I dont know the specifics of this law, but may of the 'for the children' laws that go after 'registered sex offenders' often end up using too broad of a fishing net. In many states a 23yr old has sex with a 16 or 17 yr old consentually is still found guilty of statuatory rape due to laws concerning age of concent having some relative age component. This can be even more problematic when the said 16 or 17yr old uses a fake id to get into a club and lies about their age. At the end of the day the law is still considered violated and the 23yr old got branded a sex offender. Now fast-forward 10yrs later. I just dont see how this same person should be lumped into having all his rights violated in an effert to protect children from poedophiles. At no time did this person behave in a way dangerous to children. Its also very likely that now that this person is 33yrs old is also still only attracted to people that are still only a few years younger putting them at 30ish in age.
I know in my city they used a dragnet law 3yrs ago that said registered sex offenders could not live within 1000 yards of a school, church, or daycare. Well there really arent but 4 or 5 places here that can escape 1000 yards of a freakin church let alone schools and daycares. This town is church crazy, a damn church is on every city block. As a result of this law they evicted, by force, everyone in violation after a 60 day notice. Now they all live in this one small area of town. This _includes_ a few people in the exact same scenario I painted. Those people had grown up and had kids of their own now, and are forced to live with thier children surrounded by _real_ child predators.
I have no faith in government legislators being able to pull their heads out of their asses and write laws specific enough that stupid shit like this doesnt end up causing more problems than they hope to avert.
this reminds me of that 1967 British comedy "At Last, the 1948 show" with some of the Monty Python crew (before they became monty python) which poked fun at the habit of the BBC of letting shows sit in the can years before finally airing them.
again, media madeup bullshit.. read the Rueters account, it goes into a 10yr history and interviews neighbors etc. Its called investigative journalism that our current media doesnt believe in. They believe in printing opinions and not collecting information.
George carried a gun, in his waitband not his hand, because cops told him to after being attacked by a pitt bull the year prior. There were lots of unleashed dogs attacking people after being abandoned during the forclosures from the housing collapse.
zimmerman's statement to the cops after the incident on video stated that it was a purely physical altercation, one which trayvon was clearly winning, that resulted in george's head being bashed into the sidewalk multiple times (confirmed by witness who ran to call 911 and georges voice confirmed in background screaming for help). The statement continues to say that trayvon then saw the gun in the waistband , reached for it, and said 'your going to die tonight mother fucker!'. We dont know how much of that is true.. but we do know
1) george did NOT approach with gun in hand otherwise trayvon would have NEVER had a chance to beat his skull into the sidewalk repeatedly as witnessed by a neighbor. 2) the physical attack and having your head pounded into the sidewalk is justifiable defense even if the part about reaching for the guy by travon was completely made-up.
how do you know zimmerman took a gun and started a conflict??? According to the only non-bullshit media that bothered to actually fairly investigate, Rueters, the cops told zimmerman to buy and carry a gun about a year before the incident. He and his wife were jogging and were attacked by a unleashed pitt bull. There were several unleashed dogs in the neighborhood due to the housing collapse causing a lot of forclosures and abandonment. So no, he did not just grab a gun and go decide to play cop like the media wants you to think. Rueters did a complete 10yr history on zimmermans life, and interviewed the cops that responded to the dog attack.
The witness statement made via video (I watched the video) that occurred the very next day states that during the fist fight, Trayvon had nearly won the fight already when Trayvon spotted and reached for the gun in zimmermans waistband.
We do know it was zimmerman's voice that was screaming for help, and an eye witness that called 911 did say that Trayvon was beating zimmerman's head into the pavement before being shot. So where in the world do you see a 'do nothing situation'? Do you think that Trayvon would have somehow NOT killed zimmerman while beating his skull into pavement? You cant possibly know that. Trayvon didnt 'lunge at him'.. how about ALL the evidence of being beat half to hell during the conflict? Dont you understand that even a single punch can actually kill? Happened here a year ago, at an festival where people were drinking. Some guy accidentally bumped into another guy and that guy got pissed and punched him hard in the back of the head. Guy died instantly. Guns arent the only way to kill people, despite what all the anti-gun nuts want people to believe. Humans have been doing a good job of it for the last 20k years, long before the first gun was invented. So if your head was being pounded into the pavement, and you felt you were going to die.. would you pull that gun a cop told you to carry to protect you from pitt bulls? Even casting the 'trayvon reached for the gun first saying he was going to kill george' statement aside; Any series of blows to the skull become life threatening and justify immediate deadly response.
I guess you didn't do a lot of research in the matter of the gun. Its not surprising considering how much the media wants to bias everyone on the issue. It was the cops that told him to carry a gun after being attacked by a pit bull while jogging with his wife nearly a year prior. Rueters actually did an objective piece on the whole thing including the history of zimmerman as much as 10yrs prior. The cops told him to buy and carry a gun because mace just wouldn't do anything except piss off the pit bull. It at that time he bought a Kel-Tech, a double-action-only brand designed for conceal carry usage. So the gun being in his possession is not an issue of premeditated aggression. He simply carried it everywhere due to the number of off-leash animals running around the neighborhood.
as far as your question about 'should everyone have to stand trial after killing another, even in self defense?':
I have some issue with this. Mostly because no one is ever 'fine' even after acquittal. George has already lost his job and spent time behind bars with hardened criminals. IF he is acquitted he still have a pile of legal bills and no job to pay for them. Perhaps due to the notoriety of this case, people might make donations to help, but if it became commonplace.. defending your life could come at the cost of not being able to provide food and shelter for your family.
Allow me to paint a self defense situation where I think you would find it terrible we forced the shooter to stand trial.
Your a 26yr old woman. You eat right, take care of yourself, jog every morning. One morning, after a jog, and intruder breaks into your home attempting to rape you. He starts ripping your clothes off. You scratch is eyes and get away, running to the bedroom, the attacker in quick pursuit. You reach into your sock drawer, turn and fire, killing your attacker. You call 911 and 25min later the police arrive. They collect your statement, talk to your neighbors, take photographs of the body and collect forensics while he body bleeds out onto your bedroom carpet.
