Ember

I voted yesterday, and they couldn't find me in the system. Turns out they were searching by last name and using my middle name. When I explained that, they asked if my first name was my last name. It wasn't. Eventually, we got it straight.

If you trim my armor, won't it provide less protection?

I don't get it either. Even a fairly recent ruling from the sixth circuit found in favor of transgender protection against discrimination, but relied on the premise that the trans woman in question was a man being discriminated against for not conforming to stereotypical gender norms. So the court considered her male and still found in her favor... so I don't know what the policy shift is meant to accomplish. (to their credit, the court did use feminine pronouns) A surge of opposition? A distraction from some other train wreck? To harass people who already had enough to worry about? As far as "rednecks" go, you probably shouldn't assume they disagree with you. A lot of rural people just want to be left alone to live a peaceful life and to let others do the same; even the poor and uneducated ones.

I'm on medication that has absolutely tanked my tolerance, so drunk TIF is gonna be a no for me.

Yeah, and no blood spilled. It's not exactly a win, but it's far from the worst possible outcome. I think a lot of things would be better if the average person had the means. I don't just mean full access to the courts.

As I understand it, I had 30 days from the issuance of the order granting summary disposition to file the notice of appeal. In theory, I could have appealed without an attorney, or tried finding another attorney to take on the appeal. In practice, I'm not comfortable enough to self-represent in appeals court, and I was broke as hell.

I did post a lot about it as it happened, or as things cleared court and I could safely talk about it. This is super condensed, and I've tried to limit things that identify me. Basically, I was going about my day with a gun carried openly. It's legal here, and it was how I'd carried for years. Usually it's a non-issue if anyone even notices. I was approached by police and asked whether I wanted to step outside to talk. I offered to talk where I was, and they carried me out into the parking lot. After about an hour of trying to find something to charge me with, realizing I hadn't broken a law, and debating whether to escort me back in to take care of business, one officer gets the bright idea to frame my offer to talk where we were as felony resisting and obstructing. He also suggests that my struggle to not fall on the ground or get trampled on the way out was being combative. Obviously, they had to take my gun for their safety. "la di da di da" When the lieutenant seemed hesitant, he tossed in that I was part of a gang known to the department. The lieutenant finally gave in and I was arrested. I spent about three days in a holding cell, discovered I was being charged with felony resisting and possession of a firearm while in the commission of a felony; two charges, 2 years each, and no way to have it expunged later. No more guns. No more voting. I'd lose my job, and have a much harder time finding a new one. The end of my world as I knew it. At the pretrial, the prosecutor's only evidence was the police report. We agreed to delay a few times to wait for more, and the police department finally turned over dashcam video and worn mic audio after about six months. Video showed their discussion and decision to arrest, and charges were immediately dropped "in the interest of justice." We filed a federal lawsuit for deprivation of rights under color of law. Without getting too into the back and forth of it, both sides filed motions for summary disposition; basically saying their case was so strong that we didn't need to take the court's precious time. They misrepresented a conversation with dispatch, claiming they were told I had a "gun in a backpack" and that was the basis for non-consensual contact. I have recordings of radio communications where dispatch described me as having "a backpack and a gun," the lieutenant called in for confirmation that the gun was in a backpack, and the dispatcher replied that they were unable to confirm. They knew before approaching me that the reason they would use to justify their use of force was a lie. Maybe they hoped we could have a "consensual" encounter and they wouldn't have to justify anything. Without cause for a stop, the application of force and subsequent arrest was unlawful. Instead of listening to the recordings or recognizing the contradictory statements of fact in our opposing motions, the judge granted summary disposition to the defendants, stating that there was no disagreement on facts. I didn't have resources to appeal, so that was pretty much the end. I ran out of money in a pay-to-win system.

