Ben

I see what you mean and it is certainly good advice not to punch someone. But no, I wouldn't say I've "got it" in the sense of agreement. Responding to a non-deadly threat with deadly force is illegal. True self-defense is always proportional to the threat. However, you are correct to note that responding proportionally takes forbearance and courage. You have to be willing to run the risk that you may lose a fight or take a beating. It is easier to pull a gun and shoot. But easier doesn't equal right.

No one is saying that law enforcement isn't important or that there aren't plenty of good police officers in the word. But I'm pretty sure there's a middle ground between the Hobbesian state of nature and militarizing one's police force while simultaneously treating those officers who misbehave as if they are above the law.

These comments are exactly what I am talking about. If I punch you in the face, you are entitled to respond in kind (i.e. punch me in my face). If you escalate the confrontation by shooting me, you are committing a crime. Why do you all think it should be different just because the person doing the shooting happens to be wearing a badge? Is escalating a fight to the point of homicide only a crime if a non-police officer does it? By allowing Wilson to testify the prosecutor allowed Wilson the opportunity to present his defenses. So yes, this is exactly what I meant. And it is damn rare. Yup, Wilson said Brown posed a deadly threat because if Brown didn't pose a deadly threat then Wilson committed homicide. What else was he going to say? But I have some trouble understanding how an unarmed teen (even a big teen) was a deadly threat to a trained cop (who was also damn big at 6'4" 215lbs.) who was in a car, and in possession of not just a gun, but a nightstick, a TASER, and pepper spray. I also don't know how you manage to determine that a teen (even a big teen) is a deadly threat before he causes you any injury. I also don't know how a person continues to be a threat from 30 feet away even after they've already been shot once such that you need to shoot them a few more times. Brown was clearly looking for trouble. But police officers are, in theory, supposed to act with more restraint than the average citizen - not less. Yet this big trained officer didn't even want to try to escape in his car, or fight back, or use mace, or his TASER, or his nightstick before deciding he had no choice but to shoot a teenager? That, to me, doesn't make sense. Even if this were true (and I'm pretty sure it's not), I'm not sure what this has to do with my comment. (Before someone asks - I'm pretty sure it's not true because I have seen a lot of gun homicides but I have never, literally never, seen a case where *one* person beat another person to death with their bare hands. Admittedly, this is anecdotal, but it just seems like if this were as prevalent as you claim I'd see a lot more fist homicides and a lot fewer gun homicides).

Here's my two problems with the Ferguson situation: 1.) Wilson and the prosecutor in this case seem to have presented Wilson's defenses to the grand jury. I have NEVER seen a prosecutor allow a defendant to present his defenses to a grand jury to avoid an indictment. Thus, I am forced to ask, why did this case merit an exception? 2.) Police officers aren't entitled to shoot a suspect to arrest him or merely because they see him commit a crime. In fact, at least in Ohio, a police officer's right to use deadly force in self-defense is more or less identical to any other citizen. So, ask yourself this question - if two men get in a fist fight with each other and one of them (who is later found not to have been significantly injured in the fracas) pulls a gun and shoots the unarmed man, is this not a problem?

I do, indeed. But how did you know?

Roku is good. Apple TV is also pretty idiot-proof. The trouble is the HD digital antenna. I don't have cable (because I don't really watch much TV) but, on the rare occasion that I have watched something on the HD antenna the results have been mixed. When the weather is good the picture is HD and awesome - every bit as good as you'd get from a cable package. However, when the weather is bad, the signal can be faint and, unlike analogue antennas of yesteryear, when the signal is faint the picture just stops. That is, in the old days, you'd get a few lines on the screen and have to play with the metal rabbit ears. But you wouldn't really miss the action and the sound would clue you into what was going on. With the modern digital antenna, the picture distorts into cube-like shapes and then the transmission simply stops: no sound; no movement; nothing. Then, when the signal improves, it picks up wherever the broadcast currently is and you have no idea what happened in the intervening time. When watching sports, this sucks. Edit: I agree with JohnnyBravo, generally - it's still a good move to dump cable. But one should be aware of the digital antenna drawbacks. FYI - I have been on the Netflix + Digital Antenna system for a couple of years now.

Looks like Mr. Clifford has it under control. I'll let you all know how it turns out.

Don't think that I haven't considered that. Duct tape can improve any situation.

Thanks! This seems to be a consensus view and I am definitely going to contact him. Just for variety though, anyone have any other suggestions?

