Any of the ones with nuclear weapons.

The series’ women, and Amos, are absolutely the reason the series is as good as it is.

I dunno, I kinda think his summary of the first movie is spot-on? I liked the original Zombieland but I’m honestly a bit puzzled to hear that it’s anything more than a fondly remembered cult hit.

I’m honestly a little surprised at your criticisms here. They do not seem to match the books I read, particularly the notion that the protomolecule “selected” Holden or that Naomi was be-holden (pun intended) to “her man.” It doesn’t strike me that the protomolecule selected Holden so much as Miller did, with the…

Have you read the books after Cibola Burn? I’ll agree with you that Cibola Burn is the weakest entry in the series, though I may not agree that Holden-as-Gary-Stu is the reason for that. But in the later books I think Holden’s centrality to the narrative becomes seriously downplayed as other members of the crew get…

I think the ultimate premise is that unlike the Soviets, if the US had been beaten to the moon it would have moved the goal posts rather than admitting defeat. Which I think is grounded in history. We arrived at the moon as a goal in the first place by moving the goal posts after the Soviets beat us to first…

The misunderstandings on this point are rampant all over social media. Now that the verdict went the way I and many other wanted, people are trying to retroactively make this decision some nth-dimensional chess move by the judge to “make the conviction airtight.” But really it’s just a somewhat unique legal question…

Yes I know. And I’m saying it wasn’t a screwup because “manslaughter” is covered by a murder charge. A jury can always choose to convict for a lesser included offense but can’t choose to convict for a higher offense than the one charged, so DAs are always incentivized to charge the highest crime that still plausibly…

Did you screenshot my comment, dismiss it, then reply to yourself so you could both ignore the remainder of my comment, prevent other people from seeing it, and avoid notifying me that you’d replied?

What are you getting out of this? Why is it important to you that I be both wrong and motivated by malice here?

What are you getting out of this? Why is it important to you that I be both wrong and motivated by malice here?

Honestly I thought manslaughter was probably the charge the DA was going for the whole time and just overcharged for murder expecting the jury to bite at the lesser included. I was genuinely not sure how a jury could find the requisite intent for murder (though admittedly I don’t know TX law, so if recklessness is…

Your comment implies you were mad at her because you wanted her to do it wrong? Since you admit that giving the instruction was “doing it right” I’m confused what you wanted from the judge other than “doing it right.”

It really wasn’t a huge discretionary call for the trial judge. The defense team had a defense, and they proved it up enough that the judge had to instruct the jury on all of those defenses. If she hadn’t it would have been an obvious way to attack any verdict on appeal. This wasn’t a decision based on her read of the…

I’m on board with a limited castle doctrine that limits your “duty to retreat.” For instance, I’d be ok with a rebuttable presumption that when you’re in your own home retreat would be impractical or impossible. But I’m still not in favor of the way some of these doctrines operate, which lower the bar for use of…

It’s not a DA screwup because they know that manslaughter is a lesser included. They didn’t need to charge her with murder and manslaughter because murder covers manslaughter.

I’m not “in favor of her decision.” I’m saying that it seems likely her hands were somewhat tied. The alternative is to not instruct the jury about a basic element of the defendant’s defense. You, me, the judge and the jury could all agree that the castle doctrine doesn’t apply given the facts here. But if the…

The judge isn’t trying to do anything based on the evidence. The judge is obligated to instruct the jury on ALL the possible verdicts they could give based on the charges. That includes what are called “lesser included offenses.” For instance, “discharging a firearm in an unsafe manner” might be a lesser included of…

I don’t think the judge made the wrong decision here. Their hands were tied by a shitty law that shouldn’t exist. But given the defendant’s defense, not instructing the jury on the fact that they maybe kinda could apply the castle doctrine would have denied the defendant her right to have the jury instructed on all…

LOTS of legal misinterpretations both in the article and comments. I agree that a jury actually applying the castle doctrine here offends my common sense. But it seems like it would be error not to at least instruct them on it.