chuckbrown

Not only that, the Marine was in a direct combat environment where people were trying to kill him. There's no evidence that the insurgents were in a environment where people were presently trying to kill them. This was no different that when they were beheading people last summer.

I think a few Wall Street CEOs wish that were the rule.

No, I think AQ is an organization devoted to ridding the Muslim world of "infidels." They are not an organization that is engaged in terror for it's own sake. They are using violence to achieve their political ends. They may be more violent that the Taliban, but they each strive for the same result.

They're all thugs.

No that's not what I said. I made two observations: 1) the religious right is feeling "persecuted" by Democrats (those heathens), and 2) their political rhetoric is getting a little inflamed. When I compared them to Al Quaeda I was making a figurative comparision, not a literal one. My apologies for the misperception.

Nice - I almost had a coronary from the irony in those two sentences. Please tell me that was a joke. No joke. I have nothing against anybody practicing their religion. But if you listen to some of the drivel coming out of the political elements of the "religious right" its pretty scary. "We have to take back the judiciary because they're a threat to our way of life!"

Lee Harvey Oswald was a marine. The guy in the University of Texas tower was a combat marine. Just because you went into combat doesn't give you free reign to do whatever you want. He's still gotta play by the rules that apply to the rest of us.

Assault isn't a specific intent crime; you don't have to intend to commit the assault. You do have to intend to do the act which would reasonably put another in fear for their life. Running up behind someone in a dark alley in NYC and yelling BOO would probably constitute an assault even if you had the best intentions. You intentionally did an act which reasonably put someone in fear for their life. Kinda like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Don't laugh, it worked for Billary, it might work for him (at least among his base). What's really objectionable is the PR campaign being put out by Frist stating that Ds are against "people of faith." The politically motivated Christians in this country are starting to sound worse that Al Quaeda.

If he reasonably feared GBH, then you don't need a crime to draw a weapon. Also, if he reasonably feared GBH, you could argue that the ilelgals were guilty of asault. A good rule of thumb, though no always true, is that "if you're justified in drawing, then you're justified in detaining." (as long as detaining does not require an escalation of force - you can continue to point the gun at them, but if they run, tackling and/or shooting might not be justified) Let's see how the facts play out and then argue how the law applies to them.

A manufacturer is well within it's rights as to what it sells the product to dealers for. The dealers are selling at the same price to be competitive. Every retailer "fixes" prices. It becomes illegal when two or more collude to set a price that has no relationship to the market. For example, if a dealer buys Cypresses for $1,000 dollars and expects to make profit, he would sell them at $1,200. (20% profit margin is pretty good). Other dealers have the same cost of goods and will sell them at similar prices to be competitive (maybe lower to gain market share, but not below the cost of goods-that's predatory pricing and is illegal). That's legal. It becomes illegal, if 2 dealers say let's each set our prices at $2,000 so people will have to buy from us and we can each make a 100% profit. That's price fixing and is illegal.

Good thing it wasn't your right hand.

When did he use deadly force? When he pulled the gun. The force doesn't have to result in death. It only needs to be of a sort which could reasonably lead to death. You are factually wrong. Drawing a deadly weapon is not the same thing as using deadly force. What he did is threaten deadly force, not use deadly force. There is a very large legal distinction. I'll agree there is a distinction, and that he only threatened deadly force. In any event, he can only threaten deadly force to counter a reasonable fear for his safety. He can't threaten deadly force after they retreated and the threat ended, absent the commission of a crime which we have no evidence of at this point. Edited to correct a run on sentence.

1. If you don't realize that you need not have a physical injury to have a charge of aggravated assault, don't go into law enforcement. 2. He absolutely needs to show that pulling a gun was a reasonable response to the threat he was presented with. You are only privileged to use the minimum force necessary to counter the threat. AZ may even have a duty to retreat in the face of a threat, but being the wild west I doubt it. 3. GBH justifying the use of force is a separate issue from making an arrest where no crime has been committed. You can have GBH without the commission of a crime. You're not justified in using force after the threat is gone. 4. Let's let the evidence come out to see whether he was playing cop or just letting his dog piss.

When did he use deadly force? When he pulled the gun. The force doesn't have to result in death. It only needs to be of a sort which could reasonably lead to death.

Your points are excellent, and you'd make a good defense attorney. So, I'll say this: 1. We need more evidence to determine whether a threat was made which would constitute an assault justifying the use of deadly force to make an arrest after they retreated. The use of force after the threat is gone is different from being justified to use force to counter a threat. Once the threat abated, he was only privileged to make an arrest for a crime. 2. We need more evidence to determine whether he was in reasonable fear for his life to justify pulling the gun. This will be a close call. We haven't heard the immigrants side. Did they approach him or did he approach them? It'll make a big difference. 3. Why he was at the rest stop will be a very important point. While he did have the right to be there, his "reason" for being there will impact his defense. People don't just go to rest stops for shits and giggles (well some do but that's another topic). My suspicion is the police think he was playing BP. By the way, BP wear uniforms and can be very nasty if you cross them. 4. Being armed can be a reason for suspicion, or it can put into context to his actions. Being AZ, this might not be an issue in and of itself. Being armed and looking like BP does cast doubt that he was just out for a midnight stroll with his dog.

No, the dividing line is whether he was privleged to use deadly force after they retreated. This is what happens when little boys dress up and play policeman.

What's more interesting about this issue is that the military itself is moving away from enforcing this rule. Since the Iraq war began, discharges for violating the ban have noticeably decreased. I'd say the military is more out in front of this issue than our elected reps. If I were in combat I wouldn't care if my foxhole buddy was checking my ass out, as long as he was protecting it.

Let's see he was rejected for a corrections position because he was mentally distrubed. He acknowledged that he could be mistaken for a Border Patrol agent and was walking a dog like those used by the Border Patrol. He acknowledged that none of the immigrants had a weapon or even tried to touch him. I don't see any crime which would have given him the right to draw his weapon. Even assuming he was in reasonable fear for his safety, he's only priviledged to use the force necessary to protect himself. In other words, when the threat abated he lost the priviledge to use the gun. I'm a little curious as to why this guy was hanging out at a I-8 rest stop armed & looking like the Border Patrol. I'm sure the cops were wondering that too. It's sort of interesting to see a police officer defending clearly illegal conduct.

Considering he's a terrorist, what you're asking is whether anyone would be willing to commit a federal felony (aiding and abetting terrorism) for $100 million. I'd call the cops, take the money, and let him go (with the cops outside the garage door).

I think the reporter was referring to "physical" risks as opposed to professional risks. Very rarely do people get killed during a corporate takeover.

That's a nugget.

I know, I thought Jackson was going to be doing some things at CSS this year. If somebody starts a list, I'd be game.

Excellent. We'll definitely be able to accommodate him.