Arizona Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ) Shot During Public Event
- Thread starter mykevermin
- Start date
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Oh, and to you guys complaining about magazine capacity, remember that the VT guy used 10rd magazines. See? Don't you feel safer already?[/QUOTE]
mass murder vs spree. that's a significant degree of difference.
extended magazines were part of Clinton's assault weapons ban. I'm curious if there has been a decline in home invasions since its expiry (or at least an increase in arrests/criminals going to the hospital/something else due to the increased capacity = increased safety argument). Certainly people successfully defended their homes with fewer than 10 bullets in the past, and enjoyed a success rate equivalent to what we have today, yes?
I don't own a firearm, but living in the neighborhood I do now, I've considered it. Don't mistake my devil's advocacy for disagreeing with your side of the story (EDIT: I originally said "point," but revised my sentence to reflect reality). I enjoy debate, which is why I was disappointed that you were so flippant when the issue of extended magazines came up. I'm on the fence, speaking honestly. I was hoping to be convinced, but I'm afraid you've done a poor job of it.
mass murder vs spree. that's a significant degree of difference.
extended magazines were part of Clinton's assault weapons ban. I'm curious if there has been a decline in home invasions since its expiry (or at least an increase in arrests/criminals going to the hospital/something else due to the increased capacity = increased safety argument). Certainly people successfully defended their homes with fewer than 10 bullets in the past, and enjoyed a success rate equivalent to what we have today, yes?
I don't own a firearm, but living in the neighborhood I do now, I've considered it. Don't mistake my devil's advocacy for disagreeing with your side of the story (EDIT: I originally said "point," but revised my sentence to reflect reality). I enjoy debate, which is why I was disappointed that you were so flippant when the issue of extended magazines came up. I'm on the fence, speaking honestly. I was hoping to be convinced, but I'm afraid you've done a poor job of it.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']mass murder vs spree. that's a significant degree of difference.
extended magazines were part of Clinton's assault weapons ban. I'm curious if there has been a decline in home invasions since its expiry (or at least an increase in arrests/criminals going to the hospital/something else due to the increased capacity = increased safety argument). Certainly people successfully defended their homes with fewer than 10 bullets in the past, and enjoyed a success rate equivalent to what we have today, yes?
I don't own a firearm, but living in the neighborhood I do now, I've considered it. Don't mistake my devil's advocacy for disagreeing with your side of the story (EDIT: I originally said "point," but revised my sentence to reflect reality). I enjoy debate, which is why I was disappointed that you were so flippant when the issue of extended magazines came up. I'm on the fence, speaking honestly. I was hoping to be convinced, but I'm afraid you've done a poor job of it.[/QUOTE]
I don't get what you're saying. Mass murder vs spree? Which was which? A gun with a gun walked into a crowd and started shooting. There's no difference in the circumstances of the two evens.
The AWB did little to curb the use of extended magazines. People just switched to prebans. It was a shitty law then and it's a shitty law now.
If I was flippant, it's because I live in NY and I have to deal with this shit on a daily basis. The AWB never ended for me like it did for everyone else.
extended magazines were part of Clinton's assault weapons ban. I'm curious if there has been a decline in home invasions since its expiry (or at least an increase in arrests/criminals going to the hospital/something else due to the increased capacity = increased safety argument). Certainly people successfully defended their homes with fewer than 10 bullets in the past, and enjoyed a success rate equivalent to what we have today, yes?
I don't own a firearm, but living in the neighborhood I do now, I've considered it. Don't mistake my devil's advocacy for disagreeing with your side of the story (EDIT: I originally said "point," but revised my sentence to reflect reality). I enjoy debate, which is why I was disappointed that you were so flippant when the issue of extended magazines came up. I'm on the fence, speaking honestly. I was hoping to be convinced, but I'm afraid you've done a poor job of it.[/QUOTE]
I don't get what you're saying. Mass murder vs spree? Which was which? A gun with a gun walked into a crowd and started shooting. There's no difference in the circumstances of the two evens.
The AWB did little to curb the use of extended magazines. People just switched to prebans. It was a shitty law then and it's a shitty law now.
If I was flippant, it's because I live in NY and I have to deal with this shit on a daily basis. The AWB never ended for me like it did for everyone else.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
[quote name='mykevermin']extended magazines were part of Clinton's assault weapons ban. I'm curious if there has been a decline in home invasions since its expiry (or at least an increase in arrests/criminals going to the hospital/something else due to the increased capacity = increased safety argument). Certainly people successfully defended their homes with fewer than 10 bullets in the past, and enjoyed a success rate equivalent to what we have today, yes?[/QUOTE]
Has their been a big increase in large scale shootings since then (serious question)?
Has their been a big increase in large scale shootings since then (serious question)?
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='IRHari']Is this worth recalling the next time a Muslim commits an act of violence?[/QUOTE]
Entirely. That was my point.
It's amazing that nearly everyone that warned against "jumping to conclusions" when Major Nasan went on a spree in Ft. Hood are doing exactly that now.
Find me one -- just one -- clip or statement by someone in government or media that warned against "jumping to conclusions" about Ft. Hood has made the same warning with this event.
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
Ronald Reagan
Entirely. That was my point.
It's amazing that nearly everyone that warned against "jumping to conclusions" when Major Nasan went on a spree in Ft. Hood are doing exactly that now.
Find me one -- just one -- clip or statement by someone in government or media that warned against "jumping to conclusions" about Ft. Hood has made the same warning with this event.
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
Ronald Reagan
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Temporaryscars']I don't get what you're saying. Mass murder vs spree? Which was which? A gun with a gun walked into a crowd and started shooting. There's no difference in the circumstances of the two evens.[/QUOTE]
From a legal/categorical standpoint, they're vastly different.