Normally you would go through rape counseling and begin putting your life back together. Not this time. About 6mos ago your state passed an anti-stand-your-ground law requiring criminal trials in every self-defense killing. You are now arraigned. Your rape-shield laws now are side-stepped because you've just been named defendant in a justifiable homicide case. Your boss now knows you were raped. Your co-workers look at you differently, though they try not to. Everywhere you look you feel like eyes are staring at you. After a few weeks the parents of the rapist go on the media and demand a release of bond, so you are forced to spend time in jail during your trial. The anti-gun advocates paint you as a harlot, luring attackers into your lair just to have the excuse of shooting them. They again call for the complete abolishing of all guns. Amidst the post-traumatic shock of the rape, you begin to feel the attack all over again, this time from every person you meet. You've now lost your job, due to spending time in jail and the negative press the media has been giving you. You've had to put a lean on your house to cover your attorney fees. Eventually you get acquitted, but because of the media hype, this has turned into a 9mo circus not a 2hr trial. You begin to wonder if being raped and murdered might have been the better option. You begin regretting defending your life at all and slip into depression.
so everything is back to normal right? You got acquitted, the rapist is dead, you lost your job, you cant afford your home or legal bills. Everywhere you go people know you and come up to you wanting to talk to you about the rape, which you only want to forget and never remember again. You've decided you have to move to a different town where people dont know your story so you can have a job that you can work at and try to get on with your life.
An investigation is different than a trial. The police had investigated the zimmerman situation and they felt it
I guess you didn't do a lot of research in the matter of the gun. Its not surprising considering how much the media wants to bias everyone on the issue. It was the cops that told him to carry a gun after being attacked by a pit bull while jogging with his wife nearly a year prior. Rueters actually did an objective piece on the whole thing including the history of zimmerman as much as 10yrs prior. The cops told him to buy and carry a gun because mace just wouldn't do anything except piss off the pit bull. It at that time he bought a Kel-Tech, a double-action-only brand designed for conceal carry usage. So the gun being in his possession is not an issue of premeditated aggression. He simply carried it everywhere due to the number of off-leash animals running around the neighborhood.
as far as your question about 'should everyone have to stand trial after killing another, even in self defense?':
I have some issue with this. Mostly because no one is ever 'fine' even after acquittal. George has already lost his job and spent time behind bars with hardened criminals. IF he is acquitted he still have a pile of legal bills and no job to pay for them. Perhaps due to the notoriety of this case, people might make donations to help, but if it became commonplace.. defending your life could come at the cost of not being able to provide food and shelter for your family.
Allow me to paint a self defense situation where I think you would find it terrible we forced the shooter to stand trial.
Your a 26yr old woman. You eat right, take care of yourself, jog every morning. One morning, after a jog, and intruder breaks into your home attempting to rape you. He starts ripping your clothes off. You scratch is eyes and get away, running to the bedroom, the attacker in quick pursuit. You reach into your sock drawer, turn and fire, killing your attacker. You call 911 and 25min later the police arrive. They collect your statement, talk to your neighbors, take photographs of the body and collect forensics while he body bleeds out onto your bedroom carpet.
Normally you would go through rape counseling and begin putting your life back together. Not this time. About 6mos ago your state passed an anti-stand-your-ground law requiring criminal trials in every self-defense killing. You are now arraigned. Your rape-shield laws now are side-stepped because you've just been named defendant in a justifiable homicide case. Your boss now knows you were raped. Your co-workers look at you differently, though they try not to. Everywhere you look you feel like eyes are staring at you. After a few weeks the parents of the rapist go on the media and demand a release of bond, so you are forced to spend time in jail during your trial. The anti-gun advocates paint you as a harlot, luring attackers into your lair just to have the excuse of shooting them. They again call for the complete abolishing of all guns. Amidst the post-traumatic shock of the rape, you begin to feel the attack all over again, this time from every person you meet. You've now lost your job, due to spending time in jail and the negative press the media has been giving you. You've had to put a lean on your house to cover your attorney fees. Eventually you get acquitted, but because of the media hype, this has turned into a 9mo circus not a 2hr trial. You begin to wonder if being raped and murdered might have been the better option. You begin regretting defending your life at all and slip into depression.
so everything is back to normal right? You got acquitted, the rapist is dead, you lost your job, you cant afford your home or legal bills. Everywhere you go people know you and come up to you wanting to talk to you about the rape, which you only want to forget and never remember again. You've decided you have to move to a different town where people dont know your story so you can have a job that you can work at and try to get on with your life.
An investigation is different than a trial. The police had investigated the zimmerman situation and they felt it
_character_ assassination: thats a phrase used in politics and legal strategy to undermine the credibility of ones perceived status in society. By painting him as scum they have assassinated the previous held up notion of a pious, honor roll student, slain at the hands of 'some racist white dude'.
similar strategies are used in all sorts of cases, sometimes good sometimes bad. For example the World Bank president accused of raping the maid. Her character was assassinated when they brought forth recorded evidence of her communicating with an inmate discussing how much money she intended to extort from him. It was further assassinated when the rest of her details she gave the cops started unraveling.
how well do these games run inside a VM? Perhaps the answer is to only use the hostOS for those games, and everything else run through your linux distribution? That could limit your exposure considerably.
they wont see it that way... let me counter that with a different medium but similar concept..
I am hanging around a campfire with 5 of my buddies, we are all drinking. I make the comment that I cant stand my boss and I'm probably going to kill him one day. A week later he is found murdered in his home. One of my buddies drops an anonymous tip about my drunken outburst to the cops. The cops go gather witness statements from a couple of these buddies and collect enough evidence for grand jury indictment. Later all 5 people are brought into court, sworn in under oath, and made to testify as to the accounts of that night.
I cannot claim that just because I didnt get on live TV and make the announcement, I had some expectation of privacy. If these twitter and facebook posts as well as school records create a pattern of violence and other criminal activity, it garners support of the defendants claim:
"during the physical altercation with Travon Martin, Travon found the gun lodged in the waistband of George's belt and grabbed for it while saying 'you're going to die tonight mother fucker!'. During the struggle for George's life, the gun discharged once into the chest of Travon at point-blank range".
This is a statement of account that has no eye witness. The defense claims that the intent was just to detain one of the people that has been constantly breaking into the homes of the neighborhood and Travon jumped him, resulting in a struggle for life. Some of these breakins have even been home invasions while residents were home. For weeks cops have gotten there 30min too late to catch them. Many times even called in by George to come grab them. This again gives a story of a man simply trying to slow people down just enough for the cops to arrive. Its a good story. Nobody will ever know what really happened besides George and Travon. Dead people obviously cant testify.
Meanwhile the media, and the victim's family, are painting Travon as this completely innocent angel, an honor roll student, that's only crime in life was being black. So if these records show: 1. travon was a C and D student 2. Travon had a poor attendance recorc 3. Suspensions and records of disciplinary action for extreme violence 4. tweets bragging about breaking into homes 5. facebook posts bragging about, or pictures showing, stolen goods
Then although they, by themselves, do not prove travon grabbed the gun and tried to murder George; still accomplish character assasination. "If they lied about these things, then they're probably lying about everything else too, just to avoid public record of their son being a criminal". Once that opinion gets formed with the jury it will be harder to get a conviction for sure. The evidence to decide on is not whether George shot and killed Travon, he clearly did. The question is whether George's life was actually in immanent danger, justifying self defense.
I agree 100%.. once you post it publicly, there is no taking it back. You can't un-ring that bell. Think in terms of the novel 1984. The only thing safe from tampering is your thoughts. In that novel they convinced the populous that they had thought police to even spy on that.
but they can easily force you to give testimony by granting you immunity. The Miami girl can be protected from self incrimination but she cannot refuse to provide evidence if the only person she is protecting is a co-conspirator. The prosecution can decide that forcing her hand by granting immunity is worth the trade-off. If she still refuses to provide the information then she could go to jail for obstruction.
apparently England did it right in this regard.. every candidate gets the exact same amount of money to spend and thats the end of it. If they run out of money too early then they arent really good at managing things and you probably shouldnt vote for them anyway.
libertarian and constitutionalists often cross-over with their goals and ideas. its clearly obvious that the two assholes we have fighting for the seat right now dont give two shits about civil liberties or the constitution. I couldnt stand the patriot act, I cant stand PIPA and SOPA, I dont like the arming of every federal office and I sure as hell dont like the extrajudicial assasination of a 16yr old boy who was the english voice of al queda without so much as a trial. And as much as I dislike the president of Iran, mr ImANutJob, he does have a point about the USA being bullies... just look at the whole megaupload crap and how they acted without evidence, without due process, into another country. But I also cant stand spending money we dont have.. so there is some amount of fiscal conservatism to my belief.
So does that make me a libertarian? a Constitutionalist? or an Isolationalist?
Personally I couldn't give two shits about who marries who.. if same sex wants to marry, I could care less.. just don't expect me to buy something off the registry. If someone wants to have 10 abortions a year, again I dont give a shit as long as I am not forced to pay for it out of tax dollars. No tax dollars pays for my medication or for my LASIK surgery.. fucking insurance wont even pay for that and its a hell of a lot more medically necessary than someones third 'oops'. But if they have the money.. have at it. If they dont have the money.. do it 1 time and offer them $1500 to tie their tubes while they are already on the table.. i bet they'd jump at it.
So I ask you.. what exactly does that make me ?:-)
if they ban lasers, goodbye DVD player, goodbye Bluray players, goodbye disc burners etc. If we go around banning everything that can be used to harm people you have no idea how far down the rabbit hole this will lead. I remember in the 80's some plans in the back of those magazines by Paladin Press on how to make a Microwave Oven Blaster (MOB) . you can take any microwave and convert it into a weapon that induces violent seizures in someone causing possible strokes and permanent brain damage. Should we take everyone's microwaves away too? You might take some prescription drugs and have an adverse reaction with something else you take daily so that when you drive to work, you potentially cause a 20 car accident and killing a family of 6. Should we outlaw cars? Should we ban all supplements or require a pharmacist in order to get your over the counter vitamins just in case they interact with your prescription drug? There's is no end to where this reasoning will take you and congress has never once been known for discretion. Give them an inch and they take a damn continent.
You are aware that gun sales are reported to the government, right? And that many people aren't permitted to own them based on their prior actions which may have nothing to do with a gun? We do have gun licensing, and gun crime is waning since its inception; while that doesn't prove that it's the sole factor responsible (and it almost certainly is not) it doesn't provide an argument against it, either.
three points.. 1. the gun control nuts claim just the opposite, that gun crime is higher than ever. They use that as a basis to pass more bans and restrictions. The truth is the number of gun related deaths every year has been static, while the population is on the increase, so perhaps the number of crimes per capita is on the decline.
2. the actual numbers of murders in this country is steadily increasing, which means that banning guns did not prevent the murders it simply changed the method to which the murder was carried out. This is the main reason why I am generally against flat out bans. You simply cannot ban every aspect of every item that could be used to cause injury.
3. 100% of all gang related shootings are committed by those who did not go through the proper channels to obtain their weapon. They did not submit to a fbi background check, they did not buy a weapon from a dealer who registered their firearm sale. In many cases they bought their weapon from a crooked cop. They just busted a cop in NYC for selling police issue glock model 22s to gang members. Therefore the asinine super-strict gun laws passed in NYC by de fuhrer Bloomberg has done absolutely shit to prevent guns getting into the hands of the most dangerous members of society. All they serve to do is disarm the general public creating nothing more than a safe playground of mayhem for violent criminals.
as a gun owner and someone licensed to carry concealed weapons, I had no issue with the 2 background checks my state requires. I also had no issue with the 10hr training course or range qualification. I see that as no different than obtaining a drivers permit or ham operator license. I do have a problem when they ban it completely or ban ownership of anything manufactured after 1984. Why can't I own an actual M4 carbine? Whats wrong with keeping the same procedures in place that allows someone to purchase a pre-1984 fully-auto rifle in place for any newly manufactured rifle? But people have got to stop getting so emotional over these issues. Why is it that the penalties for DUI are substantially less than the offense for lasing a pilot when, in reality, there are much stronger statistics to prove that drunk driving is a much higher chance of causing an incident than lasing a cockpit from 500ft away? Why is it that congress saw a video of a.50cal BMG round tearing up a manhole cover and promptly worked on a bill to ban.50 cal weapons? Are you aware that not one single gun crime has _ever_ been committed by one of these? Do you know how expensive these things are? Why aren't laws that ban things based on statistical data, as opposed to emotional response?
AT some point they knew that dealing with DUI problems was more than just tough jail sentences. They embarked on a major educational initiative that IMO has worked very well. Do people still drink and drive? Yes. Has the numbers declined? Absolutely. At no point now do those that get caught have any misunderstanding about what they were doing was wrong. The climate of drinking and driving is nothing like it was back in the 70s and early 80s when these initiatives got started. 3yrs for this guy lasing a cockpit when no actual harm was caused is the wrong solution. For the first offense it should probably mirror a DUI first offense.. some possible jail time, some parole, some retraining and community service.
seriously? thats your defense? IF it was really THAT easy dont you think every towel head terrorist alive would buy airline tickets and start making cell calls and using their laptop on takeoff and landing? Or for that matter try to jam them with radio signals from shortwave radio transmitters in a nearby location? If anything I think you actually did more to prove his point.
There's a chance you might slip and break your neck on the bar of soap in your shower tomorrow morning, I sure as hell am not going to suggest everyone stop using soap until its at least proven to be a significant risk.
for the record the FAA is in the process of relaxing that 1980s rule about electronic devices.
we dont prosecute first offense DUI with 3yrs jail time unless in the processes they caused someones death.. and theres hundreds of thousands more deaths from that than there has EVER been as a result of laser flashing. I'm not saying it shouldnt be punished.. but if its deemed fair to take a tiered approach on DUI with penalties and re-eductation, then why not take the same approach to this if it didnt directly result in someones injury.
someone said it was a federal prosecution with requires an 85% actual jail time. I dont know about fed vs state on probation but if true then 3yrs does seem excessive if it resulted in no injury. We dont give people 3yrs for first offense DUI and there are certainly hundreds of thousands of actual real deaths reported from that. Whereas, so far, laser flashing pilots is still a probable danger that hasnt yet resulted in a real incident. Hell the 2 drunk pilots that tried to take off before being caught didnt even get 3 years and they literally put 150+ passengers directly at risk.
follow that logic to its end.. are you really suggesting that everything needs to be legislated against potential misuse? You can't legislate crazy... someone mentioned a persons freedom to swing their fist ends where your nose begins. So to safeguard your nose should we all be confined to straight jackets because someone might, possibly, could punch you in the nose? Or do you walk around and if someone does hit you in the nose, beat his ass and prosecute him for assault? I prefer the latter. There is no way I'm wearing a straight jacket, I dont give a crap how nice your nose might look:-)
agreed, this is my biggest complaint against the gun control idiots. They seem to think that if you ban every gun out there, suddenly people would stop getting killed. People were getting killed long before the invention of the firearm. There's murders all the time in Israel, they dont do it with guns, the strap an explosive vest on and blow themselves and everyone else to hell. You cant legislate crazy. If someone wants to commit mass murder declaring something illegal isnt going to stop them. Murder has been illegal since the founding of this country.. if passing a law was all it took to prevent deaths, we should never have a need to ban more specific weapons.. we covered it with the whole 'dont murder' law.
stay away from the mainstream.. ie dont just become another windows administrator moron.. there's thousands of them competing for the same position. In fact there are so many that I watch them compete for jobs that pay half of what the same skills would have paid 10 years ago. Learn some of the more specialized tools. My best advise is to run 2 or 3 linux servers in your home working on building up a few skills. Learn the ins and outs of how sendmail actually works. become an expert on IP networking. Learn what a subnet really is, why we have subnet masks, how to break a netblock into smaller subnets. Learn what a 'gateway' really is and what route statements actually do. Delve into layer2 as well. Learn what a VLAN is and how 802.1Q tagging works. Having a solid understanding of networking will go far to give you a generalized set of tools that will enable you to support a broader platform of products. By running a few linux servers you will learn the in's and outs of services like DNS, NTP, SMTP, IMAP4, and POP3. Even if you were tasked to support a windows server, the deeper understanding of these protocols will give you the tools to reverse engineer some other flavor of software that does the same protocol (such as exchange). Since linux is not a point-and-click or find the right answer in a pulldown option sort of OS, it forces you to learn at a deeper level. I would also recommend installing Asterisk on one of these servers and become well versed in the command-line programming of the asterisk dialplan. Asterisk is a very prevalent phone system and understanding it will either give you the skills to support companies running asterisk, or at the least the skills to work with any other SIP softswitch
as far as payment, invoicing someone from paypal is a good option. If you build up enough work you can cut 'discounts' by selling blocks of prepaid hours. That avoids being ripped off.
the unforseen consequence is that people will likely give even less attention to the road and focus more attentively on texting to make sure their text doesnt get disabled. In essence it might save some, but others will pay even less attention to the road and they will make up for any gains of the few you save from mistakes.
