Jury's been seated. Opening statements on Monday.
QuoteSANFORD - A jury has been seated and sworn for the second-degree murder trial of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, after more than a week of intensive jury selection in the high-profile case.
The lawyers have selected 10 Seminole County residents -- six jurors and four alternates -- to serve as jurors for a trial which is expected to last two to four weeks, and is sure to be closely watched across the nation.
All six of the jurors selected are women, and five are white. The alternates consiste of two women and two men. The descriptions below, including the age and race or ethnicity of jurors, are based on the observations of a reporter in the courtroom.
The jurors will be back in court Monday morning for opening statements.
Prosecutors say Zimmerman profiled, pursued and killed the unarmed teen Feb. 26, 2012, in Sanford. Zimmerman says he fired in self-defense after he was attacked by Trayvon, a high school junior from Miami Gardens.
Here are some details about the jurors selected today, which were revealed during the jury selection process:
B-29: A Hispanic nurse on an Alzheimer's ward who has several children and lived in Chicago at the time of shooting. She's married. She said she doesn't watch the news, preferring reality television: "Right when we got here, I got cable... I love my reality shows." During jury selection, she said she was arrested once in Chicago.
B-76: A white, middle-aged woman who said Zimmerman had an "altercation with the young man. There was a struggle and the gun went off." Has been married 30 years, and is unemployed. She formerly worked with her husband in his construction company. Her 28-year-old son is an attorney in Seminole County. She also has a daughter, 26, has been a victim of non-violent crime and rescues "a lot of pets." The state tried to strike her, but was denied.
B-37: A middle-aged white woman who has worked for a chiropractor for 16 years and has many pets. She described protests in Sanford as "rioting." Her husband is an attorney. She has two daughters: A 24-year-old dog groomer and a 27-year-old who attends the University of Central Florida. She used to have concealed weapons permit, but let it lapse. Her husband also has one.
B-51: A retired white woman from Oviedo who has a dog and 20-year-old cat. She knew a good deal about the case, but said "I'm not rigid in my thinking." She has been in Seminole County for nine years, is unmarried and has no kids. She previously lived in Atlanta, and used to work in real estate. She also ran a call center in Brevard County which she said had 1,200 employees.
E-6: A young white woman and mother who used to work in financial services. She used this case as an example to her two adolescent children, warning them to not go out at night. She has lived in Seminole County for eight years, and is married to an engineer. She was arrested in Brevard County, but said she "was treated completely fairly." Her husband has guns. The state tried to strike her from the jury, but was denied.
E-40: A white woman in her 60s who lived in Iowa at the time of the shooting. She heard national news reports and recalls the shooting was in a gated community and a teenager was killed. She described herself as a safety officer, is married to a chemical engineer and loves football. She has a 28-year-old son who's out of work. She said she's very well versed in cell phone technology, and has been a victim of crime.
These are the alternates:
E-54: A middle-aged white man with a teenage stepson who wears hoodies. He recalled seeing photos of Zimmerman's head and face that show injuries. He loves golf and genealogy, and said he's been married for five years to a technical engineer. He grew up in Seminole County and has a teenage stepson.
B-72: A young, possibly Hispanic man who does maintenance at a school and competes in arm wrestling tournaments. He said he avoids the news because he does not want to be "brainwashed." He grew up in Chicago, is single and an alumni of Phi Beta Kappa. He is very physically active, having participated in high school football, track and weightlifting. Of arm-wrestling he said, "I could talk about it all day."
E-13: A young white woman who goes to college and works two jobs, one of them as a surgical assistant. She heard the shooting was a "racial thing." She said she could be a fair juror "just because I don't really know that much." She is single, has lived in Seminole County for 17 years and attends church. She also owns and rides horses.
E-28: A middle-aged white woman who has worked as a nurse for 26 years. She knew little about the case and has no opinion about Zimmerman's guilt. She has lived in Seminole County since 1985, and has been married for 28 years; her husband is a teacher. She has two adult children: 27 and 23.
:lol: Good lawyers. Must have been funded by those Treyvon Martin targets that being sold at gun shows.
A 20 year old cat? Wow.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 20, 2013, 06:29:44 PM
A 20 year old cat? Wow.
My grandmother had a cat that lived to be 28.
I'm interested in listening to the possibly Hispanic man talk about arm wrestling.
Which reminds me, I haven't seen a review for Over The Top yet, Ide.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FgmzMIjn.jpg&hash=f1fb9f86a7bc874ee506f3f9372691ba7ce2313b)
Seedy, this really need a poll.
Dude, you don't need a poll for something that isn't even in any fucking doubt.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2013, 07:23:38 PM
Dude, you don't need a poll for something that isn't even in any fucking doubt.
Someone here might doubt it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2013, 07:09:56 PM
Which reminds me, I haven't seen a review for Over The Top yet, Ide.
Only as part of an 80s bad-ass cinema piece, if I were to do one. I'm not ecstatic over the prospect of a whole movie of Stallone vs. forearms.
Am looking forward to his and Schwarzennegger's Escape in October, though. That should/could be fun. It'll be better than the bafflingly cast remake of Carrie it's going up against.
Ugh, Over the Top.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2013, 07:23:38 PM
Dude, you don't need a poll for something that isn't even in any fucking doubt.
You're being too pessimistic. I don't think a mistrial is inevitable.
QuoteBig Win for Zimmerman: No Audio Experts at Trial
(Newser) – George Zimmerman got great news for his murder defense today: A judge ruled that two audio experts who could have been detrimental to his case won't be allowed to testify, reports the Orlando Sentinel. The experts analyzed screams for help that could be heard in the background of a 911 call; one thought it was Trayvon Martin and the other stopped short of that but ruled out Zimmerman's as the voice. Prosecutors obviously wanted the jury to hear that Trayvon was calling for Zimmerman to stop, but the defense convinced the judge that voice analysis was too inexact of a science, reports USA Today. The all-female jury will start hearing opening arguments on Monday.
Just clarification: they'll be able to play the tapes, as well as introduce family members who may be able to recognize who was who on the tapes; it's just these "audio experts" who won't be testifying. It's a borderline science, anyway.
Yeah, from everything I had heard audio analysis experts were pretty lame scientifically. No better than polygraph examiners and probably only a little worse than handwriting experts.
This will be the best trainwreck since the 12th Circuit Court District Attorney failed to convict either of two guys who cooperated to murder a neighbor of mine who owned a pawnshop six blocks from my house. Some day, I will tell that story, and why I am being begged to run for District Attorney.
But I don't want that fucking job. What a goddamn nightmare.
Quote from: Scipio on June 22, 2013, 08:05:06 PM
This will be the best trainwreck since the 12th Circuit Court District Attorney failed to convict either of two guys who cooperated to murder a neighbor of mine who owned a pawnshop six blocks from my house. Some day, I will tell that story, and why I am being begged to run for District Attorney.
But I don't want that fucking job. What a goddamn nightmare.
I thought In Mississippi you just killed people who offended you.
LOL, MSNBC is showing the opening statements live, and the state's quoting Zimmerman saying "those fucking punks".
Then MSNBC breaks in, apologizing the profanity and for the lack of the 7 second delay, and goes back to the coverage.
Guess what, no 7 second delay. More "those fucking punks". Lulz.
They really shouldn't let cameras in courtrooms at all. It's a stupid practice.
So it looks like Zim has regained his appetite :)
Quote from: derspiess on June 24, 2013, 06:40:38 PM
So it looks like Zim has regained his appetite :)
Must've been all those dropped Skittles.
Quote from: derspiess on June 24, 2013, 06:40:38 PM
So it looks like Zim has regained his appetite :)
I think if I was on trial for my life in a situation where it might come down to whether the jury thought I could hold my own in a fight, I would drop a dramatic amount of weight and appear as weak and frail as possible.
I also probably wouldn't hire a lawyer that told knock knock jokes to the jury.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2013, 10:46:49 PM
I also probably wouldn't hire a lawyer that told knock knock jokes to the jury.
That guy is so fucking full of himself, I'm glad that shit boomeranged on his ass.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2013, 10:46:49 PM
I also probably wouldn't hire a lawyer that told knock knock jokes to the jury.
Maybe he's trying to give Zimmerman an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
QuoteKnock-knock.
Who's there?
George Zimmerman.
George Zimmerman who?
Ah, good. You're on the jury.
:rolleyes:
That's kind of funny. Time and place, though.
Speaking as someone who has done some jury trials... there is a place for some light humour. But knock knock jokes 'aint it.
I like humor:
Knock-knock.
Who's there?
Tryon Martin.
BANG BANG
Oh, shit. It was an skittle.
Not really paying close attention to the trial, but someone please let me know when this gal testifies
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/twitter/rachel-jeantel-758403
LOL MAH COURT NAILS
Then I guess you missed the part about how they already blew up Zimmerman's account of the position of the body after shooting him.
But no, you're more interested in black chick cosmetics stereotyping. Maybe you can get a live feed when she gets her hair did or something, cracker.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 09:02:06 AM
Then I guess you missed the part about how they already blew up Zimmerman's account of the position of the body after shooting him.
I guess I did. I don't have as much invested in this trial as you do, apparently.
QuoteBut no, you're more interested in black chick cosmetics stereotyping. Maybe you can get a live feed when she gets her hair did or something, cracker.
It's more entertaining.
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 09:48:24 AM
I don't have as much invested in this trial as you do, apparently.
It's the only new thing on TV during the day, numbnuts.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 09:50:35 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 09:48:24 AM
I don't have as much invested in this trial as you do, apparently.
It's the only new thing on TV during the day, numbnuts.
:lol: Get a hobby. Build some birdhouses or something.
I don't want to find any birds face down, shot over some Skittles.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 10:06:08 AM
I don't want to find any birds face down, shot over some Skittles.
Those birds shouldn't be actin' all suspicious <_<
Morning doves wearing hoodies: Y'ALL SUSPECT
Who is Zimmermans lawyer? I assume he is not a PD or something like that?
O'Mara is the big one, but Don West was brought on as well.
QuoteMr West was brought on the legal team defending George Zimmerman against his second degree murder charges in the Trayvon Martin case in May.
He is known for his experience dealing with high-profile murder cases, including some of the most notorious killers the Sunshine State has ever seen.
One of his biggest victories in the past came in 1998 when he argued that a motorcycle gang member named Joseph 'Crazy Joe' Spaziano should avoid death row after he was convicted of raping and murdering a teenager.
According to The Orlando Sentinel, he represented Lou Pearlman, the manager of 1990s boy bands like the Backstreet Boys and N'Sync, when he was in court on various fraud charges.
He has been selected as one of the state's Super Lawyers (by the magazine of the same title) four of the last seven years.
Mr West has served as the head of such groups like the Central Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
When it was announced that Mr West would be leaving his job at the federal public defender's office to join Zimmerman's legal team with O'Mara, who is a longtime friend.
'I hadn't seriously considered being involved in the case, then just by coincidence, Mark and I wound up going out together,' Mr West told The Sentinel in May.
'We talked about it. I was flattered when he was interested.'
Your girl's testifying, derwhitey. She's got her "court hoops" on, I believe they're 22s. THEY SPINNIN THEY SPINNIN THEY SPINNIN
Record it for me! :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 01:42:18 PM
Record it for me! :lol:
This is hilarious.
You've got testimony involving the word "nigger" involving her and Trayvon's phone conversation, the state prosecutor's trying to dance around it with using "pardon-my-language-but-the-N-word", and MSNBC's working like fools to hit the censor on the delay, missing it all.
Catching a little of the live stream on ABC between conference calls. Please speak up, Ms. Rachel Jeantel!!! :angry:
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 01:53:28 PM
Please speak up, Ms. Rachel Jeantel!!! :angry:
No joke. I'm having flashbacks to District Court.
Seriously. I don't have speakers here, and I'm limited to my crappy headphones.
Oh dear Lord, I hope for the prosecution's sake that she's not their main witness.
She's the last one that ever spoke to him. So yeah, she is.
Personally, I think the cop yesterday was their best witness.
It is just bizzare to me how criminal trials are popular entertainment in the US.
Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2013, 04:04:21 PM
It is just bizzare to me how criminal trials are popular entertainment in the US.
They usually aren't for me.
Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2013, 04:04:21 PM
It is just bizzare to me how criminal trials are popular entertainment in the US.
I agree, and I find it disturbing. Back when I created a thread about the Jodi Arias trial, I went on HuffPo to look up some info on it, and I happened to notice in the comment thread for the article I was looking at that there are actually people who were so obsessed with the trial that they were like, online friends and were having conversations back and forth in the comments thread and it basically seemed that their lives revolved around it. I was completely floored that people would be that into some random chick's murder trial. :wacko:
C'mon now. It's the same demographic that watches soap operas. What else do you want them to do with their time?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2013, 04:24:51 PM
C'mon now. It's the same demographic that watches soap operas. What else do you want them to do with their time?
Work? Vacuum? Make me a damn sandwich?
Look at how many civil court shows, police/court procedurals there are on tv. It shouldn't be that surprising.
Quote from: frunk on June 26, 2013, 04:28:30 PM
Look at how many civil court shows, police/court procedurals there are on tv. It shouldn't be that surprising.
Yeah, but that fiction. It's like the difference between watching "Black Hawk Down" and watching Siege policing up the barracks.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 26, 2013, 04:39:19 PM
Quote from: frunk on June 26, 2013, 04:28:30 PM
Look at how many civil court shows, police/court procedurals there are on tv. It shouldn't be that surprising.
Yeah, but that fiction. It's like the difference between watching "Black Hawk Down" and watching Siege policing up the barracks.
The civil court shows are generally realistic, with actual litigants.
I get my fill of courtroom drama at work, I don't need to watch or even hear about it at home. <_<
Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2013, 04:04:21 PM
It is just bizzare to me how criminal trials are popular entertainment in the US.
Actual reality TV
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 01:53:28 PM
Catching a little of the live stream on ABC between conference calls. Please speak up, Ms. Rachel Jeantel!!! :angry:
CREEPY ASS CRACKA
Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2013, 07:10:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 01:53:28 PM
Catching a little of the live stream on ABC between conference calls. Please speak up, Ms. Rachel Jeantel!!! :angry:
CREEPY ASS CRACKA
I'd like to claim that title for Languish, in case you haven't already done so.
Knock yourself out, homie.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 26, 2013, 04:39:19 PM
Quote from: frunk on June 26, 2013, 04:28:30 PM
Look at how many civil court shows, police/court procedurals there are on tv. It shouldn't be that surprising.
Yeah, but that fiction. It's like the difference between watching "Black Hawk Down" and watching Siege policing up the barracks.
A mate of mine said when they were on exercise in Norway with Americans, when it was the Yanks turn to mount guard duty, the British guys generally 'hid' from their trigger happy allies. :P
So, I haven't been following this much, but at the outset my instinct was that this was Zimmerman & Co.'s trial to lose... the knock-knock shit seems more than a little dubious, but second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt still seems like an awful big stretch. Did they agree on lesser-includeds? I wouldn't be surprised if the jury tries to split the difference by coming back with a manslaughter, or just mistrials after a few days.
I think a mistrial/hung jury is inevitable. I don't see how they can unanimously say he's guilty of second degree murder, yet I I'd be shocked if the black juror votes to acquit.
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 07:40:42 PM
I think a mistrial/hung jury is inevitable. I don't see how they can unanimously say he's guilty of second degree murder, yet I I'd be shocked if the black juror votes to acquit.
Cause you know how
those people are.
Care to wager, Raz?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 26, 2013, 07:49:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 07:40:42 PM
I think a mistrial/hung jury is inevitable. I don't see how they can unanimously say he's guilty of second degree murder, yet I I'd be shocked if the black juror votes to acquit.
Cause you know how those people are.
They called it ethnic vote.
All those minority types vote for their dudes, no matter what's right.
Quote from: Siege on June 26, 2013, 08:29:24 PM
They called it ethnic vote.
All those minority types vote for their dudes, no matter what's right.
I understand that is what the Jews do.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2013, 04:24:51 PM
C'mon now. It's the same demographic that watches soap operas. What else do you want them to do with their time?
:whistle:
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 08:22:03 PM
Care to wager, Raz?
What would we be wagering, and what what are the positions?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 26, 2013, 11:11:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 08:22:03 PM
Care to wager, Raz?
What would we be wagering, and what what are the positions?
Don't feign cluelessness.
Anyway, it sounds like I missed some pure TV gold while I was out of it and/or sleeping today. Ms. Jeantel claimed she couldn't read cursive, told the defense attorney "That's real retarded, sir" (see video below), and said that calling someone a "creepy-ass cracker" isn't offensive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N-Rw-4EOMBw
I'm sure her court nails still looked nice.
Quote from: derspiess on June 27, 2013, 09:00:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 26, 2013, 11:11:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 08:22:03 PM
Care to wager, Raz?
What would we be wagering, and what what are the positions?
Don't feign cluelessness.
If asking what we are betting is invalid, then I'm not making a wagering. :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:07:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 27, 2013, 09:00:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 26, 2013, 11:11:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 08:22:03 PM
Care to wager, Raz?
What would we be wagering, and what what are the positions?
Don't feign cluelessness.
If asking what we are betting is invalid, then I'm not making a wagering. :lol:
Figured it was implicit. Just a straight-up bet on how the black juror votes.
Quote from: derspiess on June 27, 2013, 09:04:46 PM
Anyway, it sounds like I missed some pure TV gold while I was out of it and/or sleeping today. Ms. Jeantel claimed she couldn't read cursive, told the defense attorney "That's real retarded, sir" (see video below), and said that calling someone a "creepy-ass cracker" isn't offensive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N-Rw-4EOMBw
I'm sure her court nails still looked nice.
Does your Klan hood have an automatic button for the face cover, or do you have to manually roll it down?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 09:12:31 PM
Does your Klan hood have an automatic button for the face cover, or do you have to manually roll it down?
Grow up. How does anything I posted imply racism? Do I have to ignore stupid things she said just because she happens to be black?
You grow up, nigger hater.
She's a shy 19 year old girl using the slang that is the established vernacular of her social strata, not a professional presenter of court testimony. And she doesn't want to be there anymore.
And I'd call the fucking lawyer retarded too if he didn't now what First 48 was.
Quote from: derspiess on June 27, 2013, 09:10:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 09:07:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 27, 2013, 09:00:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 26, 2013, 11:11:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 08:22:03 PM
Care to wager, Raz?
What would we be wagering, and what what are the positions?
Don't feign cluelessness.
If asking what we are betting is invalid, then I'm not making a wagering. :lol:
Figured it was implicit. Just a straight-up bet on how the black juror votes.
Oh, that. I thought you meant the trial. I do not make presumptions about people based on race. :goodboy:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 09:12:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 27, 2013, 09:04:46 PM
Anyway, it sounds like I missed some pure TV gold while I was out of it and/or sleeping today. Ms. Jeantel claimed she couldn't read cursive, told the defense attorney "That's real retarded, sir" (see video below), and said that calling someone a "creepy-ass cracker" isn't offensive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N-Rw-4EOMBw
I'm sure her court nails still looked nice.
Does your Klan hood have an automatic button for the face cover, or do you have to manually roll it down?
Of course "creepy ass cracker" is not offensive to her, she not white. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 09:19:48 PM
You grow up, nigger hater.
She's a shy 19 year old girl using the slang that is the established vernacular of her social strata, not a professional presenter of court testimony. And she doesn't want to be there anymore.
And I'd call the fucking lawyer retarded too if he didn't now what First 48 was.
Ebonics :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:22:25 PM
Of course "creepy ass cracker" is not offensive to her, she not white. :rolleyes:
I don't think it's all that offensive to you either, but don't let that stop you. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 09:29:17 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:22:25 PM
Of course "creepy ass cracker" is not offensive to her, she not white. :rolleyes:
I don't think it's all that offensive to you either, but don't let that stop you. :P
It isnt, but she's a hypocrite.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:31:10 PM
It isnt, but she's a hypocrite.
How so? She hasn't reversed her testimony at all.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 09:32:50 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:31:10 PM
It isnt, but she's a hypocrite.
How so? She hasn't reversed her testimony at all.
I dont find jungle bunny offensive, but she most likely will.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:47:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 09:32:50 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:31:10 PM
It isnt, but she's a hypocrite.
How so? She hasn't reversed her testimony at all.
I dont find jungle bunny offensive, but she most likely will.
You haven't explained how she is a hypocrite, however. You creepy ass cracker.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 09:48:34 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:47:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 09:32:50 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:31:10 PM
It isnt, but she's a hypocrite.
How so? She hasn't reversed her testimony at all.
I dont find jungle bunny offensive, but she most likely will.
You haven't explained how she is a hypocrite, however. You creepy ass cracker.
Yes I did. :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2013, 09:49:54 PM
Yes I did. :lol:
Postulating one's possible answer is not establishing hypocrisy.
Cursive is pretty retarded.
I'm a bit shaky on cursive.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 09:19:48 PM
You grow up, nigger hater.
She's a shy 19 year old girl using the slang that is the established vernacular of her social strata, not a professional presenter of court testimony. And she doesn't want to be there anymore.
And I'd call the fucking lawyer retarded too if he didn't now what First 48 was.
Sometimes I forget I'm arguing with a troll/caricature/whatever.
Quote from: derspiess on June 27, 2013, 10:15:06 PM
Sometimes I forget I'm arguing with a troll/caricature/whatever.
I know who I'm always arguing with. Creepy ass crackers, the whole lot of you.
Quote from: derspiess on June 27, 2013, 10:15:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 09:19:48 PM
You grow up, nigger hater.
She's a shy 19 year old girl using the slang that is the established vernacular of her social strata, not a professional presenter of court testimony. And she doesn't want to be there anymore.
And I'd call the fucking lawyer retarded too if he didn't now what First 48 was.
Sometimes I forget I'm arguing with a troll/caricature/whatever.
I haven't been following the trial, but as Seedy alluded to in his "District Court flashback" comment, the vast majority of people testify like shit during a trial, even professional witnesses like shrinks and cops sometimes. Mumbling, nervousness, non-answers, questions as answers, etc, etc.
Being cross-examined sucks really bad. I doubt you could hold it together to testify eloquently about something serious and traumatic that happened in your life when you're getting pinned down to yes/no cross ex questions.
Poor people do end up using vernacular, everyone ends up getting nervous or non-answering, and from my anecdotal experience, I've seen upper/middle class folks testify terribly because they are shocked by the indignity of being *forced* to answer a cross exam "question."
In scare quotes because it's usually just like:
-- "Mr. Spiess, you didn't go to church with your co-worker." [?]
-- "But you did keep a voodoo doll in your desk drawer." [?]
-- "Because you thought it was funny." [?]
-- "Because you drank 4 pints of trippel imperial weissbier during your lunch break." [?]
So people getting into wrangling matches:
-- "Well, I belong to my own church." {
Please answer the question.}
-- "I don't know I keep a lot of things in my desk drawer, want me to list all of them for you -- stapler, growler of dry-hopped saison altbier, Luger pistol..."
Speesh old pal, I'm with Seedy on this. I think you gotta cut the chick some slack for being 19.
5 hours of cross-examination from The Dream Team trying to fence her out of her previous statements (without any success, mind you) has been pretty grueling to watch.
And she really, really doesn't want to be there anymore.
Quote from: Youtube commentWell isn't that Precious.
I laughed because I am a bad person.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 10:06:02 PM
I'm a bit shaky on cursive.
Other than a signature I dont use it.
Seedy, who is the blonde chick with the massive boobies.
Thar she blews. :lol: My God. :perv:
That was the one witness that heard the shooting in the neighborhood, some Hispanic chick.
I don't know who she is. Had no photo ID.
Got her. 45:26
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_paCmol9hE
Selma Mora or something like that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 01:39:45 AM
That was the one witness that heard the shooting in the neighborhood, some Hispanic chick.
I don't know who she is. Had no photo ID.
Thought you were paying attention to this trial. Substandard viewmanship. :P
Save it, galleta culo espeluznante. :P
He aint a cracker, the Zim is a beaner. So, if he gets off it will be blacks vs. beaners.
QuoteGeorge Michael Zimmerman was born on October 5, 1983, in Manassas, Virginia, and is the son of Gladys (née Mesa) Zimmerman, who was born in Peru, and Robert Zimmerman, Sr., a retired Virginia magistrate. He was raised Catholic in a family that his father has described as "multiracial;" his father is an American of German descent and his mother is Peruvian with some black ancestry through her Afro-Peruvian maternal grandfather. Zimmerman's voter registration record lists him as Hispanic.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2013, 10:05:06 PM
Cursive is pretty retarded.
Young people. :rolleyes:
I do. :smarty:
And cursive comes in handy when I have to write fast. The Prof didn't have a problem with my cursive during exams this summer.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 07:50:17 AM
I do. :smarty:
And cursive comes in handy when I have to write fast. The Prof didn't have a problem with my cursive during exams this summer.
I'm sure he made plenty of allowances for your age.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 08:17:55 AM
I'm sure he made plenty of allowances for your age.
Pfft, I smoked all those kiddies. Buncha Snowden Assburger millenials.
I haven't been following this all that closely. Did Trayvon have any facial injuries that indicate that he was being beatean, or was his only injury the bullet wound? Was Zimmerman on top of Trayvon when he shot him, or underneath him; i.e. was Zimmerman shooting down or up?
The only injury that Trayvon Martin had was an abrasion to his left pinky finger. He was right-handed. And there was no DNA from Martin on Zimmerman.
They haven't gotten to the forensics of the GSW, but Martin apparently had no powder burns directly at the wound, just on his hoodie which could be explained by the ejection cloud.
Zimmerman's problem is how the body was found. Face down, with his arms under him; not out from the body as Zimmerman claimed.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 09:07:53 AM
Zimmerman's problem is how the body was found. Face down, with his arms under him; not out from the body as Zimmerman claimed.
What does that prove (non-facetious)?
That his account of what happened was at best erroneous and at worst a lie.
People get fairly minor stuff wrong all the time in their testimony. If the only thing this shows is that Zimmerman didn't remember correctly whether Trayvon's arms were under him or to the sides (and that distinction doesn't have any independent probative value - i.e. if Trayvon's arms were under him it shows that he couldn't have been hitting Zimmerman or whatever), then who cares?
He said he physically and purposefully extended Martin's arms after he was shot.
Quote from: frunk on June 26, 2013, 04:28:30 PM
Look at how many civil court shows, police/court procedurals there are on tv. It shouldn't be that surprising.
Thing is, I would have thought generally trials are dead boring ordeals, unless you are yourself a lawyer.
The ones they show on TV usually just have the exciting bits (highly fictionalized).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 07:50:17 AM
I do. :smarty:
And cursive comes in handy when I have to write fast. The Prof didn't have a problem with my cursive during exams this summer.
It just occurs to me that I don't often write things anymore, and the few times that I do, I'm printing on forms. I guess that's why I don't really care about the demise of cursive the way you guys do. I guess my old-fashionedness is tempered by some degree of practicality after all.
Oh shit, shit is going down!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/28/zimmerman-defense-grills-witness-for-second-day/?test=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/28/zimmerman-defense-grills-witness-for-second-day/?test=latestnews)
John Goods testimony is tha bomb:
A resident of the Florida community where George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin last year told jurors Friday afternoon how he encountered a bloodied Zimmerman immediately after the confrontation and took pictures of the murder defendant's injuries.
State witness Joe Manalo testified that took the photos with his cell phone that showed blood on Zimmerman's lip and scalp.
"He had blood running down his nose from both nostrils and over his lips," Manalo told Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda.
Manalo said Zimmerman asked him to call his wife, Shellie, and tell her that he just shot someone as cops arrived on the scene.
"He had a cell phone in his hand and he tossed it on the ground asking if I could call his wife," Manalo testified. "He gave me her number. I had a connection right away and said, 'Your husband has been involved in a shooting. He's detained by Sanford police.'"
"Just tell her I shot someone," Manalo recalled Zimmerman saying, to which he obliged.
On cross-examination, defense attorney Don West read a transcript of what Manalo claims Zimmerman told him after the shooting.
"This guy was beating me up and I was defending myself. I shot him," the statement read.
West then asked Manalo, "George Zimmerman asked, 'Am I bleeding?'" Manalo confirmed that he did.
Manalo also confirmed his earlier statement that when the police officer asked him who shot Martin, Zimmerman replied immediately saying that he had.
Earlier on Friday, another neighbor, John Good, testified how he witnessed an MMA-style fracas between Zimmerman and Martin. He described seeing one person straddling another and throwing punches down at the person which he described in a statement as a "ground and pound."
Good said he was watching TV with his wife when they heard a noise and he went out to investigate, despite his wife warning him not to. At first, he thought a dog might be attacking someone, but as he moved closer, he said he observed what looked like "a tussle" between two people.
"It looked like a tussle," Good said. "I could only see one person. At one point, I yelled out, 'What's going on? Stop it,' I believe.
Under questioning by De la Rionda, Good said one of the combatants was straddling a man lying face up on the pavement, and throwing punches. The testimony appeared to corroborate Zimmerman's claims that he shot the 17-year-old African-American with a legally registered gun in self defense, as he was being pummeled.
"I could tell that the person on the bottom had a lighter skin color," testified Good, who also said the person on the bottom appeared to be wearing "white or red," while the one on top wore dark clothing. Zimmerman identified that day as Hispanic and was wearing a red jacket. That also would corroborate Zimmerman's claims he was on the losing end of a violent confrontation when he fired the fatal shot.
But Good said he did not see the person on top slam the other one's head into the pavement. Zimmerman had wounds to his scalp following the confrontation.
Good, who went back inside and was calling 911 when he heard a gunshot, listened as an audio recording of his call was played in the courtroom.
"It looks like there's a black guy down, and he's dead," Good said on the call.
During cross examination, defense attorney Mark O'Mara asked Good to be more specific as to the exact positions of the two men on the ground and even demonstrated in the courtroom asking for visual confirmation. He also asked what Good meant on the 911 call when he said the person on top was engaged in an "MMA-style" move of "ground and pound". The witness also said during testimony that the person on the bottom was unable to move under a flurry of punches.
When O'Mara asked him if the person on top was Martin, Good said: "Correct, that's what it looked like."
Good also said he believed the person on the bottom yelled for help, but later conceded that he was not 100 percent sure it was the person on the bottom calling for help while he was in his house placing the emergency call, only that it "sounded like" it came from the person being attacked.
During cross-examination, O'Mara got on his knees to recreate the fighting as he asked Good to walk him through it.
Good was also shown by O'Mara a picture of Martin in a 7-Eleven convenience store and said that the person on top during the struggle was wearing the same dark clothing in the image.
Questioning was then redirected back to the prosecutor who tried to discredit a strong testimony for the defense.
De La Rionda asked Good if he used the term "ground and pound" in his statements to investigators or if it was a Sanford Police Department investigator first used the term. Good replied that it was possible. De La Rionda also used water bottles to help demonstrate the position of Zimmerman and Martin and even got Good to concede that he did not actually see punches thrown and that he "only saw downward movement" of arms.
The testimony came as Zimmerman's murder trial entered its fifth day Friday, a day after the former neighborhood watch volunteer's attorney tried to demonstrate that the woman who was on the phone with Trayvon Martin shortly before he was fatally shot was not believable because her story changed over the course of the last year.
An attorney for Martin's family, meanwhile, suddenly declared Thursday that the high-profile case was not about race.
"It's not about racial profiling," Daryl Parks told reporters. "He was profiled (criminally). George Zimmerman profiled him."
Parks made the comments after prosecutors spent several days arguing that Zimmerman profiled the 17-year-old specifically because he was black. Asked why he changed his take on the matter, Parks replied: "We never claimed this was about race."
Zimmerman, 29, has said he opened fire only after the teenager jumped him and began slamming his head against the concrete sidewalk. Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic and has denied that his confrontation with the black teenager had anything to do with race, as Martin's family and its supporters have claimed.
Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty, claiming self-defense. He could face life in prison if convicted.
:lol:
What?
Your bolding was maybe a little sloppy.
That is some pretty damn compelling testimony.
Yeah, I don't see how they're going to convict Zimmerman.
Hence the name of the thread. The right to shoot black kids in Florida will remain inviolate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 06:52:09 PM
Hence the name of the thread. The right to shoot black kids in Florida will remain inviolate.
and so we
riot loot in the name of ....
bets on how many other minorities will get beat up instead of us crackers.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 06:52:09 PM
Hence the name of the thread. The right to shoot black kids in Florida will remain inviolate.
Dude, remember how they weren't originally even going to press charges against Zimmy until The Reverend Al showed up and bitched and moaned and screamed about it? :sleep:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 06:52:09 PM
Hence the name of the thread. The right to shoot black kids in Florida will remain inviolate.
Given that testimony, the right to shoot people who are beating the shit out of you remains inviolate.
Do you think he should be convicted if what this guy is testifying is accurate?
Yeah, it does seem that the right to shoot black kids in Florida is not unlimited.
Quote from: Malthus on June 28, 2013, 09:50:28 AM
Quote from: frunk on June 26, 2013, 04:28:30 PM
Look at how many civil court shows, police/court procedurals there are on tv. It shouldn't be that surprising.
Thing is, I would have thought generally trials are dead boring ordeals, unless you are yourself a lawyer.
The ones they show on TV usually just have the exciting bits (highly fictionalized).
People's Court and similar shows aren't that heavily edited, have the actual litigants (no actors or scripts) and show some of the boring bits as well. Technically it isn't a real court of law, but it is reasonably close to actual small claims.
Quote from: Berkut on June 28, 2013, 07:27:07 PM
Given that testimony, the right to shoot people who are beating the shit out of you remains inviolate.
I had no idea that conventional thinking regarding the law stipulates that if you are attacked, you're supposed to lose. Funny, I don't remember that from either defensive tactics or 6th grade.
But be sure to teach your kid if he's in a scrap started by somebody else to just go ahead, suck it up and get his fucking face crushed in by said assailant. Don't try to defend yourself or get the upper hand against some unidentified stranger in street clothes that gets out of a car, follows you through a neighborhood and initiates a confrontation.
QuoteDo you think he should be convicted if what this guy is testifying is accurate?
It will rest on whether or not the jury believes that Zimmerman, a private citizen playing wannabe cop, started the confrontation against both instructions from the "citizen's watch" bullshit he got involved in and the advice of 911 at the time.
It's too goddamned bad he found his chunky ass on the short end of the scrap that made him feel he needed to use his gun, but if he had done what he was supposed to do, it never would've happened.
But the defense made a good effort in branding "MMA style ground n' pound" into the jury's collective memory.
Quote from: Caliga on June 28, 2013, 07:25:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 06:52:09 PM
Hence the name of the thread. The right to shoot black kids in Florida will remain inviolate.
Dude, remember how they weren't originally even going to press charges against Zimmy until The Reverend Al showed up and bitched and moaned and screamed about it? :sleep:
Don't be putting this all on The Most Reverend Al because Sanford PD and the SA's Office were cowardly weasels that didn't want to do their jobs.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 09:38:42 PM
I had no idea that conventional thinking regarding the law stipulates that if you are attacked, you're supposed to lose. Funny, I don't remember that from either defensive tactics or 6th grade.
WTF are you talking about? I thought Trayvon had essentially no injuries other than the gunshot. That doesn't really demonstrate an "attack." Or are you saying that you think Zimmerman foolishly focused his assault on Trayvon's pinky, which allowed Trayvon to quickly get the upper had in their fight?
Look, as you well know, there's no right to pound someone's head into the ground because you think they're following you, or because they "confront" you with words. At this point, the state will probably have to show that Zimmerman drew his gun on Trayvon before the altercation started - even showing that Zimmerman threw the first punch might not be enough, as the defense could argue that Trayvon escalated a minor fight that Zimmerman started into one involving deadly force (which pounding someone's head into the ground probably qualifies as), which would give Zimmerman the right to use deadly force in self-defense, even as the initial aggressor.
It's "Stand Your Ground", not "Walk Over To That Guy's Ground Over There, Start A Fight, Start Losing and Then Blow The Nigger Away On His Ground".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 29, 2013, 09:12:40 AM
It's "Stand Your Ground", not "Walk Over To That Guy's Ground Over There, Start A Fight, Start Losing and Then Blow The Nigger Away On His Ground".
I don't disagree with anything you are saying, except that this version of events requires the state to prove a LOT more in order to get a conviction.
And without any evidence to counter Zimmermans version of events, I don't see how they can do that.
Quote from: Berkut on June 29, 2013, 10:07:06 AM
I don't disagree with anything you are saying, except that this version of events requires the state to prove a LOT more in order to get a conviction.
And without any evidence to counter Zimmermans version of events, I don't see how they can do that.
Unfortunately, that's kinda what happens when the victim is really the one on trial.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 09:49:46 PM
Don't be putting this all on The Most Reverend Al because Sanford PD and the SA's Office were cowardly weasels that didn't want to do their jobs.
RESIST WE MUCH
Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2013, 10:35:05 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 09:49:46 PM
Don't be putting this all on The Most Reverend Al because Sanford PD and the SA's Office were cowardly weasels that didn't want to do their jobs.
RESIST WE MUCH
May your first grandchild be a masculine child. A big black masculine child.
If you had a son, he'd look like Trayvon.
Pfft, at my height, more like Gary Coleman.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 29, 2013, 10:23:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 29, 2013, 10:07:06 AM
I don't disagree with anything you are saying, except that this version of events requires the state to prove a LOT more in order to get a conviction.
And without any evidence to counter Zimmermans version of events, I don't see how they can do that.
Unfortunately, that's kinda what happens when the victim is really the one on trial.
No, that's kind of what happens when the only person who is testifying as to what happened seems to be saying that the accused version of events is basically accurate, and that version makes it seem like he was defending himself.
I don't see this playing out any differently if Zimmerman was black and Martin was white, but all the facts and testimony stays the same.
Quote from: Berkut on June 29, 2013, 04:14:20 PM
I don't see this playing out any differently if Zimmerman was black and Martin was white, but all the facts and testimony stays the same.
Might not have been any charges at all in that case, as it probably wouldn't have gotten the same publicity.
It would have simply gotten the charges and not the publicity.
I think regardless of the races, someone shoots an unarmed kid it's going to get publicity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2013, 04:40:43 PM
I think regardless of the races, someone shoots an unarmed kid it's going to get publicity.
Sure it will, then add the race card and it explodes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2013, 04:40:43 PM
I think regardless of the races, someone shoots an unarmed kid it's going to get publicity.
National publicity? Probably not.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 29, 2013, 04:52:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2013, 04:40:43 PM
I think regardless of the races, someone shoots an unarmed kid it's going to get publicity.
Sure it will, then add the race card and it explodes.
http://www.wral.com/texas-man-found-guilty-of-first-degree-murder-in-durham-parking-lot-shooting/12404258/
Man shoots teen, claims self defense. No national publicity, no explosion.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2013, 05:13:03 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 29, 2013, 04:52:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2013, 04:40:43 PM
I think regardless of the races, someone shoots an unarmed kid it's going to get publicity.
Sure it will, then add the race card and it explodes.
http://www.wral.com/texas-man-found-guilty-of-first-degree-murder-in-durham-parking-lot-shooting/12404258/
Man shoots teen, claims self defense. No national publicity, no explosion.
Different than Trayvon Case. Did you read it or just pull the first headline after googling it. :rolleyes:
QuoteMan shoots teen, claims self defense. No national publicity, no explosion.
From what I understand the police did such a sloppy job initially in the Trayvon case, The Rev Al weighed in. Rightfully so IMO.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opposingviews.com%2Fsites%2Fopposingviews.com%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2F300x250%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffeatured_image%2Fal_sharpton.jpg&hash=8a5d61c7a8268cd8b17c081d4900589f3bdf35be)
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2013, 05:13:03 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 29, 2013, 04:52:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2013, 04:40:43 PM
I think regardless of the races, someone shoots an unarmed kid it's going to get publicity.
Sure it will, then add the race card and it explodes.
http://www.wral.com/texas-man-found-guilty-of-first-degree-murder-in-durham-parking-lot-shooting/12404258/
Man shoots teen, claims self defense. No national publicity, no explosion.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/24/north.carolina.shooting/index.html
Looks like CNN picked it up. National news network. No explosion because it sounds like the cops did their job.
Precisely. They did their job, thus not a national news story. A few paragraphs reported by an affiliate. The police in Sandford didn't do their job.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2013, 06:04:53 PM
Precisely. They did their job, thus not a national news story. A few paragraphs reported by an affiliate. The police in Sandford didn't do their job.
So, we're in agreement. Different from the Trayvon case.
Can you release a dove for the not guilty verdict without being labelled crazy woman? I'm asking for a friend.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 29, 2013, 06:12:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2013, 06:04:53 PM
Precisely. They did their job, thus not a national news story. A few paragraphs reported by an affiliate. The police in Sandford didn't do their job.
So, we're in agreement. Different from the Trayvon case.
I suppose we are now.
Quote from: The Brain on June 29, 2013, 06:37:19 PM
Can you release a dove for the not guilty verdict without being labelled crazy woman? I'm asking for a friend.
I'm sure she doesnt think, she's crazy.
Quote from: The Brain on June 29, 2013, 06:37:19 PM
Can you release a dove for the not guilty verdict without being labelled crazy woman? I'm asking for a friend.
You could not be a woman.
Hmm, it looks like it may have been a justified shooting after all. :hmm: I hope that prosecutors will think of something soon.
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2013, 09:51:52 PM
Hmm, it looks like it may have been a justified shooting after all. :hmm: I hope that prosecutors will think of something soon.
Meaning what? :huh:
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2013, 02:27:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2013, 09:51:52 PM
Hmm, it looks like it may have been a justified shooting after all. :hmm: I hope that prosecutors will think of something soon.
Meaning what? :huh:
Is Joke. :secret:
Quote from: 11B4V on June 29, 2013, 05:53:09 PM
QuoteMan shoots teen, claims self defense. No national publicity, no explosion.
From what I understand the police did such a sloppy job initially in the Trayvon case, The Rev Al weighed in. Rightfully so IMO.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opposingviews.com%2Fsites%2Fopposingviews.com%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2F300x250%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffeatured_image%2Fal_sharpton.jpg&hash=8a5d61c7a8268cd8b17c081d4900589f3bdf35be)
He's lost quite a bit of weight since I saw him on SNL last year.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 30, 2013, 09:45:21 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 29, 2013, 05:53:09 PM
QuoteMan shoots teen, claims self defense. No national publicity, no explosion.
From what I understand the police did such a sloppy job initially in the Trayvon case, The Rev Al weighed in. Rightfully so IMO.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opposingviews.com%2Fsites%2Fopposingviews.com%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2F300x250%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffeatured_image%2Fal_sharpton.jpg&hash=8a5d61c7a8268cd8b17c081d4900589f3bdf35be)
He's lost quite a bit of weight since I saw him on SNL last year.
That's a fact. I was surprised when on saw him on his MSNBC show. The Rev is Pimpin.
Quote from: Berkut on June 29, 2013, 04:14:20 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 29, 2013, 10:23:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 29, 2013, 10:07:06 AM
I don't disagree with anything you are saying, except that this version of events requires the state to prove a LOT more in order to get a conviction.
And without any evidence to counter Zimmermans version of events, I don't see how they can do that.
Unfortunately, that's kinda what happens when the victim is really the one on trial.
No, that's kind of what happens when the only person who is testifying as to what happened seems to be saying that the accused version of events is basically accurate, and that version makes it seem like he was defending himself.
Or, it's kind of what happens when we apply a standard of "innocent until proven guilty" and there isn't much evidence to contradict the defendent's version of events. Enough to make everyone really suspicious, sure, but not enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 29, 2013, 09:12:40 AM
It's "Stand Your Ground", not "Walk Over To That Guy's Ground Over There, Start A Fight, Start Losing and Then Blow The Nigger Away On His Ground".
You are unbelievable.
Quote from: dps on July 01, 2013, 06:43:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 29, 2013, 04:14:20 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 29, 2013, 10:23:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 29, 2013, 10:07:06 AM
I don't disagree with anything you are saying, except that this version of events requires the state to prove a LOT more in order to get a conviction.
And without any evidence to counter Zimmermans version of events, I don't see how they can do that.
Unfortunately, that's kinda what happens when the victim is really the one on trial.
No, that's kind of what happens when the only person who is testifying as to what happened seems to be saying that the accused version of events is basically accurate, and that version makes it seem like he was defending himself.
Or, it's kind of what happens when we apply a standard of "innocent until proven guilty" and there isn't much evidence to contradict the defendent's version of events. Enough to make everyone really suspicious, sure, but not enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Indeed.
I still think Zimmerman pretty much went and picked a fight he had no business being involved in, or at least created a situation because he is a meddling spaz, and then killed that kid when it went bad, and he could have avoided the entire thing had he wanted to - but the bar for conviction is a lot higher than the bar for me being convinced Zimmerman is a douchebag largely responsible for that young man's death.
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2013, 11:36:35 AM
I still think Zimmerman pretty much went and picked a fight he had no business being involved in, or at least created a situation because he is a meddling spaz, and then killed that kid when it went bad, and he could have avoided the entire thing had he wanted to - but the bar for conviction is a lot higher than the bar for me being convinced Zimmerman is a douchebag largely responsible for that young man's death.
Yep, agree.
The way I see it, Zimmerman is douchbag like Berks says, he could have handled this diferent, and to be specific, by diferent I mean keeping more physical distance between him and Trayvon Martinus. After all, Z-man had a gun and distance was in his favor.
My problem is, this Trayvon kid looked at Z-man, saw a "short cracker", his brain did that lower function untrained people normally do, and somehow came up with a MLOOA (most likely outcome of action) as him succesfully beating the shit out of Z-man, because the Tray-kid was taller, stronger, and younger. Trayzomb definitively forgot the Colt factor: "All men are equal in a under 5 sec/5 meter firefight".
In other words, Trayvon Martin was an evil man used to get his way because of his physical prowess.
5'11" and 158 lbs doesn't sound like physical prowess, but like a skinny youth.
Quote from: Zanza on July 01, 2013, 01:57:13 PM
5'11" and 158 lbs doesn't sound like physical prowess, but like a skinny youth.
Compared to Zimmerman? Fucking superman, I tell you.
Don't see it. Zimmerman has to be packing at least 180.
Zimmerman is supposedly 185 lbs and 5'7". Both from Wikipedia.
I am ossum.
Quote from: Siege on July 01, 2013, 11:32:42 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 29, 2013, 09:12:40 AM
It's "Stand Your Ground", not "Walk Over To That Guy's Ground Over There, Start A Fight, Start Losing and Then Blow The Nigger Away On His Ground".
You are unbelievable.
Go find some kids in the street making monkey faces and dump a carcass in their water well, please.
Quote from: Zanza on July 01, 2013, 02:16:57 PM
Zimmerman is supposedly 185 lbs and 5'7". Both from Wikipedia.
Maybe at the time of his arrest, but he's gotta be up to 220 or more by now.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 03:29:07 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 01, 2013, 11:32:42 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 29, 2013, 09:12:40 AM
It's "Stand Your Ground", not "Walk Over To That Guy's Ground Over There, Start A Fight, Start Losing and Then Blow The Nigger Away On His Ground".
You are unbelievable.
Go find some kids in the street making monkey faces and dump a carcass in their water well, please.
I NEVER DUMPED THAT FUCKIN CARCASS. I NEVER DID, NOR DID I SAY I DID. YOU FUCKIN BASTARL!!!!!11111
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 03:30:32 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 01, 2013, 02:16:57 PM
Zimmerman is supposedly 185 lbs and 5'7". Both from Wikipedia.
Maybe at the time of his arrest, but he's gotta be up to 220 or more by now.
Gotta be able to defend yourself in the pokey.
The talking heads on CNN seemed to think that the defense had a monster day today.
I would hope so. They are some of the best lawyers in the state of Florida.
Funny how the anti-Zim narrative shifted so quickly. Up through last week, it held that Zim stalked and attacked an innocent cherubish Trayvon and decided to murder him in cold blood. That seems to have seamlessly shifted to badass Trayvon knowing how to throw down (admirable quality) & beating the shit out of the cracka (which is not an offensive term), then the cracka being so humiliated that he shot Trayvon after it was all over. Wonder if that is set in stone or if it will change next week.
Oh and apparently CNN broadcasted Zim's social security number.
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 06:38:40 PM
Funny how the anti-Zim narrative shifted so quickly. Up through last week, it held that Zim stalked and attacked an innocent cherubish Trayvon and decided to murder him in cold blood. That seems to have seamlessly shifted to badass Trayvon knowing how to throw down (admirable quality) & beating the shit out of the cracka (which is not an offensive term), then the cracka being so humiliated that he shot Trayvon after it was all over. Wonder if that is set in stone or if it will change next week.
Oh and apparently CNN broadcasted Zim's social security number.
I thought it was rather telling how, in Zimmerman's written statement, he constantly referred to Martin as "the suspect".
LOL, way to go, CNN.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 06:44:26 PM
I thought it was rather telling how, in Zimmerman's written statement, he constantly referred to Martin as "the suspect".
By acting suspicious one can make himself a suspect.
Jack McCoy can still get a death penalty out of this case.
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 06:46:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 06:44:26 PM
I thought it was rather telling how, in Zimmerman's written statement, he constantly referred to Martin as "the suspect".
By acting suspicious one can make himself a suspect.
Suspected of what, exactly? What exactly is suspicious in talking on the phone while taking a shortcut through a neighborhood in the rain? Other than "these assholes always get away", of course.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 07:00:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 06:46:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 06:44:26 PM
I thought it was rather telling how, in Zimmerman's written statement, he constantly referred to Martin as "the suspect".
By acting suspicious one can make himself a suspect.
Suspected of what, exactly? What exactly is suspicious in talking on the phone while taking a shortcut through a neighborhood in the rain? Other than "these assholes always get away", of course.
HE WAS WEARING A HOODIE!!!!
If I had a falangist brother-in-law, he'd look a lot like derspiess.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 07:00:57 PM
Suspected of what, exactly? What exactly is suspicious in talking on the phone while taking a shortcut through a neighborhood in the rain? Other than "these assholes always get away", of course.
Scouting out places to break into.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 01, 2013, 07:35:58 PM
If I had a falangist brother-in-law, he'd look a lot like derspiess.
<_< I'm not Catholic.
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 07:37:47 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 01, 2013, 07:35:58 PM
If I had a falangist brother-in-law, he'd look a lot like derspiess.
<_< I'm not Catholic.
Just adding to the list of negatives about you.
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 07:36:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 07:00:57 PM
Suspected of what, exactly? What exactly is suspicious in talking on the phone while taking a shortcut through a neighborhood in the rain? Other than "these assholes always get away", of course.
Scouting out places to break into.
OK, kitten. PROFILE MOAR PLZ
When is this trial expected to end?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 06:44:26 PM
I thought it was rather telling how, in Zimmerman's written statement, he constantly referred to Martin as "the suspect".
Bet he didn't have a receipt for those Skittles.
Do they still call Zimmerman a "white Hispanic"?
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 06:46:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 06:44:26 PM
I thought it was rather telling how, in Zimmerman's written statement, he constantly referred to Martin as "the suspect".
By acting suspicious one can make himself a suspect.
Since he's not a police officer, Zim doesn't have the right to label anyone a suspect of anything.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 01, 2013, 08:22:55 PM
Since he's not a police officer, Zim doesn't have the right to label anyone a suspect of anything.
That doesn't stop goofball yahoos like him.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 07:55:10 PM
OK, kitten. PROFILE MOAR PLZ
I know, Trayvon would never have done anything like that.
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 09:24:55 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 07:55:10 PM
OK, kitten. PROFILE MOAR PLZ
I know, Trayvon would never have done anything like that.
Damn, you are one darkie-hatin' fool.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 09:30:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 09:24:55 PM
I know, Trayvon would never have done anything like that.
