I'm missing some huge aspect of the case that I can't seem to find anywhere. There's a few big questions on my mind.
1. Why is everyone so upset that evidence about Martin's background that Zimmerman couldn't have known was kept out of court? It seems like since he couldn't have known, it didn't affect the situation at hand and therefore shouldn't be considered. But I might be missing something about why the victim's background is relevant in any case where the murder isn't premeditated.
The three critical things about Martin's background. He was enamored with fighting. He was trying to get a gun. He has no compunctions against stealing.
So hes almost home he realises that GZ is no threat and wants to teach him a lesson about following and try out his fighting skills. He goes back and starts a fight. During the fight he sees Zimmermans gun. He forgets the fight and goes for Zimmermans gun to steal. In the meantime Zimmerman sees martin goes for his gun and thinks he will shoot him with it.
But in self defense you can legally only use the amount of force you needed to stop the threat. If for example a guy is choking you and you fire a warning shot and he stops that's it. I doubt that there is anybody who thinks that being choked is not:"being in fear of grave bodily harm or death"
Be that as it may 20 years is excessive for simply discharging a weapon.
OTOH there was the case of Ronald Thompson ( white ) who fired two rounds into the ground to scare off who were trying to get into his neighbors house. He got 20 years too. The judge cut it to 3 sayng the law was unconstitutional. An appeals court overturned it. Another judge rules the jury instructions were wrong and ordered a new trial for now.
The thing about these two cases, is that they were brought by Angela Corey. The person who the person who brought this up probably thinks is a hero. Oh and she was the one puching for Zimmerman's trial.
My only advice is to remember that, when it comes to operating a business, IT workers are helpful but it is the managers who do the grunt work and take the real risks.
Actually the fault lays with Mantei. The prosecutor. instead of setting the option he just kept declining calls. When there was a break there was a deluge of calls. By the time tech fixed it, the judge was very intemperately ordering them so shut it off. One thing that keeps bothering me about this judge is that when the jury is in the room she acts all sweetness and light but when they aren't there she acts like a total bitch.
How do you justify " if someone is walking around in a place where they should not be" with a young black teenager walking on a public street? Are you that much of an twit or just that good of a troll?
Except it was not a public street but a walkway in a gated community. Private property.
I have one major problem with SVN but it is a big one. When creating branches and particularly branches of subprojects, you have to create directories with branch names. That means that you can only compile the main branch of subprojects unless you modify your build system to take branches into account.
McAleese is an environmental lawyer -- nothing to do with Apple -- no conflict. Also way back when McAleese actually told the law firm of hise involvement with Flatland.
In the end this is just Apple throwing another hissy fit, because really that is what Apple has been about since the Apple III and the Mac.
don't flash your iphone around any place you wouldn't be comfortable flashing around a handfull of hundred dollar bills.
The problem is that you shouldn't be flashing handfuls of hundred dollar bills anywhere public. One of the major advantages of these devices is to use then anywhere, even if you do not use them as phones.
Hell in Chicago you can access CTA vehicle information --including when the next vehicle is approaching your stop via internet. But the stop is almost certainly a bad place to flash your device.
Because, under Baller, Microsoft has made record profits most years. When you're running a company that is making insane amounts of money the share holders like you. Why is it that nerds find that so hard to understand? Baller is an uncharismatic tool who makes terrible technology choices, but he is making huge piles of money for the investors. That is what they want. That is why he is still CEO.
If Microsoft is doing so great, why the talk of reorg?
Bullshit. She stated first that she had done nothing wrong and committed no crime, either that is a lie or asserting the fifth does not apply, there are no other choices. Finally the really important part is finding proof of wrongdoing of those up the chain of command, and again the fifth amendment does not apply in such testimony.
All I can say is that I hope that you never have to appear in a court. If all your logic follows that here, you'll be put away for life.
People appearing before Congress can and do assert their fifth amendment privileges. The most notable case is Oliver North in Iran Contra asserting his rights. IIRC correctly he was granted immunity and then testified. Which is why later court cases were overturned.
In the case of Lerner there is a possible exception. People can waive the right. For example if a defendant testifies, then he can no longer assert his right when cross examined. The rule of thumb is that a person who has testified has waived their rights to not answer questions that have been "made relevant" by their previous testimony. There are however subtleties. That's why an ex-prosecutor was the first to suggest she waived he rights. He knows the rules fairly well.
I however would think that a person who makes self serving statements in front of Congress has waived their right with regard to anything made relevant by their statements.
Slashdot Mirror
Not Tess Geritson's Ice Cold.
Eeew gross!
Are there videos on the net?
The prosecution was the first side to use a premptory challenge on a black person.
I'm missing some huge aspect of the case that I can't seem to find anywhere. There's a few big questions on my mind.
1. Why is everyone so upset that evidence about Martin's background that Zimmerman couldn't have known was kept out of court? It seems like since he couldn't have known, it didn't affect the situation at hand and therefore shouldn't be considered. But I might be missing something about why the victim's background is relevant in any case where the murder isn't premeditated.
The three critical things about Martin's background. He was enamored with fighting. He was trying to get a gun. He has no compunctions against stealing.
