I'm a little unclear on why you were really let go. There seems to be a chunk of your story missing. By inference, it sounds like you were let go because a dishonest VP was selling unused hardware off the back of the loading dock and you were close to discovering him. Is that the case?
I was hoping someone would guess that you can beat that record by jumping off a very high cliff and assuming a dive position. I wonder if you can count the cliff as equipment in that case?
What about people who can beat that speed stark naked with no devices of any kind using only the power of their legs? It can be done with the right technique. Care to guess how?
The back and forth on this is a bit amusing on both ends. I'm just going to interject here that your joints, tendons and muscles are also designed to store back energy and release it in your next step. So, claiming that the running shoe is more efficient because it absorbs energy that would otherwise be absorbed by your joints and muscles really doesn't say anything about the relative efficiency of the two systems being compared.
Vehicles make you _run_ faster? At first I thought you were making a joke about being chased by vehicles as opposed to the GP's world's fastest woman. Then you mentioned people who have gone fast in vehicles and now I'm sort of scratching my head. I suppose you were just replying to the story title rather than the GP's comment.
Completely ignoring all questions of the rightness or wrongness of Snowden's actions and the rightness or wrongness of the government actions he exposed, Snowden is just one fugitive. One single person seeking political asylum. One single person whose security breach was, frankly, pretty minor. The embarassment from that breach might be massive, of course, but the actual breach wasn't materially damaging. So, what they're doing is wrong simply because they are going to extreme measures to try to get at him. They're failing to recognize that other nations have their own sovereignty and could quite reasonably grant Snowden asylum. The US has granted asylum to plenty of people who have done far, far worse things than the worst interpretation of Snowden's actions.
He may as well do it here and let US citizens stand by him, or crucify him, as it is nominally our interests he was trying to protect. By running and hiding with our enemies, he looks very guilty.
Please. This story is about a unanimous vote to seek sanctions against any country that wants to grant him asylum. No sane person would take the risk of a "fair" trial in the US in such a situation.
Also, on a side note: "our enemies"? Speaks for itself really.
Sorry - been a little busy. Short and quick - Hawaii requested to be annexed. You can argue about the ruler changes etc, or the "marines landing" that were nothing more than there and admittedly should not have been, or the firing of the Minister to Hawaii, or the Wilcox Rebellion, etc.
Hah! Yeah, that's funny. The perfectly legitimate, and completely representative of its constituents, four-year old puppet Republic of Hawaii requested to be annexed. Good one. I mean seriously, are you so steeped in the US exceptionalist attitude that you can't even fess up to that one. You can argue that the people of Hawaii were better off for it in the long run and you could make some very good arguments for that if you tried. You can't even find that many Hawaiians of native descent today who strongly believe that things haven't pretty much worked out in the long run. Pretty much none of them will agree with you that Hawaii wasn't simply taken by the US and US interests, however. It's frankly shameful to pretend that it wasn't.
All the Spanish American war pieces can be lumped under "Spain declared war" and also potentially engaged in the initial acts of war (sinking of US ship in Havana).
Or the ship just sank, or it was a false flag operation by some other government (possibly even the US). When some CIA analysts floated a proposal back in the day to start a war with Cuba, and listed murdering US citizens and blaming Cuba as one the options, they referenced that sinking as an example (whether or not the CIA agents in question would actually know if the US was involved or not is certainly questionable and they probably didn't). In any case, I never denied that Spain and the US went to war. The fact that the US seized its land and people after the fact is an imperialist act. In a historical context, it's not particularly unusual for the times. All the kids were doing it. It still is what it is, however. Trying so say that it wasn't is unreasonable.
That leaves Panama, which was done by treaty. You can call it dirty politics, or be on the side of the "losers", but the fact is we offered to not do the treaty and step away. Note that the treaty allowed for US troops in the Canal Zone.
