Scruit

Obama took a very careful line - did not take sides. He recognized the tragedy of the loss of life and asked that the investigation be allowed to complete. Exactly what we should all do.

I have to believe he's trolling. Nobody is that stupid by accident.

Not crimes or infractions make you automatically at fault for an accident - only crimes and/or infractions the contributed to the accident. If a drunk driver is rearended while stopped at a red light then is he at fault simply because he is drunk? No. "No insurance" has no bearing on accident liability. "No endorsement" MAY be a factor if it is shown that the rider made a mistake that a licensed rider would not have made. Difficult to prove. DUI is only a factor if the accident was a result of an impairment-related cause, such as inattentiveness, failure to control etc. Anyone who is causes an accident by being dui needs to go to jail for a year on top of anything else the get from the incident. Serious injury should be 2-3 years. Death should be 15-20 years.

That has yet to be seen. The Sanford Police are saying there *was* an investigation and that Zimmerman was exhonorated. The fmaily weren't happy with that. Now there is a state special prosecutor assinged. If the state special prosecutor also exonorates Zimmerman then that means the Sanford Police (and the police chief who was temporarily ousted becuase of this case) are also exonorated. If he is charged and convicted the Sanford Police are in deep sh*t.

You don't know what she has. I don't know what she has. Nobody knows what she has. Only the prosecutory knows whaty she has. Only SHE can make any decision regarding pressing charges. Wait, where does "back of the head" come from? Are you just flat-out making crap up now?

No. Never said he was. I am on the fence on the Martin/Zimmerman thing. I was disputing one poster's opinion that any person involved in any death should always be charged and always go to trial to figure out if they are innocent. I say people should be charged only if the prosecutor thinks they can prove the person is guilty.

I don't think you actually know the definition of Involuntary Manslaughter. Involuntary Manslaughter is subdivided into Constructive Manslaughter and Criminally Negligent Manslaugher. Both are predicated upon some unlawful act. If there is no unlawful act then there is no manslaughter. If you are sitting at a red light in your car and you are struck from behind by a speeding motorbike, and the biker dies, then should you be charged with manslaughter just so the trial can confirm that you were innocent? You missed the point again. You "agree" that one rule should apply to all - yet you think Zimmerman should be charged becuase he is not known to be innocent... 1) This positoin logically demans that all persons involved in a death should go to trial, which is ludicrous. See example above, bike into car) 2) He is not known BY YOU to be innocent. Thank the media for that. You're probably a hoot at hypnotism stage shows based upon how suggestable you are. What if the prosecutor KNOWS him to be innocent based upon having all the facts at her disposal? Then what?

+1. Exactly what people should be thinking.

Making contact withthe kid was not illegal. Unwise, sure, but not illegal. I wholeheartedly dispute your assertion that "regardless of what happens after that, he is the aggressor". Say, for example, some guy get sout of his car at a red light and punches the driver behind him. Then he gets back into his car. At the next light the punched driver catches up and punches him back. Under law these are two seperate events as they are separated by times and/or distance. It is NOT self-defense. It WOULD be self-defense if the victim punched back immediately before the agressor drove away again. The law specificalyl states that a confrontation ends when "one party leaves or indicates their desire to not continue the confrontation". IF Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, and Martin came back to the scene later then he is starting a new confrintation where Martin is the aggressor. That's a big IF - that's just whan I heard - and in this case nobody has heard enough to make a decision.

You can't set one standard for one person. It has to be the same across the board. If Zimmerman is to be charged purely because there was a death, then you're saying any time there is a fatal accident the surviving driver must be charged and go to trial. EVEN IF the police/prosecutor/judge have information before the trial that the dead driver caused the accident. How is that fair? I like that a person who is known to be innocent doesn't have to go to trial just for trial's sake. Save trials for people we think are guilty.

And therein lies the problem. "sounds like". You are forming an opinion based upon something you heard, without all the evidence. Did you hear how Martin got away, Zimmermand told the dispatcher he was going back to his truck, then Martin followed Zimmerman and jumped him? I heard that too - but I'm not going to make a absolute decision basedupon something I HEARD. Come sit on the fence with the rest of us. It's comfy.

Sorry, but the Constitution says your opinion sucks goat balls. 14th Amendment, section 1..."nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" The prosecutor and the courts have a well-defined process, and well-defined standards of evidence that are considered during Grand Jury hearings and indictment hearings, for determining who gets charged with crimes. "Because Magley Thinks So" is not Due Process.

