I do agree that teenagers often lack the wisdom that age may bring. I do, however, believe that others should not bear the burden of those who chose a foolish path. That being said...

I don't believe that following someone (even against ADVICE) can be compared to knocking someone to the ground and beating him (supposedly even after he called for help).

We have to proof of the story going either way. Age cannot be taken into consideration, as from Z's perspective, he MAY not have had time to check T's identity card while he was being beaten.

I do, however, acknowledge that this story may have gone done very differently. Using the guidelines of objective thought, one cannot conclude any guilt. All one can do is hypothesize, and I, again, am glad that we cannot jail someone on just a hypothesis.

Furthermore, if one could call this case "racial profiling" then why isn't every arrest that is made from a physical description called into question? To suspect anyone matching a certain description would be profile of some sort, would it not?

Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.
- Thomas Sowell

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -Thomas Jefferson

"The Utopian schemes of leveling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."
- Samuel Adams

Perhaps i am misreading the situation, but i would think it would be difficult to decipher a 17 year old from an 18 year old. Especially in the dark... And unless Z was open-carrying, there is almost no chance T knew of the gun.

I am just saying, in the events leading to this shooting, i don't see how age, and who was armed as being relevant (when attempting to think objectively).

That being said, i completely agree with not all people found "innocent" in a court of law are actually innocent, and vice versa.

Indeed he did. And Z was wrong to follow. However, if the story was, as the defense described (which is possible), and T attacked because he saw some "cracka" following him, then Z would have been within his rights to fire, as he did not become violent first. The situation may have gone down very different, in which my opinion would likely change if i saw more evidence for the prosecution. But there just isn't much evidence at all in this case as i previously stated.

I would like to point out that i believe the pursuit to be unjustified, as any concealed carry class will tell you that a gun does not make any dark alley or confrontation safer. As a rule, if you carry the "turn the other cheek" philosophy becomes a way of life. However, the pursuit itself does not necessarily warrant a murder charge.

That being said, in a different situation, say i happen to be walking down the same, dark, suburban street as someone else, behind him, and he decides to wait around the corner and jump me "in self defense" for following, I would like to think i would not have to spend my life in prison for shooting a 16 year old who was my size or bigger, as i would probably not have taken the time to card him while i was being hit.

These stories are VERY different, but would sound similar to many, and likely in a court of law.

Actually China is much, much more possessive and controlling over its citizens (from what i've heard). They've always monitored all of the above, and also have much more control over the media than the U.S. does (including the internet). Although the U.S. has had very strong media influence since 1917.

However, my purpose was not to contradict you on something so minor, but to commend you on a great article, sir.

Please don't take this as an insult, but wouldn't calling Z and "armed adult" and T and "Unarmed minor" be indicative of a certain bias? After all, neither fact (age, or who was armed) came into account before the shooting. Neither party was ever carded by the other for verification of age prior to the incident, and there was no way of knowing that Z was armed until the actual shooting incident making both pieces of information irrelevant. I say this in loose reference to your comment about using "logic" earlier. While the definition is slightly different from "critical thinking", i do believe there is some overlap, and critically speaking, both accusations are a prejudgment of the situation and leading people to a point of view based on emotion (Armed adult stalker = bad, Unarmed minor = innocent).

I guess neither side can be proven to anyone's satisfaction. However, as you would know more than most due to your occupation, we have a general rule about being innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I, for one, would choose this philosophy over the alternative any day, even if sometimes criminals go free.

Either sign of disorientation would have been documented whether they were from a concussion, which there was no report of, or intoxication. (in theory). That's all i'm saying.

Perhaps he had an "in" with the police. Perhaps he knew just what to say and do to get him acquitted. Maybe he WAS intoxicated. Perhaps he had started the confrontation by grabbing Martin. Not saying any of that is impossible, there was just no substantial evidence supporting any of these claims. The majority of the case is base on speculation. (Hence, its controversy.)

The report also explains that his wounds had been cleaned. Perhaps this is why he didn't look as roughed up as people expected him to look?

Indeed. Police would LIKELY have noticed if he had taken it prior to the encounter as the person taking it shows signs (if they are affected). And benzo's typically have a short half-life. Hence why it's an H.S. or "before bed" medication. It acts fast, hits hard, and should be mostly out of your system by morning. The unfortunate truth behind that, is the medical history passing him off as alert and oriented means nothing in relation to the night prior (the night of the incident).