Preemptive apologies for wikipedia, but I've got to run today:
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder
Time, locations, and # of victims vary the two circumstances. We could hem and haw about whether a campus is a single "location" or each campus *building* a separate location, but that who situation lasted around 2 and a half hours. Loughner fired off one magazine in a "matter of seconds" and that was it. So the "magazine size doesn't matter" argument doesn't really hold water when a person has 150 minutes (as opposed to under 1) to commit their acts.
[quote name='perdition(troy']Has their been a big increase in large scale shootings since then (serious question)?[/QUOTE]
not sure. would love to look that up, will see if I can find some time tonight. I suspect not, as crime trends at a macro level rarely turn on a dime.
From a legal/categorical standpoint, they're vastly different.
Preemptive apologies for wikipedia, but I've got to run today:
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder
Time, locations, and # of victims vary the two circumstances. We could hem and haw about whether a campus is a single "location" or each campus *building* a separate location, but that who situation lasted around 2 and a half hours. Loughner fired off one magazine in a "matter of seconds" and that was it. So the "magazine size doesn't matter" argument doesn't really hold water when a person has 150 minutes (as opposed to under 1) to commit their acts.
[quote name='perdition(troy']Has their been a big increase in large scale shootings since then (serious question)?[/QUOTE]
not sure. would love to look that up, will see if I can find some time tonight. I suspect not, as crime trends at a macro level rarely turn on a dime.
[quote name='UncleBob']Sure, sure, camoor... It's relevant that she made the evil, evil image... so relevant that no one here cared about it at the time.[/QUOTE]
So if someone was outraged about it or cared about it, their only outlet was CAG? If you find no evidence on CAG that means no one cared? I read stories all the time that make me upset but I don't post about it on CAG. Does that mean I never cared?
I guess this is the Breitbart standard of evidence. If it wasn't captured on video it probably didn't happen.
So if someone was outraged about it or cared about it, their only outlet was CAG? If you find no evidence on CAG that means no one cared? I read stories all the time that make me upset but I don't post about it on CAG. Does that mean I never cared?
I guess this is the Breitbart standard of evidence. If it wasn't captured on video it probably didn't happen.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Wait a second. Maybe I skimmed too fast....
Are their really CAG's that think Palins poster with crosshair icon's could have, might have, possibly have, be responsible for violent acts? Including the one in Arizona? Seriously? Please tell me that's not true....
Are their really CAG's that think Palins poster with crosshair icon's could have, might have, possibly have, be responsible for violent acts? Including the one in Arizona? Seriously? Please tell me that's not true....
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
they are emblematic of a culture that advocates for violent revolution via violent rhetoric.
in and of itself, certainly not. taken as a whole with the direction of political discourse, certainly *influential*, but not *causal*.
in and of itself, certainly not. taken as a whole with the direction of political discourse, certainly *influential*, but not *causal*.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='thrustbucket']Entirely. That was my point.
It's amazing that nearly everyone that warned against "jumping to conclusions" when Major Nasan went on a spree in Ft. Hood are doing exactly that now.
Find me one -- just one -- clip or statement by someone in government or media that warned against "jumping to conclusions" about Ft. Hood has made the same warning with this event.
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
Ronald Reagan[/QUOTE]
First up Reagan sucks and he little quote there didn't seem to apply to himself during Iran-Contra. So when calling out hypocrites, it probably best not to quote one.
Secondly, we could play this game all day. The same conservatives who are suddenly appalled at conclusions when it when it is done to them are all too willing to prejudge people they don't like (i.e. Muslims). Was the media (and myself) a bit unfair to conservatives/ tea party groups? Maybe but tough tits, it part of the deal when you act like assholes.
Furthermore, this complaining rings hollow when the right has basically said "It's not fair to assign blame to any political entity for this guy.....besides he's closer to a liberal anyway"
It's amazing that nearly everyone that warned against "jumping to conclusions" when Major Nasan went on a spree in Ft. Hood are doing exactly that now.
Find me one -- just one -- clip or statement by someone in government or media that warned against "jumping to conclusions" about Ft. Hood has made the same warning with this event.
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
Ronald Reagan[/QUOTE]
First up Reagan sucks and he little quote there didn't seem to apply to himself during Iran-Contra. So when calling out hypocrites, it probably best not to quote one.
Secondly, we could play this game all day. The same conservatives who are suddenly appalled at conclusions when it when it is done to them are all too willing to prejudge people they don't like (i.e. Muslims). Was the media (and myself) a bit unfair to conservatives/ tea party groups? Maybe but tough tits, it part of the deal when you act like assholes.
Furthermore, this complaining rings hollow when the right has basically said "It's not fair to assign blame to any political entity for this guy.....besides he's closer to a liberal anyway"
[quote name='thrustbucket']
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
Ronald Reagan[/QUOTE]
It's not an either or situation. You punish the law breaker while ideally also having a huge field of study on why people commit crime.
Society can't just arrest their way out of crime problems, as shown by crime skyrocketing from the 60s to late 90s even while prison population was increasing at record rates. And as shown by us having by FAR the largest prison population of first world nation while also still having the highest rates of violence.
You punish individuals and also try to identify root causes of why we have so many more robberies, homicides etc. than most other civilized nations and then come up with ways to address those root cause. And of course you can't really do that with a single case, so I semi-agree with you. It takes studying all similar crimes etc., which is hard for isolated incidents like mass shootings.
It's always better to try to prevent crimes in the first place than merely punish wrongdoers.
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
Ronald Reagan[/QUOTE]
It's not an either or situation. You punish the law breaker while ideally also having a huge field of study on why people commit crime.
