TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#57401: Jun 30th 2013 at 1:49:37 PM

Yeah, the economic issues are more important. If a country like the US screws up on economic or environmental issues, the entire world suffers. Unfortunately, all the issues are tangled up.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#57402: Jun 30th 2013 at 2:03:44 PM

Many would argue that abortion rights and gay rights are also economic issues, considering that the benefits I've seen cited for both involve things like being able to inherent or jointly own property and file taxes for the second, and being able to afford college or having the time to actually go to college and being able to support yourself without drowning in (quite so much) debt that having a child at a young age would cause for the former. Oh, and there's the fear of being fired from your job in many places because of being either pregnant or gay. (My sister hid her first pregnancy for a while at her job until the health insurance kicked in.)

Far as I'm concerned social and economic issues end up being pretty much the same thing.

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#57403: Jun 30th 2013 at 2:18:01 PM

@Pykrete: The key part of the formulation is "duty to retreat if it is safe to do so." If someone is pursuing you, you cannot safely retreat, and so may defend yourself. It isn't ideal, but the point is to prevent confrontations escalating.

edited 30th Jun '13 2:18:50 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#57404: Jun 30th 2013 at 2:23:17 PM

[up] The problem is that, in the US at least, Duty to Retreat laws don't usually take into account the "if it's safe" bit. They usually say that you have to attempt to retreat (and be able to prove that you made the attempt in court) before you can defend yourself.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#57405: Jun 30th 2013 at 2:31:14 PM

[up]

That seems quixotic in the extreme. I was referring to the Scottish system in my own post.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#57406: Jun 30th 2013 at 2:35:06 PM

Basically our laws as regards self defense and appropriate use of force appears to swing between two unreasonable extremes. And one of which appears to make the victim the criminal at least part of the time.

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#57407: Jun 30th 2013 at 3:28:00 PM

Generally speaking, you have a duty to retreat rather than escalate a conflict if it's possible to do so. If someone gets in your face and you shoot them, then that's on you, even if you had reason to believe that they were going to kick your ass. (Now, if they were in your face and you tried to walk away and they prevented you from doing so, that's a different story.)

A lot of states in the US have a "home as your castle" law where the duty to retreat doesn't apply in your own home. The details vary — sometimes it's literally anything goes (eg, you can shoot someone in the back as they try to run away, and as long as they're still in your house when you shoot them, it's kosher) while others not so much. Sometimes other properties (businesses, vehicles) also count as your home for the purposes of the law.

A handful of states have a "stand your ground" law where the "home as your castle" logic applies to anywhere you have the legal right to be — meaning it applies to public property (like city streets) in addition to your home/car/etc. Meaning that you have no duty to retreat unless you're on someone else's property — in their house, at their business, etc.

The stand your ground law (which Florida has) is the relevant one in the George Zimmerman case. He was on a public street. He had a legal right to be on that street. Therefore, he had no duty to retreat — and thus, if Trayvon Martin was actually a threat to him, he had a legal right to respond with deadly force rather than a legal obligation to run away.

Pretty much the only way that Zimmerman can be convicted of murder is if it's proven that Martin did not pose a threat to him at the time of the shooting. Given that pretty much everyone agrees that there was an altercation, that's a really hard sell. I'm not actually sure what the law would say if it's somehow proven that Zimmerman "started it" — threw the first punch, I mean, rather than "starting it" by trying to talk to Martin. It could be that by instigating the conflict in the first place, you renounce your "stand your ground" rights — it which case Zimmerman would have to prove that he had reason to believe Martin was going to kill him (he's said that he only shot after Martin reached for his — Zimmerman's — gun), which would be really hard to prove in court. But I'm not familiar enough with the law to say if that would be the case or not.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#57408: Jun 30th 2013 at 3:40:14 PM

The prosecution can't argue that "stand your ground" no longer applied once the operator he was on the phone with told him to stop pursuing? Because that seems a reasonable thing to argue and it's stupid if they can't use that.

