But, he's not. No one can prove that, because we simply don't know what happened between the time Zimmerman asked Martin what his business in the neighborhood was and the time the shots were fired. We do know Zimmerman was on the receiving end of a beat down because of his injuries.
If only the DA talked up the fact that, despite not being formally trained and given advice to not follow Martin, he pursued Martin and escalated the situation to the point where he was forced to defend himself and went for an involuntary manslaughter case from the beginning. This is what happens with politically motivated justice. The DA over-reaches and in the end either too harsh a sentence is given or like in this case the DA made a case for a charge greater than the evidence warranted and loses.
It's better to try the case with the correct charge than to try to hit a home run with inadequate evidence. This case should only have been tried as "involuntary manslaughter" there wasn't enough evidence for anything else.
The "Stand your ground law" isn't really a factor when someone jumps you, pounds your head against the cement, is on top of you and reaches for a gun, even your gun. And if you're ever in that situation and waste time considering if it does, then you will likely not survive. This was clear cut self-defense, as the evidence showed.
The irony being that Martin could have been acting with the confines of "stand your ground". He could have felt that he was being stalked and fear for his life. Since he was unarmed, his only method of self defense was jumping him and trying to disable the stalker with whatever means he had at his disposal. The problem with cases like these being that the lone survivor can tell his own version of events.
...so he tried to kill himself when it became clear that his cargo was going to be found. Remember that although Cuba seems to have violated the UN agreement that nothing at all will be done to them in punishment.
I think the ship's master is more concerned about the punishment from the cargo owners than the UN.
If you wanted a grid system that didn't rely on a single index, you could use MGRS. Of course, 'union.prop.enjoy' for Hyde park sounds cooler than MGRS coordinate 30UXC9656810039
It is bad enough that insulated cups have warnings about the contents being hot, now electronic devices need to have a disclaimer about the internet having pornography?
It's worse than that. Disclaimer on peanut butter jar, "ALLERGY WARNING: CONTAINS PEANUTS".
No need in turning this into some partisan debate especially with the opposing party being supportive of the program.
Anyway technically speaking, Obama authorized the continued warrantless surveillance under new FISA rules. This was after Federal Judge Walker ruled that mass warrantless wiretapping was illegal. The question that Snowden's disclosure creates is "Is the NSA still following FISA rules when it monitors internet traffic, email, etc.?"
This does make him a traitor.
No. The program may be unconstitutional but Obama is not betraying our government for a foreign power. A case can be made that Snowden's actions after his public disclosure made him a traitor, since he disclosed state's secrets beyond the surveillance program or allowed himself to be used for the benefit of a foreign power in exchange for possible asylum. Snowden has denied that he disclosed any new information despite reports by some news organizations last week. Besides it's a weak argument, you'd think that motive will play a factor. Snowden's motive appears to be disclosing what he viewed as wrong not betraying his country.
Personally, I think Snowden should return to the US to face charges of improperly disclosing classified information. I do not think his actions rises to the level of treason and think such rhetoric isn't beneficial, since Snowden's exile will serve as a warning to others who may feel trapped in a similar situation. I think we should find out the details of his training while employed as a contractor. Did he know how to report actions he deemed unconstitutional or illegal? Does such a report mechanism exist in his firm/agency? If that mechanism exists, does it really achieve its goal?
I'd like to think that people are still innocent until proven guilty. Yes Snowden admitted to breaking confidentiality laws, but it is still up to the courts to determine what crime (if any) he is guilty of. I still believe he over-stated the value of his information, and permanent exile is a little harsh for being boastful.
Of course, the mystique surrounding Snowden is strengthen by his exile and with it his notoriety. In the end, I think he would like to come home more than being (in)famous.
Korean War: North Korea backed by the Soviet Union and China invaded South Korea. The US intervened to defend South Korea.
Vietnam War: North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam. France initiated the defense of South Vietnam and the US took over.
Cold War: Was not an actual war.
1st Iraq War: Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US intervened on Kuwait's behalf and pushed Iraq back to its original border.
