Slashdot Mirror


Whistleblowing IT Director Fired By FL State Attorney

An anonymous reader writes "Ben Kruidbos, the IT director for the Florida State Attorney's Office who'd spoken up when important cellphone evidence he'd extracted from Trayvon Martin's cellphone was withheld by the state from the defense, was fired by messenger at 7:30 PM Friday, after closing arguments in the Zimmerman case. He was told that he could not be 'trusted to set foot in this office,' and that he was being fired for incompetence. Kruidbos had received a merit pay raise earlier this year. The firing letter also blames him for consulting a lawyer, an obvious sign of evil."

569 comments

  1. Do good ... by fewnorms · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... get fired. I see a trend here.

    --
    Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
    1. Re: Do good ... by Sla$hPot · · Score: 0, Troll

      After WW2 everybody was working hard, rebuilding the world. There was a respect for those who worked harder and for those who simply achieved more.
      Then we had the cold war. There was the red team and the blue team. Things where pretty simple. Skills was an important factor. But a lot more politics.
      Today it's politics and corruption all over. Networking is more important than actual skills. There is no common goal, everybody is fighting everybody.
      I think the trend is called socialism. It's about how to fuck your neighbour over for scraps.
      Now that is why we need homeland security, right?
      "To secure the nation from the many threats we face"

    2. Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually socialism is pretty close to what you had during cold war in US because you had to care for your people to win it. High taxes on the rich, fairly solid safety net for the poor. It was there in the 60s and 70s. And it was dismantled in 90s after cold war ended.

      It's funny when propaganda says the exact opposite of what actually ends up happening, and people swallow it. And then think they're "thinking against what government wants us to think".

      You may also want to note that least corrupt countries in the world are socialist, while most corrupt are capitalist.

    3. Re: Do good ... by obarthelemy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually the 99% are fighting scraps because the 1% have gotten most of everything. And not, that's not socialism. I think the US have reached the level of a kleptocracy.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    4. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that means people who get fired a lot must be good people!

      Let me call human resources...

    5. Re: Do good ... by mc6809e · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually socialism is pretty close to what you had during cold war in US because you had to care for your people to win it. High taxes on the rich, fairly solid safety net for the poor. It was there in the 60s and 70s. And it was dismantled in 90s after cold war ended.

      Hardly.

      The safety net is bigger and more expensive than ever.

      Significant parts of it came into existence only in the 60s and 70s, not coincidentally followed by inflation in the early 80s as demand for services put pressure on supply constrained by high marginal tax rates and regulations. We risked an Argentine-style economic collapse. Reagan was only able to get reforms passed with Democrats in control of congress because there was no other way to save the welfare state. Democrats knew something had to be done.

      But anyway, what won the cold war was self-confidence in the West and self-doubt in the East. The Soviet Union voluntarily gave up on communism. I think that means they won, too.

    6. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      You may also want to note that least corrupt countries in the world are socialist, while most corrupt are capitalist

      Not even close. And you may want to note that communist and socialist countries in the 20th century mass murdered many people.

    7. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The safety net is bigger and more expensive than ever. Significant parts of it came into existence only in the 60s and 70s,

      You mean, right at the height of the Cold War? Yeah I think that's what he said.

    8. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thank you, we needed some input from a typewriter owner.

    9. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid your socialist education is incomplete. You will find some of the gaps filled in here.

    10. Re: Do good ... by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pretty much. Employers generally do not trust people who question them doing something illegal or unethical. Loyalty is prised over all, at least going up. Loyalty going down is communism.

    11. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sorry. What socialist nation murdered ppl? Russia and China were far left totalitarian states, while Germany was a far right fascist state.
      So, what socialist nation did you have in mind?

    12. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My boy came a cropper off his bike the other day, made a right mess of himself. Took him to the emergency ward at a nearby hospital for immediate patching up, and we took him to our local GP for a checkup a couple of days later. Coincidentally he had a dentist's appointment (booked months beforehand) this week so the dentist was able to give his mouth an exam as well because he got a mouthful of stones and his gums got lacerated.

      Hospital care, visit to the doctor, and dental care all in one week.

      Expense to me, total: zero

      Living in a socialist country that looks after its citizens: priceless

    13. Re: Do good ... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Try actual measurements of economic well-being someday. These "scraps" are better than kings used to have, aside from concubines.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    14. Re: Do good ... by Tavor · · Score: 0

      The Soviet Union didn't "give up" on anything. They were one of the world's leading powers with all the benefits of such. Then they had Chernobyl explode and immediately suck "9 Billion Rubles" out of their economy. During a major recession. Add to this that the 9 Billion figure flouted by Gorbachev is likely much MUCH smaller than the real cost between 1986 and the fall of the Soviet Union. (We know this, as the true costs today are much higher, even adjusted for inflation.)

      --
      Windows has detected an undetectable error.
    15. Re: Do good ... by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Depends on the king. There were kings poorer than the poorest in the current world if you dont what to use inflation.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    16. Re: Do good ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "The Soviet Union didn't "give up" on anything. They were one of the world's leading powers with all the benefits of such."

      Hardly. They were only "one of the world's leading powers" because they were willing to starve their own citizens in order to be one. (Unless, of course, they were ranking members of the Party.)

      Their economy started sucking immediately after the "peoples' revolution" and never recovered. They managed for quite a while but economically, things were NEVER good under "Communist" Russia. Communist in quotes because in practice they -- and everybody else for that matter -- never came anywhere near an actual Communist political / economic system. They only made it as far as very bad Socialists.

      And the main reason they managed to be a world power for as long as they did, was because of massive access to natural resources. If the U.S. had ever had anything like the resources the Soviets controlled, the world would be 100% American now.

    17. Re: Do good ... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      My point is political narratives stir up rage in people telling them how rotten things are and how they are getting ripped off, when the quality and length of their lives continues to increase year by year, largely due to the protection of rights and otherwise letting people be free to live their lives.

      Most people around the world today, and everybody through human history, would love to be "ripped off" in the way certain political narratives bleat.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    18. Re: Do good ... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ridiculous. The early 80's is when inflation ended. Inflation started in the '60s due to LBJ's guns and butter program and exploded in the '70s due to the oil price shock.

    19. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obvious troll is obvious.

      Actually I do have comprehensive private health insurance because you're crazy if you're a parent and don't, but got waved off each time I pulled out my wallet. "Nup, you're good."

      But that's beside the point. The point is, in a civilized society fellow citizens look after each other. My taxes have paid for the care of every other kid that came off his bike too.

      Socialism: it works, bitches.

    20. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may also want to note that least corrupt countries in the world are socialist, while most corrupt are capitalist.

      Right. You haven't been alive very long have you? Or is it that you've never bothered to actually study humanity?

      Corruption is found where ever you find a government, of any size. Thinking it's somehow worse in capitalist countries simply proves you're either too young to have any practical experience, or too self-centered to see past what little experience you have.

    21. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Soviet Union was having deep economic troubles long before Chernobyl. Chernobyl was a symptom of a broken system.

      Communism is a horribly inefficient and deeply flawed system, period. So is socialism, for that matter. However, once you get to a certain level of wealth via capitalism, there's enough cream at the top that you can begin seriously spreading it around. You have to be careful, though. Lots of socialist countries have gone into tremendous debt and had to reorient their economy along more capitalistic lines. This is why Europe went through 20+ years of dismantling its system of state-owned enterprises; in fact, it's still doing this.

      The so-called "socialist" countries of Northern and Western Europe are significantly less socialist than they were in the 1970s and 1980s.

      There are better ways to achieve increased equity and wealth distribution. For example, labor unions. Unfortunately, both capitalists and socialists dislike labor unions because labor unions decentralize economic power, which hinders both socialist politicians and industrial tycoons, alike.

    22. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, that's from post soviet Russia. I think what Snowden released indicated that anything using our computer chips could be compromised. Therefore, they're back to using typerwriters,

    23. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you so mean to Mr Putin?

      http://it.slashdot.org/story/13/07/11/1337236/russian-federal-guard-service-upgrades-to-electric-typewriters

    24. Re: Do good ... by anagama · · Score: 1

      Socialism is an economic system.

      What you are talking about is the amoral sociopathic tendancies of politicians and tycoons. You can have sociopaths in any economic system, and our brand of government supported corporatism has its share, probably a generous share.

      Fortunately for American, In the early 1900s the labor movement (damn commies, wobblies and all that) made some real strides -- 40 hour work week, minimum wage, overtime pay, child labor laws, etc. etc. All the things that took us from being the China of the 1800s labor wise, to being an industrial heavyweight, a burgeoning economic power, and a vision of middle class prosperity to the rest of the world in the post war years, were built on these improving work conditions. America really should have been a lot more thankful to those damn commies -- they helped make capitalism work, at least for a time. Now that they've lost any sway, and most workers want to avoid unions, and everyone supports globalization to the max, we'll soon be back into the age of robber barons.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    25. Re: Do good ... by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      I think the trend is called socialism. It's about how to fuck your neighbour over for scraps.

      Please look up what socialism actually is before spewing such bullshit ever again.

    26. Re: Do good ... by meerling · · Score: 1

      Sure, and don't forget the send the whites back to Europe and the yellows back to Asia.
      Let's see, who would be left? The reds, but most of them were already killed off or crossbred with everyone else.
      Speaking of which, what about the crossbreeds? Where do we send them?

      And as to the KKK, they'd still exist. After all, they hate anyone that's different. Skin, Religion, Accent, whatever, they hate them all, it's just that they hate some more than others. Take away the ones they hate most, they'll just target the next on the list.

      Stupid racists.

    27. Re: Do good ... by ahabswhale · · Score: 4, Informative

      The safety net is bigger and more expensive than ever.

      Social security, and welfare existed long before the 60's. Food stamps and medicare are from the 60's, however, welfare was scaled back decades ago when Clinton was in office. So your notion that the safety net has exploded is patently false. That said, the costs have certainly shot up. Medicare has skyrocketed due to the crazy increases in medical costs. Social security has shot up in spite of the fact that the benefits have been reduced because people are living longer. Welfare and unemployment are up because unemployment is up.

      ...followed by inflation in the early 80s as demand for services put pressure on supply constrained by high marginal tax rates and regulations...

      The inflation in the 80s was primarily because of oil, food prices, and a falling dollar, and a reduction in productivity levels. Marginal tax rates had nothing to do with it.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    28. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes no sense unless you are counting something like Don Quixote. At the very least kings had wealth. Wealth in money; wealth in goods; wealth in loyalty; wealth in land. They at least had land or they would not be a king.

    29. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have reverence, you infidel. He is the holder of a very low UI. As such he was around when ARPANET was formed and has probably forgotten more about OS systems and Interconnect than your ever likely to know.

    30. Re: Do good ... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      You may also want to note that least corrupt countries in the world are socialist, while most corrupt are capitalist.

      Which socialist countries did you have in mind? There aren't many. It depends on the type of corruption you are talking about. You can't bribe cops in the US to get out of a traffic ticket. In fact they will probably beat the crap out of you if you try and then arrest you on contempt of cop charges in addition to attempted bribery or whatever. In Cuba you can get out of nearly anything with bribes and bribery is routine and expected.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    31. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The court had pretty much ruled that Trayvon was not on trial, and that is pretty clear here by the fact that he is DEAD.

      This isn't russia. you know, where they successfully tried someone who was long dead for tax fraud.

    32. Re: Do good ... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Mouthpiece, mouthpiece what ya gonna do
      You've been labeled evil by people like you.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    33. Re: Do good ... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously trying to argue that the USSR and China were not socialist? Or WW2 Germany for that matter? NAZI = National Socialism (nationalsozialist). USSR = United Soviet Socialist Republics. China considers itself communist for the most part, but communism itself is really just a slight variation on the Socialist ideals. They are all forms of totalitarianism or collectivism because they are completely anti-individualist and egalitarian.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    34. Re: Do good ... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Odd you post this on the very day it was determined not to be murder at all.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    35. Re: Do good ... by mc6809e · · Score: 2

      Welfare was altered, but hardly scaled-back. The forms of welfare may have changed, though. Today even "Obamaphones" are available to the poor.

      The inflation in the 80s was primarily because of oil, food prices, and a falling dollar, and a reduction in productivity levels. Marginal tax rates had nothing to do with it.

      High marginal rates prevent increases in productive capacity for several reasons including a lack of profitability in expansion, and a lack of capital accumulation for the formation of new production.

      An ever-growing welfare state must consume more and more resources. Without the creation and accumulation of capital from profits, production is difficult to increase. Increased government spending then creates inflation as prices adjust to handle the necessary reallocation of goods and services.

    36. Re: Do good ... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      And what Socialist country would this be exactly?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    37. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sorry. What socialist nation murdered ppl? Russia and China were far left totalitarian states, while Germany was a far right fascist state.

      No True Scotsman indeed for the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics or for the National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party.

      Sure, they weren't the same as the Social Democratic systems we might have today, but they were all plenty socialist.

      Socialism is a policy. In and of itself, it is no better or worse for human rights than any other. The biggest complaint about socialism is that it makes promises that it will not be able to pay for in the long term, and that it encourages the rapid growth of government bureaucracy.

    38. Re: Do good ... by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 2

      Stupid racists.

      Department of Redundancy Department

    39. Re: Do good ... by jbengt · · Score: 2

      Inflation started to get bad in the 70s, and got really bad in the late 70s and early 80s, along with a big recession, not just because of oil shocks and such, but because the Federal Reserve decided to wring the inflation out of the economy by tightening the money supply and raising interest rates. In the short term, this caused a recession while raising inflation, but in the long run, it did dampen inflation and the economy recovered just in time for the republicans to credit Reagan for it.

    40. Re: Do good ... by amjohns · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you're claiming that inquiring whether the prosecutor, intentionally or not, withheld evidence from the defense is bad?

      That has NOTHING to do w/ anyone's guilt or innocence, it has EVERYTHING to do with the rule of law. FTA: "Kruidbos said he became concerned that lead prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda might not have turned over Kruidbos’ report to defense attorneys." This man saw a potential violation, and questioned it. If that evidence HADN'T been turned over to the defense, it could have been grounds for an appeals court to overturn any possible conviction.

      The entire American (and western world) legal system is based on the principle that a defendant has the right to all information the government may try to use against him/her, AND any information that could cast doubt on the prosecutor's evidence or interpretation of the facts; it's called exculpatory evidence. Whether it's relevant to the case is up to the (presumably impartial) judge, and then the jury if the judge allows it to be presented. Now that may not always be fair to the victim and their family, but it's the law, and everyone in the legal system, police, lawyers, judgets, etc is bound to uphold it.

      Let me give a similar, but counter hypothetical example: What if the police had a rock-solid forensic expert who could positively identify some of the other evidence (e.g. the screams on the phone), and conclusively prove ZImmerman was innocent (not saying this exists... follow me here)? And they withheld that and still charged him with murder. Would it be right to bring that up? Obviously it would!

      There's NO DIFFERENCE between that hypothetical and this actual situation, both are cases of the defendant potentially being denied their right to exculpatory evidence, to be vetted by the judge for relevance and bias.

    41. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Socialist countries are SO great!

      Cuba has 95% literacy! Also they voted 100% for Castro! Both numbers are totally legit!

    42. Re: Do good ... by interval1066 · · Score: 2

      America does, ergo your premise is completely wrong. The continental US has vast resources, especially raw iron, coal, NG, and we blow the rest of the entire world out of the water in food production. What it doesn't have a lot of is something east asia has; rare earth. But

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    43. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From someone who interacts with the public on a daily basis: 99% of the 99% are complete idiots who deserve little or no sympathy.

    44. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always funny to see that people does not seem to be able to understand the difference between totaliarism and communism nor even socialism (Yes there is a big difference between communism and sosialism).

      Former Russia had all to do with totaliarism and very, very, very little with communism. If you can flag something as strawberry (even if the smell gives away it is manure) if you are in possesion of all communication channels (example: Berlusconi) and can surpress people enough to make them afraid to say anything about the reality of it being manure.

      Nowedays Russia is for a great part a capitalistic state that is becoming more and more totaliar again. In my opinion the only difference between the USA and Rusia is that in Russia there is one ruler with an iron fist, and America is ruled by coroprations with an iron fist.

      Real communist states do not exist, but a lot of states (like Korea) use the "strawberry communism" as I described above to hide the totaliarism.

      There are however country's where socialism is at least a part of their gouvernment. And those country's do very well on the humantairian side (like -for example- a health care fore everybody that's charged by income-rate: everybody pays the same percentage of income, so If you earn little you have to pay less, if you earn mutch you have to pay more). But -sadly- the USA is not one of this country's.

    45. Re: Do good ... by fredprado · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      1) US actually always had more resources than the soviet in pretty much everything.

      2) You confuse Communism with Socialism. When we talk Socialism today we usually refer to Communist Socialism, which is a synonym to Communism, or Social Democracy, which has nothing to do with Authoritarianism, but we forget Socialism encompass far more doutrines, Nazism and Facism, for example are types of Socialisms (despite the unwillingness of some in accepting it mostly due to ignorance).

      That said USSR was communist, and it didn't work because communist theory is inherently flawed, not because no one implemented it right yet.

    46. Re: Do good ... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      And as to the KKK, they'd still exist. After all, they hate anyone that's different. Skin, Religion, Accent, whatever, they hate them all, it's just that they hate some more than others. Take away the ones they hate most, they'll just target the next on the list.

      Typical primate behaviour... Looking for other primates to label as "no-good shits" and then dumping on them.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    47. Re: Do good ... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... both capitalists and socialists dislike labor unions...

      Just. Stop. Right. There.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    48. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you talking about oil and natural gas, or what? US production of oil kept increasing into the 70's. The US has lots of natural gas...

    49. Re: Do good ... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously trying to argue that calling a tail a leg is all it takes to turn it into one?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    50. Re: Do good ... by dns_server · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Socialist countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand are quite low on the corruption index, far better than capitalist america.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

    51. Re: Do good ... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I heard this from some drunk Swede on the T-bana a while back, mixed in with some crap about nasty foreigners taking our women.

      Me (nice and loud): Excuse me, sir, but I am a foreign worker in your country. My name is Zon. How do you do? Do you think that the 235,000 SEK I paid in income tax last year was enough? Should I ring up Skatteverket and volunteer to may some more? And--if you don't mind, I'm curious--was this more or less than you made from your job last year?

      Him (mumbled): Um, not working lately.

      Me: Didn't think so. Well, have a nice day, Sir, and keep enjoying (VERY loudly) that bottle that I paid for. Cheers.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    52. Re: Do good ... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, here in Sweden, my partner's emergency surgery a couple of years ago cost us a grand total of 4000 SEK (call it US$750). About a third of this was for cab fare to and from the hospital. Most of the rest was registration fees.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    53. Re: Do good ... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      He is the holder of a very low UI.

      Nah, not really.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    54. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listening to: "La Mer", Julio Iglecias live at the Olympia in '76.

      You've been listening to that for about 2 years now. They do make other sound recordings, you know.

      ProTip: It's "Iglesias".

    55. Re: Do good ... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Communism is pretty well 100% incompatible with things like farming (improving the land and leaving it for their kids in a major goal of farm owners) and they had a huge agricultural sector. That's where most of the starvation came from, they were more or less at war with their food producers.

    56. Re: Do good ... by ahabswhale · · Score: 4, Insightful

      lol...your argument might make sense if it weren't for the fact that marginal tax rates were much higher in the 50s but inflation was low. Sorry but history is just not on your side...at all.

      Also, a 5 year lifetime limit on welfare seems like a pretty significant change to me.

      Oh, and one more thing, the "obamaphones" are not paid for with taxes. Additionally, the program was created before Obama was even running for president. If anything, they are bushphones.

      Perhaps you live on a different planet than I do.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    57. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what Socialist country would this be exactly?

      Australia

    58. Re: Do good ... by saihung · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nazism and Facism, for example are types of Socialisms (despite the unwillingness of some in accepting it mostly due to ignorance).

      No. That is wrong. And while it's cute calling people who disagree with your bad facts "ignorant," that won't save you. Socialism runs the state's economic machinery for the benefit of the populace. This is its primary defining feature. Fascism runs the state for the benefit of the ruling party. This is its defining feature. The two are irreconcileable, which is why Fascists outlawed trade unions.

    59. Re: Do good ... by Cederic · · Score: 2

      What utter nonsense.

      Farms were well looked after long before capitalism turned up. Farms can flourish in a communist state.

      "true" communism protects the farms for the people, wouldn't you think?

    60. Re: Do good ... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The prosecutor doesn't need to turn over the report if he does not intend to use it in court. It is a report, not primary evidence. The defense team had access to the same evidence themselves, and also chose not to use it (or were prevented from using it by the judge, I don't know which). In any case, the jury came to their decision without seeing this evidence, and the actions of the "whistleblower" in making this public, most likely in anticipation of a very different verdict, are questionable. Smearing the name of the dead in public when the legal process has declined to accept your evidence is never a good strategy.

    61. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the most creatively destructive description of socialism I have seen so far. And diametrically opposed to the real thing.

      Actually, socialism is about solidarity, sharing your scraps with your neighbour. Paying taxes with the good feeling of knowing that they fund good things in your society. Replacing private interests - such as insurance companies - with nonprofits government equivalents. Cutting a billionaire owner and his cohorts of generously-paid CEOs out of the loop.

      At its root, it is every bit as selfish as the alternatives, though it operates on the insight that when you contribute to your society, you contribute to yourself. When you share those scraps with your neighbour he will be less inclined to rob you.

    62. Re: Do good ... by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please clarify the "starving" thing. It's true that early in the Soviet Union's formation, Stalin allowed territories that didn't follow his policies to starve.

      But, one can make the case that Republicans want to do the same to poor and minorities since they don't vote Republican. Some extreme Republicans want to let states suffer after disasters rather than have the federal gov't "bail them out".

      It's not just a Soviet thing.

    63. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If people were looking after you, they'd come down and pay your bill.

      Of course, insisting on people using the most inefficient way to help other people sure is going to make for a well-functioning system!

    64. Re: Do good ... by phayes · · Score: 2

      If you agree that socialism generally segues into fascism (while continuing to pretend to be socialist) once the ruling party becomes entrenched, then I agree with you.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    65. Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      This is correct. Essentially entire USSR "socialist" policy can be viewed by the extremity of Holodomor (google it if you do not know what that is).

      The main reason for USSR's collapse was that entire Warsaw Pact economic output was only a fraction of that of NATO. As a result, to stay militarily competitive, they had to transfer more money from people to the military. This presented a massive drain on the economy, which after the massive shocks of Afghanistan and Chernobyl cause the economic collapse.

    66. Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Fascism is actually the type of capitalism, specifically focusing state control through wealthy corporations. It's what Italy had under Mussolini. Nazism on the other hand is the ideology of purity of the race, which runs in direct opposition of basic tenets of socialism, that every human has worth and is worth financially supporting when in a bad spot.

    67. Re: Do good ... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2

      Um.... did you go to that link and stop to think that most of the countries in Africa, South America, Asia, Eastern Europe, etc... are socialist and also rank much lower on that corruption index than the U.S.?

      What you're link really shows is that established first world countries are less corrupt than 2nd and 2rd world countries that haven't quite figured out the rule of law yet. There are obviously a few exceptions, but that's much more the pattern.

      If you were going on sheer count of socialist vs not-as-socialist (in the world of "mixed" economies, not much in the way of actual capitalism out there in the last 100 years), you'd have to say that the U.S. is well above the vast majority of the "socialist" countries in the world, but that's really mostly because most of them are 3rd world countries still recovering from or even still believing Marxist lies spread by the soviets successfully trying to inflame revolution around the world during the cold war.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    68. Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Well, I usually think of Nordics since I happen to live in Finland. You could also argue that Canada, Australia and New Zealand largely belong to in the same category.

    69. Re: Do good ... by phayes · · Score: 2
      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    70. Re: Do good ... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      The reds didn't just spring up here.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    71. Re: Do good ... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 3, Informative

      The defense didn't know about it until literally about 2 days before the trial. They only knew about it at all because of this whistle-blower.

      They tried to use the evidence in the trial, but the judge wouldn't let them because they didn't have witnesses on their witness list already who could testify that the texts/pictures were from Martin (i.e. Authenticate them as having come from Martin). In the process, the Judge ignored a legal precedent that because they were found on Martin's own cell phone, they could be presumed to be his enough to let the jury decide.

      Of course, the defense hadn't had any time to go find and depose all the witnesses needed to authenticate the evidence, because they only learned about the evidence right before the trial because the prosecution actively hid it's existence from them. The prosecution not intending to use the evidence in court is irrelevant. They have a duty to tell the defense about ANY evidence they find that may help the defense. Of course the prosecution isn't going to use it if they think it's bad for their case. That doesn't mean they don't have to tell the defense about it during discovery, which was well before this whistle-blower let the world know about it.

      This whole situation was one of several where if Zimmerman had actually been convicted, his lawyers would have had en excellent case to have the verdict thrown out on appeal because of reversible error by the judge.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    72. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Actually socialism is pretty close to what you had during cold war in US because you had to care for your people to win it. High taxes on the rich, fairly solid safety net for the poor. It was there in the 60s and 70s."

      I don't know what socialism utopia you smoke, but I want some.

      I lived in a Soviet Union satellite state in the 60s and 70s.

      High taxes on the rich?
      ??? There were not rich in the first place, officially. To be rich was a crime only foreigners could commit.

      Extra officially the people at the Party or near the Party were rich, they had good quality food for their families, good houses, the best education in special schools only for them, good cars and everything.

      solid safety net for the poor?
      ??? There were not poor people there, officially. There were just people that asked the government for a house, a TV or a car and they will have to wait years or decades for getting them.

      Those cars or houses were crap. Food was crap too, you only found good food in the black market.

      Differences in pay scale were huge, but there were only one employer, so do something they don't like, like talking with foreigners, and your job or your family will be lost. Of course there were no jobless there!, they will force you(or your family) to work in a crappy job with worse salary.

      Of course people at the Party had not to wait, for anything, and they always had money for getting whatever they needed for them or their families at the black market.

      "You may also want to note that least corrupt countries in the world are socialist, while most corrupt are capitalist."

      Oh my... You really need some traveling. Go live at least 6 months in Cuba, or North Korea.

      Don't tell Denmark, Sweden or Norway are socialist, because those are a joke of socialism for those that have lived in Socialism.

    73. Re: Do good ... by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Social security, and welfare existed long before the 60's. Food stamps and medicare are from the 60's, however, welfare was scaled back decades ago when Clinton was in office. So your notion that the safety net has exploded is patently false. That said, the costs have certainly shot up. Medicare has skyrocketed due to the crazy increases in medical costs. Social security has shot up in spite of the fact that the benefits have been reduced because people are living longer. Welfare and unemployment are up because unemployment is up.

      That is patently false. Almost the entirety of the growth in the Federal budget since the 1960s is due to Medicare/Medicaid, then Social Security, both as a percentage of the budget and in raw dollars. Basically, everything we've gained in 50 years from cutting defense spending by 60% since the 1960s has been consumed by growth in those two social programs, and then some.

      Medical costs in this country are beyond screwed up. The amount spent by the Federal and State governments on health care exceeds that of Canada on a per capita basis. That's right, the Canadian government spends less per person on health care than the U.S. government does on average. And they cover nearly all of everyone's medical costs (some people still buy supplemental insurance there), while U.S. government spending averages out to about half of everyone's medical costs. So don't go trying to blame it all on private health care. Both private and public health care spending are to blame.

    74. Re: Do good ... by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      Everyone who lots access to welfare from the 90's reforms went on Social Security Disability, that is why the SSA's costs have shot up.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    75. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the 9 Billion figure flouted by Gorbachev

      I'm not sure why a number was giving orders to a president, so no wonder he ignored them.

    76. Re: Do good ... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Nazism on the other hand is the ideology of purity of the race, which runs in direct opposition of basic tenets of socialism, that every human has worth and is worth financially supporting when in a bad spot.

      They just had a slightly narrower definition of "human".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    77. Re: Do good ... by Burz · · Score: 1

      I think he is automatically disregarding undemocratic countries, which is something I would do as well. After all, a socialist dictatorship is hard to distinguish from any other dictatorship, even a capitalist one... then its simply a matter of using different economic labels for the same things.

      As for corruption in the US, it has mostly been legalized though I'd guess there may be some way of measuring corruption objectively based on some form of "best practices" for business and government. In such a case, I doubt the rest of the world could quite compete with the sums involved in US corruption.

      However, it is nice of you to merely look down on other countries as misguided when so many US apologists are defending an ever-growing list of invasions. Its so much more civilized.

    78. Re: Do good ... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Significant parts of it came into existence only in the 60s and 70s

      When exactly do you think the cold war ended? I'd always been told 1991 (with the dissolution of the USSR) was the end and started in 1947 (with the Truman Doctrine) which would seem to put the 60s and 70s smack in the middle of it. What dates do you assign to it?

    79. Re: Do good ... by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your neighbors couldn't give a shit about you. They're just voting to make sure that they get theirs too.

      Umm, that's sort of how it's intended to work. Sometimes you're you, sometimes you're your neighbour, in the long run it cancels out. And with no profiteering middlemen it actually works out cheaper.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    80. Re: Do good ... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      But he was only comparing within 1st world countries, if the concept means anything today.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    81. Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Because you never lived in actual socialism. You lived in a society that leaders told you was socialism, and that had as much to do with socialism as Nazism (which notably was also called a form of socialism in spite of being a polar opposite of it).

      And notably I'm a finn. I live in a socialist country. So how about you do not tell me not to talk about my country, and I won't tell you not to talk about yours?

    82. Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Actually it went FAR beyond that. Hitler's agenda wasn't just killing jews , even though many like to present it as such. He was driving the purity of the aryan race through elimination of all those he viewed as inferior in general. There was a great example in the letter exchange between the fuhrer and a certain german father who had a son with severe form of learning disability. Father requested permission to kill his child in the name of purity of aryan race. Hitler got personally involved in the issue and after an exchange of letters gave his personal blessing to the father to kill his child.

    83. Re: Do good ... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Looks like polack_twat's karma is in the basement again.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    84. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Party is of the people, and in both "fascism" and "socialism" the Party is vast, so that's not much of a difference, especially since every (relatively stable) government benefits the people, and every government gives itself the most benefits

    85. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure what "good" he did. He circumvented his employers, contacted the defense attorneys directly (that was probably illegal right there), then talked to an attorney (and wow, found out they had the information he was so worried about) because "he was concerned about looking like he was leaking information". Sounds more like he was the person who was leaking information.

    86. Re: Do good ... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      How much have you paid in taxes? Pay before, pay now, pay later: no free lunch.

    87. Re: Do good ... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      There's also the not being all covered in shit aspect, which is nothing to be sniffed at.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    88. Re: Do good ... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      How much have you paid in taxes?

      On an annual basis, about the same as my gross income was before I accepted this job and came to Sweden.

      But why should that matter?

      Yes, it costs to make sure sick folks get healthcare, folks with kids get daycare, unemployed folks can still pay their rent, old folks get their pensions and minibus rides to the doctors and shops, air-breathing and water-drinking folks get to breathe clean air and drink clean water, and so on.

      Yes, I pay my share--and happily, since I get to take advantage of what the system offers, just like any other Swedish worker. (And I still get to live in a reasonably nice flat, eat what I like, make my child support payments, and still afford to fly overseas once or twice a year to visit the rellies.)

      I gather that I am supposed to see a problem with this? Sorry to disappoint you, if that's the case.

      BTW, dealing with Skatteverket is about 100 times less scary than dealing with the IRS. Taxes here are high compared with some places, true, but they are also very simple, straightforward, and unambiguous.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    89. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you read the Nazi party's platform? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program. Remember, Nazi was short for National Socialist.

      More to the point is whether the extent of government control. Thus, whether it 'owns' a business or 'regulates' it, if that business's ability to function is equivalent then the form doesn't really matter. And whether one's views on how the government is doing can be expressed is what matters, not on the stated reason it's suppressed (it's still the police enforcing the views of "the States" or "the People" or whatever).

    90. Re: Do good ... by isorox · · Score: 1

      Thank you, we needed some input from a typewriter owner.

      http://it.slashdot.org/story/13/07/11/1337236/russian-federal-guard-service-upgrades-to-electric-typewriters

      It stops the NSA from tracking him.

