GeorgiaDon

According to this article, the Hobbit trilogy is not just based on the book, but also incorporates many of the stories in the appendices to the Lord of the Rings books, to set all the background leading up to the events in the Lord of the Rings. Not saying that some scenes weren't overly stretched out (I haven't seen the movie myself yet), just pointing out that it isn't accurate to say that Jackson stretched out a 280 page book to three movies. When all three Hobbit movies are out, it would be better to watch them before getting to the Rings trilogy. 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)

Sure. That could have happened. We don't know. We weren't there, and neither were any other objective witnesses. As Kelpdiver said, in the absence of proof the benefit of the doubt will have to go to GZ, and that is preferable (IMO) to a system where one has to prove their innocence. What I object to is this program of character assassination that retroactively seeks to paint TM as a drug-addled violent maniac who "needed killing", based on a couple of alleged tweets and a school suspension over an empty baggie. To "prove" that GZ was factually (not just legally) innocent, that in fact he had no alternative, it seems necessary to demonize a dead kid. In a larger sense, I also object to the idea that I could be minding my own business, doing something I have every legal right to do in a place I have a right to be, and be legally gunned down by someone who gets a hair up their ass that I am somehow a threat to them. SYG has been used to excuse shootings where people have been shot in the back as they were leaving an altercation, to excuse someone shooting at workers who were just checking power lines, to excuse drug dealers shooting at each other during a car chase, and on and on. One driver nearly ran down someone who was walking (with their their dog) on a sidewalk as the driver exited a fast food restaurant; the guy on the sidewalk shook his fist at the driver and yelled at him, whereupon the driver stopped, got out of his car, shot the dog-walker dead, got back in his car, and drove away. He was arrested later, but successfully invoked SYG on the grounds that he "thought" he saw something that "might have been a weapon" in the dog-walker's hand (it was actually the dog leash). It has always been the case that you could use lethal force to defend yourself if you reasonably believed that no alternative was available. Now you don't have to consider alternatives, you just have to make a convincing case that you felt threatened. If you made a mistake, perceived a threat where there was none or even where most people would know there was none, that's OK as long as you believed there was a threat. 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)

How about this little "passion play": TM: What're you following me for? GZ: What are you doing in this neighborhood? TM: Who the hell are you? GZ: Answer my question. The police are on the way. TM: Fuck you, man (turns and walks away) GZ: (grabbing TM by the hoodie) You're not going anywhere until you answer me! TM: (pulling away) Let go! GZ: (still hanging on the TM's hoodie) Not until you tell me what you're doing here! TM: swings a punch at GZ fight ensues, TM starts to get the better of GZ, GZ draws gun and shoots Now let's try "passion play" # 2: GZ notices TM TM notices GZ watching him, begins walking faster GZ exits truck and starts "following" TM TM starts running, GZ runs after him for a bit and loses sight, turns back [at this point GZ has been moving AWAY from his truck, and TM is AHEAD of GZ and so EVEN FARTHER from GZ's truck] [TM then turns around, somehow gets ahead of GZ without GZ noticing, and gets in position to jump GZ when GZ arrives at his truck] Imagine you're watching these scenes in a movie. Which would seem more "real" to you? Which would leave you wondering how the heck TM could get back to GZ's truck (starting from further away) and ambush him, as has been claimed, without GZ seeing him or hearing anything? Maybe he had a Harry Potter Invisibility Cloak, or he could fly up onto the top of the townhouses and silently leap from roof to roof. Anything is possible. In the movies. 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)

Earlier in this thread (about 5,000 pages ago) someone (who I'm not going to bother looking up) said something much like this. Let's try a little thought experiment.* Suppose your daughter (since this hypothetical anyway I'll assume you have a daughter) calls you up and tells you there is this guy who she doesn't know who is following her. When she speeds up, he speeds up. She changes direction, he changes direction. Would you not be at all alarmed? Would your response to her really be "It's a free country, he can walk/run wherever he wants to."? Would you really have zero impulse to get in your car, go to your daughter, and ask this guy what the hell he is doing following your daughter around? Lets make it a bit more interesting. Lets say she tells you that the guy has been following her for a week or so. She's noticed that he's always there when she gets off work, follows her as she goes shopping or walks to her car. He's always somewhere close by when she goes for lunch. He's across the street, watching, when she comes out of her house in the morning. But he doesn't speak to her or anything, just follows. All the time. Would you be alarmed? He's "just following", after all. Free country and all that. No harm in following, right? Only a fool would feel threatened if a total stranger started following them, right? So what? What else would you expect him to say? Neither statement is true if GZ caught up to or cornered TM. Further, suppose you noticed someone following you in the manner I described above. Suppose you decide to approach them and ask why they are following you. Does that now make you the aggressor? Do you not have any right to ask why someone is following you? Don *For the literalists who are somehow unable to understand examples, analogies, or metaphors, I am NOT saying that GZ stalked TM for days and days. I am simply challenging the idea that "following" is a completely innocent activity that should never be taken as threatening or confrontational in itself. That is all. ** I started this reply, had to go to the lab for a while, can back and finished it, and then saw wolfriverjoe had suggested a similar "experiment". Great minds think alike/simple never differ? Take your pick. _____________________________________ 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 wonder if China still has enough pull there to get them in line. They could be delusional enough that even MAD won't get their attention, but China certainly wouldn't want a giant smoking radioactive crater on their border. It's disappointing that the new leader ha chosen this path. I'd hoped his time in the West would have encouraged him to be more open to the rest of the world. Or, maybe he's not in any real position of leadership, just a figurehead for the people with the real power? It would be nice to get Nerdgirl's take on this. Hope she pops 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 guess I missed that. I've heard of a witness who heard the altercation, looked out the window, and saw a fight in progress. Zimmerman's injuries clearly also indicate a fight, so there's no disputing that. What I haven't heard about is any witness who saw the start of the fight, i.e. who threw the first punch/made physical contact. Is there physical evidence that speaks to that, or that implicates Martin as the aggressor? One would think. Or, if the bag was quite recently emptied, maybe a reason for lunch? I suspect the problem is zero tolerance policies or similar silliness. 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)

