eym_sirius

Thanks for that info. One down, one to go. I think that the settlement puts to rest the comment that the Martin family has no recourse in civil court!

Also - A person who is the neighborhood watch guy and doesn't know the name of the TWO OTHER STREETS (assuming that he knew the name of his own street) that he patrols - Now THAT'S suspicious! If Z is immune from a civil suit (I'll betcha he's not, but let's say he is), then I'd be all for the Justice Department going after him in Criminal Court for denying Trayvon his civil rights. This is primarily because the trial judge instructed the jury to ignore racial implications, which would be applicable to civil rights guarantees. My takeaway was that the family would be able to pursue justic

The "suspicious behavior" was Trayvon talking on his cell phone to his friend. If it had been a well-groomed white man , would Z have been similary suspicious? Of course not, because people who look like Ted Bundy don't break into people's houses/apartments and kill them - Everybody knows THAT! See, the way that the Constitution sets up our system, your color/ethnicity, the way you dress, the way you carry yourself - these things don't render you less worthy of your civil rights! Social conformity is NOT an obligation as long as you break no laws! A man goes into a Wal-Mart at XMAS time

Of COURSE Trayvon's parents will sue in civil court - Both Zimmerman AND the HOA! As the neighborhood watch guy, Z was only empowered to WATCH, not to chase or otherwise detain anyone. While he will have the ability to sell book deals, he won't get to keep most of the profits from them because the preponderance of the evidence will show that he did not allow this 17 year old boy to travel freely. He chased/pursued him and then shot him to death, denying him the right to life, not to mention the right to due process. Z is screwed in civil court, IMO. (not to be confused with the recently-specu

When did the jury or the prosecution say anything about pre-teen girls? Where did that come from/ What's the connection between those two comments which seem to have absolutely nothing to do with each other?

They made a mistake in making this a Second-degree murder case. But, that's a moot point due to the not guilty verdict. I have a real problem with prosecutors bringing trumped-up charges against someone (in light of the evidence) as a posturing mechanism for negotiations. I think that the practice should be considered unethical!

How in the world did you come up with THAT? The jurors did a good job! The future work to DEFINE THE LAWS -- that would be done (if it ever gets done) -- by (as I said) LEGISLATORS who, (as I said) are more involved in political game-playing than working for the safety of the people. So how did you come to the understanding that I was talking about "public opinion", considering that it's legislators who job it is to define legal boundaries/craft legislation?

The jurors are to be commended for their dedication to this task. They evidently considered in detail the facts of the case and rendered a decision according to the law. No one should fault them for the conclusion that they came to, unanimously. Certainly there is work to be done regarding more clearly defining laws with regard to self-defense and gun violence, and with tactics by prosecutors to file inappropriate charges, given the evidence. Given the level of political gamesmanship by legistators, though, it's unlikely that a whole lot of work will be done to make us safer, IMO. It's their

Zimmerman got his day in court and was found "not guilty" by a jury of his peers. I'm very cool with the jury's verdict because they engaged, apparently, in honest deliberation of the evidence in the case and found the prosecution's presentation lacking. I said before that I'd respect whichever decision was made by the jury. There are systemic problems revealed by this trial. First, there is the prosecutorial practice/malpractice of charging defendants with crimes more egregious than the evidence calls for, as a strategy for negotiating a settlement OR in the hopes that the jury will find

Yes. The county needs SOMETHING to draw people - this is just one of a number of things that Paulding needs to bring a 21st century lifestyle to the area.

Nobody knows about the hygiene of the other people at a public pool, or the level of chlorination. If someone got sick (i.e. stomach virus) as a result of contamination, they might not attribute it to exposure to contaminated water. Those who don't get sick might have made others sick - they would never know! There's not enough upside to public pool use, IMO. There's potentially a health risk on the downside, though.

Hey Nana - great pic! That's a pretty new park isn't it? I'm kinda diggin' the Bagdad area down there!

