PixlBit

I did not get it, but I found another freelance gig, and am currently getting everything together for an MBA in the fall. Thank you.

Here's what she said.

'In that deposition, Jackson said she once asked Deen what she wanted servers to wear for a plantation-style wedding. Jackson said Deen responded by saying quote "What I'd really like is for a bunch of little n-words to wear long sleeves, white shirts, and black shorts and bow ties."

However, Deen denies that allegation. She recalls being impressed by a restaurant in Tennessee that represented a certain "era in American history."

She said, "The whole entire waitstaff was middle-aged black men, and they had on beautiful white jackets with a black bow tie. I mean, it was really impressive. And I remember saying I would love to have servers like that, I said, but I would be afraid somebody would misinterpret."

When the attorney questioned Deen about the era she was referring to, he seemed to lead her to say pre-civil war, which lead to this statement, "Well, it was not only black men, it was black women.  I would say that they were slaves. But I did not mean anything derogatory by saying that I loved their look and their professionalism."'

Source: http://www.kltv.com/story/22707657/details-behind-paula-deens-video-deposition

Do with that what you will.

Like I said in one of my comments, yeah, the Paula Deen thing is a throwaway story, I'm more just poking fun at that awful picture I keep seeing of her they keep using. 

Apparently though, the case against her is more about the combination of past racial slurs, something about a wedding with all black staff that people are comparing to a plantation setting, and a deposition about racial/sexual harrassment in the workplace. The racial slur I'd agree we should forgive if she's changed, but maybe the lawsuit is about the fact she hasn't and it's affected her workers. But I don't know the outcome of that lawsuit, so for right now, I'm sticking to just making fun of that picture. 

As for Zimmerman, I agree that if someone was beating on me, I'd probably use self defense in the moment; but at the same time if someone was chasing me with a gun and caught up to me, I might also start hitting them out of self-defense.

I love the Onion.

Gotcha, thanks.

I think we're talking across each other here. My question is not related to Zimmerman ... like I said, in this instance he chased someone down, so it has nothing to do with what I'm asking which relates specifically to what a gun older is told to do in the case of a home invasion with the intruder in their home.

I've heard that because of some weird laws that could make a homeowner liable for injury to an intruder, that it is legally (I'm not arguing morally so, I'd personally rather just injure or impede) better to shoot to kill. I was just wondering if that was true, or just misinformation, but I can look it up.

So is The Joker. Coincidence? I just noticed the irony in me saying other people look like The Joker.

New Leaf is a lot of people's obsession, so interesting that you are finding it slow. Jak and Daxter sounds like a good time.

Can't say I knew about your most anticipated one at the end there, but it has a cool name!

I wasn't defending him, I'm just legitimately curious about what you're taught to do when you recieve a firearm. This instance would be different than what I was talking about, since he followed the kid against police instruction ... and now that I "type that out loud" so to speak, man does Zimmerman look bad lol; what I'm asking is, I've heard that they tell you to go for a kill shot as opposed to simply trying to injure a home intruder, and I was wondering if there's any truth to that.

About that: I've been told that when you are trained to operate a firearm, they tell you to go for kill shots if say, an intruder invades your home, and apparently this might have something to do with the fact that merely causing injury may make you liable for the intruder's injuries. How much of that is true?