Damn, you are one darkie-hatin' fool.
The utter loathing for Trayvon, for being who he was, I guess, quite apart from whether Zimm was legally justified in icing him, is really starting to bubble over in some circles...
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 01, 2013, 09:38:07 PM
The utter loathing for Trayvon, for being who he was, I guess, quite apart from whether Zimm was legally justified in icing him, is really starting to bubble over in some circles...
I don't loathe Trayvon. I just disagree with the one-sided & frankly dishonest way he was originally portrayed in the media.
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 09:45:29 PM
I don't loathe Trayvon. I just disagree with the one-sided & frankly dishonest way he was originally portrayed in the media.
As the "unarmed black kid" before, or the "unarmed black kid" afterwards?
Funny, I don't think Fox News has wavered one bit of their one-sided and frankly dishonest portrayal of him. Which news are you watching?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 10:03:46 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 09:45:29 PM
I don't loathe Trayvon. I just disagree with the one-sided & frankly dishonest way he was originally portrayed in the media.
As the "unarmed black kid" before, or the "unarmed black kid" afterwards?
Funny, I don't think Fox News has wavered one bit of their one-sided and frankly dishonest portrayal of him. Which news are you watching?
Unarmed black kid to dangerous looking black
man. The kind that stands outside of voting places threatening people ensuring an Obama victory and destruction of the United States.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 10:03:46 PM
Funny, I don't think Fox News has wavered one bit of their one-sided and frankly dishonest portrayal of him.
So you watch Fox News? How have they portrayed him?
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 10:27:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 10:03:46 PM
Funny, I don't think Fox News has wavered one bit of their one-sided and frankly dishonest portrayal of him.
So you watch Fox News? How have they portrayed him?
"The brutha deserved it."
Sounds like a rather ethnic statement from Fox News.
They're very ethnicky over there. Just ask Laura Ingraham.
I wish she hadn't had cancer and then gone off the deep end. :(
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 01, 2013, 08:22:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 06:46:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 06:44:26 PM
I thought it was rather telling how, in Zimmerman's written statement, he constantly referred to Martin as "the suspect".
By acting suspicious one can make himself a suspect.
Since he's not a police officer, Zim doesn't have the right to label anyone a suspect of anything.
Not a fan of free speech, huh?
Hip hooray, the American Way
The world is a court, The court is a world of entertainment:
QuoteGeorge Zimmerman coverage bolsters HLN
By Hal BoedekerStaff writer
2:42 p.m. EDT, July 2, 2013
If you wonder why the George Zimmerman trial is gaining so much coverage lately across Fox News Channel, CNN and MSNBC, just look at the HLN ratings for the first full week of testimony.
Last week, HLN's total day audience jumped 85 percent over the previous four-week average. HLN averaged 492,000 total viewers last week, up from 266,000 for the previous four weeks.
In the 25-to-54 age group, which is most important to news advertisers, the audience jumped 83 percent. Last week HLN was averaging 181,000 viewers, up from 99,000 for the previous four weeks.
Over on CNN, Anderson Cooper's 10 p.m. show on the Zimmerman trial performed well Monday. It was CNN's most-watched show in prime time with 765,000 viewers. And the program also had CNN's biggest 25-to-54 audience all day: 335,000.
When I have more cable ratings, I will share them.
If I'm ever bored enough to sit and watch live court coverage, might as well just shoot myself in the head.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 02, 2013, 06:59:30 PM
If I'm ever bored enough to sit and watch live court coverage, might as well just shoot myself in the head.
Ms. Jeantel was worth the price of admission, and I'm sad I missed the no-speaka-english with huge jugs. The rest seems like it's been kinda meh.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 07:29:26 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 02, 2013, 06:59:30 PM
If I'm ever bored enough to sit and watch live court coverage, might as well just shoot myself in the head.
Ms. Jeantel was worth the price of admission, and I'm sad I missed the no-speaka-english with huge jugs. The rest seems like it's been kinda meh.
Scroll back a few pages and I posted a link to her testimony. :D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.everyjoe.com%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Fselma-mora%2Fselma-mora-photos-2.jpg&hash=1f5f7bcd6ecae9a04b5231cd2720e532b170673b)
Quote from: 11B4V on July 02, 2013, 07:31:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 07:29:26 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 02, 2013, 06:59:30 PM
If I'm ever bored enough to sit and watch live court coverage, might as well just shoot myself in the head.
Ms. Jeantel was worth the price of admission, and I'm sad I missed the no-speaka-english with huge jugs. The rest seems like it's been kinda meh.
Scroll back a few pages and I posted a link to her testimony. :D
That's how I found out about her. Thanks, btw.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 07:29:26 PM
Ms. Jeantel was worth the price of admission, and I'm sad I missed the no-speaka-english with huge jugs. The rest seems like it's been kinda meh.
The cops were fun.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 07:29:26 PM
Ms. Jeantel was worth the price of admission,
5 1/2 hours? I think not.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 02, 2013, 09:16:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 07:29:26 PM
Ms. Jeantel was worth the price of admission,
5 1/2 hours? I think not.
Well, not the whole thing. Who has that much time?
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 09:18:20 PM
Well, not the whole thing. Who has that much time?
The defense certainly felt the jury did.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 02, 2013, 09:19:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 09:18:20 PM
Well, not the whole thing. Who has that much time?
The defense certainly felt the jury did.
That's what they're there for. And if you were the defense, wouldn't you have wanted her there as long as possible?
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 09:24:46 PM
And if you were the defense, wouldn't you have wanted her there as long as possible?
I would think, as a defense attorney, I'd pretty much give up trying to get a witness to change the story after the first 3 or 4 attempts. I know it certainly never worked on me as a witness.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 02, 2013, 09:27:00 PM
I would think, as a defense attorney, I'd pretty much give up trying to get a witness to change the story after the first 3 or 4 attempts. I know it certainly never worked on me as a witness.
I think they exposed her lack of credibility pretty well, though. Plus from an entertainment perspective she was gold-- particularly the moment when she said she didn't read cursive, even though the letter they were asking her to read was supposedly written by her.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 09:30:46 PM
I think they exposed her lack of credibility pretty well, though. Plus from an entertainment perspective she was gold-- particularly the moment when she said she didn't read cursive, even though the letter they were asking her to read was supposedly written by her.
Not really. The basics of her story as a listening witness while on the phone didn't change.
And, no, she didn't write the letter, dummy. It was written for her by someone else as she dictated her statement. Stop trying to hate black people so fucking much. Creepy ass forehead.
So in your world that 300 lb. lump of ghetto attitude represents black people? Now that's offensive.
Do I : represent black people?
...sigh...
#1, she's not 300 lbs.
#2, she's not ghetto, nor does she have an attitude.
#3, she doesn't represent black people. I do.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 02, 2013, 07:32:49 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.everyjoe.com%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Fselma-mora%2Fselma-mora-photos-2.jpg&hash=1f5f7bcd6ecae9a04b5231cd2720e532b170673b)
I would like to jackhammer those. :)
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2013, 09:42:23 PM
Do I : represent black people?
Sorry, one drop rule: You're white.
Der wins this tolerance round!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 02, 2013, 09:42:56 PM
...sigh...
#1, she's not 300 lbs.
#2, she's not ghetto, nor does she have an attitude.
#3, she doesn't represent black people. I do.
Thought you were Puerto Rican.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 02, 2013, 11:11:21 PM
Thought you were Puerto Rican.
Well, you'd be wrong. I'm all of us. Even you, creepy ass nilla wafer.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 02, 2013, 11:24:19 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 02, 2013, 11:11:21 PM
Thought you were Puerto Rican.
Well, you'd be wrong. I'm all of us. Even you, creepy ass nilla wafer.
You ain't Argentine like me. Stop your frontin'
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 11:25:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 02, 2013, 11:24:19 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 02, 2013, 11:11:21 PM
Thought you were Puerto Rican.
Well, you'd be wrong. I'm all of us. Even you, creepy ass nilla wafer.
You ain't Argentine like me. Stop your frontin'
Only thing Argentinian about you is the wet spot you make her sleep in after playing "Gaucho y Gringo"
All the gun nutters would appreciate the firearms expert testifying; maybe a little too skinny, nebbish and Jewishy, but they'd get off on her with her use of "cartridge", "sooting", "trigger pull" and "distance determination" in a business suit.
"Oh baby...give me your rapid ballistics deceleration...oh yeah, I want you to empty your magazine in my front entry wound...oooh, yeah...burn rate..."
Quote from: Caliga on July 02, 2013, 09:50:49 PM
I would like to jackhammer those. :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn7.staztic.com%2Fapp%2Fa%2F147%2F147617%2Fsexy-chick-live-wallpaper-289880-2-s-307x512.jpg&hash=df976f1676b898820c7c93caadbc36d0dc630f2f)
http://deadspin.com/george-zimmerman-trial-interrupted-by-trolls-who-use-sk-658025291
:lol:
Yeah, that shit was hilarious.
There's fucking jackhammering going on outside my window. <_<
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 03, 2013, 12:25:06 PM
There's fucking jackhammering going on outside my window. <_<
Good try, but you ain't gonna get another jackhammer pic.
I live in an Orlando television market so it's all George Zimmerman all the time on every single local station. :bleeding:
Even the local papers are chock full of George Zimmerman analysis. From what I've seen the various pundits are taking very different takes on the trial. An editorial today in the Miami Herald called George Zimmerman the star witness against himself; while the analysis in the Orlando Sentinel claimed the state had been devastated.
Quote from: Savonarola on July 03, 2013, 03:00:45 PM
while the analysis in the Orlando Sentinel claimed the state had been devastated.
Zimmerman to cops and Fox News: "'Stand Your Ground' law? Never heard of it."
Zimmerman's Criminal Justice Instructor: "'Stand Your Ground' law? Yeah, we covered it in my class."
Those who can't teach, teach.
Quote from: The Brain on July 03, 2013, 03:27:10 PM
Those who can't teach, teach.
No shit! :lol: And you can always tell who they are, because they complain about their students.
HEY NOW
Quote from: 11B4V on July 02, 2013, 07:32:49 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.everyjoe.com%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Fselma-mora%2Fselma-mora-photos-2.jpg&hash=1f5f7bcd6ecae9a04b5231cd2720e532b170673b)
Guys, if you google image search this lady, this thread is the 2nd result. :gasp:
Are 'we' doing something right or wrong or is Concrete's googlefu awesome? :unsure:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 03, 2013, 12:25:06 PM
There's fucking jackhammering going on outside my window. <_<
:showoff:
Quote from: mongers on July 03, 2013, 07:44:49 PM
Guys, if you google image search this lady, this thread is the 2nd result. :gasp:
Are 'we' doing something right or wrong or is Concrete's googlefu awesome? :unsure:
Or Google knows you frequent this site.
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 06:38:40 PM
Funny how the anti-Zim narrative shifted so quickly. Up through last week, it held that Zim stalked and attacked an innocent cherubish Trayvon and decided to murder him in cold blood. That seems to have seamlessly shifted to badass Trayvon knowing how to throw down (admirable quality) & beating the shit out of the cracka (which is not an offensive term), then the cracka being so humiliated that he shot Trayvon after it was all over. Wonder if that is set in stone or if it will change next week.
That was what I never understood. Surely if anyone should be protected by a stand your ground law it's the person being followed around who should, if they're able, be able to confront their stalker.
Incidentally in the UK the Supreme Court can be watched online, but they're starting to allow more cameras into courts. I think a Scottish murder retrial is going to be broadcast soon and then the Scottish courts are going to review the experience and decide how to continue. The Scottish courts allowed sentencing to be filmed before:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9211137/David-Gilroy-sentenced-in-first-televised-court-case.html
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 03, 2013, 07:51:51 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 03, 2013, 07:44:49 PM
Guys, if you google image search this lady, this thread is the 2nd result. :gasp:
Are 'we' doing something right or wrong or is Concrete's googlefu awesome? :unsure:
Or Google knows you frequent this site.
Nope, I've just tried it in a cleaned firefox install, and 11b4vs languish link/this thread is the 2nd result in the image search. :hmm:
QuoteThat was what I never understood. Surely if anyone should be protected by a stand your ground law it's the person being followed around who should, if they're able, be able to confront their stalker.
Tell them to fuck off? Sure, although he doesn't have to go anywhere. Smash their head into the ground repeatedly? Not so much. Both of them were perfectly free to be where they were.
Related:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmypetjawa.mu.nu%2Farchives%2Fzimmerman_map_of_events.jpg&hash=fcf67f3d46223a60915f6d5b975c83089a38e4e9)
Is this right? Martin was in the backyard of his dad's house (according to the girl he was on the phone with), then went all the way back to where the shooting happened?
E: My wife was telling me there's some shit about the cops fucking up evidence and something about Zimmerman's DNA not being under Martin's fingernails? What was the evidence that got fucked up, and why would they be expecting DNA under his fingernails?
Quote from: mongers on July 03, 2013, 08:11:28 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 03, 2013, 07:51:51 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 03, 2013, 07:44:49 PM
Guys, if you google image search this lady, this thread is the 2nd result. :gasp:
Are 'we' doing something right or wrong or is Concrete's googlefu awesome? :unsure:
Or Google knows you frequent this site.
Nope, I've just tried it in a cleaned firefox install, and 11b4vs languish link/this thread is the 2nd result in the image search. :hmm:
:lol:
Has anyone been following the trial? Has anything changed that makes it look like Zimmerman might actually get convicted or does it still sort of seem like a crime the prosecution has no hope of proving beyond reasonable doubt? I wasn't able to sustain much interest in this case after the first few months of the drama when it first started so haven't followed the trial at all.
I dunno, Otto. A jury of six soccer moms could go in any direction.
Everybody goofs on Jenteal, but her testimony from listening to the duration of the event on the phone was pretty solid.
The DNA expert from yesterday testified that no Zimmerman DNA was on either of Martin's hands or clothes, who allegedly was "grounding and pounding" Zimmerman to cookie dough. Can't really bitch about the DNA evidence collection at the scene or chain of custody, because they had solid collections from Zimmerman and his clothing.
Personally, it seems to me Zimmerman took some liberal license as to his side of the story on what happened, but you can do that when you're the only one alive. I just don't buy the "You're going to die tonight" Martin quote.
I think it comes down to whose timeline the jury's going to believe, Zimmerman's or the combined Jenteal/911 operator, and whether or not they believe you're a victim because you had to use a gun when you're losing a fight you started.
Is there any physical evidence that Zimmerman started the fight (by which I mean a physical altercation, not just following Trayvon around)?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 04, 2013, 07:17:46 AM
Has anyone been following the trial? Has anything changed that makes it look like Zimmerman might actually get convicted or does it still sort of seem like a crime the prosecution has no hope of proving beyond reasonable doubt? I wasn't able to sustain much interest in this case after the first few months of the drama when it first started so haven't followed the trial at all.
I think the chances of a guilty verdict are very slim. 5-1 against?
Be prepared for the reaction in the rest of the world, ignorant of the niceties of US law or of the details of the trial, to assume that a "not guilty" verdict was caused by the victim being guilty of first-degree aggrivated negritude while knowingly and willfully inhabiting Florida. ;)
Oscar Grant's shit didn't end well. Riots and shit after that german cop that shot him got adquited.
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 02:24:34 PM
Be prepared for the reaction in the rest of the world, ignorant of the niceties of US law or of the details of the trial, to assume that a "not guilty" verdict was caused by the victim being guilty of first-degree aggrivated negritude while knowingly and willfully inhabiting Florida. ;)
I thought Seedy was American. :hmm:
He was.
So sayeth the Chink double agent.
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 02:24:34 PM
Be prepared for the reaction in the rest of the world
The rest of the world can kiss our asses. USA! USA! USA!
Only way to make Europe happy would be to find Zimmerman guilty of first degree murder and put him away for 9 months.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 05, 2013, 06:05:35 AM
Only way to make Europe happy would be to find Zimmerman guilty of first degree murder and put him away for 9 months.
:lol:
Trayvon's mother is on the stand this AM.
Lawyers have the worst tact dealing with dead kids' Moms. No knock knock jokes from O'Mara, but man.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 05, 2013, 08:05:10 AM
Lawyers have the worst tact dealing with dead kids' Moms. No knock knock jokes from O'Mara, but man.
Yeah, there's not much you're likely to get on cross examination from her, and you can easily come off looking like a dick when you're going after mom. I saw a trial once where a mother was on the stand as an alibi witness for her son. The prosecutor got up and asked, "You love your son very much, don't you?" "Yes." Cross-examination over. That's all he needed to get to be able to argue in closing that the mother was a biased witness, and he didn't come out of it looking like a douche. I thought that was a good strategy.
Yeah, with limited exceptions if I was on a jury or some sort of judge tryer-of-fact in a different system I would give the testimony of mothers very little weight when it came to their children. I'm a father and I would say pretty much anything on the stand to get someone I blamed for my child's murder convicted.
Quote from: Kleves on July 05, 2013, 09:18:07 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 05, 2013, 08:05:10 AM
Lawyers have the worst tact dealing with dead kids' Moms. No knock knock jokes from O'Mara, but man.
Yeah, there's not much you're likely to get on cross examination from her, and you can easily come off looking like a dick when you're going after mom. I saw a trial once where a mother was on the stand as an alibi witness for her son. The prosecutor got up and asked, "You love your son very much, don't you?" "Yes." Cross-examination over. That's all he needed to get to be able to argue in closing that the mother was a biased witness, and he didn't come out of it looking like a douche. I thought that was a good strategy.
Yup - few points to be made with moms and girlfriends.
I didn't get where he thought he was going with asking her if it wasn't her son's voice, would it be in her opinion of somebody's screams who caused their own death. Squirrelly line of questioning, and really the wrong way to bait a Mom.
Wait, that fat welfare chick was Tryvon's girlfriend?
No.
Quote from: Siege on July 05, 2013, 11:07:36 AM
Wait, that fat welfare chick was Tryvon's girlfriend?
Dude, she was black, so of course not. :)
Trayvon had a white gf? Did she testify too?
Quote from: Siege on July 05, 2013, 11:07:36 AM
Wait, that fat welfare chick was Tryvon's girlfriend?
Careful, Seedy says she's not fat.
Quote from: Kleves on July 04, 2013, 09:59:36 AM
Is there any physical evidence that Zimmerman started the fight (by which I mean a physical altercation, not just following Trayvon around)?
No. That's just what Seedy desperately wants to believe.
Yes, desperately. So very, very desperately. :Carolinian hand fan flutter:
What would physical evidence of starting a fight look like? How would it differ from physical evidence of retaliation?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 08, 2013, 10:04:40 AM
What would physical evidence of starting a fight look like? How would it differ from physical evidence of retaliation?
It's the same as the voice evidence- lay opinion, i.e., bullshit.
Looks like another good day for the defense. A little fuzzy on specifics, sounded like they had a retired medical examiner testifying that Zimmerman shot Trayvon while Trayvon was bending over, consistent with Trayvon sitting on him and pounding his face. Somehow the ME ascertained Trayvon's clothes were 2-4 inches from his body when the shot was fired.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2013, 11:55:55 AM
Somehow the ME ascertained Trayvon's clothes were 2-4 inches from his body when the shot was fired.
I don't understand. Do you mean 2-4 inches from the gun's barrel, or from Z-man's body, or from T-bone's body?
From his own body.
Quote from: Siege on July 09, 2013, 01:50:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2013, 11:55:55 AM
Somehow the ME ascertained Trayvon's clothes were 2-4 inches from his body when the shot was fired.
I don't understand. Do you mean 2-4 inches from the gun's barrel, or from Z-man's body, or from T-bone's body?
I think I read that the muzzle of the pistol was right up on Trayvon's sweatshirt or whatever, and therefore both the gun and clothes were 2-4 inches away from Trayvon's body.
Speesh can't bring himself to say hoodie. ^_^
Anyway, the anti-Z rhetoric seems to now be that Zimmerman should have just passively laid there and allowed his head to be bashed into the concrete.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2013, 01:57:15 PM
Speesh can't bring himself to say hoodie. ^_^
Hoodie. There, I did it.
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 01:59:01 PM
Anyway, the anti-Z rhetoric seems to now be that Zimmerman should have just passively laid there and allowed his head to be bashed into the concrete.
Of course they do. :lol:
You guys are confusing me.
What's the meaning that it was 4 inches from T-bone's body? That he wore an 3xtra large hoodie?
I don;t see how this is relevant. Now, if you tell the muzle was 4 inches from Mister T, then I get it.
Last thing we need is people claiming Z-man took off T-bone's shitrt and used it as a supressor to camouflage the sound signature from his gun.
Quote from: Siege on July 09, 2013, 02:03:00 PM
I don;t see how this is relevant. Now, if you tell the muzle was 4 inches from Mister T, then I get it.
It's relevant because it suggests Trayvon was bending over when he was shot, i.e. while he was pounding Zimmerman. If he had been shot while lying on the ground his clothes would have been right next to the skin.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2013, 02:09:59 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 09, 2013, 02:03:00 PM
I don;t see how this is relevant. Now, if you tell the muzle was 4 inches from Mister T, then I get it.
It's relevant because it suggests Trayvon was bending over when he was shot, i.e. while he was pounding Zimmerman. If he had been shot while lying on the ground his clothes would have been right next to the skin.
Oh, I see.
Good point.
4 inches seems very long for a shirt to hang from a body.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 09, 2013, 04:34:29 PM
4 inches seems very long for a shirt to hang from a body.
If one is leaned over & wearing baggy clothing, I can see 2-4 being possible.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 09, 2013, 04:34:29 PM
4 inches seems very long for a shirt to hang from a body.
Hoodie.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 09, 2013, 04:34:29 PM
4 inches seems very long for a shirt to hang from a body.
how out of touch of you, with today's youth. :P
Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 05:14:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 09, 2013, 04:34:29 PM
4 inches seems very long for a shirt to hang from a body.
how out of touch of you, with today's youth. :P
Are you saying it's not a tie?
Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 02:00:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 01:59:01 PM
Anyway, the anti-Z rhetoric seems to now be that Zimmerman should have just passively laid there and allowed his head to be bashed into the concrete.
Of course they do. :lol:
Nah, much more fun to stalk black teenagers so we can make an excuse to use our nifty bang-bang toys. Do you and derweiss have your respective black teenagers picked out already, or just accepting Craigslist applications?
You know, you can learn more about black teenagers and how to illegally hunt them at your local library. :the more you know:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2013, 07:07:54 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 02:00:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 01:59:01 PM
Anyway, the anti-Z rhetoric seems to now be that Zimmerman should have just passively laid there and allowed his head to be bashed into the concrete.
Of course they do. :lol:
Nah, much more fun to stalk black teenagers so we can make an excuse to use our nifty bang-bang toys. Do you and derweiss have your respective black teenagers picked out already, or just accepting Craigslist applications?
You know, you can learn more about black teenagers and how to illegally hunt them at your local library. :the more you know:
Totally missed what was said.
I know, buddy. I know. :hug:
It's nice how this has become about the guilt or innocence of the victim.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 09, 2013, 07:20:32 PM
It's nice how this has become about the guilt or innocence of the victim.
You could say the same thing about any case of self defense and it would be equally meaningless.
Okay, Yi. I know which side you are backing.
I'm backing the guy who the evidence presented tends to support.
Examing the facts *then* coming to a conclusion is an exhilarating feeling Raz.
Fact brought before a jury aren't all the facts.
What relevant facts are being kept from the jury in this case?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 09, 2013, 08:00:21 PM
What relevant facts are being kept from the jury in this case?
Presumably, the secret ones that would justify the pre-determined positions of Raz and Seedy.
I recommend taking a mulligan Raz.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 09, 2013, 07:20:32 PM
It's nice how this has become about the guilt or innocence of the victim.
:yes: When the defense team is done, they're going to exhume Tayvon's body and put it in the electric chair.
If in fact Trayvon was ultimately the aggressor, wouldn't it behoove the defense team to identify him as such?
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 09:00:04 PM
If in fact Trayvon was ultimately the aggressor, wouldn't it behoove the defense team to identify him as such?
Maybe, but putting his body in the electric chair? That's uncalled for.
Well I suppose he could be charged with felony murder. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on July 09, 2013, 09:02:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 09:00:04 PM
If in fact Trayvon was ultimately the aggressor, wouldn't it behoove the defense team to identify him as such?
Maybe, but putting his body in the electric chair? That's uncalled for.
That might be a bit much, yes.
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 09:00:04 PM
If in fact Trayvon was ultimately the aggressor, wouldn't it behoove the defense team to identify him as such?
The trace amounts of marijuana in his system will prove the behoove.
It's an established fact in the scientific community that the pot you smoked last week makes you ground and pound the wannabe cop that starts a fight with you. Reefer Madness, baby.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2013, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 09:00:04 PM
If in fact Trayvon was ultimately the aggressor, wouldn't it behoove the defense team to identify him as such?
The trace amounts of marijuana in his system will prove the behoove.
It's an established fact in the scientific community that the pot you smoked last week makes you ground and pound the wannabe cop that starts a fight with you. Reefer Madness, baby.
-_-
Unless the jury is swayed by emotionalism I still don't see how Zimmerman gets convicted.
Even with SYG laws, I'm reminded of a story I may have told on here at one point in my 10 years of posting here. I have a cousin (actually he was my grandfather's brother's son, so my cousin once removed) who because of age difference quirks in my family tree was substantially younger than me such that we had more of an uncle/nephew relationship. In any case, he had a girlfriend in High School that he broke it off with. A few months later she starts "chatting" with him on instant messaging (this was late 90s in the height of the YIM/ICQ/AIM days), and then she basically intentionally tells her new bo that she's chatting with her ex a lot, to make him jealous. Her new boyfriend was in his early 20s dating a 17 year old. Anyway, he gets mad and starts threatening my cousin, my cousin being a hot headed young guy at the time decides to meet him for a fight in the parking lot of a local retail store (classic.)
Now, despite being around 4 years younger than this guy, my cousin was a heavy weight lifter in High School, one of the best wrestlers in the state and a linebacker on the football team. So he was a pretty big, tough 17 year old. In the fight, the older guy who was more of a thin/Idealogue (white trash era) looking guy gets his ass beat and ends up flat on his back. At that point he decides he doesn't like losing their bout of mutual combat and after my cousin backed off he jumps up and stabs him--catching his liver.
A bunch of people were there to watch the fight, so they all react in shock and try to get my cousin to the hospital, but the guy with the knife runs up and starts slashing the tires of the car they're trying to get him into. At that point two girls that were friends with my cousin actually chase the knife-wielding guy away by basically trying to run him over with their car, at which point my cousin is rushed to the ER. He ends up being fine after a few days in the hospital, with a scar and a cool story to tell.
At the trial, the guy is acquitted 100%, his attorney successfully argues that while it started as a mutual fight, once my cousin had his client down on the ground he had a fear for his life (even though several witnesses were there and said my cousin was not hitting him or kicking him while he was down.) In Zimmerman's case, I think the prosecution has even less to work with, no eye witnesses, clear evidence that when Zimmerman was on his back, Martin was over top of him etc.
I actually suspect the particulars between the two fights are very similar. I suspect Zimmerman started stuff with Martin, I won't say who threw the first punch but I'd say up to the point Zimmerman went down it was probably classic "mutual combat." Once Zimmerman was down, I suspect like the guy who stabbed my cousin, he didn't like losing a fight, so he decided to kill Martin. But he had a gun whereas the guy who stabbed my cousin had a knife, so Martin ends up dead.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 10, 2013, 09:01:05 AM
Unless the jury is swayed by emotionalism I still don't see how Zimmerman gets convicted.
Unfortunately, it's going to have to take a different case to knock off this "Stand Your Ground" crap with wannabe cops.
Because not enough wannabe cops are getting themselves killed, the other alternative is to send them to jail.
But at least he can enjoy dealing with the very long, very expensive wrongful death civil lawsuit for the next several years.
So OvB, you want to ban guns now?
About OvB's cousin's fight:
I really don't understand why people would fight other than in war, to death.
What's the point of crossing a few punches? It is not deathly. The worst you can get is a black eye or a broken nose.
I really don't get the point of fist fights. It doesn't fix anything.
Is this supposed to be like paintball or something?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 09:08:14 AM
But at least he can enjoy dealing with the very long, very expensive wrongful death civil lawsuit for the next several years.
Not to mention a federal civil rights trial, courtesy of your pal Holder.
I thought DoJ declined to get involved?
Anyway, @ Siege, you are very, very stupid. That needs to be said in first.
Secondly, a fist fight is typically based on machismo often combined with drinking. It's typical of lower brow individuals and young men, and not terribly uncommon in those groups. As Dalton said in the seminal 1980s classic Road House "nobody wins a fight." I have a lot of experience from my misspent youth in that sort of foolish endeavor, and I will say the key mistake my cousin made was thinking a fight was like something from TV where once you've won the good fight you shake hands and go home. In my experience if you actually knock someone down and they don't bring you down with them, you make sure they don't get back up. That doesn't mean you kill them, but it means they stay down til you've left, and if they try to get up you kick the shit out of them til they stay down.
Honest question to Seedy: Given the evidence and testimony that has been presented during this case, do you think a guilty verdict for second degree murder is appropriate?
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 09:28:24 AM
Honest question to Seedy: Given the evidence and testimony that has been presented during this case, do you think a guilty verdict for second degree murder is appropriate?
2nd degree is tough considering what's on the jury's plate, but I don't see any reason why manslaughter shouldn't be out of the picture, even with the "Stand Your Ground" bullshit. There's enough evidence there to void that claim.
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 09:25:12 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 09:08:14 AM
But at least he can enjoy dealing with the very long, very expensive wrongful death civil lawsuit for the next several years.
Not to mention a federal civil rights trial, courtesy of your pal Holder.
I don't think DOJ would get involved with this specific case, but if it's good enough for the LAPD, it's always good enough for LAPD wannabes. You want to play the game like the big boys, you get to play the whole game.
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 09:25:12 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 09:08:14 AM
But at least he can enjoy dealing with the very long, very expensive wrongful death civil lawsuit for the next several years.
Not to mention a federal civil rights trial, courtesy of your pal Holder.
Awww, wouldn't that be a shame.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 09:33:28 AM2nd degree is tough considering what's on the jury's plate, but I don't see any reason why manslaughter shouldn't be out of the picture, even with the "Stand Your Ground" bullshit. There's enough evidence there to void that claim.
QuoteOverview of Florida Voluntary Manslaughter Laws
Florida state laws establish the criminal offense of manslaughter when a homicide, the killing of a human being, does not meet the legal definition of murder. Manslaughter, unlike murder, does not require evidence of the defendant's premeditation or "depraved mind" with disregard for human life; instead, the state requires proof of either voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter.
Voluntary manslaughter describes a homicide intentionally committed while in the midst of a provocation. The prosecutor must show a sudden, unexpected event or circumstance serving as a provocation. As a result of the provocation, the defendant must have felt a temporary anger, heat of passion, or emotion that immediately resulted in an intent to kill or an intent to commit the act that resulted in the victim's death.
I think that seems the easiest fit for Zimmerman's actions, but I still think given the evidence the prosecution won't be able to beat his self-defense argument unless the jury is strongly tilted towards conviction as a predisposition or is swayed by emotional testimony from family. I've said all along Zimmerman's actions are an example of a bad thing that is probably not going to result in a conviction at trial. I think several of the jurors admitted being familiar with/involved with guns and one had a CCW, which doesn't bode well for the prosecution IMO.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 10, 2013, 09:45:17 AM
Voluntary manslaughter describes a homicide intentionally committed while in the midst of a provocation. The prosecutor must show a sudden, unexpected event or circumstance serving as a provocation. As a result of the provocation, the defendant must have felt a temporary anger, heat of passion, or emotion that immediately resulted in an intent to kill or an intent to commit the act that resulted in the victim's death.
Zimmerman: These assholes they always get away
Operator: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Operator: We don't need you to do thatCase closed.
QuoteI think that seems the easiest fit for Zimmerman's actions, but I still think given the evidence the prosecution won't be able to beat his self-defense argument unless the jury is strongly tilted towards conviction as a predisposition or is swayed by emotional testimony from family. I've said all along Zimmerman's actions are an example of a bad thing that is probably not going to result in a conviction at trial. I think several of the jurors admitted being familiar with/involved with guns and one had a CCW, which doesn't bode well for the prosecution IMO.
6 out of 6 soccer moms agree: a dead black kid is just a dead black kid.
The prosecution would still have to overcome Zimmerman's self-defense claim in a manslaughter case. With the evidence they have, I don't see how they could do that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 09:08:14 AM
But at least he can enjoy dealing with the very long, very expensive wrongful death civil lawsuit for the next several years.
He's no O.J., man: I forget if his defense lawyers are pro bono, but if not, I figure he and his family are pretty much "judgment proof" right now; if so, what's he worth? $10k? And somehow I don't see a big book deal in his future. Nothing hugely glamorous about "how I confronted a high schooler, lost a fistfight with him, shot him, and lived to tell the tale."
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 10, 2013, 09:27:50 AM
Anyway, @ Siege, you are very, very stupid. That needs to be said in first.
Yeah, well. I know that.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 10, 2013, 09:27:50 AM
Secondly, a fist fight is typically based on machismo often combined with drinking.
Machism is extremely retarded as I understand people do, like showing up what they don't have, or humiliating females, or talking trash. I was taught since I was a kid that machismo was a negative trait that made men commit mistakes.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 10, 2013, 09:27:50 AM
I have a lot of experience from my misspent youth in that sort of foolish endeavor, and I will say the key mistake my cousin made was thinking a fight was like something from TV where once you've won the good fight you shake hands and go home. In my experience if you actually knock someone down and they don't bring you down with them, you make sure they don't get back up. That doesn't mean you kill them, but it means they stay down til you've left, and if they try to get up you kick the shit out of them til they stay down.
Still don't get it. You are creating a dangerous enemy inside your walls, so to speak. Why to fight at all, when you will leave a guy alive laying on the ground which will wake up the next day and pick up a gun and come and get you and your family?
I personally, do not fight inside the borders of my country.
Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 10:40:14 AM
Machism is extremely retarded as I understand people do, like showing up what they don't have, or humiliating females, or talking trash. I was taught since I was a kid that machismo was a negative trait that made men commit mistakes.
And you call yourself a Spaniard. :rolleyes:
Were you born an adult Siege? Young men are stupid. There is no greater mystery here.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 10, 2013, 10:42:35 AM
Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 10:40:14 AM
Machism is extremely retarded as I understand people do, like showing up what they don't have, or humiliating females, or talking trash. I was taught since I was a kid that machismo was a negative trait that made men commit mistakes.
And you call yourself a Spaniard. :rolleyes:
Sefaradi, persecuted by Spaniards.
Quote from: Kleves on July 10, 2013, 10:02:48 AM
The prosecution would still have to overcome Zimmerman's self-defense claim in a manslaughter case. With the evidence they have, I don't see how they could do that.
I'm not convinced that a manslaughter charge could be successfully prosecuted either, but it would at least make for a more interesting conversation.
I've read that the jury could theoretically convict Zim of a lesser charge (manslaughter)-- anyone know how that works? Does the jury just have the option to lower the charge & convict him, or does there need to be a hearing of some sort before they do that?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 10, 2013, 10:46:19 AM
Were you born an adult Siege? Young men are stupid. There is no greater mystery here.
You have to grow up quickly in Israel.
We get to make those stupid decisions in combat.
Well, not everybody. Most kids in Israel end up as pogs anyway.
Though pogs do get shot at too. And blown up.
Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 10:50:02 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 10, 2013, 10:46:19 AM
Were you born an adult Siege? Young men are stupid. There is no greater mystery here.
You have to grow up quickly in Israel.
We get to make those stupid decisions in combat.
Well, not everybody. Most kids in Israel end up as pogs anyway.
Though pogs do get shot at too. And blown up.
In my ROTC class we had a guy by the last name of "Paugh" that our battalion SGM always called "Pog". Not sure if it was intentional or unintentional (SGM was Puerto Rican, so he may have just been trying to pronounce the name phonetically). Anyway, pog was an appropriate term for him as he was prior enlisted with a Signals MOS and really didn't have the appropriate physical condition for any combat duty. Hell of a guy, though.
What's a "pog"?
WTF is a pog, since I assume you don't mean the 90s-era kids game...
Quote from: Malthus on July 10, 2013, 11:04:09 AM
What's a "pog"?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages3.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20101011040628%2Fpogs%2Fimages%2F8%2F8d%2FHT.jpg&hash=c2f2dc8efbad927406124ee038fe99503d8d2e27)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pog
People Other than Grunts.
Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2013, 10:49:24 AM
Quote from: Kleves on July 10, 2013, 10:02:48 AM
The prosecution would still have to overcome Zimmerman's self-defense claim in a manslaughter case. With the evidence they have, I don't see how they could do that.
I'm not convinced that a manslaughter charge could be successfully prosecuted either, but it would at least make for a more interesting conversation.
I've read that the jury could theoretically convict Zim of a lesser charge (manslaughter)-- anyone know how that works? Does the jury just have the option to lower the charge & convict him, or does there need to be a hearing of some sort before they do that?
The jury just does it. They are called "lesser-included offenses" and they come with the jury instructions when they go to deliberate. Whether or not they are included, and which, is something the two sides argue about or agree on pre-trial.
The jury has to decide on all the lesser-includeds. So, for my Knoxville chainsaw massacre case, our guy was charged with three counts, attempted murder + two aggravated assaults "Has the jury reached a verdict on all the charges?" "Yes."
"As to charge one, attempted murder, to wit, with a chainsaw?" "Not guilty"
"As to the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter?" "Not guilty" -- [n.b. "attempted" voluntary manslaughter doesn't really make any logical sense]
"As to attempted manslaughter?" "Not guilty"
"As to reckless endangerment? "Guilty."
"As to charge two, aggravated assault, to wit, with a knife?" "Not guilty"
"As to assault? "Not guilty"
"As to charge three, aggravated assault, to wit, with a chainsaw?" "Guilty."
(Now the fun on appeal was that reckless endangerment and aggravated assault require two conflicting mental states, so one has to go, obviously only the reckless endangerment can stand we argue.)
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2013, 11:08:55 AM
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pog
That was awesome. I liked the MPs getting spit at, at Gitmo.
I would like to add, that another way to spot a pog is when they mention "combat arms".
This is a way to include armor, military police, cavalry scouts and artillery with infantry.
"I'm combat arms" or "I have a combat arms MOS", as oppoussed to "I am infantry", "I'm 11B", or "My MOS? Infantry."
It's a sad commentary on modern warfare if infantry is the most prestigious type of soldier. :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 10, 2013, 11:25:20 AM
It's a sad commentary on modern warfare if infantry is the most prestigious type of soldier. :(
Only in western countries.
In the muslim world, the far east, and the 3rd world in general, infantry is the lowest job.
That, should tell you a lot about why they suck so much.
War have always been, and will always be, about the infantry.
There is no victory until you close with the enemy and take their ground and hold it.
Used to be you could scatter the opposition's foot with a good cavalry charge. Or even an armored cavalry charge.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 10, 2013, 11:25:20 AM
It's a sad commentary on modern warfare if infantry is the most prestigious type of soldier. :(
They are, but only in their own circles. I wish I could remember some of the infantry jokes I heard from armor and artillery officers I knew. They were doozies.
Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 11:34:06 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 10, 2013, 11:25:20 AM
It's a sad commentary on modern warfare if infantry is the most prestigious type of soldier. :(
Only in western countries.
In the muslim world, the far east, and the 3rd world in general, infantry is the lowest job.
That, should tell you a lot about why they suck so much.
War have always been, and will always be, about the infantry.
There is no victory until you close with the enemy and take their ground and hold it.
Technically, if you have the morals and ethics of Genghis Khan, can't you just terrorize the population with airstrikes until they agree to pacify themselves with their own militia? And repeat the exercise if the militia isn't exterminating the troublemakers vigorously enough?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 10, 2013, 11:25:20 AM
It's a sad commentary on modern warfare if infantry is the most prestigious type of soldier. :(
Not according to
Punch: "The purpose of cavalry is to add tone to what would otherwise be an unseemly brawl."
Break em off sometin:
QuoteDeputies from South Florida have released a public-service announcement urging possible protesters to remain peaceful after the jury decides whether George Zimmerman is guilty of murder in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.
The Broward County Sheriff's Office website says deputies have been "working closely with the Sanford Police Department and other local law enforcement agencies" to create a "coordinated a response plan in anticipation of the verdict."
Sanford Police Chief Cecil Smith, however, said his agency didn't know about the video and has not coordinated response plans with Broward.
"We...have had really no contact with Broward County in regards to setting up plans and structures in response to anything," Smith said.
Sanford police have worked closely with the Seminole County Sheriff's Office to develop plans on how to respond to various incidents, Smith said, adding that he is doubtful violence will occur in Sanford — regardless of the verdict.
"What people called for a year ago has happened – an investigation into the shooting, George Zimmerman being charged, better training for law enforcement and the Department of Justice investigating the Sanford police department," Smith said. "Each of those things has been received."
Smith also said there has been a low turnout of protesters at the Seminole County courthouse throughout the trial so far.
The community "has put their trust into the judicial system and we ask that they keep putting their trust in the judicial system," Smith said.
Seminole Sheriff's spokeswoman Kim Cannaday said the agency, "had no hand in producing or releasing the video."
The 36-second video features law enforcement officials, kids from the Jason Taylor Foundation and James Jones of the Miami Heat. The participants shout "raise your voice, not your hands" and "let's give violence a rest, because we can easily end up arrested."
Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said in a statement on the website that his agency has no information "about a specific event that might take place at the conclusion of the trial, but we encourage everyone to keep any protests peaceful."
Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder in the fatal shooting of South Florida teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford.
Trayvon of Miami Gardens was 17 when he was gunned down by Zimmerman, a Neighborhood Watch volunteer who claimed self-defense after the shooting in February 2012.
The trial is unfolding in Sanford and is drawing to a close.
The case has drawn attention from around the globe, including intense interest in South Florida because of the teen's connection to the region.
Broward deputies also said their strategic-investigation division has been "monitoring the pulse of the situation, maintaining open lines of communication with community leaders, civic activists, members of the clergy, as well as local, state and federal agencies."
The Southern Christian Leadership Council is holding a press conference at the Seminole County courthouse at 11 a.m. Thursday to call "for calm during and after this trial," the organization said in a press release.
I doubt there will be riots in Sanford. It's a small town; so small that there isn't even a Koreatown to ransack.
Quote from: Savonarola on July 10, 2013, 01:00:05 PM
I doubt there will be riots in Sanford. It's a small town; so small that there isn't even a Koreatown to ransack.
And it's just simply too goddamned hot out.
Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 10:40:14 AM
Machism is extremely retarded as I understand people do, like showing up what they don't have, or humiliating females, or talking trash. I was taught since I was a kid that machismo was a negative trait that made men commit mistakes.
Probably a solid 30% of your posts on Languish since the beginning have been about how tough you and your unit are. That's what machismo is.
Quote from: Neil on July 10, 2013, 02:39:18 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 10:40:14 AM
Machism is extremely retarded as I understand people do, like showing up what they don't have, or humiliating females, or talking trash. I was taught since I was a kid that machismo was a negative trait that made men commit mistakes.
Probably a solid 30% of your posts on Languish since the beginning have been about how tough you and your unit are. That's what machismo is.
Nah, that's just good honest bravado.
Quote from: Savonarola on July 10, 2013, 01:00:05 PM
I doubt there will be riots in Sanford. It's a small town; so small that there isn't even a Koreatown to ransack.
Cincy had some nasty riots last decade, and we have no Koreatown.
But I'm sure a high production value video like this will resonate with would-be rioters and prevent any unrest.
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 09:10:21 AM
Cincy had some nasty riots last decade, and we have no Koreatown.
Cincy's got worse race relations with the police than LA, man. CPD is bad news.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 11, 2013, 09:14:39 AM
Cincy's got worse race relations with the police than LA, man. CPD is bad news.
CPD has been thoroughly pussified in the last decade. You'd love it now.
Also our previous police chief couldn't even carry a gun because he refused to take the qualification tests all CPD officers must take. Of course, it wasn't that he was worried he'd fail-- just that he was above such petty stuff. Thankfully he took the Detroit job, so we can hire our next loser.
Heard on NPR that the prosecution has asked the judge to instruct the jury about the lesser included charge of murder 3, something about child abuse. Defense is raising a fit apparently.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2013, 11:02:15 AM
Heard on NPR that the prosecution has asked the judge to instruct the jury about the lesser included charge of murder 3, something about child abuse. Defense is raising a fit apparently.
So murder 3 and possibly child abuse was included in the indictment? Is that common? Is it fair to the defense to make them defend against multiple degrees of the same charge, or two move the goalposts at the end of the game?
Murder 3 is child abuse that results in a death, if I'm not mistaken. I'd never heard of it before. Wonder if it's a Florida thing.
I'll let one of the shyster swarm explain the concept of lesser included charges.
Sounds like the judge is going to allow the jury to consider a manslaughter charge.
Just caught a run-down of the prosecution's final (?) presentation, and it included a rather odd slide re: Ms. Jeantel. Can't find a screenshot, but it says:
Quote
*Spent hours on witness stand
-Why
*Do you just disregard what she said because:
-Family from Haiti [???]
-Isn't Sophisticated
-Can't read cursive
*I had a dream...... that today, a witness would be judged not on the color of her personality, but the content of her testimony
:lol:
Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 10:46:43 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 10, 2013, 10:42:35 AM
Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 10:40:14 AM
Machism is extremely retarded as I understand people do, like showing up what they don't have, or humiliating females, or talking trash. I was taught since I was a kid that machismo was a negative trait that made men commit mistakes.
And you call yourself a Spaniard. :rolleyes:
Sefaradi, persecuted by Spaniards.
They didn't do a good enough job <_<
Quote from: katmai on July 11, 2013, 04:00:10 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 10:46:43 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 10, 2013, 10:42:35 AM
Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 10:40:14 AM
Machism is extremely retarded as I understand people do, like showing up what they don't have, or humiliating females, or talking trash. I was taught since I was a kid that machismo was a negative trait that made men commit mistakes.
And you call yourself a Spaniard. :rolleyes:
Sefaradi, persecuted by Spaniards.
They didn't do a good enough job <_<
:glare:
Too soon.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2013, 01:02:31 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on July 10, 2013, 01:00:05 PM
I doubt there will be riots in Sanford. It's a small town; so small that there isn't even a Koreatown to ransack.
And it's just simply too goddamned hot out.
Yes they will. Needs a new Flat screen.
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 11:06:28 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2013, 11:02:15 AM
Heard on NPR that the prosecution has asked the judge to instruct the jury about the lesser included charge of murder 3, something about child abuse. Defense is raising a fit apparently.
So murder 3 and possibly child abuse was included in the indictment? Is that common? Is it fair to the defense to make them defend against multiple degrees of the same charge, or two move the goalposts at the end of the game?
Looks like they argue over lesser-includeds at the end of the trial in Florida. I explained the general concept of lesser-includeds above. Is it fair? From a defense perspective it can suck real bad, or be a tremendous boon. Yes, it is very common.
From my limited experience, a big part of lesser-includeds is the jury's desire to 1) compromise (and not deliver a mistrial); 2) not really follow the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof; and 3) punish perceived morally blameworthy behavior or people without taking on the moral burden of fully convicting him. "Splitting the difference" and coming back with a lesser-included, even when it doesn't really make much sense, is pretty common.
So maybe 8 jurors are ready to convict a guy of 2nd degree murder, but 4 tend to believe his self-defense claim. But he's not a good guy; he had to testify to make out his defense, and once you testify, the prosecution can bring in your criminal record from the last 10 years, so the jury knows he has a robbery conviction from 2004, and drug & domestic violence convictions in the last couple years. And his story isn't great, but it does raise reasonable doubt. So they should hold fast and acquit on everything. But then they say, "what about manslaughter?" And the 8 think, well, we'll take that, he'll get locked up and we can go home and we don't have to argue with the other nice people in the jury anymore; and besides, I did have *some* doubt so it's really better I don't have to commit to putting him away for life anyways. And the 4 think, well, he's definitely a violent guy and probably was doing something bad that night, and maybe he shouldn't just get out on the streets anyway, and somebody did get killed after all, and those other nice people have been trying to persuade us all day, and it's OK to have *some* doubt, the prosecutor said that, and we'd get to go home and not fight anymore... So they split the difference, come back with manslaughter, and they're done.
As the defense, if you feel like you've got a real loser of a case, you jump for joy when that verdict comes in. You may even spend the whole trial attempting to get a lesser -- like if it's a trial for drug distribution, and you say "Ladies and gentleman, my client smokes crack. He'd addicted to crack cocaine and he has been for the last 7 years. And he's not proud of it, but he had crack cocaine in his house on July 12th and he had quite a bit of it. But, as you'll see, he had just won a scratch-n-win that morning, and was treating himself to a crack binge. The evidence will show that he only had that cocaine for his own personal use." With the goal of getting a conviction for the lesser-included of simple possession (which is probably not subject to mandatory minimum sentencing).
On the other hand, it really sucks when you feel like the jurors who really believed in an acquittal caved in, or the whole jury just split the difference because they weighed the evidence at a 51% standard rather than really taking "beyond a reasonable doubt" seriously. It's funny, for everyone's talk of being tough on crime and being willing to flip the switch, the conventional defense lawyer wisdom is that jurors with a conviction usually come in with their heads down looking sad and embarrassed, whereas if they're smiling and able to look at your client, they're probably acquitting.
But, channeling CDM, it's not like y'all gave a shit whether it was fair to "move the goalposts" or "defend against multiple degrees" when it was poor black men they were putting away, did you?
As an update, I hear the judge is allowing manslaughter as a lesser-included but denying the child abuse one.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 12, 2013, 01:40:41 AM
But, channeling CDM, it's not like y'all gave a shit whether it was fair to "move the goalposts" or "defend against multiple degrees" when it was poor black men they were putting away, did you?
The reason anyone is talking about this case is that it's so high profile & has been all over the news. I was totally ignorant on the concept of lesser included charges up until this week, which is why I was asking how they work and if they tend to affect the defense. Unlike Seedy, I don't have any skin in the game with the Zimmerman verdict, just as I don't when "poor black men" are on trial, outside of wanting to see justice served of course.
Thanks for the explanation, btw.
Quote from: derspiess on July 12, 2013, 08:19:33 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 12, 2013, 01:40:41 AM
But, channeling CDM, it's not like y'all gave a shit whether it was fair to "move the goalposts" or "defend against multiple degrees" when it was poor black men they were putting away, did you?
Unlike Seedy, I don't have any skin in the game with the Zimmerman verdict, just as I don't when "poor black men" are on trial, outside of wanting to see justice served of course.
Well, that's kind of the point for me (who also doesn't have skin in this game); popular hysteria about crime, drugs and sex crimes especially, has led to the legislating of crazy-high possible -- and even mandatory -- sentences, after which everyone goes back to their business. And most people from the middle class up don't have to pay any attention to the injustice of how it actually plays out, unless there's a high-profile case, which usually hurts their understanding rather than helps it. Even though 1/4 of Americans have criminal convictions.
Quote from: derspiess on July 12, 2013, 08:19:33 AM
Unlike Seedy, I don't have any skin in the game with the Zimmerman verdict,
I'm not a Florida resident, dipshit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2013, 08:45:10 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 12, 2013, 08:19:33 AM
Unlike Seedy, I don't have any skin in the game with the Zimmerman verdict,
I'm not a Florida resident, dipshit.
You still seem to have some emotional need to see him hang, regardless.
The prosecutor is a histrionic poseur, ain't he?
Quote from: derspiess on July 12, 2013, 08:52:30 AM
You still seem to have some emotional need to see him hang, regardless.