    91. Re: Do good ... by Sla$hPot · · Score: 0

      There goes the Slashdot censorship.. again.. sigh!
      F#€%in socialist bastards :) *giggle*

    92. Re: Do good ... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      In that case I think our definitions of Socialism are quite different.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    93. Re: Do good ... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      If "flourish" you mean "take everything." Then I guess that works out well.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    94. Re: Do good ... by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      Inside of the US most people view "Socialism" as being virtually identical with "Communism". Very few Americans seem to be able to make the distinction between a Socialist Democracy and a Socialist Totalitarian state. Hell, many can't even tell that Communism and Fascism are on the opposite end of the political spectrum.Thus they seem to equate Canada's Healthcare system with the Totalitarian government in Cuba.

      Outside of the US many recognize that the Government can handle some aspects of the economy effectively in many ways, and that sometimes this is preferable to having Corporations run things. Of course the recent trend towards Rightwing governments here in Canada means that a lot of those government organizations (Crown Corporations we call them here) are being dismantled and replaced with non-government corporations, or at least the rules are being changed so it makes little difference. I hope this trend ends eventually when people realize that our Conservative Overlords are destroying the country in the name of sucking up to the US Republican party and to major Corporate interests and not acting in the interests of the Canadian citizenry, but I may hope in vain.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    95. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol...your argument might make sense if it weren't for the fact that marginal tax rates were much higher in the 50s but inflation was low. Sorry but history is just not on your side...at all.

      Also, a 5 year lifetime limit on welfare seems like a pretty significant change to me.

      Oh, and one more thing, the "obamaphones" are not paid for with taxes. Additionally, the program was created before Obama was even running for president. If anything, they are bushphones.

      Perhaps you live on a different planet than I do.

      Except no such 5 year limit exists on Disability. And the Feds pay it alone unlike welfare. See the record numbers on SS disability. Overall welfare spending is still at record highs.

    96. Re: Do good ... by Sla$hPot · · Score: 0

      Ideally socialism is good as most other ideologies. In practice things are a lot different as with practically all other ideologies.
      I have experienced socialism for a lifetime now and despite all it's good intentions you always end up with a group of selfish and often incompetent group of people trying to control everything, relying on skilled officials or colleagues taking care of the mess that they left behind.
      Socialism grew out of the of the working class need for an alternative to the capitalist system, that ruled during the industrialization. It was tough times being a worker.
      However today the working class is pretty much extinct. The majority of workers now live in China.
      But socialism is still praised and romanticized as the political correct system. But i think it is being confused by many with simply being social or nice.
      That is the exact same trades that made you CEO what he/she is today. A social, well spoken, well connected, political correct individual. That happens to be in control of power.
      The hardcore conservative capitalist is dead to. The world has changed. You don't necessarily recognize the CEO on the street, off duty wearing sandals and a t-shirt.
      And sometimes the CEO isn't as generously payed as you might think. But he(not she) just is the favorite villain to the socialist, even though many CEO's actually have a socialist background. And often they are actually both good and responsible people too. Not to confuse with a socialist.
      Because being fair, justice, responsible and showing solidarity isn't a social-democratic only trademark. It's just human trades just like any other.
      But at all times it is the social trade that has also made people corrupt, because it allows the people in power to exchange tips and information through networking.
      It is always easier for the socially intelligent person to gain power in a group of people when the rules are sloppy enough to allow it. No matter the skills or justification.
      With that follows old boy networking and lots of favors. Combine that with today's IT communication facilities and social network services.
      That is why we need whistle blowers more than ever. To break the vicious circle before things get to bad.
      I think the whistle blower programme needs more power, ie. so that whistle blowers is ensured free attorney and a, lets say ten year paycheck when fired for whistle blowing.

    97. Re: Do good ... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      In that case, the peasants were direct producers (farmers), so it's hard to compare. Some could argue it's part of warfare, comparable to our embargoes on Iran, being that the Ukraine was resisting Soviet occupation. Regardless, the result is the same: starving and sick people.

    98. Re: Do good ... by persevero · · Score: 0

      I think they would qualify as social democracies, not socialist countries.

    99. Re: Do good ... by persevero · · Score: 0

      Your taxes are also paying for this lupus sufferer (assuming your social democracy is my social democracy), who would be uninsurable in the US. I have a friend in the US who was diagnosed as having breast cancer at about the time her annual premium came up for renewal, and was instantly dumped by her insurance company.

    100. Re: Do good ... by persevero · · Score: 0

      Btw, is that the EA Blair I think it is?

    101. Re: Do good ... by Sla$hPot · · Score: 0

      >What you are talking about is the amoral sociopathic tendancies of politicians and tycoons
      +1

    102. Re: Do good ... by Sla$hPot · · Score: 0

      I know socialism alright: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3971217&cid=44277309
      To me socialism is a political system that favors social behavior, disregarding logic and common sense all together. I think that is bad for the common good.
      I also think that we live in a changing world that requires a constant evaluation of our political systems.
      Therefore I wouldn't rely on one single political system or paradigm alone. But instead focus on values. That might happen to be a pick of the best.

    103. Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I'm talking about socialism that actually exists in reality. You are talking about totalitarianism that chose to call itself "socialism" to get wider public acceptance.

      Tell me something: when you walk by a man and a woman, and man is savagely beating a woman, you stop and ask if there's something wrong and man tells you this is normal behavior between two married people - do you also accept this as truth? Because your definition of socialism including the source teaching you what it is is very similar to accepting the wife beater's assessment of his violent behavior.

    104. Re: Do good ... by fredprado · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but you are completely wrong. Fascism has absolutely nothing to do with Capitalism. Capitalism is as much as possible free-market (as complete free market and laissez faire capitalism don't exist) with minimum government intervention. Fascism is exactly the opposite, as any big state Socialist doctrine. Fascism is exactly like Comunism or Nazism in this sense. The only real difference between each of them is the imaginary enemy and the supposed objective of the movement. In Nazism the enemies are based on xenophobia and the objective is expansionist, in Fascism the enemies are "those that are undermining the Nation" and the objectives are Nationalists, in Communism the enemies are the Bourgeoisie and the Capital, and the objective is Egalitarian.

    105. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact you make mention of Obamphones makes most of what you say suspect, as Obama had absolutely nothing to do with Universal Lifeline or its extension Safelink.

      Universal lifeline started with Reagan and Safelink (the wireless extension) started with GWB.

    106. Re: Do good ... by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Socialism in the classic definition is when the the Government (meaning "Society") runs everything, period. The objective may vary, but it is usually justified as "for the benefit of the population". Fascism rules the economy for the benefit of the nation and therefore in their view the people too, On the other hand Communism rules the economy in the benefit of The Proletarian and therefore in their view in the benefit of the people too. In reality both rule the economy in the benefit of the ruling class though.

      Nazism is actually a contraction of National Socialism, by the way.

      The misuse of the term "Socialism" to imply "Communist Socialism" is something relatively recent and a technique of disinformation our leftist "intellectuals" are very happy in maintaining and enforcing.

    107. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all it means is you have wasted far more time on here then the rest of us.

    108. Re: Do good ... by fredprado · · Score: 2

      In the very same way Communism get ridden of the Bourgeois and Nobles by exterminating them. The objective is basically the same. Create an enemy, polarize the population and unite the bulk of it under you and retrieve the enemy resources. There is very little difference between Hitler's Nazism and Stalin's Communism. The measurable difference is that Stalin manage to actually kill more people.

    109. Re: Do good ... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      What magical fantasy world do you live in that has no leeches or profiteering middle men?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    110. Re: Do good ... by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      The government IS the profiteering middleman in all socialist-type mechanics. Now look, I'm not saying taking a cut out of providing a transfer-like service is a bad thing, but when you're also making the rules(laws) and not allowing people to NOT give you a cut by not doing business with you, then that's utterly immoral. That's something that a lot of pro-government people don't understand about the libertarian/anarchist crowd. They seem to think that we don't want to help our fellow man, when in reality, what we really want is to be given a choice in the matter. And no, a puny "vote" is not a choice in the matter.

    111. Re: Do good ... by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      most of the countries in Africa, South America, Asia, Eastern Europe, etc... are socialist

      Idiot. Stop talking out of your ass.

    112. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a proper education. Thanks.
      But not a socialistic one. Born in a capitalistic country.
      Just fed up with the notion that only capitalistic countries are good countries with morals, never doing atrocities. That's bullshit.

    113. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's use an unreliable measure to determine our world view! Hooray!

      Why is it that Slashdotters that understand technology and physical science automatically assume that they also understand social science as well?

      It is extremely hard to measure things reliably in social science. Just because numbers have been generated for some "measure" does not mean that those numbers are in any way accurate, precise, or useful.

      Unfortunately, in political matters people tend to latch onto the numbers that support their pre-conceived world views and ignore the question of whether or not those numbers were valid in the first place.

    114. Re: Do good ... by cjdavis618 · · Score: 0

      BS Obama-phones aren't being paid for by taxes. Any person that has any kind of a telecommunications service (And actually pays their bill on it) are taxed to provide services those that cannot (And in many cases choose not to) pay for their own service. They call it a pool of money that is "voluntarily" collected by telecommunication providers, but the consumer has no choice in the matter other than discontinue service with that provider. I dare you to try and find another provider that doesn't collect it in the US. Anything that is put on my bill, in the form of a mandatory payment, which is not managed by the provider but instead the federal government is a Tax to me. You can wordsmith all you like, but it is a tax regardless what they call it. Only the people that can pay the bill get the honor of paying for the Lifeline/Universal Service Fund. Those that receive service from it, and their initial monthly minutes allotment are not putting into the system. This is just a fact. Take from the Rich (Read Broke) and give to the poor. Not a safety net my ass. And a correction for you as well, the Obamaphone process was created with President Bill Clinton in it's first inception.. . I'm sure you meant to say that though..

    115. Re: Do good ... by volmtech · · Score: 1

      You have made the common mistake of equating tax RATES with tax PAID. Here from The American online magazine, "In 1980, for example, the top 5 percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes. Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a whopping 57 percent."

    116. Re: Do good ... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Your actual conclusion seems to be that Democratic countries are generally less corrupt than dictatorships. That makes more sense than his point, because it stands to reason that societies with arbitrary and personal rule, versus the rule of law, will result in more bribery and other forms of corruption designed to influence the real decision maker.

      A nation of laws is supposed to provide for all being treated equally, without much discretion by the "rulers" in how they treat folks, but in the U.S. that's been eroded by an overwhelming number of laws and regulations as well as a disturbing trend for Congress to give the executive branch bureaucracies the power to make laws as regulations and to then grant exceptions to them as they see fit.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    117. Re: Do good ... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Damn your eyes and the first thing you looked at with them!

      Unless you were in the 1st XV at Dunderheads ("Eeb the dweeb" we used to call him. Couldn't add two and two. Very solid scrummager though. Did Greats at Oxford, but I digress) in the late 70s it almost certainly isn't.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    118. Re: Do good ... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your well-reasoned argument about which countries are socialist and which aren't. It was very convincing to many people, I'm sure...

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    119. Re: Do good ... by aurizon · · Score: 1

      LOL, Communism was a kleptocracy and the people were starved and kept down. Most small UN countries are also dictatorships and sell their UN votes for cash all the time, to support Russia and Japanese whaling is where those bought votes go at the UN.

    120. Re: Do good ... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They seem to think that we don't want to help our fellow man, when in reality, what we really want is to be given a choice in the matter.

      If "voluntaryism" works why did the UK need to create the NHS, the national insurance system and so on in the first place?

      "I'm all right, Jack. Fuck you!", that's why.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    121. Re: Do good ... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It's a wonder after WWII ended, that magic was performed and the Nazis were suddenly no longer socialists but some sort of space alien. It certainly wasn't like that when it was happening.

      "We have backed the wrong horse in Spain. We would have done better to back the Republicans. They represent the people. We could always have converted these socialists into good National Socialists later. The people around Franco are all reactionary clerics, aristocrats, and moneybags â" they've nothing in common with us Nazis at all!"
      -- Adolf Hitler, April 1938

      "True socialism is the welfare of all the people, and not of one class at the expense of others. Therefore we oppose class warfare."
      -- Adolf Hitler, November 12, 1922

      "I, on the other hand, have been striving for twenty years with a minimum of intervention and without destroying our production, to arrive at a new Socialist order in Germany which not only eliminates unemployment but also permits the worker to receive an ever greater share of the fruits of his labor.

      The success of this policy of economic and social reconstruction of our people, which by systematically eliminating differences of rank and class, has a true peoples' community as the final aim of the world."
      -- Adolf Hitler

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    122. Re: Do good ... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Hold on - did someone just compare deliberate Soviet genocide to some sort of theoretical Republican conspiracy? Really? Have we been reading the New York Times again? You know, the New York Times that got a Pulitzer Prize for covering up the Holodomor.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    123. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @ Luckyo

      Corruption does not open itself to scientific study. So your statement about corrupt countries should be ignored by anyone other than a fool. It would seem that you hope to distort the views of other readers making you the evil one.

    124. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @Tablizer
      Are you really so ignorant as to believe what you are writing? Are you equating "Republicans" with Conservatives? If so that is an extremely wide net you're casting.

      I am an elderly, conservative who believes in the Constitution, abhors the criminal president in the White House, and associated felons in congress. and stupid liberals who have no understanding that the government has no money except what it takes from citizens. BTW, I voted Democrat for thirty years until the Socialists took control, than Republican until corruption became prevalent. Today the Tea Party better represents Conservatives (and ALL the American people) than the mostly corrupt Republican Party and the totally corrupt Democrat Party.

    125. Re: Do good ... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      The 1960s is LBJ's "War On Poverty". Also the ratcheting up of the war in Vietnam. Also, in 1965, medicare and medicaid.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    126. Re: Do good ... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The inflation in the 80s was primarily because of oil, food prices, and a falling dollar

      Tautologies are strictly forbidden here.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    127. Re: Do good ... by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      Nice try, but "cut" and "cut" don't always have the same value. In most countries with government-run healthcare, the government has a pretty damn good incentive to take the smallest possible cut - tax rates are high already (because healthcare is included), and voters hate taxes. Compare that with an ecosystem of for-profit companies that collude and fix prices like there's no tomorrow... And even if the government would start cracking down on these practices, they still would have expenses that a government-run healthcare doesn't have: advertisement, paying dividents,... You just can't set up a for-profit company and get away with minimizing your profit.

      And then there's another thing: poor people in the US who don't have health care often don't go visit a doctor when they have symptoms, instead waiting until things get very bad and they end up in the emergency room. Guess what? Letting the regular medical channels take their due course and intervening early in a disease usually costs a lot less money than intervening late and in an emergency setting. And guess who has to foot the bill for these extra costs? No, it's not the hospitals, they just pass the check on to those patients who can pay their bills. Who pass the check on to their insurance companies, who pass the check on to everyone who has health insurance. So in some sense, the US has been having some demented form of "socialized medicine" since long before the debate on Obamacare even started, only the system is set up the most costly and inefficient way imaginable. All for the sake of keeping up the appearance that it's not - *gasp* - socialism.

      So there's an explanation why the tax + health insurence cost in the US summed together is equal or (most often) larger than the tax rate in most developed countries with government-run heath insurance. And you get a whole lot more for your taxes in these countries to boot, like roads that aren't full of potholes, bridges that aren't on the brink of collapsing, decent public transport,... and the same quality of health care.

      See also http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2011/04/26/cost-of-health-care-by-country-national-geographic/

    128. Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Capitalism just as the name suggests is "power of the capital". Fascism is a subset of capitalism, where financially powerful megacorporations are in power, rather then capital itself.

    129. Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      What you call "communism" was "totalitarianism" that called itself communism.

      About the only times when humanity actually had communism as far as historians know it, was back in the stone age when small tribes were effectively forced to share everything because tribe could only survive as a whole. USSR's communism for example severely lacked in the whole "communistic" features, as it had the party that was awash in riches, while people were dirt poor. In this regard, it wasn't very different from capitalism in most 3rd world countries, with exception of it having some social net (i.e. guaranteed jobs for everyone, but these jobs paid for bare necessities in life and that's it).

    130. Re: Do good ... by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      Your reading comprehension is lacking. My assertion is that the programs haven't really expanded much but the costs have. I even stated why they have skyrocketed.

      Also, private health care is entirely to blame. It's not even remotely close to a free market. It's essentially an unregulated monopoly. People with broken arms are not the ones causing the problem. When you have a stroke and the ambulance comes to get you, they take you to the nearest hospital that can handle your condition. You will never get health care costs under control until you either regulate what hospitals can charge for equipment and procedures or you switch to a single payer system. It's already been reveled that the costs for procedures have nothing to do with what they actually cost. Unless something seriously changes, health care will bankrupt the United States.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    131. Re: Do good ... by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      You got a source for that statement?

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    132. Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You conveniently choose to ignore that back then top rich didn't own but a tiny fraction of the total privately owned property and industry in relation to total. Taxes are indeed relative to many things. One of them for example is what are you paying tax for. If your income is far greater in relation to rest of population than before, as currently is for top earners, you will obviously pay a bigger portion of tax.

    133. Re: Do good ... by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      It's not a tautology. You can have a falling dollar and still no inflation if there are other things to compensate. Conversely, you can have inflation without a falling dollar.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    134. Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Most interesting claim with zero arguments backing it. Would you care to back it up? After all, we have several organizations making studies about corruption, such as Transparency International, and they tend to conduct wide studies on the subject.

      Or is your claim based simply on the fact that you believe in capitalism, and therefore like all religions, anything that tries to deny it is simply heresy and therefore can be bashed in the best traditions of "intelligent design style bashing of evolution" as you just did?

    135. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nazism and Facism, for example are types of Socialisms (despite the unwillingness of some in accepting it mostly due to ignorance).

      That's a gross oversimplification and ignores that the primary impetus of the fascist movements of Europe were disenchantment with capitalist democracy and unions and other socialist alternatives. Yet, they could not wholly reject both (since there are only so many positions to take), and they incorporate elements of both, filtered through a totalitarian lens. There are elements of redistributionist thought in fascism, but Third Positionism tended to place and emphasis on the "right" people getting the redistributed goods rather than society as a whole, and they explicitly rejected socialism's emphasis on tolerance and inclusion of all oppressed peoples under one banner in favor of ultranationalism and racialist policies. Such movements had a tendency to decry both Marxism and economic liberalism. Trade unions were considered the enemies of fascism in almost all European fascist countries, and when they weren't, it was because they were folded into top-down state control of industry, which was in opposition to the notion that the workers own the means of production.

    136. Re: Do good ... by dnavid · · Score: 1

      He says in the article that he failed to discuss his concerns with anyone in his office basically because he didn't trust any of them. If any of my employees said they didn't trust me to act properly so they took it upon themselves to... they'd be fired before they could finish that sentence. I fail to see the controversy in an employer terminating an employee that admits they don't trust their employer, because only an idiot would themselves trust such a person with any level of responsibility. The circumstances are irrelevant. If you don't trust me, I don't trust you, and you're gone. The rest of this is righteousness ping-pong.

    137. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, would love to hear you address why one in six Americans
      receive food stamps.You were so erudite in your brief response
      to just some of the many issues that the public can not understand.

      Wanted by all: A voice in the wilderness.

    138. Re: Do good ... by phayes · · Score: 1

      The horror of the extermination Stalin perpetrated on the Ukrainian people in the name of socialism by Stalin is in no way lessened because they were farmers. This was not war, it was genocide & the result was neither starving nor sickness, it was death.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    139. Re: Do good ... by volmtech · · Score: 1

      You are totally right, the problem is if you confiscated 100% of the riches' income the deficit would still be 500 billion. What good are tax increases if congress spends twice what the increase brings?

    140. Re: Do good ... by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Not even then, my friend, because someone in the tribe was always the leader, another the shaman and they and a few others had privileges, and this way of life falls apart pretty badly as the tribe size increases.

      What YOU call Communism, never existed and never will in the same way Laissez Faire Capitalism never existed and never will. Both exist only on the paper

    141. Re: Do good ... by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Please don't push into us your own absurd definitions to terms that already have perfectly known definitions. Fascism has NOTHING to do with corporations. Fascism is a Totalitarian doctrine were the government fully controls the economy and the resources and at most allows companies to operate under their supervision.

      Cronyism on the other hand is what you are trying to define, and it is indeed a subset of Capitalism.

    142. Re: Do good ... by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Er, no. Just because it has the word socialism in it does not mean that National Socialism is actually a form of socialism. It's a form of fascism, and they don't get along with socialism. (Or communism, or liberal democracy.) You may have noticed that the Nazis ended up fighting the Russian communists. (Okay, to be fair, it wasn't just because of competing ideologies. Both Hitler and Stalin knew that the peace treaty they signed wasn't worth the paper it was printed on, but Hitler wanted time to deal with the rest of Europe, and Stalin had all kinds of shit going on back in Russia, so they pretended that they weren't going to go to war, even though both sides knew it was inevitable.)

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    143. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this also the reason why communists outlawed all independent trade unions?

    144. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a New Zealander, I find it incredibly funny that you refer to us as "socialist". Heck, our current Prime Minister is a former forex trader who gained the nickname "the smiling assassin" when we worked for Merrill Lynch, and spent three years at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Our current National Party government is what we refer to as a "centre-right" party. Tax cuts for the rich, getting tough on social welfare, selling off state assets, reducing the size of government with thousands of layoffs... on their second term and still with a strong popularity mandate. (Though to be fair, that is slipping a bit over the U.S.-style surveillance laws with minimal oversight provisions.)

      Being left on the political spectrum from America doesn't automatically make you a "socialist" country. Heck, in recent years that's hardly even a challenge anymore.

    145. Re: Do good ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You are comparing the natural resources available to the United States, to those available to the former Soviet Union???

      Hahahaha!

      Holy shit, man. You don't even need to look it up. Just spend 10 seconds with a globe.

    146. Re: Do good ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Farms were well looked after long before capitalism turned up. Farms can flourish in a communist state."

      Perhaps, but that leads straight to your second question. There has never been an actual Communist state in the history of the world. So how would we know?

    147. Re: Do good ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "The misuse of the term "Socialism" to imply "Communist Socialism" is something relatively recent and a technique of disinformation our leftist "intellectuals" are very happy in maintaining and enforcing."

      According to Marx, Socialism was a necessary evolutionary step on the way to Communism. However, no country on Earth that was pretending to be Communist ever made it past the Socialist stage. And usually a very bad (i.e., not "for the people") Socialism, at that.

    148. Re: Do good ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      By that I mean things like this. Standing in line for hours to get milk for their children.

      And this. Again standing in line for hours, this time just for bread.

      And take note: these pictures were obviously far, far more recent than "early in the Soviet Union's formation". Actually, they aren't all that far from the Soviet Union's collapse.

    149. Re: Do good ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Calling yourself Socialist and being Socialist are not the same things. Any more than calling yourself Communist makes you a true Communist.

      ---
      "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

    150. Re: Do good ... by Swampash · · Score: 1

      Fellow Kiwi here; and yeah, there's no comparison. The National Govt that in NZ gets criticised for its conservative politics would be regarded as a party of extreme lunatic Marxists in the USA. Similarly the most left-leaning branch of the US Democratic Party would be regarded as a party of Bible-fondling guncrazy fascists Down Under.

    151. Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      Indeed. Perfect forms of government never existed. However adaptation of these did. Difference being that US does in fact adapt a form of capitalism, whereas USSR did not adapt any form of communism. Instead it adapted a form of totalitarianism that it chose to call "communism" to gain acceptance from the masses.

      If you ever really want to find what I'm talking about, find a translated version of "Industrial communism" if there is one. It's a damnably think book that anyone getting higher education in USSR essentially required to know by heart and not getting high marks on exams on that book killed your career chances. It is a wonderful thesis on stalinism, which explains that oppression of people of the nation by party is not actually oppression but "meaningful and necessary guidance".

      It's essentially how communist party of USSR indoctrinated those who were gifted enough to potentially join its ranks. Compare to: current DPRK. Note how that particular country calls itself "democratic". Should we assume that DPRK is in fact a model of democracy?

    152. Re: Do good ... by saihung · · Score: 1

      Serious. There are so many people in this little thread taking what Hitler said about his own party and its goals as though those things mean anything at all. Guys, Hitler was a liar. The Nazis were liars. They said anything they thought would buy them more votes so they could win enough elections to seize power completely. Believing Hitler's own propaganda about Nazism makes no more damned sense than believing China's nonsensical rhetoric about global liberation of ethnic minorities.

    153. Re: Do good ... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to demean farmers. I meant that it's difficult to compare these type of things because the movement of food is different.

      And I would argue it was war because Ukraine hadn't surrendered yet in Stalin's eyes. It's perhaps war AND genocide.

      And starving + sickness often results in death.

    154. Re: Do good ... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      At least they had the option of standing in line to get bread. (Pictures are not loading for me, by the way.)

    155. Re: Do good ... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Yes, I did. If you have a reason to believe they are sufficiently different, please present the difference so we can discuss. I welcome new viewpoints.

    156. Re: Do good ... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy. By definition he wasn't a socialist, because no true socialist would do what he did. Nice! That's a pretty sweet defense you have going there. I see how you confuse fascism and national socialism too, good job.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    157. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Roman EMPIRE worked also, bitches.

      For a while.

      Are you all retarded? Or just those of you that think *your* preferred form of tyranny is the *only* [coughing] "right" way.

      Religious, all of you dogmatic, arrogant, pricks ... educated, and smart, or not.

      Just saying.

      The USA is going down. Just like the Roman Empire, by the way.

      Republicans and Democrats. Can't live with the stupid fuckers, and you can't shoot 'em.

    158. Re: Do good ... by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      The irony here is that my argument was exactly as well-reasoned as yours when it comes to whether countries are 'socialist' or not.

    159. Re: Do good ... by phayes · · Score: 1

      I would suggest that you reread your comments as they were clearly minimizing Stalin's acts because they were producers/farmers, as if that made the slightest difference. When the commissars came escorted by soldiers & took everything edible, including all seed grain for the next year, you cannot possibly claim that the desired result result was anything less than genocide. Unless your name is Tamerlane, one can make war without attempting to kill everyone. Stalin chose genocide in the Ukraine.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    160. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they are paid for with taxes -- or do you live in Washington and crap money 24x7?

      There are more taxes than personal income tax. All those fees on my phone / SIP trunking bills -- they're called TAXES.

    161. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could generally say the same about capitalism. Those in power consolidate power until they believe they can no longer be challenged, then wipe out resistance. If it wasn't for the vast forsight of our forefathers to actually work together for the common good, despite rampantly detesting one another, America would already have devolved to despotism.

    162. Re: Do good ... by smithmc · · Score: 1

      The reds didn't just spring up here.

      No, but they were the first ones here. As if that meant anything at all.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    163. Re: Do good ... by fredprado · · Score: 1

      USSR did adapt a form o Communism about as much as US did of Capitalism. Both are equally far from the ideals of those ideologies. There is no Communism that is not totalitarian in the real world. It is simply impossible to implement as it goes against human nature. "Democratic Communism" is as reasonable an idea as "dry water".

    164. Re: Do good ... by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't exist, and your goalpost moving doesn't constitute much of an argument.

      You can only try to minimize the middlemen as much as possible. If you look at the percentage of GDP spent on health care in the US vs any other nation with socialized healthcare, they're doing a much better job than we are; by a factor of 2 or better.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    165. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their economy started sucking immediately after the "peoples' revolution" and never recovered. They managed for quite a while but economically, things were NEVER good under "Communist" Russia. Communist in quotes because in practice they -- and everybody else for that matter -- never came anywhere near an actual Communist political / economic system. They only made it as far as very bad Socialists.

      The biggest reason for the economic struggles was Stalin's continual purges of any people or groups that showed the possibility of thinking for themselves. Many facets of their economy were set back because the people who actually knew how to run things were rotting away in the Gulag or dead. The failure of the Soviet Union showed the failure of dictatorial rule and state "science". You're right, it wasn't communism.

    166. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a significant number of rich people in "socialist countries" that vote in favor of higher taxes, because they feel this is appropriate. There's some I know here in the US as well.

      And it is a reasonable emotional position to have that you're willing to chip into a general system where everybody pays, but you're only willing to contribute "your fair share" (and voting for this), but not having the emotional power to just immediately go and give away the money that you have. Voting to give it away is both more indirect, and it comes with other benefits - if I vote to give away 10% of my money off the top end (and so will everybody else that's wealthy), then this will lead to a lot fewer poor people, which again is beneficial for me in that poor people do crime and are disease-ridden and make everybody unhappy. If I just give away my own individual money, I get none of those benefits, but take the same cost.

    167. Re: Do good ... by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      I personally wouldn't pay for any charity that I expect the government to do through my taxes. Oh, they chose to spend all my taxes on military? Well, that's too bad. Maybe some smooth orator will come along and convince the masses to steal from the rich, instead of relying on them for charity. Yeah, that is so fair. Also, charity is completely different to outright paying for someone else's medical bills.

      But personally, I think you're thinking about it the wrong way. You dislike the choice people made. Perhaps they don't want to pay for other peoples' misfortune. It's like free speech: you can't give it to people then complain about the things they say because you don't like it. It's a take it or leave it sort of thing.

      Bear in mind, I don't know the details of the situation that happened in the UK that you speak of. For all we know, there could have been a multitude of reasons why they supposedly "need"ed the NHS.

    168. Re: Do good ... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And you'd trust any political statement Hitler made? That seems awfully naive to me. Take a look at how Nazi Germany actually worked. The alliance with high-end capitalists was real, and the consideration for the worker was propaganda (something the Nazis were really good at).

      There were conflicts in the National Socialist German Worker's Party from the beginning, and the Socialists were pretty much removed in the mid-1930s.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    169. Re: Do good ... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      First documented. May have been others. And they probably weren't red until after they got here.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    170. Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      There was a form of communism that was not totalitarian back in stone age when it was a necessity for survival.

      In large numbers of today, it's likely impossible to implement even with the full agreement of populace (which is unlikely to be ever acquired in the first place and mandatory for such implementation) simply due to greed. In larger numbers, greed easily escapes the only thing that can control it - direct peer pressure.

      On the other hand I'm somewhat confused as to how US isn't capitalist right now. It used to be using a mix of capitalism for top end and socialism for bottom end of populace, which is currently the best-performing system we have tried, as it allows both risk and social mobility for low end as well as provides incentives for high end to not "sit on the money and collect profits".

      Unfortunately as long as there are more capitalist regions that offer less socialism for low end, that system will suffer economic drain, as happened with entire West and globalization. This is essentially the same as with North-South pre-civil war cituation, slave labor (or near slave labor) is simply too profitable for high end people to pass on. Essentially you could argue that where perfect communism is simply impossible to implement, perfect capitalism may be possible to implement as long as it's held in check by extremely tight regulation and is backed by social mobility-enabling socialism on low end (Nordic model) but it is self-destructive by its nature when even one of these checks fails (current situation in US).

    171. Re: Do good ... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware it was necessary to prove common knowledge. I wasn't trying to argue anything about which countries are socialist and which aren't, just commenting on common knowledge as to which are which. Ok, common knowledge to anyone with a modicum of world history knowledge of the last 100 years.

      Since your first response didn't even directly disagree with anything specific, let alone provide any evidence or argument, it wasn't exactly very convincing.

      Here, try starting with wikipedia's pretty map of socialist countries by duration. Notice where they are mostly located? Ah yes, Africa, South America, Asia, Eastern Europe... and those are primarily the states that have been "officially" socialist via self-declaration or their constitution, let alone all the others that are socialist in ongoing sentiment.

      If you're going to argue against that, you're going to have to provide your own special definition of what a socialist country is (ignoring people who openly state they are socialists to define them away) and then explain which countries fit or don't fit. Here's a hint: Socialist doesn't equal "Democratic", They're different concepts and one neither implies, nor doesn't imply the other.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    172. Re: Do good ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy. By definition he wasn't a socialist, because no true socialist would do what he did. Nice! That's a pretty sweet defense you have going there. I see how you confuse fascism and national socialism too, good job. Reply to This Share"

      WOW. Did you ever watch "The Wicker Man"?

      Because that is one of the biggest straw-man arguments I have ever seen.

      Saying "calling yourself something doesn't make it so" has absolutely nothing to do with the "one true Scotsman" fallacy. Get thee hence to your local community college and take a introductory course in logical argument. Or... hell, lots of high schools have good courses on debate these days.

    173. Re: Do good ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Fascism is actually the type of capitalism, specifically focusing state control through wealthy corporations. It's what Italy had under Mussolini. Nazism on the other hand is the ideology of purity of the race, which runs in direct opposition of basic tenets of socialism, that every human has worth and is worth financially supporting when in a bad spot."

