Definitely looks suspicious
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0320/Trayvon-Martin-case-use-of-Stand-Your-Ground-law-or-pursuit-of-a-black-teen
QuoteTrayvon Martin case: use of Stand Your Ground law or pursuit of a black teen?
A grand jury in Florida and the US Justice Department will both probe the Feb. 26 shooting death of teenager Trayvon Martin. Key questions: Did the alleged gunman racially profile Trayvon? And did he use the Stand Your Ground law appropriately?
By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer / March 20, 2012
The shooting death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin is no longer in the sole hands of local law-enforcement officials, meaning the wheels of justice appear to be moving, after a three-week delay, toward a fuller investigation of whether the shooter killed the 17-year-old in self-defense.
On Tuesday came the announcement that Florida's Seminole County will convene a grand jury on April 10 to look into the case, even as a team from the US Justice Department's civil rights division arrived in Sanford, Fla., the community where Trayvon died Feb. 26 after he was shot by a self-appointed neighborhood watchman.
The Justice Department would not ordinarily investigate such an incident, but the fact that Trayvon was black and the alleged shooter, George Zimmerman, is part white, part Hispanic – and that local authorities declined to press charges against Mr. Zimmerman, even though Trayvon was unarmed – opens the door to a civil rights investigation on grounds the teenager came under suspicion primarily because he is African-American.
Protests, rallies, and official pressure have been building ever since the police in Sanford declined to arrest Mr. Zimmerman. Before the shooting, Trayvon had been walking from a convenience store back to his father's fiancée's house in a gated neighborhood, with nothing more than a bag of Skittles in his pocket.
The 911 tapes, plus a report Tuesday from a girl who says she was talking with Trayvon on the phone just before the shooting, suggest that Zimmerman may have run after the teen. If true, that could allow the Justice Department to help draw the line on so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws and reaffirm civil rights protections for young men who draw suspicion by virtue of their skin color.
"The Stand Your Ground law was not intended to authorize vigilante action on the part of neighborhood watch guys when they have suspicions about the motivation of some kid walking through the neighborhood," says James Wright, a sociologist who studies gun violence at University of Central Florida in Orlando. "To simply say this case is ambiguous and therefore can't be prosecuted opens the door for a lot of nefarious" actions to take place. In that way, he says, "this case could help draw the line between what's right and legally justifiable and what goes beyond that."
"With all federal civil rights crimes, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person acted intentionally and with the specific intent to do something which the law forbids – the highest level of intent in criminal law," the Justice Department said in a statement, upon announcing it would investigate Trayvon's death. "Negligence, recklessness, mistakes and accidents are not prosecutable under the federal criminal civil rights laws."
The case has sparked outrage across the US, as well as rallies and protests on college campuses and in the Orlando, Fla., area.
While the exact circumstances of the shooting are not clear, the preponderance of evidence seems to point toward Zimmerman overstepping the bounds of the state's Stand Your Ground law, say some legal and criminal justice experts. The law obviates an individual's "duty to retreat" from threatening situations. Zimmerman had made several previous 911 calls about suspicious people in the Retreat at Twin Lakes community.
"He didn't stand his ground; he was hunting," says Alan Lizotte, dean of the School of Criminal Justice at the University at Albany in New York.
It also turns out that Trayvon was on the phone with a 16-year-old girl just before the incident, according to the lawyer for Trayvon's family, Ben Crump. At a news conference Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Crump played a taped conversation with the girl, in which she recounted what her talk with Trayvon as he walked back to the house that day.
"Why is this dude following me?" she says Trayvon asked. The girl said she suggested that he run, which he did. He stopped running for a moment, then saw Zimmerman again, she reported. At that point, he told her he was just going to walk fast, she recounted. Next, she said, she heard a man ask, "What you doing around here?" The call then ended, and she said she believes that was when Trayvon was pushed and his earpiece fell out.
Zimmerman's father, Robert Zimmerman, has said inferences that his son started the altercation are misleading and false. But as more evidence emerges, including revelations that police did not test Zimmerman for drugs and alcohol before releasing him after a short detention, the police department is coming under more and more criticism for its handling of the case. In the department's defense, Chief Bill Lee has said Zimmerman's bloody nose and bloody head supported his assertion that he was attacked and shot Trayvon in self-defense.
In other developments, voice and audio experts are combing through a series of 911 calls on Feb. 26 in which a voice can be heard calling for help before a shot rang out. The family says it's Trayvon's voice; police have said they believe it's Zimmerman calling for help.
"Because this case is so bizarre, how can [Justice] not do something about this, and at least investigate?" asks Mr. Lizotte. "If you don't look into why police say they can't charge him, what's left? Sort of a Wild West model for law enforcement, where if somebody draws on you first and you're faster, you're OK?"
In Florida, the lawmaker who sponsored the 2005 Stand Your Ground law said Monday that the statute was not intended to protect people who sought conflict, and some Florida legislators have vowed to hold hearings on whether to amend the law.
"No matter what your position is on [race or guns], nobody believes that your rights extend to the right to kill innocent and unarmed children on [public property]," says Professor Wright. "No member of the NRA would disagree with me on that."
Others say that, as evidence has mounted, the case has become less about the Stand Your Ground law and more about a central civil rights question: If the racial roles had been reversed, would an arrest have been made?
"That's what civil rights statutes are there for, when, in fact, local law enforcement fails to protect the rights of citizens, especially when race seems to be implicated, as it certainly is in this case," says Bob Cottrol, a law professor and gun rights expert at George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C.
I just read quickly through the article but does it mention anywhere what the "Stand Your Ground" law means? It seems to be referring to it all over the place, but not explaining at all what it entails. If so it is rather shoddy journalism.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2012, 08:25:12 AM
I just read quickly through the article but does it mention anywhere what the "Stand Your Ground" law means? It seems to be referring to it all over the place, but not explaining at all what it entails. If so it is rather shoddy journalism.
The most widely accepted definition seems to be that you're not required to attempt to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. It also seems to apply when you're outside, as the castle doctrine already legally protects you in your home.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2012, 08:25:12 AM
I just read quickly through the article but does it mention anywhere what the "Stand Your Ground" law means? It seems to be referring to it all over the place, but not explaining at all what it entails. If so it is rather shoddy journalism.
It's a shoddy law.
Basic principle is the only requirement for the justifiable use of deadly force is that you are in fear. That's it. No other existential factors, just fear.
It is pretty amazing you would have a guy who openly admitted to killing somebody on public property and just take his word for what happened. It took somebody lighting a fire under their ass to even go to a Grand Jury to present the evidence. Wow those are some lazy ass cops.
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 08:40:29 AM
It is pretty amazing you would have a guy who openly admitted to killing somebody on public property and just take his word for what happened. It took somebody lighting a fire under their ass to even go to a Grand Jury to present the evidence. Wow those are some lazy ass cops.
Dude, it's a white guy shooting a black kid in Florida. Of course they're just going to take his word for it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 08:51:39 AM
Dude, it's a white guy shooting a black kid in Florida.
You count Hispanics as white?
What I find hilarious is this guy was a "self-appointed" Neighborhood Watch guy. Self-appointed. The community didn't even have a Neighborhood Watch. He just decided to go out and play cop.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 08:56:20 AM
What I find hilarious is this guy was a "self-appointed" Neighborhood Watch guy. Self-appointed. The community didn't even have a Neighborhood Watch. He just decided to go out and play cop.
:frusty:
No wonder he ignored every rule about how to do a neighborhood watch. Sounds like a nutcase to me, like a paranoid.
And the cops just trusted this dude?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 22, 2012, 08:55:33 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 08:51:39 AM
Dude, it's a white guy shooting a black kid in Florida.
You count Hispanics as white?
He's certainly no Dos Equis guy, that's for sure. Zimmerman? No accent? C'mon, man. Some spic banged his grandmother, doesn't make him Hispanic. Douche.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 08:58:39 AM
He's certainly no Dos Equis guy, that's for sure. Zimmerman? No accent? C'mon, man. Some spic banged his grandmother, doesn't make him Hispanic. Douche.
Just because you want him to be white for whatever reason doesn't make it so. Mook.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loop21.com%2Fsites%2Floop21c.your-majesty.com%2Ffiles%2FGeorge-Zimmerman-mugshot.jpg&hash=6972a9cd5b3b19b781649e40619a721775a7a334)
Also, the Dos Equis guy is a Jew from New York, you fuckin tool.
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 08:58:08 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 08:56:20 AM
What I find hilarious is this guy was a "self-appointed" Neighborhood Watch guy. Self-appointed. The community didn't even have a Neighborhood Watch. He just decided to go out and play cop.
:frusty:
No wonder he ignored every rule about how to do a neighborhood watch. Sounds like a nutcase to me, like a paranoid.
And the cops just trusted this dude?
Guy was a perpetual wanna-be:
QuoteThe neighborhood crime watch volunteer who shot and killed Trayvon Martin last month, called 911 dozens of times in the months that led to the fatal shooting.
This afternoon six of the calls made by George Zimmerman were released by theSeminole County Sheriff's Office.
In four of the recordings Zimmerman called police to report "suspicious" persons — all of whom were black — in or near the Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood.
He called once to report his neighbor's open garage door. And in the sixth call, Zimmerman reports children are "habitually" playing in the street at dusk and running in front of cars. He asked dispatchers to take his complaint anonymously, but provided his name and phone number.
None of the newly released calls are related to the Feb. 26 shooting inside the gated neighborhood.
Many of the calls start the same way — Zimmerman mentions the recent rash of burglaries in the area and identifies himself as a member of the neighborhood watch.
"We've had a lot of break-ins in our neighborhood recently and I'm on the neighborhood watch," Zimmerman said during one call.
"There's two suspicious characters at the gate of my neighborhood, I've never seen them before. I don't know what they are doing. They are hanging out...loitering."
That day, the "characters" are two black men in a white sedan, Zimmerman tells the dispatchers. An officer is sent to check out the call, but it's unclear if anything suspicious was uncovered.
Another time he calls two report two black teens who match the description of suspects in recent break-in, who his wife saw and identified for police.
Zimmerman and his wife, who can be heard in the background, believed the suspects were back in the neighborhood and walking near the neighborhood's back gate. Zimmerman said he'd be waiting at the back gate to let an officer in.
On Feb. 26, Zimmerman called the non-emergency line to report a suspicious person — Trayvon Martin.
Zimmerman mentioned the break-ins, reported a young black male in his neighborhood who he didn't recognize and thought was acting suspiciously.
Minutes after that call, while officers were in route, Trayvon was shot and killed. Zimmerman said he acted in self defense. Officers have not arrested or charged him.
Records show Zimmerman, 28, called the cops 46 times between January 2011 and Feb. 26.
Many of the calls appear related to his crime-watch volunteer role. The most frequent reason for his calls — nine times — was to report a suspicious person, according to Sanford Police Department records released last week.
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 08:58:08 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 08:56:20 AM
What I find hilarious is this guy was a "self-appointed" Neighborhood Watch guy. Self-appointed. The community didn't even have a Neighborhood Watch. He just decided to go out and play cop.
:frusty:
No wonder he ignored every rule about how to do a neighborhood watch. Sounds like a nutcase to me, like a paranoid.
And the cops just trusted this dude?
With all the 911 calls he had made over the years, you'd think they'd be pretty annoyed by him & might not give him the benefit of the doubt.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 22, 2012, 08:59:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 08:58:39 AM
He's certainly no Dos Equis guy, that's for sure. Zimmerman? No accent? C'mon, man. Some spic banged his grandmother, doesn't make him Hispanic. Douche.
