Morning Ed: World {2017.07.31.M}


Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

89 Responses

  1. Avatar Saul Degraw says:

    Interestingly I just returned from a trip to Moscow and St. Petersburg. There were some other American tourists but not many.

    I will have a longer post on this but St. Petersburg is a lot more tourist friendly than Moscow.Report

    • Avatar Damon says:

      Excellent. I’m looking forward to reading this. The GF and I are heading to St. Pete in 1019 to visit her fam. Be interested in your commentary.

      How did you go about getting the visa?Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw says:

        There are agencies that will help you do it. I filled out the application on line and took it to an agency in town. I paid 123 cash, filled out another short form, and the agency got me the VISA in less than two weeks.Report

        • Avatar Damon says:


          I was concerned about the “invitation” part. Thanks much!Report

          • Avatar Saul Degraw says:

            The invitation can be done through a hotel or the web.

            There are several parts.

            1. Get an invitation. This costs about 12 dollars. I used a web based service.

            2. Fill out your VISA application.

            3. Go to an agency and hand over everything plus 120 dollars and they will get you a VISA in about 10 days or less.Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq says:

        Saint Petersburg did not exist in 1019 and where did you get time travel technology?Report

  2. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    W1: A non-hypocrtical philosopher.

    W2: During the Soviet era, the Communist Party allowed Soviet television to air programs like Good Times or Dallas to show how awful American capitalism because of the poverty of the inner city and the excesses of the decadent rich. Things never worked out as intended because even poor Americans tended to have it better off than average Soviets. I went on a date with a woman who grew up in the Soviet Union, she left with her family at ten, and said that her family of four had two rooms in their apartment. Not two bedrooms, rooms.

    W3: Russia certainly seems to be encouraging some of the worst aspects of Western civilization.

    W4: A temporary bout of patriotism doesn’t mean that Macron gave up on reform.

    W5: Countries like Estonia, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic aren’t enthusiastic about refugees because they see themselves as victims of imperialism to.

    W6: Seems like a miserable life.Report

  3. fillyjonk fillyjonk says:

    W6: I’ve wanted to try something like that, go off somewhere far away and live for a while out of contact with people. Though worries about my health (“What will I do if I break a limb?”) and concern for what might happen to my mind/mood without human contact (I can get pretty squirrely on just a weekend away from people) have stayed my hand. (Maybe after a few days of discomfort, your mind finds another path and you’re OK? I don’t know).

    I will say I can tell my creativity ebbs and flows depending on how many people I have to deal with. The more time I spend managing other people’s emotions or dealing with their problems, the less creativity I have, even for solving simple problems.Report

  4. Avatar notme says:

    W4: It’s good to know the French never change.Report

  5. Avatar Jaybird says:

    Qatar news!

    Here’s your headline: Saudi Arabia says that calls for internationalization of holy sites ‘a declaration of war’

    Before you jump to conclusions based on the headline, though, be sure to check out the first paragraph of the article (emphasis added):

    DUBAI (Reuters) – Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister called what he said was Qatar’s demand for an internationalization of the Muslim hajj pilgrimage a declaration of war against the kingdom, Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television said on Sunday, but Qatar said it never made such a call.


    • Avatar Jaybird says:

      I’m not sure the whole debate of whether Mecca should be visitable by non-Muslims is one that Saudi wants to have on an international level.

      If Qatar did make this demand, it was a smart move on their part.
      If Qatar did not make this demand, it was a stupid move for Saudi to introduce the subject on an international level.Report

  6. Avatar Saul Degraw says:

    Trump, “Mooch”, and the Rise of the New York Douchebag in politics:

    The New York douchebag thrives throughout the tri-state area, particularly in New Jersey and the outer boroughs of the city proper. Usually white, he is belligerent, garrulous, ruthlessly competitive, and excessively confident in his persuasive abilities. He is also hypersensitive; the smallest perceived slight will trigger a full-scale defense of his pride. He demands to be respected at all times.

    To the extent that the New York douchebag has politics, he tends to be a fiscal, hawkish conservative: reliably Republican, in other words, but only socially religious (if at all). He believes in his right to make loads of money without paying much taxes, advocates manly military responses to defend the pride of the U-S-A, but doesn’t want to ban abortion or roll back gay rights. Indeed, he will defend those rights if the issue affects a family member, for he professes to value blood relatives above all else.

    Trump is the quintessential New York douchebag, but to win the Republican nomination, he had to make peace with the Southern evangelical base of the GOP. Toward that end, Trump implausibly reinvented himself as a social conservative, giving powerful posts to Southern traditionalists like Jeff Sessions and religious conservatives like Mike Pence.


    • Avatar Damon says:

      Excellent. Oooooo

      Now do it for the liberals that live in new yawk. Exclude the frickin hipsters in brooklyn.Report

    • Avatar gregiank says:

      The Mooch Era is winding down already. Guess he’ll have more time to spend with his family….ohhh wait that isn’t going so well. At least he can “Bannon” a bit so to speak.Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw says:

        I just saw that. I don’t know whether I should laugh or whether I should be afraid of an hopefully metaphorical atomic bomb about to go off.Report

        • Avatar veronica d says:

          Honestly tho, it’s hard not to be entertained by the whole imbroglio.Report

        • fillyjonk fillyjonk says:

          Honestly, at this point, I think all we CAN do is laugh. I’ve come to the conclusion that “reality” is just a computer simulation that’s become dangerously unstable and we’re fast approaching the BSOD.

          I just hope that the bits and bytes that constitute “me” survive the hard reboot.Report

      • Avatar Morat20 says:

        -16 days on the job. He wasn’t due to start until the 15th.Report

    • Avatar Brandon Berg says:

      Usually white, he is belligerent, garrulous, ruthlessly competitive, and excessively confident in his persuasive abilities. He is also hypersensitive; the smallest perceived slight will trigger a full-scale defense of his pride. He demands to be respected at all times.

      I get that this is totally not racist because racism is something conservatives and libertarians do to non-white people, but isn’t it uncanny how similar that is to another racial stereotype? I wonder if maybe this is just a personality type that transcends race, and maybe trying to tie it to a particular race is, while totally not racist because the New Republic is a “liberal” rag, somewhat gratuitous.Report

  7. Avatar Michael Cain says:

    W6: I admit that this is a hot-button thing for me, but I object to the use of self-reliant, even with the adjective “relatively” included. There was a caretaker there before, so presumably the current holder of that position didn’t have to build shelter. Someone brings him groceries every two weeks (and given the nature of the island, presumably hauls away trash as well), so other than herbs it appears he doesn’t grow his own food. From the pictures, it’s clear that he doesn’t produce his own clothing. Also in the pictures, solar panels and electric lights. He lectures to visitors to the part of the island that’s not off limits. Isolated, yes; self-sufficient, no.

    Most survivalists hit the same button for me.Report

  8. Avatar Jesse says:

    BTW, anybody see where libertarian men proved the stereotype of libertarian men correct against another libertarian?Report

    • Avatar Will Truman says:

      The sandwich thing? Opinion on that seemed to run pretty hard against ENB. I moderately* too her side, and it was a pretty lonely stance. A lot of women were on the other side.

      * – I thought pointing out the tweet and that it reflected negatively on the tweeter was more than fair. i did take objection to the notion that his employer should be contacted. There were some mixed signals as to how much damage she actually wanted to do. But since the tweet itself was dumb rather than outrageous, I thought the overall damage was minimal and that people were getting too excited about it.Report

      • Avatar Kolohe says:

        I’ve become more on ENB’s side after realizing that the dude’s current job, as such, was Libertarian Party outreach. A unpaid volunteer job, to be sure, but he clearly sucked at it. And shouldn’t use it on his resume. And needs to get a whole lot better as his job if he wants a paying gig in the world of political outreach or the broader field of marketing.Report

      • Avatar Jesse says:

        I mean, I’m not surprised libertarian male twitter continues to believe that making shitty sexist jokes to a prominent female libertarian journalist is A-OK, but that same female journalist re-tweeting and pointing out who the person making that shitty sexist joke is the end of liberty and SJW run wild.

