http://www.change.org/petitions/united-states-district-judge-keith-starrett-grant-jeffrey-havard-a-new-trial-to-prove-he-was-wrongfully-convicted#

Learn more at http://www.freejeffreyhavard.com Thanks!

LOL! Donnndddddeeeeerrrrrooooooo! Awesome sauce.

Eric Donnndddddeeeeeerrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooo [sic] is not a Randroid. He is a moron.

In 2008, he supported Guiliani for a while. He endorsed Romney as the true libertarian choice in 2012.

In his own minde, he is the ONE TRUE LIBERTARIAN. Unfortunately, he is to libertarianism as the guy on the streetcorner with the John 3:16 sign is to Christianity.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/11/eric-dondero-boycott-democrat-libertarian.html

Example 5,238 why Ayn rand fetishists are not really Libertarians…

All family and friends, even close family and friends, who I know to be Democrats are hereby dead to me. I vow never to speak to them again for the rest of my life, or have any communications with them. They are in short, the enemies of liberty. They deserve nothing less than hatred and utter contempt.

I strongly urge all other libertarians to do the same. Are you married to someone who voted for Obama, have a girlfriend who voted ‘O’. Divorce them. Break up with them without haste. Vow not to attend family functions, Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas for example, if there will be any family members in attendance who are Democrats.

Do you work for someone who voted for Obama? Quit your job. Co-workers who voted for Obama. Simply don’t talk to them in the workplace, unless your boss instructs you too for work-related only purposes. Have clients who voted Democrat? Call them up this morning and tell them to take their business elsewhere.

Have a neighbor who votes for Obama? You could take a crap on their lawn. Then again, probably not a good idea since it would be technically illegal to do this. But you could have your dog take care of business. Not your fault if he just happens to choose that particular spot.

I have heard this guy (who was fired from Ron Paul’s campaign this year) is a joke in the Libertarian community, and he is certainly a Randroid. The whole “going Galt” thing will certainly teach a lesson to all of the rest of us, yessiree!

What I can say with some certainly is that, while there are assholes in every human community on Earth,Ii have never, ever corresponded with any Libertarian who insisted that assholishness was a condition of being part of the movement…

Yep, Haynes is a dirtball and should be locked away for the hell he has visited on his fellow man. But the guilt rests just as firmly on the DA’s and Judges who would like to now claim they were fooled by Hayne’s words and demeanor. At best everyone in the ‘justice’ system who used Haynes to destroy another should be fired and barred from ever practicing law again.

Yes, I just puked writing that.

Discretion is involved in every prosecution at every level. Human beings decide which charges, if any, are to be filed. To “open a criminal investigation” is almost a phrase without any meaning. If a government bigwig decides that Person A shall not take a fall, Person A will never be “investigated” in any real sense of that word. If circumstances dictate that the police have to write a report, the passive voice will rear its head: “An investigation was conducted and no probable cause regarding Person A was found.” If the complaint was a written complaint, precise facts that would point to guilt are ignored.

(As an aside, the converse is much more common, and at least as frightening: Bigwig predetermines that Person X SHALL take a fall…)

That’s probably naive – any lawyer types want to explain why it isn’t the case?

Also, pellet deformation occurs largely as an independent, uncontrollable variable, one that may be determined as much by the individual packing and orientation of the pellets in a shell as by any congenital characteristic of the firearm. There is simply no way to eliminate or account for flyers developed by deformed pellets in the pattern, with the result being that the dimensions of a complete shot pattern may vary substantially from round to round. When one also considers the issue of rounds of varying dram weight equivalents producing the same wound effects and pattern distortions at different ranges, and under different atmospheric conditions, one realizes the enormity of the difficulty in making a forensic determination of the range at which a shotgun discharged its load at a target.

Unless one can be sure that a test utilizes the exact same shotgun, firing the exact same load type and configuration, under the exact same atmospheric conditions, and is able to analyze a wound pattern that is statistically confirmed to be complete, I would be highly suspect of any range estimates that the test might yield. Even then, I would only be willing to view the resulting estimate as a ballpark figure, and would not really on it for any estimate of range specifying a substantial distance from the muzzle. If I had a client who was being accused on the basis of a test that did not satisfy these conditions, I would defend against it *vigorously*, mustering whatever resources I could in an effort to bring in my own expert witness.

Once a shotshell has been fired, the mass of pellets gradually begins to expand and separate as distance from the muzzle increases, and this allows assessment of range of fire in most shotgun wounds.

As the muzzle-to-target distance increases from a contact wound, a more irregular entrance wound with scalloped edges may occur due to early pellet spread. As distance increases to a few meters, the margin of the wound will become ragged, and at a slightly longer distance, discrete individual “satellite” defects may be seen around the main wound due to individual pellet strikes.”

More at the link.
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1975428-overview#aw2aab6c17

Range of fire, or muzzle to target distance, may be divided into contact, near contact, intermediate, and distant categories, with various subtypes also demonstrable. Contact and intermediate range wounds are often collectively referred to as close-range wounds.

Determination of range of fire is based on the characteristics of a firearm wound, features of the wound that have been imparted by material issuing from the muzzle of the firearm other than the bullet, or from features due to direct interactions between the target and the firearm itself. Material from the firearm muzzle may take the form of soot, hot gas, gunpowder particles, or other material, and the effects of this material are discussed in more detail below.[5] The range of fire has obvious relevance to such issues as whether a wound is self-inflicted or inflicted by another person, the truth of proffered explanations of shooting events, and the validity of self-defense arguments. ”

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1975428-overview#aw2aab6b5

Determined by the tracks of the pellets as they entered the body of the victim. That tells you what angle the shot came from.