College student shoots home invader, saves 10 lives

Yet another reason to keep a gun in the house . . .

gun control debate, well if you were one of those college students that were about to be murdered do you think you might have a different outlook?

In the first days of May, 2009, in the notoriously dangerous neighborhood of College Park in Atlanta, Georgia, two armed criminals broke into a house party of students.

After confiscating the group’s valuables, the invaders split the men and women up into different rooms.

Witnesses say the perpetrators then counted their rounds and discussed if they had “enough” ammunition.

The students believed the gunmen were going to rape and murder the entire group of students, who were celebrating a birthday at the end of the semester.

However, one male student, whose identity is being protected by police and local media, retrieved a handgun from his backpack and fired at the thug who was detaining the men.

(That is: One smart student had prepared for a night in College Park, Atlanta.)

The criminal fled the apartment under the threat of injury and never returned.

The student continued on into the girls’ room, found the other thug, 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, preparing to rape his first victim.

The student exchanged gunfire with Lavant, lethally wounding him in the process. Lavant fled through a window and died in front of his apartment, only one building away.

One of the female students was injured during the exchange, but doctors expect a full and complete recovery.

So what’s the point?

A student saved the girls from rape, and saved the whole group of 10 people (including himself) from murder . . . and he did it with a handgun.

This is a perfect example of how ludicrous “big city gun laws” are. What if this had happened in New York, Chicago, or any of the other big cities that criminalize their citizens’ self defense?

Yes, we would be reading an entirely different story — one so horrendous that we would shudder at the very words.

Either this whole group of friends would have been raped and murdered by these two sorry excuses for human beings . . . or the hero of this story would be facing prison time for firearm possession and murder.

And that’s exactly how gun-grabber Michael Bloomberg and his Mayors Against Illegal Guns want it.

Thankfully, however, Atlanta hasn’t outlawed self-defense yet. And since someone had a gun and was willing to use it, innocent life was preserved.

Congratulations to the unnamed hero of this story. You saved your friends’ lives.

In Liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

How much is enough and how much is too much…

The FTC would like to impose additional guides for online advertisers, which could lead to an equal protection challenge, is this the real direction that Washington wants to go?

I would hope to see equal protection for all consumers, both online and offline deceptive, advertisements on TV can be seen that promote subliminal methods of advertising, however it appears that enforcement may be an issue if disclosure is not required for all advertisers, not just internet advertisers, clear and conspicuous disclosure must apply to all advertisers, equally, including enforcement of the same standards.

I would hope that before such measures are taken to protect consumers online that there could be some measure of protection afforded the millions and millions of television viewers every day on cable TV, including loud and offensive commercials, that make use of excessive loudness and depict impossibly large food items, graphics and pictures, of pizza that are over 24 inches in diameter, yet, when the consumer goes to purchase the product, the actual product is often less than 12 inches with substantially less product and toppings.

Is this not deceptive advertising?

Another example is the 24 inch hamburger, that is shown in many fast food television commercials. Consumers may understand at some level that they are not going to actually get what they are seeing on that large screen, however, is it not deceptive to show such large depictions of food?

What about the psychological considerations of showing overly large food items on video commercials, in broadcast television?

The human Subconscious, is highly susceptible to conditioning, in video advertising, will the FTC begin to require clear and conspicuous disclosure for all forms of advertising,with such a large percentage of Americans now falling into the obese category, do we not have the duty to protect all consumers from messages that these types of commercials send to the consuming public?

I would like to understand the concern that is being directed at online advertisers and yet have no such precautions for protecting consumers that are exposed to deceptive video advertising, that use highly technical and sophisticated subliminal advertising methods, frame rates in excess of 120 frames per second often with highly suggestive use of graphics in video content, these things should be the concern of a highly motivated organization such as the FTC.

I would be in favor for such additional measures to protect consumers, if all broadcast media were also subject to the same disclosure requirements as what is currently being proposed for online advertising content, does it not make more sense to provide a safe experience for all consumers?

Clear and conspicuous, disclosures for Television Advertising must also apply to broadcast and be enforced not just applied to online advertisers.

It appears that what is proposed for online users is not being proposed for traditional media advertising, this is a real concern and should be examined as to why such provisions are not being equally examined.

These questions should be carefully considered and answered before we even consider the idea of proposing such disclosure and legal requirements for online advertisers.

Should we not apply the same protection for all consumers? Can we apply one set of guides for the internet yet ignore clearly deceptive advertising for broadcast advertisers, the same level of enforcement must be applied to both online

My question and concern, is will such disclosures be required of all commercial producers, Radio, Television, Cable, Internet.

If no such disclosure notices are proposed for broadcast advertisers, then this is something that is a serious issue and concern.

