Ten oz

Unarmed people have been killed by armed people who have not been threatened or assaulted but claimed the person they killed appeared to be reaching for something, appeared to be have been armed, were trespassing, and etc. Those are cases where people killed based on suspicion or fear. Simply thinking someone may be armed and a threat should not be justification to kill them. If, as in your scenario, a person is clearly armed act in violation of the law and directs their weapon towards you I believe it would be self defense to kill them. In your scenario whether or not someone in armed and posing a threat is basically known and not merely suspected or assumed.Worse still are cases like the one in Texas where Joe Horn killed 2 fleeing burglars who had witnessed burglarizing him neighbors home. Joe Horn wasn't protecting his life or the life of another. He gave 2 people an execution sentence for stealing and millions of people applauded it.

Walking or running around with a weapon in hand is illegal. It is called branishing a weapon "California penal code 417 PC" where I live. Your scenerio it absurd. The person you described would be in the act of commenting a crime. Assuming you were armed you'd have the right to pull out you weapon and challange that person. If they directed their weapon toward when challanged than it would be a clear case of self defense if you killed that person. Imminent threats by legal standards are typically defined by what "a reasonable person" would think and or believe. If someone points a gun at you that pretty obviouly falls into what a reasonable person would view as an imminent threat to ones life.

Context is everything. If a police officer came toward me with an angry look and a weapon most people would consider me foolish if I did anything other than took most docile posture possible. Change the scenario to me sleeping in my bedroom and hearing a noise coming from another room, investigating the noise, and being confronted by an approaching person with a weapon and all bets are off. Of course the law already allows for self protection. No one argues against self protection.

While the idea of accidentally putting innocent people to death is obviously terrible in everyone's eyes on both sides of the debate I personally feel as a point of discussion its a distraction. What if guilt was known completely? What then; should we kill? The formality of guilt or fear of executing the innocent sort of implies that killing is okay long as it is the right person being killed. A concept I personally disagree with and believe is at the heart of any Death Penalty debate. People feel justice, a enigmatic concept, can be served through killing. IMO that is circular logic that actually fosters the desire to kill in many people. Society has created caveats that make killing a reasonable thing. In relation to the death penalty debate proponents like to focus on the worst criminals like child murderers but in truth here in the USA we have laws on the books that allow citizens to kill other citizens for stuff simple as trespassing. Killing is in our psyche as an acceptable way to handle a multitude of situations. That needs to stop. Killing is wrong and the issue should be black and white. Killing should only ever be permissible to defends oneself or others from eminent bodily harm. Not the fear, suspicion, or possibility of harm. Killing is wrong and that principal must be fostered over long periods of time just as slavery being wrong, and women being equal have taken millennia foster as majority concepts. Killing innocent people or people who were being controlled in someway is terrible. However the reason it is terrible shouldn't only be because they were innocent. It should also be because killing is wrong.

@ Gees, I need to read up some before I respond. INow made a good point. I need, we need, to define our terms. Thus far I referrenced conscious, subconscious, hormone effects, memory, and etc too loosely.

@ waitforufo I think the behavior is common than you're acknowledging. Look at the racist emails the DOJ found in Ferguson. Those were local government employees saying that stuff via company email. Imagine what is doing when they are out at the bar together? I have been sent to many out of town workshops and events where most of the co-workers I am with are looking to hit every bar and meet women. Having women in such group forces more sensible behavior and that isnt always welcome by those looking for a good time in Vegas on the companies dime. Perhaps you are lucky enough to work with people that maintain a higher standard. A quarter of the guys I work with spend copious amounts of time on Facebook and twitter laughing at memes.

