Shotgun

I agree.

(Emphasis mine.) This seems to be the real problem here.

http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/23/11830878-stuntman-in-wingsuit-lands-parachute-free?lite

When I served on a jury in a capital murder trial, during the penalty phase we were instructed to assume that whichever punishment we chose would be carried out in a timely manner. Which was sort of difficult here in California, knowing how many people were (expensively) on death row and that no one had actually been executed in years. But we were supposed to only focus on whether we thought he should be sentenced to death or not. We were also asked during voir dire whether we thought "life without parole" or death was a harsher sentence, to which I answered "life without parole." But again, we were instructed that we had to put our opinions aside and choose death if we felt that he deserved the harshest sentence. And, as indicated in the link that davjohns posted, there are surely some criminals who feel like they are getting off easier with a death sentence rather than life imprisonment. So I wonder how much it serves to actually deter criminals. But I also think that the case he posted is one in which there is really no question of guilt, and therefore death is a reasonable option. (I can't say that 100% without having been on the jury, but it sounds pretty clear-cut.)

I believe the man you're referring to just died? http://news.yahoo.com/lockerbie-bomber-buried-controversy-lives-080102587.html;_ylt=A2KJjamIDL1PvnQApG7QtDMD Anyhow, I agree with the death penalty in cases that are absolutely heinous and absolutely provable. And if we limited it to these cases, perhaps we could make it less costly. One of the problems right now, is that it generally costs a lot more to have a death penalty trial and actual execution than it does to just lock them up for life without the possibility of parole.

I have mixed feelings about seatbelt laws. I'm not too fond of laws that only protect us from ourselves. But then, that only applies if a driver is alone in the vehicle. Once you have other people in the vehicle, especially underage people who have no say in the matter, you become a potential projectile and are therefore putting others in danger by not wearing your seatbelt. So I guess I'd be more inclined to want to see the laws enforced when there are multiple people in a vehicle. I've learned the hard way how important seatbelts can be, so I always wear mine regardless of the law. And I wouldn't let anyone ride in my vehicle without wearing one.

Oh well... I guess we're just proving Bill's or lawrocket's point.

Yes, but you better not ever, not ever let a client, colleague or supervisor catch you. Especially, do not let them catch you intoxicated. If he can drink beer without abusing it (or any other substances), then he can be a substance abuse counselor, assuming he has the proper training. But if he's going to be dishonest with his clients, colleagues, and supervisors, then I certainly wouldn't want to be counseled by him for anything. On second reading, a substance use disorder counselor is subject to random urinanalysis. Evidence of any other substance will, in most cases, get you fired. Marijuana can be detected up to 4 to 6 weeks after use. So if he has an occasional beer when he's not at work, it shouldn't be a problem. But maybe you're coming from the perspective that all substance abuse counselors are recovered addicts (in which case they shouldn't be drinking alcohol at all)? Which, of course, is not always true.

Yes, but you better not ever, not ever let a client, colleague or supervisor catch you. Especially, do not let them catch you intoxicated. If he can drink beer without abusing it (or any other substances), then he can be a substance abuse counselor, assuming he has the proper training. But if he's going to be dishonest with his clients, colleagues, and supervisors, then I certainly wouldn't want to be counseled by him for anything.

Only if they're not confined by a bra.

We could care less? Or we couldn't care less? Jesus, you people are messing with my overly-medicated head right now.

I had an anatomy/physiology teacher who refused to teach the chapter on evolution because it contradicted his religious beliefs. I don't know his political leanings, but I'm going to guess conservative. We need teachers, and they can't all be perfect. Perhaps it is a learning experience for the students when the teacher is pretty obviously wrong.

Now that GM has been introduced into this case, it's really confusing. (I think lawrocket started it, but now you're doing it too!)

A slightly different telling of the story, which suggests that some of it may have been exaggerated: http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/04/16/041612-news-romney-missing-teen-gay-nestel-1-4/ Of course, it didn't need the exaggerations to convey a positive image of Romney. He put in a lot of effort to help a colleague find his underage daughter, even if she was actually safe and had chosen to run away from home. Either way, I'm sure it was a nightmare for her parents and that they were very grateful for Romney's help (and all the others who helped).

I think you sort of answered your own question. It's not like we've had any viable candidates who don't profess to be religious.

No. The only reason that right would be lost is if the defendant waives it by saying, "I was high and could not form the requisite intent to commit murder." Or, "I had a stroke, which is why I plowed into the schoolyard." Murder, etc., usually doesn't have an "absence of intoxication" element. It's up to the defendant to bring it up, in which case the privacy right is waived. When a drunk person is involved in a fatal car wreck, I don't think the police leave it up to him to volunteer that he is drunk??? Of course, most drunk driving laws are pretty strict. Are there not any similar laws about using/carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol (or other drugs)? Honest question - I really have no idea.

A dead person has a significantly lesser right to privacy than does a living person. Yeah, but when you kill someone else (with a gun, with your vehicle, whatever) don't you lose a little bit of that right to privacy? It would seem important to his statement of what happened to know if he was stone cold sober or if he had a significant amount of any intoxicant in his system. (You can't always tell just by looking at or talking to someone, but still their judgment may be impaired.) Though I agree the THC in TM's system is not very relevant. It's not like weed is known to induce violence. Plus, he wasn't carrying around a concealed weapon that he needed to be responsible for.

You know, one thing that has really bugged me in this case is that they did a toxicology on Martin but not on Zimmerman. It just seems like that would have been part of the investigation. I've certainly wondered whether Zimmerman was on anything (not implying he was), but I guess the police saw no reason to check.

Wow, he did that twice? If I had a daughter, there's no way I'd take a job with this guy. If you had a daughter, I'm sure your attitude towards a lot of things would change. I got the impression that DanG was joking. Anyhow, did this actually happen twice, or did rush not read the OP? I scanned it Missed that part That is the story I was talking about though Dude, aside from the first and last paragraph, that's what the whole post was about. You might want to ask your doctor about this drug called Ritalin. (Just kidding, rush.)

It was wagist.com, and I did look at it, though it's not the site I got the picture from. I just did a search for "Trayvon Martin shooting map" or something like that and took one of the better images. But again, I've seen the same/similar map in lots of places, many of them using it to take Z's side and many of them using it to take TM's side. It doesn't seem to prove much of anything to me, except that (if it's accurate), the shooting took place in the yard between the apartments and not by Z's vehicle.

I believe I originally saw it in this New York Times article(?), but they have since updated the graphic: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html Not sure if that's where it originated, but I've now seen it (or similar maps) in numerous places. Of course, I wasn't there, so I can't attest to its accuracy.

Wow, he did that twice? If I had a daughter, there's no way I'd take a job with this guy. If you had a daughter, I'm sure your attitude towards a lot of things would change. I got the impression that DanG was joking. Anyhow, did this actually happen twice, or did rush not read the OP?

I am not convinced one way or another of who started the confrontation. Anyhow, I have seen this same map used by some who use it to "prove" that Z was the aggressor and others who use it to "prove" that TM was the aggressor. Either way, they are using the same basic map of the incident, so I assume there is no dispute over where events took place. (The "F" marks the spot where Trayvon was killed.)

You might want to check that, rush. From everything I have seen, the shooting did not take place anywhere near Zimmerman's vehicle.

OBAMA IN HISTORY: World Changing Events You Didn't Know Obama Played A Part In Top 10: Obama in History jokes on Twitter