How can we not protect all consumers with the same passion and the same level of protection as the FTC guides propose for online consumers?

Should we not extend equal protection of all consumers? To apply, an unequal burden for online advertisers without providing equal enforcement for all advertisers. This is a question that we must answer before we consider these additional disclosure guides.

What is going on in America, when the police take action when doing nothing might result in going back at a later time and arresting a suspect with no problems at all, this is the kind of situation that is giving police nationwide a bad name, many people are beginning to wonder if they can trust the police not to kill them…

Warning this video shows the alleged murder of a citizen who is legally armed, (allegedly) all suspects are innocent until proven guilty, or killed, murdered, take your pick.

Warning adult content, this is horrible, the police killed this man, did he get a trial?

Did they act in accordance with applicable law when killing this man?

Amazing stuff folks you just cannot make this kind of thing up period,

In fact I just cannot imagine why this guy still has a job, what is up with this kind of alleged ignorance.

Deception, is a big problem in Advertising these days and more so among Eating establishments and their commercials, you see pictures of Huge three foot Pizzas, 14 inch hamburgers, yet when you get to the restaurant you find that what you get is not the same thing as what you are shown.

Is this not Deception?

We see the keyword used all the time when the FTC goes after someone they think is being deceptive, totally subjective process for the most part, or is it?  With regard to fake merchandise certainly it is easy to see that yes they are being deceptive however one has to wonder, about this entire subject, are restaurants being deceptive in showing the consumer a ten foot high product but when you go to buy that product, you find it is about four inches in diameter, not three feet in diameter, which bring up the question, does the consumer know that they are not going to get what is being show to them?  Logically yes, they know they are not going to get a 12 inch hamburger…

However here is the real question, does the subconscious human mind know this?

Is it possible that some commercials are deceptive by the psychological nature of what they show to consumers.

More importantly should the FTC step in to regulate this aspect of what is most certainly deceptive advertising practices?

Did Taco Bell change its ways, or was the story really ever true?

Well one thing for sure is this, Taco bell had little choice but to either change its practice of calling non beef (beef) or start calling it taco filling.

Not a likely outcome…

Remember the Wendy’s commercials all those year ago, Where’s the Beef, well apparently and allegedly you could say that again…

Well folks you might have to wonder if there is any connection between the new FTC guides and Taco bell, but one thing is clear,

A law firm in Alabama, (of all places) is allegedly happily filing a lawsuit,

allegedly, this is the alleged, ingredients, source, Gizmodo

Water, isolated oat product, salt, chili pepper, onion powder, tomato powder, oats (wheat), soy lecithin, sugar, spices, maltodextrin (a polysaccharide that is absorbed as glucose), soybean oil (anti-dusting agent), garlic powder, autolyzed yeast extract, citric acid, caramel color, cocoa powder, silicon dioxide (anti-caking agent), natural flavors, yeast, modified corn starch, natural smoke flavor, salt, sodium phosphate, less than 2% of beef broth, potassium phosphate, and potassium lactate.

Now, as the story goes, (allegedly) at Gizmodo, Taco bell cannot legally call its beef product, beef, yet, apparently they have been allegedly doing so in some commercials, or something like that, which should come as no surprise considering the results of eating at taco bell more than once per month, (allegedly)

All kidding aside, how are the new FTC guides effecting commercial advertising?

Why is it important?

How do you feel about it?

Is it about time that some action is taken with all of the commercials on TV, there is bound to be a healthy amount of skepticism, I know I sure think that, every day, when I see, a buy one suit at full price get 10 suits FREE, yet, we all know that your paying for those suits, or do we?

Perhaps, some do not, and that may be where this protection is needed, I know for sure that I am sick of seeing a three foot in diameter, pizza, on TV, and then when I go to pick up the pizza it turns out to be barely 14 inches, just for the math to work out right, lets add that up, 3 feet, that would be 36 inches.

Huge, pizza, right, well that my friends is not being honest, in fact the materials that these pizzas are allegedly made from is not food at all but silicone.

So, a disclaimer is in order, something like you of course know that this is not actually pizza at all but a silicone based over sized advertising tool to make you want to buy a pizza, what you may get may not actually even remotely resemble a pizza like the one your being shown.

But wait, would that not be bait and switch?

Perhaps and yes, Bingo, Yahtzee, you win the big prize.

You know it appears that advertising in our culture has long had a very shady element since the times of the carnival, barker who would yell and cajole, laugh and entertain you out of the few dollars and cents you might have in your pocket, advertising false or otherwise has been such a great part of the American culture, that separating it from our TV might be difficult, would it not be a novel idea to produce advertising that is actually accurate?

Only time will tell, it it might not be all that far off before your faced with a hamburger that actually resembles, what you would get if you went down and bought one, a pizza might soon start to look like you might get if you went down and purchased one.

