Well - the "law" says the cyclist can take the whole lane. But COMMON SENSE says that the cyclist should behave as if he's a spun-glass ornament sharing the same space as an avalanche of steel girders. As a regular cyclist myself, I get over to the right about 3 feet from the curb and I STAY there no matter what the laws say I can do. When you're the equivalent of an eggshell on a bowling alley, you don't go plunking yourself right in front of the pins.

It's a bit repetitive at times, but I enjoy the show and moments like this are part of the reason why.

Yeah, the driver was a jerk and deserves whatever he gets - but this biker... For gosh sakes don't weave all over the road like a drunken monkey. Pick a line and stay on it so the drivers can predict what you're doing. Bikers that drift all over the road are scary.

It's always amusing when Prog-Lib-Dytes start eating each other.

Yeah, it's weird. His douchebaggery slipped under my radar, maybe because I tended to agree with his critiques and observations.

Well - there's a list of others I can give you who are all equally huge d-bags. Just run down the roster of so-called 'journalists' MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, the AP, NYT, USA Today, FOX... And hey - while we're at it throw in the roster of psuedo-journalists posuers on all the blogs & websites. Not to mention all the politicians who play revolving-door journalists. Basically every news outlet you care to name is staffed to the man with 99.9999% smarmy, arrogant, closed-minded, self-important douches who think the world revolves around them and who are so biased and agenda driven that they cannot be trusted to recite a farm report or the local weather - let alone national news.

Olberman was perhaps one of the most exaggerated of the lot, but not by much. And Bill Maher (a staple of the Videosift) is only two hairs and some air away from Olberman. Intellectually they are the same person. News isn't news anymore. It's become increasingly thinly disguised propoganda, and I don't trust a single word of it.

Case in point. This morning I was highly amused to be flipping channels as the Morning "News" shows started up. ABC, CBS, NBC... EERY SINGLE ONE of them started with the exact same thing... Obama's "Job Report" and how things were looking fantastic. I literally just kept rotating through all three channels without stopping, and it was almost the EXACT same words being parroted at the exact same time with the exact same interpretation. They didn't question anything. They just recited Obama's press release flack on it. They ignored the fact that non-working Americans are at an all-time high. They ignored the fact that jobs were only HALF of what was 'projected'. Nope. Just three completely identical, laughably positive "120,000 new jobs!" stories all being repeated almost verbatim. That isn't news. That is propoganda - and it's creepy just how in lock-step these mental midgets are.

Why does the unarmed boy not get the "innocent until proven guilty" treatment? Because Zimmerman has already executed him? How could that be right?

This is the problem with the SYG laws. Quite often the only witness to the incident is the person who got killed, and the only person left to testify is the person who killed them. Then it is all "he said/they said", and so the judge doesn't have much choice except to throw the case out. SYG is supposed to protect people who are defending themselves from a criminal attack from retribution lawsuits by the criminal or the criminal's relatives. They are not supposed to be used to deliberately provoke a fight with someone you don't like in order to kill or injure them.

The fact that this law was in place is going to make it almost a lock that Zimmerman is not going to be prosecuted. If Zimmerman's defense team comes out and says, "Zimmerman had legitimate reason to believe that he was in danger of great bodily harm because Treyvon Martin jumped him, broke his nose, and was pounding his head on the sidewalk" then what can a prosecutor say? There are eyewitnesses that at least superficially confirm Zimmerman's story. They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had no such fear, but in fact that he deliberately WANTED to instigate the fight. So far no such evidence exists. All we've got are conspiracy theories, rumors, innuendo, blog rage, and "ooo - he was related to a judge".

Got a whole bunch of people who are defending Zimmerman not because they feel he's innocent, but because he used a gun

There may be those out there who are only interested in defending Zimmerman because he had a gun. Just like there are those out there who are only attacking Zimmerman because Martin was black. It'd be nice if such slimeballs didnt' exist - but whaddya do? All you can do is point it out, condemn the bums, and encourage others to ignore them. Personally, I'm not defending Zimmerman because he used a gun. I'm simply not willing to just assume he's guilty based on hyped up misinformation (see CNN, NBC, CBS, etc...).

Self Defense claims tripling should be indicative that you got some problems on your hands.

I tend to agree. The SYG laws - like most laws - has fundamental flaws. The "Pro Martin" version of the story is that Zimmerman was following Martin with a deliberate attempt to provoke a confrontation and kill him in "self defense". If that's true, such a use of SYG is sleazy and wrong. But - what if the "Pro Zimmerman" version is true? What if Zimmerman was just following what he thought was a suspicious person, began to head back to his car, got attacked, and shot in self defense? In that case then the SYG sounds OK - or at worst its applicability is fuzzy.