        Because as always, what straight white libertarian dudes mean when they say free speech 95% of the time, is the right for them to say terrible shitty things with no professional or personal blowback.Report

        • Avatar Will Truman says:

          I wasn’t aware that I only follow male libertarian twitter. And as I said, there were women on the other side of the argument. Of course, such women don’t count as women because they’re not liberal women. Maybe ENB doesn’t count, either, which is perhaps why feminist liberals didn’t seem to interject much on her behalf.Report

        • Avatar j r says:

          Because as always, what straight white libertarian dudes mean when they say free speech 95% of the time…

          Did you think about that sentence before you wrote it? Maybe try reading it out loud.Report

          • Avatar Brandon Berg says:

            Obviously that sentence isn’t meant to be taken literally. What he means is that he really hates libertarians because they’re against him getting free stuff.Report

          • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

            It’s LDS (Libertarian Derangement Syndrome), Jesse and Saul have it bad.Report

            • Avatar veronica d says:

              But seriously, libertarians aside, how often do people appeal to “free speech” when what they clearly desire is speech without consequences?

              Popehat often talks about how contradictory this is.

              If thay guy gets speech without consequences, then so does that woman.

              Uh oh. A paradox.

              If he’s “just joking,” then maybe she was.

              Get outta jail cuts both ways.

              Anyway, if jokes are free, well then allow me to joke. Now the fucker can make me a sandwich, with a fries and a coke.

              Hey! Just joking.

              Stop being sexist pigs. South Park is not a good model of public behavior.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

                What would be nice is speech with proportional consequences. And while we are at it, I’d like a 100lbs of $20’s and World Peace.

                Still, a guy making a sexist joke is bad, and ENB was right to call him on it. It’s not right to have it haunt him until the heat death of the internet. I mean, there is something to the Euro view that a person should be forgettable on the internet.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy says:

        Catching up on this, where did ENB say his employer should be contacted?Report

        • Avatar Will Truman says:

          This was the offending tweet:

          Basically, it wasn’t about current prospects that tweet made it look like she wanted it to materially damage his job prospects. Later in the thread she did say that she didn’t intend to leave the tweet up (she hasn’t taken it down yet) and to me personally she said she was more trying to scare than damage him, which is fair. So… mixed signals.

          I take her at her word that she intended this to be something of a brush-back pitch, and since it blew up into something she couldn’t take it down as easily as she might have intended to. In hindsight, she probably should not have named him but instead retweeted saying “Keep in mind, when you do things like this, future employers will see it and many of them will be women.” Not because I think this kid was dreadfully wronged, but because the whole thing became a distraction and did not have the intended effect.Report

          • Avatar notme says:

            Come on, she is trying to hurt/damage him not scare him. She said exactly what she meant and no amount of saying I really meant XYZ is going to change it, now that she was called out.Report

        • Avatar Brandon Berg says:

          Not his current employer, since she doesn’t seem to think he has one. Prospective employers. Her exact words were:

          RT to help ensure Aaron Sobczak’s prospective employers know this when they search for Aaron Sobczak’s name.

          I don’t have any strong opinions here. I don’t really know what the context of the tweet was, but I’m having trouble imagining any scenario under which it could plausibly defended as an inside joke among friends, given that he’s tweeting to a women’s group, so I think some public shaming is justifiable, but the salt-the-earth reaction strikes me as somewhat overkill. Later in the thread she says that she plans to delete the tweet soon and doesn’t want it to do any long-term damage, but it’s hard to square that with “RT [so his] prospective employers know this.” I assume she saw what happened to Justine Sacco. You can’t call off a Twitter mob once you’ve riled it up.Report

          • Avatar Kazzy says:

            @brandon-berg @will-truman

            Thanks. I had only seen the Tweet that said “This is a young man who ostensibly wants a job someday, tweeting at professional women in his field under his own name” and then showed his Tweet (I have no idea how Twitter works so can’t figure out which she sent first).

            I agree with BB that there doesn’t seem to be much defense for his Tweet beyond “Clueless guy does stupid thing.” The appropriate consequence for that is probably NOT a lifetime of blackballing in the field but some heat seems reasonable.