I like to see all wannabe cops perpetratin' the fraud and private citizens wrongly using handguns they shouldn't be allowed to have in the first place hang.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2013, 09:21:36 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 12, 2013, 08:52:30 AM
You still seem to have some emotional need to see him hang, regardless.
I like to see all wannabe cops perpetratin' the fraud and private citizens wrongly using handguns they shouldn't be allowed to have in the first place hang.
Whether or not there is enough evidence to convict, of course.
Quote from: derspiess on July 12, 2013, 09:24:05 AM
Whether or not there is enough evidence to convict, of course.
When you finally get the chance to shoot your very own nigger, I'll be there in your corner, man. :hug:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2013, 09:29:02 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 12, 2013, 09:24:05 AM
Whether or not there is enough evidence to convict, of course.
When you finally get the chance to shoot your very own nigger, I'll be there in your corner, man. :hug:
That's n-word to you, Mr. No Ghetto Pass.
So close:
QuoteGeorge Mason University Offers Class on Trayvon Martin, Misspells His Name
By Sarah Rae Fruchtnicht, Fri, July 12, 2013
George Mason University in Virginia announced it will offer a three-credit class this fall called "Race & Politics, Trevon Martin."
According to Campus Reform, the GMU course will actually cover 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
GMU did not disclose the specifics of the course, but sociology and anthropology professor Rutledge Dennis, who is set to teach the class, has a background in race and ethnic studies. One of his nine books, written with Charles Jarmon, covers "social science perspectives on Afro-Americans."
Dennis is the former president of the Association of Black Sociologists and is currently the editor of Elsevier Publishing Company's Series on Research in Race and Ethnic Relations.
A heated trial is currently underway in the murder of the 17 year old. Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman in 2012. Zimmerman was charged with murder, but his judge is considering the lesser charge of manslaughter. Speculations on whether or not the verdict could cause rioting in African-American communities has been called uninformed and even racist.
George Mason would've been very disappointed.
QuoteQuoteSpeculations on whether or not the verdict could cause rioting in African-American communities has been called uninformed and even racist.
Well black people did riot thousands of miles away twenty three years ago about a completely different court case.
Quote from: Valmy on July 12, 2013, 03:53:42 PM
QuoteQuoteSpeculations on whether or not the verdict could cause rioting in African-American communities has been called uninformed and even racist.
Well black people did riot thousands of miles away twenty three years ago about a completely different court case.
:huh:
Hopefully the jury would be thoughtful and consider the feelings of potential rioters before coming to their decision.
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2013, 04:01:36 PM
Hopefully the jury would be thoughtful and consider the feelings of potential rioters before coming to their decision.
And the many gun owners who donated money to the Zimmerman's defense fund in the hope that the right to use firearms to shoot or least drive off black people would not be infringed.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 04:04:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2013, 04:01:36 PM
Hopefully the jury would be thoughtful and consider the feelings of potential rioters before coming to their decision.
And the many gun owners who donated money to the Zimmerman's defense fund in the hope that the right to use firearms to shoot or least drive off black people would not be infringed.
They did? First I heard of that.
Glad to be of service.
When is the verdict? My dove is itching for freedom.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 05:04:43 PM
Glad to be of service.
Where did you hear/read that?
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2013, 05:06:25 PM
When is the verdict? My dove is itching for freedom.
That's why you have to be careful where you put it.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 12, 2013, 05:06:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 05:04:43 PM
Glad to be of service.
Where did you hear/read that?
He had a website for his defense fund. http://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/ (http://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/) It's probably a little late to donate.
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2013, 05:06:25 PM
When is the verdict? My dove is itching for freedom.
Better not be a white dove, some people get really mad if you dare suggest that Zimmerman is white.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 05:08:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 12, 2013, 05:06:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 05:04:43 PM
Glad to be of service.
Where did you hear/read that?
He had a website for his defense fund. http://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/ (http://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/) It's probably a little late to donate.
and you assume they're (many) gun owners.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 12, 2013, 05:25:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 05:08:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 12, 2013, 05:06:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 05:04:43 PM
Glad to be of service.
Where did you hear/read that?
He had a website for his defense fund. http://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/ (http://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/) It's probably a little late to donate.
and you assume they're (many) gun owners.
And why wouldn't I? After all you assumed that their would be riots started by people wanting consumer electronics.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 05:34:22 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 12, 2013, 05:25:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 05:08:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 12, 2013, 05:06:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 05:04:43 PM
Glad to be of service.
Where did you hear/read that?
He had a website for his defense fund. http://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/ (http://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/) It's probably a little late to donate.
and you assume they're (many) gun owners.
And why wouldn't I? After all you assumed that their would be riots started by people wanting consumer electronics.
Why wouldnt we assume only gays support the boycott of the OSC movie...idiot.
And you with the race riot flat screen thing?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 11:10:24 PM
And you with the race riot flat screen thing?
IMO They are going to riot if the Z gets off. I didnt put race in it.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2013, 01:08:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 11:10:24 PM
And you with the race riot flat screen thing?
IMO They are going to riot if the Z gets off. I didnt put race in it.
No justice, no peace!
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2013, 01:08:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 11:10:24 PM
And you with the race riot flat screen thing?
IMO They are going to riot if the Z gets off. I didnt put race in it.
I dunno man. This isn't 1992. I doubt very much there are riots no matter which way the Zimmerman trial goes.
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2013, 01:34:05 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2013, 01:08:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 11:10:24 PM
And you with the race riot flat screen thing?
IMO They are going to riot if the Z gets off. I didnt put race in it.
I dunno man. This isn't 1992. I doubt very much there are riots no matter which way the Zimmerman trial goes.
I tryuely hope your words are true. :)
$20 bucks straight up says if Zimmerman walks at least one storefront window gets shattered somewhere within the US by a black person within 24 hours of the verdict being read.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 13, 2013, 02:03:46 AM
$20 bucks straight up says if Zimmerman walks at least one storefront window gets shattered somewhere within the US by a black person within 24 hours of the verdict being read.
and it will probably be a Korean owned shop too. :P
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2013, 01:08:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 11:10:24 PM
And you with the race riot flat screen thing?
IMO They are going to riot if the Z gets off. I didnt put race in it.
But it's really just cover to steal a TV right?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 13, 2013, 02:03:46 AM
$20 bucks straight up says if Zimmerman walks at least one storefront window gets shattered somewhere within the US by a black person within 24 hours of the verdict being read.
I imagine that a black person will break a window somewhere in the world even if Zimmerman is executed by the judge right then and there doesn't.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2013, 02:29:22 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2013, 01:08:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 11:10:24 PM
And you with the race riot flat screen thing?
IMO They are going to riot if the Z gets off. I didnt put race in it.
But it's really just cover to steal a TV right?
No that's called convenience. :P
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2013, 02:33:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2013, 02:29:22 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2013, 01:08:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 11:10:24 PM
And you with the race riot flat screen thing?
IMO They are going to riot if the Z gets off. I didnt put race in it.
But it's really just cover to steal a TV right?
No that's called convenience. :P
You really suck at playing dumb. C'mon, try harder.
Oh look what I found http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/04/02/trayvon-martin-case-gun-rights-groups-pledge-legal-support-george-zimmerman
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2013, 02:29:22 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2013, 01:08:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 11:10:24 PM
And you with the race riot flat screen thing?
IMO They are going to riot if the Z gets off. I didnt put race in it.
But it's really just cover to steal a TV right?
I do need a new flat screen....
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2013, 02:35:29 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2013, 02:33:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2013, 02:29:22 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2013, 01:08:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 11:10:24 PM
And you with the race riot flat screen thing?
IMO They are going to riot if the Z gets off. I didnt put race in it.
But it's really just cover to steal a TV right?
No that's called convenience. :P
You really suck at playing dumb. C'mon, try harder.
Oh look what I found http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/04/02/trayvon-martin-case-gun-rights-groups-pledge-legal-support-george-zimmerman
Took you long enough.
The site was down for several hours.
Quote from: katmai on July 13, 2013, 02:44:55 AM
I do need a new flat screen....
As a Mexirican, you should be rioting if he's convicted.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2013, 02:48:50 AM
The site was down for several hours.
QuoteYou really suck at playing dumb. C'mon, try harder.
Quote from: katmai on July 13, 2013, 02:44:55 AM
I do need a new flat screen....
Doesn't Obama give them for free to you people?* Just file the required form.
*Alaskans
Quote from: Syt on July 13, 2013, 02:57:29 AM
Quote from: katmai on July 13, 2013, 02:44:55 AM
I do need a new flat screen....
Doesn't Obama give them for free to you people?* Just file the required form.
*Alaskans
Only if i was Native <_<
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2013, 02:30:41 AM
I imagine that a black person will break a window somewhere in the world even if Zimmerman is executed by the judge right then and there doesn't.
So?
Makes the bet kinda pointless.
I don't see how a black person breaking a window in Brazil or Mali invalidates a bet about breaking store displays in the US.
What a black store employee accidentally knocks a ladder through the front window?
Quote from: katmai on July 12, 2013, 03:54:40 PM
:huh:
Sorry. Twenty-one years ago. I do not know why I thought that happened in 1990 instead of 1992.
Jury has deliberated for 3.5 hours yesterday, 9 hours today. They sent the judge a question about manslaughter.
Well the trial lasted like two weeks, so I imagine that'll take some time to work out. I think there no chance of a murder conviction but decent chance at manslaughter.
Last question of the day:
QuoteTheir question, which was presented to the judge just before 6 p.m: "May we please have clarification on the instructions regarding manslaughter?"
Sounds like they won't convict on Murder 2, but they still think he did something wrong.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2013, 08:07:55 PM
Last question of the day:
QuoteTheir question, which was presented to the judge just before 6 p.m: "May we please have clarification on the instructions regarding manslaughter?"
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbbc.quist.ca%2Fbb%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fdeadhorse.gif&hash=f85c6bb5bd112c1adf1f9a86ecf9a0f1c898ad73)
Not guilty
CdM is a prophet! :o
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2013, 09:48:01 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 13, 2013, 09:19:59 PM
CdM is a prophet! :o
The verdict surprises you?
Not really, but he did predict it before the trial began so he deserves a little praise.
So what is the over/under on post-verdict riots?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 13, 2013, 09:51:17 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2013, 09:48:01 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 13, 2013, 09:19:59 PM
CdM is a prophet! :o
The verdict surprises you?
Not really, but he did predict it before the trial began so he deserves a little praise.
Pfft, like predicting that the sun will rise in the morning.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 13, 2013, 09:55:51 PM
So what is the over/under on post-verdict riots?
I think there will be trouble. But it could actually depend on the usual catalysts. Sharpton, Jackson, Obama...etc
Please don't break my windows garbon :(
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2013, 09:58:55 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 13, 2013, 09:55:51 PM
So what is the over/under on post-verdict riots?
I think there will be trouble. But it could actually depend on the usual catalysts. Sharpton, Jackson, Obama...etc
:yeahright:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 13, 2013, 10:03:02 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2013, 09:58:55 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 13, 2013, 09:55:51 PM
So what is the over/under on post-verdict riots?
I think there will be trouble. But it could actually depend on the usual catalysts. Sharpton, Jackson, Obama...etc
:yeahright:
Well you know, he's black he can't help himself.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 13, 2013, 10:03:02 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2013, 09:58:55 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 13, 2013, 09:55:51 PM
So what is the over/under on post-verdict riots?
I think there will be trouble. But it could actually depend on the usual catalysts. Sharpton, Jackson, Obama...etc
:yeahright:
"You know, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," Mr. Obama said.
How is that in any way provocative?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 13, 2013, 10:16:12 PM
How is that in any way provocative?
Agreed, but why were/are they trying to back away from the statement then?
Quote"Well, I think that this is an atrocity," Sharpton
And?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2013, 10:43:33 PM
And?
Quote"I think that it is probably one of the worst situations that I've seen. What this jury has done is establish a precedent that when you are young and fit a certain profile, you can be committing no crime, just bringing some Skittles and iced tea home to your brother, and be killed. And someone can claim self-defense having been exposed with all kinds of lies, all kinds of inconsistencies."
He added that it was a " sad day in the country and a "slap in the face to those that believe in justice in this country."
And this is encouraging people to riot?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2013, 10:54:20 PM
And this is encouraging people to riot?
I was answering your "And?" question. As to the above, yoiu decide.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2013, 10:56:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2013, 10:54:20 PM
And this is encouraging people to riot?
I was answering your "And?" question. As to the above, yoiu decide.
The "and" wasn't for you to post more of this, it was "and this proves what?"
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2013, 10:59:30 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2013, 10:56:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2013, 10:54:20 PM
And this is encouraging people to riot?
I was answering your "And?" question. As to the above, yoiu decide.
The "and" wasn't for you to post more of this, it was "and this proves what?"
Ah, I see then.
So is Seedy out rioting now?
No, but his cat is raising hell. It's a hell cat.
Well sort of surprised he did not get even manslaughter considering this entire incident was provoked by him stalking a dude. However I am at least glad we got the indictment and the trial. Anytime somebody gets gunned down, especially in public, I expect at least that.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 13, 2013, 09:57:28 PM
Pfft, like predicting that the sun will rise in the morning.
Well I guess I am not as cynical as you guys.
Now that Zimmerman's been cleared, maybe they can get to work finding the real killer.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 02:32:37 AM
Now that Zimmerman's been cleared, maybe they can get to work finding the real killer.
Tune in to Geraldo. He said the prosecution deliberately suppressed evidence. WTF
:lol: Geraldo. Is he still drawing maps in the desert sand of all the US troop movements?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 02:43:40 AM
:lol: Geraldo. Is he still drawing maps in the desert sand of all the US troop movements?
I think he's hittin the crack pipe during the breaks...he's out there man.
You leave Gerry Rivers alone!
He should've bludgeoned Michelle Malkin to death when he had the chance. Alas, humanity still suffers to this day.
Quote from: katmai on July 14, 2013, 03:03:49 AM
You leave Gerry Rivers alone!
Always sticking up for la raza.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2013, 01:44:41 AM
Well sort of surprised he did not get even manslaughter considering this entire incident was provoked by him stalking a dude.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3fYkSWT.jpg&hash=4aa5299951c459b660983a9c5ad4991de51dc729)
:D
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2013, 01:44:41 AM
Anytime somebody gets gunned down, especially in public, I expect at least that.
Even when there's not nearly enough evidence to successfully prosecute? Weird.
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2013, 10:09:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2013, 01:44:41 AM
Anytime somebody gets gunned down, especially in public, I expect at least that.
Even when there's not nearly enough evidence to successfully prosecute? Weird.
Yeah weird that the police should choose to charge the most likely suspect.
Melitha Harrith Perry's rant on MSNBC was entertaining. Overreact much? :D
Now Russell Simmons's "Political Director" is on MSNBC now #lolwtf
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2013, 10:09:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2013, 01:44:41 AM
Anytime somebody gets gunned down, especially in public, I expect at least that.
Even when there's not nearly enough evidence to successfully prosecute? Weird.
What is weird is that an unarmed person could be gunned down in the street, not breaking into a home or anything, and we know who did it and somehow this is not even sufficient in your world to even have a Grand Jury hearing. What does it take Spicey?
Besides I reject your entire premise. They did indict the guy, we had a long trial and the jury deliberated for hours before reaching their decision. In what bizarre universe does that show there was not nearly enough evidence? And naturally the whole idea that you can explicitely disobey law enforcement, stalk somebody, and provoke a confrontation resulting in an unnecessarily shooting of a minor and no crime has been committed is pretty...well I am not even sure what to think about that.
It seems to me it casts doubt on the idea that law abiding citizens can safely carry guns, because it seems this guy obeyed the laws and we still have somebody dead for no other reason than somebody was legally carrying. I mean this should have just been a fist fight and that Martin kid should be doing community service now. Now I am not saying we need to repeal all carry laws but if we are going to have them this kind of shit cannot happen.
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2013, 10:44:08 AM
Now Russell Simmons's "Political Director" is on MSNBC now #lolwtf
Yeah MSNBC is a joke, but so are all those cable news stations.
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2013, 10:09:36 AM
What is weird is that an unarmed person could be gunned down in the street, not breaking into a home or anything, and we know who did it and somehow this is not even sufficient in your world to indict. What does it take Spicey?
As long as the victim is a young black man, derwhitey doesn't care. It's a segment of the population that, as victims, simply does not matter.
QuoteBesides I reject your entire premise. They did indict the guy, we had a long trial and the jury deliberated for hours before reaching their decision. In what bizarre universe does that show there was not nearly enough evidence? And naturally the whole idea that you can explicitely disobey law enforcement, stalk somebody, and provoke a confrontation resulting in an unnecessarily shooting of a minor and no crime has been committed it pretty...well I am not even sure what to think about that.
They weren't going to charge him anyway, and it took political goading to do it; Sanford's reputation as a bulwark of civil rights isn't exactly sterling, and it's Florida.
That's why, contrary to derwhitey and 11HeyBoy's typically racist prognostications, there would be no rioting for flat screen TVs; all the protesters quietly went home. Why? Because the black community in Florida has seen this movie before, and they've known what side the justice system is on for a very long time.
QuoteIt seems to me it casts doubt on the idea that law abiding citizens can safely carry guns, because it seems this guy obeyed the laws and we still have somebody dead for no other reason than somebody was legally carrying. I mean this should have just been a fist fight and that Martin kid should be doing community service now.
"Legally" carrying is a bit of a stretch for Florida. Plenty of other states with more reasonable handgun laws would not issue a concealed carry permit to somebody previously charged with battery on a police officer, a participant of a court-ordered alcohol treatment program and a prior restraining order against him by his ex-wife.
But the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, especially when it comes to their favorite vigilante pastime in the South: killing the Young Black Male.
Oddly enough, I think statistics will demonstrate that more YBMs die north of Mason-Dixon, where the North has set the niggers free, to quote Randy Newman.
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 12:46:30 PM
Oddly enough, I think statistics will demonstrate that more YBMs die north of Mason-Dixon, where the North has set the niggers free, to quote Randy Newman.
And that's why the real issue is, in the end, guns. But we can't talk about that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 12:48:35 PM
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 12:46:30 PM
Oddly enough, I think statistics will demonstrate that more YBMs die north of Mason-Dixon, where the North has set the niggers free, to quote Randy Newman.
And that's why the real issue is, in the end, guns. But we can't talk about that.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/state-map-gun-suicides-traffic-deaths
Surprise, surprise surprise.
As to the verdict, this is why we have grand juries: so as to not waste the nation's motherfucking time.
And what happened in this case? Incompetent, ambitious prosecutors bypassed the grand jury process, and made fools of themselves and the system in public, on purpose. WTG, Angela Corey and Bernie de La Rionda. You have made all prosecutors look stupider than anyone since the Casey Anthony trial. Which was the high water mark following OJ.
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 12:48:56 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/state-map-gun-suicides-traffic-deaths
Surprise, surprise surprise.
What's your point?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 12:54:18 PM
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 12:48:56 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/state-map-gun-suicides-traffic-deaths
Surprise, surprise surprise.
What's your point?
Look at all those states in the North with more gun killings than car-related deaths, and the fact that those states include gun-control paradises California and Illinois.
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 01:09:59 PM
Look at all those states in the North with more gun killings than car-related deaths, and the fact that those states include gun-control paradises California and Illinois.
OK, then let's not do anything about it then. Sound logic, counselor.
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 01:09:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 12:54:18 PM
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 12:48:56 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/state-map-gun-suicides-traffic-deaths
Surprise, surprise surprise.
What's your point?
Look at all those states in the North with more gun killings than car-related deaths, and the fact that those states include gun-control paradises California and Illinois.
The hidden assumption in your argument is that car death rate is constant across states. Well, it's not really hidden, it's kind of obvious if you're not a total idiot.
Now here is a non-retard map of gun deaths: http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000/#map.
I don't know why we insist on lumping suicides and murders together. Personally, I'd prefer suicidal people use a gun rather than a car.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2013, 03:48:25 PM
George Mason would've been very disappointed.
That's what I was thinking.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 14, 2013, 01:29:08 PM
I don't know why we insist on lumping suicides and murders together. Personally, I'd prefer suicidal people use a gun rather than a car.
We insist because far from all suicides are inevitable. It's not like someone is guaranteed to kill themselves, and is then looking for the most convenient method. People with guns around actually go through with suicide attempts more frequently, and those suicides attempts are much more successful. Considering that most people don't try to kill themselves again after first failed suicide attempt, that adds up to a lot of needless deaths due to people keeping guns near them.
I look forward to the delicious irony of many new "Trayvon's laws" resulting in increased incarceration of young black males for self-defense shootings.
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 01:33:28 PM
I look forward to the delicious irony of many new "Trayvon's laws" resulting in increased incarceration of young black males for self-defense shootings.
Are there a lot of young black male shooters who avoid incarceration due to claims of self-defence presently?
Quote from: Jacob on July 14, 2013, 01:35:42 PM
Are there a lot of young black male shooters who avoid incarceration due to claims of self-defence presently?
Plenty of them dead under claims of Possession with Intent to Distribute Skittles already.
This is awesome!
Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2013, 01:32:33 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 14, 2013, 01:29:08 PM
I don't know why we insist on lumping suicides and murders together. Personally, I'd prefer suicidal people use a gun rather than a car.
We insist because far from all suicides are inevitable. It's not like someone is guaranteed to kill themselves, and is then looking for the most convenient method. People with guns around actually go through with suicide attempts more frequently, and those suicides attempts are much more successful. Considering that most people don't try to kill themselves again after first failed suicide attempt, that adds up to a lot of needless deaths due to people keeping guns near them.
You're acting like deaths by suicide are undesirable.
Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2013, 01:22:33 PM
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 01:09:59 PM
Look at all those states in the North with more gun killings than car-related deaths, and the fact that those states include gun-control paradises California and Illinois.
The hidden assumption in your argument is that car death rate is constant across states. Well, it's not really hidden, it's kind of obvious if you're not a total idiot.
Scippy just doesn't want you to believe that guns acquired in states with notoriously lax gun laws can't be transported across state lines, because as we all know, gun homicides are committed by legal gun buyers in California, Illinois and Maryland.
Funny how those states are all immediately bordered by gun nutter states with atrocious straw purchase rates: Arizona, Indiana and Virginia.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 12:48:35 PM
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 12:46:30 PM
Oddly enough, I think statistics will demonstrate that more YBMs die north of Mason-Dixon, where the North has set the niggers free, to quote Randy Newman.
And that's why the real issue is, in the end, guns. But we can't talk about that.
:sadface:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 01:53:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2013, 01:22:33 PM
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 01:09:59 PM
Look at all those states in the North with more gun killings than car-related deaths, and the fact that those states include gun-control paradises California and Illinois.
The hidden assumption in your argument is that car death rate is constant across states. Well, it's not really hidden, it's kind of obvious if you're not a total idiot.
Scippy just doesn't want you to believe that guns acquired in states with notoriously lax gun laws can't be transported across state lines, because as we all know, gun homicides are committed by legal gun buyers in California, Illinois and Maryland.
Funny how those states are all immediately bordered by gun nutter states with atrocious straw purchase rates: Arizona, Indiana and Virginia.
I don't think we even need to go there, although this is also a good argument. Unless we have border control between state lines, state laws on gun ownership will have only limited effect. However, despite Scippy's best efforts to present retarded arguments showing the contrary, states with tight gun controls still had lower gun death rates.
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2013, 02:01:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 12:48:35 PM
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 12:46:30 PM
Oddly enough, I think statistics will demonstrate that more YBMs die north of Mason-Dixon, where the North has set the niggers free, to quote Randy Newman.
And that's why the real issue is, in the end, guns. But we can't talk about that.
:sadface:
In the meantime, I'll just have to be satisfied with accidental household shooting deaths instead.
So where are the riots I heard were going to happen? Are Korean shop owners fighting for their lives as we speak?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 02:37:23 PM
So where are the riots I heard were going to happen? Are Korean shop owners fighting for their lives as we speak?
Apparently Oakland.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2013, 12:17:47 PM
What is weird is that an unarmed person could be gunned down in the street, not breaking into a home or anything, and we know who did it and somehow this is not even sufficient in your world to even have a Grand Jury hearing. What does it take Spicey?
I did not say that. I'd actually have been fine with a grand jury hearing.
QuoteBesides I reject your entire premise. They did indict the guy, we had a long trial and the jury deliberated for hours before reaching their decision. In what bizarre universe does that show there was not nearly enough evidence? And naturally the whole idea that you can explicitely disobey law enforcement,
It was a dispatcher that said he didn't need to pursue. Let's not get carried away.
Quotestalk somebody, and provoke a confrontation
How did he provoke the confrontation? But in any case, it seems most likely that Trayvon initiated violence.
Quoteresulting in an unnecessarily shooting of a minor and no crime has been committed is pretty...well I am not even sure what to think about that.
The altercation was unnecessary, I'll grant. But aside from you getting all emotional about "a minor" being involved, I don't see that there was ever any reason (i.e., evidence) to suggest Zimmerman might be guilty of murder or even manslaughter. I think you're buying into the media's hype, which would almost be understandable a year ago, but not now.
And to state it yet another time, Zimmerman is no hero to me. With 20/20 hindsight, he should've just ignored Trayvon Martin and both he & Martin would be better off. We all would.
QuoteIt seems to me it casts doubt on the idea that law abiding citizens can safely carry guns, because it seems this guy obeyed the laws and we still have somebody dead for no other reason than somebody was legally carrying. I mean this should have just been a fist fight and that Martin kid should be doing community service now. Now I am not saying we need to repeal all carry laws but if we are going to have them this kind of shit cannot happen.
That's another issue. You're wrong, but it's another issue :P
The way I look at is, if you took away the gun and the death, who would have been in the wrong? Who would have been the lawbreaker? If I follow someone around my neighborhood does that give the guy the right to pound my head on the sidewalk? What hypothetical statements or actions by Zimmerman would it have taken to justify a sidewalk pounding?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 04:00:19 PM
The way I look at is, if you took away the gun and the death, who would have been in the wrong? Who would have been the lawbreaker? If I follow someone around my neighborhood does that give the guy the right to pound my head on the sidewalk? What hypothetical statements or actions by Zimmerman would it have taken to justify a sidewalk pounding?
If you took away the gun, Zimmerman probably wouldn't have confronted anyone. In fact if a person in car follows your around at night, then gets out and confronts you with a gun is it reasonable to feel your life was in danger?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 04:14:44 PM
If you took away the gun, Zimmerman probably wouldn't have confronted anyone. In fact if a person in car follows your around at night, then gets out and confronts you with a gun is it reasonable to feel your life was in danger?
I agree with the wife beating question. If Zimmerman had pulled his gun on Trayvon, Trayvon would have been very justified in any kind of violence whatsoever.
WTF?
He doesn't have to pull it out.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 04:19:17 PM
He doesn't have to pull it out.
Zimmerman confronts Trayvon, leaves his weapon concealed, and Trayvon fears for his life and pounds Zimmerman on the side walk?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 04:19:17 PM
He doesn't have to pull it out.
Come on man, Tryvon beat the shit out of Zimmerman because he didn't know he had a gun.
Tryvon was a criminal and a delinquent beating people up, until he beat the shit out of the wrong guy.
You don't wake up and say "I'm gonna start beating people up!".
You build up violence as part of your possible answers to a given issue.
You make violence one of your tools for conflict resolution.
That, is what happened.
Tryvon fucked with an armed man, and Colts Rule is golden.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 04:22:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 04:19:17 PM
He doesn't have to pull it out.
Zimmerman confronts Trayvon, leaves his weapon concealed, and Trayvon fears for his life and pounds Zimmerman on the side walk?
He could simply have flashed it as he was making his citizens arrest. After all he didn't want him to get away, cause "those punks always get away".
Quote from: Siege on July 14, 2013, 04:47:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 04:19:17 PM
He doesn't have to pull it out.
Come on man, Tryvon beat the shit out of Zimmerman because he didn't know he had a gun.
Tryvon was a criminal and a delinquent beating people up, until he beat the shit out of the wrong guy.
You don't wake up and say "I'm gonna start beating people up!".
You build up violence as part of your possible answers to a given issue.
You make violence one of your tools for conflict resolution.
That, is what happened.
Tryvon fucked with an armed man, and Colts Rule is golden.
If an unarmed stranger accosts you at night, flashes his gun and tell you you are coming with him, what do you do?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 05:14:21 PM
He could simply have flashed it as he was making his citizens arrest. After all he didn't want him to get away, cause "those punks always get away".
So your theory is that Trayvon attacked him
because he knew that Zimmerman had a gun?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 05:15:28 PM
If an unarmed stranger accosts you at night, flashes his gun and tell you you are coming with him, what do you do?
I don't know, does he have his toes on the trigger?
Quote from: Kleves on July 14, 2013, 05:17:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 05:14:21 PM
He could simply have flashed it as he was making his citizens arrest. After all he didn't want him to get away, cause "those punks always get away".
So your theory is that Trayvon attacked him because he knew that Zimmerman had a gun?
Cause being kidnapped by armed men works out so well for Blacks in the South.
Raz is trolling.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 12:37:52 PM
That's why, contrary to derwhitey and 11HeyBoy's typically racist prognostications, there would be no rioting for flat screen TVs; all the protesters quietly went home. Why? Because the black community in Florida has seen this movie before, and they've known what side the justice system is on for a very long time.
What racist prognostication did I make?
Quote from: Kleves on July 14, 2013, 05:17:27 PM
So your theory is that Trayvon attacked him because he knew that Zimmerman had a gun?
Zimmerman shot Martin in cold blood, then bashed himself in the head with a rock. See it on tv all the time.
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2013, 05:30:16 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 14, 2013, 05:25:49 PM
Raz is trolling.
Or he's off his meds.
What exactly would you do if some stranger follows you around at night in his car gets out tells he's "arresting" you?
There is a clear lesson in this case for all young Black men in Florida.
Carry a firearm.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2013, 05:44:14 PM
There is a clear lesson in this case for all young Black men in Florida.
Carry a firearm.
Oh, I imagine if Martin shot Zimmerman he'd be cooling his heels in jail right now.
Quote from: Siege on July 14, 2013, 04:47:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 04:19:17 PM
He doesn't have to pull it out.
Come on man, Tryvon beat the shit out of Zimmerman because he didn't know he had a gun.
Tryvon was a criminal and a delinquent beating people up, until he beat the shit out of the wrong guy.
You don't wake up and say "I'm gonna start beating people up!".
You build up violence as part of your possible answers to a given issue.
You make violence one of your tools for conflict resolution.
That, is what happened.
Tryvon fucked with an armed man, and Colts Rule is golden.
What's Hebrew for "damned schvartzsez?"
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 05:40:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2013, 05:30:16 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 14, 2013, 05:25:49 PM
Raz is trolling.
Or he's off his meds.
What exactly would you do if some stranger follows you around at night in his car gets out tells he's "arresting" you?
When did that happen?
It's a hypothetical. As far as I know, this did not happen to you.
What's the point, then?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 05:14:21 PM
He could simply have flashed it as he was making his citizens arrest. After all he didn't want him to get away, cause "those punks always get away".
So now he does have to pull it out.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 05:45:27 PM
Oh, I imagine if Martin shot Zimmerman he'd be cooling his heels in jail right now.
Better to take your own chances on the self-defense defense rather than be the victim of someone else's
Probably better not to physically attack people in the first place.
Yeah Joan, not sure how the lesson is if you're black you should bring a gun to a sidewalk pounding.
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2013, 06:30:15 PM
What's the point, then?
Yi was asking for hypothetical situations and I stated one that was likely. I asked you what
you would do.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 06:33:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 05:14:21 PM
He could simply have flashed it as he was making his citizens arrest. After all he didn't want him to get away, cause "those punks always get away".
So now he does have to pull it out.
No, he simply made it known that he had it. You can display a weapon with out unholstering it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 06:50:52 PM
Yeah Joan, not sure how the lesson is if you're black you should bring a gun to a sidewalk pounding.
That's not my understanding of how that confrontation started.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2013, 07:09:17 PM
That's not my understanding of how that confrontation started.
What is your understanding of how the confrontation started?
It seems this trial cuts across a lot of very contentious issues--and the right wing views tend to line up behind zimmerman, left wing Martin:
white vs. black
concealed carry of firearms
the extent to which private citizens defer to the police force in crime prevention / exercise deadly force when threatened
In the end, I think the real problem isn't so much Zimmerman, but that if you let people like Zimmerman carry concealed weapons this sort of thing is going to happen. And actually, it is only a news story because of some rather flukey circumstances.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2013, 07:09:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 06:50:52 PM
Yeah Joan, not sure how the lesson is if you're black you should bring a gun to a sidewalk pounding.
That's not my understanding of how that confrontation started.
Well either way shooting the only other direct witness and then claiming self defense worked out. I'm not sure it would work if you were black.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 07:17:01 PM
Well either way shooting the only other direct witness and then claiming self defense worked out. I'm not sure it would work if you were black.
Zimmerman didn't manage to shoot the neighbor who saw him getting pounded on the side walk.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 07:21:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 07:17:01 PM
Well either way shooting the only other direct witness and then claiming self defense worked out. I'm not sure it would work if you were black.
Zimmerman didn't manage to shoot the neighbor who saw him getting pounded on the side walk.
Neighbor didn't see the whole thing.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 07:25:42 PM
Neighbor didn't see the whole thing.
Ah, that meaning of direct witness.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 07:21:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 07:17:01 PM
Well either way shooting the only other direct witness and then claiming self defense worked out. I'm not sure it would work if you were black.
Zimmerman didn't manage to shoot the neighbor who saw him getting pounded on the side walk.
He was out of ammunition.
Yeah, two people could give us the clearest idea what happened that night. One was killed by the other one who felt it was not in his best interest to testify on the stand what exactly happened.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUFDSn3x.png&hash=229e2b1c91cd017ca46f018e01a99f7bc64fea42)
Baseline is white on white. It would appear that if Martin had shot Zimmerman instead of the other way around his chances in court aren't so good.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 07:35:28 PM
It would appear that if Martin had shot Zimmerman instead of the other way around his chances in court aren't so good.
Or alternatively, blacks are more prone than whites to initiate violence, and a black Zimmerman would have been found not guilty of killing a white Trayvon.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 07:51:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 07:35:28 PM
It would appear that if Martin had shot Zimmerman instead of the other way around his chances in court aren't so good.
Or alternatively, blacks are more prone than whites to initiate violence, and a black Zimmerman would have been found not guilty of killing a white Trayvon.
What ever you say, Yi. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 07:54:49 PM
What ever you say, Yi. :rolleyes:
Damn good point Raz. :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 07:35:28 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUFDSn3x.png&hash=229e2b1c91cd017ca46f018e01a99f7bc64fea42)
Baseline is white on white. It would appear that if Martin had shot Zimmerman instead of the other way around his chances in court aren't so good.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/
That doesn't seem to say anything about black on brown killings.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 06:54:55 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 06:33:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 05:14:21 PM
He could simply have flashed it as he was making his citizens arrest. After all he didn't want him to get away, cause "those punks always get away".
So now he does have to pull it out.
No, he simply made it known that he had it. You can display a weapon with out unholstering it.
If you are carrying concealed Raz;
Just how close do you get to someone or allow them to get to you, when you "display" that you have a holstered sidearm to the other person?
No idea gun bunny, how close do you think? I'm still waiting for the riots. Obama has incited people by calling for "calm reflection", yet even that seditious firebrand has failed to cause all the urban areas of America to burn.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 08:14:34 PM
No idea gun bunny, how close do you think? I'm still waiting for the riots. Obama has incited people by calling for "calm reflection", yet even that seditious firebrand has failed to cause all the urban areas of America to burn.
You stated you would show your holstered weapon. So, apparently you had an idea of what you would do. Lets hear it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 07:51:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 07:35:28 PM
It would appear that if Martin had shot Zimmerman instead of the other way around his chances in court aren't so good.
Or alternatively, blacks are more prone than whites to initiate violence, and a black Zimmerman would have been found not guilty of killing a white Trayvon.
You keep saying this.
On what view of the facts did Martin initiate the violence?
QuoteI'm still waiting for the riots. Obama has incited people by calling for "calm reflection", yet even that seditious firebrand has failed to cause all the urban areas of America to burn.
So as not to cloud the statement you made. Unlike your attempt....
No riots=good, very good in fact and I'm glad I'm wrong.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2013, 08:20:20 PM
You keep saying this.
On what view of the facts did Martin initiate the violence?
Pretty sure i don't keep saying that alternatively black people could be more prone to initiating violence than white people.
Martin initiated the violence on the view of the facts that he was witnessed pummeling Zimmerman on the ground before Zimmerman shot Martin, and that Zimmerman was not witnessed initiating any violence prior to the pummeling nor uttering any provocative statements that a reasonable person would believe justifies violence as a response. Also on the view of the facts that if Zimmerman had initiated violence prior to the pumelling it would have left physical evidence that the ME would have brought up in testimony.
You still haven't answered my question.
From the link to Raz's chart:
QuoteBut how do you measure racial bias? John Roman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center, recently conducted a study examining racial disparity using FBI data on 43,500 homicides from 2005 to 2009, the most recent years for which data was available. He sifted out only the killings in which there was a single shooter and a single victim, both of whom were strangers to each other — narrowing the pool to about 5,000 homicides.
And Roman looked specifically at "justified" homicides, which as defined by the FBI, are when police determine a private citizen has killed someone who is committing a felony, such as attempted murder, rape or armed robbery.
Roman found that the killings of black people by whites were more likely to be considered justified than the killings of white people by blacks.
QuoteSo the disparity is clear. But the figures don't yet prove bias. As Roman points out, the data doesn't show the circumstances behind the killings, for example whether the people who were shot were involved in home invasions or in a confrontation on the street.
Additionally, there are far fewer white-on-black shootings in the FBI data — only 25 total in both the Stand Your Ground and non-Stand Your Ground states.[!!!!] In fact, the small sample size is one of the reasons Roman conducted a regression analysis, which determines the statistical likelihood of whether the killings will be found justifiable.
So your chart is showing an analysis of 25 homicides (the number of times whites killed blacks) out of a pool of
5,000 (the total number of interracial homicides). Further, it doesn't just include times when someone was found not guilty because of self-defense, but instead all killings
including those where the desceased was committing a felony like rape, robbery, attempted murder, etc. when he was killed. So it is pretty much complete and total bullshit.
Though I did find it shocking that apparently only
one-half of one percent of interracial killings involve a white person killing a black person. That does really put people like CdM's outrage into perspective.
So, basically Raz posted a turkey...figures.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:35:50 PM
So, basically Raz posted a turkey...figures.
I really wish he'd stop being on my team.
Quote from: Kleves on July 14, 2013, 08:32:04 PM
Though I did find it shocking that apparently only one-half of one percent of interracial killings involve a white person killing a black person. That does really put people like CdM's outrage into perspective.
And what perspective is that?
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:35:50 PM
So, basically Raz posted a turkey...figures.
Or I could be eating. You know, for a guy who doesn't answer many questions, you sure get impatient when you ask one. He could simply pull back his jacket to show he had a gun. He could point to the gun. I imagine there are lots of ways to show a gun with out waving it around.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 08:40:45 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:35:50 PM
So, basically Raz posted a turkey...figures.
Or I could be eating. You know, for a guy who doesn't answer many questions, you sure get impatient when you ask one. He could simply pull back his jacket to show he had a gun. He could point to the gun. I imagine there are lots of ways to show a gun with out waving it around.
I did answer your riot question.
at what distance from the individual do you point at, show, claim, etc, that you have a gun?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 08:40:45 PM
He could simply pull back his jacket to show he had a gun. He could point to the gun. I imagine there are lots of ways to show a gun with out waving it around.
Certainly not beyond the realm of possibilities for a wannabe yahoo coptard. They just love to draw that toy out whenever they can, especially on "suspects".
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:45:19 PM
at what distance from the individual do you point at, show, claim, etc, that you have a gun?
You're asking somebody that has no base of professional knowledge or training. Just like, you know, a wannabe yahoo coptard like Zimmerman.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:45:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 08:40:45 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:35:50 PM
So, basically Raz posted a turkey...figures.
Or I could be eating. You know, for a guy who doesn't answer many questions, you sure get impatient when you ask one. He could simply pull back his jacket to show he had a gun. He could point to the gun. I imagine there are lots of ways to show a gun with out waving it around.
I did answer your riot question.
at what distance from the individual do you point at, show, claim, etc, that you have a gun?
I was talking about your tendency to become reticent when answering questions that undermine your arguments. I never claimed to have a gun, but I imagine you could point at a gun from a distance of one planck length to 48 billion light years away. Going beyond that and physics get kinda wonky.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 08:51:54 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:45:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 08:40:45 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:35:50 PM
So, basically Raz posted a turkey...figures.
Or I could be eating. You know, for a guy who doesn't answer many questions, you sure get impatient when you ask one. He could simply pull back his jacket to show he had a gun. He could point to the gun. I imagine there are lots of ways to show a gun with out waving it around.
I did answer your riot question.
at what distance from the individual do you point at, show, claim, etc, that you have a gun?
I was talking about your tendency to become reticent when answering questions that undermine your arguments.
BS
QuoteI never claimed to have a gun, but I imagine you could point at a gun from a distance of one planck length to 48 billion light years away. Going beyond that and physics get kinda wonky.
That's what I thought.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 08:49:10 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:45:19 PM
at what distance from the individual do you point at, show, claim, etc, that you have a gun?
You're asking somebody that has no base of professional knowledge or training.
I know that Mr. Killjoy. :P Hopefully he's not saying that stupid shit elsewhere. Folks here are pretty practical/common sense smart.
No, Raz do you own research into why your statement is idiotic.
Not BS. You've done it several times. You did it over the Benghazi situation when I asked you how many guard would be required to hold back 150 heavily armed militants. You wouldn't hazard a guess because it undermines the whole "Obama is an incompetent narrative". You did it with the voter ID thing you consistently refused to answer questions.
And I don't know what the fuck your point is here with the gun and distance.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:00:04 PM
Not BS. You've done it several times. You did it over the Benghazi situation when I asked you how many guard would be required to hold back 150 heavily armed militants. You wouldn't hazard a guess because it undermines the whole "Obama is an incompetent narrative".
Answered
QuoteYou did it with the voter ID thing you consistently refused to answer questions.
Again; "To show who you are."
Quote
And I don't know what the fuck your point is here with the gun and distance.
Exactly, because you made an idiotic statement, and by you're own admission, you have "no idea".
Oh, then maybe you can actually tell me.
And I asked questions were "To show who you are" is not applicable answer.
I have no idea cause the question is meaningless. How close would I allow someone to get after I flashed a gun? How close would Zimmerman allow someone to get close to get a gun? How close would a hypothetical perfect man allow someone to get? I don't even understand what the fuck you are asking.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 08:30:30 PM
Martin initiated the violence on the view of the facts that he was witnessed pummeling Zimmerman on the ground before Zimmerman shot Martin, and that Zimmerman was not witnessed initiating any violence prior to the pummeling nor uttering any provocative statements that a reasonable person would believe justifies violence as a response. Also on the view of the facts that if Zimmerman had initiated violence prior to the pumelling it would have left physical evidence that the ME would have brought up in testimony.
Another way of saying the same thing is "none". As in the evidence that Martin initiated is none.
As in no witness testified about what happened at beginning of the confrontation, either way. Zimmerman himself didn't testify and the only other eyewitness who could is conveniently dead.
What we do know is the Zimmerman initiated the confrontation while armed, in a state of agitation, and with thei apparent intent to detain Martin.
It is hard to detain another person nonviolently.
QuoteYou still haven't answered my question.
Just did
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:11:23 PM
Oh, then maybe you can actually tell me.
And I asked questions were "To show who you are" is not applicable answer.
That is an applicable answer to your voter ID question.
Quote
I have no idea cause the question is meaningless. How close would I allow someone to get after I flashed a gun? How close would Zimmerman allow someone to get close to get a gun? How close would a hypothetical perfect man allow someone to get? I don't even understand what the fuck you are asking.
You cant understand because you have no basis.
Refer to Seedy's post and mine that quotes him.
You are aren't going to tell me what you are asking, are you?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:17:21 PM
You are aren't going to tell me what you are asking, are you?
Which question, Voter ID or you're idiotic "gun flashing" statement?
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 09:19:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:17:21 PM
You are aren't going to tell me what you are asking, are you?
Which question, Voter ID or you're idiotic "gun flashing" statement?
Gun flashing statement. And while you are at, what is the prefect answer to your question.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:20:01 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 09:19:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:17:21 PM
You are aren't going to tell me what you are asking, are you?
Which question, Voter ID or you're idiotic "gun flashing" statement?
Gun flashing statement. And while you are at, what is the prefect answer to your question.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
QuoteI know that Mr. Killjoy. :P Hopefully he's not saying that stupid shit elsewhere. Folks here are pretty practical/common sense smart.
No, Raz do you own research into why your statement is idiotic.
Don't let 11Bravo sweat you, Raz. He's a base cop. They draw on traffic stops, since that's the only action they ever see. :P
Yeah, that's what I thought. 11B4V knows I'm wrong, but he can't actually describe how or why. He just knows it. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 09:23:55 PM
Don't let 11Bravo sweat you, Raz. He's a base cop. They draw on traffic stops, since that's the only action they ever see. :P
Go fuck yourself
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2013, 09:13:23 PM
Another way of saying the same thing is "none". As in the evidence that Martin initiated is none.
We have abundant evidence that Martin committed violence. As to evidence that Zimmerman didn't initiate violence first we have none. Barring eye witnesses, what sort of evidence would you like to show that Zimmerman didn't initiate violence? What sort of evidence does not doing something leave? Surely the absence of marking or bruising on Martin's body suggests that if Zimmerman did in fact initiate violence he wasn't terribly successfull.
We do know that Zimmerman "initiated the confrontation." That's the question I started today's discussion off with: what sort of hypothetical actions by Zimmerman would in your mind have warranted a side walk pummeling?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:27:11 PM
Yeah, that's what I thought. 11B4V knows I'm wrong, but he can't actually describe how or why. He just knows it. :rolleyes:
Nice try, but no. You made the clueless statement and now you want the easy way out. Dont believe me, you could find the answer out relatively fast.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 09:30:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 09:23:55 PM
Don't let 11Bravo sweat you, Raz. He's a base cop. They draw on traffic stops, since that's the only action they ever see. :P
Go fuck yourself
:lol:
LOOK SARGE OUT OF STATE PLATES
LETS ROLL
:P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 09:23:55 PM
Don't let 11Bravo sweat you, Raz. He's a base cop. They draw on traffic stops, since that's the only action they ever see. :P
He's asking me question with a lot of variables. What is the intent of the gun owner? What is his state of mind? Has the gun owner been trained? If so how and trained to do what? What is the physical situation? What is the state of the person who is being threatened? Are they moving and how fast?
For instance, Zimmerman gets out of the car, as he does so he makes sure the kid can see his gun but never intends to pull it out or use it just let the kid know he's packing. He starts harassing the kid, Kid thinks he's in serious danger, believe the strange armed man is going to rob or kill him, and attacks Zimmerman. Zimmerman reaches for his gun but fumbles it in rain and underestimates how fast the kid can move. This strike me as an entirely likely scenario.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 09:33:35 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 09:30:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 09:23:55 PM
Don't let 11Bravo sweat you, Raz. He's a base cop. They draw on traffic stops, since that's the only action they ever see. :P
Go fuck yourself
:lol:
LOOK SARGE OUT OF STATE PLATES
LETS ROLL
:P
Yea, that's what we do. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:36:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 09:23:55 PM
Don't let 11Bravo sweat you, Raz. He's a base cop. They draw on traffic stops, since that's the only action they ever see. :P
He's asking me question with a lot of variables. What is the intent of the gun owner? What is his state of mind? Has the gun owner been trained? If so how and trained to do what? What is the physical situation? What is the state of the person who is being threatened? Are they moving and how fast?
Nope. "Distance", was the question I asked. That is all. At what
distance do you "flash your gun" to the individual. I added no variables, to include those you listed.
You did.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 08:40:45 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:35:50 PM
So, basically Raz posted a turkey...figures.
Or I could be eating. You know, for a guy who doesn't answer many questions, you sure get impatient when you ask one. He could simply pull back his jacket to show he had a gun. He could point to the gun. I imagine there are lots of ways to show a gun with out waving it around.
You've seen too many Westerns.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 09:42:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:36:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 09:23:55 PM
Don't let 11Bravo sweat you, Raz. He's a base cop. They draw on traffic stops, since that's the only action they ever see. :P
He's asking me question with a lot of variables. What is the intent of the gun owner? What is his state of mind? Has the gun owner been trained? If so how and trained to do what? What is the physical situation? What is the state of the person who is being threatened? Are they moving and how fast?
Nope. "Distance", was the question I asked. That is all. At what distance do you "flash your gun" to the individual. I added no variables, to include those you listed.
You did.
I thought the question was
QuoteJust how close do you get to someone or allow them to get to you, when you "display" that you have a holstered sidearm to the other person?
So which is it, what distance do you flash the gun, or what distance do allow someone else to get?
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2013, 09:43:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 08:40:45 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:35:50 PM
So, basically Raz posted a turkey...figures.
Or I could be eating. You know, for a guy who doesn't answer many questions, you sure get impatient when you ask one. He could simply pull back his jacket to show he had a gun. He could point to the gun. I imagine there are lots of ways to show a gun with out waving it around.
You've seen too many Westerns.
That's okay, so did Zimmerman.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:46:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2013, 09:43:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 08:40:45 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:35:50 PM
So, basically Raz posted a turkey...figures.
Or I could be eating. You know, for a guy who doesn't answer many questions, you sure get impatient when you ask one. He could simply pull back his jacket to show he had a gun. He could point to the gun. I imagine there are lots of ways to show a gun with out waving it around.
You've seen too many Westerns.
That's okay, so did Zimmerman.
How's that?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 09:33:35 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 09:30:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 09:23:55 PM
Don't let 11Bravo sweat you, Raz. He's a base cop. They draw on traffic stops, since that's the only action they ever see. :P
Go fuck yourself
:lol:
LOOK SARGE OUT OF STATE PLATES
LETS ROLL
:P
You dont pay attention very well.
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2013, 09:49:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:46:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2013, 09:43:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 08:40:45 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:35:50 PM
So, basically Raz posted a turkey...figures.
Or I could be eating. You know, for a guy who doesn't answer many questions, you sure get impatient when you ask one. He could simply pull back his jacket to show he had a gun. He could point to the gun. I imagine there are lots of ways to show a gun with out waving it around.
You've seen too many Westerns.
That's okay, so did Zimmerman.
How's that?
Off playing cowboys and Indians with real guns it seems.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 09:32:43 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2013, 09:13:23 PM
Another way of saying the same thing is "none". As in the evidence that Martin initiated is none.
We have abundant evidence that Martin committed violence. As to evidence that Zimmerman didn't initiate violence first we have none. Barring eye witnesses, what sort of evidence would you like to show that Zimmerman didn't initiate violence? What sort of evidence does not doing something leave? Surely the absence of marking or bruising on Martin's body suggests that if Zimmerman did in fact initiate violence he wasn't terribly successfull.
We do know that Zimmerman "initiated the confrontation." That's the question I started today's discussion off with: what sort of hypothetical actions by Zimmerman would in your mind have warranted a side walk pummeling?
If person A attempts to detain person B against their will with threats of violence a pummeling would be order.
As for the rest, I agree the evidence was insufficient to convict for murder beyond a reasonable doubt. But the evidence clearly demonstrated that Zimmerman provoked a confrontation in a manner that could reasonably viewed by Martin as threatening.