Society can't just arrest their way out of crime problems, as shown by crime skyrocketing from the 60s to late 90s even while prison population was increasing at record rates. And as shown by us having by FAR the largest prison population of first world nation while also still having the highest rates of violence.
You punish individuals and also try to identify root causes of why we have so many more robberies, homicides etc. than most other civilized nations and then come up with ways to address those root cause. And of course you can't really do that with a single case, so I semi-agree with you. It takes studying all similar crimes etc., which is hard for isolated incidents like mass shootings.
It's always better to try to prevent crimes in the first place than merely punish wrongdoers.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Meh. To me handguns are 
ing pointless for self defense.
I nice shotgun would be much better for fighting off home invaders. More power, more leeway in aim. More intimidating etc.
Or again, just don't live in a suburban McMasion or the ghetto and live in something like a high rise condo with controlled access and 24 hour security like I do where the chances of such things happening are infinitesimally small.
There are much better and more logical ways to avoid becoming a crime victim than owning firearms.[/QUOTE]
Nice stereotype there, so only people that live in the ghetto or subarban McMasion need to own guns? Moron
ing pointless for self defense.I nice shotgun would be much better for fighting off home invaders. More power, more leeway in aim. More intimidating etc.
Or again, just don't live in a suburban McMasion or the ghetto and live in something like a high rise condo with controlled access and 24 hour security like I do where the chances of such things happening are infinitesimally small.
There are much better and more logical ways to avoid becoming a crime victim than owning firearms.[/QUOTE]
Nice stereotype there, so only people that live in the ghetto or subarban McMasion need to own guns? Moron
h3llbring3r
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 58 (100%)
[quote name='Sporadic']The guy dropped the clip while trying to reload, had it kicked away by an old lady before getting tackled by an old man he already shot.
That doesn't sound like a guy who practiced reloading or anything related to the gun or even had a plan besides "shoot as much as possible before I'm killed"
Also it doesn't take a genius to go "more bullets = more chances I have to kill, plz give me the biggest clip you have"
[/QUOTE]
. . .which goes back to my point he didn't have to practice mag swaps so he didn't- I imagine someone with at least enough higher brain function to obsess over semiotics and the arbitrary nature of language can say to themselves, "I might need to drive out in the desert and practice shooting or practice mag swaps in the closet."
From all the accounts I've read, the "malfunctioning spring" in the 30+rd clip is what forced yet another reload attempt where it was bobbled and he was subdued. I could be wrong- but I've read that 3-4 times.
That doesn't sound like a guy who practiced reloading or anything related to the gun or even had a plan besides "shoot as much as possible before I'm killed"
Also it doesn't take a genius to go "more bullets = more chances I have to kill, plz give me the biggest clip you have"
[/QUOTE]
. . .which goes back to my point he didn't have to practice mag swaps so he didn't- I imagine someone with at least enough higher brain function to obsess over semiotics and the arbitrary nature of language can say to themselves, "I might need to drive out in the desert and practice shooting or practice mag swaps in the closet."
From all the accounts I've read, the "malfunctioning spring" in the 30+rd clip is what forced yet another reload attempt where it was bobbled and he was subdued. I could be wrong- but I've read that 3-4 times.
[quote name='Jabrim']Nice stereotype there, so only people that live in the ghetto or subarban McMasion need to own guns? Moron[/QUOTE]
Not what I was saying at all. I don't think anyone needs to own a gun. Especially not for self protection when you factor in accidents and victims making crimes worse by trying to resist during robberies etc.
Just saying if people are going to waste their time worry about crime (which is a rare event) there are much better ways to keep themselves safe. Like not living in the ghetto (I study crime concentration and policing for living--most violent crime is concentrated in poor urban areas, and usually only a few blocks in these areas), living in a nice high rise rather than a house (to reduce burglary risk)--or at least getting a security system, not wondering around the city at night etc.
Not what I was saying at all. I don't think anyone needs to own a gun. Especially not for self protection when you factor in accidents and victims making crimes worse by trying to resist during robberies etc.
Just saying if people are going to waste their time worry about crime (which is a rare event) there are much better ways to keep themselves safe. Like not living in the ghetto (I study crime concentration and policing for living--most violent crime is concentrated in poor urban areas, and usually only a few blocks in these areas), living in a nice high rise rather than a house (to reduce burglary risk)--or at least getting a security system, not wondering around the city at night etc.
xxDOYLExx
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not what I was saying at all. I don't think anyone needs to own a gun. Especially not for self protection when you factor in accidents and victims making crimes worse by trying to resist during robberies etc.
.[/QUOTE]
What are the numbers on this? I have heard conflicting stats in regards to crimes where armed victims are involved.
.[/QUOTE]
What are the numbers on this? I have heard conflicting stats in regards to crimes where armed victims are involved.
h3llbring3r
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 58 (100%)
Oh crap, he was a "gamer" and active on game forums. . .***waits for next media blame cycle***:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...75851892478080.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
. . .and this to boot:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...75851892478080.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
. . .and this to boot:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser...ect-did-not-watch-tv-disliked-the-news_b48040
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']What are the numbers on this? I have heard conflicting stats in regards to crimes where armed victims are involved.[/QUOTE]
Don't have the time to dig up studies at the moment. Also a lot of my statement it is anecdotal form cops I've worked with and asked about it who say most of the robberies involving shootings involved victim resistance and seldom ever an unprovoked shooting by the robber.
Speaking as someone who has been robbed before, there was nothing I could have done. The person popped out form nowhere and had a gun on me before I knew what was happening.
