mbassoc2003 wrote:I can't figure out whether Tolkien is now owned by the US Corp. in which case I think that's wrong, and the people whole sold it are wrong. Countries should protect their heritage. I don't think we should live in a world where every country's assets and creative contributions to society are able to be bought out and controlled by the society with the greatest amount of money. That then just makes all countries and cultures American over time.

Or is Tolkien' IP still owned and controlled by his decendents and licensed to a film maker, in which case it is a case of arrogance and greed on the part of Holywood to belive they should have the right to control another country's heritage and charge people for the privelage of enjoying it.

What is so hard to figure out?  The Tolkien Estate owns all rights to the printed works.  Saul Zaentz (Middle-Earth Enterprises; formerly Tolkien Enterprises) owns the rights to the movie, stage and any merchandise based on the movies & stage but only for The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.  They couldnt produce a movie based on say Farmer Giles of Ham or The Children of Hurin.  This info is out there for anyone who knows how to use Google.

Oh and if you want to blame someone for selling "your country's heritage", you can always go spit on J.R.R. Tolkien's grave since he is the one who sold the rights back in 1968 to United Artists.  Zaentz bought them in 1976.

bombadil wrote:How does Marquette University fit into this picture?  Don't they have possession of Tolkien's manuscripts?

http://www.marquette.edu/library/archives/tolkien.shtml

The Estate of J.R.R. Tolkien retains literary rights and copyright to the manuscripts. These documents may be photocopied or published only with the written permission of the Estate.

They may own the manuscripts, but not the rights.  Marquette can't publish them or turn them into a television mini-series.

FormCritic wrote:At the risk of saying something political....(he said, taking the risk)...

Has anyone else noticed a certain Bonfire of the Vanities theme behind the recent shooting in Florida?

I noticed today that a columnist on CNN was asking, "Where is the outrage from the white churches?"

Aside from the mild racism of the term "white church," I was thinking....

I am not concerned with expressing or encouraging outrage.  I am concerned with justice.

This is an interesting case, and there is so much racism going on all sides, it is ridiculous.  It is also sad that someone who had so much going for him is dead.  While what actually happened between these two individuals is not completely known, there is one thing quite clear and that is this Florida self defense law is problematic.  Here's what it says:

776.032  Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

(1)  A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2)  A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3)  The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

Source:  http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.032.html

The problem with the law is that I think the law makes it too easy to use deadly force without consequences or investigation.  There are things I like about the law in that it supposedly helps people defending themselves.  I am not a legal or criminal expert, so I am not sure how to fix this law or if it just needs to be eliminated.  I am now questioning whether I should have said anything at all.  It is a sad and sticky wicket.  

The "Stand Your Ground" Law is a red herring.  Whether or not the law is a good thing is immaterial.

The question would be whether or not the shooter was obeying the law when he pulled the trigger.  There has been evidence both ways.

mbassoc2003 wrote:I strongly suspect that if this were a black man who'd shot a white kid walking through his neighbourhood, he would be in jail now with a lot of unexplained injuries.

It depends on your definition of white kid. Sadly, if it was a hispanic white kid, maybe not.  

don't see how this cannot be seen as anything other than a race issue. The world is watching this one already, and the question is, do you still get preferential treatment for being white in America? Florida really needs to make an example of this guy and say it's not acceptable to just blow away black kids 'cos they walk through your neighbourhood.

Zimmerman (the shooter) is white in skin color only. Although Hispanic is not recognized as a separate race on official forms, the life experience of a hispanic compared to your average WASP is pretty much the difference between apples and broccoli. I suspect Zimmerman's life and mine would diverge so widely on most issues as to be completely silly to refer to us both as "white" (like referring to a guy from Jamaica, a guy from the Congo and a guy from Harlem as "black" based only on the color of their skin is to forget tons and tons of differnt cultural baggage each carries).   Also, from what I'm reading about this idiot, I think it was only a matter of time before he blew somebody away...probably a kid....of any color or nationality.

Maybe we're not getting the full story over here, and maybe the race angle is emphisized in a different way abroad. Is the race question being played down or brushed under the carpet in the US, or has this blown up big time? Is the local press in Florida defending the gunman's actions? And is there a difference in the way things are being reported depending on the racial mix of a news stations' viewers?

From what I see no one is defending the gunman's actions, and the race angle is being covered pretty thoroughly (once Sharpton sticks his stupid nose into any issue, it's being emphasized, believe me).  

The problem in this case is that the police really screwed the pooch on this one by a basic misunderstanding of the law of Stand Your Ground and how and why it is invoked. The Police Chief was right to step down, I suspect he really isn't qualified for that job.  Letting the shooter go home in a case like this without even questioning him is akin to getting to the scene or a vehicular homicide, having the the surviving driver say the other dude was the one driving badly, and then letting the driver go home without checking his license, insurance, or having him submit to a breathalyzer test. Just sheer police incompetence more than racism, I suspect.  I think at this point the police are stubbornly doing the wrong thing not because of racism, but because at this point they have realized they fucked things up so badly they have no point but to defend their actions rather than admit they have less sense than the Keystone Cops.

Mike B.

The Una-Bubba:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

The Big Marine Hate Crime:  http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/14/us/3- ... y-bar.html

Sacco and Vanzetti:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacco_and_vanzetti

Sam Sheppard:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Sheppard

Gang Rape at Duke University:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_ ... rosse_case

Badmike wrote: The fact the police here immediately gave the shooter a free pass

While not taking issue with most of what you said, Mike.....

This is another red herring.  The police interviewed the shooter for multiple hours on the night of the incident and the next day.  They are still investigating.

If I were trying to spin the police story the other way I would say that they "grilled" him, "subjected him to intense interrogation" or I would insist that they were "trying to break his story."