"War on Drugs": Is not an actual war. It is political rhetoric
Afghanistan War: Response to Afghanistan (Taliban in particular) complacency in if not sponsoring of the terrorist attack by Al Queda.
2nd Iraq War: Deposed Hussein under the auspices of the existence of WMDs and his desire to use them against the US. Later found untrue.
"War on Terror": Is not an actual war. It is political rhetoric. At best it is related to the actions in Afghanistan and defense at home.
Your list only includes 2 real wars where the US initiated the formal conflict. Afghanistan was in response to their role in providing Al Queda a safe haven to base their attacks on the US, and Iraq based on an erroneous (possibly fraudulent) premise that Hussein had WMDs and posed a threat serious enough to warrant immediate action.
Actually you need to read up on your history. The US were not the aggressors. North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam which was originally defended by France. The US took over from France in a policy of containment with the goal of preventing the spread of communism.
The first Iraq war was in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
Afganistan hosted the Al Queda training camps and was complacent about the 9-11 attacks.
The second Iraq war was over accusations of weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's defiance of UN nuclear inspections. WMDs were never found.
Vietnam was not started by the US. The communist North Vietnam directed the Viet Cong (NLF) to make attacks against South Vietnam. France was initially involved in the war and the US simply took over. China and other communist countries allied with North Vietnam, while France, US and other anti-communist countries allied with South Vietnam.
California's high cost of living, taxes, urban sprawl, over regulation, and bankrupt state budget is more a risk to California's business than some speculated blowback from NSA revelations.
Let me add that it still doesn't justify the US actions, and I agree with Holi that this is a single instance where the US violated it's own policy of preemptive strikes.
Maybe. I agree the US could have waited to invade Iraq. Of course, Saddam Hussein didn't do himself any favors when he continued to openly defy UN nuclear inspectors and made public threats about his desires to become a nuclear power. Any sane person would have STFU after the 9-11 attacks. Unfortunately Hussein was not known for his sanity and over played his hand. His public statements gave credibility to false reports of weapons of mass destruction and the rest is history... It was still just a matter of time.
Snowden is a criminal. He broke the law by divulging state's secret information that he was under contract to not divulge at the risk of criminal prosecution. Despite this, it does not automatically make him a traitor just a fugitive.
Good thing the Nobel peace prize lost most of its credibility when it was awarded to Obama just for winning an election, otherwise this would be a huge setback. Instead its just more of the same, a member of the nominating committee making some political statement.
Before I switched to a different brand of laptops, I used to buy Sony. I was always able to purchase replacement parts from directly from them and they offered service manuals for each model. I noticed the quality was starting to suffer and the price remained too high so I switched.
It appears they no longer have a parts store but they do refer you to an authorized third party.
But now that you do know, you wish you didn't know cause as a kid you really did like it and didn't have a conundrum?
It's been over 2 decades since I read any Orson Scott Card and too much time has passed to really care. It's not like I knew who Card was, I only like his Ender books. It's like my daughter loving Harry Potter when she was young. If you'd asked her who J. K. Rowling was she would only say that she wrote Harry Potter. She wouldn't know her political views and as a kid she wouldn't care.
and that bit about jailing more people than China....
To be fair, the US tends to hold on to their convicts a little longer while China tends to execute them quickly. Number of executions in 2012: US 43, China 2000+ (according to Amnesty International).
So you think the US should step up their executions? Of course not, but you didn't look at the whole picture when you made that comparison.
Besides, OSC's SF books have nothing to do with his views on a totally orthogonal societal issue. Boycotting the former because of the latter is called an ad hominem.
Choosing to not financially support a person that you disagree with is not an ad hominem. Making personal attacks that are suppose to cause a response due to emotions rather than the validity of the argument is an ad hominem attack. Card is free to make a fool out of himself any way he sees fit, and others are free to not give him any money.