And that really is the problem, isn't it? Laws are usually passed in an attempt to fix a "problem". In some states, there was a "problem" with bad guys who would PROSECUTE people who defended themselves. That's obviously a lousy situation. You don't want criminals using the law to get rich by suing innocent citizens who just wanted to defend themselves from a crime. You also don't want innocent citizens being too scared to defend themselves from criminals for fear they are going to get thier asses sued off. People could die because of that kind of crap.

So to fix that "problem", some states have passed these SYG laws as a means of shielding innocent citizens from prosecution by sleazy criminals who got a boo-boo when the uppity citizen defended themselves. Well - as you observe - now they have a whole NEW problem... Criminals who deliberately provoke a fight and then kill the people who defend themselves! Now you're right back where you started.

This shows how hard it is to write a good law. The conundrum is that you need to write a law that sleazeballs can't mis-use to thier advantage. But it is the bad people that are the most skilled and practiced at finding ways around those protections, while the good people hardly ever think about it. The end result is that the "Bad People" are experts at the law, and the "Good People" know jack-all about the law. So you still have a population of "Bad People" who are figuring out ways to screw over the "Good People" - only now they can do it in the courts if they fail to do it in the streets. Throw in all the Shysters and stand back.

Aaaaand yet one more further detail on the level of media irresponsibility on this whole thing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YOt1wEDy0SI

So far we have three news outlets (NBC, CBS, and CNN) who have all had to either retract blatant falsehoods they reported or correct misleading reports they previously made. In all three cases, the corrections have had to admit that things that were SAID to be evidence of racism turned out to be either gross exaggerations, or outright falsehoods. This is starting to sound like the Duke LaCrosse case all over again.

Zimmerman instigated the situation from the start. Even if you're right and Martin jumped Zimmerman on his way to the car, Martin was provoked by Zimmerman following him in the first place.

This statement is asserting that the act of following someone to see what they are doing gives the person being followed the legal right to commit an assault. However, if someone is following a suspicious person and the suspect begins an assault, the follower is NOT allowed to defend themselves. Just wanting to be clear on this point, because it sets a rather fascinating legal precedent where you can beat up anyone you think might be following you around and they aren't allowed to fight back.

If SYG applies, it sets a horrible precedence. You can instigate a fight, let the guy pound on you, and viola, you're free to kill

You may not like it, but Vaire is factually incorrect. Your sentence would be more accurate if it said, "It HAS SET a horrible precedent". This isn't some weird issue that's never happened before in the history of US legal jurisprudence. There are Stand Your Ground laws in a half-dozen states, and this kind of "turn around and kill your attacker" problem has been SUCCESSFULLY used to defend multiple of the world's Zimmermans. There are dozens of pages out there arguing this exact issue. Here are two...

http://www.slavinlawfirm.com/lawyer-attorney-1687102.html
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2012/03/trayvon-martin-and-the-initial-aggressor-issue.html

The argument that you and Vaire should be making is that there is DEBATE in the legal community about these SYG laws. And that's true. There are a butt-ton of legal arguments taking place in which it is argued that SYG laws are not "designed" to allow a person to instigate an attack and then kill the person who responds.

But to come out and say that SYG "did not apply" to Zimmerman is simply untrue. Any lawyer could very easily make that case. To say that there is "no way" a laywer could do that for Zimmerman is just plain flat-out-like-a-lizard-drinking wrong. They will do that. They HAVE done that. There are successful cases in precedent that codify it.

You can say, "We should change the law!". You can say, "It's a lousy law!". You can say, "That's totally unfair!". You can say, "That's stupid and they need to fix it." But you can't say, "It doesn't apply" because it does. As far as the Zimmerman case is concerned, there is no clarity on what happened yes. That's what the investigation is for. If - however - the investigation concludes that Zimmerman was justified by the SYG law then that's it. Boom. He'd be immune to both civil and criminal prosecution.

The account of events as discussed suggests that at the time of the altercation, Zimmerman was no longer 'in pursuit' but was heading back to his vehicle. If that is the case, then SYG applies. That's the line that Zimmerman's camp is going to follow anyway. It's a solid defense that could very well - as some have said - let him "walk" with only an investigation and no trial at all.

This is why you have the other camp desperately pumping agenda-driven narratives into the mix. They know if they can gin up enough outrage they'll get a trial when otherwise it would have just been thrown out or languish in proceedural limbo. And then there's the human flotsam like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the rest of the professional bigots of the race-shakedown industry. They don't care jack-squat about Zimmerman, Martin or anything else. This is just thier bread & butter - getting people angry so they can make money... The slimeballs are literal carrion fowl.

... and in not ONE of these scenarios is Zimmerman NOT guilty of manslaughter.