where do I stand on the death penalty? In the viewing room with a camera and big foam hand. And a foam cheese on his head? _____________________________________ 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 hope you're neither this abrasive nor this obtuse in real 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)

Not on the trap door, hopefully. 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)

Just so it's clear, I was answering a question (from regulator) about why "right to work" legislation is perceived as being anti-union, not stating any sort of opinion about whether or not I am pro-union. I'll assume you, too, were just taking an opportunity to provide a different perspective. As it happens, I agree with almost all of your post. All except the wife thing, I'm sure that's a matter of personal preference. 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-one expects the Spanish [Inquisition]." 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 all depends on what the meaning of "is" is? Semantic quibbling. "I wasn't pursuing, I was following". 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)

Entirely, 100% Zimmerman's story. No physical or eyewitness evidence whatsoever to support or refute it. But of course Zimmerman isn't going to say anything different, is he? The "evidence" we have seen could support many different scenarios. 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 was you who brought up the question of why he (Martin) was in that area. Did you have a point, other than that he was suspended from school (which you bring up again here)? Zimmerman claims (and I believe him) that he did not recognize or know Martin. If so, he could not have known that Martin had been suspended from school, and that information cannot be used to justify Zimmerman's suspicion of Martin, Zimmerman following Martin, or Zimmerman shooting Martin. Being suspended from school in no way proves or even implies a propensity to violence. It is irrelevant. So, again, why did you raise the issue of why Martin was in that neighborhood? Generally, yes, I am intolerant of the idea that a kid (or anybody) can walk to the store and end up dead. 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, one can and should be troubled. " You should be able to walk to the store and back without being targeted, hassled, and ultimately killed because someone thinks you look like you "don't belong"." Do you disagree with this statement? Well about 2590 of those messages are nothing but speculation. Take Marc's last few posts as typical examples if you will. I for one do not know how "simple" or how "complicated" the chain of events actually was, as I was not there (unlike others, or so I gather). We know Martin went to the store, bought a few items, and was returning home. We know from the 911 call that Zimmerman decided Martin looked "suspicious" and left his truck to follow Martin. We know that some time later there was an altercation, with Zimmerman getting the worst of it, that ended up with Zimmerman shooting Martin. Between the point where Zimmerman told the 911 operator he was following Martin and a later point with the altercation already in progress, we know nothing about what transpired. Do you disagree? In the absence of actual evidence, we can speculate about the chain of events. Some scenarios seem more plausible than others to me, others may find different scenarios plausible, based on our relative experiences. I would hope that an objective investigation would shed light on the matter (though at this point it's hard to see that happening). Do you disagree? Because I get the sense that now it's all about "poor Zimmerman" and that the spin machine has relegated Martin to a drug-addled homicidal maniac. Some perspective is called for. I think I have been clear that I do not know know the exact sequence of events that transpired to bring Martin and Zimmerman into physical contact. Others here assert that they do know this. This incident does bother me on a number of levels. It bothers me to think that I could be minding my own business, doing something I have every right to do in a public area (like walking home), be challenged by some wannabee-cop, and if I don't respond to their liking end up dead. It bothers me that the survivor gets to write the history, and the dead guy gets dragged through the mud to retroactively justify the killing. The racial overtones of the case, which come from both sides, bother me. It bothers me that the opportunity for any "justice" in this case has been squandered, likely in the first hours after the killing when the opportunity to look for evidence to verify (or otherwise) Zimmerman's story was passed by. Every single thing about this case pisses me off. 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)

What boogie was that? Seems strange to hold a boogie in a townhouse complex at night, but whatever. And let us not forget WHY he was in that area to begin with Please, do remind me of what information Zimmerman would have been privy to, before deciding to target Martin as "suspicious", that justified shooting and killing him? I mean, surely you are not suggesting that finding out well after the fact that someone was suspended from school is reason to kill them? 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)

