According to a 2004 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, looking at the period from 1981 to 1999, the United States had a lower surveyed residential burglary rate in 1998 than Scotland, England, Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia. The other two countries included in the study, Sweden and Switzerland, had only slightly lower burglary rates.
You also need to take into consideration that gun deaths are counted as "gun deaths" even if someone shoots someone in justifiable self defense, and they also count every gun suicide as a gun death. Cars kill 2X more in america in absolute numbers, and that "2X" would probably be more like "4X" or "5X" if they didn't count suicides and justifiable homicide (which are on a drastic increase in places like Detroit where the police simply do not come anymore, but one also has to remember, that the police have no duty to come when you call 911. Legal precedent has been set - YOu can call them saying you're being murdered, and if they simply decide not to come, it's no liability off their back. Precedent already set.).
Someone wanting to kill someone (1st degree) will be able to plan a weapon regardless of what is available. Gun really only makes a diff in 2nd degree cases, and probably saves more lives than they kill according to a democrat-sponsored justice department study run by the Clinton administration (which was hoping for opposite results, and shelved the study when it found 1.5 million crimes were thwarted by guns every year).
Uh no, we're not allowed to drive drunk because driving is a privilege, not a right. at the same time, we have the right not to be forced to submit to medical procedures we don't agree with. The equivocation you made is either dishonest or myopic.
the article stated some people can't get vaccinations for medical reasons. as for herd immunity, more gun ownership equals less burglaries (burglary rate is CRAZY in UK where there are way fewer guns), so maybe we should force everyone to have a gun! What? It's not the government's duty to force people to protect each other at the expense of perceived harm? It's not the government's duty to tell us what to do with our bodies, either. That's the whole point of Roe V. Wade.
I think the jury will have the option to convict on a lesser crime, at least that's how it worked when my friend was shot. This is like asking for $60K/yr because you want to make $50K/yr.
There is prior evidence that he was predisposed to think black people suspicious, in the 47 pages of 911 calls he made over the year(s) prior to shooting Marton, many of the calls were simply, "Someone is here. And he's black!." The real hate crime was committed by the police, not Zimmerman. I mean, altering the police report with a 2nd draft to say he had injuries? But then the paramedics didn't take him in, and there's not a drop on his shirt when the cops took him in afterward. Will be interesting when those paramedics go to witness stand.
Then you must have low reading comprehension or an unwillingness to look things up. This is something I understood as a 7 year old, so you're just going to have to figure it out yourself.
Let me explain how the news works, XPeter. When things work normal, it's not news. When things work abnormal, it's news. Plane crashes is typically {there's exceptions to everything I will say, but they are just that: exceptions} news. Plane lands is not. Cop arrests person and beats the hell out of them is news. Cop arrests person peacefully is not. Man bites dog is news. Dog bites man is not.
There's 43 murders every day. Do you recall reading 43 stories? No. When things go normal, they are not national stories.
So anyway, since you don't seem to have figured it out, the difference in the two cases is the police response. And that is the racial issue! When the situations are reversed, a black will be charged right away. A white will not always be. (Google Brandon Gotwalt. Almost the same situation, no charge. Now google Daniel Adkins. Big difference.)
The black kids who set the white kid on fire were found right away and charged. Things are working as they should be. There are 100s of hate crimes every year, and only the most egregious situations make national news. What was egregious here was the government not applying the law evenly, and not even charging the guy. It's basically the same thing (not charging) that happened with the Danziger cops in New Orleans during Katrina: Kill a minority, no charge. Plus the cops do it all the time too -- but that's so [sadly] normal it doesn't rise to to the same volume as the Zimmerman case.
You need to read up on what first degree murder is. There's 0 way it applies here. This is the correct charge. I was expecting voluntary manslaughter myself, so yay.
Seeing as they've found people who haven't heard of cases for every trial ever (yes, including OJ, Casey Anthony, and all the rest), it's not going to affect the fairness of the trial. It's just going to extend the jury selection process. That is why that process exists in the first place. "Have you heard of the case? Yes? You're dismissed."
Unless people perjure themselves, that is. Which is a dick move with the exception of being a fully informed juror.
Arsenic is a poison. Without arsenic you wouldn't be reading this; we need it to live. While you are correct in your assessment of GP, the logic that you used is far, far, far from bulletproof.
Part of my point all along is having to wait until you are cornered.. is wrong.
It also sounds like Trayvon may have left and then came back. I DON'T KNOW. But if he did, then Zimmerman should get off. Once the altercation ends, you don't get to start it up again. Zimmerman could have been 100% in the wrong, but if Trayvon left and came back, Trayvon is now 100% in the wrong (in terms of self-defense/murder). I have a feeling the lawyers are going to be splitting hairs about what constitutes ending an altercation. Hopefully the witnesses have some say.
Slashdot Mirror
By your own definition, you would actually be innocent by reason of insanity.
