ITP V.012: UPDATE: EDITORIAL:

ITP V.012's METAL NEWS FEATURES: NOTES FROM THE EXTREME METAL UNDERGROUND, DAMNED IN BLACK (BLACK METAL NEWS), HUMANITY IS DOOMED (DOOM METAL NEWS) are postponed until APRIL, sowee, very busy. ITP V.012 will be posting in the eve, busy during the day.

BTW, for these wingnuts to close to where I live, tampering with a witness is not only a crime, but a felony charge punishable for up to 5 years. We don't need your opinions nor threats.

FROM WIKEPEDIA:
Witness tampering is harming or otherwise threatening a witness, hoping to influence his or her testimony.
Contents [hide]
1 Witness tampering in the USA
2 Witness tampering in England and Wales
3 See also
4 References
[edit]Witness tampering in the USA

In the United States, the crime of witness tampering in federal cases is defined by statute at 18 U.S.C. § 1512, "Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant". The punishment for such an offense is up to 20 years if physical force was used or attempted, and up to 10 years if physical force was only threatened. The tampering need not have actually been successful in order for it to be criminal.
One of the better known cases involving section 1512 is Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in May 2005. The Supreme Court ruled that section 1512 had been misinterpreted by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and reversed the decision of the lower court which had found the firm guilty of violating the section. The issue had, to some extent, become moot, because in 2002 the firm had all but dissolved as a result of prosecution on this criminal charge.
In April 2001, Buddy Cianci was indicted on a charge of witness tampering. In November 2007, Ted Klaudt was convicted on counts of witness tampering.
[edit]Witness tampering in England and Wales

In England and Wales, witness tampering by unlawful means, such as violence, bribery, threats or improper pressure, is known as Perverting the course of justice.
Section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994[1] includes the offences of intimidating a witness and taking revenge on a witness.

On a unrelated, inapplicable note, ITP's author lives in New York, where there is no sutch "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground Law" for better of for worse. :raises an eyebrow:
"BERNIE GOETZ LAW" (Nothing against Bernie Goetz, all the best to him, lol)
So a very young black male goes to a store, makes a purchase (Skittles), and walks out and some prentencious wanna be "rent a cop" (neighborhood watch, stranger to the black male) white dude calls the cops, and tells the cops he may confront the kid, as all ends tragically with the black male dead in a hale of bullets. The white male followed the black dude (whom was on foot, unarmed) in his pricey, gas guzzling SUV. This incident is the most RACIST and petty interpretation of the "Stand Your Ground" or "Castle Doctrine" as this couldn't be an issue of self defense. Not that the Castle Doctrine does not serve a purpose, I'm not against the legislation,I'm kinda for it, it's the misinterpretation or exploitation of the law. The Stand Your Ground Law serves only a purpose in extreme danger scenarios of self defense, or when someone doesn't retreat and is trapped. Horrid. What happened?
FROM THE MIAMI HERALD:
As pressure mounts to charge George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who ignored police advice not to confront the unarmed teen on Feb. 26, Gov. Rick Scott announced he would convene a task force to study the law. No group keeps a tally of cases in which Florida Statute 776.013 (3) — commonly known as the "stand your ground" law — is invoked.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/22/2708767/number-of-stand-your-ground-cases.html#storylink=cpy
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/22/2708767/number-of-stand-your-ground-cases.html
There's been alot of controversy about the BELOW law in local, regional and national newspapers: This is a very controversial law "The Stand Your Ground Law" or "Castle Doctrine" instituted in 2010 primarily in the Southern States of USA, mid west and only a few states on the east coast, about HALF of or 40% of the USA. I'm not sure what to think of the law or if it's constructive legislation, I'm in the middle. I browsed a local news paper that mentioned or questioned the law and I looked it up on WIKIPEDIA, very interesting, sounds very Southern. I would normally be is support of
"The Castle Doctrine", however, I have mixed feelings about the abuse of the law, I the legislation is too broad as written.
Perhaps removing the "lethal force" wording of the legislation would not encourage killings. The Way the "Stand Your Ground" legislation was written is to broad, the only reason the legislation didn't pass in New York State. The Stand Your Ground Laws may or may NOT include retreat. It's so easy to slander and defame a dead mans character (Treyvon), as I smell "good ole boy" Southern racism. Even had it been a cop,Treyvon's death would raise questions of police brutality and Zimmerman is just the "neighborhood watch" bully. I say, get a bunch of black and white folk, go to the store and buy SKITTLES while wearing hoodies, perhaps they'll be a line down the block, and buy the store out of stock. Hopefully they won't bring the SWAT team in and shoot us all.
Perhaps in rare scenarios, people are asked to take off caps, and hoodies, perhaps in more "formal" situations, not walking down the street.
BTW, everyone wears hoodies, considered "sports gear", music merch, and damn comfortable just in case it rains. Unless there is a dress code in that town, racial profiling via hipster, cultural expression or standard, casual sports gear is outrageous.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/geraldo-rivera-apology-trayvon-martin-hoodie_n_1382814.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D147088




