wever Camping and Survival Skills, don't really make you a good leader. It just means you can fend for yourself better (This is a good trait, however it doesn't make you a leader, it may just make him a more effective servant.
You miss one key point. Knowing you can fend for yourself without relying on others and being confident in that fact is the first step on the way to becoming a leader. That confidence and self-assuredness is necessary in becoming an authority, necessary to yourself. One who is not confident in himself cannot effectively lead.
Ah, no. "The Vote" consists only of voters. You are making an assumption that abstaining from voting is the same as a vote against. It is not the same.
Way to use an irrelevant point to avoid the argument. I made no such assumption. My point was that although the percentages of african-americans (referred to as AA's henceforth for brevity) voting for Gore and those voting for Obama from the pool of AA votes may be consistent, that does not prove that racism didn't have a significant impact on the election. As I pointed out above, if a much larger percentage of AA's voted in this election than in previous ones, than this influx of new voters may be attributed to racism. If it was a large enough change, it could have had a significant impact on the election. Although the new voters voted in a similar pattern (i.e. mostly Democrat) as existing ones, the fact they chose to vote this time may be a racial edge Obama received in the election.
What you mean is "96 and 98% of american black voters" voted for the Democrat
Unfortunately, using only percentages clouds the real facts. 90% for Gore and 96% for Obama might be consistent (6% increase is big especially considering how close it is to unanimous) if the total number of people represented in both cases is the same (which I doubt). Using entirely made-up numbers: say there are 1,000,000 african-americans in America and 50% of them voted in Gore's election and 90% of those who voted, chose Gore. Then say, out of those same 1,000,000 african-americans, 90% of them voted in Obama's election and 96% of those who voted, chose Obama. This means Gore would have received 45% of the African-American vote and Obama would have received 93%. Would you still say the results are consistent?
That's not really feasible. Presumably if they have access to the passwords they also have access to the salts. In the end the legitimate application requires access to both, so if they've compromised the application they can probably get both.
It seems perfectly feasible to me.
1) A part of the salt is static and hidden in application code. This means even in the DB of salts is compromised, deduction of the missing piece is still required (as well as knowledge of its existence).
2) In a example setup there are three servers, the Application/Authentication server that is accepting login requests (Server A), the Database server hosting the DB of password hashes (Server B), and the Database server hosting the DB of the password salts (Server C).
3) The servers are configured so that Server A can communicate with the outside world and servers B and C. Server B can only communicate with Server A. Server C can only communicate with Server A.
In this setup the only server than can be remotely compromised is Server A which does not have direct access to either the list of hashes or the list of salts. In order to get this information an attacker would have to take control of Server A and query both databases, one record at-a-time. The search/index key in both databases would be the username, so the attacker would also need the complete list of usernames as well.
Now, I dreamed up this scenario in about 5-10 minutes. Please explain why it's unfeasible and assume security is high priority consideration.
f I have two million salted passwords, then I need to hash the dictionary word two million times.
And if the salts were different on every password were secured separately from the password list, you'd have to try and deduce the salt first, two million times.
I was implying using a different/random salt value for every individual password. It is my understanding that it would be impossible to brute-force a password for a salted hash whose salt is not known. You can get the original value passed to the hash function but not the actual password. You would then have to try and deduce the salt. If this is true then separating the hash from the salt does add security.
Salting only protects you from precomuted "rainbow" brute force methods which means if you have a big enough table your password is cracked in seconds to minutes rather than oh I don't know what is the average for your typical password? Hour, day..two days? week tops...? Does this difference really mean anything substaintial to the vicitim?
Now I may be wrong, but that would only be the case if the salt was stored with the hashes, correct? Which to me seems rather dumb (from a security perspective, not a performance one). To maximize the benefit of salts, the password hashed and their associated salts should be stored in two different databases, running on different servers so that a hacker would have to compromise both to get access to the list. Lock down the Salt DB server so that's it's only able to communicate with the Hash DB server (and nothing else) and will only return one hash request at a time to it.
On the flip side, if you don't reuse your passwords, you're never going to remember how to access all 200 sites that require it.
That's only if you do it without thinking about it first (i.e. use 200 random passwords). It's very easy to come up with your own system of starting with a base password then add things to the end (or beginning) that makes it unique for the particular site (i.e. using an abbreviation of the site name). You can even do this with different levels of base passwords (in case you are paranoid of a hacker specifically targeting you) one secure and one insecure. If you think that is still hard to remember, you can actually write down the modifications you made to the base word (without writing down the base word) and still be secure (this is usually to conform to ridiculous password requirements that, once published, makes the entire system less secure). It's not hard, it just requires a little thought and prior planning.
