|
Creativity Motivation – What is motivation – Corey K Katir
Advertising From http://www.creativitymotivation.com Describes motivation process for creativity with emphasis on intrinsic motivation by Corey K Katir Check, and check again – why the Bribery Act and competition law could be a lethal combination
From legalweek.com
legalweek
Sullivan & Cromwell’s Juan Rodriguez and Louise Delahunty warn the Bribery Act and competition law could prove a lethal combination for companies with poor compliance
Cincinnati Police Chief Says Tasers Can Kill
From blog.simplejustice James Craig, of “I’m a Phoenix fame,” heads up the 1000 member Cincinnati police department. While that number of officers is slightly more than the number needed to change a New York light bulb, it’s still a big city police department, which makes James Craig’s announcement matter, as he’s the first top cop to admit the obvious: Tasers sometimes kill people. From Cincinnati.com: In light of a recently released scientific study that shows the electronic Taser stun guns can cause cardiac arrest and death, the leader of Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentuckyas largest police force announced today that the findings concern him and changes are coming to the departmentas policy regarding the devices.
Cincinnati Police Chief James Craig said the changes should come in about a month. Those could include altering where officers direct the Taseras prongs on a suspectas body, perhaps at the back as opposed to the front, Craig said. Every silver lining has its cloud, of course, so while Craig acknowledges that non-lethal means occasionally lethal, and that there is presumptive connection between shooting people in the chest and cardiac arrest, he solution is to shoot people in the back? One might wonder if he has considered why, praytell, the back of a person who needs shooting would be facing the cop. But it’s possible that he didn’t study anatomy at the University of Phoenix, and remains confused as to which direction the person in need of Tasering is facing when his actions are so threatening as to demand the use of force against him. aI am concerned about it because, like most police chiefs, I am a big supporter of the tool. We know that the tool has saved lives,a Craig told reporters in a media briefing at Cincinnati police headquarters in the West End. aWe know itas minimizing injuries to both police officers and suspects. Based on this report we are looking at our existing policy. We will be making some revisions.a
He said he will not pull Tasers from officersa belts, and this is not the first time the deviceas policy has been revised.
aWe are not going to eliminate the use of Taser. We just want to make sure we are doing it within what this evidence-based report is suggesting,a he said. aI think that it is suggesting – the key point – is elevated heart rate and the taser coming in contact close proximity to the heart if someone has an elevated heart rate. Usually when we have contact with suspects, itas pretty clear their heart rate is elevated. That’s pretty darned likely, as is the possibility that they are using drugs or in less than perfect health, all characteristics of the sort of folks who end up on the business end of a Taser, and all characteristics of the sort of people who die when tased. While Craig’s embracing evidence-based thought is a novel approach for a police department, and one that should be (and is) applauded, there remains a question as to what, exactly, he plans to do to reduce the likelihood of people being killed by “non-lethal force” for calling cops bad names. The “tase-’em-in-the-back” policy has some inherent problems, the least of which is the laws of physics. What about the “why-tase-’em-at-all” question? Now that Chief Craig has openly acknowledged what everyone not on the Taser International payroll has long known to be the case, that Tasers aren’t always less-than-lethal, the next logical step is control their use as the tool of first resort to prevent a cop from having to spend a few minutes talking a defendant off the ledge rather than tasing anyone who backtalks, questions or doesn’t comply fast enough (especially if they happen to be deaf, blind or intellectually or mentally impaired). At what point will a big city police chief decide that painful and potentially deadly force should not be used except to meet force and prevent injury? There is no doubt that Tasers have saved lives, both cop and non-cop, when there was justification for the use of force, and getting tased beat the hell out of a bullet from a Glock. The problem isn’t that they haven’t served as a valued tool, but that the use of Tasers as an expedient means of shutting down a recalcitrant person who poses no threat to anybody for the convenience of a police officer remains largely uncontrolled. The idea of praising James Craig for acknowledging that Tasers can kill seems incredibly banal at this point. It’s not that empirical evidence isn’t a good thing, but all those dead bodies send a message of their own, despite Taser International’s explanation that it just must have been their time, and had nothing to do with getting tased. If someone threatens a cop, or anyone else, with physical harm, their chances of surviving a Taser over a bullet, or even a half dozen cops with clubs beating them until their clubs break, suggests that the weapon should remain on the utility belt. It is a useful device, and one that benefits everyone involved when used properly. Maybe avoiding the chest is a great idea to reduce the risk of killing someone. Maybe avoiding the use of weapons, of force, altogether when there is no reason for any force to be used, is a better idea. Just because there’s a Taser on their belt doesn’t mean they have to use it whenever it’s convenient. And if they don’t use it without reason, that’s one less person who won’t die. A(c) 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Trayvon Martin: “Stand Your Ground” Rule Has NOTHING To Do With This Case
From feedproxy.google A lot of professional and amateur media have argued that the “stand your ground” rule — a provision in Florida self-defense law — could complicate or preclude the prosecution of George Zimmerman. Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, but police declined to arrest him. Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee insists that he cannot dispute Zimmerman’s assertion of self-defense. 911 calls, witness testimony and the fact that Trayvon was unarmed and much smaller than his assailant, however, severely undermine Zimmerman’s self-defense argument. Nevertheless, some commentators — most of whom lack any legal training — insist that the stand your ground rule bolsters Zimmerman’s defense. This argument is baseless. In order to understand why the rule should not affect the outcome of this case, it is important first to examine the law of self-defense in Florida. Florida Self-Defense Law Self-defense allows a defendant charged with a homicide or battery to justify his or her actions. In most states, in order to claim self-defense, the defendant must have a reasonable belief that the victim posed a threat to the defendant or to some other person. Also, there are special rules for the use of “lethal” or “deadly” force. Consider Florida law, for example: A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1)?He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2)?Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013 (italics added).So, in order to justify killing Martin, Zimmerman must demonstrate that he reasonably believed that Martin was about to kill him or cause him serious bodily injury. Florida law also describes certain circumstances when people can assume as a mater of law that they are going to become victims of lethal force. These circumstances, referred to in Section (2) above, include carjackings and home invasions, which are not relevant to this case. Stand Your Ground In some states, self-defense is not available if the defendant had the ability to “retreat” from the harm. In other words, if the defendant could have escaped the danger without using violence, then the use of force is not justifiable. These states impose a duty to retreat in order to discourage the unnecessary use of force. In 2005, Florida amended its law to remove the duty to retreat provision. So long as the person claiming self-defense had a legal right to be in a particular location, that individual can stand his or her ground and remain there without any duty to retreat from the threat (see statutory language quoted above). Critics argue that that the stand your ground rule encourages violence and makes it easier to prove self-defense. To the extent that a person could escape violence by retreating, the stand your ground rule would ordinarily lessen that individual’s burden for proving self-defense; it removes one required element of the defense. Some newspaper studies claim that the success rate of self-defense arguments has increased since 2005. Self-Defense Not Generally Available to Aggressors For several reasons, however, the stand your ground rule has no bearing on the Martin case. First, Florida law clearly states that self-defense is only available to aggressors under very limited circumstances: The justification [for using force] described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who. . . (2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of de
To view the rest of this article, please visit DISSENTING JUSTICE. Thanks.