Stand your ground goes both ways.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:46:18 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 09:42:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:36:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 09:23:55 PM
Don't let 11Bravo sweat you, Raz. He's a base cop. They draw on traffic stops, since that's the only action they ever see. :P
He's asking me question with a lot of variables. What is the intent of the gun owner? What is his state of mind? Has the gun owner been trained? If so how and trained to do what? What is the physical situation? What is the state of the person who is being threatened? Are they moving and how fast?
Nope. "Distance", was the question I asked. That is all. At what distance do you "flash your gun" to the individual. I added no variables, to include those you listed.
You did.
I thought the question was
QuoteJust how close do you get to someone or allow them to get to you, when you "display" that you have a holstered sidearm to the other person?
So which is it, what distance do you flash the gun, or what distance do allow someone else to get?
I forgot how stupid you are. Keep dodging.
I can hardly be expected to answer your question if you don't even know what the question is.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 09:50:10 PM
You dont pay attention very well.
You'd have more fun at a nuclear power plant; force on force FTXs every month, sniper teams and ambush teams constantly on patrol, even some heavier hardware you don't normally get to play with outside of the services.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:52:03 PM
Off playing cowboys and Indians with real guns it seems.
Defending himself while he's getting his head pummeled into the pavement? :huh:
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2013, 09:57:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:52:03 PM
Off playing cowboys and Indians with real guns it seems.
Defending himself while he's getting his head pummeled into the pavement? :huh:
Stalking and accosting someone else cause they trespassed on the ranch.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2013, 09:52:35 PM
Stand your ground goes both ways.
So you wouldn't convict Martin or Zimmerman, then?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2013, 09:52:35 PM
But the evidence clearly demonstrated that Zimmerman provoked a confrontation in a manner that could reasonably viewed by Martin as threatening.
Are you basing this conclusion on the facts you've already mentioned, i.e. Zimmerman following Martin, Zimmerman agitated, and Zimmerman carrying a gun, or was there some important evidence that I missed?
I ask because that to me does not clearly demonstrate that Martin reasonably felt threatened.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:54:22 PM
I can hardly be expected to answer your question if you don't even know what the question is.
I'll take your refusal to answer and dodge a simple question, as conceding you were talking out your ass.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 10:03:39 PM
I ask because that to me does not clearly demonstrate that Martin reasonably felt threatened.
Yi's not reasonably threatened by somebody following him for some time in the dark to the point that contact is made. Happens all the time to him.
So your saying Zimmerman had a right to stand his ground when attacked by Trayvon.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 10:11:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 10:03:39 PM
I ask because that to me does not clearly demonstrate that Martin reasonably felt threatened.
Yi's not reasonably threatened by somebody following him for some time in the dark to the point that contact is made. Happens all the time to him.
How long is "some time", and does hypothetical Yi have 17-year old surplus testosterone running through his veins?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 10:11:39 PM
Yi's not reasonably threatened by somebody following him for some time in the dark to the point that contact is made. Happens all the time to him.
You make a Skittles run. While walking home, a car starts to follow you. At some point the driver gets out of the car.
Do you throw him on the ground and start bashing his face? Is that a reasonable response?
If he's a fat dude, I'm thinking I could probably outrun him.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 10:19:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 10:11:39 PM
Yi's not reasonably threatened by somebody following him for some time in the dark to the point that contact is made. Happens all the time to him.
You make a Skittles run. While walking home, a car starts to follow you. At some point the driver gets out of the car.
Do you throw him on the ground and start bashing his face? Is that a reasonable response?
:lol: According to Seedy and crew....yea.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 10:16:32 PM
So your saying Zimmerman had a right to stand his ground when attacked by Trayvon.
Like I said before, "Stand Your Ground" doesn't mean "Go Over There And Start Shit Over On That Ground".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 10:23:22 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 10:16:32 PM
So your saying Zimmerman had a right to stand his ground when attacked by Trayvon.
Like I said before, "Stand Your Ground" doesn't mean "Go Over There And Start Shit Over On That Ground".
Cool. Just wanted to clear that up that you think Trayvon had the right to attack GZ.
Whether you think Martin or Zimmerman was at fault, it hasn't been proven that Zimmerman was. Thus, you have to let him walk. Them's the rules.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 10:25:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 10:23:22 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 10:16:32 PM
So your saying Zimmerman had a right to stand his ground when attacked by Trayvon.
Like I said before, "Stand Your Ground" doesn't mean "Go Over There And Start Shit Over On That Ground".
Cool. Just wanted to clear that up that you think Trayvon had the right to attack GZ.
No, I do not think anybody has the "right" to attack anybody else, dumbass.
But since you and Yi are still sticking to the premise that Martin attacked Zimmerman first--even though he ran from him, and Zimmerman's attempts to follow him, lose him and reacquire him, lasted well over 5 minutes--we're not going to get anywhere with this conversation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 10:23:22 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 10:16:32 PM
So your saying Zimmerman had a right to stand his ground when attacked by Trayvon.
Like I said before, "Stand Your Ground" doesn't mean "Go Over There And Start Shit Over On That Ground".
That's a cute line & all, but Stand Your Ground wasn't invoked in this trial. Try again.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 10:34:27 PM
we're not going to get anywhere with this conversation.
Probably the smartest thing you've said all night, CountDeSharpton.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 14, 2013, 10:31:45 PM
Whether you think Martin or Zimmerman was at fault, it hasn't been proven that Zimmerman was. Thus, you have to let him walk. Them's the rules.
That's the sane answer. How dare you.
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2013, 10:34:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 10:23:22 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 10:16:32 PM
So your saying Zimmerman had a right to stand his ground when attacked by Trayvon.
Like I said before, "Stand Your Ground" doesn't mean "Go Over There And Start Shit Over On That Ground".
That's a cute line & all, but Stand Your Ground wasn't invoked in this trial. Try again.
Doesn't have to be invoked. Cowboy states with shitty gun laws don't need it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2013, 10:34:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 10:23:22 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 10:16:32 PM
So your saying Zimmerman had a right to stand his ground when attacked by Trayvon.
Like I said before, "Stand Your Ground" doesn't mean "Go Over There And Start Shit Over On That Ground".
That's a cute line & all, but Stand Your Ground wasn't invoked in this trial. Try again.
Doesn't have to be invoked. Cowboy states with shitty gun laws don't need it.
Trayvon must have invoked, "Right to Black" when he attacked GZ. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 08:39:58 PM
Quote from: Kleves on July 14, 2013, 08:32:04 PM
Though I did find it shocking that apparently only one-half of one percent of interracial killings involve a white person killing a black person. That does really put people like CdM's outrage into perspective.
And what perspective is that?
Comments like this:
QuoteNah, much more fun to stalk black teenagers so we can make an excuse to use our nifty bang-bang toys. Do you and derweiss have your respective black teenagers picked out already, or just accepting Craigslist applications?
You know, you can learn more about black teenagers and how to illegally hunt them at your local library. :the more you know:
According to Raz's link, a black kid getting killed by lightning while riding a unicycle is about as likely him getting shot and killed by a white person. The takeaway from Raz's link is that it is how shockingly, unbelievably
rare it is for any black person to be shot and killed by a white person.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2013, 10:34:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 10:23:22 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 10:16:32 PM
So your saying Zimmerman had a right to stand his ground when attacked by Trayvon.
Like I said before, "Stand Your Ground" doesn't mean "Go Over There And Start Shit Over On That Ground".
That's a cute line & all, but Stand Your Ground wasn't invoked in this trial. Try again.
Doesn't have to be invoked. Cowboy states with shitty gun laws don't need it.
:sadface:
Raz's primary source research is about as effective as Ideologue's ability to maintain relationships with women. Sorta all over the place, with no real objective.
I don't click on them, why should you?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 08:51:54 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:45:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 08:40:45 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:35:50 PM
So, basically Raz posted a turkey...figures.
Or I could be eating. You know, for a guy who doesn't answer many questions, you sure get impatient when you ask one. He could simply pull back his jacket to show he had a gun. He could point to the gun. I imagine there are lots of ways to show a gun with out waving it around.
I did answer your riot question.
at what distance from the individual do you point at, show, claim, etc, that you have a gun?
I was talking about your tendency to become reticent when answering questions that undermine your arguments. I never claimed to have a gun, but I imagine you could point at a gun from a distance of one planck length to 48 billion light years away. Going beyond that and physics get kinda wonky.
The universe is only 13.77 billion light years across, so that's not possible.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 14, 2013, 11:04:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 08:51:54 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:45:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 08:40:45 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:35:50 PM
So, basically Raz posted a turkey...figures.
Or I could be eating. You know, for a guy who doesn't answer many questions, you sure get impatient when you ask one. He could simply pull back his jacket to show he had a gun. He could point to the gun. I imagine there are lots of ways to show a gun with out waving it around.
I did answer your riot question.
at what distance from the individual do you point at, show, claim, etc, that you have a gun?
I was talking about your tendency to become reticent when answering questions that undermine your arguments. I never claimed to have a gun, but I imagine you could point at a gun from a distance of one planck length to 48 billion light years away. Going beyond that and physics get kinda wonky.
The universe is only 13.77 billion light years across, so that's not possible.
So, you saying Raz overstated his position. Go figure.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 10:55:43 PM
Raz's primary source research is about as effective as Ideologue's ability to maintain relationships with women. Sorta all over the place, with no real objective.
I don't click on them, why should you?
:lol: To learn. To see if assumptions are correct.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 10:08:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:54:22 PM
I can hardly be expected to answer your question if you don't even know what the question is.
I'll take your refusal to answer and dodge a simple question, as conceding you were talking out your ass.
You are so deluded you keep changing the question. Believe what ever the fuck you want. Christ, and they call me nuts.
Quote from: Kleves on July 14, 2013, 10:52:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2013, 08:39:58 PM
Quote from: Kleves on July 14, 2013, 08:32:04 PM
Though I did find it shocking that apparently only one-half of one percent of interracial killings involve a white person killing a black person. That does really put people like CdM's outrage into perspective.
And what perspective is that?
Comments like this:
QuoteNah, much more fun to stalk black teenagers so we can make an excuse to use our nifty bang-bang toys. Do you and derweiss have your respective black teenagers picked out already, or just accepting Craigslist applications?
You know, you can learn more about black teenagers and how to illegally hunt them at your local library. :the more you know:
According to Raz's link, a black kid getting killed by lightning while riding a unicycle is about as likely him getting shot and killed by a white person. The takeaway from Raz's link is that it is how shockingly, unbelievably rare it is for any black person to be shot and killed by a white person.
Uh, you read that wrong.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 11:31:39 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 10:08:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:54:22 PM
I can hardly be expected to answer your question if you don't even know what the question is.
I'll take your refusal to answer and dodge a simple question, as conceding you were talking out your ass.
You are so deluded you keep changing the question. Believe what ever the fuck you want. Christ, and they call me nuts.
:lol: you're a peach. You answered sarcastically "planck length to 48 billion light years away", so you know what the question is asking.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 11:05:29 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 14, 2013, 11:04:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 08:51:54 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:45:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 08:40:45 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 08:35:50 PM
So, basically Raz posted a turkey...figures.
Or I could be eating. You know, for a guy who doesn't answer many questions, you sure get impatient when you ask one. He could simply pull back his jacket to show he had a gun. He could point to the gun. I imagine there are lots of ways to show a gun with out waving it around.
I did answer your riot question.
at what distance from the individual do you point at, show, claim, etc, that you have a gun?
I was talking about your tendency to become reticent when answering questions that undermine your arguments. I never claimed to have a gun, but I imagine you could point at a gun from a distance of one planck length to 48 billion light years away. Going beyond that and physics get kinda wonky.
The universe is only 13.77 billion light years across, so that's not possible.
So, you saying Raz overstated his position. Go figure.
No, he's just making an amateur mistake. The Universe is 13 billion years old, that doesn't mean it's 13 billion light years wide.
QuoteThe age of the universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years. While it is commonly understood that nothing can accelerate to velocities equal to or greater than that of light, it is a common misconception that the radius of the observable universe must therefore amount to only 13.8 billion light-years. This reasoning would only makes sense if the flat, static Minkowski spacetime conception under special relativity were correct. In the real universe, spacetime is curved in a way that corresponds to the expansion of space, as evidenced by Hubble's law. Distances obtained as the speed of light multiplied by a cosmological time interval have no direct physical significance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe)
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 11:35:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 11:31:39 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 10:08:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:54:22 PM
I can hardly be expected to answer your question if you don't even know what the question is.
I'll take your refusal to answer and dodge a simple question, as conceding you were talking out your ass.
You are so deluded you keep changing the question. Believe what ever the fuck you want. Christ, and they call me nuts.
:lol: you're a peach. You answered sarcastically "planck length to 48 billion light years away", so you know what the question is asking.
Yeah, I answered the second. Honestly I don't know what kind of answer you want from that one either. If it's how far away
I would flash the gun, that really depends on my mood. Depending on my mood I may not get out of the car, shoot up in the air and demand his shoes or just run at the guy with tire iron (which is really more my thing).
Actually there's no evidence sufficient for the purposes of determining a criminal trial that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin or initiated a fight with Martin. Zimmerman's claim is that while he did initially follow Martin against the advice of a dispatcher, the physical altercation began when Martin attacked him from cover and started beating him up. I don't actually think it's knowable how the confrontation started given the lack of any living witnesses other than Zimmerman to the beginning of the fight, so I don't see how a jury could convict Zimmerman of manslaughter on the basis that Zimmerman started the confrontation. All we have evidence of is Zimmerman put himself in position for a confrontation to occur, against the advice of a police dispatcher. That's not actual evidence of initiating a physical confrontation, though, nor is it intrinsically illegal in Florida to follow someone through a neighborhood.
Based on my "common sense" view of things, I don't think either of these scenarios make sense:
A: Martin being near his home and aware of weirdo Zimmerman following him, goes back in the opposite direction of his home and hides in wait for Zimmerman then jumps him.
B: Zimmerman losing control of Martin after trying to "detain" him.
What I imagine probably actually happened is at some point Zimmerman and Martin directly cross paths, most likely Zimmerman yells something at Martin and asks him to explain what he's doing. I think from there it quickly turns into a shouting/anger fest and someone throws a first punch. I honestly have no idea who, and doubt we'll ever know. Martin wins the fist fight, so Z decides to shoot him.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 11:44:40 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 11:35:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 11:31:39 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2013, 10:08:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 09:54:22 PM
I can hardly be expected to answer your question if you don't even know what the question is.
I'll take your refusal to answer and dodge a simple question, as conceding you were talking out your ass.
You are so deluded you keep changing the question. Believe what ever the fuck you want. Christ, and they call me nuts.
:lol: you're a peach. You answered sarcastically "planck length to 48 billion light years away", so you know what the question is asking.
Yeah, I answered the second. Honestly I don't know what kind of answer you want from that one either. If it's how far away I would flash the gun, that really depends on my mood. Depending on my mood I may not get out of the car, shoot up in the air and demand his shoes or just run at the guy with tire iron (which is really more my thing).
You just answered it, thanks. BTW dont ever get a carry permit or even open carry a gun. As matter of fact, just stay away from them. Go tell someone responsible if one see one just lying around. I dont want you to get hurt. :P
You were asking what I would do all this time? What the hell for? I'm insane. Crazy stuff is what I do. That's crappy metric for anything.
and Raz, my thoughts on GZ and Trayvon's actions that night. I dont think I have stated it in this thread to date.
GZ: Dude was as fucked up as a football bat from the word go. Neighborhood watch, Observe and Report. GZ put himself in this situation because of his stupidity.
Trayvon: should have just run kid. Thug life is what cost you yours. Sad but true.
Bad judgement + Bad Judgement= Fucking Tragedy.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2013, 11:56:29 PM
You were asking what I would do all this time? What the hell for? I'm insane. Crazy stuff is what I do. That's crappy metric for anything.
Nah, you an alright Joe.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 10:03:39 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2013, 09:52:35 PM
But the evidence clearly demonstrated that Zimmerman provoked a confrontation in a manner that could reasonably viewed by Martin as threatening.
Are you basing this conclusion on the facts you've already mentioned, i.e. Zimmerman following Martin, Zimmerman agitated, and Zimmerman carrying a gun, or was there some important evidence that I missed?
I ask because that to me does not clearly demonstrate that Martin reasonably felt threatened.
Including in agitated are the specific comments about the "punks" who "always get away" as the 911 dispatcher was telling him not to follow (I am eliding some the choices words used)
The clear implication is that he disregarded the instructions not to follow because his concern that the suspect not "get away"
I think it likely that Zimmerman confronted Martin he did so in way intended to prevent him from getting away
Not proof beyond a reasonable doubt likely but regular likely
I disagree with you and think that would be reasonably interpreted by the other person as very threatening.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 15, 2013, 12:02:01 AM
and Raz, my thoughts on GZ and Trayvon's actions that night. I dont think I have stated it in this thread to date.
GZ: Dude was as fucked up as a football bat from the word go. Neighborhood watch, Observe and Report. GZ put himself in this situation because of his stupidity.
Trayvon: should have just run kid. Thug life is what cost you yours. Sad but true.
Bad judgement + Bad Judgement= Fucking Tragedy.
I'm not sure the kid was in the the "Thug life". He was just some highschool kid. He wasn't doing anything wrong, and I think he felt endangered by a guy stalking him and did what he could to defend himself.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2013, 12:16:10 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 15, 2013, 12:02:01 AM
and Raz, my thoughts on GZ and Trayvon's actions that night. I dont think I have stated it in this thread to date.
GZ: Dude was as fucked up as a football bat from the word go. Neighborhood watch, Observe and Report. GZ put himself in this situation because of his stupidity.
Trayvon: should have just run kid. Thug life is what cost you yours. Sad but true.
Bad judgement + Bad Judgement= Fucking Tragedy.
I'm not sure the kid was in the the "Thug life". He was just some highschool kid. He wasn't doing anything wrong, and I think he felt endangered by a guy stalking him and did what he could to defend himself.
Why didnt he run?
Quote from: 11B4V on July 15, 2013, 12:29:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2013, 12:16:10 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 15, 2013, 12:02:01 AM
and Raz, my thoughts on GZ and Trayvon's actions that night. I dont think I have stated it in this thread to date.
GZ: Dude was as fucked up as a football bat from the word go. Neighborhood watch, Observe and Report. GZ put himself in this situation because of his stupidity.
Trayvon: should have just run kid. Thug life is what cost you yours. Sad but true.
Bad judgement + Bad Judgement= Fucking Tragedy.
I'm not sure the kid was in the the "Thug life". He was just some highschool kid. He wasn't doing anything wrong, and I think he felt endangered by a guy stalking him and did what he could to defend himself.
Why didnt he run?
Why should he have to?
Quote from: sbr on July 15, 2013, 12:33:34 AM
Why should he have to?
Presumably because he felt threatened.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 15, 2013, 12:29:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2013, 12:16:10 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 15, 2013, 12:02:01 AM
and Raz, my thoughts on GZ and Trayvon's actions that night. I dont think I have stated it in this thread to date.
GZ: Dude was as fucked up as a football bat from the word go. Neighborhood watch, Observe and Report. GZ put himself in this situation because of his stupidity.
Trayvon: should have just run kid. Thug life is what cost you yours. Sad but true.
Bad judgement + Bad Judgement= Fucking Tragedy.
I'm not sure the kid was in the the "Thug life". He was just some highschool kid. He wasn't doing anything wrong, and I think he felt endangered by a guy stalking him and did what he could to defend himself.
Why didnt he run?
Who knows? Maybe he wasn't the running sort. Maybe he was too brave. Maybe he thought fighting was the best chance of survival. Teenagers make all kinds of bad decisions. We can look back now and know that running would have been the best solution. Harder when someone come up on you on a dark and stormy night.
The best solution would have been to say stop following me or I'll call the cops.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2013, 01:00:05 AM
The best solution would have been to say stop following me or I'll call the cops.
:huh: No, it would not have been. If someone is following me, and I think that the threat of me calling the cops would dissuade them, then I won't feel threatened in the first place. I can, however, put myself in an immediate disadvantage by getting within the talking distance to the guy stalking me.
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2013, 01:02:54 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2013, 01:00:05 AM
The best solution would have been to say stop following me or I'll call the cops.
:huh: No, it would not have been. If someone is following me, and I think that the threat of me calling the cops would dissuade them, then I won't feel threatened in the first place. I can, however, put myself in an immediate disadvantage by getting within the talking distance to the guy stalking me.
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2013, 01:02:54 AM
:huh: No, it would not have been. If someone is following me, and I think that the threat of me calling the cops would dissuade them, then I won't feel threatened in the first place.
Bingo.
I think you really have to twist yourself up like a pretzel to postulate that a guy following you in his car in a suburban subdivision poses a reasonable threat.
Drive by mugging? Kidnapping a 17 year old boy?
QuoteI can, however, put myself in an immediate disadvantage by getting within the talking distance to the guy stalking me.
Exactly. Either you think he's a harmless kook, in which case you confront him, or you run like hell.
For what it's worth, my guess is that Z told M he was neighborhood watch, asked him what he was doing around there, and M flipped out.
That's what I get for scrolling through the discussion where it looked like Raz and Bravo were flinging poo at each other. I inadvertently prove Yi's point. :(
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2013, 01:31:28 AM
That's what I get for scrolling through the discussion where it looked like Raz and Bravo were flinging poo at each other. I inadvertently prove Yi's point. :(
Poo. I dont think so. A minor miscommunication.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2013, 01:11:54 AM
I think you really have to twist yourself up like a pretzel to postulate that a guy following you in his car in a suburban subdivision poses a reasonable threat.
Drive by mugging? Kidnapping a 17 year old boy?
Really a guy following you around at night in car then gets of car and starts shouting at you would send of the danger flag to me.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2013, 02:00:44 AM
Really a guy following you around at night in car then gets of car and starts shouting at you would send of the danger flag to me.
Did Zimmerman do that?
I hadn't heard that, but it would matter a great deal *what* he was shouting.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2013, 02:06:37 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2013, 02:00:44 AM
Really a guy following you around at night in car then gets of car and starts shouting at you would send of the danger flag to me.
Did Zimmerman do that?
That is what what one of the witnesses stated ( the one that Martin was talking to on the phone). She said she heard a confrontation before the phone went dead. She also seemed to indicate that Martin was agitated by this guy following him "Creepy ass cracker". From that alone I think it's a good indication that Martin was perceived Zimmerman as a threat.
I believe Zimmerman claimed he got lost and had to get out of his car to see the street sign and Martin jumped out the bushes telling him (zimmerman) that he was going to die. I do not find this to be a compelling story. It seems odd that the man would get lost in his own neighborhood, and I believe the body was found in someone's backyard, which seems an odd place to be looking for a street sign.
The fat girl's testimony was that she heard Zimmerman shouting at Martin before Martin said anything to him?
Martin was pounding Zimmerman's face on a sidewalk. That doesn't sound like a back yard to me.
"Creepy ass cracker" doesn't sound very threatening either. It sounds contemptuous and hateful.
Is this accurate? Seems crazy that if Zim started the fight he'd still be able to shoot Martin in self defense.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/zimmerman_acquittal_blame_florida_for_trayvon_martin_s_death.html
Quote
In Florida, a person "who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked" has no duty to retreat. He or she has the right to "meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." The jury could have faulted Zimmerman for starting the altercation with Martin and still believed him not guilty of murder, or even of manslaughter, which in Florida is a killing that has no legal justification. If the jury believed that once the physical fight began, Zimmerman reasonably feared he would suffer a grave bodily injury, then he gets off for self-defense.
Maybe that is the wrong rule. Maybe people like George Zimmerman should be held responsible for provoking the fight that they then fear they'll lose. And maybe cuts to the back of the head and a bloody nose aren't enough to show reasonable fear of grave bodily harm. After all, as Adam Weinstein points out, the lesson right now for Floridians is this: "in any altercation, however minor, the easiest way to avoid criminal liability is to kill the counterparty." But you can see the box the jurors might have felt they were in. Even if they didn't like George Zimmerman—even if they believed only part of what he told the police—they didn't have a charge under Florida law that was a clear fit for what he did that night.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2013, 02:29:01 AM
The fat girl's testimony was that she heard Zimmerman shouting at Martin before Martin said anything to him?
Martin was pounding Zimmerman's face on a sidewalk. That doesn't sound like a back yard to me.
"Creepy ass cracker" doesn't sound very threatening either. It sounds contemptuous and hateful.
Yeah, there was a sidewalk going through the backyards. I don't know about you, having creeping people stalk is a reason to be fearful.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Flq714o4.jpg&hash=4c3e285dc288a03376be206a808a3648edbbb0dd)
A map of the area and where Martin was found dead.
Quote from: sbr on July 15, 2013, 12:33:34 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 15, 2013, 12:29:25 AM
Why didnt he run?
Why should he have to?
What most of the creepy ass crackers on this board fail to comprehend, because it's not their world, is the simple fact is that a lot of young black men are told very early on not to run, by the cops, by Moms, by their friends. Running only makes you more suspicious. So when you do, you better have a damned good reason.
Like feeling threatened?
He ran, didn't he? Obviously he didn't run far enough or fast enough.
I always run when I see ethnics. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 15, 2013, 04:30:20 AM
He ran, didn't he?
Did he?
I don't profess to have heard every minute of testimony, but sometimes I get the feeling that you and Raz are stating what you wish were true as fact.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2013, 04:49:46 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 15, 2013, 04:30:20 AM
He ran, didn't he?
Did he?
I don't profess to have heard every minute of testimony, but sometimes I get the feeling that you and Raz are stating what you wish were true as fact.
Quote7:11:33 — Zimmerman tells the police dispatcher that Trayvon Martin is running.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2013, 04:49:46 AM
but sometimes I get the feeling that you and Raz are stating what you wish were true as fact.
Oh, and for that one, go fuck yourself.
Arch-Liberal legal writer Andrew Cohen is typically someone I only read just to confirm how much I disagree with him. However, he's spot on about this case:
QuoteTo me, on its most basic level, the startling Zimmerman verdict -- and the case and trial that preceded it -- is above all a blunt reminder of the limitations of our justice system. Criminal trials are not searches for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They never have been. Our rules of evidence and the Bill of Rights preclude it. Our trials are instead tests of only that limited evidence a judge declares fit to be shared with jurors, who in turn are then admonished daily, hourly even, not to look beyond the corners of what they've seen or heard in court.
Trials like the one we've all just witnessed in Florida can therefore never fully answer the larger societal questions they pose. They can never act as moral surrogates to resolve the national debates they trigger. In the end, they teach only what each of us as students are predisposed to learn. They provide no closure, not to the families or anyone else, even as they represent the close of one phase of the rest of the lives of the people involved. They are tiny slivers of the truth of the matter, the perspective as narrow as if you were staring at the horizon with blinders on, capable only of seeing what was not intentionally blocked from view.
Of course the deadly meeting last year between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman had at its core a racial element. Of course its tragic result reminds us that the nation, in ways too many of our leaders refuse to acknowledge, is still riven by race. The story of Martin and Zimmerman is the story of crime and punishment in America, and of racial disparities in capital sentencing, and in marijuana prosecutions, and in countless other things. But it wasn't Judge Debra Nelson's job to conduct a seminar on race relations in 2013. It wasn't her job to help America bridge its racial divide. It was her job to give Zimmerman a fair trial. And she did.
So the murder trial of George Zimmerman did not allow jurors to deliberate over the fairness of Florida's outlandishly broad self-defense laws. It did not allow them debate the virtues of the state's liberal gun laws or its evident tolerance for vigilantes (which we now politely call "neighborhood watch"). It did not permit them to delve into the racial profiling that Zimmerman may have engaged in or into the misconduct and mischief that Martin may have engaged in long before he took that fatal trip to the store for candy. These factors, these elements, part of the more complete picture of this tragedy, were off-limits to the ultimate decision-makers.
What the verdict says, to the astonishment of tens of millions of us, is that you can go looking for trouble in Florida, with a gun and a great deal of racial bias, and you can find that trouble, and you can act upon that trouble in a way that leaves a young man dead, and none of it guarantees that you will be convicted of a crime. But this curious result says as much about Florida's judicial and legislative sensibilities as it does about Zimmerman's conduct that night. This verdict would not have occurred in every state. It might not even have occurred in any other state. But it occurred here, a tragic confluence that leaves a young man's untimely death unrequited under state law. Don't like it? Lobby to change Florida's laws.
If we understand and accept these legal limitations -- and perhaps only if we do -- the result here makes sense. Purely as a matter of law, you could say, it makes perfect sense. Florida's material, admissible, relevant proof against Zimmerman was not strong enough to overcome the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The eye-witnesses (and ear-witnesses) did not present a uniformly compelling case against the defendant. The police witnesses, normally chalk for prosecutors, did not help as much as they typically do. Nor was there compelling physical evidence establishing that Zimmerman had murderous intent and was not acting in self-defense.
The case was "not about standing your ground; it was about staying in your car," the prosecutor cogently said during closing argument. But in the end, under state law favorable to men like the defendant -- that is, favorable to zealots willing to take the law into their own hands -- Zimmerman's series of deplorable choices that night did not amount to murderous intent or even the much more timid manslaughter. The defense here wisely understood that and was able consistently, methodically, to remind jurors that prosecutors had not adequately explained (or proved) how exactly the altercation started and how precisely it progressed.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/law-and-justice-and-george-zimmerman/277772/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/law-and-justice-and-george-zimmerman/277772/)
That's always to me been the core of the problem in discussing this case. There's a set of people that are only interested in that they "know" happened, and a host of things like blacks in society and how they are treated and etc, but most if not all of that stuff never made it through the front of the courthouse door. It didn't belong there, and had nothing to do with how a criminal prosecution is conducted. At the end of the day you have a situation in which there was a poorly understood series of events, that none of the physical evidence or witness testimony materially helped to resolve. That left jurors in a situation of deciding on what to do with a muddled set of facts and an unsure event. In our criminal justice system cases like that are supposed to be acquittals, the prosecution doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, the defendant does.
Quote from: Jacob on July 14, 2013, 01:35:42 PM
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 01:33:28 PM
I look forward to the delicious irony of many new "Trayvon's laws" resulting in increased incarceration of young black males for self-defense shootings.
Are there a lot of young black male shooters who avoid incarceration due to claims of self-defence presently?
A fair amount, I'd guess -- although the sensational stories (like that guy in Texas who shot the fleeing burglars in the back) tend to involve shooters with means, if you have any situation that started as a fight and ended in serious injury or death (or a trial, more accurately), a self-defense claim is going to be a major part of your strategy. Because it's a total defense against the charge (unlike, say, provocation which might mitigate the offense, from e.g. murder to voluntary manslaughter): if a jury gets the self-defense instruction and finds enough certainty, they are supposed to go straight to acquittal.
If you remember back to the time of the original events, there was a white guy/"white" Native American guy duo who were shooting at black people in Tulsa, IIRC. Ironically, the basis for guy #2's racist hate was that his father had been killed when he caught a black man trying to break into his parked car; the black guy prudently gave up and left, but the father followed him and started attacking him, whereupon the black guy stabbed him fatally. And was subsequently acquitted under Oklahoma's own "stand your ground" law.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2013, 04:49:46 AM
I don't profess to have heard every minute of testimony, but sometimes I get the feeling that you and Raz are stating what you wish were true as fact.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2013, 01:13:21 AM
For what it's worth, my guess is that Z told M he was neighborhood watch, asked him what he was doing around there, and M flipped out.
Hmm . . .
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 12:46:30 PM
Oddly enough, I think statistics will demonstrate that more YBMs die north of Mason-Dixon, where the North has set the niggers free, to quote Randy Newman.
qft
the "racial" angle to this story is amazing...it is a confabulation
this case is and always has been simple
there is a narrative that has corroborrating objective evidence that reads as follows:
zimmermans neighborhood has a string of robberies
zimmerman followed martin
the police say "you dont have to do that"
he follows anyway
at some point he decides to stop and head back to his car
martin jumps zimmerman
zimmer gets scared and shoots martin while zimmerman is in fear of his lifeWhile i recognize that there are many other narratives that also have evidentiary support, this is a criminal case and so long as there is evidentiary support for the foregoing narrative, the state cannot establish murder or its lesser included defenses beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 04:00:19 PM
The way I look at is, if you took away the gun and the death, who would have been in the wrong? Who would have been the lawbreaker? If I follow someone around my neighborhood does that give the guy the right to pound my head on the sidewalk? What hypothetical statements or actions by Zimmerman would it have taken to justify a sidewalk pounding?
that ignores the fact that martin was black and zimmerman a white hispanic which of course makes this all about civil rights regardless of the facts
did you miss all of the nineties when we lost reason?
Quote from: Rasputin on July 15, 2013, 08:25:07 AM
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 12:46:30 PM
Oddly enough, I think statistics will demonstrate that more YBMs die north of Mason-Dixon, where the North has set the niggers free, to quote Randy Newman.
qft
the "racial" angle to this story is amazing...it is a confabulation
this case is and always has been simple
there is a narrative that has corroborrating objective evidence that reads as follows:
zimmermans neighborhood has a string of robberies
zimmerman followed martin
the police say "you dont have to do that"
he follows anyway
at some point he decides to stop and head back to his car
martin jumps zimmerman
zimmer gets scared and shoots martin while zimmerman is in fear of his life
While i recognize that there are many other narratives that also have evidentiary support, this is a criminal case and so long as there is evidentiary support for the foregoing narrative, the state cannot establish murder or its lesser included defenses beyond a reasonable doubt.
:lol:
Quote from: Rasputin on July 15, 2013, 08:25:07 AM
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 12:46:30 PM
Oddly enough, I think statistics will demonstrate that more YBMs die north of Mason-Dixon, where the North has set the niggers free, to quote Randy Newman.
qft
the "racial" angle to this story is amazing...it is a confabulation
this case is and always has been simple
there is a narrative that has corroborrating objective evidence that reads as follows:
zimmermans neighborhood has a string of robberies
zimmerman followed martin
the police say "you dont have to do that"
he follows anyway
at some point he decides to stop and head back to his car
martin jumps zimmerman
zimmer gets scared and shoots martin while zimmerman is in fear of his life
While i recognize that there are many other narratives that also have evidentiary support, this is a criminal case and so long as there is evidentiary support for the foregoing narrative, the state cannot establish murder or its lesser included defenses beyond a reasonable doubt.
But that's just your selective version of the 'facts', some of which need to be massaged to fit the story you're telling.
Quote
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: OK, we don't need you to do that
Zimmerman: OK
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2013, 09:13:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2013, 08:30:30 PM
Martin initiated the violence on the view of the facts that he was witnessed pummeling Zimmerman on the ground before Zimmerman shot Martin, and that Zimmerman was not witnessed initiating any violence prior to the pummeling nor uttering any provocative statements that a reasonable person would believe justifies violence as a response. Also on the view of the facts that if Zimmerman had initiated violence prior to the pumelling it would have left physical evidence that the ME would have brought up in testimony.
Another way of saying the same thing is "none". As in the evidence that Martin initiated is none.
As in no witness testified about what happened at beginning of the confrontation, either way. Zimmerman himself didn't testify and the only other eyewitness who could is conveniently dead.
What we do know is the Zimmerman initiated the confrontation while armed, in a state of agitation, and with thei apparent intent to detain Martin.
It is hard to detain another person nonviolently.
QuoteYou still haven't answered my question.
Just did
incorrect -- the state offered zimmerman's version of events into evidence during its case in chief in the form of his statements to police following the incident
then the state offered corroborating evidence through a witness who saw martin on top beating zimmerman
then zimmerman and/or the state offered the pictures of zimmermans head injuries and the evidence that martin only had the fatal gun shot wound
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2013, 04:49:46 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 15, 2013, 04:30:20 AM
He ran, didn't he?
Did he?
I don't profess to have heard every minute of testimony, but sometimes I get the feeling that you and Raz are stating what you wish were true as fact.
when you invent the facts or only cherry pick your evidence its easy to ignore the evidence before the jury which could have created reasonable doubt.
it's fine to infer what one wants to infer from the facts but if the evidence also supports an alternative version in which the defendant is not guilty then not guilty is the proper verdict
our system is not one where the defendant wins the ties; our system is one where the defendant wins all but the slam dunks
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2013, 08:36:27 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 15, 2013, 08:25:07 AM
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 12:46:30 PM
Oddly enough, I think statistics will demonstrate that more YBMs die north of Mason-Dixon, where the North has set the niggers free, to quote Randy Newman.
qft
the "racial" angle to this story is amazing...it is a confabulation
this case is and always has been simple
there is a narrative that has corroborrating objective evidence that reads as follows:
zimmermans neighborhood has a string of robberies
zimmerman followed martin
the police say "you dont have to do that"
he follows anyway
at some point he decides to stop and head back to his car
martin jumps zimmerman
zimmer gets scared and shoots martin while zimmerman is in fear of his life
While i recognize that there are many other narratives that also have evidentiary support, this is a criminal case and so long as there is evidentiary support for the foregoing narrative, the state cannot establish murder or its lesser included defenses beyond a reasonable doubt.
But that's just your selective version of the 'facts', some of which need to be massaged to fit the story you're telling.
Quote
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: OK, we don't need you to do that
Zimmerman: OK
massage it all you want; its the same result
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 14, 2013, 11:51:57 PM
Actually there's no evidence sufficient for the purposes of determining a criminal trial that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin or initiated a fight with Martin. Zimmerman's claim is that while he did initially follow Martin against the advice of a dispatcher, the physical altercation began when Martin attacked him from cover and started beating him up. I don't actually think it's knowable how the confrontation started given the lack of any living witnesses other than Zimmerman to the beginning of the fight, so I don't see how a jury could convict Zimmerman of manslaughter on the basis that Zimmerman started the confrontation. All we have evidence of is Zimmerman put himself in position for a confrontation to occur, against the advice of a police dispatcher. That's not actual evidence of initiating a physical confrontation, though, nor is it intrinsically illegal in Florida to follow someone through a neighborhood.
Based on my "common sense" view of things, I don't think either of these scenarios make sense:
A: Martin being near his home and aware of weirdo Zimmerman following him, goes back in the opposite direction of his home and hides in wait for Zimmerman then jumps him.
B: Zimmerman losing control of Martin after trying to "detain" him.
What I imagine probably actually happened is at some point Zimmerman and Martin directly cross paths, most likely Zimmerman yells something at Martin and asks him to explain what he's doing. I think from there it quickly turns into a shouting/anger fest and someone throws a first punch. I honestly have no idea who, and doubt we'll ever know. Martin wins the fist fight, so Z decides to shoot him.
Pretty much my take on it as well.
Sucks that Zimmerman is going to get away with killing someone, but barring a justice system MUCH more tolerant of risking putting innocent men in jail, there is no way to avoid outcomes like this at times.
I have heard about kids being tried as adults. Couldn't you try non-blacks as blacks? To get some convictions I mean.
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2013, 09:10:24 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 14, 2013, 11:51:57 PM
Actually there's no evidence sufficient for the purposes of determining a criminal trial that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin or initiated a fight with Martin. Zimmerman's claim is that while he did initially follow Martin against the advice of a dispatcher, the physical altercation began when Martin attacked him from cover and started beating him up. I don't actually think it's knowable how the confrontation started given the lack of any living witnesses other than Zimmerman to the beginning of the fight, so I don't see how a jury could convict Zimmerman of manslaughter on the basis that Zimmerman started the confrontation. All we have evidence of is Zimmerman put himself in position for a confrontation to occur, against the advice of a police dispatcher. That's not actual evidence of initiating a physical confrontation, though, nor is it intrinsically illegal in Florida to follow someone through a neighborhood.
Based on my "common sense" view of things, I don't think either of these scenarios make sense:
A: Martin being near his home and aware of weirdo Zimmerman following him, goes back in the opposite direction of his home and hides in wait for Zimmerman then jumps him.
B: Zimmerman losing control of Martin after trying to "detain" him.
What I imagine probably actually happened is at some point Zimmerman and Martin directly cross paths, most likely Zimmerman yells something at Martin and asks him to explain what he's doing. I think from there it quickly turns into a shouting/anger fest and someone throws a first punch. I honestly have no idea who, and doubt we'll ever know. Martin wins the fist fight, so Z decides to shoot him.
Pretty much my take on it as well.
Sucks that Zimmerman is going to get away with killing someone, but barring a justice system MUCH more tolerant of risking putting innocent men in jail, there is no way to avoid outcomes like this at times.
Yeah. :(
I need to stay off facebook today. I don't need to read about how this is just another example of the violent oppression of people of color to shore up the safety, health and wealth of white people...
There went my next post. :(
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2013, 09:20:53 AM
I need to stay off facebook today. I don't need to read about how this is just another example of the violent oppression of people of color to shore up the safety, health and wealth of white people...
You must have some weird social contacts.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 15, 2013, 09:30:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2013, 09:20:53 AM
I need to stay off facebook today. I don't need to read about how this is just another example of the violent oppression of people of color to shore up the safety, health and wealth of white people...
You must have some weird social contacts.
They're just different than yours, kinda like how your contacts and their LULZ AL SHARPTON IS A MONKEY LOOKIT DEM LIPS posts would be weird to garbon.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 15, 2013, 09:35:24 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 15, 2013, 09:30:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2013, 09:20:53 AM
I need to stay off facebook today. I don't need to read about how this is just another example of the violent oppression of people of color to shore up the safety, health and wealth of white people...
You must have some weird social contacts.
They're just different than yours, kinda like how your contacts and their LULZ AL SHARPTON IS A MONKEY LOOKIT DEM LIPS posts would be weird to garbon.
Arent you overdue for the kitty euthanasia down at the shelter CountDeStangl
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 15, 2013, 09:35:24 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 15, 2013, 09:30:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2013, 09:20:53 AM
I need to stay off facebook today. I don't need to read about how this is just another example of the violent oppression of people of color to shore up the safety, health and wealth of white people...
You must have some weird social contacts.
They're just different than yours, kinda like how your contacts and their LULZ AL SHARPTON IS A MONKEY LOOKIT DEM LIPS posts would be weird to garbon.
:lol:
Apropos of nothing, this film is apparently drawing in large crowds.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/14/trayvon-martin-case-closes-fruitvale-station-opens_n_3594340.html
QuoteTrayvon Martin Case Closes, 'Fruitvale Station' Opens All In One Racially-Charged Weekend
While the name Emmett Till made its way up Twitter's list of trending topics Saturday night and a jury of six women determined that George Zimmerman was justified in killing 17-year-old teenager Trayvon Martin, another young black man's tragic fate unfolded once more on a national stage.
"Fruitvale Station," the story of Oscar Grant, a 22-year-old Oakland man who was fatally shot by a transit agency police officer in the early morning hours of New Year's Day 2009, opened in theaters on Friday, prompting heart-wrenching parallels to the Trayvon Martin case.
"In that courtroom, and in the coverage of the events within it, a young black man's death has prompted speculation, assumptions, and judgment about his life. And in theaters across the country, 'Fruitvale Station' considers those same questions about Oscar Grant," The Atlantic's Jason Bailey wrote Friday in his review of the film.
Bailey's comparison of "Fruitvale" and the near 17-month-long Martin case is one that others say touch some of the rawest nerves and raise thorny, intractable issues of law and order, violence and race.
But the film's director, 26-year-old Ryan Coogler, admits that playing the race card wasn't exactly his intent.
"I hope that the film will inspire thought process in the people who watch it that can lead to discourse," Coogler told Gawker. "For me it isn't just about racism. For me it's more about the fact that so many people like Oscar are dying unnecessary violent deaths, regardless of who was holding the trigger. These young people are losing their lives and they're leaving people behind," he said.
According to initial reports in the Oscar Grant case, the 22-year-old who worked as a butcher at a supermarket near the train station where he was killed, was a loving father who had been making progress in overcoming his troubled past.
The officer who shot Grant was later convicted of involuntary manslaughter and served only 11 months.
Although protests erupted peacefully in nearby San Francisco after the Zimmerman verdict was read, Oakland residents didn't react as calmly. People marching through the city broke windows, spray painted cars and buildings and attempted to start fires, according to The Oakland Tribune.
George Zimmerman was found not guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter Saturday, bringing a close to the trial that Fox News accused of being used as a ploy to market the "Fruitvale" film.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 15, 2013, 09:41:50 AM
Arent you overdue for the kitty euthanasia down at the shelter CountDeStangl
It's a no-kill shelter. :smarty: There's no STAND YOUR KITTY LITTER bullshit there.
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2013, 09:47:57 AM
Apropos of nothing, this film is apparently drawing in large crowds.
Apples and oranges, though.
QuotePeople marching through the city broke windows, spray painted cars and buildings and attempted to start fires, according to The Oakland Tribune.
Pfft, Oakland.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 15, 2013, 10:07:16 AM
QuotePeople marching through the city broke windows, spray painted cars and buildings and attempted to start fires, according to The Oakland Tribune.
Pfft, Oakland.
It was a Sunday.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 15, 2013, 09:35:24 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 15, 2013, 09:30:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2013, 09:20:53 AM
I need to stay off facebook today. I don't need to read about how this is just another example of the violent oppression of people of color to shore up the safety, health and wealth of white people...
You must have some weird social contacts.
They're just different than yours, kinda like how your contacts and their LULZ AL SHARPTON IS A MONKEY LOOKIT DEM LIPS posts would be weird to garbon.
The only time I've seen something resembling a post like that, was in fact posted by a black guy. On the other hand, CountDeFarrakhan and crew have a long way to go yet.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 15, 2013, 10:13:49 AM
The only time I've seen something resembling a post like that, was in fact posted by a black guy. On the other hand, CountDeFarrakhan and crew have a long way to go yet.
NO JUSTICE NO SKITTLES
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2013, 09:10:24 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 14, 2013, 11:51:57 PM
Actually there's no evidence sufficient for the purposes of determining a criminal trial that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin or initiated a fight with Martin. Zimmerman's claim is that while he did initially follow Martin against the advice of a dispatcher, the physical altercation began when Martin attacked him from cover and started beating him up. I don't actually think it's knowable how the confrontation started given the lack of any living witnesses other than Zimmerman to the beginning of the fight, so I don't see how a jury could convict Zimmerman of manslaughter on the basis that Zimmerman started the confrontation. All we have evidence of is Zimmerman put himself in position for a confrontation to occur, against the advice of a police dispatcher. That's not actual evidence of initiating a physical confrontation, though, nor is it intrinsically illegal in Florida to follow someone through a neighborhood.
Based on my "common sense" view of things, I don't think either of these scenarios make sense:
A: Martin being near his home and aware of weirdo Zimmerman following him, goes back in the opposite direction of his home and hides in wait for Zimmerman then jumps him.
B: Zimmerman losing control of Martin after trying to "detain" him.
What I imagine probably actually happened is at some point Zimmerman and Martin directly cross paths, most likely Zimmerman yells something at Martin and asks him to explain what he's doing. I think from there it quickly turns into a shouting/anger fest and someone throws a first punch. I honestly have no idea who, and doubt we'll ever know. Martin wins the fist fight, so Z decides to shoot him.
Pretty much my take on it as well.
Sucks that Zimmerman is going to get away with killing someone, but barring a justice system MUCH more tolerant of risking putting innocent men in jail, there is no way to avoid outcomes like this at times.
Not necessarily. You just have to have a system where the right to self-defence is more narrowed.
If this had happened in, oh, say, Canada, even if you accept Zimmerman's version of events he probably would not have been justified in using his firearm. You can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2013, 10:35:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2013, 09:10:24 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 14, 2013, 11:51:57 PM
Actually there's no evidence sufficient for the purposes of determining a criminal trial that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin or initiated a fight with Martin. Zimmerman's claim is that while he did initially follow Martin against the advice of a dispatcher, the physical altercation began when Martin attacked him from cover and started beating him up. I don't actually think it's knowable how the confrontation started given the lack of any living witnesses other than Zimmerman to the beginning of the fight, so I don't see how a jury could convict Zimmerman of manslaughter on the basis that Zimmerman started the confrontation. All we have evidence of is Zimmerman put himself in position for a confrontation to occur, against the advice of a police dispatcher. That's not actual evidence of initiating a physical confrontation, though, nor is it intrinsically illegal in Florida to follow someone through a neighborhood.
Based on my "common sense" view of things, I don't think either of these scenarios make sense:
A: Martin being near his home and aware of weirdo Zimmerman following him, goes back in the opposite direction of his home and hides in wait for Zimmerman then jumps him.
B: Zimmerman losing control of Martin after trying to "detain" him.
What I imagine probably actually happened is at some point Zimmerman and Martin directly cross paths, most likely Zimmerman yells something at Martin and asks him to explain what he's doing. I think from there it quickly turns into a shouting/anger fest and someone throws a first punch. I honestly have no idea who, and doubt we'll ever know. Martin wins the fist fight, so Z decides to shoot him.
Pretty much my take on it as well.
Sucks that Zimmerman is going to get away with killing someone, but barring a justice system MUCH more tolerant of risking putting innocent men in jail, there is no way to avoid outcomes like this at times.
Not necessarily. You just have to have a system where the right to self-defence is more narrowed.
If this had happened in, oh, say, Canada, even if you accept Zimmerman's version of events he probably would not have been justified in using his firearm. You can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.
Wouldn't he get himself into some pretter serious trouble just for carrying a handgun around, especially a loaded one?
Quote from: 11B4V on July 15, 2013, 10:07:16 AM
QuotePeople marching through the city broke windows, spray painted cars and buildings and attempted to start fires, according to The Oakland Tribune.
Pfft, Oakland.
From what I recall though, recognizing that it wouldn't be as impactful to riot in Oakland, they also took the BART to light trashcans on fire in downtown SF.
Quote from: Neil on July 15, 2013, 10:37:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2013, 10:35:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2013, 09:10:24 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 14, 2013, 11:51:57 PM
Actually there's no evidence sufficient for the purposes of determining a criminal trial that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin or initiated a fight with Martin. Zimmerman's claim is that while he did initially follow Martin against the advice of a dispatcher, the physical altercation began when Martin attacked him from cover and started beating him up. I don't actually think it's knowable how the confrontation started given the lack of any living witnesses other than Zimmerman to the beginning of the fight, so I don't see how a jury could convict Zimmerman of manslaughter on the basis that Zimmerman started the confrontation. All we have evidence of is Zimmerman put himself in position for a confrontation to occur, against the advice of a police dispatcher. That's not actual evidence of initiating a physical confrontation, though, nor is it intrinsically illegal in Florida to follow someone through a neighborhood.
Based on my "common sense" view of things, I don't think either of these scenarios make sense:
A: Martin being near his home and aware of weirdo Zimmerman following him, goes back in the opposite direction of his home and hides in wait for Zimmerman then jumps him.
B: Zimmerman losing control of Martin after trying to "detain" him.
What I imagine probably actually happened is at some point Zimmerman and Martin directly cross paths, most likely Zimmerman yells something at Martin and asks him to explain what he's doing. I think from there it quickly turns into a shouting/anger fest and someone throws a first punch. I honestly have no idea who, and doubt we'll ever know. Martin wins the fist fight, so Z decides to shoot him.
Pretty much my take on it as well.
Sucks that Zimmerman is going to get away with killing someone, but barring a justice system MUCH more tolerant of risking putting innocent men in jail, there is no way to avoid outcomes like this at times.
Not necessarily. You just have to have a system where the right to self-defence is more narrowed.
If this had happened in, oh, say, Canada, even if you accept Zimmerman's version of events he probably would not have been justified in using his firearm. You can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.
Wouldn't he get himself into some pretter serious trouble just for carrying a handgun around, especially a loaded one?
Yes, but that's a whole different issue. You can also prevent things like this from happening if you don't allow people to carry concealed firearms with them...
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2013, 10:39:53 AM
Yes, but that's a whole different issue. You can also prevent things like this from happening if you don't allow people to carry concealed firearms with them...
Yeah, it's not a bad idea preventing people from going hunting for humans. But I suppose that's their system.
if derspiesses weren't allowed to conceal carry back in the day, we would all be speaking Canadian today. :mad:
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2013, 10:35:09 AMYou can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.
