Sure, He's White Now

Think Progress puts together a primer on the Trayvon Martin shooting.  Thay manage to stay accurate all the way through the first sentence, but derail on the second:

What Everyone Should Know About Trayvon Martin (1995-2012)

By Judd Legum on Mar 18, 2012 at 6:19 pm

On February 26, 2012, a 17-year-old African-American named Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in Sanford, Florida. The shooter was George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old white man.

No, Mr. Zimmerman was biracial and frankly, from the mug shot the NY Times is posting, looks like the Hispanic answer to Willie Horton.  In a slightly different scenario, for example if Mr. Zimmerman had been shot by a white Tea Partier of northern Europen extraction, all we would be hearing from Think Progress is that anti-immigrant insanity had made the streets unsafe for Hispanics.  But since Mr. Zimmerman was the shooter, he's white.

Also missing from the "What you should know" - Mr. Zimmerman had grass stains on his back, a cut on the back of his head, and a bloody nose.  Witnesses saw a scuffle with Trayvon Martin on top of the much larger Zimmerman, which is certainly relevant to his self-defense claim.

This case is a mess, and my position is that Mr. Zimmerman is at fault for creating the situation by disregarding the police dispatcher and following after the 17 year old Trayvon Martin.  A self-important self-appointed neighborhood watch captain is trouble.  But let's hear from the chief of police:

“Mr. Zimmerman’s claim is that the confrontation was initiated by Trayvon,” Police Chief Bill Lee said in an interview. “I am not going into specifics of what led to the violent physical encounter witnessed by residents. All the physical evidence and testimony we have independent of what Mr. Zimmerman provides corroborates this claim to self-defense.”

To claim self-defense, someone has to show there was danger of great bodily harm or death, Lee said. “Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his story,” Lee said.

Zimmerman had a damp shirt, grass stains, a bloody nose and was bleeding from a wound in back of his head, according to police reports.

“If someone asks you, ‘Hey do you live here?’ is it OK for you to jump on them and beat the crap out of somebody?” Lee said. “It’s not.”

Well, that was Zimmerman's story and the police can't, or won't, shake it. 

A big part of the problem is Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.  Part of it clarifies that a homeowner can use deadly force during a break-in, which is OK.  But Section 3 extends the "A man's home is his castle" doctrine such that a man's castle is wherever he happens to be standing:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

That is the clause which is keeping Zimmerman from being charged.  It has been described by critics as the "Shoot first" clause, with some reason: for example, if in the case at hand Trayvon Martin had clubbed Zimmerman to death with a stick, he could have explained that a large, scary guy with a gun grabbed him and tried to force him back to his car.  Self-defense!  As to the truth, well, in that example Zimmerman wouldn't have much to say, being dead.  Just as in the current case we haven't heard Trayvon Martin's story.

The case has been handed punted to the State Attorney General, and good luck.  I am not a lawyer, so I don't know whether Zimmerman has to prove he acted in self-defense or the state has to prove that he didn't, but I would assume the burden of proof is on the state [a very helpful summary from Adam Weinstein of Mother Jones addresses that point; the state retains the burden of proof].  So one guy is dead and the other is blameless - I find that to be a very unsatisfying result in this case, where there seems to be (at a minimum) some shared culpability.

Well - arresting Zimmerman without any clear plan for charging him or getting a conviction seems like the wrong way to go, unless we are now making feel-good arrests on the basis of Twitter buzz.  My impression is that he would be able to make bail easily (the Chapter 874 caveat relates to gang activities) so he would be back on the street soon enough.

MORE:  Adam Weinstein of Mother Jones has an excellent summary, including some problematic history of the Sanford Police Dept.

Apparently Jay Carney was asked about it and did not say "the police acted stupidly", so there is evidence of educability in the White House.

 

more

ead more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/15/v-fullstory/2696446/trayvon-martin-case.html#storylink=cpy

Comments

[Jack is Back!]

