Greatoneshere

I may have not been completely clear. All good. What I'm basically saying is if a guy shoves you to the ground and you pull out a gun in response, that's not reasonable in this context. In others, the exact same situation may be reasonable. That's the distinction I'm drawing. Either way, it wasn't reasonable here. And firing it? In this situation, that's murder based on what I am advocating for. In another situation, pulling out a gun and having to kill them really may be in self-defense as proportionate force. That's not the case here so let's stay on target everyone.

Well, what you described is what I'm saying though. That's why it's discretionary when being adjudicated in court - a judge or jury can decide if the proportionate force was reasonable or too much. I didn't mean to imply one should have split second calculations in the middle of a heated situation, but the proportionate force has to be reasonable is what I am advocating for. I didn't mean literally equal.

All good - it's important to get specific because on its face a person could really mean all three were equally bad. See Trump: "good people on both sides". I agree overall. I disagree that it's okay for the corporation to go the route they did - we should demand better from our companies. As for the employee technically breaking company policy, well, sure, maybe he did, but it's, as you said, completely understandable so I wouldn't dock him any points at all. The rest, I agree with.

I just said that if you aren't the same/equally matched then using a knife would be reasonable and thus proportional, equal to my analogy of two guys of equal qualities shoving each other. Are you being willfully dense here? But if you overdo it, then yes, you deserve to be put in jail.

Certainly not equally poorly, and provocation certainly needs to be taken into account. Let's not falsely equivocate here.

This fucking guy. What's wrong with Florida.

@SaysWho? is getting tired of everyone's shit. I gotta say I agree with him. There are reasons (though increasingly few) to be optimistic. But it is smart and healthy skepticism to map out every scenario as it would likely play out in our current environment based on, if nothing else, the rules. And ICC would be a problem.

Agreed. Refreshing to see someone actually to stick to their principles.

Most courts in the United States wouldn't find that reasonable. If a guy just comes up and starts punching you (which isn't a real hypothetical most of the time . . . ) you have to do enough to reasonably defend yourself. There are cases where pulling out a knife is warranted - say a small woman against a big man. But that's my entire point: that would be equal to a shove for a shove, which is an example where the combatants are equal in all ways. Where things are unequal between two people, a person should only be legally allowed to do enough to reasonably stop it. If the scenario is such that looking at the context and evidence it made sense for so and so to pull a knife and stab so and so 2-3 times to get them to stop, that is what is reasonable and thus would be equal and thus legal. We're advocating for the same thing, so we do agree from what I can tell.

If Dan Harmon was joking: If he wasn't: It should also be noted that Dan Harmon deals with medical/clinical/severe depression that is on and off (bipolar-levels). He's a fucked up guy. Doesn't mean he's allowed to say and do fucked up things, just making that known.

Standard of reasonableness is basically the most commonly used term in law and it applies here so you are on point. Nothing is clear cut, which is why the standard is there and then discretionarily applied to each individual case because no two cases are exactly alike and reasonableness is subjective.

What about democratic republic capitalism without the crony part of the capitalism? Crony capitalism/hypercapitalsim is the problem. I think socialist bents with regard to public policy would only help, and would at least be worth trying out, separately.

I've always found the "you may only respond in self-defense with an equal and reasonable amount of opposing force to the force being applied to you" to be the best standard. I believe that is PA's state law on the "standing your ground" issue (when it's not on your property). So if you get shoved, and they continue to be a threat but are just standing there, you can only shove them back. If you pull out a gun in response instead, then it isn't self-defense anymore, you have become the aggressor and now the other person who only shoved you now has the right of self-defense you've given up now that you've pulled a gun out. Yes, there is the issue of escalation (he pulls out a gun, so I pull out a gun) but that's the entire point of "standing your ground". It's a game of chicken until someone hurts/kills someone else, then a determination of whether it was in self-defense or not is made. Other states, like here, have much much worse stand your ground laws because right wing and red states basically want to have a legal way for white people to kill who they want. That's literally why there's a legal history of it in those states. I'm all for Stand Your Ground when it's an eye for an eye in terms of self-defense allowances. But beyond that - violence should be basically outlawed, I think, gun or otherwise. There's always legal, non-violent recourses to achieve justice in your mind. They may not be as satisfactory a conclusion, but that's life.

Oh, okay.

Aquaman looked fun . . . but the trailer wasn't very good. The thing was a total rip-off of Black Panther, except replace retro-African futurism with underwater fantasy world. Half-brother, bad king, dethrone him, big final battle of armies - it's Black Panther! James Wan is a good director though, so we'll see.

Man of Steel and Wonder Woman say hello. And Justice League was forgettable but fun and funny at least, not much different than a phase 1 MCU movie.

I thought that trailer was all sorts of B-movie awesomesauce. I can't wait - Split was really fun and Unbreakable is a classic.

Really fantastic job!!

It stars Joaquin Phoenix and is being directed by Todd Phillips (Road Trip, Old School, Starsky & Hutch remake, School for Scoundrels, The Hangover trilogy, Due Date, and War Dogs). That's some real power and talent behind a film I otherwise think will not be good at all and may not even happen. I won't believe it until at least a trailer.

It's not a perfect movie by any means, but it's so John Woo and so operatic I can't help but enjoy it.

Season 2 of Psycho-Pass is quite divisive, yeah. Shameless' next few seasons get even better, then around season 7 it kind of peters out, but it's still good.

Don't make me go fatwa on yo' ass.

I'm a Muslim you fucking infidel. Go fail at another Crusade heathen!

Precisely. America wants this. They've been duped to believe they can't have nice things and to accept a miserable status quo and believe it makes America "great". Medicare for All and College for All can actually, legit, logistically be done. I don't think anyone is against educating the young and healing the sick if it can be done for all reasonably. The great trick that we're sold is that it can't be done. It can be. Things like 2020 Democratic presidential candidates not taking dark money and candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez winning in the Bronx in NYC shows that the American people are a majority that want good, obvious things. Where is that image of Hannity's board of Ocasio-Cortez's talking points, and he tried to make them look bad when it was all clearly all good? That was amazing.

YES BUT IS IT JESUS, MARY, AND JOSEPH MOTHERFUCKER JESUS LIVED IN EGYPT FOR AWHILE DON'T YOU KNOW.