FROM WIKEPEDIA:

A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense to criminal charges.
More than half of the states in the United States have adopted the Castle doctrine, stating that a person has no duty to retreat when their home is attacked. Some states go a step further, removing the duty of retreat from any location. "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat" laws thus state that a person has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which he has a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. Under such laws, there is no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be.[1] Other restrictions may still exist; when in public, a person must be carrying the firearm in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.
Contents [hide]
1 United States
1.1 Florida
1.2 Illinois
1.3 Kentucky
1.4 Montana
1.5 North Carolina
1.6 Oklahoma
1.7 Texas
1.8 Utah
1.9 Washington
1.10 West Virginia
2 Controversy
3 Effect on crime rates
4 References
"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[2][3]
The law's effect on crime rates is disputed between supporters and critics of the law. Florida state representative Dennis Baxley notes that crime rates in Florida dropped significantly between 2005, when the law was passed, and 2012. However, crime rates had been continuously falling since before 2000, and the stand your ground law did not accelerate this drop in crime. There are numerous theories for the drop in crime, ranging from high incarceration rates, less use of cash, and even the legalization of abortion which has reduced the number of poor young men.[30]
Nevertheless, Baxley gives the law partial credit for the decrease in Florida's crime rate. Arguing that giving people the ability to defend themselves in public places without fearing prosecution reducing crime, he states, "What we’ve learned is if we empower people to stop bad things from happening, they will."
Critics, however, disagree with Baxley. In a 2007 National District Attorneys Association symposium, numerous concerns were voiced that the law could increase crime. This included criminals using the law as a defense for their crimes, more people carrying guns, and that people would not feel safe if they felt that anyone could use deadly force in a conflict. The report also noticed that the misinterpretation of clues could result in use of deadly force when there was, in fact, no danger. The report specifically notes that racial and ethnic minorities would be at greater risk due to negative stereotypes.[30]

As of 28 May 2010 31 states had some form of Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground law.[6] Alabama,[7] Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,[8] South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,[9] West Virginia and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Montana, Nebraska,[10] New Hampshire, Virginia, and Washington) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.[11][12][13]
Some of the states that have passed or are considering "stand your ground" laws already implement "stand your ground" principles in their case law. Indiana and Georgia, among other states, already had "stand your ground" case law and passed "stand your ground" statutes due to possible concerns of the case law being replaced by "duty to retreat" in later court rulings. Other states, including Washington, have "stand your ground" in their case law but have not adopted statutes; West Virginia had a long tradition of "stand your ground" in its case law[14] before codifying it as a statute in 2008. These states did not have civil immunity for self defense in their previous self defense statutes.

Thanks-Stay Metal, Stay Brutal-\m/ -l-
RIP TREYVON