That's really, really weak 'evidence'. It could be a spot fro resting his head in the car.
If his head was being slammed into the ground, it would be a lot worse.
And why would the teen be calling for help if he was attacking?
Do you know what type of surface the "ground" was? The police account of Zimmerman's back being wet and having grass on it suggests that it was a lawn. This time of year, lawns are often somewhat soft (especially when it has been raining, which is the case here). Second, all of the witness testimony says that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and that it was Zimmerman who was calling for help.
Except for the part where the police told Zimmerman to observe and not interfere.
First of all, it was not the police but the 911 dispatcher. Second, the 911 dispatcher did not tell Zimmerman to "observe and not interfere". The 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman that they did not need him to follow Martin. At which point Zimmerman said, "OK" and claims that he headed back to his vehicle. Zimmerman claims that he was walking back to his vehicle when Martin approached him from the rear and asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman claims that Marin then punched him in the nose, knocking Zimmerman to the ground and jumping on top of him and slamming his head into the ground. Zimmerman's story may be a lie, but it is consistent with other evidence that has been released (police examination of Zimmerman at the scene and other witnesses). One key fact that I have not seen reported is how from from Zimmerman's vehicle Martin's body was when it was found (if it was close to Zimmerman's vehicle, it suggests that Zimmerman's story is true. The further it was from Zimmerman's vehicle, the less likely that his story is true).
Another interesting fact is that in 2011, Zimmerman was publicly calling for two of the officers who arrived at the Martin shooting scene to be disciplined over a case from 2010.
I still haven't heard any argument that the suspect THREATENED any person (protecting property does not count as self defense) PRIOR to Zimmerman confronting him...
Except that we do not have any testimony that Zimmerman ever confronted Martin. We have Zimmerman's testimony that Martin confronted him.
Except that the current evidence is that Zimmerman didn't "grab his gun", he was carrying it to begin with. He did not "chase down a random stranger who was just walking down the street". He followed a stranger randomly wandering down the street, in the rain, at an early morning hour, in a gated community that had had a rash of burglaries and at least one home invasion in the recent past (a community where Zimmerman knew most of the residents, but did not know this person). This is where it becomes speculation and/or ambiguous. Zimmerman claims that after the 911 dispatcher told him that they did not need him to follow Martin he returned to his vehicle to await the arrival of the police and that Martin confronted and then attacked him as he got back to his vehicle. There are witness accounts that support Zimmerman's account. However, I have not seen any reports on where Zimmerman was in relation to his vehicle when the police did arrive on the scene. That is the key question. If Zimmerman returned to his truck and Martin followed him there and attacked him, the nature of the situation is completely different than if Zimmerman was following Martin and Martin turned on him attacked him (Martin possibly thinking that he was in danger). I do not have enough information to know which scenario more closely fits the facts (although I am inclined to lean toward believing the former considering the extent to which various news organizations distorted the facts from the beginning. If the story could readily be made to look bad for Zimmerman from the actual facts, why distort the facts to make him look bad?).
He was responding to a specific question from the 911 dispatcher that asked (as the summary points out) "Is he black, white or Hispanic?" to which Zimmerman answered, "He looks black." Note, he did not say, "He is black". He said "He looks black. " And he did not volunteer the information that the guy looked black, he only said it in response to a direct question from the dispatcher.
The thing about that is that what you are describing is the nature of government. The Framers of the Constitution recognized that government is necessary, but it will expand its power until it is abusive unless it is very carefully checked and its power is highly circumscribed. Unfortunately, there has been a political movement in this country that sees all the "good" that the government could do if only its power was not limited and has been working for well over a century to expand the government's power incrementally (this is not a conspiracy, these people have worked openly to accomplish their goals). The saddest part, is that some of the people who have worked to expand the government's power are also some of the loudest complaints about government abuse of power.
Well, according to current law, if you purchase on item in a different state for use in your home state, you are required to pay the difference between the amount of sales tax in that state and that of your home state. For example, if you purchased an item in a neighboring state that charges 5% sales tax and took it home to use and your home state's sales tax is 6%, you are supposed to register to pay that full 6% and take the 5% you paid as a credit, thus ending up paying 1% to your home state.
