FilterItOut

I'm disagreeing with your statement that "you're only allowed to use deadly force in proportional response," not with whether this case is being prosecuted rightly or not.

Mate, read that link I put in there. I can tell you, from experience, that if you shoot at someone stealing your property in Texas, where that penal code I posted is from, that exact portion of the statute is going to be used and you will not be convicted. It really is "anyone could have a gun or knife." At least Texas has it so just theft has to be during the nighttime, so I guess that's something.

You'll also get similar worded statutes in many other states in the US, several of which, stating this again, where I've had the misfortune of having to research those laws. And that "reasonable belief" part about exposing yourself to risk of serious bodily injury or death? I have seen it applied to people who are simply physically larger than you. Proportional response is a moot concept.

Sorry, but that's not exactly right, because in several areas, the prevention of death or great bodily harm also includes the scenario where if you were to attempt to reclaim control over your property, you would be putting yourself in those same risk categories. See 9.42 (3)(B) here, where I have had the misfortune of having to research the law before. In other words, if you think the person is stealing your stuff and could harm you if you try to recover said stuff... well, you're 'legally' allowed to start blasting.

I'm not sure about the exact laws where the incident occurred, but in several other states that I know the law of, aggravated assault carries the exact same penalties as attempted murder. Because of the wording of the two laws, aggravated assault is much easier to prove. If you're a prosecutor, why would you not go with the easier to prove, exact same penalty crime?

You won't be. If I remember correctly, and I shudder at the memories, you'll have anthropomorphized versions of the seven sins. Be warned, All hope abandon ye who enter here.

That's what the beer hat is for.

Hades and Isaac are surprising. They're both old enough that I would have thought they wouldn't be flush with players right now. The fallout stuff makes sense, given its fanbase and the show's influence. I wonder if I should go back and try to 100% either of them now...

The photo isn't great, but my memory of that stretch of road is there is a curve after a bridge. If the load came off and the truck was eastbound, that giant pole would have rolled across oncoming traffic. The poor driver coming the other way never stood a chance of avoiding it.

Damn you and your mouth-watering memory inducers!

I wonder about that. Aren't dolphins and whales non-buoyant, in the sense that they sink when they die?

Looking, I find https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-happens-when-whales-die.html

I guess the dolphin may have been at the floating stage?

No, in another article from last week, he had put the amount they wanted in a separate bank account for them. It was more than the settlement amount. The bonder, at the least, isn't going to lose money from Trump.

Hopefully it brings consequences. Every time a bullet is fired, it is required (and I guess that must be in quotes for police officers...) that you be responsible for that bullet's consequences. If you shoot at a legitimate threat, but hit the bystander, you should get charged. Cop, not-cop, firefighter, good samaritan with a gun, whatever. Charge them.

We actually do know if the kid kept quiet... because it mentioned in the article that he didn't.