I didn't realize it was ok to seek out, confront, and then shoot someone, as long as that person is a THUG?
Who has said that's OK? Are you talking about some scenario other than the trial at hand? Because what you're describing didn't happen. You need to be more clear that you're not talking about the Zimmerman/Martin trial when you say that. Otherwise people might think that you're being deliberately misleading.
But Zimmerman was armed and deliberately sought a confrontation with him, not the other way around.
Ah, so you ARE being deliberately misleading. Why are you doing that? What's the point of lying about it?
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.
That depends, was my son or daughter beating someone's head against the sidewalk after jumping them? Did my son or daughter start the violence?
So Martin is a "thug" for beating on someone but Zimmerman isn't for killing him?
Right, because Martin, not Zimmerman, committed assault and was the one committing the actual violence. Zimmerman didn't commit violence, he stopped the person who was committing violence.
So someone stalks you and confronts you and is armed, what do you do?
Gee, I don't know, talk to them? What I wouldn't do would be to wait until the guy is walking back to his truck, then run up and sucker punch him, knock him down, and begin bashing his head into the sidewalk.
Wait to get killed or fight for your life?
Why are you asking that question? Those weren't the choices presented to Martin. He had all sorts of choices, including just walking into the house he had gotten to (according to his friend, the prosecution's witness). Instead, he turned around, and ran back to Zimmerman, who was walking back to his truck. And attacked him.
No, you're confused. The person attempting murder was stopped in the act by his victim. The entire trial is a bad joke, and the Skype episode is just frosting on that bitter cake.
Actually, yes you do lose your right to self-defense if you're told to back off.
Not that that's actually true, but it doesn't matter. Because nobody told him to. The said that Zimmerman didn't need to keep following Martin. And even if you choose to interpret that as direction (the person who said it, the dispatcher, has already testified that it was not instruction to Zimmerman), a dispatcher has no authority whatsoever in such matters.
I have the right to racially profile you
Yes, you do! You can look right at me, and say, "I see that you're white: that probably means all sorts of bad things, by my standards." You can racially profile me all you want. Because doing so means nothing when it's a private citizen doing so. You can also behaviorally profile me... you know, make personal conclusions all your own based on what you seem me doing as I hide my face cruising through your neighborhood. Why? Because doing so isn't a problem. Because that's not assault.
follow you anywhere you go
You have absolutely no expectation of privacy on a public street. Are you saying that Martin was followed into the house where he was staying? Because... he wasn't. It was Martin that doubled back towards Zimmerman (who was walking the opposite direction), to attack him.
and I can shoot-to-kill if/when you panic cause an unknown armed man is following you around at night.
No, but you can shoot when someone jumps you and starts beating your head into the pavement, which is what happened. Day or night, doesn't really matter.
His actions were not confrontational. And Zimmerman was jumped while walking back to his truck. You know this, we all know this. So, you're just repeating your BS justification for the violence that Martin began. Seeing where someone out of place is going in your neighborhood is not violent. The only person who made the situation violent was Martin.
That's why it is a case of pure confrontation and aggression.
Absurd. Getting out of the car to see where someone suspicious is going is not a confrontation nor is it an act that requires that person to double back from just outside the house he was going to, jump the guy, and begin to administer a beat-down. You're a troll, or an idiot, or both.
However unaccountable government bureaucrats are, do you think that insurance company bureaucrats are better?
Yes, because they have competitors. And if a new health care law simply did the one of the very few things it actually needed to do (allow interstate competition by insurance companies, instead of preventing that sort of liberty), we'd see even more of that competition and pressure to perform usefully for paying customers.
As for the motivation to shut down coverage for expensive customers: yes, it would sure help if coverage wasn't so expensive to provide. The answer for that is tort reform, something the democrats don't want because they don't want to piss off the trial lawyers, who pay for a lot of their campaign ads. But look to the industry those lawyers have created (huge money-making suits) for why the practice of simple medicine has descended into a storm of hideously expensive tests, unneeded drug use, soul-crushing record keeping processes, and all of the related paperwork nightmares.
