction.  With that thought, I also firmly believe that even with "hands free" systems, the conversation is still distracting the driver.

I believe a radio or other music device is the most that should be allowed while driving.

(I know, even that can be a distraction ... but I think you get my point)

[Fifty150]

1 hour ago, Mike Chell said:

we should let this particular dog go to sleep ... and leave it be.

 

 

 

Most of us who have 2 cents to throw in, have already done it........now someone will see this months, or years from now, and resurrect the topic.

 

You're right Mike.  EVERYBODY thus far has been cordial and civil.  That is to be admired.  This may be the first civil conversation about a current event topic, involving individuals from different walks of life.  

 

Now let's all throw rocks at the people fixing their make-up while driving.  I've seen people behind the wheel reading newspapers, brushing teeth, having sex, dancing, singing, eating, drinking,........One guy had a small screen affixed to his headliner which was playing a movie, in his left hand he had a bowl, chopsticks in his right hand, a dish of food on the dashboard, and he was wearing headphones.......race doesn't matter, but he was not Asian!  Just someone who was co-opting Asian culture with the chopsticks.  

 

And what is up with people who claim that someone else is co-opting their culture?  Why is "cultural appropriation" now an issue?   If you are proud of whatever your culture is, you should be happy that others have such admiration to share in it.  You never hear about Chinese people getting upset when other people are eating Chinese food.  Irish people don't flip out when someone else orders a beer.  What if the JDM community got upset that Paul Walker took the lead in Fast & Furious?    I should be mad every time I see a teenager wearing a Ramones t-shirt.  After all, that kid wasn't even born yet, when I had long hair on my head, and partying at underground punk rock shows.

[DonShockley]

2 hours ago, Mike Chell said:

.....Now, onto the other dog I introduced ... cell phone usage while driving.

Texting is wrong, and a distraction that no one can deny.  Some may think they can do both, but it's always a dangerous risk.

Talking while holding the phone in one hand is distracting, and keeps one hand off the wheel, but a lot of us drive with only one hand on the wheel anyway.

I firmly believe it is the "talking" ... and concentration on the conversation ... not the phone in one hand that causes the distraction.  With that thought, I also firmly believe that even with "hands free" systems, the conversation is still distracting the driver.

I believe a radio or other music device is the most that should be allowed while driving.

(I know, even that can be a distraction ... but I think you get my point)

Distracted driving isn't anything new. It's just the single boogeyman of texting and thinking that just passing a law is going to put a dent in the issue. In the past it was reading the newspaper and putting on makeup during the morning commute. You want a real distraction, try reading one of those giant multifold maps when you're trying to get somewhere. If it doesn't block your vision directly due to sheer size, you're going to be totally distracted trying to figure out where you are on the map or refold it to show that area once you do figure it out. Google/Apple maps on a cell phone that keeps track of where you are and moves the map display for you is almost no distraction.

 

People who don't take driving as the serious responsibility it is aren't going to have their behaviour changed by a law banning device use. Even if you make it impossible through tech improvements, they'll still get lost in their own heads rehashing their last failed date or fight with the wife. Most such extreme limits on otherwise normal use only opens up the potential for abuse and ensnares the relatively innocent or accidental violator and often involves devastating punishments when no real harm was done, only the potential for harm existed.

 

Instead, the laws should be geared towards those whose demonstrated actions pose and actual risk of harm. Don't stop the guy just because you see the glow of a phone screen in the cabin as he drives past under the speed limit and running straight and centered in his lane. Stop the guy that's speeding or slowed to a crawl while he drives halfway on the shoulder while trying to read the text without swerving far enough over to actually hit someone. The first guy might be distracted but his resulting actions aren't posing a risk to others. The second guy's actions are demonstrating he is a risk to others, regardless of what is causing him to behave that way.

[Fifty150]

28 minutes ago, DonShockley said:

 

 

 

Instead, the laws should be geared towards those whose demonstrated actions pose and actual risk of harm.

 

 

 

Almost like the argument that you can't simply go after someone for drinking and driving, or having a beer behind the wheel.  He's not going too slow, going too fast, or weaving.  He is in full control, and he is not driving drunk - because he isn't drunk....yet. 

 

I have to admit that I've gotten behind the wheel after a few.  Probably more times than I should have.  And luckily, nobody got hurt.  But in that respect, with a lot of states setting the blood alcohol level at .08, a lot of people could probably have a beer on a hot day, or glass of wine with dinner, and be perfectly fine to drive.  

 

In some societies outside of The USA, there is zero tolerance for driving with any amount of alcohol.  Don't even drive after a slice of fruit cake at the Christmas Party.  