The Government already invests in things meant to benifit society. Every time a government bails out a failing business, provides a grant, or subsidies children's healthcare it is playing favorites. Public schools for k-12 don't benefit people like myself who don't have children yet my taxes still go toward funding them. And I am perfectly fine with that. I clearly wasn't referencing myself. I didn't not say my co-workers and I. Rather I said most of my male co-workers. I actually work in an engineering support capacity for a team of about 150 people, only 3 of which are women. I am sharing what I see play out amongst that team of 150 people. The work I do is specific to myself. So I am an outside observer and not a participant. I also have a reputation as a square. People clean their behavior up when I am in the room and I have called out many for inappropriate comments about politics, religion, sex, and etc that don't belong in the work place. I did not say women were segregated to there own projects. I said the guys ensure the women are always on the same work team and the men on those teams view working with those women as a chore. They are not given different work or forced to work alone. We have training twice a year and you have completely or intentionally missed the point. For starters you keep saying "you" as if I am the one telling the jokes and when clearly I am providing an observation of others. Secondly it is a subtle thing. There is no rule that forces anyone to spend off time with their co-workers. Telling those up the ladder that women aren't being included in after work non work related group/personal texts, blogs, facebook, or invited to private none work related events would go no where. It doesn't violate any rules. Outside of work people can have whatever friends they want. And that is the nuance part of it all you are ignoring. That people can be segregated without being provably being denied things.

Having children is a basic function of living. There can not be a future for any society without it. Not only that but the outcome of every child molds what any society is or will become. So while having children may be an individual choice it is also an envaluable necessity for society much like entrepreneurship, innovation, or etc. Having children or succeeding in a career/field of study/discipline should not be mutual exclusive. Such an attitude is counter productive for a society and will have long term damaging effects. Just as government creates programs to help businessness thrive, bails industries out during hard times, or ensures research and development get funded the government has a responsibility to ensure having children isn't a burdensome choice that comes at great personal sacrifice or directly impacts ones position in life. I work in a field that is predominately male. Well over 95% males where I am at. My mostly all male co-workers lament the fact that any women work with us at all because it means they have to look over there should before telling some dirty joke or talk about some females body. As a result the women at my work are routinely segregated. Various groups of guys when assembling teams for work projects purposeful ensure the women are together and on any given day it is someone's job to bit the bullet and go work with them. They also never get invited out during off hours to shoot the sh## and hang out. Sure the women could complain but to what end? They are not being denied work. They simplify aren't receiving the benefits that come with comradery and networking. Complaining and inconveniencing the men more so than the already imagine themselves inconvienced isn't going to help. So they just accept the subtle difference in their treatment but long term it effects them. Less doors will be opened and they won't be as informed of opportunities. And this for no other reason than the men around them want the freedom to be rowdy. Discrimination is a slow creep. It is an inch that burdens day after day. The toll seems cheap per day but adds up to huge some over the course of a life. It is easy to dismiss some nuanced different in treatment moment to moment but our lives a nothing but an addition of moments and when every moment or even moments are corrupted, even slightly, it has a diminishing effect that should not be ignored or marginalized.

Lots of comments referencing how difficult it is to properly quantify the scale of this problem. While true I think the point is overstated. There is more than enough evidence to acknowledge that the problem exists. It is akin to politicians who agrue against climate change by exampling they aren't scientists. As if not understanding every detail of an issue prevents acknowledgement of the facts which are known. I personally believe that acknowledgement of a problem it a critical step toward solving that problem. If people become aware, concious of bias, and believing it should change than over time it will. Long as the problem remains an enigma that we know exists but feel unsure about or that we don't really understand solving it won't be a priority. The trend is not just some anomalous thing. Studies have been down that clearly indicate many levels of wage bias. Studies showing that resumes with ethnic names are less likely to get considered, steadfastness by women is perceived negatively yet positively for men, that more attractive people are shown more respect, taller people are often thought to be more intelligent, and etc, etc, etc. I think it is more productive to focus on solutions than it is to question whether or not these issues are real. Women make less money. The statistics are not wrong. It is an issue to be resolved.

