So Zimmerman should NOT have followed Trayvon. Period. That caused the whole mess. Not sure how the legal system works there but that should have translated to manslaughter or assault with a weapon...dunno excatly.

ok that said what KEEPS killing me is the picture of smiling 12 year old Trayvon that the media (even the Turks) keep using. In many countries he's be old enough to be a father and hold a full time job, yes 17 is a young age but it is NOT a kid. (I'm thinking 12 and under as a kid)

Lastly I know some conceal carry courses (if not all) teach that NO MATTER WHAT YOU WANT TO AVOID PULLING YOUR GUN OUT.

You avoid confontation at all costs.

Your mother is a whore? ok no problem. Your GF sucks all the dicks in the world, ok. NOT a reason to pull a weapon.

Teaching the value of (human) life is paramount for all parents these days.

5:45-6:00 is the snuff stuff. There's no blood or guts, but you "know" someone got hurt/killed.

@robbersdog49 It looks like they were emphasizing an accidental death that most likely could not have been avoided by the vehicle. How else would you prove no fault that it wasn't at least a Russian equivalent of manslaughter?

Part of the love of firearms comes from positive associations with firearms. If we grew up with them in a positive light, then we are more likely to see them in a positive light. But when someone else demands that they be taken away (or at least the appearance of taking away) access to certain/all firearms, its taking away a part of the person.

In regards to quoting statistics of gun related deaths, I think the focus should be more on the violent mentality behind the death. The scenario I picture is one guy angry at another guy, so he does what he can to hurt the other guy. If he has a gun, he'll use it. If he has a knife, he'll use it. If he uses the gun, he may have a much greater chance of killing the other guy before his anger subsides. If he has a knife, his anger may subside before the other guy is dead. Put simply, the gun amplifies the effect of a violent mentality, murders may go down, but aggravated assaults may go up. The underlying violence is still there.

(USA Statistics)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

-Firearms take the lead for murders. Note these statistics do not include "justified manslaughter" what the legal system deemed to be deaths that were justified (ie self-defence)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl21.xls

-For robberies, they look like the play a significant part but are still shared with others (I didn't really get into it as the numbers are a bit varied and I wanted to keep the post focused)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl22.xls

-Aggravated assaults, firearms generally play a smaller role as compared to robberies or murders.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
This shouldn't be surprising really, when experts were called in to talk about how fukushima wasn't going to cause the death of all humans, they wouldn't air them without some loony talking about how it was a mass extinction event.
We live at a time when emotions and feelings count more than truth,
and there is a vast ignorance of science.
James Lovelock
Perhaps it will end sometime in the future, I don't see when, why or how though.

You put a quote in without quotes. You are bad at posting and you should go to jail!


"Ill just quote myself next time, kind of like a double quote to make up for it" -GeeSussFreeK

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

This shouldn't be surprising really, when experts were called in to talk about how fukushima wasn't going to cause the death of all humans, they wouldn't air them without some loony talking about how it was a mass extinction event.
We live at a time when emotions and feelings count more than truth,
and there is a vast ignorance of science.
James Lovelock

Perhaps it will end sometime in the future, I don't see when, why or how though.


You put a quote in without quotes. You are bad at posting and you should go to jail!

Your video, Scientists Convicted of Manslaughter Sentenced to 6 years, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 2 Badge!

In reply to this comment by aimpoint:
Wow I just read up some of the stuff on Silvio Berlusconi, how is he not in jail already. What about the drowned teenage gypsies though?
In reply to this comment by Yogi:
>> ^aimpoint:

The background on wikipedia about it shows that a younger upcoming technician "predicted" the earthquakes using the less reliable radon measuring methods then went on TV to warn everyone. The old guard of the system called him an alarmist and put a gag order on him. Seems that this might have had an effect on people after the fact. Also seems like a script for a bad sci-fi movie.
Oh and because its Italy, the mafia is somehow involved.


I so rarely get any news about Italy but everything lately has been terrible. Let's take a look.

Amanda Knox trial: Good job idiots, don't need evidence just put everyone in jail.
Silvio Berlusconi: you brought that shit on yourself.
Ignoring the bodies of drowned teenage girls cause they're gypsies: Wow that takes the mother fucking cake, bunch of sad assholes, Italy should be blown the fuck up.

And now this. Everything I hear about Italy is fucking pathetic, and I'm mad about it. I'll protest my country later, we need to stop Italy now!



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038747/The-world-shocked-Italian-sunbathers-ignoring-dead-gipsy-girls--But-Italy-showing-chilling-Roma-childr
en.html

copy and paste the link, it won't work otherwise.

Wow I just read up some of the stuff on Silvio Berlusconi, how is he not in jail already. What about the drowned teenage gypsies though?
In reply to this comment by Yogi:
>> ^aimpoint:

The background on wikipedia about it shows that a younger upcoming technician "predicted" the earthquakes using the less reliable radon measuring methods then went on TV to warn everyone. The old guard of the system called him an alarmist and put a gag order on him. Seems that this might have had an effect on people after the fact. Also seems like a script for a bad sci-fi movie.
Oh and because its Italy, the mafia is somehow involved.


I so rarely get any news about Italy but everything lately has been terrible. Let's take a look.

Amanda Knox trial: Good job idiots, don't need evidence just put everyone in jail.
Silvio Berlusconi: you brought that shit on yourself.
Ignoring the bodies of drowned teenage girls cause they're gypsies: Wow that takes the mother fucking cake, bunch of sad assholes, Italy should be blown the fuck up.

