RA1

Obviously the jury thought it was not malice or negligence but, in fact, self defense. There have been a LOT of unfair, inequitable or justice not served verdicts throughout the history of the US. But we have determined early on that if we fail, it should be on the side of protecting the possibly innocent. Or, in this case, not guilty according to the law as written and advised by the judge. Do you think it wise for BO to stir up further controversy over this? Would that not possibly make it a personal vendetta? Would it not be better to just try to go on as we have after many other sensational verdicts? Who among us has not had a major event to occur in their lives that well after the fact and upon close and legal scrutiny would not result in a possible legal hassle? Those who have not are indeed lucky. Those who have had such and survived without all the publicity and trauma are also lucky. How does it advance our country's race relations to have BO. Sharpton and others make a national issue of one that is essentially local and not some red neck sheriff neglecting his duty but a police force, local attorney general and others declining to prosecute only to have "national attention" cause the current situation? Shame on many. Too much politics and too many agendas. Best regards, RA1

In this day and time I can certainly understand a word like anonymize, although it does not exactly roll off the tongue, does it? However, it made me think about anonymous and identity, words we use frequently but not necessarily with complete accuracy, although likely with general comprehension of the intent. On this board only my real name is "hidden". My posting identity and general attitude about things is WYSIWYG. I think several to many would think the same about themselves. I try to not make claims in which I do not believe or otherwise "cloud" any issue. I may be wrong but I do try to make clear if something is my opinion or if I think it is verifiable fact. Thanks for this thread and these posts. Best regards, RA1

Now here is a guy who can destroy a 1,000 livers after only one press conference if used in a drinking game similar to one proposed regarding hito's postings. Hito is a rank amateur and piker compared to this guy. Best regards, RA1

Martin was cute enough, twink or not, in the mass media pictures which may or may not have been a recent image. He was days away from being 18 which many on this site believe is the age of consent. So, he was not a young child but an almost legal adult as well as possibly being an aleady physical adult. It is hard to differentiate the racial issue as put forward by "race mongers" such as Sharpton and others from the "reverse race" issue also presented. One would hope the jurors paid attention and rendered a legal verdict. Apparently the judge thought so because she could have reversed the verdict then and there and did not. Lots of politics and much less common sense. Sorry. Best regards, RA1

We all want some. Wait, you mean the Blancmanage. Best regards, RA1

[quote name="AdamSmith" And that crack that the Jews would of course manage to find the one patch of land in the Middle East without any oil under it. [/quote That is part of the story line, isn't it? If it weren't for bad luck, I would have no luck at all....... Best regards, RA1

"oil to make his face shine." I knew oil could make a man's wallet fatter and perhaps put a smile on his face which could be one definition of shine but don't gals (and some guys) put powder on their faces so they won't shine? Regardless, wine always makes my heart glad and in fact makes me glad all over. Best regards, RA1

My poor liver positively shivers at the thought of playing "cardinal" using these phrases. Best regards, RA1

Thanks for the report. I,too, like Marriott but because of the small towns we often visit on business, sometimes I am lucky to have a Holiday Inn Jr. So far, I have not felt any smarter or flown any better from staying in them but also so far no bed bugs or other unpleasantries either. Have fun. Best regards, RA1

Any way they can. Traditionally this has been by being a flight instructor or flying on demand charter either as a co-pilot or captain or paying for the hours themselves. Military pilots have an exception from the 1500 hour rule presumably because they fly higher performance aircraft. However, experience is still experience and the only real way to acquire that is by hours. I do agree that doing touch and goes (take offs and landings) at one hour each for 1500 times is not the same as flying alone cross country in all sorts of weather depending upon oneself for arriving alive. In the old days crusty old captains told their new co-pilots to sit there and say nothing and do nothing until and unless asked to do so. After a while the co-pilots were allowed to do more and more as well as learn by observation. This seemed to work very well but in today's world political correctness, unions and other factors make this not practical. Too bad. As a previous on demand charter operator I often thought it was a shame we could not train eager but low time pilots in what we thought was the correct and safe culture of flying passengers. But, they had to pass an FAA mandated check ride even though we may be flying an aircraft that only required one pilot. A very good training environment gone to waste. You may be interested to know that the FAA is not the prime determining factor in the hiring of on demand charter pilots or corporate pilots. Insurance requirements dictate who, what and why. My insurance policy required our captains to have 5,000+ hours and we got a reduced premium because of that requirement. We did that because the pilots with that amount of time were available and because we knew and trusted them. The airlines have an entirely different business plan. It does vary from airline to airline and, sadly, it depends upon who is available. Generally they would never hire a 250 hour pilot if another with more time is available. FEDEX basically wants their new hires to have 3,000 hours and 1500 turbine time. As far as I know no other airline is so stringent. I hope I partially answered your question. Best regards, RA1