Slashdot Mirror
I dont know the specifics of this law, but may of the 'for the children' laws that go after 'registered sex offenders' often end up using too broad of a fishing net. In many states a 23yr old has sex with a 16 or 17 yr old consentually is still found guilty of statuatory rape due to laws concerning age of concent having some relative age component. This can be even more problematic when the said 16 or 17yr old uses a fake id to get into a club and lies about their age. At the end of the day the law is still considered violated and the 23yr old got branded a sex offender. Now fast-forward 10yrs later. I just dont see how this same person should be lumped into having all his rights violated in an effert to protect children from poedophiles. At no time did this person behave in a way dangerous to children. Its also very likely that now that this person is 33yrs old is also still only attracted to people that are still only a few years younger putting them at 30ish in age.
I know in my city they used a dragnet law 3yrs ago that said registered sex offenders could not live within 1000 yards of a school, church, or daycare. Well there really arent but 4 or 5 places here that can escape 1000 yards of a freakin church let alone schools and daycares. This town is church crazy, a damn church is on every city block. As a result of this law they evicted, by force, everyone in violation after a 60 day notice. Now they all live in this one small area of town. This _includes_ a few people in the exact same scenario I painted. Those people had grown up and had kids of their own now, and are forced to live with thier children surrounded by _real_ child predators.
I have no faith in government legislators being able to pull their heads out of their asses and write laws specific enough that stupid shit like this doesnt end up causing more problems than they hope to avert.
next thing you know its going to be a full fledged vegas convention with all kinds of weirdo's dressed in costume!
this reminds me of that 1967 British comedy "At Last, the 1948 show" with some of the Monty Python crew (before they became monty python) which poked fun at the habit of the BBC of letting shows sit in the can years before finally airing them.
no no no.. its called "The Golden Rule"
he who has the gold makes the rules
again, media madeup bullshit.. read the Rueters account, it goes into a 10yr history and interviews neighbors etc. Its called investigative journalism that our current media doesnt believe in. They believe in printing opinions and not collecting information.
George carried a gun, in his waitband not his hand, because cops told him to after being attacked by a pitt bull the year prior. There were lots of unleashed dogs attacking people after being abandoned during the forclosures from the housing collapse.
zimmerman's statement to the cops after the incident on video stated that it was a purely physical altercation, one which trayvon was clearly winning, that resulted in george's head being bashed into the sidewalk multiple times (confirmed by witness who ran to call 911 and georges voice confirmed in background screaming for help). The statement continues to say that trayvon then saw the gun in the waistband , reached for it, and said 'your going to die tonight mother fucker!'. We dont know how much of that is true.. but we do know
1) george did NOT approach with gun in hand otherwise trayvon would have NEVER had a chance to beat his skull into the sidewalk repeatedly as witnessed by a neighbor.
2) the physical attack and having your head pounded into the sidewalk is justifiable defense even if the part about reaching for the guy by travon was completely made-up.
how do you know zimmerman took a gun and started a conflict??? According to the only non-bullshit media that bothered to actually fairly investigate, Rueters, the cops told zimmerman to buy and carry a gun about a year before the incident. He and his wife were jogging and were attacked by a unleashed pitt bull. There were several unleashed dogs in the neighborhood due to the housing collapse causing a lot of forclosures and abandonment. So no, he did not just grab a gun and go decide to play cop like the media wants you to think. Rueters did a complete 10yr history on zimmermans life, and interviewed the cops that responded to the dog attack.
The witness statement made via video (I watched the video) that occurred the very next day states that during the fist fight, Trayvon had nearly won the fight already when Trayvon spotted and reached for the gun in zimmermans waistband.
We do know it was zimmerman's voice that was screaming for help, and an eye witness that called 911 did say that Trayvon was beating zimmerman's head into the pavement before being shot. So where in the world do you see a 'do nothing situation'? Do you think that Trayvon would have somehow NOT killed zimmerman while beating his skull into pavement? You cant possibly know that. Trayvon didnt 'lunge at him' .. how about ALL the evidence of being beat half to hell during the conflict? Dont you understand that even a single punch can actually kill? Happened here a year ago, at an festival where people were drinking. Some guy accidentally bumped into another guy and that guy got pissed and punched him hard in the back of the head. Guy died instantly. Guns arent the only way to kill people, despite what all the anti-gun nuts want people to believe. Humans have been doing a good job of it for the last 20k years, long before the first gun was invented. So if your head was being pounded into the pavement, and you felt you were going to die.. would you pull that gun a cop told you to carry to protect you from pitt bulls? Even casting the 'trayvon reached for the gun first saying he was going to kill george' statement aside; Any series of blows to the skull become life threatening and justify immediate deadly response.
I guess you didn't do a lot of research in the matter of the gun. Its not surprising considering how much the media wants to bias everyone on the issue. It was the cops that told him to carry a gun after being attacked by a pit bull while jogging with his wife nearly a year prior. Rueters actually did an objective piece on the whole thing including the history of zimmerman as much as 10yrs prior. The cops told him to buy and carry a gun because mace just wouldn't do anything except piss off the pit bull. It at that time he bought a Kel-Tech, a double-action-only brand designed for conceal carry usage. So the gun being in his possession is not an issue of premeditated aggression. He simply carried it everywhere due to the number of off-leash animals running around the neighborhood.
as far as your question about 'should everyone have to stand trial after killing another, even in self defense?' :
I have some issue with this. Mostly because no one is ever 'fine' even after acquittal. George has already lost his job and spent time behind bars with hardened criminals. IF he is acquitted he still have a pile of legal bills and no job to pay for them. Perhaps due to the notoriety of this case, people might make donations to help, but if it became commonplace.. defending your life could come at the cost of not being able to provide food and shelter for your family.
Allow me to paint a self defense situation where I think you would find it terrible we forced the shooter to stand trial.
