Nowhere else in that call does Zimmerman and the 911 dispatcher talk about following the suspicious person. It's obviously not a command and the dispatcher didn't even phrase it unambiguously as a suggestion not to follow the suspicious person.
He is a citizen who made a mistake, got in over his head, and ended up killing another person. As far as I can tell, this would be a cae of manslaughter.
Or a case of legal self defense. The stand your ground principle seems relevant in that it might turn what could have been a manslaughter case into a justifiable homicide case. Without stand your ground, I gather Zimmerman would have been on much weaker ground legally by following Martin.
My limited experience with self defense law is that usually, one has to demonstrate that they were unable to disengage from the assault in question (say because they had no escape routes or were pursued) as well as having a reasonable expectation of grievous bodily harm or death.
Stand your ground means you don't have to show that you tried to disengage at least under whatever limited circumstances are allowed by the law in question. I am ignorant of Florida law here, but given that the "stand your ground" law is talked about at all, indicates that at least some think it applies to Zimmerman's story.
Sequestering it is a lot simpler if you can simply draw if off the top of the CLOSED chamber rather than trying to scrub it out of the stack.
Why "scrub" when carbon dioxide would be one of the principle components of the exhaust from any sort of combustion? There are a variety of ways to simply separate carbon dioxide from most other combustion products based on its mass or freezing point.
Looking at the description of the reaction, the clever part is the oxidizing of iron pellets. This is an interesting way to pull oxygen out of the atmosphere and then apply it direct to the coal.
One gets a much cleaner reaction as a result without all the nitrogen oxides that regular coal burning produces..OTOH, one can use those nitrogen oxides for various things (such as chemical stocks, nitrogen fixing for fertilizer, etc). So it's not clear to me that there's a big advantage environmentally or economically over the usual approach for burning coal with capture of the nitrogen burn products.
The reason I did not bring the names into th econversation was to avoid the racial element. And that is from my experience that most people who believe Zimmerman had every right to confront and shoot Martin just happen to dislike Black people.
It's my experience that most people who are materially wrong about one aspect of a complex matter are often wrong about other aspects as well. I believe the accusation of "disliking Black people" is yet another case of error.
Zimmerman made several poor judgments leading up to the shooting, but in the end, he doesn't lose his right to legal self defense just because he confronted another person on the street (I think that might be a "stand your ground" consequence, but one I'd be partial to). I doubt he will be convicted of a serious crime, unless there's some evidence somewhere that things didn't go as Zimmerman claimed. So far, that hasn't come out.
It is worth noting here that the granted "right" of free speech is usually, if not always, with respect to government not private entities. While I haven't heard of an example along the lines of what you are referring to above, I think it is likely that a government run website (such as the Obama administration petition website that we hear of, now and then) would be much more limited in how it could implement your "privilege" of speech.
And yes, I know that official propaganda line is that they're not the enemy. It doesn't change the fact that they are treated like enemy civilians of occupied enemy nation
It's worth noting here that the actual modern laws of war, the Geneva Conventions don't make a distinction of "enemy civilian". The only class is "protected civilian" which is anyone not in a military who is not contributing to a conflict and happens to be in an area which you occupy or control. You then have an obligation under the Conventions to protect those civilians (hence, the label). They could be allies or enemies in terms of political support or allegiances, the law doesn't make that distinction.
Fair enough. You have now successfully identified the problem. Perhaps you could proceed by suggesting ANY SOLUTION AT ALL?
I don't know about the original poster, but there's solutions out there. First, let everyone arm themselves. And second, provide consequences in kind if someone abuses that privilege. If I shoot at someone unprovoked, then people are able to return fire, etc.
To be honest, I don't see a violence problem in the developed world. The various solutions there seem good enough. It's only in places where law isn't enforced and the powerful aren't subject to justice that one sees true problems with violence.