            I suppose this brings up an interesting question… if this whole affair DOES lead to a lifetime of blackballing (unlikely… last I saw (and shared about here) Sacco had landed a job), how much of the responsibility for that lies with the guy in question, how much with the woman who made the original Tweet, how much with any re-Tweeters, and how much with the employers themselves?

            If someone 10 years hence Googles this guy and sees this and says, “Sorry, we won’t hire you,” part of me feels like any criticism for that decision likes with that employer at that point.Report

            • Avatar Jaybird says:

              A somewhat imperfect analogy would be Adria Richards.

              A somewhat more timely imperfect analogy would be Kevin Allred, Beyonce scholar, who has just been fired from Montclair State University despite not having started teaching there yet. (A theme for the week, I suppose.)Report

              • Avatar Kazzy says:

                No matter how you slice it, “public” and “stupid” are a bad combo.Report

              • Avatar Troublesome Frog says:

                Teaching kids how not to set themselves on fire in the Age of Social Media is a whole new problem for parents. How will people run for office?

                Maybe embarrassing stuff will become so ubiquitous that society will shift its position and just agree that anything over 3 years old is off limits. Otherwise I’m not sure how we’ll make it work.Report

              • Avatar Trumwill says:

                It’ll be like dodging the draft in Vietnam. People will try to use it, but it will be too common and bipartisan for people to do it with great conviction with anything approaching consistency.Report

              • Avatar LeeEsq says:

                Everybody is going to have embarrassing web searches and things posted on social media, so using it to smear people running for office will have limited value on the campaign trial. It might be suspect if you didn’t have any weird and questionable things you googled.

                That’s the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is swift-boating.Report

              • Avatar Troublesome Frog says:

                I’ve often said that the Internet isn’t a weird distortion of us but rather a reflection of who we really are. I think we’re still in the process of accepting that, because what the Internet is showing us is nowhere near what we thought we’d see.

                I’m not sure whether fully accepting that will be good or bad for us in the long run, but it’s going to be a ride.Report

              • Avatar LeeEsq says:

                There does seem to be something about the Internet that gets many people to drop whatever façade they maintain in the real world.Report

      • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

        Which link is this?Report

        • Avatar Jaybird says:

          The two original tweets are here and here.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird says:

            SlateStarCodex wrote about it.

            As Kolohe pointed out above, the guy had a job where he was in charge of Libertarian Outreach. I suppose the best analogy is to Justine Sacco.

            The problem isn’t “losing the job”.

            It’s the “not getting a job ten years hence” thing.Report

          • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

            Tusen Takk!

            Although I am still wondering which of the links above get us to a tweet about a sandwich?Report

            • Avatar Jaybird says:

              ENB has a screenshot of the offending tweet here. (Also linked above)Report

              • Avatar aaron david says:

                So… He thinks women should eat more bacon?

                (that is a rather ambigous tweet, and though I am loath to accept anything that comes at me via the Tweets (you should hear my wifes word for them) jumping on someone for ambiguity is not very Libertarian though not very non-libertarian at the same time Does he want someone to get a sammich or other foodstuffs for him or to keep women down or does my initial thought on what this means work and though ENB has changed her hair style now does that make it a SJW thing also as they (the W’ers but not the Golden State ones) seem to often go full anime with the hair color it twitter so…)

                I don’t know.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird says:

                I suppose it’s technically ambiguous but I saw it as a direct reference to the “make me a sandwich” thing that goes around in misogynist circles.

                True, he didn’t say “make me a sandwich!”, but he did say “the best way for women to #makelibertywin” and displayed a sandwich, so there doesn’t seem to me to be a huge leap being made here.

                He also tweeted it to the Ladies of Liberty Alliance (or LOLA).

                He fired shots at allies.

