Mediaboss Marketing

The debate about the shooting death of Trayvon Martin has made it clear that "stand your ground laws" are simple in theory but when used for a claim of self-defense they become complicated.

It's an old legal concept, one that has been in place in Georgia like Florida, for more than a century. But Martin's death has drawn national attention to the law that makes it OK to shoot to kill.

George Zimmerman, a self-described neighborhood watch captain, told police he was justified in shooting the 17-year-old Martin, who Zimmerman said attacked him. Martin's parents and supporters say the teen was attacked without provocation while returning to his father's home in Sanford, Fla. after walking to a convenience store for tea and candy.

The details of the case, now well-known around the country, illustrate just how muddy "stand your ground"laws can become. Twenty-five states, including Georgia and Florida, have virtually identical laws. Stand your ground laws provide immunity from prosecution if you kill someone while defending yourself.

In Georgia there have been 21 cases of justifiable homicide since 2003, according to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Those are homicides in which the police at the scene, prosecutors later on or a judge in an initial hearing decided no crime had been committed.

Many prosecutors, defense attorneys and gun rights advocates agree there is a need for the laws that allow deadly force in some circumstances, but there are some who disagree.

We were adamantly opposed to the shoot-first-ask-questions-later law, said Brian Malte with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Thats a recipe for tragedy.

Still, the courts have said for more than a century it's legal to "stand your ground" with deadly force when faced with a threat of death or serious injury.

Georgia's Supreme Court wrote in 1898 -- and many times since -- there is no requirement that a victim of an attack first try to escape before using deadly force to stop an aggressor. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled also in 1898 that "a true man does not fly in the face of an aggressor who seeks to do him grievous bodily harm."

"That came to be known as the true man rule' and that has evolved into the stand your ground rule," said University of Georgia law professor Ron Carlson.

It has only been in recent years that states have included those court decisions in their laws. Florida's adopted a stand your ground law in 2005 and Georgia in 2006, expanded upon the self-defense rights the courts have upheld for years. There are 23 other states with similar laws that allow for justifiable homicide with no requirement that the victim first try to escape; seven other states allow residents to defend themselves with deadly force in specific areas -- such as at home in the car or at the workplace.

Self-defense claims are made often in homicide cases, Georgia prosecutors say. But it's hard to make a legitimate claim of self-defense.

Rational, reasonable citizens who use deadly force to protect themselves... are fairly rare," said Gwinnett County District Attorney Danny Porter.

In Dekalb County, said chief assistant district attorney Don Geary, "In half the drug murders we get, they claim it was self defense.... The problem with self-defense is if you're in the commission of a felony, you can't claim self-defense."

A key question in the Martin shooting is whether Zimmerman was the aggressor. If so, Carlson said, he was not justified to use deadly force.

"Can you say ... I triggered this thing...but then I backed off ?'" Carlson said. "When do you stop being the aggressor?"

But Martins family deny teenager attacked Zimmerman. They believe he was an innocent victim.

Often there is only one witness, the person who pulled the trigger or had the knife, and that person is claiming self-defense.

"Sometimes you ... make a judgment call based on all the evidence [and] whether the acts were reasonable," said Gwinnett prosecutor Porter. "The standard is whether or not a reasonable man would have acted the same way under the circumstances."

And even if police and prosecutors believe there was no self-defense, a jury can find otherwise.

Lona Scott shot her husband, Cliff, six times during an argument in their bedroom on March 4, 2008, after the 42-year-old trucking executive had transferred assets totaling $5 million into a bank account in the Bahamas and was divorcing her.

The police and prosecutors believed it was murder. Lona Scott said it was self defense. She was indicted 14 months later.

The Dunwoody mother of two argued at trial she had no choice, she couldn't escape so she had to stand her ground and kill her husband before he killed her.

On Feb. 2, 2010, a jury deadlocked 11-1 in favor of guilty. When she went on trial a second time, she was acquitted.

"If you're truly a victim, you don't have to wait and give the man or the woman (attacker) another chance," said Lona Scott's defense attorney, Brian Steel.

Cliff Scott's family was stunned by the verdict.

Josephine Scott said a "stand your ground" claim is appropriate sometimes but it was not in the death of her son.

"How many shots constitute self-defense?" said Josephine Scott. "The first shot severed his aorta. The next one pierced his elbow... There were two [shots] to the elbow. The fourth shot was between the eyes. Then she shot him twice in the back as he was flat on the ground. You call that self-defense?"