Will carrying a gun reflect badly? Zimmerman hopped out of his vehicle armed yet most people feel Trayvon was probably to blame for his own death. American gun culture is such that being armed is something to be proud of. No negative implications at all. Police approach situations aggressively will be seen by many as the best practice to ensure their own safety. Culture has to change. I don't think just recording police alone is enough.

While there is currently a push underway to get body cameras on police officers I think it is only a short term solution. I live downtown of a larger southern Californian city and see police drones fairly regularly. No secret, no one denies they are up there. It is only a matter of times before all police departments have a fleet of drones. The video they capture will be superior to the single point of view stuff a body camera would be able to record. Cameras aside I think better training and definitions of laws are in order. It is great to record video evidence to better prosecute but I rather people just not get shot in the first place. Police all have to successful shoot a course at the gun range. They all learn a variety defensive combat moves and take downs but far less energy and training is put toward de-escalation. It is more often about taking charge and getting immediate control. How many videos have we all seen where the only de-escalation comes in the form of someone spread eagle on the pavement asking not to be tased. Our law enforcement basic operating proceedures need to change. I have been stopped a few times throughout mylife by the police. I think all citzens have which in itself I think is an example of over policing. In almost every interaction the officer(s) approached hand on gun with agressive demands. It is always a very tense atmosphere.

Not only did Bush lose the popular vote to Al Gore but Ralph Nadar (a progressive liberal) won a few million votes. This is not the only example where a president is elected without a majority of the country supporting them. Bill Clinton in 1992 was elected with only 43% of votes. Ross Perot split conservative support and achieved 19% of the vote. Bush 41 ended with 37.5% of the vote. Same For Richard Nixon in 1968. He only achieved 43% of the vote. Another third party candidate name George Wallace took the south and got 13.5% of the vote. So in 68', 92', and 00' the majority of the country voted for someone other than the person who won. So back to StringJunky's suggestion IMO it would be wrong to give which ever party (person) wins a clear path to do as they wish for a few years. It would not always be in the interested of the majority. I also don't feel the policies would always be reversible. War is not reversible. Bush/Cheney wanted to push into Syria after Iraq but couldn't whip up the support to do it. If abortion was banned for a few years then reversed we would still have a generation impacted by that few years. Young would be mothers who died getting illegal abortions, mothers having babies they don't want, child being abandoned, and all the long term phycoligical damage that causes. Further more Politicians lie. Politicians say things they don't mean to get elected. Just because a politicians runs on a platform to save the environment and make college affordable it doesn't mean once in office that is what their agenda will be. Republicans stomp their feet and scream for smaller government. What Republican president ever shrunk the size of government? Bush and Reagan both grew the size of government at record speed. @ moth, the long lines to vote in important swing states like Florida and Ohio is a coincidence. Niether is the supreme court (conservatively held) gutting the voting rights acts following two crushing conservative defeats by the nations first minority president. There are some fairly obvious attempts to rig the game afoot.

Was Bush voted in by the majority?

I clear 5 year plan would be dangerous. Imagine what Bush 43 would have done with an unopposed 5 years. Social Security would be gone, national parks would belong to industry, troops would have gone into Iran and Syria, k - 12 education would have been privatized, EPA lashed out of existence, and who knows what else. Without opposition things like federal bans on abortion and Gay marriage would easily pass through a Republican dominated government. A mish-mash of opposing ideas is a good thing. I just wish the actual population numbers played a bigger role in the administrative branch.

Problem IMO is that many of the members of administrative branch weren't elected in a efficiently democrat way. California has 37million resident but only get the same number of Senate seats as Wyoming even though Wyoming only has half a million residents. Add to that the fact the gerrymandering makes many local elections nothing more than a formality. So while the United States may be a Republic that masquerades as a democracy our system doesn't actually serve the majority all that well.

@ Overtone, I agree. Something has to be done about federalist judges. They are hurting this country worse than any politician.