You are free to say anything you want, but that doesn't mean you won't have any consequences for your actions. I read and enjoyed all of his Ender books before he publicly came out with his views on homosexuality. While I am not gay, I don't think I should give money to someone who will probably use it to attempt to subjugate my friends and relatives who are homosexuals. Luckily I didn't have this conundrum back in the 80's when I eagerly purchased his books. He didn't make his views known until 1991.
Slashdot Mirror
If only the DA talked up the fact that, despite not being formally trained and given advice to not follow Martin, he pursued Martin and escalated the situation to the point where he was forced to defend himself and went for an involuntary manslaughter case from the beginning. This is what happens with politically motivated justice. The DA over-reaches and in the end either too harsh a sentence is given or like in this case the DA made a case for a charge greater than the evidence warranted and loses.
It's better to try the case with the correct charge than to try to hit a home run with inadequate evidence. This case should only have been tried as "involuntary manslaughter" there wasn't enough evidence for anything else.
The irony being that Martin could have been acting with the confines of "stand your ground". He could have felt that he was being stalked and fear for his life. Since he was unarmed, his only method of self defense was jumping him and trying to disable the stalker with whatever means he had at his disposal. The problem with cases like these being that the lone survivor can tell his own version of events.
KDevelop? Gorunka is talking about "Qt Creator" and you can find the Windows binary on their download page.
I think the ship's master is more concerned about the punishment from the cargo owners than the UN.
If you wanted a grid system that didn't rely on a single index, you could use MGRS. Of course, 'union.prop.enjoy' for Hyde park sounds cooler than MGRS coordinate 30UXC9656810039
More like Apple learned the danger of having single-sourced components a long time ago.
It's worse than that. Disclaimer on peanut butter jar, "ALLERGY WARNING: CONTAINS PEANUTS".
No need in turning this into some partisan debate especially with the opposing party being supportive of the program.
Anyway technically speaking, Obama authorized the continued warrantless surveillance under new FISA rules. This was after Federal Judge Walker ruled that mass warrantless wiretapping was illegal. The question that Snowden's disclosure creates is "Is the NSA still following FISA rules when it monitors internet traffic, email, etc.?"
No. The program may be unconstitutional but Obama is not betraying our government for a foreign power. A case can be made that Snowden's actions after his public disclosure made him a traitor, since he disclosed state's secrets beyond the surveillance program or allowed himself to be used for the benefit of a foreign power in exchange for possible asylum. Snowden has denied that he disclosed any new information despite reports by some news organizations last week. Besides it's a weak argument, you'd think that motive will play a factor. Snowden's motive appears to be disclosing what he viewed as wrong not betraying his country.
Personally, I think Snowden should return to the US to face charges of improperly disclosing classified information. I do not think his actions rises to the level of treason and think such rhetoric isn't beneficial, since Snowden's exile will serve as a warning to others who may feel trapped in a similar situation. I think we should find out the details of his training while employed as a contractor. Did he know how to report actions he deemed unconstitutional or illegal? Does such a report mechanism exist in his firm/agency? If that mechanism exists, does it really achieve its goal?
I'd like to think that people are still innocent until proven guilty. Yes Snowden admitted to breaking confidentiality laws, but it is still up to the courts to determine what crime (if any) he is guilty of. I still believe he over-stated the value of his information, and permanent exile is a little harsh for being boastful.
Of course, the mystique surrounding Snowden is strengthen by his exile and with it his notoriety. In the end, I think he would like to come home more than being (in)famous.
Actually the condition was set by DogDude:
You seem to be moving the goalposts. Let's try to keep the rhetoric to actual hostile acts of war.
I hope the experience will be better than MS Windows for Workgroups.
Let me look at your list:
Korean War: North Korea backed by the Soviet Union and China invaded South Korea. The US intervened to defend South Korea.
Vietnam War: North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam. France initiated the defense of South Vietnam and the US took over.
Cold War: Was not an actual war.
1st Iraq War: Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US intervened on Kuwait's behalf and pushed Iraq back to its original border.
"War on Drugs": Is not an actual war. It is political rhetoric
Afghanistan War: Response to Afghanistan (Taliban in particular) complacency in if not sponsoring of the terrorist attack by Al Queda.
2nd Iraq War: Deposed Hussein under the auspices of the existence of WMDs and his desire to use them against the US. Later found untrue.
"War on Terror": Is not an actual war. It is political rhetoric. At best it is related to the actions in Afghanistan and defense at home.
Your list only includes 2 real wars where the US initiated the formal conflict. Afghanistan was in response to their role in providing Al Queda a safe haven to base their attacks on the US, and Iraq based on an erroneous (possibly fraudulent) premise that Hussein had WMDs and posed a threat serious enough to warrant immediate action.
Actually you need to read up on your history. The US were not the aggressors. North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam which was originally defended by France. The US took over from France in a policy of containment with the goal of preventing the spread of communism.
The first Iraq war was in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
Afganistan hosted the Al Queda training camps and was complacent about the 9-11 attacks.
The second Iraq war was over accusations of weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's defiance of UN nuclear inspections. WMDs were never found.
Vietnam was not started by the US. The communist North Vietnam directed the Viet Cong (NLF) to make attacks against South Vietnam. France was initially involved in the war and the US simply took over. China and other communist countries allied with North Vietnam, while France, US and other anti-communist countries allied with South Vietnam.
California's high cost of living, taxes, urban sprawl, over regulation, and bankrupt state budget is more a risk to California's business than some speculated blowback from NSA revelations.
One is not most. Sorry for the multiple replies... too much coffee. ;)
Let me add that it still doesn't justify the US actions, and I agree with Holi that this is a single instance where the US violated it's own policy of preemptive strikes.
Maybe. I agree the US could have waited to invade Iraq. Of course, Saddam Hussein didn't do himself any favors when he continued to openly defy UN nuclear inspectors and made public threats about his desires to become a nuclear power. Any sane person would have STFU after the 9-11 attacks. Unfortunately Hussein was not known for his sanity and over played his hand. His public statements gave credibility to false reports of weapons of mass destruction and the rest is history... It was still just a matter of time.
Snowden is a criminal. He broke the law by divulging state's secret information that he was under contract to not divulge at the risk of criminal prosecution. Despite this, it does not automatically make him a traitor just a fugitive.
Good thing the Nobel peace prize lost most of its credibility when it was awarded to Obama just for winning an election, otherwise this would be a huge setback. Instead its just more of the same, a member of the nominating committee making some political statement.
Please give examples.
Before I switched to a different brand of laptops, I used to buy Sony. I was always able to purchase replacement parts from directly from them and they offered service manuals for each model. I noticed the quality was starting to suffer and the price remained too high so I switched.
It appears they no longer have a parts store but they do refer you to an authorized third party.
It's been over 2 decades since I read any Orson Scott Card and too much time has passed to really care. It's not like I knew who Card was, I only like his Ender books. It's like my daughter loving Harry Potter when she was young. If you'd asked her who J. K. Rowling was she would only say that she wrote Harry Potter. She wouldn't know her political views and as a kid she wouldn't care.
To be fair, the US tends to hold on to their convicts a little longer while China tends to execute them quickly. Number of executions in 2012: US 43, China 2000+ (according to Amnesty International).
So you think the US should step up their executions? Of course not, but you didn't look at the whole picture when you made that comparison.
Choosing to not financially support a person that you disagree with is not an ad hominem. Making personal attacks that are suppose to cause a response due to emotions rather than the validity of the argument is an ad hominem attack. Card is free to make a fool out of himself any way he sees fit, and others are free to not give him any money.
You are free to say anything you want, but that doesn't mean you won't have any consequences for your actions. I read and enjoyed all of his Ender books before he publicly came out with his views on homosexuality. While I am not gay, I don't think I should give money to someone who will probably use it to attempt to subjugate my friends and relatives who are homosexuals. Luckily I didn't have this conundrum back in the 80's when I eagerly purchased his books. He didn't make his views known until 1991.