When you give power to the local states, you're not making it smaller, you're just shifting the power to someone else who is just as corrupt and gets less media attention.
and lives close to you, where you can make your opinion heard. Not to mention their sphere of influence is smaller. The point in having people with the power to do things that affect you most, closer to you, and on a smaller scale, is obvious (or at least, it should be). Besides, if they are all morons, why don't you run against them next election and win. It's easier on a local/state scale than on the federal level (which is why you don't want everything handled at the federal level).
I am greatly saddened by flagrant disregard for history these days, especially recent history. Explain to me how Obama wasn't undermined by a Republican agenda at every turn to do the right thing?
I'm sorry but with a democrat majority in both houses for 2 years, this statement does not pass muster. he was just too busy working on his POS healthcare bill that does anything but provide affordable healthcare.
I don't mean "World of Warcraft", I mean "Warcraft", the franchise your beloved time-sink came from.
As soon as WoW became popular, hope of a Warcraft 4 went down the toilet.
This. A thousand times this. I loved the original Warcraft/Warcraft2, Warcraft 3 was alright but a step in the wrong direction. I wanted (and still want) a proper RTS sequel to them. Perverting it into a MMORPG with the Warcraft name was horrible. I have never played it, will never play it. Although TES is an RPG to start with, it is not a MMORPG, and I cannot see how it being turned into one will make it any better, I can only see it getting worse and tanking another beautiful franchise.
This is not any different from barter, which is practiced here in America and which can be taxed (in dollars, of course).
Are you sure barter can be taxed because I don't see how. In barter transactions two people exchange different goods of equal value. At the end of the transaction the net worth has not changed. No income, no sale, no tax.
This is a democracy. We all have the right to force our morals with laws, as long as "we" are a majority
No - This is a Free Country. You do not have the right to force morals onto anybody with law as that infringes on their rights, freedom and liberty. That's why the Constitution was written, to limit the power the Government could wield over the people, and in essence, limit the amount of power the "Majority" could wield over everyone else. If you want moral law, move somewhere else.
Do you understand that juries are able to "determine he acted lawfully" because of these new "Shoot a Black Guy" laws. That's the problem.
Do you understand that the jury has to be convinced that the person was in reasonable fear of severe injury or death as part of determining whether he acted lawfully? Apparently not. If you can convince 12 of your peers that you acted on a reasonable belief, then perhaps you did.
This is not about gun rights. It's not about stopping crime. It's about the gun industry and it's about racism.
When you show one piece of evidence to support your asinine theory, maybe I'll consider your point of view. But it seems like injecting racism where there is none is your prerogative. I can assure you that for the NRA, it lawyers and lobbyists, its about protecting the freedoms of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families. Read their literature and you won't see any hint> of racism.
Hell, under these conditions, someone could shoot me on my morning bike ride because with my day-glow green shirt I look like an invading alien.
Nice straw-man but that would not be "reasonable" and I'm sure the officer at the scene would arrest me (rightfully) for murder/manslaughter.
As to the remainder of your post, you are making very bold presumptions or are following the media's story without question or common-sense. I do not have all of the facts, neither does the media and neither do you. The people who had the most information and were most qualified to make a judgement about whether he acted reasonably in self-defense were the officers on the scene. They made their call by not arresting or charging him. If you (and the media and everyone else who can't think clearly due to being emotionally compromised) think they were wrong then you have a problem with how these specific officers acted and not the law .
A few months ago, in Texas, a guy successfully used one of these laws as a defense after chasing a guy down for 5 blocks before stabbing him to death. He was not with his wife and family. He was not protecting himself.
Link, please? Also, I suspect he was acquitted by a jury of his peers based on that defense who having been presented with all of the relevant facts, determined he acted lawfully. If all these are true, what is your issue and who is it with? The law, the man, the jury, the prosecutor or the system? In any case, one straw man does not an argument make.
300% increase in "justifiable homicide" sounds to me like legal lynching.
Citation please (for quoted statistic). Also compare to decreases in other relevant statistics (if applicable) like murder/rape rates. Also use actual numbers as going from 1 to 3 is a 300% increase but is not as big of a jump as the percentage seems to indicate.