Interest in the 2016 election is down and Republican voters don't actually believe any of there candidates have a good chance to win according to a recent pew research survey. http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/02/campaign-2016-modest-interest-high-stakes/ IMO Walker and Bush are the only real candidates on the Republican side. Rand Paul is just riding his dad's legacy. I think in 10yrs Rand Paul will be out of elected office and hosting some type of Alex Jones/Glenn Beck styled show making millions. I don't believe he or any of his positions are genuine. Cruz is running to heighten his profile. He knows he isn't going win the nomination. Rubio is running for a job. He is hoping for VP. It remains to be seen if Rick Perry and Chris Christie run. Just as Mitt Romney moved quickly toward the center once he obtained the nomination I suspect Jeb Bush would always. I don't believe there will be a lot of substantial differences between candidates Jeb Bush and Hilary Clinton. Both will be centrists on the economy, hawkish on forgien policy, progressive on immigration, and vague on the environment. I think Walker would actually make a more interesting candidate. At least if Walker got the nomination we would get to debate (media/watercooler) some real differences in political philosophy. On the Democratic side Clinton seems unchallenged. Since her defeat in the primaries it seems she has put in a lot of work shoring up everyone's support. Bill Clinton specifically has done a tremendous amount of campaigning for Democrats around the country. I had hoped Elizabeth Warren and Howard Dean would step up and challenge Clinton from the left but it isn't going to happen. It doesn't even seem like Joe Biden will run. iNow mentioned John Huntsman. I would be excited if he switched parties and ran as a Democrat. The field is clear on the Democratic side so he would get a ton of press. The Republican party has basically booted him anyways. If he switched it would only be him vs Clinton.

They said that back in 07' about Clinton. However at this point in 07' Obama was already in the race.this time around no one is running against apparently. A few might eventually toss their hats in but they will be running for cabinet positions and not the nomination.

In discussions about the brain and conciousness I think people too often leave out the influence of genes. Hormonally all humans are not the same. The differences can be both environmental and genetic. It effects the why a persos minds works. It effects conscious thought. My brain atom for atom in my wife's body would not opporate the same way it does in my body.

I expect less attention to be given to the election this time around. I don't think many conservatives honestly believe any of their candidates will beat Clinton. Through their prepping they have built he up for 16yrs now as an inevitable force. A force for which they never created clear rival. Also I think amongst the general public there is some boy who cried wolf syndrome. Foxnews and other conservative media went very hard and loud after Obama. They said his tax plan, healthcare, and immigration moves would destory the country. They went all in against everything Obama and over stated their case time after time. I dont think there is any energy left to play that game with Clinton. The Media will try but in a few months it will die down and fall in to a circling patterning.

Consistency and repeatability

I don't think we are commenting on the same issues. I am saying I believe the policies are written too loosely and allow for deadly force to be too easily justified. As that applies to fleeing suspects I think it goes without saying that no one should every be shot in the back. Not unless doing so directly saves someone's life.

Law are slightly different state to state. Here is the Department of Homeland Security's (ICE, CBP, USCG, TSA, U.S Marshall, Etc) use of force policy:"C. Use of Deadly Force 1. The Department of Homeland Security Policy on the Use of Deadly Force governs the use of deadly force by all DHS officers/agents and employees. The complete DHS policy is contained in Appendix II. 2. Authorized Officers/Agents may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer/agent has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer/agent or to another person." http://www.dhs.gov/publication/use-force-policy "Reasonable Belief" is the key phrase. Long as the officer(s) believe they are in danger they can use deadly force. In court long as the officer(s) can articulate fear, a belief that they were in danger, they are justified in using deadly force.

And yet Michael Brown was unarmed and shot at a distance by an officer who claimed he feared for his life. Most of the general public think it was justified.

The interpretation is left to a Jury ( assuming it makes it that far). In the Ferguson case the officer did say that Michael Brown's face looked like a demon while explaining the fear he had for his life. While I consider that information frivolous and dont feel it add any justification for his actions many view it differently. Proving that a person had fear for their life to many is equal to proving they had a rational reason to be afraid.