Just because you want him to be white for whatever reason doesn't make it so. Mook.
*picture of Jersey Shore reject*
Also, the Dos Equis guy is a Jew from New York, you fuckin tool.
You people need to stop seeing race in everything.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 09:03:36 AM
*picture of Jersey Shore reject*
I wonder if he rolls around the neighborhood with the top five buttons of his shirt unbuttoned making fish faces
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 09:03:36 AM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 22, 2012, 08:59:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 08:58:39 AM
He's certainly no Dos Equis guy, that's for sure. Zimmerman? No accent? C'mon, man. Some spic banged his grandmother, doesn't make him Hispanic. Douche.
Just because you want him to be white for whatever reason doesn't make it so. Mook.
*picture of Jersey Shore reject*
Also, the Dos Equis guy is a Jew from New York, you fuckin tool.
You people need to stop seeing race in everything.
Oh the Jairony.
The US census bureau disagrees. You can be both Hispanic and White.
Quote from: garbon on March 22, 2012, 09:04:44 AM
Oh the Jairony.
That's enough outta you, Queen Latifa.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 09:05:30 AM
The US census bureau disagrees. You can be both Hispanic and White.
Yeah, there was some shit about that the last time the census did their thing.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 22, 2012, 09:11:24 AM
Yeah, there was some shit about that the last time the census did their thing.
Well Hispanic is not a race (except when it is). After all Dominicans are Hispanic and are mostly of African descent while Agentinians are Hispanic and are mostly of Euro descent. Spaniards tend to make the census' head explode as well. Are people from Hispania Hispanic *cue head explosions*?
But when people think Hispanic they tend to think of the Mestizos types but we cannot classify people that way so....
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 09:18:49 AM
Well Hispanic is not a race (except when it is). After all Dominicans are Hispanic and are mostly of African descent while Agentinians are Hispanic and are mostly of Euro descent. Spaniards tend to make the census' head explode as well. Are people from Hispania Hispanic *cue head explosions*?
But when people think Hispanic they tend to think of the Mestizos types but we cannot classify people that way so....
I know a lot of people who checked that "some other race" box and filled in whatever.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 22, 2012, 09:20:54 AM
I know a lot of people who checked that "some other race" box and filled in whatever.
I think once you check off 'Hispanic' they just ignore the racial stuff and lump you in that catagory.
under the common law, one had a duty to retreat, if possible, before being allowed to use deadly force in self defense
despite the media hype and "legal experts" spouting off to advance their agendas, the only thing this law does is eliminate the common law duty to retreat.
under the common law victims of crime who used deadly force in self defense often found themselves on trial because some prosecutor claimed that the victim could have retreated instead of defend themselves
the law is good and regardless of what happened here changing the law because of a fringe case is bad policy
that being said, the sanford police (an orlando bedroom community) claim that zimmerman had a bloody nose and a cut on the back of his head providing contempoaraneous physical evidence that martin in fact attacked zimmerman before the shooting -- what possible motive does a cop have for not making an arrest absent a genuine belief that there is insufficient evidence that a crime occured?
there is a duty on the part of police and prosecutors to not charge people with crimes if it appears that the evidence will not be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
that being said, let's let the mob justice and racial hysteria continue because its far easier for the media and hoi polloi to understand "dude with white sounding last name kills black kid and gets away with it = racism" than explaining why trillions of dollars in public debt to foreign sovereigns is threatenng to destroy all of our grandchildren
Pfft, Florida lawyers. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 09:18:49 AM
Well Hispanic is not a race (except when it is). After all Dominicans are Hispanic and are mostly of African descent while Agentinians are Hispanic and are mostly of Euro descent. Spaniards tend to make the census' head explode as well. Are people from Hispania Hispanic *cue head explosions*?
Wait, Portuguese people could be considered as Hispanic ? :lol: Why not Hispanian if you want to use it in an Antiquity context ?
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 09:24:15 AM
I think once you check off 'Hispanic' they just ignore the racial stuff and lump you in that catagory.
Probably.
I would be vaguely interested in seeing what people fill in in those boxes after they pick the last "other race" option.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 09:31:27 AM
under the common law, one had a duty to retreat, if possible, before being allowed to use deadly force in self defense
despite the media hype and "legal experts" spouting off to advance their agendas, the only thing this law does is eliminate the common law duty to retreat.
under the common law victims of crime who used deadly force in self defense often found themselves on trial because some prosecutor claimed that the victim could have retreated instead of defend themselves
the law is good and regardless of what happened here changing the law because of a fringe case is bad policy
that being said, the sanford police (an orlando bedroom community) claim that zimmerman had a bloody nose and a cut on the back of his head providing contempoaraneous physical evidence that martin in fact attacked zimmerman before the shooting -- what possible motive does a cop have for not making an arrest absent a genuine belief that there is insufficient evidence that a crime occured?
there is a duty on the part of police and prosecutors to not charge people with crimes if it appears that the evidence will not be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
that being said, let's let the mob justice and racial hysteria continue because its far easier for the media and hoi polloi to understand "dude with white sounding last name kills black kid and gets away with it = racism" than explaining why trillions of dollars in public debt to foreign sovereigns is threatenng to destroy all of our grandchildren
What troubles me is that it sounds like Zimmerman chased the kid down. There's a difference between not retreating and actively pursuing. Would the law still favor Zimmerman if he had pursued the kid?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 22, 2012, 09:36:57 AM
Wait, Portuguese people could be considered as Hispanic ?
I believe so, according to some definitions. I think it's a pretty silly designation for that & other reasons.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 09:35:38 AM
Pfft, Florida lawyers. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:hug:
im curious to see stonewall's take on it
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 09:31:27 AM
that being said, the sanford police (an orlando bedroom community) claim that zimmerman had a bloody nose and a cut on the back of his head providing contempoaraneous physical evidence that martin in fact attacked him before the shooting -- what possible motive does a cop have for not making an arrest absent a genuine belief that there is insufficient evidence that a crime occured?
there is a duty on the part of police and prosecutors to not charge people with crimes if it appears that the evidence will not be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Wait wait a guy shot dead on public property by a dude who regularly calls 911 lying to dispatchers about being part of a nieghborhood watch does not even merit a Grand Jury hearing? A bloody nose justifies just taking a shooters word on his motives?
And the public debt? What are there so many people being shot dead on public property in that jurisdiction it would bring down their public finances to try to indict all of them or something?
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 09:41:18 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 09:31:27 AM
under the common law, one had a duty to retreat, if possible, before being allowed to use deadly force in self defense
despite the media hype and "legal experts" spouting off to advance their agendas, the only thing this law does is eliminate the common law duty to retreat.
under the common law victims of crime who used deadly force in self defense often found themselves on trial because some prosecutor claimed that the victim could have retreated instead of defend themselves
the law is good and regardless of what happened here changing the law because of a fringe case is bad policy
that being said, the sanford police (an orlando bedroom community) claim that zimmerman had a bloody nose and a cut on the back of his head providing contempoaraneous physical evidence that martin in fact attacked zimmerman before the shooting -- what possible motive does a cop have for not making an arrest absent a genuine belief that there is insufficient evidence that a crime occured?
there is a duty on the part of police and prosecutors to not charge people with crimes if it appears that the evidence will not be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
that being said, let's let the mob justice and racial hysteria continue because its far easier for the media and hoi polloi to understand "dude with white sounding last name kills black kid and gets away with it = racism" than explaining why trillions of dollars in public debt to foreign sovereigns is threatenng to destroy all of our grandchildren
What troubles me is that it sounds like Zimmerman chased the kid down. There's a difference between not retreating and actively pursuing. Would the law still favor Zimmerman if he had pursued the kid?
following the kid at a distance while waiting for the police to arrive does not mean zimmerman was the aggressor
if zimmerman chased him and shot him thats a crime
here the police believed the evidence suggested zimmerman follows martin
martin gets pissed at it and assaults zimmerman
zimmerman shoots martin
under these facts, zimmerman did not commit a crime
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 08:51:39 AM
Dude, it's a white guy shooting a black kid in Florida. Of course they're just going to take his word for it.
Why do you (and the media) want so badly for the shooter to be white? I mean, today in the paper they called Zimmerman a "white Hispanic." There does seem to be a racial element to the story; does understanding this require it to be made into white-on-black violence?
Quote from: Kleves on March 22, 2012, 09:48:12 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 08:51:39 AM
Dude, it's a white guy shooting a black kid in Florida. Of course they're just going to take his word for it.
Why do you (and the media) want so badly for the shooter to be white? I mean, today in the paper they called Zimmerman a "white Hispanic." There does seem to be a racial element to the story; does understanding this require it to be made into white-on-black violence?
He's a nigga-hatin' cracka with a gun. End of story.
Quote from: Kleves on March 22, 2012, 09:48:12 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 08:51:39 AM
Dude, it's a white guy shooting a black kid in Florida. Of course they're just going to take his word for it.
Why do you (and the media) want so badly for the shooter to be white? I mean, today in the paper they called Zimmerman a "white Hispanic." There does seem to be a racial element to the story; does understanding this require it to be made into white-on-black violence?
Brown on black violence or white on black violence? It makes no difference. Both cultures think themselves superior to the nigger. It's all about race.
Quote from: Kleves on March 22, 2012, 09:48:12 AM
Why do you (and the media) want so badly for the shooter to be white? I mean, today in the paper they called Zimmerman a "white Hispanic." There does seem to be a racial element to the story; does understanding this require it to be made into white-on-black violence?
I remember some flap about a black guy being killed shortly after breaking into a pureblooded Native American guy's house. Though there he was trying to just knock the intruder unconcious, but wooden baseball bats to the head are alot more fatal IRL than in the movies. Anyway the media also tried to make it white-on-black.
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 09:43:30 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 09:31:27 AM
that being said, the sanford police (an orlando bedroom community) claim that zimmerman had a bloody nose and a cut on the back of his head providing contempoaraneous physical evidence that martin in fact attacked him before the shooting -- what possible motive does a cop have for not making an arrest absent a genuine belief that there is insufficient evidence that a crime occured?
there is a duty on the part of police and prosecutors to not charge people with crimes if it appears that the evidence will not be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Wait wait a guy shot dead on public property by a dude who regularly calls 911 lying to dispatchers about being part of a nieghborhood watch does not even merit a Grand Jury hearing? A bloody nose justifies just taking a shooters word on his motives?
And the public debt? What are there so many people being shot dead on public property in that jurisdiction it would bring down their public finances to try to indict all of them or something?
the police didnt take zimmermans word for it
the police found physical objective evidence corroborating zimmermans word for it
thats enough for the police to believe that a crime could not be proven giving them discretion to not charge
the police certainly had discretion to charge zimmerman and let the prosector or a judge decide but it was within their powers to not charge
as far as the grand jury is concerned, that is the prosecotor's decision to make and if you had bothered to figure out the facts before hopping on your soap box, youd have seen that the prosecutor does have a grand jury looking at the case
so my position remains this is a completely un newsworthy event that the media has turned into yet another stupid distraction from more important issues
the media have become as much a form of escapist entertainment as universal studios
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 22, 2012, 09:36:57 AM
Wait, Portuguese people could be considered as Hispanic ? :lol: Why not Hispanian if you want to use it in an Antiquity context ?
When Obama appointed a hispanic to the supreme court, and it was widely reported that it was the first ever, some republicans had a hissy fit because 100 years ago some guy with spanish heritage who came to the US by way of the Netherlands was on the supreme court--hence blatant media bias to call her the first.