The fact that few people actually do this, does not in any way obligate a company that does not have an actual presence in your state to collect sales tax. Personally, I think that sales tax as currently written is a bad law since it has many hidden costs that are paid by the businesses it makes into unpaid tax collectors for the state.
You missed his whole point. Corporations, such as the one that owns Olive Garden, would have no problem with this regulation. They cook everything at the corporate kitchen with precisely measured ingredients. It is the little independent restaurant run by a man and his wife where they cook each dish up individually that would be killed by this. The big chain restaurants would love this as it would raise the cost for the independent restaurants more than it would for the chains.
Even if you are right, the Occupy protests will only represent the follow on to the Tea Party protests. Personally, I believe that the purpose of the Occupy protests is to drain some of the anger and frustration so that it does not become harnessed by the Tea Party movement to accomplish actual change.
I worked for a company that did laboratory testing. They explored e-sigs. Their conclusion was that establishing a system of e-signatures that met legal requirements would involve either expensive software or computer savvy that was beyond the scientists working there (in particular, that of the scientists who were the owners and making the decision). If scientists who own their own company (and had trained IT people advising them) considered e-sigs to be beyond their computer savvy, do you really think they are an acceptable solution for the average parent?
So, you would like to see Washington, DC's schools replicated through the entire country? The Washington, DC school district spends among the highest amount per student of any school district in the country, yet manages to have among the worst educational outcomes in the country. Perhaps that might suggest that the problem rests somewhere other than in how much money we spend on education?
The population of Canada is 1/10th that of the U.S.. As a result the U.S. has much greater diversity of life style choices that effect life expectancy and of genetic background.
If you look at the opinions of major political figures of the time, it is clear that they viewed a telephone monopoly as a good thing. Their only objection was when AT&T took over telegraph as well.
From Wikipedia, "As a result of a combination of regulatory actions by government and actions by AT&T, the firm eventually gained what most regard as monopoly status."
Those were not regulators. Those were lawyers and judges. Breaking up monopolies is not a matter of regulations, but of laws. Of course Ma Bell only had the monopoly that you credit government intervention with eliminating because of government intervention in the first place.
The interesting thing is that before 1965 health care costs rose, on average, at the same rate as inflation. Since 1965 health care costs have steadily risen at an ever faster rate. Do you know what changed in 1965?
That is when Medicare and Medicaid went into effect. The way to solve the problem with health care costs is to eliminate the tax break for employer provided health insurance and to simplify the way that Health Savings Accounts work. This would cause people to gradually shift from the current health "insurance" model (which is not really insurance at all) to Health Savings Accounts and major medical. This would make people more aware of how they spend their health care dollars and thus actually allow the free market to apply to health care (which it has not in the U.S. since the early 70s, at the latest). I would, also, recommend some changes to the way Health Savings Accounts work, but that should wait until after the change in the tax code on employer provided health insurance.
Actually, a more significant factor in the U.S. lower life expectancy is violent crime. When deaths from violent crime are factored out, the difference in life expectancy disappears.
There are two reasons. The first is that improvements in life expectancy have long been used to show how much modern medicine has improved our lives. The second is because numbers that actually reflect the quality of healthcare (such as long term prognosis after being diagnosed with cancer) do not support the argument that government should pay for everyone's healthcare.
That all depends on your definition of Capitalist. I would define a Capitalist as someone who favors a free market. Warren Buffett favors government regulation of the market (so as to favor his investments). You on the other hand appear to define a Capitalist as someone who has made money off of the investment of capital (which is a perfectly fine definition, but not the one most people think of when they hear the term).
Slashdot Mirror
That's really, really weak 'evidence'. It could be a spot fro resting his head in the car.
If his head was being slammed into the ground, it would be a lot worse. And why would the teen be calling for help if he was attacking?