Wall to wall coverage on Orlando local TV. Everyone has an opinion but no one knows exactly what happened. But after Sharpton, Jackson and the Racism Response Team from SPLC gets here we'll be better informed.

bgates is in Orlando, what's he know that we don't?

[Neo]

If nothing else, this episode shows that those famous words of "Chef" in "Apocalypse Now" are still true.

Never get off the boat

[Ranger]

Kurtz got off the boat.

[OldTimer]

Way OT - I guess I'd go too if I had 25 SS agents to protect me and Uncle Sam to pay for it. Malia does Mexico, LUN

[BB Key]

TM, I read the headline thinking you were writing about Stillman White replacing Kendall Marshall in the NC lineup this coming Friday

[Captain Hate]

Stink Progress obsesses on race? The deuce you say!

[Frau Roggenbrot]

Well, I read Leonard Pitts this a.m. and *know* that Trayvon was Ralph Ellison's invisible black, invisible until he was dead. The shooter, Mr. Zimmerman. was initially described as white and Hispanic. How did he lose his "Hispanic-dom"? Say qué?

[Sue]

Old Time,

My post from the other thread...

President Barack Obama’s 13-year-old daughter, Malia Ann Obama, will be spending her springbreak in the Mexican city of Oaxaca with 12 friends and 25 Secret Service agents.

What the hell? A 13 year old gets spring break in Mexico? I mean, seriously, what the hell?

[Sue]

Old Time? Sorry about that...Old Timer.

[Stephanie]

Biden: "Zimmerman" doesn't sound hispanic to me.

[Jack is Back!]

Sue and Old Timer,

Holder is sending her and her 11 school mates there to look for all the AK-47's missing from F&F.

OT: For everyone who travels, rolls their eyes and holds their tongues and temper at TSA then you will enjoy this chart from Dan Mitchell. Another one of W's stupid ideas - good guy but he did create this monster.

[Clarice]

Sue, it's probably a class outing. Around here that's common...high school class trips overseas.

I liked the origin report that the victim was on school suspension but not necessarily for anything like really bad. Reminds me of Tom Wolfe where the victim was described as "an honor student' which was he reporter's take on a kid who showed up once in a while for school.

We haven't a clue about what happened--It's "Front Page" replayed in Miami with a storyline that shifts depending on who is this year's media designated villain and victim.

[Carl Pham]

Incentives count. If the result of this is that generic young punks become exceedingly polite to soi disant neighborhood watch "captains," I'm all for it.

I don't really give a damn if this fellow went a bit further than he needed to. When the balance has swung back to the point where neighborhood watch "captains" are heaping Abu Ghraib humiliations on terrified innocent trespassers at gunpoint, then we can talk.

[Sean D Sorrentino]

No one is required to be beaten severely rather than shoot his attacker. Welcome to the world of Innocent until proven Guilty. The police know where to find Zimmerman, so there's no reason to require him to stay in jail until the Grand Jury makes a decision.

Also, don't you think that the police would have charged him if they thought he was guilty of something? Are you really suggesting that the cops are shrugging off murder? I suspect that they have a fair idea what happened and they think it was self defense. I predict that political pressure will demand that this be sent to the Grand Jury. But I don't think the cops think he did anything criminal.

Also, why is it that when the newspapers and TV opine about stuff we know, they are always wrong, but when they opine about stuff we don't have direct knowlege, we assume they are correct? They aren't right about the facts of anything else, why are you taking their word on this case?

[jimmyk]

I'm shocked that our President has not made a pronouncement on this, that Zimmerman acted stupidly. Perhaps he's been too preoccupied with consoling Sandra Fluke.

[Gus]

QUESTION FOR ALL OF YOU!!!!

How is Obama BLACK
and ZIMMERMAN is WHITE?

Discuss, and get back to me on that!!!

And Viva la Raza, stay thirsty my friends.

[Gus]

GERALDO!! He needs to join this freak show, with the quickness.

[Captain Hate]

They aren't right about the facts of anything else, why are you taking their word on this case?

I think you're making some erroneous assumptions about our attitudes toward the MFM.