I may be getting the details wrong here.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 09:53:26 AM
as far as the grand jury is concerned, that is the prosecotor's decision to make and if you had bothered to figure out the facts before hopping on your soap box, youd have seen that the prosecutor does have a grand jury looking at the case
Oh for fucksake dude I am discussing it on a message board on Languish. How is that jumping on a soap box? I am talking about it here asking about the facts not writing a fucking story in the newspaper. What facts do you have to contribute that I should have figured out first?
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 09:53:26 AM
thats enough for the police to believe that a crime could not be proven giving them discretion to not charge
the police certainly had discretion to charge zimmerman and let the prosector or a judge decide but it was within their powers to not charge
as far as the grand jury is concerned, that is the prosecotor's decision to make and if you had bothered to figure out the facts before hopping on your soap box, youd have seen that the prosecutor does have a grand jury looking at the case
They're all epic fail, and the grand jury didn't start looking into it until political pressure appeared.
Quoteso my position remains this is a completely un newsworthy event that the media has turned into yet another stupid distraction from more important issues
I doubt this will affect the law in the near term, so don't worry; you'll still have a chance to shoot a minority yourself for quite a while. So you can stop panicking.
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 09:56:01 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 09:53:26 AM
as far as the grand jury is concerned, that is the prosecotor's decision to make and if you had bothered to figure out the facts before hopping on your soap box, youd have seen that the prosecutor does have a grand jury looking at the case
Oh for fucksake dude I am discussing it on a message board on Languish. How the fuck is that jumping on a soap box? I am talking about it here asking about the facts not writing a fucking story in the newspaper.
because my whole point was the media has whipped up a non story into the latest national case and you seem swept up in the hysteria
the fact is the grand jury exists for close cases to give a prosecutor the option to ask a jury of the citizenry whether based on available evidence there's probable cause to believe that a crime occured
its part of the checks and balances for when a police department uses its discretion to charge or not
here the police decided not to charge
the prosector has in turn used his discretion to ask the grand jury whether a crime occured
this is an example of the system working just fine that has turned into mob hysteria with accusations of racism and calls for changing laws as if the system wasnt working
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 09:58:20 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 09:53:26 AM
thats enough for the police to believe that a crime could not be proven giving them discretion to not charge
the police certainly had discretion to charge zimmerman and let the prosector or a judge decide but it was within their powers to not charge
as far as the grand jury is concerned, that is the prosecotor's decision to make and if you had bothered to figure out the facts before hopping on your soap box, youd have seen that the prosecutor does have a grand jury looking at the case
They're all epic fail, and the grand jury didn't start looking into it until political pressure appeared.
Quoteso my position remains this is a completely un newsworthy event that the media has turned into yet another stupid distraction from more important issues
I doubt this will affect the law in the near term, so don't worry; you'll still have a chance to shoot a minority yourself for quite a while. So you can stop panicking.
and i'm sure the media will fuck it up based on my last name and call me a german american or some stupid shit like that
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 10:01:46 AM
because my whole point was the media has whipped up a non story into the latest national case and you seem swept up in the hysteria
Tim posted a story and I am talking about it. I really do not give that big of a shit. But I like talking to you guys. So no hysteria here. Stop projecting.
Quotethis is an example of the system working just fine that has turned into mob hysteria with accusations of racism and calls for changing laws as if the system wasnt working
Well it sure seems to me that shooting somebody dead on public property with no witnesses should at least go to trial but this one did not even make it to the Grand Jury. I mean the primary reason we have a legal system is to protect people and property. If it was working it would take these kinds of cases extremely seriously (which it does in like 99.9% of jurisdictions). But hey maybe you are right and they did their due diligence but it sure looks fishy.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 09:46:39 AM
following the kid at a distance while waiting for the police to arrive does not mean zimmerman was the aggressor
I guess this is the crux of the matter for me. If he *was* following the kid at a distance and the kid turned around & charged at him, I guess he's in the clear. But if he was closing in on the kid and the kid legitimately felt threatened, it's a different story-- to me, at least.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 10:03:06 AM
and i'm sure the media will fuck it up based on my last name and call me a german american or some stupid shit like that
Don't worry, I would appear on MSNBC on your behalf.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 09:31:27 AM
under the common law, one had a duty to retreat, if possible, before being allowed to use deadly force in self defense
Weird. There's no common law duty to retreat in English law and I would have expected the US legal system to have been more open to the use of force.
QuoteWhat troubles me is that it sounds like Zimmerman chased the kid down. There's a difference between not retreating and actively pursuing. Would the law still favor Zimmerman if he had pursued the kid?
The 911 guy asks whether he's pursuing him. Zimmerman says he is and is told 'we don't need you to do this'. The guy who should be protected by stand your ground is surely Martin, who's walking along, on the phone to his girlfriend. Then some guy starts staring at him and following him with a gun.
I haven't listened to the tapes but according to what I've read there's one shot, presumably a warning shot, followed by the sound of someone pleading or begging. Then there's a second shot that ends the pleading.
There seems to have been a pretty poor investigation.
Quotebecause my whole point was the media has whipped up a non story into the latest national case and you seem swept up in the hysteria
A seventeen year old kid was shot and the guy who killed him was getting off with it. That should be a national story.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 10:10:46 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 09:46:39 AM
following the kid at a distance while waiting for the police to arrive does not mean zimmerman was the aggressor
I guess this is the crux of the matter for me. If he *was* following the kid at a distance and the kid turned around & charged at him, I guess he's in the clear. But if he was closing in on the kid and the kid legitimately felt threatened, it's a different story-- to me, at least.
I would agree
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 10:10:46 AM
I guess this is the crux of the matter for me. If he *was* following the kid at a distance and the kid turned around & charged at him, I guess he's in the clear. But if he was closing in on the kid and the kid legitimately felt threatened, it's a different story-- to me, at least.
Wouldn't you feel legitimately threatened if you were being followed by a guy. According to Martin's girlfriend he told her he was running away (Zimmerman's call to 911 says the same), then Martin thought he'd got away but shortly after Zimmerman had back tracked and caught up with him. Given that I think it's entirely legitimate for a seventeen year old kid to feel fear - I mean imagine if it was a girl of the same age.
Wait, maybe the black guy attacked the fake cop because he felt threatened. The black guy would have been in the clear if he had killed the fake cop.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 10:14:39 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 10:03:06 AM
and i'm sure the media will fuck it up based on my last name and call me a german american or some stupid shit like that
Don't worry, I would appear on MSNBC on your behalf.
I can see it now,
msnbc :"neo nazi german american lawyer shoots sexually confused pollack visiting america, hear the exclusive interview with friend of right wing nut job"
cdm: "funny, i thought he was a kike?"
the standard is not and has never been that one feels threatened
it has to be a legitimate fear that you are in imminent danger of losing your life
absent the evidence of the wound on the back of zimmermans head and the bloody nose i am reasonably confident that zimmerman wouyldve been charge with second degree murder
Well, some guy running at me waving a gun would count as a legitimate fear for my life. Trayvon was right to fight back.
my opinion is that if zimmerman chased and shot the kid he has committed a crime; if the evidence suggests that zimmerman followed the kid and he then turned on the follower and physically assaulted zimmerman, zimmerman did not commit a crime
My opinion doesn't count because I am old and I don't care. Now get off my lawn.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 22, 2012, 10:25:17 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 09:31:27 AM
under the common law, one had a duty to retreat, if possible, before being allowed to use deadly force in self defense
Weird. There's no common law duty to retreat in English law and I would have expected the US legal system to have been more open to the use of force.
On the contrary; many states are very, very specific on your responsibility to not actively engage, to pursue any avenue to remove yourself from the situation.
That's why, here in in Maryland, if you shoot someone coming through your front door, and yet you have the ability to leave via the back door safely, you will get charged. The burden is on you to take egress whenever practical and possible. It is your responsibility to remove yourself from the situation safely, as deadly force is a last resort.
Now, if you're cornered, or on the 6th floor, different story. And don't even think about shooting somebody in the back. You go to jail.
Quote
I haven't listened to the tapes but according to what I've read there's one shot, presumably a warning shot, followed by the sound of someone pleading or begging. Then there's a second shot that ends the pleading.
There seems to have been a pretty poor investigation.
Very poor investigation.
I don't know about Florida, but in many jurisdictions, there's no such thing as a "warning shot". That's an illegal discharge of a firearm within x amount of distance of residences. "Warning shots" = too much TV.
You shoot, you shoot to kill.
following someone on a common area of a neighborhood is not a crime and does not create imminent fear of death in most normal circumstances
physically assaulting someone does reasonably provoke fear on the part of the assaulted
All of you kids, off my lawn!
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 10:33:54 AM
absent the evidence of the wound on the back of zimmermans head and the bloody nose i am reasonably confident that zimmerman wouyldve been charge with second degree murder
Doesn't that give a killer far too much benefit of the doubt though?
Here's another recent cases of stand your ground that's problematic, I think. This one suggests that it's a bit wider than a legitimate fear of imminent danger:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html
Quotemy opinion is that if zimmerman chased and shot the kid he has committed a crime; if the evidence suggests that zimmerman followed the kid and he then turned on the follower and physically assaulted zimmerman, zimmerman did not commit a crime
But surely the kid has legitimate fears when he's being followed and physically assaulting Zimmerman to get away is a reasonable response to escape? Again according to his girlfriend he was cornered and was asking 'what are you following me for?'
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 10:43:03 AM
following someone on a common area of a neighborhood is not a crime and does not create imminent fear of death in most normal circumstances
physically assaulting someone does reasonably provoke fear on the part of the assaulted
It is if he is chasing the kid with a gun. He is not a sworn law enforcement officer or an agent of an institution or organization empowered by law to do so, and is not empowered by anyone--not Florida, not the Constitution, not God--to approach an individual with a deadly weapon.
His actions aggravated the situation, and in effect, fall under the definition of assault. Martin was the victim of assault by an armed assailant, who was subsequently murdered by said assailant.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 10:43:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 22, 2012, 10:25:17 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 09:31:27 AM
under the common law, one had a duty to retreat, if possible, before being allowed to use deadly force in self defense
Weird. There's no common law duty to retreat in English law and I would have expected the US legal system to have been more open to the use of force.
On the contrary; many states are very, very specific on your responsibility to not actively engage, to pursue any avenue to remove yourself from the situation.
That's why, here in in Maryland, if you shoot someone coming through your front door, and yet you have the ability to leave via the back door safely, you will get charged. The burden is on you to take egress whenever practical and possible. It is your responsibility to remove yourself from the situation safely, as deadly force is a last resort.
Now, if you're cornered, or on the 6th floor, different story. And don't even think about shooting somebody in the back. You go to jail.
Quote
I haven't listened to the tapes but according to what I've read there's one shot, presumably a warning shot, followed by the sound of someone pleading or begging. Then there's a second shot that ends the pleading.
There seems to have been a pretty poor investigation.
Very poor investigation.
I don't know about Florida, but in many jurisdictions, there's no such thing as a "warning shot". That's an illegal discharge of a firearm within x amount of distance of residences. "Warning shots" = too much TV.