      I'm not trying to argue with you here TOO much, but actually Fascism is defined, in part, by how much it deviates from capitalism. Modern -- or historical -- "corporatism" is NOT capitalism. Capitalism (read your Adam Smith) is by definition bounded by voluntary trade. Whenever that deviates from the voluntary -- as in corporate lobbying of government -- that is NOT "capitalism" at all.

    174. Re: Do good ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Agree with fredprado. I think you mean well and are thinking straight, but in my honest opinion you could use a little more of the history of economics.

      I may catch flak for saying this, but I highly recommend this. If you are serious about learning actual HISTORY with plenty of real citations (as opposed to government-approved dogma), then you may find this is the best $99 you ever spent. Note, I say again: verifiable, documented, provable history with citations. Not political propaganda.

      (Disclaimer: I don't claim the classroom is free from bias, because that would be impossible to promise honestly, no matter who was teaching the courses. But at least the material is factual, which is the most important thing, ans which you will not find many places these days.)

    175. Re: Do good ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "The horror of the extermination Stalin perpetrated on the Ukrainian people in the name of socialism by Stalin is in no way lessened because they were farmers. This was not war, it was genocide & the result was neither starving nor sickness, it was death."

      People who know a bit of history know of the horrors committed against the Ukraine by the Stalin.

      I see by the "freak" mark on the page that you have something against me. I will be honest and state that I do not remember why.

      But your opinion of me does not change the fact that I agree with you about history. Facts are facts. They are not (should not be) subject to opinion.

    176. Re: Do good ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      s/the Stalin/Stalin

      Just a typographical error.

    177. Re: Do good ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      But we KNOW why they had to: their economic system simply didn't work.

      Look, man, I'll put it as simply as I can: when backyard gardens are close to 10x as productive per acre as "collective" farms, you know your system isn't working. It doesn't get a hell of a lot more basic than that.

    178. Re: Do good ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      All of what you say is true. But what is missing is WHY.

      It is kind of pointless to argue how this compares to something else, without a why.

      Lakes are wet. So is my lawn after a rainfall. Maybe one can be compared to the other, but it would take some explaining to describe how. And why.

      History shows very clearly that the WHY of the economic collapse of the Soviet Union was that it was never viable in the first place. Failure was inherent in the system; it was broken as designed. Central control never has, and never will, work. Decentralization (distributed power) has worked and does work.

      This is the fundamental mistake that our own Federal government has been making in the last few decades. And it is doomed to fail at its centralization efforts, just as others have.

    179. Re: Do good ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

      Addendum: the fact that I used the word "true" does not AUTOMATICALLY make me guilty of the "one true Scotsman" fallacy. Taking things out of context won't get you very far.

    180. Re: Do good ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1
      Um... I said I agreed. But I made a mistake.

      You've said some good things here, but in fact fascism has everything to do with corporations. Fascism is what we have been seeing (starting slowly but in increasing degree) here in the United States. It's very sad, but true, and it needs to stop. Now.

      I will repeat the quote that DEFINED what "fascism" is, for the rest of eternity:

      "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

    181. Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I'm intrigued how you can make those claims. It's a historical fact that USSR has:

      1. Raised the extremely poor, utterly huge country out of rural economy and devastating improvershment caused by WW1 and civil war and pushed it into an industrial giant in record time (post Russian civil war, pre WW2, massive human sacrifices and incredible rise to prosperity of the nation).
      2. Raised the country utterly devastated by WW2 occupation into an industrial and scientific giant for the second time, again in record time, to the point where it beat US in the race to space among other things. This in spite of US having no need to do territorial post-war recovery work and no destroyed infrastructure.

      Fact is, USSR style totalitarianism certainly did work, and it did work WELL. Something that is very disturbing to any person with any kind of belief in humanity and basic freedoms so many of us get to enjoy today in part thanks to the collapse of USSR. And arguably, if they had an economic base on par with that of NATO and no massive economic shocks of Afghanistan and Chernobyl, they would have stood a very good chance of winning the cold war.

      Frankly, we got very lucky they did not have those. And that is one of the reasons why, in my humble opinion, work on things like human rights in totalitarian countries must be actively supported even in face of their opposition. Because these parts of our values are important for humanity as a whole, and if possible should be pushed even at detriment to economic advancement.

    182. Re: Do good ... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      you realy have no clue what you're talking about.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    183. Re: Do good ... by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Here, try starting with wikipedia's pretty map of socialist countries by duration.

      You missed the "at some point in their history" part.

      Quoting you: "most of the countries in Africa, South America, Asia, Eastern Europe, etc... are socialist"

      Notice where they are mostly located? Ah yes, Africa, South America, Asia, Eastern Europe...

      Notice how most of the countries in Africa and South America are colored grey?

      If you're going to argue against that, you're going to have to provide your own special definition of what a socialist country is

      This is a more reasonable statement. I'd like to note that you haven't provided a definition either, but let's disregard that for a moment.
      Socialism generally refers to collectively held resources and the amount of collective spending.

      The latter is still not easy to determine, but the following tables give an indication:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

      The former is also tricky, but again, an indication can be found here (first graph):
      http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2013/res050813a.htm

      Of course there are many, many, foot notes to be added to the above, but that only supports how wrong it is to make such a sweeping statement like you did. Unless you can come up with a usable definition of socialist and the numbers to classify countries as such.

    184. Re: Do good ... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      That's a much better argument... we could almost agree, except you seem to be focusing only on financial measures of socialism within a country.

      Percent of GDP spent on government and tax rates aren't socialism per se, but they're highly correlated with socialism because of the causal relationship between a socialist desire for those conditions and those conditions becoming law. If you focus only on monetary measurements, you miss the affect of socialist attitudes on laws and regulations transferring effective control of non-government resources from private individuals to government agents.

      As an illustrative example, if a particular government bureaucracy can tell a particular private industry what decisions to make 80% of the time (arbitrary number), the government isn't spending much money on that and the regulations don't show up in the tax rates, but they've effectively socialized that industry to a great extent as a result of their control over it.

      In first world, wealthier socialist-leaning (because really, it's all a mixed economy nowadays, the mix just differs) economies, much of the control is financial, because a wealthier, more established nation will tend to have institutions like property/land records with established rights going back hundreds, if not thousands of years, bank accounts, electronic transactions, public records, etc... Wealthier nations are correlated with more internal/external trade and transactions that can be used as a basis for taxation, for example.

      In a less established nation, without much in the way of real property rights, where most transactions are in a "grey" market system, you're going to have more direct control by government agents and (while "official" tax rates can be high) less formal taxation and spending structures. The transaction level, control and wealth just isn't there to support that style of system without resorting to direct control.

      In France, if the government wants to get more resources from an industry, they raise taxes on it. In Venezuela, the government declares they own part of the company and have the right to jointly make decisions about where the company spends it's resources. I think it's difficult to argue that one method of resource control is inherently more socialist then the other. The axis of methodology seems much more correlated with overall historical wealth and income levels (probably as a result of those established institutions and internal/external trade).

      So yeah, while it can yield some false positives, because of the difficulty of cross-country comparisons, which are affected by many other factors, my typical measurement of socialism in a country would be more of a political one. What policies do the rulers publicly advocate? Do they refer to themselves as socialist/worker's party/whatever standard euphemism for socialism that represents a bundle of policies that matches to a large extent the same bundle of policies that officially socialist groups advocate.

      Typically, socialism (specifically, Marxist socialism) was the ostensible political policy of the former colonial nations influenced by the Soviet Union during the cold war to demand independence. Other countries were taken over by "revolutionaries" funded by the soviets, sometimes directly, many times indirectly, such as via Cuban subsidies, troops, etc... Do they all perfectly achieve their ideals? Of course not. Are they clinging to their socialist ideals, yeah, they mostly still are, although a few places are starting to turn around their actual policies as the reality of of failing economies sticks around.

      This is already too long, but the only way you'd establish a real, provable answer, would be to analyze in depth the political and economic situation of each country in question, which is a bit much for a /. argument. :)

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    185. Re: Do good ... by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      I'm going to make my main point first:

      This is already too long, but the only way you'd establish a real, provable answer, would be to analyze in depth the political and economic situation of each country in question, which is a bit much for a /. argument. :)

      And I take it that is what you did before you made the statement I was initially slamming you for? Or did it indeed come from some other sunlight-bereft place? ;-)

      Percent of GDP spent on government and tax rates aren't socialism per se, but they're highly correlated with socialism because of the causal relationship between a socialist desire for those conditions and those conditions becoming law. If you focus only on monetary measurements, you miss the affect of socialist attitudes on laws and regulations transferring effective control of non-government resources from private individuals to government agents.

      As an illustrative example, if a particular government bureaucracy can tell a particular private industry what decisions to make 80% of the time (arbitrary number), the government isn't spending much money on that and the regulations don't show up in the tax rates, but they've effectively socialized that industry to a great extent as a result of their control over it.

      This is true, with the exception that the industry is technically still in private hands and thus presents no liquidity to a country. Also, it can still generally evaporate overnight or potentially abuse its importance for the country, with banks being the new stereotypical example. I generally oppose such worst of both worlds-solutions.
      It is again a matter of definitions, but to me the goal of socialism isn't necessarily to have things as a collective, but to provide (and ensure) things for the collective.

      In a less established nation, without much in the way of real property rights, where most transactions are in a "grey" market system, you're going to have more direct control by government agents and (while "official" tax rates can be high) less formal taxation and spending structures. The transaction level, control and wealth just isn't there to support that style of system without resorting to direct control.

      I think it's fairly safe to say that pretty much all non-formal (=unchecked) taxation will do little good for the collective, apart from maybe slightly increasing the money velocity (although the 'unofficially' taxed generally spend their money much faster and more local than those in a position to levy the tax).

      In France, if the government wants to get more resources from an industry, they raise taxes on it. In Venezuela, the government declares they own part of the company and have the right to jointly make decisions about where the company spends it's resources. I think it's difficult to argue that one method of resource control is inherently more socialist then the other.

      Actually, the Venezuelan way is clearly more socialist (also a pretty dickish way of doing things, by the way). The reasoning for this is that you can't really just raise taxes on an industry. Businesses can just pack up and leave altogether, leaving the country with jack shit when it comes to control and/or value (natural resources are a different story of course). Taxation on corporations is far less guaranteed to lead to value for the collective than taxation on civilians or collectively held enterprises.

      Do they refer to themselves as socialist/worker's party/whatever standard euphemism for socialism

      I wouldn't put too much trust in party names. There are still some Germans around that would need to talk to you. ;-)

      Are they clinging to their socialist ideals, yeah, they mostly still are, although a few places are starting to turn around their actual policies as the reality of of failing economie

    186. Re: Do good ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "1. Raised the extremely poor, utterly huge country out of rural economy and devastating improvershment caused by WW1 and civil war..."

      True.

      "2. Raised the country utterly devastated by WW2 occupation into an industrial and scientific giant for the second time"

      Also true. But all you are showing is correlation. You have not established any cause -> effect.

      "Fact is, USSR style totalitarianism certainly did work, and it did work WELL."

      Nonsense.

      I repeat: one of the reasons that they got as far as they did was access to massive amounts of natural resources. My opinion (and the opinion of many people I know who were actually there at the time) is that they did this in spite of their government, not because of it.

      Imagine what they could have done, if they'd had a free (or relatively so) marketplace.

      In more recent times, one of the big problems faced by the Soviets, and a contributor to their collapse, was that their "giant" abilities in industry and science were unable to efficiently exploit the resources they did have. That is why, after the collapse, they contracted with others who DID have the technology and industry that was capable of doing it. (Look at how what's-his-name made all that oil money, for example.)

      Sure. They launched Sputnik. They did those things you say. But I repeat, and history is very clear on this: they did it by exploiting their people. While others were doing it by making peoples' lives better.

      And the fact is, the Soviets lost the arms race because their economy simply could no longer bear it. And their lower-tech-but-more-brute-force technology could no longer keep up. Their collapse was very definitely driven by economics, not politics per se.

    187. Re: Do good ... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between knowledge in your head and detailed knowledge written up as evidence. Yeah, I have a general idea of the governing philosophies of the ruling parties of most countries through history. I doubt you had to go put together an economic and political analysis of Venezuela before making your comment about they way they do things. Your premise there is false. I'm happy to have you present your contradictory evidence to my conclusions, though. If I'm wrong, I'll readily admit it if you show me.

      the goal of socialism isn't necessarily to have things as a collective, but to provide (and ensure) things for the collective.

      I'd have to disagree here. You could have an anarcho-libertarian state with it's members believing that it's the best way to organize for everyone's benefit in that state and it fits a goal of ensuring things for the collective, but you would never call it socialism. Socialism is more about the means to the goal, rather than the goal itself.

      There are still some Germans around that would need to talk to you.

      If you're familiar with history, you know that the National Socialists were competing with the Soviet Socialists for world power. Sure, they hated each other as part of that competition, but if you look back at newspaper and historical accounts of the time, you'll see that socialism was widely considered to be the modern, scientific way of governing for the future and the Germans were considered just as socialist.

      Many Americans (and some very famous ones) considered the National Socialists the future of world socialism. It wasn't until they were on the other side in a war that they lost that retroactively they were written as non-socialist. You have to rely on more contemporary accounts, rather than accounts written by the winners.

      (Just a note here, to not be misunderstood, this is by way of explanation. I don't support the ideals of either the National Socialists, nor the Red ones, and certainly don't condone the massive massacres done in their names.)

      It's not a coincidence that many South American countries, like Venezuela, act more like the National Socialists. There was a heavy German influence there, both pre-war and after they lost and many fled from Germany.

      having things such as public roads are inherently socialistic and very, very few people would argue that (proper) roads are not important to an economy.

      There's a long history of private roads, even in the United States. Typically, they are better roads than public roads, so it's interesting that you seem to conflate "proper" roads with public roads. It's also funny you bring this up at a time where despite all the other moves towards socialism in the U.S., roads are one of the few areas where the technocrats are starting to consider privatizing much more as the latest fad in city/state management. Public roads suffer from many of the same issues as public commons, having a difficult time balancing over- (congestion) and under-use (waste), fair payment for them, determining when it's efficient to build more or expand them, etc... Privately owned and managed roads are starting to be seen by governments as a solution to those issues.

      we should be systematically looking at what design works for what specific industry or goal

      To quote a famous economist, "Markets are flawed, use markets." There is definitely an issue when a central planner believes they have the knowledge (socialist calculation problem) to design what works for an industry, or even knows what the "right" goal is for companies in that industry to pursue. Back to the original corruption level discussion, per public choice economics, that also leads to conflicts of interest related to possessing that power that end well for the politicians, bureaucrats and their cronies, but not for the rest of us.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    188. Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      And this is why I tend to keep answering these threads. The common misunderstanding among the Western audience, drilled into them by decades of indoctrination is that "our financial system is better at everything".

      It is not, no by a long shot. When it comes to long term projects, our system requires massive government intervention to function. Consider all the large infrastructure projects in US. All of them are government-funded, in one way or another. Free market requires immediate response, rather than long term viability. Long term viability without immediate response is judged as a failure by free market. This is the real and tangible weakness of free market economy.

      Totalitarian systems on the other hand excel at long term projects. Your rather strange claim of "correlation, not causation" about the issues stated above shows your lack of even basic understanding of relevant historical facts. Well documented example: during Holodomor USSR was selling approximately five million tons of grain every year to foreign countries. Essentially all of the money gained from these exports were used in two ways:
      1. Purchase of raw materials needed for industrialization of the entire country. Specifically steel, copper, various other raw elements needed to electrify and connect the world's largest country. Essentially all of these raw materials were used to build electric and telephone lines, railroads, roads and so on. Massive amount of political convicts was doing the actual work, which was brutal and lethal. And also necessary to uplift the country.
      2. Purchase of technology and technological know-how. Vast majority of locomotives on the newly build USSR railroads for example, where of German origin. Many of technological designs were purchased for build of their own versions, and massive factories were erected across the nation in the process of industrialization.

      Would this kind of operation be possible in a free market economy? Of course not. Free market would not have allowed for massive losses incurred in the construction process. This kind of build up required a totalitarian system, because that kind of buildup is what totalitarian system EXCELS at. It enables exhaustive, rather then efficient use of resources, which is often necessary to build up entire country from complete destruction. The usage is not efficient because much of resources used in this process is destroyed or damaged beyond repair. This ranges from people themselves (tens of millions dead reasons ranging from hunger to dying from exhaustion working on roads) to locations damaged beyond repair for a long time as a byproduct of industrialization.

      It is important to realize that our system is weaker in terms of economic viability in certain aspects to totalitarianism, and understand that we need to compensate for these flaws, typically through mix of regulation and incentives. This has been largely understood by planners in the post WW2 and Cold War West, which erected strong government-backed projects to build excellent infrastructure at a staggering loss, but protected from destructive short term viability judgment of free market by government's backing.

      Free market on the other hand excels at utilizing the already built infrastructure to its fullest potential by removing inefficiencies. This is why our system was so much more efficient than that of USSR - they had a very strong build-up, but totalitarian system does not allow for easy optimizations to the already initiated process. Free market system on the other hand excels at this. In the end, they themselves realized it in the 1970s and 1980s and tried to correct it by introducing some reforms to enable something remotely resembling a free competition between large governmental corporations. However the lack of necessary entrepreneur culture in the nation combined with the requirement for maintaining strong totalitarian control over everyone essentially doomed these attempts to failure.

      On the last note, you seem to think that Soviet technology was someho

    189. Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting the biggest pearl in your crown:

      "Democratic people's republic of Korea". The shining jewel of democracy.

    190. Re: Do good ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

      "And this is why I tend to keep answering these threads. The common misunderstanding among the Western audience, drilled into them by decades of indoctrination is that "our financial system is better at everything."

      And this is why I answered YOUR thread: stop assuming I'm a f*ing idiot.

      What I wrote was not the result of "indoctrination". It is from having a teacher who lived there, and described his experience. And since then, I have known many, many people who used to live there, and now live in my area.

      This is from what they told me, and from direct evidence, not from any sort of "indoctrination".

      "As I recall it, the "russian tech is low tech" propaganda message..."

      I wasn't spouting any "message". This is simple fact. A lot of Soviet tech was copied from the West. Take their attempt at a space shuttle (a direct but slightly lower-tech knockoff of the U.S. shuttle). And don't try to tell me it wasn't. I've seen the reports, analyses, and pictures.

      Same with their fighter jets. Largely copied Western tech. Same with their ballistic missiles and space vehicles. Independently developed, to be sure, but all slightly lower-tech versions than their Western counterparts.

      They're catching up a bit more, now. But guess what? They can, because their economy has changed.

    191. Re: Do good ... by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      I doubt you had to go put together an economic and political analysis of Venezuela before making your comment about they way they do things. Your premise there is false. I'm happy to have you present your contradictory evidence to my conclusions, though. If I'm wrong, I'll readily admit it if you show me.

      I wasn't the one making broad sweeping statements. Also, your little map, the evidence that you have provided clearly showed your initial statement to be false for at least some definitions of socialism. The tables of tax burden and resources, the evidence I provided, showed it to be false for other definitions of socialism. You've already admitted that your definition of socialism makes it terribly hard to call a country socialist without doing a detailed analysis of it, which ups the requirement for making the sweeping statement that you made to an extent where the statement becomes untenable for all people other than those devoting years of their life to researching its support.

      Just take the high road and admit that your initial statement was false, or terribly misleading and unproductive at best.

      Socialism is more about the means to the goal, rather than the goal itself.

      Yes, I wasn't defining what socialism is. I was defining what, to me, it isn't by implying that an implementation where all industry is under government regulation (scroll back) isn't sufficient to be called socialism as it does not ensure services for the collective.

      If you're familiar with history, you know that the National Socialists were competing with the Soviet Socialists for world power. Sure, they hated each other as part of that competition, but if you look back at newspaper and historical accounts of the time, you'll see that socialism was widely considered to be the modern, scientific way of governing for the future and the Germans were considered just as socialist.

      The point was that a party having 'socialist' in its name does not prevent that party from being non-socialist. It's pretty useless to try and argue against that.

      Typically, they are better roads than public roads, so it's interesting that you seem to conflate "proper" roads with public roads

      That is not what I said. I added 'proper' to prevent the statement from implying that all roads are important to an economy.

      Privately owned and managed roads are starting to be seen by governments as a solution to those issues.

      This shows that you really do not understand how the world works, are in love with a certain way of economic design, or have an antipathy towards another way of economic design. Even the most hard-core free market supporters would admit that some things cannot work well in a free market. The issues you'd introduce by moving towards a fully privately owned and developed road system dwarf the issues that arise in a publicly owned and developed road system. It may surprise you, but some countries have very little issues with their public road system.

      To quote a famous economist, "Markets are flawed, use markets." There is definitely an issue when a central planner believes they have the knowledge (socialist calculation problem) to design what works for an industry, or even knows what the "right" goal is for companies in that industry to pursue. Back to the original corruption level discussion, per public choice economics, that also leads to conflicts of interest related to possessing that power that end well for the politicians, bureaucrats and their cronies, but not for the rest of us.

      There you go again. "One economic design to rule them all!"
      Do you really believe that the terms 'cronies' and 'corruption' do not apply to companies? Please.

      For any economic design you have to look at how a market/industry will evolve because of that design. We're talking selection pressure here. Completely free markets have only o

    192. Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I'll address both points:

      1. People who "lived there" tend to hate the system, and not be able to think logically about advantages and disadvantages. This goes doubly for people who immigrated, as they have been on the edge of the receiving end.

      As a result, you'll get a very skewed view of what totalitarianism in USSR represented. Imagine asking people currently backing Trevor Martin about "equality in US" and taking their opinion as factual truth.

      2. I would be intrigued to see the evidence you cite, considering that USA and USSR essentially countered one another on tech, as a result building dramatically different weapon systems to the point where copying one another would have been largely pointless. USA went for surface navy and aerial dominance with large strategic bombers to suppress the USSR's heavy tank based ground force. USSR countered with long range tactical maritime bombers, extremely advanced SAM systems and essentially "flying SAM" aircraft.

      Again, I'm not sure what kind of drawings your saw, but if you want to see the comparable tech where USSR was (and likely still is to some degree) decades ahead of NATO, look at what they developed for their kind of warfare (supersonic bombers, extremely complex anti ship missiles, extremely long range air to air aircraft and surface to air capability, tanks, etc), and compare it to the NATO variants which were several decades behind.

      If you want to see an example of extremely complex long fighter jet where USSR tech was worlds ahead of USA, take a look at MiG-31. Decades later, USA gave up on trying to make a similar aircraft after utterly failing with F-14 because their long range radar and missile tech was simply too far behind. MiG-31 was the most complex and expensive fighter in existence since its arrival in 1970s and until introduction of F-22. It pioneered several cutting edge technologies which were copied by West, such as PESA radar and ability to use one aircraft's radar to guide missiles fired by another.

      Another great example is once again the F-35 project, which still struggles to implement the tech copied from MiG-29. Tech that was in use by USSR MiG bureau back in the 80s.

      About the only way to argue that USSR's fighter tech was "low tech knockoff" was the propaganda that came after MiG-25 was acquired and noted to use vacuum tubes in its electronics instead of transistors. Not only were USSR's fighters extremely advanced and pioneering in many aspects of the field, they were also very much DIFFERENT causing problems similar to those currently experienced by F-35 project when attempting to copy improvements made by other side.

      On the other hand you could compare things that US weighted as important and see that they were decades ahead of USSR in those (decades ahead in air to ground attack capability, surface fleet and naval aviation, military logistics).

      Essentially it is easy to draw comparison of "side x was decades behind side y" using one aspect that side x didn't view as their forte and part of their doctrine. This particular road goes both ways.

    193. Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of Accellion.

      Hired to re-architect their infrastructure, I recommended inventorying what was there starting from the bottom - the power - and working our way up. The inventory immediately exposed the fact that we had over twice as much equipment plugged into a single 20-amp outlet as the outlet was rated to deliver. Long story short, new director of IT decided it was more important to convert everything to VLANs than it was to address violations of Palo Alto fire code. We disagreed over priorities. I was fired over the phone - no exit interview, no meeting with HR. I understand the company tried to stiff the recruiter who'd placed me. Based on information and belief, Accellion began giving me bad references. I removed the position from my resume - temporarily, so I can get work - but it's not the sort of thing one is likely to forget.

      I've seen better management. And better HR, too.

    194. Re: Do good ... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      I wasn't the one making broad sweeping statements.

      ...Followed later in the same response by several paragraphs of broad, sweeping statements makes your argument criticizing such statements as coming from the nether regions quite amusing, but not very convincing.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    195. Re: Do good ... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      No. They did a reasonable job of feeding the people they wanted to be fed. But this debate is not really about productivity anyhow.

    196. Re: Do good ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

      I'm not going to spend hours or days trying to duplicate or track down evidence I've seen with my own eyes. And as for the people who lived there, when their stories largely concur (which is most of the time) I am inclined to take their word for it, not yours.

    197. Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Again, I'm not sure about the evidence "you saw with your own eyes", for the simple reason that I'm something of a military buff - I follow the publications in the field with significant interest. And about the only case of accusations of "low tech knock offs" in relation to fighter aircraft I can recall ever being made were back when MiG-25 was acquired by Japan but US technicians were not yet given access to it. I.e. they heard about vacuum tubes-based avionics suite from japanese but couldn't examine the whole aircraft yet, so many speculated that plane was in fact a low tech knockoff of some of the US Airforce interceptor projects (which were largely shifted to transistors at that time). It wasn't until US technicians were admitted to examine the aircraft that claims were stopped and aircraft got a significant amount of admiration from relevant specialists for extremely simple design which allowed for extremely complex operations (extreme high speed long range interception and complex data interfaces, all made on vacuum tubes as to make the aicraft lighter as it didn't have to house microclimate systems for (back then) large transistor based electronics.

      As for putting opinions of people you know are extremely opinionated ahead of logical arguments without even bothering to examine logical arguments in question strongly suggests a cop-out. I have imho produced a great example where people with deep personal opinion could be queried on topic of equality in US (which is frankly one of the best in the world, and arguably the best considering the historical background of the country) and yet we currently have pearls like "it's an open season on black boys in US" from them all the time.
      Compare those statements to statement you likely got from your russian friends who had to be on the receiving end of that other system - you may see correlation that is a bit too obvious to ignore and draw an conclusion that perhaps they were going on a massive hyperbole because of emotional charge that particular topic holds for them.

    198. Re: Do good ... by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Really, a 'tu quoque'?
      I'm starting to regret spending time on you.

    199. Re: Do good ... by ESarge · · Score: 1

      Er... as a New Zealander living in Canada I would suggest that New Zealand is *more* capitalist than the US. The US is quite a highly regulated economy - this is most visible in the way farmers can get subsidies. There are minimum prices, tariffs, all kinds of things.

      New Zealand farmers do not get subsidies.

      Not at all, nada, zilch.
      Maybe some help when there's a drought or a flood.

      Farming is also NZ's biggest export so it matters quite a lot.

      Yes, there is a solid safety net - if that's what you mean by socialist.

    200. Re: Do good ... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      The point wasn't to accuse you of hypocrisy (although now that you bring it up, I suppose it does that as well), but to point out the logical inconsistency of your arguments.

      Either "broad sweeping statements" are meaningless and/or pointless without additional specific substantiation, or they aren't. You yourself demonstrate that you find them useful in making your arguments, invalidating your broad, sweeping claim that they aren't.

      I can reasonably opine that water is generally wet. If I agree that "proving" that would require a more formal definition of wet vs. frozen or gaseous, whether water typically refers to the liquid form, or if it could be considered to include water ice, or water vapor, or if those are distinct, then based on that you'd have to really show some data about actual water samples... sure, proving it like that would be more convincing, but also somewhat beyond the level of proof required of a /. post.

      Especially when most folks familiar with the facts can conclude that yes, water is indeed generally wet, based on their personal experience and knowledge.

      So yeah, I guess that many people aren't familiar enough with the history of the various regions mentioned and their governments that they think there is something controversial with describing them as socialist in nature, but that doesn't mean they aren't. If you presented some sort of actual analysis based on commonly agreed definitions, I'm open to change my mind, but like my opinion that water is generally wet, my opinion is based on knowledge from disparate sources gained over an extended period of time, not a specific analysis completed to prove a single point on /. If I were a historian or sociologist by profession, or even a political consultant or some such, I might undertake a paper proving the point, but for the purposes of a comment, it's not exactly required for something so uncontroversial.

      I did acknowledge early in this discussion that definitions of words can differ and if you have a different working definition of socialism than I have, we could only be disagreeing on semantics and not on substance, but if you disagree with me on the substance of the statement, why have you failed to put forth even one alternate hypothesis? Instead, you've just been arguing in the negative.

      So let me ask, how would you describe the majority (or largest plurality, if that's too much for you) of the governments of the regions in question? Keep in mind that to be a point against my statement, your alternate description should be something that fundamentally contradicts the idea that they are socialist in name or nature. So while totalitarian, or kleptocracy, or mob rule might describe some of them, those descriptions don't exclude a socialist government and might even be argued to indicate one. You'll need to find something that excludes high levels of government power "socializing" the nation's resources.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    201. Re: Do good ... by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      The point wasn't to accuse you of hypocrisy (although now that you bring it up, I suppose it does that as well), but to point out the logical inconsistency of your arguments.

      You have no idea what a fallacy is, do you? You didn't have a point.

      Either "broad sweeping statements" are meaningless and/or pointless without additional specific substantiation, or they aren't. You yourself demonstrate that you find them useful in making your arguments, invalidating your broad, sweeping claim that they aren't.

      Straw man. I never said the latter. Quote me or agree.

      Broad sweeping statements require a lot of evidence. You are free to request evidence for or challenge any broad sweeping statement I have made. If I can't support it properly, I will readily admit that it was overly broad or lacking in any other way. I'm generally not an arrogant asshole when it comes to being prepared to do that.

      Again, the 'evidence' you provided for your statement (the map), instantly proved your statement to be false. You are free to retract or discount that 'evidence', but doing so would just leave you with "It's true, because I know so. I could write a paper on it", which is a sad state of affairs for trying to defend a point of view.

      So while totalitarian, or kleptocracy, or mob rule might describe some of them, those descriptions don't exclude a socialist government and might even be argued to indicate one. You'll need to find something that excludes high levels of government power "socializing" the nation's resources.

      According to some very dubitable or terribly misleading definition of socialism. If a totalitarian state where the majority of the collective has nothing and a tiny subset of it has everything, it is not socialism, as the resources aren't truly collectively owned or controlled. I.e. government controlled doesn't equate to collectively controlled if in practice the collective does not have significant power over that government. The collective cannot choose what to do with the resources and therefore doesn't truly own them. Unsurprisingly, in such circumstances the majority of the collective hardly benefits, if at all, from those resources, which flies straight in the face of socialism.

      One could say that the common presence of large scale corruption almost precludes a state from being called socialist. Of course you can argue against this and try to further some narrow definition of socialism based on government power, party names or marketed ideology, but it would fail to capture the spirit of socialism and thus be a useless definition. Your use of quotes around the word 'socializing' in your last sentence illustrates the latter quite effectively.

      So let me ask, how would you describe the majority (or largest plurality, if that's too much for you) of the governments of the regions in question?

      Considering the utter lack of effort you have made to provide support for your initial statement, I feel far from obliged to answer your question. To be honest, though, I consider properly answering it far too complex and I believe any short and simple answer to be debatable up to a point where it becomes thoroughly irrelevant.

    202. Re: Do good ... by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      I forgot to reply to this part:

      but for the purposes of a comment, it's not exactly required for something so uncontroversial.

      For one, equating something like 'water is wet' - which almost everybody experiences almost every day - to something like 'most of the countries in [most of the world] are socialist' - which swaths of people not even come close to knowing or being confronted with in their entire life - is ridiculous.
      Secondly, it would be an argumentum ad populum, which is a fallacy in everything but the most trivial cases. Combined with the above: even if the entire world thought that most of the countries in most of the world are socialist, we could say with high certainty that a very large fraction of the people would have no or a very lacking basis for that thought.
      Finally, one need only look at the GP comment of your initial comment to see that what you state is disagreed upon by at least two individuals (who can be assumed to be knowledgeable above average due to being on Slashdot).

      Even if it was uncontroversial, which it isn't, you aren't making your case stronger by saying it is.

    203. Re: Do good ... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Ah, so we finally come to the crux of the matter. You don't want to admit that your definition of a socialist government is an ideal one not shared by most people who aren't socialists. Your ideal is of the "No True Scotsman" line of fallacies.