Hi all, My parents are visiting from New Jersey for Thanksgiving week and someone backed into their 2003 E500 Mercedes. The very front part of the front passenger quarter panel is bent but could probably be pounded out straight without too much problem for someone with the proper skills. All lights and trim seem to be OK. However, the plastic bumper, which has survived many winters and summers, was apparently somewhat brittle and it broke in a few places. They'd like to have it fixed before they leave if at all possible. The car drives fine but I (and they) worry about driving it several hours with salt and god knows what else spraying through the newly-created gaps in the bodywork. Does anyone know a good shop that could get this done right on short notice? Thanks! Ben

Good luck buddy! To all those advising getting a lawyer: Normally, as a member of the learned (*cough cough) profession, I'd agree. However, proving a defect caused this accident, considering that the car was purchased used (no idea what past owner did) and modified aftermarket, would be a bit sticky. With a good expert witness or two and some really nice clean visual exhibits it might be possible. But since you were not (thank goodness!) injured, the only money at issue would essentially be the value of the car. And Ford would likely fight any product defect suit tooth and nail to avoid setting a bad precedent or even getting bad press. In short, it is likely that the expense of such a suit would outweigh any potential gain. You could write nice letter (or have an attorney write a nice letter) to Ford telling them about the situation and Ford might decide, rather than have a pissed-off customer raving to the internet about Ford's crappy dangerous axle, to do something for you (probably a discount on your next Ford). But I doubt very much that you could use any legal process to coercively obtain money from Ford. In summation... This sucks. You have my sympathy. And it sounds like it probably was a defective axle. But I wouldn't spend a lot of emotional energy trying to get your money out of Ford.

Can't say I agree with the title of this thread. I don't recall ever reading a Supreme Court case saying that a uniformed police officer has to provide three forms of ID. In addition, I would never advise anyone to behave in the bellicose way this fellow did. A polite refusal to let the police enter and a polite refusal to stop filming would have gone over better. You should never surrender your rights. But there's a difference between insisting that the law be respected and effectively telling the police to go to hell. Vindication in a later court proceeding, after all, is cold comfort if your poor attitude provokes an aggressive response from the police. That said, these officers were bang out of line telling this guy they were going to drag him out of his house and, while I can certainly understand why officers don't like to be filmed, they should not have been telling him to turn his camera off either. As one prior commentator noted, if the police had truly thought a fugitive had taken refuge in this fellow's home, they may not have needed a warrant. Typically warrants are required for searches of a residence. Even if they had a warrant to arrest the fugitive, this alone would not suffice to excuse entry into a third-party's house in order to do so. However, if the fugitive was thought to be putting people within the residence in imminent danger or if the fugitive was a felon and the police could be said to be in "hot pursuit" a warrant would not have been necessary and the police could simply have pushed the homeowner aside and entered. Probably the best course here would have been for the homeowner to politely tell the officers that he was not hiding anyone, that they did not have his permission to enter his house, and that, whatever they decided to do, he intended to film it.

The case to which you refer (City of Barberton v. Jenney, 929 N.E.2d 1047 (Ohio 2010)) is no longer good law and has been superseded by statute. Ohio Revised Code, section 4511.091©(1) provides, in pertinent part, "No person shall be arrested, charged, or convicted of [speeding] based on a peace officer's unaided visual estimation of the speed of a motor vehicle . . . ." In other words the Legislature overruled the Ohio Supreme Court on this point.

Actually, traffic court is not really all that time-consuming. Usually just a couple of hours of waiting around for a prosecutor to become free (and sometimes less than 30 minutes). And there's negligible to no time spent in front of the judge for a plea bargain (which is how you get out of points 99.9% of the time). Even if you did argue the case in an attempt to obtain a "not guilty" verdict you wouldn't wait for a verdict because traffic court cases are "bench trials" (i.e., no jury) and the judge usually makes up his mind, one way or the other, about 30 seconds after the last words are out of your lawyer's mouth. The money and time you spend on a lawyer fighting a ticket is usually outweighed by the benefit of a clean driving record and no insurance hike. A few extra bucks and a couple of hours now - or high insurance premiums forever and no breaks ever again because now your driving record isn't clean? Seems like a no-brainer to me. Also, not saying that you don't have a perfect right to feel as you do or deal with your tickets as you see fit. But the view you are espousing is essentially the keystone of the whole ticket-writing scheme. If everyone fought tickets the infrastructure needed to deal with all those extra cases would cause the whole mess to become unprofitable. So if you really profess to dislike speed limits (and, implicitly, the results of exceeding them) you ought to fight the good fight.

Great colors, hawt car, and nice photography work.

