Actually, a red herring. Nowhere in the civilized world is the criterion for murder "proved guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt". It is "proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". They are entirely different things.
Two words explain this attitude historically: "Secret Tribunal." (You can insert the word "military" if you'd prefer three words).
What would have them spinning at 5000 rpm in their graves is Guantanamo Bay, not this trial and public reaction. A public trial by jury is exactly what they designed, and the country was so small and insular at that point that reputations could be ruined far more thoroughly than in today's overpopulated, urban, and largely faceless culture. They absolutely expected mob mentality to be a result, which was why so many of them were members of secret societies. Privacy to speak one's mind may never have occurred to them as a possibility without that. The possibility of a public trial ruining someone's reputation was probably expected, in my considered opinion.
I don't have any primary sources to back that up though.
Civilians don't get to do "warning" shots. The deal with the use of deadly force is that it either is or is not justified. There isn't a situation where it is justified to "just try and scare them" with a gun.
In the case of something like this, the justification would be that you feared for your life. In most places that allow lethal force for self defense, that is a valid reason. The thing is, just firing a warning shots could show that you really DIDN'T have an imminent fear for your life. You weren't so afraid you felt the need to shoot your attacker, just "warn" them. Thus you weren't really in fear for your life, so no justification.
I am not aware of jurisdictions that allow you to use guns to just try and scare people for various reasons. You can use them to defend yourself and sometimes others, but only in grave cases. If the case isn't grave enough for that, then you aren't justified in using it in any way.
Basically as a civilian in a self defense situation don't draw your gun unless to shoot and don't shoot except to kill. If the situation isn't serious enough to warrant that, then a gun isn't the answer.
What we do know for sure is that she was a recurring aggressor in domestic violence, not a defenseless victim.
But even if he was the aggressor this time, as a victim you don't go out, get a weapon, come back and fire it everywhere but in your aggressor to defend yourself. That is illegal, and should as well be.
You do not know that. He could have been paralyzed or killed. You might think that is not very likely, but unarmed people are paralyzed and killed by unarmed people all the time.
Healthcare is an absolute must for everyone to have. It is something that takes priority. Find out easy solutions to secure cheap healthcare for you and your family. ( http://www.singlemomfinancialhelp.com/healthcare/)
Skin Firming Cream Light consistency and also contains ingredients which nourish the dermis and support collagen synthesis such as centella asiatica and ectoin. Emollience Light consistency yet very emollient for dry, mature and sensitive skin. Also contains algae extract.
Skin Firming Cream Plus ( http://www.empowernetwork.com/jazzyfaye/blog/skin-firming-cream/?id=jazzyfaye)
Not guilty: yes.
BIG BIG difference.
Anybody who kills should be required to spend time in jail. period. If his life was so much in risk, then serving years in jail would be a totally worthwhile price FOR LIVING. Seriously, even if you are the hero - serving some jail time is a small price to pay. Think about it.
Every cowardly wimp in the USA can now legitimately shoot somebody BEFORE they are beaten up. This is not far from invading Iraq before they WMDed somebody.
Now with no bullying in school, kids will grow up in fear of an ass whooping... I know what it is like to be beaten up; it really isn't all that horrible. You don't die and you do heal... and any permanent damage comes out of the other guy's ass.
Article by at 2013-07-14 04:53:03
Categorized in bp_Möbel, ( http://www.babysache.com/alvi-matratze-klima-max-90x40-cm-fur-wiegen/)
Tin ceilings are a beautiful addition to any building that showcases class and elegance. Unfortunately, because of the metallic properties of these ceilings, any water in the form of humidity or excess moisture can cause the ceilings to rust. When the tin ceilings rust, it can sometimes get so bad t ( http://metalceilingexpress.com/blog/how-to-keep-your-decorative-tin-ceiling-from-rusting/)
Times of India
A man smashed a case in a Springfield wireless store and escaped with several iPhones, but the scheme was foiled by one glaring oversight: The robber, police say, left his own Samsung Galaxy at the scene of the crime. Fairfax County police arrested Travis...
iPhone 5 still tops, but Galaxy S4 helps Samsung gain share, analyst saysCNET
Smash & grab iPhone thief caught after leaving his Samsung Galaxy behindApple Insider
Samsung Lining Up New Family Of 4 For Smartphone WarForbes
all 381 news articles
YRO is indeed an acronym for that, and it has been progressively bastardized over the past 15 years. If you're cool with that, fine. I am not.
