Did you miss the part where the cop on the 911 call told Zimmerman not to follow Martin?
They say that because it's generally not safe to follow a suspicious person. If you're right, and that person is a criminal or violent type, you put yourself in danger.
If Zimmerman was following Martin than Zimmerman was the aggressor.
No. Following is not aggression. If Zimmerman is telling the truth, Martin confronted him and assaulted him. Martin was the aggressor.
Again, the video does not seem to show a broken nose. Nor have such records been released.
The broken nose has been reported. Zimmerman was also treated by paramedics at the scene, so any blood was likely cleaned up at that point.
At this point the evidence makes Zimmerman's claim plausible. But that doesn't mean he's telling the truth.
It also doesn't mean all you racist profilers should be so eager to throw the Hispanic in jail. Hispanic gets into an altercation, you automatically think he was at fault.
Show a closeup of the AR-15, then show someone interviewing a white guy, then concentrate on the issue of the AR-15 while talking about white guys with guns around a black president.
When it was a black guy with the AR-15, most carefully edited out.
My question was about how the original victim (Martin) would know that the situation had changed and that he (Martin) (the original victim) was no longer a victim.
If Zimmerman is correct, then Martin was never a victim. The victim is the person who was assaulted and forced to shoot in order to protect himself. IMHO the Martin family owes Zimmerman a bullet and a free gun cleaning as well as any counseling he may need for being forced to take a life.
That is, of course, if Zimmerman is telling the truth. If not, and he stalked and shot Martin, then throw the book at him. Stand your ground laws do not apply in such cases.
You seem focused on that yet the available evidence does not support any means for Martin to accomplish that.
Laying on your back on concrete getting your face punched tends to bang the back of your head on that concrete, especially if you're trying to raise your head when punched. He was shown in the video with a laceration to the back of his head, and he was treated for a broken nose.
If they do start robbing, then the statistical profiling will start saying to look for white males.
But to use an extreme example to explain, should we be wasting our time worrying about Asian women when all robberies in a neighborhood are committed by males, most of them black?
The PC thing is to say, no, you must stop all people randomly regardless of race or gender. This is, of course, an idiotic waste of time.
And if your friend jumped a guy he suspects is profiling the place, and ends up shooting and killing him, I'd hold your friend responsible for that person's death too.
That's how the law generally goes: If you start the altercation then you have no protection under self-defense statutes. But Zimmerman's contention is that there was no altercation until Martin assaulted him.
Shooting an unarmed person is not self defense.
So it's impossible for a person to kill another person without using a weapon?
I've seen this thinking before, especially with the two recent protest movements. When the Democrats do something wrong, it's a few bad outliers. When Republicans do something wrong, it's party policy.
When the Occupy movement trashes their locations, commits various crimes on the protest grounds, and even does racist things, it's protrayed as conservative disruptors or people "not really" part of the movement.
One person makes an off-color remark or holds a possibly racially unsensitive sign during a Tea Party protest, that's reflective of the whole movement.
He's lived here for 30 years and watched crime go up and up over that time. Every week he tells us of another house that's been broken into. In almost all instances, the house was cased prior to the robbery to determine when it would be unoccupied.
Crime is best prevented by the people knowing their neighborhood and being able to spot anything out of place. If an unknown 6'2" black guy in a hoodie walking apparently randomly at night is out of place in a neighborhood, then so be it.
Oh no, that would be profiling! Racist! Hate to break it to you, but NOT profiling according to statistically relevant criteria is plain stupid and a waste of resources.
In the heirarchy of victim classes, outrage manufactured by the media only happens when a higher victim class is attacked by a lower one. For example, anybody but a black attacks a black, it's outrage. White attacks Hispanic, outrage. Black attacks a Hispanic, no problem. Black gang beats a while kid within an inch of his life just for being white in the wrong place, no problem, no hate crime.
This also works for sexual orientation. Straights kill a gay, HUGE outrage even when their motive wasn't over the sexual orientation. Gays kill a straight, who cares?
A friend of mine is the neighborhood watch captain here and patrols regularly. He has called the police on many blacks under the same circumstances because that behavior is often associated with scoping out houses for robbery. However, he never gets out of the car. He calls and lets the police handle it.
Oh, and he's black. Do any whites he's called the police on get to claim racism?
In the beginning I thought the same. I've been through the concealed carry class, I know that if you start a confrontation you aren't protected. But if the confrontation breaks off then everything starts over.
Zimmerman follwing him, confronting him and shooting wouldn't protect him. That's what the initial story that hit the press said. That's why I was initially on Martin's side.
