In addition, the USA White House petition site received a petition to pardon Snowden, and ignored it. There is now a new petition for them to respond to the previous one. Hilarious, in a very sad way. The government answers to the people, sure, but only when they feel like it.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/respond-petition-pardon-edward-snowden/c7cTD9Lh
I hope you reported the comment to the admins? A slashdot mafia seems like something they might be interested in unveiling. Possibly even interested in baiting them out to see which accounts are being used to farm mod points.
He probably just wanted to state his opinion, and at the same time let the guys he met at the NSA know that he still likes them, even though he disagrees with their practice. It is possible to dislike an organization and yet like their employees. I think that is all he was trying to accomplish. I would feel the same way, were I in his shoes.
Actually, I just had another thought about this as well. Possibly after the second in-school suspension, the student should be moved to another classroom with a different teach to see if the issue persists. If so, then follow the other remaining steps towards expulsion.
The problem I am trying to avert is that sometimes a specific teacher and student just don't get along. That isn't really either of their faults, but the issue should be tested first before being dismissed.
Here is my take on your plan:
I would say that teachers may send students to the school counselors for a recommendation for expulsion. If several counselors (Two or three?) see this student and agree that the student should be expelled, they would write a signed recommendation to the school principal. The principal could then recommend that the parents send their child elsewhere. Should the parent fail to heed their recommendation, and the child acts out again, the teacher may expel the student outright.
However, should the counselors not agree, they may instead write up a plan for getting the student back on track, with several goals noted. Should the child fail to meet all of these goals, an in-school suspension period should be mandated, in which case the child will be kept in solitude for the period of the school day and given a book and assignments to be completed. During this time, they should not be allowed to attend lunch at the same time as the other students, and they should be allowed to have free-time at the same time as other students.
Upon completion of in-school suspension, they should be allowed to rejoin their class, and should they be sent to in-school suspension twice more, they will be automatically recommended for expulsion, and the principle would take over from there.
Expelling a student should not be easy, and the school should be obligated to perform due diligence before it is allowed. The reason for this is because it can severely and negatively impact the child, and as nbauman stated, those negative repercussions will consequently negatively impact our communities and country as a whole.
Actually, it is just your opinion that Zimmerman killed Martin because, in your opinion, Martin was dressed like a hoodlum. Unless you are able to read Zimmerman's mind, you can't possibly know his motivations. Although, there is no evidence that Zimmerman killed Martin just for looking like a hoodlum , as you've claimed. Therefore, your statement is without merit and I understood your meaning, written in plain English, just fine.
You keep running in circles with this. Despite what you say, it is obvious you can't understand. You keep citing "Zimmerman said" yata yata yata.. as if the guy shits rainbows. You refuse to look at the evidence with a critical mind, and you refuse to acknowledge the main point of the whole discussion -- Zimmerman should not have shot Martin. I don't give a damn that he had a gun, he shouldn't have used it in that situation. It is obvious from looking at the photos (if you actually bothered to do so) that he was barely injured (No, he did not have a single black eye as you claimed), and there were only two scratches on the back of his head, no bruising. You've made up your mind though, it is obvious to me at this point that you will just keep claiming Zimmerman as the authority, and claiming that an eye witness saw things which they are quoted as stating they could not see. Good luck to you Anonymous Coward.
You left out the most important part of your statement: for looking like a hoodlum
I didn't mention it because you didn't mention it. That fact is absolutely true as well. Do you think Martin would be dead if he had been wearing a suit while walking down the street? If you can't acknowledge that, then that is just delusional.
If you would like to retract what you said, that's one thing, but you cannot deny what you said.
Again, it is an absolutely true statement, you just misunderstood it, as you have with just about everything else.
Yes, I've seen the bleeding cuts on the back of Zimmerman's head and his broken, swollen, and bloody nose. The pictures only strengthen Zimmerman's case, not Martin's.
They really do not strengthen his case, and they do not support his claims. Either you haven't seen them, or your memory is bad.
Then, it stands to reason Zimmerman would have sustained no injuries and Martin would have sustained no injuries to his knuckles because Zimmerman would have followed through on his threat and killed Martin before a physical altercation would be allowed to occur. Not to mention, again, it doesn't make sense that Zimmerman would threaten Martin with a gun -- that is unless his life were in danger -- knowing that he just called police and that they were on the way. Again, no theory on the part of Martin supporters can reasonably support Zimmerman acting unlawfully. I'll grant you that anything is possible, but given the evidence of the case, anything contradicting Zimmerman's claims seems very unlikely and, ultimately, unknowable.
You can't suppose to know exactly how their encounter went, and you are assuming many things in doing so. It does not "stand to reason" at all, especially if their encounter started with them in close contact with each other, Zimmerman would not have the advantage of range which you seem to be thinking. My point is exactly that it is unknowable. It is unknowable because Zimmerman shot Martin dead. A use of force that was completely unnessecary and which Zimmerman justified by making false claims that his head was being smashed into the ground. Which makes no sense at all. Why would Martin completely ignore a gun being pointed at him to smash the guys head into the ground? Why would Martin, a kid with no history of aggravated violence, do something like this in the first place? Makes no sense at all, unless you want to conveniently ignore those little details.
