So, if I am beating your head against a concrete sidewalk, no one can attempt to stop me because your life isn't in danger, right? Remember, you are stating one that slamming someone's head repeatedly into the ground while saying one is going to kill said someone isn't life-threatening.

Except, Martin didn't know Zimmerman was armed. All he knew was that someone was watching/following him. Neither watching nor following is a crime. If Martin felt threatened, he could have called the police, yet he didn't. Martin didn't have to confront Zimmerman at all. He could have just continued on to his destination at which point nothing would have happened.

You are making assumptions based on absolutely no evidence to justify your biased opinion. Or, to put it more bluntly, you are making shit up.

No, that is not what this case boils down to. What this case boils down to is who attacked whom first and how. That is why this case should never have gone to trial. The physical evidence corroborated Zimmerman's account and didn't disprove it. Eye witnesses corroborated Zimmerman's version. And, in the United States of American, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution couldn't prove it's case and appealed to emotion and tried to mislead the jury and shift the burden of proof during closing arguments. The prosecutor stated that Zimmerman's defense needed prove Zimmerman's version of events and had not done so. But, Zimmerman didn't have to do that. It is the prosecution's job to prove it was false beyond a reasonable doubt. They couldn't and didn't and so tried to shift the burden of proof and used appeal to emotion to win. They failed.

It is quite amazing to see so many comments that are stating that Zimmerman is guilty while not knowing the facts. Some obviously started from the position that Zimmerman should be assumed guilty and that his defense had to prove him innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is not how the law works.

Really? To which laws are you referring? Please be specific.

Actually, witnesses testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman AND testified that the only way Martin could have received the wounds he had was if he was bent over Zimmerman.

Back the fuck up.

Zimmerman didn't have his gun drawn nor was he threatening Martin. If you have evidence to the contrary, why weren't you a witness in the trial?
As Zimmerman was apparently unarmed, Martin had little to fear. Even if Martin was afraid, he attacked and knocked Zimmerman to the ground. At that point, Zimmerman wasn't a threat (remember Zimmmerman didn't have his gun drawn) and Martin could have run away. He didn't. He got on top of Zimmerman and continued to attack him. That is not self-defense by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, if you think Zimmerman didn't have anything to fear, this is what we can do. We can get together and you can lie down with your head on a sidewalk. I will straddle you and pound your head into the concrete two or three times. Then, you can tell everyone if you were afraid you might be seriously injured or killed.

Cultural backgrounds don't change the truth nor does it excuse lying on the stand. Zimmerman should sue the state for malicious prosecution.

Do yourself a favor and read the fucking law, m'kay? Read the definitions they use and specifically what it says. There you will learn the law doesn't shut down internet cafe's that actually provide internet access. It only effects the ones running claimed "internet sweepstakes".

You are absolutely correct. This is about two other things.

1. Forced endorsement of their relationships. They want to legally require that everyone pretend that their domestic partner is their spouse. There is no such thing as same sex marriage. It's like legally mandating Santa Clause.

2. Crush dissent. We're starting to see this already. Bakers who have religious objections to baking cakes with two grooms are being sued for discrimination in public accommodations. That's why they want to co-opt marriage. Disagree with redefined marriage? Tough shit, if you do or say anything against it, they'll sue you into oblivion.

LK

Distribution of information is also conduct. Conduct isn't protected by the first amendment.

The reason those newspapers weren't prosecuted is because they have the ability to return favors to the politicians who didn't prosecute them. Don't think for one minute that if they couldn't be pressured for some quid pro quo, they would have been treated the same way.

LK

Not the fact that he belonged to a church that taught that people of African descent were cursed by God?

Hypocrite much, liberal crusaders?

LK

Really? The couple I checked out, neither had wifi and there was no way to break out of the games.

It is another example of the law not keeping up with the times. New tech created a loop hole and theses people are exploiting it. Who benefits from the law? Basically, the old and the poor. These places are almost exclusively in low income neighborhoods and mostly elderly neighborhoods. The victims of these places don't understand the technologies. While the machines are effectively slot machines, the operators call them sweepstakes. But, the "sweepstakes" involves multiple locations and the "player" hitting a button at the right time. But, there doesn't have to be winner where one is playing. Of course, how do you tell if there is ever a real winner?

The only winners in these places are the operators.

It's a loop hole in the law. This law is a (very bad) attempt to plug the loop hole. It has to do with how the machines are operated and how they operate. It's stupid, but it is another example of the law not keeping up with technology.

As I stated earlier, I'd produce a link.

It is here.

• 115.00 Criminal facilitation in the fourth degree.
          A person is guilty of criminal facilitation in the fourth degree when, believing it probable that he is rendering aid:
          1. to a person who intends to commit a crime, he engages in conduct which provides such person with means or opportunity for the commission thereof and which in fact aids such person to commit a felony; or
          2. to a person under sixteen years of age who intends to engage in conduct which would constitute a crime, he, being over eighteen years of age, engages in conduct which provides such person with means or opportunity for the commission thereof and which in fact aids such person to commit a crime.

This is New York law. So this would apply to someone using this app to commit a crime in New York but other states have similar requirements, I'm just not going to give links to the criminal codes of the other 49 states to prove my point.

LK