What's the difference? Any time I'm in a physical confrontation, I fear 'death or grevious bodily harm'.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2013, 10:35:09 AM
Not necessarily. You just have to have a system where the right to self-defence is more narrowed.
If this had happened in, oh, say, Canada, even if you accept Zimmerman's version of events he probably would not have been justified in using his firearm. You can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.
Doesn't that make the gun more of a liability than an asset? You can't legally shoot someone until you're at a point where you can be easily disarmed, and have your weapon turned against you.
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2013, 10:58:34 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2013, 10:35:09 AM
Not necessarily. You just have to have a system where the right to self-defence is more narrowed.
If this had happened in, oh, say, Canada, even if you accept Zimmerman's version of events he probably would not have been justified in using his firearm. You can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.
Doesn't that make the gun more of a liability than an asset? You can't legally shoot someone until you're at a point where you can be easily disarmed, and have your weapon turned against you.
It doesn't mean you have to literally be beaten to within an inch of your life. More like the court takes into account the circumstances.
Crazy person comming at you with machete: reasonable fear of death, etc.
Skinny kid comming at you with skittles: rather less obvious. :hmm:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 15, 2013, 10:55:12 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2013, 10:35:09 AMYou can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.
What's the difference? Any time I'm in a physical confrontation, I fear 'death or grevious bodily harm'.
It comes back to the "stand your ground" law in Florida. If you're in a physical confrontation you have options - you can run away. Flipping to the self-defence section of the Code I'm reminded there's an additional requirement - in order to use 'deadly force' has to not on be fearful of death or grevious bodily harm, but there has to be no other means to prevent death or grevious bodily harm to yourself or others.
As well (and I haven't followed this case that closely), but what exactly did Zimmerman say Martin was doing to him (though I recognize he didn't testify)? If he just got 'in his space', maybe shoved him a couple times, that's not a fear or GBH or death.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2013, 10:35:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2013, 09:10:24 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 14, 2013, 11:51:57 PM
Actually there's no evidence sufficient for the purposes of determining a criminal trial that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin or initiated a fight with Martin. Zimmerman's claim is that while he did initially follow Martin against the advice of a dispatcher, the physical altercation began when Martin attacked him from cover and started beating him up. I don't actually think it's knowable how the confrontation started given the lack of any living witnesses other than Zimmerman to the beginning of the fight, so I don't see how a jury could convict Zimmerman of manslaughter on the basis that Zimmerman started the confrontation. All we have evidence of is Zimmerman put himself in position for a confrontation to occur, against the advice of a police dispatcher. That's not actual evidence of initiating a physical confrontation, though, nor is it intrinsically illegal in Florida to follow someone through a neighborhood.
Based on my "common sense" view of things, I don't think either of these scenarios make sense:
A: Martin being near his home and aware of weirdo Zimmerman following him, goes back in the opposite direction of his home and hides in wait for Zimmerman then jumps him.
B: Zimmerman losing control of Martin after trying to "detain" him.
What I imagine probably actually happened is at some point Zimmerman and Martin directly cross paths, most likely Zimmerman yells something at Martin and asks him to explain what he's doing. I think from there it quickly turns into a shouting/anger fest and someone throws a first punch. I honestly have no idea who, and doubt we'll ever know. Martin wins the fist fight, so Z decides to shoot him.
Pretty much my take on it as well.
Sucks that Zimmerman is going to get away with killing someone, but barring a justice system MUCH more tolerant of risking putting innocent men in jail, there is no way to avoid outcomes like this at times.
Not necessarily. You just have to have a system where the right to self-defence is more narrowed.
If this had happened in, oh, say, Canada, even if you accept Zimmerman's version of events he probably would not have been justified in using his firearm. You can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.
I am talking more generally. We have a justice system where the ideal is that we would rather set ten guilty men free than imprison one innocent man.
You can argue that the laws in this case were not very "just" in a societal sense of course, and I would be right there with you, but the system in this case worked as intended. The justice system, that is.
The result in particular may not feel all that just, but in general, this is how it ought to work.
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2013, 10:58:34 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2013, 10:35:09 AM
Not necessarily. You just have to have a system where the right to self-defence is more narrowed.
If this had happened in, oh, say, Canada, even if you accept Zimmerman's version of events he probably would not have been justified in using his firearm. You can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.
Doesn't that make the gun more of a liability than an asset? You can't legally shoot someone until you're at a point where you can be easily disarmed, and have your weapon turned against you.
To be fair you don't have to wait until that point - you only have to be fearful of death or GBH, not actually suffering from it.
As well I should note the cases also say that you aren't expected to make really careful, well-reasoned judgments in split second situations. But still - hard to see how ZImmerman would have a reasonable fear of death in this case.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2013, 11:04:11 AM
As well (and I haven't followed this case that closely), but what exactly did Zimmerman say Martin was doing to him (though I recognize he didn't testify)? If he just got 'in his space', maybe shoved him a couple times, that's not a fear or GBH or death.
Bashing his head on the concrete.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2013, 11:04:11 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 15, 2013, 10:55:12 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2013, 10:35:09 AMYou can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.
What's the difference? Any time I'm in a physical confrontation, I fear 'death or grevious bodily harm'.
It comes back to the "stand your ground" law in Florida. If you're in a physical confrontation you have options - you can run away. Flipping to the self-defence section of the Code I'm reminded there's an additional requirement - in order to use 'deadly force' has to not on be fearful of death or grevious bodily harm, but there has to be no other means to prevent death or grevious bodily harm to yourself or others.
As well (and I haven't followed this case that closely), but what exactly did Zimmerman say Martin was doing to him (though I recognize he didn't testify)? If he just got 'in his space', maybe shoved him a couple times, that's not a fear or GBH or death.
I guess the issue is when the determination to run must be made.
My understanding is that Z. claimed the kid tried to beat his head against the pavement.
What if you get into a fight that starts with a couple of shoves, but ends with one guy trying to beat the other's brains out? It could be that the guy could have run earlier on, at the shoving stage (or before), but can't when shit got serious.
That's part of what is so bizzare about this case - while we can't know beyond a reasonable doubt what happened when those two tangled, we do know beyond a doubt that Zimmerman caused the whole confrontation by playing amateur cop. To my mind, there ought to be some sort of liability for that, if only for criminal dumbassness. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2013, 11:04:11 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 15, 2013, 10:55:12 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2013, 10:35:09 AMYou can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.
What's the difference? Any time I'm in a physical confrontation, I fear 'death or grevious bodily harm'.
It comes back to the "stand your ground" law in Florida. If you're in a physical confrontation you have options - you can run away. Flipping to the self-defence section of the Code I'm reminded there's an additional requirement - in order to use 'deadly force' has to not on be fearful of death or grevious bodily harm, but there has to be no other means to prevent death or grevious bodily harm to yourself or others.
As well (and I haven't followed this case that closely), but what exactly did Zimmerman say Martin was doing to him (though I recognize he didn't testify)? If he just got 'in his space', maybe shoved him a couple times, that's not a fear or GBH or death.
The German term would be Notwehrüberschreitung. :smarty:
Gesundheit.
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2013, 11:54:26 AM
Gesundheit.
Hottentottenpotentatenpatentantentütentittenstottertrottelattentäterbeutelrattenlattenkatenretterrattertatterzitterknatterantischitterritispille
Zimmerman never testified, but his statement to police was part of the evidence. (Some suggest the prosecution made a mistake in using it, because it allowed Zimmerman to tell his side of the story without being subject to cross-examination where the prosecutor may have been able to punch holes through his story.) In Zimmerman's version of events he was attacked by Martin by surprise, Martin was in hiding and jumped him. He says he was knocked to the ground in the initial attack, and then Martin pinned him to the ground and began beating him and slamming his head against either the ground or the concrete (there was a lot of debate about that point of ground vs concrete long before the trial), at which point Zimmerman's story suggests he was unable to run or even effectively defend himself and was in imminent fear of death. Thus, he used his gun.
I actually disagree in part with Andrew Cohen's point that this may have only happened in Florida. There's a good argument to be made that Zimmerman's story would have met the common law description of self defense in just about all fifty states and probably Canada too--as I don't see how getting your head slammed against concrete over and over again isn't an actual scenario where the courts would say the person was in fear of grievous harm or death.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2013, 08:08:16 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2013, 04:49:46 AM
I don't profess to have heard every minute of testimony, but sometimes I get the feeling that you and Raz are stating what you wish were true as fact.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2013, 01:13:21 AM
For what it's worth, my guess is that Z told M he was neighborhood watch, asked him what he was doing around there, and M flipped out.
Hmm . . .
:huh:
How can you draw a gun when you're pinned to the ground? It seems a little tricky when I imagine such a scenario?
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2013, 12:02:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2013, 11:54:26 AM
Gesundheit.
Hottentottenpotentatenpatentantentütentittenstottertrottelattentäterbeutelrattenlattenkatenretterrattertatterzitterknatterantischitterritispille
Popular word during my childhood, but fell out of fashion due to Hottentotten reference.
Quote from: Syt on July 15, 2013, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2013, 12:02:42 PM
Hottentottenpotentatenpatentantentütentittenstottertrottelattentäterbeutelrattenlattenkatenretterrattertatterzitterknatterantischitterritispille
Popular word during my childhood, but fell out of fashion due to Hottentotten reference.
How does it end?
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2013, 12:21:24 PM
How can you draw a gun when you're pinned to the ground? It seems a little tricky when I imagine such a scenario?
Is that really that hard to imagine? You can certainly be pinned to the ground while having an arm free.
Without being a shyster, to the best of my understanding of the jury instructions the jury basically had to consider these things:
1. Did the self defense claim raised by Zimmerman seem plausible to a "preponderance of the evidence?"
2. If 1 is answered yes, then the jury has to decide if the prosecution's case has disproven the self defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict him.
3. If 1 is answered no, then the jury does not have to worry about whether or not the prosecution has disproven the self defense claim (since they have found the claim to not be plausible.)
In that scenario the jury just has to look at the statutory definitions of Murder 2 and Manslaughter and decide if the actions proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution satisfy the definition of either crime. I don't believe, based on my reading of Florida law, that they could have obtained a Murder 2 conviction in any scenario based on the case I saw. I think the prosecution had outlined events with enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter if you can say that Zimmerman's self defense claim is either not plausible or has been affirmatively disproven by prosecution evidence.
What instead happened is, because of a lack of information, lack of compelling witness testimony and lack of compelling evidence there was nothing about Zimmerman's self defense claim that was intrinsically implausible. The jury appears to have looked at the prosecution's arguments about Zimmerman's actions and tried to decide if they had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense. Again, because of lack of information, they couldn't ascertain that the prosecution had proven that and thus they acquitted Zimmerman after having accepted the plausibility of his self defense claims.
I don't personally believe things went down exactly as Zimmerman said they did in his police interview. But I also don't think there is anything about Zimmerman's story that is unsupported by the evidence, and it is at least a plausible possibility as to what happened. Since there is no evidence available to demonstrate any other version of events as any more likely, I don't see how you can reject his self defense claim. If his story had been he got in a shoving match and then shot Martin, I'd agree that would not be self defense in most places in America, but the story he actually laid out sounds like self defense in probably any country that has a concept of self defense--because having your head slammed into concrete can easily cause death, and if you are pinned then you have no ability to escape.
Maybe if they had Zimmerman on the stand they could have unraveled his story. But because the prosecution submitted the videotape of his interview as evidence, the jury heard Zimmerman's side without ever seeing him on the stand where he would be drilled about the particulars in open court. Since the physical evidence did show that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and that both the front and back of Zimmerman's head had suffered injuries, his self defense tale was plausible enough that it couldn't just be ignored. The prosecution never showed anything to my mind to demonstrate anything beyond a reasonable doubt to overcome that.
I think the prosecution knew they had no way to refute Zimmerman's story because none of the witnesses or physical evidence gave a clear idea of what happened. I also believe that the prosecution was desperate because they said in their closing statement that the story wasn't about the fist fight, but the fact that Zimmerman chose to get out of his car when he should not have. However, as a matter of law in Florida Zimmerman had no legal duty to remain in his car in this situation, he was lawfully walking on the sidewalk/street.
Now, in many non-Florida States, if Zimmerman had initiated a confrontation he would have ran afoul of the "duty to retreat." But Zimmerman's claim is that he was actually just on the street to check the address or something, and then was jumped. So even in a duty to retreat state Zimmerman's story covered his bases. Basically keep in mind Zimmerman had literally taken a class that taught him what to say and in what situations it's legal to shoot and kill someone in self defense. Zimmerman knew what his story had to contain to protect himself, and it appears the story he told couldn't be disproven by any evidence and legally established a valid self defense claim.
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2013, 12:21:24 PM
How can you draw a gun when you're pinned to the ground? It seems a little tricky when I imagine such a scenario?
Well, it's easily possible depending on how you're pinned and etc. I think importantly for Zimmerman, details like that weren't that important. The physical evidence showed Zimmerman was knocked on his back, and that Martin was shot at an angle such that he had to have been either standing over top of or kneeling on Zimmerman directly. That means that while we only get one side of the story, Zimmerman's story (whether we personally buy it) isn't inconsistent with the physical evidence. With no strong evidence to the contrary, that means while me or you don't necessarily believe Z's story, it's one of several possible stories. When that's the case, you usually can't convict someone. My understanding is if there are multiple "reasonable explanations" of events, several of which would exculpate the defendant then you're talking about a classic situation in which "reasonable doubt" exists, and the jury's choice in that scenario is basically unavoidable.
I've actually heard claims from some that in all honesty the prosecution's case was so weak that the judge probably should have granted the defense request for a directed acquittal, or taken the initiative herself to do so. But Florida being a place with elected judges, Nelson did not want to be so involved in the outcome of the case. If the jury had convicted Nelson would have been in a bad situation, because just like the Massachusetts au pair case where the judge had to overrule an improper jury decision the judge in Zimmerman's case probably would have had to do the same thing. If not, the verdict almost certainly would not have survived appeal and having it overturned that way also would have looked bad for the judge.
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2013, 12:26:43 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2013, 12:21:24 PM
How can you draw a gun when you're pinned to the ground? It seems a little tricky when I imagine such a scenario?
Is that really that hard to imagine? You can certainly be pinned to the ground while having an arm free.
The way I imagine it, you need both an arm free, and it must be able to reach to where you holster your gun. One and/or the other could easily be blocked by the guy sitting on you. Then again, I've never tried either carrying a gun or having a guy sit on top of me, so maybe I'm exaggerating the difficulties involved.
Both arms free? How heavy do you think guns are?
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2013, 12:44:44 PM
Both arms free? How heavy do you think guns are?
:hmm:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2013, 12:18:38 PM
Zimmerman never testified, but his statement to police was part of the evidence. (Some suggest the prosecution made a mistake in using it, because it allowed Zimmerman to tell his side of the story without being subject to cross-examination where the prosecutor may have been able to punch holes through his story.) In Zimmerman's version of events he was attacked by Martin by surprise, Martin was in hiding and jumped him. He says he was knocked to the ground in the initial attack, and then Martin pinned him to the ground and began beating him and slamming his head against either the ground or the concrete (there was a lot of debate about that point of ground vs concrete long before the trial), at which point Zimmerman's story suggests he was unable to run or even effectively defend himself and was in imminent fear of death. Thus, he used his gun.
Common wisdom is that you do not play an accused's exculpatory statement to the trier of fact for precisely that reason - that means the accused isn't subject to cross-examination. There may be circumstances where you do it anyways, but you better have a VERY good reason to do so. For example, maybe you play it because it proves the accused was actually on the scene. Not sure what reason there would eb for the prosecution here.
Quote
I actually disagree in part with Andrew Cohen's point that this may have only happened in Florida. There's a good argument to be made that Zimmerman's story would have met the common law description of self defense in just about all fifty states and probably Canada too--as I don't see how getting your head slammed against concrete over and over again isn't an actual scenario where the courts would say the person was in fear of grievous harm or death.
Fair enough - if accepted Zimmerman's story probably would qualify for self-defence in Canada.
Well, just based on experience on the wrestling team as a kid I can tell you it's unusual that you'll actually be pinned such that you don't have any arm movement or body movement, either of which would allow you several ways to get to a waist holder. I believe Zimmerman carried inside the waistband.
I don't even think there is much controversy about that part of the case. Even people like me that don't believe the entirety of Zimmerman's story believe that he genuinely lost his fight with Martin and was on his back when he killed him, and it seems unlikely given the angle and range of shot that Martin wasn't on top of him.
Zimmerman isn't really a gun nut, based on the fact he doesn't own many guns and the gun he carried wasn't a particularly nice gun but more a cheap one. Instead, he's a "cop wannabe" who was probably a few years removed from stopping people on traffic violations with a surplus Crown Vic or something bought at auction. He was someone who I suspect had daydreams about being the hero who gets to kill some bad guy. I think he had studied how he could do that and not get in trouble for it legally. Then I think a confluence of events happened such that he basically got his wish, and he did. He's that rare cop wannabe whose wet dream actually came true.
Quote from: Jacob on July 14, 2013, 01:35:42 PM
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 01:33:28 PM
I look forward to the delicious irony of many new "Trayvon's laws" resulting in increased incarceration of young black males for self-defense shootings.
Are there a lot of young black male shooters who avoid incarceration due to claims of self-defence presently?
Surprisingly yes, but it's all drug related.
I'm aware of several cases in recent years even here in Virginia where several young black men involved in the drug business killed someone and the cases ultimately went nowhere because of self defense claims. There was actually a guy I read about who finally went in for good after he beat his baby momma to death on the side of the road (she had insulted him in some way), who was basically known to police to have murdered two other men previously but both times they were the only witnesses and his self defense assertion ultimately resulted in him not even going to trial for murder. I think he did fall to felony gun charges but was out by the time he was beating his girlfriend to death.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2013, 12:51:55 PM
I'm aware of several cases in recent years even here in Virginia where several young black men involved in the drug business killed someone and the cases ultimately went nowhere because of self defense claims. There was actually a guy I read about who finally went in for good after he beat his baby momma to death on the side of the road (she had insulted him in some way), who was basically known to police to have murdered two other men previously but both times they were the only witnesses and his self defense assertion ultimately resulted in him not even going to trial for murder. I think he did fall to felony gun charges but was out by the time he was beating his girlfriend to death.
Self defence is a real bitch to work with (speaking as a prosecutor) because all the defence has to do is raise a doubt about whether or not it applies. It's not something defence needs to prove. It also provides a full defence. It doesn't just reduce the severity of the crime.
That being said, I think the system works better if we run these kinds of trials and let the accused tell their story, under oath (and cross-examination), then to simply drop the case just because they are tricky. There is nothing wrong with running a tough case and winding up with an acquittal.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2013, 01:07:19 PM
That being said, I think the system works better if we run these kinds of trials and let the accused tell their story, under oath (and cross-examination), then to simply drop the case just because they are tricky. There is nothing wrong with running a tough case and winding up with an acquittal.
:yes: Well said sir.
I don't know. I mean just having to stand trial is a deterrent. Nobody wants to have to go through that. You don't want to disincentivize acting in self-defence when doing so would be warranted and appropriate.
I think if someone dies, a trial is probably called for in all but the most cut-and-dry cases (which this one definitely wasn't). It's pretty easy to see why they didn't initially want to try him, though.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 15, 2013, 02:27:31 PM
I don't know. I mean just having to stand trial is a deterrent. Nobody wants to have to go through that. You don't want to disincentivize acting in self-defence when doing so would be warranted and appropriate.
If my life was in danger I'd be willing to stand trial for trying to preserve it.
Quote from: frunk on July 15, 2013, 02:39:10 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 15, 2013, 02:27:31 PM
I don't know. I mean just having to stand trial is a deterrent. Nobody wants to have to go through that. You don't want to disincentivize acting in self-defence when doing so would be warranted and appropriate.
If my life was in danger I'd be willing to stand trial for trying to preserve it.
:lol: @ your profile caption. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2013, 01:07:19 PM
That being said, I think the system works better if we run these kinds of trials and let the accused tell their story, under oath (and cross-examination), then to simply drop the case just because they are tricky. There is nothing wrong with running a tough case and winding up with an acquittal.
I don't think you should try them unless you think the self-defense claim is a load of hogwash.
Quote from: Caliga on July 15, 2013, 02:44:47 PM
:lol: @ your profile caption. :cool:
I've had it for a while but I guess I don't post that often.
So has Seedy gone out wildin' yet?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2013, 12:18:38 PM
I actually disagree in part with Andrew Cohen's point that this may have only happened in Florida. There's a good argument to be made that Zimmerman's story would have met the common law description of self defense in just about all fifty states and probably Canada too--as I don't see how getting your head slammed against concrete over and over again isn't an actual scenario where the courts would say the person was in fear of grievous harm or death.
No, not quite; in many states the use of deadly force is warranted if you are in fear of grievous harm or death
and there are no other reasonable means to extricate oneself from the situation available, e.g., trapped in a room on the 2nd floor of house with nowhere else to go.
And he sure as shit wouldn't have been able to get a concealed handgun permit with his record in many states to begin with.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2013, 03:29:01 PM
So has Seedy gone out wildin' yet?
Too hot out. Maybe in October, when the conference games really start to kick in.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 15, 2013, 02:27:31 PM
I don't know. I mean just having to stand trial is a deterrent. Nobody wants to have to go through that. You don't want to disincentivize acting in self-defence when doing so would be warranted and appropriate.
I would think actually killing somebody is already pretty disincentivizing and this would not really be a factor...and if it is not disincentivized for somebody then they probably need to be standing trial. But really I am talking about weird shootings like this that happen in public not when it is obviously a home invasion or something.
Well yes. I'm just thinking in a situation where you are risking your life by not using self-defense, you might hesitate and take the risk hoping it will turn out ok. And that might get you killed.
I saw this in the Detroit Free Press: http://www.freep.com/article/20130714/NEWS01/307140134/George-Zimmerman-Travyon-Martin-verdict-Detroit (http://www.freep.com/article/20130714/NEWS01/307140134/George-Zimmerman-Travyon-Martin-verdict-Detroit)
There were 411 murders in the city of Detroit last year; 386 of them were criminal, 25 justifiable. Twenty percent of all murders in Detroit remain unsolved. It struck me as strange that Detroiters would get so worked up about an injustice, one thousand miles away; but are willing to put up with so much injustice in their own city without a rally or a protest.
Quote from: frunk on July 15, 2013, 02:39:10 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 15, 2013, 02:27:31 PM
I don't know. I mean just having to stand trial is a deterrent. Nobody wants to have to go through that. You don't want to disincentivize acting in self-defence when doing so would be warranted and appropriate.
If my life was in danger I'd be willing to stand trial for trying to preserve it.
The old chestnut is "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 15, 2013, 03:55:08 PMNo, not quite; in many states the use of deadly force is warranted if you are in fear of grievous harm or death and there are no other reasonable means to extricate oneself from the situation available, e.g., trapped in a room on the 2nd floor of house with nowhere else to go.
And he sure as shit wouldn't have been able to get a concealed handgun permit with his record in many states to begin with.
I doubt any State would have a problem with the idea that someone pinned to the ground, unable to stand or move away, was in a situation in which no reasonable means existed to flee.
A lot of focus was always on Zimmerman getting out of his car and snooping around, but his version of the story has always been that he
never pursued Martin and that he was jumped unexpectedly. That would have actually covered his bases even in a duty to flee jurisdiction, because the claim is that he had no idea he was in danger until he was attacked from cover.
CA-CHING!
Quote
George Zimmerman juror plans to write book, agent says
Juror B37 has signed with a literary agent but there is no book deal yet.
By Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel
2:25 p.m. EDT, July 15, 2013
Just two days after George Zimmerman was found not guilty in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, a book agent today confirmed that one of the jurors who reached that verdict plans to write a book about the high-profile trial.
Literary and media manager Sharlene Martin said she has signed the juror, still publicly known only as B-37, the designation she was given during jury selection, and her husband to write a book describing her experience as a juror and explaining the controversial verdict she and the five other jurors reached.
"My hope is that people will read Juror B37's book, written with her attorney husband, and understand the commitment it takes to serve and be sequestered on a jury in a highly publicized murder trial and how important, despite one's personal viewpoints, it is to follow the letter of the law," Martin said in a statement. "It could open a whole new dialogue about laws that may need to be revised and revamped to suit a 21st century way of life.
"The reader will also learn why the jurors had no option but to find Zimmerman Not Guilty due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the jury instructions," the statement says.
The six-member jury panel deliberated about 16 hours before returning a not-guilty verdict. Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder, and jurors were also allowed to consider manslaughter.
Martin said she was contacted by B-37 on Sunday, the day after the verdict. The juror has not decided whether she will participate in interviews or reveal her identity, Martin said.
Her answers to jury selection questioning revealed some details about B-37:
Described as a white, middle-aged woman from Seminole County, she said she works for a chiropractor and has many pets, including lizards and a parrot. Her husband is an attorney. She described protests in Sanford after the shooting as "rioting."
The juror told the attorneys in the case she has two daughters, 24 and 27. She said she used to have a concealed-weapons permit, but let it lapse. Her husband still has one, she said. She expressed strong skepticism of the media, and newspapers in particular: "The newspapers are used in the parrot's cage, not even read," she said.
The juror said she watches NBC's "Today" show in the mornings, but otherwise doesn't have the time or interest to follow currently events on television or online: •"I have no time to do anything other than feed my animals and sleep."
Martin noted in her statement that she's no stranger to books on controversial subjects. The literary manager is currently representing a soon-to-be-released book on the high-profile Jodi Arias murder case, she said, and previously represented the family of alleged O.J. Simpson victim Ron Goldman.
The Goldman family was awarded the rights to Simpson's book, "If I Did It," due to an unpaid civil judgment the family won against the former football star after his acquittal in Goldman's slaying. The family published Simpson's book, calling it his confession.
Enlightened and informed. :)
Sounds like a racist. :(
Sounds like a vegetable.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2013, 04:22:28 PM
A lot of focus was always on Zimmerman getting out of his car and snooping around, but his version of the story has always been that he never pursued Martin and that he was jumped unexpectedly. That would have actually covered his bases even in a duty to flee jurisdiction, because the claim is that he had no idea he was in danger until he was attacked from cover.
His duty to flee would've been covered not only by not getting out of the car, but by the two opportunities Zimmerman had to make verbal contact with Martin and chose not to prior to the last encounter, according to his interview by Serino.
The interviewing detective didn't believe his bullshit, either.
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2013, 04:34:55 PM
Sounds like a vegetable.
99% of the news is the same crap we've heard before, there's many better ways to spend one's time.
Quote from: Savonarola on July 15, 2013, 04:23:49 PM
Enlightened and informed. :)
That's the way we like the juries of our peers.
One of the anti-Zimmerman protestors on Saturday had a sign that said, "The People Find Him Guilty." I thought that was a nice touch - just in time for Bastille Day. :frog:
Quote from: Kleves on July 15, 2013, 04:48:55 PM
One of the anti-Zimmerman protestors on Saturday had a sign that said, "The People Find Him Guilty." I thought that was a nice touch - just in time for Bastille Day. :frog:
At one Trayvon rally I saw a clip from, some lady totally lost her shit after the guy who spoke before her mentioned LGBT rights :D
edit: I also liked the "let's run out into traffic" protest in LA.
Piers Morgan is going to interview Rachel Jeantel this evening. I'm sure she's getting her Piers nails done right now.
800,000 people have signed an online petition requesting the DOJ to charge Zimmerman with civil rights violations.
Quote from: Rasputin on July 15, 2013, 08:52:39 AM
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2013, 08:36:27 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 15, 2013, 08:25:07 AM
Quote from: Scipio on July 14, 2013, 12:46:30 PM
Oddly enough, I think statistics will demonstrate that more YBMs die north of Mason-Dixon, where the North has set the niggers free, to quote Randy Newman.
qft
the "racial" angle to this story is amazing...it is a confabulation
this case is and always has been simple
there is a narrative that has corroborrating objective evidence that reads as follows:
zimmermans neighborhood has a string of robberies
zimmerman followed martin
the police say "you dont have to do that"
he follows anyway
at some point he decides to stop and head back to his car
martin jumps zimmerman
zimmer gets scared and shoots martin while zimmerman is in fear of his life
While i recognize that there are many other narratives that also have evidentiary support, this is a criminal case and so long as there is evidentiary support for the foregoing narrative, the state cannot establish murder or its lesser included defenses beyond a reasonable doubt.
But that's just your selective version of the 'facts', some of which need to be massaged to fit the story you're telling.
Quote
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: OK, we don't need you to do that
Zimmerman: OK
massage it all you want; its the same result
You're the one doing that, moulding word to fit your narrative, I just quoted the official transcript.
So please don't give me that "I'm just an impartial lawyer" bullshit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2013, 05:15:41 PM
800,000 people have signed an online petition requesting the DOJ to charge Zimmerman with civil rights violations.
Mob rule always turns out well. :cool:
Shyster they interviewed on CNN said there's zero chance of a hate crime conviction. Not only do they have to prove he wanted to kill Martin because he was black, but also that Z didn't act in self defense.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 15, 2013, 04:37:56 PMHis duty to flee would've been covered not only by not getting out of the car, but by the two opportunities Zimmerman had to make verbal contact with Martin and chose not to prior to the last encounter, according to his interview by Serino.
The interviewing detective didn't believe his bullshit, either.
I don't believe so, because in his narrative (which the prosecution was unable to disprove to a jury), he doesn't claim that the confrontation began when he got out of the car. To show that duty to flee was present when he stepped out of his car you'd have to show that Zimmerman was in fear for his life or limb at the moment he stepped out of the car. Duty to flee cannot apply before a rational person would have perceived danger.
Posit a state with a general duty to flee and no castle doctrine. If I see a shiftless drifter shambling by while I'm mowing the lawn, eye him cautiously, and continue on my way I don't think any reasonable person would believe I had a duty to flee at that moment. Nothing had happened to make me fear for my life. Since I live in the kind of place where we pay for people like that to not exist, I could call the police and report a suspicious person, but that doesn't mean myself or any other rational person would have a duty to flee. Because I've perceived no danger, as far as I know the drifter isn't dangerous. He just seems out of place and I worry he might commit a property crime (I would say, anyway, and you'd never prove otherwise.) So about ten minutes later, the drifter jumps out behind me and begins assaulting me, and successfully knocks me to the ground. I then am able to pull my gun out, shoot, and kill him.
At no point, even in a duty to flee state, could you have said such a duty had been imposed on me because there was no point at which any reasonable person would have seen a need to flee. Duty to flee doesn't mean that you have to have a perfect ability to predict the future or you lose the right to self defense. Duty to flee is for a situation like if I catch a drifter stealing something out of my garage and I chase him down, he pulls a knife on me and I shoot him. In a duty to flee jurisdiction I had no right to be chasing him in the first place, nor should I have. Or, if I'm in my car or something and someone attacks it with a baseball bat, I have a duty to drive off before I start shooting, since that's a reasonable avenue of escape in a situation like that.
Since you'd have to prove Zimmerman should have presciently known he would be attacked the moment he set foot out of his car, him setting foot out of his car isn't enough to prove he failed in his duty to flee. He wasn't in hot pursuit or trying to apprehend Martin (as we know, anyway.) I'm fairly confident given the narrative and the evidence even in a duty to flee state a prosecutor would have a lot of trouble convicting Zimmerman of any crime, his story sounds like it was crafted specifically to cover all such bases even though where he lived that was not necessary.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2013, 06:56:00 PM
Shyster they interviewed on CNN said there's zero chance of a hate crime conviction. Not only do they have to prove he wanted to kill Martin because he was black, but also that Z didn't act in self defense.
There's been several former federal prosecutors who have said the same thing. I think even like three guys that used to
work for the civil rights criminal division have said it is highly unlikely Zimmerman could be successfully prosecuted on federal civil rights violations. It's basically like you said, it's like the Florida case with a much higher burden of proof, and they couldn't meet the burden in Florida. I've even heard it worded stronger, that the primary or motivating factor literally in the pull of Zimmerman's trigger must have been that Martin's skin was black. I don't see how you prove that based on the evidence unless the jury is a single guy who used to work in bail bonds and lives in Maryland.
:D
You're pretty funny when you're not passed out drunk.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2013, 06:56:00 PM
Shyster they interviewed on CNN said there's zero chance of a hate crime conviction. Not only do they have to prove he wanted to kill Martin because he was black, but also that Z didn't act in self defense.
Yeah, I think Holder's kind of in a corner. You could tell he wanted to play to the crowd in his speech today and he sort of did so, while remaining vague and non-committal. I bet he's hoping people will forget about it or be distracted by something else.
I heard the DOJ report said that Zimmerman acted out of a hero complex rather than seething racissism.
I think he's fine. He says they're "investigating," then in a month or two when it's blown over he announces on a Friday afternoon that they're not pressing charges.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2013, 07:22:43 PM
I think he's fine. He says they're "investigating," then in a month or two when it's blown over he announces on a Friday afternoon that they're not pressing charges.
He had to get up & say something to reassure the masses today. Seems like they ate it up.
But you're right. They'll announce it on a Friday afternoon when they dump the other documents, and most likely people will be focused on other things.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2013, 06:56:00 PM
Shyster they interviewed on CNN said there's zero chance of a hate crime conviction. Not only do they have to prove he wanted to kill Martin because he was black, but also that Z didn't act in self defense.
Well, no a hate crime thing wouldn't work since that's normally added onto to the ordinary crime. He's already been cleared for murder. What they could possibly do is charge him on a civil rights violations. Depriving someone of the use of pubic property because of race.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2013, 12:16:10 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 15, 2013, 12:02:01 AM
and Raz, my thoughts on GZ and Trayvon's actions that night. I dont think I have stated it in this thread to date.
GZ: Dude was as fucked up as a football bat from the word go. Neighborhood watch, Observe and Report. GZ put himself in this situation because of his stupidity.
Trayvon: should have just run kid. Thug life is what cost you yours. Sad but true.
Bad judgement + Bad Judgement= Fucking Tragedy.
I'm not sure the kid was in the the "Thug life". He was just some highschool kid. He wasn't doing anything wrong, and I think he felt endangered by a guy stalking him and did what he could to defend himself.
Oh sure.
Two things he did in school, that we know of:
1- Was caught in school with stolen jewelry.
2- Was caught in school with marihuana.
He got suspended from school. That was it. No criminal charges.
In fact, he was as his father home because he had been suspended for a second time from school.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2013, 07:02:26 PM
unless the jury is a single guy who used to work in bail bonds and lives in Maryland.
Shit, I could mail that in on Skype. Just to make it easy for them, I wouldn't even have to pay attention all the time.
Quote from: Siege on July 15, 2013, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2013, 12:16:10 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 15, 2013, 12:02:01 AM
and Raz, my thoughts on GZ and Trayvon's actions that night. I dont think I have stated it in this thread to date.
GZ: Dude was as fucked up as a football bat from the word go. Neighborhood watch, Observe and Report. GZ put himself in this situation because of his stupidity.
Trayvon: should have just run kid. Thug life is what cost you yours. Sad but true.
Bad judgement + Bad Judgement= Fucking Tragedy.
I'm not sure the kid was in the the "Thug life". He was just some highschool kid. He wasn't doing anything wrong, and I think he felt endangered by a guy stalking him and did what he could to defend himself.
Oh sure.
Two things he did in school, that we know of:
1- Was caught in school with stolen jewelry.
2- Was caught in school with marihuana.
He got suspended from school. That was it. No criminal charges.
In fact, he was as his father home because he had been suspended for a second time from school.
Kids get rebellious and do stupid shit. Not the same as doing drive bys and selling heroin on the street.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2013, 07:22:43 PM
I think he's fine. He says they're "investigating," then in a month or two when it's blown over he announces on a Friday afternoon that they're not pressing charges.
Yes
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2013, 04:52:12 PM
Piers Morgan is going to interview Rachel Jeantel this evening. I'm sure she's getting her Piers nails done right now.
Wow, an even bigger train wreck than her testimony :pinch:
Was it real retarded?
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2013, 09:55:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2013, 04:52:12 PM
Piers Morgan is going to interview Rachel Jeantel this evening. I'm sure she's getting her Piers nails done right now.
Wow, an even bigger train wreck than her testimony :pinch:
Why you gotta be like dat.
I hope she called Piers a creepy ass cracker, since he is one. :)
Quote from: Caliga on July 15, 2013, 10:06:38 PM
Was it real retarded?
It was actually pretty informative. I learned that the term "nigga" was invented in the 2000's and refers to any male, without regard to race. Also, the term "cracka" doesn't mean white people, it just refers to police & security guards. And blonde females are stupid (which I guess is an acceptable stereotype).
She also wishes she had used the n-word during her testimony.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2013, 10:35:15 PM
I learned that the term "nigga" was invented in the 2000's and refers to any male, without regard to race.
Yes, at roughly the same time I joined our online community. Duh.
It makes me feel special when der takes an interest in my culture. :)
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2013, 11:30:50 PM
It makes me feel special when der takes an interest in my culture. :)
Since they cancelled
The Jeffersons, he hasn't had much of an opportunity.
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2013, 11:30:50 PM
It makes me feel special when der takes an interest in my culture. :)
So you're Haitian now? Make up your mind!
Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida. Just thought all of you should know.
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2013, 08:14:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2013, 11:30:50 PM
It makes me feel special when der takes an interest in my culture. :)
So you're Haitian now? Make up your mind!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fglobalfinance.zenfs.com%2Fimages%2FUS_AHTTP_AP_FINANCIALTIMES%2F242154bac854b517370f6a7067006aa5_original.jpg&hash=a678667c81c06a1ca7a61f5dc189a8635b6a6b6a)
Statistics prove her wrong :P
"Extremely large guitar pick earring" culture, then? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2013, 08:16:01 AM
Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida. Just thought all of you should know.
You are really enjoying this, aren't you?
Quote from: Jacob on July 16, 2013, 09:54:54 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2013, 08:16:01 AM
Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida. Just thought all of you should know.
You are really enjoying this, aren't you?
He enjoys seeing the other side get pissed off more than the specifics of the situation.
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2013, 08:16:01 AM
Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida. Just thought all of you should know.
I'm boycotting Florida too. TOO HOT AND MUGGY.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 16, 2013, 10:08:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2013, 08:16:01 AM
Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida. Just thought all of you should know.
I'm boycotting Florida too. TOO HOT AND MUGGY.
:yes: :hug:
Quote from: Jacob on July 16, 2013, 09:54:54 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2013, 08:16:01 AM
Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida. Just thought all of you should know.
You are really enjoying this, aren't you?
Some of the side stories are amusing.
Quote from: Jacob on July 16, 2013, 09:54:54 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2013, 08:16:01 AM
Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida. Just thought all of you should know.
You are really enjoying this, aren't you?
They love to watch those darkies. They're such a musical people, and dance so well.
:yawn: Seedy used to be amusing.
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2013, 08:33:20 AM
"Extremely large guitar pick earring" culture, then? :unsure:
Those things are enormous. Like table tennis paddles.
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2013, 12:02:55 PM
:yawn: Seedy used to be amusing.
Too much into Racial/Cultural suppression. He still thinks GZ is a white boy. :P
I'm sure Tim does, too. And Valmy, due to the one drop rule.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 16, 2013, 02:00:07 PM
And Valmy, due to the one drop rule.
:yeah:
The additional requirement is they really have to want to be white though. I am not sure of GZ's love of the white and pastey peoples.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 16, 2013, 02:00:07 PM
I'm sure Tim does, too. And Valmy, due to the one drop rule.
Is that like the 5 second rule?
QuoteA Note Regarding the Zimmerman Trial
Both the Martin and Zimmerman families have asked for Americans to peaceably respect the verdict in the case against George Zimmerman. In light of that, we're going allow the matter some peace and have a moratorium on any discussions on the case here until the end of summer.
Thanks for your understanding.
From THR :lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 16, 2013, 10:08:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2013, 08:16:01 AM
Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida. Just thought all of you should know.
I'm boycotting Florida too. TOO HOT AND MUGGY.
Then Moveon.org has already won. :(
QuoteAngry protesters call for Florida boycotts following Zimmerman acquittal
For two days the world waited for the verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman. Outside the Seminole County courthouse, more than 200 demonstrators were on hand to hear what would become of the man who shot Trayvon Martin.
By Jason Garcia, Orlando Sentinel
3:09 p.m. EDT, July 16, 2013
Angered by George Zimmerman's acquittal in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, protesters around the country have begun vowing on social-media channels to boycott everything from Florida vacations to state-produced orange juice.
"Never again. Florida's economy will suffer due to the loss and injustices of Trayvon Martin and his family," Facebook user Toshia Lynn posted on the public page of Visit Florida, the state's tourism-marketing agency.
Users on Twitter have begun campaigning under hash tags such as #BoycottFlorida and #NotFlorida. Their goal: To squeeze Florida's influential tourism businesses, in hopes that they will in turn pressure state leaders into repealing the state's controversial "Stand Your Ground" gun-rights law, which emerged as a flashpoint in Zimmerman's trial.
"Boycott Florida and maybe the tourism board and Disney will pressure FL lawmakers to repel [sic] Stand Your Ground," Twitter user @vivalalisian23m posted Tuesday.
A petition to "Boycott Florida Tourism," launched on the website of Moveon.org, had drawn about 5,800 signatures by mid-afternoon Tuesday.
"Florida is not a safe place to take your family for vacation as long as Florida law permits a citizen to shoot or kill you for merely looking suspicious, and to do it with impunity," petition organizers wrote. "Boycott Florida tourism until this dangerous law is overturned. If the murder of Trayvon Martin isn't enough to get lawmakers' attention, maybe a loss in revenue to the state would be."
At least one celebrity joined the chorus: Musician Stevie Wonder told an audience in Quebec City, Canada, that he will not perform in Florida again until the Stand Your Grand law is repealed, according to Hollywood Reporter. Wonder added that he would refuse to perform in any other state with a Stand Your Grand law, as well.
But while emotions are raw right now, one industry expert said he did the calls for boycotts are unlikely to have any meaningful impact on Orlando or Florida tourism.
"I honestly don't think so. Most people are familiar with what's going on, and they wouldn't blame an entire state for what happened in a very isolated case," said Abe Pizam, dean of the University of Central Florida's Rosen College of Hospitality Management.
Pizam cited the case of Arizona, where many activists called for travel boycotts after the state passed its controversial anti-immigration law in 2010. Pizam said Arizona's tourism industry experienced a "tiny drop" in the immediate aftermath of the law's passage but that it
NO JUSTICE! NO ORANGE JUICE!
http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_chunky&original_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com (http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_chunky&original_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com)
Almost didn't read it because slate, but it is quite reasonable.
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2013, 08:16:01 AM
Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida. Just thought all of you should know.
I believe you're reporting this story here: http://nationalreport.net/stevie-wonder-boycotts-florida-in-wake-of-zimmerman-verdict/
... which is a "humour" site with a disclaimer and everything. So yeah... you got swindled.
Quote from: Jacob on July 16, 2013, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2013, 08:16:01 AM
Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida. Just thought all of you should know.
I believe you're reporting this story here: http://nationalreport.net/stevie-wonder-boycotts-florida-in-wake-of-zimmerman-verdict/
... which is a "humour" site with a disclaimer and everything. So yeah... you got swindled.
Eh, no. Sorry. I read it here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/stevie-wonder-boycotting-florida-zimmerman-585760
Other performers are boycotting Florida, so it's not as if it's that far out there, Jake.
Oh, and I guess the LA Times is either in on the joke or got "swindled": http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-stevie-wonder-trayvon-martin-boycott-20130716,0,4883535.story
Quote from: Maximus on July 16, 2013, 03:41:10 PM
http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_chunky&original_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com (http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_chunky&original_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com)
Almost didn't read it because slate, but it is quite reasonable.
Agree. I can't really argue with any of that.
Quote from: Jacob on July 16, 2013, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2013, 08:16:01 AM
Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida. Just thought all of you should know.
I believe you're reporting this story here: http://nationalreport.net/stevie-wonder-boycotts-florida-in-wake-of-zimmerman-verdict/
... which is a "humour" site with a disclaimer and everything. So yeah... you got swindled.
Both HLN and The Orlando Sentinel reported it as well.
Stevie's going to miss out on some beautiful sights.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2013, 04:29:14 PM
Stevie's going to miss out on some beautiful sights.
Maybe someday he will see the error of his ways.
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2013, 04:16:30 PM
Eh, no. Sorry. I read it here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/stevie-wonder-boycotting-florida-zimmerman-585760
Other performers are boycotting Florida, so it's not as if it's that far out there, Jake.
Oh, and I guess the LA Times is either in on the joke or got "swindled": http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-stevie-wonder-trayvon-martin-boycott-20130716,0,4883535.story
Heh. Wacky.
Quote from: Maximus on July 16, 2013, 03:41:10 PM
http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_chunky&original_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com (http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_chunky&original_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com)
Almost didn't read it because slate, but it is quite reasonable.
Wow thanks for posting that.
:lol: "Grievance Industrial Complex". I love it! :lol:
Of course you do.
Quote from: Jacob on July 16, 2013, 04:45:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2013, 04:16:30 PM
Eh, no. Sorry. I read it here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/stevie-wonder-boycotting-florida-zimmerman-585760
Other performers are boycotting Florida, so it's not as if it's that far out there, Jake.
Oh, and I guess the LA Times is either in on the joke or got "swindled": http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-stevie-wonder-trayvon-martin-boycott-20130716,0,4883535.story
Heh. Wacky.
:lol:
QuoteAfter watching Piers Morgan's interview Monday with Rachel Jeantel, a key witness in George Zimmerman's trial, radio personality Tom Joyner was so moved that he decided to do something extraordinary. During his Tuesday program, Joyner called Jeantel to express his admiration for her and offer to personally help her attend a historically black college or university. "I will help you get tutors to get you out of high school, tutors to help you pass the SAT and I will give you a full-ride scholarship to any HBCU you'd like," he promised. His generous offer isn't just a random grand gesture: Joyner has a foundation that provides full rides to HBCUs.
:ph34r:
If I ever meet you, derfetus, I'm giving you a Coppin State University sweatshirt. With hoodie.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2013, 07:42:19 PM
If I ever meet you, derfetus, I'm giving you a Coppin State University sweatshirt. With hoodie.
True fact: I used to have a Morehouse College t-shirt.
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2013, 07:47:37 PM
True fact: I used to have a Morehouse College t-shirt.
Wearing it during whatever freaky sex games you two are up to is your business, buddy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2013, 07:53:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 16, 2013, 07:47:37 PM
True fact: I used to have a Morehouse College t-shirt.
Wearing it during whatever freaky sex games you two are up to is your business, buddy.
I'm not nearly the prevert you are, so don't worry-- I won't upstage you :hug:
Why they fuckin with Walmart.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flatimesphoto.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F07%2Fzimmerman_verdict_protest005.jpg&hash=19ee4708b140261e8150a1162dad3f3510e1be3f)
http://framework.latimes.com/2013/07/15/george-zimmerman-protests/#/0
QuoteL.A. officials urge calm, vow to crack down on protesters
Los Angeles officials late Monday night commended police in their response to violence following a protest of the George Zimmerman verdict and vowed to crack down on similar actions beginning Tuesday.
About 350 Los Angeles Police Department officers swarmed the Crenshaw district after groups of youths broke away from a peaceful protest in Leimert Park and stomped on cars, broke windows, set fires and attacked several people. Among those attacked were a television reporter and his cameraman, according to law enforcement authorities.
Late Monday, at least 13 people were arrested on suspicion of committing various offenses, the LAPD said. Reporter Dave Bryan and his cameraman, both of whom work for Channels 2 and 9, were attacked and one of them was taken to a hospital with a possible concussion, Lt. Andy Neiman told The Times.
Police estimated that about 150 people took part in the violence after the peaceful vigil at Leimert Park following the acquittal of Zimmerman, 29, on Saturday in Florida on second-degree murder and manslaughter in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year.
At a late-night news conference, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti blamed the violence on a "a small group [that] has taken advantage of this situation."
He said that protesters have the right to voice their disagreement with the verdict. "But people also deserve to be safe on the streets and in their cars."
PHOTOS: Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman: The controversial case
LAPD Chief Charlie Beck put the public on notice that officers would be taking a more aggressive posture toward protesters beginning Tuesday. "This will not be allowed to continue," Beck said.
Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who represents the area, said the LAPD has made significant strides in improving community relations since the deadly 1992 riots in South Los Angeles and other parts of the city following the verdict in the trial of the LAPD officers charged with beating Rodney King.
The LAPD, he said, "has taken a posture of respecting the constitutional rights of those who choose" to peacefully protest.
Ridley-Thomas said the violence that erupted Monday "does not advance the cause of Trayvon Martin or his memory."
Late Monday night, a number of streets in the area had been cleared. The LAPD declared an unlawful assembly shortly before 10 p.m.
The chaos created a nightmare for area commuters as cars were trapped around Leimert Park and bus service was cancelled on Crenshaw and Martin Luther King Jr. boulevards, Metro said.
Earlier Monday, several protesters made their way into a Wal-Mart on Crenshaw Boulevard as guards scrambled to close security gates. A short time later, Los Angeles Police Department officers wearing helmets and carrying batons swarmed the store as others marched through the parking lot.
In Oakland, hundreds of protesters stormed Interstate 880 near downtown Monday evening and blocked traffic in southbound and northbound lanes. The protesters were cleared from the freeway and made their way downtown, authorities said.
By late Monday night, multiple arrests had been made in the downtown area as officers from neighboring jurisdictions responded to the chaos, the Oakland Police Department said.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1073363_422471344535850_1402244228_o.jpg)
Of course the picture doesn't mention that in the second case the lady was standing her ground in here ex's place when she wanted to pick up her stuff. And that she ran out of the place, got the gun from her car, and then went back inside.
Warning shots are not authorized.
Still, 20 years for firing shots with no (proven) intention to harm seems a tad excessive. There's rapists who get less time.
Not disagreeing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/
QuoteAccording to a sworn deposition taken in November 2010, Marissa Alexander's husband, Rico Gray, 36, said that on August 1, 2010, he and Alexander began fighting after he found text messages to Alexander's first husband on her phone. The two were already estranged - according to her father, Alexander had been living at her mother's since the birth of the couple's daughter nine days earlier, and Gray, a long-haul trucker, said he spent the night before in his tractor-trailer. Gray began calling her names, saying "If I can't have you, nobody going to have you," and blocking her from exiting the bathroom.
Alexander pushed past Gray and went into the garage where she got her gun from her car's glove compartment.
Gray told prosecutors in the deposition that Alexander came back into the house holding the weapon and told him to leave. He refused, and what happened next is somewhat unclear. In his deposition, Gray said "she shot in the air one time," prompting him and the children to run out the front door. But when Gray called 911 the day of the incident, he said "she aimed the gun at us and she shot."
In August 2011, a judge rejected a motion by Alexander's attorney to grant her immunity under the "Stand your Ground" law. According to the judge's order, "there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself," and that the fact that she came back into the home, instead of leaving out the front or back door "is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life."
Alexander's case was prosecuted by Angela Corey, the Florida State's Attorney who is also prosecuting George Zimmerman. Alexander was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and because she discharged a firearm during the incident, the case fell under Florida's "10-20-life" law, enacted in 1999, which mandates a 20-year sentence for use of a gun during the commission of certain crimes.
Corey initially offered Alexander a three year deal if she pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, but according to CBS affiliate WTEV, Alexander did not believe she had done anything wrong, and rejected the plea. Her bet did not pay off: the jury in the case returned a guilty verdict in less than 15 minutes.
Quote from: Syt on July 16, 2013, 11:41:21 PM
And that she ran out of the place, got the gun from her car, and then went back inside.