Because to do otherwise, well folks that is just deceptive advertising and it is about time that some law firms start pulling the carpet out from under those jerky advertisers, right? Well, perhaps, I guess it depends on a lot of different things, you would think that in 50 years, that advertisers would have tired of trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes, but allegedly they have not and so the fight may be just warming up…

So what is the real story here and is there reason to be afraid?

Is it legal for this current administration to delve into constitutional issues like this, to make up these guides as they go along? What rights do they have to police the internet, and if they do have those rights, how about going after some of the real criminals on the internet, believe me there are plenty of them around.

There may be some real concern, however for the most part, this is just a bunch of hooey…

Recently you may have seen or heard many people stating that your website would be removed and that you might go to jail if you don’t comply with the FTC ruling, in fact there are several products out there, (yes, there are people trying to cash in on this) just like most marketing situations, it is from a lack of understanding.

The first thing you should understand is that this is a guide concerning the use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising.

Naturally it sounds scary but in reality, it hardly ever would effect one of us, perhaps the vaunted perez hilton, but nah probably not, as he just thinks he is a celebrity.

Just kidding, if you are endorsing, a product or service, like in this example, I love this great tasting coffee, you should buy some too, now that would be an endorsement, however, just having a link with a steaming cup of hot coffee next to it is not an endorsement.

Unless you say something like this, I really like this great tasting coffee, you should buy some now, right now, your eyes are getting sleepy, (just kidding) but you get the idea.

As I have heard from a number of people it is better to be safe than sorry, ok sure, I understand, that feeling, in which case a small disclosure at the bottom of your blog or website might be good, but always if you are in doubt, check on it to make sure.

Never take the word of someone say endorsing a product that they are telling you the truth, because they may not be, it sort of fosters a lack of trust.

To be completely honest, I sincerely doubt that the FTC has time to police every single blogger out there if they did they would never have time to find the bernie madoff’s of the world…

Ok, another joke, sorry, but really and truly here is the actual and factual statement made by the FTC.

“The Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not binding law themselves. In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act.”
source www.ftc.gov
Want to know why the preceding statement is so important, naturally because the FTC has no formal power to create law, that is for the legislative branch to do and to abide by the will of the people.
Begin disclaimer.
Just so you know, the FTC can cause you a lot of problems, but unless you are making say 200 thousand bucks a day or so blogging, (hey not even perez is doing that) LOL then chances are you have nothing to fear, but remember this is not advice and you should always consult with a professional in all situations where you are not clear about the law and the needs of the law.
End disclaimer.
It is a sad time in this country when we have an agency that is more concerned with the poor bloggers of the world than they are with the hucksters, like bernie madoff, when that kind of thing can go on and on and on, and no one ever figures it out, then people they have got a lot worse problems then us little bloggers, don’t ya think?
This blogger may or may not receive some form of flattery from the preceeding statements, which may or may not be an opinion, only and so therefore and thus, we may or may not need to put this notice below.
COMMERCIAL ENDORSEMENT DISCLAIMER
Disclaimer of Endorsement: Reference herein to any trademark, proprietary product, or company name is intended for explicit description only and does not constitute or imply endorsement or recommendation

When will these Flea Bags learn that America is unique?

America is a nation that has overcome great challenges in the past.

Yes we have liberals in the Senate that try to pattern our way of life after the failed European style government that is a proven failure.

H.R. 1249 is a bill that is unconstitutional.

source,
Fellow Citizen,

While Washington is busy arguing loudly and slowly about government shutdowns, Obama and his allies in both parties are being awfully quick and quiet about their plan to take away our Constitutional property rights and bail out their multinational corporate friends with trillions of dollars in new wealth transfers. The Orwellian name of this destructive legislation is the “America Invents Act” (H.R. 1249). We call it “ObamaPatent.” It’s unconstitutional; it will harm small business and innovation; and it will destroy jobs.

This is the most harmful and radical bill that the senate has ever tried to pull on the American people.

It is Evil and it must be defeated, we are not Europe, We are Americans, Shame on those senators that signed their names to this disgusting, American way of life killing bill.

This European style law is not constitutional and must be defeated if you like the idea that Thomas Edison was a great American inventor then you must help defeat this bill because had this been the law back then Thomas Edison would not have been able to have protected his inventions.

Simply put this would suppress and oppress the people of the united states in favor of only large corporations.

First to file means that if Joe the plumber invents a great plumbing tool, and AMCE, (made up name) files for a patent for a tool that is like Joes tool then ACME will be the patent holder, if this bill passes Billions of dollars in damages will occur, and the legal system will not even be able to do anything about it because it allegedly prevents lawsuits.

