Juror#8

It's at the Alexandria courthouse. Beer is on me.

I know I don't have all the facts and I believe that I was conceding that. A lot of a lot of everything at this point is circumstantial. I'm trying to present the applicable black letter law. But like everyone else, I have an opinion and would like to discuss those things with the group.

I'm representing a buddy in a bs cost adjustment contract dispute action that I just recently pro hac'd into in the Eastern District of VA. It's on the docket for late April. Anyway, if you want to see the first "[one] law class at some point" person to try a case in Fed court, you're welcome to attend. I'll let you know the docket number and date via PM. !@#$ friend talked me into it over a game of Madden. Haven't practiced in a couple of years and now this. HA!

Yes it is actually. Detain is an arrested state. Arrest is a detained state. Both are "in custody" conditions. Disagree? To effectuate a legal arrest (based on probable cause) is a legally significant separate matter. Aropos, he should have been legally arrested based on pc. That's what I said. Said that before. Moving on... 3. I never said that he should be arrested or tried simply because he is bigger than Martin. Your lack of legal sophistication and innability to appreciate nuance is becoming a bore. Thank you. Yes you did. Explained in post #347 (see: "rebuittable presumption") Great. Are you done responding to my posts? Actually, did you ever start? How about we just concede that we don't respect each other's positions and move on? I feel like I'm wasting my time on you when I'd rather be analyzing this developing case. So unless you have something more than the excrement that you've put forth, that consists of little red one-line declaratives and one-paragraph fallcious conclusions, I'd just as soon agree that we dislike one another and save everyone the time and energy of reading this exchange. Either way, since you have demonstrated barely a scintilla of value with respect to this conversation, I'm gonna re-direct my focus back to the core discussion and leave you to your devices.

1. It is up to the prosecution to make the determine whether or not the case should be prosecuted based on te weight of the evidence. Others in Florida who were absolved under the same self defense law were held in custody until the judge adjudicated the matter as unprosecutable or the prosecution decided that the alleged offender was immune from prosecution. Understandably, the police didn't HAVE TO arrest Zimmerman. They don't HAVE TO arrest anyone. But they should have. Based on the fact that there was no weapons found on Martin, and there was only one side of the story being told, the police should detained the only remaining intimately involved party so that an investigation could be performed to determine what happened up to the point of witness involvement. 2. The police admonish him against going and, according to what can be gleened from the tapes, he still proceeds forward. No one can no for sure if he continues...but based on the tapes, and the little commentary that I've heard on the subject, Zimmerman appears to yell after Martin AFTER being admonish not to exit his vehicle. 3. Who said that weight makes somone an aggressor? I very specifically say that it is an element in a reasonableness and proportionality analysis. There is decades of case law substantiating this. People have been denied self-defense claims ONLY because they are 6'4", 300 lbs and the victim is 5'10, 175 lbs. It is all about the reasonable person standard. Disagree? 4. There has been no assertion, by anyone, at any point, not even Zimmerman or his representatives, that Martin had a weapon. I guess you can wonder aloud about how do we know that Martin didn't brandish a machete and a 30's-era German-issue military revolver under that type of open-ended "you-weren't-there-so-you-can't say-for-sure" analysis. The fact is, Martin didn't have a weapon. If he is not prosecuted, or if it is determined that he is innocent, fine. It's still a travesty, but the wheels of justice will have turned in his favor. I just want him and the matter to get a fair appraisal and fair process. It seems that both the "leave him alone" crowd, and the "he's guilty" crowd don't want that. In fairness to due process and the institution of law, I haven't made any assumptions that I have conditioned with a big "IF."