                If someone wanted an example of “casual sexism”, they could point to this. And given that this guy was an ostensible spokesperson for libertarians on some level, if someone wanted an example of “casual sexism among libertarians”, they could (and did!) point to this.Report

              • Avatar LeeEsq says:

                People do some really strange things on twitter. By now everybody should know that bad faith interpretations of what you post are more likely than good faith interpretations, especially if you are relatively prominent. Yet, people can’t seem to stop themselves from posting things where a bad faith reading is not only very likely but probably correct. The most plausible definition of the offending tweet is that in a libertarian society, women will return to their traditional gender roles. Considering libertarianism’s public image problem on this issue.Report

              • Avatar j r says:

                Doesn’t seem particularly ambiguous. Seems like very obvious riff on the joke of men telling women to get in the kitchen and make sandwiches. And that seems like the kind of joke that you could make in a group of people whom you know are not overly sensitive and who know you to be only joking, but that would be quite unwise to throw out in front of a group of total strangers. It gets more unwise when it is literally your job to do libertarian outreach.

                If someone Tweeted, “here’s the way to get more black folks interested in libertarianism” along with a picture of a basketball or a bucket of chicken, would that be ambiguous?Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

                Linked on the Twitter feed? That might be why I missed it.Report

  9. Avatar Jaybird says:

    People who enjoy stories about gun control, crime, and Canada will find something to like in this story.

    Here’s the headline:

    Break-in suspect shot, man in home charged

    That’s not the good part, though. *HERE* is the good part:

    Police said that three men entered the residence with guns and a struggle took place with two men inside.

    The two in the home seized a firearm from one of the suspects and several shots were fired as the suspects fled. Police later located one of the suspects, who had non-life-threatening gunshot wounds.

    Munroe faces charges of attempted murder, intent to discharge a firearm, intent to discharge a firearm when being reckless, careless use of a firearm, improper storage of a firearm, pointing a firearm, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm knowing that possession is unauthorized, and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

    To recap:
    Three armed guys (allegedly) break into a house that has people in it.
    The people (allegedly) breaking into the house had guns.
    The people whose home was (allegedly) broken into (allegedly) got into a struggle with the (alleged) people breaking in and took one of the (alleged) guns the (alleged) breaker-inners had on him and (allegedly) shot the (alleged) breaker-inner.

    • Avatar dragonfrog says:

      This seems like the classic example of a story where there must be more to it.

      One thing that stands out to me is that the guy who was arrested was alleged to have shot the home invaders while they were fleeing – at which point he wasn’t impeding the invasion, but the retreat from the failed invasion, I guess.Report

      • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

        This is where I suggest that if this gentleman was a cop (even a Canadian cop), the narrative would be much different, we’d be hearing only about an investigation, not charges, and there would be a lot of discussion about how you have to understand how dynamic and confusing such things are, etc.

        And to be honest, such situations are incredibly confusing and stressful & (assuming there’s not something seriously hinky we aren’t hearing about) the prosecutor is being an ass to be filing charges.Report

        • Avatar LeeEsq says:

          Many other developed countries have come rather against self-defense even in the confines of your own home.Report

          • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

            Which to me is baffling. I can understand objections against self-defense out in public, or an otherwise strong duty to retreat, even if I don’t agree with it; but self-defense in the home should be absolutely justifiable, absent some indication it wasn’t truly self-defense.Report

            • Avatar LeeEsq says:

              If you really want to discourage the informal use of violence to resolve disputes than it makes total sense to go after any informal use of violence even if informal violence seems justified. Its zero tolerance writ large.Report

          • Avatar Will H. says:

            Many other developed countries have come rather against self-defense even in the confines of your own home.

            Some states have limited the right as well.
            In New Mexico, growing up, the law was (and I believe still is) that no amount of property is worth a human life.
            You can shoot someone for breaking in to your home, but not kill them, unless threatened with a weapon.
            I always heard, “If you kill someone, make sure to put a knife in their hand before the police get there.”

            It is also lawful to shoot a vehicle which has been following for five miles, refusing to pass.
            After five miles of refusing to pass, it is considered a robbery in progress, and the law rather specifically states that there is no reason other than robbery that a vehicle can travel fast enough to catch up to you, but not fast enough to go around you.
            Still unlawful to kill anyone in the other car.Report

            • Avatar dragonfrog says:

              It is also lawful to shoot a vehicle which has been following for five miles, refusing to pass.

