... so every time the political pendulum swings, the taxpayer will have to "fix" this issue again? (Or maybe not; if one of the swings results in a sale/revenue, the other a subsidy/expense.)
"it bears mentioning every now and then that all of this is assuming that Zimmerman's version(s) of events is/are the full truth."
Nonsense, you're assuming whatever is convenient to your sentence of the moment, disregarding it or other evidence whenever you feel like it.
"People who can't reasonably be expected to study that are minors who don't own guns..."
Indeed, were it not for the inconvenient findings on Martin's electronics... a handgun, etc.
"they would have, when confronted, said that they were with the neighborhood watch"
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.
"I was wrong about where Zimmerman had his gun."
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?
"So, that means that either Zimmerman lied about Martin trying to get the gun or that Martin must have seen it before they fought."
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.
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?
"The timeline for manslaughter starts and ends with Zimmerman's actions."
No. It starts with whoever threw the first legally unjustifiable attack.
"Zimmerman's clothing wouldn't have concealed a gun from anything other than the most casual of glances."
You're dreaming. It was dark & rainy. Martin isn't reported to have mentioned a weapon on the phone. Martin had minutes of no-visual-contact from Zimmerman, so even if the former divined the presence of a gun, he was in no danger after he got out of sight. Yet he came back.
"Zimmerman has stated that Martin was trying to get his gun. "
That was when he was already on the ground, being pounded, with clothes in a rather different configuration than normal.
"As for incorrectly divining the intent of the gun's owner, [...]"
Just goes to show the dangers of misinterpreting someone's evasiveness as an impending attack. Guess what, people who study armed self-defense are taught about not over-reacting to mere suspicion.
"When you kill someone from bad judgement, it's manslaughter."
No, it isn't. The bad judgement was related to following to closely, letting be jumped. A wiser & more attentive person may not have let Martin get that close. But he was, he apparently attacked, and gave the all-important "self-defense" out against manslaughter.
The links of that chain are apprx. irrelevant until the point of the physical altercation. Your fantastic speculation about the timeline - that Martin confronted, correctly divined the presence of a gun, incorrectly divined the intent of its owner - indicts Martin only barely less than the more plausible story.
You're moving the goalposts. "terrified for his life" is different from "scared".
"has it occurred to you at all to wonder why he was in the bushes?"
Yes. It is possible that he was hiding out of fear. It is possible that he was counter-stalking.
"... then killed him when he tried to defend himself..."
There appears to be no evidence that Zimmerman lay hands on Martin (before the gunshot); whereas there is evidence that Martin touched Zimmerman (eyewitnesses & injuries). That kind of "self-defense" will not stand up in court, and may get one killed.
"... so you're concluding that you should blame the person who was terrified for his life..."
Whatever evidence I've seen suggests that only one person was terrified for his life during the whole episode, and he's currently on trial. The other person may well have been concerned / annoyed, but people "terrified for their lives" don't usually go "ooh, cowering is beneath [my] dignity, so let's fight".
"Most likely, he was hiding somewhere very nearby and concluded [...] that it was better to confront him out in the open or simply that it was beneath his dignity to cower away from some random nut."
If so, his conclusion was tragically fallacious. It escalated the situation and was one of the last links in the causal chain to his demise.
"Martin noticed him and ran from him in fear for his life"
If that were all that happened, he would not now be dead. Martin apparently returned to violently confront his "dictionary stalker", at which point things went bad fast.
"That's the grossly incompetent act" If there was something illegal about it (following someone from a distance), one can be sure Zimmerman would have been charged with it.
"it precedes anything that could be [...] self defense." Thing is, that doesn't matter. The events that led up to the fight are relevant, but do not automatically invalidate a self-defense claim.
"Who the hell are you to decide when an action is grounds for the death penalty?"
Just to be crystal clear, are you saying that self-defense with a weapon is never appropriate? If so, you may wish to hold forth as to why the police should be armed, or exactly what posture someone being beaten to death should take to be most noble in your eyes. Is that the fetal position, or some sort of supplication toward the east?
"it easy and efficient to cause death, while having no other redeeming legitimate purpose"
Causing death is not ipso facto bad, if the person on the receiving end was performing or threatening violent assault, and thus triggered lawful self-defense. Context matters.
"if they had broken that down into the 2 components of cost and value"
You can be sure the publisher/retailer tracks costs with exquisite precision, but they are apprx. none of the business of their customers - or their own competitors.
Leave it to the NY Times to pen something so illiterate: "no one will know what a book's "real" price is. Price will be determined by demand and perhaps by whim."
The "real price" of something is exactly determined by each transaction where it is sold. This is the realest price you can get. A MSRP printed on the book is not "real".
You can see though why in the presence of surveillance+gag orders, even such personal assurance may be less than satisfactory. That's one problem with the scheme: even honest people+companies become suspect.
Slashdot Mirror
http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-u-directs-agents-cover-program-used-investigate-091643729.html
It is a shame they can't both lose.
... and they'd have to revoke that law of physics that talks about absolute power and corruption and whatnot.
... so every time the political pendulum swings, the taxpayer will have to "fix" this issue again? (Or maybe not; if one of the swings results in a sale/revenue, the other a subsidy/expense.)
"The entire thing is being done to repair an earlier government mistake anyway ..."
So taxpayers are on the hook twice for governmental error? Count yourself lucky it's only two so far.
How many question marks is too many in the posting teaser? One? Two? Three? How about seven?