You'd expect a complaint to represent both sides? Of course it's one-sided! That is the nature of a complaint!

I know the "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" meme is a simple statement for the simple minded -- Keeping that in mind, this one's for the resident Simpletons - Who made Steve?

What a clumsy dodge! Why don't you try answering the question directly? Here it is again! [... "How does same-sex marriage, in REAL terms, adversely affect people in no way associated with them?' I get how rape, murder, etc have victims. How could you possibly be a VICTIM of gay marriage, given no predisposition on your part?"] Can you only read the ALL-CAPS words? YOU were the one equating rape and murder (which has victims) to gay marriage (which which formally codifies and unites two people who love each other). I'm saying that gay marriage in no way adversely affects anyone i

I'm happy to point out the fallacy of your argument, which is "How does same-sex marriage, in REAL terms, adversely affect people in no way associated with them?' I get how rape, murder, etc have victims. How could you possibly be a VICTIM of gay marriage, given no predisposition on your part?

Paula Deen is the CEO. If you look at the complaint, you'll see that Paula Deen and the officers in PDE were notified of the alleged abuses and those abuses were documented, according to the complainant. When these things came to the attention of Paula Deen, she took no action. Even Ms Deen admitted that when she asked someone to" handle it" (deal with a personnel issue), there was no appropriate follow up, even when the behavior was racial or sexual. So that's what the litigation is all about - The complainant wishes to have things made right by those who wronged her. Paula Deen, personal

Really - What kind of presumptuous jerk makes the personal relationships of people he doesn't know any of his business? What is his interest in defining those relationships? Of course nothing is a ""SIN". Once you buy into the use of the concept of "SIN", you give implicit permission for others to characterize your personal business and relationships and behavior-choices. Getting into other people's personal relationships is rude and disrespectful! Mind your own business! You don't get to live other people's lives by proxy! The answer, of course, is to summarily reject the use of "sin" as a wa

The thing about "sin" is that it's awfully self-serving. That's because the person characterizing (judging) the behavior of other people makes this subjective claim of something being a "sin" and what the rules are about this so-called "sin". All "sins" are supposed to be equal, they'll say, but they don't speak against them equally or attempt to make laws against them equally? Why? The quick answer is hypocrisy, because those "sins" which are not practiced by the complainant are judged more harshly. This treatement allows a person to feel better about himself, in the relative dark sh

"Sin" is a word that allows some people,in their own minds, to think that they can pass judgement on others. What they are really doing is getting into the personal business of another person that they may or may not know, for the purpose of marginalizing the other. In the end, it's a trait/behavior that displays a lack of respect for the humanity of other people who should have the right to go about their own personal business from people, usually in no way connected with them. Presently, people can marry others of the same sex in some states. Is there anyone who can claim that during th

There's a reason that they come across that way. Like so many others on here, they dismiss other human beings as worthless, simply because of individual beliefs or skin color, or sexual attraction, or religion/no religion, etc. You have him/them pegged correctly.

You have a choice. Which nation would you prefer to live in? If the answer is "this one" - It must not be all that sick!

People project their own person wishes, prejudices, dislikes, etc on this big screen called "god". Whenever people say what "god" is going to do, it's what that horrible person is saying he wishes would happen to people. He lacks the courage to say it himself, so he has "god" say it. But it's the same thing. I wouldn't be suprised if everyone agrees with you!

I don't put anyone up on a pedestal, so I can't possibly be "disappointed" or surprised at revelations about her character.

On the other hand, if a detention guard who abuses children thinks that no one will believe an inmate, or if a study was done, and there were reports of abuse and NOTHING changed..... Regarding a previous question about state facilities (For people who have difficulty wrapping their heads around Law Enforcement of detention facilities) -- Imagine that this is a LARGE STATE OR FEDERAL PRISON, instead of a youth facility. Would the local SO investigate every inmate disturbance? Or would STATE or FEDERAL authorities (whichever is applicable) take the lead on charges against individuals whose