To be clear, it is extremely likely. Unfortunately, this is my (admittedly limited) experience. Local attorneys were more interested in making a deal with their golf buddies than in what most of us would consider justice. I'm glad you had the presence of mind to be photographed. That's one piece of evidence that probably isn't going to hurt you. You should be able to get any evidence they plan to use against you, but you might get it faster (or a more complete record) through whatever freedom of information laws Texas has. I'm not sure about Texas, but Michigan's FOIA has an exception for someone who is requesting records related to a case against them. It sounds stupid, but I had a friend file a request for me; they weren't allowed to deny his request, and he gave me a copy as soon as he had them. It caught the prosecutor flat-footed, because the police department apparently didn't give him everything they had. Fair warning, I spent $10k pursuing a federal civil case against my accusers, on top of the $5k I spent on defense. The judge granted summary judgement in their favor, on the grounds that there was no disagreement of fact... totally disregarding that there was obvious disagreement between their statements and mine, and that audio recordings disproved their statements. My options then were to cough up an additional $20k within a few weeks to appeal and maybe have it sent back in front of the same judge who had dismissed it once already, or to cut my losses and let them get away with it. As the former wasn't really an option, I was forced into the latter. I'm not entirely sure how things work in Texas, but he really wouldn't have any ability to "drop the case" in Michigan. If he straight-up admitted to the prosecutor that he made a false report, the prosecutor might drop it. At that point, he'd be risking prosecution himself, and he doesn't seem like the sort of person who's big on accepting the consequences of his actions.

Delete gym. Hit the lawyer. Facebook up.

Noxx: If you have internet access, "criminal defense attorneys in $CITY" is a good start. Neighboring cities/counties might be good too; when I needed a criminal defense attorney, everyone in town jumped straight to plea bargains. My out-of-town attorney got both felonies dismissed, but it took about six months and upward of $5k. Be honest about not having the money, and they will probably work with you on a payment plan. Court-appointed attorneys (or public defenders) are likely to be seriously overworked and underpaid, and are more likely to try brokering a plea deal than to actually give you the defense you deserve. It's sad, but it's probably true in most of the US. Since there seems to be no real evidence, I wouldn't expect it to go very far once they realize you aren't going to plea. However, I wouldn't rely on that. My own trip through the "justice" system has led me to realize that, "there is no justice, just us," isn't just a snappy line from a book. Domestic violence often isn't "only a misdemeanor." It's a misdemeanor that costs you your gun rights and precludes you from working as a care provider for vulnerable people. Those might not be a big deal to you, but prospective employers and professional licensing organizations are also likely to consider it, and it may have an effect on housing. Being convicted while in school, and especially in school housing, you might even have trouble with the school. Since professional pilots are charged with the well-being of their passengers, I really wouldn't want to risk conviction, never mind accepting a plea. Basically, it's felony-lite. You've been accused of violence; anything you say about your accuser is worthless and likely will be dismissed as retaliatory. If a genuine concern existed, a reasonable person would have come forward before being accused of a crime. Also: I find myself saying this far too often, but this isn't a movie or a TV show. That you were not mirandized probably means nothing, and has no bearing on the admissibility of any statements made while you were not in custody. You sure? [hide] This guy says he has a license to carry in Estonia. Gunpolicy.org says: In Estonia, carrying a concealed firearm in a public place is allowed, subject to a valid permit. Estonia's Weapons Act seems to have the following section: The Application for Weapons Permit has a check box for "Self-defence and protection of property", although it doesn't explicitly mention carrying in public spaces. [/hide] It does appear that carried weapons must be concealed, so maybe you've just never noticed.