And now this. Everything I hear about Italy is fucking pathetic, and I'm mad about it. I'll protest my country later, we need to stop Italy now!

>> ^aimpoint:

The background on wikipedia about it shows that a younger upcoming technician "predicted" the earthquakes using the less reliable radon measuring methods then went on TV to warn everyone. The old guard of the system called him an alarmist and put a gag order on him. Seems that this might have had an effect on people after the fact. Also seems like a script for a bad sci-fi movie.
Oh and because its Italy, the mafia is somehow involved.


I so rarely get any news about Italy but everything lately has been terrible. Let's take a look.

Amanda Knox trial: Good job idiots, don't need evidence just put everyone in jail.
Silvio Berlusconi: you brought that shit on yourself.
Ignoring the bodies of drowned teenage girls cause they're gypsies: Wow that takes the mother fucking cake, bunch of sad assholes, Italy should be blown the fuck up.

And now this. Everything I hear about Italy is fucking pathetic, and I'm mad about it. I'll protest my country later, we need to stop Italy now!

>> ^gorillaman:

There are good articles at Nature and The Guardian if you want to know wtf this is all about. It is amusing that the guardian piece criticises such misleading headlines as 'Scientists Guilty of Manslaughter for Not Predicting Quake'.

Good articles, thanks for the link.


IMO, the saying that headlines like the title of this video are misleading because saying that 'failing to accurately assess and communicate the risks of an earthquake' and 'not predicting and earthquake' are fundamentally different things is a false distinction.
What in this town wanted to know was if a quake was likely. The scientific evidence, and the good faith interpretation of that evidence, was that it would be highly unlikely for there to be a quake soon.
It probably was unlikely that a quake would happen, and on average, the scientists would have prevented unnecessary panic.
Whether the scientists were wrong are not, what the people of that town wanted was an accurate prediction, and that is why they have prosecuted the group who failed to predict an earthquake.

There are good articles at Nature and The Guardian if you want to know wtf this is all about. It is amusing that the guardian piece criticises such misleading headlines as 'Scientists Guilty of Manslaughter for Not Predicting Quake'.

@VoodooV
It may (or may not) surprise you that I agree with almost everything you said.

Killing is a necessary part of our society, yes.
The hypocrisy of killing (as you said, distinguished from "murder") in our modern culture is glaring.
I also agree that lots of very unpleasant things happen in a sufficiently-free society. People will kill people. People will take advantage of people. Terrorist acts will be perpetrated. People will make terrible movies and terrible art that is offensive to my sensibilities. Nothing bad will happen only when no one is allowed to choose anything for themselves.

But we do set boundaries, laws, for the precise reason you stated: "Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa."

That's what makes us a civilization, right? We give up certain freedoms with the knowledge that others will be compelled to give up those freedoms as well, and we will all be able to pursue happiness more comfortably as a result. For instance, we agree not to kill our neighbors on a whim and take their stuff, knowing that others will be compelled to avoid doing the same to us. We agree not to drive while intoxicated (even if we're really good at it) knowing that others (many of whom aren't as good at it as we totally are) will be compelled not to do so, and we'll all be less likely to get flattened.

Many of these laws imply some intrinsic value to a human life. Murder is illegal because that seriously infringes on the rights of another human. Sure, we stratify killing - murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter, but the band across which individual (as opposed to institutional) killing is NOT murder is pretty narrow, especially if it's intentional. Self defense, mental illness...
This is where the abortion debate diverges from analogy and requires that we define when a fetus can be considered a human, because after that point, we're killing a human.

I also disagree with the "especially with their own body" argument. Sure, a fetus could not survive without the mother (up to a point), but if you cut that fetus, the mother will bear no scar. The child will bear that scar. Once we say there is a human there, that is no longer her body. Parents are held responsible for care of their children, and consequences are dictated for negligence. Because of my understanding of fetal development, I believe this responsibility extends into the womb.

I think the deferral of the question of "when" to "those far more educated" may nullify the entire argument. If you can accept that there's a point beyond which abortion should no longer be an option, but we don't know when it is, then we have to accept that it might be "before pregnancy can even be recognized".
The process of fetal development is fairly well-understood and documented, and you're obviously intelligent enough to appreciate the process. Maybe trying to pinpoint the "OK-NOT OK" boundry for yourself might change the way you think about the issue, or maybe not, but I believe it would make you better able to argue your point effectively. Arguing for killing a human in order to increase the quality of life of someone else strikes me as being a very difficult position to defend. Arguing for removing a mass of tissue with the potential for becoming a human seems much more defensible. But again, we obviously see this issue with differing perspectives.

Damn winston is crazy as shit.

The only one who had rights under stand your ground? Trayvon Martin, who Stood His Ground against an unidentified armed vigilante and was Executed for it.

You can't start provoke a fight and claim self-defense with these laws. The new evidence showing that Martin fought Zimmerman proves beyond a doubt: Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.

Zimmerman had no training, no plan, he was the causative negligent agent whose actions resulted in unnecessary death.

Anyone who can't see why Trayvon had the right under Stand Your Ground that Zimmerman did not, is really lacking upstairs.

Naw. Thanks for playin. Go login to your bobknight account


"we don't need you to do that"

"ok"

... fin.


The only person who had rights under the Stand Your Ground law was Trayvon. His inexperience in not choosing the utmost discretion when a lunatic is following him does not make him a deadly threat at any point. It makes him a kid... and it makes George Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter