However, I've been a juror multiple times and you don't have to have evidence.
In 2 of my 3 juror trials, one or more people lied and we had to decide who was telling the truth.
No evidence? What did you do? Flip a coin to decide who was lying? When I was did a stint of jury duty, we still had such things as the person's demeanor in court and being able to compare how someone's narrative evolved over time (and it happened to be a case similar to the Zimmerman case where someone killed someone allegedly in self-defense without witnesses present. The defendant's consistent and forward testimony both to law enforcement and in court did a great deal to convince us that he wasn't guilty of second degree murder). I consider those just as much evidence as a coroner's report.
Anyway, i think we are in violent agreement that Zimmerman is not guilty of 2nd degree murder of Martin.
We should be working on sustainable independent space craft, starting with sustainable independent space stations. In the grand scheme of things, gravity wells are for noobs.
The obvious rebuttal is that we have only one example of a sustainable independent space craft right now - the planet Earth and it happens to have a very large gravity well. Gravity wells happen to also be places where resources get concentrated enough to be useful.
No one has actually looked much. It's worth noting that two of the largest deposits of gold and platinum group metals (PGM), the Bushveld complex in South Africa and the Norilsk-Talnakh deposit in Siberia are both created by igneous processes possibly in conjunction with asteroid impacts, processes which happen on the Moon just as well.
The Norilsk-Talnakh deposit is actually a feature of the Siberian Traps which are effectively the Terran equivalent of a very large Lunar mare (as I recall, depending how large the Siberian Traps originally were, they could have been larger than all but the two largest lunar maria). PGM were concentrated near the outlet dikes for a vast amount of lava (several million cubic kilometers worth) via some sulphur chemistry mechanism - apparently bubbles of PGM rich magma were trapped under the series of flows, leaching a bit of PGMs and other materials from each subsequent lava flow and increased in concentration as the Siberian traps eruptions continued.
The Bushveld complex apparently is a magma intrusion coupled with an asteroid impact. It is currently unknown if the asteroid contributed the PGMs present in this deposit (which is by far the world's largest deposit of platinum). PGMs were concentrated by the very slow cooling of the deposit which settled out them in two or three thin layers (or "reefs" in the local mining jargon).
Because there is almost no erosion on the Moon, similar deposits to either of the above would likely be deeply buried. It is worth noting however that because of the Moon's much lower gravity (and ignoring the moderately lower density of lunar crust), that pressure increases versus depth at about a sixth the rate it does on Earth.
So anyway, the Moon has some features that are similar to a couple of the largest PGM and gold bearing deposits on Earth and it allows for far deeper mining than can occur on Earth. Obviously, this isn't something that is going to happen next year, but it's not unreasonable to expect that there will eventually be mining of the Moon for resources that can be used on Earth and elsewhere in the Solar System.
Your mighty self-defense defense is worthless if Zimmerman was committing a crime, like, say, stalking, or even private investigating without a license, when Martin was killed. If the crime is a felony, it doesn't matter how Martin died, it's an automatic murder conviction (no trial or nothing!)
Where's the evidence for such a crime? It's kind of like saying that Martin would have been justified in assaulting Zimmerman because Zimmerman was firing his death ray at Miami and speaking in a fake German accent. If the scenario didn't happen and/or there isn't any evidence for such a scenario, then it's not very relevant to what actually did happen.
Thinking about tungsten, you can make some pretty valuable things out of the metal, for example, hunting knives, hand axes, arrow heads, a variety of utility knives, shaving tools, awls, etc. Durable cutting edges and points are particularly valuable to stone tech users. And I bet those tools would be kept in good shape for the most part.
You might want to be careful about that. If you cut off the US military-industrial complex, they might find another way to secure their funding, like start another needless war. They're already salivating with what's going on in Egypt right now.
Let's give it a shot and see what happens. I think starving the beast will be more effective than that.
So they "seem" implausible, but you don't have any actual evidence for your assertion.
Look up "King hit" and you can see how easy it is to kill or severely damage someone with one blow.
Look up "multiple stab wounds" and you'll see how hard it can be to kill someone via multiple stab wounds.
Sure, one blow expertly placed might have disabled or killed Zimmerman, but where's the evidence that Martin has any knowledge of dealing such "king hits"?