By the time they are up for a potential firing again, everyone will have forgotten about this ridiculous mess.
No, they won't have forgotten. Because by then, almost every family in the US will have or know somebody who has had a disastrous encounter with one of the tens of thousands of new IRS employees who are being put into place to police individual involvement with Obamacare, and who will set into motion everything from fines with interest to bank account and home seizures for not perfectly complying with a byzantine new law that people like Nancy Pelosi said we'd have to pass so we could see what was in it. No, people aren't going to forget, because the annual screwing they're going to get will be very tangible.
Other than the whole part where that's not true in terms of who's doing the spending. Your lack of any citation shows you're pulling it out of thin air.
The difference is that in some areas decisions that were made by insurance companies are now made by publicly accountable government employees.
Which would be interesting if the "publicly accountable" part were even remotely true. Look at the political actions of managers and supervisors in the IRS, and the utter stonewalling by that agency and un-shocking lack of curiosity by their boss who heads the executive branch, the president, as to who to hold accountable for exactly the sort of capricious behavior that you're suggesting won't happen. The IRS is hiring tens of thousands of brand new, un-accountable, essentially un-fireable new employees explicitly to have them make judgement calls about whether individual people have been sufficiently in compliance with a gigantic, byzantine new law that nobody understands. They will decide whether those individuals ultimately may end up having wages garnished, businesses ruined, homes seized, or spend time in prison if they aren't doing it exactly right. That you see such new power and enforcement in the hands of the IRS as an improvement is unfortunate.
When I'm in the car and want some cheap, fast, gut-filling goodness, do I say to my wife "Do you want to stop at McDonald's?"
Which is exactly what franchising is all about - leveraging the brand name for marketing. Which absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how a particular business owner handles payroll.
It is awful, you're right. Which is why I save vitriolic invective for people who - like the guy above I was responding to - deliberately spout toxic BS. People who do that need to be called on it.
This is one of the main reasons I want this country to abandon its two-party system.
The country doesn't have a two party system. It has individuals that choose to associated into groups (parties) to maximize their chance of getting things done in elections and legislative efforts.
The parties we happen to see right now are always in a state of flux (really, there was political history before you were old enough to pay attention). People's participation in those parties ebb and flow, and the priorities focused on by the parties changes with all sorts of variables.
If you were to decide to unconstitutionally ban the activities of the Democrat and Republican parties, people would just congregate around something by a different name. That freedom to associate is fundamental. It has nothing to do with a "system," in that the ways that political parties organize themselves or caucus together in the legislature isn't part of the constitution or within government purview, per se. What you're saying is that you think the constitution's protection of freedom of assembly is old fashioned, and you think the government should dictate who can gather into and act as a group. Nice.
If people think their government is fair and acting in their best interest, there is no reason to riot.
The problem is that some people's idea of "fair" is "getting free stuff paid for by other people." When the taxpayers are out of cash to buy the free stuff, the people used to getting the free stuff get mad and burn the town they live in to show how upset they are. Quick! Give get some money from the guy whose store is being trashed, and use it to give the people who are smashing his windows some more free stuff! Whew. Crisis averted.
Unless, as is very often in the case in retail settings - especially where packaged alchohol is sold, he'd been previously told that he wasn't allowed on the premises. That scenario makes subsequent arrival in the store trespass, immediately.
Let's say there's someone who comes to your front door and does stuff you don't like, on your property. You tell them to leave, and that the next time they set foot on your property, they'll be trespassing. If he shows up again, you can call the police and tell them exactly what's going on, and they can arrest. Especially (as is frequently the case with the sort of guy described, in the sort of business described) when the cops - by virtue of having to deal with the same people on a regular basis - already know the person in question isn't allowed to trespass.