It is very likely that Zimmerman would be guilty of voluntary manslaughter in some other state, but in this particular case Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law provides a very clear defense against the charge of manslaughter. I'm not trying to make any comment on whether the law is good or bad. I merely state the fact that the law was in effect at the time of the incident.

"A person ... who is attacked ... has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself... A person who uses force as permitted ... is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil actionfor the use of such force..."

That's the law. The general consensus appears to be that Martin and Zimmerman got involved in an altercation. In that altercation, Martin was pounding on Zimmerman, broke his nose, and did some damage to the back of his head. It is going to be VERY hard (legally) to prove that that Zimmerman had no reasonable cause to think he might have experienced "great bodily harm" while Martin was in the process of inflicting "bodily harm". The way I see it, this whole investigation is very much going to come down to a bunch of lawyers arguing over the word "great".

Bill Maher? As usual, he's a total fool and total tool. The only point he ever has is the one on his head, which perfectly fits his dunce cap.

Proving my original point and showing this Sift to be a complete pile of bologna...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57408577-504083/enhanced-video-shows-apparent-injury-on-george-zimmermans-head-police-say/

CBS video suddenly, miraculously, AMAZINGLY "discovers" the injuries. Hmmm - well, the 911 tape proves there was racism...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/2/inside-politics-nbc-news-to-probe-misleading-edit-/

Cue up the Price is Right "Loser Horn"...

But again - I'm not saying anything about what Zimmerman or Martin were or weren't doing. I repeat - again - let the investigation take place at its own pace. Stop letting the obvious efforts of the professional race industry turn you into brainless parrots. Stop being sheeple for the blatant agendas of different groups trying to advance thier 'version' of events into the public. Ignore the whole mess and let the courts take care of things - the way its supposed to be.

Last word - the news media has proven itself to be wholly untrustworthy on this story. CBS omitting video detail that they KNEW they had? NBC deliberately editing the tape to make it sound like it was Zimmerman doing profiling? I hope the so-called "intellectual" left is starting to realize just how mentally bankrupt thier media is.

Yup - the penny used to have inherent value as a monetary unit. Inflation has rendered that value just shy of inherently meaningless. Between writing checks and paying with debit cards, there is very little need for the physical penny any longer. Just round it to the nickel for cash transactions, and have non-cash transactions keep going to the penny. It's a good plan, and hopefully the US follows suit. At the same time let's make it illegal for gas stations to charge 9/10 of a cent...

coming from one of the most politically biased individuals to ever puke up worthless polarized talking points on the sift

I understand your fear and anger. When leftists encounter a conservative that puts forth simple, logical arguements that conflict with liberal ideology, your response is the default. Lash out. Attack. Insult. That's all the left has really got. We see it in the blogosphere right now with the Obamacare SCOTUS case. Liberals are literally gobsmacked at how Barry-boy's law has been so utterly and easily turned into swiss cheese - even though the arguments have been there for decades. Not having any intelligent, logical response to the simple, common-sense arguments, what do they do? Visit the leftist blog of your choice to see netizens stomping and bellowing like elephants - much like yourself. You suffer from the same malady, but on a smaller scale when you encounter me here on the Sift. I understand, and you have my pity.

But of course the truth is that I've never done any of the things you accuse me of. Like far too many on the left, you appear to confuse your hatred and anger towards an intellectual idea that contrasts your own with the persons present them. There is so much bologna flying around the internet about this Trevon case in particular that I have refused to take any stance whatsoever. I am not the guy tweeting the address of retirees to lynch mobs. I am not the guy putting out 'dead or alive' bounties. I'm not the guy making wild accusations based on 3rd hand internet stories, facebook comments, and media talking points which are based on rumors, innuendo, and theory. I'm just a guy saying, "chillax".

What I find loathsome is the tone of the discussion. It reminds me very much of the Duke Lacrosse case where the media latched on to a sensational story and ran with it, kicked out a narrative they liked, and pretended it was true. The whole nation tried, convicted, and demanded the execution of the Lacrosse team. The "evidence" was equally conclusive. How could a bunch of rich white boys NOT be guilty? Aaaaand then when the actual investigation happened the whole thing fell apart. I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying it is too early to say anything at all, and that there's a ton of agenda-based, race-inspired hype rush to jugement that is causing a lot of people on the indeological left to forget the first rule in US jurisprudence...

Innocent until proven guilty.

But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES. The media doesn't know anything, and there are a ton of race-baiters down there in Florida that are very desperately churning up everything they can in order to advance the agenda that this was a hate crime. Frankly, I'm not buying it. I'll wait for the actual investigation. All this stuff flying around right now is obviously designed to establish a narrative before the trial - and I'm not listening to a word of it.