      So let's just agree to disagree on the definitions we are using in the original discussion. My claim is based on a definition of socialism that includes every government led by political leaders who favor purported socialist policies, while your definition appears to be an idealistic view of only governments that manage to fully implement socialism in a form acceptable to you.

      By your definition style, there are no existing capitalist countries and no existing socialist countries, in large part because of public-choice economics reasons. By my definition style, most countries can be classified along a spectrum of public sentiment for socialist or free market style policies, said spectrum evidenced by the policies they appear to support. I'd classify any country that primarily supports socialist ideals in their stated public policy as socialist, while you'd only allow that classification for successfully implementing your ideals. As socialism as a governing philosophy is unworkable and corrupted, by your definition, it doesn't exist, except perhaps fleetingly.

      For example, I'd classify Castro in Cuba, Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela, Lagos and Bachelet in Chile, da Silva and Rousseff in Brazil, the Kirchners in Argentina, Medina in the DR, Mujica in Uruguay, Morales in Bolivia, Zelaya in Honduras, Ortega in Nicaragua, Correa in Ecuador, Lugo in Paraguay, Funes in El Salvador and Humala in Peru as all being left-wing socialist Presidents in Latin America. So would most people, as evidenced by popular sources such as Wikipedia, news organizations such as the BBC, the Boston Globe, etc...

      Do you consider those Latin American leaders socialists under your definition? If so, you've agreed to my point, at least as to Latin America. If not, then you're simply using a definition of a socialist government not commonly in widespread use.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    204. Re: Do good ... by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      My definition of 'a socialist country' is based on what effectively happens there. According to your definition, a country can switch state completely on election day which renders the definition far less useful than mine when it comes to evaluation of economic designs.

      I'll readily agree that a lot of governments in South America currently further 'left-wing' socialist ideals, but if the effective (maximum) tax rates are low, it is hard to argue that the country actually implements socialism. Of course, I've already stated that tacking labels of economic design on countries isn't something I like to do, due to the complexity of it.

      Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates , Paraguay is the worst example, with only 12% of the economy driven by the government. If you look at its turbulent political history, socialism is really not the first thing to come to mind, which explains why the tax rates and/or government spending are/is so low.
      Glibly asking them "So, how's that socialism thing working for you?" is disingenuous, as it hasn't really had a chance to work yet.

      This is one example from your list (and probably the worst one), but my point is that for effective discussion on the merits of certain economic designs, looking at the party name or political stance of the current government of a country isn't useful.

      Also remember that even though countries differ greatly, we still tend to lob all the conservative and progressive (or left/right or whatever) together. Most Europeans deem all the political parties in the USA to be right-wing and most inhabitants of the US would deem many European 'right-wing' parties to be socialist.
      I'm betting that European countries which by your definition are currently right-wing, would be deemed the most socialist places on earth by aforementioned inhabitants.
      High (progressive) tax rates, socialized health care, expensive and lots of public infrastructure, high social security benefits etc. These are implemented socialist policies, the things that actually influence people's lives and the economy.

      Finally:

      By your definition style, there are no existing capitalist countries and no existing socialist countries, in large part because of public-choice economics reasons. By my definition style, most countries can be classified along a spectrum of public sentiment for socialist or free market style policies, said spectrum evidenced by the policies they appear to support. I'd classify any country that primarily supports socialist ideals in their stated public policy as socialist, while you'd only allow that classification for successfully implementing your ideals.

      So first you introduce a false dichotomy as being important (which I've vehemently denounced from the start) and then go on to show that in your definition it does not exist unless an obviously arbitrary and thus for the purpose at hand redundant line is drawn?

      If you want an arbitrary line, let's do it. Countries for which government spending is more than 40% of GDP are socialist. I can draw lines all day.

      Do you want to change your initial statement to 'most of the countries in Africa, South America, Asia, Eastern Europe, etc... lean more to the socialist side of the socialist-free market spectrum'?
      It would still be false, but at least more accurate.

    205. Re: Do good ... by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

      The Fascist did not outlaw Trade Unions, they just outlawed the ones they did not control.
      The Nazi is short for National Socialist and started as a "left wing" nationalist party.

      And both the Russian Bolsheviks, and the various type of European Fascists worked mostly for the ruling party.
      The main structural difference is that Authoritarian Communists take control of all the production infrastructure and transfer the effective ownership to a bureaucracy that is stemming from the party, whereas the Fascists organize a deal with a small number of very rich people/corporations and in exchange of state sponsored monopolies get a big slice of the profits from these enterprises.

      For the people bellow it does not change anything their only issue is to find out if they are part of the selected minority that is used to get the rest of the population scared and in line.

      The model is that the state is powerful enough to oppress about 4 to 6% of the population (the selection criteria do not matter, you can always find a narrative that fits and justify the oppression) this is small enough to be doable, and large enough that the minority in the rest of the population prefers to do nothing for fear of becoming part of the oppressed.
      And it gives enough opportunities of redistributions to butter a little bit the daily fare of the masses and enrich the top party members.

  2. So sue 'em. by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hope he does. it's obviously not incompetence and blaming for seeking legal advice is just stupid to use as reasoning for incompetence.

    "that if they feel like there is wrongdoing,” they should not disclose it or seek legal guidance from a private attorney.
    “If they do speak to an attorney, then they are dead,” he said. “The State Attorney’s Office will do whatever is necessary to not only terminate them, but destroy their reputations in the process.”

    coming from state attorneys office that's actually pretty funny. saying it like that covers also seeking advice on illegal working conditions and what have you..

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:So sue 'em. by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I hope he does sue, and that he wins. It may be an uphill battle though. Prosecutors have tremendous discretion in how they conduct cases, and enormous protection under the law, although it looks to me like this is well over the line. Besides suing, he should consider bringing a complaint before the Bar. Not turning over possible exculpatory evidence would seem to be an ethics violation.

      I can't say this is surprising though since the prosecution appears to be motivated more my politics than the actual legal situation.

      In Audio Recording, Department of Justice Official Urges Protesters to Seek ‘Justice’ for Trayvon Martin
      Branco Cartoon – Fanning the Flames
      Racial politics supported by State power come down on George Zimmerman

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:So sue 'em. by Chewbacon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Florida is a Right to Fire... erm, Hire state. I always confuse the two words because whenever I hear the phrase, it's always used in the context of firing people. Anyway, incompetence is a Florida-based employer's way of firing you simply because they don't like you. If you don't cross enough T's and dot enough I's it is grounds for incompetence.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    3. Re:So sue 'em. by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Besides suing, he should consider bringing a complaint before the Bar. Not turning over possible exculpatory evidence would seem to be an ethics violation.

      Close. The ethics violation is a relatively minor issue.

      Yes it is an ethics violation, but more importantly it is also a violation of both the US Constitution and the Florida State Constitution.

      It is an unfortunate trend, but prosecutors and police across the country have been facing ever-increasing claims of withholding evidence. Really, the defense should be given access to all information.

      Even in this case there was a tussle about the evidence being actually withheld, and the judge agreed that they withheld it and demanded everything be handed over ... but no penalty was given to the state for their violation.

      Sadly violations are usually discounted as being accidental oversights and punishments against prosecutors are non-existent. It ought to result in immediate disbarment of the lawyers involved since the violation fundamentally destroys justice, but there is no incentive for the "good old boys" club to change.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    4. Re:So sue 'em. by thaylin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      part of the problem with these types of states is that they can fire you for any reason, as long as they dont give a reason. If they give a reason than it has to be a valid one. Incompetence is a good one as it is typically hard to disprove, except when you just got a pay raise specifically for doing such a good job.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    5. Re:So sue 'em. by gabereiser · · Score: 2

      He can't sue. Florida is a "At Will Employment" state. The only thing you can sue for here is Discrimination. In Florida, you can be fired for anything, with or without reason, and you can quit, with or without reason.

    6. Re:So sue 'em. by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Funny

      The solution is simple then: never, ever give raises.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    7. Re:So sue 'em. by fast+turtle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The main issue is that the Prosecution withheld material information from the defense, denying the accused a "Fair Trial" which means they now have legitimate grounds to apeal and overturn any conviction made. In fact, if the evidence that the prosecution failed to provide to the defense shows a clear case of innocence, the prosecution can be sanctioned by the court for failing to abide. Keep in mind that judges do not like their time wasted by some witch hunt and if that is the case, the prosecution is going to get their asses reamed by the judge.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    8. Re:So sue 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The terms you are looking for is "right to work" and "at will" and it is both as they are separate.

    9. Re:So sue 'em. by atamido · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He can't sue.

      Florida is a "At Will Employment" state. The only thing you can sue for here is Discrimination. In Florida, you can be fired for anything, with or without reason, and you can quit, with or without reason.

      Emphasis mine. What you said is not strictly true. You can be fired without reason, but if you provide a reason then it can't violate the numerous federal laws on the matter. For example, you can't fire someone for race, religion, sex, etc.

      In this case they appear to have given a reason, and the reasons would seem to violate federal whistle blower laws, so he can sue.

    10. Re:So sue 'em. by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Florida is a Right to Fire... erm, Hire state. I always confuse the two words because whenever I hear the phrase, it's always used in the context of firing people. Anyway, incompetence is a Florida-based employer's way of firing you simply because they don't like you. If you don't cross enough T's and dot enough I's it is grounds for incompetence.

      Problem is, if you state "incompetence" as the reason for firing someone, but there's no solid evidence of such, it's grounds for a lawsuit - it may not be a "wrongful termination" suit, but "slander", "libel", and suchlike are more than adequate terms, among others that Florida may have in place specifically for their government employees (remember, this ain't a private company...)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    11. Re:So sue 'em. by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      He can sue for slander. Also, at will states do honor employment contracts and there may be something within the employment contract that could allow him to sue.

    12. Re:So sue 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh? Quitting is a right now? Thank you master slave driver, for telling me how the world works.

    13. Re:So sue 'em. by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2

      Part of the disingenuity that drove Martin Luther King Jr to refer to "Right to Work" as one of the greatest frauds perpetrated against the american people.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    14. Re:So sue 'em. by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Thing is, if you fire someone and state a specific reason (e.g. "incompetence"), you have to back it up with proof, or risk being slammed with a lawsuit for slander and/or libel.

      Now if they said "you;re fired because I hate your tie", then they would be in the clear. It's when they tried to make shit up that they stumbled (seriously - firing a guy for "incompetence" after just giving him a raise for "meritorious" reasons? Lots of 'splaining to do on that one...)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    15. Re:So sue 'em. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "It ought to result in immediate disbarment of the lawyers involved since the violation fundamentally destroys justice"

      This.

      My view is that it should be "an eye for an eye". In other words, people caught deliberately corrupting justice, by testifying falsely, or withholding evidence, etc. are putting others in danger of anywhere from jail to even the death penalty. So... the punishment for doing so should be exactly the same punishment faced by the defendant.

      When a policeman on the witness stand could face life in prison unless they tell it straight... watch them start telling it straight.

      I think that would be an excellent solution to this problem. Ethical and just. People who deliberately put others in jeopardy should face exactly the same jeopardy.

    16. Re:So sue 'em. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Keep in mind that judges do not like their time wasted by some witch hunt and if that is the case, the prosecution is going to get their asses reamed by the judge."

      That's not good enough if the corruption of justice was deliberate. Let them go to prison and get their asses reamed literally.

    17. Re:So sue 'em. by b4upoo · · Score: 2

      Florida governor Rick Scot is a nightmare from the right wing. He had no business ordering a trial or arrest of Mr. Zimmerman. The county sheriff refused to arrest Mr. Zimmerman as it was clear that no crime had taken place. The county prosecutor had no interest in causing an arrest of an innocent man. The sheriff was fired and the governor assigned a special prosecutor. A criminal investigation is already under way and there is a serious violation of Mr. Zimmerman's civil liberties. Governor Scot belongs in prison.

    18. Re:So sue 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Seminole County sheriff (Don Eslinger) still has his job, and is an elected official, so the state can't just fire him. It was Sanford chief of police Bill Lee that was forced to resign. Agreed that Gov. Scott is largely a waste of oxygen, and I hope to see Angela Corey be held responsible for her part.

    19. Re:So sue 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope he does, and it gets shut down as frivolous.

    20. Re:So sue 'em. by shentino · · Score: 1

      Except that the employer was the government, which means termination is a government action subject to the bill of rights and other things.

    21. Re:So sue 'em. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Or just call it a cost of living raise. If you call it a merit raise you've basically said they are a good employee. Cost of living just says the dollar ain't worth much anymore because they keep printing too many of them.

    22. Re:So sue 'em. by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      While I have little hope of anything happening to the offending lawyers in this case, I believe the judge did say that she would wait to take action until after a verdict was reached. The verdict has now been rendered so hopefully we'll see some action on this soonish.

    23. Re:So sue 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF? An arrest and legal trial are *supposed* to take place in any situation where one citizen willingly kills another, regardless of what the killer claims or witnesses present. Releasing the citizen under those circumstances would result in far more dangerous criminals running around, as even minimal planning would make it *far* too easy to set the scene up for instant exoneration.

      If the kid had decided his life was in danger early on and shot the man coming at him, then told police, "I was just walking home from the store and talking to my GF on the phone, this big guy starts following me in a car, I couldn't lose him, then he got out and came after me on foot," would you still figure that the killer was obviously innocent and shouldn't even be investigated to verify his claims?

    24. Re:So sue 'em. by micheas · · Score: 1

      Um, Zimmerman was found not guilty. So, what harm was done to Zimmerman by withholding the evidence?

      He might have been found not guilty after a shorter deliberation? The Judge is probably going to rule that any misbehavior by the prosecutors office is moot because they lost. Sort of like one of my chemistry professors in college couldn't be bothered to do more than inform the class that he knew that some people cheated on a test when the high score of the cheaters was a failing grade.

    25. Re:So sue 'em. by mendax · · Score: 2

      Actually, as I understand civil rights law (and I do since I've researched the topic in order to file one soon), not only does this IT director have a good Federal 1983 civil rights case against the state of Florida, he can and should sue the Attorney General in both his official and his personal capacity. Government employees usually have immunity from liability for their official actions but if they knowingly or should have known that their actions were illegal or unconstitutional, either a violation of statute or goes against well-established court opinions on the subject (case law), they lose that immunity and can be sued in their person capacity. That means that the FL AG has just opened himself up to being liable to have to pay damages to this guy. Now, usually, when a government employee is found to be personally liable, the government will pay what he has been ordered to pay... but it doesn't have to and sometimes when the action is egregiously illegal as in this case it refuses to do so. Ultimately, when the AG loses (which he likely will given the facts of the case in the article) the Governor will have him by the balls since I suspect that he will be the one who ultimately makes the decision whether to pay.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    26. Re:So sue 'em. by mendax · · Score: 1

      Florida is a Right to Fire... erm, Hire state. I always confuse the two words because whenever I hear the phrase, it's always used in the context of firing people. Anyway, incompetence is a Florida-based employer's way of firing you simply because they don't like you. If you don't cross enough T's and dot enough I's it is grounds for incompetence.

      It is a federal offense to fire an employee for whistleblowing. I refer you to this for further information.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    27. Re:So sue 'em. by mendax · · Score: 1

      Oh yes he can sue. He can sue in Federal court for being dismissed as a whistleblower. That is illegal under Federal law.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    28. Re:So sue 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since there could be a mistake or an oversight, especially with thousands or even tens of thousands of documents in a case, there should be strikes. If you keep being incompetent 3 times, you're as bad as if you were guilty.

    29. Re:So sue 'em. by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing that. But they're citing incompetence. Now saying he cannot be trusted to set foot in the office casts doubt on that an implies retaliation for whistle blowing.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    30. Re:So sue 'em. by jraff2 · · Score: 1

      The whistle blowing issue is not relevant the Prosecutorial Misconduct is.. Someone in the state MUST bring charges on the F__king asshole that fired Ben Kruidbos and make a good case against the AG for the firing and give Ben a perpetual free ride for a thankyou. This type of attitude in any gov. society MUST be corrected. Municipal, County, State the National Prosecutors MUST be informed that Prosecutorial Misconduct will NOT be tolerated at any level!

    31. Re:So sue 'em. by tibman · · Score: 1

      I think most businesses have that one covered : )
      (matching inflation is not a raise)

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    32. Re:So sue 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway, incompetence is a Florida-based employer's way of firing you simply because they don't like you. If you don't cross enough T's and dot enough I's it is grounds for incompetence.

      It would appear he rather crossed too many Ts here.

  3. Loud and clear by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US government is sending a message: "We don't like whistle-blowers".

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Loud and clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The US government is sending a message: "We don't like whistle-blowers".

      The Florida government is sending a message: "We don't like whistle-blowers".

    2. Re:Loud and clear by Penguinshit · · Score: 5, Informative

      actually it's the Florida State government. And with Rick Scott's record of corruption, you can bet he doesn't want anyone with a shred of integrity having root access to the state's computers...

    3. Re:Loud and clear by cultiv8 · · Score: 5, Informative

      In Florida, transparency is not up to the whim or grace of public officials. Instead, it is an enforceable right.

      From the website of the Office of the Attorney General of Florida titled Open Government. The irony is strong in this one.

      --
      sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
    4. Re:Loud and clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Correction: The US gov LOVES corporate whistle-blowers (for the violation income) but hate government whistle-blowers.

    5. Re:Loud and clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your Rick Scott comment is irrelevant and, I suspect, bepeaks of a particular political bias so prevalent on /. In fact, the Florida Attorney General is an ELECTED cabinet official.

    6. Re:Loud and clear by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Your Rick Scott comment is irrelevant and, I suspect, bepeaks of a particular political bias

      In fact, considering Rick Scott's approval rating among the citizens of Florida, negative comments about the governor do not really "bepeaks" of any particular political bias.

      It appears that he's pretty much hated across the political spectrum.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Loud and clear by lightknight · · Score: 2

      Any chance they'll get this one branded a traitor by the end of next week?

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    8. Re:Loud and clear by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      Considering the Florida AG initiated this whole trial because the Obama's office specifically egged them on into doing it (in spite of clearing the guy initially), I suspect that the US government gets to take on a piece of the blame for anything having to do with this trial, albeit indirectly, since they pretty much started it.

      (...mind the flames and impending down-mods, campers!)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    9. Re:Loud and clear by unkiereamus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Any chance they'll get this one branded a traitor by the end of next week?

      Come now. Haven't you been paying attention to the US for the last 12 years?

      They're going to label him a terrorist.

      --
      I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
    10. Re:Loud and clear by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      "You have proven to be completely untrustworthy. Because of your deliberate, wilful and unscrupulous actions, you can never again be trusted..."

      Already been done, it seems.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re:Loud and clear by Kirth · · Score: 1

      The Florida government is sending a message: "We give a fuck about justice and due process"

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    12. Re:Loud and clear by Penguinshit · · Score: 1

      The State AG still takes orders from the governor. And Rick Scott was behind the largest Medicare fraud in history well before he became governor so my statement carries zero political bias.

    13. Re:Loud and clear by messymerry · · Score: 1

      Well, let's see: Federal, State, Local...in the immortal words of Morpheus, "You all look the same to me."

      --
      Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
  4. Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It sounds like the Florida State Attorney's Office has some s'plainin' to do. Withholding evidence from the defense is really, super unethical; I wouldn't be surprised if you could be disbarred for it. This is a highly politicized case, and it's not surprising that the state really wants to win it to save face, but really guys? Doing that kind of shit under the color of public authority is fucked up. Like Nifong (see Duke lacrosse) fucked up..

    1. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Also firing someone for whistleblowing is against whistleblowing laws.

    2. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by maz2331 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A Brady violation is a big, big deal. And it's usually NOT a good idea to piss off the guy who has proof of wrongdoing - they just ensured that he will be a quite eager witness at their disbarrment proceedings.

    3. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by tmorehen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There was no evidence withheld from the defence: The raw data file had already been given to the defence. The IT fellow's analysis was prosecution work product, nothing more. As well, the pictures and text he found were irrelevant to the case: the girl and the gun were not at the scene nor did Martin have any marijuana on him. As well, Kruidbos had an obligation to keep information about the cases he works on confidential, particularly since he didn't raise any concerns with anyone else in the office. Consulting with a lawyer is probably ok, but not when that lawyer is a disgruntled former employee who breaks privilege by running off to the defence.

    4. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As well, the pictures and text he found were irrelevant to the case: the girl and the gun were not at the scene nor did Martin have any marijuana on him.

      But the existence of these images suggests something about the character of Martin. By themselves, they don't mean much. But when you consider that Martin continued to beat Zimmerman even after Zimmerman started screaming, and you combine this with the images found on the phone, you get the possibility that Martin was doing more to Zimmerman than simply fighting him.

      Trayvon Martin had completely dominated Zimmerman, yet continued to beat him even as Zimmerman was screaming. What sort of person takes pleasure in beating someone that's screaming and already overwhelmed?

      The pictures plus the actions tell us that Martin was more than just someone that got involved in a fist fight. He was seriously trying to inflict damage and pain on Zimmerman.

       

    5. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the pictures and text he found were irrelevant to the case: the girl and the gun

      I notice you didn't mention the texts where Trayvon's discusses his organized street fighting and his acquaintances telling him to stop getting into fights. Prosecutors don't get to decide what is and is not relevant.

      And it's defense, not defence.

    6. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's worth knowing that the "evidence" is comprised of the personal photographs of the victim of the crime:

      described some contents of his report such as a photo of an African-American hand holding a gun, a photo of a plant resembling marijuana and a text message referring to a gun transaction.

      Are you saying that someone holding a gun is "evidence" even though there was no gun belonging to Trayvon Martin found at the scene? Or is the fact that he's a young black man holding a gun prima facie evidence that Trayvon must have really been a thug so he deserved to be killed for walking down the street with an iced tea and pack of Skittles? And, "a text message referring to a gun transaction"? Again, what would any of this have to do with the fact that George Zimmerman shot an unarmed person?

      What exactly is any of this "evidence" of? What are you trying to say, son?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Le+Marteau · · Score: 2

      Zackly. It's fine for the prosecution to portray Zimmerman as a "wanna be cop" but when the defense wants to portray sweet, angelic Trayvon as a wanna be (if not actual) gangsta, all of a sudden, the judge has a case of the vapours.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    8. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by erroneus · · Score: 1

      At the very least, it would offer up a mistrial. But Zimmerman will likely be acquitted. The prosecution just didn't make their case. But if for some reason he doesn't get acquitted, we'll see a mistrial motion get filed right away.

      All that said, I think the previous comment about the US government was right on. Despite this being an apparent Florida state matter, the POTUS not only felt it important to make a comment, but to send people to help make the case against Zimmerman.

      Despite all of that, it seems obvious the prosecution failed to make their case. "Who's screaming?!" Must have been the guy on top and beating the hell out of the guy on bottom because that's the way it always goes right? Who was on top though? Eye witnesses say it wasn't Zimmerman. But why was Zimmerman being attacked? Because he was stalking someone? When was that ever justification for attacking someone?

      This case is a poorly selected one if they wanted to make a big show of it. They should have been smarter about it.

    9. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Morphine007 · · Score: 1

      semantics

    10. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So when it comes down to it, the case against Zimmerman hinges in no small way on intent. To show intent, they bring out character issues. Okay. I get that. So what about the defense's right to defend their case? The defense's case hinges in non small way on Zimmerman being attacked by a violent person. To prove that case, the character of the assailant is relevant evidence. At every turn, however, the evidence of character of the assailant has been blocked. It is EXTREMELY important and denies Zimmerman a fair trial when his defense case is self-defense. How can anyone prove it if they can't easily show that he was being attacked by a violent person? Lots of evidence shows that, but it wasn't allowed. Why?

      Obligation to keep it confidential? When a miscarriage of justice is being perpetrated, it is a citizen's duty to report it. And suppression of evidence is a serious crime. The government is not "priviledged." If you think so, it's a problem. And there is no indication he gave evidence to anyone. It would seem he only reported that it exists.

      Additionally, evidence of being a drug user was certainly important. 1. It was in his system. 2. He was not carrying "Iced Tea" he was carrying two ingredients for making "Lean." That's huge. Once again, proving the character of the assailant is key to the defense's case. It's the nation's legal responsibility that all charged receive a fair trial.

    11. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      YES! The Victim caused his own death. It's a key and important factor in all of this. The claim is self-defense. Without the ability to show that the victim was also an drug-using, assailant with a history of violence and other criminal behavior, how can anyone ever prove self-defense? What evidence could serve to prove self-defense? Well, I suppose there was the uninjured body of Trayvon Martin... uninjured except for that bullet wound. Then there's all the head and face wounds all over Zimmerman. There was that eye-witness too. None of those matter right?

      Blaming the victim is an important and relevant part of ensuring a fair trial. Just because someone is a victim does not mean they were completely innocent.

    12. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Ah, so we're judging the victim here!

      Which victim? Both Zimmerman and martin were victims at one point in the ordeal.

      And thank you for demonstrating why that should be excluded, because absent any actual physical evidence of that occurring, you are speculating, which means the victim is being judged by you, with no ability to defend himself from your accusations.

      Because he's dead.

      I don't necessarily disagree with this. However, what is seemingly lost in all this is that Martin, without physical provocation, attacked Zimmerman.

      We do need the ability to investigate patterns of behavior whether someone is alive to defend against them or not. This is already law and standard practice. It allows us to find pertinent facts that can support or disallow a claim for or against someone. The problem is in determining what are facts and speculation and what has bearing with the case at hand. President Bill Clinton had this crop up on him where his pattern of behavior because contention during a deposition in a lawsuit brought against him for sexual harassment.

      Now you want Zimmerman to be able to fabricate a story about Martin using such prejudicial material?I'm not the GP but I'll answer anyways. It is not about fabricating something, it is about exposing the truth of the situation. If someone who attacked you but later died of cancer, you would still be able to introduce the pattern of him being arrested and charged for assault 15 other times as evidence to support your story. Similarly, if the guy was a professional fighter and has a reputation of punching harder then normal and dominating people, then it would go along with the state of mind you were in while being attacked. Now lets assume that when trying to escape this attacker, you took a bicycle or jumped in a car that had the keys in the ignition and drove away to safety. The fact you were in fear of your life can excuse those criminal acts, the only difference here is that someone was shot and killed in the process.

    13. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Not tea. Watermellon fruit cocktail. That and skittles are ingredients of lean. He was a proven drug user. The use and access to illegal guns? I doubt he was supposed to have a gun... and buying/selling them? Under those circumstances, it shows his criminal nature. Finally, the texts about being a fighter? EXTREMELY relevant evidence for the defense wouldn't you say?

      If one person assaulted another person with a big rock, would you say that was armed or unarmed? Please be honest. And when the rock is a sidewalk? Does that make it less of a weapon?

    14. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      I will say that photographs of a kid holding a gun and text messages telling him to not get into any more fights is evidence that it is not just some kid with a pack of skittles.

      The prosecution was trying to present this as if Trayvon was some innocent 5 year old with a box of candy who was gunned down by a racist while minding his own business. The complete picture is that this kid was 17, more then capable of fighting, more then capable of putting Zimmerman in a position in which he feared gross bodily harm and death.

      The evidence is that a person losing a fight to this kid could actually be in fear while being attacked by the kid.

    15. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ah, so we're judging the victim here!

      So you have already decided the outcome of the trial already.
      If Martin straddling Zimmerman when he was shot (as the forensic evidence says he was) then he is not the victim, he was the perp.

    16. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Martin is on trial, Zimmerman can be described as the victim. Oh wait, thanks to George Zimmerman, Treyvon Martin is dead.

      If Zimmerman can't prove he was actually injured with real physical evidence, or his own testimony, why would you add this material? It would be encouraging the jury to speculate as to what Martin did based on unrelated character matters would actually tend to cause us to distort the truth with unwarranted speculation. It's already standard legal practice to exclude such evidence due to it being prejudicial. Or did you not know that?

      Let's say you see somebody in the dark at night, you don't recognize them, but you shoot them by claiming self-defense. It doesn't matter if it's Jack the Ripper, Count Dracula or any other such well-known entity, you shot them unprovoked, and putting their character into question would not serve justice.

      You want to expose the truth of the situation? Then you realize how easy it is for information to distort it, and why sometimes it's important to not consider stuff that's actually causing prejudice to show up. It's really easy to find truths that support a lie.

      Sorry, but I'm going to demand Zimmerman stand by his own words, not use unrelated matters to which he had no knowledge or awareness to bolster his case.

    17. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 4, Informative

      And it's defense, not defence.

      Either spelling is acceptable. The people who invented the language spell it with a 'c'.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    18. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      When Martin is on trial, Zimmerman can be described as the victim. Oh wait, thanks to George Zimmerman, Treyvon Martin is dead.

      So Martin's acts of aggression against Zimmerman have no place in the discussion over whether or not Zimmerman was justified in fearing for his life and using lethal force because Martin is now dead?

      That makes exactly no sense and if you were to stop and think about this analytically instead of emotionally, you would see your error.

      f Zimmerman can't prove he was actually injured with real physical evidence, or his own testimony, why would you add this material? It would be encouraging the jury to speculate as to what Martin did based on unrelated character matters would actually tend to cause us to distort the truth with unwarranted speculation. It's already standard legal practice to exclude such evidence due to it being prejudicial. Or did you not know that?

      Zimmerman doesn't have to prove he was injured. This is not a trial concerning whether Martin receive the proper punishment or not, it is a trial to determine the mental state of Zimmerman at the time he defended his life by taking another life. If an MMA fighter attacked you, would you be in more or less dear for your life then if your brother attacked you. How about some random joe on the street who is in the same shape as you verses one who is in better physical condition.

      This is what it is all about- the state of mind Zimmerman had and whether or not he caused himself to be in that state of mind. showing that Martin was not some 12 year old boy who loves his momma is very important in showing that the fear Zimmerman had was real.

      Let's say you see somebody in the dark at night, you don't recognize them, but you shoot them by claiming self-defense. It doesn't matter if it's Jack the Ripper, Count Dracula or any other such well-known entity, you shot them unprovoked, and putting their character into question would not serve justice.

      This is very true. However, say that person was in your house saying he was going to rape and kill your wife or kid or guests, it very much becomes pertinent to the situation if he has done it before. Remember, this isn't about someone minding their own business and getting shot, this is about someone who eventually was attacking and winning in a fight and getting shot. It's a lot different then just shooting someone who you don't recognize in the dark. Anyways, the claim of innocence in this case surrounds the fact that Zimmerman was in a position where he feared his life would end due to someone being on top of him and slamming his head to the ground. Showing that the person claimed to be doing that has a pattern of aggression or being capable of fighting oppoents larger then himself goes directly to whether or not Zimmerman could have reasonably though his life was in danger when he was on the receiving end of that aggression.

      You want to expose the truth of the situation? Then you realize how easy it is for information to distort it, and why sometimes it's important to not consider stuff that's actually causing prejudice to show up. It's really easy to find truths that support a lie.

      That's correct which is why I said the to use the information to sort the facts out.

      Sorry, but I'm going to demand Zimmerman stand by his own words, not use unrelated matters to which he had no knowledge or awareness to bolster his case.

      Hogwash. That is complete insanity- the cops don't do this, why should Zimmerman be limited to it? I mean seriously, when a kid goes missing, one of the first things they do is check out the nearby sex offender list. When the cops are looking for suspects in a bank robbery, they look at people who have robbed stores or people. If someone fits the description and is arrested for the crime, that prior is brought up during trial.

      The problem

    19. Re: Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zimmerman could not have judged Martin's character that night, that's why.

      It doesn't matter if Martin turned out to eat babies and feed baby kittens to tarantulas, if you couldn't have known that, you can't use it to explain yourself.

      Zimmerman had to defend his actions with what he knew and did that night, not what he found out later.

    20. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was he carrying codeine cough syrup?

      Well, then, no, he was not carrying the ingredients for lean.

    21. Re: Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Cederic · · Score: 2

      Would someone that eats babies be more or less likely to assault someone?

      The defence was that Zimmerman acted in self defence. That meant he was the victim of an assault. Demonstrating that Martin had a history of violence makes it more plausible that he would indeed have attacked Zimmerman.

      What Zimmerman knew that night was that he was assaulted. Martin's character is important in assessing the truth of that, not in assessing whether it was right to shoot him.

    22. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I need to fix defence in my front yard...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    23. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Aboroth · · Score: 1

      And it's defense, not defence.

      Either spelling is acceptable. The people who invented the language spell it with a 'c'.