Exactly, you have no idea. Here's the likely explanation: trespassing. The store is private property, and the guy has probably been told to stay out because of earlier incidents. If you've been formally told you're not allowed in the store, and come in anyway, that's trespass. And it is a crime, and you get arrested for it. And no, it's probably not going to mean jail time unless you are a real ass and just keep doing it over and over again.
Which has nothing to do with money laundering and the way it's prosecuted.
I wouldn't think so. That feels more like a promotional discount (like a coupon). You can't sell them, transfer them, or even use unless you're spending even more money through eBay. Taxing eBay bucks would be like taxing the use of the coupons they print out for you at the grocery store register - those are only "worth" something if you're in the store buying more goods later, at a slightly lower promotional rate.
A government that ignores its own laws when they are inconvenient is NOT a democracy
I'm never clear on why people use the word "democracy" when making statements like that. You can have a democracy that votes, in a simple majority, to re-introduce slavery. Or to adopt Sharia law, etc.
Democracy has nothing to do with it. The US is a constitutionally chartered republic. It happens to use local democracy, in various formats, to elect representatives to participate in parts of that republic's systems of checks and balances.
Democracy isn't a goal, it's a grubby and frequently ugly thing that happens to be necessary in order to keep certain aspects of the republic working correctly. We should all be very, very glad that the country isn't run as a capital-D democracy. Save that for home owners' associations, the PTA, and the local rock climbing club.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't realize it was ok to seek out, confront, and then shoot someone, as long as that person is a THUG?
Who has said that's OK? Are you talking about some scenario other than the trial at hand? Because what you're describing didn't happen. You need to be more clear that you're not talking about the Zimmerman/Martin trial when you say that. Otherwise people might think that you're being deliberately misleading.
But Zimmerman was armed and deliberately sought a confrontation with him, not the other way around.
Ah, so you ARE being deliberately misleading. Why are you doing that? What's the point of lying about it?
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.
That depends, was my son or daughter beating someone's head against the sidewalk after jumping them? Did my son or daughter start the violence?
So Martin is a "thug" for beating on someone but Zimmerman isn't for killing him?
Right, because Martin, not Zimmerman, committed assault and was the one committing the actual violence. Zimmerman didn't commit violence, he stopped the person who was committing violence.
So someone stalks you and confronts you and is armed, what do you do?
Gee, I don't know, talk to them? What I wouldn't do would be to wait until the guy is walking back to his truck, then run up and sucker punch him, knock him down, and begin bashing his head into the sidewalk.
Wait to get killed or fight for your life?
Why are you asking that question? Those weren't the choices presented to Martin. He had all sorts of choices, including just walking into the house he had gotten to (according to his friend, the prosecution's witness). Instead, he turned around, and ran back to Zimmerman, who was walking back to his truck. And attacked him.
You're not actually paying attention, are you?
This murderer is going to walk on technicalities!
No, you're confused. The person attempting murder was stopped in the act by his victim. The entire trial is a bad joke, and the Skype episode is just frosting on that bitter cake.
Not when you've provoked and threatened them. Which is exactly what Zimmerman did.
See, that's the thing. That didn't happen. You are lying. Why are you lying?
Actually, yes you do lose your right to self-defense if you're told to back off.
Not that that's actually true, but it doesn't matter. Because nobody told him to. The said that Zimmerman didn't need to keep following Martin. And even if you choose to interpret that as direction (the person who said it, the dispatcher, has already testified that it was not instruction to Zimmerman), a dispatcher has no authority whatsoever in such matters.