Look, you have your feelings about this case. Cool. I'm actually saying the opposite of your bolded point above. I'm saying, and I've said, that the man deserves a fair trial and nothing should be assumed as true. The lawyers are working within the periphery to figure out the details. I, like everyone else, have their opinions based on the evidence that has been put forth to date. But I have been careful to distinguish MY OPINION from black letter law and analysis of that law. In fact, my opinion hasn't even settled. I don't have any opinion about Zimmerman's criminal guilt or innocence. If certain things come to fruition, that may change. As of now, I believe the same thing that I believed a week ago when I wrote my first post on this matter: -He should have been arrested pending the outcome of an investigation -He went against the admonition of the police entity and followed a gentleman who didn't commit an articulable crime -He is bigger than Martin (which is only relevant in a proportionality context) -He had a weapon; Martin didn't Beyond that, I'm interested in the nuances of the law and how they pertain to this matter. I'm an attorney. I've represented clients in court. Though I've never represented a client at their initial trial, I have represented clients on direct appeal and in their Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence hearings. For those who have never served as an advocate in that context, I'm presenting the black letter law and the questions that will ultimately determine the legal applicability. You may not be interested in that. That may be like physics and calculus to a 4 year old to you. Fine. I get it. You want the Cliff's Notes. But for everyone else, it means a lot of questions, and hypothetical directions. The media is not asking the questions that I mentioned in my post. If you're not interested in reading anything counter to your opinion than just ignore my post. If you don't appreciate legal complexity, just ignore the post. If you arrived at your opinion and see anything contrary to that as a personal challenge, fine; ignore my posts. I won't take it personally. There are other drinking holes for you to frequent. Otherwise, chill out, pull up a chair, and join the discussion.

Either articulate your disagreement or don't. But telling someone to "be quiet" is no different than a curse word - it's just an inarticulate way to express dissatisfaction or disagreement with a position. What is "jumbled"? What is "mess"? What specifically do you disagree with? Or are you just backwoods hick who thinks justice was served and aren't interested in analyzing the law? And yes, despite the bolded point above, I called you "B word." And the position of yours that I disagree with is your lack of one. Now we're getting into the realm of the conjectural. This is what I'm interested in the advocates clarifying during trial via witness statements, relative party placements, etc. Right now, we're just throwing around theories with few supportive facts. But the fact is, something, that some have construed as a racist statement, was said. The lawyers will have to figure out the impact.

I didn't say that it did. It was a query. Are you saying that you made it though law school not knowing that "fighting words" is not protected speech? Or do you feel that racial slurs are not fighting words (which is a reasonable legal angle to take actually)? Secondly, IF Zimmerman hurled a racial slur at Martin, in concert with him following him, without an articulable crime having been committed, at night, against the admonition of police, replete with a weapon - it is going to create, at least, a rebuttable presumption of Zimmerman being the initial aggressor. Disagree? Grown folks are talking B word. Be quiet. Constituent conference time. I'll get to this this afternoon.

If Martin took a punch at Zimmerman, knocked him down, etc., the only thing that that demonstrates, from a legal standpoint, and with respect to this issue, is that Zimmerman got his ass kicked. Let's introduce some legal analysis: Florida Law 776.012 Use of force in defense of person. - ...a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. In this instance, the immunity (or "Stand Your Ground" portion) is activated as per: 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force. (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force HOWEVER, a nuance rests in the "aggressor" language: 776.041 Use of force by aggressor. The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force. There is A LOT of detail in this language but a couple of things stand out that implicate the following questions: A. Was Zimmerman the aggressor? Which implicates 2 clarifying questions - 1. Is the act of following an individual against the admonitions of police when the individual being followed hasn't perpetrated any articulable illegal act considered being "an aggressor"? AND 2. There is an audio tape that suggests that Zimmerman called Martin a "coon." Does that tape say waht it is purported to say? http://fcir.org/2012/03/23/on-zimmermans-911-call-what-sounds-like-a-racial-slur/ IF he called him a racial slur, Zimmerman is the aggressor. Period. In that instance, Zimmerman loses his 776.032 protection and has to fulfill one of the exceptions articulated in 776.041 (a) and (b) Under 776.041 Zimmerman would have to had to try to escape (and their relative body weights would come into play), OR he would have had to clearly announce his intent to withdraw from the confrontation. Simply walking away is insufficient to convey that withdrawal IF Zimmerman is considered the aggressor (based on the tape). The audio tape has been sent to the FBI for analysis. If Zimmerman called Martin a "coon," it is going to be an uphill battlefor him. B. Did Zimmerman reasonably believe that "that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself"? Which implicates proportionality considerations - 1. Reasonableness (to include relative size and weight considerations) 2.Necessity Also (and this is significant), the past history of violence for each party is admissible to demonstrate their physical competencies, disposition, aggressive liklihoods, predilictions, or tendencies, etc. If Zimmerman claims that he was a scared bunny, but the accusations of domestic violence and assault against authority figures are true, he is gonna have an uphill battle on proportionality - reasonableness, and necessity. At the end of the day, NOTHING has changed. As mentioned above, if it is true that Martin took a punch at him or that Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked, it doesn't really impact the above considerations ESPECIALLY if Zimmerman called Martin a "coon." Those claiming that the scales are tipping toward Zimmerman and Martin advocates are being somehow exposed as "wrong" fundamentally misunderstand the law and the how these circumstances fit within the law's complex tapestry. The best thing to do is to let the matter unfold fully. Zimmerman deserves a fair and impartial adjudication of these issues. Martin's family does too. From a legal perspective though, I think Zimmerman is sunk if that audio tape comes back with his voice uttering a racial slur. But that is a big IF, and conditioned upon criteria that are still subject to analysis. And that still presupposes grand jury findings, the legal battle over items of admissibility, casting of legal doubt, etc. Long way to go folks. Media is off-course. To them, Dave is still getting good PR from that Goliath thing. But everyone here thinking that a fight circumscribes this issue has never seen the inside of a courtroom as an advocate. That fight means little to nothing. Florida jury instructions for those interested: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf Section 3.6 is the relevant section.

