Capco

Incorrect. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-crime-and-violation

I'm seeing a lot of ignorance and misinformation flying around about what happened in Kenosha, and I'm going to set the record straight from a professional legal position... as well as from a former military position. I'm going to explain some things from a more technical angle derived from my many years as a paralegal and from my experience working in federal criminal justice and prosecution. Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. As in, it can't even be entered as your official defense in court. It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren't even legally allowed to be driving. That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense. Another key discussion is the Castle Doctrine. Some of you may be vaguely familiar with it, as it is what allows you to use deadly force when someone comes into your house unlawfully, etc. But there are some finer points most people don't realize that you generally have to do some formal legal studies to know. First, as soon as someone sets foot inside the threshold of your home uninvited that you believe intends to commit a crime, you can legally use deadly force and it is immediately considered self defense, even if they haven't made any violent threats or actions towards harming you. This is because in every instance outside your home, you are required to retreat and extricate yourself from a dangerous situation if possible. It is a legal mandate, not a suggestion. Your home is considered the final retreat point, and legally you should be safe in your "Castle." There is nowhere else to retreat to, etc. This is why you are able to immediately use deadly force. However, it is NOT to protect your property, it is for protecting your LIFE. And once the burglar, for instance, has left your home... the threat to your life is considered neutralized, and deadly force is no longer authorized. So if a burglar runs out the door and down the street with your TV, you are no longer allowed to shoot after them because they are not threatening your life. You call the police, you file a claim with your insurance, and you get a new TV. If you shoot a burglar in the back down the street, you can and should be charged with murder. While you are out in PUBLIC, this means a lot of things obviously. It means that there is far more scrutiny and boxes that must be checked in order to claim self defense. You must be in IMMINENT danger of losing life and limb. Getting into an argument and feeling scared of being punched by an unarmed person? Not likely to be a situation where deadly force is authorized. You MUST retreat. If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you're afraid of a little scuffle. That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense. The man threw a plastic bag with trash in it at him AND MISSED, and Rittenhouse shot him. He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle, because he is an untrained idiot with a gun. The protester was not a threat, and even if he was, all he had to do was retreat back to the police line. He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight, and people are acting as if he were just there to keep the peace. He fired INTO A CROWD, and it's a miracle he didn't hit more people. More people that hadn't thrown a plastic bag. More people that were just trying to protest police brutality, which is a real issue in this country. And then when he did finally run away, some more protesters attempted to subdue him after he had already murdered someone, he tripped, and shot two people trying to stop him from shooting others. The fact that the police didn't arrest him and take him into custody right then and there, even if they suspected it could be self defense, is a grave issue with that police department. I could further dissect this situation, but for now I'm going to end with people passing around misinformation about the victims being "criminals so they deserved it." First, there are no actual records of Jacob Blake or the people shot by Rittenhouse being in the official sex offender's registry. None of them raped a 14 year old girl years ago, that is complete fabrication being purposely spread by right wing extremist sites in order to try and justify the shootings. Jacob Blake was indeed awaiting trial for sexual assault and trespassing, and did have a warrant for his arrest. It was not assault on a child, because that is a different charge with a different title. On the charging document, it would literally say that it was against a child. From what is publicly known, he allegedly broke into an ex girlfriend's house and allegedly assaulted HER, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and still deserves his day in court. He could truly be innocent. Rittenhouse's victims do not appear to have had any record, and even if they did, he couldn't have known that at the time. You cannot insist a shoot was justified AFTER the fact because "that person was a criminal." Criminals have rights too, whether you like it or not, and it is enshrined in the very documents that built our country. If you don't like the constitution and bill of rights, I don't know what to tell you. This is also not MY OPINION, this is literally how the criminal justice system and our laws work. I hold a degree in paralegal studies and served 8 years as an Army paralegal. I've worked for the criminal division in the Chicago US Attorney's Office, and currently work in federal law enforcement. This is what I do for a living, and I am not pulling this out of my ass, and my knowlege is a culmination of working in the field and being passionate about justice for 16 years. I'd be happy to send you sources and opines and case law and statutes if you need it. I did not get this from "mainstream media," and I am not brainwashed by the left. I'm an independent progressive. May he face justice for what he did, and may we find a way to get on common ground before more fuses to this powder keg are lit. -Reposted. Words from a military paralegal.

For the really good coaches, it doesn't have to be that way. Belichick is historically a 3-4 guy, but he switches his defenses to whatever is best suited to his personnel. Granted, he hasn't had to move around different teams so maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I still think his defenses are a good example of the idea.

Hoping for the best for Fitz and his family.

From the info that is currently available, I'd be surprised if the charges weren't dropped. He's clearly trying to maintain distance while people are coming at him and only shoots as a last resort.

That sounds like a very good approach and one I would feel comfortable with. Good luck to your children in school this year! Initially my entry into this thread was responding to bilzfancy and his focus on returning to normalcy, including sending children back to school. That's how I was framing the conversation from that point on: a full return to normalcy wrt to kids in school, as if it were any other year. I'd be terrified as hell of such a situation, and judging by this response I think you would be as well. I hope that every state goes for similar measures this year. As bilzfancy and OldTimeAFLGuy mentioned, there are a lot of benefits to school and we cannot ignore them. As long as there is a holistic approach to this mess where we follow the advice of our best and brightest as best we can, I'm good.