Funny, I thought I mentioned more than just the Spanish-American war assets and Panama, but whatever. Yes, there was a treaty. Perfectly fair and reasonable and agreed to 100% on all sides. The Panamanians were naturally grateful to the US which had just created its country by invading Columbia, after all. Oh, and, just like pretty much every treaty, the countries in question could drop out at any time... Or maybe just the US. Treaties with the US for things they want to keep tend to swing that way. Can't say the US doesn't keep it's side of the bargain in those sorts of treaties, no sir. For example, they pay their $340 per month for the 45 square miles of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to this day (on a side note, I wish I could find 100 acres or so of good land for $14.17 a year in rent. Know anyone?).
I qualified nothing with "excessive", since you pasted that from a different thread, if you'll go up one or two, you'll see it was a direct quote from the person I was responding to.
Actually, it was from this post, which is the great-great-great grandparent of the current post, and definitely in this thread. You wrote:
Prior to that, the US was myopic to the extreme, and really appeared to only want to mind its own business, as far as excessive military, foreign intervention, etc.
The direct parent to that post wrote:
America was built on scared people (running away from Europe on the Mayflower -- don't blame me, South Park folks said it), and has continued in that great scared tradition (excessive military, excessive foreign intervention, excessive fear of others i
One annexation of a sovereign nation after deposing its government does not an imperialist make? I'm curious how many it takes then? How many robberies makes a robber? How many murders makes a murderer? If the answer is that it just has to be more than once, then does most of the land area of the US that was taken from the Native American nations count? How about Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines? American Samoa? The US Virgin Islands? The Panama canal zone?
In any case, I wasn't arguing about US imperialism. I was responding to your statement about the bombing of Pearl Harbor (which I will note again was ironically located in a conquered US territory) and that:
Prior to that, the US was myopic to the extreme, and really appeared to only want to mind its own business, as far as excessive military, foreign intervention, etc.
Now, you've qualified that with the term "excessive", but that's fairly vague. The simple fact is that's not really true. The US didn't suddenly wake up in December of 1941 and say: "Hey, there's a whole world out there I haven't noticed before!"
Funny enough, none of that really applied until after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The irony of that statement is palpable. Has it occurred to you to wonder what a US military base was doing at Pearl Harbor in the first place? This would be Pearl Harbor, on the island of Oahu, in the US territory of Hawaii. The US territory of Hawaii that was formerly the US puppet "Republic of Hawaii" and the Hawaiin Kingdom before that.
It sounds like that car was loaded up with explosives, however. We're talking about a bomb that has to be hidden away in the parts of the car that won't be immediately obvious to the valet when the car is parked and won't be so heavy that it will obviously change the handling of the car.
We seem to be in agreement about the likelyhood of massive casualties from a bomb in a parking structure. The 1993 world trade center bombing killed 6 people and it was in a large office building rather than a detached parking structure. Just like the Al Hilah bombing, the obvious target for a bomb is somewhere that large numbers of people are assembled and which can be reached without being searched. Security theatre organizations like the TSA continue to be proficient at closing, locking, boarding up, then sealing in concrete the barn doors after the horses have gotten out. They also seem to be excellent at putting in that one crucial stitch that stops a garment from falling apart after it's already fallen apart.
No, no. Everyone knows you have to cut the right wire or it blows up instantly. You will know when you've cut the right wire because the digital countdown will stop in mid-countdown. Probably with just 1 second remaining.
It's worth noting that the video you posted was of an exploding garbage truck, not a passenger car. Also, as impressive as the explosion was, it looks like the nearby pedestrians actually walked away from it.
But the poster you're replying to specifically pointed out that he was talking about bombs located away from human beings. The bomb you're talking about killed a bunch of people because they were standing in line next to it. In a parking lot, the explosion from the same bomb would have been largely absorbed by the cars around it. You might have even been able to drive them away afterwards.