      The people who fixed the language spell it with a 's'.

    24. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by mendax · · Score: 1

      It sounds like the Florida State Attorney's Office has some s'plainin' to do. Withholding evidence from the defense is really, super unethical; I wouldn't be surprised if you could be disbarred for it.

      You can be disbarred for it. It's also a criminal offense in many states, usually a felony which will result in immediate disbarment anyway. It's also a civil rights violation which makes it a criminal as well as a civil federal offense, the civil right being a fair trial. Fortunately for the AG, Mr. Zimmerman was acquitted. If he were found guilty and did go to prison, if it could be shown that that AG knew about this information and purposely withheld it, he could be sent to prison and Zimmerman would likely get a new trial.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    25. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by mendax · · Score: 1

      And it's defense, not defence.

      Either spelling is acceptable. The people who invented the language spell it with a 'c'.

      I wouldn't give the people who invented the language much credit. They inflicted upon the Anglophone world their horrible spelling conventions that are the root of this particular, completely-unrelated-to-George-Zimmerman controversy.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    26. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That he was a stinking criminal who got what was coming to him.

      Bye bye liberal fuck.

    27. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If Martin straddling Zimmerman when he was shot (as the forensic evidence says he was) then he is not the victim, he was the perp.

      Why do you assume the person who was winning is the person who started it?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    28. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's defense, not defence.

      Either spelling is acceptable. The people who invented the language spell it with a 'c'.

      I don't see any c in défense or defensa

    29. Re: Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Mabhatter · · Score: 0

      but Zimmerman had already called the police and been instructed not to follow and confront... then went out and did exactly that. Zimmerman INTENDED to cause a confrontation as evidenced by not following police advice... he strapped on a gun and got in his truck and followed the kid till the kid felt the need to fight back.

      the fact that Zimmerman was a fat man that LOST a fight he picket doesn't make it self defense. Zimmerman had equal access to use the sidewalk as a punching bag... he just wasn't smart enough. he let himself get beat up bad enough to be justified to use his gun. it's clear he had made so many 911 calls the police stopped RESPONDING to them. So he called another non-responding number for advice to set up his alibi for "investigating".

      He INTENDED to kill that kid when he got out of the safety of his truck... and the kid stepped into the legal trap by throwing some punches. The whole problem with "stand your ground" is that the law doesn't count "starting a fight" against "self defense". So you can pick a fist fight, lose horribly and pull a gun legally... and that's exactly what happened.

    30. Re: Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      So you can pick a fist fight, lose horribly and pull a gun legally... and that's exactly what happened.

      Personally I believe you're completely right that's what happened. Sadly there hasn't been any objective evidence either way, so benefit of doubt has to go to the only available witness.

      However, I suspect you're wrong that had Zimmerman been demonstrated as starting the fight, he'd be legally permitted to then claim self-defence in killing Martin. At a minimum he'd have committed an assault that led to a death, and that's illegal even in Florida.

    31. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by tibman · · Score: 1

      Ah, but he was fired for being incompetent. Totally unrelated.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    32. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Principle parts: defendo, defendere, defendi, defensus

      http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/16063/defendo-defendere-defendi-defensus

    33. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by pspahn · · Score: 1

      Martin was more than just someone that got involved in a fist fight. He was seriously trying to inflict damage and pain on Zimmerman.

      You've never been in a fight, have you? What kind of fist fight does NOT involve drying to inflict damage and pain?

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    34. Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess would be he's "trying to say" that it's evidence of an potentially aggressive nature. Because following someone and asking if they live in the area does not justify a violent reaction, nor does Zimmerman have to obey the non-binding whims of the neighborhood watch or 911 dispatcher. Whoever threw the first punch, or made the first threat of violence, is responsible, but we don't know for sure who that was. So, if the other party was an avowed pacifist Jain it would be relevant. And it is equally relevant if that person liked guns, practiced MMA, called Zimmerman a "cracker" while talking to his girlfriend on the phone, and recently assaulted a bus driver. (That he smoked marijuana is not relevant and I'll share your outrage there, if you wish.)

      If discussion of Trayvon's character and possible state of mind isn't allowed, then why should anyone have the right to question Martin's? We all get that walking slowly in the rain in a hoodie doesn't make someone a criminal, but neither does carrying skittles and iced tea make them a saint.

  5. Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously, I think the state had a pretty good manslaughter case against Zimmerman, but with all the antics they've been pulling, they are just asking to get an acquittal or an overturn on appeal. You can't go and give a guy a good performance eval and a raise, and then suddenly fire him and claim that he's a bad employee when he reveals that you may have been messing with evidence.

    The worst part? Sounds like the evidence wasn't really relevant.

    I hope this guys successfully sues these idiots.

    1. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      they are just asking to get an acquittal or an overturn on appeal

      What would be really disconcerting: What if they're trying to screw up the case? I mean, they weren't exactly enthusiastic about even arresting or trying Zimmerman in the first place.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I think the state had a pretty good manslaughter case against Zimmerman

      Unless the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense, they've got no case against him, manslaughter or otherwise.

      And the state couldn't explain what Martin was doing for four minutes, when he had 300 feet to go to get home if he was scared. Most guys that age can run half a mile in four minutes. And the state couldn't explain how Zimmerman had blood on his head, while Martin had cuts on his knuckles.

      It is entirely plausible that Martin stalked and attacked Zimmerman, and that's enough doubt that the claim of self-defense is iron clad. The state had no case and the charges should have been dismissed.

    3. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by causality · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seriously, I think the state had a pretty good manslaughter case against Zimmerman

      While I think Zimmerman should have stopped following Martin once the police were contacted, following someone on a public street is not actually illegal in any way in Florida. Legally Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong there. Then he was promptly jumped and attacked by Martin. Had Martin used his fists alone I would absolutely want to see Zimmerman punished, but Martin didn't stop there. Martin was slamming Zimmerman's head into the pavement, something that can cause death or permanent disabling injury. He was, in effect, using the concrete as a deadly bludgeoning weapon. Zimmerman wouldn't have had a chance to try to flee considering he was on the ground getting pounded. That lead to Martin being shot. Correct me if I have any of that wrong (not liking it doesn't make it false...).

      I think it's a damned shame that Martin got himself killed at such a young age. If it were up to me there would have been no conflict, or the mere sight of a gun would have scared him off and it would have ended there, but let's be clear about this: if you want to violently attack a stranger who has not initiated violence against you, you are taking a risk. It's a poor choice to make and all the sadness in the world about what happened doesn't suddenly make this a wise move.

      Punishing Zimmerman doesn't change this reality, but it might make others who get attacked choose victimhood because they are afraid of the legal consequences of defending themselves. We already have states where homeowners hesitate to shoot a home invader because they might get in serious trouble, and all this does is lower the risk of burglarizing the law-abiding which in turn can only make burglers more bold. If being a violent criminal is a great way to remove oneself from the gene pool, I am absolutely fine with that. I have no sympathy for those who initiate violence. They live by the sword and sometimes they die by the sword. That's their choice. They are not victims. I reserve my sympathy for victims.

      The worst part? Sounds like the evidence wasn't really relevant.

      What is the value of refusing to let the jury hear this evidence? If it is truly irrelevant then it shouldn't influence their decision anyway. What damage could be done that the judge was trying to prevent by disallowing it?

      Incidentally it certainly can't be worse than the photos shown of Martin when he was twelve years old, an obvious attempt to make him look as helpless and childish as possible to further demonize Zimmerman rather than showing him as he actually was, big enough and strong enough to do some damage to another man and old enough to know better. When people have to resort to these kinds of emotional appeals and outright distortion and propaganda tactics to make their case, I have to assume it is because the facts are against them.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    4. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What are you talking about? Self defense is an affirmative defense which means Zimmerman has to prove that it was self defense. Remember, the burden of proof is on the claimant. The state just has to show there is reasonable doubt to his defense. If Zimmerman had said he didn't do it then the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did. In this case he admits he did it.

      From findlaw:

      "To see how one of these defenses works, let's look at the pending Trayvon Martin trial. George Zimmerman will undoubtedly argue that he acted in self-defense as defined by Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. There's absolutely no question that he killed Martin. If he can successfully prove he acted in self-defense, the law says he cannot be convicted of murder. He will go free." (emphasis added).

      http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/04/what-is-an-affirmative-defense.html

      Zimmerman has to prove it. The state just has to show doubt.

      Martin didn't have to go home. If he felt threatened then Stand Your Ground says he has no duty to retreat and can confront the person. There are some states where one has to retreat, but Florida is not one of those states.

    5. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by VinylRecords · · Score: 5, Interesting

      [i]The worst part? Sounds like the evidence wasn't really relevant.[/i]

      I watched the coverage gavel to gavel of the Zimmerman trial. What was on Trayvon Martin's phone is maybe the most damaging information of all to the State's case. It is incredibly damaging to Trayvon Martin and his family and introduces criminal findings against them.

      The State withheld evidence that Trayvon Martin was dealing and using drugs, dealing illegal firearms, and was in possession of an illegal firearm. And that Trayvon Martin was into fighting and beating people up and had punched someone in the nose earlier that month. And that he had assaulted a public bus driver and the police showed up but the driver was told to continue his route and not press charges.

      There is also significantly strong evidence that Trayvon Martin's father was working with his son to acquire illegal weapons and that his father's nickname 'Fruit' was used amongst organized gang circles. There are texts that mention buying and selling pistols. And even a photo of Trayvon holding an illegal pistol. The photo is all over the internet and is not hard to find. The State withheld all of this and forced the defending attorneys to run around in circles to obtain the phone data.

      The judge also ruled that none of the phone data on Trayvon Martin's phone was admissible. Why? Because there was no hard proof that Trayvon was actually the one operating the phone when those messages were sent and received. And that "anyone could have been operating Trayvon's phone at any time". The phone was DOUBLE password protected and took the State an entire year to crack. But the State said in court that even a "seven-year-old child could have cracked the phone and sent those messages". The judge agreed.

      This case is disgusting. It is clear from top to bottom that it was rigged. When you have even the President of the United States deliberately poisoning the jury pool by commenting on the situation without knowing any discovery evidence years before a trial begins it is unreal. The State of Florida is out of control. This entire affair was a political theater event designed to win some elections.

    6. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Hanlon's (or Heinlein's) Razor:

      "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC the Police made the initial call not to prosecute and the prosecutor revisited the decision.

    8. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I think the state had a pretty good manslaughter case against Zimmerman

      I got the impression they didn't want one.

      Didn't it take a wave of protests and petitions before they even pulled the rentacop in for questioning?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by csumpi · · Score: 1

      What was on the phone, that was not disclosed to defense included:

      - text messages Trayvon discussing that he wanted to buy a gun
      - text messages about Trayvon fighting, losing the first round because he was on the bottom while the other guy was sitting on him, but then in the next rounds coming back by punching the other guy in the face, breaking his nose, but not seeing enough blood
      - photo or photos of a gun
      - Trayvon's little brother asking him when he's going to teach him how to fight
      - photos of Trayvon showing off his muscles
      - photos of marijuana plants and Trayvon blowing some smoke

      These text messages and photos were hidden and password protected.

      Only the jury could've decided their relevance, but I think some of those items will be a clear path to appeal, if it gets to that.

    10. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that he should sue, and win.

      The charges filed against Zimmerman, and that the trial went forward on, was 2nd degree murder. The prosecutor only added manslaughter at the last minute after the judge wouldn't let him add 3rd degree murder (due to "child abuse") as a change, just days before the case wen to the jury.

      The case against Zimmerman is weak at best, and certainly appears to be politically motivated. That doesn't mean he won't be convicted though. The site Legal Insurrection has some interesting and informed commentary, by actual lawyers!

      Racial politics supported by State power come down on George Zimmerman
      In Audio Recording, Department of Justice Official Urges Protesters to Seek ‘Justice’ for Trayvon Martin
      Branco Cartoon – Fanning the Flames ---> example ---> George Zimmerman Sues NBC Over Edited 911 Tape

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    11. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only after the thugs went ape shit. Can you imagine how hard it is for thugs in this country when people stand up for their rights and defend themselves.

    12. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by obarthelemy · · Score: 4, Funny

      But, wasn't, like, ...an unarmed kid shot and killed ?

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    13. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Well having not kept up on all the evidence in the trial I can't say anything for certain, but in general it seems like they could make manslaughter charges stick. Doesn't matter is Martin was an asshole a punk, etc. What matters is that it seems Zimmerman followed him, confronted him, and was probably not realistically in fear of his life when he shot him. The whole "slamming on the pavement" thing has been contested. There really isn't hard evidence of what happened.

      I'm not saying I'm sure, just saying I think they probably could make the case. Murder no way, but Manslaughter I think is a realistic possibility.

      In terms of why not let juries hear evidence? Well because it may not be relevant and it may bias them. Just because someone did X that people do not like it does not also follow that they did Y. That is why you can't generally mention a defendant's prior bad acts unless they somehow relate to the particular case. So if someone was convicted of robbery in the past, you can't bring it up in an unrelated murder case just to try and make them look like a bad guy.

      Same for victims. That someone was a bad guy or a thug or whatever doesn't deny them due process of law. As such you can't try and introduce evidence they were bad people for untreated shit.

      So that Zimmerman did drugs is not relevant unless he was on drugs at the time of the attack (apparently he was and that did come in). That he liked weapons was not relevant unless he had one at the time (which he didn't). That kind of thing.

      For example suppose you are a firearms enthusiast and own many guns. Also you are a computer security professional and know plenty about securing computers and circumventing said security. So some asshole you know gets his phone hacked and embarrassing pictures posted online. He thinks you did it, confronts you, and beats you with a bat and puts you in the hospital.

      At his trial, would you want his defense team to be able to bring up these things. Would you want them to try and say "Well using a weapon was justified because he thought causality might have a gun, after all causality is a well known gun nut and owns a ton of weapons!" and "It is likely casualty did in fact hack my client's phone, look at all the training and experience he has in this area, it would be easy for him to do!" They try to make you look bad because of something totally unrelated to the case.

      I don't care enough to go and review the evidence but the judge, who does, decided it wasn't relevant in this case and she probably had a reason. Martin may well have been a thug, but that doesn't have any bearing on the legality of this incident.

    14. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      No, the judge gets to decide their relevance. Attorneys can't just enter whatever they want into evidence. The judge has to decide it is relevant to the case at hand. None of the gun stuff would be admissible. Nobody contends Martin had a gun, so it is of no relevance at all. Saying "Well he wanted to get a gun," is silly, particularly since there was no way Zimmerman knew this.

      The stuff on fighting, maybe, kinda depends on the context. It might hinge on the claims the state made, like if they claimed Martin wasn't strong enough to have done any harm then it might be admitted in as counterevidence.

      The stuff on marijuana, well that did come in, but only because there was evidence he had it in his system. Drug use in general is not relevant, you don't get to try and make the victim (or the defendant) look like a bad guy. Drug use would only be relevant if the person in question was on drugs at the time. It seems the ME's report says Martin had evidence of marijuana in his system, hence that is admissible.

      But no, you don't just get to introduce anything you want to attack a witness/defendant/victim and say "Well the jury gets to decide!" That is not what the law says. The judge gets to decide what evidence is presented to the jury to consider.

    15. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Billly+Gates · · Score: 0

      Playing devils advocate here

      What about the state that proved he lied over 40 times! He has used the N word before too.

      The state also proved Zimmerman was on top while martin was on the bottom when the shot was fired. That does not sound like self defense but an act of aggresion. While it is not illegal to get out of a car it is an act of aggression to get out and attack someone and with Martin on the ground here in a defensive position when he was killed it shows aggressive intent with no threat towards Zimmerman when he was killed.

      Zimmerman has no serious medical injuries and no concussion too proved by the state.

      With that said I was leaning towards Zimmerman and still am in voting not guilty as it is hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt from the small tidbits I heard and there were no witnesses. However, I do have my doubts Zimmerman is really so innocent here? I have not heard the whole trial but the manicans and experts do show have a reasonable doubt he was acting in self defense. But, in the US we assume innocense otherwise I would vote guilty.

      I need to hear more but from what I heard the defensive has a strong point. Now if Zimmerman was on the ground when he was shot that would be different. The shot fired was at least 4 to 12 inches away and no blood on Zimmerman is more proof. Hardly any of Zimmermans blood on martin showed the fight was not super serious.

    16. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by khasim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I think Zimmerman should have stopped following Martin once the police were contacted, following someone on a public street is not actually illegal in any way in Florida.

      Wait until you get a girlfriend and ask her how she feels when some guy starts following her on the street. It may not be illegal. But that is not the same as being innocent.

      Then he was promptly jumped and attacked by Martin.

      That is Zimmerman's story. Whether that is factual or not cannot be determined any more because the other person is dead.

      Zimmerman wouldn't have had a chance to try to flee considering he was on the ground getting pounded.

      That would be after Zimmerman decided to follow Martin and got out of his car and kept following Martin. Even if the events happened in that way it is a bit strange to talk of fleeing AFTER the confrontation that Zimmerman apparently wanted had happened.

      That lead to Martin being shot.

      No. Zimmerman could have NOT carried a gun which is what the neighborhood watches recommend. Zimmerman could have stayed in his car which is what the neighborhood watches recommend. Zimmerman could have NOT followed Martin which is what the neighborhood watches recommend. Only after breaking each of those rules was Zimmerman armed and in a fist fight.

      Since he was losing the fight, he shot the other guy.

      If it were up to me there would have been no conflict, or the mere sight of a gun would have scared him off and it would have ended there, but let's be clear about this: if you want to violently attack a stranger who has not initiated violence against you, you are taking a risk

      Except that it was Zimmerman who initiated the conflict by following Martin. Again, when you get a girlfriend, ask her about a stranger who starts following her.

      We already have states where homeowners hesitate to shoot a home invader because they might get in serious trouble, and all this does is lower the risk of burglarizing the law-abiding which in turn can only make burglers more bold.

      So a burglar is more bold because the homeowner might NOT shoot him? I don't think so.

    17. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trayvon was thug life with a propensity to do exactly what he did that night; attack whomever he didn't like. The phone evidence makes this clear.

      The non-blacks on that jury have been imbued with guilt through a lifetime of training. The only question left is how long will it take to get them to cave to the rabidly pro-Trayvon part of the jury and send Zimmerman up the river.

      Nasty little world we have here.

    18. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Getting one's head bashed into the ground is a "life threatening situation" even here in liberal leaning Canada.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    19. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The stuff on fighting, maybe, kinda depends on the context. It might hinge on the claims the state made, like if they claimed Martin wasn't strong enough to have done any harm then it might be admitted in as counterevidence.

      If the guy being charged claims that he was attacked with unarmed attacks, and this claim is a major area of doubt, then showing that the alleged attacker is comfortable and experienced with unarmed attacks seems pretty relevant to me. Doesn't show an attack took place, of course, but it is relevant to determine how believable it is that an attack took place.

    20. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by khasim · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Getting one's head bashed into the ground is a "life threatening situation" even here in liberal leaning Canada.

      Again, that was AFTER Zimmerman strapped on a gun, got out of his car and followed Martin. Each one of those 3 actions is proscribed by neighborhood watch guides.

      An easier way to see it is if Martin had been a woman. Zimmerman has a gun and starts following a woman. She uses pepper spray and while he's blinded, she kicks him. So he shoots her. No one would be sympathizing with Zimmerman.

    21. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by atamido · · Score: 1

      Had Martin used his fists alone I would absolutely want to see Zimmerman punished

      I also haven't followed the case at all, but from the comments it appears that some of the missing evidence indicated that Martin was involved in illegal street fighting. As such, he had special training/experience with his fists that could cause them to be classified as deadly weapons.

    22. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by russotto · · Score: 1

      The case against Zimmerman is weak at best, and certainly appears to be politically motivated. That doesn't mean he won't be convicted though.

      Yes, they'll probably get their compromise verdict of manslaughter. Which will go to appeal. And Zimmerman will serve out the entirety of his sentence and then some, and then have his conviction overturned, unless he's killed in prison.

    23. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter, he had pictures on his phone of marijuana, reefer!!!!

    24. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      The State withheld evidence that Trayvon Martin was dealing and using drugs, dealing illegal firearms, and was in possession of an illegal firearm. And that Trayvon Martin was into fighting and beating people up and had punched someone in the nose earlier that month. And that he had assaulted a public bus driver and the police showed up but the driver was told to continue his route and not press charges.

      Trayvon Martin is not on trial here. "The victim was a really bad guy" is not a legal defense to manslaughter. If I plan for and then kill a pimp or drug dealer or gang leader, I am still guilty of murder. Martin owning an illegal firearm is totally irrelevant, because he did not have it with him that night. Martin's history of dealing or using drugs is also totally irrelevant, because he was not high nor carrying drugs that night.

      All George Zimmerman knew when he went to follow Martin was "Scary guy walking through my neighborhood." The only real issues in the case was whether or not Martin attacked Zimmerman, and if so whether Zimmerman reasonably believed his life was in danger.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    25. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      He's talking about the stand your ground laws in Florida.

      It is interesting because it appears that both victims were using the stand your ground approach.

    26. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by erroneus · · Score: 1

      That thought has also occurred to me. On one hand, the initial reaction of all the professionals in this case initially felt there wasn't a good case against Zimmerman. The evidence for self-defense was clear. But they were pressured to make this case. Many people lost or changed jobs because of this case. But once the case was a public spectical, it couldn't be dropped without a LOT of noise and probable rioting.

      But the question of "are they throwing the case" or "are they prosecuting a man with bad evidence?" Well, it's pretty hard to prove it either way. But their evidence against Zimmerman is horrible and their witnesses supported the defense more than the prosecution.

      I think most disturbing, though, is the ridiculous way people continue parroting the original media's assertions about the case. Countless falsehoods. The "tea" that isn't tea, the baby pictures that didn't depict the deceased. The suppression of important defense evidence. The assertion that he "stalked" an innocent youth. Zimmerman didn't stalk. He was reporting suspicious activity. Martin didn't live there as far as Zimmerman knew -- you know, the neighborhood watch guy that generally knows everyone there? And calling the police while trying to keep a visual on a situation is pretty damned normal. And finally, all the evidence shows that when the operator said not to follow, that he complied. Keep in mind the operator was ASKING for details about this person which he could only get by observing the person.

      And let's think about this. If someone were walking through a neighborhood with a phone to his head, talking to a police operator, how could that be confused for illegal or inappropriate behavior? This, especially in a neighborhood that has had MANY burglaries and other crimes known to be committed by people fitting Trayvon Martin's description. It is unfortunate that so many criminals fit a particular description, but that's reality. How or why would Martin have felt threatened by a person in a neighborhood walking around with a phone to his head? He had one too, apparently. Not quite menacing behavior and certainly not behavior warranting being attacked "in self defense" by Trayvon Martin.

      This is just bad and yet the Al Sharptons and the "family lawyer" and even the POTUS have managed to insert themselves into this case to the point that now thousands upon thousands of terrorist threats are being transmitted all over the internet related to this case. This is more than a trial. Way more.

    27. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't unarmed you dolt fuck. He had fists and knew how to use them. Not to mention the concrete he was slamming zimmerman's head against. Wake the fuck up.

    28. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and that his father's nickname 'Fruit' was used amongst
      organized gang circles.

      Seriously? You think that should be admissible?

      I also use the word 'fruit' in my circles. Often at lunch time.

      And so what if his father was the Pope or the Don, does it have
      any bearing whatsoever on the events surrounding the fight, and
      how those events relate to the "stand your ground" law?

      The classic law school case is the bad guy ex-convict who's wife
      is found beaten to death in their home. What jury wouldn't convict
      the guy based on his past deeds and history of beating her up?
      That it was actually the neighbour who killed her when she rebuffed
      his advances is irrelevant, because the husband is "known" to the
      community (and tv audience who hear what the jury does not) to be
      the one who obviously did it. So all that ugly background is
      inadmissible in court, and rightly so.

      Of course it is the Judge's decision to make it inadmissible, and
      not the prosecutor's decision about what evidence to withhold from
      the judge and the defence during discovery. The IT guy in question
      seems like an honest fellow which is the type of employee we could
      use, that he privately consulted an attorney first before reporting
      what he suspected to be law breaking suggests responsibility.
      If he obtained his previous position out of merit, I'd hire him.

    29. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Getting one's head bashed into the ground is a "life threatening situation" even here in liberal leaning Canada.

      Sure, but I can see how that might be a tough sell if the only one who cam support that version of events is the accused. While it may be the truth, it is also true that the accused has great incentive to lie if the actual events where otherwise.

    30. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

      The state also proved Zimmerman was on top while martin was on the bottom when the shot was fired.

      I think you have that wrong. The prosecution was trying to say that when the shot was fired, there was a distance between the two that would have allowed Zimmerman to retreat instead of shooting. Expert witnesses in the field of forensics say the evidence matches Martin being on the top of Zimmerman and the gun being between 2 and 4 inches with the muzzle touching his shirt. The muzzle touching the shirt is what clinches it as gravity would cause the shirt to fall away from the body. This is how the gun was X inches away but touching the shirt, in a position of being over top of someone, the shirt falls away from the body towards the gun which was held by the person on the ground and under the one shot.

      http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/09/forensic-expert-says-zimmerman-on-bottom-fired-at-close-range/

      http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/28/prosecution-witness-in-zimmerman-trial-testifies-martin-on-top-in-fight/

      I'm not sure where or how, but there is a lot of misinformation out there about this. I know the mass media has already been caught doctoring the 9/11 recordings to make things sound different then what happened. They have posted pictures of Martin at age 12 instead of 17 in attempts to gain sympathy or whatever for him. We have documents declaring the US government being involved and aiding protesters for some reason. It is as if there is a concerted effort to cause a problem at the ending of this trial in order to push some political agenda or something.

    31. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Correct. The unfairness is the suppression of evidence to prove their case. They couldn't show Martin had a violent lifestyle. So it was that much harder to prove their case. They couldn't introduce any form of character analysis to prove their case. I think they were lucky to be able to show pictures of his own injuries -- injuries the public seem to believe are minor. It's as if no one has ever been in a fight before and has no idea what "life threatening" feels like. Well they probably don't.

      In any case, that evidence was suppressed and even kept from the defense is pretty damning.

      But the state needed to prove their case as well... beyond a reasonable doubt. Most people believe the prosecution failed in that task. And the evidence for self-defense was pretty good circumstancially.

    32. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by erroneus · · Score: 2

      Zimmerman followed because the operator was asking specific questions about the person he was calling in about. He stopped following when told. What did he do wrong exactly?

    33. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by BlueBlade · · Score: 2

      I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Even if the guy was the antichrist and his favorite hobby was raping babies, how does it change the facts?

      There was an overzealous "watch" guy stalking an unarmed man coming back from the store. At no point did the victim ever do anything that warranted harassment or stalking. Zimmerman is the one who initiated the confrontation, the one who caused it and the one bearing full responsibility for the events that followed.

      The fact that the victim might have been a criminal has nothing to do whatsoever with what happened.

      --
      Religion is the best example of mass psychosis
    34. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupidity usually comes from villany; and recently, it seems like there is no shortage of villany. Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is usually the right one--villany is pretty simple nowadays, especially among the powerful.

      I go for villany. The particular flavor is less important.

    35. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by richlv · · Score: 1

      Each one of those 3 actions is proscribed by neighborhood watch guides

      they're not laws, though, thus they can't impact the decision, can they ?

      --
      Rich
    36. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had this exact thought for months now... While I believe the police were... 'right enough' (if racially motivated) in letting him off, this case... stinks to high fucking heaven.

      We've got....

      - Bypassing the judicial process and decision of the police / prosecutor
      - What sure looks like denial of the right to a grand jury, guaranteed by the 5th
      - The president of the united states issuing a public statement on a manner before a local court (Sorry Obama, you should have directed the governor to push for prosecution... and even then I don't think in public)
      - A jury that only farsically resembles the defendant's peers.
      - Prosecution withholding evidence. Multiple times
      - A defendant that got caught lying about finances before the court...

      Now, there's a lot of people in the media making awful, bullshit statements... things like what about Martin's right to stand your ground, people who thought SYG was relevant at all in the case, and the people who sit there and say that this was a homicide because a gun was present and thus it shows intent... (ugh).

      I haven't had the time to watch the trial in the office, but it sure sounds like people tried to put Zimmerman's character on trial while disallowing similar evidence about the deceased.

      And then the prosecution... just... seems... crazy. I can think of no manner in which a "just and lawful" court would permit a conviction of murder in the 2nd. I'm sure there's things I haven't seen, but it by definition cannot possibly be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Adding the possibility of manslaughter at the least minute may have been a shrewd move, but it seems more like a calculated gamble to upset the defensive strategy. Once that's really likely to have its instructions challenged in appeal.

      I gotta say, when this is all said and done, I think it will be a tragedy no matter who "wins".

      But I think I'd like to see the sanford PD and DA sued by both sides and the public, followed by sanctions from the court for ... fucking /everyone/ but the defense's attorney.

    37. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, I think the state had a pretty good manslaughter case against Zimmerman, but with all the antics they've been pulling, they are just asking to get an acquittal or an overturn on appeal. You can't go and give a guy a good performance eval and a raise, and then suddenly fire him and claim that he's a bad employee when he reveals that you may have been messing with evidence.

      The worst part? Sounds like the evidence wasn't really relevant.

      I hope this guys successfully sues these idiots.

      I think you have it dead to rights. This was never a murder case, period. Politically reasons (just like the Duke lacrosse incident) motivated inflated charges that they could never hope to prove (I just check and I was right). The simple fact is, no matter how much some one provokes/annoys/harrasses you, unless they initiate some form of physical confrontation or threatens you/others that are immediately near you, with a weapons (including preventing you from leaving an area, even if they do not attack or threaten you, except in very specific 'citizens arrest' incidents, which are very risky to do, legally speaking), you DO NOT have the right to attack them. It is that simple. However, I would need to read more of the police repots and witness statements to know if it was manslaughter or self-defense. Zimmerman should not have gotten out of is vehicle, but that still does not give Martin a right to attack (if he did). I can only trust that the jury had all the info and did get the verdict 'correct'.

      AlphaA

    38. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by ckedge · · Score: 1

      > proscribed by neighborhood watch guides.

      Yeah and my Mom tells me not to stay out past midnight.

      Is it illegal for you to walk around your neighbourhood and talk to people?

      Dude, I'm the second Canuck you've run into tonight, and I'm left leaning - and you're the one coming off to me as "off your rocker".

    39. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My god your arguments are specious.

      First, it does not matter how a person feels about being follow, it is only illegal in very specific instances, and yes, in the eyes of the law, the person following is INNOCENT.

      Now, you claim that you cannot determine if Zimmerman's statement is factual because Martin is dead. Why? If you believe Zimmerman could lie, why couldn't Martin? I do not know if Zimmerman's story is true, or even mostly true, but the fact that Martin is dead makes it harder to determine, not impossible.

      Whether or not Zimmerman wanted a confrontation, Martin would not have the right to attack him (assuming Martin attacked first). It doesn't matter. You can try to use the argument that the person was "asking for it" some time. Just wait for some drunk person to yell at you in the bar and punch him, see what the cops say.

      The neighborhood watch suggestions are just that, suggestions. They are not legally enforcable. They are not law. You are trying to say that Zimmerman caused the death simply by ignoring the suggestions, something which is simply wrong.

      Again, following the person is not the same as initiating the confrontation, and again, would not give Martin the right to use physical violence first (if he did).

      I agree with your statement regarding the burlar.

      Finally, I would say that I do not know what the truth is, and am not sure any of use can. Who initiated the physical violence, what happen during it, and when was it initiated are all questions that HAVE to be answered to know whether any law was broken. If there is reasonable doubt the jury is supposed to find a default verdict of not guilty. This is core to our justice system, and while it may let truly guily people walk free, it is better than making the truly innocent suffer.

      Bottom line; Zimmerman should not have gotten out of the vehicle. I don't care if the person you are following is obviously high/drunk, unless the person you are following commits a act of violence towards another person (and even then you would have to weigh the risks to yourself and the person being attacked, will you make it worse?) you should not leave a vehicle.
         

    40. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Of-course it is relevant what kind of a person Trayvon was, because the ENTIRE case by the prosecution is built up on what kind of person Zimmerman supposedly was.

      Zimmerman's teacher in some self defence class was used as a witness, no Trayvon's teachers could be called to testify about Trayvon's character.

      Zimmerman's past was dug up and put on trial, Trayvon's past was carefully hidden by the system, with the kangaroo court 'judge' preventing any such evidence from appearing.