Welcome to USA (Our Democratic Paradise (TM)) where the phrase "We work hard at screwing you!" is more than a motto! - It's the watchword and operative 24/7, baby! Good thing that our Libertarian paradise is only an election away - then you won't have the government backing up the corporate fascists.
The current mess, such as it is, isn't a libertarian problem (you even admit it!). It's a sentient beings with conflicting interests problem and something universal to all societies. So why bash libertarians for something that isn't even their fault? I think brain damage.
You can make the same case that government should meddle with the lives of rich people and businesses, since they're so important to the whole world (the economy and all that)
Well, one of the reasons we have governments is to keep other governments at bay.
Only extreme left is trying to defend those rights.... and I belong to those "crazy" extreme-leftists. In Italy, before '90, we had things like "equo canone", and renting a house was really cheap, we had the "scala mobile" and salaries were growing with the cost of life, car insurance prices were controlled and they were very cheap.... we had, we had, we had.... now we have nothing
Your country squandered its wealth for a few decades, and that came back to bite you. Such an amazing coincidence.
Now they call it "modernity", but it really looks like something that we already had in the XIX century.....
I think people who worry about things reverting to the 19th century should be solidly in the "conservative" camp. You're about as liberal as the horse and carriage at this point.
So if OP gets his gun and follows the leech around threateningly until he goads him into talking to him or scaring in some way first then he should be OK to shoot him?
Martin had a working cell phone apparently. A 911 call would have helped resolve whatever happened. Instead, Zimmerman (and I gather Martin as well) ends up with injuries consistent with Martin bashing Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk. If your solution to a vaguely threatening person is to try to kill them with your hands, then that's not a very good case for you staying alive.
Well, yes. This is unlike the US, which a) hasn't had crazy people in charge of nukes (yet) and b) doesn't have a nuclear power within a few minutes of its borders, unless one counts the few missile subs the Russians have.
In some cases, some cultures are completely alien to another.
It's worth noting that none of the cultures you mention count. There's two problems that people often don't get about nukes. One is the crazy person with nukes. For whatever reason, including the above mentioned "completely alien" culture, you could have someone far more willing to use nukes than you would expect.
Another is extremely short decision time frames. There are countries which because they are near one another, have only a few minutes to decide whether some blips on a screen (or the equivalent) are either innocuous (could be flaws in the detector hardware, rocket test, whatever) or the end of their civilization. The faster this decision needs to be made, the more likely it is that someone makes a bad choice, such as launching a retaliatory strike.
Proliferation increases the chances that either of the above potential problems becomes an actual problem that kills lots of people.
If by private you mean publicly funded infrastructure such as roads, bridges, highways, traffic systems and policing then you are correct. The only thing private are the cars.
And cars are a huge component to "only" about. Consider this report. It claims just under $0.05 per mile of road travel in costs on the road, including maintenance and interest payments on road-related debt. In contrast, one has to pay quite a bit for the car or other vehicle, gas, maintenance, and insurance. I figure a bit less than ten times as much (based on reimbursement rates which probably overstate the average cost by a set fraction).
You can point to the vast road network and I can point to the vast number of vehicles in the US. Most urban public transit schemes (taxis and airlines being the biggest exception) have nearly pure public funding for them.
As individuals we get taxed on our individual "revenue".
No. That's only partly true. Capital gains are a notable counterexample. There's also income from trade activities (like buying and selling knickknacks on Ebay).
The big difference being that a human being can't claim the majority of their living expenses as "expenses in the pursuit of profit", whereas a corporation can.
What's odd about that? It's true after all. Since a for profit corporation is inherently constructed around pursuit of profit, then it's living expenses are naturally "expenses in the pursuit of profit".
How much of your wealth and income are used in pursuit of profit? Even if we can delineate such transactions, do you really want to go there? Think not only of the vast amount of paperwork and minutia to prove your claims for appropriate deductible costs, but also who you are giving that information to. How do you document to the IRS that you consume more expensive foods or medications without simultaneously revealing what health issues you have to the federal government?