As long as we're going big to the level of planetary scale engineering with imaginary technology and power sources, we shouldn't combine planets. We would be better off splitting Venus into some smaller planets. If, for example, we split Venus into two planets, we would end up with about 25% more surface area between the two new planets than the original planet and they would still have surface gravity of about.72 earth gravities. Personally, I think that should be plenty of surface gravity, but, if the goal is to have living space with the same surface gravity as Earth, you could achieve that by tossing out some of the lighter material in the mantle and still end up with multiple smaller planets with more surface area than the original Venus, but the same surface gravity as Earth. Obviously you could get a magnetic field going to provide some protection from solar radiation. Of course, if you're tearing planets apart, you could take some of the extra material and just make a shield of some sort such as an orbital particle cloud or set of solid orbital rings, etc. Shifting the new planets into a further orbit wouldn't be necessary since you could just control how much light reaches them, or even just heat and light them through artificial means (which is not that power-hungry an application compared with tossing planets around). With the power and technology we're talking about to do all this in the first place, waiting for it to cool shouldn't be necessary.
Depends. Does it count as the same yard sale if it's the same stuff and you sell it on both Saturday and Sunday, or are those two separate yard sales? What about two successive weekends? For that matter, if you start at 9:00 AM, then it starts to rain around noon, so you pack up and move everything inside, then move back outside after the rain and start selling again, does it count as a new yard sale?
You make a reasonable sounding point for a fairly oppressive law. I think there's way too much of that sort of thing these days. If someone is violating zoning laws by turning their yard into a store, you can prove that it's more than a yard sale by showing that they have wholesale suppliers making deliveries, digging into their tax records, etc. You don't need a law like this.
Yes, I did repeat myself because you seemed to not have grasped what I was saying the first time, Your hostility isn't particularly useful or needed. My point still stands: top military brass typically haven't gone through the same training as typical enlisted men. I didn't say that they didn't get training, or that their training was easier or that they have never been through the same training. There's nothing in your post that materially disagrees with that statement.
I should also point out that my comments apply to military organizations in general, not just the US military or even just one branch of it.
Also, regarding your comment:
Most civilians don't realize that when a miltary member says 'training' he means a lot more than just sitting in a lecture.
Seriously? Do you really believe that? I can't even begin to understand how detached from reality someone would need to be to actually believe that.
I never said that officers don't go through their own similar training and I recognized that there is a path for enlisted men to some day become one of the chiefs of staff. In the corporate world, you can similarly, in theory, start in the mail room and become CEO, but that sort of thing is the exception, not the rule. This isn't the old days any more where an officer's commission required a relative with a title, or at least a hefty sum of money, but there's still one door for enlisted men and another for officers who will immediately outrank those enlisted men. They have similar training, but, as I said, the expectations are fundamentally different. The same thing is going to be true if you put top executives through this kind of training. Even if it's ostensibly the same training, there are going to be some fundamental differences.
I've always wondered about these sorts of worker training programs. The boot camps, the firewalking, paintball, etc. If they're mandatory, how are they not a form of hazing?
So, they sent a few dozen people through the program and got a $1 million annual savings out of it. So we're talking what? $20,000 to $40,000 savings per person? Just how many accidents are these people getting into in the first place? Frankly, it sounds like hyperbole or fishy accounting to me.
So then have them go through the training as well. The top military had to go through it to get where they are, so why not the top corporate?
The top military are officers, not enlisted men. While enlisted soldiers can later go through officer's training, or even be promoted in extraordinary circumstances in wartime, generally military organizations aren't actually absolute meritocracies that promote people in stages all the way from the bottom to the top. Not that officers don't go through their own tough training, but some of the expectations are fundamentally different.
The entire prison is for people who were transferred from other prisons for murdering another prisoner...
Murder before entering prison is one thing, I take "murders" committed after being imprisoned with a grain of salt since there are quite a few jurisdictions where the courts have upheld that prisoners have no right of self-defense.
Stories like that always make me wonder why the turbines in coal, gas, and nuclear plants don't use neodymium magnets. Why is it that only renewable energy sources have to use materials that cause environmental damage to extract, but the physical equipment for non-renewables are made out of 110% non-polluting unicorn giggles?
Nonsense, you're assuming whatever is convenient to your sentence of the moment, disregarding it or other evidence whenever you feel like it.