The word "immediately" is just not accurate.  The words "free pass" and other words (not necessarily by you) that imply the police went soft on the shooter are just rhetoric applied in order to give the story a certain spin.

FormCritic wrote:

Badmike wrote: The fact the police here immediately gave the shooter a free pass

While not taking issue with most of what you said, Mike.....

This is another red herring.  The police interviewed the shooter for multiple hours on the night of the incident and the next day.  They are still investigating.

ot accurate.  The words "free pass" and other words (not necessarily by you) that imply the police went soft on the shooter are just rhetoric applied in order to give the story a certain spin.

The police themselves have fed this rhetoric by their constant insistence that despite no investigation (sorry, less than 24 hours is not a thorough investigation, and there was never a question Zimmerman was going to be charged for a crime unless he had said something truly inane) Zimmerman was perfectly within his rights to shoot the kid.  They don't even know where the shooter is now since he has, in there words, been completely cleared and thus is no longer a suspect.  There is "spin" and there is spin.  Hell, I've heard the 911 tapes and was able to form my own opinion, and what transpired bothered me a lot. Unless a tape surfaces where Trayvon is heard screaming "I'm going to kill you, white devil!" I've pretty much figured this one out:  Frustrated, self-important yahoo who is probably a tad racist blows away weaponless kid.  Zimmerman had already been called out as an overly aggressive person by his neighbors (many who had complained police previously, one even telling of Zimmerman walking into the neighbors house uninvited).  Zimmerman previously was charged with pushing a police officer and resisting arrest. He's had domestic battery charges filed against him by a fiancee.  Hell, he's even a cop wanna-be.  He's called the police almost 50 times for suspicious behavior in his neighborhood. Frankly if he was in my neighborhood he'd creep me the hell out.  You could look at this and almost say he was the cliched "ticking time bomb" waiting to go off.  Far from being "red herrings", these are all pieces of a puzzle, the same way police look up sex offenders first when a kid disappears in the neighborhood. When the violence prone, racist, self-important bully shoots someone in "self defense", it should bother you a lot more than when you are I (hey, unlike Zimmerman, I'm truly "squeaky clean) do the same thing.

In the police's case, I think the evidence is pretty clear they were not interested in prosecuting the shooter and used the "Stand Your Ground" law as a easy out.  As in the Richard Jewell case, or Duke LaCrosse case, the authorities have made a faulty assumption and for some crazy reason have decided to ride it to the ground like a flaming biplane instead of just admitting they were wrong and didn't dig deep enough.

Police chiefs don't resign for the reasons that were given. I think the truth is that in retrospect they know they have royally screwed the pooch on what they figured would be a "slam dunk" case, and now are desperately back tracking to save face.

Mark if you truly think this dude is being railroaded, then ask yourself:

What was the kid up to?  Was he casing the neighborhood to rob it, or was he just walking hom from the store as stated? If so, he was perfectly within his rights to walk at night wherever he pleased, and was under no obligation to answer any questions or accusations from a "neighborhood watch" guy (if a "neighborhood watch" guy around here tried to stop me and interrogate me while I was walking on the sidewalk, they just might get their ass kicked.....)

Why did Zimmerman even start following the kid?  One call to 911 and your job as a neighborhood watch guy is done. Makes me very suspicious of what his intentions were to begin with.

Why did Zimmerman get out of the car and confront the kid after being told by the 911 operator he's not supposed to be doing that?  He's not a cop or even a security guard....he's basically someone like me or you (btw, the Neighborhood Watch tag is a also a red herring...anyone in a neighborhood is technically a member of a neighborhood watch, they have zero police powers). This is the USA, no one has an obligation to answer anyone, especially a neighborhood watch, when you are walking on a sidewalk at night.

Why did Zimmerman mutter "Fucking Coons" right before he shot the kid, along with comments like "They always get away" and other odd phrases?  It's pretty obvious what he said  to me, and is a pretty damming indication of Zimmerman's state of mind while he's stalking the kid.

Can we agree that everything that happened that night happened as the result of decisions made by George Zimmerman, not anyone else? If at any point he decides to act like a normal, cautious human being, no one dies.  Was Zimmerman saving someone's life?  Was someone being attacked?  Did he see a crime in progress?  The answer to all of these is "no".  

I think rather than "spin" or "red herrings" people are reacting to what actually happened, unlike some of the other cases you used as examples.  I expect this will eventually end up with Zimmerman facing charges, it's just a shame it had to happen this way.

Mike B.

Badmike wrote:

FormCritic wrote:I would agree that the shooting "doesn't pass the smell test."  That is also immaterial, since the standard is not suspicion but proof based on evidence.  What actually happened?

I read today that a psychologist called the shooter "paranoid."   Red herring.  Immaterial.  What actually happened?

I heard on the radio that the shooter wanted to be a cop but failed...and so he was a cop wannabe.   Red herring.  Immaterial.  What actually happened?

I read on CNN that "pressure is growing" for an "arrest in the case."  Red herring.  Immaterial.  What actually happened?

I read today that African Americans don't trust the police.   Red herring. Immaterial.  What actually happened?

A armed citizen shot an unarmed kid (who was minding his own business and was no threat to anyone) after being told by authorities not to interfere. When you break it down like that, you are right, Zimmerman should definitely be in jail right now.

Mike B.

We do need to hear exactly what happened. Too much BS in the air right now. However, and this is a biggee, that kid was in a public place, not breaking into someone's home or wielding a baseball bat. The idiot who shot him better have some sort of video showing his life was at stake. Otherwise, send his ass to the electric chair.
As bad as that story is, this one is being completely ignored...

http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/Boy-Se ... 94043.html