Assuming that you are correct in that it is manslaughter, do you think the penalty should be exactly the same as for 2nd degree murder? Apparently it is, at least for the minimum of 9+ years. Just curious. Best regards, RA1

OK, blame others. It is never the one who utters BS being the one responsible, is it? When will personal responsibility return in the US? Answer: Apparently never. So sad. Best regards, RA1

This would be humorous in another context but not in this one. One WAG that I know has suggested that this news reader will be the newest senator from CA. Best regards, RA1

I just read the bio's of the 6 gals on the jury. I am almost positive that I would not want these 6 "peers" judging any thing that I might have done. However that does not mean they will not arrive at a reasonable verdict. What bothers me is there is so much clamor for a "middle" verdict of manslaughter that may in the end appeal to these gals. Unfortunately, the penalty, meaning length of prison term is the same for 2nd degree or manslaughter. Here I mean the minimum, which is 9+ years. Either one can be stretched by the judge to about 30 years. The minimum seems excessive for involuntary manslaughter. OTOH, Martin is dead forever, if Zimmerman is culpable in his demise. Again, all of this is beyond unfortunate but I still think GZ not guilty. Different from innocent. Best regards, RA1

Hard to know when he can get the legislature to go along with some of the BS being propagated. Is it the blind leading the blind or the dumb leading the dumber? Best regards, RA1

FC- I get the feeling that we do not agree about various. I respect your points of view and I hope you are willing to reciprocate. I think we could do a lot to promote various opinions on this site and I hope we can agree not to be disagreeable about doing same. Best regards, RA1

They were certainly cute. Does that count? Best regards, RA1

Don't you think it is very difficult for us outsiders to know how involved any investigation is especially when accompanied by a lot of media hype. I cite the media reports of Asiana 214 which even at this late date contain almost no accurate facts. Early on, there were approximately zero facts, only rank guesses by self styled experts and others. Therefore I am not sure we know a whole lot more about this case which also has been dissected by many "experts". As we also know, the prosecution and defense have vested interests in what and how they present it. It is a wonder justice is ever served. What it seemingly boils down to is our own perception of how human beings interact colored by our life experiences and prejudices. To compound this issue, if we are not "completely" honest in how we view ourselves, how can we be about how we view others? Best regards, RA1

So sad that this is true but isn't this the very reason there is a trial in progress? The local authorities declined to prosecute, the FBI was siced on Zimmerman and could find no reason to prosecute (under federal law) so then the state stepped in. Who siced the state on him? Is this not racial politics start to finish? We have had a long history of racial discrimination but does reverse discrimination solve anything? Best regards, RA1

Some of this discussion could be a variation of the $500 military hammer. Would anyone herein object to a 20% cost + charge for medical care? That would be the same as what contractors who build or re-build homes after serious damage charge. 10% as the cost of overhead and 10% profit. In some cases that is cheap; in other it is almost highway robbery. So, if we consider various charges in medicine and add 10 + 10 percent to all of them (not the same as adding 20%) you might easily arrive at today's costs. I certainly am not defending such charges but merely "explaining" them in context with the current US philosophy of such. We have a lot of things to consider, do we not? Best regards, RA1

caeron- You raise two questions. Is he guilty? As a legal issue, I think not. Will he pay? Without a doubt he will pay a big price for everything. Best regards, RA1

I know plenty of people who are unhappy about the current state of affairs in the US, including some on this board, but I don't know what they would give up to correct any of it. Even during the Revolutionary days there were few Thomas Paines and it may have been that fewer than 50% of the citizens wished to separate from England. So, what does that mean? For one thing it means that a few folks who are willing to take the bull by the horns and risk much can influence us all. However, there are almost always consequences. We can observe some that Snowden has already suffered and most of us are wondering how much more and in what form others will take. In the meantime, polls, letters to the editor, news readers at work and various other things have little to no effect on the outcome or so it seems. However, pols seemingly are sometimes somewhat sensitive to public opinion, therefore it isn't over until it is over. BO has certainly been "accused" of reacting primarily, not taking the initiative. Best regards, RA1

The doctor will see you shortly is too obvious. So is I am waiting on an airline pilot to buy me lunch. So, I guess I will go with, I signed up for the advanced anatomy class, but this is ridiculous. Best regards, RA1

Boi and Ex- You both are correct. Starting for sure with OJ. I too am not going to support this silliness but we are decidedly in the minority. But, that is nothing new. Best regards, RA1

As a layman regarding the law, I have to say Zimmerman is not guilty and this trial should have never happened. Whether he is completely innocent is another question. Best regards, RA1