But Zimmerman's version is that he lost Martin, which legally ends that confrontation. Then Martin came up to him, beginning another confrontation. Martin confronted him, and proceded to physically assault him. If that is the case, then shooting Martin was clearly self defense.
Remember to ignore the "little kid" image being projected in the press. Martin was 17 years old and 6'2" tall, easily able to be a real physical threat to Zimmerman.
I'm curious. I know my basis for considering the term "bimbo" offensive, but what's yours?
Raised with respect for women. However, I do also have a sense of humor.
Also, what criteria do you propose for the returning of a donation being a moral necessity?
They demonize Rush for "slut" yet take $1 million from a guy who has called conservative women far worse on a regular basis. That makes it a moral necessity to avoid being the hypocrites they are.
If they had said nothing, or if they equally applied their outrage towards those who denigrate women, then there would be no problem.
But they don't. IMHO the reason is that they do not sincerely support women. They support their own political power, and women will receive support based on whether that support will enhance that power.
Sexism and ignorance are wrong. They are wrong regardless of the sources, be they Democrats, Republicans
Looking at the media, you'd think it was only Republicans, where prominent Democrats clearly have them beat on the level of sex-based vitriol.
Slashdot commenters who get called out, but then try to change the subject while neglecting to apologize.
True, the poster who tried to change the subject away from the Democrats' selective (and therefore not sincere) support of women has not yet apologized. Oh wait, that was you.
Where the two sides differ is that the GOP didn't come out in unified outrage and preach respect for women in the above cases.
The Democrats are the ones who are taking the supposed moral high ground here. The Republicans are merely pointing out their hypocrisy right to the top. Is Obama not representative enough for you? Why does his PAC keep Maher's dirty money? I guess respect for women has its price.
The trend is greater with conservatives, probably due to their stance on some issues with women's rights. Abortion rights, women's pay in the workplace, affirmative action, etc.
Abortion rights? Republicans want to stop abortions. Remember, half of abortions kill women. Democrats want to keep it easy to kill millions of future women each year. Which one's more for womens' rights? Affirmative action? Oh yeah, let's have everybody at the office look at all the women and get to rightfully think "She only got the job because she's female." Way to be pro-woman there. Equal pay? We're going to start from a federal level dictating the pay of each employee in the country? That sounds familiar...
And by no stretch of the imagination can you make Rush Limbaugh "look downright benign".
You haven't listened to Bill Maher much, have you? The guy's whole act is shock, only his targets are conservatives and religious, so he gets a pass.
Of course the difference is Bill Maher is funny, and Rush Limbaugh isn't. Yes, I admit, I'm a Maher fan, been so for a long time even though I don't always agree with him. But this shock stuff is his job, just like Rush. If you don't like it, don't listen to it.
The problem is not really in him or Rush, but in how the Democrat/liberal establishment shows its hypocrisy when dealing with them. The supposedly pro-woman party all high and mighty about words directed towards women by conservatives is willing to let any level of vile rhetoric towards a woman slide as long as its suits them.
#1: Santorum is talking about mankind, not just Christians. It's a very old saying.
#2: Like most Muslims, the Ayatollah believes in complete freedom -- as long as it follows Islam. For example, this means freedom of speech, as long as you don't say anything against Islam. It means democracy, as long as your choice is limited to those approved by the Muslim leadership. IMHO, it's not freedom or democracy.
#3: Ties into the above, they do not tolerate the existence of that which is unacceptable to them. Remember, they "don't have homosexuals in Iran." Because they execute them.
#4: Quite true. Rather than say it's right for a woman to choose her path, radical feminism says the choice to be a wife and mother is wrong. I find that wrong.
#5: In a sense, yes, two religions fighting for dominancy. Only one of them believes in the bloody eradication of the other -- Islam.
#6: The "people" are Muslims. Everybody else is an enemy. They will be destroyed or subjugated.
#7: I don't understand this one, don't really care.
#8: Yes, the leadership has been hammering hatred of the Great Satan into the people for three decades.
How did I do? I got every single one of them right.
I also dislike both Santorum and the Ayatollah for their religious fundamentalism. I'd actually vote for Obama over Santorum, and that's saying a LOT. However, I'm smart enough to realize the huge difference between what it means for either to be in power. Santorum might try to make it illegal for a single girl to get an abortion, while the Ayatollah would have the girl executed for having extramarital sex in the first place.