At least, income with voluntary deductions has the virtue of being a lot more opaque to the federal government.
The thing that is annoying here is that it's really, painfully obvious that taxing revenue would cripple businesses in any competitive, whole sale business. For example, if we took 35% of revenue instead of 35% of income, then that would kill off most trade-based businesses such as grocery stores, retail stores, gas stations, etc.
In your example, Exxon would be losing 25% of its revenue each year (about $80 billion a year). Then who's pumping and delivering the oil? The businesses with more than a 25% markup (or perhaps the businesses that evade taxes). It doesn't make sense to go that route.
I mean there is an ongoing case where a person defied police orders not to confront another person, did just that, then shot and killed the other person.
What is the ongoing case? It's not the Trayvon Martin shooting because the person making the suggestion (not a command!) to the eventual shooter, Zimmerman was a 911 operator.
Note that Martin didn't allegedly just punch Zimmerman, but also beat his head into the concrete several times. That's a lot more harmful than a punch.
Welcome to the world of global capitalism.
Everyone here seems to be a cheerleaer for the mighty free market. Until the point when it's their own jobs that have suddenly become minimum wage fodder.
Selfishness never makes a bad idea good. The problem here is simply that developed world workers are paid too much relatively. All this squirming on the hook won't change that a lot of jobs can be done by people elsewhere for a fraction of the cost that they could be done in the developed world.
That's what the interview is for. A prospective employee who can't, without unnecessary drama, do things the way they're currently done at the business, then they're not a good fit.
Slashdot Mirror
Zimmerman most likely decided to approach Martin, angainst the "suggestion" that he did not intervene.
There's no need for "scare quotes" here. Read the transcript:
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok.
Nowhere else in that call does Zimmerman and the 911 dispatcher talk about following the suspicious person. It's obviously not a command and the dispatcher didn't even phrase it unambiguously as a suggestion not to follow the suspicious person.
He is a citizen who made a mistake, got in over his head, and ended up killing another person. As far as I can tell, this would be a cae of manslaughter.
Or a case of legal self defense. The stand your ground principle seems relevant in that it might turn what could have been a manslaughter case into a justifiable homicide case. Without stand your ground, I gather Zimmerman would have been on much weaker ground legally by following Martin.
My limited experience with self defense law is that usually, one has to demonstrate that they were unable to disengage from the assault in question (say because they had no escape routes or were pursued) as well as having a reasonable expectation of grievous bodily harm or death.
Stand your ground means you don't have to show that you tried to disengage at least under whatever limited circumstances are allowed by the law in question. I am ignorant of Florida law here, but given that the "stand your ground" law is talked about at all, indicates that at least some think it applies to Zimmerman's story.
Sequestering it is a lot simpler if you can simply draw if off the top of the CLOSED chamber rather than trying to scrub it out of the stack.
Why "scrub" when carbon dioxide would be one of the principle components of the exhaust from any sort of combustion? There are a variety of ways to simply separate carbon dioxide from most other combustion products based on its mass or freezing point.
Looking at the description of the reaction, the clever part is the oxidizing of iron pellets. This is an interesting way to pull oxygen out of the atmosphere and then apply it direct to the coal.
One gets a much cleaner reaction as a result without all the nitrogen oxides that regular coal burning produces..OTOH, one can use those nitrogen oxides for various things (such as chemical stocks, nitrogen fixing for fertilizer, etc). So it's not clear to me that there's a big advantage environmentally or economically over the usual approach for burning coal with capture of the nitrogen burn products.
The reason I did not bring the names into th econversation was to avoid the racial element. And that is from my experience that most people who believe Zimmerman had every right to confront and shoot Martin just happen to dislike Black people.
It's my experience that most people who are materially wrong about one aspect of a complex matter are often wrong about other aspects as well. I believe the accusation of "disliking Black people" is yet another case of error.
