Eh, it's debatable still

Here's the WI state code as that would apply here
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

===================================
Some likely applicable law from that link
From SUBCHAPTER III
DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
===================================
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
-------------------------------------------
> It's not up to the witnesses to determine if the actions were reasonable or not, that's a question for the jury.

====================================================
====================================================

"engage in unlawful conduct likely to provoke others to attack"

"Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
---------------------------------------------------------------

>excerpted/emphasized (tldnr)
>"engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack...is NOT entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense...person is NOT privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant UNLESS the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape

============================
============================



He was able to run away... And while someone shot into the air they didn't shoot at HIM or point a gun at him. And the person who shot into the air isn't the one who lunged at him.

Seriously, what kind of world do you want to live in @bobknight33 ?? You want MF 17 year olds to be able to walk around with assault rifles and if you stutter-step at the wrong moment they can vigilante justice your ass ? And if that happens well they can just say

Oh I could not resist. The vaults of youtube stupidity and offhand reactions are rich on this one, to the point of being blandly monotonous. Marxist! Defund! Paid for by our taxes!
Nowhere is his name mentioned, so the edited video could be debunked easily.

Even from this artificially short excerpt it is easy to see that in the first half he is describing not his own views but those of Coca Cola corporatespeak. In the second half he is explaining what Coca Cola means by that shit.

Nowhere does he add his own views on the matter at hand, so he could well be trying to warn the world that Coca Cola is doing it wrong. Or vice versa. Except someone edited out the facts and meaning and left just trollfood.

Not going to ban you for your opinion. But saying a veteran should have been kia is pretty goddamn low. You are, as all the dumbass motherfuckers on the interweb who have been calling him a traitor are, referring to the fact that he broke during his POW incarceration.

Here is a brief excerpt of the new techniques that came out right around the time he was captured. Techniques that were so insidious that the military had to REWRITE the code regarding breaking under torture.

"Some were physically tortured, some of them succumbed to the pain and broke, some did not, but there was also a new technique employed, and it took time.

Put into a dark box, not large enough to even stretch out, it is called sensory deprivation, and along with other enhancements, it turns a person insane, malleable, and open to the most ridiculous suggestions. like confessing to the war crime of being ordered to bomb hospitals and orphanages, and doing so.

Some of those who broke under this new kind of interrogation feared to be repatriated, thinking they would be tried for collaboration upon their return. American psychologists and psychiatrists, after interviewing some of these ex-POW’s, determined that, given enough time, anyone, if not everyone, could be broken.

John McCain made them start all over on him a number of times, until his Vietnamese interrogators finally gave up, and threw him into a miserable cell, and not back into his horribly, miserable dark box. His conduct, during his interrogation period, and thereafter, was nothing short of heroic."

Now, if you ever go through enhanced interrogation techniques, please feel free to report back to us how you managed not to break or suffer mental damage from them. Until that time, I find your opinion to be ill informed and lacking weight.

EDIT: Before you go saying I am a fanboy, I didn't care for him as a senator or presidential candidate. He was gullible enough to get sucked into the Keating Five mess and I didn't feel he would be a good president, so I voted democrat in 2008, even though I generally vote republican. I can still recognize him as a war hero and for his service though. The man was not a traitor.

Snopes included excerpts from at least two peer reviewed studies directly on topic that seem to contradict your contention....why dismiss it offhand?

In a peer-reviewed paper published by American Law and Economics Review in 2012, researchers Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University found that in the decade following the NFA, firearm homicides (both suicides and intentional killings) in Australia had dropped significantly:

In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test[ed] whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%].

Similarly, Dr. David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found in 2011 that the NFA had been “incredibly successful in terms of lives saved”:

For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates.

Are you calling them liars?

I finally girded myself and read the babe article. So painful on so many levels.

We are so clueless as human beings, I swear.

The one thing that I hadn't read about before was the screenshot of the text she wrote him the next day. She was quoted as saying, in several accounts, that while it might have been fun for him, it wasn't for her. Even in the babe article, it lists her response as beginning that way.

What I don't remember reading anywhere else was this shortened excerpt:

Aziz: Hey it was fun meeting you last night. [Something about cameras]

Grace: Hey Aziz, it was fun meeting you too. [Something in response to cameras]

Oh dear. This is what I have been saying since #metoo has started.

Our socialization has us saying, politely, "it was fun meeting you".

No. No it wasn't. And yet she felt compelled socially -- and was helped in crafting a response by her friends, according to babe! -- to soften the truth, which came next. Clearly and directly.

Women need to learn to be more direct and less polite. And we need to train our girls early about their right to speak their truth.