              Wut. Is this a literally true thing, or even a humorous reference to a literally true thing? It’s been a while since I drank any coffee.Report

        • Avatar Kazzy says:

          ““Right now they’re just pending charges,” said spokeswoman Chris Hansen at the Public Prosecution Service.”

          This makes me wonder if there is some requirement that certain charges be filed anytime any type of shooting occur and then let the process play out.

          If that is the case (and I’m really just speculating here), then I think we’re looking at a stupid system and not necessarily specific stupid individuals.

          ETA: I also wonder if that was the totality of the spokewoman’s comment or if there is more she said of value that for whatever reason wasn’t reported.Report

          • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

            This is entirely possible, as is something along the lines of the charges not actually stemming from the shooting, but from the responding officers casual inspection of the scene afterwards (say, perhaps, one of the guys in the house was an arms dealer and he was getting robbed, and none of the guns within reach were loaded). Something like that would make a lot more sense.Report

          • Avatar PD Shaw says:

            I’m not sure what is “pending” about it. Jaybird’s link says the dude is under house arrest:

            Munroe is banned from any contact with two named individuals, must attend court as ordered, keep the peace and be of good behaviour, not leave his residence except for essential activities such as work or medical appointments, remain in Nova Scotia, not consume drugs or alcohol, not possess a cellphone or pager, have no weapons, and answer the door to police when they check at his home.

            No beer nog, eh?Report

            • Avatar Kazzy says:

              I have no idea how the Canadian system works. I’m really just spitballing.

              Right now, it strikes me that the two most likely “explanations” are:

              1. Someone(s), somewhere(s) is/are making amazingly batshit insane decisions as to how to proceed with this case.
              2. There is/are some complicating factors we don’t know about that will make what otherwise seem like amazingly batshit insane decisions seem much less so like amazingly batshit insane decisions.

              I don’t have any particular reason to favor one over the other. The reason I’m speculating more on the latter is because if it is the former, than all we can really say is, “Wow… someone(s) is/are making some amazingly batshit insane decisions!” There isn’t all that much room for speculation. At least with the latter, we can maybe try to guess what those factors are.

              If folks are inclined to favor #1, at this point I’d offer them no reason not to do so.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird says:

        Oh, I was (deliberately) not talking about the shooting of the home invaders while they were fleeing.

        While I do not agree with the attitude, I do see how it is theoretically possible for someone to say that the law says “DON’T SHOOT PEOPLE” and, yes, that includes armed people who have broken into your house.

        I think it’s wrong. I think it creates a terrible set of incentives… but it’s something that is merely stupid.

        The whole “homeowner disarms the burglar breaking into his house and shoots the burglar who broke into his house and so we’re charging the homeowner with possession of a firearm for the purposes of trafficking” thing is the thing that moves this beyond the realm of the merely stupid into the sublimely evil.

        I mean, let’s say the burglars broke in, stole the stuff in the house, and killed the homeowners.

        Would the Mounties have put “possession of a firearm for the purposes of trafficking” on the list of charges against the burglars had they been caught?Report

        • Avatar Brent F says:

          From what I’ve heard, they like to stack the possession for purposes of trafficking charge onto gun offenses in general, so it seems reasonably probable that they would for the invaders as much as the home defender. Its a convenient tack on charge to include.

          In the Nova Scotia system, the police decide to bring charges based on the information they’ve collected but then the crown attorney makes a seperate decision whether to prosecute or not. The article doesn’t give enough information to say for sure, but it seems that what’s happened is the police has put out charges they could support but they’ve yet to make any decisions on whether to prosecute him for anything. Its reasonably common for the police to lay charges and them the crown decline to prosecute them because they’re primarily the ones who are supposed decide if prosecution is in the public interest or not.Report

          • Avatar PD Shaw says:

            Thanks for the input. Does the crown attorney also evaluate the legal premise of the case? I ask because Canada apparently passed a caste law a few years ago that may or may not be clear as to its scope.Report

            • Avatar Brent F says:

              Yep. It varies from province to province in the details though.