And sometimes it's easy to decide deadly force was justified.

Law enforcement officials said there was little question Georgia's stand your ground law applied to Georgia Tech student Lewis Moore when he shot and killed 30-year-old Yuhanna Abdulah Williams in December 2010.

Moore was getting out of his car at a Conyers grocery store when Moore grabbed him, put a knife to his throat and demand money and car keys.

Moore told police he grabbed his Taurus .357 Magnum from its a holster, turned and shot Williams in the face.

The first thing he said to a Rockdale County deputy was "this guy tried to rob me and I shot him."

Witnesses agreed.

"It was a clear-cut case of self defense," said Rockdale County Sheriff's Office investigator Michael Camp.

Moore was not charged.

Go here to see the original:
Stand your ground law' in effect in Georgia more than 100 ...

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton were forced to defend a joke made by the mayor at a charity dinner that critics considered racially offensive.

The incident occurred Saturday night, when Clinton and De Blasio took part in a skit at the Inner Circle dinner, a black-tie event in which New York City's political press corps and politicians spend the evening making fun of each other.

Clinton took the stage ostensibly to thank De Blasio, a former aide, for his belated endorsement of her for the Democratic nomination.

"Took you long enough," Clinton said.

De Blasio responded, "Sorry, Hillary. I was running on C.P. time." The phrase, popular in pop culture, is a reference to the stereotype that African-Americans are typically late for appointments.

Broadway actor Leslie Odom Jr., who was also on stage with Clinton and De Blasio and appeared to be in on the joke, said, "That's not - I don't like jokes about that, Bill."

Clinton then turned to Odom and delivered the punch line, "Cautious Politician Time. I've been there."

The exchange takes place at the 8:30 mark of this video, posted on the NYC Mayor's Office YouTube channel.

The joke was widely criticized in the media, with New York magazine calling it "amazingly unfunny, terribly executed". Left-leaning website Salon called it "cringeworthy", as did The Root, which bills itself as a site for "Black News, Opinion, Politics, and Culture."

The skit came at an awkward time for Clinton, who has ridden strong African-American support to several wins in key primary states but has also been criticized by some for using the term "superpredator" during her husband's administration to describe criminals.

Last week, former President Bill Clinton clashed with Black Lives Matter activist and defending his criminal justice policies at an appearance in Pennsylvania. Hours before her Inner Circle appearance, Hillary Clinton told the New York Daily News that she also agreed with critics who say the bill contributed to high levels of incarceration for non-violent crimes, like drug offenses.

De Blasio told CNN Monday evening that critics of the skit were "missing the point."

It was clearly a staged show. It was a scripted show and the whole idea was to do the counter intuitive and say 'cautious politician time,'" he said. "Every actor involved, including Hillary Clinton and Leslie Odom Jr., thought it was a joke on a different convention."

A Clinton spokesman said in a statement to ABC News, "We agree with the mayor."

Continue reading here:
Hillary Clinton, NYC Mayor De Blasio draw criticism over ...

We are considering offers for the sale of this website. Use the contact form in the left column to contact us for more information.

The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution was added as part of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. It deals with protecting people from the searching of their homes and private property without properly executed search warrants. The 4th Amendment reads like this:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The 4th Amendment requires that in order for a government official, such as a police officer, to search a person's home, business, papers, bank accounts, computer or other personal items, in most cases, he must obtain a search warrant signed by the proper authority, which usually means by a judge.

In order for a warrant to be issued, someone must affirm to the judge that he has a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that by searching the premises of a particular location, he believes he will find evidence that will verify the crime. The person submitting this information to the judge is usually a police officer. The police officer does not have to be correct in his assumption, he just has to have a reasonable belief that searching someone's private property will yield evidence of the crime.

The judge then reviews the information and if he also believes the information the officer has submitted shows probable cause, he will issue the warrant. In order for the warrant to be good, it must identify the place and the particular items or persons that are to be seized if they are found. A warrant is not a general order that can be used to search for anything, anywhere the officer wants. In order for the warrant to be in compliance with the 4th Amendment, the warrant must be very specific about what is being looked for and where the officer can look for it.

The 4th Amendment idea that citizens should be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures goes back far into English history. In 1604, in the famous Semayne's Case, the Judge, Sir Edward Coke, first identified this right. He ruled that, "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose."

In this case, it was determined that subjects of the kingdom had the right to be protected from searches and seizures that were unlawfully conducted, even if they were conducted by the king's representatives. The case also recognized that lawfully conducted searches and seizures were acceptable. This case established a precedent that has remained a part of English law ever since.