I suppose if I had a gun I could have shot him in the back as he was leaving. But that's not justifiable. Losing some belongs isn't reason for using lethal force. Even police shootings are only legitimate if there was clear and immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm to themselves or others. And there's been cases where victims have done such things (shoot fleeing robbers, burglars etc.) and gotten charged with manslaughter etc--which I agree with personally.
The home defense argument makes a bit more sense, but again I think there are much better ways to keep safe than to own a gun that don't bring the added risks of accidents that having a gun in the house does. Especially since you have to keep it accessible and loaded if you want a realistic chance of defending yourself during a home evasion as you likely wouldn't have time to get it out of a gun safe or load it etc. Even a trigger lock could take too long to get off.
There's no reason people can't own guns. But more should just admit that it's because they like guns than offering up all the self defense justifications. Most people will never have a need to act in self defense, and many situations even if they have a gun they won't be able to get to it or it will make things worse.
Don't have the time to dig up studies at the moment. Also a lot of my statement it is anecdotal form cops I've worked with and asked about it who say most of the robberies involving shootings involved victim resistance and seldom ever an unprovoked shooting by the robber.
Speaking as someone who has been robbed before, there was nothing I could have done. The person popped out form nowhere and had a gun on me before I knew what was happening.
I suppose if I had a gun I could have shot him in the back as he was leaving. But that's not justifiable. Losing some belongs isn't reason for using lethal force. Even police shootings are only legitimate if there was clear and immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm to themselves or others. And there's been cases where victims have done such things (shoot fleeing robbers, burglars etc.) and gotten charged with manslaughter etc--which I agree with personally.
The home defense argument makes a bit more sense, but again I think there are much better ways to keep safe than to own a gun that don't bring the added risks of accidents that having a gun in the house does. Especially since you have to keep it accessible and loaded if you want a realistic chance of defending yourself during a home evasion as you likely wouldn't have time to get it out of a gun safe or load it etc. Even a trigger lock could take too long to get off.
There's no reason people can't own guns. But more should just admit that it's because they like guns than offering up all the self defense justifications. Most people will never have a need to act in self defense, and many situations even if they have a gun they won't be able to get to it or it will make things worse.
xxDOYLExx
CAGiversary!
[quote name='h3llbring3r']Oh crap, he was a "gamer" and active on game forums. . .***waits for next media blame cycle***:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...75851892478080.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
. . .and this to boot:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser...ect-did-not-watch-tv-disliked-the-news_b48040[/QUOTE]
how many times are you going to have to be told that Palin did it before it finally sinks in?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...75851892478080.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
. . .and this to boot:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser...ect-did-not-watch-tv-disliked-the-news_b48040[/QUOTE]
how many times are you going to have to be told that Palin did it before it finally sinks in?
h3llbring3r
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 58 (100%)
Shockingly, he's a 'core RTS player.
I thought only FPS and RPG gamers went on violent shooting sprees‽
I'm sure they'll find a rental receipt for a copy of CoD or someone will say they saw him play Doom at one point or another.
I thought only FPS and RPG gamers went on violent shooting sprees‽
I'm sure they'll find a rental receipt for a copy of CoD or someone will say they saw him play Doom at one point or another.
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Losing some belongs isn't reason for using lethal force. Even police shootings are only legitimate if there was clear and immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm to themselves or others. And there's been cases where victims have done such things (shoot fleeing robbers, burglars etc.) and gotten charged with manslaughter etc--which I agree with personally.
[/QUOTE]
While Criminal Law is not my specific legal expertise, I do not believe this is entirely correct. It is true that you cannot use deadly force to defend property. However, I think the rest of your statement is inaccurate. Under common law and a lot of state statutes an officer and even a private citizen can use deadly force to make an arrest of a fleeing felon when reasonably necessary to effectuate that arrest(but not someone fleeing from a misdemeanor.) The rule varies by jurisdiction, some say it can only be used for a felony that is violent(and a robbery by definition is violent). I know at least some jurisdictions also require the felon to be notified they are under arrest. Also, if deadly forced is used, the private citizen better be sure the felony was actually committed, because if they were mistaken they will be prosecuted. The justification of these situations is not defense of property, which is never allowed, but the apprehension of a dangerous felon.
Here's an example of an actual law, for the state of texas.
Losing some belongs isn't reason for using lethal force. Even police shootings are only legitimate if there was clear and immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm to themselves or others. And there's been cases where victims have done such things (shoot fleeing robbers, burglars etc.) and gotten charged with manslaughter etc--which I agree with personally.
[/QUOTE]
While Criminal Law is not my specific legal expertise, I do not believe this is entirely correct. It is true that you cannot use deadly force to defend property. However, I think the rest of your statement is inaccurate. Under common law and a lot of state statutes an officer and even a private citizen can use deadly force to make an arrest of a fleeing felon when reasonably necessary to effectuate that arrest(but not someone fleeing from a misdemeanor.) The rule varies by jurisdiction, some say it can only be used for a felony that is violent(and a robbery by definition is violent). I know at least some jurisdictions also require the felon to be notified they are under arrest. Also, if deadly forced is used, the private citizen better be sure the felony was actually committed, because if they were mistaken they will be prosecuted. The justification of these situations is not defense of property, which is never allowed, but the apprehension of a dangerous felon.
Here's an example of an actual law, for the state of texas.
[quote name='thrustbucket']"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
Ronald Reagan[/QUOTE]
You are literally a right-wing talking point machine. Every time I read something from you, I go "boy, that's kind of dumb" and than later I read that exact thing in the news from some talking head.
[quote name='Miss Sarah Palin']President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.[/QUOTE]
She also said this in her video which I found funny.
[quote name='Sarah Palin']There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?[/QUOTE]
Ronald Reagan[/QUOTE]
You are literally a right-wing talking point machine. Every time I read something from you, I go "boy, that's kind of dumb" and than later I read that exact thing in the news from some talking head.