Now onto the subject, the vile rhetoric directed towards conservative women by liberals that does not provoke an outcry about how these liberal woman-bashers are anti-woman. Not only are they not calling for a boycott of Bill Maher, they are gladly accepting his political donations.
But as for the testimony, are you honestly expecting me to believe that most students attending law school are taking birth control for reasons other than preventing pregnancy? She's picking out the few to distract from the majority.
I loved this one, "... conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school" and her response, "We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally."
She's properly labeled as a fucking idiot, not a slut. I have no relation to anything Catholic, and even I expect that the school wouldn't willingly pay for something that is firmly against their religion. Yes, this isn't fair to women. Hey, welcome to Catholicism! Note, most of the world's major religions aren't fair to women. That's why our secular state is such a good idea.
Maybe they should choose a non-Catholic school if they have problems with the tenets of Catholicism instead of joining the school and bitching about it.
A liberal woman receives full support. Rush Limbaugh called a 30 year-old law student a slut because she wanted her insurance to pay for her birth control -- which she is probably on so she can fuck around and not get pregnant. I don't agree with the term "slut" in any case, but here at least it was in context.
Compare to the left's treatment of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann (for the record, I like neither of them). Downright vile content is constantly spewed at their mere mention.
Bill Maher has called Palin a "dumb twat" and "cunt." He called Palin and Bachmann "two bimbos"
Laura Ingraham gets called a "right wing slut" by Ed Schultz, and he called Palin a "bimbo."
Keith Olbermann called Michelle Malkin a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick."
That's just a small sampling.
And they even go after their own when that woman is out of favor. Hillary Clinton received some pretty sexist remarks for challenging Obama for the nomination.
Where's the outrage? It won't be there among the left. They don't have principles when it comes to women. Respect for women is conditional upon whether they agree with that woman politically. If they don't, they make Limbaugh's comment look downright benign.
Democrats promote abortion, homosexuality, equality of women, and tolerance of all religions. These are anathema to Islam.
I have a pretty much non-practicing, but fairly conservative, Muslim in the family, and he still can't figure out how all his Muslim friends can vote Democrat. He's given up talking with them on the subject.
Maybe they figure they have a better chance of taking over and imposing Shariah if the Democrats are in charge, promoting the weaker enemy, or basically making them "useful idiots" since the Democrats seem to embrace anything Muslims do in this country. It's kind of how the Soviet government was campaigning hard for Mondale to win in 1984 -- they knew he would be the softer opponent.
There's nothing easier. And if you remember that the goal isn't to make backups, but to have successful restores, there's nothing that works better and easier in restoring a desktop or laptop.
Net App snap mirror plus tape backup for servers at work. Time Machine useless there.
Slashdot Mirror
They say that because it's generally not safe to follow a suspicious person. If you're right, and that person is a criminal or violent type, you put yourself in danger.
No. Following is not aggression. If Zimmerman is telling the truth, Martin confronted him and assaulted him. Martin was the aggressor.
The broken nose has been reported. Zimmerman was also treated by paramedics at the scene, so any blood was likely cleaned up at that point.
At this point the evidence makes Zimmerman's claim plausible. But that doesn't mean he's telling the truth.
It also doesn't mean all you racist profilers should be so eager to throw the Hispanic in jail. Hispanic gets into an altercation, you automatically think he was at fault.
Show a closeup of the AR-15, then show someone interviewing a white guy, then concentrate on the issue of the AR-15 while talking about white guys with guns around a black president.
When it was a black guy with the AR-15, most carefully edited out.
If Zimmerman is correct, then Martin was never a victim. The victim is the person who was assaulted and forced to shoot in order to protect himself. IMHO the Martin family owes Zimmerman a bullet and a free gun cleaning as well as any counseling he may need for being forced to take a life.
That is, of course, if Zimmerman is telling the truth. If not, and he stalked and shot Martin, then throw the book at him. Stand your ground laws do not apply in such cases.
Laying on your back on concrete getting your face punched tends to bang the back of your head on that concrete, especially if you're trying to raise your head when punched. He was shown in the video with a laceration to the back of his head, and he was treated for a broken nose.
If they do start robbing, then the statistical profiling will start saying to look for white males.
But to use an extreme example to explain, should we be wasting our time worrying about Asian women when all robberies in a neighborhood are committed by males, most of them black?
The PC thing is to say, no, you must stop all people randomly regardless of race or gender. This is, of course, an idiotic waste of time.
That's how the law generally goes: If you start the altercation then you have no protection under self-defense statutes. But Zimmerman's contention is that there was no altercation until Martin assaulted him.