You shoot, you shoot to kill.
in florida a warning shot is a crime as well and is considered illegally "brandishing a firearm." the thoery (i assume) is that if someone has the presence of mind to fire a warning shot, then they are not actually in fear of imminently losing their life, they're just scared generally
sheilbh's reference to the warning shot is the first i've heard of it
Yeah, I've heard the various 911 calls, only heard one shot.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 10:46:45 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 10:43:03 AM
following someone on a common area of a neighborhood is not a crime and does not create imminent fear of death in most normal circumstances
physically assaulting someone does reasonably provoke fear on the part of the assaulted
It is if he is chasing the kid with a gun. He is not a sworn law enforcement officer or an agent of an institution or organization empowered by law to do so, and is not empowered by anyone--not Florida, not the Constitution, not God--to approach an individual with a deadly weapon.
His actions aggravated the situation, and in effect, fall under the definition of assault. Martin was the victim of assault by an armed assailant, who was subsequently murdered by said assailant.
there's no evidence ive heard that he chased the kid with a gun
lawfully having posession of a CONCEALED weapon is not chasing someone with a gun
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 09:53:26 AM
the police didnt take zimmermans word for it
the police found physical objective evidence corroborating zimmermans word for it
thats enough for the police to believe that a crime could not be proven giving them discretion to not charge
the police certainly had discretion to charge zimmerman and let the prosector or a judge decide but it was within their powers to not charge
as far as the grand jury is concerned, that is the prosecotor's decision to make and if you had bothered to figure out the facts before hopping on your soap box, youd have seen that the prosecutor does have a grand jury looking at the case
so my position remains this is a completely un newsworthy event that the media has turned into yet another stupid distraction from more important issues
the media have become as much a form of escapist entertainment as universal studios
What more important issues are that are being distracted from here? And yeah, they took Zimmerman's word for it. The physical evidence was that Zimmerman was bloody.
From what we know: Martin had left his father's girlfriend house to go to a 7-11 to purchase some candy. On the way back Zimmerman started to follow him in his car. Zimmerman called 9-11 to report the kid saying that he was acting suspicious. The police told Zimmerman to take no action. Zimmerman then claimed that Martin "took off". The police asked if he was in pursuit of the kid and he said yes. The police told him not to do that. Zimmerman mutter something about "Fucking Coons" and gets out of his car.
At this point it becomes hazy. Zimmerman claims he got out of his car to read a street sign and Martin attacked him from behind. He then shot Martin. There were two witness but they don't agree what happened. Martin was talking on his phone at the time of the incident. His girlfriend has come forward as the person he was talking to. She claimed that he was complaining someone was following him. She said that she heard her boyfriend say 'What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding "What are you doing here?"' This was followed by a thud and the phone going out. T-mobile has confirmed that Martin was on the phone at the time.
What is known is that Zimmerman did shoot and kill Martin.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 10:47:11 AM
sheilbh's reference to the warning shot is the first i've heard of it
It's here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/us/justice-department-investigation-is-sought-in-florida-teenagers-shooting-death.html?_r=2&src=tp
QuoteThe police in of Sanford, where the shooting took place, are not revealing details of the investigation. Late Friday night, after weeks of pressure, the police played the 911 calls in the case for the family and gave copies to the news media. On the recordings, one shot, an apparent warning or miss, is heard, followed by a voice begging or pleading, and a cry. A second shot is then heard, and the pleading stops.
...
The two got into a struggle that was partly overheard by a few neighbors. Mr. Zimmerman wound up with a bloody nose and a cut to the back of his head. Trayvon was shot in the chest.
Mary Cutcher and her roommate said they heard Trayvon pleading. Then they heard a gunshot. They rushed outside and saw Mr. Zimmerman standing over the teenager. Ms. Cutcher said she did not think it was self-defense and added that the police took only a brief statement, despite her efforts to go into detail.
In a statement Thursday, the police said her statement to them matched Mr. Zimmerman's.
a warning shot and a miss are two very different things under the law
id have to hear the tapes myself
its hard to reconclie "sounds of pleading" to a cut to the back of zimmerman's head
i suspect the grand jury will let us know what they think of the evidence soon enough
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 10:49:14 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 10:46:45 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 10:43:03 AM
following someone on a common area of a neighborhood is not a crime and does not create imminent fear of death in most normal circumstances
physically assaulting someone does reasonably provoke fear on the part of the assaulted
It is if he is chasing the kid with a gun. He is not a sworn law enforcement officer or an agent of an institution or organization empowered by law to do so, and is not empowered by anyone--not Florida, not the Constitution, not God--to approach an individual with a deadly weapon.
His actions aggravated the situation, and in effect, fall under the definition of assault. Martin was the victim of assault by an armed assailant, who was subsequently murdered by said assailant.
there's no evidence ive heard that he chased the kid with a gun
lawfully having posession of a CONCEALED weapon is not chasing someone with a gun
We don't yet know if the weapon was concealed or not. It was certainly brandished at the point of conflict, though. Didn't shoot the kid through his holster.
He stated to the 911 operator he was following him, and continued to do so after instructed not to by the 911 operator. Sounds to me like Martin felt he was being chased.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 09:53:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 09:43:30 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 09:31:27 AM
that being said, the sanford police (an orlando bedroom community) claim that zimmerman had a bloody nose and a cut on the back of his head providing contempoaraneous physical evidence that martin in fact attacked him before the shooting -- what possible motive does a cop have for not making an arrest absent a genuine belief that there is insufficient evidence that a crime occured?
there is a duty on the part of police and prosecutors to not charge people with crimes if it appears that the evidence will not be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Wait wait a guy shot dead on public property by a dude who regularly calls 911 lying to dispatchers about being part of a nieghborhood watch does not even merit a Grand Jury hearing? A bloody nose justifies just taking a shooters word on his motives?
And the public debt? What are there so many people being shot dead on public property in that jurisdiction it would bring down their public finances to try to indict all of them or something?
the police didnt take zimmermans word for it
the police found physical objective evidence corroborating zimmermans word for it
thats enough for the police to believe that a crime could not be proven giving them discretion to not charge
the police certainly had discretion to charge zimmerman and let the prosector or a judge decide but it was within their powers to not charge
as far as the grand jury is concerned, that is the prosecotor's decision to make and if you had bothered to figure out the facts before hopping on your soap box, youd have seen that the prosecutor does have a grand jury looking at the case
so my position remains this is a completely un newsworthy event that the media has turned into yet another stupid distraction from more important issues
the media have become as much a form of escapist entertainment as universal studios
Do you write your legal documents with no interpunction or capital letters too? Because it is bloody difficult to read.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 10:59:02 AM
its hard to reconclie "sounds of pleading" to a cut to the back of zimmerman's head
I'm not sure that it's that difficult to reconcile. There's a scuffle. Then Zimmerman pulls a gun. During the scuffle he's hurt, once he's pulled a gun Martin starts pleading - especially after a first shot.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 10:43:03 AM
following someone on a common area of a neighborhood is not a crime and does not create imminent fear of death in most normal circumstances
physically assaulting someone does reasonably provoke fear on the part of the assaulted
I think being stalked by someone on a dark and rainy night is a pretty scary thing.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2012, 11:06:00 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 09:53:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 09:43:30 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 09:31:27 AM
that being said, the sanford police (an orlando bedroom community) claim that zimmerman had a bloody nose and a cut on the back of his head providing contempoaraneous physical evidence that martin in fact attacked him before the shooting -- what possible motive does a cop have for not making an arrest absent a genuine belief that there is insufficient evidence that a crime occured?
there is a duty on the part of police and prosecutors to not charge people with crimes if it appears that the evidence will not be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Wait wait a guy shot dead on public property by a dude who regularly calls 911 lying to dispatchers about being part of a nieghborhood watch does not even merit a Grand Jury hearing? A bloody nose justifies just taking a shooters word on his motives?
And the public debt? What are there so many people being shot dead on public property in that jurisdiction it would bring down their public finances to try to indict all of them or something?
the police didnt take zimmermans word for it
the police found physical objective evidence corroborating zimmermans word for it
thats enough for the police to believe that a crime could not be proven giving them discretion to not charge
the police certainly had discretion to charge zimmerman and let the prosector or a judge decide but it was within their powers to not charge
as far as the grand jury is concerned, that is the prosecotor's decision to make and if you had bothered to figure out the facts before hopping on your soap box, youd have seen that the prosecutor does have a grand jury looking at the case
so my position remains this is a completely un newsworthy event that the media has turned into yet another stupid distraction from more important issues
the media have become as much a form of escapist entertainment as universal studios
Do you write your legal documents with no interpunction or capital letters too? Because it is bloody difficult to read.
:D
i don't type but with one finger
my assistant types my dictation and makes my handwritten edits to documents; it's all very old school and effective
here; i just hunt and peck....you're a bright boy; you'll keep up just fine
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 22, 2012, 11:07:30 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 10:59:02 AM
its hard to reconclie "sounds of pleading" to a cut to the back of zimmerman's head
I'm not sure that it's that difficult to reconcile. There's a scuffle. Then Zimmerman pulls a gun. During the scuffle he's hurt, once he's pulled a gun Martin starts pleading - especially after a first shot.
Or Zimmerman cuts himself to give the impression of being in danger. Or he just had blood on him, said that he had been hurt to the police, who simply accepted his story and let him go.
Did the police take him in? Did they photograph these defensive wounds? Did they do any investigation? I mean, this is a homicide.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 11:09:24 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 10:43:03 AM
following someone on a common area of a neighborhood is not a crime and does not create imminent fear of death in most normal circumstances
physically assaulting someone does reasonably provoke fear on the part of the assaulted
I think being stalked by someone on a dark and rainy night is a pretty scary thing.
pretty scary thing is still less than the standard for use of deadly force in self defense whereas someone ripping a gash in the back of your head probably does meet the test
does anyone believe we would be having this discussion if:
1. zimmerman had been black; or
2. zimmerman's name had been sanchez?
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 11:16:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 11:09:24 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 10:43:03 AM
following someone on a common area of a neighborhood is not a crime and does not create imminent fear of death in most normal circumstances
physically assaulting someone does reasonably provoke fear on the part of the assaulted
I think being stalked by someone on a dark and rainy night is a pretty scary thing.
pretty scary thing is still less than the standard for use of deadly force in self defense whereas someone ripping a gash in the back of your head probably does meet the test
does anyone believe we would be having this discussion if:
1. zimmerman had been black; or
2. zimmerman's name had been sanchez?
What evidence do you have that Zimmerman used deadly force?
You seem to be perfectly happy to resolve all holes/inconsistencies in the story in the favour of the killer.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2012, 11:18:14 AM
What evidence do you have that Zimmerman used deadly force?
:huh:
:huh:
:huh:
He shot a kid dead, with force that was deadly.
What evidence do you have that you went to law school?
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 11:16:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 11:09:24 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 10:43:03 AM
following someone on a common area of a neighborhood is not a crime and does not create imminent fear of death in most normal circumstances
physically assaulting someone does reasonably provoke fear on the part of the assaulted
I think being stalked by someone on a dark and rainy night is a pretty scary thing.
pretty scary thing is still less than the standard for use of deadly force in self defense whereas someone ripping a gash in the back of your head probably does meet the test
does anyone believe we would be having this discussion if:
1. zimmerman had been black; or
2. zimmerman's name had been sanchez?
No. Of course not. The police would have arrested Zimmerman if he was black.
Martin didn't have a gun, he wasn't the one who could use deadly force. Where is this terrible "gash".
Here's a better question. If Martin had been stalking Zimmerman and then Zimmerman shot him, would Zimmerman have been arrested?
I didn't think this thread could possibly be entertaining but somehow it happened :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 11:20:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2012, 11:18:14 AM
What evidence do you have that Zimmerman used deadly force?