Sounds kinda familiar.
Quote from: Syt on July 16, 2013, 11:41:21 PMOf course the picture doesn't mention that in the second case the lady was standing her ground in here ex's place when she wanted to pick up her stuff. And that she ran out of the place, got the gun from her car, and then went back inside.
The difference, as I understand it, is that you have to make sure to shoot to kill. At that point, with any witnesses to the contrary dead, all you have to do is produce a reasonable doubt about whether you felt threatened and you're good to go.
Quote from: Jacob on July 17, 2013, 12:15:18 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 16, 2013, 11:41:21 PMOf course the picture doesn't mention that in the second case the lady was standing her ground in here ex's place when she wanted to pick up her stuff. And that she ran out of the place, got the gun from her car, and then went back inside.
The difference, as I understand it, is that you have to make sure to shoot to kill. At that point, with any witnesses to the contrary dead, all you have to do is produce a reasonable doubt about whether you felt threatened and you're good to go.
That's a rather poo-poo outlook young man. :P
Quote from: Jacob on July 17, 2013, 12:15:18 AM
The difference, as I understand it, is that you have to make sure to shoot to kill. At that point, with any witnesses to the contrary dead, all you have to do is produce a reasonable doubt about whether you felt threatened and you're good to go.
Only in Florida do you get acquitted for killing somebody, but convicted for 20 years in taking an action in an attempt not to take a life.
Guy at work today, new guy, got into an argument with a black woman he didn't know about the Zimmerman verdict.
Maybe they're right not to pay us very much.
Quote from: Jacob on July 17, 2013, 12:15:18 AM
The difference, as I understand it, is that you have to make sure to shoot to kill. At that point, with any witnesses to the contrary dead, all you have to do is produce a reasonable doubt about whether you felt threatened and you're good to go.
She'd have to kill her kid too.
Though I do wonder what burden of proof attaches to the reasonable threat. Shysters?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 12:31:07 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 17, 2013, 12:15:18 AM
The difference, as I understand it, is that you have to make sure to shoot to kill. At that point, with any witnesses to the contrary dead, all you have to do is produce a reasonable doubt about whether you felt threatened and you're good to go.
Only in Florida do you get acquitted for killing somebody, but convicted for 20 years in taking an action in an attempt not to take a life.
Warning shot are not authorized. There unsafe. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on July 17, 2013, 12:37:50 AM
Guy at work today, new guy, got into an argument with a black woman he didn't know about the Zimmerman verdict.
Maybe they're right not to pay us very much.
I've intentionally avoided saying or mentioning this case at work, I have too many minority employees to make any comments about it in the workplace.
As for the warning shots woman, I'll only mention that before the Zimmerman case totally got on the media roller coaster there were 4-5 other similar cases going on in Florida. Warning shots aren't really covered by either SYG or self defense law at all. Whereas actually shooting someone is.
I think avoiding discussing hot button issues in the work places is good idea no matter who's there.
I try to avoid politics, particularly anything with racial undertones, at work. But someone brought it up yesterday when 4 of us (two black, two white) were in a secured room we call "the vault" working on some tedious but sensitive stuff. I kept quiet until they asked me my opinion-- I just reminded them of the concepts of burden of proof, reasonable doubt, etc. while acknowledging that the shooting was a shitty thing that happened and they didn't seem to object to that.
Having worked with most people here for 7 years, I don't feel totally uncomfortable talking about stuff like that, but I still generally keep my cards close to my chest.
Black women love me in the work place. We talk hair and everything.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 08:02:37 AM
Black women love me in the work place. We talk hair and everything.
Ditto :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2013, 08:03:18 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 08:02:37 AM
Black women love me in the work place. We talk hair and everything.
Ditto :contract:
Yes, but see, the difference between us is that I'm not secretly thinking about lynching them with their hair extensions.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2013, 06:43:22 AM
Warning shots aren't really covered by either SYG or self defense law at all. Whereas actually shooting someone is.
Huh. That is pretty backasswards.
Quote from: Valmy on July 17, 2013, 08:04:19 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2013, 06:43:22 AM
Warning shots aren't really covered by either SYG or self defense law at all. Whereas actually shooting someone is.
Huh. That is pretty backasswards.
Not really. Using a gun to threaten someone is not self defense. And that is what a "warning shot" is most of the time.
This women fired a gun inside a house with people in it. That is all kinds of stupid.
It isn't go to jail for 20 years stupid, certainly, but it is not and should not be any part of legal firearm use to go around firing "warning shots" when using a gun aggressively, as she was doing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 08:04:19 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2013, 08:03:18 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 08:02:37 AM
Black women love me in the work place. We talk hair and everything.
Ditto :contract:
Yes, but see, the difference between us is that I'm not secretly thinking about lynching them with their hair extensions.
:rolleyes:
I'm almost sad I've missed seeing Nancy Grace on TV during this whole thing. What a wacko :lol:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2366248/Watch-Nancy-Grace-complains-George-Zimmerman-Hispanic-man-bond-driving-Taco-Bell-night-having-churro-trial.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2Fzimmerman3-300x196.jpg&hash=997681e8bb17ae34ec9205da0f5fe9f75281f71f)
Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2013, 08:07:16 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 17, 2013, 08:04:19 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2013, 06:43:22 AM
Warning shots aren't really covered by either SYG or self defense law at all. Whereas actually shooting someone is.
Huh. That is pretty backasswards.
Not really. Using a gun to threaten someone is not self defense. And that is what a "warning shot" is most of the time.
This women fired a gun inside a house with people in it. That is all kinds of stupid.
It isn't go to jail for 20 years stupid, certainly, but it is not and should not be any part of legal firearm use to go around firing "warning shots" when using a gun aggressively, as she was doing.
Pretty much agree with everything you're saying in this post--and it's not often that I'll agree that a prison sentence is too heavy.
Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2013, 08:07:16 AM
Not really. Using a gun to threaten someone is not self defense.
It certainly could be, depending on the circumstances.
To be fair, according to American cops, warning shots are more dangerous that shots to kill.
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 09:17:48 AM
To be fair, according to American cops, warning shots are more dangerous that shots to kill.
:P
Warning shots are pretty stupid.
Warning shots or no, shooting your gun into the air is just plain neat. Great way to celebrate something.
Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2013, 08:07:16 AM
Not really. Using a gun to threaten someone is not self defense.
Maybe legally it isn't, but it's all kinds of fucked up. In what world does it make sense that you can't threaten someone to get them to break off a threatening behavior on their part? Why does any self-defense has to immediately go to 11?
Is it American cops who are unable to shoot people in the legs, unlike the cops of other countries?
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 09:22:35 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2013, 08:07:16 AM
Not really. Using a gun to threaten someone is not self defense.
Maybe legally it isn't, but it's all kinds of fucked up. In what world does it make sense that you can't threaten someone to get them to break off a threatening behavior on their part? Why does any self-defense has to immediately go to 11?
:huh:
Of course you can threaten someone to cease their behaviour.
Quote from: The Brain on July 17, 2013, 09:29:36 AM
Is it American cops who are unable to shoot people in the legs, unlike the cops of other countries?
Generally it would be against procedure and could get you in trouble legally. Police in America are only supposed to fire their weapon at someone if they believe their lives are in danger, the lives of another are in danger, or they or another are in danger of suffering serious harm. Procedurally, a question would arise if you believe any of those things, why are you shooting for the legs where you are both more likely to miss entirely than center mass and where even a hit is not at all guaranteed to remove the threat? If you aren't in fear for your life/safety or the life/safety of another, why are you firing your gun in the first place?
About the only exception to all of this are "fleeing felons." Generally you can't shoot a fleeing criminal, but certain types of fleeing felons can be shot if you believe their presence loose in society puts society in imminent harm. Say you see a crazed guy cut someone's head off on the street then he runs away when the police arrive. They could shoot to kill him even in the back, because there is a strong argument he was intrinsically dangerous in society. Same deal if someone like Ted Bundy is being pursued by police, where he is known to have killed many people.
But not all law enforcement are disallowed from shooting legs, just most peace officers. U.S. Marshals actually are allowed to shoot to wound to stop a fleeing prisoner given the right set of parameters. I believe prison guards (who are sometimes sworn) can also use warning shots to stop an escape in some places.
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 09:17:48 AM
To be fair, according to American cops, warning shots are more dangerous that shots to kill.
In most situations a warning shot is incompatible with good police procedure, as it's dangerous and serves no valid law enforcement purpose. I don't think anyone is saying they are more dangerous than a shot fired at someone's center mass. Instead, it's said that they serve no purpose and put people in harm's way while a shot to kill is hopefully being done for a legally valid reason.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2013, 09:48:47 AM
Generally it would be against procedure and could get you in trouble legally. Police in America are only supposed to fire their weapon at someone if they believe their lives are in danger, the lives of another are in danger, or they or another are in danger of suffering serious harm. Procedurally, a question would arise if you believe any of those things, why are you shooting for the legs where you are both more likely to miss entirely than center mass and where even a hit is not at all guaranteed to remove the threat? If you aren't in fear for your life/safety or the life/safety of another, why are you firing your gun in the first place?
We were always taught two rules:
1) No skipping applicable continuum of force with indiscriminate display or use
2) Immediate danger to ourselves or others
3) Center mass, center mass, center mass
#1 usually gets thrown out the window by fucking morons, though. Dumbasses putting their Glock barrels on people's fucking eyeballs when they won't roll over to get face down on the ground. Hated that shit.
QuoteAbout the only exception to all of this are "fleeing felons." Generally you can't shoot a fleeing criminal, but certain types of fleeing felons can be shot if you believe their presence loose in society puts society in imminent harm. Say you see a crazed guy cut someone's head off on the street then he runs away when the police arrive. They could shoot to kill him even in the back, because there is a strong argument he was intrinsically dangerous in society. Same deal if someone like Ted Bundy is being pursued by police, where he is known to have killed many people.
But not all law enforcement are disallowed from shooting legs, just most peace officers. U.S. Marshals actually are allowed to shoot to wound to stop a fleeing prisoner given the right set of parameters. I believe prison guards (who are sometimes sworn) can also use warning shots to stop an escape in some places.
Convicted felons are a wholly different category than point of arrest/crime in progress suspects. Corrections officers and deputies have broader authority to pop somebody immediately in the event of an escape attempt, depending on the circumstances.
US Marshals probably have the widest latitude since they're dealing with convicted felons either in custody or as fugitives. Hell, even as bail bondsmen we had Weapons Free on sentenced defendants out on appeal bond when the Feds issued the retake warrants.
I always love when "shoot to wound" topics come up. I had to school my wife on that the other day.
Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2013, 10:52:53 AM
I always love when "shoot to wound" topics come up. I had to school my wife on that the other day.
Who did she shoot?
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 09:22:35 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2013, 08:07:16 AM
Not really. Using a gun to threaten someone is not self defense.
Maybe legally it isn't, but it's all kinds of fucked up. In what world does it make sense that you can't threaten someone to get them to break off a threatening behavior on their part? Why does any self-defense has to immediately go to 11?
You don't have to fire a gun to threaten someone with it.
Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2013, 08:01:27 AM
I try to avoid politics, particularly anything with racial undertones, at work. But someone brought it up yesterday when 4 of us (two black, two white) were in a secured room we call "the vault" working on some tedious but sensitive stuff. I kept quiet until they asked me my opinion-- I just reminded them of the concepts of burden of proof, reasonable doubt, etc. while acknowledging that the shooting was a shitty thing that happened and they didn't seem to object to that.
Having worked with most people here for 7 years, I don't feel totally uncomfortable talking about stuff like that, but I still generally keep my cards close to my chest.
Smart man. No reason to possibly piss people off at work if you don't have to.
Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2013, 10:53:22 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2013, 10:52:53 AM
I always love when "shoot to wound" topics come up. I had to school my wife on that the other day.
Who did she shoot?
An intruder. Poor thing crawled off into the woods and I had to find him & finish him off.
Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2013, 11:15:29 AM
An intruder. Poor thing crawled off into the woods and I had to find him & finish him off.
The groundhog must've been wearing a hoodie.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 11:17:22 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2013, 11:15:29 AM
An intruder. Poor thing crawled off into the woods and I had to find him & finish him off.
The groundhog must've been wearing a hoodie.
Funny you should mention that. I just posted in the OT thread that I have a mole infestation in my front yard, tearing it all up.
Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2013, 10:52:53 AM
I always love when "shoot to wound" topics come up. I had to school my wife on that the other day.
Did you... Spank her?
Yes.
I'll Be back in 10 minutes.
I'm already back.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2013, 09:32:35 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 09:22:35 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2013, 08:07:16 AM
Not really. Using a gun to threaten someone is not self defense.
Maybe legally it isn't, but it's all kinds of fucked up. In what world does it make sense that you can't threaten someone to get them to break off a threatening behavior on their part? Why does any self-defense has to immediately go to 11?
:huh:
Of course you can threaten someone to cease their behaviour.
Not with a gun, you can't. See there's this thing called brandishing. If you don't shoot to kill, you can't draw at all. That's how it works.
It's a crime in America to holster a gun before you've killed someone with it.
Quote from: The Brain on July 17, 2013, 12:01:26 PM
It's a crime in America to holster a gun before you've killed someone with it.
It's the Narn way.
And yeah, a warning shot deserves jail time but I think something like a maximum of 3 years incarceration if there's evidence it was particularly egregious. Something like randomly firing into the air over and over again in a populated area. Otherwise I could see it being something like six months and then some probation, or something.
There have been a few cases where people have fired guns up in the air for celebratory reasons and the bullet comes back down a few blocks away and kills someone. For that reason people need to be punished for just firing off a gun, but 20 years is ridiculous.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2013, 01:18:48 PM
And yeah, a warning shot deserves jail time but I think something like a maximum of 3 years incarceration if there's evidence it was particularly egregious. Something like randomly firing into the air over and over again in a populated area. Otherwise I could see it being something like six months and then some probation, or something.
There have been a few cases where people have fired guns up in the air for celebratory reasons and the bullet comes back down a few blocks away and kills someone. For that reason people need to be punished for just firing off a gun, but 20 years is ridiculous.
I think the issue there is mandatory minimum sentences for certain offences, with no way for the judge to give leeway.
I'm confused as to what that woman should have done once she had threatened him with the gun and he was unfazed. Call the police?
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 01:29:51 PM
I'm confused as to what that woman should have done once she had threatened him with the gun and he was unfazed. Call the police?
At that point, she'd already broken the law. She should have put the gun away and not made it even worse by firing.
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 01:29:51 PM
I'm confused as to what that woman should have done once she had threatened him with the gun and he was unfazed. Call the police?
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing
Quote(CBS News) JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A Florida woman who fired warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville had said the state's "Stand Your Ground" law should apply to her because she was defending herself against her allegedly abusive husband when she fired warning shots inside her home in August 2010. She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order.
CBS Affiliate WETV reports that Circuit Court Judge James Daniel handed down the sentence Friday.
Under Florida's mandatory minimum sentencing requirements Alexander couldn't receive a lesser sentence, even though she has never been in trouble with the law before. Judge Daniel said the law did not allow for extenuating or mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence below the 20-year minimum.
"I really was crying in there," Marissa Alexander's 11-year-old daughter told WETV. "I didn't want to cry in court, but I just really feel hurt. I don't think this should have been happening."
Alexander was convicted of attempted murder after she rejected a plea deal for a three-year prison sentence. She said she did not believe she did anything wrong.
Complete Coverage: George Zimmerman trial and the Trayvon Martin case
She was recently denied a new trial after appealing to the judge to reconsider her case based on Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law. The law states that the victim of a crime does not have to attempt to run for safety and can immediately retaliate in self-defense.
Alexander's attorney said she was clearly defending herself and should not have to spend the next two decades behind bars.
Alexander's case has drawn support from domestic abuse advocates - and comparison to the case of neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, who has claimed self-defense in his fatal shooting of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.
According to a sworn deposition taken in November 2010, Marissa Alexander's husband, Rico Gray, 36, said that on August 1, 2010, he and Alexander began fighting after he found text messages to Alexander's first husband on her phone. The two were already estranged - according to her father, Alexander had been living at her mother's since the birth of the couple's daughter nine days earlier, and Gray, a long-haul trucker, said he spent the night before in his tractor-trailer. Gray began calling her names, saying "If I can't have you, nobody going to have you," and blocking her from exiting the bathroom.
Alexander pushed past Gray and went into the garage where she got her gun from her car's glove compartment.
Gray told prosecutors in the deposition that Alexander came back into the house holding the weapon and told him to leave. He refused, and what happened next is somewhat unclear. In his deposition, Gray said "she shot in the air one time," prompting him and the children to run out the front door. But when Gray called 911 the day of the incident, he said "she aimed the gun at us and she shot."
In August 2011, a judge rejected a motion by Alexander's attorney to grant her immunity under the "Stand your Ground" law. According to the judge's order, "there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself," and that the fact that she came back into the home, instead of leaving out the front or back door "is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life."
Alexander's case was prosecuted by Angela Corey, the Florida State's Attorney who is also prosecuting George Zimmerman. Alexander was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and because she discharged a firearm during the incident, the case fell under Florida's "10-20-life" law, enacted in 1999, which mandates a 20-year sentence for use of a gun during the commission of certain crimes.
Corey initially offered Alexander a three year deal if she pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, but according to CBS affiliate WTEV, Alexander did not believe she had done anything wrong, and rejected the plea. Her bet did not pay off: the jury in the case returned a guilty verdict in less than 15 minutes.
And a little choice quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/marissa-alexander-case-in-spotlight-after-zimmerman-trial/2013/07/15/6030be5a-ed5c-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html
QuoteBut Angela Corey, the state attorney who prosecuted Alexander and oversaw the Zimmerman case, says there were "zero parallels." The facts surrounding Alexander's conviction, she adds, are more complex than the Twitter-fueled pardon campaign makes it appear.
"I think social media is going to be the destruction of this country," Corey said. "How dare people just repeat something without checking it's true."
Or not run out to the car and come back with her gun in the first place. That's escalating the confrontation. Firing it indoors into the ceiling or wall makes it much worse.
That said, 20 years seems a bit steep.
Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2013, 01:48:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2013, 01:44:16 PM
That's escalating the confrontation.
That's rich.
Go on.
There's no legal requirement in Florida regarding an individual's obligation to deescalate a confrontation or an individual's culpability in escalating one.
And now a man with a great deal of first hand experience of the American penal system weighs in:
QuoteA Great Hour for America
The smear campaign against Zimmerman was disgraceful, but the verdict was just.
By Conrad Black
The principal takeaway from the Zimmerman trial and verdict is that the greatness of America and its people still vastly exceeds the corruption and in many respects, the outright evil of its justice system. More important by far were the dignity and stoicism of the defendant and the eloquence and simply hewn moral strength of his counsel, than the mealy-mouthed pieties of the egregious state attorney general and the sanctimony of the defeated prosecutors. More eloquent than all, perhaps, was the silence of the jury after each had confirmed the verdict: "Not guilty." It was an inexpressible relief to find anyone associated with an American trial, in particular those most importantly involved in it apart from the defendant, whose chief purpose did not appear to be garrulously to inflict upon the parched and biased media their vapid expatiations on everything.
In this case, the judge, like most American judges in criminal cases, was an ex-prosecutor and acted effectively as part of the prosecution. She was biased in her rulings and abusive and injudiciously rude in her manner, and she did her best to salvage something for the prosecution by giving the jury the right to find guilty on a lesser charge at the very end of the trial. Prosecutors win 99.5 percent of their cases in the United States, an unheard of figure in the democratic world (about 60 percent in Canada and just over 50 percent in Great Britain are convicted, and in both countries the procedural rules are equal, the media are discouraged from poisoning the wells of the jury pools and lynching the defendants before the trial begins, and the defense speaks last to the jury). Of these 99.5 percent, 97 percent are without trial, after prosecution manipulation of the plea bargain so that everyone who has ever met the target can be given immunity from perjury prosecution and told that if their memories do not produce something useful to the government they will be charged as co-conspirators with the defendant. In the countries mentioned, and many others, prosecutors would be disbarred for what is routine in the United States.
So those who go to trial in the U.S. have about a one in six chance of not being convicted: grim, but not hopeless odds. In the Zimmerman case, there were no witnesses to the fatal and tragic encounter between the defendant and the deceased, Trayvon Martin, so the abuse of the plea bargain could not thicken and serry the ranks of prosecution stooges repeating their rehearsed lines like parrots reciting the catechism extracted from them by prosecutors as the condition for not prosecuting them, the lugubrious farce featured in most American criminal trials. The Sanford police did not want to charge Zimmerman, because there was no evidence, from witnesses or forensic analysis, to contradict his story that it was a case of self-defense. So there would be no men in blue testifying under oath to his guilt and no chance for a cops-are-tops Manichaean bout between the Society of Laws and the Forces of Darkness. (The problem with American justice is not and never was that the country is a police state. If anything, it is still under-policed, and though there are many imperfections in the constabulary, the police in general are competent if given the right orders. The problem is the prosecutors, who are out of control policemen in suits performing in front of judges who are prosecutors in robes, for the benefit of jurors an inordinate number of whom are the dregs of society.)
Deprived of the usual stacked deck, the prosecution, roused to action by that ineffable pillar of popular theology and racial harmony, the Reverend Al Sharpton, relied not just on playing the race card and, as Johnnie Cochrane's co-counsel said of him in the O. J. Simpson case, dealing it "off the bottom of the deck." It emulated the opening of My Little Chickadee, where W. C. Fields, faced with a hand of four aces, put down five aces and claimed the pot. The attorney general, Eric Holder, urged pro-Trayvon demonstrations, presumably because he prejudged Zimmerman to be guilty, and the president, in the most distressingly novel aspect of the case, averred that if he had had a son, he would look like the deceased. No previous U.S. president had so prejudicially inserted himself in a criminal proceeding. And the national media, showing again why they are distrusted by most and why the following of the main traditional television networks and periodicals has shriveled for decades, joined the liberal political establishment in trying to make the case a watershed against racial profiling and the full panoply of minority grievances. George Zimmerman was to be a symbol, a metaphor turned on the spit over the fire of racial bigotry. The New York Times invented the term "white Hispanic" to deprive the target of minority sympathy, but at least that newspaper, whose controlling shareholders would probably not like to be described as "Anglo-Saxonoid Jews," stopped short of inciting the inference, as some of the African-American media allegedly did, that he was a Jew. The CNN legal correspondent, an attractive and articulate ex-prosecutor, Sunny Hostin, was rabidly partisan and commented at the merciful end that "Justice has taken a holiday." I think not, but any sense of professionalism she may have, did.
Every informed person in the Western world knows that African Americans and other minorities have many grievances, and no reasonable person would make light of them. But acting on them to demand a murder trial of someone against whom there is no evidence, and attempting to compensate for the absence of evidence with a hysterical smear campaign to which most of the traditional media subscribed, and for which the great offices of president and attorney general of the United States were willfully degraded by their occupants is, as defense co-counsel Don West said, "disgraceful." When pressed, Mr. West expressed the wish to retain his license to practice law, indicating how disrespectful his candid comments on the Florida prosecutorial establishment and the local bench would be. Withal, the deliberate decision of the jury, delivered without elaboration, the unpretentious and very dignified remarks of the defense counsel, and the sober operation of the system of justice as it is supposed to operate, made it a great hour for America. The hour is made more gratifying and majestic, not sullied, by the hyena-calls for a civil-rights prosecution, and the inevitable fatuities and fictions of the humiliated prosecutors that America, despite the verdict, has "the best justice system in the world," meaning the one that allows them to conduct such a mockery as they did in this case.
President Obama's concluding comments were unexceptionable: "The jury has spoken . . . " etc. It has, against him. Apart from the outrage of his intervention in the case, the whole misconceived and over-heated drama highlights the danger of the Obama policy. It need not be so, but there is some truth to the familiar concern that once voters realize that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury, democracy is on the skids. Politicians pander to the redistributive instinct. Franklin D. Roosevelt is unjustly reviled by enemies of the present welfare state, but he opposed the dole and would not pay able-bodied people to be idle. On everything he said that is recorded, he would be appalled at the abuses of the system that now exist in most Western countries for taking money from those who have earned it and giving it out on an unrigorous basis to those who have not, in presumed exchange for the votes of the recipients. The exact figures are disputed, but there is no doubt that the president's section of the voters in last year's election has a lower standard of living, higher unemployment, crime, and welfare-dependency rates, and the great majority of public-sector employees. It was a fair election. A candidate has to pitch to his base; Mr. Obama was better organized, and the winning candidate, unless it is a landslide, always to some degree games the system. There is nothing wrong with any of that. But this administration has aggravated the divisions in the country, not only as an electoral tactic; there is plenty of precedent for that, including from some distinguished presidents; but as premeditated policy. This is unnecessary, dangerous, and bad. The optimists will hope that the president has burned his fingers in the Zimmerman case and will try, for the balance of his term, to maintain the dignity of the highest office within the gift of the American people. If it happens, to quote Dr. Johnson, I would not only be surprised, I would be astonished.
:bowler:
It's hard to read anything by Lord Black and not think of the Orwell quote:
"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink."
QuoteProsecutors win 99.5 percent of their cases in the United States, an unheard of figure in the democratic world (about 60 percent in Canada
Guess the Beebs just aren't very good at their job. :(
QuoteEvery informed person in the Western world knows that African Americans and other minorities have many grievances, and no reasonable person would make light of them.
But we do.
How does our plea percentage compare, though? My understanding is prosecutors in America basically do everything they can to avoid the career problems associated with losing a case. Including offering plea deals that maybe prosecutors like BB who are more the Federal civil servant type would not really feel the need to offer.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 01:54:29 PM
There's no legal requirement in Florida regarding an individual's obligation to deescalate a confrontation or an individual's culpability in escalating one.
So you think this gal should walk?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 17, 2013, 02:14:39 PM
QuoteProsecutors win 99.5 percent of their cases in the United States, an unheard of figure in the democratic world (about 60 percent in Canada
Guess the Beebs just aren't very good at their job. :(
Since this 99.5% and 60% include guilty pleas, the Beebs of Canada must
really suck. :(
Or else Conrad Black is full of shit.
Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2013, 03:30:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 01:54:29 PM
There's no legal requirement in Florida regarding an individual's obligation to deescalate a confrontation or an individual's culpability in escalating one.
So you think this gal should walk?
No felony, 12 mos Probation.
Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2013, 03:30:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 01:54:29 PM
There's no legal requirement in Florida regarding an individual's obligation to deescalate a confrontation or an individual's culpability in escalating one.
So you think this gal should walk?
I find the increasing inability of both juries and judges to find any room for the exercise of discretionary judgement such as the Zimmerman case and this one disturbing. Removing the ability to take exigent circumstances into consideration is a trend that is counter to our system of justice working properly.
And while the nuances of these specific results are based in not very easily identifiable or explainable law for the layman, the combining the lack of discretionary judgement with the disparity between the legal truth and the objective truth is becoming increasingly counterintuitive to the point of absurdism.
And I certainly don't think it's a stretch to see how the black community could see a double standard at work here when these two cases are held up next to one another. But you're not black so you don't have to worry about it.
So is that just a fancy way of saying you want the woman to walk and Zim to fry?
Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2013, 09:25:11 PM
So is that just a fancy way of saying you want the woman to walk and Zim to fry?
It's a fancy way of saying I think there's something incredibly broken about a system when there's no legal accountability for somebody exercising the judgement to put themselves in the position to kill somebody, yet at the same time somebody else gets a 20 year sentence for exercising judgement in
not killing somebody.
Now I know you're intelligent enough to see the lack of common sense at work here regarding Florida law in these two cases, but I can understand why you would defend this fundamentally broken premise, what with niggers being involved and all.
Quote from: Caliga on July 15, 2013, 10:06:38 PM
Was it real retarded?
She recognized the Trayvon was giving a "wup ass" to Zimmerman.
Therefore Trayvon Martin was the aggressor.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 09:35:22 PM
exercising the judgement to put themselves in the position to kill somebody
Interesting turn of phrase.
Presumably the woman was exercising the same judgement to put herself in a position to kill somebody, no? Her ex could have started pounding her too.
Hey, it's Florida. They love their guns so much, the law demands you kill people with them. Or else.
Mandatory minimums are cowardly and immoral.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 10:05:59 PM
Hey, it's Florida. They love their guns so much, the law demands you kill people with them. Or else.
Gosh, when you put it that way it's so intuitive and common sense that the law is wrong.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 09:35:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2013, 09:25:11 PM
So is that just a fancy way of saying you want the woman to walk and Zim to fry?
It's a fancy way of saying I think there's something incredibly broken about a system when there's no legal accountability for somebody exercising the judgement to put themselves in the position to kill somebody, yet at the same time somebody else gets a 20 year sentence for exercising judgement in not killing somebody.
Now I know you're intelligent enough to see the lack of common sense at work here regarding Florida law in these two cases, but I can understand why you would defend this fundamentally broken premise, what with niggers being involved and all.
I did say 20 years was excessive. 11B's sentence sounds more fitting. But the two cases are apples & oranges.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2013, 10:08:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 10:05:59 PM
Hey, it's Florida. They love their guns so much, the law demands you kill people with them. Or else.
Gosh, when you put it that way it's so intuitive and common sense that the law is wrong.
I'm not black and living in Florida, so I'm not sweating it, either.
Quote from: Siege on July 17, 2013, 09:41:31 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 15, 2013, 10:06:38 PM
Was it real retarded?
She recognized the Trayvon was giving a "wup ass" to Zimmerman.
Therefore Trayvon Martin was the aggressor.
Today she claimed she has a 3.0 GPA. She used to also claim that she was studying criminal justice at "Miami University" (in which case she didn't even get the name of the school right unless she was really talking about the school in Ohio). She is in fact a 19-year old that hasn't finished high school yet.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 10:11:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2013, 10:08:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 10:05:59 PM
Hey, it's Florida. They love their guns so much, the law demands you kill people with them. Or else.
Gosh, when you put it that way it's so intuitive and common sense that the law is wrong.
I'm not black and living in Florida, so I'm not sweating it, either.
Oh, no. Not at all :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2013, 01:44:16 PM
Or not run out to the car and come back with her gun in the first place. That's escalating the confrontation. Firing it indoors into the ceiling or wall makes it much worse.
That said, 20 years seems a bit steep.
Florida's got a bit of a track record when it comes to whacked-out minimum sentences.
http://flcourier.com/2012/05/10/crack-cocaine-sentencing-was-overkill/
http://news.ufl.edu/2006/01/10/three-strikes-law/
Ah, and of course, this particular gem seems to be a fun little tidbit called 10-20-Life. Massively controversial and unpopular, at least according to the Internet spin on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-20-Life
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 17, 2013, 02:14:39 PM
QuoteProsecutors win 99.5 percent of their cases in the United States, an unheard of figure in the democratic world (about 60 percent in Canada
Guess the Beebs just aren't very good at their job. :(
The Feds in 2010 had a 93 percent conviction rate
http://www.justice.gov/usao/reading_room/reports/asr2010/10statrpt.pdf
I imagine that the States had lower percentages, though that still seems worryingly high. :hmm:
Still not as good as Japan, I believe, but pretty close.
Dionne Warwick is now refusing to perform in Florida. Just FYI.
What about Flo Rida?
I've cancelled my shows in Florida as well. Fuck those creepy ass crackers.
Hyphens are boycotting as well.
Quote from: derspiess on July 18, 2013, 06:22:17 PM
Dionne Warwick is now refusing to perform in Florida. Just FYI.
Fuck :(
Quote from: Caliga on July 18, 2013, 06:28:04 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 18, 2013, 06:22:17 PM
Dionne Warwick is now refusing to perform in Florida. Just FYI.
Fuck :(
I'm sure you can get your money back on those tickets. Face value only, though. Not the inflated prices you paid that scalper.
Are his back stage passes refundable too? :(
Quote from: derspiess on July 18, 2013, 06:22:17 PM
Dionne Warwick is now refusing to perform in Florida. Just FYI.
Oh damn, no way!
Quote from: derspiess on July 18, 2013, 06:22:17 PM
Dionne Warwick is now refusing to perform in Florida. Just FYI.
That does it, I'm boycotting the Psychic Friends Network. :mad:
Jesse Jackson has declared Florida an "Apartheid state". Wonder where the Bantustans will be & what they'll be called.
Charles Barkley agrees with the verdict even though he thinks Trayvon was racially profiled by Zim.
Bill Cosby says it's not about race, and is getting a lot of shit for it, but he should be used to that by now.
Florida already lost Whitney to the grave, they can't be deprived of Dionne too! That just leaves them with Cissy. :(
One of my co-workers visited a gun store a few days ago. He said that while he was there they were doing a brisk business selling to African-Americans. So at least some good came from all this. :)
Quote from: Savonarola on July 19, 2013, 12:48:46 PM
One of my co-workers visited a gun store a few days ago. He said that while he was there they were doing a brisk business selling to African-Americans. So at least some good came from all this. :)
That is good news. The dumbasses will probably try and pull on some cops, and end up dead or incarcerated.
And President Obama injects himself into the debate-- again. Trayvon is no longer just his imaginary son.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/07/19/obama-trayvon-marin-george-zimmerman/2568811/
QuoteObama: Trayvon 'could have been me
<cue hails of approval from Seedy>
Quote from: Savonarola on July 19, 2013, 12:48:46 PM
One of my co-workers visited a gun store a few days ago. He said that while he was there they were doing a brisk business selling to African-Americans. So at least some good came from all this. :)
Look for the usual gun-rights advocates to remain very, very silent about this. :lol:
Quote from: Savonarola on July 19, 2013, 12:48:46 PM
One of my co-workers visited a gun store a few days ago. He said that while he was there they were doing a brisk business selling to African-Americans. So at least some good came from all this. :)
They still have "Stand Your Ground, Boy", but it's not what they think it means.
Quote from: derspiess on July 19, 2013, 01:18:51 PM
And President Obama injects himself into the debate-- again. Trayvon is no longer just his imaginary son.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/07/19/obama-trayvon-marin-george-zimmerman/2568811/
QuoteObama: Trayvon 'could have been me
<cue hails of approval from Seedy>
So how do I get an invite to the next beer summit?
Quote from: derspiess on July 19, 2013, 01:18:51 PM
And President Obama injects himself into the debate-- again. Trayvon is no longer just his imaginary son.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/07/19/obama-trayvon-marin-george-zimmerman/2568811/
QuoteObama: Trayvon 'could have been me
<cue hails of approval from Seedy>
I hope my hails of approval are bouncing off echoes in that nigger-hating FOX News-insulated echo chamber you've developed for yourself.
Quote from: garbon on July 19, 2013, 01:20:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 19, 2013, 01:18:51 PM
And President Obama injects himself into the debate-- again. Trayvon is no longer just his imaginary son.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/07/19/obama-trayvon-marin-george-zimmerman/2568811/
QuoteObama: Trayvon 'could have been me
<cue hails of approval from Seedy>
So how do I get an invite to the next beer summit?
Do something scandalous.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 19, 2013, 01:22:26 PM
I hope my hails of approval are bouncing off echoes in that n-word-hating FOX News-insulated echo chamber you've developed for yourself.
:hugz:
Quote from: derspiess on July 19, 2013, 01:24:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 19, 2013, 01:20:53 PM
So how do I get an invite to the next beer summit?
Do something scandalous.
He'd wear a hoodie, but it would muss his bouffant.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 19, 2013, 01:27:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 19, 2013, 01:24:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 19, 2013, 01:20:53 PM
So how do I get an invite to the next beer summit?
Do something scandalous.
He'd wear a hoodie, but it would muss his bouffant.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr03%2F2013%2F3%2F12%2F22%2Fanigif_enhanced-buzz-2315-1363141119-4.gif&hash=7d253ecf0e8c39f816973eb8a4e71925bf90788e)
Rather long drawn out press conference in which Obama shared his "personal thoughts" on the Zimmerman verdict.
Fairly good job of walking a tightrope IMO. Better than the much-touted throw grandma under the bus speech.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 19, 2013, 05:49:34 PM
Rather long drawn out press conference in which Obama shared his "personal thoughts" on the Zimmerman verdict.
Fairly good job of walking a tightrope IMO. Better than the much-touted throw grandma under the bus speech.
He's a lawyer. Of course hes good at that shit. :P
Quote from: Neil on July 17, 2013, 10:07:57 PM
Mandatory minimums are cowardly and immoral.
I would have to agree.
Quote from: derspiess on July 19, 2013, 01:18:51 PM
And President Obama injects himself into the debate-- again. Trayvon is no longer just his imaginary son.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/07/19/obama-trayvon-marin-george-zimmerman/2568811/
QuoteObama: Trayvon 'could have been me
<cue hails of approval from Seedy>
Pretty sure Barry was a much more successful competitive dope smoker. Most future lawyers are.
Quote from: Scipio on July 19, 2013, 08:21:45 PM
Pretty sure Barry was a much more successful competitive dope smoker. Most future lawyers are.
:( Grass always made me paranoid.
Quote from: fhdz on July 19, 2013, 01:19:13 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on July 19, 2013, 12:48:46 PM
One of my co-workers visited a gun store a few days ago. He said that while he was there they were doing a brisk business selling to African-Americans. So at least some good came from all this. :)
Look for the usual gun-rights advocates to remain very, very silent about this. :lol:
Why?
Enjoy!
http://www.buckeyefirearmsfoundation.org/node/127
I donated ten bucks in Seedy's name.
I would too, but I don't think George needs a gun. He's a bit of a loose cannon.
the flip side of the pancake:
QuoteHow a Miami School Crime Cover-Up Policy Led to Trayvon Martin's Death
By Robert Stacy McCain on 7.15.13 @ 1:05AM
The February 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martion might never have happened if school officials in Miami-Dade County had not instituted an unofficial policy of treating crimes as school disciplinary infractions. Revelations that emerged from an internal affairs investigation explain why Martin was not arrested when caught at school with stolen jewelry in October 2011 or with marijuana in February 2012. Instead, the teenager was suspended from school, the last time just days before he was shot dead by George Zimmerman.
Trayvon Martin was not from Sanford, the town north of Orlando where he was shot in 2012 and where a jury acquitted Zimmerman of murder charges Saturday. Martin was from Miami Gardens, more than 200 miles away, and had come to Sanford to stay with his father's girlfriend Brandy Green at her home in the townhouse community where Zimmerman was in charge of the neighborhood watch. Trayvon was staying with Green after he had been suspended for the second time in six months from Krop High School in Miami-Dade County, where both his father, Tracy Martin, and mother, Sybrina Fulton, lived.
Both of Trayvon's suspensions during his junior year at Krop High involved crimes that could have led to his prosecution as a juvenile offender. However, Chief Charles Hurley of the Miami-Dade School Police Department (MDSPD) in 2010 had implemented a policy that reduced the number of criiminal reports, manipulating statistics to create the appearance of a reduction in crime within the school system. Less than two weeks before Martin's death, the school system commended Chief Hurley for "decreasing school-related juvenile delinquency by an impressive 60 percent for the last six months of 2011." What was actually happening was that crimes were not being reported as crimes, but instead treated as disciplinary infractions.
In October 2011, after a video surveillance camera caught Martin writing graffiti on a door, MDSPD Office Darryl Dunn searched Martin's backpack, looking for the marker he had used. Officer Dunn found 12 pieces of women's jewelry and a man's watch, along with a flathead screwdriver the officer described as a "burglary tool." The jewelry and watch, which Martin claimed he had gotten from a friend he refused to name, matched a description of items stolen during the October 2011 burglary of a house on 204th Terrace, about a half-mile from the school. However, because of Chief Hurley's policy "to lower the arrest rates," as one MDSPD sergeant said in an internal investigation, the stolen jewerly was instead listed as "found property" and was never reported to Miami-Dade Police who were investigating the burglary. Similarly, in February 2012 when an MDSPD officer caught Martin with a small plastic bag containing marijuana residue, as well as a marijuana pipe, this was not treated as a crime, and instead Martin was suspended from school.
Either of those incidents could have put Trayvon Martin into the custody of the juvenile justice system. However, because of Chief Hurley's attempt to reduce the school crime statistics — according to sworn testimony, officers were "basically told to lie and falsify" reports — Martin was never arrested. And if he had been arrested, he might never have been in Sanford the night of his fatal encounter with Zimmerman.
In fact, the reason Zimmerman was patrolling the townhouse community the night of the February 2012 shooting was that there had been a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood, although there was no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any of those crimes.
As for Chief Hurley's policy, it was the controversy over Martin's death that accidentally exposed it. In March 2012, the Miami Herald reported on Martin's troubled history of disciplinary incidents at Krop High. Chief Hurley then launched the internal affairs investigation in an attempt to find out who had provided information to the reporter. During the course of that investigation, MDSPD officers and supervisors described Chief Hurley's policy of not reporting crimes by students. Chief Hurley was subsequently accused of sexually harassing two female subordinates. He resigned in February, about a year after Trayvon Martin's death.
Yes, counselor, I think we have all come to the realization that Trayvon had it coming.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 22, 2013, 08:11:17 AM
Yes, counselor, I think we have all come to the realization that Trayvon had it coming.
Zimmerman, on the other hand, was a perfect boyscout.
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2013, 08:17:13 AM
Zimmerman, on the other hand, was a perfect boyscout.
Of course he was: because in Florida, an arrest for assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest in a bar fight, a court-ordered alcohol treatment program, and a restraining order by an ex-wife are listed on the concealed carry application under "Qualifications".
Quote from: Rasputin on July 22, 2013, 08:04:08 AM
QuoteHow a Miami School Crime Cover-Up Policy Led to Trayvon Martin's Death
By Robert Stacy McCain on 7.15.13 @ 1:05AM
I really love logic like that. For all we know, the policy of equipping every car with anti-lock brakes led to Trayvon Martin's death. After all, for all we know, he could've spent that fateful night in intensive care, recovering from getting hit by a car while jaywalking.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 22, 2013, 08:11:17 AM
Yes, counselor, I think we have all come to the realization that Trayvon had it coming.
:D
nope but the evidence suggests that zimmerman likely didnt shoot Martin for being black or carrying skittles and yet you persist with that rhetoric
Reverend Al speaks and Money listens. :)
RESIST SEEDY MUCH
Quote from: Rasputin on July 22, 2013, 09:17:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 22, 2013, 08:11:17 AM
Yes, counselor, I think we have all come to the realization that Trayvon had it coming.
:D
nope but the evidence suggests that zimmerman likely didnt shoot Martin for being black or carrying skittles and yet you persist with that rhetoric
Yeah, yeah, yeah, all niggers deserve to die, film at 11.
Oooh, and article from the American Spectator! Maybe they should throw something in about how Bill Clinton threw children on train tracks to cover up his drug dealing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 22, 2013, 09:25:59 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 22, 2013, 09:17:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 22, 2013, 08:11:17 AM
Yes, counselor, I think we have all come to the realization that Trayvon had it coming.
:D
nope but the evidence suggests that zimmerman likely didnt shoot Martin for being black or carrying skittles and yet you persist with that rhetoric
Yeah, yeah, yeah, all niggers deserve to die, film at 11.
You have put your fingers on the very core of the difference between us. You are a racist and I am not. This case has never had anything to do with race, and those who inject race into the issue do so to press an agenda regardless of the evidence in this case. Had Martin been white and engaged in the same conduct the result would be the same except we'd have never heard about the case because the media couldn't sensationalize it. This case was about an armed and frustrated cop wannabbe with some minor self appointed authority on the hunt for those involved in a string of robberies in his neighborhood.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2013, 11:35:02 AM
Oooh, and article from the American Spectator! Maybe they should throw something in about how Bill Clinton threw children on train tracks to cover up his drug dealing.
it was fetuses...please fact check
Quote from: Rasputin on July 22, 2013, 11:40:17 AM
Had Martin been white and engaged in the same conduct the result would be the same; we'd have never heard about the case because the media couldn't sensationalize it.
Wait...wait...you are saying that the media cares nothing for white people and comes to the aid of black america all the time?
Quote from: Rasputin on July 22, 2013, 11:41:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2013, 11:35:02 AM
Oooh, and article from the American Spectator! Maybe they should throw something in about how Bill Clinton threw children on train tracks to cover up his drug dealing.
it was fetuses...please fact check
:lol:
Is assaulting a police officer even really a serious crime? I mean, isn't that just the sort of thing that they charge you with if you don't kiss their asses enough?
Quote from: Neil on July 22, 2013, 11:54:08 AM
Is assaulting a police officer even really a serious crime? I mean, isn't that just the sort of thing that they charge you with if you don't kiss their asses enough?
It's a moderately serious offence.
Quote from: Rasputin on July 22, 2013, 11:40:17 AM
This case has never had anything to do with race . . . This case was about an armed and frustrated cop wannabbe . . . on the hunt for those involved in a string of robberies in his neighborhood.
And how did wannabe cop match up Trayvon Martin as a suspect for "those involved."?
One doesn't have to suppose racist motivation to take note of the fact that race was a relevant factor in the incident.
I agree that the racial angle distracts from the aspect that IMO is most concerning: that a self-appointed vigilante can disobey a clear direction from law enforcement, precipitate a confrontation that he was told to avoid, and use deadly force without suffering any legal sanction as a result. But at the same time if my melanin count were higher and my latitude lower, I'd be getting on line on my local Sunshine State gun shop as well.
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2013, 11:43:18 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 22, 2013, 11:40:17 AM
Had Martin been white and engaged in the same conduct the result would be the same; we'd have never heard about the case because the media couldn't sensationalize it.
Wait...wait...you are saying that the media cares nothing for white people and comes to the aid of black america all the time?
Are you saying that the media did not sensationalize the story based on race? Hell, when the race details didn't fall the way they wanted, the media manipulated them to fit the narrative they wanted.
See: "he looks black" and "White Hispanic"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2013, 12:05:03 PM
disobey a clear direction from law enforcement,
You and others present this as if he disobeyed direct orders from a cop. But it was a dispatcher who said "we don't need you to do that." How much legal weight does that actually carry? Honest question.
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2013, 12:23:37 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2013, 12:05:03 PM
disobey a clear direction from law enforcement,
You and others present this as if he disobeyed direct orders from a cop. But it was a dispatcher who said "we don't need you to do that." How much legal weight does that actually carry? Honest question.
Dispatcher or uniformed officer doesn't matter much, because there isn't a general duty to 'obey orders from police'.
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2013, 12:21:00 PM
Are you saying that the media did not sensationalize the story based on race? Hell, when the race details didn't fall the way they wanted, the media manipulated them to fit the narrative they wanted.
See: "he looks black" and "White Hispanic"
No. But they probably would have done so had Trayvon been white. Suddenly it is a Latino gunning down a white kid.
But I think due to the nature of this particular tragedy it would have been a big deal regardless even if it was same race on same race. Plj said that we would never even would have heard of this if Trayvon had not been black, as if the media goes around championing the cause of every dead black kid out there and ignoring everybody else.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2013, 12:05:03 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 22, 2013, 11:40:17 AM
This case has never had anything to do with race . . . This case was about an armed and frustrated cop wannabbe . . . on the hunt for those involved in a string of robberies in his neighborhood.
And how did wannabe cop match up Trayvon Martin as a suspect for "those involved."?
One doesn't have to suppose racist motivation to take note of the fact that race was a relevant factor in the incident.
I agree that the racial angle distracts from the aspect that IMO is most concerning: that a self-appointed vigilante can disobey a clear direction from law enforcement, precipitate a confrontation that he was told to avoid, and use deadly force without suffering any legal sanction as a result. But at the same time if my melanin count were higher and my latitude lower, I'd be getting on line on my local Sunshine State gun shop as well.
zimmerman took a black girl to his high school prom; he is far from the stereotypical southern redneck
i believe the combination of the hoodie, the prior break ins and martins being "out of place" that evening combined to make him appear suspiscious to the wannabe without regard to color
Quote from: fhdz on July 19, 2013, 01:19:13 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on July 19, 2013, 12:48:46 PM
One of my co-workers visited a gun store a few days ago. He said that while he was there they were doing a brisk business selling to African-Americans. So at least some good came from all this. :)
Look for the usual gun-rights advocates to remain very, very silent about this. :lol:
:huh:
As long as they have had or intend to get some sort of training, and are responsible with the firearm, I think it would be a net positive.
Not sure where you're going with that.
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2013, 12:23:37 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2013, 12:05:03 PM
disobey a clear direction from law enforcement,
You and others present this as if he disobeyed direct orders from a cop. But it was a dispatcher who said "we don't need you to do that." How much legal weight does that actually carry? Honest question.
the jury says none
i wouldnt have understood it as an order either
"we dont need you to do that" is not the same as "do not follow him any longer."
Quote from: Neil on July 22, 2013, 11:54:08 AM
Is assaulting a police officer even really a serious crime? I mean, isn't that just the sort of thing that they charge you with if you don't kiss their asses enough?
its apparently a school disciplinary infraction in certain parts of the state
Quote from: Neil on July 22, 2013, 11:54:08 AM
Is assaulting a police officer even really a serious crime? I mean, isn't that just the sort of thing that they charge you with if you don't kiss their asses enough?
I can't recall a single case of bad cops being caught on tape where the victim wasn't charged for assaulting the offcers' fists with his face/chest/legs/testicles.
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2013, 12:29:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2013, 12:21:00 PM
Are you saying that the media did not sensationalize the story based on race? Hell, when the race details didn't fall the way they wanted, the media manipulated them to fit the narrative they wanted.
See: "he looks black" and "White Hispanic"
No. But they probably would have done so had Trayvon been white. Suddenly it is a Latino gunning down a white kid.
But I think due to the nature of this particular tragedy it would have been a big deal regardless even if it was same race on same race. Plj said that we would never even would have heard of this if Trayvon had not been black, as if the media goes around championing the cause of every dead black kid out there and ignoring everybody else.
weve had about 75 cases involving the stand your ground law in florida between the law's passage and the zimmerman case
i believe there was only one news story on it anywhere in florida before this case
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2013, 12:32:05 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 19, 2013, 01:19:13 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on July 19, 2013, 12:48:46 PM
One of my co-workers visited a gun store a few days ago. He said that while he was there they were doing a brisk business selling to African-Americans. So at least some good came from all this. :)
Look for the usual gun-rights advocates to remain very, very silent about this. :lol:
:huh:
As long as they have had or intend to get some sort of training, and are responsible with the firearm, I think it would be a net positive.
Not sure where you're going with that.
he is saying that all people who are pro gun rights are anti black...the same as cdm is saying but more subtle
Quote from: Rasputin on July 22, 2013, 12:31:43 PM
i believe the combination of the hoodie, the prior break ins and martins being "out of place" that evening combined to make him appear suspiscious to the wannabe without regard to color
A kid the same age out of an Abercrombie & Fitch ad probably doesn't attract the same notice.
The clothing was a factor here but race was as well. And race can be a factor even if the actor isn't racist.
Quote from: Rasputin on July 22, 2013, 12:36:27 PM
weve had about 75 cases involving the stand your ground law in florida between the law's passage and the zimmerman case
i believe there was only one news story on it anywhere in florida before this case
Relevence counselor?
They all involved unarmed teenagers being gunned down a few feet from where they were staying?
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2013, 12:46:24 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 22, 2013, 12:36:27 PM
weve had about 75 cases involving the stand your ground law in florida between the law's passage and the zimmerman case
i believe there was only one news story on it anywhere in florida before this case
Relevence counselor?
They all involved unarmed teenagers being gunned down a few feet from where they were staying?
Did they involve that teenager assaulting and individual.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 22, 2013, 12:55:49 PM
Did they involve that teenager assaulting and individual.
After being stalked by an armed adult? Indeed there were factors that made this case especially tragic and debate inspiring. I certainly hope tragedies like these do not occur at a rate of 10 or so a year in Florida.
