GeorgiaDon

And what else would you expect the defense to "stay"? I'm sure we'll hear from our resident lawyers and get the real scoop. However I'm quite sure that manslaughter is a lesser included offense under murder. From the Wikipedia article: "In criminal jury trials, the court is permitted (but not required) to instruct jurors that they can find the defendant guilty of the most serious crime charged, or of a lesser included offense of that crime (in English law, this is termed an alternative verdict). In murder cases, however, where a convicted defendant may face capital punishment, the United States Supreme Court has held that the court must instruct the jury that they may find the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense such as voluntary manslaughter.[1] The reasoning for this ruling is that jurors, given the options of convicting a less culpable killer or letting him go free, might opt to convict of a more serious crime than the facts warrant. Therefore, they must have at least one option that falls in between these extremes. In the case in which the jury has the option of convicting a defendant accused of a violation of law where there is a lesser included offense, if the jury acquits the defendant of the more serious offense but is otherwise unable to reach a verdict (i.e., is hung) on the lesser included offense, the defendant may be retried if the prosecutor chooses, but only for the lesser included offense. If the jury finds the defendant not guilty of the lesser included offense, there would be no need to make a determination on the more serious offense, as acquittal of a lesser included offense automatically constitutes acquittal of the more serious offense." Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Lesser charges are often included at the end in FL. Its just the way it works down here. The defense probably was prepping for it from day 1.I believe that's the way it works in every state. If you're charged with 1st degree murder, the jury could return a verdict of not guilty, but guilty of 2nd degree, manslaughter, or even aggravated assault. The "abuse of a child" I haven't heard of before. Think of it this way: if lesser charges are not included , then if Zimmerman is acquitted of 2nd degree murder he could be re-tried for manslaughter or assault without violating double jeopardy, since he would not have faced those charges already. Do any of you really want the state to get another kick at the can, where they could clean up some of their witnesses before putting them back on the stand? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

No. But that's the point you do not want to get. When the police show up for crowd control at any protest, do you argue they must have organized the protest? Or maybe you mean if they don't pepper spray the protesters and bash heads that must mean they agree with the protesters? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Do you know anyone who has never required medical attention? Anyone who can offer a high level of assurance that they will never need medical care? Do you know anyone who skydives without medical insurance? If you know any such people, do you think they would be able to pay in full the entire cost of treating them following a serious accident or injury, within a reasonable period of time (say, 5 years, with interest accruing of course)? What do you think should be done with people who choose not to purchase medical insurance, and who then run up expenses they cannot pay for? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Out of curiosity, does anybody know what procedure hospitals follow to decide who to allow for visitation, or to make medical decisions for the patient if the patient is incapacitated? Do they make the spouse show a marriage certificate? I can't imagine they just take the word of whoever shows up at the hospital, too much potential for liability there. Then there is the question of how many contracts would have to be drawn up to replace what is now covered by marriage. Would separate documents be needed to allow for visitation, for making medical decisions, and for making decisions with financial consequences for the patient? I can just imagine how well things will work when someone gets a call that their spouse has been injured and is in the trauma center, and before heading to the hospital that person has to round up copies of a whole bunch of different contracts. It would actually be interesting to see a list of all the contracts that would have to be drawn up to replace a marriage license. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Out of curiosity, if Tom was married to both Bob and to Alice, would Bob and Alice be assumed to be married to each other as well? Suppose Bob didn't care much for Alice, but decided to marry Bruce, who was already married to Susan. Now we have five people linked by various combinations of married/not married, or else we have five people all assumed to be married to one another even though each of them have not entered a direct marriage contract with most of the members of the group. I can't begin to imagine the fun the courts would have handling a divorce/division of assets, or an inheritance issue, under such circumstances. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