      The entire case was: "Zimmerman is a racist that is out to kill black kids, chased and murdered an innocent black child with skittles and ice-tea", this entire nonsensical idea was constructed by the prosecution only based on various details from Zimmerman's past and it failed, there was nothing there, quite the opposite.

      OTOH if any of the past on Trayvon was allowed into court, jury wouldn't even have to deliberate.

      The real interesting story here is just how much the USA political system is using racism for its own purpose, even the fucking POTUS is getting mixed in this, using it for political campaigning.

    41. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Trayvon was not the victim, the victim in this case was George Zimmerman, who did not do anything illegal or even questionable and was attacked by a violent person and defended himself. Clearly the cop who was fired for not giving in and not bringing charges against Zimmerman, because there was no case and the jury as well understand something that you do not.

      Of-course this is a criminal case, the crime being that the State is trying to convict an innocent man for a made up crime for political reasons and nothing else.

      Had Zimmerman been convicted of anything (he is found not guilty), he would have been nothing but a political prisoner in USA.

    42. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck that, you punch me and I'm shooting you in the face. I've no idea if you know karate or something. If I can't run away from you and you're committing a violent act against me, you'd better hope I don't have my gun on me.

    43. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Even if the guy was the antichrist and his favorite hobby was raping babies, how does it change the facts?

      There was an overzealous "watch" guy stalking an unarmed man coming back from the store. At no point did the victim ever do anything that warranted harassment or stalking. Zimmerman is the one who initiated the confrontation, the one who caused it and the one bearing full responsibility for the events that followed.

      The fact that the victim might have been a criminal has nothing to do whatsoever with what happened.

      Zimmerman did not initiate teh confrontation, god dammit. Can't people understand that being followed does not give you the right to use physical violence first? Is it that hard to get? Using your logic, how far do I need to follow a person before I am "initiating a confrontation?" This is not a matter of debate, it is clearly not illegal. Under your assumption that following a person is tandemount to initiating a confrontation, if Martin had hid, jumped out and cut Zimmermands throat, Zimmerman would be the person bearing "full responsibility for the events that followed." If Zimmerman initiated the physical portion of the events, than yes he is responsible. If he didn't, but escalated the violence or used a disproportionate amount of force (e.g. shooting a perosn for slapping you) than he is guilty of manslaughter (which I think he may actually be guilty of, but the jury says no so that is that). If he didn't initiate the physical violence and was being severely beaten, head being slammed into pavement, or other potentially lethal actions (e.g. being choked), than he was well within his rights to use lethal force.

      Also, following a suspicious person, who has not otherwise committed a crime known to you, IS legal and valid. The police do it all the time for their terry stops. Now, unless you have some form of training or some other outside indicator that a person is susicious, I don't think you should be following said person. I have been in the situation once. I saw a person, sitting in a vehicle that I had never seen (I had not seen the person before either) on my street for 3 hours in the morning. No one ever appeared to get in or out of the vehicle, but I was suspicious and wrote down the plate number. Two days later my house was broken into, police ran the plates for me and that vehicle was implicated in three break-ins before my house and two afterwards. It was a rental vehicle, rented one town away. The local police tell me this is a common MO for the home burglars around here. They rent a car, check out places, and move town to town over a week or two breaking into places during work hours. I guess I should not have written down the plate number because the person wasn't breaking any laws or appearing to break any laws.

      With all that said, a persons criminal history does not have direct bearing unless the crime was being committed. Killing a murder that is merely walking down a street is still murder.

    44. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Why is she kicking him instead of fleeing and calling for help?

      The response has to be proportional to the threat. When the threat is a verbal confrontation and the response is slamming a man's head into the ground, you lose ability to claim victim status.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    45. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      The wounds on the man's head support his claim. And regardless, he doesn't have to prove his innocence, the state must prove his guilt. They didn't.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    46. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've invented a fantasy scenario in your mind that never happened.

    47. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by casings · · Score: 1

      Could be because most of the public would judge him by how he looks today, which isn't actually relevant to the situation. How someone looks doesn't make them a certain type of person.

    48. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Following someone, in and of itself, is not illegal. It doesn't matter if that person is a man, woman, or child. Stop with your emotional appeals.

    49. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by dbIII · · Score: 1

      or the mere sight of a gun would have scared him off

      Life isn't so simple.

    50. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You'll have to do better than that. Lots of things that aren't laws can have an impact on a court case.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    51. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by idunham · · Score: 1

      Despite agreeing with you, I have to respond to one point:
      Zimmerman's defense cannot stand on what he did not know or have reason to believe.
      His own behavior may be informative as to whether his own claims are believable.

      But I'll agree that it seemed more like a kangaroo court that the media and politicians tried to ram through.

    52. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by idunham · · Score: 1

      +1 informative. I'd mod you up if I hadn't already spent all my mod points on the other thread...

    53. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming you are talking about the 12 year old picture verses the 16 or 17 year old pic. How he looks today is very relevant to the situation. It doesn't make him a certain type of person, but it does create a scenario in which he is perceived.

      If your doctor looked 12 years old and was telling you that he needed to operate, you would have a lot less confidence in his abilities then if your doctor looks 35 or 40 years old. Now instead of doctor, suppose someone is threatening to beat your ass, which do you take more seriously, the 12 year old or the 35 year old?

    54. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have been over this 'blaming the victim' problem as a society many times. What if a woman wearing revealing clothing and talking to some guy at a bar is later raped and she has to defend herself? Is she now guilty of murder? In your world she is.

      Ask your girlfriend what she thinks about that.

      She thinks it's incredible that they don't teach the girls basic kung fu moves in US elementary schools like they did in hers back in China.

    55. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by evilviper · · Score: 1

      At no point did the victim ever do anything that warranted harassment or stalking.

      Doesn't matter. It's still not legal to assault someone who is harassing you. And it's not reasonable for Zimmerman to have expected that harassment would result in someone's death, hence no manslaughter.

      There are laws in several states (not sure about FL) that hold you responsible for whatever happens in the commission of a major crime, but harassment certainly doesn't qualify.

      There are a few other scenarios where Zimmerman might be liable for some crimes, but without an eye witness we have nothing to indicate any of those happened, either.

      Personally, I'd rather have this scrutiny directed at drunk drivers, or some other group who are really directly responsible for far more deaths.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    56. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      The neighborhood watch suggestions are just that, suggestions. They are not legally enforcable. They are not law. You are trying to say that Zimmerman caused the death simply by ignoring the suggestions, something which is simply wrong.

      Actually, it looks to me like you're assuming that following the law would been sufficient to guarantee a positive outcome.

      And judges certainly can take facts into account, and instruct juries to do likewise (or to disregard them, as the case may be). They do it all the time. If a good many seemingly reputable neighbourhood watch organisations issue similar guidelines for their members, that is absolutely a salient fact that a court can take into account when determining whether or not an action committed by someone acting as a member of a neighbourhood watch was "reasonable", "usual", "normal", etc. And the court gets to decide what's relevant, BTW--not you.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    57. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      That's supposed to "an eye for an eye", not "your life for my black eye".

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    58. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by evilviper · · Score: 1

      But, wasn't, like, ...an unarmed kid shot and killed ?

      Nope, he wasn't a kid at all. He was a rather large and muscular young man. It's only the press that kept showing photos of him years earlier, as a little kid.

      The prosecution asserts he wasn't unarmed, but was reaching for Zimmerman's gun... When someone is reaching for a weapon, we don't classify them as unarmed, even if that might technically be semi-accurate.

      And it's long been accepted that you can defend yourself from an unarmed attacker, with a weapon. Again, that's if we're assuming the prosecution's side of the story is accurate.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    59. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi roman,

      I know English isn't your native language, so let me help out you a bit:

      When there's a shooting, "victim" means the person who took the bullet.

      Also, I know you think the US is like Soviet Russia, but it's not quite there yet. In the US, when someone is killed by another person, we hold a trial. I should note that, in the US, being subjected to a trial does *not* mean you are a criminal (by law, you are innocent until proven guilty). The purpose of a trial is (a) to determine the facts of the case, and (b) to determine the proper application of the law to these facts. In the US, the State is obligated to try to bring such a case to trial, and it is a serious dereliction of duty not to do so.

      Also in the US, it is *not the place of police officers to make determinations* like "It was self-defence" in a case involving a fatal shooting. Such things are for a *court of law* to determine.

      Oh, you're not posting at -1 anymore, you're up to 0 again? Congratulations, I guess.

    60. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Yes, you wrote down the plate number.

      No, you did not walk across the street and try to jerk the guy out of his car.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    61. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Why not just come right out and say that he deserved to die for these things?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    62. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Actually it can be, in this country.

    63. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Nice to know you have a sense of proportion. Do society a favour and shoot yourself. It'll be kinder to you too.

    64. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Your cynical prejudice is extremely amusing post-verdict.

    65. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please refrain from commenting on things you know nothing about, roman, such as how the US legal system actually works.

    66. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by phayes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, An easier way to see it is if a North Korea detonated a nuclear weapon in a major US city. What? You don't see the analogy because I changed the facts to make it completely inapplicable? Well, if you can do that, so can everyone else.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    67. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2

      To be fair, the police, the police chief and the prosecutor decided not to prosecute. After the media frenzy, the state kicked the normal prosecutor off the case and brought in a special prosecutor (with quite a history).

      The special prosecutor then kicked the medical examiner off the case and brought in a new one who "owed" the new prosecutor because of a very checkered past related to mistakes and outright fraud. Then the special prosecutor kicked the lead detective off the case and demoted him. The same lead detective who stated under oath in court that all the evidence related to the case was completely consistent with Zimmerman's story of self-defense.

      Then the new special prosecutor decided to charge Zimmerman. If you actually look at the history of the whole thing, you'll see that it's a complete witch hunt as a result of the media attention.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    68. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow... change the scenario from racism, which is never ok, to sexism, remnants of which are still ok. You should still edit your scenario to say "She uses pepper spray and while he's blinded, she starts bludgeoning his head. So he shoots her." Kicking someone (your scenario doesn't say where) is not at all the same as repeatedly pounding someone's head into the concrete. Your scenario exposes your bias.

    69. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Right, and was within his legal right to follow someone based upon the suspicion that they were about to commit a felony. In a place, where B&E/burglaries had already happened, no less than by people who fit that profile. So again, nothing wrong happened.

      But your easier way is nothing but bunk. Here's what really happened: Zimmerman walked up and down the path looking for him, and found...nothing. Martin on the other hand laid wait in ambush and attacked him, beating his head against the ground and broke his nose. Zimmerman fearing that his life was in danger, managed to get his gun out and shot.

      What your "easier way" looks like, is nothing close to the reality of what happened. How your post got to +5 boggles my freaking mind, when it's not even based in reality.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    70. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What matters is that it seems Zimmerman followed him, confronted him,

      Except, that is not what the evidence and the testimony showed. The testimony showed that Zimmer followed Martin, and that Martin confronted Zimmerman

      and was probably not realistically in fear of his life when he shot him.The whole "slamming on the pavement" thing has been contested. There really isn't hard evidence of what happened.

      You seem unclear on the American legal system. Zimmerman is considered innocent until proven guilty. In fact, there was hard evidence Zimmerman's head had been slammed into the sidewalk. His wounds were consistent with that. But, that is actually irrelevant because there was no hard evidence that it didn't happen and that is what the prosecution had to provide. Zimmerman never had to prove his innocence, rather the prosecution had to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

      As to the excluded evidence, it goes to the character of the victim and the claims of the prosecution. The prosecution's whole case revolved around the idea that Martin was an innocent victim who did nothing wrong, wouldn't attack anyone, and was unjustly targeted and murdered. They put forth Martin as a good kid who wouldn't commit a crime, wouldn't hurt anyone, and wouldn't be the aggressor. The excluded evidence cast doubt on that characterization. It showed that Martin could have been the aggressor and wasn't such a good kid after all.

      Actually, whether or not Martin was a thug has bearing as it directly effects the prosecutions case. The prosecution case revolved around the idea that Martin would never have been and was not the aggressor, but that isn't the way thugs act. If Martin was a thug, then he might have attacked Zimmerman as Zimmerman claimed.

      By the way, it was Martin on drugs, not Zimmerman.

      Early on in your post, you state "I think they probably could make the case. Murder no way, but Manslaughter ", but then later you say "I don't care enough to go and review the evidence". You are making statements based on ignorance and it really sounds like you believe Zimmerman should have been treated as guilty until proven innocent.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    71. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      That 'unarmed kid' was a 17 year old football player who had hit and knocked down a person, straddled him, and was pounding his head into the concrete sidewalk while stating he was going to kill the person he was battering.

      If I were straddling your chest and pounding your head into a sidewalk, would you feel in danger of serious injury and death?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    72. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      They had no case and they knew it. This prosecution was solely because of those protests and it failed because there was no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's version of events. The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty and the original DA knew they couldn't. Because of the uproar, a special prosecutor was appointed who brought charges and lost at trial because, like you, they decided to ignore the fact in America one is considered innocent until proven guilty. This trial was nothing but a politically motivated malicious prosecution to appease the protesters.

      Zimmerman's next move should be to sue the state of Florida for malicious prosecution asking for legal fees, lost wages, pain and suffering, and enough compensatory damages to allow him to move elsewhere and start a new life.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    73. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Kicking someone (your scenario doesn't say where) is not at all the same as repeatedly pounding someone's head into the concrete.

      True. You can hurt your foot if you kick someone wrong.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    74. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      OK. So there was 1 gun, 2 people. The kid with no gun was armed, and the guy with the gun in his hands (and that brought the gun to start with) was unarmed then ?

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    75. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      yep, about as much as if someone with a gun was following me at night when I'm getting back from shopping.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    76. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      And, yet, Martin didn't know Zimmerman was armed as Zimmerman had a concealed carry permit and was carrying his weapon concealed.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    77. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      By the way, if an armed man was following you through a residential neighborhood in which you were a guest, would you approach the door of the nearest residence with lights on to knock, ask for them to call the police and provide you protection or at least a witness; or would you run to the house where you are staying to get behind a locked door from the perceived threat; or would you tell the person you are currently on the phone with and then call 911 and ask for the police yourself; or would you try to do more than one of the above; or would you, as an unarmed individual, approach and confront the man you believed to be armed and possibly dangerous?

      According to prosecution testimony, we know which course Martin appeared to have chosen, which seems a very unlikely course if Martin thought Zimmerman was armed or was any real threat to Martin.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    78. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by evilviper · · Score: 1

      When two people are fighting over a single weapon, they're both armed. It's an extremely simple concept, and playing dumb won't change that.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    79. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already have states where homeowners hesitate to shoot a home invader because they might get in serious trouble

      We also have states where the homeowner wish he would have hesitated, because the "home invader" turned out to be his girlfriend in the bathroom. Just sayin.

    80. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by athenaprime · · Score: 1

      The wounds on the man's head support his claim. And regardless, he doesn't have to prove his innocence, the state must prove his guilt. They didn't.

      The state has to prove his guilt. Too bad it was only George Zimmerman who determined that kid's "guilt."

      Message received, loud and clear. Kids (especially black kids), if a stranger starts following you, you better just get in the windowless white van. Don't try to fight back, because that would make you "guilty" and "threatening" and the stranger can shoot you. Ladies, just go with the stalker. You wouldn't want to make him feel "threatened," but don't you dare try to stand up for your own self. You don't count as much. Message received.

    81. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Whorhay · · Score: 2

      On the contrary Zimmerman's defense relied on saying that Trayvon physically assaulted him. If the Jury was allowed to know that Trayvon had an established recent history of initiating violent confrontations that would make Zimmerman's statement that he was attacked much more credible. All Zimmerman needed to justify his shooting was to be in fear of losing his life.

      Zimmerman's lack of knowledge prior to the incident doesn't factor into it at all because he did not need a reason to follow and ask questions of someone. If that activity had carried on for long enough it could have crossed the line into illegal harassment or stalking, but this happened far to quickly for that to happen here.

    82. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by russotto · · Score: 1

      I need a new crystal ball.

    83. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      You're not even wrong. "Message received?" There is no message. The jury's job is not to "send messages" to the public. The jury's job is to look at the facts in a specific case and decide whether or not the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime of which he stands accused.

      We simply don't know what happened, and it's a tragedy. If the facts has been different, reasonable doubt would have been harder to establish. For instance, if Zimmerman had been uninjured, and Martin were shot from a distance of 10 feet, the "my life was in imminent danger and I acted in self defense" argument would not hold much weight.

      It is possible that Zimmerman went out looking for somebody to murder, found Martin, assaulted him, lost the fight and then killed him.

      But you can't show that beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman's story, that he was jumped walking back to his car and shot to avoid having his head smashed in, is plausible, since Martin was uninjured from the fist fight, Zimmerman had grievous head injuries, the eyewitness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, and the gunshot wound was consistent with Martin being on top of Zimmerman (upward direction, 2 inch range, shirt touching the barrel, meaning the shirt was pulled away from the body by gravity).

      You can't tell me you don't have reasonable doubt.

      It is a tragedy, and I think Zimmerman will probably lose a civil trial, because he is responsible for Martin's death. He did a bunch of stupid things, like carry a gun when out on a neighborhood watch, and get out of his car to chase after a suspicious person, and these stupid things lead directly to Martin's death. But there is definitely reasonable doubt as to whether he is a murderer.

      As for your reaction, to "get in the van," uh, no. The better choices are A) run screaming, B) stay on the phone and start describing the assailant and everything about the situation loudly to the person on the other end so they can call for help, or, worst case, C) win the fight. If Martin had won, either by cracking Zimmerman's skull on the concrete or by wrestling the gun from him, he would most likely be cleared on murder charges, having acted in self-defense as well.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    84. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting one's head bashed into the ground is a "life threatening situation" even here in liberal leaning Canada.

      Again, that was AFTER Zimmerman strapped on a gun, got out of his car and followed Martin. Each one of those 3 actions is proscribed by neighborhood watch guides.

      An easier way to see it is if Martin had been a woman. Zimmerman has a gun and starts following a woman. She uses pepper spray and while he's blinded, she kicks him. So he shoots her. No one would be sympathizing with Zimmerman.

      It is actually scary to read these replies. Would you honestly use pepper spray on someone (let alone kick them when they're down!) simply for following you at night? Whether they have a gun or not is irrelevant -- to carry a gun is in itself completely legal, and in fact may be a constitutional right. Your gender and that if the person following you is also irrelevant, unless you are to take a sexist view of the situation.

    85. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? He had two arms. And I don't call anyone over 12 a kid, at least not to their face!

    86. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, wasn't, like, ...an unarmed kid shot and killed ?

      Your douche bag font is stuck in the ON position. Do you sometimes type in ALL CAPS too? Might as well go full retard...

    87. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Zimmerman had NOT been carrying a gun he may well be dead right now. The is no evidence that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun when he attacked Zimmerman (if Zimmerman attacked Martin, Martin's only injuries wouldn't be a single gunshot wound to the chest and a grazed finger) so it is unlikely Zimmerman was attacked because Martin was afraid of being shot.

    88. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it wouldn't be wrong to ask the stranger sitting in the car for several hours what he was doing, there is no law against asking someone questions. It might be unwise, but it wouldn't be wrong.

    89. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by phlinn · · Score: 1

      Fists can be deadly too. Although it may not be intended, all physical violence is potentially deadly. http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/A-punch-to-the-face-leaves-man-dead-another-behind-bars-214146481.html is just one example. It's reasonable to fear for your life when someone is beating the crap out of you, even if most people survive such beatings.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    90. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by phlinn · · Score: 1

      Define conflict. The important bit would be who initiated a physical attack OR threatened to do so. If it had stayed a purely verbal confrontation, nothing would have happened.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    91. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Then he was promptly jumped and attacked by Martin.

      Which could have been a perfectly legitimate form of self-defense if Martin was in legitimate fear of being shot. Zimmerman had the gun, and was stalking Martin. If a guy with a gun seemed to be stalking me, I'd be real worried. Martin could likely outrun Zimmerman, but not a bullet.

      We really don't know enough of the details to determine whether it was self-defense or not. In Florida, the prosecution basically has to prove it wasn't self-defense, unlike many other jurisdictions. Given those laws, the acquittals were the correct decision.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    92. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Why is she kicking him? One possibility is to allow her to escape by partially disabling her opponent. Another is that she was taking advantage of the stand-your-ground law. If Martin felt threatened, he had no obligation to try to escape.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    93. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by unitron · · Score: 1

      Go read all of Florida's Justifiable Use of Force law. 776

      The state had the burden of proving that it was not self-defense.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    94. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by unitron · · Score: 1

      Both Witness 8 and Zimmerman said that Martin confronted Zimmerman.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    95. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by causality · · Score: 1

      In terms of why not let juries hear evidence? Well because it may not be relevant and it may bias them. Just because someone did X that people do not like it does not also follow that they did Y. That is why you can't generally mention a defendant's prior bad acts unless they somehow relate to the particular case. So if someone was convicted of robbery in the past, you can't bring it up in an unrelated murder case just to try and make them look like a bad guy.

      In your example there, true a previous robbery does not mean a person commited a murder. But it does demonstrate that this person has little or no regard for the law and has a history of committing serious crimes.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    96. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Zimmerman's lack of knowledge prior to the incident doesn't factor into it at all because he did not need a reason to follow and ask questions of someone.

      It totally does, because 1) he's not a police officer and 2) even if he was, he didn't have probable cause.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    97. Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      You don't need to have probable cause or be a law enforcement (LE) officer to follow someone in a public area. You are also free to ask people questions, even uncomfortable ones, in the same public places. What Zimmerman, or any other non-LE personnel, lacked the authority to do would be to actually physically detain or make verbal claims to have that authority. He also could not legally compel any answers, which even an LE only has limited authority to do.

  6. They've blown the case against the defendant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And now they're lashing out in spite at whoever's nearest. No coincidence that this only happened after the jury retired.

    1. Re:They've blown the case against the defendant by causality · · Score: 1

      And now they're lashing out in spite at whoever's nearest. No coincidence that this only happened after the jury retired.

      How pathetic they are for dealing with it that way. They could instead be glad that a man received a fair trial that wasn't some kangaroo court where guilt was already assumed. You know, the way the system is supposed to work?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  7. Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get 'em

    1. Re:Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Get 'em

      Maybe - he'd have to find a lawyer that will do it on a contingency basis, and it would have to have some potential for a really big cash settlement/judgement before one will touch it. OTOH, maybe there's a lawyer who figures it'd be good for a little publicity - who knows?

      Either way, it would take months, if not years, before the guy saw any justice/money/compensation/etc. Unfortunately, no CxO in his/her right mind would even think of hiring the guy in the interim, given the toxicity of the events and who is backing the potential defendants (seriously, would you want to catch the attention of the AG's office, potentially exposing your company to "extra scrutiny" if they felt like playing dirty pool against the guy? Didn't think so.)

      Chilling effects all around, truth be told - he'll ahve to move out of the reach of that office before he could even hope to find a job, let alone pursue a lawsuit. Unless the state governor gets involved and (IMHO rightfully) fucks over the AG execs who did this to him, the dude is kinda fucked.

      IMHO, it stands as a very good reason why you'll never get me to work for any law firm, government (let alone prosecutor's) office, or suchlike. Unless you find a lot of good juicy skeletons in their closets early on (and keep the evidence secure), the boss(es) there would pretty much own your ass, ethics be damned.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Either way, it would take months, if not years, before the guy saw any justice/money/compensation/etc. Unfortunately, no CxO in his/her right mind would even think of hiring the guy in the interim, given the toxicity of the events and who is backing the potential defendants

      A CxO in their right mind would be able to hire the guy...it takes integrity to stand up to a superior for what's just and what's legal; understanding the risk that you might be fired for it.

      Integrity, Intelligence, and Energy are the the most important characteristics to look for in a good employee, and Integrity is the hardest to find -- but the most important one.

    3. Re:Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Informative

      I agree, but if you do find a CxO with that kind of integrity, well, you really found a rare bird.

      Meanwhile, I'm watching Ms. Corey spew out excuses for having just lost the case. Seems the jury proclaimed Mr. Zimmerman Not Guilty.

      So not only will she have to put up with pissed-off constituents (both for Mr. Zimmerman because she pulled these hijinks, and again because she lost), now she'll likely have to put up with the potential lawsuit from the former IT dude in TFA.

      I find it extremely interesting that she's *still* trying to press her case for locking the guy up, in spite of having just lost. It tends to support the allegations about her in TFA more than ever, truth be told.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I agree, but if you do find a CxO with that kind of integrity, well, you really found a rare bird.

      They don't need to have it, they only need to value it in others.

    5. Re:Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      Agreed. He'll probably lay low and pursue it after a change in administration.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    6. Re:Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      Oooh, excellent point. It calls to mind the old saying "Sincerity in business is very important. When you can fake sincerity, you've got it made."

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    7. Re:Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      >> I agree, but if you do find a CxO with that kind of integrity, well, you really found a rare bird.
      > They don't need to have it, they only need to value it in others.

      Wrong! If I know that I have no integrity and that sooner or later I'm going to go illegal to reach my goals, I don't want somebody that won't hesitate to call the policy on my actions lurking around.

    8. Re:Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      A CxO in their right mind would be able to hire the guy...it takes integrity to stand up to a superior for what's just and what's legal; understanding the risk that you might be fired for it.

      Exactly. I would certainly hire him if I had need for his services, and I bet the libertarian enclave that is growing in New Hampshire would also be happy to hire him.

      It is unfortunate that so many think that dishonesty is not only acceptable, but that its actually right to be dishonest. No, it really isnt. Soon enough everyone in your organization will need to be dishonest, and the dishonesty itself will have to be the merit that pays the bills, or else it will all come tumbling down. It is also unfortunate that in government, dishonesty really can be the merit that pays the bills.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    9. Re: Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pleas try to remember that in our system of jurisprudence a "not guilty" verdict only says that the state did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury may believe he did it but still have that reasonable doubt at which point they are required to issue a "not guilty" verdict. If the defense blows enough smoke at the jury and the state doesn't successfully remove it, the defendant walks.

    10. Re: Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm... may I remind you we're taking about *lawyers*?? They have their ethics surgically removed.

    11. Re: Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or if in this instance it was a poor case to begin with (unless you think somebody jumping you and slamming your head into the ground doesn't mean anything)... Coupled with Trayvon and his friends being huge racists, etc. That doesn't make it an easy case to prosecute.

    12. Re:Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Either way, it would take months, if not years, before the guy saw any justice/money/compensation/etc. Unfortunately, no CxO in his/her right mind would even think of hiring the guy in the interim, given the toxicity of the events and who is backing the potential defendants

      A CxO in their right mind would be able to hire the guy...it takes integrity to stand up to a superior for what's just and what's legal;
      understanding the risk that you might be fired for it.

      Integrity, Intelligence, and Energy are the the most important characteristics to look for in a good employee, and Integrity is the hardest to find -- but the most important one.

      Assuming it's actually integrity and not disgruntlement...

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    13. Re:Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Assuming it's actually integrity and not disgruntlement...

      For a professional: disgruntlement generally means they are not being given the appropriate consideration and respect as a person.

      Generally, such a thing won't be disgruntlement -- but if they're one of the few insane ones, then a proper interview should weed them out.

  8. Bonus! by arthurh3535 · · Score: 2

    Oh, look. They want to pay him and his attorneys a lot of money! Great 'retirement' option!

    Idiots.

    --
    No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
  9. Florida by benjfowler · · Score: 0

    Isn't Florida run by Republicans (who are Real Americans), not the reviled, freedom-hating hippie Democrats?

    Don't think about this too hard, Slashdot cyber-utopians. Your heads might explode.

    1. Re:Florida by ttucker · · Score: 2

      Trying to fit the debate between freedom and tyranny into a debate about Republicans and Democrats, is like comparing apples and oranges to illustrate the difference between fruit and rocks. Nice try though.

    2. Re: Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  10. The truth of the case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obama hired Zimmerman to shoot Trayvon so he wouldn't have to pay child support.

    Trayvon didn't just "look like" his son...

  11. If I had a son... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He'd look like Trayvon with a big splif!
      Choom on and keep calm!

    Why woundn't the state want that evidence shown?

  12. Lets lol @ 'murica... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL...

  13. More proof the entire trial by hsmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is nothing more than a dog and pony show to convict Zimmerman. I don't care either way what the verdict is - but lets call a spade a spade. The political push to prosecute him from the President down doesn't surprise me that the state was hiding evidence to support their case.

    1. Re:More proof the entire trial by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't care either way what the verdict is - but lets call a spade a spade.

      Isn't that what started all this?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:More proof the entire trial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine. Call a shovel a shovel and a hoe a hoe.
      You can continue to be as thick as two short planks.

    3. Re: More proof the entire trial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh-oh. Time to call out theanti-racist.

    4. Re:More proof the entire trial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, if they were going to fabricate a circus-case, they could do a far better job. My feeling is that the state prosecutor is doing a terrible, barely competent job, that if done on the side of the defense, would probably warrant a mistrial.

      The real problem is that the police department there had to be prodded into actually doing their jobs, because they obviously wanted to sweep this case under the rug, rather than make any effort to deal with it.

      Maybe you should call that out.

      No wait, then you'd have to admit there's a real problem in not treating a homicide as a potential crime that warrants a serious investigation, and that George Zimmerman should have to account for his actions in open court before a jury of his peers rather than be given the benefit of the doubt for killing somebody. This wasn't somebody in his home being confronted by a robber. This wasn't someone going about his business attacked by a mugger. This was somebody who went out looking for trouble, and got another person killed because of it.

    5. Re:More proof the entire trial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and the mass of misinformation flying around is just rationalized racism. Zimmerman ignored countless opportunities to the diffuse the situation -- a situation he instigated -- with no harm done. Instead he pushed on, caused the death of an innocent man and the gave the police a bunch of calculated (if nonsensical) responses to try to justify what he did. I started out thinking manslaughter would be a good fit for the crime, but after hearing Zimmerman lie through his teeth in the police interview and reenactment, Murder 2 may be deserved.

      If you follow someone in the middle of the night, a reasonable person should expect a fight or flight response at some point from the person being followed. He may not have broken a specific law by following him, but he did set into motion events which were likely to result in harm or death, and which did result in Martin's death. Zimmerman was irresponsible and that ultimately led to Martin's death. That's why I suspect the ultimate verdict will be manslaughter.

      As to the contents of Martin's cell phone, there was no way to know the circumstances behind those images, who or what they actually depicted, and none of it had anything to do with the case being tried. How many stories could one come up with by looking through the contents of the average cell phone? Their prejudicial effect (what the defense was hoping for) would far outweigh any probative value. The judge made the right call. It was nothing more than an attempt at character assassination on a victim who cannot speak for himself, and to continue what Zimmerman was doing when he assumed that a young black man walking through the neighborhood in the evening must be a criminal.

      I have absolutely no doubt that I could have walked through that same path at the same time and Zimmerman would never have given me a second look. I'm a WASP and I enjoy the presumption of innocence in most situations that a young black man does not -- particularly in the south. No matter what the verdict, this will happen again.

    6. Re:More proof the entire trial by hsmith · · Score: 1

      No, it is more disturbing that dozens of black men in cities all across the country are murdered and no one gives a shit. Where is the President on this? Oh, he and the media only interject when the race baiters find something to dig their teeth into.

      This trial is a stupid show put on for idiots while real tragedies occur every day.

    7. Re:More proof the entire trial by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      If you follow someone in the middle of the night, a reasonable person should expect a fight or flight response at some point from the person being followed.

      Bingo. I think we need to hear that again:

      If you follow someone in the middle of the night, a reasonable person should expect a fight or flight response at some point from the person being followed.

      Third time's the charm:

      If you follow someone in the middle of the night, a reasonable person should expect a fight or flight response at some point from the person being followed.

      Does anyone still not get this?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    8. Re:More proof the entire trial by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      It's hard for race baiters like Reverends Sharpton and Jackson to point fingers at the perpetrators of 'generic' black murders. Why? The victims and the perpetrators are generally indistinguishable. There is no 'other' to blame. There is no 'other' to shake down for consulting fees. Their eventual and inevitable exeunt from the race relations stage would be helpful. Unfortunately, given a political career in shambles, I suspect JJ Jr. will take his father's place in waving MLK's bloody shirt.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  14. What kind of Mickey Mouse country do I live in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems the ever institution in this country is corrupted to the core. I have lost all confidence in my government, local, state, and federal. How the hell are we going to get out of this mess?