[Gus]

The Shooter looks a lot like Sotomayor.

He looks so "wise".

[Thomas Collins]

The stand your ground law is a good law. It lessens the chance that someone under attack will be second guessed by police. I am all for giving the benefit of the doubt to the individual under attack. In the time it takes to figure out whether there is a safe retreat route, you could be dead.

[centralcal]

Sue: Here is a link to some photos of Malia does Oaxaca (scroll down past Russell Simmons & kids). Hurry, internet cleaning has begun and web sites slates becoming blank.

She looks miserable and about as charming as her parents. Looks like she is attracting a bitter clinger, too.

[Gmax]

And now the Hill weighs in with their own polling. Done by Pulse, it is of likely voters and has a MOE of 3%. Get a load of these awful numbers for the man who quit doing good right after after causing the oceans to cease rising:

On economic issues, 62 percent of voters say Obama’s policies will increase the debt, while 25 percent think they will cut it, and by a 48-percent-to-38-percent margin, voters believe those policies will increase joblessness rather than put people back to work.

On energy, 58 percent say Obama’s policies will result in gasoline prices increasing, while just 20 percent expect them to cut prices — and by a 46-percent-to-36-percent margin, voters believe they will cause the United States to become even more dependent on foreign oil.

[Threadkiller]

Sometimes I actually post something on topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYlBy85zxdo

[Gmax]

And I missed this one from Thursday but seems significant. The whole 1% meme is predicate for trying raise taxes, especially on the productive. Seems like 2 out of 3 want a flat tax:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of American Adults now support an across-the-board income tax percentage. Support for a simplified system like this has been growing from 44% in April 2009 to 55% this time last year. Thirty-one percent (31%) oppose a system where everyone pays the same percentage in taxes. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided.

Math goes like this. Ignor the undecided and you get 58/ 58+31 = 65% of folks with an opinion. OUCH.

[pagar]

OldTimer linked to it on the last thread but I suspect many young people who are taught CRT in school will have a different opinion on this case than their parents.

http://tinyurl.com/7dersvq

I for one had no idea it had infiltrated our schools as much as the Breitbart report shows.

[Danube of Thought]

Ah yes--the Great White Defendant.

In the vast majority of jurisdictions, if a defendant charged with murder pleads self-defense, his self-defense evidence is considered rebuttal of the prosecution's evidence, and there is no change in the burden of proof.

In a few places, the burden shifts to the defendant, who must prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence (not beyond a reasonable doubt(.

[Danube of Thought]

Gee--how did Oliver Stone miss this detail?

[Porchlight]

According to the Sidwell Friends website, the school isn't on spring break until the end of this week.

http://www.sidwell.edu/calendars/month.aspx

[narciso]

Because he was following the disinformation campaign that Mitrokhin fleshed out, that was
transmitted through publications like the Corriera De Sera, and other publications,

[Thomas Collins]

The burden of proof does not shift to the defendant in self defense cases in Florida. If a Florida jury has a reasonable doubt as to whether deadly force was justified, the jury is to acquit the defendant. Put another way, in Florida, the defense need not prove self defense by a preponderance of the evidence. What the defense needs to do is have admitted into the proceedings enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors whether deadly force was justified. See LUN for a short summary of Florida self defense law.

[Gmax]

I have always loved how lawyers can see all these distinctions. A preponderance of the evidence is what a mere 51%? Beyond a reasonable doubt is higher but not defined!

And then there is the legal distinction between ordinary garden variety negligence and gross negligence. With no real bright line distinction, it is ultimately decided by a jury or a judge based on what? Feelings. That way the fees are earned all the way through the trial, no chance of a directed verdict.

[narciso]

You're under the delusion, that actual guilt or innocence, plays a part in this, well I can tell you now that it doesn't matter that
a whole host of shootings were found justified, if the local agitators, and now
the DOJ enter into it,

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet]

Yeah, GMAX, but trial lawyers defending criminal cases get paid a flat fee up front, not a fee based on hours working on the case.