              The basic idea is this, police collect information, decide if that information supports a charge agains the defendant. They submit that information file and the charges to a justice of the peace. The JotP evaluates the file and decides if there are reasonable grounds to support the charges. The JotP can also decide if there are grounds to arrest the defendant, have them held or to set bail conditions. Private citizens can also use this process if they think a crime has been committed against them to submit their own information to lay charges, although this is rare.

              After the charge is laid, the file is handed to the crown attorney, who decide if the charges should be prosecuted or not. The prosecution is instructed by law and policy to make that decision on two broad criteria, likelihood of securing a conviction and the general public interest in a prosecution with the later consideration trumping the former. The prosecutor has extremely broad individual latitude to make this decision, and are considered to exercise quasi-judicial responsiblities (rather than acting as an advocate) to make said decision.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

                So in short, these charges are what the police think could be supported given the evidence at hand, and it’s up to people further up the food chain whether or not it’s worth chasing those individual charges in a plea or in court?Report

              • Avatar Brent F says:

                Yeah. There is a huge discretionary step between this and pursuing a case. Its also the point most concerned with considering whether the matter should be dropped because it isn’t in the public interest. So it would be premature to get worked up about that consideration.

                Laying a charge isn’t equivalent to the American system of pursuing an indictment, its a step prior to that as prosecutorial descrition has yet to be exercised.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

                Got it, thanks @brent-f !Report

          • Avatar Jaybird says:

            If there was *ONE* case where you’d think that *SOMEONE* would ask “maybe we shouldn’t throw the trafficking charge in there?”, you’d think that it’d be the case where the guy wrestled a gun away from the burglar who broke into his house.Report

            • Avatar Brent F says:

              Cops do silly things all the time because they are following a rout formula and the article does not provide nearly enough information to say whether he was actually charged with that offense or if it was merely considered as a pending charge.

              If they did end up pursuing that charge in prosecution, that would be awful. I don’t see enough information to suggest that has or is likely to happen, particularly as I have enough experience with how a press report will misread a legal proceeding to report something both misleading and sensational.Report

              • Avatar dragonfrog says:

                I suppose it could have been a misreading of a charge of possessing drugs for the purpose of trafficking (which also might have been the motive for the invasion).Report

    • Avatar Brandon Berg says:

      The two in the home seized a firearm from one of the suspects and several shots were fired as the suspects fled. Police later located one of the suspects, who had non-life-threatening gunshot wounds.

      This here’s the real crime. Instead of taking three violent felons off the streets for good, he just stuck taxpayers with medical bills.

      To be fair, though, he wasn’t shooting under ideal conditions.Report

      • Avatar aaron david says:

        Alsotoo, when the shooting started vs. the fleeing started is very important. If I seize the gun and start shooting, but as I seize the gun he starts fleeing… What we have hear is a failure to communicate. Stating that he fired upon a fleeing subject when that was only a matter of moments is rather deceitful.Report

        • Avatar Morat20 says:

          I’m pretty sure shooting someone fleeing is generally a no-no. I mean not under the current American iteration of self-defense, but before the current spate of muscular self-defense law, shooting someone fleeing was no longer covered under self-defense.

          So if, for instance, he continued to shoot as they fled — and hit someone — that might not be self defense (in fact, I’m reasonable confidant that anyone drawing from English common law BUT post-SYG America it’s not self-defense). But if he shot someone inside his home before they tried to run, that’s self-defense.

          I suspect the timeline on every shot is going to be important when it comes to charges.Report

          • Avatar aaron david says:

            What I am saying is that the “fleeing” isn’t really fleeing, just being called that for newsish purposes.

            This is why we have juries.Report

          • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

            Yeah, it really does depend on the timing. Was the guy hit a few feet away, or was he halfway out the front door and gaining speed?Report

      • Avatar notme says:

        To be fair, though, he wasn’t shooting under ideal conditions.

        Sadly, few shooting happen under ideal conditions which leaves folks open to being second guessed. Given this happened in Canada, i’m really not surprised.Report

    • Avatar Will H. says:

      I’m waiting for the would-be rape victim charged with stuffing a plastic schlong up the would-be rapist’s can.Report