Zimmerman made several poor judgments leading up to the shooting, but in the end, he doesn't lose his right to legal self defense just because he confronted another person on the street (I think that might be a "stand your ground" consequence, but one I'd be partial to). I doubt he will be convicted of a serious crime, unless there's some evidence somewhere that things didn't go as Zimmerman claimed. So far, that hasn't come out.
It is worth noting here that the granted "right" of free speech is usually, if not always, with respect to government not private entities. While I haven't heard of an example along the lines of what you are referring to above, I think it is likely that a government run website (such as the Obama administration petition website that we hear of, now and then) would be much more limited in how it could implement your "privilege" of speech.
And yes, I know that official propaganda line is that they're not the enemy. It doesn't change the fact that they are treated like enemy civilians of occupied enemy nation
It's worth noting here that the actual modern laws of war, the Geneva Conventions don't make a distinction of "enemy civilian". The only class is "protected civilian" which is anyone not in a military who is not contributing to a conflict and happens to be in an area which you occupy or control. You then have an obligation under the Conventions to protect those civilians (hence, the label). They could be allies or enemies in terms of political support or allegiances, the law doesn't make that distinction.
Fair enough. You have now successfully identified the problem. Perhaps you could proceed by suggesting ANY SOLUTION AT ALL?
I don't know about the original poster, but there's solutions out there. First, let everyone arm themselves. And second, provide consequences in kind if someone abuses that privilege. If I shoot at someone unprovoked, then people are able to return fire, etc.
To be honest, I don't see a violence problem in the developed world. The various solutions there seem good enough. It's only in places where law isn't enforced and the powerful aren't subject to justice that one sees true problems with violence.
I wouldnt call this a "right", but a "privilege".
Who has the granting authority for this "privilege"?
Welcome to USA (Our Democratic Paradise (TM)) where the phrase "We work hard at screwing you!" is more than a motto! - It's the watchword and operative 24/7, baby! Good thing that our Libertarian paradise is only an election away - then you won't have the government backing up the corporate fascists.
The current mess, such as it is, isn't a libertarian problem (you even admit it!). It's a sentient beings with conflicting interests problem and something universal to all societies. So why bash libertarians for something that isn't even their fault? I think brain damage.
You can make the same case that government should meddle with the lives of rich people and businesses, since they're so important to the whole world (the economy and all that)
Well, one of the reasons we have governments is to keep other governments at bay.
Only extreme left is trying to defend those rights.... and I belong to those "crazy" extreme-leftists. In Italy, before '90, we had things like "equo canone", and renting a house was really cheap, we had the "scala mobile" and salaries were growing with the cost of life, car insurance prices were controlled and they were very cheap.... we had, we had, we had.... now we have nothing
Your country squandered its wealth for a few decades, and that came back to bite you. Such an amazing coincidence.
Now they call it "modernity", but it really looks like something that we already had in the XIX century.....
I think people who worry about things reverting to the 19th century should be solidly in the "conservative" camp. You're about as liberal as the horse and carriage at this point.
So if OP gets his gun and follows the leech around threateningly until he goads him into talking to him or scaring in some way first then he should be OK to shoot him?
Martin had a working cell phone apparently. A 911 call would have helped resolve whatever happened. Instead, Zimmerman (and I gather Martin as well) ends up with injuries consistent with Martin bashing Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk. If your solution to a vaguely threatening person is to try to kill them with your hands, then that's not a very good case for you staying alive.
Too bad the only way we have to figure out who did what is to ask them.
Well, yes. This is unlike the US, which a) hasn't had crazy people in charge of nukes (yet) and b) doesn't have a nuclear power within a few minutes of its borders, unless one counts the few missile subs the Russians have.
Or how about armor-piercing depleted uranium ammo? Granted, that last one probably wouldn't qualify as a nuclear weapon
It wouldn't and you should know that. Nuclear weapons aren't stuff that just has uranium in it.
How about "bunker-busting" tactical nukes,
Ok, how about them? I see that the US has yet to dare use one.