The most famous English case dealing with the right to freedom from illegal search and seizure is called Entick vs. Carrington, 1765. In this case, royal representatives had broken into the private home of John Entick in search of material that was critical of the king and his policies. In the process, they broke into locked boxes and desks and confiscated many papers, charts, pamphlets, etc. The officers were acting on the orders of Lord Halifax.

During the trial, Entick charged that the entire search and seizure had been unlawfully conducted, and the Court agreed. The Court said that Lord Halifax had no standing to issue the order to search the premises, that probable cause that a crime had been committed had not been demonstrated and that the warrant allowed a general confiscation of anything the officers found, not specifying exactly what they were to look for or could seize. In addition, there were no records kept of what the officers seized.

Click to enlarge

Charles Pratt, Lord Camden

This ruling essentially declared that the government was not allowed to do anything that was not specified by law. It required the search and seizure be carried out according to the law. It also established that the right to be able to protect one's private property was an important right to be safeguarded by the government. In his ruling, Lord Camden, the Chief Justice made this famous statement:

"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole. The cases where this right of property is set aside by private law, are various. Distresses, executions, forfeitures, taxes etc are all of this description; wherein every man by common consent gives up that right, for the sake of justice and the general good. By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my license, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing; which is proved by every declaration in trespass, where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the fact, he is bound to show by way of justification, that some positive law has empowered or excused him. The justification is submitted to the judges, who are to look into the books; and if such a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by the principles of common law. If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment."

In 1886, in a case called Boyd vs. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States referred to Entick vs. Carrington as a "great judgment," "one of the landmarks of English liberty" and "one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution." This established the Entick decision as a guide to understanding what the Founding Fathers meant concerning search and seizure laws when they wrote the 4th Amendment.

The British government generally looked at the American colonies as a money making enterprise. Consequently, they passed many revenue collection bills aimed at generating as much money from the colonists as possible. The colonists naturally resented this and engaged in substantial smuggling operations in order to get around the customs taxes imposed by the British government. You can learn more about these and other causes of the American Revolution here.

Click to enlarge

King George III

In response to the widespread smuggling, Parliament and the King began to use "writs of assistance," legal search warrants that were very broad and general in their scope. Customs agents could obtain a writ of assistance to search any property they believed might contain contraband goods. They could enter someone's property with no notice and without any reason given. Tax collectors could interrogate anyone about their use of customed goods and require the cooperation of any citizen. Searches and seizures of private property based on very general warrants became an epidemic in colonial America.

In response to this, the Massachusetts legislature passed search and seizure laws in 1756 outlawing the use of general warrants. This created a great deal of friction between the Royal Governor and the people of Massachusetts until the death of King George II in 1760. Writs of assistance by law were good until 6 months after the death of the king who issued them. This meant that the Royal Governor had to have new writs of assistance issued by the new king.

Click to enlarge

James Otis

by Joseph Blackburn

James Otis, a Boston lawyer, had recently been appointed Advocate General of the Admiralty Court, which meant he was essentially the top lawyer for the Crown in the colony. In this position, Otis was required to defend the use of writs of assistance by the government. He strongly objected to these arbitrary searches and seizures of private property and consequently resigned his position. Instead, he became the lawyer for a group of over 50 merchants who sued the government claiming that the writs of assistance were unjust.

James Otis represented these merchants for free. His speech condemning British policies, including writs of assistance and general search warrants, was so powerful and eloquent, that it was heard of throughout the colonies and catapulted him to a place of leadership in the swelling tide of disillusionment toward Great Britain.

Future President, John Adams, who was 25 at the time, was sitting in the courtroom and heard Otis' famous speech that day. Later he said:

"The child independence was then and there born, every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance."

He viewed Otis' speech "as the spark in which originated the American Revolution."

Later, in 1776, George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was a document on which Thomas Jefferson relied heavily when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, included prohibitions against general warrants that did not specify probable cause or exactly what was to be searched for. The passage of the Virginia Declaration of Rights dealing with general warrants reads like this:

"That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted."

You can read the Virginia Declaration of Rights here and you can read the Declaration of Independence here. You can also read more about how Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence here.

Once the Constitution was written, each state held a convention to debate its worth. Many people opposed the Constitution because they thought it gave the federal government too much power at the expense of the states and of individual rights. Those opposing the Constitution were known as anti-Federalists. They were led by such men as Patrick Henry, George Mason and Elbridge Gerry.