[quote name='Miss Sarah Palin']President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.[/QUOTE]
She also said this in her video which I found funny.
[quote name='Sarah Palin']There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='caltab']While Criminal Law is not my specific legal expertise, I do not believe this is entirely correct. It is true that you cannot use deadly force to defend property. However, I think the rest of your statement is inaccurate. Under common law and a lot of state statutes an officer and even a private citizen can use deadly force to make an arrest of a fleeing felon when reasonably necessary to effectuate that arrest(but not someone fleeing from a misdemeanor.) The rule varies by jurisdiction, some say it can only be used for a felony that is violent(and a robbery by definition is violent). I know at least some jurisdictions also require the felon to be notified they are under arrest. Also, if deadly forced is used, the private citizen better be sure the felony was actually committed, because if they were mistaken they will be prosecuted. The justification of these situations is not defense of property, which is never allowed, but the apprehension of a dangerous felon.
Here's an example of an actual law, for the state of texas.[/QUOTE]
Texas has some weird laws about being able to shoot people on your property etc. So you're right that for citizens it does very by state laws.
But the law for law enforcement officers is as I stated. The Supreme Court ruling in Tennessee vs. Garner (1985) set the defense of life standard for police using force. Before that they could shoot pretty much any fleeing felon. After that ruling they can now only shoot fleeing felons if there's clear danger of death or serious bodily harm to themselves or others if the person gets away.
And that's even in that Texas law that you posted. The first parts are about use of "force" the latter parts about lethal force state the following:
(c) A peace officer is justified in using deadly force
against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an
arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would
have been justified under Subsection (a) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for
which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of
deadly force; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a
substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or
serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is
delayed.
In most states, that type of law only applies to peace officers, and citizens can only use lethal force in clear cases of self defense. Not to prevent escape. But even then it varies by prosecutor etc. on whether they go as far as pressing charges against victims in such cases. In any case, any one that can shoot someone who did nothing more than scare them and take some of their possessions in the back isn't a person I'd want to associate with.
Here's an example of an actual law, for the state of texas.[/QUOTE]
Texas has some weird laws about being able to shoot people on your property etc. So you're right that for citizens it does very by state laws.
But the law for law enforcement officers is as I stated. The Supreme Court ruling in Tennessee vs. Garner (1985) set the defense of life standard for police using force. Before that they could shoot pretty much any fleeing felon. After that ruling they can now only shoot fleeing felons if there's clear danger of death or serious bodily harm to themselves or others if the person gets away.
And that's even in that Texas law that you posted. The first parts are about use of "force" the latter parts about lethal force state the following:
(c) A peace officer is justified in using deadly force
against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an
arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would
have been justified under Subsection (a) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for
which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of
deadly force; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a
substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or
serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is
delayed.
In most states, that type of law only applies to peace officers, and citizens can only use lethal force in clear cases of self defense. Not to prevent escape. But even then it varies by prosecutor etc. on whether they go as far as pressing charges against victims in such cases. In any case, any one that can shoot someone who did nothing more than scare them and take some of their possessions in the back isn't a person I'd want to associate with.
rumblebear
CAGiversary!
Stupid Palin still refuses to apologize and admit she was responsible for the massacre, and instead choose to release a video that are full of her vindicative and racist tirades. I look forward to Obama brutally slapping down this despicable evil women in his speech tonight.
xxDOYLExx
CAGiversary!
[quote name='rumblebear']Stupid Palin still refuses to apologize and admit she was responsible for the massacre, and instead choose to release a video that are full of her vindicative and racist tirades. I look forward to Obama brutally slapping down this despicable evil women in his speech tonight.[/QUOTE]
figuratively speaking, of course.
figuratively speaking, of course.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']figuratively speaking, of course.[/QUOTE]
No. He might bring his gun to her knife fight....
No. He might bring his gun to her knife fight....
[quote name='dmaul1114']Texas has some weird laws about being able to shoot people on your property etc. So you're right that for citizens it does very by state laws.
But the law for law enforcement officers is as I stated. The Supreme Court ruling in Tennessee vs. Garner (1985) set the defense of life standard for police using force. Before that they could shoot pretty much any fleeing felon. After that ruling they can now only shoot fleeing felons if there's clear danger of death or serious bodily harm to themselves or others if the person gets away.
And that's even in that Texas law that you posted. The first parts are about use of "force" the latter parts about lethal force state the following:
(c) A peace officer is justified in using deadly force
against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an
arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would
have been justified under Subsection (a) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for
which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of
deadly force; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a
substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or
serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is
delayed.
In most states, that type of law only applies to peace officers, and citizens can only use lethal force in clear cases of self defense. Not to prevent escape. But even then it varies by prosecutor etc. on whether they go as far as pressing charges against victims in such cases. In any case, any one that can shoot someone who did nothing more than scare them and take some of their possessions in the back isn't a person I'd want to associate with.[/QUOTE]
Hmm, I may me misremembering the current law. I know that common law, which is no longer applicable in this case, was pretty liberal with use of deadly force... It's been I while, so I went and looked at my good old "Understanding Criminal Law" book. My reading of it is that common law allowed for an officer or private citizen to use deadly force to effectuate for the arrest of a felon. Common law still seams to allow for a private citizen to "use deadly force, if reasonably necessary, to apprehend a felon". (pg 277). Texas actually puts some of the most limits on that rule, making it sound more like Tn v. Garner, so it was a bad example. Michigans law is a better example: Michigan courts have ruled that the use of deadly force by a private person to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon is justifiable where the following three circumstances are present: (1) the evidence must show that a felony actually occurred, (2) the fleeing suspect against whom force was used must be the person who committed the felony, and (3) the use of deadly force must been necessary to ensure the apprehension of the felon.