    1. Re:What kind of Mickey Mouse country do I live in. by SpockLogic · · Score: 1

      What kind of Mickey Mouse country do I live in.

      If you live in Florida you live in a Mickey Mouse State.

    2. Re:What kind of Mickey Mouse country do I live in. by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      Is it really owned by Disney? ABC is, and that is bad.

  15. state attempted to tamper with evidence?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait - the state attempted to tamper with evidence pursuant to a criminal murder investigation
    that could have weakened the state's position in the prosecution on a materially innocent man?

    1. Re:state attempted to tamper with evidence?! by jcr · · Score: 1

      Shocking, isn't it?

      Wait, not shocking.... What's the word I was looking for?

      Oh yeah: business as usual.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re: state attempted to tamper with evidence?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to read. No tampering was alleged.

  16. Re:He won't. His firing is legitimate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering most, if not all documents are usually stored in network shares, why does it matter if he wiped his computer?

  17. Re:He won't. His firing is legitimate. by tdelaney · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Was the computer assigned to him to be wiped clean as part of his duties as IT Director? The letter doesn't say.

  18. Re: Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  19. Re:He won't. His firing is legitimate. by thaylin · · Score: 2

    Umm, where does it say that? Working for a public university in IT I regularly wipe my machine clean to install latest version of software and for testing. The public records laws require that I keep records of emails (which we have servers designed specifically to do that.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  20. Typo by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Instead of "firing by messenger" should had been "shooting the messenger"

  21. Hey atleast he's qualified as a paper boy by axonis · · Score: 0

    He can start work first thing Sunday morning to keep on blowing !

    --
    bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
    1. Re:Hey atleast he's qualified as a paper boy by axonis · · Score: 0

      I'm sure he could get asylum to help push 'Snowski's' barrow on his round

      --
      bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
  22. And, there's another lawsuit. by jcr · · Score: 1

    I expect this diligent, law-abiding citizen to make a couple hundred grand on a wrongful termination action, and hopefully there will be some consequences for his boss under whistleblower statutes as well.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  23. Well, what do you know? by jcr · · Score: 2

    Looks like the little Nifong wannabe who fired him is looking at a trial of her own for lying to get a warrant.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Well, what do you know? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Not from this "indictment", since it appears to have been issued by an ad-hoc "Citizens' Grand Jury" with no legal standing.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  24. Just kill the fucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's gotta be some way to start killing all the fuckers responsible for ruining our society.

    1. Re:Just kill the fucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, that would require killing off all the people that VOTED these people into office.

      It would probably be for the best. The Nazis and Russians did it backwards: Instead of killing the intelligentsia in conquered nations, they SHOULD have killed off all the retards. Just imagine what it would be like if everyone with an IQ of 110 or lower in America was killed and used as food. Of course, the IQ measuring system would need to be recalibrated after that, but sometimes a few eggs have to be broken if you want an omelet.

      Obviously, most people would object to the implementation of such a plan because, well, most Americans are fucking retards (and know that they would be voting for their own death sentence).

  25. Not everyone.. by kervin · · Score: 1

    Not everyone that betrays a position of trust is a whistle-blower.

  26. Re:He won't. His firing is legitimate. by theoriginalturtle · · Score: 1

    Was it Windows Vista? My guess is the need to wipe that crap off there was entirely legitimate.

    If Microsoft built houses, a blown light bulb would require you to bulldoze the house and rebuild it. Sure hope you were able to back up your furniture and appliances.

    And EVERY SINGLE AGENCY at every level of government that's covered by a public records law is also covered by provisions of that law that recognize that they aren't about to keep every damn thing that has ever been stored on it. Go read up on NARA and federal records-retention regulations... every agency of every government that is covered by a public records law has some means to account for legitimate needs to wipe computers. Every single one.

    --
    ---------------------------------------
    Rotate the pod, please, HAL....
  27. Good discussion of IT ethics threadjacked by GZ by theoriginalturtle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You knuckleheads couldn't resist, could you? Perfectly good discussion of "when do you, as an IT person, have a moral and possibly legal obligation to intercede when unethical shenanigans goes on with your area of expertise," and you turn it the Twitter feed on Nancy Grace about an unremarkable trial in some shithole in Florida.

    I remember when /. wasn't /b/

    They should have never let you AOLusers on the real internet, just kept you in the box pink dialup sandbox.

    --
    ---------------------------------------
    Rotate the pod, please, HAL....
    1. Re:Good discussion of IT ethics threadjacked by GZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read the article? It directly involves an IT person that was directly involved in the Zimmerman trial.

      Thanks for the word salad by the way. I was really hungry.

    2. Re:Good discussion of IT ethics threadjacked by GZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In reverse order with repeats to combat intrinsic noise:
      - The situation becomes a habit, it doesn't ever stop unless one gives up.
      - Some people do not seem to ever get to the important point I think you've reached before they die of old age.
      - You aren't alone, and don't worry plenty of people have to do the same no matter who they voted for or would have voted for, what they believe in if anything, or where and when they live.
      - Is your concept of reality crumbling to dust? Change and hope and whatnot?
      - Your post does not make sense, it reads like an outburst of despair clutching at straws and straw-men pining for a time when things apparently but falsely were interpreted to be as your dogmatic approach said they should and must be.
      - You seem to be experiencing growing pains, will you deal with it or remain static?
      - The intrinsic noise is in you and your brain (no different for the rest of us but you are the one I'm trying to get through to just now), you can defeat it if you want to, if so take breaks as it can be fatal not to, focus on who and what you are or want to be as a being.
      - Be wary of caring way too much or way too little.
      - Some people do not seem to ever get to the important point I think you've reached before they die of old age.
      - The situation becomes a habit, it doesn't ever stop unless one gives up.

    3. Re:Good discussion of IT ethics threadjacked by GZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But another question of ethics is how the director of IT came into this information. As an IT professional, I have potential access to databases full of employee and customer records, but I can't (as a matter of ethics and data protection laws) access any of that data unless I'm assigned a specific task that requires it. I would expect a director's job to be mostly managing people/resources/etc and not have any business looking at the data that might be in their systems.

    4. Re:Good discussion of IT ethics threadjacked by GZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as i understand it, he was originally called in to help print out something and things snowballed from there. the SAO was fully aware he had access to the info. watched a bit of his testimony and it sounded reasonable enough. (de la roianda really tore into him while he was on the stand. guy sounded really overwhelmed by the way the prosecutor was twisting the version of things. least that's what i took away from it.)

    5. Re:Good discussion of IT ethics threadjacked by GZ by Cederic · · Score: 1

      They should have never let you AOLusers on the real internet, just kept you in the box pink dialup sandbox.

      Given Slashdot grew up in the Eternal September era your insult is a few decades away from being accurate.

      Anyway, we did the whole IT admin thing with Snowden.

  28. Re:He won't. His firing is legitimate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Peek is apparently an idiot with regards to technology. The public records laws apply to emails, documents, and correspondence, all of which would be stored on central servers.

    She's also trying to condense a 29 page chapter of Florida law into one sentence. It can't be done. There are many, many paragraphs of exemptions, qualifications, definitions, etc., that would have to be sorted through by a lawyer before they could even charge, let alone convict him. It's also entirely probable that wiping a terminated employee's computer is standard practice. First they need to prove there was data on the hard drive that shouldn't have been there, then they need to prove the data was wiped maliciously. Both are unlikely.

    Further, the letter states that Mr. Kruidbos committed a crime-- If there isn't evidence, then Ms. Peek's letter may be itself grounds for legal action.

  29. Decrypt this! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    It's an interesting question -- would the state be required to provide the decryption of a block of data, or just the block of data? How about data that isn't really encrypted, but just in some normal binary data encoding that would require some expert to figure out and extract the text and pictures?

    Is the state required to turn over every interpretation of that block of data?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  30. Re:He won't. His firing is legitimate. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "You can't do that."

    Sure you can. As long as you back up the files that you are required by law to keep, you can do any damned thing you want with a hard drive.

    "BULL SHIT."

    As a former IT manager myself, I can tell you that it's probably anything BUT bullshit. Somebody leaves for another job? Back up important stuff, wipe the hard drive, install everything fresh. Sometimes maybe 2-3 machines in one day, depending on the size of the office you are managing.

  31. GOV jobs at all levels if you don't play politics by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1
  32. Oh grow up by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously the OSW "99%" whining is really, really stupid.

    So let's do a bit of analysis: You have to be making over $400,000 per year (or have multiple millions in the bank) to be in the top 1% in the US. Everything under that is, by definition, "the 99%". The median income in the US is about $50,000 which would be "the 50%".

    So, what is life like there? Well I have a fairly good idea, what with making around that. At that income you can afford to own your own house. Not a huge one, but plenty of space. You can afford to have a car that is nice, and in good working order, you don't have to fight with a junker. You can have all the appliances of modern life: dishwasher, fridge, washer/dryer, A/C, stove, etc, etc. You can get more food than you can or should eat, even if you eat out semi-regularly. You can have entertainment, like a bigscreen TV, surround sound, modern computer, broadband Internet, etc. You have enough money you can afford to put some in savings, to deal with unexpected events and not be thrown into debt by them.

    In other words, you can have a damn good life. I want for nothing, I have an exceedingly good standard of living on a global scale and I am very, very grateful for it. Do "the 1%" have it better than me? Sure, but I am not "fighting scraps" (I presume you meant fighting for scraps). I am sitting in my air conditioned home, typing on my nice 30" computer screen while contemplating which of my many food options I wish to avail myself of for dinner. That is not a bad life in any way, shape, or form.

    So seriously, stop with the uninformed bitching. Stop with this class warfare "1%" type shit. There IS an income inequity problem in the US and we do need to look at it. However it is not a case of "all of us vs them" nor is it valid to pretend that everyone who isn't the most privileged of the elite are starving in the streets.

    Also, when you start talking equality, you might want to look on the global scene. You may well BE "the 1%" globally. Starts are a little hard but the median GDP in terms of purchasing power parity is like $12,000. So you can say if you want true equality that anyone making more than that, including you probably, need to give up their money.

    1. Re:Oh grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to have forgotten about your part of the national debt. That's $148,447 per taxpayer right now (according to usdebtclock.org).

    2. Re:Oh grow up by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So let's do a bit of analysis: You have to be making over $400,000 per year (or have multiple millions in the bank) to be in the top 1% in the US. Everything under that is, by definition, "the 99%". The median income in the US is about $50,000 which would be "the 50%".

      Median income is not representative of what most people would consider 'average' income. Let me illustrate by example; Consider the following 15 numbers --

      1,3,2,5,4,2,4,5,7,15,7,5,3,53,74

      The average is (rounded up) 13. However, the odds of you making average are better are only 1 in 5. 4 out of 5 times, if you're given one of those random numbers, you're going to be getting a "lower than average" number. This is essentially the heart of the OWS movement, and people like you who argue about "median" income are woefully undereducated about the realities of the wealth inequity distribution problem in the United States.

      The rest of your argument is essentially based on this incompetent analysis of the situation -- using the average as though it still has relevance. If income distribution followed a standard gaussian distribution, perhaps, maybe, you could make the argument you're making -- but it isn't. It looks like a bathtub curve -- many at the low-end, diminishing into the middle before falling to nearly nothing from the middle to near the end of the y axis before skyrocketing upwards. It's pretty much the inverse of a gaussian distribution.

      And making a "global" versus "local" comparison is apples to oranges. People in America deserve the wealth they are working for -- our economy is still largely closed, despite globalization. That is to say, the majority of what is produced is consumed here, and that our economy imports much more than it exports. What that means is, per unit of labor, the majority of the fruits of said labor remain domestic. However, the fruits of those labors are not being distributed equitably, and this is the heart of the OWS movement's position, and it is one worthy of closer consideration. Our wealth inequity -- that is, the spread between our poor and our rich, is staggeringly high -- higher than almost any other country on the planet.

      Saying "People in Africa have it worse than you do, so shut up" is intellectually disengenuous -- it is a strawman argument. You are substituting a complaint about laborers not receiving due compensation with a comparison to people worse off. Well, there will always be someone worse off. That doesn't make what is happening to those "better off" less wrong.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:Oh grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously don't live in CA or in the northeast.

    4. Re:Oh grow up by Caetel · · Score: 1

      You talk about the median but then compare using the mean for some reason. The median of the numbers you gave is 5, which is by definition representative of those numbers.

    5. Re:Oh grow up by girlintraining · · Score: 0

      You talk about the median but then compare using the mean for some reason. The median of the numbers you gave is 5, which is by definition representative of those numbers.

      You really need to check out what Median means. Specifically, "the median is the numerical value separating the higher half of a data sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half. " So if the lowest number is 1 and the highest number is 100, the median is 50, even if the set is 1,1,1,{...},1,100.

      It is the difference between median and mode that I'm trying to illustrate here; It's much more likely you'll be below the median than above it given current personal wealth distribution in the United States.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    6. Re:Oh grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You seem to have forgotten about your part of the national debt. That's $148,447 per taxpayer right now (according to usdebtclock.org).

      I'd pay up if they would promise to cut up their credit cards. Otherwise they'll just go out on a new spending spree.

    7. Re:Oh grow up by Caetel · · Score: 1

      I know exactly what a median is - the middle value of an ordered set. I guess you aren't actually reading the linked Wiki page, but for your given set the median would be 1. Here's Wolfram Alpha if you don't believe me. Again, by definition, exactly the same number of people earn above the median wage as earn below the median wage. The mean would be skewed by an unbalanced income distribution as it's calculated based on the values, but the median is based on the position of the values within the set and so outliers have a negligible impact.

    8. Re:Oh grow up by Xyrus · · Score: 2

      You're either naive or are trying to be deliberately misleading. That "median income" figure is median HOUSEHOLD income, where a household is approximately 2 parents and 2.3 kids. Being single and making $50K is a world apart and isn't even remotely comparable. You're not even taking location and cost of living differences.

      The "1% shit" exists for a reason. We ARE fighting for scraps. The vast majority of the wealth in this country is controlled by the elite few, and every year they control more while the middle and low classes have either been stagnating or dropping. This shows that there is something fundamentally broken here.

      --
      ~X~
    9. Re:Oh grow up by idunham · · Score: 1

      Having just completed my research class a few months ago, I happen to still remember what a median is. You found the right definition, but somehow you still managed to botch it up-it means exactly what you're saying it doesn't.

      The "higher half" and "lower half" are the higher and lower halves of the data. In other words, take the middle value in a sorted list.
      Half of the values are above, half are below. There's your median.
      In your list, that's 4.5 (the average of the 4 that takes 8th, and the 5 that's in 9th of 16 values).

    10. Re:Oh grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly what "median" income means: you split the population in the rich and the poor half, and check where the cutoff point is. As opposed to average income, which splits total income per capita and is subject to the problems you mentioned.

      If the median income is 50K and the 1% income is 400K, then by definition it means a whole 49% of the populace is in the comfy middle class of 50K to 400K region. Most people whining about the 1% are squarely in the middle class themselves. Don't get me wrong, it's still a bummer to be in the bottom 50% that's unemployed or working at a mcjob. The average income there is much lower than 50K. So it's really rich vs. poor, as always, not 1% vs 99%.

    11. Re:Oh grow up by sessamoid · · Score: 1

      You seem to suck at math. Perhaps you should become a "girlinbasicmathtraiing"?

      --
      "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
    12. Re:Oh grow up by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Informative

      The average is (rounded up) 13. However, the odds of you making average are better are only 1 in 5. 4 out of 5 times, if you're given one of those random numbers, you're going to be getting a "lower than average" number.

      You just explained why the average figure is meaningless...

      He used the median instead of the average, so what is your argument?

      It seems that even though you are perfectly capable of understanding that the average is a meaningless figure and that median should be used, you are still focused on the average.

      At no point did you even make an attempt to show that those at or above the median (the 50%) are having a hard time. They aren't having a hard time, but you pretend and argue as if they are. Thats dishonesty on your part. Dishonesty is never backed by reason that passes scrutiny, for if your argument was a reasoned one that passed scrutiny then you wouldnt need to be dishonest.

      I'm guessing jealousy. Jealousy is the unreasoned motive for your dishonesty.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    13. Re:Oh grow up by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      You're either naive or are trying to be deliberately misleading. That "median income" figure is median HOUSEHOLD income, where a household is approximately 2 parents and 2.3 kids.

      Here it is, sir.

      Households, 2007-2011 : 114,761,359
      Persons per household, 2007-2011 : 2.60

      So you claim 4.3 people per household, but the actual numbers from the census indicate 2.6 persons per household. How could you be so wrong about such a basic figure in your argument? It would be something if you were at least close but you werent even close at all.

      On the same page, home ownership sits at 66.1%.

      Who are you trying to convince. and why are you trying to convince them with errors and lies?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    14. Re:Oh grow up by swalve · · Score: 1

      Who do you think we owe the money to?

    15. Re:Oh grow up by he-sk · · Score: 1

      The median of your 15 numbers is 5. If you randomly choose a number from that list half the time it will be below or equal to 5. That is the definition of median.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    16. Re:Oh grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The definition of "median" is that half make more and half make less. By definition, half of all Americans earn more than the median salary.

      You are confusing "mean" (commonly called average) with median which mean half less and half more.

    17. Re:Oh grow up by romons · · Score: 1

      garsh. From YOUR link:

      The median of a finite list of numbers can be found by arranging all the observations from lowest value to highest value and picking the middle one (e.g., the median of {3, 5, 9} is 5).

      So, 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,100 has a median of 1. The definition of median means that picking a random value in a sequence gives you values less than the median 1/2 the time.

      The mode is the value with the highest number of identical entries. So, it is the value that you are most likely to obtain with a random pick. In the sequence above, the mode and median are equal, both are 1.

      Your argument would make sense if you used the average value of income, which can be either lower or higher. The old joke about everybody's kid being above average illustrates this point; if you have a bunch of kids, and they all have identical IQs, except poor Billy in the corner, who has a lower IQ, then everybody except Billy has an IQ that is above average, since Billy brings down the average. So, everybody's kid (except poor Billy) is 'above average'.

      The wealth in this country is like that. The value of the united states (as of 2008, it is more now) is $188 Trillion dollars. If the ownership was divided equally, that would give every man, woman, and child in the country $750k net worth. However, the median net worth of people in the US is now something like $60,000, INCLUDING their house. So, nearly everybody is below average. The net worth of more than 50% of the country is less than 1/10 of the average net worth in the country. That is shocking for a society that prides itself on being egalitarian.

      --
      Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
    18. Re:Oh grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing like money to make you truly ignorant, all the while calling people who disagree with you "stupid."

      And telling people to "grow up" is just hilarious projection. You have something to confess? I'd like to hear it. Just try to defend everything you've said there.

      If I had a true accounting of how you made every penny you "earned" in your life, could you justify it? I highly doubt it, but I would LOVE to try it. Go for it, punk.

    19. Re:Oh grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nice and all, but as always this argument never mentions the vector we're on. 40 years ago, a single income household could have afforded to do what you describe. 20 years ago, you could do so on a double income. And yes, today lots of people are still managing to do so today, but at the expense of loading increasing amounts of debt.

      Your snapshot sounds rosy, if you're one of the 1 in 2 above the median. But the trajectory is clear, we are increasingly heading toward what looks like a United States of Favelas, if something doesn't change.

      “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” - Warren Buffet

    20. Re:Oh grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the irony is that he over estimated and actually used the mean income in the US (42,693) so the GP was right to complain, though he should have pointed out that the mean was used instead of the claimed median.

      The median income is ~$27,500 for individuals. That's approximately half of what the GGP claimed.

  33. Show Trial by damicatz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Zimmerman trial has been nothing short of a farce from the get go. It is reminiscent of Soviet-era show trials because the race baiters have turned this into a witch-hunt.

    1.The original probable cause affidavit was so riddled with mistakes and inaccuracies that even a 1L (first year law student) wouldn't make such a mistake. To put speculations in an affidavit and then to swear, under of penalty of perjury, that they are facts is perpetrating fraud upon the court. Affidavits are not places where you speculate or state what your gut feeling is or what you think might have happened. It is a place to state facts. In addition, deliberately omitting evidence from the affidavit that is exculpatory in nature is unethical. Even Alan Dershowitz, who is about as left as you can get, blasted their handiwork.

    2.The media has been doing their damnedest to make this about race. Every thing from inventing new terms, like white hispanic, to altering Zimmerman's photo to make him appear whiter and only showing pictures of Trayvon Martin when he was much younger to make him appear more angelic and innocent. In addition, they have been working tirelessly to plant the idea of having riots into peoples minds by continuously bringing it up.

    3.The prosecution's entire side was a joke. I mean, Rachel Jeantel changed her story so many times that you would need an entire notebook to keep track of all of them. It was also painfully obvious that she had been coached by the prosecution. The other "witnesses" weren't much better.

    4.There is no evidence for murder and the prosecution knows it. Even if the jury convicts (most likely, out of fear for their life or just plain idiocy since jurors are picked based on their emotional susceptibility rather than their intelligence), it will be overturned so fast on appeal that they won't even know what hit them. The case for manslaughter isn't much better and introducing that AFTER the defense has rested is highly unethical on the part of both the judge and the prosecution.

    5.Speaking of the judge, she is a life long democrat and has demonstrated very clear evidence of bias. When George Zimmerman refused to testify, she disparaged and criticized him. A defendant has the right not to testify and it is highly unethical for a judge to browbeat a defendant for that because you are not allowed to make a negative inference from an exercise of the 5th amendment.

    6.Now we get evidence that the prosecution is, once again, withholding exculpatory evidence. To go after the whistleblower, who blew the whistle on their unethical and illegal activities, just demonstrates how truly execrable the prosecution is.

    Regardless of what you think of George Zimmerman, regardless of what you think of Trayvon Martin, regardless of who you think is to blame, regardless of whether you think George Zimmerman was racist, you should not be supporting such a mockery of justice. Everyone accused of a crime deserves their change to have a proper, fair, and just trial. This is nothing of the sort; it is a show trial and a political witch hunt.

    1. Re: Show Trial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, the prosecutor here sucked, didn't want the case, and barely made an effort.

      Treyvon Martin deserved a better advocate.

    2. Re:Show Trial by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There is no evidence for murder

      I'd say that a corpse with a bullet hole is evidence of murder. The only legal defense Zimmerman had was self-defense, and that's the sort of thing that really does need to be settled by jury.

      I don't know much about the rest of your claims, but that one makes me doubt all of them.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  34. Re: Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck u by erroneus · · Score: 1

    What?! What does being black have to do with cuts on knuckles?!

  35. Sounds like misdirection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The defense got the entire source file. The defense had their analysts extract the evidence.
    The prosecution also had the source file and extracted evidence.

    Then the IT guy, whose capabilities were presumably better than others since he got more, found more stuff. It seems unclear if he was even asked to do so.

    It almost seems like he was working for the defense, not the prosecution.

    1. Re:Sounds like misdirection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      i don't know about asked or if it was just part of his job duties, but he apparently thought the dump report file size was too small for a source dump of that size, looked into it, reported it, asked if his findings had been shared and didn't ever get an answer to that.
      i can only speculate that he probably didn't know the defense had their own IT guy, and so was assuming the defense would be operating with incomplete information (regardless of if the pics and text were relevant in the end or not).
      concerned that he might face legal trouble later, if it turned out that the SAO hadn't forwarded the info, he reached out to an attorney he knew about that and things escalated from there.

  36. Whistleblower will get paid for rest of his life.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The state fucked up royally and in public.... They're going to have to pay him his salary for life along with full benefits for an obvious "we got caught in the act with our pants down and demon phallus in our mouths and asses, and you exposed us for the dick-wipped sluts we are"

    I for one hope he enjoys his future life of leisure...
     

  37. not guilty by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    not guilty

    1. Re:not guilty by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      as expected.

  38. No, you grow up by ulatekh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At that income you can afford to own your own house. Not a huge one, but plenty of space.

    I've never been able to afford to buy a house, despite several years of an apparently "upper middle class income". For one thing, my employment isn't stable enough, despite having a BS in Computer Science and being very, very good at what I do.

    You can afford to have a car that is nice, and in good working order, you don't have to fight with a junker.

    My cars are 21 and 26 years old. They're in good working order because I've paid through the nose to keep them maintained.

    You can have all the appliances of modern life: dishwasher, fridge, washer/dryer, A/C, stove, etc, etc.

    I bought the fridge ~10 years ago on a payment plan. I bought the washer/dryer used from an appliance-repair shop. Everything else in your list came with the (rental) house.

    You can get more food than you can or should eat, even if you eat out semi-regularly.

    I cook most of my own food, to keep costs down. I buy 50 pound bags of pinto beans for $30. I make a lot of meatloaf and chili.

    You can have entertainment, like a bigscreen TV, surround sound, modern computer, broadband Internet, etc.

    My widescreen TV is 6 years old, and my newest computer is 7 years old. I have a surround-sound system, but it doesn't fit in my current house.

    You have enough money you can afford to put some in savings, to deal with unexpected events and not be thrown into debt by them.

    That's all I seem to save up for — periods of unemployment. Retirement is an impossible dream.

    I want for nothing, I have an exceedingly good standard of living on a global scale and I am very, very grateful for it.

    You won't have it for long. The federal government is bankrupt several times over, and the federal bank is now inventing money out of thin air (not even printing it...it just changes a number in a computer), giving the money away at 0% interest to prop up the stock market, and buying government debt with the money it just created out of thin air. This is not sustainable. The only reason the U.S. gets away with this is that Europe is presently in worse shape.

    Do "the 1%" have it better than me? Sure, but I am not "fighting [for] scraps".

    I apply for job after job, several of which I match perfectly, and hear nothing back. The book Why Good People Can't Get Jobs provided some catharsis — at least I don't have to feel so paranoid and cynical — but it doesn't actually help to know any of this. I sure feel like I'm fighting for scraps.

    Someone once said they'd rather be lucky than smart. Amen to that.

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
    1. Re:No, you grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reread your post. You've claimed to be shitty at managing your money and too crappy at your job to have steady employment. I know you think you were asserting otherwise, but lack of self-awareness goes with the territory.

      Look, some people are just not that good with money. If you aren't saving a significant chunk of your money, then you are spending too much. It doesn't really matter how much you make, that equation still stands. Get yourself some financial counseling and learn how to manage your money. At the same time, ask your employers and coworkers how you can improve. An honest question asked earnestly might just get you an honest answer that can give you an opportunity to change your life.

      Nobody is holding you down except you.

    2. Re:No, you grow up by ulatekh · · Score: 1

      Obviously your not VERY good at what you do - your obviously a flunky since you can't hold a job with a BS CS since that is one of the most desired skill sets in demand today. I have a BS CS and have never been unemployed since I graduated in 1983. Get a job work hard, go the extra mile, give 110%, study, study, study, and you'll never be out of work again.

      As if. My career went down the drain after the dot-com bubble burst. That was followed by the outsourcing phenomenon, the guest-worker phenomenon, and now the "perfect fit" phenomenon. A BS in CS is not desired in the United States these days — not even close.

      My best guess as to the real reason my career is such a disaster — aside from the four reasons in the previous paragraph — is that I actually work, and 70% of American employees are not actively engaged at work. When people like that meet someone like me, their only thought is to destroy my reputation by any means necessary, so as to distract from their own laziness and incompetence. It doesn't help that I have Asperger's.

      Besides, I'm not going to take crap from a top-poster that doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're". You are clearly not what you claim to be.

      --
      "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
    3. Re:No, you grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously your not VERY good at what you do - your obviously a flunky since you can't hold a job with a BS CS since that is one of the most desired skill sets in demand today. I have a BS CS and have never been unemployed since I graduated in 1983.

      Thats only because the bosses doing the hiring say to themselves "Oh look, another idiot like me who doesn't know the difference between you're and your! He'll never make me look stupid and he'll be grateful for the job. Hired!!"

    4. Re:No, you grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Move the fuck out of California or New York. That is why you are struggling.

    5. Re:No, you grow up by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I hear what you say but honestly I'm like the guy you responded to. I make about 60 grand a year and live pretty well, especially once I got my kids grown and out of my house. I've always had a job though so I've really been blessed. I was on employment one time in the last 35 years for about 11 weeks but other than that it was all full time employment. Where I live generally there is plenty of work and anyone who wants a job has one although it isn't always what they like nor high paying. My son started working right out of high school at a hardware store then a chicken processing plant then a cold storage warehouse where he has worked his way to supervisor at the ripe old age of 28. I can tell you that without Mexicans and other Central Americans this place would have a labor shortage. A severe one. I hear people bitching about illegal immigration but without it businesses would be hurting.

    6. Re:No, you grow up by ulatekh · · Score: 1

      Move the fuck out of California or New York. That is why you are struggling.

      I live in Arizona.

      --
      "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
    7. Re:No, you grow up by ulatekh · · Score: 1

      I've always had a job though so I've really been blessed.

      I hope you continue to be blessed. I wouldn't wish my career on my worst enemy.

      I can tell you that without Mexicans and other Central Americans this place would have a labor shortage. A severe one. I hear people bitching about illegal immigration but without it businesses would be hurting.

      That's completely off-topic, but since you brought it up...we don't have a labor shortage, we have a shortage of labor at a price that the employers are willing to pay. The illegal immigrants you speak of don't make minimum wage; a legal worker would have to be paid minimum wage. The minimum-wage law is the real source of the problem, but it's apparently political suicide to say that.

      --
      "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
    8. Re:No, you grow up by ulatekh · · Score: 1

      Reread your post. You've claimed to be shitty at managing your money and too crappy at your job to have steady employment.

      I'm very good at my job, unless that "job" involves being a good ol' boy and the boss' drinking buddy, in which case, I suck.
      And it's not that I'm shitty at managing my money. It's that unemployment is very expensive.

      ask your employers and coworkers how you can improve.

      I doubt they'd admit that they'd want me to be a worse programmer, so as not to draw attention to their own laziness/incompetence and (statistically) lack of engagement at work.

      --
      "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
    9. Re:No, you grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate people arguing that "it could be worse". Well yeah it could be but is that a reason to stop trying to make it even better?

    10. Re:No, you grow up by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I think the primary thing with illegal workers is that they take cash money. There are no taxes paid. Generally for labor they get paid somewhere around 10 dollars an hour cash. That works out to about 14 dollars or more equivalent when you consider state, federal and social security tax out of a normal paycheck. Much better than minimum wage.

    11. Re:No, you grow up by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You feel like you are "fighting for scraps" because your big screen TV is 6 years old, you have a surround sound system but you don't like it, and your fridge 10?

      See this is what I'm talking about with needing to take a more global look at things. Oh no, you don't have all new conveniences, whatever shall you do! I don't either, for that matter. My fridge is about 10 years old, and I've no wish to replace it as it keeps working great. My microwave is over 30 years old, it was given to me a long time ago and just keeps on trucking. Again, no reason to replace it as it still works great. Having a good life doesn't mean buying everything new all the time. In fact a big part of it can be managing your money by spending it smartly on things as needed and keeping what works.

      Then of course you have to go with the silly doom and gloom "You won't have a good life soon!" shit and show a rather poor understanding of economics.

      Look man, sorry that your life is not working out as well as you believe it should but you also should maybe do a little research and see how good you have it compared to the majority of the world's population.

      Also consider that maybe, just maybe, you are part of the problem with your ability to get and keep a job. Layoffs are something that everyone is likely to face from time to time, but if you keep losing your job, if you are always having problems finding one, well then perhaps you are doing something wrong. I don't know much about you so I can't say what, but perhaps some introspection is in order. It is like the people who perpetually have bad relationships yet never seem to consider they may have a part of that.

    12. Re: No, you grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently moved from AZ, and i thought it had a somewhat decent software dev market, but after i moved i realized that it really wasn't very competitive, and there are many other metro areas in the us with much stronger software dev markets. So my advice to you is to consider moving. There are many hot markets outside of the bay area. Denver, Chicago, San Diego, Seattle... Work with a recruiter if interviews and getting your foot in the door is the hard part.

      You seriously think you're not getting hired because you will work too hard and make people look bad? Are you kidding me? Hiring a candidate who turns out to be a good worker earns major brownie points at any place i've ever worked at. Perhaps part of your problem is your ego, which seems to be larger than you can safely contain.

    13. Re:No, you grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, I make far far less than you since I'm in college and working nearly fulltime at a 9.50 an hour job. And fail to see how you are barely getting by.