If you received all the benefits of the "good work" they did, without having to pay any dues, would you have joined (or is that what you did)? Perhaps you were forward-thinking enough to recognize that you had an interest in supporting the organization that did some good things that benefited you. Most people would take the benefits and pocket the dues, even if minimal, as well. Good way to kill a union. Think of it this way: imagine a gas station where you can fuel up, then decide if you want to pay or not. If you and most other people choose not to pay, the station will soon close. On the other hand, if you pay but someone else doesn't, then you will be "losing" by subsidizing them. How long do you think that gas station will stay open? Of course there are also "freedom of choice" issues with being forced to join a union. The issue is not simple. But it's pretty obvious that "right to work" legislation is intended to be union-busting. 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)

The kid turned and attacked someone Not spontaneously. Zimmerman admits he approached and challenged the kid. I'm pretty sure none of us were there at the time, although to read this thread you'd think there was a boogie going on from the number of skydivers who are sure they know exactly what happened. Not surprisingly, people's guesses (by now crystallized into "facts" etched in granite) about what happened are consistent with their general view of the world. Some are all convinced that Mr Zimmerman was quietly minding his own business, perhaps knitting mittens for orphans, when out of the blue he was attacked by a deranged drugged-up Martin. Maybe people are thinking "there but for the grace of God go I", and fear the notion that they might not automatically get the benefit of the doubt should they also find themselves in a situation where they decide to resort to lethal force. Others put themselves in the position of Martin, minding their own business while walking home, only to be confronted and ultimately killed by an overzealous wannabee-cop. What, exactly, happened that night? None of us know. We know Zimmerman called 911, and indicated he had exited his truck and was following a "suspicious person" (Martin). He was told "we don't need you to do that", but we don't know exactly what he did after that point. Shortly thereafter, witnesses saw the two of them in a fight on the ground, with Martin on top, heard a gunshot, and Martin was dead. We don't know how the two came into physical contact, who first grabbed/punched who, any of it. Hopefully the "investigation" and trial (if it gets to that point) will sort it out, but I highly doubt it. What exactly are we being reminded of? That we must submit to "authority"? If you are walking along and some unidentified stranger challenges you and demands to know who you are and what you are doing, then you must acquiesce? If you don't then they can shoot you? "Land of the Free" indeed. 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)

Maybe if they put a hidden gps tracking device on the Governor, they can find out where Jimmy Hoffa went to. 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)

Just wanted to remind people that a kid went out to get some candy and iced tea and ended up dead. Nothing the state does or screws up will undo that. You should be able to walk to the store and back without being targeted, hassled, and ultimately killed because someone thinks you look like you "don't belong". 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)

This is an example an issue where I have changed my mind, based largely on discussions here in Speaker's Corner. I used to be quite opposed to the idea of people carrying, but now I actually think it's the best option (given the prevailing circumstances) to have lots of trained law-abiding people able to take some action if circumstances permit. Somehow that makes me wonder whatever happened to John Rich, or mnealtx for that matter. 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 ever get pissed off that you weren't born 200 years ago? You seem so single-minded about turning back the clock. 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)

Nothing here that I disagree with at 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)

Depends on the context, I would think. When I lived in Tucson, I had a few experiences where someone drew a gun, or used the threat of a gun, to harass me. In one case, a car almost ran me over in a crosswalk, I had to literally jump clear to avoid being hit. I gave the car the "bird" as it roared past; only then did it squeal to a stop, the driver stepped out, pointed a handgun at me, said "Bang, you're dead", then got back in the car and took off. Another time, I was walking my dogs a couple of blocks from my house, and passed a house with a fenced yard and several dogs that started barking loudly at my dogs. Some guy came out of the house with a rifle and yelled at me for "upsetting his dogs". I replied that I was just walking my dogs on the street, as I have a right to do, and he held up the rifle and said if he ever saw me again on "his" street "I would regret it". So don't tell me that gun owners are all nice law abiding types who would never use their guns to threaten or intimidate, they're just misunderstood and we should always let them be. "Harassment" can be a two-way street. That's not how it seems to work here in Georgia. Quite the opposite, actually, judging from the news stories. Still, it might be a good thing for people to have it in their minds that they will have a lot of explaining to do if they discharge their gun, for they should. If your explanation holds up to examination based on the evidence, you're good to go. If not, then there will be consequences. How can it be otherwise? Do you really think it would be a good idea to permit people to shoot someone, and if they claimed "I felt threatened" just let it go and have no examination of whether or not they actually had reasonable justification for their actions? Carrying is a serious responsibility, you can't just say "oops, too bad so sad" when you've just injured or killed someone who may have been innocent of any wrongdoing. 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)

Well of course, because it takes a PhD to be able to tell the difference between a guy in camo and a mask who is carrying a firearm in a shopping mall and actually shooting at people, and a guy in a hoodie walking through a townhouse complex. There's just so many similarities, they might as well be twins! Everyone knows that hoodies are way more scary than "assault rifles" (whatever those are). 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)