If you see the NRA's media campaign for passing these laws, and they happen to mostly show scary black guys and cowering women who if they only had a gun could protect themselves, you know that these are very specifically "Shoot a Black Guy" laws
No, they still sound like shoot a rapist before he rapes/murders you laws - Which is what they are.
Oh, and Jesus was a Jewish Communist, not a liberal. In fact, you may even consider him an Anarchist since he believed judgement and punishment were solely up to God and not Man.
Find some cases where these stand your ground laws were actually used to prevent a situation like this.
Did you think about that question before you asked it? The law can't used in this manner. The law was designed to prevent this kind of charge being brought up in the first place. So having cases to cite after the law was passed would be pretty difficult.
They can't get in line fast enough to defend the piece of shit, citing the very law that created the problem in a way that even a somewhat slow preschooler could have predicted.
Citation please. And not from a random right-wing nut job either, from someone who is a representative of the NRA or an official Gun Advocacy group.
I'll wait.
You'll notice I did not defend Zimmerman. Nor did I condemn him. Why? The facts aren't in. It is equally likely he acted in accordance with the law as it is that he didn't. But whether he acted in accordance with the law or not is irrelevant when determining the validity of the law. If he acted outside the law, he should be arrested. If he didn't he shouldn't. Only the facts (which none of us have access to) can determine this. He either lied about being in fear for his life or he didn't. It he lied, the law does not protect him. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
It's not a question of courage. It's a question of smarts -- should I stay and try to turn a tide of stupidity that could very well cost me my life (at least figuratively), or should I arrange for my loved ones and myself to have a place of safety and greater relative freedom somewhere else?
One can always argue that a coward is smarter than a brave man (you will notice I did not call him stupid) in the short-term. But over the long-term, the brave man can end up being the smart one. In this case, leaving America and letting it fall rather than fighting to save it (and accepting the risks), may well be worse for himself and/or his family's survival in the long-run. Remember, America has the (allegedly) strongest armed forces on Earth, whatever happens here can easily expand into where ever you decide to run. And this time, when you have no choice but stand and fight (as there is no where left to run), the odds are much more highly stacked in your opposition's favor because you let that which you are fighting become stronger by your cowardice.
Calling someone chicken for doing what looks to me like simple self-preservation
Yes, he is selfish on top of being a coward. One of the founding principles of this Country are that liberty and freedom must be fought for, at every turn. Eternal Vigilance and personal sacrifice is necessary for the survival of freedom. It seems you would rather someone else fight for it for you than fight for it yourself. That makes you a coward and unworthy of the freedom this Country offers. I wish everyone who felt that way would just leave already so the rest of us patriots can take back our Country once you freeloaders get out of the way.
I sure don't think my great-great grandad was a chicken for leaving Germany and coming to the US.
I do. Him and those like him, who chose to flee rather than fight, are responsible for it getting as bad as it did. They are responsible for forcing the rest of the world to fight their fight for them. And you know what, the rest of the world almost lost. Sure your family survived, good for you, but at what cost to the rest of us?
It's not that I hate America. I love this place, warts and all.
I'm sorry but what you feel is not love. People fight to save/protect the things they love. They don't run from them at the first sign of trouble - Coward.
More than 20 states have passed these "Stand Your Ground & Shoot a Black Guy" laws already,
Wow, way to believe the media over facts and common sense. These laws are not stand your ground and shoot a black guy, they are stand your ground and protect yourself from severe injury or death. They exist because liberal whack-jobs were (successfully) arguing that if you had an opportunity to run (even with no guarantee of success) and didn't, then you were not practicing self-defense when using a gun to protect yourself. That if you could run but your wife/child/friend could not, you were supposed to leave them behind rather than protect them. Sure, in this case (Trayvon) a person may be attempting to use this law as a shield but that is no fault on the law, only the police who are enforcing it. If they were conned into believing that he was in fear of his life when he wasn't then that only reflects on them, it does not reflect on the law. The law does not allow the use of deadly force without the reasonable belief you are in immediate risk of serious injury or death. An unarmed man is perfectly capable of doing both of these things.
Slashdot Mirror
The dollar was in a bubble, a bubble that is deflating/bursting which is why it is worth less-and-less every day. .
wever Camping and Survival Skills, don't really make you a good leader. It just means you can fend for yourself better (This is a good trait, however it doesn't make you a leader, it may just make him a more effective servant.