I have the right to racially profile you
Yes, you do! You can look right at me, and say, "I see that you're white: that probably means all sorts of bad things, by my standards." You can racially profile me all you want. Because doing so means nothing when it's a private citizen doing so. You can also behaviorally profile me ... you know, make personal conclusions all your own based on what you seem me doing as I hide my face cruising through your neighborhood. Why? Because doing so isn't a problem. Because that's not assault.
follow you anywhere you go
You have absolutely no expectation of privacy on a public street. Are you saying that Martin was followed into the house where he was staying? Because ... he wasn't. It was Martin that doubled back towards Zimmerman (who was walking the opposite direction), to attack him.
and I can shoot-to-kill if/when you panic cause an unknown armed man is following you around at night.
No, but you can shoot when someone jumps you and starts beating your head into the pavement, which is what happened. Day or night, doesn't really matter.
it's because his actions were confrontational
His actions were not confrontational. And Zimmerman was jumped while walking back to his truck. You know this, we all know this. So, you're just repeating your BS justification for the violence that Martin began. Seeing where someone out of place is going in your neighborhood is not violent. The only person who made the situation violent was Martin.
That's why it is a case of pure confrontation and aggression.
Absurd. Getting out of the car to see where someone suspicious is going is not a confrontation nor is it an act that requires that person to double back from just outside the house he was going to, jump the guy, and begin to administer a beat-down. You're a troll, or an idiot, or both.
However unaccountable government bureaucrats are, do you think that insurance company bureaucrats are better?
Yes, because they have competitors. And if a new health care law simply did the one of the very few things it actually needed to do (allow interstate competition by insurance companies, instead of preventing that sort of liberty), we'd see even more of that competition and pressure to perform usefully for paying customers.
As for the motivation to shut down coverage for expensive customers: yes, it would sure help if coverage wasn't so expensive to provide. The answer for that is tort reform, something the democrats don't want because they don't want to piss off the trial lawyers, who pay for a lot of their campaign ads. But look to the industry those lawyers have created (huge money-making suits) for why the practice of simple medicine has descended into a storm of hideously expensive tests, unneeded drug use, soul-crushing record keeping processes, and all of the related paperwork nightmares.
By the time they are up for a potential firing again, everyone will have forgotten about this ridiculous mess.
No, they won't have forgotten. Because by then, almost every family in the US will have or know somebody who has had a disastrous encounter with one of the tens of thousands of new IRS employees who are being put into place to police individual involvement with Obamacare, and who will set into motion everything from fines with interest to bank account and home seizures for not perfectly complying with a byzantine new law that people like Nancy Pelosi said we'd have to pass so we could see what was in it. No, people aren't going to forget, because the annual screwing they're going to get will be very tangible.
It has been pretty well established
Other than the whole part where that's not true in terms of who's doing the spending. Your lack of any citation shows you're pulling it out of thin air.
The difference is that in some areas decisions that were made by insurance companies are now made by publicly accountable government employees.
Which would be interesting if the "publicly accountable" part were even remotely true. Look at the political actions of managers and supervisors in the IRS, and the utter stonewalling by that agency and un-shocking lack of curiosity by their boss who heads the executive branch, the president, as to who to hold accountable for exactly the sort of capricious behavior that you're suggesting won't happen. The IRS is hiring tens of thousands of brand new, un-accountable, essentially un-fireable new employees explicitly to have them make judgement calls about whether individual people have been sufficiently in compliance with a gigantic, byzantine new law that nobody understands. They will decide whether those individuals ultimately may end up having wages garnished, businesses ruined, homes seized, or spend time in prison if they aren't doing it exactly right. That you see such new power and enforcement in the hands of the IRS as an improvement is unfortunate.
When I'm in the car and want some cheap, fast, gut-filling goodness, do I say to my wife "Do you want to stop at McDonald's?"
Which is exactly what franchising is all about - leveraging the brand name for marketing. Which absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how a particular business owner handles payroll.
It is awful, you're right. Which is why I save vitriolic invective for people who - like the guy above I was responding to - deliberately spout toxic BS. People who do that need to be called on it.
Such snappy repartee! What a stunning display of intellect! Yay! You win the internet today. Coward.