The anti-Federalists were concerned that the federal government would trample on the rights of individual citizens. They believed the Constitution did not specify clearly enough which rights of individuals were protected from government interference. Some of them called for the addition of a bill of rights to the Constitution, which would specify exactly which rights of the citizens were protected.

Those who were in support of the Constitution were known as Federalists because they did support a strong federal government. The Federalists were led by such men as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and George Washington.

In order to convince enough anti-Federalists to support the Constitution to pass it and have it go into effect, the Federalists made a promise that if the anti-Federalists would vote to accept the Constitution, the First Congress would address their concerns by adding a bill of rights to it. This promise succeeded in persuading enough anti-Federalists to support the Constitution that it passed and became law. It also ensured that the Founders concerns about illegal searches and seizures would eventually become law embodied in the 4th Amendment.

On June 8, 1789, James Madison kept the promise of the Federalists by proposing to the First Congress twenty amendments to be added to the Constitution. You can read James Madison's June 8, 1789 speech here.

One of these amendments, that dealt with search and seizure laws, eventually became what we know as the 4th Amendment. Congress approved twelve of the amendments suggested by Madison on September 25, 1789 and ten of those were eventually ratified by the states. The First Ten Amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, became law on December 15, 1791. You can read more about the History of the Bill of Rights here.

The 4th Amendment only applied originally to the federal government, but through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has now applied most parts of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments as well.

The 4th Amendment only provides protection from illegal search and seizure by government officials, not by private citizens. So, if an employer unreasonably searched your possessions at work, the 4th Amendment would not have been violated.

There are certain exceptions to the 4th Amendment right to have a properly executed search warrant issued before a search or seizure of private property can be conducted. The Supreme Court has ruled that, for example, a police officer may conduct a pat down search of someone he has observed engaging in suspicious behavior, if he has reasonable suspicion that some crime is being committed. Also, if a police officer observes someone committing a crime, or believes that he has probable cause to suspect someone has committed a crime, he may arrest the person without a warrant.

There are a number of other exceptions to the 4th Amendment warrant rule:

Supreme Court of the United States

In general, any evidence that is obtained in an illegal search and seizure is not admissible in court by the prosecution in a criminal defendant's trial. This is known as the 4th Amendment Exclusionary Rule because evidence obtained in this manner is excluded from the trial. The Supreme Court established this rule in a case called Weeks vs. United States, 1914. Before that time, any evidence, even if it was gathered in an illegal search and seizure, was admissible in court.

There are some exceptions to the 4th Amendment Exclusionary Rule. For example, Grand Juries may use illegally obtained evidence to question witnesses. The method of gathering the evidence can be challenged later if the defendant is charged. Evidence gathered in good faith by an officer can be used in court. This means that if an officer is following the directions of a warrant that is faulty, not realizing that it is faulty, the evidence may be used.

Evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure can also be used in the following circumstances:

Read about some of the most interesting and significant Fourth Amendment Court cases here.

Preamble to the Bill of Rights Learn about the 1st Amendment here. Learn about the 2nd Amendment here. Learn about the 3rd Amendment here. Learn about the 4th Amendment here. Learn about the 5th Amendment here. Learn about the 6th Amendment here. Learn about the 7th Amendment here. Learn about the 8th Amendment here. Learn about the 9th Amendment here. Learn about the 10th Amendment here.

Read the Bill of Rights here.

Learn more about theBill of Rightswith the following articles:

Return to top of 4th Amendment

Revolutionary War and Beyond Home

Visit link:
4th Amendment - Revolutionary War and Beyond

Leveraging the power of content and social media marketing can help elevate your audience and customer base in a dramatic way. But getting started without any previous experience or insight could be challenging.

It's vital that you understand social media marketing fundamentals. From maximizing quality to increasing your online entry points, abiding by these 10 laws will help build a foundation that will serve your customers, your brand and -- perhaps most importantly -- your bottom line.

1. The Law of Listening Success with social media and content marketing requires more listening and less talking. Read your target audiences online content and join discussions to learn whats important to them. Only then can you create content and spark conversations that add value rather than clutter to their lives.

2. The Law of Focus Its better to specialize than to be a jack-of-all-trades. A highly-focused social media and content marketing strategy intended to build a strong brand has a better chance for success than a broad strategy that attempts to be all things to all people.

