not that part- some jurisdictions require you to use minimum force or even to retreat

I believe New York is pretty good on this. I'm also quite confident in the juries where I live, if anything terrible ever happens.

JC

Did you follow that case involving the African-American man on L.I. who shot that (italian?) kid when he and some friends drove to the man's home and may have threatened his son? I read a long article in the New Yorker about that and immediately wondered about your take.

I didn't read the New Yorker piece; I followed it loosely daily in the New York Times, and I was surprised at the result. But of course it came down to credibility, not law; the issue turned on whether the jury believed his portrayal of events. Maybe I'll pick up the New Yorker when I get a chance and take a look.

hmmm... depends upon what jurisdiction you live in, you may be unpleasantly surprised on that one.

I realize it has to be a realistic fear, not someone looking at you funny.

not that part- some jurisdictions require you to use minimum force or even to retreat

In the U.S., you're virtually never required to retreat in your home. Whether you're required to retreat elsewhere depends on what state you live in, but even in states which recognize such a duty, said duty only kicks in if you can retreat in complete safety. It's a commonsense rule; you're not required to take risks to escape, but you can't stick around just to get into a fight and then act aggrieved at being in the fight.

As for the "minimum force" issue, the issue is one of reasonableness, and it's a threshold issue -- if you're in reasonable fear for your life or serious bodily injury, you can use deadly force to defend yourself. No jurisdiction (*) makes you calibrate the exact level of force for a given situation with a calculator.


(*) I'm not admitted everywhere, so don't rely on this for legal advice.

You're assumtpion that my realtives who live in rural areas lack advanced college degrees is among the stupidest things I've ever encountered.

I trust that there reading comprehention, spelling, and breadth of experience are better than your's?

DMN: Surprised that the guy's getting jail time?

ACE;

Might want to check ye olde use of "there" vs. "their".

'Course, I am one of those half-wits of rural origins so what do I know?

Surprised that he was convicted. Once he was convicted, I'm not surprised he got jail time, no.

Might want to check ye olde use of "there" vs. "their".

Not to mention "comprehention" and "your's."

Harvey, Dan -

Come on, you guys. You're supposed to recognize sarcasm when you see it. I did have a purpose in citing his original screed, after all. To wit:

You're assumtpion that my realtives who live in rural areas lack advanced college degrees is among the stupidest things I've ever encountered.

And nowhere -- nowhere -- have I ragged on anybody's rural origins. In fact, I explicitly said:

'Plenty of smart people are born in the "non-academic rural world." To find convincing examples, I don't have to look any further than the autobiographical descriptions of several people in this very thread.'

Edit: Now that I think about it, maybe Arva's the one having the joke at my expense? Maybe his mangled prose was purposeful? I don't see evidence in his other posts that he's anything but thoughtful and literate.

Since this is my preferred source for educated opinions of the law, what do you (David, et al.) think of this op ed piece (from yesterday's LA Times). What happens in arbitration? The article is full of outrage, and it certainly makes it sound as if something fishy is going on (the rape kit and photos handed over to her employer are missing?), but I'd like to hear other opinions on it.

Related question: to what extent can one sign away one's rights? Are there some rights which cannot be taken away in contract?

In such arbitration proceedings, there is no public or media access, no rules of evidence or procedure, no court transcript, no jury and, most important, no appeal -- no matter what. Quite simply, there is no accountability in binding arbitration, in which the arbitrators and alternative dispute-resolution providers are paid by the corporate defendants -- who are also likely to guarantee repeat business.

No, not quite true,
it's very hard to appeal, but you can

Arbitration has been around for a very long time, it's been a part of the legal landscape before the idea of tort "reform" (Or Tort Deform as my profs called it back in the 80s) became a popular buzz phrase- its also been standard in certain industries for a long time.

WRT the specific story- I've read about it before, and unfortunately what happened fell squarely into a legal jurisdictional loophole that's completely unrelated to the topic of tort reform.

