[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

If the US Senate can't pass an amendment on a 54-46 MAJORITY vote that's supported by 90%+ of the population, then it is officially "the world's most deliberative dysfunctional body". If this isn't a classic case of why filibuster reform is imperative then I don't know what is. The GOP wants to block the legislation? Fine. Then do it old school like Sen. Rand Paul did recently and hold the floor.

OAW

People keep throwing out this 90% number. Citation? It's hogwash.


BTW, the opposition was more bipartisan then the support. It was a shit bill and we can do better.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Restrict them to smaller capacities?

Actually it's man portable pressure cookers that are the problem. Anything less that 200 lbs or so.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Actually it's man portable pressure cookers that are the problem. Anything less that 200 lbs or so.

And any with a carrying grip or one that folds is way more dangerous and should be banned.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

And the ones were the top flips over so it fits inside the bottom so it's easier to hide.

[Snow-i]

Harry Reid: "This debate is not over"

Translation: "This debate is over"

[The Final Dakar]

Reposting in case it got lost:

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Do you think one can be thinking rationally when they decide to kill themselves?

Sure.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Seatbelt laws - irrelevant. We are not removing/limiting someone's right

We already limit people's guns rights. It's constitutional according to the SCOTUS.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

yes, I think they are stupid. They slow down evolution, and hamper natural selection.

I had a feeling we were going down the social darwinian path. This kind of apathy always feels misinformed or indifferent. Smart people do dumb things. Doesn't make their life any less valuable.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Workplace safety laws? That's not protecting people from themselves, that's protecting people from being forced into unsafe environments by employers.

I've been yelled at for not wearing my hardhat because I was sick of it weighing down on my head. Should we repeal workplace safety in the name of natural selection?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Citation? And did suicides drop dramatically or gun-related suicides drop dramatically?

http://gsoa.feinheit.ch/media/medial...2/Lubin_10.pdf

The use of firearms is a common means of suicide. We examined the effect of a policy change in the Israeli Defense Forces reducing adolescents’ access to firearms on rates of suicide. Following the policy change, suicide rates decreased significantly by 40%. Most of this decrease was due to decrease in suicide using firearms over the weekend. There were no significant changes in rates of suicide during weekdays. Decreasing access to firearms significantly decreases rates of suicide among adolescents. The results of this study illustrate the ability of a rela- tively simple change in policy to have a major impact on suicide rates.

The high rate of suicide among the young is worth noting. Voting is a right we limit until you're 18. What if we limited firearms access until an age where statistically suicides dropped off (I believe thats around 25)?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Reposting in case it got lost:

It did, my apologies.

Sure.

Does this not weaken the argument for gun control in response to suicide rates?

We already limit people's guns rights. It's constitutional according to the SCOTUS.

We regulate the right to bear arms for the potential damages to others' rights. Seatbelt laws lack such a motive and are purely to prevent one's own stupidity. That, IMO, is why that analogy does not work.

I had a feeling we were going down the social darwinian path. This kind of apathy always feels misinformed or indifferent. Smart people do dumb things. Doesn't make their life any less valuable.

No, but we should value their choices over their lives so long as those choices to not materially affect another's choices unreasonably. "Give me liberty, or give me death." Obviously, there are lines in the sand to be drawn with this doctrine as implemented by the founding fathers. I am in favor of drawing that line much more on the side of personal choice and personal responsibility rather than trying to legislate a person's choice.

I've been yelled at for not wearing my hardhat because I was sick of it weighing down on my head. Should we repeal workplace safety in the name of natural selection?

No, but you are at the direction of your employer. These laws protect you from being ordered into unsafe conditions in which you may not have a choice (if you depend on that job for your livelihood). Apples to Oranges.

http://gsoa.feinheit.ch/media/medial...2/Lubin_10.pdf

The high rate of suicide among the young is worth noting. Voting is a right we limit until you're 18. What if we limited firearms access until an age where statistically suicides dropped off (I believe thats around 25)?

I would actually not be opposed to having a higher burden of proof for younger people...meaning mandatory safety classes and a mental health questionnaire.

