Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
If I went around wearing one of those stupid masks the Occupiers like to wear, I wouldn't want my identity to be known, either.
Isn't that from Roman mythology... the two faces of jackass?
These morons cry about democracy and the 99% while wearing the mask of Guy Fawkes a anti-Parliamentarian, pro-Catholic terrorist. At least they've got the terrorist part right.
Gmail is down. The last time I had noticed this was about two years ago. Perhaps I've missed other instances in between.
If Geroge Zimmerman's story as told to the police originally is that Mr. Martin was on top of him when he shot Mr. Martin, then you would think that the muzzle would have been close enough to Mr. Martin to leave physical evidence (stippling?) and that the wound track would have to be consistent with a shot from below.But nothing in the news or in the affidavit supporting the information talks about such phsycial evidence at all. Does this imply that it is consistent with Mr. Zimmerman's version of events?
It's all right there in black and whiteYou might as well surrender,Give up liberty without a fightOr...fuck the masked! defend her!
But nothing in the news or in the affidavit supporting the information talks about such phsycial evidence at all. Does this imply that it is consistent with Mr. Zimmerman's version of events?Short version: We don't know. Even your "its common for wound track to be consistent with" assumption may not be accurate in all cases.What we do know is that the MSM has deliberately withheld information that doesn't fit their narrative. So if its not being discussed, its likely because Martin's wounds are "consistent with Zimmerman's verion of events."I do know that the Medical Examiner claims no other wounds (bruising) on Martin's body. It appears that Zimmerman did not throw or land one punch. I don't see how the prosecuter will claim Zimmerman initiated the assualt.
Maybe someday protestors will wear Unabomber masks...
Alan Dershowitz slams the Zimmerman prosecution here.
“This affidavit does not even make it to probable cause,” Dershowitz concluded. “everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense. Everything.”
One of the insane aspects of Roe v. Wade is how oblivious the Court is about the health of women. We can see this by removing the baby from the debate. Let’s pretend like there is no baby, and abortion is just a medical procedure. It’s like plastic surgery. The woman is going to a doctor to remove some fat. Okay? We are ignoring the baby’s life. We are just focused on the woman’s health. And when we do this, the opinion is still insane.With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. Look at this damn rule he’s proposing. Blackmun is stripping the states of any ability to protect the health of the pregnant woman in the first three months of the pregnancy! His “compelling” point is at the end of the first trimester. He is putting the health of millions of women at risk.This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth.“May be less!” Oh cripes. But let’s skip that. Let’s assume it’s a fact. Blackmun is referencing the mortality rates in California, in New York, in all the states where abortion is legal. He’s citing the safety record of first trimester abortion in all these states. Okay. Now, based on this health record, in places where abortion is regulated by the state, Blackmun says that abortion is so safe that we cannot regulate first trimester abortions at all!Blackmun goes on to list the regulations that we can do in the second trimester. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.So what health regulations are we talking about? All of them! For instance, “the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion” is one such regulation. We are told that the State has no interest in this until the first trimester is over. This is so stupid I can’t believe the Supreme Court is saying this. A state can’t require a doctor in the first trimester?
As you might expect, the very first abortion case after Roe v. Wade had to fix this error.The question in Connecticut v. Menillo is whether a state can require an abortionist to have a medical degree. Pity all the state courts that had to follow Roe v. Wade. It's like your boss gives you an insane order and then yells at you for following it.Just on this point alone, Roe was a legal fiasco. For two years, states had no idea if they could punish non-doctors from performing abortions. Some states ignored this part of Roe, and continued to enforce their criminal laws, despite what the Supreme Court had written. Other states followed Roe v. Wade and let anybody perform abortions. the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.Here Blackmun uses the term “physician” quite loosely, since Roe also declares that the State cannot regulate the “licensure of that person” until the first trimester is over. The important thing, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, is that first trimester abortions are to be “free of interference by the State.” Sounds really free, doesn’t it? From Roe until Menillo, it was like abortion anarchy in the first trimester. Would you want plastic surgery that is "free of interference from the state"? It’s invasive medical surgery! Doctors are cutting you open. And the Supreme Court is literally saying that we can’t regulate any clinic, any doctor, any abortion until you are at least three months pregnant. These dumb unelected bastards accidentally legalized all the abortion mills! And Linda Greenhouse writes a damn book talking about what a great jurist Harry Blackmun was. Oh my God.
