Spent shell casings were found, but it was really firecrackers? Something odd about this...
If I was doing a full statistical analysis I would have read the entire 47 pages. If you are suggesting that I not trust "someone else's count" (yours), you may have a valid point. Maybe Zimmerman didn't get the memo that race is (according to you) a factor in whether people using a slim jim, qualifies as "suspicious behavior". Besides, most people would agree that all suspiciuos behavior is not necessarily illegitimate, and that it is the police's job to investigate to find out. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that rather than making the prior calls he should have "investigated" the suspicious behavior himself...
The biggest problem is when people "want to impose their corrupt and immoral ways upon society". Many people in both political camps want to impose their view in the name of morality, but they never seem to recognize that the power they want to exercise would be abhorrent to them in the hands of any other group. If you wouldn't be willing to put the same power in the hands of the most extreme Muslims, or the members of the protesting church in Kansas, or some other extremist group whether Christian, Athiest, Environmentalist, etc, you need face the fact that you are doing nothing more than pushing your viewpoint on others with the only justification being that "you are right".
I think we need to get rid of politicians for the purpose of "limiting the negative societal effects associated with such businesses, including crime, prostitution, the spread of diseases, drug use and urban blight"
are you familiar with the term "suspicious"? Two unrecognized males with a slim jim sounds like it could be suspicious to me. A call about a car driving slowly and looking at the cars in the neighborhood; that sounds a bit suspicious. Two other calls regarding neighbors that left their garage doors open aren't suspicious, but that would be basic "keep an eye on the neighborhood" aka "neighborhood watch" type of calls. I admit that I only read the first 6 or 8 pages, but that was enough to see that it is a pretty big stretch to categorize this as 47 pages of proof of "falsly reporting" suspicious behaviour.
You are right, there is a reason why some of us are determined to carry weapons. Some are motivated by a good reason, while others are motivated by a bad reason. If the purpose of asking is to determine whether a person is a threat, then it would be good to come up with a question or evaluation that actually predicts threats, since statistics show that people who go through background checks, training, and additional expense to comply with the law are a very low threat. If, on the other hand, it is just a matter of trying to select employees that hold the same world view, then it should be just as acceptable to ask what party you belong to and who you voted for in the last election.
If a company doesn't want to hire me because I have a permit, it is their loss. If the company's goal is to hire people who are peaceful and don't like guns, rather than people who are peaceful and good in their field, then that company will eventually go under anyway.
"Second guessing a decision" is the only reason that there even is a second prosecutor. If the case is unwinnable with the "full" evidence that the second prosecutor's investigators produced, then there was not enough evidence available for the first prosecutor to win either. If a case is known to be unwinnable, the decision to prosecute would be no less than a waste of taxpayer's money, and society and justice is better served by allocating that limited resource to cases that the state has a chance of winning. Also, I agree that if there is reason to believe that suppression happened, an investigation should be done to look into it.
No, I haven't seen the young man alive. I also don't have the ability to see into the future and read the official ruling for the trial that hasn't started yet. Since the ruling in the trial is what will determine whether the killing was lawful or unlawful, and beause that ruling isn't available yet, you will have to be patient with the rest of us that can't see into the future.
I'm not sure if I'm a Conservative, but the last sentence only states that Congress can makes laws to carry out the duties they were assigned in the rest of Article 1, section 8, and to assist with the limited duties assigned to the President in Article 2, and the limited duties assigned to the Judicial Branch in Article 3. These three very limited lists of power are the only legal powers that "the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" can exercise, because all federal departments and officers inherit their power from one of those three branches. None of those appointed duties have anything to do with anything an individual does within the borders of one state (barring specific listed offenses like treason and insurrection). Interstate commerce is the only thing that Congress is allowed to regulate. The problem with that is when goverment officials want to claim that your choice to not buy something from another state is in fact interstate commerce. If I make heroin for my own use, the federal government has no right to say anything about it (it's not even commerce, let alone interstate commerce), unless they can redefine the simple words in Article 1 and get away with it. Words are given a somewhat permanent definition to allow effective communication, although definitions of some words can shift over time. Redefining a word after it has been used, with the intent of confusing or hindering communication by distoring the original meaning when it was used is no less than an attempt to manipulate society, and when people attempt to do this they will occasionally make statements like "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is".
Note: I'm not encouraging use of heroin, I'm just pointing out that it is the states' job to deal with it, not the federal government's job.
Last login: Wednesday, September 25, 2013
© 2014 News Tribune Publishing.