I wouldn't read too much into an apparent absence of visible wounds in the front.

It's reported that:
- he was shot in the back
- twice

But we don't know if there were any exit wounds.
We don't know at what angle the projectiles entered.
We don't know the ballistics data:
- 9mm
- .40 S&W
- 10mm
- other

The pics I've seen of the Troopers had them all in rubber gloves.
This may only be because they knew he was emitting bodily fluid.
But it may also be because they deliberately took him alive, and administered preliminary First Aid until the paramedics arrived.

---------------

Regarding tree-line proximity, the pics displayed here, and the precise timeline publicized do not explain:
- total time of engagement, from talk to fire
- distance from road to tree-line
- total distance escapee traveled between initial questioning and being downed by fire
- the range of each shot
- the firing position of the officer
- the flight path of the target: a target moving directly toward or away is much easier to hit than one moving either
- perpendicular to the line of fire, or
- serpentine.

Though apparently an experienced outdoorsman, I'm guessing Sweat was not running at long range, serpentine. It's just too tough a shot to make twice.
However:
it's reported he was shot twice. They didn't report how many shots were fired. If the trooper emptied three 15 round clips, it's a different story.

Certainly S2.
But it's utterly routine. It's the rule, not the exception; inaccuracies of early reports.

It was reported the escapees used power-tools.

Sweat says no, that they used only unpowered tools, and worked at it for months before they completed their escape.

It may help explain how an entire cell-block could be present, and not hear the goings on.

------------------

Initial reports of Sweat's being double-tapped made it seem like a risky ID.
Those reports didn't mention the Trooper actually speaking to the escapee before he fired.

PS
btw
Reports vary.
- Some say Sweat was shot in the back.
- Some say he was shot in the torso.
- Some say he got one in each shoulder.

On the latter;
- either Sweat very lucky, or
- the shooter impressively accurate.

Two consecutive non-lethal torso shots, at range, is not as easy as one might guess.

It was the hottest Summer day of the year, & Danny was desperately thirsty. So he stopped at a farmhouse and asked if he could have a drink. The grey-haired farmer welcomed Danny in, and poured him a glass of moonshine.
“Hold on there old-timer. I don't want hard liquor. Don't you have any ice water?”
The farmer took offense at the apparent insult to his homemade fuel, grabbed his double-barreled scatter-gun, and leveled it at Danny's face.
“Either you drink up, or you go home without a head!” the farmer said.
“Alright! Alright! I drink it.” So Danny knocked it back, wiped his lips on his sleeve, and declared:
“That is beyond doubt the WORST tasting stuff I've ever swallowed!”
The farmer replied: “Yeah! Ain't it! Now you hold the gun on me while I take a drink!”

Yes.
But that distinguishes options, from rights.
Government compels the education, but offers leeway on how it is provided.

So you embrace the idea government has the legitimate right and power to compel primary education, for the good of the whole People?

And if so, why not also medical immunizations?

Where do you draw the line?

Unquestionably!
But they didn't include the phrase "separation of Church and State" in the United States Constitution; an unfortunate omission.

What the U.S. Founders "were all firmly and eloquently opposed to" is philosophy.

What the U.S. Founders enshrined in our explicitly worded Constitution is:

Thus sadly, article one of our Bill of rights notwithstanding, "separation of Church and State" is a philosophical distinction, not an explicit legal doctrine.
It's principle.
It is not law, as written.

Nonsense.
Israel gets vastly more than $3 $mil a year.
I gather Israel has requested an increase this year, perhaps to $3 $Bil.

But in any case, whatever the TRUE $numbers are, tally it all up together, and as George Will says, it doesn't amount to a rounding error.

In a budget the size of the U.S. federal budget; terminating foreign aid would not balance the budget.

2A,
Sadly, they could have been better at specifying the separation of Church and State.

It's embarrassing how few U.S. citizens know whether the phrase "separation between Church and State" appears in our Constitution, or in the Declaration of Independence.

Those that know, know it's not in either one.

Instead I think it's a phrase taken from some private correspondence between the Founders.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Where would the Founders have come down on the issue of whether parents should have the right to withhold their children from vaccination to promote herd immunity in our public (government) schools?
The Disney measles outbreak shows what can happen to public health when parents exercise their right to religious freedom.

So, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Madison; how say you?