Would like to know what you think about this. One of the Sunday talk shows mentioned it this weekend and I figured there would be an interesting response about it on this forum: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/25/afghan-official-us-paid-50000-to-each-victim-shooting-sprees-family/

If the incident itself wasn't, the response certainly has been. From my perspective: White folks seem to have either said that Zimmerman's innocent, or they've said let the judicial process take it's course and arrive at a fair determination. Black folks seem to be almost entirely of the opinion that Zimmerman has already been adjudicated and was found "guilty." No real trial. No due process. The irony is that for hundreds of years black folks fought for due process under the law - especially in states that traditionally usurped that kind of fair and institutionalized jurisprudence. It really should be black folks who are at the proverbial head of the "give the man a fair trial" class.

Agreed. And it makes some sense. The family will naturally want their loved one seen in the light most favorable to them. But I also think that the family wants the images that are looped, and re-looped to be ones that have a poignance and an deep affection to them.

The man definitely deserves a fair trial. If there is a trial, there needs to be a venue change. The local jury pool is probably tainted. I hope the judge closes off the proceedings and sequesters the jury and puts a gag order on everyone. It will be a sad if Sharpton begins broadcasting his show from the courthouse doors. This matter needs to be properly and fairly adjudicated.

McDonald's was wrong. You are wrong. And you're profoundly over-simplifying the issue. But if you thought you were right, please see the case's disposition. If you still think you're right, please see the hundreds of other cases that McDonald's settled out of court with near analogous circumstances. If you still think you're right, know that it was a comparative negiligence case and the jury ascribed fault to her at 25% (if I remember correctly) for negligent/improper operation of the cup. And the cup wasn't "balanced on her knees." The cup was in between her knees. BIG difference. That notwithstanding, she could have been doing cartwheels while balancing the cup of coffee on her left incisor tooth and McDonalds still would have maintained a level of responsibility for their coffee being 50 DEGREES HOTTER THAN INDUSTRY STANDARD. The last point is slightly embellished. You seem preoccupied with her management of the cup vis a vis trying to add the condiments. That is almost inconsequential. The dispositive point is that the reasonable person wouldn't expect to receive third degree burns, through a layer of clothing, necessitating significant skin grafts, from a morning coffee spill. But IT IS forseeable by McDonald's that people would spill thier coffee - especially since they're selling it to them while their operating a vehicle, ON THE GO, in a drive though line, and when their attention is otherwise occupied. And since it is forseeable that people will spill their coffee, should they have it so hot, indeed 40-50 degrees hotter than industry standard, that it necessitates skin grafts?

