Another way of looking at it..

RomanTPA · 2012-05-24T18:32:51.315152+00:00

We need another picture of a mad scientist zapping life back into the bike by using parts from multiple different model years.

Sincerely, 1981-1983 GS 850/1100 GL frankenbike rider.

Submitted2State · 1 day

Sounds like enough reasonable doubt to fill an Olympic swimming pool.

BigPharmaIsEvil · 1 day

If you haven't already, have someone teach you to ride a motorcycle and hit highish speeds at least once. The first time I did 60 mph, I was grabbing the handlebars so tight that my arms and hands were numb from fingertip to about halfway through my forearm. Shit is intense.

Trishlovesdolphins · 1 day

I'm 100% ok with the video being posted. Who knows how many other online articles this guy has ripped off. At the end of the day, this guy has done shoddy journalism and published another person's work without proper consideration.

This is also very different than star wars kid. While that video was published online solely to humiliate a minor who probably used that video for private reasons, this video is highlighting the public actions of an adult. If this person did not want to be exposed, he shouldn't have published work without permission. If he is embarrassed by being called out in public, then he shouldn't be acting improperly to begin with.

reyshak · 1 day

If the girl was an adult, I wouldn't fault the anyone but the driver. But she isn't. It sounds like she was allowed to enter the car to "listen to the radio" by the mother. So she was allowed into a car with the keys. Sounds like unreasonable access to a dangerous item with no supervision. Whether or not she always leaves the keys in is not relevant to whether or not she had liability. I always leave my shotgun loaded, but I'm sure as shit going to secure it if I'm having underage or irresponsible people over.

Trishlovesdolphins · 1 day

If someone filmed you cutting them off in traffic, it would be perfectly acceptable to post it online. Perhaps they could get in trouble if they suggested that you always drive like that, but if they honestly presented the situation, it would simply be the truth and not defamation.

Moreover, the author has plenty cause to be indignant. He was treated poorly through and through. It was professional of him in the first place to deal with the man one on one. He could have just sent him a notice that he was suing the paper if he really wanted to dick him over and waste his money on court and legal fees.

reyshak · 1 day

Private arbitration. The two parties agree to this instead of real court. Check out my longer comment here

reyshak · 1 day

IIRC, she is not currently acting as a "real" judge. She was at family court judge at one time and retains her title. However, in this show, she is acting as a private arbitrator. The two parties agree to let her settle their dispute outside of a real court. In most of these shows, no one actually loses any money. In judge judy's show, 5000 dollars is the maximum anyone can win, because that is the show's money pool. The arbitrator decides who gets how much from the show, based on the stories presented.

This also explains the more bizarre "court" shows. At least in SC, we have a show called "extreme Akeem", where the rulings are always very bizzare (getting to key someone's car). This can happen because the two parties agree to abide by the arbitrator's decision. Interesting note, Judge Akeem is a local Charleston, SC PI attorney (ambulance chaser)

Trishlovesdolphins · 1 day

I would agree it was excessive if the editor admitted he was wrong and paid the man, but that is not the case. The editor was extremely hostile throughout the video. Hell, he came from behind the counter to invade the writer's personal space, either as an attempt to intimidate or in preparation to attack. Not once does he admit that it was wrong to steal the author's work or apologize for printing his article. He even writes "Bullshit" on the check. So what do we know? Writer caught the editor in the wrong red handed, approaches him, and gets treated like shit. The editor operates a shady newspaper and is in general an asshole, I say let the whole world know.

Trishlovesdolphins · 1 day

He wouldn't have a case for defamation. The person filming never made any claims that were slanderous or untrue. The editor did steal his work. The man was just demanding what was his due. While the video itself may be bad publicity for the paper, it is merely an accurate portrayal of the editor's actions.

reyshak · 1 day

While I would agree with you if everyone in question were adults, I'm not sure your analysis holds true considering the age of the boy and girl. As an adult supervising minors, she failed to reasonably secure dangerous items. The fact that the keys to the car were so readily available to the teenage girl (she didn't have to take the keys, or find them) makes me think that the supervising adult failed in her responsibility. 14 is old enough to know a car is dangerous, but still young enough to exercise bad judgement fairly regularly. The adult present should have been aware of this and accommodated.