[Captain Hate]

Troo dat, narc; with crimestopper Stedman Shabbazz on the case, this poor schnook is going away for something even if a dozen witnesses testify with tangible evidence he was in a different time zone when the activity in question occurred.

[Americana Alice (formerly known as AliceH)]

With no real bright line distinction, it is ultimately decided by a jury or a judge based on what? Feelings.

The 3 juries I've served with were thoughtful, serious, respectful panels sincerely committed to fair discussion and sound deliberation. I'd much rather evidence be weighed subjectively within the guidance of the court instructions than try to replace it with inflexible and rigid objective determinants. Mini-Crowdsourcing.

[narciso]

Well I'm not referring to specifically this case, but I know from recent experience, as in two significant cases where there were changes of venue, Tampa in 1980, and Orlando in 1989, facts are no object to the required result,

[Danube of Thought]

Prof. Dershowitz explained, mischief written all over his face, that under no circumstances were we to conclude that a preponderance means 51%, clear and convincing means 75%, and beyond a reasonable doubt means 99%. He the went on to explain that although we were not to think that way, we should understand that every judge and every juror in the English-speaking world thinks precisely that way.

Gmax, if you can conceive of better standards of proof you should disclose them, by all means. Also bear in mind that it is not only lawyers but also layjurors who are duty-bound to see--and decide on the basis of--these distinctions. And everywhere there are comprehensive jury instructions that try to explain the standards.

[sbw]

Hey, I'm just from a small local newspaper and I can't see the news value in holding the magnifying glass over this event today, drawing it out of proportion and risking that it needlessly catches fire.

[Gmax]

Here is what I can conceive, the laws are written by the lawyers, and nearly always run to the benefit of lawyers. Shocking, isnt it? For example, you must be a registered broker to get a fee on a real estate sale. The exception, lawyers. I could go on, but I will just wait for a cogent explanation of the difference between the degrees of negligence? There must be some, correct?

[daddy]

CNN International is broadcasting this story around the planet.

Anderson Cooper calls Zimmerman a White Person over and over again. Racism, racism, racism.

[boris]

Seems like a person who is both carrying a gun and losing a fist fight is in a bit of a fix. A tricky situation. Horns of a dilemma. Between a rock and a hard place. The devil and the deep blue sea.

[Gmax]

Jim Rhodes, the retainer? That is calculated to run through multiple appeals? And almost always escapes being subject to preference or fraudulent conveyance recapture?

[narciso]

Anderson Vanderbilt, one Neil Patrick Harris
is more plaid,

[jimmyk]

Seems like a person who is both carrying a gun and losing a fist fight is in a bit of a fix.

Among other things, the person losing the fist fight is at high risk of also losing possession of the gun to his opponent.

[boris]

"losing possession of the gun"

Exactly.

[bgates]

what's he know that we don't?

That watching local tv news is a bad idea.

[Frau Roggenbrot]

"Anderson Cooper calls Zimmerman a White Person over and over again."

That's funny. He doesn't look it. In fact, Anderson Cooper looks like an albino, daddy. We know, that if Zimmerman were the victim, he would be Hispanic, or am I too cynical?

When can I rail about Obama's attacks on our country? This is just another opportunity for Holder to trot out some more CRT in action and pull the squirrel bit

Yesterday Fluke; today Zimmerman.

[Frau Roggenbrot]

boris is on a roll.

narciso, Doogie Howser was laughable.

[Clarice]

Porch--it's probably considered school activity. Malia probably takes Spanish and this is considered a field trip here.

[narciso]

True, Clarice, but I don't think that's a terribly safe place to take a vacation just now, even with a full Secret Service contingent,

[Jane (get off the couch - come save the country)]

GMAX,

Gross negligence has to do with forseeability. If you give a 3 year old a loaded gun it is pretty forseeable that something bad will happen. If he shoots someone gross negligence will probably apply.

If you forget to lock the safe on the top of the closet with a loaded gun in it, and a 3 year old manages to crawl up and get the gun and then shoot someone, you are probably negligent, but not grossly negligent.