 

I get it.  Some states have drive through liquor stores.  Other states have helmet laws for motorcycles.  Adult entertainment venues are operated to within the prurient standards of the community.  In California, it is against the law for people to mount their GPS or cell phone on the windshield, with the exception of the the lower and upper corners of the windshield.  In Las Vegas, liquor is 24 hours, you can gamble, and prostitution is legal.  In other states, there are "dry counties" and even "dry Sunday".  

 

The law here is for distracted driving.  The officer is required to specify how you were distracted.  The distracted driving law allows the officer to cite you for any distraction:  singing, dancing, eating, using hair spray with a cigarette dangling from your lips,......not limited to just talking and texting.  You can protest the ticket by going to traffic court, to explain to the judge how you were in fact not distracted and in full control of your vehicle.  Most people just pay the ticket, because they can't win the argument, then proceed to do it again without learning a lesson from paying the fine.  Distracted driving has a high rate of recidivism.  

 

The real issue is how much are we willing to be governed as a society?  Some think that there ought to be a law for everything in the interest of a safer society.  Others feel that there are too many laws already, and that we don't need more laws.  What next?  Ban entertainment systems in motor vehicles?  Perhaps require an enclosed cockpit, like in a limo, taxi, or police car, so that the driver is not distracted by conversations or interactions with the passengers.  Maybe a special compartment built into the dashboard, which requires you to lock away your cell phone, before the car will start.  Or raise the fine to $1,000, and people will have more to lose.

[Mike Chell]

There are a LOT of things the government should stay out of.  Banning the sale of plastic straws?  I applaud the companies who are phasing out or eliminating plastic straws voluntarily. 

I laugh at, deride and pity the people who decided the idea that the punishment for plastic straw violations is stricter than for driving while under the influence of marijuana.

 

Distracted driving HAS been around for as long as driving has.  I am sure the first vehicle owners looked around to see if anyone was watching them ... noticing their newfangled machine.   (Just like people today who put a few modifications on their sports car, then drive slow so everybody has to notice it)

 

But texting and talking on phones seems to take more attention than some other distractions.  Or, at least, people don't recognize the depth of the distraction until it's too late.  Either way, saying we shouldn't regulate it is very short sighted.  I agree with the above statement: "The distracted driving law allows the officer to cite you for any distraction:  singing, dancing, eating, using hair spray with a cigarette dangling from your lips,......not limited to just talking and texting."  And I think the fine of $1000.00 would be acceptable.  Make it hurt, so people will stop doing it.  The highways belong to the governments.  That is one place where their control should be absolute.  Speeding cameras, red light cameras and stricter enforcement would all be welcomed in my opinion.

 

This goes to another thread, where we were talking about fully automated cars.  I can hardly wait ... let's GET there !!!

[DonShockley]

4 hours ago, Mike Chell said:

There are a LOT of things the government should stay out of.  Banning the sale of plastic straws?  I applaud the companies who are phasing out or eliminating plastic straws voluntarily. 

I laugh at, deride and pity the people who decided the idea that the punishment for plastic straw violations is stricter than for driving while under the influence of marijuana...

It's especially heinous when it's all based on a ficticious statistic made up by a 9-year-old almost a decade ago.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/22/631254978/one-childs-outsized-influence-on-the-debate-over-plastic-waste

I like how in this article the number is important when justifying the need to take action, but as soon as it's pointed out that there is no basis in fact for that statistic suddenly the number doesn't matter and we still need to take the same action.

From the story:

"Right from the get-go, it seemed like a reasonable number because that's 1.5 straws per person per day, which may not seem like a lot but it really adds up,"

And in the very next paragraph:

"Pretty much, no matter what the number is," says Cress, "as long as we're throwing away straws when we don't need to, that number is too high."

I can excuse childish thinking from a child. but not from adults using faulty information to make punishing laws.

[Fifty150]

Didn't we have a similar situation in the 70's when there was talk of 6pack rings being dangerous to the environment?

 

In some societies, there's less "disposable".  People often supply their own containers for take away food, or restaurants reclaim the food container for reuse.  Kind of like when milk came in a bottle, and the bottle was returned..  Look at all of the meals delivered in metal tiffin boxes in India, and bento boxes in Japan.  Now Japan Is the world's leader in using disposable chopsticks. The Hong Kong of British Colonial Rule, people went to a restaurant with an insulated bottle to buy food.  Even push cart vendors on the street sold food in regular bowls with utensils, which would be washed and reused like a regular restaurant.  I don't even want to think about how many little foil packets of single use prophylactic products are polluting Thailand.

 

 

 

 

Go ahead Mike. Bring the discussion to self driving cars.

 

And if anyone wants to advocate for drinking straws, feel at liberty to state your point.