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2013, 01:06:46 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 22, 2013, 12:55:49 PM
Did they involve that teenager assaulting and individual.
After being stalked by an armed adult? Indeed there were factors that made this case especially tragic and debate inspiring. I certainly hope tragedies like these do not occur at a rate of 10 or so a year in Florida.
How did Trayvon know he was armed while being, "Stalked" as you say?
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2013, 01:06:46 PM
After being stalked by an armed adult? Indeed there were factors that made this case especially tragic and debate inspiring. I certainly hope tragedies like these do not occur at a rate of 10 or so a year in Florida.
Do you think Trayvon was justified in physically assaulting Zimmerman?
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2013, 01:14:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2013, 01:06:46 PM
After being stalked by an armed adult? Indeed there were factors that made this case especially tragic and debate inspiring. I certainly hope tragedies like these do not occur at a rate of 10 or so a year in Florida.
Do you think Trayvon was justified in physically assaulting Zimmerman?
I think it was a pretty irrational thing to do but sometimes when people feel threatened they may do something stupid.
But it is hardly relevent to what I was saying. Zimmerman was found innocent I am not retrying him, my only wish was that there at least be a grand jury hearing due to the circumstances (which I understand from Scipio did not even happen). I was saying that this case was especially tragic and that is what made it significant not simply that the person killed here was black. Last I checked black people tend to die in shootings pretty regularly, why I bet a black person was even previously involved in one of the previous 75 cases which it seemed were not important enough to be of national attention. I suspect the real reason was because the others were more straightforward self defense cases.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 22, 2013, 01:11:49 PM
How did Trayvon know he was armed while being, "Stalked" as you say?
I do not recall I said he did. But again I am not saying Zimmerman is the new Hitler. I was talking about why this case was so significant.
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2013, 01:21:07 PM
But it is hardly relevent to what I was saying. Zimmerman was found innocent I am not retrying him, my only wish was that there at least be a grand jury hearing due to the circumstances (which I understand from Scipio did not even happen).
Are you saying you want one now? :huh:
The prosecution could (and should) have put the case before a grand jury but due to some odd Florida loophole was able to bypass it.
QuoteI was saying that this case was especially tragic and that is what made it significant not simply that the person killed here was black. Last I checked black people tend to die in shootings pretty regularly, why I bet a black person was even previously involved in one of the previous 75 cases which it seemed were not important enough to be of national attention. I suspect the real reason was because the others were more straightforward self defense cases.
I think you're being a bit naive here. Race had everything to do with the way this was over-covered in the media.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2013, 12:43:02 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 22, 2013, 12:31:43 PM
i believe the combination of the hoodie, the prior break ins and martins being "out of place" that evening combined to make him appear suspiscious to the wannabe without regard to color
A kid the same age out of an Abercrombie & Fitch ad probably doesn't attract the same notice.
The clothing was a factor here but race was as well. And race can be a factor even if the actor isn't racist.
Yeah, I don't see how race couldn't be a factor, or even why it shouldn't have been. Stats don't lie. Young black men are heavily drawn to criminal behavior. Maybe if Zimmerman were some kind of unlettered rube, he might have been able to look past Martin's skin colour, but he was just a regular idiot.
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2013, 01:25:24 PM
Are you saying you want one now? :huh:
What? Of course not. You were asking me if I thought Trayvon was justified and therefore, I presume, that Zimmerman was guilty.
QuoteThe prosecution could (and should) have put the case before a grand jury but due to some odd Florida loophole was able to bypass it.
I realize that now and that is unfortunate. Cases like these are a big part of the reason we have grand juries in the first place.
QuoteI think you're being a bit naive here. Race had everything to do with the way this was over-covered in the media.
Well then explain to me why this case was so much more significant than every other shooting of a black dude in our recent history if that is the only determining factor.
And it's never a dull day in Florida:
QuoteGeorge Zimmerman helped rescue family from overturned SUV, cops say
By Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel
2:11 p.m. EDT, July 22, 2013
George Zimmerman, the man recently acquitted in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, helped rescue a family from an overturned SUV last week, the Seminole County Sheriff's Office confirmed today.
According to sheriff's spokeswoman Heather Smith, deputies were called to the crash about 5:45 p.m. Wednesday.
A Ford Explorer sport utility vehicle had gone off the road and rolled over in the area of Interstate 4 and State Road 46, Smith said, with two children and their parents inside.
By the time a deputy arrived, Zimmerman and another man "had already helped assist the family by getting them out of the overturned vehicle," Smith said.
"Zimmerman was not a witness to the crash and left after making contact with the deputy," Smith said in an emailed statement. "There were no report of injuries to the vehicle occupants."
The Sheriff's Office has not released any information on the family, or the other man.
The crash came days after six Seminole County residents returned a not-guilty verdict in Zimmerman's high-profile murder trial. Prosecutors accused Zimmerman of profiling, pursuing and killing Trayvon in his Sanford townhouse community Feb. 26, 2012.
Zimmerman, then a Neighborhood Watch volunteer for the Retreat at Twin Lakes, said he shot Trayvon in self-defense after the unarmed Miami Gardens teen attacked him.
Zimmerman remains in hiding, as he had been while awaiting trial.
Yeah we don't need you to do that.
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2013, 01:41:34 PM
Well then explain to me why this case was so much more significant than every other shooting of a black dude in our recent history if that is the only determining factor.
Let me walk that back slightly. I still think it was mostly race, but also throw in the Stand Your Ground law as a reason it got so much coverage.
The initial narrative (which the media did its best to uphold) of a creepy older white guy chasing down & shooting a small black child in cold blood attracts viewers. It's an outrage. Hell, I was initially outraged before all the facts came to light.
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2013, 01:58:49 PM
The initial narrative (which the media did its best to uphold) of a creepy older white guy chasing down & shooting a small black child in cold blood attracts viewers. It's an outrage. Hell, I was initially outraged before all the facts came to light.
:yes:
Plus the creepy ass cracker cops letting the stone cold killer walk after giving him a donut and a cup of coffee.
I guess he still is a wannabe cop.
Would truck have overturned if Zimmerman had not been following it?
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2013, 03:05:37 PM
Would truck have overturned if Zimmerman had not been following it?
Was it a skittles truck?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2013, 12:05:03 PM
One doesn't have to suppose racist motivation to take note of the fact that race was a relevant factor in the incident.
I agree that the racial angle distracts from the aspect that IMO is most concerning: that a self-appointed vigilante can disobey a clear direction from law enforcement, precipitate a confrontation that he was told to avoid, and use deadly force without suffering any legal sanction as a result.
The best part of this case is all the alternate realities that I get to read about. In this particular one I picture Spock with a full beard. In Seedy's I just see Spock with the goatee.
"Precipitate a confrontation" is carefully chosen language. I can't think of any better way to express Zimmerman's degree of culpability in starting the altercation.
Legally speaking the problem with Minsky's point is there is no evidence as to how the confrontation even began at all.
A lot of convoluted issues keep going into this, but it should be noted the dispatcher told Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that." Very few people seem to know when he actually uttered those words, I'm guessing because this has become a cause celebre, the liberals are content to read about it from their usual sources and not question them. However in this case one can easily get the phone call transcript or even the audio online.
The order of events:
-Zimmerman sees Martin, at this point Zimmerman is in his car. He calls the non-emergency line of the police department. As he is on the phone he is driving down the street slowly, following the direction Martin is going. Note that Martin is described as walking "behind the townhouses" so he's not actually on the sidewalk or street where Zimmerman is driving.
-During the phone call, suddenly Zimmerman exclaims "he's running" and you hear a car door open and some jumbling sounds that sound like a guy running.
-The dispatcher asks several questions, like "He's running?" "What direction is he going on?" "What entrance is that near?" After asking several questions (during this whole time Zimmerman is running) the dispatcher says, "are you following him?" At this point, assuming Zimmerman is even moderately capable of running at normal human speeds he's a good distance away from his vehicle and has been for a time. When Zimmerman answers "yeah" to the dispatchers question the dispatcher then says "we don't need you to do that."
I find it funny people are so convinced Zimmerman had done all this stuff long after being told not to do so, when in fact he had already done most of his "following" prior to being told that.
Now from there, Zimmerman arranges with the dispatcher a place to meet the police officers who are on his way. After that we're now basing the narrative on Zimmerman's story. Is that the true narrative? No one knows, but there is no alternative narrative in evidence, and there was not one in evidence at trial. Because no other witnesses know what happen in between that point and the shooting. The closest is the black girl, but unfortunately her testimony was vague, and left one without any real idea what the words she says she heard Trayvon say actually mean.
But anyway, as Zimmerman's narrative continues, he had ran to the last spot he had seen Martin, and lost him (actually he mentions he's lost him to the dispatcher.) And now that he has arranged with the dispatcher a place to meet the en route police, Zimmerman is returning to his vehicle. His story is that as he's walking back to his vehicle (and thus no longer engaged with Martin), Martin "jumps out" at him, and asks Zimmerman "what's your problem?" Zimmerman says he responds that he doesn't have a problem, and he is immediately punched, beaten on the ground, and then Martin sees his gun. Martin goes for the gun, they struggle for it, and Zimmerman gets control of the gun and shoots and kills Martin.
Now that's just Zimmerman's story, I'm not presenting that as what happened. But interestingly at trial how many different accounts are there of what happened after Zimmerman hung up the phone with dispatch? Exactly zero. Because no witnesses can testify to those events and while not a lawyer, I don't think the prosecutor can ask a jury to build inference upon inference such that they create a narrative out of thin air. For all we know Zimmerman stalked the neighborhood and cornered Martin, and because he's a gay rapist pulled his gun out and ordered Martin to suck his dick, when Martin refused Zimmerman shot him then beat his face in with Martin's fists and slammed his own head int he concrete. Or maybe a T-1000 Terminator showed up and killed Zimmerman, destroyed his body, and assumed his form--and then killed Trayvon for no reason. Since he can remold his appearance he faked the injuries. He went through with the trial for fun, and is obviously just waiting to cause trouble.
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2013, 01:58:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2013, 01:41:34 PM
Well then explain to me why this case was so much more significant than every other shooting of a black dude in our recent history if that is the only determining factor.
Let me walk that back slightly. I still think it was mostly race, but also throw in the Stand Your Ground law as a reason it got so much coverage.
The initial narrative (which the media did its best to uphold) of a creepy older white guy chasing down & shooting a small black child in cold blood attracts viewers. It's an outrage. Hell, I was initially outraged before all the facts came to light.
Thank God for the Conservative blogosphere, you could have gone off the reservation.
Quote from: Rasputin on July 22, 2013, 12:31:43 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2013, 12:05:03 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on July 22, 2013, 11:40:17 AM
This case has never had anything to do with race . . . This case was about an armed and frustrated cop wannabbe . . . on the hunt for those involved in a string of robberies in his neighborhood.
And how did wannabe cop match up Trayvon Martin as a suspect for "those involved."?
One doesn't have to suppose racist motivation to take note of the fact that race was a relevant factor in the incident.
I agree that the racial angle distracts from the aspect that IMO is most concerning: that a self-appointed vigilante can disobey a clear direction from law enforcement, precipitate a confrontation that he was told to avoid, and use deadly force without suffering any legal sanction as a result. But at the same time if my melanin count were higher and my latitude lower, I'd be getting on line on my local Sunshine State gun shop as well.
zimmerman took a black girl to his high school prom; he is far from the stereotypical southern redneck
That's okay, Strom Thurmond did something like that as well when he was that age.
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2013, 03:42:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2013, 12:05:03 PM
One doesn't have to suppose racist motivation to take note of the fact that race was a relevant factor in the incident.
I agree that the racial angle distracts from the aspect that IMO is most concerning: that a self-appointed vigilante can disobey a clear direction from law enforcement, precipitate a confrontation that he was told to avoid, and use deadly force without suffering any legal sanction as a result.
The best part of this case is all the alternate realities that I get to read about. In this particular one I picture Spock with a full beard. In Seedy's I just see Spock with the goatee.
And to be honest, Joan's description of events may be entirely accurate. The problem is, the only evidence we have is some scant physical evidence and a few ear witnesses that don't clarify much. Other than that, we have Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman's story paints a substantially different picture from what Joan is saying, and there was no real alternative story put forward.
Joan's description is entirely consistent with Zimmerman's own testimony. "Precipitating a confrontation" doesn't have to be taking the first swing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2013, 05:13:51 PM
Joan's description is entirely consistent with Zimmerman's own testimony. "Precipitating a confrontation" doesn't have to be taking the first swing.
You were bedazzled by his use of the word "precipitating." My beef is primarily with his narrative assertion that he precipitated a confrontation that he was told to avoid. If Zimmerman's narrative is true, by the time he was given the instruction by the police he was already far away from his vehicle and Martin was already planning to confront him. So after given instructions by law enforcement there was little Zimmerman could have done to have avoided the confrontation, in which case it is not accurate to say he "hastened the occurrence of; brought about prematurely, hastily, or suddenly" the confrontation. If you want to be extremely semantic linguistically, you could argue that by returning to his vehicle he was "hastening the occurrence of the confrontation", but even that is speculative. Perhaps by walking towards his vehicle he was actually (unknowingly) putting distance between himself and Martin, and Martin had to speed up to catch up with him. Without knowing what Martin was doing or his position prior to the confrontation, we don't actually know in what way Zimmerman's movements after being told "we don't need you to do that" affected the impending confrontation. From the point when he is told "we don't need you to do that" there was no logical way in Zimmerman's story to avoid the confrontation since he did not know where Martin was, and he was already far removed from his vehicle--so the non-semantic point makes it hard to find fault with Zimmerman after he was told "we don't need you to do that", under the narrative presented by Zimmerman.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 22, 2013, 05:39:09 PM
My beef is primarily with his narrative assertion that he precipitated a confrontation that he was told to avoid.
Gotcha.
Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2013, 05:40:50 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 22, 2013, 05:39:09 PM
If Zimmerman's narrative is true
That's a mighty big if.
Even if Zimmerman was an angel it is unlikely his narrative is "absolutely true" just because human memory doesn't work that way.
Legally, the prosecutor has a case to prove, Zimmerman doesn't. In a traditional case, say the prosecutor gives good evidence that the defendant committed the crime. The defendant takes the stand and tries to explain it the way, the defendant's attorney tries to attack the evidence and prosecution witnesses. The jury hears that, and says "yeah, we don't believe the defendant's story and we found the arguments of his counsel unpersuasive." Okay, so now then the question is, did the case the prosecutor built prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty? If the answer is yes, he's guilty.
In the Zimmerman case, I'd argue that on the charge of second degree murder and the charge of manslaughter, the prosecutor never satisfied their base requirement--they never demonstrated guilt beyond reasonable doubt on either charge. So even if you disbelieve Zimmerman's narrative (which hilarious was actually submitted as part of the prosecution's case, Zimmerman never took the stand to tell his side of the story), you're left with an unproven case by the prosecution. You can't say "I don't believe Zimmerman's narrative, so he's guilty." That guilt has to be based on you both not believing the defendant's explanation
and determining that the evidence and case demonstrated by the prosecutor established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty.
I'm not really disagreeing with that. Doesn't mean I need to agree that Zimmerman didn't actually precipitate the confrontation.
Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2013, 06:00:02 PM
I'm not really disagreeing with that. Doesn't mean I need to agree that Zimmerman didn't actually precipitate the confrontation.
My only point is "based on the narrative" Zimmerman didn't precipitate the confrontation. That's not me saying Zimmerman's narrative is what actually happened. Two different things.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 22, 2013, 06:03:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2013, 06:00:02 PM
I'm not really disagreeing with that. Doesn't mean I need to agree that Zimmerman didn't actually precipitate the confrontation.
My only point is "based on the narrative" Zimmerman didn't precipitate the confrontation. That's not me saying Zimmerman's narrative is what actually happened. Two different things.
What did he think was going to happen when he decided to follow someone in his car and then running after an individual who was fleeing? They'd have a prayer circle?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2013, 04:00:06 PM
"Precipitate a confrontation" is carefully chosen language.
It is careful.
Careful enough that it basically fits Otto's account.
Zimmerman did call the dispatcher.
The dispatcher did give clear direction: "we don't need you to do that."
That statement was made before the confrontation.
The only thing that doesn't fit is one of Zimmerman's own uncorroborated and self-serving stories, i.e. of running after Martin, losing him, and then being "jumped" while he was peacefully returning to his car. I say "one of" because Zimmerman gave conflicting accounts. For example, in his initial interview, Zimmerman claimed he didn't run after Martin at all. He also said he had a bad memory and had ADHD.
In a criminal trial, it is all about what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. On that standard it is hard to quarrel with the result. But the criminal trial is over and I am not talking about criminal liability. The question is one of plausibility, and I don't find his story highly plausible (in a more likely than not that it really went down that way sense).
Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2013, 06:07:31 PMWhat did he think was going to happen when he decided to follow someone in his car and then running after an individual who was fleeing? They'd have a prayer circle?
I don't know, you're asking me to speculate.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2013, 06:10:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2013, 04:00:06 PM
"Precipitate a confrontation" is carefully chosen language.
It is careful.
Careful enough that it basically fits Otto's account.
Zimmerman did call the dispatcher.
The dispatcher did give clear direction: "we don't need you to do that."
That statement was made before the confrontation.
The only thing that doesn't fit is one of Zimmerman's own uncorroborated and self-serving stories, i.e. of running after Martin, losing him, and then being "jumped" while he was peacefully returning to his car. I say "one of" because Zimmerman gave conflicting accounts. For example, in his initial interview, Zimmerman claimed he didn't run after Martin at all. He also said he had a bad memory and had ADHD.
In a criminal trial, it is all about what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. On that standard it is hard to quarrel with the result. But the criminal trial is over and I am not talking about criminal liability. The question is one of plausibility, and I don't find his story highly plausible (in a more likely than not that it really went down that way sense).
Well, the lead investigator (who wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter in the first few days) who actually did not really believe Zimmerman's story, did concede in open court that the inconsistencies between Zimmerman's versions of the incident were "insignificant."
I agree Zimmerman's story is not plausible at several points. The least plausible part for me is the "fight over the gun" whatever happened I'm fairly confident that didn't happen, and was produced by Zimmerman ad hoc because he thought it would help his self defense claim. But between one implausible story and a whole bunch of no evidence not sure how anyone can claim they know what happened.
I think Zimmerman's story in total isn't likely the truth, but I would concede it is definitely "one reasonably possible truth."
And no, it still wouldn't fit my narrative Joan. In my scenario we have no idea what Martin's movements were so no idea in what way Zimmerman's impacted the happening of the confrontation.
Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2013, 06:07:31 PM
What did he think was going to happen when he decided to follow someone in his car and then running after an individual who was fleeing? They'd have a prayer circle?
My guess is he thought Martin would run (if he was a cat burglar) or wait for the police to show up (if he was a kid making a Skittles run).
One thing that strikes me from Biscuit's description of Zimmerman's video statement is that Zimmerman's (self-described) behavior is consistent with a neighborhood watch guy just maintaining surveillance until the coppers show up.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 22, 2013, 06:20:18 PM
Well, the lead investigator (who wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter in the first few days) who actually did not really believe Zimmerman's story, did concede in open court that the inconsistencies between Zimmerman's versions of the incident were "insignificant."
It was actually the assistant who used that exact wording - and that was taking the accounts as a whole. Serino's testimony was even more vague - again as to that general question.
But as to the specific question that I raised and you have questioned - whether Zimmerman attempted to follow Martin after the dispatcher advised him not to - Serino testified that based on the investigation he conducted that was the conclusion that he drew. And the run/walk discrepancy is also relevant to that question, if not to the ultimate question of guilt as to the crimes charged.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 22, 2013, 04:34:40 PM
And to be honest, Joan's description of events may be entirely accurate. The problem is, the only evidence we have is some scant physical evidence and a few ear witnesses that don't clarify much. Other than that, we have Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman's story paints a substantially different picture from what Joan is saying, and there was no real alternative story put forward.
It may be accurate, as any alternate universe may be accurate. I'm just noting the fact that we have a large number of positive assertions about what happened that have no basis in actual fact. People just believe what they want to believe, and present their beliefs as facts. Things like "
the fact that race was a relevant factor in the incident." That isn't a fact at all. It is an assumption. But, since it is an unexamined assumption, it is, in some alternate universe (which may be our own universe - we don't know) an actual fact just like facts that are really facts.
We will likely never know the truth. We certainly won't ever know the truth if we simply through out unexaminined assumptions and call them "facts."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2013, 06:10:19 PM
The dispatcher did give clear direction: "we don't need you to do that."
I love this shit, especially when it comes from somebody normally smart enough to avoid saying such stupid things.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2013, 06:53:16 PMIt was actually the assistant who used that exact wording - and that was taking the accounts as a whole. Serino's testimony was even more vague - again as to that general question.
But as to the specific question that I raised and you have questioned - whether Zimmerman attempted to follow Martin after the dispatcher advised him not to - Serino testified that based on the investigation he conducted that was the conclusion that he drew. And the run/walk discrepancy is also relevant to that question, if not to the ultimate question of guilt as to the crimes charged.
Do you believe Zimmerman followed Martin after being told "we don't need you to do that?"
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2013, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 22, 2013, 04:34:40 PM
And to be honest, Joan's description of events may be entirely accurate. The problem is, the only evidence we have is some scant physical evidence and a few ear witnesses that don't clarify much. Other than that, we have Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman's story paints a substantially different picture from what Joan is saying, and there was no real alternative story put forward.
It may be accurate, as any alternate universe may be accurate. I'm just noting the fact that we have a large number of positive assertions about what happened that have no basis in actual fact. People just believe what they want to believe, and present their beliefs as facts. Things like "the fact that race was a relevant factor in the incident." That isn't a fact at all. It is an assumption. But, since it is an unexamined assumption, it is, in some alternate universe (which may be our own universe - we don't know) an actual fact just like facts that are really facts.
We will likely never know the truth. We certainly won't ever know the truth if we simply through out unexaminined assumptions and call them "facts."
So which part of this is just stuff you want to believe?
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2013, 07:06:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2013, 06:10:19 PM
The dispatcher did give clear direction: "we don't need you to do that."
I love this shit, especially when it comes from somebody normally smart enough to avoid saying such stupid things.
I don't understand that as being clear either...I could easily see it as being a part of a call script for a 911 dispatcher simply because whatever public entity the 911 dispatcher reports to wants to make very clear and for the record that they are not directing a citizen to put himself in harms way.
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2013, 07:04:09 PM
It may be accurate, as any alternate universe may be accurate. I'm just noting the fact that we have a large number of positive assertions about what happened that have no basis in actual fact. People just believe what they want to believe, and present their beliefs as facts. Things like "the fact that race was a relevant factor in the incident." That isn't a fact at all. It is an assumption. But, since it is an unexamined assumption, it is, in some alternate universe (which may be our own universe - we don't know) an actual fact just like facts that are really facts.
We will likely never know the truth. We certainly won't ever know the truth if we simply through out unexaminined assumptions and call them "facts."
Quite so grumbler, we will never know The Truth. And it is also true we cannot talk about "facts" as in matters that can be reasonably established through a firm chain of reasoning when drawing conclusions about matters in the real world outside the laboratory where evidence is incomplete and ambiguous. For example, the apparent fact that according to an eyewitness he saw (shortly but not immediately before the shooting) a man in a "strattle" position throwing punches "MMA" style on a "guy in a red sweatshirt" needs to be considered with the apparent fact that another eyewitness was "adamant" that "there was no physical fighting at the time the when the gunshot rang out."
But many questions of considerable interest are not so obliging as to accompany themselves with sufficient quantities of unequivocal, objective evidence. In fact virtually all questions that are contested in courts of law -- civil or criminal -- are such, or else they wouldn't be there. Thus we must either confine ourselves to saying nothing at all about such matters, or accept the evidence that does exist for what it is, and use our powers of inferential and probabalistic reasoning to put together an account of what is the most (or more) likely explanation. Of course any such construction is prone to bias. But bias can and does infect even the most rigorous of scientific efforts as well. Bias is inherent in a human subject exercising mental faculties.
With that: take the statement "
the fact that race was a relevant factor in the incident." Whether race was a relevant factor is a datum, a fact. What is uncertain is whether it was or it wasn't. My conclusion that it was is not an untethered assumption. It is a conclusion based on evidence - in particular Zimmerman's own account that a factor that made Martin suspicious to him was that 2-3 weeks prior he had seen a black man look into the same house he claims he saw Martin looking into.
Is gender an issue as well, since Zimmerman said it was a "man" he saw a few weeks ago?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 22, 2013, 07:17:37 PM
Do you believe Zimmerman followed Martin after being told "we don't need you to do that?"
I think it more likely than not that he attempted to do so, in light of Zimmerman's comments about the "punks" always "getting away," in light of a witness report that states that a chase preceded the physical altercation, and in light of the fact that the biggest inconsistency with Zimmerman's statement to Serino was his attempt to claim that he never ran after Martin.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2013, 09:50:56 AM
Is gender an issue as well, since Zimmerman said it was a "man" he saw a few weeks ago?
Actually no - Zimmerman didn't say he saw a "man". He saw "someone".
Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2013, 06:07:31 PM
What did he think was going to happen when he decided to follow someone in his car and then running after an individual who was fleeing? They'd have a prayer circle?
That is yet another of the possible altnernate outcomes.
I would say that it seems implausible to me but I am biased. I don't have a lot of prayer circle experience.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2013, 09:53:56 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2013, 09:50:56 AM
Is gender an issue as well, since Zimmerman said it was a "man" he saw a few weeks ago?
Actually no - Zimmerman didn't say he saw a "man". He saw "someone".
He said he saw a "black someone"?
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2013, 09:59:21 AM
He said he saw a "black someone"?
He said he saw someone and then confirmed the race in response to a question from Serino.
He said "He looks black" when asked, which btw MSNBC hilariously edited to make it sound like Zimmerman volunteered that info without being asked by the dispatcher.
DISTORT WE MUCH
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2013, 10:00:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2013, 09:59:21 AM
He said he saw a "black someone"?
He said he saw someone and then confirmed the race in response to a question from Serino.
I am talking about what he said about seeing a "black man" previously.
Sometimes a description is just a description.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2013, 10:32:09 AM
I am talking about what he said about seeing a "black man" previously.
Sometimes a description is just a description.
I am being facetious. :)
Of course gender is a factor. Had a young woman been doing the same thing at the same time, Zimmerman's reaction would have been different. Of course I cannot prove that, nor can I prove that Zimmerman would have reacted differently had it been Angela Merkel in Captain America underoos.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2013, 10:40:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2013, 10:32:09 AM
I am talking about what he said about seeing a "black man" previously.
Sometimes a description is just a description.
I am being facetious. :)
Of course gender is a factor. Had a young woman been doing the same thing at the same time, Zimmerman's reaction would have been different. Of course I cannot prove that, nor can I prove that Zimmerman would have reacted differently had it been Angela Merkel in Captain America underoos.
In the latter case: the only possible verdict would have been justifiable homicide. :ph34r:
Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2013, 10:04:17 AM
He said "He looks black" when asked, which btw MSNBC hilariously edited to make it sound like Zimmerman volunteered that info without being asked by the dispatcher.
DISTORT WE MUCH
It's only all right to edit videos and audio if it's for a good conservative cause.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2013, 09:51:24 AMI think it more likely than not that he attempted to do so, in light of Zimmerman's comments about the "punks" always "getting away," in light of a witness report that states that a chase preceded the physical altercation, and in light of the fact that the biggest inconsistency with Zimmerman's statement to Serino was his attempt to claim that he never ran after Martin.
Yeah, I don't necessarily take issue with any of your theoretical stories about Zimmerman. I think those are also reasonable possibilities as to what happened. To me the key point is there are several reasonable possibilities, none really definitively suggested by the evidence. Most importantly is none indicating legal guilt could be appropriately arrived upon by a jury to the point that they could clear the reasonable doubt hurdle. I guess I'm not terribly interested in what really happened, this story became national news because of the legal case and my interest in it was mostly shock that the NAACP and the deMoney faction of the world combined with effete liberals like yourself (not you personally, who should know better) somehow thought by invoking the Civil Rights movement and writing a bunch of articles about how terrible it is to hear a car door lock when you walk by would somehow override what the law says should have been done in the case.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 23, 2013, 06:24:23 PM
the NAACP and the deMoney faction of the world combined with effete liberals like yourself
:lol: Personally, I like this new Otto-as-recent-law-grad model. Much more tempered than the HansyVonBismarck of old.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2013, 06:27:45 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 23, 2013, 06:24:23 PM
the NAACP and the deMoney faction of the world combined with effete liberals like yourself
:lol: Personally, I like this new Otto-as-recent-law-grad model. Much more tempered than the HansyVonBismarck of old.
I wish you would go back to being the much more tempered version of yourself.
You going to drop by WBC next week?
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2013, 07:48:47 PM
I wish you would go back to being the much more tempered version of yourself.Quote
No. None of you mutts want to listen, so I have to shout. Besides, it's also involves a lot less typing.
QuoteYou going to drop by WBC next week?
Yup. Planning on driving up on Friday the 2rd.
Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2013, 10:04:17 AM
He said "He looks black" when asked, which btw MSNBC hilariously edited to make it sound like Zimmerman volunteered that info without being asked by the dispatcher.
DISTORT WE MUCH
Useless news network.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 22, 2013, 04:30:24 PM
Legally speaking the problem with Minsky's point is there is no evidence as to how the confrontation even began at all.
A lot of convoluted issues keep going into this, but it should be noted the dispatcher told Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that." Very few people seem to know when he actually uttered those words, I'm guessing because this has become a cause celebre, the liberals are content to read about it from their usual sources and not question them. However in this case one can easily get the phone call transcript or even the audio online.
The order of events:
-Zimmerman sees Martin, at this point Zimmerman is in his car. He calls the non-emergency line of the police department. As he is on the phone he is driving down the street slowly, following the direction Martin is going. Note that Martin is described as walking "behind the townhouses" so he's not actually on the sidewalk or street where Zimmerman is driving.
-During the phone call, suddenly Zimmerman exclaims "he's running" and you hear a car door open and some jumbling sounds that sound like a guy running.
-The dispatcher asks several questions, like "He's running?" "What direction is he going on?" "What entrance is that near?" After asking several questions (during this whole time Zimmerman is running) the dispatcher says, "are you following him?" At this point, assuming Zimmerman is even moderately capable of running at normal human speeds he's a good distance away from his vehicle and has been for a time. When Zimmerman answers "yeah" to the dispatchers question the dispatcher then says "we don't need you to do that."
I find it funny people are so convinced Zimmerman had done all this stuff long after being told not to do so, when in fact he had already done most of his "following" prior to being told that.
Now from there, Zimmerman arranges with the dispatcher a place to meet the police officers who are on his way. After that we're now basing the narrative on Zimmerman's story. Is that the true narrative? No one knows, but there is no alternative narrative in evidence, and there was not one in evidence at trial. Because no other witnesses know what happen in between that point and the shooting. The closest is the black girl, but unfortunately her testimony was vague, and left one without any real idea what the words she says she heard Trayvon say actually mean.
But anyway, as Zimmerman's narrative continues, he had ran to the last spot he had seen Martin, and lost him (actually he mentions he's lost him to the dispatcher.) And now that he has arranged with the dispatcher a place to meet the en route police, Zimmerman is returning to his vehicle. His story is that as he's walking back to his vehicle (and thus no longer engaged with Martin), Martin "jumps out" at him, and asks Zimmerman "what's your problem?" Zimmerman says he responds that he doesn't have a problem, and he is immediately punched, beaten on the ground, and then Martin sees his gun. Martin goes for the gun, they struggle for it, and Zimmerman gets control of the gun and shoots and kills Martin.
Now that's just Zimmerman's story, I'm not presenting that as what happened. But interestingly at trial how many different accounts are there of what happened after Zimmerman hung up the phone with dispatch? Exactly zero. Because no witnesses can testify to those events and while not a lawyer, I don't think the prosecutor can ask a jury to build inference upon inference such that they create a narrative out of thin air. For all we know Zimmerman stalked the neighborhood and cornered Martin, and because he's a gay rapist pulled his gun out and ordered Martin to suck his dick, when Martin refused Zimmerman shot him then beat his face in with Martin's fists and slammed his own head int he concrete. Or maybe a T-1000 Terminator showed up and killed Zimmerman, destroyed his body, and assumed his form--and then killed Trayvon for no reason. Since he can remold his appearance he faked the injuries. He went through with the trial for fun, and is obviously just waiting to cause trouble.
very well put; thats what is so frustrating about this case...the jury had no choice based upon the evidence and a judge would likely have had to throw a guilty verdict out under our laws
that this has become a referndum on race astounds me
Latina juror is making the rounds of the talk shows saying she thought Zimmerman was guilty of killing Martin but couldn't vote to convict because of the law, or somesuch.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2013, 05:53:22 PM
Latina juror is making the rounds of the talk shows saying she thought Zimmerman was guilty of killing Martin but couldn't vote to convict because of the law, or somesuch.
Yeah, basically saying she
thinks he's a murderer but that the evidence didn't support a conviction. That actually makes me feel good about the jury system, which I'm typically marginally skeptical of, because she admitted to having pre-judged Zimmerman guilty but also said when they were explained what the law required in terms of conviction she agreed to vote to acquit because she believed it to be the appropriate choice as a matter of law.
So since the Zimmerman acquittal, I've walked past about a dozen or so people downtown with NAACP or whatever petitions to get the DOJ to go after Zim. What's odd is that only one asked me to sign. I'm so hurt :(
Your Crazy ass Crackerness shines through.
Quote from: katmai on July 26, 2013, 07:20:03 PM
Your Crazy ass Crackerness shines through.
I knew someone would use that phrase in the first reply. I just didn't expect it to be you :(
Quote from: derspiess on July 26, 2013, 09:24:34 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 26, 2013, 07:20:03 PM
Your Crazy ass Crackerness shines through.
I knew someone would use that phrase in the first reply. I just didn't expect it to be you :(
Someone has to pick up the slack from Seedy!
But black people love me! Black Irish, not so much.
So, was the car accident fake?
The driver rescued from the car had a suspiciously large forehead.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2013, 05:53:22 PM
Latina juror is making the rounds of the talk shows saying she thought Zimmerman was guilty of killing Martin but couldn't vote to convict because of the law, or somesuch.
That is interesting: a juror who actually managed to come away with some basic grasp of the standard of proof in a criminal case. ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2013, 01:15:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2013, 05:53:22 PM
Latina juror is making the rounds of the talk shows saying she thought Zimmerman was guilty of killing Martin but couldn't vote to convict because of the law, or somesuch.
That is interesting: a juror who actually managed to come away with some basic grasp of the standard of proof in a criminal case. ;)
Weird that she feels the need to apologize, though.
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2013, 02:06:05 PMWeird that she feels the need to apologize, though.
What's so weird about it?
How much is she getting paid for these appearances I wonder.
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2013, 02:06:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2013, 01:15:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2013, 05:53:22 PM
Latina juror is making the rounds of the talk shows saying she thought Zimmerman was guilty of killing Martin but couldn't vote to convict because of the law, or somesuch.
That is interesting: a juror who actually managed to come away with some basic grasp of the standard of proof in a criminal case. ;)
Weird that she feels the need to apologize, though.
Not really very weird at all. It's her coming to terms with the difference between legal guilt and obvious moral guilt.
Quote from: fhdz on July 30, 2013, 12:34:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2013, 02:06:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2013, 01:15:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2013, 05:53:22 PM
Latina juror is making the rounds of the talk shows saying she thought Zimmerman was guilty of killing Martin but couldn't vote to convict because of the law, or somesuch.
That is interesting: a juror who actually managed to come away with some basic grasp of the standard of proof in a criminal case. ;)
Weird that she feels the need to apologize, though.
Not really very weird at all. It's her coming to terms with the difference between legal guilt and obvious moral guilt.
:yes:
It does sound a little weird to me. There is a difference between apologizing and expressing regret. IMO, you should apologize only for things you would've done differently. "I'm sorry I shot you" is an apology. "I'm sorry I had to shoot you" is not an apology.
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2013, 12:37:28 PM
It does sound a little weird to me. There is a difference between apologizing and expressing regret. IMO, you should apologize only for things you would've done differently. "I'm sorry I shot you" is an apology. "I'm sorry I had to shoot you" is not an apology.
That sounds like an arbitrary distinction.
Why is it important that she is latina?
Aren't we a color blind society?
At least we were headed that way until Obama came along.
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2013, 12:37:28 PM
It does sound a little weird to me. There is a difference between apologizing and expressing regret. IMO, you should apologize only for things you would've done differently. "I'm sorry I shot you" is an apology. "I'm sorry I had to shoot you" is not an apology.
In both cases one is saying one would have done it differently given different circumstances.
Quote from: Siege on July 30, 2013, 04:08:44 PM
Aren't we a color blind society?
HAHAHAHAAAHAHAHHAHHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA
Quote from: fhdz on July 30, 2013, 04:12:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2013, 12:37:28 PM
It does sound a little weird to me. There is a difference between apologizing and expressing regret. IMO, you should apologize only for things you would've done differently. "I'm sorry I shot you" is an apology. "I'm sorry I had to shoot you" is not an apology.
In both cases one is saying one would have done it differently given different circumstances.
I disagree. In the first case, one would have done it differently even in the same circumstances. One is basically admitting that if one were to go back in time, one would've acted differently.
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2013, 04:19:28 PM
I disagree. In the first case, one would have done it differently even in the same circumstances.
Nobody gives a shit, because both cases are sufficient grounds for an apology.
Quote from: fhdz on July 30, 2013, 04:24:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2013, 04:19:28 PM
I disagree. In the first case, one would have done it differently even in the same circumstances.
Nobody gives a shit, because both cases are sufficient grounds for an apology.
You gave a shit, so I responded. Don't retrospectively stop giving a shit.
Quote from: fhdz on July 30, 2013, 04:24:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2013, 04:19:28 PM
I disagree. In the first case, one would have done it differently even in the same circumstances.
Nobody gives a shit, because both cases are sufficient grounds for an apology.
That's why I said it felt arbitrary. Regretting something doesn't negate an apology situation nor does an apology situation negate regrets. I don't really see that the two are remarkedly different.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2013, 04:33:43 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 30, 2013, 04:24:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2013, 04:19:28 PM
I disagree. In the first case, one would have done it differently even in the same circumstances.
Nobody gives a shit, because both cases are sufficient grounds for an apology.
That's why I said it felt arbitrary. Regretting something doesn't negate an apology situation nor does an apology situation negate regrets. I don't really see that the two are remarkedly different.
I think the difference is rather clear, so I'm a little puzzled here.
In case 1, you are apologizing for your
actions. Presumably you were in direct control of your actions. In case 2, you are apologizing for your
circumstances, which presumably were not in your control.
Using second form when first one is warranted converts the apology into a weasel non-apology; using first form when second one is warranted makes the apology disingenuous and spineless, since why should you apologize when you would've done the same thing again?
I don't see why you can't apologize in both cases. After all, in case 2, you still chose to do it. She could still have refused even though she knew the right thing to do was acquit. I think you can still feel sorry even if you would do the same thing if you had the chance to do it again.
So while I understand the distinction you are making, and have from the start, I don't think that's relevant in determining whether an apology makes sense.
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2013, 04:41:16 PM
I think the difference is rather clear, so I'm a little puzzled here.
The difference is clear but the notion that one might feel compelled to apologize for either is roughly the same. Does that make sense?
EDIT: "One" obviously meaning "not DGuller but most other people".
Quote from: Siege on July 30, 2013, 04:08:44 PM
Why is it important that she is latina?
Aren't we a color blind society?
At least we were headed that way until Obama came along.
:hmm:
Quote from: fhdz on July 31, 2013, 01:41:21 PM
The difference is clear but the notion that one might feel compelled to apologize for either is roughly the same. Does that make sense?
:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :huh: Actually, no.
Words can hurt, Jesse :(
QuoteScott to Jesse Jackson: Say you're sorry
By Aaron DeslatteTallahassee Bureau Chief
11:13 a.m. EDT, July 31, 2013
Rev. Jesse Jackson joins Dream Defenders in Tallahassee
TALLAHASSEE -- A day after civil-rights advocate Jesse Jackson suggested Florida's laws were racist and compared its governor to segregationist George Wallace, Gov. Rick Scott issued a statement calling on him to apologize.
Here's the release:
Today, Governor Rick Scott released the following statement in response to remarks from Jesse Jackson who yesterday called Florida "the Selma of our time." Jackson has also referred to Florida as the "Apartheid State."
Governor Rick Scott said, "Jesse Jackson owes every Floridian an apology for his reckless and divisive comments. It is unfortunate that he would come to Florida to insult Floridians and divide our state at a time when we are striving for unity and healing. Floridians are a strong, resilient people. We are fortunate to live in a great state where all Floridians enjoy opportunities to get a great job and a world-class education."
Jackson spent the night on the floor of the Capitol along with a handful of student protesters in their third week of demonstrations geared to force policymakers to repeal the state's controversial Stand Your Ground law. The Dream Defenders started their sit-in at Scott's office earlier this month after George Zimmerman was found not guilty in the shooting death last year of teen Trayvon Martin in a Sanford gated community.
But Jackson on Tuesday dialed up the criticism to suggest Florida's justice and voting systems were intentionally designed to disenfranchise blacks.
"You incentivize killing people," he said to a crowd of protesters.
He also likened Scott's refusal to consider calling a special session to Wallace's refusal to allow black students to enroll at the University of Alabama in 1963, until striking a behind-the-scenes deal with President Kennedy to allow himself to be carried off the university steps by troops in full view of the national media.
"We've seen Southern governors before change their minds," Jackson said. "Wallace said we couldn't go to the University of Alabama. He had to change his mind."
The statements drew backlash from several prominent Republicans, including House Speaker Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel, who tweeted he was "embarrassed for him and irresponsible statement."
Republican Party of Florida Chairman Lenny Curry weighed in, calling out Florida Democrats for not also renouncing Jackson's remarks.
"With Jesse Jackson having a history of making offensive remarks, like calling New York City 'Hymietown,' it's surprising to see that Democrats are not denouncing Jackson for what he said about Florida and Governor Rick Scott," Curry said in a release. "Jesse Jackson's attacks are offensive, inappropriate, divisive and ill-informed. We should be thankful to Governor Scott for his focus on uniting Florida during this time."
Sometimes you just need to stand up and speak the truth. Go out and tell the people, wherever you may find them, that we need to disincentivize killing people. Then, and only then, may America rest, free and proud again. :alberta:
Quote from: fhdz on July 31, 2013, 01:41:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2013, 04:41:16 PM
I think the difference is rather clear, so I'm a little puzzled here.
The difference is clear but the notion that one might feel compelled to apologize for either is roughly the same. Does that make sense?
Not really; I think DGuller is right.
While I agree that one might feel compelled societally to apologize for either one's actions (case 1), or one's circumstances (case 2), only case 1 is an actual apology. Case 2 is just a "well, shit happens" response that one may feel forced to make, but that does not suggest one would do anything different going forward or that one feels any regret.
It's pretty clear that she feels regret.
Quote from: fhdz on July 31, 2013, 02:12:16 PM
It's pretty clear that she feels regret.
Yes, but DGuller is right - she should not feel regret. She thinks Z was "guilty" of shooting Martin. So does Zimmerman, and everyone else. The evidence didn't support conviction on the charges, though, and so she properly voted to acquit. If she regrets doing the right thing, then there is something wrong with her.
Quote from: grumbler on July 31, 2013, 07:26:55 PM
If she regrets doing the right thing, then there is something wrong with her.
I think she regrets that she had to do the right thing. Nothing wrong with that.
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2013, 07:44:16 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 31, 2013, 07:26:55 PM
If she regrets doing the right thing, then there is something wrong with her.
I think she regrets that she had to do the right thing. Nothing wrong with that.
Jurors do not have the constitutional right to feel bullied by fellow jurors, especially when it's the weekend.
Zimmerman was pulled over today in Texas for speeding and had a pistol with him in the cabin. He was given a warning and advised to stow the pistol in the glove compartment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2382127/The-moment-George-Zimmerman-pulled-cops-Texas-speeding-Sunday--told-GUN-going-particular.html
I like how they put "GUN" in all caps.
Quote from: derspiess on July 31, 2013, 08:10:27 PM
Zimmerman was pulled over today in Texas for speeding and had a pistol with him in the cabin. He was given a warning and advised to stow the pistol in the glove compartment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2382127/The-moment-George-Zimmerman-pulled-cops-Texas-speeding-Sunday--told-GUN-going-particular.html
I like how they put "GUN" in all caps.
Daily mail does that for almost every headline.
"POLES flood London and they get BENEFITS!"
I always just get warnings when speeding...not.
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2013, 01:21:05 PM
I always just get warnings when speeding...not.
I've gotten two. Most recent one was from a female state trooper who was oddly a bit flirty.
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2013, 01:21:05 PM
I always just get warnings when speeding...not.
The last time I was pulled over I didn't even get a warning. :cool:
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2013, 01:25:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2013, 01:21:05 PM
I always just get warnings when speeding...not.
I've gotten two. Most recent one was from a female state trooper who was oddly a bit flirty.
My first was "I don't know if you have speed limits in Massachusetts or not but here in California we do."
Quote from: derspiess on July 31, 2013, 08:10:27 PM
Zimmerman was pulled over today in Texas for speeding and had a pistol with him in the cabin.
It's just a matter of time before this piece of shit shoots someone else. He's clearly got a hard-on for it if he doesn't even keep the gun in his glove box.
Quote from: fhdz on August 01, 2013, 01:29:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 31, 2013, 08:10:27 PM
Zimmerman was pulled over today in Texas for speeding and had a pistol with him in the cabin.
It's just a matter of time before this piece of shit shoots someone else. He's clearly got a hard-on for it if he doesn't even keep the gun in his glove box.
You can argue about what happened that one night in Florida, but it seems to me that right now George Zimmerman has some grounds to be fearful for his personal safety...
Quote from: fhdz on August 01, 2013, 01:29:10 PM
It's just a matter of time before this piece of shit shoots someone else. He's clearly got a hard-on for it if he doesn't even keep the gun in his glove box.
It was in the glove compartment. From what I saw of the video, it sounds like he opened up the glove compartment to show it to the officer, who told him to close it back up and don't touch it or something similar.
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2013, 01:27:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2013, 01:21:05 PM
I always just get warnings when speeding...not.
The last time I was pulled over I didn't even get a warning. :cool:
I wonder why? :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2013, 01:30:21 PM
Quote from: fhdz on August 01, 2013, 01:29:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 31, 2013, 08:10:27 PM
Zimmerman was pulled over today in Texas for speeding and had a pistol with him in the cabin.
It's just a matter of time before this piece of shit shoots someone else. He's clearly got a hard-on for it if he doesn't even keep the gun in his glove box.
You can argue about what happened that one night in Florida, but it seems to me that right now George Zimmerman has some grounds to be fearful for his personal safety...
[spoiler]Vigilante[/spoiler] Justice for Trayvon?
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2013, 01:41:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2013, 01:27:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2013, 01:21:05 PM
I always just get warnings when speeding...not.
The last time I was pulled over I didn't even get a warning. :cool:
I wonder why? :hmm:
Corruption at every level.
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2013, 01:46:58 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2013, 01:41:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2013, 01:27:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2013, 01:21:05 PM
I always just get warnings when speeding...not.
The last time I was pulled over I didn't even get a warning. :cool:
I wonder why? :hmm:
Corruption at every level.
I don't think it was so much corruption as it would have meant a whole lot of paperwork for both of us. -_-
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2013, 01:52:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2013, 01:46:58 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2013, 01:41:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2013, 01:27:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2013, 01:21:05 PM
I always just get warnings when speeding...not.
The last time I was pulled over I didn't even get a warning. :cool:
I wonder why? :hmm:
Corruption at every level.
I don't think it was so much corruption as it would have meant a whole lot of paperwork for both of us. -_-
So I should try that in the future? Don't give me a ticket, think about all the paperwork.
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2013, 01:30:21 PM
Quote from: fhdz on August 01, 2013, 01:29:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 31, 2013, 08:10:27 PM
Zimmerman was pulled over today in Texas for speeding and had a pistol with him in the cabin.
It's just a matter of time before this piece of shit shoots someone else. He's clearly got a hard-on for it if he doesn't even keep the gun in his glove box.
You can argue about what happened that one night in Florida, but it seems to me that right now George Zimmerman has some grounds to be fearful for his personal safety...
He should. He stalked, shot, and killed an unarmed man and got away with it because a) of the frankly ridiculous SYG law and b) because he isn't black. His brother's correct - he's going to be looking over his shoulder the rest of his life...kind of like a lot of black folks have to do already.
:lol: Fhdz & Seedy are indistinguishable these days.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure Stand Your Ground wasn't invoked during the trial.
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2013, 02:17:04 PM
Anyway AFAIK, Stand Your Ground wasn't invoked during the trial.
And as it's been explained before, it didn't have to be "invoked".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2013, 02:18:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2013, 02:17:04 PM
Anyway AFAIK, Stand Your Ground wasn't invoked during the trial.
And as it's been explained before, it didn't have to be "invoked".
But he wasn't acquitted based on Stand Your Ground.
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2013, 02:19:28 PM
But he wasn't acquitted based on Stand Your Ground.
:rolleyes: He didn't have to be acquitted "based on" Stand Your Ground.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2013, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2013, 02:19:28 PM
But he wasn't acquitted based on Stand Your Ground.
:rolleyes: He didn't have to be acquitted "based on" Stand Your Ground.
Exactly.
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2013, 01:52:04 PM
I don't think it was so much corruption as it would have meant a whole lot of paperwork for both of us. -_-
It's "professional courtesy". Or corruption, as people outside of law enforcement umbrella would call it.
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2013, 02:17:04 PM
:lol: Fhdz & Seedy are indistinguishable these days.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure Stand Your Ground wasn't invoked during the trial.
Facts no longer matter. When nominally "normal" people regret doing the proper thing, and the narrative involves "stand your ground" no matter how irrelevant that law was to the case at hand, you know the narrative has replaced the truth, so just stand aside and let the crazies talk crazy.
How is SYG irrelevant to the Zimmerman case?
It was in the jury instructions:
QuoteIf George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
The relevant language about no duty to retreat comes directly from the SYG statute passed in 2005.
You mean, Derspiess is wrong? If he's wrong about this, what else could he be wrong about? :unsure:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2013, 07:10:43 PM
You mean, Derspiess is wrong? If he's wrong about this, what else could he be wrong about? :unsure:
He could be wrong about anything, but he's not wrong about this. Zimmerman's defense was not based on SYG, because by the time it became applicable, Zimmerman was no longer standing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2013, 07:19:29 PM
Zimmerman's defense was not based on SYG,
We knew that.
Quotebecause by the time it became applicable, Zimmerman was no longer standing.
Neither was Martin. BADA BING
No on this matter derspeiss is wrong, it isn't even close.
He said SYG wasn't "invoked" at the trial, when in fact it was read out to jurors by the Court as an instruction for deciding the case. You can't get more invoked than that
Whether Zimmerman's defense was "based" on SYG is irrelevant. It is commonplace for a defense to be based on something other than what may or does form the basis of a jury decision.
The defense was based on a story that Zimmerman could not retreat but whether the jury bought that we don't know. There was some eyewitness testimony in the police report to suggest otherwise. The jury also may not have believed Zimmerman wasn't in danger of serious harm either (the evidence could easily support that conclusion) and yet thought that was a danger of a forcible felony. It is also possible that some jurors thought Zimmerman guilty but didn't properly understand what SYG meant and were persuaded to acquit at least partially on that basis.
Fact is we don't know what happened in the black box of the jury but we do know dead certain that SYG was a factor the court explicitly told them to consider in making their decision.