[Danube of Thought]

"the laws are written by the lawyers, and nearly always run to the benefit of lawyers. "

False. They are written by legislatures. As for the question of to whose benefit they run, let us first inquire: plaintiffs' lawyers and prosecutors, or defense lawyers? Difficult to craft a law that benefits both....

I hereby offer to spare you the embarrassment of punlicly setting forth the difference between ordinary negligence and gross negligence by giving you a decent interval to let your fingers do the walking via Google. Let us know when you have done your homework.

[Jane (get off the couch - come save the country)]

(unless the 3 year old has been crawling up to the top shelf in the closet regularly and you know it.)

[Jane (get off the couch - come save the country)]

Reading back, now I'm not even sure that was the question.

[Gmax]

A little semantics shall we? Who populates upwards of 80% of the legislatures in this country. Two guesses, first one dont count.

[Rob Crawford]

That single section of the law is meaningless on its own -- all it does is say that if you're legally present in a place, you have no duty to retreat. Other sections *should* specify that your presumption of self-defense is dependent on not initiating or escalating the confrontation. I can't believe Florida law-makers left out that part.

The idiots making this a racial matter are precisely that, idiots. Sharpton is nothing but a modern Kleagle, stirring up the mob for a little old-fashioned "collective justice".

[Threadkiller]

"Plants used for reproductive health in Oaxaca, Mexico.

An additional 15 plants are used to prevent or terminate pregnancy. The mechanism of action in these case is believed to be to both warm the blood to facilitate its flow and irritate the uterus so it will evacuate its contents. Reliance on these remedies derives from Chinantec ethnomedical understandings. Given the persistence of use of herbal remedies in many communities in the Third World, research is needed on their safety and efficacy."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12342712/

[Ignatz]

--False. They are written by legislatures. As for the question of to whose benefit they run, let us first inquire: plaintiffs' lawyers and prosecutors, or defense lawyers? Difficult to craft a law that benefits both....--

Jane you're the greatest but,
1. What profession do most legislators share? And,
2. It is quite easy to craft laws which make work for plaintiff's, prosecutors and defense attorneys. So long as laws function as attorney-full-employment-acts it makes little difference which branch of the second oldest profession they aid.

[Danube of Thought]

Oh hell, I can't resist. Will this do?

"Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not."

[narciso]

This is not about the law, this is that most odious of phrases 'a teachable moment' where
the relevant facts, can go hang in favor of the template,

[Gmax]

Jane. OK, buried deep in the insurance policy is a carve out for copper theft in a vacant building. Policy runs in very fine print 30 or more pages. Tenant moves out, thieves move in, and insurance co points to clause and refused to pay for damage. Bank alleges gross negligence and wants to invoke the bad boy clause to trigger personal liability in a non recourse loan. Foreseeable or not foreseeable? You make the call...

[Gmax]

Shorter answer = "depends, ask the jury."

[Frau Roggenbrot]

Malia has with her, I believe, fifteen classmates. I would not like to be in (beautiful) Oaxaca as an adult these days and would not like a child of mine to be there even with a passel of secret service agents. Just my opinion.

[Clarice]

Gmax, every property insurance policy I know of (r.e. that is) has a provision negating coverage if the property is "vacant". For this reason it is important to find out how that term is defined in the policy or locally (depending on the language of the insurance). In most places having the property regularly viewed by a caretaker, owner or real estate agent, takes the property out of the "vacant" category even if it is not presently occupied.

[Gmax]

Yes Clarice, but is it gross negligence in my example above? Or even ordinary negligence? Why or why not?

And more important, is there anyway to get a directed verdict or does it just depend on the whim of the jurors?

[Clarice]

GMax, I should think that the bank claim of "gross negligence" depends entirely on local law.

[Ignatz]

This guy asks his wife how long it takes to drive 80 miles at 80 miles per hour, a question she can't answer.
Question is how long will it take her to drive to a divorce lawyer after he posts her acting like a doofus on the internet with him laughing at her?