The link above was a medical history, not a toxicology report (FYI). He has a prescription for two substances that could alter his mind, that is Adderall, which is commonly prescribe to ADHD, and temazepam, which is commonly prescribed for insomnia (most likely caused by adderall). This MAY indicate that the adderall was producing anxiety as it is a powerful stimulant. However, without a toxicology report we can't tell if he was even compliant with his medications.

If he was prescribe Adderall, and has a documented diagnosis of ADHD, and no reported side effects, then ADHD is not considered "mind altering". But again, if he had taken temazepam prior to this encounter, it would still render his conceal carry null and void.

Side note: if he had taken his temazepam prior to this encounter, and it effected him, i am sure police would have noticed signs (similar to being drunk).

Again, my two cents.

Glucosamine is a dietary supplement given for joint health, omeprazole, off the top of my head, is a "proton pump inhibitor", meaning it reduces stomach acid. Neither of these are of any concern.

Temazepam is a benzodiazepine commonly used for insomnia (similar to Valium). Benzo's are, in fact, a mind altering substance. It shouldn't cause anxiety. It would cause drowsiness though. Admittedly maybe even some disorientation. I will have to look up the half-life of this drug as i can't remember off the top of my head as this is a medication you are supposed to take right before bed. If Z had enough in his system, I believe that would discredit his concealed carry permit...

Thanks for the update, i will have to read the report.

Just a random statement, of which i know i will get some "flak" for; I heard from some historians that if you look back, history is just a series of conspiracies. Those who strive for power often "conspire" to do so with slanderous campaigns and underhanded deals, do they not?

Do we really believe there are no government or corporate cover-ups, or information being bent for agendas, whatever they may be?

And if something is, in fact, covered up, it would be difficult to prove, as the act of covering up something involves the destruction of evidence... Thus we have entered a paradox, one which is exhausting to sort through.



I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just giving my 2 cents and simply saying most anything is possible.

Didn't Dr Paul receive more individual donations from servicemen/women than every other candidate combined (both democrat and republican)? So he was able to raise money, but the media went to great lengths to censor him. Even avoided mentioning his name a time or two...

My only issue with this is #1, Martin had no idea Zimmerman was armed, and #2 Martin committed the first act of violence.

Admittedly Z should not have followed M in the first place. If Z had struck the first blow, or even grabbed M during the confrontation, which are possible scenarios of which will will never know, then my opinion would be different. "Following someone, or even "stalking" them, does not warrant a violent outburst.

(Age, race, and who was armed are completely irrelevant to the story leading up to the shooting.)

Again, this is just my opinion...

If he had any "mind altering" chemicals in his system, legal or not, Zimmerman's conceal carry permit becomes null and void, which would have lost him this case. What are the substances your are speaking of? (If you don't mind my asking...)

I hope you are correct. However, aren't there provisions in the bill prohibiting the denial of patients due to their insurance providers? And isn't there a third, government funded, coverage for those who "can't afford" private insurance?

I do think it to be a good idea to allow easier comparisons of market prices.

My mother has had rheumatoid arthritis for almost 30 years now. Her rheumatologist always taken good care of her and works out of his office (private practice). He refuses any government insurance (especially state-run). These insurances apparently decide how much a procedure should cost and pay their own estimate regardless of the actual price of said procedure. The result is a $100 loss per checkup (at minimum). Meaning, his business pays out that $100 dollars, instead of raking anything in. He's gonna be shut down when this new health plan hits, as he won't be allowed to refuse government insurance.

I find complaints about Dr's earning too much rather ignorant.

The cost of medical school is about $300,000. They must first acquire a bachelor's degree (of which the cost varies). They are paying 6.8% interest on these loans just like a high-rated mortgage, and like a mortgage will be paying on them for many years. Then, on top of the 8 years you spend in classes (during which, you are making no money), you must complete a residency (ranging between 2-7 years, average being 4) only making about $35,000 a year while working 80 hours a week and studying.

I know a doctor pediatrician who is very reputable, and spends $62,000 a year on malpractice insurance. My cousin, a vascular surgeon, pays about $120,000 a year for the same thing. On top of this, these men are being taxed as though they are actually taking home $250,000 + a year.

If Dr's salaries don't compensate for the time invested in college (average of 12 years including residency), the high costs of said colleges, and the 60-hour work weeks they put in when they get out, there will be very few (only the rich) that could afford to put in the time and effort, and the number of patients will not decrease.