There's always someone faster. I got passed by a car while doing 70 in 45. Wasn't watching my mirrors at that time so when he appeared to my left he freaked me out a bit. Turns out it was the same car I passed about two miles earlier and he had some dick thing going where he had to regain his masculinity. He had to chase me down and pass me again. Some nasty rusted old 80's Olsdmobile with headliner flapping the breeze.

I'm not passing judgement until I get all the facts. However it seems that the general consensus is that you either condemn Zimmerman or you think he's a hero. There is no rooom for the middle ground that clear-thinking people occupy. I don't want him to go to trial "because he might be guilty" or "because Nancy Grace thinks he's guilty". I want him to be treated like every other person who is accused. People are put on trial only when the prosecutor believes there is enough evidence for a conviction. I recognize that I don't have all that info so I will trust what the prosecutor comes up with. But don't put him through a trial just for face saving or public appeasement. If the evidence proves it was self defense then don't put him through a trial - it's not Zimmerman's fault that the media chewed him up like a shoal of pirhanas. BUT If the evidence proves it was murder then charge him. Never should a person be charged purely because of media-fuelled public opinion. To me the most important question is WHEN did the gun come into play. If the gun was out and presented prior to the scuffle then the self-defense angle goes away. If the gun was still concealed when the scuffle started then the whole "using a gun against an unarmed person" doesn't mean much - self-defense could easily become valid if that was his only option he had after being overpowered by Martin.

Which means.... Nothing. The prosecutor already says she never uses grand juries. At this point even if they found video that comclusively proves Zimmerman acted in self defense... most folks will believe he is still a murderer. The media has done a great job of making him the bad guy.

Oh, I forgot you hit a dog not a car, and you kept the bike upright. That explains the minor damage. Did you get any more info on the dog's condition?

Anyone else get this? or just me? EDIT: Works now. weird.

A new service is around that will allow you to skip the long ads at the beginning of videos on news sites etc. Thing is you have to pay a dime for each ad you skip. Anyone else think this idea is one step on the path to changing the revenue model from ad-based to consumer-based? It'll start with the ability to skip ads on a pay-per-ad basis, then once that concept is legitimised they'll charge you to skip/hide any ad. Next comes the bit where ads that are not skipped are made so terrible and gaudy that people will be forced to skip them or not go to that site. When I go on a youtube spree I can watch a hundred videos in one sitting. Usually dashcam videos from 1594ciroc on Youtube. Each video is usually 20-30 seconds. Some of those videos will have ads on them that take anywhere from 2 minutes to 15 minutes to play out. 15 f*cking minutes?? No problem, I just skip the ad. BUT If I have to pay 10c for each video because they put longer and longer ads at the beginning of each video (to make you ahve to pay the fee to skip the video) then suddenly it costs me $10 a sitting to watch youtube videos. Then what? 5c per page load to skip banner ads? One good session on cnn might see me load 100 pages. Now I'm paying $5 to read the news. Anyone else think that's BS?

If I was your dad I'd have sat in the courtroom with a set of these:

$873?? Did you crash into a big pile of pillows? I always thought that when bikes crash they smash up a couple thousand in parts just on general principle. If you don't fix the bike completely then expect that value to be deducted from any future claims.

How did your dad manage to get his hands on the guy's bare scrotum? Was the guy breaking into your house naked? That needs to be explained.

Maybe it was the Bunny Mafia... Were the paws missing too?

How the heck is he supposed to see? EMOs are actually good drivers. They only ever cut themselves off.

I don't know how you can have a cop car behind you for miles without seeing him. I always keep an eye on the cars behind me on the bike so I know if I need to be extra careful when stopping.

I listen to music through my intercom speakers when I'm commuting 1-up. It's 40 mins each way and most of it is just me, few other cars. I can turn the music off easily - my radio sits in the map pocket of my tank bag and has big glove-friendly buttons that I can press through the clear plastic. I also wear ear plugs because I've no desire to lose my hearing. Last hearing check I got put me above average hearing both ears and I'd prefer it to stay that way. With my cruiser a 40min commute would leave my ears ringing, and more than an hour would leave me with a headache from the noise. Plugs is the way to go for me. Even with ear plugs in I can still hear the tires on the car next to me, so I say I can hear just fine. I have no problem hearing honks/sirens/cars around me.