[Gmax]

There is that words again. Depends.

Having beaten this mode of transportation to near death, lets look at the sample composition of the Pulse Opinion Dynamics poll I posted about above:

the Pulse poll sampled 36% Republicans, 32% Democrats and 32% independents.

Now that is what RAS found in his last self ID Poll. And until other polls get their samples right, just adjust them after looking at the demographics. Zero carries Democrats and Blacks decisively and is losing Republicans and Independents, with Indys sometimes nearly matching Republicans in revulsion.

[Danube of Thought]

Who populates upwards of 80% of the legislatures in this country. Two guesses, first one dont count.

My first guess, which is correct, is that the 80% figure is pure bullshit.

"From 1780 to 1930, two thirds of the senators and about half of the House of Representatives were lawyers; the percentage seems to have stayed fairly stable" . . . . at the beginning of the 101st Congress in 1989, 184 members (42%) of the U.S. House of Representatives were lawyers (47% of the Democrats and 35 % of the Republicans). Sixty-three senators were lawyers, roughly equally distributed between the two parties .... At the beginning of the 102nd Congress in January, 1991, 244 of the 535 members of both houses (46%) claimed attorney as their profession."

[narciso]

Legum's follow up, really he has a JD from GeorgeTown; says all the networks covered
this story, except for Fox, although the chart
does show they did one story,

[Gmax]

How much does a $2 dollar cup of coffee cost?

Is this a trick question?

[Danube of Thought]

Gmax seems to be asking the lawyers here to answer questions that the law submits to jurors. Why is that?

[Danube of Thought]

There is that word again. Depends.

Of course it depends on the law. Should it be otherwise? If so, in what way?

[Gmax]

If it depends on the law, as opposed to facts or feelings then there should be the ability to get a direct verdict, right counselor?

And the US Senate is over 50% lawyers. HMMMMM

[Gmax]

directed verdict. Summary judgement

[Danube of Thought]

From the Daily Beast:

Since 1976, no serious contender, Democrat or Republican, has watched his favorable ratings fall as low as Romney’s have in recent months. Or watched his unfavorable ratings climb as high. Or watched his overall numbers stay underwater—that is, more unfavorable than favorable—for so long.

At this rate, Romney is shaping up to be the most unpopular presidential nominee on record.

It’s no secret that this year’s Republican primary contest has hurt the former Massachusetts governor. What was supposed to be a rather orderly march to the nomination has steadily morphed into a degenerative, Sisyphean slog, thanks to the vagaries of delegate math and the GOP’s curious lack of enthusiasm for Mormon moderates from Massachusetts. George Will, for one, has grown so despondent that he is already advising conservatives to give up on the presidency and focus on Congress instead.

[narciso]

What can be ascertained, is that Zimmerman screwed up, most everything is hazy, and folks like Legum, just 'embiggen' the problem.

[Janet]

The Road We Are Traveling by Stuart Chase

A strong centralized government
An executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arm
Control of banking, credit and security exchanges by the government
Underwriting of employment through armaments or by public works
Underwriting of Social Security by the government
Underwriting of food, housing and medical care by the government
Use of deficit spending to finance underwritings
Abandonment of gold in lieu of managed currency
Government control over trade, natural resources, transportation, agricultural production, organized labor unions, and youth corps-enlistments, to name a few
A youth and people dedicated to the ideology of government authorities
Heavy taxation of estates and incomes of the wealthy
State control over communications and propaganda

I wonder if Tom Hanks is familiar with this book?

[Danube of Thought]

is there anyway to get a directed verdict

Yes. If you can persuade the judge that the plaintiff has not carried his case, and that no reasonable jury could find in his favor based upon the evidence he has presented, he will dismiss the case without requiring the defendant to go forward. Rare, but it happens.

[Mad Jack]

Ig: What profession do most legislators share?

Sounds like you're a believer in CLT-(Critical Law Theory) :-)

[Jane (Bad says Obama sucks)]

Iggy,

I may be the greatest, but you were replying to DOT.