3. The Law of Quality Quality trumps quantity. Its better to have 1,000 online connections who read, share and talk about your content with their own audiences than 10,000 connections who disappear after connecting with you the first time.

4. The Law of Patience Social media and content marketing success doesnt happen overnight. While its possible to catch lightning in a bottle, its far more likely that youll need to commit to the long haul to achieve results.

5. The Law of Compounding If you publish amazing, quality content and work to build your online audience of quality followers, theyll share it with their own audiences on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, their own blogs and more.

This sharing and discussing of your content opens new entry points for search engines like Google to find it in keyword searches. Those entry points could grow to hundreds or thousands of more potential ways for people to find you online.

6. The Law of Influence Spend time finding the online influencers in your market who have quality audiences and are likely to be interested in your products, services and business. Connect with those people and work to build relationships with them.

If you get on their radar as an authoritative, interesting source of useful information, they might share your content with their own followers, which could put you and your business in front of a huge new audience.

7. The Law of Value If you spend all your time on the social Web directly promoting your products and services, people will stop listening. You must add value to the conversation. Focus less on conversions and more on creating amazing content and developing relationships with online influencers. In time, those people will become a powerful catalyst for word-of-mouth marketing for your business.

8. The Law of Acknowledgment You wouldnt ignore someone who reaches out to you in person so dont ignore them online. Building relationships is one of the most important parts of social media marketing success, so always acknowledge every person who reaches out to you.

9. The Law of Accessibility Dont publish your content and then disappear. Be available to your audience. That means you need to consistently publish content and participate in conversations. Followers online can be fickle and they wont hesitate to replace you if you disappear for weeks or months.

10. The Law of Reciprocity You cant expect others to share your content and talk about you if you dont do the same for them. So, a portion of the time you spend on social media should be focused on sharing and talking about content published by others.

Go here to read the rest:
10 Laws of Social Media Marketing - Entrepreneur

Social networking is the grouping of individuals into specific groups, like small rural communities or a neighborhood subdivision, if you will. Although social networking is possible in person, especially in the workplace, universities, and high schools, it is most popular online.

This is because unlike most high schools, colleges, or workplaces, the internet is filled with millions of individuals who are looking to meet other people, to gather and share first-hand information and experiences about cooking, golfing, gardening, developing friendships professional alliances, finding employment, business-to-business marketing and even groups sharing information about baking cookies to the Thrive Movement. The topics and interests are as varied and rich as the story of our universe.

When it comes to online social networking, websites are commonly used. These websites are known as social sites. Social networking websites function like an online community of internet users. Depending on the website in question, many of these online community members share common interests in hobbies, religion, politics and alternative lifestyles. Once you are granted access to a social networking website you can begin to socialize. This socialization may include reading the profile pages of other members and possibly even contacting them.

The friends that you can make are just one of the many benefits to social networking online. Another one of those benefits includes diversity because the internet gives individuals from all around the world access to social networking sites. This means that although you are in the United States, you could develop an online friendship with someone in Denmark or India. Not only will you make new friends, but you just might learn a thing or two about new cultures or new languages and learning is always a good thing.

As mentioned, social networking often involves grouping specific individuals or organizations together. While there are a number of social networking websites that focus on particular interests, there are others that do not. The websites without a main focus are often referred to as "traditional" social networking websites and usually have open memberships. This means that anyone can become a member, no matter what their hobbies, beliefs, or views are. However, once you are inside this online community, you can begin to create your own network of friends and eliminate members that do not share common interests or goals.

As I'm sure you're aware, there are dangers associated with social networking including data theft and viruses, which are on the rise. The most prevalent danger though often involves online predators or individuals who claim to be someone that they are not. Although danger does exist with networking online, it also exists in the real world, too. Just like you're advised when meeting strangers at clubs and bars, school, or work -- you are also advised to proceed with caution online.

By being aware of your cyber-surroundings and who you are talking to, you should be able to safely enjoy social networking online. It will take many phone conversations to get to know someone, but you really won't be able to make a clear judgment until you can meet each other in person. Just use common sense and listen to your inner voice; it will tell you when something doesn't feel right about the online conversations taking place.

Once you are well informed and comfortable with your findings, you can begin your search from hundreds of networking communities to join. This can easily be done by performing a standard internet search. Your search will likely return a number of results, including Google+, MySpace, FriendWise, FriendFinder, Yahoo! 360, Facebook, and Classmates.

By: K. Brown http://www.WhatIsSocialNetworking.com

Original post:
What Is Social Networking