What? How does his being armed as he walked back to his truck have any bearing on the fact that Martin - who had already made it to his destination - doubled back, and ran up behind Zimmerman to sucker punch him and begin the physical assault from which Zimmerman had to defend himself? Carrying a pistol doesn't magically control people who are sneaking up behind you to attack you.

Other than the part where his account is completely consistent with the evidence, and with actual eyewitness accounts. Other than that part.

For the same reason he was thrown out of his house (for being violent)? For the same reason he tweeted about hitting people, showing off a gun and drugs, and generally cultivating his gangster/thug persona? For the same reason that he was the only person involved who used a racial epithet to describe someone? His friend on the phone (the prosecution's witness) was the one that provided the evidence that Martin was already back the house when he turned around to go and assault the "cracker" he was beating on.

No, she didn't dispute any of his claiims. When asked, she admitted that she had no idea what happened because Martin ended his phone call before he started beating on Zimmerman.

No, this isn't true. The only demographic among which that mis-use is common is the group that has no idea what they're talking about. The millions and millions of people who've been in the military or who personally own and use firearms, and pretty much anybody literate who's ever read a coherent sentence on the subject, would never make that stupid mistake.

It's sort of like how "the web" and "the internet" aren't the same thing.

And of course, she said that was not able to say anything about how the fight started, only that Martin was at his Dad's house. Which means that Martin turned around and ran back to do the assault.

Are you making a reference to the Martin/Zimmerman case? Because it may have been dark when Martin attacked, but that really doesn't have much to do with the "being shot" part. He was shot while on top of Zimmerman, having already run up behind him to attack, punched him in the face and broken his nose, and was proceeding to bash his head into the sidewalk. He was shot while on top of him and throwing more punches. A six-foot guy, continuing to beat up the guy he'd turned around and gone back to attack.

Yes, because Martin was the one who committed the assault, not Zimmerman.

Who has said that's OK? Are you talking about some scenario other than the trial at hand? Because what you're describing didn't happen. You need to be more clear that you're not talking about the Zimmerman/Martin trial when you say that. Otherwise people might think that you're being deliberately misleading.

Ah, so you ARE being deliberately misleading. Why are you doing that? What's the point of lying about it?

That depends, was my son or daughter beating someone's head against the sidewalk after jumping them? Did my son or daughter start the violence?

Right, because Martin, not Zimmerman, committed assault and was the one committing the actual violence. Zimmerman didn't commit violence, he stopped the person who was committing violence.

Gee, I don't know, talk to them? What I wouldn't do would be to wait until the guy is walking back to his truck, then run up and sucker punch him, knock him down, and begin bashing his head into the sidewalk.

Why are you asking that question? Those weren't the choices presented to Martin. He had all sorts of choices, including just walking into the house he had gotten to (according to his friend, the prosecution's witness). Instead, he turned around, and ran back to Zimmerman, who was walking back to his truck. And attacked him.

You're not actually paying attention, are you?

No, you're confused. The person attempting murder was stopped in the act by his victim. The entire trial is a bad joke, and the Skype episode is just frosting on that bitter cake.

See, that's the thing. That didn't happen. You are lying. Why are you lying?

Not that that's actually true, but it doesn't matter. Because nobody told him to. The said that Zimmerman didn't need to keep following Martin. And even if you choose to interpret that as direction (the person who said it, the dispatcher, has already testified that it was not instruction to Zimmerman), a dispatcher has no authority whatsoever in such matters.

Yes, you do! You can look right at me, and say, "I see that you're white: that probably means all sorts of bad things, by my standards." You can racially profile me all you want. Because doing so means nothing when it's a private citizen doing so. You can also behaviorally profile me ... you know, make personal conclusions all your own based on what you seem me doing as I hide my face cruising through your neighborhood. Why? Because doing so isn't a problem. Because that's not assault.

You have absolutely no expectation of privacy on a public street. Are you saying that Martin was followed into the house where he was staying? Because ... he wasn't. It was Martin that doubled back towards Zimmerman (who was walking the opposite direction), to attack him.

No, but you can shoot when someone jumps you and starts beating your head into the pavement, which is what happened. Day or night, doesn't really matter.

His actions were not confrontational. And Zimmerman was jumped while walking back to his truck. You know this, we all know this. So, you're just repeating your BS justification for the violence that Martin began. Seeing where someone out of place is going in your neighborhood is not violent. The only person who made the situation violent was Martin.

Absurd. Getting out of the car to see where someone suspicious is going is not a confrontation nor is it an act that requires that person to double back from just outside the house he was going to, jump the guy, and begin to administer a beat-down. You're a troll, or an idiot, or both.

Yes, because they have competitors. And if a new health care law simply did the one of the very few things it actually needed to do (allow interstate competition by insurance companies, instead of preventing that sort of liberty), we'd see even more of that competition and pressure to perform usefully for paying customers.

As for the motivation to shut down coverage for expensive customers: yes, it would sure help if coverage wasn't so expensive to provide. The answer for that is tort reform, something the democrats don't want because they don't want to piss off the trial lawyers, who pay for a lot of their campaign ads. But look to the industry those lawyers have created (huge money-making suits) for why the practice of simple medicine has descended into a storm of hideously expensive tests, unneeded drug use, soul-crushing record keeping processes, and all of the related paperwork nightmares.

No, they won't have forgotten. Because by then, almost every family in the US will have or know somebody who has had a disastrous encounter with one of the tens of thousands of new IRS employees who are being put into place to police individual involvement with Obamacare, and who will set into motion everything from fines with interest to bank account and home seizures for not perfectly complying with a byzantine new law that people like Nancy Pelosi said we'd have to pass so we could see what was in it. No, people aren't going to forget, because the annual screwing they're going to get will be very tangible.