[Jane (Bad says Obama sucks)]

Gmax,

Gross negligence for what?

[Gmax]

Preponderance of evidence or clear and convincing?

I think my original point has been made ( in spades ), these distinctions are nebulous and ephemeral.

And were this not a mule but instead a racehorse, it would be deader than General Franco...

[Mad Jack]

Gmax: Where can I get a non-recourse loan on commercial property? Sign me up!

[Jane (Bad says Obama sucks)]

Gmax,

If there is a question of fact, you can't get a directed verdict. The jury decides facts.

[Gmax]

Jane, wasting of collateral.

[narciso]

The parallel with Martin Lee Anderson, is an 'emanation of a shade of a penumbra' of course, one of your 'favorite people', Janet,
John Legend, is out there raising awareness, so what could possibly go wrong,

[Jane (Bad says Obama sucks)]

Plus I'm wrong, I was referring to a summary judgment, and since I have no idea what you are talking about ( are you a tenant, an owner, a robber?). I should shut up.

[Gmax]

Mad Jack

I have a committment letter for one right now. Its a life company. Pension plan lenders are nonrecourse lenders too. And if the window is open, the securitization market lends nonrecourse. Of course, if the window closes, there is probably a "material adverse change" clause in the commitment, which allows the originator to back out with no penalty.

[Ignatz]

--Iggy,

I may be the greatest, but you were replying to DOT.--

How perceptive of you to notice that, Jane, which just proves you really are the greatest.

--Ig: What profession do most legislators share?--

I'd have to say prostitution, which makes me a proponent of CPT.

[Captain Hate]

Is there an alternative universe somewhere in which George Will is taking an effective laxative?

[Gmax]

If there is a question of fact, you can't get a directed verdict. The jury decides facts.

I knew that, and I am not a lawyer. It was put to me that it "depends on the LAW." Hence I asked about summary judgement, which in my fact case would be rarer than the oft heard about blue moon.

[Mad Jack]

Thanks, Gmax. Interesting info.

[Gmax]

Jane

Owner, mortgagee and all around swell guy!

[Danube of Thought]

"I think my original point has been made ( in spades ), these distinctions are nebulous and ephemeral."

You original point, to the extent it made sense at all, was that triers of fact depend on words to guide them in reaching their findings. If you prefer some other means of guidance, please tell us what it is.

In most jurisdictions fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. The judge instructs the jury on what that means, and it is quite different from a preponderance. Maybe when you are next called for jury duty you can tell the judge "your honor, I'm too dumb to grasp the difference between a preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing proof." Maybe he'll let you go.

Or you could say "judge, the differences between first-degree murder, second-degree murder and manslaughter are nebulous and ephemeral, and therefore useless." You can probably skate on that one, too. Of course, once you're out of the courtroom all the other prospective jurors will be laughing behind your back, but at least the chance that justice will be done will have improved.

[Gmax]

My original point cut and pasted:

I have always loved how lawyers can see all these distinctions. A preponderance of the evidence is what a mere 51%? Beyond a reasonable doubt is higher but not defined!

And then there is the legal distinction between ordinary garden variety negligence and gross negligence. With no real bright line distinction, it is ultimately decided by a jury or a judge based on what? Feelings.

[Gmax]

I will retract that upwards of 80% ( which does not mean exactly 80% ) of legislatures are lawyers.

Nope the Senate is 54% lawyers. Not that it changes much at all, as I wonder what the percentage of staffers might be? Even higher?

[Clarice]

I spent some time studying comparative law decades ago when I wasn't learning that global cooling was going to kill us all. And my recollection is that German and French law try to make more specific statutory definitions than ours do but in practice the results are reasonably similar.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Gmax-

That level of bias is makin' me dizzy.

Can you open up yer ears a bit and slow down that spin for me?

Thanks.

[narciso]

Is there something in the Post's plumbing systems that causes the likes of Ignatius tom meditate so fondly on Bin Laden, 'snap out of it'