Further, why isn't shooting Martin a justified response to how Martin was beating up Zimmerman? Even if he didn't have intent to kill, I see a reasonable expectation of grievous bodily harm, which probably meets the criteria for self-defense.
Brass corrodes, ceramic abrades. They could last centuries - but they won't last millenia under 'buried in the dirt' conditions.
Sure they will. There's almost no abrasion in "buried in dirt". And under low moisture conditions, brass lasts a long time - it is very resistant to air corrosion.
For every ancient clay tablet we have today, thousands were lost - and most of what we have now are heavily damaged and barely readable.
Conversely, we have shown here that tablets made just out of fragile clay can last thousands of years. A ceramic that is actually near immune to water damage will easily last where these failed.
Those problems you listed do affect you or people you care about.
I assure you they don't.
Those other problems affect the economy. You are a part of the economy, so those problems do affect you.
Impoverished people are a small part of the economy. Sure, if their world was greatly improved, that would be a great economic "rising tide" that would be some help. But if their lot isn't improved, it won't change my world noticeably.
Instead of "if that were my attitude, then I wouldn't bother", it's more like that "if those problems you listed didn't affect you, you wouldn't be mentioning them"
I see you're saying below "Because if you look like a duck...". So how come you gloss over this? Those problems don't affect me or mine despite your lazy assertions to the contrary. They merely affect a lot of people in the world unrelated to me in any way. Yet I still care. Connect the dots sometime.
I admit that the proposed mitigation solutions for global warming would affect my world substantially and adversely. I do have an interest in such. My view on "climate change" is simply that it's a pretext for creating powerful bureaucracies and control of society. Advocates have cycled through a variety of flimsy arguments and evidence while simultaneously endorsing expensive and poorly thought out actions.
If you're advocating action that is a tremendous sacrifice for society, then you should have more going for it than some weak climate models which haven't been tested against solid climate data (that is, date like the solid satellite data we've been
collecting for a meager thirty years) and various fallacies and biases (such as Pascal's wager - can't afford not to act, observation bias - unusual weather becomes "extreme weather" caused by global warming, argument from authority - the IPCC does this a lot, and argument from consensus - the infamous "97%" survey).
As I demonstrated, the issues you listed aren't only about the future. They do have short term affects. When it comes to global warming, which has no short term effects, you have consistently refused to care (more). That's why people concluded (rationally I might add) that you are not what you claim to be
You may have demonstrated this, but you haven't demonstrated that global warming has long term effects that we need to act on whether now or later. I also believe at some point you need to let future generations have some responsibility for their own well-being. I think it's ridiculous to advocate all this sacrifice now just so that future generations might have slightly better climates.
(Zimmerman admitted on the 911 call that Martin ran away, and Zimmerman decided to follow him. Why would Martin run away from him, then turn around and jump Zimmerman without cause?)
Zimmerman also admitted on the phone to breaking off pursuit.
When its your son or daughter that loses their life over an incident like this then I wonder on what side of the fence you'll stand.
Since you insist on playing this stupid game, let's wonder what you'd do if your son or daughter was Zimmerman. Sounds to me like you're someone who couldn't make a unbiased decision in that case.
Funny thing is, if this were reversed, that is, if Zimmerman was being followed by Martin, and Zimmerman confronted Martin starting a confrontation which ended with Zimmerman shooting Martin, the same people defending Zimmerman now would still defend him. They'd just say, Stand Your Ground, Self defense "I'd feel threatened if someone were following me. Damn right I'd confront them!" But, in this case, Zimmerman followed Martin and shot him. Therefore Martin had no right to defend himself or confront his pursuer.
It's evident that you don't understand the issues here. Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head into the concrete and Zimmerman had a reasonable expectation that his life was in danger. There are certain conditions where one forfeits a right to self-defense. Show they apply here. As has been repeated noted, merely following someone doesn't forfeit the right to self-defense.
and the youth had the right to not be harassed by an adult in the middle of the night
No. He doesn't actually have that right.
Therein is the problem, laws should not be based on "feelings". So called "stand your ground" laws are bad policy.
Too bad reality got in the way of that sentiment. Sometimes, circumstances aren't optimal. In those cases, we may be forced to go on "feeling" rather than perfect information.
For some reason, you seem to believe every word that Zimmerman says.
Come up with evidence that contradictions Zimmerman's testimony. Where's the reason not to believe Zimmerman?