Again, we have eye witness testimony and evidence at the scene that supports Zimmerman's claims, which is the reason why he wasn't charged with a crime immediately. It took media and political pressure to charge him, and the trial proved the State's case was basically frivolous.
Again, no he does not. He has an eye witness testimony that confirms ONLY that Martin was on top of Zimmerman before he was shot. That. Is. It. Their is scarcely any evidence to support Zimmerman other than his own testimony. Dee Dee's testimony was largely ignored because she was being uncooperative, and her story conflicted with what Zimmerman claimed.
Zimmerman is not convicted because he is obviously an idiot who took things too far. It is obvious he did not intend to kill Martin, initially. Though he is absolutely responsible for starting the entire situation in the first place. He saw someone walking down the street in baggy clothes and a hoody, so he stalked them, he then proceeded to follow on foot against the advice of 9-1-1. During an encounter with Martin, he could have walked away, but he chose to instigate a fight. He then began to "fear for his life", so he shot and killed him.
Apparently, this is okay in Florida. Wouldn't fly in most other states.
You seem to conveniently want to ignore all the facts that support Zimmerman, in favor of an ever-changing theory that's supported by no facts. Unfortunately, that's typical of most Martin supporters.
My theory has been the exact same from the start, if you see it as changing, blame yourself. You seem to want to believe Zimmerman's own testimony is fact. This is not the case, learn the difference. This is typical of most Zimmerman supporters.
If you want to have a gun control debate then have a gun control debate. Don't drag people and emotions through the mud to do so, all because "changing the Constitution is really hard". It is completely despicable, but we all know that you "must not let a good tragedy go to waste". The people involved that night might have both made stupid decisions, but the ideologues making a mockery of this event and throwing flames on racial fires are the true monsters.
Wow.. Just Wow. You have no idea what my stance is on gun control law, I'm actually pro-guns, and I have not supported any campaigns to tighten the laws. You are consistently misunderstanding everything I say. I can see why you are posting as an A/C now.
Actually, that's exactly what you and those on the side of the prosecution have suggested. Here's what you said:
Actually, no, it is not. I said that he stalked and killed him, that is an absolutely true statement, unless you are suggesting that he did not stalk him, and that he did not kill him, I don't think that you would claim something like that though, since that would be borderline delusional, and you don't strike me as that sort of person.
That's right, if Zimmerman supposedly killed Martin in cold blood for looking like a hoodlum, or any of the other similar fantastical theories claimed by Martin supporters, why would Zimmerman #1 call the police ahead of time and #2 allow Martin to get close enough to him to defend himself and possibly grab his gun. It is your theory that defies logic.
You're putting words in my mouth and stretching logic again. Your logic revolves around an argument that no one is presenting, take away the intent to murder and that argument makes no sense.
What words were exchanged is largely irrelevant. Who threw the first punch, on the other hand, is very important. Since, aside from the fatal gun shot wounds, the only injuries Martin sustained were to his knuckles, the evidence suggests he was the aggressor and very likely the individual who struck first. Eye witness testimony also has Martin on top during the struggle. Zimmerman sustained 2 black eyes, a broken nose, and cuts to the back of his head -- all injuries consistent with being repeatedly punched in the face and having his head struck against the ground.
I'm guessing you didn't actually look at the pictures of the injuries? What words were exchanged are incredibly important. If Zimmerman threatened Martin with a gun, he would have every right to have tackled him in the first place. Again, we can't know this information because Martin is unfortunately dead. We have only what Zimmerman claims.
Zimmerman following Martin doesn't mean he started a fight. Again, it is illogical that Zimmerman would call the police only to start a fight minutes later when he knows police could arrive and witness his attack. This idea that Zimmerman started the fight is simply illogical and the evidence just doesn't support it.
It's easy for you to claim such things from a lofty position, however, real humans are spontaneous, and when confronted can do illogical things. I could easily see the situation starting either way as feasible, though logic has little to do with anything when adrenaline is pumping. You don't seem to understand human nature very well. As someone who has been in my fair share of fights, logic has little to do with anything when one is about to start.
Since you claimed earlier that Zimmerman stalked and killed a teenage boy, it's a safe assumption you would want justice for such a crime had such a crime actually been committed, which, of course, it's been proven by a jury that such a crime was not committed.
Not when you misinterpret it to be anything other than a simplification of the events that happened. Since you related what I said with claiming he killed him in cold blood, it's obvious that you misunderstood me.
There's also the common sense fact that if Zimmerman had intended to kill Martin in cold blood, calling the police just prior to the murder would have been illogical, as would allowing himself to get close enough to Martin to allow Martin to defend himself and reach for Zimmerman's gun. According to Zimmerman, Martin did indeed go for Zimmerman's gun, which is what finally forced Zimmerman to shoot Martin.
No one is arguing that he originally intended to kill Martin that night. You're attempting to stretch that logic in to saying that it would then also be illogical to let Martin get close to him though, and that is incorrect. Zimmerman had no reason to be afraid of Mr Martin up until they confronted each other, at which point they were both already within close range of each other. It is confirmed by Dee Dee that they exchanged words. After that there is no information on how the fight started, all we know is that after the fight started Zimmerman ended up on the floor on his back with Martin on top of him. At some point, Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot Martin several times.