Clearly your approach of bitching anonymously about it has yielded the results you're looking for. It's YRO, I know what YRO is used for in actuality, and I'll decide whether or not to read a YRO article based on my mood.
Clearly the people who submitted it are fucking idiots and...Timothy is a fucking idiot too.
Demonstrate this. Seriously, provide actual facts to prove that these people have an IQ between 0 and 25. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're stupid; it means that if you have to resort to calling them stupid that you're either unwilling or incapable of having a civilized conversation.
I am indeed inclined to stop reading
Good. Fuck off.
it's a good way to get yourself shot
I was wondering when someone was going to say that. Anyone that takes the effort to follow me home is a threat to me and my home. Anyone with a gun following me home is a deadly threat.
Why did the defense not need to explain how he was able to draw, aim, and fire his weapon while in such a position? This seems like a highly improbable situation that someone would be able to pull out a holstered weapon and get off an accurate shot while they are being beaten nearly to the point of losing consciousness.
It's not improbable.
It's pretty easy to draw from an IWB holster in the standard position while someone is sitting on you, unless the someone is so heavy that you can't life one hip an inch or so. As for accuracy, at a few inches range, accuracy is not hard. Also, I don't think Zimmerman claimed he was nearly losing consciousness, just that he felt that he was in danger of being killed. That's not improbable, either. You can realize you're in a position where you could be killed before a great deal of damage is actually done.
On the question of drawing I posted a more complete answer here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3971423&cid=44274023
Everyone feels they are right, and everyone feels strongly. Is it possible for commenters to keep that in mind?
yes...but that doesn't mean you won't see valid controversy...
Racism is a problem in techie circles and it shows in overt and subtle ways. The proper response to Zimmerman's acquittal is outrage. Yes, of course that is 'IMHO' but my point is that we have to evolve beyond just identifying options and snarkily championing our favorite when it come to social issues (it will help make better designs and more money too
These boards are full of trolls and general sociopathic behavior, and racism is part of it.
Just accept it...the right thing to be is angry at Zimmerman's acquittal. Middle class white people have gotten *more* racist and less nuanced in their worldview in the last 15 years and it's a shame.
I don't know what teh heck you're talking about.
Er... sorry about that? Is there anything in particular you'd like me to clarify?
Check it out! ( http://www.empowernetwork.com/alakh/blog/truth-about-global-information-network)
A well-decorated fireplace is often the centerpiece of any room. By decorating your fireplace with metal ceiling tiles, you know that it’ll have a shiny, elegant design that will catch the eyes of all your guests. Because of their fire resistant nature, metal ceiling tiles are a great option to de ( http://metalceilingexpress.com/blog/tips-for-installing-metal-ceiling-tiles-around-your-fireplace/)
Whether Zimmerman is guilty or not, he'll never have another job. He'll always be "that guy that got away with murder", irrespective of the actual, judiciary merit of that position. There have been many people, for example, accused of rape, and were later proved not just not guilty, but totally and irrefutably innocent of the charges. Their lives were still over all the same.
He might need a name change and a relocation but if he wants to he can regain his anonymity in a few months.
The founding fathers knew this -- that's why they advocated jury trials in the first place. It was an attempt to remove this mob mentality from the judicial process, and as a balance against populism swaying the government and giving in to the transient emotional outbursts of the crowd, the mob, the public. I don't think, if they were alive today in the age of the internet and instant communication, they would still advocate that these trials be open to the public...
I'd say this case was a perfect example of why we need open trials.
In the initial case I frankly do think there was a racial bias. Whether or not innocent was the proper finding I think it's hard to justify the casualness of the initial police response. Media oversight was a good thing here.