Sure thing. I'm usually up for understanding better and being better understood. There's more to an "imminent threat" than someone having the ability to harm you. If you regularly present yourself in a way that makes reasonable people think "this person will kill me or send me to the hospital if I don't apply force now," you probably should work on that. And not just for the benefit of not being shot. I don't understand how "it is the other person [you] need to be concerned about." As long as they're not being hostile or threatening, the presence or absence of a weapon makes little difference. If they are being hostile or threatening, (regardless of whether either, neither, or both of you are armed) your top priority should be getting out intact; again, the presence or absence of a weapon makes little difference. Not everyone carries; about 1 in 13 of Michigan's population is licensed to carry a concealed pistol. Licenses are not available to anyone under 21, so the rate's a little higher if you exclude them. This obviously doesn't account for people who carry (legally or not) without a license, or people who are licensed and do not always carry. Those who do carry have their own reasons, some have been victims or been close to victims of violent crime. My brother-in-law was robbed by a hatchet-wielding psycho. My aunt was raped before her attacker slit her throat and left her for dead. For me, it's one more tool in my box; it's not the only one, and it's certainly not one I relish the idea of using. I'm not out to hurt anyone, and I don't see any reason to assume anyone else is either. It is this assumption that most people aren't (as you put it) murder hobos, that lets me believe they should be allowed to arm themselves against the relatively few who would do them (or me) harm. I think that carrying a gun for defense against other people who are defensively armed is exactly the opposite sort of thinking from this. It's based on the premise that the people around you are only harmless because they lack the means to harm you; suggesting that everyone has intent/desire to harm you. Your stated intent is to "defend" against the threat posed by people who would only act defensively, but that threat is essentially non-existent. (because you're harmless and they're harmless) Maybe you'd wind up defending yourself eventually, but it wouldn't be against one of these people. For some reason, this in particular bothers me: While I'm probably capable of thinking that, I struggle to imagine a conversation where that would happen. I guess maybe if they've said they have a gun and expressed intent to use it against me? But the conversation would be over by then, and I'd be looking to make my escape. My pistol is a tool of last resort; I don't sit around daydreaming about hurting people, and I would much rather leave or avoid confrontation than hurt someone or get hurt myself. It's not like the movies where a person who has a gun will surely use it (or at least try). I put it on with my belt in the morning, and I think of it throughout the day about as much as I think of my belt. I don't walk around fantasizing about strangling people with my belt, and I don't walk around fantasizing about shooting people. I assume most other people don't either. I think you'd have an easier time getting a license to carry a concealed pistol in Estonia than in New Jersey. Probably better selection too!

One of our malls is posted, but those are the only other "no guns" signs I'm aware of in town. Most places don't have them, and neither Goodwill wasn't posted last time I went out, so it was really surprising to see them. If trigger discipline becomes relevant, then the person carrying has already messed up. Unless there is an immediate threat warranting application of lethal force, the gun should stay holstered in public. It depends largely on where you are. Michigan law prohibits local units of government from restricting the carry of firearms, and has no special standard for "no guns" signs, but having it conspicuously posted makes it into a trespass issue. I probably could have gotten away with it, but I'd rather go to one of the other thrift shops that isn't posted. My default state is to be armed, so the more relevant question is why I would need to go shopping without a gun... particularly shopping for clothes I plan to wear with the gun. I drive an older hatchback, which KBB says is worth less than $3k. There is no boot/trunk. There's a glovebox, which is easily pried open. I also have a pistol lockbox, but I've seen them pried open with a stout screwdriver. Making off with the whole car requires more skill/knowledge/equipment than knocking out some glass, and is much less accessible as a crime of opportunity. The car also has a highly visible plate number, and a car with no plate or with a mismatched plate is going to be much more apparent than a stolen gun carried concealed. Maybe it's illogical, but I worry more about a stolen pistol being used in violent crime than a stolen car. I get that there are cultural differences at play. For me, it's always just been something responsible adults do. On almost every day, it sits in its holster, under my clothes, and nobody knows or cares that I have it. The odds are incredibly good that any given day will go like this and I having or not having it won't make any difference at all. Not everyone is a murder hobo, and I don't think carrying a gun suggests that at all. I don't think most people are a threat, and I don't treat them that way. However, I do recognize that some people are dangerous under the right(wrong?) circumstances. The problem for me is the very few days when it does make a difference. On those days, the difference it makes is immeasurable. An opportunistic pickpocket doesn't represent a threat warranting lethal force. Shooting a pickpocket and claiming self-defense is a good way to wind up in prison. As a side note, I don't know anyone who's been pickpocketed in the states. Everyone I know here who has been robbed on the streets has been robbed by force. Situational awareness can help keep people from getting the jump; there isn't much in the way of equipment that can. The last time I used my pistol defensively, it was against a group of about 8 late-teen or early-20s "kids". One decided that he needed to teach me a lesson and a few followed along while the rest sat across the street to watch and cheer them on. After they hurled a piece of road at me and my wife then charged us, I started to draw. Suddenly, they realized they had somewhere else to be. Would they have killed us? Probably not, but it really would have been up to them had we been unarmed. The fact that I had the ability to apply lethal force ended the encounter without anyone going to the hospital. Unless you posed an imminent threat, I'm not sure what there was to be concerned about. If you weren't worried about the people you're talking to trying to attack you without a gun, you probably shouldn't worry about them trying to attack you with a gun.