Your a 26yr old woman. You eat right, take care of yourself, jog every morning. One morning, after a jog, and intruder breaks into your home attempting to rape you. He starts ripping your clothes off. You scratch is eyes and get away, running to the bedroom, the attacker in quick pursuit. You reach into your sock drawer, turn and fire, killing your attacker. You call 911 and 25min later the police arrive. They collect your statement, talk to your neighbors, take photographs of the body and collect forensics while he body bleeds out onto your bedroom carpet.
Normally you would go through rape counseling and begin putting your life back together. Not this time. About 6mos ago your state passed an anti-stand-your-ground law requiring criminal trials in every self-defense killing. You are now arraigned. Your rape-shield laws now are side-stepped because you've just been named defendant in a justifiable homicide case. Your boss now knows you were raped. Your co-workers look at you differently, though they try not to. Everywhere you look you feel like eyes are staring at you. After a few weeks the parents of the rapist go on the media and demand a release of bond, so you are forced to spend time in jail during your trial. The anti-gun advocates paint you as a harlot, luring attackers into your lair just to have the excuse of shooting them. They again call for the complete abolishing of all guns. Amidst the post-traumatic shock of the rape, you begin to feel the attack all over again, this time from every person you meet. You've now lost your job, due to spending time in jail and the negative press the media has been giving you. You've had to put a lean on your house to cover your attorney fees. Eventually you get acquitted, but because of the media hype, this has turned into a 9mo circus not a 2hr trial. You begin to wonder if being raped and murdered might have been the better option. You begin regretting defending your life at all and slip into depression.
so everything is back to normal right? You got acquitted, the rapist is dead, you lost your job, you cant afford your home or legal bills. Everywhere you go people know you and come up to you wanting to talk to you about the rape, which you only want to forget and never remember again. You've decided you have to move to a different town where people dont know your story so you can have a job that you can work at and try to get on with your life.
An investigation is different than a trial. The police had investigated the zimmerman situation and they felt it
I guess you didn't do a lot of research in the matter of the gun. Its not surprising considering how much the media wants to bias everyone on the issue. It was the cops that told him to carry a gun after being attacked by a pit bull while jogging with his wife nearly a year prior. Rueters actually did an objective piece on the whole thing including the history of zimmerman as much as 10yrs prior. The cops told him to buy and carry a gun because mace just wouldn't do anything except piss off the pit bull. It at that time he bought a Kel-Tech, a double-action-only brand designed for conceal carry usage. So the gun being in his possession is not an issue of premeditated aggression. He simply carried it everywhere due to the number of off-leash animals running around the neighborhood.
as far as your question about 'should everyone have to stand trial after killing another, even in self defense?' :
I have some issue with this. Mostly because no one is ever 'fine' even after acquittal. George has already lost his job and spent time behind bars with hardened criminals. IF he is acquitted he still have a pile of legal bills and no job to pay for them. Perhaps due to the notoriety of this case, people might make donations to help, but if it became commonplace.. defending your life could come at the cost of not being able to provide food and shelter for your family.
Allow me to paint a self defense situation where I think you would find it terrible we forced the shooter to stand trial.
Your a 26yr old woman. You eat right, take care of yourself, jog every morning. One morning, after a jog, and intruder breaks into your home attempting to rape you. He starts ripping your clothes off. You scratch is eyes and get away, running to the bedroom, the attacker in quick pursuit. You reach into your sock drawer, turn and fire, killing your attacker. You call 911 and 25min later the police arrive. They collect your statement, talk to your neighbors, take photographs of the body and collect forensics while he body bleeds out onto your bedroom carpet.
Normally you would go through rape counseling and begin putting your life back together. Not this time. About 6mos ago your state passed an anti-stand-your-ground law requiring criminal trials in every self-defense killing. You are now arraigned. Your rape-shield laws now are side-stepped because you've just been named defendant in a justifiable homicide case. Your boss now knows you were raped. Your co-workers look at you differently, though they try not to. Everywhere you look you feel like eyes are staring at you. After a few weeks the parents of the rapist go on the media and demand a release of bond, so you are forced to spend time in jail during your trial. The anti-gun advocates paint you as a harlot, luring attackers into your lair just to have the excuse of shooting them. They again call for the complete abolishing of all guns. Amidst the post-traumatic shock of the rape, you begin to feel the attack all over again, this time from every person you meet. You've now lost your job, due to spending time in jail and the negative press the media has been giving you. You've had to put a lean on your house to cover your attorney fees. Eventually you get acquitted, but because of the media hype, this has turned into a 9mo circus not a 2hr trial. You begin to wonder if being raped and murdered might have been the better option. You begin regretting defending your life at all and slip into depression.
so everything is back to normal right? You got acquitted, the rapist is dead, you lost your job, you cant afford your home or legal bills. Everywhere you go people know you and come up to you wanting to talk to you about the rape, which you only want to forget and never remember again. You've decided you have to move to a different town where people dont know your story so you can have a job that you can work at and try to get on with your life.
An investigation is different than a trial. The police had investigated the zimmerman situation and they felt it
_character_ assassination: thats a phrase used in politics and legal strategy to undermine the credibility of ones perceived status in society. By painting him as scum they have assassinated the previous held up notion of a pious, honor roll student, slain at the hands of 'some racist white dude'.
similar strategies are used in all sorts of cases, sometimes good sometimes bad. For example the World Bank president accused of raping the maid. Her character was assassinated when they brought forth recorded evidence of her communicating with an inmate discussing how much money she intended to extort from him. It was further assassinated when the rest of her details she gave the cops started unraveling.
how well do these games run inside a VM? Perhaps the answer is to only use the hostOS for those games, and everything else run through your linux distribution? That could limit your exposure considerably.
they wont see it that way... let me counter that with a different medium but similar concept..
I am hanging around a campfire with 5 of my buddies, we are all drinking. I make the comment that I cant stand my boss and I'm probably going to kill him one day. A week later he is found murdered in his home. One of my buddies drops an anonymous tip about my drunken outburst to the cops. The cops go gather witness statements from a couple of these buddies and collect enough evidence for grand jury indictment. Later all 5 people are brought into court, sworn in under oath, and made to testify as to the accounts of that night.