As for the trial, a trial open to the public actually protects the accused from being convicted by the media!
The media were talking about Zimmerman long before the trial so closing the trial won't stop him from being convicted by the media. But the only way to stop the media conviction from turning into a courtroom conviction via corruption is to keep the trial open to the media.
"Slashdot seems THIS" - "NO - slashdot seems THAT".
Slashdot is like people, since it IS an assortment of people. Slashdot seems like whatever goes against your own beliefs. It's human nature to see people who can't see the merits of the philosophy you've spent spent your life developing as dangerous and obtuse idiots, while those who agree with you are only seeing what is obvious. Except for the ciphers who never troubled themselves to have any philosophy at all.
The wounds on the man's head support his claim. And regardless, he doesn't have to prove his innocence, the state must prove his guilt. They didn't.
1. Evidence about Martin's background would help the jury assess his character and might speak to his motivation. It looks like they were barely able to get in the results of the toxicology report that showed Martin still had traces of marijuana in his blood.
2. Zimmerman wasn't aggressive in getting out of his car. If he had closed the distance and attacked Martin, that would be aggression, assault. Martin was the one that attacked Zimmerman. He was on top of him throwing MMA style punches when he was shot.
3. "Stand your ground" was never a part of the case, ever. It was part of inflamed commentary. Zimmerman didn't attack Martin.
Race had nothing to do with the case. It was simple self-defense. Martin attacked Zimmerman by surprise, started beating his head against the curb, and was on top of his throwing MMA type punches. Zimmerman's life was in immediate peril, but he was able to pull his gun and shoot Martin. To the extent that race played a part, it was generally working against Zimmerman in that many commentators soft pedaled, concealed, or ignored derogatory information about Martin, as well as exculpatory information about Zimmerman. NBC doctored audio to make Zimmerman appear racist. The media kept referring to Zimmerman as white, when he is Hispanic with a black grandfather (or maybe great-grandfather). Despite the fact that pictures of the grown Martin were available, including ones showing some more troubling aspects of his life, the media kept showing pictures of him when he was much younger and innocent appearing. The media downplayed Martin's troubled history, and participation in fight club type activity, and his interest in martial arts. It goes on, and on, and on. Probably because of Zimmerman's name, the media was out for a lynching of what they thought was a white guy that had killed a young black man. They often got things wrong, and stirred the pot. Even the US Justice department engaged in some troubling behavior.
Based on your flavor of your questions I have the sense that you may have gotten most of the commentary on this case from a particular slice of the web that hasn't always provided good information on this. My suggestion is that you do some reading at this site Legal Insurrection. It has some interesting and informed commentary, by actual lawyers, on the case. Fair warning - you may not like what you read, but it is likely to be much more legally accurate and closer to the truth than what it sounds like you have been reading. The truth doesn't always taste good when it doesn't fit our expectations.
You have never lived near some OCD SOB who sticks his authoritarian face into everybody's business because of his major insecurity problems. 1000x worse than the grammar Nazis.
Police are screened, trained, tested. They get a lot of benefit when in doubt (arguably more than they deserve but at least some of it IS DESERVED.)
Zimmerman wouldn't have made it into the police force; perhaps that is what made him such a wannabe.
The most striking thing to me has always been that both actors would have been within their rights, under "Stand Your Ground," to attack the other.
Absolutely not! The one who instigates the conflict is not entitled to claim self-defense under any state's laws, except if they clearly try to disengage and are prevented by the other person(s) from doing so. Questioning someone is not conflict, it's a question. Hurling fists, or even profanities, is conflict.
Here's how it works:
Scenario 1: I ask you what you're doing here, you pull knife, I shoot you: Legit self-defense. If state has SYG no need for me to run away
Scenario 2: I ask you what you're doing here, you pull knife and stab me: Murder by you.
Scenario 3: I aggressively tell you to '"Get the F(*& out of my neighborhood you $^&%$" while charging towards you (assault), you pull knife (defense), I shoot you: Murder or at least Manslaughter by me, because I started the conflict.