I don't blame Grace for her frozen inaction. She wasn't taught anything different as a child.

Let's teach our children to speak their truth, yeah?

One for your collection:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/11/08/another-civil-asset-forfeiture-outrage-2/

It's a short one, so no excerpts needed. The url basically speaks for itself.

I took a Joyce Major Authors class in college (about 15 yrs ago). We read Dubliners and Portrait in their entirety, and probably about 40% of Ulysses and excerpts from Finnegan's Wake.

For some literature, you really need to do homework to appreciate fully. You'll miss a ton if you don't know history and current events that people were generally aware of at the time. And, even when you do that work, sometimes you still won't get it all - which is how I see Finnegan's Wake.

My experience reading (some) Ulysses was great, but it depended on the professor who would assign a chapter for homework and then spend the entire class going through it with us. We were Lit majors, so we knew The Odyssey, but some references were completely over our heads. Like, Bloom is humming advertising jingles throughout the book - and these weave together with other literature references, sometimes making a joke about popular culture, sometimes taking a swipe at literature/history. I got maybe 10% of the significance during my initial, solo reading.

My mid-term paper was a super close reading of one small section (I think it is in chapter 4) where Bloom is in the tub, contemplating how his dick and balls look like a lily pad as they are floating in front of him in the tub.

I've been avoiding Finnegan's Wake for years, all the excerpts I have read have scared me off.

it is actually an excerpt from reasonTV with mike guillespie.
but feel free to judge the video based on who uploaded the clip.
i gather "independent man" in quotations implies some deeper meaning?

thanks for watching bud,though your input is somewhat "lackluster".
unless "this is a weird video" has some deeper contextual meaning in your area,where i am from we call it "lazy".

Honest question. I haven't seen any reference to the content of the conversations Flynn had. do you have some links or references to excerpts of the content of his conversations that show promises or collusion?

Serious contender for comment of the month over at NC. Excerpt:

Flyover people and the uncomfortable urban poor fight the never-ending wars. We provide commodities like food and coal and oil and metals. We provide cheap labor. Comfortable people have decided that most of us aren’t really needed. Immigration, free trade, and automation have made us redundant but we’re not going away. At least we’re not going away fast. Flyover people and the uncomfortable urban poor have no real place in establishment Democratic or Republican thinking. We are the establishment’s problem and the establishment is our problem.

Have I mentioned how much I like reading pieces by Thomas Frank?

He had a piece in the Guardian two days ago about the Podesta emails and it's just brilliant. Excerpt:

This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else. Of course Hillary Clinton staffed her state department with investment bankers and then did speaking engagements for investment banks as soon as she was done at the state department. Of course she appears to think that any kind of bank reform should “come from the industry itself”. And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted by the Obama administration. Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another’s careers, constantly.

Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon Valley, the nonprofits, the “Global CEO Advisory Firm” that appears to have solicited donations for the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation to government to thinktank to startup. There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed chairs. Advanced degrees. For them the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.

But the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it’s all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren’t part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don’t have John Podesta’s email address – you’re out.

I don't care about the timing, political motivation, etc. etc. of this discovery of new emails. I think only 2 things matter:

1) Are they real / legitimate. But with all of the previous leaks, I never saw the Clinton camp trying to suggest that anything was fabricated. Taking stuff out of context to make it appear worse than what it arguably is doesn't count count as "fabricated". As much as I dislike Clinton, I have to give her credit for dealing with the out of context stuff so far in the proper way -- fill in the context so that people can make up their own minds (like some of the Wall Street speech excerpts, "public and private position", etc.).

2) Do they show anything actually criminal, even it is relatively minor. Capone went down for tax evasion, because that was the only thing they could successfully and concretely pin on him. And yet justice was served by going forward with that.

IF (and it remains a big if) these new emails end up meeting both of those criteria, I have absolutely zero sympathy for the whining that already has and will continue to erupt from the Democrat party.

Being a candidate in a presidential election paints a giant target on you and guarantees that your past is going to be under the microscope. If you've got skeletons in your closet, there is a very high chance for them to be discovered. Trump has had a well-deserved taste of that already -- maybe it is Clinton's turn now.

This is an excerpt from "Michael Moore in TrumpLand".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6163356/

This portion is followed by an appeal to vote for Hillary, even if you don't like her.

I found the full show on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/q1EnRLZ3p4o

This one is pure gold, if you ask me. It's an excerpt from a Judicial Watch panel discussion about Clinton's email affaire, and it features Joseph diGenova taking a ginormous shit on James Comey for taking a dive.

Duration is about 10 minutes.

Lifted from the comment section on yesterday's link list over at NakedCapitalism.