We can't just jail people merely because it's in their interest to avoid jail. Otherwise everyone would be in jail aside from the occasional crazy looking for six months of free meals.
Unless you live in isolation from any communities, you already live in such a community. People do not universally trust other people unless they have a medical condition or mental handicap. And it turns out that they have good reason not to trust other people unconditionally.
Maybe I'll even put my butt into a puddle to make it believable.
Make sure you break your nose and have the guy you're going to kill, bash your head into concrete a few times to make it look good. Juries lap that shit up.
Actually, yes you do lose your right to self-defense if you're told to back off.
Read the transcript. Zimmerman wasn't actually told to back off.
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entranceâ¦fucking [unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok
Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?
Zimmerman: Georgeâ¦He ran.
Dispatcher: Alright George what's your last name?
Zimmerman: Zimmerman
Dispatcher: And George what's the phone number you're calling from?
See? I bolded the part in question. Zimmerman wasn't told to break off pursuit, but rather that the authorities didn't need him to do that. And I might add that a 911 dispatcher doesn't have a legally recognized authority.
Far more important than climate change in my life time, i'll be dead in 50 or so years so it won't be a problem to ME
If that were my attitude, then I wouldn't bother considering any of these problems I listed. None of them are problems (well aside from corruption) for me or people I care about. But if you rationally consider this stuff, then you have to put climate change pretty far down the list because a) it's not urgent, and b) it doesn't actually cause that much trouble.
I don't know why people regularly accuse me of not caring about the future. If they really did care about the future and rationally think about it, then they too would have lowered the priority of dealing with climate change.
Slashdot Mirror
However, I've been a juror multiple times and you don't have to have evidence. In 2 of my 3 juror trials, one or more people lied and we had to decide who was telling the truth.
No evidence? What did you do? Flip a coin to decide who was lying? When I was did a stint of jury duty, we still had such things as the person's demeanor in court and being able to compare how someone's narrative evolved over time (and it happened to be a case similar to the Zimmerman case where someone killed someone allegedly in self-defense without witnesses present. The defendant's consistent and forward testimony both to law enforcement and in court did a great deal to convince us that he wasn't guilty of second degree murder). I consider those just as much evidence as a coroner's report.
Anyway, i think we are in violent agreement that Zimmerman is not guilty of 2nd degree murder of Martin.
Agreed.
and it takes USA's independence day from the happening they're celebrating as the independence day - and not resetting at civil war.
Why should it be reset at the Civil War? The government and most of the country remained intact during that period.
Putting a test pilot in a rubber suit into a tin can and putting that tin can on a dead rock is not a "great thing".
When the "dead rock" in question is the Moon, it becomes a great thing.
How about a social model that requires LESS WORK considering how much technology we have?
Why bother with a social model when a personal model will reduce your work load to whatever you desire.
We should be working on sustainable independent space craft, starting with sustainable independent space stations. In the grand scheme of things, gravity wells are for noobs.
The obvious rebuttal is that we have only one example of a sustainable independent space craft right now - the planet Earth and it happens to have a very large gravity well. Gravity wells happen to also be places where resources get concentrated enough to be useful.
Not much gold either from what I understand.
No one has actually looked much. It's worth noting that two of the largest deposits of gold and platinum group metals (PGM), the Bushveld complex in South Africa and the Norilsk-Talnakh deposit in Siberia are both created by igneous processes possibly in conjunction with asteroid impacts, processes which happen on the Moon just as well.
The Norilsk-Talnakh deposit is actually a feature of the Siberian Traps which are effectively the Terran equivalent of a very large Lunar mare (as I recall, depending how large the Siberian Traps originally were, they could have been larger than all but the two largest lunar maria). PGM were concentrated near the outlet dikes for a vast amount of lava (several million cubic kilometers worth) via some sulphur chemistry mechanism - apparently bubbles of PGM rich magma were trapped under the series of flows, leaching a bit of PGMs and other materials from each subsequent lava flow and increased in concentration as the Siberian traps eruptions continued.
The Bushveld complex apparently is a magma intrusion coupled with an asteroid impact. It is currently unknown if the asteroid contributed the PGMs present in this deposit (which is by far the world's largest deposit of platinum). PGMs were concentrated by the very slow cooling of the deposit which settled out them in two or three thin layers (or "reefs" in the local mining jargon).
