Hell, now racism is expressed in compliments. "He's so well spoken..."
Hell, now racism is expressed in compliments. "He's so well spoken..."
Either that, or crowdfunding. Even for $200 million dollar blockbusters, enough people would go ahead and kick in $10 for, I don't know, Iron Man 4 or whatever, and once it's done, it's made freely available to everyone.
You're not even wrong. "Message received?" There is no message. The jury's job is not to "send messages" to the public. The jury's job is to look at the facts in a specific case and decide whether or not the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime of which he stands accused.
We simply don't know what happened, and it's a tragedy. If the facts has been different, reasonable doubt would have been harder to establish. For instance, if Zimmerman had been uninjured, and Martin were shot from a distance of 10 feet, the "my life was in imminent danger and I acted in self defense" argument would not hold much weight.
It is possible that Zimmerman went out looking for somebody to murder, found Martin, assaulted him, lost the fight and then killed him.
But you can't show that beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman's story, that he was jumped walking back to his car and shot to avoid having his head smashed in, is plausible, since Martin was uninjured from the fist fight, Zimmerman had grievous head injuries, the eyewitness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, and the gunshot wound was consistent with Martin being on top of Zimmerman (upward direction, 2 inch range, shirt touching the barrel, meaning the shirt was pulled away from the body by gravity).
You can't tell me you don't have reasonable doubt.
It is a tragedy, and I think Zimmerman will probably lose a civil trial, because he is responsible for Martin's death. He did a bunch of stupid things, like carry a gun when out on a neighborhood watch, and get out of his car to chase after a suspicious person, and these stupid things lead directly to Martin's death. But there is definitely reasonable doubt as to whether he is a murderer.
As for your reaction, to "get in the van," uh, no. The better choices are A) run screaming, B) stay on the phone and start describing the assailant and everything about the situation loudly to the person on the other end so they can call for help, or, worst case, C) win the fight. If Martin had won, either by cracking Zimmerman's skull on the concrete or by wrestling the gun from him, he would most likely be cleared on murder charges, having acted in self-defense as well.
The problem with the AppleTV paradigm is that the most prominent placement of "Movies" is the top navigation bar, and that's for the stuff tied into iTunes (either exorbitant pay-once fee, or exorbitant 24-hour rental fee).
I find that those unfamiliar with technology often have difficulty understanding the concept that there are multiple ways to accomplish the same goal, that programs or appliances can do more than one thing, and that the same (or similar) things can be done by multiple programs. OP may wind up with his grandparents confused that "But I thought these movies were free...why is at asking me to pay $19.99?" because they don't understand that, yes, you CAN buy movies from iTunes, but you shouldn't.
(Also....the fuck? Isn't this slashdot? What the hell kind of a question is "which closed source non-free software appliance should I buy to pay for DRMed content?")
You're equally fucked in the extremely rare circumstance your airplane falls out of the sky. Yet, we take that risk for the convenience of travel (and the free gropings).
And, like you said, if something goes wrong, you'll never know. I'd rather have instant, painless oblivion than minutes of sheer screaming terror as I fall from 10,000 feet.
We don't know what happened during the final confrontation, but we do know that the killer stalked the young man on some specious racist grounds after being expressedly instructed not to do so.
No, he was not "expressly instructed not to do so." 9-11 operators are not allowed to give instructions for liability reasons, only advice. The operator said "we don't need you to do that," and not "you are not allowed to do that" or even "don't do that." These are different things.
That's why "stand your ground" is utterly inapplicable.
And it was inapplicable, and was not applied during this case. Zimmerman made no "stand your ground" arguement at all. You're right, it's inapplicable, which is why it was not applied.
If I see a tiger (yeah, not too many tigers around here) and then I go fuck with it and then it attacks me and I shoot it and I claim I shot it in self-defense, that's bullshit.
If women in your neighborhood are getting raped and the police seem to be unable to do anything about it, so you decide to walk the block a few times at night to see if there's anything rapey going on, and a guy wearing an "I (heart) non-consensual intercourse" t-shirt is standing on the corner, and when you ask him "hey, have you been doin' all the rapes?" and he jumps on you and starts slamming your head into the ground, that's bullshit, and it's okay to shoot him.
Exactly. And since we don't know, reasonable doubt exists, and therefore acquittal.
“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”
But there's no evidence Martin was badgered into a fight.
But there is no evidence Zimmerman "got up in his face and threatened him." We literally do not know what happened between when the phone calls ended and the gunshots were fired.
According to Zimmerman, he tried to follow Martin, lost him, and was walking back to his car when he was attacked. Following someone is not a crime, and does not justify use of force against them. And we know Martin was using much more force against Zimmerman than the other way around because of Zimmerman's wounds, and Martin's lack of wounds (aside from the gunshot).
He was not instructed by the police to not follow TM. He was told he "didn't have to."
There is a difference between "You don't have to do that" and "You may not do that."
Sure, but you still have to prove that's what Zimmerman was doing, and that made it somehow okay for Trayvon to get on top of him and slam his head into the ground, instead of, say, running away or calling the police.
This isn't about general distrust of authority (real or self-anointed). It's about the specific facts of this case, and in the specific facts of this case, Zimmerman was not a murderer.
If houses in your neighborhood are being broken into, and the cops aren't doing anything, so you decided to be the neighborhood watch and look out for people robbing you and your neighbors, that's completely legitimate. If when you see someone behaving suspiciously and ask them, "hey, what are you doing here?" and it turns out that person is, in fact, a violent criminal (who may or may not have been planning burglaries that night) and he starts slamming your head into the ground, it is okay to defend yourself. That's what appears to have happened here, and if it wasn't, that's the state's job to prove. And they couldn't.
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.
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.
But, he's not. No one can prove that, because we simply don't know what happened between the time Zimmerman asked Martin what his business in the neighborhood was and the time the shots were fired. We do know Zimmerman was on the receiving end of a beat down because of his injuries.
Replace "wannabe cop neighborhood watchman" with "police officer." Police officer sees someone behaving suspiciously in a neighborhood where several homes have been burglarized and asks him, "Hey, what's going on here?" The suspect attacks the cop and the cop shoots him.
I really don't see the controversy. I am an anti-authoritarian, but one of the real, actual legitimate uses of cops or neighborhood watchmen is....looking out for people who might be about to rob their neighbors.
"Take that, you hostile sons-of-bitches!" -- James Coburn, in the finale of _The_President's_Analyst_