I love it when technology catches me off guard and totally blows my mind... I had no idea we were this far along with holograms.

cpinva: "mr. zimmerman has confessed, to the police, of committing the crime of homocide." (Sic.)

While the term "homicide" has frequently been conflated with the commission of criminal acts in popular culture -- i.e., the television series, "Homicide: Life on the Streets," et al. -- the legal definition of homicide is the taking of one human being's life by another. That's all.

It does not necessarily follow, therefore, that all homicides can be classified legally as a crime.

While all murders are homicides by definition, not all homicides are murder. We have also have legal findings of manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and negligent homicide. A determination of justifiable homicide means that legally speaking, no crime occurred at all. And a few states also have a little thing called capital punishment, which is a state-sanctioned homicide.

In statements to the police, George Zimmerman admitted to the committing of a homicide. However, he has not confessed to committing a crime.

Please understand the very real difference between the two, and save yourself a lot of grief in discussions here, because Jeralyn won't long tolerate the conflating of opinion with fact.

This is an egg after it watches Fox News.

Occupy West Side Story.

h/t Susie Madrak at Suburban Guerrilla.

As Bair points out, each of us can then invest in any of a number of financial instruments: Treasuries, Greek debt, Portuguese debt. Just figure out your risk tolerance and invest accordingly. Just like the hedge funds and all those Wall Streeters who have been bailed out and continue to receive financial presents  from the Fed.

Yes, I know, Bair was using a bit of humor to make a point. Still, it is a point that needs to be made louder and more forcefully. And why shouldn't the 99% be the recipient of some of Ben Bernanke's largesse?

That said, I'm still trying to understand, stand your ground law or no, rash of previous burglaries in the complex or no, how you can follow and engage an unarmed person (kid or adult), say clearly on the emergency call that you have prejudged this person as a danger and as someone deserving of confrontation, be instructed NOT to confront by authorities, then ignore that instruction and initiate the entire episode, turn out to be wrong, and your Dragnet profiling mistake results in a shooting death via your use of your own firearm...to have the police simply say, sorry, nothing to see here, doesn't make any sense but the wrong kind.  

If you kill a completely innocent person simply because your superhero instincts turn out to be, oops, not as comic-book accurate as you thought, sorry, getting a pass doesn't seem the logical outcome.  No matter your noble neighborhood-watch motives.  

Alright, that's it for me on this topic until it is tried or dismissed.

The problem is it comes at a cost, fair trials.  But when principles are put against dollars, rarely do they win.

---------------------------

I would add 911 calls to the information we don't need to see/hear.  I never got how those calls, often very personal, are public information.

I could have done without hearing M Jackson's or W Houston's 911 calls, ditto for the screams in this case.  People who are in the process of dying or being murdered aren't giving consent, they are either in the background, or seeking help.  We don't need to hear it, we don't.

As a defense attorney, it's understandable why you would focus on the "confession" aspect of the motion, but reading it in its entirety, I think some valid points are made; do you have any thoughts on the legal arguments made?  The "three-prong" test that does not seem to have been met?  With all due respect, isn't that where the answer is - in the law, and precedent?

Overall, I don't think it serves the cause of truth to restrict access to the facts or the proceedings; it's true that the media can do a terrible job, but I don't know that those failings are sufficient to close the proceedings.

Maybe I'm reacting to the growing trend for the government to ask for and receive, on an almost pro-forma basis that reeks of entitlement, opacity that closes off all citizen oversight, and efforts by the public to oversee what it's doing, but I don't read a compelling argument for sealing the proceedings and record in this case.

It is now a notorious case.  And, it seems, to me, more prudent  for those interested to "play along", learn about the process and be subjected to different takes during the hearings and  trial, rather than to have reporting seem like a slam dunk one way or another, only to cause chagrin, if not unrest after a verdict.  

And of course a hearty congrats to the winners, Joshua R. Cassidy (men's wheelchair), Wesley Korir (men), Shirley Reilly (women's wheelchair), and Sharon Cherop (women).