I'm not sure if you have a reading comprehension problem or not. I was just mentioning that most of the published "facts" we're discussing are directly from Zimmerman's account and are therefore likely to be edited to display him in a favorable light if he has anything to hide. I know you don't like to answer questions but I'm still going to ask which evidence I am supposedly disregarding?
Indeed, were it not for the inconvenient findings on Martin's electronics... a handgun, etc.
Oh yes. He had a picture of a handgun. How exactly does that show that he had any gun training or self defense training?
Next time someone has sucker-punched you, has broken your nose, and is whacking your head against the concrete, please do your best to keep a calm consciousness to explain your purpose and good intentions.
Seriously, do you have a reading comprehension problem, or just a short memory, or are you trying to be dishonest/ Zimmerman's story is that Martin demanded to know what Zimmerman was doing and that he (Zimmerman) lied to Martin and did not identify himself as being with the neighborhood watch. The physical altercation started after he had that opportunity. This was Zimmerman's own story!
Doesn't kind of throw a monkeywrench into your fantasy about Martin being afraid for his life all along because of his awareness of Zimmerman's gun?
Reading comprehension again. It either means that Martin had to be aware of the gun before they ended up on the ground or it means that Zimmerman's story is a pack of lies. It's one or the other.
No, other possibilities exist. It is also possible that during the fight, Zimmerman managed to roll onto his side enough to reach for his weapon, at which point Martin also caught sight of it.
If that's the case, it makes Zimmerman a liar.
Can you kind of start to see why jurors had no problem dismissing any such fantasy, such fallible logic; and accepting the most straightforward, logical, consistent explanation for it all?
Saying it doesn't make it so. You haven't presented any scenario other than: deranged black youth savagely attacks innocent pedestrian for no reason and dies a much deserved death. Talk about fantasy and fallible logic.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a little unclear on why you were really let go. There seems to be a chunk of your story missing. By inference, it sounds like you were let go because a dishonest VP was selling unused hardware off the back of the loading dock and you were close to discovering him. Is that the case?
I was hoping someone would guess that you can beat that record by jumping off a very high cliff and assuming a dive position. I wonder if you can count the cliff as equipment in that case?
I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think that language argument works in context.
What about people who can beat that speed stark naked with no devices of any kind using only the power of their legs? It can be done with the right technique. Care to guess how?
The back and forth on this is a bit amusing on both ends. I'm just going to interject here that your joints, tendons and muscles are also designed to store back energy and release it in your next step. So, claiming that the running shoe is more efficient because it absorbs energy that would otherwise be absorbed by your joints and muscles really doesn't say anything about the relative efficiency of the two systems being compared.
Vehicles make you _run_ faster? At first I thought you were making a joke about being chased by vehicles as opposed to the GP's world's fastest woman. Then you mentioned people who have gone fast in vehicles and now I'm sort of scratching my head. I suppose you were just replying to the story title rather than the GP's comment.
Why is what they did wrong?
Completely ignoring all questions of the rightness or wrongness of Snowden's actions and the rightness or wrongness of the government actions he exposed, Snowden is just one fugitive. One single person seeking political asylum. One single person whose security breach was, frankly, pretty minor. The embarassment from that breach might be massive, of course, but the actual breach wasn't materially damaging. So, what they're doing is wrong simply because they are going to extreme measures to try to get at him. They're failing to recognize that other nations have their own sovereignty and could quite reasonably grant Snowden asylum. The US has granted asylum to plenty of people who have done far, far worse things than the worst interpretation of Snowden's actions.
He may as well do it here and let US citizens stand by him, or crucify him, as it is nominally our interests he was trying to protect. By running and hiding with our enemies, he looks very guilty.
Please. This story is about a unanimous vote to seek sanctions against any country that wants to grant him asylum. No sane person would take the risk of a "fair" trial in the US in such a situation.
Also, on a side note: "our enemies"? Speaks for itself really.