Given how important the Middle East is currently to the rest of the world, why shouldn't the rest of the world meddle?
I doubt he takes your life too seriously.
In some cases, some cultures are completely alien to another.
It's worth noting that none of the cultures you mention count. There's two problems that people often don't get about nukes. One is the crazy person with nukes. For whatever reason, including the above mentioned "completely alien" culture, you could have someone far more willing to use nukes than you would expect.
Another is extremely short decision time frames. There are countries which because they are near one another, have only a few minutes to decide whether some blips on a screen (or the equivalent) are either innocuous (could be flaws in the detector hardware, rocket test, whatever) or the end of their civilization. The faster this decision needs to be made, the more likely it is that someone makes a bad choice, such as launching a retaliatory strike.
Proliferation increases the chances that either of the above potential problems becomes an actual problem that kills lots of people.
If by private you mean publicly funded infrastructure such as roads, bridges, highways, traffic systems and policing then you are correct. The only thing private are the cars.
And cars are a huge component to "only" about. Consider this report. It claims just under $0.05 per mile of road travel in costs on the road, including maintenance and interest payments on road-related debt. In contrast, one has to pay quite a bit for the car or other vehicle, gas, maintenance, and insurance. I figure a bit less than ten times as much (based on reimbursement rates which probably overstate the average cost by a set fraction).
Land.
Cars.
You can point to the vast road network and I can point to the vast number of vehicles in the US. Most urban public transit schemes (taxis and airlines being the biggest exception) have nearly pure public funding for them.
As individuals we get taxed on our individual "revenue".
No. That's only partly true. Capital gains are a notable counterexample. There's also income from trade activities (like buying and selling knickknacks on Ebay).
The big difference being that a human being can't claim the majority of their living expenses as "expenses in the pursuit of profit", whereas a corporation can.
What's odd about that? It's true after all. Since a for profit corporation is inherently constructed around pursuit of profit, then it's living expenses are naturally "expenses in the pursuit of profit".
How much of your wealth and income are used in pursuit of profit? Even if we can delineate such transactions, do you really want to go there? Think not only of the vast amount of paperwork and minutia to prove your claims for appropriate deductible costs, but also who you are giving that information to. How do you document to the IRS that you consume more expensive foods or medications without simultaneously revealing what health issues you have to the federal government?
At least, income with voluntary deductions has the virtue of being a lot more opaque to the federal government.
The thing that is annoying here is that it's really, painfully obvious that taxing revenue would cripple businesses in any competitive, whole sale business. For example, if we took 35% of revenue instead of 35% of income, then that would kill off most trade-based businesses such as grocery stores, retail stores, gas stations, etc.
In your example, Exxon would be losing 25% of its revenue each year (about $80 billion a year). Then who's pumping and delivering the oil? The businesses with more than a 25% markup (or perhaps the businesses that evade taxes). It doesn't make sense to go that route.
Under State law, I am required to stop the progress of a Felony by law, or be an accessory.
You can fulfill your legal obligations by dialing 911.
I mean there is an ongoing case where a person defied police orders not to confront another person, did just that, then shot and killed the other person.
What is the ongoing case? It's not the Trayvon Martin shooting because the person making the suggestion (not a command!) to the eventual shooter, Zimmerman was a 911 operator.
Note that Martin didn't allegedly just punch Zimmerman, but also beat his head into the concrete several times. That's a lot more harmful than a punch.
Welcome to the world of global capitalism. Everyone here seems to be a cheerleaer for the mighty free market. Until the point when it's their own jobs that have suddenly become minimum wage fodder.
Selfishness never makes a bad idea good. The problem here is simply that developed world workers are paid too much relatively. All this squirming on the hook won't change that a lot of jobs can be done by people elsewhere for a fraction of the cost that they could be done in the developed world.
That's what the interview is for. A prospective employee who can't, without unnecessary drama, do things the way they're currently done at the business, then they're not a good fit.