Hump day is link dump day
Posted on
April 30, 2008 by
Gideon
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
It’s hump day. It’s been a long hump day. So here’s a link dump.
- People of Lesbos sue over use of the word “lesbian”.
- Should cops value lives of others over their own? No, no and you people have got it all wrong.
- Man accidentally buys son Mike’s Hard lemonade, loses kid for a week. From Volokh.
- Consensual encounters gone awry (It’s not what you think, pervs. This is a family blog).
- Researchers discover a-hole in blogosphere.
- Australia to revoke 100 anti-gay laws, except marriage.
- Alan Shore goes to the Supreme Court. From CrimLaw.
- Apparently, jurors have to abide by a dress code too.
- Federal Court upholds ban on drug offenders receiving student aid.
- The Government on trial? What a novel concept!
- Should we be ruthless or compassionate?
And finally, in honor of hump day, the Black Eyed Peas:
Sphere: Related Content
This isn’t better for Hump-day?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W91sqAs-_-g
Oh God. Please don’t do that again.
I loved her first album – absolutely loved it. After that..I don’t know what happened.
This was an abomination.
Is this better?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQTSQpF7hic
These are my girls! If you look closely, you might even see a public defender in the guise of a roller girl.
Oh boy. I’m going to get into trouble here if I’m not careful
My sympathies are with the Bell defendants, and any person caught in a genuine self-defense situation.
Police do take lots of risks for the public. 186 died last year, 69 from being shot. “Most of us don’t realize that an officer is being killed in America on average every other day.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22400744/
Yes, most defense attorneys tend to have an adversarial relationship with police, who are trying to convict our clients, and our clients tend to look more like Bell and Diallo, but the rules underlying police use-of-force are basicaly the same as those applied to our clients who use force in self-defense.
We, more than most, should understand the problems of eyewitness perception and memory, of reaction time, and of the need to make decisions in bad light, with limited information, in tenths of seconds.
Yes, the Bell officers made a bad decision about whether Bell had a firearm. Had they waited a few tenths of second to see the firearm, they would not have had time to avoid being shot. The media widely covers those cases where the officer doesn’t hesitate and is wrong. Cases where the officer hesitates and is shot rarely receive mention.
The critics don’t look at the cost of waiting and being wrong — the risk of an injured or dead officer, or a shot fired wildly by a suspect that hits a bystander during the ensuing gunfight, or officers shots during that fight that miss and hit bystanders. The officer has a responsiblity to use deadly force only in response to a reasonable belief that he/she or the public is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm — but at that point, he or she must act.
I don’t disagree with you at all. I think there are some problems with the situation – such as the 50 bullets, but other than that, I think they did what they had to do and should do.