Also legislatures are free to enact and have enacted myriad laws barring the alteration of certain rights by contract.

Do we want to take away the rights of tens of millions of mentally balanced gun owners because of what a tiny handful of psychos might do with guns?

But what good reason can there be to own a gun? Why do you just assume that people have the "right" to acquire deadly force? No-one has seen fit to demonstrate how such a right might inhere*.

So we have the following potential arguments for gun ownership:

1. People like owning guns.
2. Resistance to tyranny.
3. Self-defence.
4. Hunting, etc
5. Alleged crime prevention

And the big one against - allowing lots of people to own guns results in lots of people getting killed.

2, 3 and 5 are, frankly, pretty bogus. 4 might speak to some people being licenced to have guns, but only after stringent checks - and at any rate it's by no means clear that hunting is something sacred that needs to be protected in this way. The only serious argument is that people like owning guns, which is an argument I resepct.

But doesn't this last point (the desire to own guns) get to the heart of the matter? What you're essentially doing here is setting yourself up as the judge and jury of any individual who wants to own a gun, and deciding that since you deem his other four reasons for ownership to be bogus, you see nothing particularly wrong with having the government taking people's guns away. Correct me if I'm misreading you here.

And while I can see the argument that this individual or that individual is deluding himself (and others) as to why he wants to own a gun, it still comes down to the idea of whether we should be confiscating guns from law-abiding people because of the criminal actions of of a relatively small number of those who aren't. It's as if you were putting law abiding gun owners into some sort of ad hoc suspect category, without any evidence that they've done anything wrong.

Two things wrong with that. First, it's wrong in and of itself. You're trying to criminalize actions that aren't inherently criminal in nature. That's not good social policy in general.

But beyond that, its practical effect is to make many gun owners think that this is what people in the middle "really believe." And as a result I think you find that many gun owners who might otherwise be agreeable to reasonable regulation get their backs up and wind up in lockstep with the NRA. Which I can't believe you would think is a good thing.

A sentiment I've often heard from people with rural origins. Meanwhile, your actions speak volumes.

About the demand for computer systems architects in rural areas? Yeah, they definitely speak volumes on that. :)

Since this is my preferred source for educated opinions of the law, what do you (David, et al.) think of this op ed piece (from yesterday's LA Times). What happens in arbitration? The article is full of outrage, and it certainly makes it sound as if something fishy is going on (the rape kit and photos handed over to her employer are missing?), but I'd like to hear other opinions on it.

The article is basically full of BS. First, any criminal issue is completely unrelated to any issue related to arbitration (and the alleged rapists are not immune to criminal prosecution.) So that's put in solely to inflame people. (So are references to Halliburton; she had nothing to do with Halliburton. It's just a dog whistle phrase for the left.)

Second, she wasn't "denied the right" to do anything. She had agreed to arbitrate disputes with her employer, so the case was sent to arbitration. Arbitration is not some mysterious seance; it's a real legal proceeding, which is generally faster and cheaper than going to court. While the proceedings themselves aren't public, they're not secret, either. Either side is free to publicize what happens therein.

The rape kit was briefly misplaced -- not by her employer, but by the state department -- and was found. The photos/doctor's notes may have been lost; if so, the originals should still be available. Still has nothing to do with her employer. Like Brian McNamee, she's told many different stories in different forums; the op/ed picked the most salacious allegations, and pretended the others were never said.

Related question: to what extent can one sign away one's rights? Are there some rights which cannot be taken away in contract?

Yes, but one can sign away many rights. Think of a confidentiality agreement one signs -- one is "signing away" one's freedom of speech.

I didn't read the New Yorker piece; I followed it loosely daily in the New York Times, and I was surprised at the result. But of course it came down to credibility, not law; the issue turned on whether the jury believed his portrayal of events. Maybe I'll pick up the New Yorker when I get a chance and take a look.

I read the New Yorker piece. Ridiculously slanted in favor of White, but even stripping that out, it confirms my understanding of the events gathered from the Times.