So hes almost home he realises that GZ is no threat and wants to teach him a lesson about following and try out his fighting skills. He goes back and starts a fight. During the fight he sees Zimmermans gun. He forgets the fight and goes for Zimmermans gun to steal. In the meantime Zimmerman sees martin goes for his gun and thinks he will shoot him with it.
The three pieces fill in the story well.
But in self defense you can legally only use the amount of force you needed to stop the threat. If for example a guy is choking you and you fire a warning shot and he stops that's it. I doubt that there is anybody who thinks that being choked is not :"being in fear of grave bodily harm or death"
Be that as it may 20 years is excessive for simply discharging a weapon.
OTOH there was the case of Ronald Thompson ( white ) who fired two rounds into the ground to scare off who were trying to get into his neighbors house. He got 20 years too. The judge cut it to 3 sayng the law was unconstitutional. An appeals court overturned it. Another judge rules the jury instructions were wrong and ordered a new trial for now.
The thing about these two cases, is that they were brought by Angela Corey. The person who the person who brought this up probably thinks is a hero. Oh and she was the one puching for Zimmerman's trial.
That's quite right. Cause everyone knows that you can't put anything wrong in a youtube video.
My only advice is to remember that, when it comes to operating a business, IT workers are helpful but it is the managers who do the grunt work and take the real risks.
ROTFL
Hmmm. The way things are going maybe that because these are the same lawyers that represented Microsoft in "DOJ vs Microsoft".
Actually the fault lays with Mantei. The prosecutor. instead of setting the option he just kept declining calls. When there was a break there was a deluge of calls.
By the time tech fixed it, the judge was very intemperately ordering them so shut it off. One thing that keeps bothering me about this judge is that when the jury is in the room she acts all sweetness and light but when they aren't there she acts like a total bitch.
How do you justify " if someone is walking around in a place where they should not be" with a young black teenager walking on a public street? Are you that much of an twit or just that good of a troll?
Except it was not a public street but a walkway in a gated community. Private property.
No one is that excited about any product, ever. Except for maybe bacon. Or, should I say, "bacon!"
No you should say "chunky bacon"!
I have one major problem with SVN but it is a big one.
When creating branches and particularly branches of subprojects, you have to create directories with branch names.
That means that you can only compile the main branch of subprojects unless you modify your build system to take branches into account.
Sounds like a sex toy.
Big fucking deal.
If you don't like the way he works developing the kernel, then you can always fork it.
McAleese is an environmental lawyer -- nothing to do with Apple -- no conflict.
Also way back when McAleese actually told the law firm of hise involvement with Flatland.
In the end this is just Apple throwing another hissy fit, because really that is what Apple has been about since the Apple III and the Mac.
Such as
causing injury to criminals,
don't flash your iphone around any place you wouldn't be comfortable flashing around a handfull of hundred dollar bills.
The problem is that you shouldn't be flashing handfuls of hundred dollar bills anywhere public.
One of the major advantages of these devices is to use then anywhere, even if you do not use them as phones.
Hell in Chicago you can access CTA vehicle information --including when the next vehicle is approaching your stop via internet. But the stop is almost certainly a bad place to flash your device.
So far, the Harkonnen's have discredited the Fremen leaders - Richard Stalman and Linus Torvalds - by accusing them of being bearded men. .
Since when did Linus have a beard?
Because, under Baller, Microsoft has made record profits most years. When you're running a company that is making insane amounts of money the share holders like you. Why is it that nerds find that so hard to understand? Baller is an uncharismatic tool who makes terrible technology choices, but he is making huge piles of money for the investors. That is what they want. That is why he is still CEO.
If Microsoft is doing so great, why the talk of reorg?
Imagine that; Microsoft needs to reboot itself to become functional again.
This presupposed that Microsoft was ever functional which it hasn't been except in brief spurts to take advantage of market opportunities.
If by insane you mean the price the market dictates you would be correct.
Fun fact, the price the market dictates is the price the market dictates. If you want cheaper workers, go hire in fly over country.
Better yet relocate your operations to fly over country.
Why do firms have to be located in big costal cities?
Actually it's more of "open the lockbox or we will break it open and ruin the box in the process". Rather than "you have to open the box".
"so it made perfect sense"
Bullshit. She stated first that she had done nothing wrong and committed no crime, either that is a lie or asserting the fifth does not apply, there are no other choices. Finally the really important part is finding proof of wrongdoing of those up the chain of command, and again the fifth amendment does not apply in such testimony.
All I can say is that I hope that you never have to appear in a court. If all your logic follows that here, you'll be put away for life.
People appearing before Congress can and do assert their fifth amendment privileges. The most notable case is Oliver North in Iran Contra asserting his rights.
IIRC correctly he was granted immunity and then testified. Which is why later court cases were overturned.
In the case of Lerner there is a possible exception. People can waive the right. For example if a defendant testifies, then he can no longer assert his right when cross examined. The rule of thumb is that a person who has testified has waived their rights to not answer questions that have been "made relevant" by their previous testimony. There are however subtleties. That's why an ex-prosecutor was the first to suggest she waived he rights. He knows the rules fairly well.
I however would think that a person who makes self serving statements in front of Congress has waived their right with regard to anything made relevant by their statements.