You know what this is horrible, I cannot understand what is going on in the senate are all those old farts senile?

Are they Stupid?

Are they so ignorant that they cannot understand that this is not Europe and that we do not want to follow in the failed Socialism of Europe.

There’s no time to lose. Join me today and help stop H.R. 1249 ObamaPatent:

Email me at defendmyrights@americasjobcreators.com. Put “Yes, I want to help stop ObamaPatent” in the subject line. I will follow up with you directly to coordinate our strategy.

The next day that Congress is open for business, call your Representative. Dial the U.S. House switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your Representative by name. Once you are connected to the office, ask for the staff member who handles patents. Tell him/her that H.R. 1249 America Invents Act is unconstitutional because it changes the patent system established in Article I Section 8 Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Tell them to keep America’s Constitutional First-To-Invent patent system. Tell them you will be watching their vote on H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act. Tell them it’s time to stand up for the Constitution and for the creation of jobs we so desperately need.

In so many ways, we have to just say, no, for the most part, this is not effective, and would not actually stop a problem if it existed anyway, the only thing that this has done is to show that the TSA allegedly are a bunch of thugs. (alleged, thugs)

So are these people jerks or are they pinheads?

Is it legal for the TSA to do what they have been doing?

Without any profiling, like that is a dirty word come on folks this is not the way you keep people safe.

There is a line between freedom and the loss of everything our fathers fought and died to protect.

That line is being crossed.

If they really need to act this way then they had better do it with the same respect that any dog on the street might expect.

If they feel they need to act the way they do then they should at least do so with a smile and some measure of civility.

Under treating pain and why there is no reason for this.

In 1991, a North Carolina jury awarded $15 million in compensatory and punitive damages to the family of Henry James, a nursing home patient who died a painful death from terminal metastatic prostate cancer…

Every year thousands of patients suffer needlessly, over an extended period of time because of ignorance and stupidity.

You have to wonder why this is happening, there are so many things that happen in the name of the war on drugs, but in reality this has become a war on the people.

There are dozens of cases where people who have terminal illness have had to go to the street to obtain pain medication, imagine that suffering from pain knowing you are dieing and then being arrested for purchasing street drugs because you cannot get a prescription for pain medication.

It seems like a nightmare, but for too many people it is a reality.

The painful truth is that some people report that it is easier and cheaper to obtain pain medication on the street than it is to go to a doctor and get it legally.

It is evil, because they know a few things about the DEA and how the war on Drugs has decimated the population of prescribing doctors, thousands of doctors licenses have been allegedly revoked by medical boards, often run by under educated doctors, that no longer practice medicine and who may not be professional at all.

Now you might have to wonder about how this could happen in America, well just watch the headlines, or better yet, do a search on the internet,

The jury found that a nurse’s refusal to administer the opioid analgesics necessary to relieve Mr James’s pain, on the rationale that he would become addicted, constituted a gross departure from acceptable care. Significantly, no disciplinary action was forthcoming for either the nurse or the facility.

You know this is horrible, Why is this allowed to go on in a nation where we are supposed to be free, people cannot get medication because of the war on drugs has become the war on the people.

Because it is easier to put people in jail than it is to put dangerous drug dealers in jail.

Doctors find it easier to pay a lawsuit off then to risk their license, being revoked.

Think about that, if you find your self in a desperate situation, you or someone you love might have to suffer because a doctor is afraid of prescribing a opioid analgesic, they are afraid of the medical board and the DEA.

They are right to be afraid, but should America have to suffer because of the paranoia, of a few people?

In 1998, William Bergman was admitted to Eden Medical Center in Castro Valley, California, in severe pain. Dr Wing Chin became his physician. Important details surrounding his 5-day hospitalization are in dispute between the Bergman family and those who cared for him. The hospital records indicate that at some point each day Mr Bergman’s pain was rated between 7 and 10 on a 10-point pain intensity scale, 10 being the worst pain imaginable. On the day of his discharge, a pain level of 10 appears in the medical record. Although a definitive diagnosis was not reached, a chest radiograph, combined with a long history of smoking, was strongly suggestive of lung cancer. Mr Bergman declined further tests, wishing to go home and receive hospice care. He died within a week of discharge.

Cases like these are beginning to be the normal mode of operation.

Product Description
<p> After your casebook, <b><i>Casenote Legal Briefs</i></b> will be your most important reference source for the entire semester. It is the <b>most popular legal briefs series available</b>, with over 140 titles, and is relied on by thousands of students for its expert case summaries, comprehensive analysis of concurrences and dissents, as well as of the majority opinion in the briefs. </p> <p> <b>Casenotes Features:</b>… More >>

Casenote Legal Briefs: Intellectual Property: Keyed to Merges, Menell, and Lemley’s Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age, 4th Ed.