The eyewitness Jonathon Good testified “It seemed like a tussle,” adding that at first he thought he was witnessing a dog attack. He then said that he saw “downward movement,” but couldn’t confirm that he saw punches being thrown. He added that the person on top was “straddling” the person on bottom. Additionally, this photo of Zimmerman's face after the altercation does not reflect a man who's face has been pummeled. He has no bruises at all, yet his nose is broken? Additionally, this photo here shows two lacerations on the back of his head. Did Martin smash his head into the ground repeatedly? Sure doesn't look like it. It looks like he was tackled and got injured during the fall.
So let me reiterate:
1. Martin is walking to a friends house through the rain wearing his hoody after having went to a convenience store to get skittles.
2. Zimmerman sees Martin walking, and follows him because he believes he is suspicious.
3. Martin runs away from someone we can only assume he believes is suspicious as well.
4. Zimmerman leaves his truck to follow Martin, after having reportedly lost him, he does to check the street address on the opposite side of the street?
5. Martin returns to confront his follower.
6. Words are exchanged, and a fight starts.
7. During the fight, Martin tackles Zimmerman, Zimmerman receives several injuries.
8. The eye witness enters at this point and confirms Martin is on top of Zimmerman, but cannot see much more than that.
9. Zimmerman shoots Martin several times, Martin dies.
So now there are some holes in Zimmerman's claims. The eye witness could hardly see what was going on, but was able to confirm that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. No one knows what words were exchanged before the fight, or who threw the first punch. Lack of injuries on Martin does not mean he started the fight, just that he wasn't hit. It is incredibly important who started the fight, and as Zimmerman is the instigator of the entire situation, I am more prone to believe that he instigated things along further.
However bad you might feel for Martin and his family, that's not how a fair justice system works.
I don't believe I ever said the justice system should convict him. No one can confirm what really happened there, so it would be wrong to convict him, but as I said originally, karma will see it's way in the end. If Zimmerman was really justified then that statement wouldn't mean anything. It is definitely his fault that Martin is dead though. That much is clear, he could have walked away with a few scrapes and bruises, and reported Martin to the police for assault, instead, he chose to shoot him, and accidentally killed him.
That's the thing, the phone conversation with Zimmerman did not indicate who attacked first. All we have is Mr. Zimmermans word on that, it would be interesting to hear what Mr. Martin would have to say, but unfortunately, Mr. Zimmerman killed him, and all he has to show for it were a few scratches on his head. I've gotten worse from that from falling down while rollerblading.
His story does not add up, in my opinion.
Way to not bring up any actual points, Anonymous Coward. I've looked at the evidence, and I know juries can be wrong, juries can be biased. But you've apparently made up your mind, so don't let me stop you.
I'm reminds of a song by Bad Religion "Them and Us".
Hate is a simple manifestation
of a deep-seated self-directed frustration,
all it does is promote fear and consternation,
it's the inability to justify the enemy and it fills us all with trepidation.
Maybe there is a way to justify this situation, but I certainly can't see it, even with what you've said. Teenagers are notorious for blowing a lot of steam, and I can't see how any adult could not know that, unless they completely forgot what it was like to be a teen themselves. Trayvon would have blown a lot of smoke, but if Zimmerman had just done nothing and said nothing, Trayvon would have just walked away and the only thing hurt would have been Zimmerman's ego.
The whole altercation could have been resolved with words, and at worst, fists. Weapons should never have been a part of the equation, and ultimately Trayvon was minding his own business until Zimmerman's poor choices ruined his life. Maybe Trayvon could have avoided the situation too, but he didn't bring a gun, and he didn't stalk someone down the street. In my opinion, Trayvon's actions were justifiable, even though they were stupid, but Zimmerman's actions are not justifiable, in addition to being stupid.
I'm amazed that anyone actually does consider what he did to be self-defense. In my eyes, he stalked and killed a teenage boy just for looking like a hoodlum. I used to look like a hoodlum when I was young and stupid too, is it okay for some self-righteous "neighborhood watch" bully to kill me as well? This whole thing really irritates me. I take solace only in the fact that I know that karma will one day catch up to Mr. Zimmerman. Pretty much the same as O.J. Simpson http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/oj-simpson-parole-hearing/2507087 .
I don't think this has anything to do with Google though, unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying. I also have HTTPS Everywhere installed, I opened up Wireshark, set my filter to watch TCP ports 80 and 443 outbound, and then attempted to reproduce your issue without any success. HTTPS Everywhere caught the connection before it ever left my machine. My first outbound connection was always a SYN packet to 74.125.224.211 on port 443, except in cases where a session remained open when I typed in a new keyword, in that case, the same session was reused. I tried this with several different searches, and immediately after closing and re-opening Firefox without a variance in results.
Maybe this used to be a bug in the HTTP Everywhere add-on, and it has since been fixed? It doesn't appear to still exist though, unless you can provide more details on how to reproduce it.
The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.
