Murder or self-defence?

Person gets out of a car, or leaves their house, with a loaded gun. There was a stated intent to go after someone who looked "suspicious".

Is it self-defence or murder if the person who "looked suspicious" is killed?

To make it fun, let's use this statute!

Feel free to use this guide to help you come up with something vaguely intelligent should you wish to answer this: open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/4-2-criminal-intent/

BTW, this uses two situations where get away with murder laws were used.  Extra credit for guessing which two situations I am thinking of and their outcomes!

Big Z or Big D? Guess who said it?

As Science Mike said: "Let's not forget that Zaphod was President of the Galaxy even though most thought him a fool."

Anyway, can you guess which person said the quote: Zaphod Beeblebrox or Donald Trump?

Take this quiz for an eye opener! https://www.buildquizzes.com/QFVIMY

If having Trump as President of the Universe United States isn't enough to get people to see the Electoral College is truly outdated, then I don't see much hope.

My whole planet destroyed because you thought someone wanted your autograph!

Trump isn't Hitler: He's Zaphod Beeblebrox!

“His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.” — Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

I didn't really make the connection until someone mentioned this in relation to Oumuamua:

Trillian:  You idiot! You signed the order to destroy Earth!
Zaphod:  I did?
Arthur:  He did?
Trillian:  Love and kisses Zaphod? You didn't even read it, did you?
Zaphod:  Well, I'm president, I don't have a lot of time for reading.
Trillian:  My whole planet destroyed because you thought someone wanted your autograph!

Thinking about it, Douglas Adams describes him as “Zaphod Beeblebrox, adventurer, ex-hippy, good timer, (crook? quite possibly), manic self-publicist, terribly bad at personal relationships, often thought to be completely out to lunch.”  The last bit sounds pretty much like most of the criticism I heard about Trump during the campaign: he was too crazy to win.

Now that he has won: everybody is wondering why he won.  Of course, there isn't too much scrutiny to things like the electoral college, Diebold voting machines, the Democratic party's not being really democratic, etcetera.

No, just sit back and watch the side show while hoping like fuck he doesn't sign the order for Earth's destruction because he thinks someone wants his autograph.

See also:
America Is Being Run by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Donald Trump is Zaphod Beeblebrox
Donald Trump is Zaphod Beeblebrox (different one from above)

What's missing from the Russia Collusion Investigation

Why is no one in the media and this "investigation" talking  to the people who voted for the third parties?

Seriously. It seems that we are being ignored for the duopoly supporters who somehow see the election as being fixed.  Not in the way it was fixed where Hillary Clinton was pretty much the nominee before the voting began with the primary being shown up for the sham process it is, but that is a whole different post.

The e-mails we were told all along weren't an issue have somehow become an issue. That seems to be one of the main points in all this.

Then there is the social media aspect to all this, but most of the social media chatter I was party to pretty much featured people disgusted by Hillary Clinton without having to have anyone else add to the mess. The clip below wasn't set up by Russians, but was Hillary uncensored:


Was Russia behind that?

Hillary Clinton "lost" to Donald Trump in the Electoral College, not in the popular vote, which is a fact that no one seems to be discussing.  On the other hand, that should be front and centre in all this since the Electoral College is supposed to prevent foreign interference in the selection of the chief executive.

The bottom line is that Hillary's campaign which was run on hubris lost to a campaign which has been compared to a clown car.  The problem is that the media isn't looking at the home grown system which led to this disaster but is fixated on "Russian Interference" which would be minimal if it existed at all.

The truth is out there,  but don't expect to see it being discussed in the Main Stream Media.

See also
Was Donald Trump’s campaign too chaotic to pull off a conspiracy?
Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis

Let's play silly buggers.

The Russian influence thing is getting a lot out of hand. I say this because someone tried to say Hillary Clinton has never been under investigation, but Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein are currently.

You kind of wonder what rock this person has been hiding under since Clinton has been under quite a lot of investigation.  The only reason that the insider trading thing didn't result in charges during Whitewater was that the statute of limitations had long passed.  But that is one of many issues that I hope went away: although someone mentioned She might run again in 2020.

PLEASE DON'T!!!

Anyway, the mood of the day is to not try to address the flaws in the US system of elections: in particular the electoral college.

This needs to be hammered into some people's heads before someone truly fucked up wins:

The Fact is Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with 65,853,516 (48.5% votes) to Trump's 62,984,825 (46.4% votes), but lost in the electoral college by receiving 232 (43.1%) of the electoral votes to Trump's 306 (56.8%) votes.

Anyway, the above photo is of Emir Kusterica, a Serbian filmmaker, actor and musician, with Vladimir Putin. You also see the back of Jill Stein's head. The picture has been cropped so that Mike Flynn is not seen at the same table. Kusterica is sitting next to Putin: as opposed to Stein who is a few seats away.

Kusterica starred in the Widow of St. Pierre, along with Juliette Binoche and Daniel Auteuil, FRENCH PEOPLE!!!!

I won't hold Time of the Gypsies against Kusterica.

Let's go full McCarthyism and blame me for not being very patriotic (nationalism isn't my strong suit) and liking French movies. The Widow of St. Pierre is up there on my list of fav films and can be taken as anti-capital punishment (the widow in question is slang for the guillotine).

We can get into the Serb-Russian connection as well. The people at the table could just as well be discussing punk rock. For all we know, Putin could be saying how brilliant he thought Time of the Gypsies was.

Who is who at the table.

