muff528

If anyone in this case is to be the victim of vigilante justice it will be Zimmerman. He has effectively already been condemned by members of two of the three co-equal branches of the Federal Government and will likely be tried and convicted (but not of murder or manslaughter) by the third. (just a prediction)

Do YOU KNOW that he didnt? How many did he shoot dead? One possible answer to that is that he shot all of them that jumped him and knocked him to the ground and began slamming his head on the sidewalk ...and then only after yelling for help with no response. Could be other answers, though.

How do you know that? Did the neighborhood vigilante hassle white kids in oxford shirts walking through the community carrying groceries? According to at least one source (Tampa Bay Times), transcripts of Zimmerman's calls to 911 over the past 2 years fill 28 pages. I've only seen a half-dozen or so excerpts from various calls that mention descriptions of the subjects as "black". Might be interesting to review all of those calls and see what the score really is. In the Trayvon case Zimmerman did not volunteer a description and only after the 911 operator asked did he mention "black" (and even then he wasn't sure... "he looks black"). Without doing a search to be sure, I seem to remember one earlier news report that there were as many as 40+ calls to 911 by Zimmerman.

If he is running after you with a knife he is attacking you! In Florida you can turn around a cap his ass before he "strikes" you. You don't have to run away but you can if you want to. If you can run near some witnesses before you shoot him it would probably be better for you in the long run.

I was trying to figure out how the stand your ground law deals with somebody being taunted into a fight. Actually quite seperate from this particular incident, though that did give rise to the question. If I taunt somebody into a fight by telling him how good his sisters pussy was and then kill him since I feared for my life, would this law protect that type of behaviour? It would be illegal for him to a physically attack you no matter how much you verbally taunt him. But still, it probably would be advisable to recant your claim and tell him that it really wasn't that good at all. If that still doesn't calm him down you would likely need to just tell him that it was the worst you ever had ...even if it wasn't. Try to be sincere.

Hi A Hole Not sure which daughter this is but here's a pic sans cowling http://www.flickr.com/photos/bungtriple/3196834139/ Nice rack!!

blue fox

.....and her 4 rowdy daughters ...Betty, Rita, Mitzi, and Ingrid.

Nope, but he sure did have a lot of people calling him at the party! That would have been one serious beer run!

Fonzy. Jack Tripper Quagmire

which politician will be the bold one to try to ban air conditioners? Romney. He'll advocate for AC and advocate against it, depending on which way the wind is blowing. ...or maybe Obama. But you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

All this "evidence" nonsense is completely irrelevant. Too many very highly-placed and very powerful people, including politicians, media and "advocacy" groups among others, are already way too heavily invested in a particular outcome for any of that to matter. Even if by some long-shot stroke of chance Zimmerman is somehow able to get a fair trial and is exonerated, he (and maybe members of his family) will always be a target. He's done.

IS NOT!

His name is George Michael. That's reason enough to lock his butt up right there.

I'm a Floridian with only a peripheral interest in the "stand your ground" law. My perception was that we were previously required to retreat (even CCW holders) if there was an opportunity to do that. We were always allowed to defend ourselves against an imminent threat or attack if retreat was not reasonably possible and that did not change with the passing of the new law. The subsequent investigation would then attempt to sort out whether or not the shooter acted within his rights, and whether any charges should be filed, just like now. The difference that "stand your ground" made is that you are not now required to escape a threat of personal violence if you are lawfully where you are. I could be wrong but I don't think that the "stand your ground" aspect of the new law would apply if the shooter was on the ground and in the process of being pummeled and, fearing his life was in danger, then drew his weapon and fired. I would think that the earlier description of self-defense would still apply here. Not saying that's what happened but it looks like that scenario is the way the defense might go if there is an indictment. On the other hand, if Z threatened M face-to-face, or if M perceived a threat, it could be said that M was exercising his rights to self defense under "stand your ground". Then both might be righteously "standing their ground" with predictable results. As far as this particular case goes, I think it has sadly been taken past the point of no return for a "just" outcome to happen .....whatever the definition for that might be.

lefties are sexy, just look at you and me I'm left-handed. and that hand's also your girlfriend, isnt it!? did you propose to it already!? I proposed we keep it strictly on a friends with bennies relationship. This probably belongs in the "You are an old fart" thread but I remember when "friends with bennies" had an entirely different meaning.