Sorry - been a little busy. Short and quick - Hawaii requested to be annexed. You can argue about the ruler changes etc, or the "marines landing" that were nothing more than there and admittedly should not have been, or the firing of the Minister to Hawaii, or the Wilcox Rebellion, etc.
Hah! Yeah, that's funny. The perfectly legitimate, and completely representative of its constituents, four-year old puppet Republic of Hawaii requested to be annexed. Good one. I mean seriously, are you so steeped in the US exceptionalist attitude that you can't even fess up to that one. You can argue that the people of Hawaii were better off for it in the long run and you could make some very good arguments for that if you tried. You can't even find that many Hawaiians of native descent today who strongly believe that things haven't pretty much worked out in the long run. Pretty much none of them will agree with you that Hawaii wasn't simply taken by the US and US interests, however. It's frankly shameful to pretend that it wasn't.
All the Spanish American war pieces can be lumped under "Spain declared war" and also potentially engaged in the initial acts of war (sinking of US ship in Havana).
Or the ship just sank, or it was a false flag operation by some other government (possibly even the US). When some CIA analysts floated a proposal back in the day to start a war with Cuba, and listed murdering US citizens and blaming Cuba as one the options, they referenced that sinking as an example (whether or not the CIA agents in question would actually know if the US was involved or not is certainly questionable and they probably didn't). In any case, I never denied that Spain and the US went to war. The fact that the US seized its land and people after the fact is an imperialist act. In a historical context, it's not particularly unusual for the times. All the kids were doing it. It still is what it is, however. Trying so say that it wasn't is unreasonable.
That leaves Panama, which was done by treaty. You can call it dirty politics, or be on the side of the "losers", but the fact is we offered to not do the treaty and step away. Note that the treaty allowed for US troops in the Canal Zone.
Funny, I thought I mentioned more than just the Spanish-American war assets and Panama, but whatever. Yes, there was a treaty. Perfectly fair and reasonable and agreed to 100% on all sides. The Panamanians were naturally grateful to the US which had just created its country by invading Columbia, after all. Oh, and, just like pretty much every treaty, the countries in question could drop out at any time... Or maybe just the US. Treaties with the US for things they want to keep tend to swing that way. Can't say the US doesn't keep it's side of the bargain in those sorts of treaties, no sir. For example, they pay their $340 per month for the 45 square miles of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to this day (on a side note, I wish I could find 100 acres or so of good land for $14.17 a year in rent. Know anyone?).
I qualified nothing with "excessive", since you pasted that from a different thread, if you'll go up one or two, you'll see it was a direct quote from the person I was responding to.
Actually, it was from this post, which is the great-great-great grandparent of the current post, and definitely in this thread. You wrote:
Prior to that, the US was myopic to the extreme, and really appeared to only want to mind its own business, as far as excessive military, foreign intervention, etc.
The direct parent to that post wrote:
America was built on scared people (running away from Europe on the Mayflower -- don't blame me, South Park folks said it), and has continued in that great scared tradition (excessive military, excessive foreign intervention, excessive fear of others i
If you account for land area, or population density, the U.S. is at (or near) the top of the list
Naturally you have an analysis of the data to support this theory rather than just a blind assertion, right?
1 invasion does not an imperialist make, however.
One annexation of a sovereign nation after deposing its government does not an imperialist make? I'm curious how many it takes then? How many robberies makes a robber? How many murders makes a murderer? If the answer is that it just has to be more than once, then does most of the land area of the US that was taken from the Native American nations count? How about Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines? American Samoa? The US Virgin Islands? The Panama canal zone?
In any case, I wasn't arguing about US imperialism. I was responding to your statement about the bombing of Pearl Harbor (which I will note again was ironically located in a conquered US territory) and that:
Prior to that, the US was myopic to the extreme, and really appeared to only want to mind its own business, as far as excessive military, foreign intervention, etc.
Now, you've qualified that with the term "excessive", but that's fairly vague. The simple fact is that's not really true. The US didn't suddenly wake up in December of 1941 and say: "Hey, there's a whole world out there I haven't noticed before!"