You miss one key point. Knowing you can fend for yourself without relying on others and being confident in that fact is the first step on the way to becoming a leader. That confidence and self-assuredness is necessary in becoming an authority, necessary to yourself. One who is not confident in himself cannot effectively lead.
Ah, no. "The Vote" consists only of voters. You are making an assumption that abstaining from voting is the same as a vote against. It is not the same.
Way to use an irrelevant point to avoid the argument. I made no such assumption. My point was that although the percentages of african-americans (referred to as AA's henceforth for brevity) voting for Gore and those voting for Obama from the pool of AA votes may be consistent, that does not prove that racism didn't have a significant impact on the election. As I pointed out above, if a much larger percentage of AA's voted in this election than in previous ones, than this influx of new voters may be attributed to racism. If it was a large enough change, it could have had a significant impact on the election. Although the new voters voted in a similar pattern (i.e. mostly Democrat) as existing ones, the fact they chose to vote this time may be a racial edge Obama received in the election.
What you mean is "96 and 98% of american black voters" voted for the Democrat
Unfortunately, using only percentages clouds the real facts. 90% for Gore and 96% for Obama might be consistent (6% increase is big especially considering how close it is to unanimous) if the total number of people represented in both cases is the same (which I doubt). Using entirely made-up numbers: say there are 1,000,000 african-americans in America and 50% of them voted in Gore's election and 90% of those who voted, chose Gore. Then say, out of those same 1,000,000 african-americans, 90% of them voted in Obama's election and 96% of those who voted, chose Obama. This means Gore would have received 45% of the African-American vote and Obama would have received 93%. Would you still say the results are consistent?
Uhm, forgive me if this seems like a silly question, but... Why would the attacker have to query each record individually?
Because the databases are remote (from Server A) and the DB servers are locked down and will only allow one record queries.
That's not really feasible. Presumably if they have access to the passwords they also have access to the salts. In the end the legitimate application requires access to both, so if they've compromised the application they can probably get both.
It seems perfectly feasible to me.
1) A part of the salt is static and hidden in application code. This means even in the DB of salts is compromised, deduction of the missing piece is still required (as well as knowledge of its existence).
2) In a example setup there are three servers, the Application/Authentication server that is accepting login requests (Server A), the Database server hosting the DB of password hashes (Server B), and the Database server hosting the DB of the password salts (Server C).
3) The servers are configured so that Server A can communicate with the outside world and servers B and C. Server B can only communicate with Server A. Server C can only communicate with Server A.
In this setup the only server than can be remotely compromised is Server A which does not have direct access to either the list of hashes or the list of salts. In order to get this information an attacker would have to take control of Server A and query both databases, one record at-a-time. The search/index key in both databases would be the username, so the attacker would also need the complete list of usernames as well.
Now, I dreamed up this scenario in about 5-10 minutes. Please explain why it's unfeasible and assume security is high priority consideration.
f I have two million salted passwords, then I need to hash the dictionary word two million times.
And if the salts were different on every password were secured separately from the password list, you'd have to try and deduce the salt first, two million times.
I was implying using a different/random salt value for every individual password. It is my understanding that it would be impossible to brute-force a password for a salted hash whose salt is not known. You can get the original value passed to the hash function but not the actual password. You would then have to try and deduce the salt. If this is true then separating the hash from the salt does add security.
Salting only protects you from precomuted "rainbow" brute force methods which means if you have a big enough table your password is cracked in seconds to minutes rather than oh I don't know what is the average for your typical password? Hour, day..two days? week tops...? Does this difference really mean anything substaintial to the vicitim?
Now I may be wrong, but that would only be the case if the salt was stored with the hashes, correct? Which to me seems rather dumb (from a security perspective, not a performance one). To maximize the benefit of salts, the password hashed and their associated salts should be stored in two different databases, running on different servers so that a hacker would have to compromise both to get access to the list. Lock down the Salt DB server so that's it's only able to communicate with the Hash DB server (and nothing else) and will only return one hash request at a time to it.
On the flip side, if you don't reuse your passwords, you're never going to remember how to access all 200 sites that require it.
That's only if you do it without thinking about it first (i.e. use 200 random passwords). It's very easy to come up with your own system of starting with a base password then add things to the end (or beginning) that makes it unique for the particular site (i.e. using an abbreviation of the site name). You can even do this with different levels of base passwords (in case you are paranoid of a hacker specifically targeting you) one secure and one insecure. If you think that is still hard to remember, you can actually write down the modifications you made to the base word (without writing down the base word) and still be secure (this is usually to conform to ridiculous password requirements that, once published, makes the entire system less secure). It's not hard, it just requires a little thought and prior planning.
