You are incorrect on the definition and application of the GPL

Actually... you are more so than the parent.

Open source is based on the idea of copyright... for without it would be unenforceable.

More so, I got quite a lulz out of this statement of yours:

You are allowed to use without restriction, and modify with only the restriction that you open source your modifications as well.

*facepalm*

Incorrect... you are only make available the source code if you *release* any derivative work (be it a binary or a source drop)... or are various companies running FOSS stacks internally that may have been tweaked here or there violating the GPL by not releasing every single line & change?

You start off correct...

Proving the intent is easy when a gun is fired. Firing a gun at someone is automatically intent to cause harm, and fatal injury.

But then ignore the law...

In order to reduce the charge to a manslaughter, it would require that Zimmerman's actions were not intended to cause death, and that death was unexpected. Firing a gun at someone intentionally is most certainly not followed by surprise at the death of the victim.

You seem to be forgetting the 'Stand Your Ground' law in most states requires the person using lethal force be afraid for their safety/life to the point that a 'reasonable person' would act similarly.

I’m fairly certain that a reasonable person would conclude that if you are on your back (ie unable to run) and being beaten (ie under physical attack, creating a valid cause for concern for personal saftey) by a person who is on top of you (ie preventing your escape)... that you have two options... pray to god that they don’t permanently injury/kill you... or use force to remove the (threatened/real) force against you, even with lethal force... and that the latter here would be justified and toss out any murder/manslaughter/etc charges.

Not to mention http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HMByO1RA4M ... or the 2008 Barack-Opolis and most of thse there.

Um... yes we do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

Very well said... and the reason I spoke of intent is that in order to be able to get a conviction, a prosecutor would have to prove that intent... which based on the evidence here would be a very tall order.

Good to see you believe in 'innocent until proven guilty' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary of what you claim.

I dissagree... the police are fine to talk to when you go to talk to them about something... a basic (but not legally binding) opinion/clarification of a specific criminal law, a break in in your home, a stalker, reporting unsafe drivers, a lost purse you found on a sidewalk (all things I've done... including #5 yesterday)... it's when they come knocking at your door and you are in their sights you alas have to be extra careful due to the whole "Anything you say can and will be used against you" bit.

Why should middle class people pay for you to send your kids to school?

Because society for the most part benefits from an educated population... though I would prefer vouchers... or even an abolishment of government run schools.

Why should middle class people pay to clear the roads of snow?

Because society for the most part benefits from clear roads which allow them to go to/from work and pay taxes and live their lives.

Why should middle class people pay for traffic lights?

Because society for the most part benefits from roads which allow them to go to/from work and pay said taxes and live their lives.

Seriously, get a more intelligent argument.

Says the man who comes off sounding like a moron.

You are calling out things which in general all benefit from (not unlike say the military, police or fire department)... and yet... I (like the parent) fail to see how most of society benefits from our tax dollars helping to buy you or anyone else a Volt. ... unless you want to play the 'broken window' theory of economics.

money is just piling up that used to go to those before

Which... like the Volt ignores the very real and high cost of getting into such a thing.

You know if someone would give me a few million dollars I could just live off of the interest... shame I can't convince anyone to do so...

So the truth is no one in the media has claimed Trayvon was 12 years old. They've use a variety of photos, one of which is 5 years old.

As I said above (with a minor typo it seems):

just as the mug shot looking photo of Mr. Zimmerman which has been splashed most places is similarly old and helping to lead to incorrect conclusions about both men

Even if the media never said "this is a 12 year old boy" their choice to use a photo from him long ago, rather than a more up to date one that damages their narrative indicates their willingness to color the facts.

Given your acceptance of such a thing, plus ignoring the fact that Mr. Zimmerman was well respected by his community as someone who cared enough to keep a watchful eye demonstrates the quality of your character... which is not the sort of person I wish to engage with any longer. Good day.

He carried a gun

So do I... am I a murderer then?

with the intent he may need to kill someone with it.

One carries a gun the same way someone carries insurance on their car, spouse or home... just in case, hoping never to have to use it, but preferring to have it in case the need ever arises... am I a murderer then?

He got out of his car even when dispatch didn't want him to.

For standard CYA reasons the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that" with regards to Mr. Zimmerman 'following' Mr. Martin... and that AFTER Mr. Zimmerman had left his car.

FYI: We do not live in a police state and the statement of the dispatcher has no legal weight.

He followed him.

You mean he went to go look for him after he lost sight of him so he could accurately report the suspicious person to the police who had just moments earlier walked by the vehicle of Mr. Zimmerman while he was inside?

He confronted him.

Says who? If anything it seems that Mr. Martin confronted Mr. Zimmerman doubly so when you look at the map of the area of where the 911 call was first made and where it ended it appears as if Mr. Martin actually doubled back and began the confrontation.

And it's not Zimmerman yelling for help.

Says... the 'expert' who can only say either way with 48% accuracy? given there are really only two choices I would have expected something more than 50/50 odds from such an ‘expert’.

Given we have witnesses who put Mr. Martin on top of Mr. Zimmerman... beating him... are we to believe that while carrying out the beating Mr. Martin was yelling for help? ... or that after he was shot Mr. Martin began to yell for help?

The 'possible injury to the head' enhanced video is really weak.

So we'll just discount the police report which notes that Mr. Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and the nose?

I can't say I've seen any media presenting him as a 12 year old. Which leads me to theconclusion you're the one distorting.

The photo of Mr. Martin in the red shirt is not from age 17, or even 16... but ~ age 12... as are the majority of the photos shown in the MSM... now his twitter accounts had more telling photos.... just as the mug shot looking photo of Mr. Zimmerman which has been splashed most places is similarly old and helping to lead to incorrect conclusions about both me.

Zimmerman's race is irrelevant.

Correct... but not to the media who labeled him as a white man from day one because it played into a narrative of "gun weilding white man gun downs young and unarmed black boy"... and only later backed away slightly as they realized their mistake.

But the fact that he treated people as suspicious or not depending if they were black or not seems to be a matter of track record in his time acting as neighbourhood watch in the community.

Care to support that argument? All credible information I've seen says just the opposite that people of all races in the community knew that he was someone who could be counted on.

You realize that murder has a legal meaning right?... and if he 'gets off' on a technicality... then he's not legally murderer... and actually leaves you actionable for libel.

More so... murder tends to require a specific intent, so unless you care to demonstrate that he got out of his car thinking/saying "I'm going to go shoot this guy"... the best you could hope for would be manslaughter... and even then the evidence of the assault on Mr. Zimmerman makes it an even tougher case.

Being held in contempt would require a judge making such an order that was violated... in this case, it was simply CBP/DHS.