My book says Tn V. Garner is a ruling on the 4th Amendment, which only applies to government conduct- so it doesn't apply to a private citizen. Also, it says, it is "unclear whether the rule of Garner has application in criminal prosecutions of police...arguably the rule simply provides a civil remedy." (p 281). So I stand corrected, at least partially. I think you are correct that an officer cannot use deadly force to make an arrest unless there is a real threat or serious violence(at least they will have civil liability). But, at least in some cases, a private citizen can. Bottom line is, I wouldn't go and shoot a fleeing felon any ways regardless of the law unless human life was at risk.
But the law for law enforcement officers is as I stated. The Supreme Court ruling in Tennessee vs. Garner (1985) set the defense of life standard for police using force. Before that they could shoot pretty much any fleeing felon. After that ruling they can now only shoot fleeing felons if there's clear danger of death or serious bodily harm to themselves or others if the person gets away.
And that's even in that Texas law that you posted. The first parts are about use of "force" the latter parts about lethal force state the following:
(c) A peace officer is justified in using deadly force
against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an
arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would
have been justified under Subsection (a) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for
which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of
deadly force; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a
substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or
serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is
delayed.
In most states, that type of law only applies to peace officers, and citizens can only use lethal force in clear cases of self defense. Not to prevent escape. But even then it varies by prosecutor etc. on whether they go as far as pressing charges against victims in such cases. In any case, any one that can shoot someone who did nothing more than scare them and take some of their possessions in the back isn't a person I'd want to associate with.[/QUOTE]
Hmm, I may me misremembering the current law. I know that common law, which is no longer applicable in this case, was pretty liberal with use of deadly force... It's been I while, so I went and looked at my good old "Understanding Criminal Law" book. My reading of it is that common law allowed for an officer or private citizen to use deadly force to effectuate for the arrest of a felon. Common law still seams to allow for a private citizen to "use deadly force, if reasonably necessary, to apprehend a felon". (pg 277). Texas actually puts some of the most limits on that rule, making it sound more like Tn v. Garner, so it was a bad example. Michigans law is a better example: Michigan courts have ruled that the use of deadly force by a private person to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon is justifiable where the following three circumstances are present: (1) the evidence must show that a felony actually occurred, (2) the fleeing suspect against whom force was used must be the person who committed the felony, and (3) the use of deadly force must been necessary to ensure the apprehension of the felon.
My book says Tn V. Garner is a ruling on the 4th Amendment, which only applies to government conduct- so it doesn't apply to a private citizen. Also, it says, it is "unclear whether the rule of Garner has application in criminal prosecutions of police...arguably the rule simply provides a civil remedy." (p 281). So I stand corrected, at least partially. I think you are correct that an officer cannot use deadly force to make an arrest unless there is a real threat or serious violence(at least they will have civil liability). But, at least in some cases, a private citizen can. Bottom line is, I wouldn't go and shoot a fleeing felon any ways regardless of the law unless human life was at risk.
Yep, that's what I was saying. Officer's have that restriction. Private citizens the law varies by state as that Garner ruling is indeed only applicable to police and other government officials.
I think the law should be applied to citizens as well--it's absurd for citizens to have more leeway in using lethal force than sworn law enforcement officers.
And like you, I just don't see it as ever ok to use lethal force unless there's a clear risk of injury/death if the person gets away. Add in that there are a lot more non-violent felonies committed than violent ones....
I think the law should be applied to citizens as well--it's absurd for citizens to have more leeway in using lethal force than sworn law enforcement officers.
And like you, I just don't see it as ever ok to use lethal force unless there's a clear risk of injury/death if the person gets away. Add in that there are a lot more non-violent felonies committed than violent ones....
h3llbring3r
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 58 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep, that's what I was saying. Officer's have that restriction. Private citizens the law varies by state as that Garner ruling is indeed only applicable to police and other government officials.
I think the law should be applied to citizens as well--it's absurd for citizens to have more leeway in using lethal force than sworn law enforcement officers.
And like you, I just don't see it as ever ok to use lethal force unless there's a clear risk of injury/death if the person gets away. Add in that there are a lot more non-violent felonies committed than violent ones....[/QUOTE]
I would change clear to a demonstrably perceived threat of bodily harm. What is "clear" and what is not can be second guessed ad nauseum in retrospect.
Castle doctrines and "stand your ground" laws vary widely from state to state. That being said, it's never a good idea shoot a fleeing assailant, with a few exceptions.
How would feel about someone who is unarmed making "terroristic threats" against a person?
For example: Is it okay to shoot an unarmed individual who tells you, "I'm going to get my gun and kill you and your family . . . when you least expect it."
I think the law should be applied to citizens as well--it's absurd for citizens to have more leeway in using lethal force than sworn law enforcement officers.
And like you, I just don't see it as ever ok to use lethal force unless there's a clear risk of injury/death if the person gets away. Add in that there are a lot more non-violent felonies committed than violent ones....[/QUOTE]
I would change clear to a demonstrably perceived threat of bodily harm. What is "clear" and what is not can be second guessed ad nauseum in retrospect.
Castle doctrines and "stand your ground" laws vary widely from state to state. That being said, it's never a good idea shoot a fleeing assailant, with a few exceptions.
How would feel about someone who is unarmed making "terroristic threats" against a person?
For example: Is it okay to shoot an unarmed individual who tells you, "I'm going to get my gun and kill you and your family . . . when you least expect it."
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']if you pull a gun on a police officer or break into someones house, there should be a reasonable expectation that you will be shot and/or killed. IMO[/QUOTE]
Well, no shit Sherlock.