:huh:
:huh:
:huh:
He shot a kid dead, with force that was deadly.
What evidence do you have that you went to law school?
Sorry I got confused - I meant to say Martin. :Embarrass:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 11:20:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2012, 11:18:14 AM
What evidence do you have that Zimmerman used deadly force?
:huh:
:huh:
:huh:
He shot a kid dead, with force that was deadly.
What evidence do you have that you went to law school?
I think he just mixed up the names this time. I'd give him a pass on this one.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2012, 11:22:20 AM
Sorry I got confused - I thought the victim was Zimmermann. :Embarrass:
I thought Rasputin was arguing that the victim used "deadly force" (i.e. assaulted the shooter) and the shooter was right to shoot him.
I think he was.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2012, 11:22:20 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 11:20:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2012, 11:18:14 AM
What evidence do you have that Zimmerman used deadly force?
:huh:
:huh:
:huh:
He shot a kid dead, with force that was deadly.
What evidence do you have that you went to law school?
Sorry I got confused - I meant to say Martin. :Embarrass:
Gotcha. Just thought you were talking law again. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 11:21:23 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 11:16:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 11:09:24 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 10:43:03 AM
following someone on a common area of a neighborhood is not a crime and does not create imminent fear of death in most normal circumstances
physically assaulting someone does reasonably provoke fear on the part of the assaulted
I think being stalked by someone on a dark and rainy night is a pretty scary thing.
pretty scary thing is still less than the standard for use of deadly force in self defense whereas someone ripping a gash in the back of your head probably does meet the test
does anyone believe we would be having this discussion if:
1. zimmerman had been black; or
2. zimmerman's name had been sanchez?
No. Of course not. The police would have arrested Zimmerman if he was black.
Martin didn't have a gun, he wasn't the one who could use deadly force. Where is this terrible "gash".
Here's a better question. If Martin had been stalking Zimmerman and then Zimmerman shot him, would Zimmerman have been arrested?
of course he would
Why?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 10:43:00 AM
On the contrary; many states are very, very specific on your responsibility to not actively engage, to pursue any avenue to remove yourself from the situation.
That's why, here in in Maryland, if you shoot someone coming through your front door, and yet you have the ability to leave via the back door safely, you will get charged. The burden is on you to take egress whenever practical and possible. It is your responsibility to remove yourself from the situation safely, as deadly force is a last resort.
Now, if you're cornered, or on the 6th floor, different story. And don't even think about shooting somebody in the back. You go to jail.
Interesting. I had no idea and I'm quite surprised. It makes sense, I suppose, given how many more guns there are in the US it's far more likely that self-defence ends up in death. So you want to make that happen as few times as possible.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 22, 2012, 11:36:26 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 10:43:00 AM
On the contrary; many states are very, very specific on your responsibility to not actively engage, to pursue any avenue to remove yourself from the situation.
That's why, here in in Maryland, if you shoot someone coming through your front door, and yet you have the ability to leave via the back door safely, you will get charged. The burden is on you to take egress whenever practical and possible. It is your responsibility to remove yourself from the situation safely, as deadly force is a last resort.
Now, if you're cornered, or on the 6th floor, different story. And don't even think about shooting somebody in the back. You go to jail.
Interesting. I had no idea and I'm quite surprised. It makes sense, I suppose, given how many more guns there are in the US it's far more likely that self-defence ends up in death. So you want to make that happen as few times as possible.
yes; contrary to popular global belief, we're all not Arizona circa 1881. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 11:37:36 AM
yes; contrary to popular global belief, we're all not Arizona circa 1881. :lol:
Don't spoil it :P
I'm just surprised that it's more restrictive in the US than in England. But as I say that does make sense.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 10:43:00 AM
On the contrary; many states are very, very specific on your responsibility to not actively engage, to pursue any avenue to remove yourself from the situation.
That's why, here in in Maryland, if you shoot someone coming through your front door, and yet you have the ability to leave via the back door safely, you will get charged. The burden is on you to take egress whenever practical and possible. It is your responsibility to remove yourself from the situation safely, as deadly force is a last resort.
Now, if you're cornered, or on the 6th floor, different story. And don't even think about shooting somebody in the back. You go to jail.
Maryland sucks. Castle doctrine FTW.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2012, 11:18:14 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 11:16:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 11:09:24 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 10:43:03 AM
following someone on a common area of a neighborhood is not a crime and does not create imminent fear of death in most normal circumstances
physically assaulting someone does reasonably provoke fear on the part of the assaulted
I think being stalked by someone on a dark and rainy night is a pretty scary thing.
pretty scary thing is still less than the standard for use of deadly force in self defense whereas someone ripping a gash in the back of your head probably does meet the test
does anyone believe we would be having this discussion if:
1. zimmerman had been black; or
2. zimmerman's name had been sanchez?
What evidence do you have that Zimmerman used deadly force?
You seem to be perfectly happy to resolve all holes/inconsistencies in the story in the favour of the killer.
i'm not resolving anything
the police have discretion to charge someone with a crime if they believe that probable cause exists; they likewise have discretion to not charge someone if they feel the evidence is insufficient to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt; this is clearly a case within that zone of discretion based upon the evidence available to us
use of that discretion keeps us from being part of a police state
if the prosecutor thinks the cops blew it, he can still charge someone with a crime; it's atypical but can and does happen
additionally if the prosecutor is unsure, he can commence a grand jury investigation after which the grand jury, hearing the prosecutor's evidence will tell us whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has occured
the police reasonably used their discretion based upon the facts available to them and the prosecutor has reasonably used his discretion
so where the fuck is the story here?
and where have i accepted the veracity of zimmerman's account beyond my correct observation that based upon the physical corroborating evidence the cops could reasonably have used their discretion to not charge zimmerman
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 11:22:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2012, 11:22:20 AM
Sorry I got confused - I thought the victim was Zimmermann. :Embarrass:
I thought Rasputin was arguing that the victim used "deadly force" (i.e. assaulted the shooter) and the shooter was right to shoot him.
I think he was.
i never argued the victim used deadly force
my point is that martin's apparent physical assault causing a cut on the back of zimmermasn's head is sufficient evidence from which a fact finder could conclude that zimmerman believed his life was in imminent danger thereby justifying zimmerman's use of deadly force in his own defense
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 11:35:47 AM
Why?
because stalking does not justify the use of deadly force
you follow me and i shoot you; i go to jail
you follow me; i physically assault you and you shoot me in response and you may get a free pass
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 11:46:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 11:22:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2012, 11:22:20 AM
Sorry I got confused - I thought the victim was Zimmermann. :Embarrass:
I thought Rasputin was arguing that the victim used "deadly force" (i.e. assaulted the shooter) and the shooter was right to shoot him.
I think he was.
i never argued the victim used deadly force
my point is that martin's apparent physical assault causing a cut on the back of zimmermasn's head is sufficient evidence from which a fact finder could conclude that zimmerman believed his life was in imminent danger thereby justifying zimmerman's use of deadly force in his own defense
It is sufficient evidence? Any cut on Zimmerman is only evidence that Zimmerman was cut.
What about if he follows you, you make a rapid series of left and right turns, he loses you and has to call for backup and a chopper, you go on the run and start a series of high profile bank heists that...
Oh wait, wrong movie.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 11:40:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 10:43:00 AM
On the contrary; many states are very, very specific on your responsibility to not actively engage, to pursue any avenue to remove yourself from the situation.
That's why, here in in Maryland, if you shoot someone coming through your front door, and yet you have the ability to leave via the back door safely, you will get charged. The burden is on you to take egress whenever practical and possible. It is your responsibility to remove yourself from the situation safely, as deadly force is a last resort.
Now, if you're cornered, or on the 6th floor, different story. And don't even think about shooting somebody in the back. You go to jail.
Maryland sucks. Castle doctrine FTW.
I hope you like prison food. And penis.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 11:48:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 11:35:47 AM
Why?
because stalking does not justify the use of deadly force
you follow me and i shoot you; i go to jail
you follow me; i physically assault you and you shoot me in response and you may get a free pass
Really, I stalk you in the dark and the rain. You come up on me and I push you away. You shoot me. I die. Is that the way the law works?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 11:54:33 AM
Really, I stalk you in the dark and the rain. You come up on me and I push you away. You shoot me. I die. Is that the way the law works?
Yup. Especially if you're carrying an iced tea and Skittles. It's the "Taste The Rainbow" doctrine.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 11:51:01 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 11:46:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 11:22:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2012, 11:22:20 AM
Sorry I got confused - I thought the victim was Zimmermann. :Embarrass:
I thought Rasputin was arguing that the victim used "deadly force" (i.e. assaulted the shooter) and the shooter was right to shoot him.
I think he was.
i never argued the victim used deadly force
my point is that martin's apparent physical assault causing a cut on the back of zimmermasn's head is sufficient evidence from which a fact finder could conclude that zimmerman believed his life was in imminent danger thereby justifying zimmerman's use of deadly force in his own defense
It is sufficient evidence? Any cut on Zimmerman is only evidence that Zimmerman was cut.
correct; and that's exactly why it's within that zone of discretion to not charge
if the cops believe that there is exonerating evidence based upon which a jury
could find reasonable doubt they are well within their discretion to not arrest and charge someone with a crime.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 11:46:47 AM
my point is that martin's apparent physical assault causing a cut on the back of zimmermasn's head is sufficient evidence from which a fact finder could conclude that zimmerman believed his life was in imminent danger thereby justifying zimmerman's use of deadly force in his own defense
Zimmerman's assault predicated Martin's battery.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 11:54:33 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 11:48:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 11:35:47 AM
Why?
because stalking does not justify the use of deadly force
you follow me and i shoot you; i go to jail
you follow me; i physically assault you and you shoot me in response and you may get a free pass
Really, I stalk you in the dark and the rain. You come up on me and I push you away. You shoot me. I die. Is that the way the law works?
ok; now you are just being a jack ass so i'll stop wasting my time
feel free to change any other facts you may wish in my absence
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 11:48:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 11:35:47 AM
Why?
because stalking does not justify the use of deadly force
you follow me and i shoot you; i go to jail
you follow me; i physically assault you and you shoot me in response and you may get a free pass
But it was Zimmerman who physically assaulted Martin.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 11:57:00 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 11:54:33 AM
Really, I stalk you in the dark and the rain. You come up on me and I push you away. You shoot me. I die. Is that the way the law works?
Yup. Especially if you're carrying an iced tea and Skittles. It's the "Taste The Rainbow" doctrine.
:lol:
Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2012, 12:00:06 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 11:48:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 11:35:47 AM
Why?
because stalking does not justify the use of deadly force
you follow me and i shoot you; i go to jail
you follow me; i physically assault you and you shoot me in response and you may get a free pass
But it was Zimmerman who physically assaulted Martin.
there was objective evidence from wich the investigating officer could conclude that zimmerman shot martin after martin hit him over the head from behind with some object
while you can interpret the facts differently a conviction must be with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and based upon the corroborating evidence the cops could have reasonably concluded that the evidence would not meet the very high standard needed for a conviction
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 11:59:28 AM
ok; now you are just being a jack ass so i'll stop wasting my time
feel free to change any other facts you may wish in my absence
What fact have I changed? The alleged assault is not verified nor is it's nature. It could be nothing more thing pushing a stalker away. Stalker falls and cuts his head. Shoot the person who pushed them. That scenario consistent with known facts.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 12:07:52 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 11:59:28 AM
ok; now you are just being a jack ass so i'll stop wasting my time
feel free to change any other facts you may wish in my absence
What fact have I changed? The alleged assault is not verified nor is it's nature. It could be nothing more thing pushing a stalker away. Stalker falls and cuts his head. Shoot the person who pushed them. That scenario consistent with known facts.
