Health Care Vigil in Thousand Oaks: Provocation to violent response

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/0…

I had trouble finding the article from this morning but this article is similar.

Sorry, somebody on another post was upset that this guy was gonna do a speaking tour. I have not got problem with that if it is true but have no reference for it of if it was just another goofball comment. I have no link and it did not interest me.

what exactly did you socialists think was going to happen ?? your boy king has found an excuse to take over the auto industry , the banking industry and a large part of the insurance industry …. he also wishes to control content on the radio by way of “localism” rules at the f.c.c. … he appoints “czars” to positions of power who hold some of the most radical views ever represented in the white house … on top of all that he wants to take over health care too .. when socialists try to overtake a free country , FREE people usually respond … move your socialist asses to Venezuela or Cuba …

By the way…you *do* know what socialism is, yes? If so, you also
understand that it is *not* a political system? And if it is not a
political system it cannot be used to 'take over a country'. Now don't
let facts and education get in your way. Your baby Bush had more czars
than his daddy did. Get over it.

Orange shirt? Brown shirt? Healthcare? Socialism? When a social system gets sick and bloated, and the situation gets a bit complicated for our petty human minds to grasp, it’s natural for us to start pointing fingers at each other and name-calling. One less finger in the fray now… (sorry). My job today (Saturday) is to sort further through this (healthcare) mess, boil it down to the basics, and publish it on my own blog. Then I'll try to post a further-boiled-down version here. Stumbled onto Karoli and drumsnwhistles a moment ago while googling. Love what she says and how she says it … Gotta go…

Disgusted I live in CT not CA and have been uninsured at times. My insurance company is billed a lower amount than I am charged when I pay in cash myself.

I would have preferred a legitimate bankruptcy played by the rules rather then the rigged game we got. That little exercise in making-the-rules-up-as-we-go-along put the unions at the front of the line when federal bankruptcy law had them at the back of the line.

When anyone enters into a contract (Real estate, mortgage, car loan, bond purchase, etc.) the terms of contract are supposed to be valid through the life of that instrument. And the rules about what happens if either party bankrupt are supposed to remain the same as well.

Think of it like this. You sell someone a $100 lawn mower to be paid in 30 days. On the fifth day that person comes back to you and tells that you will accept $24 as payment in full or they will declare bankruptcy. You tell them to go ahead knowing that federal and local bankruptcy law will require that he return the lawnmower to you.

But when he declares bankruptcy, the White House steps in and asks that other unsecured creditors be moved to the front of the line because these are were union laborers. Low and behold, in violation of federal law, the judge sides with the White House and the debtor gets to keep the lawnmower and you have to accept $7.12 on your $100 debt.

That one slight of hand trick by the Obama administration sent the US bond market into a crash dive. Bond holders, along with most of us, do not like it when you change the rules in the middle of the game.

With that one action, bonds became far more risky because the old rules went right out the window. Bonds used to be fairly stable investments with a relatively low return because of the low risk. Because the risk went up, US bonds will have to offer a higher interest rate because they will be harder to sell. In the mean time, bond investors are taking their purchases off shore to countries that still obey and respect their financial laws without special favors.

Europe and the Pacific Rim are raking in millions in capital that would have been used here in the United States. That is capital that will not be used to fund expansion and new jobs.

That will make recovery from the current economic crises a lot more difficult and lengthy. And we have President Obama and his screwing around with the system to thank for it.

You haven't been in all that many fights, have you?

Did you try to negotiate with the health care providers for a better price?

Tax cuts allow lower wages?

Health access scares the “lower rungs?”

The working class can't spend their money as they fit?

Where are you getting that from?

haha, i do kno economics. whats funy is that a lot of republicans and rich people claim to kno economics but they are the ones who got us in this mess in the first place. spend trillions of dollars on the (holy oil) war. lets not regulate busineses, let them do what they want and take advantage of consumers. ive dealt with various businesses (as a business owner) and businesses take advantage as much as they can. just bc you have money doesnt mean you kno economics. haha

since you know economics, tell me how you justify this. is it justified that we can use OUR taxmoney for the Iraq war that will eventually cost us a few TRILLION DOLLARS but its not ok to spend our taxmoney on healthcare. the question comes down to: who is benefiting from the health corporations getting rich? is it you? if not, then why are you supporting them and not the american people?