"it bears mentioning every now and then that all of this is assuming that Zimmerman's version(s) of events is/are the full truth."
Nonsense, you're assuming whatever is convenient to your sentence of the moment, disregarding it or other evidence whenever you feel like it.
"People who can't reasonably be expected to study that are minors who don't own guns ..."
Indeed, were it not for the inconvenient findings on Martin's electronics ... a handgun, etc.
"they would have, when confronted, said that they were with the neighborhood watch"
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.
"I was wrong about where Zimmerman had his gun."
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?
"So, that means that either Zimmerman lied about Martin trying to get the gun or that Martin must have seen it before they fought."
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.
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?
"The timeline for manslaughter starts and ends with Zimmerman's actions."
No. It starts with whoever threw the first legally unjustifiable attack.
"Zimmerman's clothing wouldn't have concealed a gun from anything other than the most casual of glances."
You're dreaming. It was dark & rainy. Martin isn't reported to have mentioned a weapon on the phone. Martin had minutes of no-visual-contact from Zimmerman, so even if the former divined the presence of a gun, he was in no danger after he got out of sight. Yet he came back.
"Zimmerman has stated that Martin was trying to get his gun. "
That was when he was already on the ground, being pounded, with clothes in a rather different configuration than normal.
"As for incorrectly divining the intent of the gun's owner, [...]"
Just goes to show the dangers of misinterpreting someone's evasiveness as an impending attack. Guess what, people who study armed self-defense are taught about not over-reacting to mere suspicion.
"When you kill someone from bad judgement, it's manslaughter."
No, it isn't. The bad judgement was related to following to closely, letting be jumped. A wiser & more attentive person may not have let Martin get that close. But he was, he apparently attacked, and gave the all-important "self-defense" out against manslaughter.
"There's a chain of events ..."
The links of that chain are apprx. irrelevant until the point of the physical altercation. Your fantastic speculation about the timeline - that Martin confronted, correctly divined the presence of a gun, incorrectly divined the intent of its owner - indicts Martin only barely less than the more plausible story.
" if you think that ..."
You're moving the goalposts. "terrified for his life" is different from "scared".
"has it occurred to you at all to wonder why he was in the bushes?"
Yes. It is possible that he was hiding out of fear. It is possible that he was counter-stalking.
"... then killed him when he tried to defend himself ..."
There appears to be no evidence that Zimmerman lay hands on Martin (before the gunshot); whereas there is evidence that Martin touched Zimmerman (eyewitnesses & injuries). That kind of "self-defense" will not stand up in court, and may get one killed.
"... so you're concluding that you should blame the person who was terrified for his life ..."
Whatever evidence I've seen suggests that only one person was terrified for his life during the whole episode, and he's currently on trial. The other person may well have been concerned / annoyed, but people "terrified for their lives" don't usually go "ooh, cowering is beneath [my] dignity, so let's fight".
"Most likely, he was hiding somewhere very nearby and concluded [...] that it was better to confront him out in the open or simply that it was beneath his dignity to cower away from some random nut."
If so, his conclusion was tragically fallacious. It escalated the situation and was one of the last links in the causal chain to his demise.
"Martin noticed him and ran from him in fear for his life"
If that were all that happened, he would not now be dead. Martin apparently returned to violently confront his "dictionary stalker", at which point things went bad fast.
"That's the grossly incompetent act"
If there was something illegal about it (following someone from a distance), one can be sure Zimmerman would have been charged with it.
"it precedes anything that could be [...] self defense."
Thing is, that doesn't matter. The events that led up to the fight are relevant, but do not automatically invalidate a self-defense claim.
"if everything Zimmerman has said is 100% true, he's definitely guilty of manslaughter."
No. Self-defense is a defense against a charge of manslaughter too.
"He's saying that shoot to kill is not the only self-defense with a weapon, and should not be the first line of defense."
No, you are saying that, and of course everyone agrees with you.
"Stats show clearly .... 99.99% of the time"
This is absurd enough not even to merit a [citation needed].
"Who the hell are you to decide when an action is grounds for the death penalty?"
Just to be crystal clear, are you saying that self-defense with a weapon is never appropriate? If so, you may wish to hold forth as to why the police should be armed, or exactly what posture someone being beaten to death should take to be most noble in your eyes. Is that the fetal position, or some sort of supplication toward the east?
"All self defence?"
Good luck with that in court. But your hypothetical in no way invalidates the thousands of genuine instances of self-defense, including armed ones.
"it easy and efficient to cause death, while having no other redeeming legitimate purpose"
Causing death is not ipso facto bad, if the person on the receiving end was performing or threatening violent assault, and thus triggered lawful self-defense. Context matters.
"Look at the MSRP on the book, and compare that to the price you paid at the register. They're the same."
That merely happens to make them equal in those circumstances. They are not definitionally the same.
"if they had broken that down into the 2 components of cost and value"
You can be sure the publisher/retailer tracks costs with exquisite precision, but they are apprx. none of the business of their customers - or their own competitors.
Leave it to the NY Times to pen something so illiterate: "no one will know what a book's "real" price is. Price will be determined by demand and perhaps by whim."
The "real price" of something is exactly determined by each transaction where it is sold. This is the realest price you can get. A MSRP printed on the book is not "real".
You can see though why in the presence of surveillance+gag orders, even such personal assurance may be less than satisfactory. That's one problem with the scheme: even honest people+companies become suspect.
Perens is not making a legal claim, so your answer is nonresponsive.