Today I went to Goodwill to see if I could pick up some cute skirts and whatever on the cheap. The store had a "no guns" sign up, so I went to the one on the other side of town and they had a sign too. WTF, Goodwill? I'm not leaving $1500 of gun and accessories unattended in my car while I look for clothes. Also, I kind of need to know how the clothes will work with the gun.

I used to think that. Sometimes I still do. I wasn't looking when I met my wife, and I spent a long time enjoying what we had and waiting for her to "wake up" and leave. We just celebrated our third anniversary. We both have mental health issues (dissociative disorders and friends), but we're mostly functional from an outside view. Maybe it helps that we have some similar struggles. Honestly, I'm kind of glad I missed out on dating. We go out for "date nights" every now and then, but I have a feeling that it's different when you know each other so well.

..

Oh, so she did. I guess I use avatars to identify people more than names. E.E. Maus Erin E. Maus E. Eliot Maus With Erin and Aaron being pronounced so similarly, you really don't have to tell anyone who isn't involved. Think of all the presumably well-meant "you'll always be $deadname to me" you'll avoid. I've legally changed my name twice so far, and likely will at least once more. Maybe I'll even bother to update my birth certificate. My current legal name is masculine, but has at least two gender-neutral diminuitives, one I use at work and another I use everywhere else. There's a third diminuitive which I've always seen as feminine, but it's supposedly not gendered. I'm thinking of making the name I use most places my legal name. My middle name has been mistaken for a family name; it shows up on legal documents and I don't use it... I'm really considering just doing away with it. Who needs so many names anyway? Had I not taken my wife's surname, I likely would have gone with a variant of Wolf/Wolfe.

Boris doesn't start with a T.

Since when does Youtube have ads?

Labor Day pretty much marks the start of Halloween, and it continues until you take down Halloween decorations for Thanksgiving... then it's Christmas and eggnog with rum for the rest of the year.

Trains is hard job.

If you're not comfortable with the hair loss, it may be worth mentioning to a doctor. Maybe finasteride or dutasteride can help you out there.

Oh my, didn't know a girl on this board had my name. Lal. Does she have your name, or do you have hers?

I'm addressing what I think is a pretty ridiculous false-equivalence. You ought to know exactly why people behave differently with dogs; because there is no meaningful distinction between gender and biological sex. I'll bite. What is biological sex? If a person's sex differs from their gender, why should gendered language not match the gender of the person being referred to? Just because something is easy to you doesn't mean it's easy to others. You're essentially asking people to ignore every biological instinct they have, and years of specific social conditioning, in the interest of politeness. Clearly not being an [wagon] deliberately is a good thing, but it's not like you're asking someone to call you by a nickname. Are you seriously suggesting that a person's "every biological instinct" is to misgender trans folk? And that makes it okay? It's generally accepted that there is a biological instinct to have sex, but it's not unreasonable to expect people to not act on that instinct with someone who objects. After unintentionally misgendering someone and being corrected, there's a big difference between saying "Sorry, he." and saying "No, I was right. She's just a confused chick in dude's clothes." and intentionally continuing to misgender. As far as names go, anyone who never knew me by my old name has no problem. Most people are pretty good about it most of the time. Every now and then someone at work will slip and usually self-correct. Some people outside of work were strange about it, refusing to acknowledge my name until it was legally changed or until they had a satisfactory explanation of why I changed it. Only a few insist that I'll always be $OLDNAME to them; [bleep] those people in particular. I'm not comparing trans people to animals. I'm comparing the way trans people are sometimes treated to the way animals are treated. That should be uncomfortable. The reality of malicious misgendering isn't comfortable.

That's not the surprising part at all, but I think you knew that. The surprising part is that, as easy as it is to use the right pronouns after being corrected, some people refuse to.

I'm not sure I follow.