'Objective reality' is an invented term; if it exists, it does so outside of any one of us and none of us grasps it. We all come at the subject of 'reality' with cultural and environmental baggage and bias. We can't help it. A fish doesn't know it's wet, yada yada yada. We can be closer to objective reality, or further away, but one of the perfect conditions for that 'micro-aggression' thing to happen (which I'd rather not talk about anymore) is the assumption that my 'objective reality' can be used as a way of 'telling you how it is', and thus a passive aggressive weapon. I have my experience, and you have yours. In any respectful discussion, there needs to be mutual recognition of the other experience, and also a personal recognition of our own biases. Where that doesn't happen, one person ends up brow-beaten.

This doesn't pertain to things, events, which can be proven to have objectively happened. This only pertains to discussions where one person is putting forward a view, an opinion, based on their experience, and another is undermining it by saying they are being unrealistic, 'unobjective', irrational, 'playing victim', etc. etc.

My girls always had black friends, and I think they are very well adjusted as a result.

Spoiler: show

So, what's the consensus opinion on the Smithsonian (African American History and Culture Museum) trying to acquire and display Trayvon's infamous hoodie?

Great idea.

will they ask for this young guys shirt he was murdered in?

So his wife is going to be on Good Morning America tomorrow? Bizarre.

Well, yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the MLK supported march on DC and his "I Have a Dream" speech and Trayvon was mention several times by speakers at the various rallies... so... yeah. No idea.

I'm shocked that a woman convicted of perjury would lie again.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/r ... ade-to-911

Is this getting attention in the MI area?

I particularly like this paragraph


“The issue is whether ... the person who fired the gun honestly believed that the occupants of the home were in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm and whether that belief was reasonable,” said Larry Dubin, a professor at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law.


That's my problem with the stand your ground laws. I really don't care if the person honestly believes they are threatened or not. Opening a locked door and shooting someone in the face is really a problem unless there is demonstrable imminent danger.



http://readersupportednews.org/off-site ... over-again



Autopsy leads to more questions in Dearborn Heights shooting


Detroit— The 19-year-old Detroit woman who was shot and killed Nov. 2 by a Dearborn Heights homeowner was shot in the face, according to an autopsy report issued Monday in a case that continues to have more questions than answers.

The report from the Wayne County Medical Examiner’s Office does not specify the distance from which the fatal shot was fired, but it provided additional details about Renisha McBride’s death.

“There was an entrance shotgun wound to the face, with no evidence of close range discharge of a firearm noted on the skin surrounding this wound,” reads the report by Assistant Medical Examiner Kilak Kesha, who ruled McBride’s death a homicide.

Gerald Thurswell, a Southfield attorney who is representing McBride’s family, on Monday also offered more details about events leading up to the shooting at the home in the 16800 block of Outer Drive.

He said the young woman was seeking help after crashing her car near Brammell and Majestic in Detroit, about a mile from the Outer Drive home. Detroit police confirmed Monday that dispatchers received a 911 call about an accident at the Detroit address.

Thurswell said a woman and her family aided McBride, who was bleeding in the face, at the accident scene, but that the young woman kept saying she wanted to go home.

“She was confused,” Thurswell said Monday.

The autopsy report made no mention of other facial or head injuries.

“(McBride) went out and tried to drive her car, but it was not driveable,” Thurswell said.

The woman, whom Thurswell did not identify, called 911, he added, as McBride walked away from the scene.

Thurswell said he did not have the family’s contact information.

Dearborn Heights police say McBride was standing on the porch of the home in Dearborn Heights when she was shot and that they have identified the man suspected in the shooting. The Detroit News is not identifying the man because he has not been charged.

Cheryl Carpenter, a lawyer representing the man, has said the shooting was justified.

The Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office said Monday it began reviewing a warrant request again as it awaits several items from the Dearborn Heights Police Department. An earlier warrant request was returned to the police by the Prosecutor’s Office last week.

Maria Miller, a spokeswoman for the Prosecutor’s Office, would not say what items were being requested Monday.

The shooting of McBride, an African-American, by a 54-year-old homeowner, who is white, has sparked debate over race, laws regarding homeowner safety and the more controversial “stand your ground” laws. Metro Detroit community leaders have compared the fatal shooting to the case of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed Florida teen shot to death last year by a neighborhood watch volunteer, who was subsequently acquitted.

Thurswell said Monday he doesn’t understand how the homeowner could say he was in “imminent danger” if he was in a locked house.

“I don’t see how he can avail himself of the Stand My Ground (defense),” said Thurswell. “I don’t see how.”

Arnold Reed, a prominent Farmington Hills attorney, on Monday said the case could present a “serious uphill battle” for the homeowner.

“It’s unjustified to open your door and shoot someone in the face because they rang your doorbell or knocked on your door,” Reed said. He added that part of the legal test of Michigan’s self-defense law, likened to Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, is whether the would-be intruder is in your home.

“Don’t open the door and call the police,” Reed said.

Under Michigan law, called the Castle Doctrine, a person can use deadly force if he “has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur” during a break-in of a person’s home or business.

“The issue is whether ... the person who fired the gun honestly believed that the occupants of the home were in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm and whether that belief was reasonable,” said Larry Dubin, a professor at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law.

Reed said the medical examiner’s description of a close-range wound is usually defined by whether the weapon was held against the victim’s skin, meaning the finding in McBride’s autopsy may not play a large role in determining if the homeowner is charged.

According to the autopsy report, McBride’s clothing was wet. The young woman, who is described in the report as 5 feet, 4 inches tall, was wearing a blue jacket, black undershirt, black pants and a pair of white socks.

Toxicology results are pending.

The Wayne County Medical Examiner’s Office was called by Dearborn Heights Police around 5:43 a.m. Nov. 2 to pick up McBride’s body, said Mary Mazur, a county spokeswoman. The autopsy was done before 1 p.m. the same day, she said.

Carpenter did not return a call Monday seeking comment.

Last week, Carpenter said the homeowner was awakened about 4 a.m. by what sounded like “a person or persons” trying to enter his home. She said the shooting was justified.

“Let’s wait and not prejudice (the case),” Carpenter said last week. “Nobody, including the police, the prosecutor or the public, has all the information yet.”

Dearborn Heights police have not returned repeated calls seeking comment on the case.

While I agree that Stand Your Ground doesn't hold up in this case (or just about any other really) and the homeowner should get manslaughter, I don't follow you on this. How would you measure imminent danger without caring if the person honestly believes they are threatened? It's not like a group of lawyers, detective, and psychologists where onsite checking out the homeowner and the accident victim in the heat of the moment to ascertain what happened. We can only judge after the fact and only then based on what the homeowner said.

Under those circumstances I think the burden of proof needs to be extremely high to justify civilians shooting other civilians. Not just 'I was genuinely freaked out'.

Yes, that story is being talked about quite a bit.

So the complete opposite standard that law enforcement has?

I think those standards should be higher too, but one battle at a time

Sounds like we are on the same page here. I support private gun ownership and don't have an issue with people arming themselves in their homes if they feel threatened, BUT the first option should always be call 911, gather your family, and retreat. Your fear and your flatscreen are not worth killing over.

So it turns out her blood alcohol was 3 times the legal limit... 3 hours after her accident.

Which badge is that in untapped?

does that matter? what was she wearing?