:rolleyes:
dont forget about the part where zimmerman punches himself in the nose and cleans all the blood off his hands before the cops arrive and the part where the cops see a dead black child so they agree to look the other way on behalf of the wannabe rent a cop who constantly harasses them with his nuisance complaints
after all this is the south and thats just how we roll
be careful down here unless you speak cracker cause its dangerous to be black or jewish or latino in the deep south when barney fife is on the job
I will ask again, what fact did I change? Do you have an answer?
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 12:04:54 PM
there was objective evidence from wich the investigating officer could conclude that zimmerman shot martin after martin hit him over the head from behind with some object
while you can interpret the facts differently a conviction must be with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and based upon the corroborating evidence the cops could have reasonably concluded that the evidence would not meet the very high standard needed for a conviction
Oh I see. It's almost as if the police should have gathered more evidence on the scene and, you know, investigated the incident. I mean, they're obviously not going to find evidence needed for the high standard of conviction if they don't look for it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 11:52:53 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 11:40:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 10:43:00 AM
On the contrary; many states are very, very specific on your responsibility to not actively engage, to pursue any avenue to remove yourself from the situation.
That's why, here in in Maryland, if you shoot someone coming through your front door, and yet you have the ability to leave via the back door safely, you will get charged. The burden is on you to take egress whenever practical and possible. It is your responsibility to remove yourself from the situation safely, as deadly force is a last resort.
Now, if you're cornered, or on the 6th floor, different story. And don't even think about shooting somebody in the back. You go to jail.
Maryland sucks. Castle doctrine FTW.
I hope you like prison food. And penis.
No, thanks. I live in Ohio.
http://www.wkyc.com/news/regional/article/216035/6/Ohios-Castle-Doctrine-lets-homeowners-shoot-first
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 11:58:48 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 11:46:47 AM
my point is that martin's apparent physical assault causing a cut on the back of zimmermasn's head is sufficient evidence from which a fact finder could conclude that zimmerman believed his life was in imminent danger thereby justifying zimmerman's use of deadly force in his own defense
Zimmerman's assault predicated Martin's battery.
When and how did this initial assault take place?
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 12:18:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 11:52:53 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 11:40:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 10:43:00 AM
On the contrary; many states are very, very specific on your responsibility to not actively engage, to pursue any avenue to remove yourself from the situation.
That's why, here in in Maryland, if you shoot someone coming through your front door, and yet you have the ability to leave via the back door safely, you will get charged. The burden is on you to take egress whenever practical and possible. It is your responsibility to remove yourself from the situation safely, as deadly force is a last resort.
Now, if you're cornered, or on the 6th floor, different story. And don't even think about shooting somebody in the back. You go to jail.
Maryland sucks. Castle doctrine FTW.
I hope you like prison food. And penis.
No, thanks. I live in Ohio.
http://www.wkyc.com/news/regional/article/216035/6/Ohios-Castle-Doctrine-lets-homeowners-shoot-first
Meh, you'd fuck it all up.
Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2012, 12:16:02 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 12:04:54 PM
there was objective evidence from wich the investigating officer could conclude that zimmerman shot martin after martin hit him over the head from behind with some object
while you can interpret the facts differently a conviction must be with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and based upon the corroborating evidence the cops could have reasonably concluded that the evidence would not meet the very high standard needed for a conviction
Oh I see. It's almost as if the police should have gathered more evidence on the scene and, you know, investigated the incident. I mean, they're obviously not going to find evidence needed for the high standard of conviction if they don't look for it.
I'm not sure if someone claiming "He hit me first" counts as "Objective evidence".
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 12:14:51 PM
I will ask again, what fact did I change? Do you have an answer?
i never suggested in any of my posts that merely pushing someone would justify deadly force
a physical assault from behind sufficient to cut their head and make their nose bleed likely does
while you correctly point out that someone can interprest the facts differently, that question is legally irrelevant to whether the cops could have reasonably believed that there was insufficient evidence to prove a crime
your analysis would only work in a system where we presume guilt
Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2012, 12:16:02 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 12:04:54 PM
there was objective evidence from wich the investigating officer could conclude that zimmerman shot martin after martin hit him over the head from behind with some object
while you can interpret the facts differently a conviction must be with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and based upon the corroborating evidence the cops could have reasonably concluded that the evidence would not meet the very high standard needed for a conviction
Oh I see. It's almost as if the police should have gathered more evidence on the scene and, you know, investigated the incident. I mean, they're obviously not going to find evidence needed for the high standard of conviction if they don't look for it.
so youve got the investigative file or seen it?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 12:21:18 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2012, 12:16:02 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 12:04:54 PM
there was objective evidence from wich the investigating officer could conclude that zimmerman shot martin after martin hit him over the head from behind with some object
while you can interpret the facts differently a conviction must be with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and based upon the corroborating evidence the cops could have reasonably concluded that the evidence would not meet the very high standard needed for a conviction
Oh I see. It's almost as if the police should have gathered more evidence on the scene and, you know, investigated the incident. I mean, they're obviously not going to find evidence needed for the high standard of conviction if they don't look for it.
I'm not sure if someone claiming "He hit me first" counts as "Objective evidence".
this is not two people claiming "he hit me first" after a fight
we know that martin did not hit zimmerman after zimmmerman shot him dead
thus the cops at the scene have to believe that zimmerman got physically assalted or assaulted himself
either way, they could conclude that a conviction wuld be tough
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 12:21:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 12:14:51 PM
I will ask again, what fact did I change? Do you have an answer?
are you really that fucking stupid?
i never suggested in any of my posts that merely pushing someone would justify deadly force
a physical assault from behind sufficient to cut their head and make their nose bleed likely does
while you correctly point out that someone can interprest the facts differently, that question is legally irrelevant to whether the cops could have reasonably believed that there was insufficient evidence to prove a crime
your analysis would only work in a system where we presume guilt
Assault can be a misdemeanor charge can't it? Can pushing someone down count as Assault or Battery? You can can cut your head if you are pushed down can't you? Why is the question "legally irrelevant"? Cause the cops said so?
Wait a second, police are required to "presume innocence"? I had no idea. I thought the presumption of innocence thing was a bit further down the line. On trial side of the system. How the hell do you investigate any crime if the default assumption is that all parties are innocent?
This may shock you, but people who shoot other people, they sometimes lie about it.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 12:24:30 PM
this is not two people claiming "he hit me first" after a fight
we know that martin did not hit zimmerman after zimmmerman shot him dead
thus the cops at the scene have to believe that zimmerman got physically assalted or assaulted himself
either way, they could conclude that a conviction wuld be tough
Yes, there is only one story. Cause one party killed the other. That does cut down on witnesses. Why do they have to believe that? They can't believe he bumped his head getting out of the car? They can't believe that Zimmerman attacked the kid the kid fought back hurt Zimmerman and he then shot the kid? They can't believe that Zimmerman pulled a gun on the kid, the kid hit Zimmerman in an attempt to get away and Zimmerman shot him? They just have to accept Zimmerman's story of getting lost in his own neighborhood, getting out of his car to check a street sign only be ambushed by the person who he had been keeping a very keen eye on until then but apparently lost track of just at that moment?
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 12:20:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 11:58:48 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 11:46:47 AM
my point is that martin's apparent physical assault causing a cut on the back of zimmermasn's head is sufficient evidence from which a fact finder could conclude that zimmerman believed his life was in imminent danger thereby justifying zimmerman's use of deadly force in his own defense
Zimmerman's assault predicated Martin's battery.
When and how did this initial assault take place?
By approaching Martin in the manner in which he did; by not making an announcement as to who is was or his intentions, without any challenge, inducing a sense of fear in Martin(as communicated to the individual he was speaking with on his cell phone) with a deadly weapon on his person--which was, for a guy that called 911 42 times in a calendar year as a self-appointed vigilante, most likely already brandished.
You do know that physical contact is not a legal requirement to commit an assault, right? That's battery.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 12:38:17 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 12:24:30 PM
this is not two people claiming "he hit me first" after a fight
we know that martin did not hit zimmerman after zimmmerman shot him dead
thus the cops at the scene have to believe that zimmerman got physically assalted or assaulted himself
either way, they could conclude that a conviction wuld be tough
Yes, there is only one story. Cause one party killed the other. That does cut down on witnesses. Why do they have to believe that? They can't believe he bumped his head getting out of the car? They can't believe that Zimmerman attacked the kid the kid fought back hurt Zimmerman and he then shot the kid? They can't believe that Zimmerman pulled a gun on the kid, the kid hit Zimmerman in an attempt to get away and Zimmerman shot him? They just have to accept Zimmerman's story of getting lost in his own neighborhood, getting out of his car to check a street sign only be ambushed by the person who he had been keeping a very keen eye on until then but apparently lost track of just at that moment?
there you go again
do you actually read my posts?
i never said the cops had to believe zimmerman's story or there was only one possible interpretation of the facts
what i have said and will continue to say is there was objective evidence from which this investigating agency could have reasonably execised the discretion that it did to not charge zimmerman with a crime
that you refuse to understand what discretion means is either your own trolling out of boredom or stupidity or both
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 12:21:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 12:18:18 PM
No, thanks. I live in Ohio.
http://www.wkyc.com/news/regional/article/216035/6/Ohios-Castle-Doctrine-lets-homeowners-shoot-first
Meh, you'd fuck it all up.
Hopefully we'll never find out. I don't relish the notion of shooting or killing another human being and hope I'm never forced to do so.
This forum is searchable on Google, right?
What is this "Objective Evidence"?
Trayvon is a criminal's name. It seems like an open and shut case.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 12:39:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 12:20:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 11:58:48 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 11:46:47 AM
my point is that martin's apparent physical assault causing a cut on the back of zimmermasn's head is sufficient evidence from which a fact finder could conclude that zimmerman believed his life was in imminent danger thereby justifying zimmerman's use of deadly force in his own defense
Zimmerman's assault predicated Martin's battery.
When and how did this initial assault take place?
By approaching Martin in the manner in which he did; by not making an announcement as to who is was or his intentions, without any challenge, inducing a sense of fear in Martin(as communicated to the individual he was speaking with on his cell phone) with a deadly weapon on his person--which was, for a guy that called 911 42 times in a calendar year as a self-appointed vigilante, most likely already brandished.
You do know that physical contact is not a legal requirement to commit an assault, right? That's battery.
while physical contact is a necessary element of criminal battery, following someone is not criminal assault (although brandishing clearly woud be)
had he brandished, i would imagine that the girl friend would have mentioned martin's saying "dude's got a gun" when she first went to the press?
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 12:45:47 PM
had he brandished, i would imagine that the girl friend would have mentioned martin's saying "dude's got a gun" when she first went to the press?
Not necessarily.
Quote from: Lettow77 on March 22, 2012, 12:45:24 PM
Trayvon is a criminal's name. It seems like an open and shut case.
You make your point much quicker and clearer Rasputin did.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 12:20:48 PMWhen and how did this initial assault take place?
I don't know. I guess we should look at the results of the police investigation.
Oh... wait... they declined to investigate.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 12:44:33 PM
What is this "Objective Evidence"?
the cops noted on the scene that zimmerman had a bloody nose and a cut on the back of his head
of course we all know the cops could have lied to help their buddy zimmerman out :rolleyes:
Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2012, 12:48:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 12:20:48 PMWhen and how did this initial assault take place?