You can be police and/or military at 18, and it wouldn't be constitutional to ban weapons for voting adults up to 25, though requiring additional safety mechanisms for those more prone to making young mistakes doesn't rub me the wrong way so long as everyone in that age group is able to easily pass the higher standard. (i.e. no defacto bans like we have in MD with a 3-5 month waiting period for paperwork).

[mduell]

"Expert" Reports in George Zimmerman Case Disclosed

The scream analysis stuff is hard to believe.

[turtle777]

Oh, look, seems like the whole case is making a big turn.

ORLANDO, Fla.: Lawyer: Zimmerman prosecutor withheld evidence - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

Prosecutor themselves should be prosecuted now.

-t

[subego]

I know if I were the judge, I'd be ****ing pissed.

Of course, I hate prosecutors so much they'd never let me be a judge.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Oh, look, seems like the whole case is making a big turn.

ORLANDO, Fla.: Lawyer: Zimmerman prosecutor withheld evidence - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

Prosecutor themselves should be prosecuted now.

-t

The defense already released such photos and text messages. So is this saying there's OTHER such things that weren't turned over? Or is this saying that the prosecution dallied in turning over what the defense has already released?

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The defense already released such photos and text messages. So is this saying there's OTHER such things that weren't turned over? Or is this saying that the prosecution dallied in turning over what the defense has already released?

OAW

Dalliance implies the prosecutor claimed there were things to turn over. What's at issue is the prosecutor emphatically claiming they had turned over everything when they had in fact not done so.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

Dalliance implies the prosecutor claimed there were things to turn over. What's at issue is the prosecutor emphatically claiming they had turned over everything when they had in fact not done so.

Yeah well that's going to be a serious problem. I truly hope this dude doesn't end up walking over prosecutorial BS. Especially over something as irrelevant as this.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Yeah well that's going to be a serious problem. I truly hope this dude doesn't end up walking over prosecutorial BS. Especially over something as irrelevant as this.

OAW

Well, the prosecutorial BS had a big hand in the court of public opinion, and had there been none, I'm not sure the public outrage would have been so severe. This has all the hallmarks of using the courts to push a social agenda, and one that flies in the face of one's very right to self-defense.

From NBC's editing of the 911 tape, to having to call in a special prosecutor because the original (and proper) office did not see a case, to doctoring of the post-incedent zimmerman photos to downplay his injuries, to the portrayal of Martin as a wholesome and innocent child, to the race-card being played by prominent social-political groups, I would be truly appalled if Zimmerman were convicted under such circumstances.

He's gonna walk, and when you pass the facts of the case through the sniff test under our laws its rightfully so.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Well, the prosecutorial BS had a big hand in the court of public opinion, and had there been none, I'm not sure the public outrage would have been so severe. This has all the hallmarks of using the courts to push a social agenda, and one that flies in the face of one's very right to self-defense.

You will have to explain how information NOT released had such a "big hand in the court of public opinion"? Especially when they are photos and text messages that are completely irrelevant to the events that took place the night this kid was killed. Because the way I see it ... maybe, just maybe ... the "court of public opinion" doesn't think an unarmed kid who is minding his own business should get followed, accosted, and shot in the chest by a wannabe cop who chose to ignore 911 dispatcher instructions to let the real police handle the situation. And maybe, just maybe ... the "court of public opinion" would not be appreciably altered on this point even if this kid was a hardcore gang member.

OAW

[subego]

I'm pretty sure what he's saying is this seems to be part of an ever-growing list of prosecutorial malfeasance.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm pretty sure what he's saying is this seems to be part of an ever-growing list of prosecutorial malfeasance.

Bingo. This cannot be overlooked as it a violation of the very foundation of our judicial system. Had there been no malfeasance, the case would never have made it this far and it wouldn't be a discussion.

Then we could have another separate discussion on the state of self-defense laws as they are written, and address those issues on their own merits.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Bingo. This cannot be overlooked as it a violation of the very foundation of our judicial system. Had there been no malfeasance, the case would never have made it this far and it wouldn't be a discussion.

I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I'm not going to say that would have been impossible either.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And maybe, just maybe ... the "court of public opinion" would not be appreciably altered on this point even if this kid was a hardcore gang member.

