HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » sarisataka » Journal
Page: 1

sarisataka

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: St Paul MN
Home country: USA
Current location: Here
Member since: Wed Mar 21, 2012, 10:41 PM
Number of posts: 12,765

Journal Archives

Self defense questions

There have been several incidents in the news lately where the initiator of a physical struggle has been injured or killed and/or third parties injured. This creates a whole series of questions about self-defense that have been addressed in law may deserve to be revisited.
Edit to add> I am not so much asked what the law is but what it should be

Assuming an unprovoked physical assault:
-is there a right to self-defense?
it has been suggested that "it is better to be a victim than to risk escalating situation"
-is there a right to use lethal force?
can a victim defend themself proportionally if the assault has the potential to cause serious bodily harm
-does lethal force include the use of a firearm?
may the victim use a knife, baseball bat, car, any other improvised weapon but not a firearm due to the greater risk of lethal injury

The answers to those lead to two additional questions:
-If the answer to any of the above is no, at what point does the victim become responsible for the wellbeing of their assailant?
essentially at what point does the paradigm reverse and the assailant becomes the victim
-Even if all of the above are answered yes, who is responsible for any injuries to third parties?
will the assailant always be responsible for any injuries as those injuries would never have occurred without their illegal action, or may the victim take on responsibility even though the injury to a third party was done inadvertently while protecting themself

Video surfaces of high school football players burning pride flag: 'Please hold these students accou

Video surfaces of high school football players burning pride flag: 'Please hold these students accountable'

Two football players were indefinitely suspended from their school team for distributing and shooting a video of a burning LGBTQ pride flag on Snapchat.

The students, from Kearns High School in Kearns, Utah, made the video — in which someone is heard laughing and saying, “All gays die” — last week, according to Fox 13

While the students were immediately removed from the football team, Granite School District officials are still determining what measures need to be taken beyond athletics.

A Unified Police Department spokesperson tells Yahoo Lifestyle that while a report about the incident was filed with police, they will not be investigating the issue as a hate crime, as Utah law considers hate crimes as enhancements to criminal offenses. According to the spokesperson, “Burning a flag is not a crime — it’s a freedom of speech issue, and the school is handling it.”

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/video-surfaces-of-high-school-football-players-burning-pride-flag-please-hold-these-students-accountable-165809589.html

1st woman to take command of a US Army infantry division

1st woman to take command of a US Army infantry division

The California National Guard has announced the appointment of the first woman to lead a U.S. Army infantry division.

Brig. Gen. Laura Yeager will take command of the 40th Infantry Division on June 29 at Joint Forces Training Base in Los Alamitos, California.

Yeager currently commands Joint Task Force North, U.S. Northern Command at Fort Bliss, Texas.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/1st-woman-command-us-army-150916046.html

Supreme Court refuses to consider whether Second Amendment protects gun silencers

Supreme Court refuses to consider whether Second Amendment protects gun silencers

The Supreme Court refused Monday to decide if the Second Amendment protects gun silencers such as the one used in last month's Virginia Beach shooting that killed 12 people.

Without comment or dissent, the justices turned away petitions from the operator of a Kansas army-surplus store and one of his customers who purchased an unregistered silencer in violation of federal law.

Two lower federal courts previously ruled that gun silencers fall outside the scope of the  Second Amendment because they are accessories not in common use by law-abiding citizens.

The Trump administration had urged the Supreme Court not to hear the challenge. Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear "arms," and that restrictions on silencers don't burden the ability to use a gun for self-defense.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1407871001

Odd that the administration did not want SCOTUS to take this up.
Go to Page: 1