There is a lot that still needs to be clarified about their confrontation. But because Zimmerman went against police admononition, and the confrontation occurred thereafter, I view him (at present) as presumptively at fault. The picture thing is ridiculous. You're presuming that the media had ANY say in the pictures that were made available to them. The media didn't choose the same 3-5 pictures that are looping around this story; the parents did. The family didn't give the media carte blanche to go though their picture albums and I doubt that the media said "do you have a better, more sympathetic, picture?" when the family volunteered their mementos. Maybe those are the pictures that are most endearing to their family. Maybe these are the pictures that the family cherishes most and that provides the most lasting memory and affection. If it were you, what would you do when asked for a picture of your son or daughter? Would you provide a picture that you're indifferent to but that more accurately conveys your loved one's most recent size, weight, and general phenotypical characteristics or provide a picture that at least carries with it some modicum of poignance to you? Y'all are fishing.

We went into the minutia of the hot coffee case in 1st semester Torts. McDonalds was in the wrong. I can't remember all the details exactly so please allow me some creative liberty. From what I recall, though, the lady in question had contacted McDonalds for them to pay her medical bill as a result of the third degree burn that she sustained. She contacted them over and over and over again yet she was ignored. From what I can remember some customer service person told her to submit the bill and they would follow up but months went by and nothing. It wasn't until some time after the injury that she secured an attorney...as a principled matter according to her. She told the attorney that she just wanted her medical bill paid. During discovery it was determined that McDonalds coffee was like 40-50 degrees hotter than anyone else in the area and considerably hotter than the industry standard, and that the top didn't have adequate warnings given the reasonable person's expectation of retail coffee temperature (which by comparison was considerably cooler than McDonald's example). Also, McDonald's OWN quality control guy testified that they knew that it was way too hot, and that they had tests that showed that anything over a certain temp was gonna burn the piss out of people's mouths, but they upped it by another 30 or 40 degrees because at that temperature the aroma and taste was maximized and the benefit of increased coffee patrons because of their superior coffee product considerably outweighed the cost of litigation settlements. They had already settled a thousand or so similar cases at that point so they were WELL aware of the issue. Right before verdict, the old woman plaintiff offered to settle again for medical bills incurred, future medical expenses and attorneys fees (something like $50,000). McDonald's laughed them off. But then they got bent over. The jury returned the exorbitant punitive award largely because of the PATHETIC way that McDonald's handled the situation. They ignored the woman, repeatedly told her that they'd follow up and didn't, returned her mail, etc. They could have paid her medical bill and called it square. Also, they KNEW of the issue for 10+ years prior. People use that case as the rallying cry for litigation reform. Bad case to use. The woman was right. McDonald's was wrong and they were made an example of. There are better cases for lit reform - the person who won against the curling iron company because the curling iron didn't contain the warning "can burn scalp" comes to mind, or the pajama manufacturer who lost a suit because their footie pajamas didn't contain a warning about them being flammable if it comes in contact with flames. If you have a chance, read up on that case. People here like to talk about media hyping something. This is a great example of that.

I'm a huge (but very amateur) WWII historical enthusiast. Not sure if this channel or these shows have any wider appeal in terms of their entertainment value. Very good television shows. They're about the espinoage element and characters that went into the winning of WWII. Very unique show. Well produced - knowledgeable historian and veteran involvement in show's production. If you enjoy suspense, mystery, intrigue, history, this show really is the best thing going. Best episodes in my estimation: "The Real 007," "Definant Duo," "Dead on Arrival," and "Avenging Force." For instance, I didn't know that a young Naval Intelligence officer, Sir Ian Fleming, would go to the casinos on his down time and while there marveled at the exploits of a smooth-talking Serbian double-agent who enjoyed women, fast cars, gambling, booze and high stakes spy games. Fleming began taking notes while at the casino and turned those notes into a series of books about the double agent, named Dusko Popov, called "James Bond." And I didn't know that a group of about 7 Norwegians took on an entire German battalion and were chased, on skis, for about 300 miles playing an intense cat and mouse game through the snowy mountains of Norway. Their goal was to blow up the Norsk Hydro Plant. And the "Englandspiel" with German operators communicating with British radios to the Allied powers and Hermann Giskes' last communication to SOE - Wow! Seriously, if you like intrique and mystery and just damn good TRUE stories that Hollywood COULDN'T script any better, check them out.