Funny enough, none of that really applied until after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The irony of that statement is palpable. Has it occurred to you to wonder what a US military base was doing at Pearl Harbor in the first place? This would be Pearl Harbor, on the island of Oahu, in the US territory of Hawaii. The US territory of Hawaii that was formerly the US puppet "Republic of Hawaii" and the Hawaiin Kingdom before that.
It sounds like that car was loaded up with explosives, however. We're talking about a bomb that has to be hidden away in the parts of the car that won't be immediately obvious to the valet when the car is parked and won't be so heavy that it will obviously change the handling of the car.
We seem to be in agreement about the likelyhood of massive casualties from a bomb in a parking structure. The 1993 world trade center bombing killed 6 people and it was in a large office building rather than a detached parking structure. Just like the Al Hilah bombing, the obvious target for a bomb is somewhere that large numbers of people are assembled and which can be reached without being searched. Security theatre organizations like the TSA continue to be proficient at closing, locking, boarding up, then sealing in concrete the barn doors after the horses have gotten out. They also seem to be excellent at putting in that one crucial stitch that stops a garment from falling apart after it's already fallen apart.
No, no. Everyone knows you have to cut the right wire or it blows up instantly. You will know when you've cut the right wire because the digital countdown will stop in mid-countdown. Probably with just 1 second remaining.
It's worth noting that the video you posted was of an exploding garbage truck, not a passenger car. Also, as impressive as the explosion was, it looks like the nearby pedestrians actually walked away from it.
But the poster you're replying to specifically pointed out that he was talking about bombs located away from human beings. The bomb you're talking about killed a bunch of people because they were standing in line next to it. In a parking lot, the explosion from the same bomb would have been largely absorbed by the cars around it. You might have even been able to drive them away afterwards.
As long as we're going big to the level of planetary scale engineering with imaginary technology and power sources, we shouldn't combine planets. We would be better off splitting Venus into some smaller planets. If, for example, we split Venus into two planets, we would end up with about 25% more surface area between the two new planets than the original planet and they would still have surface gravity of about .72 earth gravities. Personally, I think that should be plenty of surface gravity, but, if the goal is to have living space with the same surface gravity as Earth, you could achieve that by tossing out some of the lighter material in the mantle and still end up with multiple smaller planets with more surface area than the original Venus, but the same surface gravity as Earth. Obviously you could get a magnetic field going to provide some protection from solar radiation. Of course, if you're tearing planets apart, you could take some of the extra material and just make a shield of some sort such as an orbital particle cloud or set of solid orbital rings, etc. Shifting the new planets into a further orbit wouldn't be necessary since you could just control how much light reaches them, or even just heat and light them through artificial means (which is not that power-hungry an application compared with tossing planets around). With the power and technology we're talking about to do all this in the first place, waiting for it to cool shouldn't be necessary.
Depends. Does it count as the same yard sale if it's the same stuff and you sell it on both Saturday and Sunday, or are those two separate yard sales? What about two successive weekends? For that matter, if you start at 9:00 AM, then it starts to rain around noon, so you pack up and move everything inside, then move back outside after the rain and start selling again, does it count as a new yard sale?
You make a reasonable sounding point for a fairly oppressive law. I think there's way too much of that sort of thing these days. If someone is violating zoning laws by turning their yard into a store, you can prove that it's more than a yard sale by showing that they have wholesale suppliers making deliveries, digging into their tax records, etc. You don't need a law like this.
Yes, I did repeat myself because you seemed to not have grasped what I was saying the first time, Your hostility isn't particularly useful or needed. My point still stands: top military brass typically haven't gone through the same training as typical enlisted men. I didn't say that they didn't get training, or that their training was easier or that they have never been through the same training. There's nothing in your post that materially disagrees with that statement.
I should also point out that my comments apply to military organizations in general, not just the US military or even just one branch of it.
Also, regarding your comment:
Most civilians don't realize that when a miltary member says 'training' he means a lot more than just sitting in a lecture.