"Carpintero" ....or maybe "Jesus" (a Jewish carpenter) since Zimmerman is the Jewish spelling.

I rolled my dad's 69 Chevy Kingswood Wagon in 1975. He previously was offered $900 trade-in for it. The insurance settlement (car was totaled) was for $1300-1400. He jokingly (I think!) offered his pickup to me to take for a spin.

Damn, I hate to hit this again but... Obama, March 3, 2012: "Since I took office, America’s dependence on foreign oil has decreased every single year. In fact, in 2010, for the first time in thirteen years, less than half the petroleum we consumed was imported. Part of that is because we’re producing more oil here at home than at any time in the last eight years." From EIA site: "Most of the Petroleum We Use Is Imported The United States consumed 19.1 million barrels per day of petroleum products during 2010,.... "

The fastest way to a womans' heart ........ is through her rib cage!! Interesting equinox reference in your sigline! (or is the heart thing only for solstice?)

I've already given up on anyone agreeing with me that Obama uses deception and half-truths with some of his statistics. So no one else notices or I am simply wrong. I got no problem either way. This oil discussion is more interesting anyway. I'm not looking for a "win" now. I asked a simple question regarding the EIA chart. If you don't have an answer that's cool. No strawman. The EIA chart for our consumption for 2010 says our domestically produced daily share was 51% of 19.1m barrels + 2.3m barrels which we exported. They also say our crude oil production was 5.5m barrels/day. Does the sentence at the end of the first paragraph ("But crude oil alone does not constitute all U.S. petroleum supplies.") refer to some other domestic source besides crude? Or is it a segue into the next paragraph which refers to imports? What then constitutes the rest of the domestic production? Are we refining the imported crude from "import side" of the chart and moving that to the "domestic side" and calling that domestic production? ETA - The title of the first section seems to contradict what the chart seems to try to say.

No more of a mistake that improperly using the term "fuzzy math." If you'd like to join a discussion with your thoughts, opinions or other relevant stuff, I'd like to hear them. I've never had a problem with losing a debate or discussion with reasoned discussion and facts I can't disagree with. If you just want to cut and paste some smartass comeback over and over, I'm not interested. But go ahead anyway, ...if it's good enough others might want to read it or take notes for use in future discussions. I got no problem with sprinkling friendly jabs in here and there. Yeah, "Fuzzy Math"!

You are confusing two separate numbers. We are a net importer of crude oil. We recently became a net exporter of refined oil proucts. We have a large amount of refining capacity, so we are importing raw materials, refining them, then exporting some of the refined products. Crude Oil and refined oil are kept track of separately. The EIA site takes crude and petroleum products together when referring to the US 22% of total consumption and when referring to what part of our consumption comes from where. So, it seems, does Obama when making his points because they agree with the EIA. ....Except when his White House report refers to our exports exceeding our imports. The WH report does say "energy" but it neglects to mention that our crude imports had to spike to nearly the highest levels ever to meet a production level of petroleum products that we can either export or use and that would allow that "net exporter" statistic to exist. Pie chart at the top and the graph about halfway down. http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_imports

Now we've gotten somewhere. You think I misunderstood Obama's parameter number 3 from my post #49. What part do you think I misunderstood. Check the box below. [ ] “The U. S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil” [ ] "less than half the petroleum we consumed was imported" [X] White House Report: the United States is a net exporter of energy I probably could use an explanation of how being a "net exporter" really means "We don't export more than we import".

EXACTLY!