Of course those meet the standard of having probable cause of serious risk of death or injury.
The problem was before the Garner ruling cops could shoot any fleeing felons--even if they were unarmed.
And the problem still is that in states like Texas the law still allows for citizens to shoot people on their property etc. even if they're unarmed and posing no clear physical threat to them etc.
Well, no shit Sherlock.
Of course those meet the standard of having probable cause of serious risk of death or injury.
The problem was before the Garner ruling cops could shoot any fleeing felons--even if they were unarmed.
And the problem still is that in states like Texas the law still allows for citizens to shoot people on their property etc. even if they're unarmed and posing no clear physical threat to them etc.
xxDOYLExx
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, no shit Sherlock.
Of course those meet the standard of having probable cause of serious risk of death or injury.
The problem was before the Garner ruling cops could shoot any fleeing felons--even if they were unarmed.
And the problem still is that in states like Texas the law still allows for citizens to shoot people on their property etc. even if they're unarmed and posing no clear physical threat to them etc.[/QUOTE]
I was just venting that wasn't necessarily directed towards you or caltab. Just more of a common sense gut approach to guns.
edit. there are many that would argue this.
Of course those meet the standard of having probable cause of serious risk of death or injury.
The problem was before the Garner ruling cops could shoot any fleeing felons--even if they were unarmed.
And the problem still is that in states like Texas the law still allows for citizens to shoot people on their property etc. even if they're unarmed and posing no clear physical threat to them etc.[/QUOTE]
I was just venting that wasn't necessarily directed towards you or caltab. Just more of a common sense gut approach to guns.
edit. there are many that would argue this.
[quote name='h3llbring3r']I would change clear to a demonstrably perceived threat of bodily harm. What is "clear" and what is not can be second guessed ad nauseum in retrospect.[/quote]
Moot. The courts determine that. For law enforcement the Garner ruling requires them to have probable cause of death or serious bodily harm to themselves or others to use lethal force.
It's on a case by case basis on whether that probable cause is met--and that's up to internal affairs investigators, and then the judge and/or jury if it gets to court.
For civilians, it's the same. Up to the judge/jury/prosecutors etc. on whether whatever use of force standards that state have where met in that case.
In my view, the stricter the better as use of lethal force should always be an absolute last resort.
Absolutely no cause for shooting an unarmed individual who's not posing an immediate threat to you or others in any circumstances.
We've probably mostly all lost our tempers and screamed and someone "I'm going toing kill you" in our life times. And even creepier threats like your example are nothing more than threats.
You call the cops, get a restraining order, use caution for a while etc. You don't blow someone away just because they threatened you.
Moot. The courts determine that. For law enforcement the Garner ruling requires them to have probable cause of death or serious bodily harm to themselves or others to use lethal force.
It's on a case by case basis on whether that probable cause is met--and that's up to internal affairs investigators, and then the judge and/or jury if it gets to court.
For civilians, it's the same. Up to the judge/jury/prosecutors etc. on whether whatever use of force standards that state have where met in that case.
In my view, the stricter the better as use of lethal force should always be an absolute last resort.
Absolutely no cause for shooting an unarmed individual who's not posing an immediate threat to you or others in any circumstances.
We've probably mostly all lost our tempers and screamed and someone "I'm going to
ing kill you" in our life times. And even creepier threats like your example are nothing more than threats.You call the cops, get a restraining order, use caution for a while etc. You don't blow someone away just because they threatened you.
h3llbring3r
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 58 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Moot. The courts determine that. For law enforcement the Garner ruling requires them to have probable cause of death or serious bodily harm to themselves or others to use lethal force.
It's on a case by case basis on whether that probable cause is met--and that's up to internal affairs investigators, and then the judge and/or jury if it gets to court.
For civilians, it's the same. Up to the judge/jury/prosecutors etc. on whether whatever use of force standards that state have where met in that case.
In my view, the stricter the better as use of lethal force should always be an absolute last resort.
Absolutely no cause for shooting an unarmed individual who's not posing an immediate threat to you or others in any circumstances.[/QUOTE]
Even when there's been a history of violence, say a battered wife with child?
Also, aren't many (if not the majority) of the self-defense shooters left uncharged never going to trial, or even a grand jury? In that regard I would say the language is not moot but paramount.
FWIW-I'm not trying to be a dick just seeing, in earnest, where people stand in light of some regional court decisions and legislation.
It's on a case by case basis on whether that probable cause is met--and that's up to internal affairs investigators, and then the judge and/or jury if it gets to court.
For civilians, it's the same. Up to the judge/jury/prosecutors etc. on whether whatever use of force standards that state have where met in that case.
In my view, the stricter the better as use of lethal force should always be an absolute last resort.
Absolutely no cause for shooting an unarmed individual who's not posing an immediate threat to you or others in any circumstances.[/QUOTE]
Even when there's been a history of violence, say a battered wife with child?
Also, aren't many (if not the majority) of the self-defense shooters left uncharged never going to trial, or even a grand jury? In that regard I would say the language is not moot but paramount.
FWIW-I'm not trying to be a dick just seeing, in earnest, where people stand in light of some regional court decisions and legislation.
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']
edit. there are many that would argue this.[/QUOTE]
Probably not the part about pulling a gun on a cop or someone.
The burglary, yes there's argument. I'm not a fan of very open castle laws like those in Texas. Most burglar's aren't armed. You shouldn't necessarily be able to shoot first and ask questions later, or shoot someone in the back as they're running out your front door etc. if you interrupt a burglary IMO.
