DougH

A good idea to distract voters with poor math skills. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

In its current form, go ahead revoke it. I totally get the moral argument that you run the risk of executing innocent individuals. I wish it was an accelerated option for some very select very heinous crimes like the rape and murder of a child. For those when you get convicted the next step should be to go before a some sort of a panel of Judges who evaluate your chance for appeal. If the evidence is so clear, and the case was conducted such that there is no grounds for appeal the next step should be through the trap door and right into the wood chipper. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. ---------------------------- Just because you aren't a drug dealer, gangster, or some half assed terrorist doesn't mean you shouldn't be concerned when law enforcement employees extraordinary means to arrest such people. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

A warrant should absolutely be needed. The government wants to have an easy way to build cases up to the level where they can get enough probable cause to get judicial warrants. The ends justifies the means because they are arresting terror suspects, drug dealers and others, which they may not have had the man power to do so otherwise. I think that is a real slippery slope. I don't want to give up more of my privacy to the government. If the government arrests fewer people who put the general public at risk because they lack these tools so be it. I think in the long run federal state and local law enforcement are going to be a much larger risk to my way of life if they are allowed to continue to pick up powers with no oversight. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Great, an unnamed ex coworker. That is credible enough to declare someone a racist murderer. You should hear what your unnamed coworkers say about you!!! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

He was in the possesion of groceries, he was armed with his arms, which alledgedly he was using to slam Zimmerman's head into a concrete side walk after knocking him down with a sucker punch. But you would be more worried bout the skittles I am sure, since up thread you have basically taken the position that you don't think getting your head slammed into concrete by a someone sitting on your chest is a risk of life issue. The skittles could give you tooth decay, definetly more dangerous than have your head slammed into a hard surface. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Love that video, I dig it up every couple of months. "OHHHH That was ME!!!" "Noooooooo" "WHAAAAATT!!!" "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

How do you landscape your bridge? Buffer between the concrete and the grass? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Negative. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I wish this part was further explained. cause the notes from the cop on the police report make note of the back of his jacket being wet from laying on grass. Was he on grass, but his head just happened to be on the sidewalk? Typically side walks in residential areas don't extend all the way to the curb. There is a side walk, then a buffer of grass and then the curb and street. He could have been in the grass on either side of the sidewalk and still had his head on the concrete. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

The check is barely a half-measure. Even if that really was GZ's house, Lee should never have done it. Doing the right thing would be Lee admitting that, apologizing to the public for doing it, and urging nobody else to do anything like it. Agree 100% "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

What is odd about it, the factory in that story may have zero to do with the production of the bullets that have been ordered. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Unless he cut a big check to that couple he didn't do the right thing, and he is still a worthless piece of shit.

Will those be issued to their glorified rent-a-cop TSA agents? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

What about two blacks with different skin tones. Does the blackest one fry if he was the one left standing? What about two whites, but one that stayed in the tanning booth to long ala Kramer in the Seinfeld episode where he was meeting his black girlfriend's father. "I thought you said you were bringing a white boy home! I don't see a white boy! I see a damn fool!" "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

What are the actual weights and heights for either of these individuals. I have heard a bunch of different heights and weights for both. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

So, why didn't he? I know why I wouldn't have when I was a 17 year old football player. I was bullet proof and bomb proof (or so I thought) and like most 17 year old kids I didn't always have the best reasoning. Back then if someone was following me I would have closed the distance and asked them what their problem was. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Ahhhhhhh, there we go, the strawman/men comment that you pull out any time you don't want to answer a question.

Enough that the police would take the individual to an ER for a check up. So you would argue that the capacity for a situation to cause harm is irrelevant and that there is a threshold of harm that needs to be incurred before you can defend yourself from further harm. Should the same standard be applied to someone faced with an attacker with a weapon, say a knife or gun? If not please explain why different standards should be used. Nope. I am saying that if a suspect *claims* injury (especially a head injury as is the case here), then the duty of the police is to have that checked out by medical professionals. For liability reasons, if nothing else. That was certainly SOP when I was a sworn LEO some 40 years ago. Now were are delving into a separate topic, police procedure. Just a minute ago we were talking about the standards for self defense. I won't ever find myself running a crime scene since I am not a LEO, but I may find some one sitting on my chest in a position of advantage to bash my head with one good whack and leave me as more of a drooling fool than I started as. You stated a threshold before injury before some one can defend themselves: You seem to be implying that there is no capacity for serious harm from some one knocking you to the ground and taking a position that gives them a serious upper hand by sitting on your chest. I don't know about you but I am pretty sure that if I was to pin some ones hands with my knees by sitting on their chest that I could give them a really bad head injury by grabbing their head and bashing it one time only into a hard surface. That is all it would take. We don't require people to get stabbed once before they can defend themselves because their is a capacity for serious harm. The same goes for someone face with an attacker with a gun. If someone sitting on your chest could cause you serious harm, and I say that they could, then the same standard should apply. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Enough that the police would take the individual to an ER for a check up. So you would argue that the capacity for a situation to cause harm is irrelevant and that there is a threshold of harm that needs to be incurred before you can defend yourself from further harm. Should the same standard be applied to someone faced with an attacker with a weapon, say a knife or gun? If not please explain why different standards should be used. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

If you believe the narrative Zimmerman only needed to reasonably believe his life was in danger. He didn't need to wait until half dead to confirm his belief. Some one who has knocked you down and sat on your chest is a threat to your life even before they throw the first punch while on the ground. Your in a weak position and all it would take would one good punch or one hard slam to the concrete. They have already demonstrated intent to do harm by knocking your down to the ground and getting on top of you. If you don't by that l will let you set the standard. How many punches or head slams are required before some one can defend themselves. If we base self defense on such a standard how does a person prove that they waiting until the right amount of battery took place? What if they are crappy counters and they have to start over? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

What a jack ass. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

No doubt to some degree there are similarities but they can't do it to the scale of the Federal government. Grumman employed some employees who seem to do no discernibly work. They did not employee an entire work force the did zero work, no company in the job market does that for all of its employees. In comparison none of the recipients of emergency unemployment provide a direct service to the Federal government in exchange for those benefits. Tapping credit lines is not the same as having the power the print money. No company has an endless credit line. The credit crisis during the height of the financial crisis proves this. Credit dried up for almost all companies, ones with great balance sheets as well as ones with bad balance sheets. During the same time it was even easier for the government to borrow. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

No question mark (that symbol looks like this ??? not this .). That makes you a buffoon, and he won't lower himself to anwser you. Besides he is to busy debating the simple supply and demand of question marks with elementary school students. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Keep it classy!