I really think they're harping about the "cyber" part of it because there's a paper trail for them to be held liable for.
There, fixed that for ya.
When you give power to the local states, you're not making it smaller, you're just shifting the power to someone else who is just as corrupt and gets less media attention.
and lives close to you, where you can make your opinion heard. Not to mention their sphere of influence is smaller. The point in having people with the power to do things that affect you most, closer to you, and on a smaller scale, is obvious (or at least, it should be). Besides, if they are all morons, why don't you run against them next election and win. It's easier on a local/state scale than on the federal level (which is why you don't want everything handled at the federal level).
I am greatly saddened by flagrant disregard for history these days, especially recent history. Explain to me how Obama wasn't undermined by a Republican agenda at every turn to do the right thing?
I'm sorry but with a democrat majority in both houses for 2 years, this statement does not pass muster. he was just too busy working on his POS healthcare bill that does anything but provide affordable healthcare.
I don't mean "World of Warcraft", I mean "Warcraft", the franchise your beloved time-sink came from. As soon as WoW became popular, hope of a Warcraft 4 went down the toilet.
This. A thousand times this. I loved the original Warcraft/Warcraft2, Warcraft 3 was alright but a step in the wrong direction. I wanted (and still want) a proper RTS sequel to them. Perverting it into a MMORPG with the Warcraft name was horrible. I have never played it, will never play it. Although TES is an RPG to start with, it is not a MMORPG, and I cannot see how it being turned into one will make it any better, I can only see it getting worse and tanking another beautiful franchise.
This is not any different from barter, which is practiced here in America and which can be taxed (in dollars, of course).
Are you sure barter can be taxed because I don't see how. In barter transactions two people exchange different goods of equal value. At the end of the transaction the net worth has not changed. No income, no sale, no tax.
Practically all law is an attempt to formally codify morality in some way.
Morals or Ethics? I would say ethics.
This is a democracy. We all have the right to force our morals with laws, as long as "we" are a majority
No - This is a Free Country. You do not have the right to force morals onto anybody with law as that infringes on their rights, freedom and liberty. That's why the Constitution was written, to limit the power the Government could wield over the people, and in essence, limit the amount of power the "Majority" could wield over everyone else. If you want moral law, move somewhere else.
Do you understand that juries are able to "determine he acted lawfully" because of these new "Shoot a Black Guy" laws. That's the problem.
Do you understand that the jury has to be convinced that the person was in reasonable fear of severe injury or death as part of determining whether he acted lawfully? Apparently not. If you can convince 12 of your peers that you acted on a reasonable belief, then perhaps you did.
This is not about gun rights. It's not about stopping crime. It's about the gun industry and it's about racism.
When you show one piece of evidence to support your asinine theory, maybe I'll consider your point of view. But it seems like injecting racism where there is none is your prerogative. I can assure you that for the NRA, it lawyers and lobbyists, its about protecting the freedoms of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families. Read their literature and you won't see any hint> of racism.
Hell, under these conditions, someone could shoot me on my morning bike ride because with my day-glow green shirt I look like an invading alien.
Nice straw-man but that would not be "reasonable" and I'm sure the officer at the scene would arrest me (rightfully) for murder/manslaughter.
As to the remainder of your post, you are making very bold presumptions or are following the media's story without question or common-sense. I do not have all of the facts, neither does the media and neither do you. The people who had the most information and were most qualified to make a judgement about whether he acted reasonably in self-defense were the officers on the scene. They made their call by not arresting or charging him. If you (and the media and everyone else who can't think clearly due to being emotionally compromised) think they were wrong then you have a problem with how these specific officers acted and not the law .
A few months ago, in Texas, a guy successfully used one of these laws as a defense after chasing a guy down for 5 blocks before stabbing him to death. He was not with his wife and family. He was not protecting himself.
Link, please? Also, I suspect he was acquitted by a jury of his peers based on that defense who having been presented with all of the relevant facts, determined he acted lawfully. If all these are true, what is your issue and who is it with? The law, the man, the jury, the prosecutor or the system? In any case, one straw man does not an argument make.
300% increase in "justifiable homicide" sounds to me like legal lynching.