Because there is almost no erosion on the Moon, similar deposits to either of the above would likely be deeply buried. It is worth noting however that because of the Moon's much lower gravity (and ignoring the moderately lower density of lunar crust), that pressure increases versus depth at about a sixth the rate it does on Earth.
So anyway, the Moon has some features that are similar to a couple of the largest PGM and gold bearing deposits on Earth and it allows for far deeper mining than can occur on Earth. Obviously, this isn't something that is going to happen next year, but it's not unreasonable to expect that there will eventually be mining of the Moon for resources that can be used on Earth and elsewhere in the Solar System.
Whoa... so it's difficult to mine gold on the Moon?! Who knew?
Your mighty self-defense defense is worthless if Zimmerman was committing a crime, like, say, stalking, or even private investigating without a license, when Martin was killed. If the crime is a felony, it doesn't matter how Martin died, it's an automatic murder conviction (no trial or nothing!)
Where's the evidence for such a crime? It's kind of like saying that Martin would have been justified in assaulting Zimmerman because Zimmerman was firing his death ray at Miami and speaking in a fake German accent. If the scenario didn't happen and/or there isn't any evidence for such a scenario, then it's not very relevant to what actually did happen.
Thinking about tungsten, you can make some pretty valuable things out of the metal, for example, hunting knives, hand axes, arrow heads, a variety of utility knives, shaving tools, awls, etc. Durable cutting edges and points are particularly valuable to stone tech users. And I bet those tools would be kept in good shape for the most part.
You might want to be careful about that. If you cut off the US military-industrial complex, they might find another way to secure their funding, like start another needless war. They're already salivating with what's going on in Egypt right now.
Let's give it a shot and see what happens. I think starving the beast will be more effective than that.
Look up "King hit" and you can see how easy it is to kill or severely damage someone with one blow.
Look up "multiple stab wounds" and you'll see how hard it can be to kill someone via multiple stab wounds.
Sure, one blow expertly placed might have disabled or killed Zimmerman, but where's the evidence that Martin has any knowledge of dealing such "king hits"?
Further, why isn't shooting Martin a justified response to how Martin was beating up Zimmerman? Even if he didn't have intent to kill, I see a reasonable expectation of grievous bodily harm, which probably meets the criteria for self-defense.
Brass corrodes, ceramic abrades. They could last centuries - but they won't last millenia under 'buried in the dirt' conditions.
Sure they will. There's almost no abrasion in "buried in dirt". And under low moisture conditions, brass lasts a long time - it is very resistant to air corrosion.
For every ancient clay tablet we have today, thousands were lost - and most of what we have now are heavily damaged and barely readable.
Conversely, we have shown here that tablets made just out of fragile clay can last thousands of years. A ceramic that is actually near immune to water damage will easily last where these failed.
Those problems you listed do affect you or people you care about.
I assure you they don't.
Those other problems affect the economy. You are a part of the economy, so those problems do affect you.
Impoverished people are a small part of the economy. Sure, if their world was greatly improved, that would be a great economic "rising tide" that would be some help. But if their lot isn't improved, it won't change my world noticeably.
Instead of "if that were my attitude, then I wouldn't bother", it's more like that "if those problems you listed didn't affect you, you wouldn't be mentioning them"
I see you're saying below "Because if you look like a duck...". So how come you gloss over this? Those problems don't affect me or mine despite your lazy assertions to the contrary. They merely affect a lot of people in the world unrelated to me in any way. Yet I still care. Connect the dots sometime.
I admit that the proposed mitigation solutions for global warming would affect my world substantially and adversely. I do have an interest in such. My view on "climate change" is simply that it's a pretext for creating powerful bureaucracies and control of society. Advocates have cycled through a variety of flimsy arguments and evidence while simultaneously endorsing expensive and poorly thought out actions.
If you're advocating action that is a tremendous sacrifice for society, then you should have more going for it than some weak climate models which haven't been tested against solid climate data (that is, date like the solid satellite data we've been collecting for a meager thirty years) and various fallacies and biases (such as Pascal's wager - can't afford not to act, observation bias - unusual weather becomes "extreme weather" caused by global warming, argument from authority - the IPCC does this a lot, and argument from consensus - the infamous "97%" survey).