      There are people that make 20k a year that can afford a house. A large house? No. But a house.
      Mortgage payments right now on a 50k house wind up about/under 350 a month. Less than you're paying in rent in almost all likelihood since you say you can not buy. 50k in the right place (outside of city limits) would net a decent livable up to date house.

      I also have two cars, neither that old. 98 and 99. They're worth around 4k between them. On a good day. Because one is a sportscar. Otherwise close to 3k.
      If you're driving cars that old and laboring to maintain them, that's your choice. You can finance a car for under 100 a month now that would be in far better condition than any other cars that old. Or why not just have /one/ car instead?

      You do not need to buy 50 lb bags of beans to get by. I feed two on this income and am not that frugal. I buy chicken and beef and steak and fish.

      42" Widescreen TVs can be bought for under 400 now, on a payment plan that's less than 20 a month. Computers can be built from scratch to be faster than a 7 year old computer for under 400. If you can't afford these things why not get a roommate? It wouldn't be as comfortable for you but you would have nicer things.

      Oh I see now, you're just trolling to bemoan the state of affairs in the US.

    14. Re:No, you grow up by dbIII · · Score: 1

      No, the people that are willing to break minimum wage laws and the inability to accept that those migrants are already in the country are the problems. Just hoping the migrants will go home doesn't work and meanwhile those pricks that haven't worked out that slavery was a bad idea are exploiting the migrants with no legal status which makes it far worse for everyone.

    15. Re:No, you grow up by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Perspective time, because a LOT of the people complaining aboyut the "top 1%" also seem to complain a lot about job outsourcing, and that seems like an implicit complaint in your post.

      While you complain about not being able to afford a nice house, you are in the top 5% wealthiest in the world, and the problems you describe (having two cars, each somewhat dated; having a dated surround sound system; not having a cushy retirement) are distinctly first world problems.

      Perhaps if you ever start feeling bitter about jobs being outsourced to China / India and keeping you from earning more, remember that those jobs are going to people with far far less who could as easily complain about fighting for scraps.

    16. Re:No, you grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't get a job? Maybe it's time to roll your own. You're very good at what you do with several years of experience in the business. Surely you can think of something that all the companies you tried to apply to would buy from your company. Asperger's doesn't matter, you're the boss. Just hire someone else to handle sales and PR.

    17. Re:No, you grow up by swalve · · Score: 1

      He's probably one of those ones that deserve top tier pay. So whenever he gets a job offer for 3% more salary, he jumps ship. But since he's always the new guy, he's expendable and gets laid off first. So even if his rate of pay is premium, his net isn't very good.

    18. Re:No, you grow up by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Try North Dakota.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    19. Re:No, you grow up by ulatekh · · Score: 1

      You feel like you are "fighting for scraps" because your big screen TV is 6 years old, you have a surround sound system but you don't like it, and your fridge 10?

      No, I feel like I'm fighting for scraps because most of my job applications go completely ignored, and I have no choice but to take the first job offered. And I didn't say that I didn't like my surround-sound system, I said that it doesn't fit in my current house (because the house is too small). You are taking the few parts of my post where I concede your point, removing everything else, and then trying to force a conclusion with extremely selective data. That's very bad logic.

      Let me guess...now that I've pointed that out, you hate me, and will now do everything in your power to destroy me. Welcome to my career.

      Also consider that maybe, just maybe, you are part of the problem with your ability to get and keep a job. Layoffs are something that everyone is likely to face from time to time, but if you keep losing your job, if you are always having problems finding one, well then perhaps you are doing something wrong. I don't know much about you so I can't say what, but perhaps some introspection is in order. It is like the people who perpetually have bad relationships yet never seem to consider they may have a part of that.

      Let me give you an example — this is from my previous job.

      Our team was hired by a government agency to solve a problem. They had spent bazillions of dollars on a simulation product from a big defense contractor, but weren't getting value for their money; the product was crap, and the prime contractor had set things up to milk the government for all they were worth. They were the only ones who could write scenarios for their simulation, they took forever to do that, their simulations had little to do with current training doctrine, and they weren't very well done. So my team was hired to fix this.

      I reverse-engineered the hell out of their scenarios; their format wasn't documented, so I had little choice. I figured out their format (which consisted of several XML files spread throughout a directory structure). I also figured out that they had thousands of errors spread throughout their 30-odd scenarios, and I reported my findings to everyone involved. That's when the long knives came out. Despite that, my team labored to create an error-checking editor that let anyone create new scenarios for this simulation product. It also allowed existing scenarios to be imported, and all the errors highlighted, so that they could be fixed. Our reward was bureaucracy and vitriol.

      And the government agency that had hired us to do this, who had wanted the prime contractor's stranglehold on this project to be broken, reacted to the very predicable vitriol from the prime contractor...by rolling over and playing dead, pretending that the whole thing was our idea, that we came up with this idea all by ourselves solely to hurt the prime contractor's precious little feelings...and left us to hang. It all went downhill from there.

      After the first year, our "reward" was to become a direct sub-contractor to this prime contractor, and the torture simply increased. No one in the chain of command, from the NCOICs, all the way up to the LtCol at the Pentagon in charge of all this, and all the DACs in between, would (or could) do anything about this. Eventually, our contract got cancelled for threadbare reasons, and now the government is back to being at the mercy of this prime contractor, and I, and the rest of my team, are out of a job. Our crime was doing what was asked of us, and doing an extremely good job of it.

      This is an extreme example, but as far as my career is concerned, it's pretty par for the course.

      Perhaps I just have really, really bad luck. But I don't know what to do about that. At least this time, it was a whole team of people that got shafted, instead of just me, so I can finally claim that this happens to people other than just me.

      --
      "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
    20. Re:No, you grow up by ulatekh · · Score: 1

      He's probably one of those ones that deserve top tier pay. So whenever he gets a job offer for 3% more salary, he jumps ship.

      I do deserve top-tier pay — after 20 years in the industry, I'd better, otherwise I'd be a real idiot. But no, I don't jump ship if I get another offer — I'm loyal. That's probably one reason my job searches are so angst-ridden — I don't look for a job until I'm actually unemployed.

      A few years ago, I worked for a company that, after 4 years, had to shut down. They wanted to continue with a vastly reduced staff; I became part of that staff, even though it was a major pay cut. Over the next year, my pay kept getting cut more and more, and my hours got reduced more and more. Finally, I had no choice but to look for another job. But I put up with this for an entire year before finally "jumping ship".

      Therefore, I think your criticism is unwarranted.

      Outside of the large external factors (the dot-com bubble bursting, the outsourcing phenomenon, the guest-worker phenomenon, the "perfect fit" phenomenon, and the fact that 70% of employees are not actively engaged at work), I think my real problem is the one described in "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand. I'm Howard Roark. His solution was to persevere until things got better. I don't think I have the strength to do that.

      --
      "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
    21. Re:No, you grow up by ulatekh · · Score: 1

      Can't get a job? Maybe it's time to roll your own. You're very good at what you do with several years of experience in the business. Surely you can think of something that all the companies you tried to apply to would buy from your company. Asperger's doesn't matter, you're the boss. Just hire someone else to handle sales and PR.

      Asperger's does matter. How am I supposed to pick a good person to handle sales/PR? I don't know how to pick a good person who's good at that sort of thing. It'd be very likely that they'd drain all the accounts and skip town.

      --
      "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
    22. Re:No, you grow up by ulatekh · · Score: 1

      To be fair, I make far far less than you since I'm in college and working nearly fulltime at a 9.50 an hour job. And fail to see how you are barely getting by.

      I'm barely getting by because I keep having to squander my savings during periods of unemployment.

      And I had to put myself through my last year-and-a-half of college, taking classes full-time and working as much as I could (about 3/4 time). So I've been where you are. But for me, it's 20 years later.

      There are people that make 20k a year that can afford a house. A large house? No. But a house.

      You have to factor the savings of living in "the Hood" versus how much you're going to get stolen from you. It's cheaper to pay more and live in a nicer neighborhood.

      Or why not just have /one/ car instead?

      I need something to drive while the other car's getting fixed.

      If you can't afford these things why not get a roommate?

      I had an absolutely horrible experience with a roommate several years ago. He had been one of my closest childhood friends. Out of nowhere, he turned into a violent psychopath, crashed one of my cars, stole several things from me, and skipped town. I never saw that coming to save my life. After that, I've never been able to justify the risk of having a roommate.

      Oh I see now, you're just trolling to bemoan the state of affairs in the US.

      No, the purpose of my original post was to point out that this person was completely out of touch with reality, and was substituting a "positive attitude" for actual workable logic.

      --
      "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
    23. Re:No, you grow up by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      So tell me, how many old computers are you still using? That 20 year old hot 60 MHz Pentium machine with the division bug, 8M of RAM and a 500M hard drive still ticking over for you? Still have a 30 year old 4.77 MHz 8088 PC with a 360KB floppy drive serving your needs?

      My fridge is about 10 years old, and I've no wish to replace it as it keeps working great.

      My fridge is 18 years old, which is very unfortunate. Efficiency standards for fridges went up in 1996. My fridge is one of the least efficient 1995 models there is. A new fridge would use about half the electricity my current fridge uses, that's how big the difference is. It would pay for itself in 6 years. If I also consider that fridges don't last forever, and figure a 30 year lifespan, could argue that the time for a new fridge to pay for itself is more like 3 or even 2 years.

      if you keep losing your job, if you are always having problems finding one, well then perhaps you are doing something wrong.

      Yes, that's right, blame the victim. I know what job instability is like. 3 of the companies I have worked for in my career went bankrupt. 2 more were bought out after poor performance. Tell me how you keep a job when the company goes under? Maybe I should have worked harder to keep the company afloat? I was not in charge, I was only one foot soldier in an army that suffered defeat. Can one soldier singlehandedly win a war?

      The world is not as easy a place as it was a few generations ago. Today is more people, more competition, less frontier. It's most unrealistic for parents to expect their children to do as well as they did themselves, and damn unfair to think less of them went they don't. Grandpa had a family of 8, why can't you have a family of at least 5? You loser!

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    24. Re:No, you grow up by N1AK · · Score: 1

      I would suggest that whatever personality trait there is that makes you think the world is out to destroy you for working hard and being good probably has a lot more to do with your employment problems than your hypothesised reason does. If you really are that good good self-employed and charge by results: Everyone likes getting what they want, done well by a 3rd party. You definitely couldn't blame that failing on people not liking you being 'good'

    25. Re:No, you grow up by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      ask your employers and coworkers how you can improve.

      I doubt they'd admit that they'd want me to be a worse programmer, so as not to draw attention to their own laziness/incompetence and (statistically) lack of engagement at work.

      A software engineering job is between 25% and 50% programming / programming ability. First, there are design and specifications to meet client requirements. If you want any but the lowest-paying programming jobs you need to be a part of that specification process. Same goes with milestone setting, scheduling, and assignment of developer resources. Yes, various parts of management will do a lot of that, but they cannot do that in a vacuum -- guidance from technical jobs is needed to keep things realistic. Finally, as part of designing, planning, implementing, and documenting, you'll need to communicate with peers so that they can understand and make use or your work, and work with management to understand the need and importance of each part.

      For the past six years I've worked at a company that does yearly peer reviews, which I've found quite helpful. In none of those reviews has someone stated that I need to program better or more skillfully. Yet in all of those reviews I've gotten constructive feedback -- on how to improve in the *other* skills that a more senior software engineer will need.

      I hope you are able to find the stable job you seek. While I can't claim to understand the details, a small change in attitude toward supporting skills may be what is needed to get you closer to your goal.

    26. Re:No, you grow up by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Your agument is a fallacy. Just because there are worse problems elsewhere does not mean that the problems you're currently facing are not worthy of attention and resource. politicians love to use this argument to justify growth in the bureaucracy and higher taxes, but it is bullshit.

      Your second argument is unreasonable. The problem is that it takes years to train to be considered (the key word here), a pro by society at a given job, and months for the market to decide your skills and $80000 degree are now worth $5000 a year. There's only so much flexibility one can have when he is expected to pay his bills on time, raise a family, and lead a solid, healthy life. if the 99% are flipping jobs every 18-24 months, the average wage is low, and probably dropping.

      Perhaps a partial solution is to force companies to hire americans at livable wages. if those companies want americans to work for pennies a day like the slave wagers in india or china, then those companies cannot sell their goods here. This doesn't fix everything by any means, but it would force those hell pits to raise their standards of living if they want to sell to americans. Right now, their low standard of living is lowering ours, radically. Americans need to stand up for themselves, globally if they don't want to end up like the average chinese citizen 50 years from now.

    27. Re:No, you grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See this is what I'm talking about with needing to take a more global look at things.

      Yeah, quit complaining! There are starving kids in India who would love to have your job for eight months and then get laid off because the company has cashflow problems!

    28. Re:No, you grow up by Hypotensive · · Score: 1

      They're in good working order because I've paid through the nose to keep them maintained.

      I've never been able to afford to buy a house

      These two statements may be related.

    29. Re:No, you grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm a homeless fucker who's made less than 24,000 dollars (US) the past four years, and been without a real job for the past two.

      Fuck you "Republicans" for thinking you're not at least partially responsible.

      And fuck all you "Democrats" for preaching that "rich" people are to blame, need to be taxed more, and that I need help—with somebody *else's* money, of course.

    30. Re:No, you grow up by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I've never observed a place where competency was a negative. It may not be respected, and you may find other people taking credit for your work, but your cow-orkers don't want to get rid of you because you're good.

      I'd suggest that there are other reasons why you keep losing a job, and that you'd be much better off finding out what they are.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  39. Nigger Justice Dead In Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nigger 'Justice' just died in Florida. Zimmerman walks. Obama shits a bloody brick and pisses blood.

  40. Re:GOV jobs at all levels if you don't play politi by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    You can get caned even if you are the CEO.

    I'm pretty sure that's only in Singapore.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  41. sorry, incorrect by Vesvvi · · Score: 1

    You are incorrect about the burden of proof and an affirmative defense: the standard vary by offense and state.

    In Florida, the Standard Jury Instructions clearly specify that an affirmative defense has the benefit of any reasonable doubt.

  42. Meanwhile in Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bitches like Joan Huffman (that's R for all you bitches out there who think the Republican party stands for truth and justice) back the prosecutors who pull this shit, 100%, and refuse to do a thing about it.

    I fully expect the Republican party to start generating a few hundred megawatts from the spin on this. How can they back Zimmerman and be pro-apeshit prosecutors at the same time? Watch FOX at 10 to find out their "justifications"!

  43. Re:Maybe they WANT to lose the case... by shentino · · Score: 1

    Ineffectual or not they apparently pissed off whoever sicced the police on them...

    I can think of no other reason than striking a golden nerve that the police would be motivated to respond with force to a peaceful protest.

  44. What guide is that exactly? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Each one of those 3 actions is proscribed by neighborhood watch guides.

    Oh really. What "guide" is that? Or is it something you are simply parroting because someone else claimed it was so on the internet?

    Nothing like that in this guide.

    An easier way to see it is if Martin had been a woman. Zimmerman has a gun and starts following a woman.

    Yes, it's pretty clear to me that had a woman thrown Zimmerman to the ground and started beating him senseless simply for following her and asking why she was there, he should have shot her also. Because RATIONAL people do not throw people to the ground and start beating them to death without ANY physical provocation. And It's pretty sexist of you to think women cannot be criminals either.

    She uses pepper spray and while he's blinded, she kicks him. So he shoots her. No one would be sympathizing with Zimmerman.

    In that case it's pretty obvious she would not be shot because she was not trying to kill him, just get away. So no, we would not be sympathizing with Zimmerman because shooting her would be obviously wrong.

    The reason Zimmerman shot a guy is the same reason he was found not guilty. Because he only did so when his life was threatened, and unreasonable reaction from someone merely being followed. Do you honestly consider it OK to start beating a guys head against the pavement just because he annoys you?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:What guide is that exactly? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 0

      Because RATIONAL people do not throw people to the ground and start beating them to death without ANY physical provocation.

      Lots of people seem to forget that an adult shot and killed a child.

      As the adult in this situation, Zimmerman should have been well aware that young perhaps-not-quite-adults are often known to be not completely rational. All the more so when they're frightened at being followed by a threatening-looking stranger.

      Even "rational" adults are known sometimes to react to a threatening situation out of instinct or prior conditioning rather than logical contemplation.

      As the supposedly mature adult in this situation who was so eager to play "cop", Zimmerman should have had sense enough to know that you don't provoke a suspect if you don't have backup on the scene: someone could get hurt, maybe even you.

      This is one reason why real cops generally work in pairs.

      Zimmerman's an idiot with a gun. A lucky one. Legally, he's probably in the clear. Nonetheless, there seems to be no disputing that, had he not (a) provoked this incident and (b) been carrying a firearm, there'd be a kid today who's not six feet under.

      Zimmerman is an adult who caused the death of a kid who'd committed no crime. His conduct may have been within the bounds of the law, but this is no way makes it any less irresponsible or any less reprehensible, and he should be shunned by society.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:What guide is that exactly? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Zimmerman is an adult who caused the death of a kid who'd committed no crime. His conduct may have been within the bounds of the law, but this is no way makes it any less irresponsible or any less reprehensible, and he should be shunned by society.

      I should point out that, with the acquittal, he'll likely be turned into some kind of vigilante hero instead, which is why it is very difficult for me to feel any compassion for him, even though I know that I should.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:What guide is that exactly? by Cederic · · Score: 0

      had a woman thrown Zimmerman to the ground and started beating him senseless simply for following her and asking why she was there, he should have shot her also. Because RATIONAL people do not throw people to the ground and start beating them to death without ANY physical provocation

      Rational people don't stalk someone, confront them and threaten them.

      But ask yourself this: If Trayvon Martin was a rational person - and there's no evidence otherwise - then what was the physical provocation that led to him feeling the need to throw someone to the ground and attempting to subdue them?

      Zimmerman may have been in a life threatening situation when he killed Martin but personally I think it's his own stupid and possibly illegal fault that he got there.

      He's very lucky though. He's been found not guilty and he'll make a good living on the publicity. Innocent people walking through neighbourhoods where stupid fuckwits drive around with guns looking for victims wont be so lucky; those fuckwits will now think it's legal to shoot them.

    4. Re:What guide is that exactly? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If you thought somebody was about to attack you (purely hypothetically, if they'd been clearly following you), would you let them have first hit?

      I wouldn't.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:What guide is that exactly? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't initiate any confrontation with them using violence. So yes, they may well get the first hit.

    6. Re:What guide is that exactly? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      But ask yourself this: If Trayvon Martin was a rational person - and there's no evidence otherwise

      That is where your argument falls apart. It is FACT that he was wailing on Zimmerman on the ground. If you were attacking just to stop someone following you you'd know them down and run away. Or, just run away first to the house you were headed for that is just a few hundred yards away.

      A rational person does not guy a guy down and then curb stomp him to the point he feesl has has to shoot you. Zimmerman was obviously quite restrained as he didn't even go for the gun when first attacked, only when he was on the ground beaning repeatedly pummeled.

      If Martin had acted rationally at any point he would still be alive. He decided to make the gangster play and the die was cast. His life, or death, was what Martin made of it.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    7. Re:What guide is that exactly? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

      Lots of people seem to forget that an adult shot and killed a child.

      The adult/child distinction means nothing when the "child" was physically able to knock the "adult" to the ground, keep him there, and proceed to pound his head into the pavement.

      At that point it is one man fighting another for life. And that is why Zimmerman won, because there was no reason given what he did (merely follow a guy while calling 911) that he should have been attacked.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    8. Re:What guide is that exactly? by phlinn · · Score: 1

      17 years old is not a child, even if they have not yet gained all the rights of full adulthood. There is a reason 17 year old murderers don't go to juvenile court all the time. (possibly never, the cases I saw at first glance that did were 15 or younger. I didn't spend a lot of effort on the search.)

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    9. Re:What guide is that exactly? by phlinn · · Score: 1

      The evidence indicates that Martin confronted Zimmerman. Zimmerman lost martin on the transcript of his call. Rachel Jeantel's testiomny was compatible with either of them confronting the other IIRC.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
  45. That DA needs to got to prison by ralphaostrander · · Score: 2

    Withholding evidence needs to be the highest class of felony.

  46. Moral of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good behavior is punished. Bad behavior is rewarded.
    I work some someone who is an ongoing example of three kinds of fraud. You could use him as a case study of corporate fraud. Nothing can be done. Anyone who reports him will be sunk and the report is ignored.
    I have reported this to management. Big mistake. Never again. It just is not worth it. Worse problem is when half the fraud could be convicted of fraud. What do you do.

  47. I think it depends were you life by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    How much food and such costs depends a LOT on where you life. Not all cities are equal in this regard.

    I also notice the parent never mentions insurance. Why not?

    Also what happens if he loses his job? Loses a limb? Child is born with a major handicap?

    50k might not be a bad salary in some places but how would he do if the shit hits the fan? Or his wife drops three kids instead of one?

    Or 50k is all he will be getting for the rest of his life, inflation be damned? That is what is happening at least in IT right now in Holland, programmers jobs, even the so called good payers, have been offering the same wages for several years now and no, inflation hasn't been zero. You can get poor just by earning the same salary year after year.

    I am not complaining to much, but then I got zero responsibilities but people raising a family? They need more or they are just a paycheck away from the poor house.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  48. Someone was shot to death. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if it turns out to have been self-inflicted accidental discharge, that's evidence that a crime may have taken place.

    Because there ARE murders out there and they can use guns to do it, you know.

  49. killing logical discussion with dirty tricks by Predatory+QQmber · · Score: 2

    Pardon me for not knowing this, as i live in Russia, but i thought that bold "First World countries" of N.America had gender equality for a while now. Because this vision of "poor fearful helpless woman" being compared to "evil situation-controlling armed man" doesn't really fit in the image of proud modern unbiased citizen of such a society, where gender difference should not make a difference.

    Not does appeal to emotion (fear in this case) by all those "get a girlfriend and ask her" claims has its place as an argument in objective discussion about facts in places, which heralding themselves as the leaders of the civilized world.

    And also i didn't know that preemptively bashing heads of people you don't like is a valid night stroll activity there. Creepy.

    --
    who dares wins
  50. I think you should call a plumber. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    The rest of your argument is essentially based on this incompetent analysis of the situation -- using the average as though it still has relevance.

    Which average? He specifically stated the median.

    If you're talking about the mean, specifically the arithmetic one, say so.

    It looks like a bathtub curve -- many at the low-end, diminishing into the middle before falling to nearly nothing from the middle to near the end of the y axis before skyrocketing upwards.

    Bathtub schmathtub. Do you spend a lot of time mopping the floor?

    It looks a lot more like a [strongly] positive-skewed normal to me.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  51. Meanwhile in USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went to the dentist for a cleaning. And paid $300 out of pocket because my dental policy "didnt cover cleanings, only oral surgery"

    The very next week i went back to the dentist to have a wisdom tooth pulled, and paid over $1k out of pocket because the very same policy "didnt cover oral surgery, only cleanings"

    I no longer pay for insurance... what would be the point?

  52. sounds like by dewrox · · Score: 1

    The Florida state attorneys office needs to be fired. They are supposed to be the ones standing up for truth and right, for the people.

  53. Flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But, one can make the case that Republicans want to do the same to poor and minorities since they don't vote Republican.

    Flamebait. If that's what you think of the current situation, you must be pretty dense.

  54. And what did you expect by BigLonn · · Score: 1

    Remember folks political organizations many times employ people based on politics. The big loss here will come from the inevitable law suit from this guy on the state, the department and the the guy personally. You know no pain until you get humiliated in a pretrial deposition hearing where there are no limits to the outrage they can pull on you oh and yes in civl court there is no 5th amendment, just answering the questions they ask, failure to do so is contempt of court.The real losers arent the litigation participants so much as the tax payers of Florida that will be on the hook, win or lose for the court costs.

  55. Social Healthcare in USA by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    And with no profiteering middlemen it actually works out cheaper.

    That's fine... when there's no profiteering middlemen. Just because it's socialism doesn't mean government agencies, bureaucrats, or contractors won't become profiteers.

    Such a system cannot work in the state the US is currently in. We've got enough graft as it is. Maybe someday when our politicians can work together for the good of the people instead of their vanity and/or pocketbooks...

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  56. What we "think" have nothing to do with facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and everything to do with our believes. It is amazing how quickly the subject of the whistle-blower firing degenerated into socialism/communism/capitalism mud slinging. History and/or facts are only of value if they support your point of view. If this is not religious approach, I don't know what is.

  57. Sounds like typical Florida State government to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He got a merit-based raise earlier in the year? Then was fired? Sounds typical.

    I was awarded the top award as the most productive employee in the State of Florida. The award came from the state and Florida Tax Watch for an online project which saved Florida (and every other state) millions per year; literally every state now uses the system. It wasn't difficult, but was a very successful project.

    So, of course, a year and a half later I was laid off.

    In Florida, state employees raise, "Slow down, you're making me look bad," to a RICO-level art-form.

    My earnest and sincere sympathies to Mr. Kruidbos. For him, laying everything out for all to see is the best approach, and what I would have done if I had to do it over again (and wanted to stay working for government).

    The layoff, coupled with being generally "too qualified," ruined my job prospects, and I now have a small web business, and live well below the poverty level. I am much, much, much, much happier, though, to not have to live with the eternally bitter power struggles of the State of Florida.

    And I can do as much good for society as I can/want to. Total win.

  58. My question. by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    My question..what are the taxpayers and voters of FL going to do about it.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  59. Serious? How long are we going to stand for this? by Nov8tr · · Score: 0

    This kind of activity is becoming the norm. Do the RIGHT thing and get fired or charged with a crime. This needs to STOP. I realize it may not do much but I do file petitions to try and stop it. (I'm on oxygen 24/7 and have multiple medical problems and a severe pinched nerve which pretty much locks me in my apt) At least I try. When are the rest of you going to do something about it? I'm poor or I'd hire this guy a attorney. He DESERVES one. His boss on the other hand needs fired AND prosecuted. I hope this man gets a attorney and sues him silly. You may ask how does this kind of thing keep going on. Because WE allow it. We stand idly by and do nothing to stop it. Yes I was one of the guilty party far too long. But I am trying now, I can't do it alone. PLEASE join me, do the right thing.

    --
    I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
  60. Re:He won't. His firing is legitimate. by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

    You allow users to store important stuff on the single machine? It cannot then be important.

  61. Median != Mean by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    Median income is not representative of what most people would consider 'average' income. Let me illustrate by example; Consider the following 15 numbers --

    1,3,2,5,4,2,4,5,7,15,7,5,3,53,74

    The average is (rounded up) 13. However, the odds of you making average are better are only 1 in 5. 4 out of 5 times, if you're given one of those random numbers, you're going to be getting a "lower than average" number. This is essentially the heart of the OWS movement, and people like you who argue about "median" income are woefully undereducated about the realities of the wealth inequity distribution problem in the United States.

    You've confused Median with Mean. The mean average in your example is 12.6 . But that's not what he was talking about. He was talking about the median. The median average in your example (aka the 50th percentile) is 5. Half the values are above 5, and half are below 5.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average
    In colloquial language average usually means the sum of a list of numbers divided by the size of the list, in other words the arithmetic mean. However, it can alternatively mean the median, the mode, or some other central or typical value.

    Now Sycraft-fu explicitly said that he was talking about median, and not "average". (I'm not about to take the time to check his numbers.) Unless you think he accidentally used mean and called it median, then you're off base here.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  62. Terrorist v. Traitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden have both been declared traitors, not terrorists. Whistleblowers are traitors - that's the party line.
    (Bradley Manning was an idiot, but he didn't set out to give aid and comfort to our enemies... he just arrived at it by incompetence.)

    Radical political activists are "terrorists"... especially if they are ultra right-wing in any way. Sheesh.

  63. Blaming the victim by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    Just a heads up. Please be careful with the term "blaming the victim". It is racially charged. In an era when "the N word" has greater power to get someone fired than a pound of [insert illicit substance], it is wise to tread carefully around such phrases. That's doubly true when discussing a so-called "race" issue like the Zimmerman trial.

    From wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blame_the_victim

    William Ryan coined the phrase "blaming the victim" in his 1971 book Blaming the Victim.[3][4][5][6][7] In the book, Ryan described victim blaming as an ideology used to justify racism and social injustice against black people in the United States.[6] Ryan wrote the book to refute Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 1965 work The Negro Family: The Case for National Action (usually simply referred to as the Moynihan Report).

    Moynihan had concluded that three centuries of horrible treatment at the hands of whites, and in particular the uniquely cruel structure of American slavery as opposed to its Latin American counterparts, had created a long series of chaotic disruptions within the black family structure which, at the time of the report, manifested itself in high rates of unwed births, absent fathers, and single mother households in black families. Moynihan then correlated these familial outcomes, which he considered undesirable, to the relatively poorer rates of employment, educational achievement, and financial success found among the black population. Moynihan advocated the implementation of government programs designed to strengthen the black nuclear family.

    Ryan objected that Moynihan then located the proximate cause of the plight of black Americans in the prevalence of a family structure in which the father was often sporadically, if at all, present, and the mother was often dependent on government aid to feed, clothe, and provide medical care for her children. Ryan's critique cast the Moynihan theories as attempts to divert responsibility for poverty from social structural factors to the behaviors and cultural patterns of the poor.[8][9]

    The phrase has since taken on a life of it's own. Sometimes it is entirely valid. Sometimes it is a very weak excuse. It does have a tendency to be used when "race relations" topics come up.

    I've not read the Moynihan Report. I don't know if he was racist or not. His point, though, laid out in summary, is spot on -- at least as one of the enduring causes of familial poverty. (And race does run in families.) Ryan's work to discredit Moynihan (as I understand it) has done incalculable damage.

    For the record, I see "broken" families where the father can participate, but chooses not to, as tragic, regardless of race. It's really not a racial issue, but a social one. There just happens to be a racial skew for historic reasons. Like domestic abuse, this too is often a learned behavior that needs to be broken by brave sons who choose to be better than their fathers.

    Sorry. End of tangent.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  64. Were the pictures "gangsta" in style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who try to be perceived as "gangsta" among their friends are more likely to instigate a violent altercation. They're also more likely to confront someone who they believe has slighted them. This doesn't mean that he did, only that he could have... but the possibility may permit reasonable doubt. It is for the jury to decide, not the prosecutor.

  65. 911 Edited by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    I don't care either way what the verdict is - but lets call a spade a spade.

    Isn't that what started all this?

    No, actually. The 911 tape seemed to show that was cut together by NBC, probably for ratings.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/nbc-fires-producer-over-edited-zimmerman-911-call-201124740.html

    "This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about." Then the dispatcher asked, "O.K., and this guy — is he white, black or Hispanic?" To which Zimmerman replied, "He looks black."

    A neighborhood watchman reported a suspicious person to dispatch. Dispatch then asked for a description... race specifically. So far, nothing especially outrageous.

    This got edited to:

    "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black."

    Which sounds quite racist, and really got a lot of people worked up.

    So, no. Whatever started this, it wasn't a [derogatory-racial-slur] being called a [gardening-tool].

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  66. He violated the trust given to him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IT is based on trust, we handle a lot of data and work to maintain walls and shields around it. This guy chose to violate that trust based on his own views. I would have fired him as well.

    The article does say the defense got the raw data files which seems like sufficient disclosure. The only thing they didn't get was his analysis of those data files. IANAL but since that was an internal analysis there may have been no need to disclose it.

  67. Lawsuit waiting to happen by intermodal · · Score: 1

    I hope the lawsuit over this gets more than a little publicity. I see a lot of zeroes coming a certain now-unemployed guy's way.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  68. Re: Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck u by unitron · · Score: 1

    There were no cuts on his knuckles.

    There was a small abrasion in the ring area between knuckles.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  69. Re:He won't. His firing is legitimate. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

    Oooh. Cool. That means we get to delete 90% of Government data?

    I'm in. Tell me where to start.

  70. Rut roo..If you do not understand these rights.. by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    His attorney Wesley White — who resigned from the State Attorney’s Office in December and is a critic of Corey — said the firing was aimed at sending a message to office employees “that if they feel like there is wrongdoing,” they should not disclose it or seek legal guidance from a private attorney.

    “If they do speak to an attorney, then they are dead,” he said. “The State Attorney’s Office will do whatever is necessary to not only terminate them, but destroy their reputations in the process.”

    OK so .If you do not understand these rights and you cannot afford one an attorney will be appointed for you.

    If you retain an attorney you will be sacked and unable to afford one....

    The attorney will be appointed by --- you guessed it.

    Kafka would be happy with this...

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.