Citation please (for quoted statistic). Also compare to decreases in other relevant statistics (if applicable) like murder/rape rates. Also use actual numbers as going from 1 to 3 is a 300% increase but is not as big of a jump as the percentage seems to indicate.
If you see the NRA's media campaign for passing these laws, and they happen to mostly show scary black guys and cowering women who if they only had a gun could protect themselves, you know that these are very specifically "Shoot a Black Guy" laws
No, they still sound like shoot a rapist before he rapes/murders you laws - Which is what they are.
Oh, and Jesus was a Jewish Communist, not a liberal. In fact, you may even consider him an Anarchist since he believed judgement and punishment were solely up to God and not Man.
Find some cases where these stand your ground laws were actually used to prevent a situation like this.
Did you think about that question before you asked it? The law can't used in this manner. The law was designed to prevent this kind of charge being brought up in the first place. So having cases to cite after the law was passed would be pretty difficult.
They can't get in line fast enough to defend the piece of shit, citing the very law that created the problem in a way that even a somewhat slow preschooler could have predicted.
Citation please. And not from a random right-wing nut job either, from someone who is a representative of the NRA or an official Gun Advocacy group.
I'll wait.
You'll notice I did not defend Zimmerman. Nor did I condemn him. Why? The facts aren't in. It is equally likely he acted in accordance with the law as it is that he didn't. But whether he acted in accordance with the law or not is irrelevant when determining the validity of the law. If he acted outside the law, he should be arrested. If he didn't he shouldn't. Only the facts (which none of us have access to) can determine this. He either lied about being in fear for his life or he didn't. It he lied, the law does not protect him. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
At least when you posted this you were honest in your description of yourself and your actions - Coward .
It's not a question of courage. It's a question of smarts -- should I stay and try to turn a tide of stupidity that could very well cost me my life (at least figuratively), or should I arrange for my loved ones and myself to have a place of safety and greater relative freedom somewhere else?
One can always argue that a coward is smarter than a brave man (you will notice I did not call him stupid) in the short-term. But over the long-term, the brave man can end up being the smart one. In this case, leaving America and letting it fall rather than fighting to save it (and accepting the risks), may well be worse for himself and/or his family's survival in the long-run. Remember, America has the (allegedly) strongest armed forces on Earth, whatever happens here can easily expand into where ever you decide to run. And this time, when you have no choice but stand and fight (as there is no where left to run), the odds are much more highly stacked in your opposition's favor because you let that which you are fighting become stronger by your cowardice.
Calling someone chicken for doing what looks to me like simple self-preservation
Yes, he is selfish on top of being a coward. One of the founding principles of this Country are that liberty and freedom must be fought for, at every turn. Eternal Vigilance and personal sacrifice is necessary for the survival of freedom. It seems you would rather someone else fight for it for you than fight for it yourself. That makes you a coward and unworthy of the freedom this Country offers. I wish everyone who felt that way would just leave already so the rest of us patriots can take back our Country once you freeloaders get out of the way.
I sure don't think my great-great grandad was a chicken for leaving Germany and coming to the US.
I do. Him and those like him, who chose to flee rather than fight, are responsible for it getting as bad as it did. They are responsible for forcing the rest of the world to fight their fight for them. And you know what, the rest of the world almost lost. Sure your family survived, good for you, but at what cost to the rest of us?
It's not that I hate America. I love this place, warts and all.
I'm sorry but what you feel is not love. People fight to save/protect the things they love. They don't run from them at the first sign of trouble - Coward.
More than 20 states have passed these "Stand Your Ground & Shoot a Black Guy" laws already,
Wow, way to believe the media over facts and common sense. These laws are not stand your ground and shoot a black guy, they are stand your ground and protect yourself from severe injury or death. They exist because liberal whack-jobs were (successfully) arguing that if you had an opportunity to run (even with no guarantee of success) and didn't, then you were not practicing self-defense when using a gun to protect yourself. That if you could run but your wife/child/friend could not, you were supposed to leave them behind rather than protect them. Sure, in this case (Trayvon) a person may be attempting to use this law as a shield but that is no fault on the law, only the police who are enforcing it. If they were conned into believing that he was in fear of his life when he wasn't then that only reflects on them, it does not reflect on the law. The law does not allow the use of deadly force without the reasonable belief you are in immediate risk of serious injury or death. An unarmed man is perfectly capable of doing both of these things.