Linhasxoc Since: Jun, 2009
#57409: Jun 30th 2013 at 5:18:31 PM

Related, is there some kind of "provocation exemption", i.e. self-defense doesn't apply if you started it? I can totally see this kind of scenario happening:

  • Person A gets in Person B's face and is loud and abusive towards him. Person A is armed, and makes a motion towards his weapon.
  • Person B, who is also armed, sees Person A motion towards his weapon and tries to draw his own weapon for self-defense.
  • Person A, seeing Person B try to draw his weapon, does draw his own weapon and shoots Person B dead, claiming self-defense because Person B was trying to draw a weapon.

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#57410: Jun 30th 2013 at 5:29:36 PM

[up] I can't say about other states, but in Washington, Person A would be guilty of brandishment *

, which means that the self defence claim isn't applicable.

edited 30th Jun '13 5:32:18 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#57411: Jun 30th 2013 at 6:12:56 PM

Seems the TLDR is that it is extremely difficult to decide legal fault in a consistent, broadly-applicable, and ethical manner, when it comes to physical altercations.

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#57412: Jun 30th 2013 at 6:19:53 PM

[up][up][up][up]Whether or not Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after being told not to is one of the key facts under contention in the case. By the defense's account, Zimmerman returned to his car after the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow Martin, and after he finished the call, Martin approached and attacked him. According to the prosecution, Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher, continued to follow Martin, and started the altercation when he caught up with Martin.

Personally, I'm more inclined to believe Zimmerman's version of events, given that Martin had no injuries beyond the gunshot wound that killed him except for an abrasion on his finger (like you'd get from punching something), while Zimmerman had a broken nose and lacerations on the back of his head (consistent with his claims that Martin punched him in the face and hit his head against the concrete sidewalk). It seems unlikely to me that Martin wouldn't have any injuries — no cuts, no bruises, no scratches — if Zimmerman had started the fight. But, obviously, I don't have access to all of the facts of the case, just what's been made public and I happen to have seen, so it's entirely possible that there's something I don't know about that would change my opinion.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#57413: Jun 30th 2013 at 6:57:13 PM

That's pretty much my take on it. While I'm quite willing to believe everyone involved is an asshole, what little evidence we have does appear to support Martin having started the altercation, at least physically.

edited 30th Jun '13 8:16:37 PM by Pykrete

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#57414: Jun 30th 2013 at 7:31:22 PM

@Barkey: Please tell me you are aware that Zimmerman's crime was killing an unarmed teenager walking home from a convenience store, not ignoring the orders of police. The second isn't a great thing, the first is murder.

What I'm saying is that there is no solid evidence regarding who did what first. I want Zimmerman put away for murder, but the grounds under which that should be done is that the murder could have been avoided if he had listened to the orders given to him by a lawful authority. That's the legal argument that should be pursued. He didn't stand his ground under assault, he willfully put himself in that situation by continuing to follow Trayvon.

I don't think it has fuck all to do with standing his ground, even if Trayvon suckerpunched him first. I think the dispatcher telling Zimmerman to leave it to the police is the most important part, and has nothing to do with the stand your ground law. Stand Your Ground is supposed to apply to being attacked, Zimmerman might not have thrown the first punch, but by further pursuing Trayvon Martin he was the aggressor. Understand what I'm getting at?

Honestly, I think Trayvon did throw the first punch. He was a little scumbag gangbanger piece of shit. But he never would have had that opportunity if Zimmerman hadn't disobeyed a lawful order from civil authorities, and Zimmerman killed that kid, ergo Zimmerman is vastly more wrong. I don't think Trayvon was up to anything illegal at that particular point in time, I really do believe he was just some kid getting some snacks from a convenience store, but his shithead mentality is what I think made him throw that suckerpunch, and it got him killed. But Trayvon didn't have the opportunity to not be in contact with Zimmerman, but the opposite cannot be said to be true.