 On the other hand, isn't the electoral college supposed to prevent foreign interference in this process (not to mention preventing someone who is dangerous from being president)?

Seriously, Kusterica should be called in for questioning if mere association is enough to charge someone with guilt.

Somehow that seems to me to be a violation of the First Amendment and the right of peaceable assembly.

Anyway, blame is the game of the day in US politics. So don't expect too much for serious matters to be addressed.

See also:

• From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer 
• It's time for a special counsel on Hillary Clinton's Russia scandal
• Guess Who Came to Dinner With Flynn and Putin
• Jill Stein Denounces Probe over 'Collusion with Russians'

How America Got Divorced from Reality: Christian Utopias, Anti-Elitism, ...

Just in case you were wondering how we got in this mess.

I'm shocked! Shocked!

People are posting the video of Trump's judicial nominees being questioned and sounding like idiots.

Laci and Philadelphia ADA outside a Court Room in City Hall

No surprise to me.

That's why my blog was named after Laci. Patrick Artur made the comment that Laci had been in more court rooms than Harriet Miers (she had! And I have the proof!). You would be surprised how many judicial candidates have never seen the inside of a court room.

The best story is when I was on conference with the judge and Laci was in the bag under the table in the courtroom!

Another one where the judge saw me running Laci in the park across the street. He knew I had a dog with me, but he wasn't going to ask where she was.

Anyway. this is more of an indictment of US law schools and the legal practise. One of the deans of my US law school actually would say that they didn't have to teach the law: that was the job of the bar review courses! Most of the Judicial candidates I saw were more party loyalists or large donors: most of whom never went into a courtroom in their life.

I know that I don't stand a chance of ever being a judicial candidate, but I have tried jury trials, bench trials, argued motions, etc. I have done these not only in US State and Federal courts, but I have worked in other legal systems.

The problem is that the US legal profession hires the people who graduate top in their class, but that isn't going to provide for the best candidates.  Toss in most people who do get hired find they are worked their asses off in the hope of being made a partner (no longer being an associate).  But US law firms chew people up and spit them out.

I like the system other countries have where someone serves their apprenticeship and then is set out into the workplace.  But that is not how the US legal practise works.  People pass the bar and then go forth to practise law.

Don't take my word for it: there is somebody out there called the Rodent who will pretty much confirm what I am saying. http://www.emplawyernet.com/info/index.cfm

John Anderson Tribute

John Anderson, the independent candidate for President In 1980, died  last week at the age of 95. I wanted to note his passing since I supported him early on, but ended up voting my fear and going with Jimmy Carter.

Carter lost and we had Reagan.

I found it interesting that Reuters quoted his daughter, Diane Anderson as saying her father "really believed the two-party system was broken in 1980. Everything he wanted to prevent unfortunately came to pass."
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/05/568489924/john-anderson-independent-for-president-in-1980-dies-at-95

Marsha Sutton, in a San Diego Tribune Commentary pointed out the similarities to Bernie Sanders:

We understood we were working for a noble cause that exceeded our individual interests. We believed in the magical possibility of breaking from the traditional two-party system in favor of a moderate who spoke the truth with integrity and conviction.

My favorite button features a caricature of Anderson showing only his white hair and the outline of his glasses. The similarity to buttons sported by Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016 is obvious.

Perhaps there is more than a caricature that makes the two similar. It’s not their politics certainly, but the comparison lies in each man’s honest desire to change the established political culture.

A lot of people who denigrated the Sanders campaign neglected that there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the two party system. So, when a candidate who is seen as having integrity comes around he tends to get a lot of attention.

Unfortunately, Anderson was coming from the Republican Party which went on to become fringier and fringier.  Some people like to think that Trump signifies the death of that party while neglecting that there is a website called democraticautopsy.org.

While I like Bernie, his politics, and his attempt to revive the Democratic Party (or expose it for the fraud it is): I don't see myself voting for him or a democratic party line.

I just hope other people wake up to the fact that the US political system has been ill for an incredibly long time.

The slaughter of the innocents (or are you REALLY Christian? Pro-life?)

I am "watching" a show on Christmas Carols and they are discussing songs about the slaughter of the innocents ("The Coventry Carol", Byrd's "Christmas Lullaby", etc.) . Wouldn't the failure of the "pro-gun/pro-life Christians" to address the modern slaughter of the innocents relate to this in some way? I think about this and a modern slaughter of the innocents and the failure to address this by people who call themselves "Christians".

Yes, I am talking about what happened in Connecticut during this season.  And all the other children who die from firearms in the US.

I shouldn't need to explain what this refers to in the gospel.

Come on: have you actually read that book you claim to believe in or are you a bunch of lazy fucks who think they can be "saved" by mere belief and a failure to act on what you claim to believe in?

A "Christian" ex-girlfriend pointed out to me that Christ was pretty emphatic that you needed to ACT in a way consistent with his teaching.

Otherwise you are just one of the Pharisees.

In this case, you can side with Herod and tolerate the slaughter of innocents.

Or you can realise that life is really sacred and that deadly force should indeed be a last resort, only to be used when all other options have been exhausted.

If you side with Christ and are truly pro-life, then you need to abandon the horrible sin that is the "pro-gun" and "gun right" movement since that is what you claim to believe.

Otherwise, you may find out the truth when you arrive at the "last judgement", but hope like fuck that I am wrong.

But, I think things will be very hot for you in your hell.

(Although, I know my "Christian" ex-girlfriend is happy for the time being).