I'll ask you again since you completely ignored me the first time. Have you ever had to deal with 25 or more 6 year olds for 6 hours a day, 5 days a week? If you did then you’d know how ridiculous it is to expect those teachers to effectively social distance their students. That includes the basic act of getting them to keep their masks on.

I don't have any such research available to me. Peer review takes time. The other countries around the world that are handling COVID leaps and bounds better than the US didn't wait for peer-reviewed research before they were able to get a handle on things. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together with even the most basic understanding of virology, which I believe is something you've claimed to know a bit about. Expert comments from the same article I linked: We think, or hope, that everyone understands the primary risk of reopening schools during a global pandemic: An increase in the number of people infected and more people with life-threatening cases of COVID-19. "The main risk would be that the children will contract COVID-19 more frequently in school, and that the teachers will be exposed to and could become infected as well," Dr. Sanborn says. "Aside from the risk of infected children potentially becoming very ill, which is fortunately a rare occurrence, there is also the risk to the children's families if the kids bring the virus home." Finally, according to Dr. Sanborn although it seems that children may not spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus as effectively as adults, there is still major concern about a possible spike in infection rates, particularly in regions where infection rates are already high. Murphy reiterates this concern, although she emphasizes that the risk of spreading the novel coronavirus in schools depends largely on the region's infection rates and other factors. So how does your personal expertise compare to these two professionals? "While there may not be a true consensus on schools opening, we pediatricians do all agree with the CDC that, in a perfect scenario, we would all like schools to be open." How does your wife's expertise compare to Dr Sanborn's?

So it's you who doesn't agree with the pediatricians then.

Under perfect conditions, yes absolutely.

Considering the fact that all of those posts are at least several weeks old (most are older), let's examine something a bit more recent: "One thing is certain," Murphy says, "Any return to school or work will require that we all practice personal hygiene (teaching our kids to wash their hands, cough and sneeze into their elbows, and so on) and pay attention to our general health and symptoms every day, and anyone with any symptoms should stay home." Other than that, there really is no consensus. We've seen that with the CDC's stance on the matter, followed by the serious backlash from school and medical professionals. "While there may not be a true consensus on schools opening, we pediatricians do all agree with the CDC that, in a perfect scenario, we would all like schools to be open," Dr. Sanborn says, nodding to the fact that, based on available evidence, young children don't seem to contract or transmit the SARS-CoV-2 virus as easily as adults. https://www.cnet.com/health/is-it-safe-to-reopen-schools-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic/

I think at the end of the day there really is some fundamental difference with certain people wrt this topic of individual vs group. The best we can do, then, is to bridge the gap when we can.

When you say you want kids to go back to school that speaks volumes about your understanding of communicable diseases. You are displaying your inability to understand nuance. In this case, you are ignoring the fact that children can still incubate and transmit the virus to others at an incredible rate if they are sent back to school. Have you ever had to deal with 25 or more 6 year olds for 6 hours a day, 5 days a week? If you did then you’d know how ridiculous it is to expect those teachers to effectively social distance their students. But hey, back to normal is the important part. Not safety and well being of the people in your life who aren’t you.

So it’s not about your neighbors or fellow citizens. To hell with what happens to them. The individual and their individual choices are the most important thing in this society. If bilzfancy wants to live his life normally during a pandemic at the risk of harming others by not taking precautions that stop the spread of the virus, well THAT is what REALLY matters, right? #######s. #######s everywhere.

I think it’s in the 20s

What a diverse group of people to ask questions to. Definitely a representative sample of the country.

A spell? Now the Republicans are turning to blame magic and voodoo? The answer is that he's an excellent orator. His speeches will be studied by future public speakers for decades.

Trolling isn’t at all presidential. Even jokingly saying something like this is disgusting. But your ilk is totally fine with and loves it? Meanwhile he’s turning the White House into a fortress which is straight from the dictator playbook. Man I just wonder how far the cognitive dissonance will go with some of you before you finally see the forest for the trees.

Trump says he’ll seek third term because of spying on his campaign - a claim fully refuted by his own FBI. https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-ll-seek-third-000717298.html

What I would do is look for news articles written about his induction. If there was some type of conflict with the necessary number of years before possible induction, any reporter worth their salt would have talked about it. Even if it was right on the cusp (for example, if the rule in 1996 was 4 years), that probably would have been mentioned.

This is something that is sometimes overlooked when analyzing Gibbs. To do what he did before free agency is nothing short of remarkable. He was the textbook definition of a coach.

HA!... Unreal. Marv doesn't seem like the type to throw out accusations like that just because his team is losing.

I still feel like there was something up with this game. The Skins just teed off on our receivers all game without ever getting a flag.

A classic symptom of AOC derangement syndrome. You might want to get that checked out.