A2,
Specifically on divorce:

a) Just about everything we do is sinful.
My biblical consultant (a Jehovah's Witness) tells me "sin" means:
- to fall short of divine perfection.

So when you sign your check to pay a bill, your signature might not be as picturesque as god might forge it.

b) Humans live twice as long as before. Some outlast their marriage.

c) I heard a radio discussion / debate on this a few decades ago. One of the comments about clergymen was;
while in strict accordance with our formal religious traditions we're opposed to divorce; personally we know persons for whom divorce is really the best option.

I don't dismiss the sanctity of marriage.
But I acknowledge that, by the time he's cheating on her, and she's pulling kitchen cutlery on him; it's time to look at separate sleeping arrangements.

S2,
I was thinking the same thing about Sweat, the survivor.

The Trooper that shot him shot him:
a) in the back

b) at significant range

c) when the suspect was in clothes he wasn't wearing in the initial escape.

I know lots of hunters that would have looked like the escapee, under those conditions.

I appreciate the capture.
But if I was in that Trooper's boots, I'm not sure I'd have taken the shot.
"All's well that ends well."

Alright 2A. Makes sense.

So let's consider this angle:

There were great-grandparents whose lifestyle was much like their great-grandparents. Progress was so (comparatively) slow back then.
But our great-grandchildren's lives will be quite different from ours.

There is a parallel between technology, and social change.
The sexual revolution after all resulted from technological innovation: birth-patrol pills.

The sociological affects of social media (the proliferation of the smart-phone & "apps") couldn't have happened without the pocket-held devices.

Is it technology that's hurtling us forward? No longer a need to buy bales of hay to feed the family horses, because the Prius eats electricity from the wall?

Capital Punishment in the U.S.: Yes? No? How?

After the escape of two convicted murderers from a New York State prison, and the ~$Million $Dollar per $Day $manhunt they caused, there may be renewed attention on capital punishment.

SCOTUS has wrestled with this and stumbled over functional fixedness.
The infamous "3 drug (IV) cocktail" is a distraction.
They're fadidilling over whether the executee feels a little pain (or whatever).

How silly!

We already KNOW that there are ways to die artificially that are so painless, the victim doesn't even know it.

Carbon monoxide poisoning is classic example.
Just drop a plastic bag over their head.
Is that too tough?

So what's really going on here?
Are these guys really that stupid?
Or is there some underlying issue; kickbacks to the pharmaceutical industry for example?

note:
This topic inspired by S2.

Thank you for the update 2A.
I had wondered.

Do you think they should be fired? Demoted?

And do you think the prisoner will try to escape from the hospital?

There's an irony about objectivity here.

When religious influence results in a ruling we oppose, some criticize the process, even if it was not decisive.

But when religious influence results in a ruling we approve, some think such religious influence isn't so bad, even if it WAS decisive.

Thus, for some, such opinions are outcome based, rather than being based on principle.

Then there's this:

I'm not sure it came up during oral argument, or in deliberation.
But I personally find the 14th Amendment fairly persuasive.

As the topic is rate of social change, I ask:

Do you think this now closing court session is the first in which a 5:4 decision would have been in favor of the human right?
That if it had addressed the issue in a previous session, it would have gone the other way, by whatever ratio?

And was the issue chosen for that timing reason?

note:
I forget what it takes to get SCOTUS to take a particular case. But iirc it merely requires that three out of nine agree to take the case (even if they do NOT agree on how to rule on it).
It may be more complicated than that.

Context:
The U.S. top position in the world is slipping.
China's GDP exceeding our own is but one example.
India too is prospering, and before the end of the decade Japan may again ascend.

This stat. highlighted in bold is a per capita stat.
Factor out the young, the old, the imprisoned whose net worth is insufficient, and the cost per citizen who is actually in a position to pay may exceed $100K.

Do we really need NASA space adventures?
I'm not advocating technological troglodytism.
But my sources indicate we can accomplish pretty much the same thing with unmanned probes that we could with manned missions; but for about $one $tenth the price.

We spend a $Billion inventing Tang, and the whole world gets to drink it.
Why don't we let Russia, or China invent Tang the next time?

And how many aircraft carrier battle groups do we really need?
The U.S. is a NATO member nation.
If the U.S. is attacked, it is NATO's treaty obligation to come to our defense.

So why must the U.S. $spend more on $military, not only than any other NATO member nation; but more than all the ~27 other NATO member nations, COMBINED?!