OAW

Except it was altered, and we don't base criminal verdicts on hypothetical situations. We can have those discussions in their own threads, but as far as I'm concerned had there been no need for malfeasance to put Zimmerman away, there wouldn't have been any. The proof is in the pudding - there has been impropriety at every step of the way to push a social agenda, however poorly executed.

[subego]

The only reason social agenda plays into it is because pretty much every prosecutor is angling for a job in politics (one of the key reasons they suck).

The only agenda they're pushing is to secure future votes.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

The only reason social agenda plays into it is because pretty much every prosecutor is angling for a job in politics (one of the key reasons they suck).

The only agenda they're pushing is to secure future votes.

Agreed, but that is still improper and a very poor excuse for withholding evidence and lying to the court.

[subego]

Oh, make no mistake, there is no excuse. What I'm saying is prosecutors do this all the time without a social agenda to push, so you may be jumping to conclusions with the notion that's what's motivating it.

To put it another way, they're not pushing a social agenda, they're having one pushed on them, and have abdicated in their responsibility to be above it.

It's a subtle but important distinction.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Oh, make no mistake, there is no excuse. What I'm saying is prosecutors do this all the time without a social agenda to push, so you may be jumping to conclusions with the notion that's what's motivating it.

To put it another way, they're not pushing a social agenda, they're having one pushed on them, and have abdicated in their responsibility to be above it.

It's a subtle but important distinction.

Yes, and I agree with you on that. What's sad is that they could have done more for themselves politically by being above the politics however distasteful that was for their "political" campaigns; what they have now is worse and at least for one of them, potentially criminal and likely career-ending depending on how the judge views it.

I use that last political loosely.

[subego]

The first thing which springs to mind is Casey Anthony. It wasn't enough to get her on what they could, they had to hose her too.

How did that work out for everybody?

[andi*pandi]

It's ok to shoot people in Texas over $150 and a non-binding illegal verbal contract.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...er-4581027.php

[OAW]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

It's ok to shoot people in Texas over $150 and a non-binding illegal verbal contract.

Jury acquits escort shooter - San Antonio Express-News

That is just crazy on so many levels. So in Texas a guy can shoot a woman and kill her b/c she refused to follow through on the illegal act of prostitution and refused to return the $150 fee. But in Nevada a guy gets over 30 years for "armed robbery" for taking back property he legally owned even though no one was hurt. Wow.

OAW

[subego]

Gotta be pieces missing.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

Gotta be pieces missing.

Maybe. But this is Texas.

[subego]

Still, pieces missing.

A fuller explanation seems to be: she got into the car with her bouncer. He shot at the tire. It hit the tire, the bullet split into pieces, and one of those pieces angled into the back seat.

KABB FOX 29 - News

[subego]

Not that this justifies it, I'm only trying to show how the SAEN dropped pertinent details so we're more likely to bite on their link-bait.

[andi*pandi]

Well, more information is good. Given even that though, he should have gotten involuntary manslaughter. If he had hit her with a car, not a bullet fragment, he would have gotten manslaughter.

[subego]

Yeah. That's the problem, innit?

A guy commits involuntary manslaughter, and you charge him with murder, you tie the jury's hands.

[subego]

See: Casey Anthony.

[andi*pandi]

What if he hadn't hit the tire though? What if he'd either through bad aim or intention tried to shoot her in the neck?

[subego]

Then one would presume he'd have a harder time proving it in court.

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

[andi*pandi]

oh, absolutely nowhere. it's friday.

[subego]

Well, I'm going on an anti-prosecutorial rant, if you don't mind.

Sheesh.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yeah. That's the problem, innit?

A guy commits involuntary manslaughter, and you charge him with murder, you tie the jury's hands.

This.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

What if he hadn't hit the tire though? What if he'd either through bad aim or intention tried to shoot her in the neck?

On the flip-side of this, if I were a defense attorney, and I got the feeling my client actually was trying to murder someone and missed, I'd advise them never to speak of this incident ever again to anyone, including me.

I wouldn't put them on the stand (obviously), and claim my client was firing a warning shot.