As I demonstrated, the issues you listed aren't only about the future. They do have short term affects. When it comes to global warming, which has no short term effects, you have consistently refused to care (more). That's why people concluded (rationally I might add) that you are not what you claim to be
You may have demonstrated this, but you haven't demonstrated that global warming has long term effects that we need to act on whether now or later. I also believe at some point you need to let future generations have some responsibility for their own well-being. I think it's ridiculous to advocate all this sacrifice now just so that future generations might have slightly better climates.
Zimmerman is likely lying about several things (i.e. what martin said while beating Zim).
What's your basis for that claim?
(Zimmerman admitted on the 911 call that Martin ran away, and Zimmerman decided to follow him. Why would Martin run away from him, then turn around and jump Zimmerman without cause?)
Zimmerman also admitted on the phone to breaking off pursuit.
When its your son or daughter that loses their life over an incident like this then I wonder on what side of the fence you'll stand.
Since you insist on playing this stupid game, let's wonder what you'd do if your son or daughter was Zimmerman. Sounds to me like you're someone who couldn't make a unbiased decision in that case.
Funny thing is, if this were reversed, that is, if Zimmerman was being followed by Martin, and Zimmerman confronted Martin starting a confrontation which ended with Zimmerman shooting Martin, the same people defending Zimmerman now would still defend him. They'd just say, Stand Your Ground, Self defense "I'd feel threatened if someone were following me. Damn right I'd confront them!" But, in this case, Zimmerman followed Martin and shot him. Therefore Martin had no right to defend himself or confront his pursuer.
It's evident that you don't understand the issues here. Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head into the concrete and Zimmerman had a reasonable expectation that his life was in danger. There are certain conditions where one forfeits a right to self-defense. Show they apply here. As has been repeated noted, merely following someone doesn't forfeit the right to self-defense.
and the youth had the right to not be harassed by an adult in the middle of the night
No. He doesn't actually have that right.
Therein is the problem, laws should not be based on "feelings". So called "stand your ground" laws are bad policy.
Too bad reality got in the way of that sentiment. Sometimes, circumstances aren't optimal. In those cases, we may be forced to go on "feeling" rather than perfect information.
For some reason, you seem to believe every word that Zimmerman says.
Come up with evidence that contradictions Zimmerman's testimony. Where's the reason not to believe Zimmerman?
We can't just jail people merely because it's in their interest to avoid jail. Otherwise everyone would be in jail aside from the occasional crazy looking for six months of free meals.
That's why it is a case of pure confrontation and aggression.
So why is getting out of a car "pure confrontation and aggression"?
Spare me from your community.
Unless you live in isolation from any communities, you already live in such a community. People do not universally trust other people unless they have a medical condition or mental handicap. And it turns out that they have good reason not to trust other people unconditionally.
The fact that you keep going on and on about this to someone who clearly barely gives a fuck shows you are a zealot.
I have a suggestion here. How about you change your mind from "barely give a fuck" to "don't give a fuck" and leave this debate to the grown-ups?
Maybe I'll even put my butt into a puddle to make it believable.
Make sure you break your nose and have the guy you're going to kill, bash your head into concrete a few times to make it look good. Juries lap that shit up.
Actually you just have to "feel" your life is in danger to take defensive violent action.
I believe the usual standard is that a jury agrees that a reasonable person would feel and do the same in the same situation.
If you see someone coming at you with what you believe is a weapon then you can defend yourself from them under stand your ground law.
As noted by the other replier, this is not a "stand your ground" issue.
Actually, yes you do lose your right to self-defense if you're told to back off.
Read the transcript. Zimmerman wasn't actually told to back off.
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entranceâ¦fucking [unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok
Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?
Zimmerman: Georgeâ¦He ran.
Dispatcher: Alright George what's your last name?
Zimmerman: Zimmerman
Dispatcher: And George what's the phone number you're calling from?
See? I bolded the part in question. Zimmerman wasn't told to break off pursuit, but rather that the authorities didn't need him to do that. And I might add that a 911 dispatcher doesn't have a legally recognized authority.
Far more important than climate change in my life time, i'll be dead in 50 or so years so it won't be a problem to ME
If that were my attitude, then I wouldn't bother considering any of these problems I listed. None of them are problems (well aside from corruption) for me or people I care about. But if you rationally consider this stuff, then you have to put climate change pretty far down the list because a) it's not urgent, and b) it doesn't actually cause that much trouble.
I don't know why people regularly accuse me of not caring about the future. If they really did care about the future and rationally think about it, then they too would have lowered the priority of dealing with climate change.