Zach

I don't think this word means what you think it means. Would it be ironic if a baker baked bread? Zach

The responsibility of choosing cruel (your word) methods of execution falls squarely on the individual state's legislators. Trying to place the onus anywhere else is, in my opinion, disingenuous. Zach

As I was reading your scenario, I was trying to imagine myself in that situation. If a person was simply running away from everyone but not shooting/stabbing anyone, I'm not sure anyone would want to risk getting shot/stabbed just to stop the guy from exiting the room. If he's actively shooting/stabbing, I wonder if the fact that once you're out of arms reach, you're relatively safe from a knife wielding baddy plays a role in the outcome of the scenario. That is to say, if a dude is in a crowded room shooting up the place, there's not really a safe distance to be away from him in the room. Maybe the instinctual reaction (for some), if you were unable to escape the room, would be to do whatever it took to get the gun away before you end up getting shot while crouching in a corner, where as if he has a knife, it seems that people would try and get out of reach if they could. TLDR - Baddy's choice of weapon, baddy's actions, and your initial proximity to baddy seem to dictate your response (in addition to other things like training, personality, etc.).

My new favorite phrase. Zach

Read this a while back. Not electric, but progress of a sort. http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/launching-low-carbon-fuel-with-virgin-atlantic Zach

Haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but...+1. What you're doing (starting a debate) is all good, and kind of the point of SC, but don't couch it as a search for information when you really just need your debate itch scratched. There are plenty of people who will argue with you here if you just ask. Zach

I'm sorry, I don't see the connection between your post and mine (I'm not implying there isn't one). Zach

I agree with regard to the words used to criticize. Regarding the above quote, I don't think all examples of intolerance are equal. Some things are intolerable. I'm not saying we should make being a racist or a homophobe illegal, but socially, we should not tolerate them. They serve no benefit to society. Zach

Isn't there a difference between "hating" blacks/whites/homosexuals - things beyond anyone's control, and "hating" ignorant/bigoted/racist people - things well in people's control to change? I would argue "I hate you because you're gay" does not equal "I hate you because you're a bigot." Am I off the mark? Zach

Sorry, just replying to what was said. Didn't mean to derail/add to derailment, but didn't want to start a new thread on that article because I don't really have anything to say about it. Zach

Life without is cheaper? Piece of mind is priceless It might not figure into your decision, but it certainly closes the door for people 'like you' on the ability to do it twice. Where's the peace of mind in the very strong probability of executing the innocent? For example, the Innocence Project, part of Northwestern's School of Journalism, exonerated more people on death row than were executed in Illinois during the time between the SC allowing the death penalty and the Governor commuting everyone on death row to life without. Is that any worse than ordering a stand down on people under attack at an embassy? Just saw this last night. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/former-us-commander-libya-disputes-diplomat "The former commander of a four-member Army special forces unit in Tripoli, Libya, denied on Wednesday that he was told to stand down during last year's deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi." Zach

Is it possible the DA and others don't like the Stand your Ground law and therefore are bringing this case to trail to put the law and Zimmerman on trail and hopefully convict both. If Zimmerman is convicted, does it not imply you no longer have legal protection under the law to stand your ground. You become a victim in both cases. Zimmerman stood his ground only to live to see his possible conviction for doing so. I don't think this is correct. I think the prosecution will argue that Zimmerman instigated the conflict, and then shot Martin when he (Zimmerman) started getting his ass kicked. Also, did Zimmerman's attorney not already pass on the SYG defense? Zach

"Programs such as welfare, foodstamps...these programs weren't designed to lift black Americans out of poverty." How about the civil rights act of '64 and the voting act of '65?

Make it painful Make it visible Obama admin at work Does most of the country know who the Golden Knights are, let alone care that they won't see them at the next (fill-in-the-blank) doing a demo? Zach

Side issue, but no he didn't. He didn't lose time to anyone in the mountains. Those statements are not in opposition. He didn't lose time (well, he did marginally on one, I recall). But you don't win the race keeping pace. You win the race by gaining time, and as I said, he did that in the time trials. Well, you can discount Froome since he would never have been allowed to chase the overall win over Wiggins. If you then look at Nibali in 3rd, he lost 5'56 to Wiggins in the three TTs and was 6'19 behind overall. Take out the TT's and Wiggins beats him by 25 seconds. And if you don't discount Froome, well, he lost 2 minutes precisely in the TTs and was second by 3'21. Just for the record. Froome could have hurt Wiggins badly in the mountains. Almost certainly 1:22 worth. Wiggins was/is strong for sure, and I'm not saying it would have been a sure thing, but if they both had a team as strong as Sky to work for them, I think Froome would have taken it. Zach