Of course, this only works if I get the feeling. I'd bend the **** out of the system, but I wouldn't actually break it. If they tell me they were trying to kill the person I'd be forced to defend it that way.



As much I am a scumbag however, there are scummierbags who wouldn't care about that last bit. If my client wanted to take a shot at getting totally off the hook, I'd advise them to fire me and find one of them.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yeah. That's the problem, innit?

A guy commits involuntary manslaughter, and you charge him with murder, you tie the jury's hands.

Another DA taking a case personally instead of doing their damned jobs.

[ghporter]

An important part of the Texas statutes on use of force includes the concept of "nighttime." The penal code includes provisions that allow for the use of "deadly force to protect property" in cases where the thief is fleeing and the legitimate owner of the property legitimately believes that "the property cannot be recovered by other means." Here is the actual wording:

Originally Posted by Title II/9/D

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

So as subego pointed out, when they charged the guy with murder, he had a solid defense against that charge built into state law. The prosecutors Matt Lovell and Jessica Schulze apparently felt that the other parts of the case against him were strong enough to overcome this feature, but they should have known that defense would bring it up very strongly. The victim/pimp team also apparently had quite a history of unlawful activities, either through pandering and prostitution or through a confidence game suggesting that prostitution was indeed their intent, so the theft component was definitely strongly illustrated. I agree, the prosecutors need to get a good talking to-the kind that makes them wonder if they're going to get a chance to resign, or be forced out.

[mduell]

So the star witness for the prosecution is illiterate and admits to perjury? I can see why the local DA wouldn't take the case.

And her testimony is that Trayvon called George a racial epithet? This is getting confusing.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by mduell 

So the star witness for the prosecution is illiterate and admits to perjury? I can see why the local DA wouldn't take the case.

Illiterate? And where you you get that from? She said she can't read cursive writing. She never said she couldn't read. And for the record ... lots of schools all over this country no longer teach cursive.

Originally Posted by mduell 

And her testimony is that Trayvon called George a racial epithet? This is getting confusing.

He said a "creepy ass cracka" was following him. He ran away. GZ caught up with him. Then he said "Oh shit ... the nigga is behind me!" Which racial epithet were you referring to?

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Illiterate? And where you you get that from? She said she can't read cursive writing. She never said she couldn't read. And for the record ... lots of schools all over this country no longer teach cursive.

Even if purely pejorative on mduell's part; worst "star" witness... ever. Don't we know from this gem that Trayvon essentially made it home, and then returned to Zimmerman? And that both he and his 19 year old girlfriend are racists too? I think at one point she even botched her own age, but I'm glad the truth came out.

He said a "creepy ass cracka" was following him. He ran away. GZ caught up with him. Then he said "Oh shit ... the nigga is behind me!" Which racial epithet were you referring to?

OAW

Could be either one of course. Didn't sound to me like GZ caught up to him. In fact, from the dispatcher call it sounds like Trayvon lost him... and then returned. Our gem was supposed to paint Zimmerman as racially motivated and creepy, but inadvertently let her own ignorant racism hang out all over the place and implicated the victim in her testimony in the meantime.

[Shaddim]

I wasn't aware that he went back to confront GZ. Wow, just... damn...

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Even if purely pejorative on mduell's part; worst "star" witness... ever. Don't we know from this gem that Trayvon essentially made it home, and then returned to Zimmerman?

No. We don't know that. At what point did Ms. Jeantel testify that TM was outside his home and then "returned to Zimmerman"?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Didn't sound to me like GZ caught up to him. In fact, from the dispatcher call it sounds like Trayvon lost him... and then returned.

How do you figure? GZ stared at TM from his vehicle. TM walked away and then ran. GZ pursued TM. TM continued running and lost GZ. Eventually TM started walking fast because he was winded and he didn't see GZ anymore. TM continued talking to his friend. Then suddenly TM says "Oh shit ... the nigga is behind me!" Which sounds to me like GZ caught up with TM and startled him. So TM turns around and says "What you following me for?". Now here is the critical part. TM's friend says she heard GZ say "What are you doing around here?". One transcript claims she heard GZ say "What are you talking about?" (which if that's true then GZ was trying to front like he wasn't following TM). Regardless, GZ was already close enough for her to hear him speaking on the other end of a cell phone call. Then she says she immediately heard a bump and TM shouting "Get off! Get off!". There was no delay between any of these events in her testimony. They all proceeded one after the other. So this notion that somehow TM "returned" is quite fanciful. "Returned" where? "Returned" for what purpose?