You also need to take into consideration that gun deaths are counted as "gun deaths" even if someone shoots someone in justifiable self defense, and they also count every gun suicide as a gun death. Cars kill 2X more in america in absolute numbers, and that "2X" would probably be more like "4X" or "5X" if they didn't count suicides and justifiable homicide (which are on a drastic increase in places like Detroit where the police simply do not come anymore, but one also has to remember, that the police have no duty to come when you call 911. Legal precedent has been set - YOu can call them saying you're being murdered, and if they simply decide not to come, it's no liability off their back. Precedent already set.).
Someone wanting to kill someone (1st degree) will be able to plan a weapon regardless of what is available. Gun really only makes a diff in 2nd degree cases, and probably saves more lives than they kill according to a democrat-sponsored justice department study run by the Clinton administration (which was hoping for opposite results, and shelved the study when it found 1.5 million crimes were thwarted by guns every year).
I advise you to google around some.
Quoting a law from hundreds of years ago is very dishonest. Marking you as enemy to not see any future posts of yours.
But they can't be, because it will never be 100%. Some for medical reasons, and some people like me, who grew up when nobody was vaccinated for that.
Uh no, we're not allowed to drive drunk because driving is a privilege, not a right. at the same time, we have the right not to be forced to submit to medical procedures we don't agree with. The equivocation you made is either dishonest or myopic.
the article stated some people can't get vaccinations for medical reasons. as for herd immunity, more gun ownership equals less burglaries (burglary rate is CRAZY in UK where there are way fewer guns), so maybe we should force everyone to have a gun! What? It's not the government's duty to force people to protect each other at the expense of perceived harm? It's not the government's duty to tell us what to do with our bodies, either. That's the whole point of Roe V. Wade.
but 14% had been vaccinated, so risking autism, whether real or not, is no guarantee to not get whooping cough.
Your points are all valid!
Wow. You're a fucking puppet.
I'm thinking any case this public is going to have more exclusions allowed than usual.
I think the jury will have the option to convict on a lesser crime, at least that's how it worked when my friend was shot. This is like asking for $60K/yr because you want to make $50K/yr.
I hope you have warned your children about moose attacks.
There is prior evidence that he was predisposed to think black people suspicious, in the 47 pages of 911 calls he made over the year(s) prior to shooting Marton, many of the calls were simply, "Someone is here. And he's black!." The real hate crime was committed by the police, not Zimmerman. I mean, altering the police report with a 2nd draft to say he had injuries? But then the paramedics didn't take him in, and there's not a drop on his shirt when the cops took him in afterward. Will be interesting when those paramedics go to witness stand.
Then you must have low reading comprehension or an unwillingness to look things up. This is something I understood as a 7 year old, so you're just going to have to figure it out yourself.
A good lawyer would exclude anyone who's heard of it, not just someone who claims to be impartial about it. Self-reporting isn't accurate.
There's 43 murders every day. Do you recall reading 43 stories? No. When things go normal, they are not national stories.
So anyway, since you don't seem to have figured it out, the difference in the two cases is the police response. And that is the racial issue! When the situations are reversed, a black will be charged right away. A white will not always be. (Google Brandon Gotwalt. Almost the same situation, no charge. Now google Daniel Adkins. Big difference.)
The black kids who set the white kid on fire were found right away and charged. Things are working as they should be. There are 100s of hate crimes every year, and only the most egregious situations make national news. What was egregious here was the government not applying the law evenly, and not even charging the guy. It's basically the same thing (not charging) that happened with the Danziger cops in New Orleans during Katrina: Kill a minority, no charge. Plus the cops do it all the time too -- but that's so [sadly] normal it doesn't rise to to the same volume as the Zimmerman case.
You need to read up on what first degree murder is. There's 0 way it applies here. This is the correct charge. I was expecting voluntary manslaughter myself, so yay.
Unless people perjure themselves, that is. Which is a dick move with the exception of being a fully informed juror.
Civilian guns are practically illegal in DC. You must be talking about the police. I mean, it may cause them to momentarily fear for their life!
It's still censorship, it's just a small censorship.
I wish I knew that when I attempted to say that :)
crap. I am a confused person, apparently. The role of arsenic is different than I thought it was.
Arsenic is a poison. Without arsenic you wouldn't be reading this; we need it to live. While you are correct in your assessment of GP, the logic that you used is far, far, far from bulletproof.
It also sounds like Trayvon may have left and then came back. I DON'T KNOW. But if he did, then Zimmerman should get off. Once the altercation ends, you don't get to start it up again. Zimmerman could have been 100% in the wrong, but if Trayvon left and came back, Trayvon is now 100% in the wrong (in terms of self-defense/murder). I have a feeling the lawyers are going to be splitting hairs about what constitutes ending an altercation. Hopefully the witnesses have some say.
People have been tried by the media for 1000s of yrs. It's kind of like complaining that it rained, or that we have to pay taxes :)