[quote name='h3llbring3r']Even when there's been a history of violence, say a battered wife with child? [/quote]
Yes, as there has to be clear and present danger IMO. Circumstances like that can be mitigating factors, and maybe get the person a lesser charge.
But you shouldn't be able to shoot someone over threats that don't involve immediate danger (i.e. having a weapon on them currently and threatening to use it etc.) without getting some criminal charge IMO.
Again, violence should always be a last resort, especially lethal force.
Fair point, the language does matter on that front. And it varies by area and the attitude of the prosecutor's office etc. on how often they charge self defense type cases.
My stance is at the very least involuntary (if not voluntary) manslaughter should be charged in every case where there wasn't probable cause of the shooter to believe they or others were in clear risk of death or serious bodily harm if they didn't use lethal force.
Just no reason that citizens should be held to a lesser standard than law enforcement.
My point on language being "clear" or not being moot is that the thing is the courts have to decide whether the shooter had probable cause to believe there was clear risk. Not that there was objectively clear risk looking back in hindsight. That's why most illegitimate cop shootings like the Diallo case don't' result in criminal charges--they have to make snap judgments and verdicts have to be imposed by considering the knowledge the shooter(s) had at the time of the incident. Not the facts in retrospect.
edit. there are many that would argue this.[/QUOTE]
Probably not the part about pulling a gun on a cop or someone.
The burglary, yes there's argument. I'm not a fan of very open castle laws like those in Texas. Most burglar's aren't armed. You shouldn't necessarily be able to shoot first and ask questions later, or shoot someone in the back as they're running out your front door etc. if you interrupt a burglary IMO.
[quote name='h3llbring3r']Even when there's been a history of violence, say a battered wife with child? [/quote]
Yes, as there has to be clear and present danger IMO. Circumstances like that can be mitigating factors, and maybe get the person a lesser charge.
But you shouldn't be able to shoot someone over threats that don't involve immediate danger (i.e. having a weapon on them currently and threatening to use it etc.) without getting some criminal charge IMO.
Again, violence should always be a last resort, especially lethal force.
Fair point, the language does matter on that front. And it varies by area and the attitude of the prosecutor's office etc. on how often they charge self defense type cases.
My stance is at the very least involuntary (if not voluntary) manslaughter should be charged in every case where there wasn't probable cause of the shooter to believe they or others were in clear risk of death or serious bodily harm if they didn't use lethal force.
Just no reason that citizens should be held to a lesser standard than law enforcement.
My point on language being "clear" or not being moot is that the thing is the courts have to decide whether the shooter had probable cause to believe there was clear risk. Not that there was objectively clear risk looking back in hindsight. That's why most illegitimate cop shootings like the Diallo case don't' result in criminal charges--they have to make snap judgments and verdicts have to be imposed by considering the knowledge the shooter(s) had at the time of the incident. Not the facts in retrospect.
speedracer
Banned
Apparently libs aren't the only ones saying they get nervous about tea party people.
Hmmm.
Three other members of the same GOP district immediately resigned with him.
Hmmm.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
"I love the Republican Party but I don't want to take a bullet for anyone."
Spoken like someone that comes from a party that espouses strong national defense. It's perfectly OK to send your kids halfway across the globe but God forbid actual violence come here. These guys have strong futures in French politics.
Spoken like someone that comes from a party that espouses strong national defense. It's perfectly OK to send your kids halfway across the globe but God forbid actual violence come here. These guys have strong futures in French politics.
shooter posted on a gaming forum.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...75851892478080.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...75851892478080.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
speedracer
Banned
We need to seriously slow down on Palin. This is one of the best comments I've ever seen on a serious issue and she deserves credit for it.
Jesus, that person should be the friggin President.
[quote name='speedracer']We need to seriously slow down on Palin. This is one of the best comments I've ever seen on a serious issue and she deserves credit for it.
Jesus, that person should be the friggin President.[/QUOTE]
That was a quote from Palin?
I gotta say, I'm impressed with such an articulate and realistic answer. If she wrote that statement herself I'm impressed. Not impressed enough to consider her seriously for politics but certainly for her to gain at least some of my respect.
Jesus, that person should be the friggin President.[/QUOTE]
That was a quote from Palin?
I gotta say, I'm impressed with such an articulate and realistic answer. If she wrote that statement herself I'm impressed. Not impressed enough to consider her seriously for politics but certainly for her to gain at least some of my respect.
Very few politicians or talking heads every write their own public statements. And if they do their heavily edited by a handful of speech writers, advisors etc.
And I don't say that to knock Palin, it's no different for Obama or anyone else. Just always assume a prepared statement wasn't written solely by the person, and even interview answers are limited to things that have been vetted with the writers and advisers, PR consultants etc.
And I don't say that to knock Palin, it's no different for Obama or anyone else. Just always assume a prepared statement wasn't written solely by the person, and even interview answers are limited to things that have been vetted with the writers and advisers, PR consultants etc.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']Al Sharpton?[/QUOTE]
Shut up, you.
Shut up, you.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='RedvsBlue']That was a quote from Palin?
I gotta say, I'm impressed with such an articulate and realistic answer. If she wrote that statement herself I'm impressed. Not impressed enough to consider her seriously for politics but certainly for her to gain at least some of my respect.[/QUOTE]
No it was not from Palin. It is paraphrasing Al Sharpton's response
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/sarah_palins_missed_opportunit.html
I gotta say, I'm impressed with such an articulate and realistic answer. If she wrote that statement herself I'm impressed. Not impressed enough to consider her seriously for politics but certainly for her to gain at least some of my respect.[/QUOTE]
No it was not from Palin. It is paraphrasing Al Sharpton's response
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/sarah_palins_missed_opportunit.html
speedracer
Banned
Why you gotta ruin my fun, man.
bread's done