Based on what I've read, it seems like the Zimmerman jurors were instructed by the judge to convict only if they were quite certain that Zimmerman did not fear for his life.

The standard was not something more reasonable, like "did Zimmerman do something stupid/evil that eventually caused Martin's death".

Given those instructions, I think many folks would have to say "yes, the scumbag could have feared for his life, even though the scumbag caused the whole thing by, well, being a scumbag with mayhem on his mind and a gun."

Tough situation for the jurors, I think.

I'm curious as to the thoughts of other DUers: would you override a judge's instructions because you thought the situation was bullshit and a higher justice should be served?

P.S.: I hope that the DOJ imposes real justice on the situation, but... I'm not holding my breath.

I seem to recall that when I was a wee lad in the 1960s, when stupid state laws or bad juries ended in the acquittal of someone who killed because of race, the Feds would hit the racist with charges of conspiring to violate the civil rights of the deceased.

I'm sure that Eric Holder has more pressing matters - pot smokers, reporters, and such. But theoretically, could a diligent AG go after Zimmerman in this way?

Bad jury, or bad laws?

I'm guessing the latter. But I could be wrong.

and the gun culture that spreads a violent ethic.

If not for these, that tragic night in Florida would have ended with bloody noses, not a child in his grave.

Peace to all of us.

I fully expect to vote for only Democrats in 2016.

However, if a viable third-party candidate comes along who embraces traditional Democratic principles, while the Democratic nominee is the Inevitable Third-Wayer looking to hand what little I have left to Wall Street, I'll likely go third party as long as the Republican has no chance.

So, first priority: no Republican wins
Second priority: get an actual Democratic, whichever party they're in.

OK, I'm biased. But look at what she did today: She announced a bill to bring back Glass-Steagall, co-sponsored by John McCain. John McCain.

Sure, the thing will be shot down by the Insane Clown Posse that consists of almost all of one side of the aisle, and much of the other side too, but now when she runs for president Warren can say:

1. I can absolutely work with non-insane Republicans - look at my record.
2. I tried to bring back a good regulation that was assassinated by a president who just wanted to make a few bucks for his family after he left office. Yes Hillary, that's means your bank account.

Add this to her attempts to lower interest rates on student debt, to raise the minimum wage, and to put bankers in jail - all of which are favored by at least two-thirds of Americans - well, this is gonna be great!

Excelsior!

Oh yeah!

Not content with ruining our freedoms, the bastard's also messing with great musical memes.

He has no shame!

Which of the following is true?

(Note that the least-untruthful assurance we can give is that the NSA will not record all of your answers.)

He's one of the undead. It's the only thing that can explain it.

We just got back from Sir Paul's concert at Fenway Park. As a rule, I avoid stadium concerts, but since it featured the most talented musician on the planet (just my opinion, of course), I made an exception.

Glad I did!

Concert was amazing. Almost three hours, dozens of songs, a surprising number of real rock-y things from his solo career and Wings - Junior's Farm, Let Me Roll It, etc. It was a stadium concert, big and cumbersome. But as good as that type of thing can be, great multimedia, fun lights and pyrotechnics, and Sir Paul is warm and entertaining. And amazing.

The craziest thing was that he started the concert as a spry 71-year old, but shed years as he went along. By the time he finished, with The End, he was in his late 20s, pogoing and bouncing around the stage. I have come to believe that he is a vampire, and was sneaking hits of blood between songs. Most of the audience turned vampire, too. We started off mostly in our 50s-70s, and ended as teenagers listening to a living Beatles LP.

I live in a pretty nice spot, a bedroom community bordering Boston. Safe, quiet, reasonably prosperous.

This morning, for the first time ever, I saw a homeless person camped out on my street. I was in the car, running late, and a cop was parked nearby so I assumed that something reasonable was taking place (we have very good cops) and headed off into my day.

I have seen homelessness grow in my area, bit by bit. It started a few years ago, with homelessness becoming an issue the next town out from us. A year or so ago, I started seeing homeless folks just across the border in Boston during my frequent walks. Then in my town, in the hidden-away places on the periphery.

And now on my street.

So many are homeless now. So many more will be homeless soon.

I am reminded of FDR's first inaugural address:

"a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men...

They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish."

And here we are.