Do you know what type of surface the "ground" was? The police account of Zimmerman's back being wet and having grass on it suggests that it was a lawn. This time of year, lawns are often somewhat soft (especially when it has been raining, which is the case here). Second, all of the witness testimony says that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and that it was Zimmerman who was calling for help.
Yes, the area was a gated community. It, also, had had a rash of burglaries and at least one home invasion in the previous year.
Except for the part where the police told Zimmerman to observe and not interfere.
First of all, it was not the police but the 911 dispatcher. Second, the 911 dispatcher did not tell Zimmerman to "observe and not interfere". The 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman that they did not need him to follow Martin. At which point Zimmerman said, "OK" and claims that he headed back to his vehicle. Zimmerman claims that he was walking back to his vehicle when Martin approached him from the rear and asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman claims that Marin then punched him in the nose, knocking Zimmerman to the ground and jumping on top of him and slamming his head into the ground. Zimmerman's story may be a lie, but it is consistent with other evidence that has been released (police examination of Zimmerman at the scene and other witnesses). One key fact that I have not seen reported is how from from Zimmerman's vehicle Martin's body was when it was found (if it was close to Zimmerman's vehicle, it suggests that Zimmerman's story is true. The further it was from Zimmerman's vehicle, the less likely that his story is true).
Another interesting fact is that in 2011, Zimmerman was publicly calling for two of the officers who arrived at the Martin shooting scene to be disciplined over a case from 2010.
I still haven't heard any argument that the suspect THREATENED any person (protecting property does not count as self defense) PRIOR to Zimmerman confronting him...
Except that we do not have any testimony that Zimmerman ever confronted Martin. We have Zimmerman's testimony that Martin confronted him.
Except that the current evidence is that Zimmerman didn't "grab his gun", he was carrying it to begin with. He did not "chase down a random stranger who was just walking down the street". He followed a stranger randomly wandering down the street, in the rain, at an early morning hour, in a gated community that had had a rash of burglaries and at least one home invasion in the recent past (a community where Zimmerman knew most of the residents, but did not know this person). This is where it becomes speculation and/or ambiguous. Zimmerman claims that after the 911 dispatcher told him that they did not need him to follow Martin he returned to his vehicle to await the arrival of the police and that Martin confronted and then attacked him as he got back to his vehicle. There are witness accounts that support Zimmerman's account. However, I have not seen any reports on where Zimmerman was in relation to his vehicle when the police did arrive on the scene. That is the key question. If Zimmerman returned to his truck and Martin followed him there and attacked him, the nature of the situation is completely different than if Zimmerman was following Martin and Martin turned on him attacked him (Martin possibly thinking that he was in danger). I do not have enough information to know which scenario more closely fits the facts (although I am inclined to lean toward believing the former considering the extent to which various news organizations distorted the facts from the beginning. If the story could readily be made to look bad for Zimmerman from the actual facts, why distort the facts to make him look bad?).
He was responding to a specific question from the 911 dispatcher that asked (as the summary points out) "Is he black, white or Hispanic?" to which Zimmerman answered, "He looks black." Note, he did not say, "He is black". He said "He looks black. " And he did not volunteer the information that the guy looked black, he only said it in response to a direct question from the dispatcher.
The thing about that is that what you are describing is the nature of government. The Framers of the Constitution recognized that government is necessary, but it will expand its power until it is abusive unless it is very carefully checked and its power is highly circumscribed. Unfortunately, there has been a political movement in this country that sees all the "good" that the government could do if only its power was not limited and has been working for well over a century to expand the government's power incrementally (this is not a conspiracy, these people have worked openly to accomplish their goals). The saddest part, is that some of the people who have worked to expand the government's power are also some of the loudest complaints about government abuse of power.
Well, according to current law, if you purchase on item in a different state for use in your home state, you are required to pay the difference between the amount of sales tax in that state and that of your home state. For example, if you purchased an item in a neighboring state that charges 5% sales tax and took it home to use and your home state's sales tax is 6%, you are supposed to register to pay that full 6% and take the 5% you paid as a credit, thus ending up paying 1% to your home state.
