Southern_Man

such as? A neighborhood watch captain checking on a stranger? Or something else that really happened, with a frequency count? It's easy to debate using a vague strawman, but it serves no purpose. Well, like this one, from the article: Compare that case to Deounce Harden's. In 2006, he showed up at Steven Deon Mitchell's Jacksonville carwash business and started arguing over a woman. When the fight escalated, Harden shot and killed Mitchell, who was unarmed. Prosecutors filed no charges. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

This word is used quite commonly in this topic. Pardon my foreign ignorance, but what does that catch-all actually define/describe? Thanks John Well, in the context I used it (going after the large parts of the budget) it really has to refer primarily to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Those are the big budget drivers among entitlements. In addition to corporate welfare and military spending they largely drive the budget (and interest on the debt is quickly becoming another line item eating up a lot of money, too). "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Loans and foreign aid are a pittance of the budget. Of course we could cut that but to get serious about our wasteful spending we need to go after entitlements, corporate welfare, and military spending. That's where the money is. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Isn't it grand that gang members and drug dealers are being argued as those who shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves? Are they planning on making exceptions to "stand your ground" if a person is a gang member? It is a very interesting article which confirms some of my misgivings about the law. In my opinion a plain reading of the law does not allow the claim of stand-your-ground when the person in engaged in criminal activity, such as the drug cases which are mentioned. I've never been big on the "guilt by association" of "gang members." In my opinion the law does plainly allow a person to bring a gun or knife, initiate a confrontation and then shoot the person if it starts to go wrong. I think that is wrong and the law needs to be corrected there. I am not sure somebody who is illegally possessing a gun should be able to claim immunity. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I was not a natural at exits. Sometime around 60 jumps I did 5-7 hop and pops in a row just to work on exits and canopy control. That helped a lot. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Bill We've never met, and it appears that I will never get a chance to jump with you. I appreciate your contributions to the sport, though and have thoroughly enjoyed reading some of yoru tales here. I hope your last jump is great and I hope you continue sharing those stories! "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I think there have been a number of very high profile federal cases recently which have proven that the often quoted statistics of the very high percentage of convictions that federal prosecutors get are built on a foundation of sand. People with the resources to higher the best defense attorneys are able to beat the government prosecution. The problem is that most defendants are simply not able to hire adequate cousel and expend the kind of resources the prosecution can. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Well, I am not philosophically opposed to the death penalty in a system that could be free from error as I do not think it is an injustice to put people to death who have committed heinous crimes. I do believe though that is not the system that we have currently. We have one that is deeply flawed. Defendants do not have proper resources and do not receive adequate counsel. Innocent defendenats are railroaded and sentenced to death. This is not an acceptable system to me. Add to that, our current system of death penalty cases already costs far too much and takes far too long. This is because of the procedural safeguards which are built into place, and yet are still inadequate. Correcting the flaws in our current system can appear to happen, to me, in one of two ways. First, we can add more resources and safeguards so that innocent people are not put to death. That just does not appear to be a very viable solution to me, though, since the death penalty already costs way more than life in prison and the average time before execution is so long. The other way would be to make the system cost less and act faster (which some people in this thread have advocated). Unforunately that eliminates a large portion of the safeguards which prevent (of lower the number of people) execution of the innocent. That is not really an acceptable outcome to me either. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Again, I reject your premise to look at this case outside of the system of which it is a part. Our death penalty system kills innocent people. That is an unacceptable cost to me, even if the cost on the other side is that some people who commit heinous crimes are eventually freed. I do not believe the death penalty can ever be a viable course of action because I do not believe it is possible to design a system that is free from error. I have no problem with strengthening life without parole provisions. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