ALL industrialized countries have universal healthcare. The reason America doesnt have it is because the corporations scare people into not getting a healthcare system that will make their profits go down and will also bring them competition. You do know about competition right? And in case you didnt know, most industrialized countries that have healthcare are capitalist. and even china which is communist, is the fastest growing economy and has universal healthcare too. so theres not excuse why america doesnt have universal healthcare.

I think you should study more on sociology(and economy), and i wouldnt recommend fox news for that. lol. getting rich doesnt always take “a little work” unless you have mommy and daddy to help you or you have a network of other rich/successful people to help you out. if it were so easy to get rich, wouldnt more people be rich. haha.

i duno, who has a better understanding of economy and the world? me or you?

Or, it could be a simple study on the history of government run programs.

medicare, medicaid are social programs. i dont understand why some people have problems with public programs. isnt social security a social program, isnt even PUBLIC schools and PUBLIC parks funded by the governement? with the greedy conservative mentality maybe all of those things should come with a price. lets make everyone pay for school, parks, medicare, hey lets even make everyone pay for tap water. survival of the fittest. if you dont have money, then die! that works doesnt it?

NO! it doesnt.

none of us live independently of each other. anyone who makes money is because thye had to get the good or service from one person in order to sell it to another person. we are all interdependent. the sooner we realize that the better this world will be.

Nonsense. That is just common sense. He who swings first bears the burden of what ever comes from it. Mr. Rice, formerly known as Ol'-Nine-Digits went on national TV and freely admitted he not only swung first, but he swung twice.

As for the charges on the biter, I don't think so. He may be charged, but he will get off. It is a slam dunk for any marginally competent lawyer. Even in the Left Coast Land of California, you are still allowed to to defend yourself from a physical attack.

Perhaps you should spend some quiet time ponder reality. Like the reality of what you would do if someone assaults you? Or perhaps someone assaults someone you love in your presence.

It is amazing how fast people will change their “moral code” when they are being beaten.

Well Charley the law is fortunately not written around your definition of common sense. Read about it under felony mayhem. For example even of one starts a fight it does not mean the other person is at liberty to do anything he wants. He could not pull out a gun and blow his head off for instance without imminent threat of death. Also a person is allow to swing first in any case if there is reason to belief he is threatened. Stop shooting from the hip or from you limbic system and read the law. This is not the New York legislature who writes the law as they go according to need. You seem to find it difficult to even agree that this guy of yours brought on the whole situation. I would bet you still even support Van Jones' latest racist remarks revealed just today. Do you? I am open minded enough to criticize my side much of the time and not some lemming letting groups like moveon.org tell me how to think. Rational like yours provides much entertainment for me. Everyone can use a good laugh reading such pathetic posts. Karoli is a reasonable and apparently intelligent person, though we could not agree more on the health care issue. She can grasp concepts and form arguments that make sense and follow basic logic. Your do not. Read her posts and compare them with yours and you will see how pathetic you appear to anyone with any intellectual abilities whatsoever.

a)read macro ec then look at reagan and bush history. it's all there, nothing new. Plus that corpo tax break thing reagan was on about took money from mom and pops

b)”poor access to….”

c)bush boom working class (boiler room loan//phone bank workers etc) live in a managed economy too… excess money has been rechanneled to new “Enrons”

You have no concept of the law or application thereof. You try to talk a good game but it is just crazy bar room legal mumbo jumbo. Stop embarrassing yourself because you are starting to sound like Billy Carter.

I have studied history. In fact I was alive and paying attention during those years. That is what led me to question your statements. And they are still questionable.

Much better Charlie and I do respect that type of logical argument. I hate to read all these blogs that are 100 percent name calling and no facts to even respond to. It is impossible.

Here is the general or broad view of the law but it is variable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This applies in Pennsylvania and I will have to have some time that I do not have at the moment to pull California. The police spokesperson did say pretty much the same in one report that I read however. For the statute citation, I will try to look that up.