The fact that few people actually do this, does not in any way obligate a company that does not have an actual presence in your state to collect sales tax. Personally, I think that sales tax as currently written is a bad law since it has many hidden costs that are paid by the businesses it makes into unpaid tax collectors for the state.
You missed his whole point. Corporations, such as the one that owns Olive Garden, would have no problem with this regulation. They cook everything at the corporate kitchen with precisely measured ingredients. It is the little independent restaurant run by a man and his wife where they cook each dish up individually that would be killed by this. The big chain restaurants would love this as it would raise the cost for the independent restaurants more than it would for the chains.
Even if you are right, the Occupy protests will only represent the follow on to the Tea Party protests. Personally, I believe that the purpose of the Occupy protests is to drain some of the anger and frustration so that it does not become harnessed by the Tea Party movement to accomplish actual change.
I worked for a company that did laboratory testing. They explored e-sigs. Their conclusion was that establishing a system of e-signatures that met legal requirements would involve either expensive software or computer savvy that was beyond the scientists working there (in particular, that of the scientists who were the owners and making the decision). If scientists who own their own company (and had trained IT people advising them) considered e-sigs to be beyond their computer savvy, do you really think they are an acceptable solution for the average parent?
So, you would like to see Washington, DC's schools replicated through the entire country? The Washington, DC school district spends among the highest amount per student of any school district in the country, yet manages to have among the worst educational outcomes in the country. Perhaps that might suggest that the problem rests somewhere other than in how much money we spend on education?
The population of Canada is 1/10th that of the U.S.. As a result the U.S. has much greater diversity of life style choices that effect life expectancy and of genetic background.
If you look at the opinions of major political figures of the time, it is clear that they viewed a telephone monopoly as a good thing. Their only objection was when AT&T took over telegraph as well.
From Wikipedia, "As a result of a combination of regulatory actions by government and actions by AT&T, the firm eventually gained what most regard as monopoly status."
A monopoly that was created by government regulation.
AT&T only had its monopoly because of government action in the first place.
A monopoly that was created by government regulators in the first place.
I specifically did not claim that Canada was homogenous, merely that is was less heterogeneous than the U.S..
Those were not regulators. Those were lawyers and judges. Breaking up monopolies is not a matter of regulations, but of laws. Of course Ma Bell only had the monopoly that you credit government intervention with eliminating because of government intervention in the first place.
Can you name a time when regulators actually encouraged competition?
The interesting thing is that before 1965 health care costs rose, on average, at the same rate as inflation. Since 1965 health care costs have steadily risen at an ever faster rate. Do you know what changed in 1965?
That is when Medicare and Medicaid went into effect. The way to solve the problem with health care costs is to eliminate the tax break for employer provided health insurance and to simplify the way that Health Savings Accounts work. This would cause people to gradually shift from the current health "insurance" model (which is not really insurance at all) to Health Savings Accounts and major medical. This would make people more aware of how they spend their health care dollars and thus actually allow the free market to apply to health care (which it has not in the U.S. since the early 70s, at the latest). I would, also, recommend some changes to the way Health Savings Accounts work, but that should wait until after the change in the tax code on employer provided health insurance.
Actually, a more significant factor in the U.S. lower life expectancy is violent crime. When deaths from violent crime are factored out, the difference in life expectancy disappears.
Except that Canada's population is much smaller than that of the U.S. and is not nearly as heterogeneous that of the U.S..
There are two reasons. The first is that improvements in life expectancy have long been used to show how much modern medicine has improved our lives. The second is because numbers that actually reflect the quality of healthcare (such as long term prognosis after being diagnosed with cancer) do not support the argument that government should pay for everyone's healthcare.
That all depends on your definition of Capitalist. I would define a Capitalist as someone who favors a free market. Warren Buffett favors government regulation of the market (so as to favor his investments). You on the other hand appear to define a Capitalist as someone who has made money off of the investment of capital (which is a perfectly fine definition, but not the one most people think of when they hear the term).