Just waiting patiently for "Wrath of the Titans!" I'll probably see that **** twice on next Friday.

The fact is, there are still some outstanding issues that need to be brought to light. I tend to think that, at least presumptively, Zimmerman is culpable for an illegal act because: -He appears to have ignored the admonitions of police during the 911 phone call -He had a weapon and appeared to have adjudicated the matter in his mind (based on his comments to 911 dispatcher) -He couldn't point to anything that Martin was doing wrong during the call. Martin wasn't encroaching on someone else's property, nor was he randomly looking into vehicles. In fact, there was nothing said that indicated that he was doing anything that would even justify a simple Terry stop. So based on these CIRCUMSTANTIAL things, and without the benefit of any additional info, Zimmerman is gonna be on the hook for some kind of criminal offense. On the civil side, and with respect to the Equal Protection Clause, it is somewhat difficult to bring against a municipality. Also, there needs to be some kind of pattern and practice or an articulated policy to show disparate treatment or metrics to demonstrate disparate impact. And....(check my facts on this cause I'm not sure), I think that the only remedy in an EP action is injunctive relief. That is fantastic so that other folks don't have to go through the same problems, but it wouldn't provide much in the way of financial compensation for the family. EPCs are not impossible, just difficult. The better play is to use 1983 civil action to enforce a due process claim against Zimmerman. They don't have to rely on issues of protected classifications and race. If they can demonstrate that Zimmerman was somehow acting under color of law (which is gonna be a doozy of a creative argument - but not impossible if the local and state police somehow recognized his community watch group as a "partner" in combatting crime or something to that effect), they can hang the "deprivation of life, liberty, property" clause around his neck, and by extension, the neck's of the munipical authorities, via 1983. 1983 is complicated legislation and doesn't confer any substantive legal claim. It just kind of makes other laws broader. If you know how to use it right, though, it has some punch. I also don't remember how 1983 operates in conjunction with common law tort and contract actions. So if his attorney's can find SOME precedent for using common law respondeat superior claims in 1983 actions, it could be a windfall for Martin's family because they can use Zimmerman to get into the municipality's pockets. Otherwise, their claims for damages are going to hit a wall after Zimmerman files Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

1. I'm 34 and I'm black. I appreciate your efforts towards cultural sensitivity though. I didn't intend to be offensive. One of the best things about DC is its tolerance, diversity of thought, and acculturation. You seem to represent those qualities well. Anyway, I was being a little sardonic but I speak from a position of knowledge on the subject and the area. I grew up on the green line that I'm telling OP to stay away from. I went to Anacostia High School when I lived with my dad and Suitland HS when I lived with my mom. They were bad then and they're bad now. Gentrification has improved SE in a weirdly contrived way, but it's made PG worse because that's where all the riff raff ended up - well at least in the western portion of the county. And if you think that I'm kidding about "safe zones," etc, go down University Blvd. past UMD towards the District and count the number of check cashing spots, liquor stores, and overall ghettoness as you get closer to and cross the line. It's no place for tourists and not the place that you want to ask for directions after the street lines turn on. Sad but true. If you think I'm kidding about the green line and Anacostia, jump on the metro headed towards Branch Avenue and witness the classless behavior, "N-bombs," and fights that pop off with the young knuckleheads that are trying to prove something to nobody. Again, sad but true. Now, you're right. I recently moved to Adam's Morgan after living in Reston before that. I'm enjoying a little bourgeois existence and I'm comfortably removed from the "unsavory" areas of DMV. I still appreciate the urban culture; but I also respect it's challenges. 2. Ben's is an institution. The internet has brought a lot of attention to it. But it's no less of an institution. And the chili is phenomenal. 3. I don't know about you, but MienYu, Third Edition, and Saloun are nice weekend wind down spots. Georgetown still has a nice flavor about it. Along with Fells Point and Reston, still one of my favorite places to spend my Friday and Saturday nights.

