visak

Much as I like Avery Brooks, he never got a handle on the Sisko character until he shaved and went back to being Hawk but with a son. They should have let him do that from the beginning.

If you call them PanoPods you can probably get venture capital funding and then just go buy a train and paint it with a cool design.

And then getting downvoted by people who just disagree with your opinion. I'm one of the Reddit refugees so I don't know if we brought that with us or Lemmy was like that before but it's sad to see.

Florida Circuit Court Judges can be removed at the recommendation of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, and approved by the Florida Supreme Court. The FJQC has mixture of members appointed by the governor and voted in by other judges. I left Florida a long time ago so I don't know who are currently in the commission and court but the Florida political pipeline has always been extremely corrupt.

They'll most likely just appeal this ruling to at least stall it, but given that DeSantis has been outright removing prosecutors he doesn't like I would not be shocked if he started using the above system to remove judges next. This judge was appointed by Rick Scott by the way.

What. I was in the middle of something. What do you want? You know what? Nevermind, I'm just going to go back to what I was doing.

Holy crap. I have Tidal on my phone and Plex at home. I didnt know I could connect them. Thank you!

That's not true. You could also lose your ultra-demanding job, move back to the small town you grew up in, only to accidentally fall into the water and get pulled out by the rough but handsome former highschool classmate who never left.

Reagan was the literal actor hired to play president by a group of Machiavellian assholes, many of whom were also behind the scenes of both Bushes, Nixon, and lots of Republican Congress members. Not disagreeing that Reagan is where they really got traction on their dreams of power, but Reagan wasn't the architect.

I said "option" to retreat not "duty" which is an important distinction I think. And there's also the option of other reasonable force. I don't think killing to protect my TV is reasonable, but fighting back possibly even causing injury might be. If I lived in a place where the intruder wasn't likely to be armed, I'd probably whack his hand with broom handle, and I wouldn't even feel bad if I broke his wrist because some use of force to keep a stranger from entering my house is warranted. When it comes to lethal force though the standard should be higher, which is why I prefer the self-defense/defense of others test. Did the guy have good reason to think the person breaking in was an imminent danger, that he might be armed and therefore escalation to firing a gun was reasonable? I don't pretend to know, but I think that's the test that should be used. That test should take into account that it was his house being broken in to, and that there was another person present he might have wanted to protect, because that definitely affects your perception of danger. We don't need a set of principles that say you automatically get a pass when it's your house, I think it's better to look at each case individually.

Do Renaults often figure into your thinking? ;)

No disagreement. I'm a commie pinko by American standards, which is to say slightly left by European standards. I support gun regulation but it won't solve the proliferation until we face up to this weird fetishization of guns we have.

I do not agree with the castle doctrine. It's too easily used to justify lethal force when retreat is an option, however self-defense is a valid justification and from the description given I think that's completely plausible. An unknown person breaking the glass and potentially armed could be a threat. It sucks that a guy who possibly did nothing wrong has to defend himself in an investigation, but we should have a high bar on lethal actions for civilians and cops (the standard should be higher for cops).