Multiple issues here:

- What are our essential spending priorities?

- What spending can we / should we reduce or eliminate *?

And how can we stop being lied to about it?

Reagan talked a great game.
But Governor Reagan criticized President Carter for increasing the U.S. federal debt.
But President Reagan not only ran up more federal debt than the Democrat he criticized. Reagan ran up more U.S. federal debt than all the other U.S. presidents before him, COMBINED!

So what shall we do? A balanced budget amendment? (BBA)
A grass-roots campaign to elect Rand Paul?

What can U.S. citizens do as individuals, to fix this?

* Perfunctory and insignificant budget cuts or revenue enhancements won't suffice.
Balancing the budget would be nice; but even that's not enough; for we still have over $18 $Tril in $debt that should be paid off.

Regarding social issue rate of change:

We get change from various sources:
- Sometimes it's from a legislature

- In this recent case, from SCOTUS on same-sex marriage.

What's interesting about the ruling is, to some degree it's taken the issue off the table for the most part (reportedly some exception, such as that in Texas).

Since Reagan, the evangelical vote has been a staple of Republican electoral politics.

BUT:

Sucking up to them on this issue could only harm the party.
Thus:
this ostensibly liberal ruling from this ostensibly conservative court may benefit Republicans for 2016.

In addition to off the table

- In the general election, the majority favor the ruling outcome, &

- The young inside the Republican party also favor the ruling outcome.

But it is socially (& perhaps topically) relevant to note:
This same-sex marriage ruling, and other key rulings delivered by this court this term, were 5:4 decisions.

Our SCOTUS is unelected, is not term-limited, and is very difficult to impeach.

A 4:4 ruling is a draw, a finding for the status quo.

That means, for a nation of ~315 million, this public policy was effectively decided by one unelected government bureaucrat.

But I disagree with Huckabee & others that say it should have been settled by referendum.
The United States of America is not a democracy; it was deliberately Founded as a Constitutional republic.

These matters should be settled in accordance with law, and principle, as it was in this case.

Your confusion may be invincible.
I never asserted your patriotism offends me.

That you mis-state the case suggests you have failed to comprehend the literal meaning of my posted words.

You're more than welcome to post a brief explanation.

PS

I should add, such quotation is not necessarily an endorsement of the source; or even an endorsement of the quotation.

For obvious example:
H.G. Wells called WWI "the war to end war".

I wish HG! If only!

I sometimes include Wells' comment to reinforce Plato's counterpoint:

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." Plato


I find ironies such as these can be quite didactic.

Yes.
I see that.
So am I.

But pride is a personal emotion.
The issue is not emotion, or merely speech, but public speech, such as that published on the Internet, and thus accessible by virtually anyone with internet access (except perhaps in China).

Our First Amendment affords limited free speech right.

However:

It's bad karma, as you are likely to eventually experience; even though you may not notice.

But by and large persons that need to be told this don't benefit from being told.

It seems you don't know what that means.

a) Splendid.

b) Psychologist Joy Browne says "Ideas are not for believing, ideas are for using."

c) The validity of the Shaw quotation is not based upon his expert authority, or whatever.
It's based simply on its own intrinsic articulate, insightful validity.

d) I posted the quotation. You didn't address the validity of the quotation. You assailed the character of the author.
The validity of the quotation thus remains unimpeached in this thread.

e) Horrid though Shaw clearly was; I post quotations from a variety of persons, from sinners, to saints.

Yes al.
But for how long?

This afternoon, reported the prisoner's health has been upgraded, no longer in immediate need of surgery.

Also reported, he won't be returned to the Clinton facility.

Any idea where he'll go instead?

And under what conditions? Solitary?

Envied, perhaps.

But it's a mistake to conflate subjective preference (which you & I may share) with objective intrinsic superiority.

By what criterion?
- Wealth? The U.S. does not have the highest per capita life on Earth.
- Happiness? What I've read indicates that belongs to Denmark.
- etc.

I like the U.S. too.
I live here.
As a teen I volunteered during time of War, to serve in the U.S. military.

So do not mistake my scientific dispassion for lack of appreciation.

I don't think it's appropriate to gloat, and our friends and allies in France, the U.K., Germany, and China have reasons to be proud as well.

I'll skip the word "better", and stick with the word "different".