Self-defense, non-lethal force:

Criminal liability is distinguished from civil liability in that it is the state which brings charges against the defendant, as opposed to the victim or his estate. The general criminal law allows for the use of necessary and proportionate, non-deadly force in self-defense anytime the victim reasonably believes that unlawful force is about to be used on him. Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this position. The critical language under this standard is ‘reasonable belief’, ‘unlawful’, ‘about to’ and ‘necessary and proportionate’.

In order to establish a reasonable belief, the court will use both a subjective and an objective standard. The subjective standard determines whether this defendant did in fact believe that an attack was imminent (whether reasonably or unreasonably). In arriving at this conclusion, the defendant’s state of mind is relevant. Thus, a paranoid defendant might introduce evidence of his condition to show that his belief, however unreasonable, was at least genuine.

The reasonableness of the defendant’s actions is judged by an objective rather than a subjective standard. The reasonable person standard is one of the most difficult aspects of the law to understand. In an effort to do justice to both sides, the law requires the trier-of-fact (usually the jury) to consider whether an ordinary person in the defendant’s position would believe that force was about to be used against him. The defendant’s (and the assailant’s) physical characteristics and past history will be taken into account, but mental condition is of no concern. Thus, comparative size, weight, strength, handicap or pre-existing injury may support a reasonableness finding, but unusual sensitivity or fear will not.

There is no simple formula for the legal application of force in self-defense under American law. The confusion is due, in part, to the complexity of the issue itself, and in part to the variety of state laws within the American legal system. The requirement that the force defended against be unlawful simply excludes the right of self defense when an ‘assailant’, such as a police officer, is legally authorized to use force. It must be noted however, that a majority of jurisdictions allow the use of force, including deadly force, in resisting an attack by a person not known to be a police officer, and the use of non-deadly force against a known police-officer attempting to make a wrongful arrest. Pennsylvania does not allow the use of force in resisting wrongful arrest, but it does allow the use of force if an arresting officer unlawfully threatens to use deadly force, or does not identify himself.

‘About to’ refers to the imminence requirement for the right to self-defense. It is not enough that the assailant threatens to use force in the future, or upon the happening of a certain event. Thus the statement “If you do that one more time, I’ll punch you” is insufficient to trigger the right to self-defense. The threatened use of force must be immediate.

The force used in self defense must reasonably appear to be necessary to prevent the attack, and must be proportionate to the gravity of the attack. Thus, for example, if an assailant is about to slap the victim, responding with the use of a fire-arm would be excessive and therefore beyond the scope of the right to self-defense. The proportionality standard under Pennsylvania law is articulated as a prohibition on the use of excessive force, but the fact that death results does not automatically produce a finding of excessive force.

Self-defense, lethal force:

The standard for use of deadly force is, predictably, higher. The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him. Again, Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this standard.

The faultlessness requirement does not mean that the victim must be pure of heart and without sin. It does mean that the right of self-defense will not be available to one who has substantially encouraged or provoked an attack. The general rule is that words alone are not enough to be considered a provocation under this standard, but there are exceptions. For example, saying ‘I am about to shoot you’ might well constitute sufficient provocation.

Interesting. If this interpretation is correct, then you made my point for me. The simple fact the finger was bitten off while Mr. Finger-Biter was being punched in the face makes the test for self defense based on this interpretation of the law.

I had no idea that Pennsylvania standard for self defense is so backwards.

This line from the first paragraph is a nightmare all by itself: “The general criminal law allows for the use of necessary and proportionate, non-deadly force in self-defense anytime the victim reasonably believes that unlawful force is about to be used on him.”

I feel for law enforcement having to operate under that standard. It opens the door for what we called the “I hit him back before he hit me first” excuse. That takes away officer discretion and forces them into “arrest them all, let the judge sort them out” mode.

That kind of badly written gray area law is bad for all concerned. It puts the police officers in a bad spot. It is bad for the public because bullies will soon learn all they have to say is “He was a threat, so I knocked his teeth down his throat.” It is bad for the victims because innocent people are going to be booked into jail, charged and incur legal fees for doing nothing more then defending themselves.

