Law & Justice: August 2011 Archives
Rock-throwing 16-year-old shot with crossbow.
San Diego police say a 16-year-old boy throwing rocks at a sport utility vehicle was struck by a crossbow arrow fired by a passenger.Police say the shirtless boy and a friend were throwing rocks at a black Toyota RAV4 in the Linda Vista neighborhood Monday afternoon when a passenger fired a crossbow out the window.
The boy was shot in the right side and was taken to a hospital. The San Diego Union-Tribune says his injuries are not life-threatening.
His name wasn't released.
Nobody has been arrested.
Inference: If the police know he was throwing rocks at an SUV, then they probably know who was in the SUV and who fired the crossbow.
My take: Ok, I'm torn. Rocks are deadly weapons in the right circumstances, and if the person in the SUV felt that his safety was threatened then firing the crossbow at the assailant was completely legitimate. However, if these were normal hand-sized rocks then it's unlikely that they'd be able to endanger people inside an SUV. The SUV owner has a right to protect his property even if his life isn't in danger, especially if he attempted to warn off the attacker before using deadly force against him.
But! Driving away and calling the police would have been the more prudent choice, especially since law enforcement is at likely to come down hard on the victim (Mr. Crossbow) as on the attacker. Mr. Crossbow will probably be sued and will end up with a lot more trouble and expense than he would if he had driven away. That may not be Right, but it's very probable.
It's very risky to use force to protect property if you can't make a credible claim that you were afraid for your life.
I know that hobbit comparisons are supposed to be insulting, but remember that the hobbits win... and if you're against the hobbits then who does that make you? Walter Russell Meade writes that after decades spent mocking him the Left is just beginning to realize that Clarence Thomas is approaching their Mount Doom.
There are few articles of faith as firmly fixed in the liberal canon as the belief that Clarence Thomas is, to put it as bluntly as many liberals do, a dunce and a worm. Twenty years of married life have not erased the conventional liberal view of his character etched by Anita Hill's testimony at his confirmation hearings. Not only does the liberal mind perceive him as a disgusting lump of ungoverned sexual impulse; he is seen as an intellectual cipher. Thomas' silence during oral argument before the Supreme Court is taken as obvious evidence that he has nothing to say and is perhaps a bit intimidated by the verbal fireworks exchanged by the high profile lawyers and his more, ahem, 'qualified' colleagues.At most liberals have long seen Thomas as the Sancho Panza to Justice Antonio Scalia's Don Quixote, Tonto to his Lone Ranger. No, says Toobin: the intellectual influence runs the other way. Thomas is the consistently clear and purposeful theorist that history will remember as an intellectual pioneer; Scalia the less clear-minded colleague who is gradually following in Thomas' tracks.
If Toobin's revionist take is correct, (and I defer to his knowledge of the direction of modern constitutional thought) it means that liberal America has spent a generation mocking a Black man as an ignorant fool, even as constitutional scholars stand in growing amazement at the intellectual audacity, philosophical coherence and historical reflection embedded in his judicial work.
The Daily Mail always has some of the best UK coverage, and I especially like the huge, high resolution images they embed in their stories. Here's their coverage of last night's rioting in London. Is the UK a third-world country now?
The army of police officers on-duty in London will swell to 16,000 tonight - compared with just 6,000 last night - as reinforcements are drafted in from 26 forces across the country.Today huge swathes of the capital woke up to the charred debris of burned out buildings and streets littered with waste. David Cameron has recalled Parliament for the day on Thursday as he pledged to bring the situation under control. ...
After cutting short his Tuscany holiday to deal with the worsening public disorder crisis, Mr Cameron said today: 'We will do everything necessary to restore order to Britain's streets and to make them safe for the law-abiding.
'Let me, first of all, completely condemn the scenes that we have seen on our television screens and people have witnessed in their communities.
'These are sickening scenes - scenes of people looting, vandalising, thieving, robbing, scenes of people attacking police officers and even attacking fire crews as they're trying to put out fires. This is criminality, pure and simple, and it has to be confronted and defeated.
'I feel huge sympathy for the families who've suffered, innocent people who've been burned out of their houses and to businesses who have seen their premises smashed, their products looted and their livelihoods potentially ruined.
'I also feel for all those who live in fear because of these appalling scenes that we've seen on the streets of our country. People should be in no doubt that we are on the side of the law- abiding - law-abiding people who are appalled by what has happened in their own communities.
'I am determined, the Government is determined that justice will be done and these people will see the consequences of their actions.'
More embarrassing than a credit downgrade?
Forget the actual topic under discussion -- whether or not Amazon should be forced to collect sales tax -- and look at the mental processes at work inside the mind of a tax lawyer. It's no wonder our tax laws are so Byzantine.
You have to look to the nature of the link or connection between the state and the transaction. That link shouldn't be limited to physical presence any more than it should be expanded to include merely having an online presence.One factor to consider is the solicitation of orders. Targeted advertising inside a state, including TV, radio and print ads, may not by itself be determinative but is a piece of a bigger picture. Also important are local agents and affiliates. Despite arguments from Amazon, I think states like New York and California are getting it right when considering locations of affiliates.
How and where orders are processed also matters. The location of warehouses, telephone operators and return centers should be part of the equation.
Finally, I think that you have to look to whether the retailer gets anything in return. What kinds of services and protections are being offered to the retailer inside the state? Does the retailer benefit from access to state courts, police protection and transportation systems?
There's not an easy answer to many of these questions. But then, when it comes to tax, you wouldn't expect anything different.
Do I "expect anything different" from a tax lawyer? No. But maybe that's a flaw with tax lawyers and not a problem inherent with collecting revenue for operating the government.