So it's impossible for a person to kill another person without using a weapon?
From Zimmerman's stated point of view:
He sees some guy, follows a bit, and breaks off contact
On the way back to his truck, that guy confronts him, hits him, knocks him to the ground and begins pounding his head against the concrete.
Shooting Martin is then clearly self defense. This is of course if Zimmerman's side of the story is true.
Sounds like a big threat when he's banging your head against the concrete.
I've seen this thinking before, especially with the two recent protest movements. When the Democrats do something wrong, it's a few bad outliers. When Republicans do something wrong, it's party policy.
When the Occupy movement trashes their locations, commits various crimes on the protest grounds, and even does racist things, it's protrayed as conservative disruptors or people "not really" part of the movement.
One person makes an off-color remark or holds a possibly racially unsensitive sign during a Tea Party protest, that's reflective of the whole movement.
He's lived here for 30 years and watched crime go up and up over that time. Every week he tells us of another house that's been broken into. In almost all instances, the house was cased prior to the robbery to determine when it would be unoccupied.
Crime is best prevented by the people knowing their neighborhood and being able to spot anything out of place. If an unknown 6'2" black guy in a hoodie walking apparently randomly at night is out of place in a neighborhood, then so be it.
Oh no, that would be profiling! Racist! Hate to break it to you, but NOT profiling according to statistically relevant criteria is plain stupid and a waste of resources.
It disproves statements like this very quickly.
In the heirarchy of victim classes, outrage manufactured by the media only happens when a higher victim class is attacked by a lower one. For example, anybody but a black attacks a black, it's outrage. White attacks Hispanic, outrage. Black attacks a Hispanic, no problem. Black gang beats a while kid within an inch of his life just for being white in the wrong place, no problem, no hate crime.
This also works for sexual orientation. Straights kill a gay, HUGE outrage even when their motive wasn't over the sexual orientation. Gays kill a straight, who cares?
A friend of mine is the neighborhood watch captain here and patrols regularly. He has called the police on many blacks under the same circumstances because that behavior is often associated with scoping out houses for robbery. However, he never gets out of the car. He calls and lets the police handle it.
Oh, and he's black. Do any whites he's called the police on get to claim racism?
In the beginning I thought the same. I've been through the concealed carry class, I know that if you start a confrontation you aren't protected. But if the confrontation breaks off then everything starts over.
Zimmerman follwing him, confronting him and shooting wouldn't protect him. That's what the initial story that hit the press said. That's why I was initially on Martin's side.
But Zimmerman's version is that he lost Martin, which legally ends that confrontation. Then Martin came up to him, beginning another confrontation. Martin confronted him, and proceded to physically assault him. If that is the case, then shooting Martin was clearly self defense.
Remember to ignore the "little kid" image being projected in the press. Martin was 17 years old and 6'2" tall, easily able to be a real physical threat to Zimmerman.
Raised with respect for women. However, I do also have a sense of humor.
They demonize Rush for "slut" yet take $1 million from a guy who has called conservative women far worse on a regular basis. That makes it a moral necessity to avoid being the hypocrites they are.
If they had said nothing, or if they equally applied their outrage towards those who denigrate women, then there would be no problem.
But they don't. IMHO the reason is that they do not sincerely support women. They support their own political power, and women will receive support based on whether that support will enhance that power.
Looking at the media, you'd think it was only Republicans, where prominent Democrats clearly have them beat on the level of sex-based vitriol.
True, the poster who tried to change the subject away from the Democrats' selective (and therefore not sincere) support of women has not yet apologized. Oh wait, that was you.
The Democrats are the ones who are taking the supposed moral high ground here. The Republicans are merely pointing out their hypocrisy right to the top. Is Obama not representative enough for you? Why does his PAC keep Maher's dirty money? I guess respect for women has its price.
Abortion rights? Republicans want to stop abortions. Remember, half of abortions kill women. Democrats want to keep it easy to kill millions of future women each year. Which one's more for womens' rights? Affirmative action? Oh yeah, let's have everybody at the office look at all the women and get to rightfully think "She only got the job because she's female." Way to be pro-woman there. Equal pay? We're going to start from a federal level dictating the pay of each employee in the country? That sounds familiar...
You haven't listened to Bill Maher much, have you? The guy's whole act is shock, only his targets are conservatives and religious, so he gets a pass.
Of course the difference is Bill Maher is funny, and Rush Limbaugh isn't. Yes, I admit, I'm a Maher fan, been so for a long time even though I don't always agree with him. But this shock stuff is his job, just like Rush. If you don't like it, don't listen to it.