All that shows is that Zimmerman was losing the fight. I don't think the prosecution has questioned that they were fighting, have they? What is germane is, who was the aggressor in the fight? If the jury decides Zimmerman was the aggressor, he has responsibility for the outcome. If they decide Martin attacked Zimmerman out of the blue, then Zimmerman is in the clear. If they decide they can't decide who started the fight, then Zimmerman gets the benefit of the doubt. If they do decide that Zimmerman was the aggressor, do you think he should be completely excused from killing Martin just because he was losing the fight? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm curious about how Zimmerman knew about the presence of the slim jim. Perhaps the defense will present evidence that Zimmerman has x-ray vision? Otherwise, unless Zimmerman actually saw Martin using the slim jim to B&E, it is irrelevant to Zimmerman's state of mind at the time that he shot Martin. This is, however, more evidence of combing through the dead person's history to find reasons why they "needed killin'". I wonder how many of us have never done anything at any point in their lives that some lawyer could take and twist to prove that we are "violent criminals". Ever been drunk? Ever smoked a joint? Ever been in a fight (even in middle/high school)? Ever talked smack to anybody? God help you if someone decides to go all Dirty Harry on you. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Indeed, nuance can be a bitch. Thinking things through, weighing pros and cons, considering that other people may have human rights, that all takes too much effort. Stimulus/response one-size-fits-every-situation is so much easier, even bacteria can do it. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Easier to keep an eye on him when he's dead, though. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Sorry, I have an actual job. Admittedly I divert too much time/attention to DZ.com as it is, but I really don't have time to watch the trial. Lucky you I guess. It's up to the jury to judge that. What I am saying is that twisting "walking and looking around" into "skulking between houses and looking into windows" is such a distortion of Zimmerman's statement on the 911 tape as to be a lie. I'm saying that those are so different that it is inconceivable that Zimmerman would have failed to mention "looking into windows" to either the 911 operator or the police when he was interviewed later. You could say "driving to the store" could include "racing down the sidewalk mowing down pedestrians" but I doubt anyone who witnessed the latter would call 911 to report someone "driving to the store". And are there not buildings on either side of the road? So TM would still have been walking between buildings. This is yet another example of the use of the nuances of language to taint a statement that is technically true to introduce a bias. To most people, there is a difference between walking on a sidewalk and cutting between buildings, and the difference is magnified if you add in "and looking in windows". Saying TM was walking between buildings, while neglecting to mention that that is where the sidewalk is, creates a misleading impression. I'm quite sure the distortion is intentional. In the rain and the dark, personally I find it to be safer to walk on the sidewalk, plus I'm less likely to be splashed by careless drivers. You of course may prefer to walk on the road in circumstances where it is more difficult for drivers to see you. So he went home, forgot to drop off the skittles he went to pick up for his brother/cousin/nephew (I don't recall the exact relationship), then carrying a cup of iced tea he went back out into the rain to confront Zimmerman. OK. Whatever. Words cannot convey the importance I attach to your strong feeling. Cheers, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Who are you referring to? Not TM? Because there is nothing in evidence that suggests that this is true. Several posts ago, in this thread, I linked to the transcript of Zimmerman's 911 call, and posted the relevant bits. "walking between houses, looking in windows" is a lie, retrospectively made up by Zimmerman's supporters to justify his actions. In the 911 call Zimmerman says Martin is "walking and looking around". Not between houses. Not into windows. Not "casing the joint for a B&E" as several have written. In the interview in the police station, Zimmerman never once stated that Martin was walking between buildings or looking into windows. Had he been doing so, I agree that would have been highly suspicious. Walking on the sidewalk in an unfamiliar neighborhood, where all the houses are quite similar, in the dark and the rain, and looking around seems to me to be completely consistent with being a bit lost and checking house numbers. Your entire argument is based on a lie. A simple "can I help you" would have led to a very different outcome than "these assholes, they always get away" did. It may come as a surprise to some, but walking home from the store, after dark, is not yet (or at least should not be) a capital crime in America. It seems too much to ask that this case be considered on the facts, though I hope the jury can do that. I'll accept whatever verdict they come to. What I cannot accept is the practice, eagerly and energetically engaged in by many who have already decided a verdict in favor of "heroic Zimmerman the avenging angel" of making up evidence and promulgating lies to justify a self-serving conclusion. Self-serving in what way? I don't think it's a coincidence that the folks who most rabidly support Zimmerman also are big fans of concealed carry. I think they see how they could be in Zimmerman's shoes, and would much prefer a legal environment where they would be excused should they ever fuck up. It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by six, for sure, but it's even better if you don't have to bother with either eventuality. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You're right, that would be exceedingly cool. I was thinking more along the lines of "by camel". Single hump, of course. Agreed about the thread running it's course too. Have a fun 4th, y'all. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Your advice would be to hang up and go back to your Cheetos and porn? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Have you got any examples of Islamic monuments on government property in the US? I can't think of any. In fact, I can't think of any such monuments that are not explicitly Christian. However, since both Christianity and Islam have Abrahamaic origins, doesn't Islam also recognize the 10 commandments? According to wikipedia: "The Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue, are a set of biblical principles relating to ethics and worship, which play a fundamental role in Judaism, Islam and Christianity." So maybe that 10 commandments monument is really an Isamic monument? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Speaking of Biblical mythology, I hope you don't get flooded out in your North Georgia Mountains enclave. We're supposed to get up to 4 inching of rain in the next day or so. Keep yourself safe. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Let's assume you live about 30 miles from the DZ. You can get there by driving the most direct route (about 30 miles), but you could also get there (eventually) by heading in the opposite direction and traveling roughly 24,000 miles, across mountains, over oceans, etc. Suppose a law was passed that said that green skinned people with shells could not go directly to the DZ. The law doesn't ban them from the DZ, it only says they have to take the 24,000 mile route to get there. They can still skydive any time they want, the law doesn't restrict that, it just says they have to travel the long way around to get there. How likely do you think it is that they will ever be able to skydive? Over 1,000 laws, rules, and regulations refer to "marriage". Every one would have to be amended, voted on by Congress, and passed in order for "civil unions" to have the same effect as "marriage". This is the 24,000 mile route. Recognizing same-sex unions as a "marriage" involves one law in each State, the 30-mile route. I suspect you would be quite unhappy if you were singled out to have to travel 24,000 miles to get to the DZ. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

True. Do you have kids? A spouse? If your kid (or spouse) called you, after dark, and told you they were walking home and were being followed by a strange man, can you honestly say you would not be concerned? That you would tell your kid "there's no law against someone following you?" Or would you be alarmed, and go out to meet your kid and protect them from the threat? The argument that "just following someone" cannot reasonably be perceived as threatening is demonstrably bogus, IMHO. Zimmerman could easily have defused the situation, not only by following the 911 operator's instruction, but (if he decided not to do so) by calling out to Martin, identifying himself as with Neighborhood Watch, and asking if Martin needed help. There is no evidence, from the 911 recording or from any witness, that Zimmerman did anything of the kind. There is evidence from other encounters Zimmerman had with people he didn't know that his usual MO was to be confrontational. Any police officer knows to identify themselves when dealing with someone who looks "out of place". I live out in the country, on a gravel dead-end road. I have a neighbor who used to be in the habit of patrolling the road on his ATV, while conspicuously armed, and stopping any vehicle he didn't recognize and interrogating the driver about their business in our neighborhood. A self-appointed "neighborhood watch" type of guy. He only stopped doing this when the sheriff paid him a visit and explained that he would be arrested the next time he pulled someone over. Now he follows vehicles up to the driveway they turn in to, and sits at the road and watches until the occupants are greeted by the homeowner. Not illegal, but still creepy and threatening. Two of my wife's co-workers, both black as it happens, now refuse to come to social events at our house because they are afraid of this guy. I can very easily see how a violent confrontation could have resulted when this guy was stopping vehicles on the road. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And it goes without saying that this so-called "meaning" is given to you. How very convenient. On the other hand, you do not correctly grasp the meaning of the First Amendment, indeed you have not a fucking clue about what the USA stands for. There is not one shred of freedom, if we are all to be forced by law to conform to your antediluvian views. Your utopia is nothing but a Christian version of Sharia law. Your America would hardly differ from Saudi Arabia, except in trivial detail such as the name you choose to call your "God". Real Americans know that they are free only when the government leaves everybody free to practice their faith. Real Americans celebrate when all people can enjoy the freedom to follow their own path. Real Americans understand that there is no constitutional guarantee that they will not be offended, because then their own choices will be limited lest some other person be offended. Lots of people do things that I think are stupid, or wasteful, or sometimes offensive. As long as they are not preventing me from doing what I want, though, I have no business using the law to obstruct them. The "Golden Rule" (the "do unto others" rule, not the "them that has the gold makes the rules" rule) is an excellent guide. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's instructive that even when presented with the actual text of the law that renders your imagined scenario impossible, you persist. However, lets say, for the sake of discussion, that one day a chaplain could be presented with having to choose between his conscience and his career. Do you think it is reasonable to deny an entire class of people their basic civil rights, for no purpose other than to protect the chaplain? Suppose the chaplain belongs to a faith that believes women must be obedient to men in all things, and so it is an abomination that women should hold a rank higher than the lowest-ranked man, or that women should be permitted to vote. Should women in the military be forbidden to vote, or forbidden to hold a rank above private, lest the chaplain be offended in some way? We hear over and over about how constitutional rights, particularly gun rights, apply to everyone; they do not have to be earned, they apply by default. Yet people remain oh-so-ready to deny those rights to anyone who differs in their race, religious beliefs, gender, and now sexual orientation. Ron, I'm sure you've seen a lot of change in society in your lifetime, and it's not surprising that it's too much change for you to easily accept. It's unfortunate that you so fear changes that allow others, who have had to endure a history of repression and persecution, a bit of the freedom you have enjoyed all your life. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You mean "gay" as in "joyously happy", surely! Women get the vote: [chicken little voice]it's the end of the world!!![/chicken little voice] Blacks get the vote:[chicken little voice]it's the end of the world!!![/chicken little voice] Blacks get to marry whites: [chicken little voice]it's the end of the world!!![/chicken little voice] Gays are humans too (with rights and everything): [chicken little voice]it's the end of the world!!![/chicken little voice] The pattern seems pretty obvious. And, the world is still here! Improved, even, IMHO. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

To elaborate a bit more on labry's post, here is the text of HR 4310, Title IV, Subtitle D, section 536 (see pgs 209-210 of the linked pdf): No member of the Armed Forces may— ‘‘(A) direct, order, or require a chaplain to perform any duty, rite, ritual, ceremony, service, or function that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain, or contrary to the moral principles and religious beliefs of the endorsing faith group of the chaplain; or ‘‘(B) discriminate or take any adverse personnel action against a chaplain, including denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment, on the basis of the refusal by the chaplain to comply with a direction, order, or requirement prohibited by subparagraph (A). It cannot be more clear that the government cannot force a chaplain to perform any "duty, rite, ritual, ceremony, service, or function" that violates either their own conscience or the beliefs of the religion they represent. The military employs chaplains representing many faiths, so it seems unlikely that none could be found to administer to the needs of a particular member of the military community. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Might have something to do with the kind of cheek you've got your tongue stuck in. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I had no idea that this country was founded, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, with the purpose of making you feel good about yourself. Lots of people don't like guns. Are you willing to give up your second amendment rights so they can feel better? You know that old mythology about the world balancing on the back of a turtle? Well it isn't true. The world does not revolve around turtles or their prejudices or their need to make themselves "superior" by legislating that anyone who isn't a turtle is "inferior". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You are, of course, free to believe whatever you wish. You are even free to try to convince me to adopt your beliefs. However, thanks to the First Amendment, you are not free to use the power of the government to force your religious beliefs on me, or to force me to live in accordance with your beliefs and not my own. Though you do not see it, efforts to use the law to enforce evangelical Christian morality makes proponents of such laws no different than advocates of Sharia law; both are enemies of American principles of religious freedom. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)