Again, there is what is possible and there is what is probable. Sure it's possible that TM was afraid enough of what he described as a "creepy ass cracka" to take off running away from him ... but then minutes later he was aggressive enough to have "returned" somewhere to go and punch him in the face unprovoked. But sorry ... it just doesn't seem likely. As TM's friend said "That's real retarded, sir. That's real retarded to do that, sir. Why on earth—? Trayvon did not know him." ***

It has always been my position that it is more probable that GZ who A) followed TM in contravention of the 911 dispatcher's order not to, and B) muttered "F*cking punks! These assholes ... they always get away." ... was aggressive enough to essentially stalk TM through the complex until he caught up with him (so he wouldn't get away) ... and was not afraid to approach TM on the street because he was armed. Also, it is possible that GZ was the one screaming bloody murder on the 911 recording of the neighbor's call because he was being beaten to within an inch of his life ... and then moments later he is described by witnesses as essentially being calm, cool, and collected after having shot TM. Not animated. Not excited. Not in shock. Refused to be transported to the hospital. Nothing in his demeanor to indicate that mere moments ago he was supposedly in some sort of "life or death" struggle. It just doesn't seem very probable.

And of course, let's not overlook the fact that the autopsy and DNA reports show no forensic evidence tying GZ's minor injuries to TM. Just saying ...

DNA Report does NOT support Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin caused his injuries

OAW

*** - "Cultural translation" ... IOW you don't just roll up on someone like that in the streets that you don't know. Especially if you are by yourself and unarmed. That's a good way to catch a beat down or worse.

[The Final Dakar]

As someone who holds the view that Zimmerman likely ****ed up, I can't fathom how he doesn't walk, short of taking the stand (His story would get shredded). I mean, I think the guy is guilty, but I have doubt.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Illiterate? And where you you get that from? She said she can't read cursive writing. She never said she couldn't read. And for the record ... lots of schools all over this country no longer teach cursive.

While they may not teach cursive writing, I'm unaware of an particularly difficulty reading cursive by otherwise literate persons. It's not exactly some obscure calligraphy:

Originally Posted by OAW 

He said a "creepy ass cracka" was following him. He ran away. GZ caught up with him. Then he said "Oh shit ... the nigga is behind me!" Which racial epithet were you referring to?

Both.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by mduell 

While they may not teach cursive writing, I'm unaware of an particularly difficulty reading cursive by otherwise literate persons. It's not exactly some obscure calligraphy:

Well that which is spoken in ignorance can easily be rescinded if one is willing to accept correction. The bottom line is that if you don't learn cursive at all it is extremely difficult to either read or write in cursive.

Nonetheless, cursive has its aficionados, who note that many historical documents will be illegible if people can't read or write in cursive.

"Cursive writing is a long-held cultural tradition in this country and should continue to be taught; not just for the sake of tradition, but also to preserve the history of our nation," Jimmy Bryant, director of archives and special collections at the University of Central Arkansas, told The New York Times.

Is cursive writing dead? - CBS News

That right there is the only compelling argument to even bother with cursive writing anymore in the age of keyboards. It is true that many historical documents are written in cursive. And the gentleman makes a valid point that they will be illegible if people (or at least some people) aren't taught to read and write in cursive. In any event, my objection to your comment was your reference to Ms. Jeantel as being "illiterate".

illiterate - a person who is unable to read or write.

At no point did the young lady say anything of the sort. She specifically said she could not read or write in cursive. Like a LOT of young people her age because it's being phased out in schools across the country. She never said she couldn't read or write at all.

OAW

[subego]

Two opposing points.

That's not easy to read.

She's 19. The state of cursive now has no bearing on this. At the least, she would have been in this part of her education 10 years ago. More likely, we're still talking about last century.