I cannot claim that just because I didnt get on live TV and make the announcement, I had some expectation of privacy. If these twitter and facebook posts as well as school records create a pattern of violence and other criminal activity, it garners support of the defendants claim:
"during the physical altercation with Travon Martin, Travon found the gun lodged in the waistband of George's belt and grabbed for it while saying 'you're going to die tonight mother fucker!'. During the struggle for George's life, the gun discharged once into the chest of Travon at point-blank range".
This is a statement of account that has no eye witness. The defense claims that the intent was just to detain one of the people that has been constantly breaking into the homes of the neighborhood and Travon jumped him, resulting in a struggle for life. Some of these breakins have even been home invasions while residents were home. For weeks cops have gotten there 30min too late to catch them. Many times even called in by George to come grab them. This again gives a story of a man simply trying to slow people down just enough for the cops to arrive. Its a good story. Nobody will ever know what really happened besides George and Travon. Dead people obviously cant testify.
Meanwhile the media, and the victim's family, are painting Travon as this completely innocent angel, an honor roll student, that's only crime in life was being black. So if these records show:
1. travon was a C and D student
2. Travon had a poor attendance recorc
3. Suspensions and records of disciplinary action for extreme violence
4. tweets bragging about breaking into homes
5. facebook posts bragging about, or pictures showing, stolen goods
Then although they, by themselves, do not prove travon grabbed the gun and tried to murder George; still accomplish character assasination. "If they lied about these things, then they're probably lying about everything else too, just to avoid public record of their son being a criminal". Once that opinion gets formed with the jury it will be harder to get a conviction for sure. The evidence to decide on is not whether George shot and killed Travon, he clearly did. The question is whether George's life was actually in immanent danger, justifying self defense.
I agree 100%.. once you post it publicly, there is no taking it back. You can't un-ring that bell. Think in terms of the novel 1984. The only thing safe from tampering is your thoughts. In that novel they convinced the populous that they had thought police to even spy on that.
but they can easily force you to give testimony by granting you immunity. The Miami girl can be protected from self incrimination but she cannot refuse to provide evidence if the only person she is protecting is a co-conspirator. The prosecution can decide that forcing her hand by granting immunity is worth the trade-off. If she still refuses to provide the information then she could go to jail for obstruction.
apparently England did it right in this regard.. every candidate gets the exact same amount of money to spend and thats the end of it. If they run out of money too early then they arent really good at managing things and you probably shouldnt vote for them anyway.
libertarian and constitutionalists often cross-over with their goals and ideas. its clearly obvious that the two assholes we have fighting for the seat right now dont give two shits about civil liberties or the constitution. I couldnt stand the patriot act, I cant stand PIPA and SOPA, I dont like the arming of every federal office and I sure as hell dont like the extrajudicial assasination of a 16yr old boy who was the english voice of al queda without so much as a trial. And as much as I dislike the president of Iran, mr ImANutJob, he does have a point about the USA being bullies... just look at the whole megaupload crap and how they acted without evidence, without due process, into another country. But I also cant stand spending money we dont have.. so there is some amount of fiscal conservatism to my belief.
So does that make me a libertarian? a Constitutionalist? or an Isolationalist?
Personally I couldn't give two shits about who marries who.. if same sex wants to marry, I could care less.. just don't expect me to buy something off the registry. If someone wants to have 10 abortions a year, again I dont give a shit as long as I am not forced to pay for it out of tax dollars. No tax dollars pays for my medication or for my LASIK surgery.. fucking insurance wont even pay for that and its a hell of a lot more medically necessary than someones third 'oops'. But if they have the money.. have at it. If they dont have the money.. do it 1 time and offer them $1500 to tie their tubes while they are already on the table.. i bet they'd jump at it.
So I ask you.. what exactly does that make me ? :-)
if they ban lasers, goodbye DVD player, goodbye Bluray players, goodbye disc burners etc. If we go around banning everything that can be used to harm people you have no idea how far down the rabbit hole this will lead. I remember in the 80's some plans in the back of those magazines by Paladin Press on how to make a Microwave Oven Blaster (MOB) . you can take any microwave and convert it into a weapon that induces violent seizures in someone causing possible strokes and permanent brain damage. Should we take everyone's microwaves away too? You might take some prescription drugs and have an adverse reaction with something else you take daily so that when you drive to work, you potentially cause a 20 car accident and killing a family of 6. Should we outlaw cars? Should we ban all supplements or require a pharmacist in order to get your over the counter vitamins just in case they interact with your prescription drug? There's is no end to where this reasoning will take you and congress has never once been known for discretion. Give them an inch and they take a damn continent.
You are aware that gun sales are reported to the government, right? And that many people aren't permitted to own them based on their prior actions which may have nothing to do with a gun? We do have gun licensing, and gun crime is waning since its inception; while that doesn't prove that it's the sole factor responsible (and it almost certainly is not) it doesn't provide an argument against it, either.
three points..
1. the gun control nuts claim just the opposite, that gun crime is higher than ever. They use that as a basis to pass more bans and restrictions. The truth is the number of gun related deaths every year has been static, while the population is on the increase, so perhaps the number of crimes per capita is on the decline.
2. the actual numbers of murders in this country is steadily increasing, which means that banning guns did not prevent the murders it simply changed the method to which the murder was carried out. This is the main reason why I am generally against flat out bans. You simply cannot ban every aspect of every item that could be used to cause injury.