To me this has nothing to do with any duty to retreat or standing your ground, it has everything to do with disobeying an order from a lawful civil authority. Zimmerman should be charged with the murder that resulted. Disobeying that order is what resulted in the altercation, which is what resulted in Trayvons death. Zimmerman had the first opportunity to make sure the altercation did not happen, and instead he caused it to happen, ergo he is guilty. That's my opinion anyway.

edited 30th Jun '13 7:40:23 PM by Barkey

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#57415: Jun 30th 2013 at 7:59:39 PM

@Barkey: Unfortunately, the requirement to obey lawful orders isn't nearly as ironclad in civilian life as it is in the military. Zimmerman hasn't necessarily done anything wrong if he ignores the police (practical matter, it's a bad idea, but it's not a crime in itself). So saying that you should automatically damn well shut up and do what you're told is somewhat unreasonable.

I'm kind of with Jovian here. The law is so ass-backwards that Zimmerman was technically within it, and you don't punish someone for maliciously obeying the law, no matter what a moral asshole they're being. You fix the damn law and don't give people like Zimmerman another excuse to play Vigilante Man. Because ultimately, that's what happened. The law essentially gave a badge, a gun, and an unrestricted license to kill to someone who shouldn't be trusted with them.

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#57416: Jun 30th 2013 at 8:33:41 PM

[up][up]I'm with you in that, if Zimmerman did continue to follow Martin after being told not to, he's culpable for Martin's death. Trouble is, whether Zimmerman continued to follow Martin or Martin came back and approached Zimmerman is the one thing that's really not clear about the whole sequence of events.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#57417: Jun 30th 2013 at 8:51:25 PM

^^

There's a variety of civilian charges that his disobeying the dispatcher could be twisted into. Reckless endangerment, manslaughter, et cetera.

^

True, there is quite a bit of mystery regarding this.

However, I'm still docking points from Zimmerman for walking around armed as a self-appointed neighborhood watch member. That's just looking for a fight.

I have no problem with people calling in suspicious folk, or the Stand Your Ground law, or people with a CCW intervening to stop a crime. I support those things, but Zimmerman was looking for trouble rather deliberately.

edited 30th Jun '13 9:00:29 PM by Barkey

PhilippeO Since: Oct, 2010
#57418: Jun 30th 2013 at 9:10:06 PM

Honestly, I think Trayvon did throw the first punch. He was a little scumbag gangbanger piece of shit.

The law is so ass-backwards that Zimmerman was technically within it, and you don't punish someone for maliciously obeying the law, no matter what a moral asshole they're being.

Did the fact that he is being followed give Martin justification of attacking first as self-defense ? If someone being stalked, can't he ambush his stalker as self-defense ? Its public road, Martin had right to "stand his ground" isn't it ?

[down] & [down][down] Ah, Thank you.

edited 30th Jun '13 9:30:36 PM by PhilippeO

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#57419: Jun 30th 2013 at 9:15:27 PM

[up] For stalking by itself, no. In order to be self defense, the stalker has to attack first.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#57420: Jun 30th 2013 at 9:26:45 PM

^^

Self-defense only applies to being actively attacked by most definitions. A pre-emptive strike even if being attacked looks very certain is not categorized as self-defense.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#57421: Jul 1st 2013 at 2:05:51 AM

Sarah Palin floats third party if GOP 'abandons us'

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#57422: Jul 1st 2013 at 2:20:37 AM

OH! BOY! DO I SMELL A BULL MOOSE PARTY-ESQUE SPLIT IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY? DO I? :D

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#57423: Jul 1st 2013 at 2:27:57 AM

It would be instructive to see how large the Palin-Bachmann-Santorum wing of the Repubs really is...

Schild und Schwert der Partei
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#57424: Jul 1st 2013 at 2:30:35 AM

PALIN-SANTORUM AND CHRISTIE-HUNTSMAN, 2016! DUKE IT OUT, MOTHERFUCKERS!

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#57425: Jul 1st 2013 at 2:31:47 AM

[up]

That would be the shortest battle in human history. The debates would be like watching a drunk man arguing with Edmund Burke.

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Total posts: 417,856
Top