Or worse yet, fearing a trip to jail and the stigma that goes with that, victim will agree not to press charges if the aggressor will not press the matter. The thug gets a free pass.

The only thing worse then a bad law is a badly written law.

Fortunately the law in the states I am familiar with, California included, is far clearer on the matter of self defense. It comes down to the first physical act of aggression.

The last paragraph before lethal force is too vague to say how this will play in Pennsylvania. However the example about using a firearm after a slap is consistent with my training. Under that standard, the bite will pass the legal test. To my knowledge there is no law on the books that forbids the use of teeth in a fight.

But this has nothing to do with California law. If anything it might have something to do with Pennsylvania law in a general sort of way. But this is a general interpretation of some compilation of laws across the country. Each state is going to be different. I would prefer to the read the statutes for myself rather then someone's take on those statutes.

haha. great logic! nothing to support your statements. but i guess its typical of the close-minded.

dont forget that we are all interdependent. your money is a result of the actions and hard work of other people too. and one last thing, if you didnt get it the first time, the US is the ONLY industrialized nation without universal health care. as long as i pay taxes, i have a say of where it goes. so clearly, based on that fact, I have a better understanding of the world and economy. but whats the point of arguing with a robot.

The general people I know have benefited by using their own freedom to make money in a free capitalist market. Not sure why you don't see the same kind of agendas and lies that the government uses to keep people, (maybe such as yourself) in a lower class situation.

Not sure why you are convinced 'the general people' can't make it to a better financial situation by using the freedoms we have here in America to do create wealth and pay our own way.

Giving governments too much power and control over our businesses and decisions leads to dicatorships and bankruptcy. As Margaret Thatcher had said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually it runs out of money”. Without free enterprise to create jobs, goods and services that people buy causing money to flow in the market, the available money needed to fund government programs will decrees. Then there will be fewer dollars to pay for services (health insurance) that you want the government tax revenues to pay for. If you would support an open market, money will be generated and made available to pay for the health insurance that we all want. But to demand that the government tax us, pay for our doctors visits and medical needs, shut down the free markets is asking for bankruptcy in a short period of time. The 'rich people' that you are so upset with will not have as much money to pay in taxes. Then the tax revenue will reduce and you will be told by the government that you gave the power to to accept lesser and lesser coverage. And you will not have a revenue generating job to go to to pay for more coverage with more tax dollars. You will find yourself to be stuck. If you think that you will get a government job, remember that job will cause less tax revenue etc. You will find yourself in a financial downward spiral.

A good example of what you are asking Americans to do would be Russia. They too thought they (The Little Guy) would have a better life when they gave their government the power to control the flow of money. They found themselves in an oppressed, poor, environment. East Germans lived in an oppressive environment when their government had too much power.
Our founding fathers understood this tendancy and devised a wonderful constituion for Americans. Can't figure out why your side doesn't appreciate the foundations they gave us and instead want to follow the paths of oppressed people.

If you look at social security and medicare, they are bankrupt. Our credit lines to other nations are becoming more and more limited. Buy locking us into the government as the only place to shop for health insurance, you open yourself up to the possiblility of even higher rates.

Our economy will spiral south.

I wish I could understand how your side thinks we can pay for government funded health insurance and not bankrupt our nation.

I've been in enough to question Mr Rice's accounting of the incident. Two simple punches? Closed fisted? Seems PR guy's mouth would have had to have been open and he'd perhaps lose a tooth or two with such a blow.

Teeth cuts on knuckles, okay, I can buy that. IMHO, either the second shot was a slap or there was some wrestling going on.

OMG, are you really that stupid? Glenn Beck was only after Van Jones for one reason and Fox too because they were losing revenue. Be a lemming. Frankly what facts do you produce or beck for that matter? It is all conspiracy and art critic stuff and your no better than a bircher so go and get an education on things that you think you should protest instead of lifting it from insane people on FOx. I would go in to detail but your set on the ways of the crazy. Read the stuff on jones or on the rockfeller center or on helath care reform etc. The propaganda that spews from Newscorp is enough to make anyone want to throw up.