If we are looking at the entire system then, that changes the entire calculus of the question. It sounds like we are both agreeing on these two facts: 1. In our current system having the death penalty will result in some innocent people being put to death. 2. In our current system the lack of a death penalty will result in some people being released who have committed heinous crimes. It appears you are willing to tolerate the chance of #1 in order that #2 does not become a reality. I am willing to tolerate the chance of #2 so that #1 will not become a reality. We are then both talking about balancing competing interests of the system. I find putting to death innocent people so egregious that I am willing to tolerate the possibility that some guilty people will be released (as currently happens in our system). "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Please stay on track. I put in the very first post that such an act is deplorable. It still doesn't count as murder under any definition I can find, but that's a minor point. I am trying to get a reaction to the death penalty in a very specific case. Are you really describing these two as 'innocent'? I haven't seen anyone advocate executing innocent people. Of course, the definition of innocent is a completely different topic. Of course nobody is in favor of executing innocent people. You want to look at this one case outside of the context of the system in which it exists. Other people want to look at this case in the context of the system in which it exists. I believe that our system is so flawed (and has been proven to be so by all of the exonerations of the innocence project) that it is inevitable that if we have the death penalty we will end up executing innocent people. My examination of the facts just leaves no doubt about that. I am not able to envision a system that will eliminate that possibility and the attempts that I can envision will just heighten the existing practical problems with the death penalty (mainly cost). So, I object to your entire framing of the question and I think at least some other people do as well. Taking situations out of context may provide answers that are intellectually satisfying but also that have real world consequences that you are ignoring. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Weather, not climate. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I think I mostly agree with you. I would certainly prefer for this do be done by legislative action, not court rulings. It would be better for our country. I also cringe at how spineless the Obama administration is on the whole issue. If he supports marriage equality it is way past time to come out and do something about it. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

marriage licenses Currently this is exactly the situation with regards to same sex marriage licenses. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Isn't the market much better equipped to make those types of decisions? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I presume the student waived negligence, however. Not sure if that will hold up or not, depends on the local law and the facts (whether this would be gross negligence or ordinary negligence). "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Supply and demand. When people start demanding a fair return the colleges will do better with justifying their prices. I believe one of the things that prevent people from demanding such accountability is that the cost is generally deferred through debt. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Why do Canadian women like to do it doggie style? So that they can watch the hockey game too. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Do you STILL truly not get how bad a message that kind of commentary in here conveys? Seriously? Anyhow, it appears that Laverne's sister posted it on Youtube. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

On the other hand Grant was one of the worst Presidents the country has ever had. I would think that there is a skill set that Presidents need that perhaps can be developed and evaluated in several diferent fields, not just one. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

That's a pretty logical reason to be against it. Along with the seemingly unavoidable expense involved. Of course, I don't want to see an innocent person spending the rest of his life (or a huge part of it) in prison either. So I think whether we abolish the death penalty or not, we need to try to make the system as error-free as possible, or at least err on the side of innocence. I would much rather see a guilty person walk free than see an innocent person convicted. Agreed, although as long as somebody is still alive there is the potential for a wrongful conviction to be overturned. The death penalty eliminates that possibility. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I am against the death penalty because I do not see a way to rid that system of error and do not want to see innocent people put to death. It has nothing to do with my feelings towards people who have committed atrocious crimes. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

True, but in practicality it's not a slam dunk by any means. Being a fairly new area, the law around the country re: "John Doe" IP address subpoenas is still very much in flux, with courts very much divided over whether they will or will not enforce such subpoenas. Also, an IP address is investigative evidence, but often not conclusive evidence as to the actual author of a defamatory piece. Further, there is no law or reg in the US requiring online news outlets or other websites to retain cached IP addresses (at least prior to being served with a specific subpoena) for any particular period of time, so some of the more savvy sites are getting wise and clearing their caches preemptively. And, a party can often mask his IP by using a proxy site, which is very easy and user-friendly to do these days. Finally, there's the jurisdictional problem about subpoenas. Enforcing them from one state to another, especially if you're in state (and not federal) court, can be a real bitch. And if the publishing website is hosted outside the US, it can often be virtually impossible on a practical level. Then there's the problem of collecting on a judgment; but that's the age-old problem of whether there are attachable assets to go after, or you're just trying to get blood from a stone. Obviously the owners of, say, major newspapers or news outlets have assets. Some of the more obscure websites and blogs, on the other hand, would be nearly impossible to collect anything from. Yes, there are practical difficulties with it. To your last point, in general the website, blog, newspaper or news outlet is not legally responsible for posts that users put on its site. In that case you have to go after the person who posted the comment, which as you noted can be difficult. If there is libelous comments up on a website about you I would notify the owner of the website. It is possible that they would remove them. If they allowed them to remain after being informed that they are libelous it is possible that they could expose themselves to some legal jeopardy and forfeit their current protections, although I am not aware of any rulings on that issue. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Is there any way to deal with libel when it comes from anonymous Internet postings? Details aside: pretty damned hard. Going after the website has a low chance of winning, and even if you beat the odds and technically win, there's a very low chance of either collecting money or forcing the website to take the crap down. At the risk of disagreeing with somebody with a lot more expertise than me, you can get a court order requiring the site to reveal the IP address the posting came from and other identifying information. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

That's one of the scariest fucking things I've ever seen. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"