I don't know. I guess we should look at the results of the police investigation.
Oh... wait... they declined to investigate.
They'll have a press conference at 2pm EST today.
Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2012, 12:48:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 12:20:48 PMWhen and how did this initial assault take place?
I don't know. I guess we should look at the results of the police investigation.
Oh... wait... they declined to investigate.
they did investigate at the scene
they declined to further investigate
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 12:39:29 PM
By approaching Martin in the manner in which he did; by not making an announcement as to who is was or his intentions, without any challenge, inducing a sense of fear in Martin(as communicated to the individual he was speaking with on his cell phone) with a deadly weapon on his person--which was, for a guy that called 911 42 times in a calendar year as a self-appointed vigilante, most likely already brandished.
I'm about as skeptical about Zimmermano as you are, but I'm not seeing the assault that you're seeing there in your crystal ball.
QuoteYou do know that physical contact is not a legal requirement to commit an assault, right? That's battery.
No shit.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 12:50:37 PMthey did investigate at the scene
they declined to further investigate
And that's what's shit.
When someone is killed while walking home from the corner store with ice tea and skittles because an armed vigilante confronts him, you don't decline to investigate further when the killer says "he attacked me first".
Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2012, 12:53:40 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 12:50:37 PMthey did investigate at the scene
they declined to further investigate
And that's what's shit.
When someone is killed while walking home from the corner store with ice tea and skittles because an armed vigilante confronts him, you don't decline to investigate further when the killer says "he attacked me first".
and if that was the totality of the evidence youd probably be correct
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 12:53:14 PM
I'm about as skeptical about Zimmermano as you are, but I'm not seeing the assault that you're seeing there in your crystal ball.
I bet if Zimmerman had approached a fetus, you'd see it differently.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 12:04:54 PM
there was objective evidence from wich the investigating officer could conclude that zimmerman shot martin after martin hit him over the head from behind with some object
while you can interpret the facts differently a conviction must be with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and based upon the corroborating evidence the cops could have reasonably concluded that the evidence would not meet the very high standard needed for a conviction
But there are no witnesses and the only guy who could testify against him is dead. So how exactly could anybody be convicted in these circumstances? 'He attacked me, I felt unsafe so I shot him'. Boom, impossible to convict in the State of Florida? It would be very difficult but based on the facts I am just amazed there wasn't at least a Grand Jury hearing.
Besides can I just stalk people with firearms freely over there and if anybody freaks out about it and does something irrational I am free to killl them legally?
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 12:49:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 12:44:33 PM
What is this "Objective Evidence"?
the cops noted on the scene that zimmerman had a bloody nose and a cut on the back of his head
of course we all know the cops could have lied to help their buddy zimmerman out :rolleyes:
That is Objective evidence that Zimmerman had some cuts. Not that Zimmerman was ambushed. It not unusual for a murderer to be injured during the course of his crime. In fact this would seem to be an excellent time to you know, investigate.
Actually, the Police did mention that Zimmerman was taking law enforcement classes to the father of the deceased.
QuoteTracy Martin said that when he asked police why Zimmerman hadn't been charged, officers told him "they respected [Zimmerman's] background, that he studied criminal justice for four years and that he was squeaky clean."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin_n_1335984.html
So they seemed to on decent relations with the guy. Hell, they would have the time to strike up a friendly releationship, since he called the cops dozens of times a year.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 12:57:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 12:53:14 PM
I'm about as skeptical about Zimmermano as you are, but I'm not seeing the assault that you're seeing there in your crystal ball.
I bet if Zimmerman had approached a fetus, you'd see it differently.
:D
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 12:53:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 12:39:29 PM
By approaching Martin in the manner in which he did; by not making an announcement as to who is was or his intentions, without any challenge, inducing a sense of fear in Martin(as communicated to the individual he was speaking with on his cell phone) with a deadly weapon on his person--which was, for a guy that called 911 42 times in a calendar year as a self-appointed vigilante, most likely already brandished.
I'm about as skeptical about Zimmermano as you are, but I'm not seeing the assault that you're seeing there in your crystal ball.
QuoteYou do know that physical contact is not a legal requirement to commit an assault, right? That's battery.
No shit.
agreed
zimmerman is a douche bag and had he been home playing swtor and not being a busy body none of this would've happened
none of that changes whether there was objective evidence to corroborate that prior to the shooting martin physically assaulted him (battery) causing zimmerman to fear for his life and pull the trigger
while the evidence can be interpreted diffrently, that certainly falls within the ambit of a discretionary call to decline to charge zimmerman with a crime
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 12:56:20 PM
and if that was the totality of the evidence youd probably be correct
Oh, he forgot the cut. How silly. The man had a cut. Obviously he was innocent.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 01:01:47 PM
none of that changes whether there was objective evidence to corroborate that prior to the shooting martin physically assaulted him (battery) causing zimmerman to fear for his life and pull the trigger
while the evidence can be interpreted diffrently, that certainly falls within the ambit of a discretionary call to decline to charge zimmerman with a crime
LOL, "objective evidence" that can be "interpreted differently". What a lawyer.
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 12:59:28 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 12:04:54 PM
there was objective evidence from wich the investigating officer could conclude that zimmerman shot martin after martin hit him over the head from behind with some object
while you can interpret the facts differently a conviction must be with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and based upon the corroborating evidence the cops could have reasonably concluded that the evidence would not meet the very high standard needed for a conviction
But there are no witnesses and the only guy who could testify against him is dead. So how exactly could anybody be convicted in these circumstances? 'He attacked me, I felt unsafe so I shot him'. Boom, impossible to convict in the State of Florida? It would be very difficult but based on the facts I am just amazed there wasn't at least a Grand Jury hearing.
there is a grand jury investigation
why do you keep acting like the grand jury is not investigating this?
and yes; sometimes it is hard to convict
casey anthony killed her baby in florida and walks the streets a free woman because the burden of proof on the state is as high as we can make it to minimize the amount of innocent people we already are sending to jail every day.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 12:59:30 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 12:49:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 12:44:33 PM
What is this "Objective Evidence"?
the cops noted on the scene that zimmerman had a bloody nose and a cut on the back of his head
of course we all know the cops could have lied to help their buddy zimmerman out :rolleyes:
That is Objective evidence that Zimmerman had some cuts. Not that Zimmerman was ambushed. It not unusual for a murderer to be injured during the course of his crime. In fact this would seem to be an excellent time to you know, investigate.
Actually, the Police did mention that Zimmerman was taking law enforcement classes to the father of the deceased.
QuoteTracy Martin said that when he asked police why Zimmerman hadn't been charged, officers told him "they respected [Zimmerman's] background, that he studied criminal justice for four years and that he was squeaky clean."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin_n_1335984.html
So they seemed to on decent relations with the guy. Hell, they would have the time to strike up a friendly releationship, since he called the cops dozens of times a year.
real cops hate people like zimmerman
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 01:04:26 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 01:01:47 PM
none of that changes whether there was objective evidence to corroborate that prior to the shooting martin physically assaulted him (battery) causing zimmerman to fear for his life and pull the trigger
while the evidence can be interpreted diffrently, that certainly falls within the ambit of a discretionary call to decline to charge zimmerman with a crime
LOL, "objective evidence" that can be "interpreted differently". What a lawyer.
Well he has the John Galt thing in his sig, so "Objective" might mean something different to him.
Well, if I'm going to murder someone, I'll do it in Florida. Stalk a man, gun him down. Give yourself a little cut and Presto! No investigation.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 01:04:51 PM
there is a grand jury investigation
why do you keep acting like the grand jury is not investigating this?
and yes; sometimes it is hard to convict
casey anthony killed her baby in florida and walks the streets a free woman because the burden of proof on the state is as high as we can make it to minimize the amount of innocent people we already are sending to jail every day.
Cause they weren't until someone raised a big stink over it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 01:04:26 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 01:01:47 PM
none of that changes whether there was objective evidence to corroborate that prior to the shooting martin physically assaulted him (battery) causing zimmerman to fear for his life and pull the trigger
while the evidence can be interpreted diffrently, that certainly falls within the ambit of a discretionary call to decline to charge zimmerman with a crime
LOL, "objective evidence" that can be "interpreted differently". What a lawyer.
objective evidence simply means some evidence observable by a third party as opposed to someone's subjective account of what occured -- neither is conclusive proof or we'd not need juries
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 01:07:14 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 01:04:51 PM
there is a grand jury investigation
why do you keep acting like the grand jury is not investigating this?
and yes; sometimes it is hard to convict
casey anthony killed her baby in florida and walks the streets a free woman because the burden of proof on the state is as high as we can make it to minimize the amount of innocent people we already are sending to jail every day.
Cause they weren't until someone raised a big stink over it.
until the stink occured the prosecutor never had reason to know that a potential crime had occured
again; an example of the sytem working
He didn't know a potential crime occurred? A man shot some kid. I'd say with any homicide there is a potential that a crime occurred.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 01:01:47 PM
while the evidence can be interpreted diffrently, that certainly falls within the ambit of a discretionary call to decline to charge zimmerman with a crime
The choice to interpret it in such a way that exonerates a guy shooting a 17 year old and killing him who pretty clearly was doing nothing illegal certainly falls withing the gambit of the public being outraged that such a choice was made by public servants nominally charged with the duty to investigate crimes.
I couldn't care less if they can shuck and jive their way to claiming that they COULD pretend like the evidence did not DEMAND that they investigate further. From where I am sitting (ie barring any additional parts of the story I have not heard), they were grossly negligent in their duty to investigate further. And unless something does in fact turn up, the responding officers should be reprimanded or fired, along with their superiors.
In other related race relations news, I would so fuck the living hell out of Tamron Hall on MSNBC. YEAH BITCH SAY OJ DID IT SAY OJ DID IT
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 08:28:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2012, 08:25:12 AM
I just read quickly through the article but does it mention anywhere what the "Stand Your Ground" law means? It seems to be referring to it all over the place, but not explaining at all what it entails. If so it is rather shoddy journalism.
It's a shoddy law.
Basic principle is the only requirement for the justifiable use of deadly force is that you are in fear. That's it. No other existential factors, just fear.
Yeah some lawmakers are trying to introduce it here in state, was in news last week as a DA from Anchorage was testifying as how bad it would be if state enacts it.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2012, 01:15:00 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 01:01:47 PM
while the evidence can be interpreted diffrently, that certainly falls within the ambit of a discretionary call to decline to charge zimmerman with a crime
The choice to interpret it in such a way that exonerates a guy shooting a 17 year old and killing him who pretty clearly was doing nothing illegal certainly falls withing the gambit of the public being outraged that such a choice was made by public servants nominally charged with the duty to investigate crimes.
I couldn't care less if they can shuck and jive their way to claiming that they COULD pretend like the evidence did not DEMAND that they investigate further. From where I am sitting (ie barring any additional parts of the story I have not heard), they were grossly negligent in their duty to investigate further. And unless something does in fact turn up, the responding officers should be reprimanded or fired, along with their superiors.
That whole agency has a long, sad history re: police and race. Wouldn't be the first time the Department of Justice has had to stop by for a chat.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 01:12:19 PM
He didn't know a potential crime occurred? A man shot some kid. I'd say with any homicide there is a potential that a crime occurred.
so every time someone gets shot, you know about it?
as the police did not charge anyone, you dont think its reasonable to believe that the head prosecutor for the circuit (certainly in a different city then sanford) first learned of the shooting from the stink?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 01:16:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2012, 01:15:00 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 01:01:47 PM
while the evidence can be interpreted diffrently, that certainly falls within the ambit of a discretionary call to decline to charge zimmerman with a crime
The choice to interpret it in such a way that exonerates a guy shooting a 17 year old and killing him who pretty clearly was doing nothing illegal certainly falls withing the gambit of the public being outraged that such a choice was made by public servants nominally charged with the duty to investigate crimes.