The problem is not really in him or Rush, but in how the Democrat/liberal establishment shows its hypocrisy when dealing with them. The supposedly pro-woman party all high and mighty about words directed towards women by conservatives is willing to let any level of vile rhetoric towards a woman slide as long as its suits them.
Jimmy Carter!
Oh my has he been able to change his image.
#1: Santorum is talking about mankind, not just Christians. It's a very old saying.
#2: Like most Muslims, the Ayatollah believes in complete freedom -- as long as it follows Islam. For example, this means freedom of speech, as long as you don't say anything against Islam. It means democracy, as long as your choice is limited to those approved by the Muslim leadership. IMHO, it's not freedom or democracy.
#3: Ties into the above, they do not tolerate the existence of that which is unacceptable to them. Remember, they "don't have homosexuals in Iran." Because they execute them.
#4: Quite true. Rather than say it's right for a woman to choose her path, radical feminism says the choice to be a wife and mother is wrong. I find that wrong.
#5: In a sense, yes, two religions fighting for dominancy. Only one of them believes in the bloody eradication of the other -- Islam.
#6: The "people" are Muslims. Everybody else is an enemy. They will be destroyed or subjugated.
#7: I don't understand this one, don't really care.
#8: Yes, the leadership has been hammering hatred of the Great Satan into the people for three decades.
How did I do? I got every single one of them right.
I also dislike both Santorum and the Ayatollah for their religious fundamentalism. I'd actually vote for Obama over Santorum, and that's saying a LOT. However, I'm smart enough to realize the huge difference between what it means for either to be in power. Santorum might try to make it illegal for a single girl to get an abortion, while the Ayatollah would have the girl executed for having extramarital sex in the first place.
Now onto the subject, the vile rhetoric directed towards conservative women by liberals that does not provoke an outcry about how these liberal woman-bashers are anti-woman. Not only are they not calling for a boycott of Bill Maher, they are gladly accepting his political donations.
But as for the testimony, are you honestly expecting me to believe that most students attending law school are taking birth control for reasons other than preventing pregnancy? She's picking out the few to distract from the majority.
I loved this one, "... conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what
did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school" and her response, "We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally."
She's properly labeled as a fucking idiot, not a slut. I have no relation to anything Catholic, and even I expect that the school wouldn't willingly pay for something that is firmly against their religion. Yes, this isn't fair to women. Hey, welcome to Catholicism! Note, most of the world's major religions aren't fair to women. That's why our secular state is such a good idea.
Maybe they should choose a non-Catholic school if they have problems with the tenets of Catholicism instead of joining the school and bitching about it.
A liberal woman receives full support. Rush Limbaugh called a 30 year-old law student a slut because she wanted her insurance to pay for her birth control -- which she is probably on so she can fuck around and not get pregnant. I don't agree with the term "slut" in any case, but here at least it was in context.
Compare to the left's treatment of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann (for the record, I like neither of them). Downright vile content is constantly spewed at their mere mention.
That's just a small sampling.
And they even go after their own when that woman is out of favor. Hillary Clinton received some pretty sexist remarks for challenging Obama for the nomination.
Where's the outrage? It won't be there among the left. They don't have principles when it comes to women. Respect for women is conditional upon whether they agree with that woman politically. If they don't, they make Limbaugh's comment look downright benign.
Democrats promote abortion, homosexuality, equality of women, and tolerance of all religions. These are anathema to Islam.
I have a pretty much non-practicing, but fairly conservative, Muslim in the family, and he still can't figure out how all his Muslim friends can vote Democrat. He's given up talking with them on the subject.
Maybe they figure they have a better chance of taking over and imposing Shariah if the Democrats are in charge, promoting the weaker enemy, or basically making them "useful idiots" since the Democrats seem to embrace anything Muslims do in this country. It's kind of how the Soviet government was campaigning hard for Mondale to win in 1984 -- they knew he would be the softer opponent.
There's nothing easier. And if you remember that the goal isn't to make backups, but to have successful restores, there's nothing that works better and easier in restoring a desktop or laptop.
Net App snap mirror plus tape backup for servers at work. Time Machine useless there.
But I'm not allowed to ask about religious beliefs?
Or I'm looking to hire a Planned Parenthood exec, but it's "iffy" asking if a prospective employee is a member of Operation Rescue?
But we can't ask about weight, race, sexual orientation or age.
Huh?
If he coughs up the password, definitely do not hire him.
'nuff said