3. 100% of all gang related shootings are committed by those who did not go through the proper channels to obtain their weapon. They did not submit to a fbi background check, they did not buy a weapon from a dealer who registered their firearm sale. In many cases they bought their weapon from a crooked cop. They just busted a cop in NYC for selling police issue glock model 22s to gang members. Therefore the asinine super-strict gun laws passed in NYC by de fuhrer Bloomberg has done absolutely shit to prevent guns getting into the hands of the most dangerous members of society. All they serve to do is disarm the general public creating nothing more than a safe playground of mayhem for violent criminals.
as a gun owner and someone licensed to carry concealed weapons, I had no issue with the 2 background checks my state requires. I also had no issue with the 10hr training course or range qualification. I see that as no different than obtaining a drivers permit or ham operator license. I do have a problem when they ban it completely or ban ownership of anything manufactured after 1984. Why can't I own an actual M4 carbine? Whats wrong with keeping the same procedures in place that allows someone to purchase a pre-1984 fully-auto rifle in place for any newly manufactured rifle? But people have got to stop getting so emotional over these issues. Why is it that the penalties for DUI are substantially less than the offense for lasing a pilot when, in reality, there are much stronger statistics to prove that drunk driving is a much higher chance of causing an incident than lasing a cockpit from 500ft away? Why is it that congress saw a video of a .50cal BMG round tearing up a manhole cover and promptly worked on a bill to ban .50 cal weapons? Are you aware that not one single gun crime has _ever_ been committed by one of these? Do you know how expensive these things are? Why aren't laws that ban things based on statistical data, as opposed to emotional response?
AT some point they knew that dealing with DUI problems was more than just tough jail sentences. They embarked on a major educational initiative that IMO has worked very well. Do people still drink and drive? Yes. Has the numbers declined? Absolutely. At no point now do those that get caught have any misunderstanding about what they were doing was wrong. The climate of drinking and driving is nothing like it was back in the 70s and early 80s when these initiatives got started. 3yrs for this guy lasing a cockpit when no actual harm was caused is the wrong solution. For the first offense it should probably mirror a DUI first offense .. some possible jail time, some parole, some retraining and community service.
seriously? thats your defense? IF it was really THAT easy dont you think every towel head terrorist alive would buy airline tickets and start making cell calls and using their laptop on takeoff and landing? Or for that matter try to jam them with radio signals from shortwave radio transmitters in a nearby location? If anything I think you actually did more to prove his point.
There's a chance you might slip and break your neck on the bar of soap in your shower tomorrow morning, I sure as hell am not going to suggest everyone stop using soap until its at least proven to be a significant risk.
for the record the FAA is in the process of relaxing that 1980s rule about electronic devices.
we dont prosecute first offense DUI with 3yrs jail time unless in the processes they caused someones death.. and theres hundreds of thousands more deaths from that than there has EVER been as a result of laser flashing. I'm not saying it shouldnt be punished.. but if its deemed fair to take a tiered approach on DUI with penalties and re-eductation, then why not take the same approach to this if it didnt directly result in someones injury.
someone said it was a federal prosecution with requires an 85% actual jail time. I dont know about fed vs state on probation but if true then 3yrs does seem excessive if it resulted in no injury. We dont give people 3yrs for first offense DUI and there are certainly hundreds of thousands of actual real deaths reported from that. Whereas, so far, laser flashing pilots is still a probable danger that hasnt yet resulted in a real incident. Hell the 2 drunk pilots that tried to take off before being caught didnt even get 3 years and they literally put 150+ passengers directly at risk.
follow that logic to its end.. are you really suggesting that everything needs to be legislated against potential misuse? You can't legislate crazy... someone mentioned a persons freedom to swing their fist ends where your nose begins. So to safeguard your nose should we all be confined to straight jackets because someone might, possibly, could punch you in the nose? Or do you walk around and if someone does hit you in the nose, beat his ass and prosecute him for assault? I prefer the latter. There is no way I'm wearing a straight jacket, I dont give a crap how nice your nose might look :-)
agreed, this is my biggest complaint against the gun control idiots. They seem to think that if you ban every gun out there, suddenly people would stop getting killed. People were getting killed long before the invention of the firearm. There's murders all the time in Israel, they dont do it with guns, the strap an explosive vest on and blow themselves and everyone else to hell. You cant legislate crazy. If someone wants to commit mass murder declaring something illegal isnt going to stop them. Murder has been illegal since the founding of this country .. if passing a law was all it took to prevent deaths, we should never have a need to ban more specific weapons.. we covered it with the whole 'dont murder' law.
stay away from the mainstream .. ie dont just become another windows administrator moron.. there's thousands of them competing for the same position. In fact there are so many that I watch them compete for jobs that pay half of what the same skills would have paid 10 years ago. Learn some of the more specialized tools. My best advise is to run 2 or 3 linux servers in your home working on building up a few skills. Learn the ins and outs of how sendmail actually works. become an expert on IP networking. Learn what a subnet really is, why we have subnet masks, how to break a netblock into smaller subnets. Learn what a 'gateway' really is and what route statements actually do. Delve into layer2 as well. Learn what a VLAN is and how 802.1Q tagging works. Having a solid understanding of networking will go far to give you a generalized set of tools that will enable you to support a broader platform of products. By running a few linux servers you will learn the in's and outs of services like DNS, NTP, SMTP, IMAP4, and POP3. Even if you were tasked to support a windows server, the deeper understanding of these protocols will give you the tools to reverse engineer some other flavor of software that does the same protocol (such as exchange). Since linux is not a point-and-click or find the right answer in a pulldown option sort of OS, it forces you to learn at a deeper level. I would also recommend installing Asterisk on one of these servers and become well versed in the command-line programming of the asterisk dialplan. Asterisk is a very prevalent phone system and understanding it will either give you the skills to support companies running asterisk, or at the least the skills to work with any other SIP softswitch
as far as payment, invoicing someone from paypal is a good option. If you build up enough work you can cut 'discounts' by selling blocks of prepaid hours. That avoids being ripped off.
the unforseen consequence is that people will likely give even less attention to the road and focus more attentively on texting to make sure their text doesnt get disabled. In essence it might save some, but others will pay even less attention to the road and they will make up for any gains of the few you save from mistakes.
Scientific Linux is also a good option for similar reasons. Given its a science grant, they might like the idea that its used at labs like CERN