DeliciousKiwi · 2 days

Shooting someone isn't like a video game. Sometimes a center of mass shot drops a person like in the video, sometimes it has little immediate effect. It's all well and good to say he should have tried to gotten the crook to surrender, but why should the people in the store have further increase their risk of being wounded by an armed perp just to allow him that. At that range, not firing could possibly allow the knife wielder to attack the shooter or other customers. Would you be saying the same thing if innocents had been injured out of consideration for the armed robber?

My point, the armed robber chose his behavior, the innocent customers did not. If deadly action can be taken against the robber that would immediately end the danger to the innocents, it is the practical and ethical action.

DeliciousKiwi · 2 days

Excessive? Armed robbery is the threat of death unless you comply with the robber. Those that threaten to kill cannot expect to have great risk taken to ensure their safety.

Lanlost · 3 days

I stopped reading at "In my second main relationship...". I'm not going to read your whole life story guy. If you expect people to read this, you are going to have to be more brief.

Mind_Virus · 3 days

Man, what bad fortune it was to keep running into these few bad apples.

BlackFallout · 5 days

Still a pretty good idea to record yourself while riding, especially if you know you are planning on riding within the law that day. Just seeing the camera will probably discourage made up charges.

ethicalking · 6 days

I know that feel, man. Consider this though. It is much better to let a killer walk free than to ruin the life of an innocent man by throwing him in prison. If we are to be a civilized society, we must not do evil but imprisoning innocent people. This may result in more guilty walking free, but I'm willing to accept that.

salvia_d · 6 days

How is it possible to have a jury of Texans without one minority? Unless they are counting hispanic as white, this is outrageous.

ethicalking · 6 days

While this is true, we don't know that Zimmerman was suffering from adverse side effects or abusing the drugs at all. More info is needed. Has he been prescribed on these drugs for a long period of time? Has he been requesting refills sooner than expected? If he has been taking the two drugs for a longer period of time with no indication of abuse or adverse effects, I'd not be too concerned about them.

Martin's marijuana concentrations were not high enough to even have an effect, IIRC (source needed). From what I recall, it was indicative of having used pot within the last few days, not indicating that he was at all impaired at the time of the incident. In other words, not at all significant.

ethicalking · 6 days

Depends on how this trial lands. From the Florida statutes

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.— (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1). History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

If he is found to have used deadly force consistent with the self defense laws of FL, he will be immune from civil action. He will also have his attorney's fees payed for by the state if for any civil actions or from his criminal case.

ethicalking · 6 days

That is true. While there is nothing to say conclusively that Zimmerman acted unlawfully, there is also nothing there to say that his story of lawful use of force is impossible or even highly unlikely. Since the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, I see him being able to walk for this. Given that Martin has no injuries other than the gunshot wound and injuries to his knuckles, we know that zimmerman did not strike Martin. It is possible that he tried to detain him and left no wounds doing so, but it is not possible to know this without a witness. Unless a witness saw the beginning of the conflict, not just the end like the other witnesses have, I don't think we can convict Zimmerman rightfully.

ethicalking · 6 days

Zimmerman saw what he suspected to be a criminal and placed himself in a situation that, if his suspicions proved correct, could have been dangerous. At that moment all arguments of self defense are null.

Really? Sounds like victim blaming. If a woman, drunk, wearing a mini skirt, walks down a road known to her and the public for sexual assaults, has she given up the right to self defense? Sure it may be a foolish decision to be there, but not an unlawful one. If she is attacked, and she injures her attacker in self defense, only a fool would say she was at fault for not avoiding a very avoidable scenario. While common sense dictates to avoid a one on one confrontation with a potential criminal, it is not unlawful to follow and talk to a person in a public area.

dimsi · 6 days

Contact the insurance company. They like getting fucked in the ass as much as the next guy, they'll probably look into it. If something can be done, they'll know.

Awestin · 6 days

If there is one thing that I have learned from /r/relationships, it is that young people (or immature older people) think that problems in a relationship means someone is wrong and someone is right. This is rarely the case. You two have differing opinions. If you both feel strongly about your respective positions, it is known as an irreconcilable difference. Be honest with yourself and with her, just tell her you are not willing to give it up and will not feel bad about it. A break up may occur, not a big deal considering the time dating.

ethicalking · 6 days

A racist paranoid schizophrenic

[citation needed]

WaffleMoose

TROPHY CASE

WaffleMoose

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login