therefore, you re in that market whether you agreed to sign up for health care or not, and we re just regulating your role in that market. the overall picture here is there are problems and challenges with regard to the structure of our health care system, but those problems and challenges aren t solved by imposing an unprecedented mandate on people having to go out and purchase a product. the very issue you re talking about was raised by one of the justices today, and that is couldn t you be forced to buy that product when you re there at the emergency room that would, of course, drive up the price of that product at that time, but that would be the penalty you pay for not having gotten insurance before that. but chris, i also chris i want to ask you a fundamental question. sure. who should pay for your health care if you refuse to do it? that is a policy and political question that is not a part of the constitution. we re involved in trying to make
at the scene, which is interesting. z the question is, who was standing whose ground? is trayvon the person who should be covered on the florida stand your ground law, because a strange man with a gun followed, and in some cases, by some accounts, chased him to the point that he came within arm s reach of him. and he felt threatened for his life and struck out. if, in fact, he was the person who initiated the encounter. or did zimmerman do all those things and then initiate a physical encounter with trayvon? so we don t know the answer to that question. but who is covered by stand your ground is a crucial question in this case. let me ask you about this. sorry, i don t know if you re equipped to answer this, but it seems like we know, from everything we ve seen, the only reason zimmerman was there was some kind of neighborhood watch there, whether it was official or not, we know he was there, so
statement, the lead homicide investigator for the orlando police department didn t buy it, he didn t buy zimmerman s version. he wanted to press manslaughter charges. he was overruled by the state s attorney in that case who says he did not think there was evidence. so the lead homicide investigator wrote up an affidavit. this was reported by abc news today saying he thought charges should have been brought in this case and he didn t believe zimmerman s account. are we going to be able to get any expertise on the sound that was picked up by the 911 callers about the call for help, whether it was zimmerman or mr. martin? chris, that s a very good question. the news prosecutor on the case said she told me today she s bringing in independent audio forensic experts to analyze the 911 calls there were eight of them from people who called in, and you can hear loud screaming in the background, someone screaming for help, but it s unclear, is it trayvon or is it zimmerman, and they re
going to try to figure that out. you may be offering, i think, a pretty balanced look at this. it seems to me this is the problem. we know there is a stand your ground law. we know at some point there was a fight. we ve got so much evidence, there must have been a fight. do we know words were exchanged? there was attitude on both sides. we know they ended up fighting. the gist so far suggests that mr. martin was on top and winning the fight. the question is if, if, if, of course, we re not trying it is there any point at which a guy says, okay, i started to fight, i said terrible things, he got mad at me, he started throwing some blows, i threw some blows back. this is a problem with the law, it seems to me. maybe not the justice under the law but the law itself. if you have a stand your ground law and a guy is on top of you and he s pounding your head or whatever he s doing, you pull the gun and kill the guy. most people would say that s an extraordinary thing to do and it may b
things he is willing to do with them and not tell the american people, this is without question our number one geo-political foe. they fight every cause for the world s worst actors. cynthia, i don t know what decade this guy is living. it sounds like 72, 52 even. it is not stallin, it s not krush chef. it s not the missile crisis. it is no longer the soviet union. he is trying to play ron el reagan here or what? what is he up to. this is mitt romney s severely conservative problem. he struggles so hard it make a case against obama that he always ends up jumping sharks. saying something that is completely off key. and not credible. it s no great surprise that he was going it try it take advantage of this to criticize president obama. he was hoping, no doubt, that