Seriously? Do you really believe that? I can't even begin to understand how detached from reality someone would need to be to actually believe that.
I never said that officers don't go through their own similar training and I recognized that there is a path for enlisted men to some day become one of the chiefs of staff. In the corporate world, you can similarly, in theory, start in the mail room and become CEO, but that sort of thing is the exception, not the rule. This isn't the old days any more where an officer's commission required a relative with a title, or at least a hefty sum of money, but there's still one door for enlisted men and another for officers who will immediately outrank those enlisted men. They have similar training, but, as I said, the expectations are fundamentally different. The same thing is going to be true if you put top executives through this kind of training. Even if it's ostensibly the same training, there are going to be some fundamental differences.
I've always wondered about these sorts of worker training programs. The boot camps, the firewalking, paintball, etc. If they're mandatory, how are they not a form of hazing?
So, they sent a few dozen people through the program and got a $1 million annual savings out of it. So we're talking what? $20,000 to $40,000 savings per person? Just how many accidents are these people getting into in the first place? Frankly, it sounds like hyperbole or fishy accounting to me.
So then have them go through the training as well. The top military had to go through it to get where they are, so why not the top corporate?
The top military are officers, not enlisted men. While enlisted soldiers can later go through officer's training, or even be promoted in extraordinary circumstances in wartime, generally military organizations aren't actually absolute meritocracies that promote people in stages all the way from the bottom to the top. Not that officers don't go through their own tough training, but some of the expectations are fundamentally different.
The entire prison is for people who were transferred from other prisons for murdering another prisoner...
Murder before entering prison is one thing, I take "murders" committed after being imprisoned with a grain of salt since there are quite a few jurisdictions where the courts have upheld that prisoners have no right of self-defense.
Stories like that always make me wonder why the turbines in coal, gas, and nuclear plants don't use neodymium magnets. Why is it that only renewable energy sources have to use materials that cause environmental damage to extract, but the physical equipment for non-renewables are made out of 110% non-polluting unicorn giggles?
Nonsense, you're assuming whatever is convenient to your sentence of the moment, disregarding it or other evidence whenever you feel like it.
I'm not sure if you have a reading comprehension problem or not. I was just mentioning that most of the published "facts" we're discussing are directly from Zimmerman's account and are therefore likely to be edited to display him in a favorable light if he has anything to hide. I know you don't like to answer questions but I'm still going to ask which evidence I am supposedly disregarding?
Indeed, were it not for the inconvenient findings on Martin's electronics ... a handgun, etc.
Oh yes. He had a picture of a handgun. How exactly does that show that he had any gun training or self defense training?
Next time someone has sucker-punched you, has broken your nose, and is whacking your head against the concrete, please do your best to keep a calm consciousness to explain your purpose and good intentions.
Seriously, do you have a reading comprehension problem, or just a short memory, or are you trying to be dishonest/ Zimmerman's story is that Martin demanded to know what Zimmerman was doing and that he (Zimmerman) lied to Martin and did not identify himself as being with the neighborhood watch. The physical altercation started after he had that opportunity. This was Zimmerman's own story!
Doesn't kind of throw a monkeywrench into your fantasy about Martin being afraid for his life all along because of his awareness of Zimmerman's gun?
Reading comprehension again. It either means that Martin had to be aware of the gun before they ended up on the ground or it means that Zimmerman's story is a pack of lies. It's one or the other.
No, other possibilities exist. It is also possible that during the fight, Zimmerman managed to roll onto his side enough to reach for his weapon, at which point Martin also caught sight of it.
If that's the case, it makes Zimmerman a liar.
Can you kind of start to see why jurors had no problem dismissing any such fantasy, such fallible logic; and accepting the most straightforward, logical, consistent explanation for it all?
Saying it doesn't make it so. You haven't presented any scenario other than: deranged black youth savagely attacks innocent pedestrian for no reason and dies a much deserved death. Talk about fantasy and fallible logic.