StrangeSox

We definitely had lockdowns and drug dog searches several times in high school. I'm sure they still do it, but I don't know if it was random or because they had information that a large quantity was going to be in the building.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 28, 2013 -> 01:12 PM) Jewel or any other grocery store - can normally get a decent sum of boxes free. Same with local liquor stores - I'm sure you frequent a few anyway. You could also order a moving kit from here: http://www.usedcardboardboxes.com/ Yeah, we got a ton of boxes from Binnys.

It's a bald cap and a wig

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 24, 2013 -> 02:33 PM) http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/9307574/...-michael-jordan LMAO, so J4L what is your response to this? well that just sounds dumb, 'he won more rings therefore he's better'

Yeah, if the legal theory the state is presenting really does rely on who initiated the confrontation and there's no other information than what's been publicly reported, I would find it hard to convict Zimmerman of murder. I don't think what he did should be legal, however, and that maybe a manslaughter charge would have been more appropriate.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 24, 2013 -> 01:34 PM) I agree...none of those things mean he should be allowed to be murdered walking down the street. But if I am on the jury, and you're asking me to decide whether I think Zimmerman acted in self-defense or killed this kid intentionally, and not many of the facts are known, I'd be making a lot of assumptions based on what I could piece together about the character of the two participants. Let's face it, everyone makes these sort of judgments every day. You're not going to suddenly stop when called upon to actually determine whether someone is guilty of murder or not. I think this is true, but I think we should strive to recognize these sorts of judgements and biases in ourselves in order to overcome them. Zimmerman made a quick judgement based on (poor) assumptions that a young black male in his neighborhood was likely a criminal.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 24, 2013 -> 01:24 PM) See, this skittles thing is why the defense is emphasizing the marijuana and gun pictures on his phone. You're trying to emphasize his youth with the skittles and they are just saying "wait a minute here, he wasn't just a little boy eating candy on his way home." I think it's perfectly fair. I hadn't thought of it like that, but I think you're on to something with the psychology of candy=young, innocent. But he literally was just a kid eating candy on his way home, minding his own business and doing nothing wrong. It could have been a McDonald's cheeseburger or a million other innocent things instead. If the case hinges entirely on the jury's belief of who initiated the physical confrontation, then yes, I can see how some of the bravado stuff is relevant. But the pot-smoking? Flipping the bird? It really shouldn't be, at all. Martin isn't more or less deserving of the protection of the law because he smoked pot.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 24, 2013 -> 01:16 PM) I don't buy that just because you equate black kid with possible criminal activity that's racist when you know that black kids have been committing crimes in the neighborhood. If there was no crime at all in that neighborhood and he thought that, fine, that's racial stereotyping. But those aren't the facts here. Whether or not the racial stereotyping was justified is one thing, but it remains a fact incredibly likely that he did racially stereotype (or profile) Martin and that Martin was an innocent black kid wearing a hoodie and eating Skittles. At best, Zimmerman committed a series of lapses in judgement that led to an innocent kid being shot to death.

Wikipedia tells me it's a non-premeditated murder.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 24, 2013 -> 01:08 PM) Not sure how Florida works, but I'm pretty sure in Illinois you're stuck with the charges you bring. yeah some quick googling seems to indicate that he'd have to be charged with both upfront and a jury could convict of manslaughter but not murder. I wonder why they went with only 2nd degree murder.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 24, 2013 -> 01:04 PM) People like you on a jury frighten me. Treyvon was an innocent black kid wearing a hoodie and eating skittles. That is 100% objectively true statement of fact. That Zimmerman racially stereotyped him because he was a young, black male is an opinion, but one that I believe is reasonable, well-supported and most likely to be true. These pictures do not change that at all. Martin could have been an ex-felon, yet he would still have been an innocent black kid wearing a hoodie and eating skittles. shack brought up a good point that this could be used to cast doubt on who started the confrontation, if that's the legal theory the state is going with. What these pictures unfortunately do for everyone else is allow people to engage in victim-blaming. Just look to the comments sections on these articles where you see vile and often openly racist statements that Martin was a 'thug' who 'deserved it' and Zimmerman did society a favor by killing this punk before he inevitably committed more crimes.

Is it possible that the jury could convict him of a lesser charge i.e. manslaughter? Or do they only have the option of guilty/not guilty on 2nd degree murder?

Yeah but he objectively was racially stereotyping an innocent black kid wearing a hoodie and eating skittles. None of these pictures change that.

Martin was just another black kid. Like a lot of kids in general, the "normal, good ol' American boys", he used some mild drugs, had some bravado, and got into some minor trouble here and there. Who cares? That's how teenagers in general act because they're dumb. None of this has any relevance to this shooting. Even if Martin had a criminal past, Zimmerman wouldn't automatically be innocent.

So...guns are evil or?

the original technology

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 23, 2013 -> 06:47 AM) Do you work for GameStop or something? Your idea makes NO sense for Microsoft. They want to increase new game sales, which is how console makers make most of their money. Game developers, including Microsoft, hate used games because it's money they believe should go to them. I apologize if I'm overlooking something you said, but all your idea does is possibly increase used game sales for GameStop. OTOH it does mean more people will be playing more games, which might mean more DLC.

QUOTE (TRU @ May 22, 2013 -> 04:59 PM) I see no problem with the used game fees they are talking about.. I buy everything new anyways.. Here is my question.. you have to install all games onto your xbox1 to play them, then you dont need the disc anymore from my understanding.. so does this mean I can buy a new game, go home and install it, and then trade it in immediately for max store credit? If so, I love this idea.. The PC market has been like this forever, I'd imagine this would be similar. You get an activation code that's only good once.

QUOTE (Brian @ May 23, 2013 -> 07:04 AM) Please have Chris Berman be one. Sounds like it's mostly tech/behind-the-scenes people. It's not a sign of trouble for the network. They've been producing huge profits, but they've also been spending hundreds of millions of dollars on SEC broadcast rights, other live broadcast rights and their new $125M SportsCenter set.

ESPN laying off hundreds of employees http://deadspin.com/source-espn-laying-off...dreds-509043249

QUOTE (Tex @ May 22, 2013 -> 12:40 PM) Given the choice of punishing innocents or helping them, I believe we should help the innocent. But, in the darkness of my heart, I really prefer jenk's idea. I don't see how it's our choice to make, though, when the lives on the line are those in East Asia and not in the US.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 22, 2013 -> 12:30 PM) By that definition the federal government is a legal fiction. Yeah, more or less. The Constitution of our government creates our government. Social contract etc. etc.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 21, 2013 -> 01:35 PM) Lol, ah, so the "OMG LOOK HOW RACIST WE WERE IN THE 80's" was the true intent. And is prosecuting women who use crack a bad thing? It's more that they were prosecuted for harming the baby. But it turns out drinking is much, much more harmful and yet we don't prosecute pregnant women who drink like we did with pregnant women who used crack. I thought you'd appreciate the first comment on the article, which is true: