Scruit

When you were a kit? And now you're assembled...?

I think he'd arguing about easy access that kids have. I was in the library the other day and noticed this one kid 9about 1) watching a fullscreen video of someone smoking pot. Raised a couple of interesting questions that I'm still struggling with. Should he be allowed to watch that? Should we be allowed to stop him? Who gets to decided what other people watch? Where are his parents?

Maybe I should have given them medieval melee weapons and them filmed it for youtube? Seriously, there was enough pansy hugging going on I wondered if they were fighting or making out...

Magz will do it for free, if it means Z doesn't start carrying a gun again.

Time for a quick anatomy lesson before they put his skin sock back on.

What the heck happened? Looks like force applied from back to front on the bottom of the heel. Maybe stuck his foot into a wheel or chain/belt? ATGATT!

I think that was a Zimmerman reference...

Nothing on film. Bathroom, remember. Plus I only have CCTV and dash am, it's not like I walk around with a gopro nailed to my head.

Chuck Norris would have roundhouse kicked them both in the teeth without breaking his stream.

And I never even washed my hands.

Was out and about yesterday evening and went to the bathroom at the Skyzone in Orange/23. Just getting finished up and became aware that 2 of the 4 teenagers (~13-14?) also in the bathroom are starting to get loud at each other. One was unhappy about his ear because of some surgery or something, and the other was telling him he "should have though of that before" or words to that effect. As I was finishing up the words stopped abruptly and I heard the tell-tale sounds of a pansy fight. You know the type - no hitting or footwork, just hugging and grunting. Had to get myself zipped up real quick and separate them. Granbed them both, got in between them and yelled; "What the hell are you doing?" They both looked like they were about to piss themselves, but just stammering "sorry, sorry" so I told them to get the hell out and went back and finished my piss. 5 minutes later they were out on the trampolines at skyzone, best of friends again. Go figure. Of course then I took a moment to think about it. What if the two had turned on me? And the two spectators (who showed no interest in stopping it themselves)? What if they had walked out and told their parents / staff / police that I randomly attacked them (4 peoples words against one). What if I had ignored it and one of them got his ass kicked all over the place and seriously hurt? My reaction to separate them was just natural. I help teach a kids' karate class (7-16) and I've officiated at more sparring sessions than I can remember - it's just become instinct to recognize when the kids start to lose their temper and go from light sparring to actually trying to hurt each other - my first reaction is just to get in there and split them up, calm them down. Thoughts? Should I have let them fight it out? Separated them, gave them both pointers on how to NOT fight like a pussy and them yell Hajime (Start sparring)? Seriously - as someone who takes karate training seriously it was embarrassing to watch... I should have given them both dojo business cards.

Holder had already said that charges were unlikely due o the "high bar" for civil rights violations against private citizens. Obama has said that it's a matter for the state. I interpret their actions as trying to not piss off the masses of people who can't look at the case logically, while at the same time laying the groundwork for the eventual refusal to file federal charges.

Interesting. From where did you get that? My understanding was quite the opposite. I heard Obama say that the trial is over and that criminal prosecutions are a matter for the state. You have some information that Obama is initiating federal legal action against Zimmerman?

No - my mistake, sorry, wasn't paying close enough attention and thought the OP posted those rules. Clearly the rules prohibit him selling access for $10 a pop.

No - my mistake, sorry, wasn't paying close enough attention and thought the OP posted those rules. Clearly the rules prohibit him selling access for $10 a pop.

So, 35 years ago Obama was a pot-smoking gun-toting street brawler who would have attacked someone just for being creepy?

Hoisted by your own petard?

I'm surprised Arizona Iced Tea doesn't sue for Z profiling Iced Tea drinkers.

I'm having a hard time believing he would gain weight intentionally for a trial. Part of the point they were trying to make was that M was actually physically larger (taller and stronger) than Z - they even used life-sized cutouts of the two of them to show the size difference. They risk losing that perceptional capital by having Z be physically much larger in real life. If they wanted to show him as weaker they'd have him get all Christian Bale (A la Machinist) to accentuate the physcial size difference.

I have a pair of Doc Martens from England that are 20 years old. I intentionally bought a size up so I can wear thick boot socks with them. They are relatively comfortable, but I never thought of boots as being designed for comfort. They are steel cappers I was issued with for working on a steel mill in Wales. (I was an IT weenie, but needed access to the workstations inside the mill so I had to have full safety gear)

It's offline right now. Are these real bears, or are you tricking us into watching some big burly gays going at it?

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me that bike has a strobe light aimed at a single point on that belt so that it plays those images as an animation when the engine is running. If not, GET ON IT. stat.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/charities.asp

I agree. AC put zero spin on it.

Did anyone catch the Anderson Cooper interview with one of the jurors last night? She remained anonymous. She said: - Jury started off with 1 voting for murder, 2 voting for manslaughter and 3 for Not Guilty - They laid out all the evidence and reviewed every single item - it was a full and complete deliberation - They discounted Murder 2 very quickly as they all agreed that race was not a factor (She said they believed if M had been Hispanic then Z would have acted the same way) - They were leaning towards manslaughter but confused by the wording of the law and the 27 pages of jury instructions. - They understood the prosecutor's theory of the confrontation starting with Z getting out of the car, but did not agree with it. - They believe that Z was a good man with his heart in the right place who went too far out of frustration, not out of anger or racial motivations. - She believed that Z visiting the lady who was robbed and giving her a lock / inviting her to visit his wife etc indicated that he was a good man at heart. - Z should never have gotten out of the car, and it led to a situation where Z and M misinterpreted each others actions, but that M had no right to attack Z - It takes two to tango, effectively, but M's response was so disproportionate that Z's "following" was not considered to be a provocation. - They agreed that that violent confrontation was started by M, and that Z didn't deserve the beating he got. - They believed that Z was in fear of his life at the time he fired the gun - They discounted all testimony regarding identifying the voice on the Lauer 911 tape. They said any relative would say/believe it was their kin - Serino was an honest, credible witness. Him saying he believed Z was telling the truth was powerful. - She confused the defense ME (Dr DiMaio) with the family friend Donnelly (The vietnam vet who talked about identifying voices of people in panic situations) - I heard no reference to to the state ME (Dr Bao) - Rachel Jaentel was not a very credible witness, but they sympathized with her. - She had no problem with the fact that Z is getting his gun back - She also says that she would have no problem with him being on a neighborhood watch again. (He has learned a valuable lesson about how far to go) - They noted that all the physical evidence was consistent with Z's narrative, none of it was inconsistent with his story. - They didn't think the inconsistencies that the prosecution noted in Z's story indicated dishonesty. Ultimately, they believed it was a justified use of force in self defense which is why they acquitted him.