Regarding Martin and Zimmerman,if the facts turn out to be those commonly known now, Zimmerman is probably "not guilty," but he may nevertheless face trial and perhaps even conviction because of Bonfire-of-the-Vanities syndrome.I am not confident, however, I know all the facts. I do assume malevolence on media's part in obscuring facts, but I also assume incompetence. It's hard to be sure of anything.
I reject this café. And I had to go and get that e with the ' on it and reenter those two messed up words down there ↓ and get this arrow to point at those words just to say that. Everything looks worse in black and white.P. Simon
Somebody is playing with photoshop and they should quit it.
Sorry, but I'd like to return to my original comment in the earlier "Maldive" thread. This complete amateur's comments and actions that we have as our President have really undermined our foreign policy (if we have one anymore). The man manages to tick off literally everyone other than those who take comfort in the US' embarrassment. And when he is not beclowning himself on the world stage in the front rows, he's pimping his home town in the bleachers pleading for the Olympic games.W may have been laughed at, but it was the nervous laughter of those faced with a serious ally/opponent. Who takes this clown and his administration seriously? Seriously. Who?
Star of Bethlehem pops up in Central Ohio, two weeks early.
Wnen I first saw the photo of the mask at work today (where I can't add comments) the first thing I thought of was the picture of Clement Zablocki that Grahme Zielinski(communications director of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin) uses as his avatar on his twitter account. http://cdm16280.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/p15072coll1
Discing a cornfield-to-be.I don't know what the thing behind the discs is. More discs? It's too early to plant corn.video
Doberman wrestlingAlligators next.video
Woke up in the middle of the night thinking about that damn Zimmerman case. Ugh. I think what Dershowitz is implying is that the prosecutor put up a murder 2 indictment not to win the case, but for crassly political considerations.And she put up the world's crappiest indictment in order to get the case dismissed by the judge. Dershowitz: "She will be satisfied with (the dismissal). She's won her campaign. She's overcharged, 2nd degree murder, she's the hero..." I think Dershowitz is being less than charitable here. My suspicion is that the prosecutor knows there is no way a judge is dismissing the case. There is so much publicity and notoriety over this case, it will go forward so the facts will come out.And so the prosecutor gives the minimal amount of information in the indictment, and charges the maximum punishment she can. She's doing this, not to get the case dismissed, but to give her maximum flexibility in its prosecution.If the indictment is skimpy, and the judge is pissed, the prosecutor might be forced to amend her complaint. It's irritating that the prosecution is being so secretive about facts that should not be in dispute.For instance, where's the bullet wound? I have seen allegations that Martin was shot in the back. Or was he shot at close range, in the front, with powder marks on his shirt? Did Zimmerman have grass stains on the back of his shirt? Did he have a broken nose? Die he have injuries to the back of his head? These facts might serve as a basis for a manslaughter prosecution. When you have a case that is "insufficient self-defense" (i.e. the defendant believes that he is acting in self-defense, but he's wrong), it's manslaughter, not murder 2.But a murder 2 prosecution suggests that there are no grass stains on the back of Zimmerman's shirt, there are no injuries to the back of his head, there is no broken nose. What are the facts? What happened on the night in question? The prosecution isn't telling us! It's really outrageous. Nobody is entitled to their own set of facts. Facts are facts. Think of the witnesses the state has available. Martin's girlfriend. And the police who took Zimmerman's statement and were at the crime scene. So if the police say, "Zimmerman had grass stains on the back of his shirt, and a broken nose, and injuries to the back of his head," why would you not include that in your indictment?
“Be not intimidated… nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.” – John Adams
Nice catch, DontTread.
I don't know what the thing behind the discs is.A reel-lawnmower looking thing that breaks up big lumps into small lumps.
Post a Comment