You are the low information demographic we all complain about. Please do not vote.
More so in the US with it's love for chemicals.
Well at least it's not like your country, where you eat too many apostrophes and occasionally puke them out when you're ranting.
This is one of the main reasons I want this country to abandon its two-party system.
The country doesn't have a two party system. It has individuals that choose to associated into groups (parties) to maximize their chance of getting things done in elections and legislative efforts.
The parties we happen to see right now are always in a state of flux (really, there was political history before you were old enough to pay attention). People's participation in those parties ebb and flow, and the priorities focused on by the parties changes with all sorts of variables.
If you were to decide to unconstitutionally ban the activities of the Democrat and Republican parties, people would just congregate around something by a different name. That freedom to associate is fundamental. It has nothing to do with a "system," in that the ways that political parties organize themselves or caucus together in the legislature isn't part of the constitution or within government purview, per se. What you're saying is that you think the constitution's protection of freedom of assembly is old fashioned, and you think the government should dictate who can gather into and act as a group. Nice.
If people think their government is fair and acting in their best interest, there is no reason to riot.
The problem is that some people's idea of "fair" is "getting free stuff paid for by other people." When the taxpayers are out of cash to buy the free stuff, the people used to getting the free stuff get mad and burn the town they live in to show how upset they are. Quick! Give get some money from the guy whose store is being trashed, and use it to give the people who are smashing his windows some more free stuff! Whew. Crisis averted.
Quite unfair to the guy
Unless, as is very often in the case in retail settings - especially where packaged alchohol is sold, he'd been previously told that he wasn't allowed on the premises. That scenario makes subsequent arrival in the store trespass, immediately.
Let's say there's someone who comes to your front door and does stuff you don't like, on your property. You tell them to leave, and that the next time they set foot on your property, they'll be trespassing. If he shows up again, you can call the police and tell them exactly what's going on, and they can arrest. Especially (as is frequently the case with the sort of guy described, in the sort of business described) when the cops - by virtue of having to deal with the same people on a regular basis - already know the person in question isn't allowed to trespass.
You're adding more conjecture to his conjucture? Interesting.
No, I'm pointing out a common reason for exactly what he witnessed, as opposed to his vague handwaving and comparing of two utterly unrelated things.
for what i still have no idea
Exactly, you have no idea. Here's the likely explanation: trespassing. The store is private property, and the guy has probably been told to stay out because of earlier incidents. If you've been formally told you're not allowed in the store, and come in anyway, that's trespass. And it is a crime, and you get arrested for it. And no, it's probably not going to mean jail time unless you are a real ass and just keep doing it over and over again.
Which has nothing to do with money laundering and the way it's prosecuted.
While flipping through a novel on an e-reader? Really?
I catch all the typos in my books.
Do you really think you'd notice a pattern of extra trailing spaces behind the last words of certain paragraphs of certain chapters?
Are ebay bucks taxable under income?
I wouldn't think so. That feels more like a promotional discount (like a coupon). You can't sell them, transfer them, or even use unless you're spending even more money through eBay. Taxing eBay bucks would be like taxing the use of the coupons they print out for you at the grocery store register - those are only "worth" something if you're in the store buying more goods later, at a slightly lower promotional rate.
A government that ignores its own laws when they are inconvenient is NOT a democracy
I'm never clear on why people use the word "democracy" when making statements like that. You can have a democracy that votes, in a simple majority, to re-introduce slavery. Or to adopt Sharia law, etc.
Democracy has nothing to do with it. The US is a constitutionally chartered republic. It happens to use local democracy, in various formats, to elect representatives to participate in parts of that republic's systems of checks and balances.
Democracy isn't a goal, it's a grubby and frequently ugly thing that happens to be necessary in order to keep certain aspects of the republic working correctly. We should all be very, very glad that the country isn't run as a capital-D democracy. Save that for home owners' associations, the PTA, and the local rock climbing club.