Sorry, Trayvon Martin: They Just Don’t Like You (UPDATED)
From feedproxy.google “It is about time the court faced the fact that the white people of the South don’t like the colored people.” — Chief Justice William Rehnquist (written when he was a law clerk on the Supreme Court). The recent murder of Trayvon Martin, a black teenager, by George Zimmerman, a white “neighborhood watch vigilante from Sanford, Florida, should remind the public of the continuation of racial injustice in the United States. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin as he walked to his father’s home in a central Florida neighborhood. Prior to shooting Martin, Zimmerman called police from his car to report a “suspicious” person in the neighborhood. Zimmerman asked police whether he should leave his car to investigate the situation, but police told him not to do so. Despite the police warning, Zimmerman left his car and confronted Martin. Although the facts remain hazy, Zimmerman admits that after he left his car, he killed Martin. Zimmerman says that he acted in self-defense. Several witnesses tell local newspapers, however, that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense; they have also accused police of mishandling the investigation. It is also clear that Martin was unarmed and that he was returning to his father’s home from a store where he had purchased candy for a younger sibling. Police have declined to arrest Zimmerman. Bill Lee, Chief of the Sanford Police Department, accepts Zimmerman’s allegation that he acted in self-defense. Lee says that Zimmerman believed that Martin was a threat because “the way that he was walking or appeared seemed suspicious to him.” Lee also says (mistakenly – see below) that Zimmerman has a “squeaky clean” record and that he does not believe that “it was [Zimmerman's] intent to go and shoot somebody. . . .” Currently, prosecutors are considering whether to bring criminal charges against Zimmerman. This case is deeply troubling for several reasons. First, the police are misapplying and misleading the public about the criminal laws regarding homicide and self-defense in order to justify the decision not to arrest Zimmerman. Also, this case is yet another reminder of the continuing problem of racial injustice in the United States, particularly, the disparate treatment of black and white offenders and victims. Law Regarding Homicide and Self-Defense The law regarding homicide is far more complicated than the public’s general understanding of the term. While the public tends to equate “homicide” and “murder,” these words are quite different from a legal perspective. Homicide is simply the killing of a person by another individual. Within that broad category, however, several scenarios are possible. The killing could result from intentional and planned behavior; this is typically described as “murder.” The killing could result from recklessness or negligence; this is typically described as “manslaughter.” Although I have simplified these categories somewhat, it is clear that even if Zimmerman did not begin the night with the intent to kill an individual, he still might have committed a serious crime — possibly, manslaughter or even second-degree murder. Every state recognizes “self-defense” as a defense to a homicide charge. Under Florida law (as in many other states), in order to act in self-defense, the assailant must reasonably fear that the victim will harm him or her or some other person. Furthermore, in order to rely upon self-defense, the assailant must not have acted act as the aggressor. In order to act with lethal force, as Zimmerman did, the assailant must reasonably fear that the victim will cause imminent great bodily harm or death to him or her or to another person. Under Florida law, lethal force is also justifiable to stop home invasions and carjacking — scenarios that are not relevant to Martin’s death. The Facts Support Charging Zimmerman From the few facts that are known, Zimmerman’s self-defense claim seems shaky at best. Zimmerman, who is 26, weighs about 100 pounds more
To view the rest of this article, please visit DISSENTING JUSTICE. Thanks.
Texas has enough lethal drugs for 23 executions, officials say
From statesman.com Forced to go public by an order from Attorney General Greg Abbott, Texas prison officials late Friday disclosed that they have enough lethal drugs on hand to carry out as many as 23 executions. In a brief statement issued
Prisons system ordered to release details on execution drugs
From statesman.com In a victory for open government, Texas prison officials on Thursday lost their latest attempt to keep secret details about its stock and suppliers of lethal injection drugs.
Lethal force in hijack situations questioned as UK Gov’t agrees to armed guards on ships
From legalweek.com
legalweek
Foreign Affairs Committee report into piracy off Somalia welcomed by shipping industry, reports Stephen Askins
Los Angeles Accident Attorney
Advertising From theaccidentattorneylosangeles.com/ Personal Injury Lawyer Los Angeles – FREE CONSULTATION by Personal Injury Attorney Los Angeles – Legal Defenders, Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyers – Law Offices of Burg and Brock, who have won over $100 million in verdicts and settlements for clients Page took 3 seconds to load.
|
Advertisement
San Diego Reputation Management
Nashville Reputation Management
Sacramento Reputation Management
The Law Offices of Spar and Bernstein is a full-service firm concentrating in United States Immigration Law. For more than 50 years, Spar and Bernstein has helped more than 50,000 clients successfully resolve their U.S. immigration issues. In addition to a renowned immigration department, Spar & Bernstein has complimentary departments concentrating in personal injury, family/divorce and criminal defense. Please visit Spar and Bernstein law blog for current legal information and discussions.