Rob's House

You're welcome to your beliefs. The problem is you've not laid out any argument that even remotely supports a finding of manslaughter.

Let's take these one at a time: You've here assumed a fact not in evidence - that Zimmerman was negligent. Thus far there has been no evidence of any illegal activity on the part of Zimmerman. Until you can establish that Zimmerman did something illegal he has not availed himself of a beating or foreclosed his right to self-defense. Saying that if he hadn't put himself in that situation this wouldn't have happened may be true, but it's not all that relevant if he didn't break any laws. You ought to be slapped for this comment. First, whether GZ is a cop, neighborhood watch, or unafiliated citizen, he has an absolute right to report suspicious activity and follow a person to report their location. That person does not have a right to physically retaliate until their life or safety is put in imminent threat of grievous harm, and you've no evidence of that. And your characterization that he killed TM because he looked suspicious conveniently leaves out the part where the suspicious kid was pumping his face with his fist. So because TM isn't here to tell his side we should assume facts not in evidence as long as we can conceive of them? And your rhetorical prose is lame. Really lame. So basically you said that despite the fact that there is no evidence that GZ did anything wrong, he should be convicted because you can imagine a scenario where this played out in a certain way, and we should assume the version you've imagined is reality until proven otherwise. That's brilliant. Thanks for sharing. You've also confirmed my earlier post, the one you chose only to address with an emoticon. According to you, if you suspect someone of a crime and follow that person you've availed yourself of a beating and foreclosed your right to self-defense regardless of how the confrontation occurs. If this isn't what you think please explain how your position differs.

It's interesting how you introduce assumptions that lack any factual basis as the foundation of your case for why Zimmerman is guilty, yet continue to ask if plausible defense scenarios can be proven. So I'm left to assume you either believe we currently have, or else that we should have, a system under which Zimmerman is guilty until proven innocent?

He ought to get the Rock to teach him how to do the People's Elbow.

Good God, so many flaws in so few sentences. First, you're absolutely advocating, if not the practice of, the rightousness of an absolute monarchy based on the vote of the bare majority. If you're unhappy about that you may want to take some time and rething your ethos. Secondly, when people vote for a President for four years they are voting on a whole host of issues - essentially EVERY issue. To extrapolate from the fact that Americans elected a giant douche over a turd sandwich, that every program that Giant Douche ran on (however vague his language may have been) has popular support of the people regardless of how it eventually manifests itself, is, to use your term, "absurd". And even to get there we have to accept your flawed premise that coercion and subjugation are morally acceptable as long as a bare majority supports such action, which brings us back to your stated belief that all actions perpetrated under absolute monarchy elected by mare majority, that are not wholly inconsistent with campaign rhetoric, are just and moral and that such is a desirable way to select and run a central government.

It's funny how those who dodge substantive argument cry the loudest about no one engaging them in substantive argument. I've addressed several salient points to you, none of which have you addressed substantively. I realize you're not a legal scholar and I don't expect you to be, but to anyone remotely familiar with criminal law and this case, your analsysis sounds like the infantile musings of simpleton. And that would be fine if you approached with a little more humility, but despite your ignorance of the facts of the case as well as the applicable law, you come in with a sense of arrogance expecting others to respect your uniformed opinions as though they had merit, and then you become offended when people accurately call you out on it. We should probably assume TM would have said something both credible and incriminating and proceed accordingly.

So now you're advocating an absolute monarchy where the monarch is elected by a bare majority?

No on both counts. The methods & bribes made to get that albatross passed would land executives in a private company in prison. It's a perfect case study of how the flaws in our system can be manipulated & power abused. Obamacare was held unconstitutional - parts anyway. The Medicaid impositions on the states were found to exceed the scope of the tax & spend power, & the penalty was found unconstitutional as written, but Roberts reasoned that if it were interpreted as a tax it would be permissible & thus construed (in effect rewrote) the state accordingly. Confining someone to prison doesn't fit your definition of violence? I wonder if you're as narrow in your definition of torture. And again, your assertion that failure to impose positive law by force = abolition of law & law enforcement is a fairly sorry straw man. Despite your intent, you're not conveying anything other than your inability to understand fairly obvious distinctions.

You said "have no idea where you get the idea that i support the use of violence and force to accomplish anything." Yet you advocate a system of forcible confiscation enforced by threat of violence. You can't have it both ways. As to the whether taxes and such enforcement are appropriate depends on the nature & purpose of the tax. You're asking the wrong question

Kind of casts that whole "civil war" thing in a different light if you think about it.

Are you being intentionally obtuse here? It's not the taxation, but rather the enforcement that is violent. I would have spelled that out but I thought it was almost obvious as why your beloved auto insurance mandate analogy doesn't hold water. You're comparing two things that are not similar - and the difference is so stark (and has been explained sufficiently) that I have trouble believing you don't already see the flaw.. As to your second question, it depends on the nature and purpose of the tax. Sorry, I also thought that was obvious. Which is why democracy never has been and never will be a viable form of government & why a government that operates according to democratic principles must be limited by a constitution to avoid human & civil rights abuses - unless you don't care about those things.

Are you familiar with the distinction between negative & positive law? One protects rights, the other imposes obligations through use of force. You've provided the basis for the former (poorly I might add), but can you justify the latter? Or should I just expect another bi-polar false choice from you?

Oh really? Name one person ever convicted of fraud who got away with it.

Could be worse. He could have admitted saying "the N-word" a couple decades back.

It's not fraud if you don't get caught.

I wouldn't be surprised to see them sitting on the floor of the local convenience store inspecting eggs. It's hard having a job with no purpose.

To my way of thinking they're about a half step up the ladder from meter maids. The difference is, it's a rare meter maid that feels a righteous sense of purpose from his job. ABC agents on the other hand...

I live in Richmond too so I've gotten an earful about it. The charges have been dropped but I still think it's a bizzarre story. I mean seriously, why would you have 7 cops working the parking lot trying to stop kids buying beer? Seven cops? Sounds like their department has a bit too much funding if they can spare that kind of man power to troll the grocery store parking lots. And why would they swarm the car like that? If that was my daughter all 7 of those ass holes would be looking at civil suits and I'd bring as much pressure as I could to have all of them fired.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/uva-girl-water-beer-jail-181104442.html

You may not believe in it, but it does exist. If you have a Boston Market in your area you should go pick one up. You'll thank me for it.

They're going to delve into the facts and expose "the real killers".

What do you think happens when you don't do what the Feds tell you to do?

According to dogshit14787 if you in any way approach someone you suspect of wrongdoing you've categorically availed yourself of a beating, the severity of which is only limited by that which your assailant deems appropriate, and you've foreclosed your right to defend yourself. The nature of your approach and interaction is irrelevant.

Nice dodge, dipshit. I don't know if you're trolling or if you're just mentally deficient, but I asked a pretty simple question, that quite clearly illustrated the idiocy of your position, and you come back with some dumb ass ****. I'm glad I don't have you as a neighbor. Someone could walk out my door with a bag of my **** and leave and you wouldn't so much as call the cops b/c you wouldn't want to waste their time on a hunch.

Dude, really?