Why? Adam Corrola of all people nails it in his podcast...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/29/Adam-Carolla-Media%20Bias

The entire story about that "poor persecuted gay student driven to suicide by his bigoted roommate"? Yeah - it was all bullcrap. So was the Duke Lacrosse case. Again - I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying let's wait for some REAL data as opposed to all this clearly agenda-driven bullcrap that is designed to establish a narrative. You all think you're smart, right? Prove it for a change and stop being parrots. There's a ton of people down there throwing gas bombs so you'll react the way they want. Stop being thier tools. Shut off the news. Ignore everyone who is shouting for your attention - because they're probably a charlatan or demagogue. Just go about your business and wait for the courts to take care of this.

When you say "we got by just fine without" Social Security, who's the "we"

We is the general citizenry of the United States. Back in 'the day' when the nuclear family was stronger, working families would take care of thier elderly. Often they would live under the same roof until they died. Also before Social Security, people would save for thier own retirement and generally (not always, but generally) would have enough saved up for a good living when they stopped working. There were a few cases of widows, or other hard luck cases who were in genuine need, but this vision you are creating where every elderly person was living in a box and eating dog food is bunk.

You see - SS was originally designed to be ONLY for those rare 1 in 100,000 elderly persons who was in GENUINE need. It was supposed to be a very very very small program, only to be tapped in the most exigent of circumstances. It was not ever supposed to be a program that took more from a person's paycheck than INCOME TAX (it is today). It was not supposed to be the de-facto 'retirement program' for every man, woman, and child in the nation (it is today). It was not supposed to be the biggest item in the national budget (it is today). But that's what happens you you take a simple problem (take care of the 0.01% of the needy) and hand it to the Federal Government.

The number of people who qualify for SS should be infinitesimally small. The amount taken from taxpayers for the program should also be virtually nothing. All of the needy eldery can be cared for with state programs which can receive RARE and OCCASIONAL assistance from the tiny Federal program. The order of operations is "Family" first, then "Extended family", then "Community", then "State", and the very very very very very LAST place you ever go is Federal.

the idea that fiscal conservatives are the ones looking out for the long-term fiscal health of the nation is laughable

They are - but you (like many) are confusing "Republican" with "fiscal conservative". The GOP is not filled with fiscal conservatives. In fact, the GOP routinely and regularly opposes fiscal conservatives. The Tea Party is filled with Republicans, Democrats, and Independants that are all united under a banner of "fiscal conservatism". The GOP doesn't like them. Not one bit. Fiscal Conservatives are not in a position to "look after the long-term fiscal health of the nation" because they are not in a position to do so. The GOP and the Democrats are both dominated by big-spend, Big Tax, Big Government leftists. The GOP panders to both social and fiscal conservatives with a bunch of lip service, but (as you noted) they don't walk the walk.

He (and you, and the entire working population) has given the man many many trillions of dollars. Now that man is turning around and saying "you will not get your money back.

We aren't going to get it anyway. Like all government programs it started small and grew until today it is the biggest single item in the entire national budget - including Defense. The naked truth is that the government has promised too much to too many - and there isn't enough money to pay for it all. When you calculate how much in social programs the government has 'promised' versus what they are going to take in (IE 'Unfunded Liabilities'), the US is currently over 140 TRILLION DOLLARS in the hole.

SS - like all Federal social programs - should die in a fire - and do it overnight. Frankly, it is offensive that we ever got stuck with such anti-constitutional programs in the first place. Let it be a warning to all of us to NEVER give the government so much as one plugged nickel if it can possibly be helped. Sadly, our Grandparents and Great Grandparents sold us all down the river because they liked FDR instead of running him out of town on a rail like he deserved.

And they're at it again with Obamacare. If Obamacare isn't thrown out (like it should be) by the SCOTUS, then 20 years from now your kids will be cursing every mindless fool who supported it. We Conservatives are warning you right now based on simple history. All government programs start 'small' and then balloon - becoming unsustainable monsters. It is better to never allow these programs to start in the first place. Learn to ignore the leftist/progressive bullcrap saying we "need" the program. It's a lie. We don't need the programs. Quite the opposite. If you want to see the "future" of Obamacare (if it passses) then just look at Social Security today. Don't allow yet another layer of this federal garbage to get vomited on top of the layers that are already burying us.

I hope that people start refusing to get sucked into the conflicting narratives that are being desperately peddled on both sides of this tragedy. Frankly, I've been disgusted at the mob mentality surrounding this whole case. The media has abandoned all pretese, and is simply acting as a bunch of propoganda outlets - allowing themselves to be manipulated by both the obvious race-hustling of charlatans like Al Sharpton, and by the Police with all these leaks that are clearly desgined to put out a narrative.

Best thing we can all do is shut the news off, ignore the media, and not listen to a single word that anyone says about this whole thing. Let the courts do what they do, and stop getting sucked into these ideological knife fights that are clearly politically motivated.