Kudos to you for that, sir. We need more officers with common sense. A lot of legislation (traffic crimes, jaywalking, etc.) is designed to provide a way for officers stop suspicious persons without needing to know exactly what about them is suspicious. In a way, the modern nanny state is largely a reaction to the repeal of the old vagrancy/loitering regimes. But somewhere along the line, municipalities began to realize this was a cash cow and some officers, under pressure from those municipalities, don't seem to realize that it's not really a productive thing for society to fine and prosecute citizenry for crimes that, at any given time, 95% of us are committing. I mean, for heaven's sake, between jaywalking, assured clear distance, speeding, and turn signal within 100 feet of the turn/lane change, I probably committed a dozen minor crimes today and so did everyone else who is reading this - not to mention the technical copyright violations that you all are committing as your computer cashes a copy of this very text. ~ Authored and copyrighted by Ben.

Incorrect. Going to court, even when guilty, pleading, "not guilty," even when guilty, and thereby forcing the State to prove its case is the constitutionally guaranteed right of all Americans. It's also a damn smart thing to do if you don't want points on your license. Unless you were doing something demonstrably stupid or you acted like an asshole to the officer, most jurisdictions will let you out the door with no points. Sure, you'll probably still pay a fine and you will pay court costs (ticket-writing is a money-maker) but you won't inch closer to that 12-point license suspension. Also, if you have a decent traffic attorney and a relatively clean record, some courts will allow you to plead to an equipment violation (which means no insurance hike and still a clean driving record). In short, pleading, "guilty" when you are, "guilty," does save time and energy - the prosecution's time and energy. That's why you should never give up a right without getting something in return. If you don't plead guilty, the prosecution has to prove the case. By pleading guilty, even if they've got you dead-to-rights, you save them time and money and that ought to be worth something. It probably goes without saying, but the principal of pleading "not guilty" as a first step applies with even more force in any case where there is even the slightest chance that you are not guilty or the prosecution will find itself with a legitimate challenge to prove your guilt. In this case, I'd have to say that the prosecutor probably could have obtained a conviction against your friend in the black Jeep. But, depending on his record, a decent attorney very likely could have gotten him a better deal than simply pleading guilty to the moving violation and paying his fine.

Without seeing the contract it's difficult to tell if the owner has an out built-in. A clever person with legal training can usually find a semi-plausible way to get out of most contracts. However, assuming that the contract is well-drafted, and particularly since you have signed and performed (i.e. paid), his refusal to surrender possession of the premises for the period and under the conditions bargained-for is a breach of contract. That said, you will never get a court decision or any other legal remedy in time for your weekend. So, if it were me, I would send him a nice letter explaining the situation and explain that if he fails to tender the premises as bargained and paid for, I will obtain replacement performance (i.e., I will rent other accommodations) and that I will then sue him for the cost of obtaining replacement performance. Best case scenario, he stops being a dick and you get the place. Worst case, you have a nice weekend elsewhere and then have to spend a little time in small claims court getting the costs of the replacement accommodations out of him. With the original contract in hand, proof that you paid the original landlord in hand, proof that you paid for replacement accommodations, and a letter to the original landlord explaining the situation, recovering your money in small-claims court would be a relatively simple exercise. Oh, and don't screw around with the Better Business Bureau or other complaint hotlines. It may make your ego feel good to vent your spleen about this fellow and it may hurt his future business prospects. But it won't help you one whit.

Handsome Benz!

I had a black 540i/6 with black tint and a black interior. That thing was the damn batmobile and it looked (and with exhaust and some other work sounded) glorious! But yes, cleaning was a nightmare. Wax it with any hard wax and you can see every single swirl, scrape, imperfection, fingernail mark, fingerprint, etc.... And taking the wax off takes forever. Every speck of wax dust sticks to the finish with static charge making it look like the bloody car has dandruff. But when it was clean, fully clean, I never got tired of looking at it. Only black cars seem to have that deep shine underneath the clear coat - the kind that looks as though you could slip through the clear coat and drown in black water. Side note, black cars are a bit scary too. In that car, with tint, I was never the target of road rage. Now, in the red BMW with no tint, SUV-driving soccer moms give me the finger twice a week.

Just don't forget that the rules are different while you are out jogging versus in a car or at home.

Is it just the light in the first picture, or do the front and rear driver's side doors not match?

Subaru is a blue oval.:gabe:

Great pictures! Thanks!

Good times everyone! (Both as a subjective measure of enjoyment and as a matter of strict chronology, if you get my drift). Thanks to UFO for setting it up! Now if I can just get something other than a bald 215 runflat on the BMW maybe I can scrape a decent lap together . . . .