Friday, August 30, 2013

I've read On Combat and On Killing,

and they're good books.  I'd wondered about this part of them, though; turns out there's a LOT of disagreement on the 'most people cannot or will not fight' idea.

Good piece, well worth reading.

"Ah, the fools! Why are they cheering?" 
Because Obama; nothing else counts to the fools.

"A New Jersey Appeals Court has ruled that both sides of a texting conversation which resulted in a car accident could be held liable. The ruling came as part of a case in which the driver of a truck received a text message shortly before striking a motorcycle carrying two passengers. The court ruled that while in this case, the person sending the text wasn't liable, they could be if the circumstances were a little different. '...a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.'"
Oh, I can just see them trying to prove that.

Dirtbag, hypocrite, worthless lying politician:
Earnest today repeated the administration’s claim that major use of chemicals weapons overseas is an threat to the United States.
“The president believes strongly — that it is imp for the international community to protect international norms against the use of weapons of mass destruction, particularly these weapons used in Syria against innocent civilians,” he said. “Protection of that international norm is a priority of the international community … is within the core national security interests of the United States of America.”
As opposed to what the Liar in Chief said about Iraq.


Gerry Nygaard said...

I've never yet had to kill a person, but I've thought about it a lot, gone through the motionns in my head a lot, and I have prayed about it, and discussed it with my Bishop (I'm more Mormon than anything else). So I am sure I could and would kill if I deemed it necessary. I also carry so I can kill if it becomes necessary. Having a loaded pistol at hand changes things a great deal, I am quantum leaps more patient, polite and thoughtful tnan before I began carrying a loaded pistol on my person. I am more watchful, and aware of my surroundings and constantly seeking avenues of escape. God forbid I have to shoot. If I or someone I love is in danger, I will shoot, no doubt about it.

Gerry N,

Sigivald said...

Oh, I can just see them trying to prove that.

SMS records are kept by the telephone company, and could presumably be disclosed in discovery as part of the civil suit, to see if there's reason to believe the sender knew they were causing a dangerous distraction.

Civil suits need only preponderance of evidence, as well.

Nothing new here, except the mode of distraction; a passenger distracting the driver in a serious manner is already potentially liable under existing liability theory and precedent.

Note that in this case the texting person was explicitly NOT held liable, as there was no reason whatsoever to suspect knowingly distracting the driver, let alone to a sufficient degree to cause culpability.

Much ado about nothing.

(The comments over at Slashdot are unsurprisingly made by people [idiots] who can evidently either not read what the Judge said, or can't critically apply it to reality, or both.

Same as usual - "hey, if distracting is liable, why not radio DJs who say shocking stuff"?

Well, Genius, if you'd actually read what the Judge said you'd know...

Knowing "someone might hear it while driving and might get distracted" was not the bar that was set; having special knowledge that someone in particular was likely to be dangerously distracted was.)

Keith said...


very disturbing new piece by Will Grigg

Keith said...

sorry, there's the specific link