Quotein·vokedin·vok·ing
Definition of INVOKE
1
a : to petition for help or support
b : to appeal to or cite as authority
2
: to call forth by incantation : conjure
3
: to make an earnest request for : solicit
4
: to put into effect or operation : implement
5
: bring about, cause
— in·vok·er noun
Examples of INVOKE
He invoked the memory of his predecessor.
She invoked history to prove her point.
He invoked his Fifth Amendment privileges.
The suspect invoked his right to an attorney.
invoke the authority of the court
None of those seem to fit the judge "invoking" SYG.
Seriously?
It is part of the law the jury is instructed to apply
I.e. "cite as authority"
You cite authority when you're constructing an argument.
Actually no
In an argument to a jury, counsel never cites authority. You only refer to the law as what the court will charge.
In fact the ONLY place authority is cited is in the jury instructions. (The actual citations are in the draft charges but not read aloud)
Actually yes.
Counsel did not invoke SYG in the sense of appeal to. The judge doesn't invoke anything because she's not arguing for or against any decision.
The murderer has been acquitted and no one's gun rights are at stake, why are you dumb fuckers still making such ridiculous arguments about this case?
It's Languish. :P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 06:29:36 PM
How is SYG irrelevant to the Zimmerman case?
It was in the jury instructions:
QuoteIf George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
The relevant language about no duty to retreat comes directly from the SYG statute passed in 2005.
First, the jury instructions were governed by statute
QuoteRead in all cases.
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.
No duty to retreat. § 776.013(3), Fla. Stat. See Novak v. State 974 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) regarding unlawful activity. There is no duty to retreat where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the justification.
If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Zimmerman didn't assert anything other than self-defense; indeed, he couldn't have retreated had he wanted to, according to his testimony. Neither the prosecution nor the defense asserted that "stand your ground" had any bearing on the case (other than the prosecutor's attempt to undermine Zimmerman's testimony by challenging his claim that Z hadn't heard of the law before the case).
But the narrative has been written to include SYG as a part of the defense, and I acknowledge that the truth doesn't actually matter here.
grumbler that is a pattern jury instruction. Not a statute.
Notice that the part that has the SYG in it does *not* have the "read in all cases" direction.
If you look at the very top of the pattern instruction - which you omitted - it provides that each instruction is to be used only ""required by the evidence"
So someone in the case thought it was relevant to include. Based on the summaries, it appears that the defense provided the initial proposed charge, and so it was probably the defense that proposed its inclusion.
Of course it wouldn't even matter whether or not it was proposed, it would still form part of the instruction. It would still form part of the matter considered by the jury.
As for your second point, SYG is part of the law of self-defense as specifically instructed to this very jury. So the self-defense defense puts it in issue. As I said before whether the lawyers specifically argued it in closing is irrelevant. The prosecution wouldn't because it doesn't help their case at all. As for the defense, they had a strategic call to make whether to argue about it in the alternative. That can be a dangerous thing to do because it conveys lack of confidence in your case. And most importantly, the fact that the defense *knows* in advance that SYG is in the charge means they don't have to raise it and risk undermining their first line defense, the court is going to do that work for them.
The only truth here is that you have no idea whatsoever whether or not the SYG charge affected the jury deliberation.
Quote from: sbr on August 01, 2013, 09:38:42 PM
The murderer has been acquitted and no one's gun rights are at stake, why are you dumb fuckers still making such ridiculous arguments about this case?
On that basis post count would decline 90%
I find it interesting that somehow this narrative arose that SYG had zero impact on the case when in reality there is no basis for that conclusion .
As someone who has been in plenty of charging conferences, I can tell you that defense lawyers pay plenty of attention to what is in those instructions. I can also tell you that if I was a defense lawyer in this case or any case that involved self defense, I would be very happy to have that language in there, even if I didn't plan to make that specific argument.
Quote from: sbr on August 01, 2013, 09:38:42 PM
The murderer has been acquitted and no one's gun rights are at stake, why are you dumb fuckers still making such ridiculous arguments about this case?
Hello and welcome to Languish :)
Who the fuck are you? :)
Quote from: sbr on August 01, 2013, 09:38:42 PM
The murderer has been acquitted and no one's gun rights are at stake, why are you dumb fuckers still making such ridiculous arguments about this case?
:)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 10:59:37 PM
grumbler that is a pattern jury instruction. Not a statute.
Notice that the part that has the SYG in it does *not* have the "read in all cases" direction.
If you look at the very top of the pattern instruction - which you omitted - it provides that each instruction is to be used only ""required by the evidence"
So someone in the case thought it was relevant to include. Based on the summaries, it appears that the defense provided the initial proposed charge, and so it was probably the defense that proposed its inclusion.
Of course it wouldn't even matter whether or not it was proposed, it would still form part of the instruction. It would still form part of the matter considered by the jury.
As for your second point, SYG is part of the law of self-defense as specifically instructed to this very jury. So the self-defense defense puts it in issue. As I said before whether the lawyers specifically argued it in closing is irrelevant. The prosecution wouldn't because it doesn't help their case at all. As for the defense, they had a strategic call to make whether to argue about it in the alternative. That can be a dangerous thing to do because it conveys lack of confidence in your case. And most importantly, the fact that the defense *knows* in advance that SYG is in the charge means they don't have to raise it and risk undermining their first line defense, the court is going to do that work for them.
The only truth here is that you have no idea whatsoever whether or not the SYG charge affected the jury deliberation.
this is the whole point of the stand your ground law ... it does away with the common law duty to retreat which under florida law existed everywhere but the home prior to this law. This led to horrific results where people using deadly force to defend themselves were being criminally prosecuted if a particular state attorney believed the victim (defender) could have escaped as an alternative to force
The law is therefore inherently part of the florida law of self defense and either party entitled to an instruction on this if requested
Clearly if a party thinks it appropriate, they are entitled to the instruction, it is part of the law. And I am not expressing a view on the merits of the law.
I do think at least one aspect of the pattern instruction, as implemented, is confusing. The instruction says that you may SYG even if you aren't in reasonable fear of great bodily harm, as long as you reasonable believe it is necessarily "to prevent the commission of a forcible felony". The instruction does not explain what a forcible felony is. The instruction - following the statute - also doesn't incorporate any limitation as to imminence or timing. So lets say hypothetically the jury accepted that at the time of the shooting Zimmerman believed that Martin intended to B&E a neighbor's house at some point in the future - perhaps even days or weeks in the future. I.e let's say Zimmerman believed that Martin wasn't about to do anything at all but if not stopped that day would return another day to rob a house. If a juror found that belief to be reasonable - or at least had a reasonable doubt about the reasonability concerning the belief, he could acquit even if he wholly disbelieved that Zimmerman was really in grave danger.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2013, 10:59:37 PM
grumbler that is a pattern jury instruction. Not a statute.
My mistake.
QuoteNotice that the part that has the SYG in it does *not* have the "read in all cases" direction.
Actually, it is to be read in all cases "where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the [self-defense] justification."
QuoteIf you look at the very top of the pattern instruction - which you omitted - it provides that each instruction is to be used only ""required by the evidence"
The jury instruction guide is 705 pages long in word format. I "omitted"
a lot when reducing it to the two relevant paragraphs!
QuoteSo someone in the case thought it was relevant to include. Based on the summaries, it appears that the defense provided the initial proposed charge, and so it was probably the defense that proposed its inclusion.
Of course it wouldn't even matter whether or not it was proposed, it would still form part of the instruction. It would still form part of the matter considered by the jury.
There was a lot in the jury instructions that were there because someone "thought" it might be relevant to include. There are sections on how a killing is justified "when the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion," even though no one on either side ever argued that these circumstances pertained. The jury was told that a killing was justified "when the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner" even though no one on either side had argued that, either.
QuoteAs for your second point, SYG is part of the law of self-defense as specifically instructed to this very jury. So the self-defense defense puts it in issue. As I said before whether the lawyers specifically argued it in closing is irrelevant. The prosecution wouldn't because it doesn't help their case at all. As for the defense, they had a strategic call to make whether to argue about it in the alternative. That can be a dangerous thing to do because it conveys lack of confidence in your case. And most importantly, the fact that the defense *knows* in advance that SYG is in the charge means they don't have to raise it and risk undermining their first line defense, the court is going to do that work for them.
Neither the prosecution nor the defense had any evidence or testimony that Zimmerman could have retreated from a life-threatening situation and avoided shooting Martin. SYG simply didn't have any bearing on either the prosecution's case nor the defense case. I know that you really really really really want it to, but it doesn't. However, as I have pointed out before (and, indeed, have introduced as one of my main points), it simply doesn't matter that the facts show that SYG was irrelevant in this case; the narrative (which you clearly support) has been re-written to disguise that truth, and so the truth can be safely ignored.
QuoteThe only truth here is that you have no idea whatsoever whether or not the SYG charge affected the jury deliberation.
I have a far better idea than you, since I looked at all the available evidence, and not just the evidence that supports the New Narrative. Had Zimmerman been under an obligation to retreat, the encounter with Martin would have gone down in the exact same way, if Zimmerman's testimony is to be accepted (and it apparently was, at least to the point of creating a reasonable doubt).
I don't have a dog in the whole SYG fight; I am utterly indifferent to it. I do have a vested interest in pointing out the truths we are discarding.
QuoteThe hooded sweatshirt Trayvon Martin wore the night George Zimmerman shot him to death could end up on display at the Smithsonian Institution.
The shirt became a powerful symbol of the case after Zimmerman described Martin as wearing a "hoodie" the night he killed the teen, claiming self-defense. Protestors across the country wore hoodies in support of Martin as they called for Zimmerman's arrest, prosecution and conviction.
A Florida jury acquitted Zimmerman last month, finding too little evidence to convict him of second-degree murder or manslaughter.
Zimmerman Stopped for Speeding, Had Gun
Prosecutors had introduced the famed hoodie into evidence during the trial. A hush fell over the Seminole County courtroom as they displayed it for the court.
The jurors weighing Zimmerman's guilt were still and attentive while looking at the sweatshirt, according to reports from the day. One juror lifted out of her seat to get a better look at the hoodie, and the group tracked the sweatshirt as Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, moved it away from the jury box.
The hoodie is now stored with other evidence from the case at the U.S. Department of Justice, which has opened an investigation into whether Zimmerman violated Martin's civil rights.
But the power and symbolism of the hoodie could be available for legions of visitors to an iconic Washington, D.C., museum.
The director of a new branch of the Smithsonian, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, told the Washington Post he would like the museum to acquire the piece of history for its permanent collection.
"It became the symbolic way to talk about the Trayvon Martin case," Lonnie Bunch told the Post. "It's rare that you get one artifact that really becomes the symbol.
"Because it's such a symbol, it would allow you to talk about race in the age of Obama."
Neither Bunch nor the museum returned calls from ABC News for comments.
The National Museum of African American History and Culture is set to open in 2015 in Washington.
They should put it at the Ringling Museum in Sarasota. It would stay in state and it would be fitting since it owes it's prominence to a media circus.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 02, 2013, 08:23:45 PM
QuoteThe director of a new branch of the Smithsonian, the National Museum of African American History and Culture
ZOMG where is mah wing of white history!! Reverse Racism!!
"All the available evidence" sweeps pretty broadly, grumbler. I question that you considered it all.
First, you simply assume that Zimmerman was in life threatening situation. You must make that assumption because absent the SYG law, it is a requirement for the justification defense. But there was plenty of evidence presented at trial that Zimmerman's life was not in danger. That was the crux of the prosecution's case, Indeed in the post right before your last one, I referred to that scenario. If even one juror accepted that aspect of ten prosecutions case, then SYG could have affected the outcome.
Second, other than an account by a witness who did not testify and who had very obvious motives to tell a particular story. -- ie Zimmerna himself -- no witness testified that Zimmerman was Not in a position to retreat at the time of the shooting. But one eyewitness specifically told the police that the fighting ended before the shot was taken. So one could infer that retreat was possible. That's another possible way SYG could have impacted on the outcome.
There is a third possible way SYG could have affected the outcome. One or more jurors could simply have been confused about what the instruction meant or how it was supposed to apply. This is something we see all the time in juror testing. Jurors on the fence seize on some legal formulae or heuristic to each a simple result. Or jurors favoring one side try to sway others by seizing on some evocative legal formula. That is a big reason why lawyers like to get good charge language in even if it doesn't feature in their closing.
Which brings me back to my point: neither of us has a clue what really went on in the jury room. The fact that you would claim to have a "far better idea than me" because you engaged in your own reasoning based on "available evidence" in reality proves you don't have any idea what goes on. Every day, people spend huge sums on jury testing precisely because simply knowing the what the evidence is doesn't tell you how a jury will think about it.
Quote from: sbr on August 02, 2013, 10:33:33 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on August 02, 2013, 08:23:45 PM
QuoteThe director of a new branch of the Smithsonian, the National Museum of African American History and Culture
ZOMG where is mah wing of white history!! Reverse Racism!!
Every other wing? :huh:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2013, 10:48:49 PM
"All the available evidence" sweeps pretty broadly, grumbler. I question that you considered it all.
Well, I certainly question that you considered the evidence, so it seems fair that you doubt me.
QuoteFirst, you simply assume that Zimmerman was in life threatening situation. You must make that assumption because absent the SYG law, it is a requirement for the justification defense. But there was plenty of evidence presented at trial that Zimmerman's life was not in danger. That was the crux of the prosecution's case, Indeed in the post right before your last one, I referred to that scenario. If even one juror accepted that aspect of ten prosecutions case, then SYG could have affected the outcome.
This is a pretty astonishing assertion. I don't "simply assume" that Zimmerman was in a life-threatening situation; I looked at the evidence (the police interview tape transcripts) and discovered that Zimmerman himself believed he was in a life-threatening situation.
Your scenario was laughable, so naturally I ignored it. No evidence whatsoever was presented that Zimmerman believed that he needed to shoot Martin to death to prevent Martin from breaking into a neighbor's house "days or weeks in the future." You might as well postulate that Martin never existed, and the whole trial is a fraud, or that the jurors believed Zimmerman was a vampire and voted to acquit out of fear that he would turn into a bat, fly out of his prison cell, and drink their blood. Once you abandon evidence like you do, there is no limit to the fun scenarios you can create. Alas, they are still laughable.
QuoteSecond, other than an account by a witness who did not testify and who had very obvious motives to tell a particular story. -- ie Zimmerna himself -- no witness testified that Zimmerman was Not in a position to retreat at the time of the shooting. But one eyewitness specifically told the police that the fighting ended before the shot was taken. So one could infer that retreat was possible. That's another possible way SYG could have impacted on the outcome.
"One eyewitness," eh? Is there a reason for not revealing the name? It wasn't Jayne Surdyka, Selene Bahadoor, or Rachel Jeantel. Jonathan Good testified to the opposite effect, even though he was a prosecution witness. The prosecution never drew the inference from this mystery witness of yours that you have.
QuoteThere is a third possible way SYG could have affected the outcome. One or more jurors could simply have been confused about what the instruction meant or how it was supposed to apply. This is something we see all the time in juror testing. Jurors on the fence seize on some legal formulae or heuristic to each a simple result. Or jurors favoring one side try to sway others by seizing on some evocative legal formula. That is a big reason why lawyers like to get good charge language in even if it doesn't feature in their closing.
Ah, the unsupported hypothesis again. You are arguing that the jurors paid attention only to the portions of the instructions about "stand your ground" and ignored the one about "this case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions." There was no evidence or testimony about Zimmerman passing up opportunities to retreat. Your hypothetical is supported by nothing other than unsupported assertions about "possible ways." The vampire hypothesis is a "possible way" the jurors could have reached their verdict. Mind control is another "possible way." Are you honestly going to contend that vampires and mind control were factors in the Zimmerman trial?
QuoteWhich brings me back to my point: neither of us has a clue what really went on in the jury room. The fact that you would claim to have a "far better idea than me" because you engaged in your own reasoning based on "available evidence" in reality proves you don't have any idea what goes on. Every day, people spend huge sums on jury testing precisely because simply knowing the what the evidence is doesn't tell you how a jury will think about it.
At least I rely on evidence (and evidence from named persons, not vague "an eyewitness" crap), so I can, indeed, assert that I seem to have a "far better idea" than you about what the jury would have considered. And that far better idea is that "stand your ground" had nothing to do with this case; had there been no such law, the prosecution could still not have argued (barring evidence from your mystery eyewitness that either never made it into the trial or never appeared in any stories or prosecution summaries) that Zimmerman was guilty because he could have retreated.
grumbler I'm impressed that you've reviews every document and every page of transcript in the case. Very diligent. Although I'd be more impressed were it not for the fact that the only evidence you cite of Zimmerman's supposed belief that is life was in danger was a self-interested statement from a witness that never testified. It may surprise you, but not everyone may view that as conclusive as you do. Especially where there was quite a lot of evidence presented that Zimmerman's injuries were not significant, evidence that might lead some who are not grumbler to conclude that Zimmerman's supposed belief was either fake or not reasonable. I'm also surprised to hear that you never saw any evidence that Zimmerman suspected that Martin was casing the neighborhood for a robbery. I didn't review every piece of evidence as carefully answer diligently as you, but I seem to recall something about that.
Here are two conclusions I draw.
One is the one you drew but seem curiously unable to apply to yourself - that one can always reach an end conclusion by selective consideration of a mass of evidence
The second is that if the jury consisted of 6 grumblers, we could safely conclude that SYG had zero effect even though read to the jury as part of the law to apply. Sadly, however, the jury consisted by 6 people who were not grumbler. Which means once again you no basis to draw your conclusion about what those 6 people considered or did not. It is true and I fully concede that all my scenarios about what they might of thought are hypothetical. Of course I don't really know what happened in that jury room. But of course neither do you.
The other thing to remember is that some folks out there believe in vampires:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3502481/juror-we-talked-stand-your-ground.html
http://abovethelaw.com/2013/07/the-rise-and-fall-of-juror-b37-and-how-verdicts-are-made/
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 04, 2013, 09:38:06 PM
The second is that if the jury consisted of 6 grumblers, we could safely conclude that SYG had zero effect even though read to the jury as part of the law to apply.
Man, I'd pay a fortune to not be a fly on the wall in that jury room during the deliberations.
Quote from: garbon on August 03, 2013, 10:14:57 AM
Quote from: sbr on August 02, 2013, 10:33:33 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on August 02, 2013, 08:23:45 PM
QuoteThe director of a new branch of the Smithsonian, the National Museum of African American History and Culture
ZOMG where is mah wing of white history!! Reverse Racism!!
Every other wing? :huh:
If you explain the joke you ruin it :(
Quote from: Valmy on August 05, 2013, 12:32:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 03, 2013, 10:14:57 AM
Quote from: sbr on August 02, 2013, 10:33:33 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on August 02, 2013, 08:23:45 PM
QuoteThe director of a new branch of the Smithsonian, the National Museum of African American History and Culture
ZOMG where is mah wing of white history!! Reverse Racism!!
Every other wing? :huh:
If you explain the joke you ruin it :(
:yes:
Tired jokes aren't funny though. :(
Quote from: garbon on August 05, 2013, 09:28:21 AM
Tired jokes aren't funny though. :(
But...tired jokes is mostly what we have :(
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 04, 2013, 09:38:06 PM
Here are two conclusions I draw.
One is the one you drew but seem curiously unable to apply to yourself - that one can always reach an end conclusion by selective consideration of a mass of evidence
The second is that if the jury consisted of 6 grumblers, we could safely conclude that SYG had zero effect even though read to the jury as part of the law to apply. Sadly, however, the jury consisted by 6 people who were not grumbler. Which means once again you no basis to draw your conclusion about what those 6 people considered or did not. It is true and I fully concede that all my scenarios about what they might of thought are hypothetical. Of course I don't really know what happened in that jury room. But of course neither do you.
You exclude the third possibility, that you seem unwilling to apply yourself to: the one can weigh the evidence as a whole, and realize that nowhere in it is stand your ground mentioned, and then note that the jury is specifically instructed to base their verdict on the evidence and instructions only, and conclude that SYG had nothing to do with this case.
As you note, one can come up with millions of hypotheticals in which the jury could consider vampires, zombies, SYG, unicorns, and the like. If that is the best challenge you have to my assertion that SYG didn't figure in the case (an assertion I make AFTER assessing the evidence, which is a key difference between us), then I am happy to stand by my assertion.
As to the red herrings about Zimmerman not being "significantly" injured and whatnot, I don't care. Homey doesn't play the red herring game.
Quote from: DGuller on August 05, 2013, 12:31:30 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 04, 2013, 09:38:06 PM
The second is that if the jury consisted of 6 grumblers, we could safely conclude that SYG had zero effect even though read to the jury as part of the law to apply.
Man, I'd pay a fortune to not be a fly on the wall in that jury room during the deliberations.
They'd be accusing each other of ad hominems, non sequiturs, hyperboles, etc.... It would be quite an entertaining deliberation. The actual case talk would get derailed by little boats, the civil war, O'Conner, and convincing themselves that Babylon 5 didnt suck.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 05, 2013, 08:20:29 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 05, 2013, 12:31:30 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 04, 2013, 09:38:06 PM
The second is that if the jury consisted of 6 grumblers, we could safely conclude that SYG had zero effect even though read to the jury as part of the law to apply.
Man, I'd pay a fortune to not be a fly on the wall in that jury room during the deliberations.
They'd be accusing each other of ad hominems, non sequiturs, hyperboles, etc.... It would be quite an entertaining deliberation. The actual case talk would get derailed by little boats, the civil war, O'Conner, and convincing themselves that Babylon 5 didnt suck.
Incan torpedo boats would overwhelm the Zara.
QuoteGeorge Zimmerman taken into police custody after incident with wife
(CNN) -- George Zimmerman was taken into custody Monday after an apparent domestic altercation with his wife and her father at a home in Lake Mary, Florida, police said.
"As of right now, (George Zimmerman) has been placed in investigative detention," Lake Mary police spokesman Zach Hudson said.
The incident comes two months after Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, was found not guilty of murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida.
Hudson said a gun was found in the Lake Mary home, but he added that it was not a part of the altercation.
Shellie Zimmerman, who filed for divorce last week, was the one to call 911, Hudson said.
Hudson added that police are following procedure by placing Zimmerman in investigative detention.
"Anytime we have anybody suspected of doing anything, we place them in investigative detention until a complete investigation has been done," Hudson said.
George's brother, Robert, tweeted after his brother's detention that the public shouldn't "jump to conclusions."
Shellie Zimmerman filed for divorce last week in Seminole County, her attorney told CNN at the time.
That filing came after she pleaded guilty to perjury on August 28 for lying about the state of the couple's finances during a bond hearing in April 2012. She had claimed she and her husband were broke, when in reality they had collected about $135,000 in donations.
Since his acquittal on July 13, George Zimmerman has been in the headlines several times. In late July, he reportedly helped a family escape from an overturned SUV. A report from the Seminole County Sheriff's Office confirmed his involvement.
More recently, Zimmerman has been pulled over in traffic twice. The first time, he was given a verbal warning for a traffic violation in Texas and reportedly told officers he had a firearm in his glove compartment. The second time was in Florida last week, when he was issued a $256 ticket for speeding.
Lake Mary is a suburb of Orlando near Sanford.
His goose is cooked; he left witnesses alive this time. :(
Two attacks on his wife and an assaulted cop. Oh but it was the teen he murdered who was the thug.
I've never held him up as a hero, but murder? You really believe that?
Quote from: Savonarola on September 09, 2013, 03:00:55 PM
His goose is cooked; he left witnesses alive this time. :(
But one of them is a convicted perjurer . . .
Quote from: Savonarola on September 09, 2013, 03:00:55 PM
QuoteGeorge's brother, Robert, tweeted after his brother's detention that the public shouldn't "jump to conclusions."
[CdM] He should have sent a telegram. [/CdM]
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 03:03:33 PM
I've never held him up as a hero, but murder? You really believe that?
Of course. The guy never had an ounce of credibility in my mind. He made up some shit and got off, he had a track record of being a dangerous violent person. I don't think there was evidence to convict though.
Uh, okay then.
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 03:03:33 PM
I've never held him up as a hero, but murder? You really believe that?
It's not exactly a crazy belief.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 09, 2013, 03:16:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 03:03:33 PM
I've never held him up as a hero, but murder? You really believe that?
It's not exactly a crazy belief.
Only if you ignore the evidence and go with the initial media narrative.
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 03:28:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 09, 2013, 03:16:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 03:03:33 PM
I've never held him up as a hero, but murder? You really believe that?
It's not exactly a crazy belief.
Only if you ignore the evidence and go with the initial media narrative.
Oh that's right, you get all your information from crazy right wing blogs. I suppose anything contrary to that would seem strange to you.
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 03:03:33 PM
I've never held him up as a hero, but murder? You really believe that?
I believe that if we could wave a magic wand and find out exactly what happened that night there is a greater than 50% chance that his actions would qualify as homicide.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2013, 03:45:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 03:03:33 PM
I've never held him up as a hero, but murder? You really believe that?
I believe that if we could wave a magic wand and find out exactly what happened that night there is a greater than 50% chance that his actions would qualify as homicide.
Okay.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2013, 03:45:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 03:03:33 PM
I've never held him up as a hero, but murder? You really believe that?
I believe that if we could wave a magic wand and find out exactly what happened that night there is a greater than 50% chance that his actions would qualify as homicide.
I think there is a 100% chance that it would qualify as homicide, since legally all is required is for one person to kill another.
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 03:28:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 09, 2013, 03:16:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 03:03:33 PM
I've never held him up as a hero, but murder? You really believe that?
It's not exactly a crazy belief.
Only if you ignore the evidence and go with the initial media narrative.
There is very little evidence as there are no witnesses. And I do not see what the initial media narrative has to do with this guys proven track record.
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 03:07:31 PM
Uh, okay then.
Well you are the one demanding I believe a guy who assualts his wife and cops that he would never kill somebody except under the most dire circumstances...for some reason.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2013, 04:38:50 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 03:07:31 PM
Uh, okay then.
Well you are the one demanding I believe a guy who assualts his wife and cops that he would never kill somebody except under the most dire circumstances...for some reason.
George is a bad kid, he's a bad seed. What do you want me to do about it? Shoot him?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 09, 2013, 04:31:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2013, 03:45:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 03:03:33 PM
I've never held him up as a hero, but murder? You really believe that?
I believe that if we could wave a magic wand and find out exactly what happened that night there is a greater than 50% chance that his actions would qualify as homicide.
I think there is a 100% chance that it would qualify as homicide, since legally all is required is for one person to kill another.
That doesn't disprove Berkut's statement. :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 04:40:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2013, 04:38:50 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 03:07:31 PM
Uh, okay then.
Well you are the one demanding I believe a guy who assualts his wife and cops that he would never kill somebody except under the most dire circumstances...for some reason.
George is a bad kid, he's a bad seed. What do you want me to do about it? Shoot him?
It's what George would have done.
I was paraphrasing a Goodfellas quote, btw.
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 05:41:39 PM
I was paraphrasing a Goodfellas quote, btw.
It's been a long time since I saw that film.
WHITE HISPANIC BEATS SYSTEM AGAIN!QuotePolice: Zimmerman wife not pressing charges
The estranged wife of George Zimmerman opted not to press charges against her husband Monday after police in Florida responded to her sobbing 911 call reporting he had punched her father and was threatening them with a gun.
"I'm really scared,'' Shellie Zimmerman can be heard telling Lake Mary, Fla., police in an audio recording of a 911 call placed around 2 p.m. Monday to authorities in the suburb northeast of Orlando.
Zimmerman was acquitted in July in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in a case that captured the nation's attention and put a spotlight on Florida's self-defense gun laws.
Police allowed Zimmerman to go free Monday afternoon after questioning him outside the home where Shellie Zimmerman placed the 911 call. Police Chief Steve Bracknell said Shellie Zimmerman and her father decided not to press charges after consulting with an attorney.
Police deputy chief Colin Morgan said earlier that police held George Zimmerman in "investigative detention'' while they investigated the dispute.
A police spokesman said Zimmerman and his wife, who filed for divorce last week, were blaming each other for starting the fight at her father's home.
In an audio recording of Shellie Zimmerman's 911 call, she can be heard saying Zimmerman smashed an iPad she was holding and cut it with a pocket knife, struck her father in the nose and threatened both while putting a hand on a gun.
Deputy Police Chief Colin Morgan said officers did not recover a gun, and Bracknell said Shellie Zimmerman later dropped her claim that a gun was involved.
"Domestic violence can't be invoked because she has changed her story and says she didn't see a firearm," Bracknell said.
The dispute "was between him and his wife and her father,'' Morgan said. "There were some allegations that there had been an assault, but we could not confirm any of it.''
Orlando TV station WKMG reported that Shellie Zimmerman's parents, David and Machelle Dean, live at the home.
WKMG's SKY 6 helicopter showed at least a half-dozen police squad cars outside the house.
In the divorce petition, Shellie Zimmerman says she and her husband separated a month after Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, was acquitted of any crime for fatally shooting Martin, a black teenager, last July. The verdict sparked protests across the nation.
Zimmerman has been pulled over at least twice for speeding since his acquittal.
It's another proud day for all white Hispanics, whomever they may be. I've sent a cable to congratulate Justice Sotomayor. :bowler:
I'm a white Hispanic. :)
You are an Hispanic with a southern accent. :)
Funny thing, the first 28 years of my life I was white. Then I move to the states and I find out I'm Hispanic. LOL
Hell, I'm white Hispandex, too. Why not. That Argie passport is just a formality.
Quote from: lustindarkness on September 09, 2013, 08:54:35 PM
Funny thing, the first 28 years of my life I was white. Then I move to the states and I find out I'm Hispanic. LOL
You will always be white to me Lusti :hug:
Outrage from critics of Stand Your Ground may have helped change the law here in Florida, after all:
QuoteLawmakers defeat bill to repeal Stand Your Ground; expand immunity in warning shot cases
By Kathleen McGrory and Michael Van Sickler
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau
TALLAHASSEE -- A panel of state lawmakers on Thursday soundly rejected a proposal to repeal the Stand Your Ground self-defense law, but enthusiastically approved a pitch to expand Stand Your Ground immunity to people who fire a warning shot.
The votes took place at a highly anticipated hearing that lasted five hours before the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee. Nearly 300 people attended, and scores signed up to give their opinion on the controversial law.
Rep. Alan Williams, a Tallahassee Democrat, said his push to repeal Stand Your Ground had "everything to do with making sure we keep our streets and our communities and our neighborhoods safe."
"We have had a number of cases that have shown us over and over that the law as adopted in 2005 isn't working," Williams said.
But a half-dozen lawmakers, some of whom weren't on the subcommittee, came to the defense of Stand Your Ground.
"Today, our state is a safer place and has the lowest crime rate in 42 years," said Rep. Marti Coley, a Marianna Republican. "Florida's Stand Your Ground law is solid. It's good and should not be changed."
Said Democratic Rep. Katie Edwards, of Plantation: "The people I represent, the people we represent, need not be required, or have imposed upon them, a duty to retreat... I won't turn my back on responsible self-defense laws."
The committee shot down the repeal bill in a 2-11 vote.
The two supporters: Democrats Rep. Kionne McGhee, of Miami, and Randolph Bracy, of Orlando.
The hearing followed a tempestuous summer which saw neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman acquitted in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager from Miami.
Zimmerman did not claim a Stand Your Ground defense, but language from the law was included in the jury instructions.
Following the acquittal, a group of young activists known as the Dream Defenders held a 31-day protest outside Gov. Rick Scott's office to demand a special legislative session on the self-defense law. Scott refused to call lawmakers to Tallahassee, but House Speaker Will Weatherford agreed to a hearing on the law in the fall.
From the time it was filed, the repeal bill was a long shot in the Republican-dominated Legislature.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, the Fort Walton Beach Republican tapped to lead the hearing, said he would not support changing "one damn comma" of the statute.
The repeal bill's chances diminished even further on Wednesday, when House Minority Leader Perry Thurston said he would prefer a bipartisan reform bill similar to one being considered in the Senate.
Still, scores of people traveled to Tallahassee to provide emotional and sometimes racially charged testimony.
The speakers included Lucia McBath, whose 17-year-old son Jordan Davis was gunned down following a 2012 dispute at a Jacksonville gas station.
"My grief is unbearable at times," said McBath, advocating for the repeal. "I'm here as a face of the countless victims of gun violence."
Arguments on the other side of the debate were just as impassioned.
"Florida sheriffs unequivocally support the right to stand your ground," said Okaloosa County Sheriff Larry Ashley, noting that people don't have time to ponder why an intruder is in their home.
The committee passed a separate bill ensuring people who fire a warning shot are not subject to the minimum mandatory sentencing law known as 10-20-Life.
Edwards and Reps. Neil Combee, a Polk City Republican, filed the bill after Marissa Alexander, of Jacksonville, was sentenced to the mandatory 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot at her husband. Alexander tried to claim immunity under the Stand Your Ground law, but was nonetheless found guilty.
The proposal by Combee and Edwards garnered 28 co-signers, and found support on both sides of the aisle.
The bill also won the support of Marion Hammer, the chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association in Florida
"10-20-Life was never intended to be used against citizens who, in an act of self defense, threatened the use of force to stop an attack," Hammer said.
The proposal passed by a 12-1 vote, with McGhee dissenting. Final passage into law will eventually be up to the Florida Legislature, which convenes in March for its annual 60-day session.
"To simply give a blanket cover to anyone simply because he or she raises the issue of Stand Your Ground, could be more problematic in the future than it is now," said McGhee, an attorney.
After the meeting, Rep. Dennis Baxley, the Ocala Republican who helped write the original Stand Your Ground law, said the votes were a testament to the popularity of the statute.
"Eighty percent of Floridians still agree that we are safer because of this law," he said.
Williams said he would put his energy into amending Stand Your Ground.
"If we can't repeal, we must repair," he said.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/07/3738365/lawmakers-defeat-bill-to-repeal.html#storylink=cpy
I'm afraid Dion Warwick's high profile boycott has failed, though. She really should have seen that coming.
Ditto for Stevie Wonder.
Is Dion blind? Has she always been blind?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2013, 02:37:04 PM
Is Dion blind? Has she always been blind?
:secret: Psychic Friends Network
Gotcha.
Quote from: Savonarola on November 08, 2013, 02:24:58 PM
Outrage from critics of Stand Your Ground may have helped change the law here in Florida, after all:
QuoteLawmakers defeat bill to repeal Stand Your Ground; expand immunity in warning shot cases
By Kathleen McGrory and Michael Van Sickler
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau
TALLAHASSEE -- A panel of state lawmakers on Thursday soundly rejected a proposal to repeal the Stand Your Ground self-defense law, but enthusiastically approved a pitch to expand Stand Your Ground immunity to people who fire a warning shot.
:nelson:
Quote from: 11B4V on November 08, 2013, 03:01:35 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 08, 2013, 02:24:58 PM
Outrage from critics of Stand Your Ground may have helped change the law here in Florida, after all:
QuoteLawmakers defeat bill to repeal Stand Your Ground; expand immunity in warning shot cases
By Kathleen McGrory and Michael Van Sickler
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau
TALLAHASSEE -- A panel of state lawmakers on Thursday soundly rejected a proposal to repeal the Stand Your Ground self-defense law, but enthusiastically approved a pitch to expand Stand Your Ground immunity to people who fire a warning shot.
:nelson:
I don't understand this Languish meme of blank-quoting. :hmm:
If a person doesn't quote properly, they are mocked.
http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-arrested-disturbance-call-185152769.html
QuoteGeorge Zimmerman arrested after disturbance call
Former neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman was arrested Monday in Florida after deputies responded to a disturbance call at a house, authorities said.
Zimmerman will be transported and booked into jail, a Seminole County Sheriff's Office statement said. Authorities provided few other details, and it was not immediately known what charges he faced. Messages for comment left by The Associated Press with the sheriff's office were not immediately returned.
Zimmerman, 30, was acquitted in July of all charges in the shooting of Trayvon Martin. The death of the black teenager, who was unarmed, touched off a nationwide debate about race and self-defense. Zimmerman, who identifies himself as Hispanic, has said he shot the 17-year-old to defend himself during a fight in February 2012 inside a gated community in Sanford, just outside Orlando.
He wasn't charged until 44 days after the shooting, leading to protests nationwide from people who believed he should have been immediately arrested. The case sparked accusations that Zimmerman had racially profiled Martin, and demonstrations broke out again after his acquittal. Federal authorities are now reviewing the case the see if Martin's civil rights were violated.
Zimmerman's arrest at a house in Apopka, about 15 miles from Sanford, was just his latest brush with the law.
Zimmerman and his estranged wife were involved in a domestic dispute in September just days after Shellie Zimmerman filed divorce papers, but police later said no charges were filed against either of them because of a lack of evidence.
Zimmerman has also been pulled over three times for traffic stops since his acquittal. He was ticketed for doing 60 mph in a 45 mph zone in Lake Mary in September and was given a warning by a state trooper along Interstate 95 for having a tag cover and windows that were too darkly tinted. He was also stopped near Dallas in July and was given a warning for speeding.
In 2005, Zimmerman had to take anger management courses after he was accused of attacking an undercover officer who was trying to arrest Zimmerman's friend. In another incident, a girlfriend accused him of attacking her.
What a mook.
Man, drama just seems to follow some people around.
CNN has a thing up saying that he was arrested for pointing a shotgun at his girlfriend. :lol:
He may not have gone to jail for Trayvon Martin's murder, but it looks like he's determined to end up in prison anyway.
Quote from: Caliga on November 18, 2013, 05:25:19 PM
CNN has a thing up saying that he was arrested for pointing a shotgun at his girlfriend. :lol:
He may not have gone to jail for Trayvon Martin's murder, but it looks like he's determined to end up in prison anyway.
I was about to say: this guy wants to live dangerously.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2013, 05:36:03 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 18, 2013, 05:25:19 PM
CNN has a thing up saying that he was arrested for pointing a shotgun at his girlfriend. :lol:
He may not have gone to jail for Trayvon Martin's murder, but it looks like he's determined to end up in prison anyway.
I was about to say: this guy wants those around him to live in danger.
FYP
Quote from: derspiess on November 18, 2013, 03:49:42 PM
Man, drama just seems to follow some people around.
That tends to be the case with criminals.
Bitch set him up
I don't see how this case would hold up either, it's another he-said-she-said. This won't stop until he's starring in another murder trial.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2013, 07:40:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 18, 2013, 03:49:42 PM
Man, drama just seems to follow some people around.
That tends to be the case with criminals.
Sure, why not. Never said he was my hero.
Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2013, 07:54:54 PM
I don't see how this case would hold up either, it's another he-said-she-said. This won't stop until he's starring in another murder trial.
Doesn't seem to stop after that either.
Do all white Hispanics get both "Get out of jail free" cards, or is it just Zimmerman? :unsure:
QuoteGeorge Zimmerman will not be charged in domestic dispute, prosecutor says
George Zimmerman's latest brush with the criminal-justice system ended Wednesday, when State Attorney Phil Archer announced that Zimmerman will not face charges in a domestic incident last month.
Archer's decision came days after the named victim, Zimmerman's then-girlfriend Samantha Scheibe, signed an affidavit recanting the allegations that led to Zimmerman's arrest Nov. 18 at the home they shared.
"I do not want George Zimmerman charged. I make this decision freely, knowingly and voluntarily, without any intimidation, coercion or undue influences," Scheibe said in her affidavit.
In a statement Wednesday, Archer said the Seminole County Sheriff's Office had probable cause to arrest Zimmerman after Scheibe called 911 and reported Zimmerman was armed and behaving threateningly.
"However, upon reviewing the recent affidavit ... and taking into account the conflicting statements about what occurred, the failure to cooperate with the ongoing investigation, and a lack of any other corroborating evidence or witnesses, there is no reasonable likelihood of successful prosecution," said Archer, the top prosecutor for Seminole and Brevard counties.
In her call to police, Scheibe reported that Zimmerman "was in my house breaking all my [stuff] because I asked him to leave. He has his ... gun breaking all of my stuff right now."
Deputies said she also claimed Zimmerman had pointed a shotgun at her. That led to his arrest on suspicion of aggravated assault with a firearm, but before prosecutors could file formal charges, Scheibe's affidavit changed the equation.
"George never pointed a gun at or toward my face in a threatening manner," said Scheibe's affidavit, which was signed Friday and accompanied a motion by his defense attorney to allow Zimmerman and Scheibe to see each other.
"I want to be with George," Scheibe said.
In its statement Wednesday, Archer's office stressed that domestic violence is a matter "of great concern" but said, in light of the affidavit, that it could not meet its burden against Zimmerman beyond a reasonable doubt.
Carol Wick, CEO of the domestic-violence agency Harbor House of Central Florida, said it's all too common for domestic cases to end because the victim recants or doesn't want to testify: "That pressure to recant is just immense."
For victims in domestic-violence cases, the perpetrators "know where you live, they know where you shop, they know where you work ... this is somebody who knows everything about you, and that makes it scarier," Wick said.
In these cases, Wick said it's important for law enforcement to "have really good collection of evidence." That way, "if the victim is intimidated, you don't have to worry about ... putting them in that position," she said.
After prosecutors declined to file charges, Zimmerman was released from his bond conditions. That means he can once again possess guns, and he'll no longer have to stay away from Scheibe or wear a GPS device.
Zimmerman's South Florida attorney, Jayne Weintraub, credited Archer and Assistant State Attorney Christopher White, who she said did the right thing in light of the Scheibe affidavit.
"They discussed with me their concerns; I discussed with them our view ... that they would not be able to have a sustainable case," she said.
Weintraub said she hoped Zimmerman would be able to return to a normal life.
Asked whether Zimmerman planned to continue his relationship with Scheibe, the defense lawyer called that "a personal decision."
"For George, I think he has to try and put this whole sequence of nightmares behind him and go forward," Weintraub said. "He's young, he's smart and he's got his whole life ahead of him."
Well she recanted and so like they said, they probably wouldn't be able to successfully prosecute him.
I wouldn't worry, eventually he'll shoot someone and it'll stick.
The bullet?
Quote
"For George, I think he has to try and put this whole sequence of nightmares behind him and go forward," Weintraub said. "He's young, he's smart and he's got his whole life ahead of him."
Well, he's young anyway.
Quote from: derspiess on December 16, 2013, 05:29:24 PM
Quote
"For George, I think he has to try and put this whole sequence of nightmares behind him and go forward," Weintraub said. "He's young, he's smart and he's got his whole life ahead of him."
Well, he's young anyway.
Sometimes you have to say things that are nice but untrue. You're smart enough to know that.
Derspiess hasn't learned that skill.
Quote"For George, I think he has to try and put this whole sequence of nightmares behind him and go forward," Weintraub said. "He's young, he's smart and he's got his whole life ahead of him."
Yeah, a whole life ahead of him getting locked up for domestic violence and gun charges, over and over and over...
Trayvon died for somebody's sins, but not mine:
QuoteBleeding Trayvon Martin Nativity scene displayed at church
A California church decided to turn the traditional Nativity scene into a piece of social commentary with a depiction of a bleeding Trayvon Martin.
The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin is reporting that Claremont United Methodist Church, located about 30 miles outside of Los Angeles, built a Nativity scene depicting Martin in a black hoodie with a stream of blood pouring from his chest.
Artist John Zachary built the scene, which he told the the Daily Bulletin was a piece of art that comments on our times. Zachary told the paper that the July acquittal of George Zimmerman, who fatally shot the 17-year-old in February 2012, struck him as a worthy subject for Christmas comment.
The scene is titled "A Child is Born, a Son is Given," with the wording outlined in red, formed from a pool of blood at Martin's feet.
Zachary said one of the photos of Martin lying dead on the pavement tore at him while he was searching for images for inspiration.
"What if Jesus was lying there bleeding to death? I was kind of thinking of that," Zachary told the Daily Bulletin.
This isn't the first year the church has displayed a scene that "comments on our times." The church has been making nontraditional Nativity scenes for seven years.
The first year, Zachary made Mary and Joseph a modern homeless couple on a ghetto street. Other scenes turned Mary and Joseph into war refugees in Iraq and Mexican migrants halted by the U.S. border wall.
:lol: Beyond the limits of parody.
Methodists :rolleyes:
Caravaggio killed a man too...
QuoteThe special prosecutor who charged George Zimmerman with second-degree murder in the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin is the subject of his latest painting, according to a photo posted on Twitter by Zimmerman's brother.
Robert Zimmerman Jr. said details on the sale of Zimmerman's painting of State Attorney Angela Corey would be made available on Thursday. George Zimmerman sold a previous painting on eBay, with a winning bid of $100,099.99.
The new painting is an image of Corey gesturing with her finger and thumb together, under the words "I have this much respect for the American judicial system." The painting is titled "Angie," Robert Zimmerman Jr. tweeted Wednesday.
In July, a Seminole County jury acquitted George Zimmerman of murder in the 2012 Sanford shooting, which stirred a national debate on an array of issues, including racial profiling, self-defense and Florida's "stand your ground" law.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.nydailynews.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.1588222.1390437786%21%2Fimg%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Flandscape_635%2Fzimmerman23n-2-web.jpg&hash=0c9ed9057580ec9d8678239df639355fe6c86549)
:lol: If painting keeps him off the roads, all the better.
He could paint from jail :mad:
He probably will at some point :D
True :D
I heard on the radio that Zimmerman is training for a celebrity boxing match to take place March 1st. Not sure if it's true, but it wouldn't surprise me to see him follow in the footsteps of Danny Bonaduce, Screech, et al.
Now if he could shoot Danny Bonaduce...well, I'd watch that.
Quote from: derspiess on January 31, 2014, 11:01:25 AM
I heard on the radio that Zimmerman is training for a celebrity boxing match to take place March 1st. Not sure if it's true, but it wouldn't surprise me to see him follow in the footsteps of Danny Bonaduce, Screech, et al.
I hope he doesn't shriek like he did on that recording. If that really was him.
QuoteGeorge Zimmerman wants to fight Kanye West in boxing match
Thousands have expressed interest in fighting George Zimmerman in a celebrity boxing match, but Zimmerman recently announced who he would like to fight: Kanye West.
Promoters for the boxing match, scheduled to take place March 1, told TMZ that Zimmerman thinks Kanye attacks "defenseless people," citing run-ins with paparazzi and most recently an 18-year-old man at a chiropractor's office.
The teen in that case settled out of court, according to CBS Los Angeles.
Kanye hasn't made any sort of comment about the boxing match.
Late last month, CNN was told more than 8,000 people had inquired about fighting Zimmerman in the boxing match, but no official opponent has been chosen.
Rappers DMX and The Game are among those 8,000 people, both told TMZ they'd love a chance to get in the ring with Zimmerman. The Game has a tattoo of Trayvon Martin, the teen Zimmerman was acquitted of killing.
Anyone interested in participating in the match can email [email protected].
Kanye doesn't care about white Hispanics. :(
The Game and DMX want to fight Zimmerman in that match.
DMX :wub:
Looks like he will be fighting him...
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/05/showbiz/zimmerman-dmx-boxing-match/
QuoteGeorge Zimmerman to fight rapper DMX in celebrity boxing bout
Let's get ready to ... mumble.
As in, what now, George Zimmerman?
Seems like the former neighborhood watchman has found yet another way to remain in the public limelight.
Zimmerman said the celebrity boxing match was his idea. Boxing was his hobby, he told Radar Online last month, even prior to the "incident."
The incident, of course, is the February 2012 encounter in which he shot dead an unarmed Trayvon Martin, 17. He stood trial for murder, but was acquitted.
"Prior to the incident, I was actually going to the gym for weight loss and doing boxing-type training for weight loss," he told Radar.
"A mutual friend put me in contact with Damon and provided me with an opportunity and motivation to get back in shape and continue with my weight loss goals and also be able to help a charity out."
Damon is Damon Feldman, owner of Celebrity Boxing and self-described opportunist, whose claim to fame is putting together bizarre matchups. Think Tonya Harding, Michael Lohan.
He said last week that he was accepting offers for someone to step into the ring for a three-round, pay-per-view fight with Zimmerman.
"The news has been out for an hour and my e-mail is overloaded with 8,000 people wanting to fight George," Feldman told CNN on Thursday.
Early Wednesday morning, he said he's picked the contender. Out of more than 15,000 e-mailed requests, he's going with DMX.
"The match will be one of the Biggest Celebrity Boxing matches of all time," his news release said (uppercase emphasis his).
But in order to find out where and when it will take place, we'll have to wait until next week.
DMX, as we know is a rapper, and braggadocio is his calling card.
He's out for blood, he told TMZ. Not only will he break every rule in boxing, he said, he'll "beat the living (expletive)" out of Zimmerman.
Ian Karmel, a writer for "Chelsea Lately," has a better idea.
"They should send Floyd Mayweather to the ring and tell George Zimmerman it's DMX," he tweeted. "He won't know the difference."
This time, he'll be stepping into a boxing ring to fight rapper DMX.
I'd like to run in, NWO style and beat both down.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 05, 2014, 05:08:21 PM
I'd like to run in, NWO style and beat both down.
Folding chairs would be a welcome sight in that match.
QuoteThis time, he'll be stepping into a boxing ring to fight rapper DMX.
I predict DMX, unarmed after shopping although quoted as saying, "You're going to die tonight motherfucker", will be shot by Zimmerman in the 2nd round. Zimmerman will be acquitted.
If only Kanye would step into the ring and Zimmerman shoots him.
Zimmerman: hero of the republic then.
Zimmerman is going to become a wealthy celebrity over shooting this kid isn't he?
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 09, 2014, 02:17:42 PM
If only Kanye would step into the ring and Zimmerman shoots him.
Zimmerman: hero of the republic then.
Ed Anger doesn't care about black people. HVC just looks into the camera, very uncomfortable.
Quote from: Valmy on February 09, 2014, 02:20:41 PM
Zimmerman is going to become a wealthy celebrity over shooting this kid isn't he?
I can't wait for his reality show, "African-American Teen-Killing Wanna Be Cop Wife Beating Boss".
Quote from: Valmy on February 09, 2014, 02:20:41 PM
Zimmerman is going to become a wealthy celebrity over shooting this kid isn't he?
The American dream.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 09, 2014, 04:54:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 09, 2014, 02:20:41 PM
Zimmerman is going to become a wealthy celebrity over shooting this kid isn't he?
The American dream.
Not just George, his parents as well:
QuoteZimmerman's parents sue Roseanne Barr over 'vigilante' Twitter comments
Their suit: She tweeted their home address, prompting them to flee.
The parents of George Zimmerman have sued comedienne Roseanne Barr, saying they fled their Lake Mary home in the middle of the night and have been unable to return because she posted their address on Twitter two years ago.
Robert Zimmerman Sr. and Gladys Zimmerman filed suit Monday in state circuit court, accusing Barr of trying to incite "a lynch mob to descend" and carry out "vigilante justice."
According to the suit, Barr published their address on Twitter March 29, 2012, a month after their son George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager in Sanford, but before his arrest. Their son did not live with them, nor did they have anything to do with the shooting, they point out.
It alleges that Barr's tweets forced them to go into hiding. They are seeking unspecified damages, accusing her of intentionally inflicting emotional distress.
They also allege that she violated Twitter's terms and conditions prohibiting publication of addresses and other confidential information. After the first tweet, the suit alleges, Barr followed up with others, including: "If Zimmerman isn't arrested I'll rt (re-tweet) his address again — maybe go 2 his house myself."
The Zimmermann family seems like such a nice bunch. Can I: Be invited to Thanksgiving?
Quote from: Beenherebefore on March 11, 2014, 05:23:20 PM
The Zimmermann family seems like such a nice bunch. Can I: Be invited to Thanksgiving?
A "white Norwegian"? :hmm: Doubt it.