FUUUXXX No! I would NEVER drive a hybrid. I went from an 01 Cobra, to an 04 Terminator, to my GT500. And I recently purchased a 89 LX 5.0 that is my weekend toy. Blue Oval baby. With respect to the Audi, BMW thing, I'm a member on Bimmerforums (just as an automotive enthusiast). Last year this little California-area Audi/BMW dealership battle was the talk of the Euro-community: http://www.autointhenews.com/bmw-vs-audi-billboard-wars-a-battle-of-ad-budgets/

Yea, thankfully my commute is only 4 miles, 15 minutes and avoids 495 entirely. It's been about 7 years since I was commuting on 495 during rush hour. +1

Not sure if you've already gone but: 1. This is your friend: http://www.wmata.com/rail/maps/map.cfm a. Just don't continue on the green line past the Navy Yard. The only reason to have continued on the green line that far no longer exists (FinMac Cool's - 99 cent fish and chips on Saturdays). 2. And as a follow up to point #1, if you get anywhere near "Anacostia," run, don't walk, to the nearest place that is not Anacostia. 3. There are a lot of homeless people in DC. It will come as a shock at first that so much poverty can be situated amongst so much affluence. Kind of poignant and sad. 4. If you get lost driving, and on every other block you see either a liquor store or check-cashing place, you're in PG or SE DC. You've traveled outside of the safe zone. 5. Take the metro if you're visiting DC. You'll thank me later. If you do take the metro though, remember point 1a. above. 6. 5 Guys. There is one on every corner. Best burger in town and it's native to Alexandria, VA. Cheap too. 7. Want a nice snack downtown, there are plenty of cool salad and sandwich places - "Cosi," "Brown Bag," and "Potbelly's" are the best (if you go to Potbelly, get the sugar cookie - you'll thank me later). 8. "Vapiano" if you like a la carte Pasta. 9. For the occassions when you want a REALLY nice meal (in my opinion) - Inn at Little Washington, Fiola, BLT Steak. Not quite as good (and not nearly as expensive), but worth the trip: Smith and Wollensky, Fogo De Chao, Phillips Seafoood. 10. This area is congested. People drive with a purpose and it may come off as aggressive. The driving is especially bad in Annandale, VA. Don't take it personal and ignore them - especially if the other driver is not caucasian. 10a. Also, don't drive on 495 (or any of the X95 derivatives) between 7-9 a.m., and 3-7 p.m. On Friday, stay off highways after 2:30 and you're good after 6. 11. 495 is cyclical. W,S,E,N is therefore relative. 12. If you're hip and want to get drunk on some night with your spouse, go to Georgetown and follow the crowd. If you're not hip and want a glass of wine and a quiet evening with your spouse, go to Old Town Alexandria by the water and follow the crowd. 13. Damn the torpedos and order a shot of Hennessy Ellipse with confidence. Pay with plastic and don't look at the bill until you leave DC. As soon as "Ellipse" rolls off your lips, you will get the best service EVER. You'll thank me (until you leave DC). 14. Ethnic restaraunts are AWESOME in DC and NVA: Thai, Afghan, Indian, and Ethiopian food are particularly good. If you like Thai, Tara Thai in Falls Church is good budget Thai Food. 15. If you have time that you're not valuably utilizing otherwise, drive to Annapolis, MD and have a Crab Cake sandwich at some mom and pop spot by a boat dock. Eat outside and talk to the 60-something owners. Ambiance will be great. You'll lose yourself in the sound of sea gulls and 18th century architecture. You will think that you're continents away from DC. 16. Go to Ben's Chili Bowl 17. Take a pic by the White House. There is usually a lady across from the White House who holds up signs and complains about U.S. aggression against third world countries. Her set up is usually a yellow tent. She is really nice and will talk with you about anything. She can also tell you where to find a bathroom. 18. Museums are great but fleetingly entertaining. Spy museum is awesome if you're up to paying $20. 19. Back to point #5, STAND ON THE RIGHT, WALK ON THE LEFT! Thank you. 20. Be safe and enjoy yourself. Lot of really fun things to do in the DMV.

/Thread?