Scenario 4: I aggressively tell you to '"Get the F(*& out of my neighborhood you $^&%$" while charging towards you (assault), you pull knife (defense), I put up my hands and try to run away (disengage), you follow me and back me into a corner (continuing assault), I shoot you: Legit self-defense due to attempt to disengage
Scenario 5: I aggressively tell you to '"Get the F(*& out of my neighborhood you $^&%$" while charging towards you (assault), you pull knife (defense), I put up my hands and try to run away (disengage), you follow me and back me into a corner and stab me: Murder by you
Scenario 6: I aggressively tell you to '"Get the F(*& out of my neighborhood you $^&%$" while charging towards you (assault), you pull knife (defense), I put up my hands and try to run away, you let me go: Assault by me if you want to press charges.
It all boils down the the actions. At no time did anyone prove ZImmerman truly started the conflict, either by hostile words or actions, and that's why the jury had to go with self-defense. *If* Martin was the one to start the conflict, and especially if he was on top of Zimmerman (per witness), then he had no right to do anything.
Why is she kicking him instead of fleeing and calling for help?
The response has to be proportional to the threat. When the threat is a verbal confrontation and the response is slamming a man's head into the ground, you lose ability to claim victim status.
There is of course software used to look at this stuff but it cannot realistically be run on the dock during a very tight turnaround
Why don't they simply have sensors built into the ship? They can measure stress directly without having to guess, and load up appropriately. Seems an obvious thing to do, so I assume there must be a reason why they don't?
It really depends on the phone. My Nexus S has been dropped a dozen times without issue. My wife has been through an iPhone 4 and a Nexus III. Larger phones don't seem to like being dropped.
Screen protectors are different... There's all kinds of shit in my pockets that can scratch even gorilla glass. Plus, the screens are oil resistant, which is nice.
The other advantage is that Canonnical can cock it up without affecting anyone else.
One innocent person behind bars is 1 life diminished (but not extinguished).
a fucked up mind you have there - nothing personal
it is life extinguished, maybe even worse - a decent person is likely to turn into a hardened criminal. and with a decent justification, too. a great injustice...
While I have little hope of anything happening to the offending lawyers in this case, I believe the judge did say that she would wait to take action until after a verdict was reached. The verdict has now been rendered so hopefully we'll see some action on this soonish.
My own kid is 16. He's bigger, stronger, and better-fit than the vast majority of adults I know. (He does freestyle BMX, more as a lifestyle than as a hobby.)
If I were being pummeled by a kid of his build, I'd be in serious fear for my life.
Point being: I'm not sure "kid" has anything to do with it.
- continued following TM, even when instructed by 911 operators not to.
You got it straight from Slashdot, folks : do whatever the police tell you to do.
The most striking thing to me has always been that both actors would have been within their rights, under "Stand Your Ground," to attack the other.
You don't understand what "Stand Your Ground" means. It does not give you a right to attack. It just means that you do not have to try to run away if you are attacked. In this case it wasn't applied because it wasn't relevant; per Zimmerman's story he never had a chance to run away after he was attacked.
In a duty-to-retreat state I suppose the prosecution might have tried to claim that Zimmerman had a chance to run away and didn't , so I guess it's relevant in that the existence of the stand-your-ground law precluded the prosecution from trying that line of argument. However, trying to argue that would have required the prosecution to more or less stipulate that Martin attacked Zimmerman, so I doubt they would have tried it even in a duty-to-retreat state.
He is innocent.
Your advice might keep someone out of prison.
The judge tells them what evidence they can consider, and what is required for a charge, and they usually listen to that, at least reasonably well.
I've seen cases where the Defendent gets false confidence b/c of a great performance from his attorney and good non-verbal feedback from the jury only to be sent away b/c of exactly what you describe.
Sometimes, the judges are just morons who behave essentially as librarians or middle managers and they just give the bare minimum of instructions (basically what they are told).
Also, State law can sometimes *mandate* the judge read a form of instructions.
We think of the courts as a safety valve to overrule democracy when it gets crazy, but really they are subject to the will of the people just the same, only usually on a longer timeline...you can't just fire a judge for incompetence.