I couldn't care less if they can shuck and jive their way to claiming that they COULD pretend like the evidence did not DEMAND that they investigate further. From where I am sitting (ie barring any additional parts of the story I have not heard), they were grossly negligent in their duty to investigate further. And unless something does in fact turn up, the responding officers should be reprimanded or fired, along with their superiors.
That whole agency has a long, sad history re: police and race. Wouldn't be the first time the Department of Justice has had to stop by for a chat.
:huh:
the sanford police department has a history and reputation for anything?
sanford is like the size of ellicott city
id be shocked if they had more than a few dozen cops on the whole force
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 12:59:28 PM
But there are no witnesses and the only guy who could testify against him is dead. So how exactly could anybody be convicted in these circumstances? 'He attacked me, I felt unsafe so I shot him'. Boom, impossible to convict in the State of Florida? It would be very difficult but based on the facts I am just amazed there wasn't at least a Grand Jury hearing.
Given the corroborating physical evidence, it would seem impossible for a jury to convict given that (as I understand it) a Florida jury must acquit if it has at least reasonable doubt that a self-defense justification exists.
Under that circumstance, it is legitimate to question whether it makes sense to go through the expense and trouble of convening a Grand Jury, even if there is probable cause to do so. But while that choice is within prosecutorial discretion, the tricky thing about discretion is that public officers can be called to account and evaluated based on how they exercise their discretion, including whether exercise it even-handedly with respect to race, class, etc. So the press is doing its job as well here (even if they are screwing up some facts which sadly is par for the course).
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 01:20:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 01:12:19 PM
He didn't know a potential crime occurred? A man shot some kid. I'd say with any homicide there is a potential that a crime occurred.
so every time someone gets shot, you know about it?
as the police did not charge anyone, you dont think its reasonable to believe that the head prosecutor for the circuit (certainly in a different city then sanford) first learned of the shooting from the stink?
The police don't send information on up about homicides? Are shooting deaths so common that they didn't think it important?
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 01:23:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 01:16:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2012, 01:15:00 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 01:01:47 PM
while the evidence can be interpreted diffrently, that certainly falls within the ambit of a discretionary call to decline to charge zimmerman with a crime
The choice to interpret it in such a way that exonerates a guy shooting a 17 year old and killing him who pretty clearly was doing nothing illegal certainly falls withing the gambit of the public being outraged that such a choice was made by public servants nominally charged with the duty to investigate crimes.
I couldn't care less if they can shuck and jive their way to claiming that they COULD pretend like the evidence did not DEMAND that they investigate further. From where I am sitting (ie barring any additional parts of the story I have not heard), they were grossly negligent in their duty to investigate further. And unless something does in fact turn up, the responding officers should be reprimanded or fired, along with their superiors.
That whole agency has a long, sad history re: police and race. Wouldn't be the first time the Department of Justice has had to stop by for a chat.
:huh:
the sanford police department has a history and reputation for anything?
sanford is like the size of ellicott city
id be shocked if they had more than a few dozen cops on the whole force
Doesn't take too many cops to beat a homeless black man to death, or a parking lot security guard (and son of a Sanford police officer) shooting a black teenager in the back in 2005.
The town has issues.
My guess is the guy will get charged with violating someone's civil rights. Federal charge. My dad was on a jury for one of those. Some guys were out beating up gay people in KC when they saw one was black and attacked and killed the person. Local police did very little investigating (they didn't think to check the local hospitals for witnesses. The suspects were found innocent by a local jury, but the feds got involved tried them on violation of civil rights. My dad was on the jury and wasn't even told that the defendants had already been found not guilty.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2012, 01:28:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 12:59:28 PM
But there are no witnesses and the only guy who could testify against him is dead. So how exactly could anybody be convicted in these circumstances? 'He attacked me, I felt unsafe so I shot him'. Boom, impossible to convict in the State of Florida? It would be very difficult but based on the facts I am just amazed there wasn't at least a Grand Jury hearing.
Given the corroborating physical evidence, it would seem impossible for a jury to convict given that (as I understand it) a Florida jury must acquit if it has at least reasonable doubt that a self-defense justification exists.
Under that circumstance, it is legitimate to question whether it makes sense to go through the expense and trouble of convening a Grand Jury, even if there is probable cause to do so. But while that choice is within prosecutorial discretion, the tricky thing about discretion is that public officers can be called to account and evaluated based on how they exercise their discretion, including whether exercise it even-handedly with respect to race, class, etc. So the press is doing its job as well here (even if they are screwing up some facts which sadly is par for the course).
Well if I'm going to kill anyone, I know what state I'll do it in. What a screwy law.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2012, 01:28:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 12:59:28 PM
But there are no witnesses and the only guy who could testify against him is dead. So how exactly could anybody be convicted in these circumstances? 'He attacked me, I felt unsafe so I shot him'. Boom, impossible to convict in the State of Florida? It would be very difficult but based on the facts I am just amazed there wasn't at least a Grand Jury hearing.
Given the corroborating physical evidence, it would seem impossible for a jury to convict given that (as I understand it) a Florida jury must acquit if it has at least reasonable doubt that a self-defense justification exists.
Under that circumstance, it is legitimate to question whether it makes sense to go through the expense and trouble of convening a Grand Jury, even if there is probable cause to do so. But while that choice is within prosecutorial discretion, the tricky thing about discretion is that public officers can be called to account and evaluated based on how they exercise their discretion, including whether exercise it even-handedly with respect to race, class, etc. So the press is doing its job as well here (even if they are screwing up some facts which sadly is par for the course).
It's the circumstantial evidence that has people up in arms (so to speak!).
It simply seems more reasonable on its face that this guy caused the confrontation and was not acting in legitimate self-defence when a large and armed man with an attraction to acting as a local vigilante chases down (contrary to 911 instructions), and then guns down, a kid out to buy Skittles*. It seems hard to believe that if the large, armed guy was Black and the kid was White, the cops would not bother to charge him because he had a bloody nose and claimed he feared the kid.
*Mind you, Skittles are pretty gross, and that certainly acts as an aggravating factor. :D
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 01:29:28 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 01:20:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 01:12:19 PM
He didn't know a potential crime occurred? A man shot some kid. I'd say with any homicide there is a potential that a crime occurred.
so every time someone gets shot, you know about it?
as the police did not charge anyone, you dont think its reasonable to believe that the head prosecutor for the circuit (certainly in a different city then sanford) first learned of the shooting from the stink?
The police don't send information on up about homicides? Are shooting deaths so common that they didn't think it important?
I am confident that some low level prosecutor got a report from the police that a shooting occured in sanford and that the police found evidence of self defense
i am equally confident that once the stink occured, the head prosecutor for the circuit (that guy's boss and likely in orlando or daytona) first learned about this incident by hearing it on the news or reading it in the paper
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 01:34:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2012, 01:28:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 22, 2012, 12:59:28 PM
But there are no witnesses and the only guy who could testify against him is dead. So how exactly could anybody be convicted in these circumstances? 'He attacked me, I felt unsafe so I shot him'. Boom, impossible to convict in the State of Florida? It would be very difficult but based on the facts I am just amazed there wasn't at least a Grand Jury hearing.
Given the corroborating physical evidence, it would seem impossible for a jury to convict given that (as I understand it) a Florida jury must acquit if it has at least reasonable doubt that a self-defense justification exists.
Under that circumstance, it is legitimate to question whether it makes sense to go through the expense and trouble of convening a Grand Jury, even if there is probable cause to do so. But while that choice is within prosecutorial discretion, the tricky thing about discretion is that public officers can be called to account and evaluated based on how they exercise their discretion, including whether exercise it even-handedly with respect to race, class, etc. So the press is doing its job as well here (even if they are screwing up some facts which sadly is par for the course).
Well if I'm going to kill anyone, I know what state I'll do it in. What a screwy law.
what law?
prosecutorial discretion?
they have it in your state too and i don't even know what state that is
No the stand your ground laws which makes it nearly impossible to convict someone of murder if they can come up with a moderately plausible story of self defense.
I agree that the racial element is overblown in this case. However, it is unfortunate that in Tampa right now, there is a Stand Your Ground case which is currently working its way through the court system. The state attorney had no problem charging the defendant in that case. http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/witnesses-dispute-trevor-dooleys-stand-your-ground-claim-in-valrico/1206308
The defendant: (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wtsp.com%2Fimages%2F640%2F360%2F2%2Fassetpool%2Fimages%2F110321043805_trevor-dooley.jpg&hash=750b36236546dcec66c9f434d04b4521315db00d)
The victim: (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.tbo.com%2Fmgmedia%2Fimage%2F630%2F394%2F190309%2Fdaugther-of-victim-takes-the-stand-again-00521%2F&hash=4bcf2ff0740b25b9d1fd64e4bcf0107c94ccb9df)
Quote from: stjaba on March 22, 2012, 02:14:09 PM
in Tampa right now,
Tampa isn't Sanford. Florida is a broad palette of many shades of fucked-upedness.
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2012, 01:41:01 PM
It simply seems more reasonable on its face that this guy caused the confrontation and was not acting in legitimate self-defence when a large and armed man with an attraction to acting as a local vigilante chases down (contrary to 911 instructions), and then guns down, a kid out to buy Skittles*.
The two conclusions are not mutually exclusive. It could be that Zimmerman caused the confrontation to occur by following Martin but yet still acted in self-defense when Martin reacted by using deadly force (not saying this did happen just that it could have). And the question is not which scenario is more likely but whether there is some reasonable basis to believe the Zimmerman story.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2012, 02:25:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2012, 01:41:01 PM
It simply seems more reasonable on its face that this guy caused the confrontation and was not acting in legitimate self-defence when a large and armed man with an attraction to acting as a local vigilante chases down (contrary to 911 instructions), and then guns down, a kid out to buy Skittles*.
The two conclusions are not mutually exclusive. It could be that Zimmerman caused the confrontation to occur by following Martin but yet still acted in self-defense when Martin reacted by using deadly force (not saying this did happen just that it could have). And the question is not which scenario is more likely but whether there is some reasonable basis to believe the Zimmerman story.
Perhaps Florida law is actually that screwed up, that you can chase an unarmed kid down with a gun, blow them away, and claim the kid punched you in the nose and this justifies you - and the cops won't even charge you because, the kid being dead and your nose being bloody, there is no possibility whatsoever of a conviction.
But if so, what is causing the outrage is the absurdity of Florida law. Perhaps people commenting on the story simply do not realize how consequence-free shooting someone in the street is in Florida.
Yeah. Basically, if the law allows you to chase an unarmed kid and shoot him, and because your nose is bleeding you won't even get charged that's one (or more) fucked up law(s).
Is there any precendent in charging a private citizen with racial profiling?
Is their actually a law against racial profiling?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2012, 02:56:55 PM
Is there any precendent in charging a private citizen with racial profiling?
Is their actually a law against racial profiling?
Not that I know of. I've seen the word thrown around by the press, but they don't seem to know what it means. Maybe with security agencies private law enforcement.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2012, 02:56:55 PM
Is there any precendent in charging a private citizen with racial profiling?
Is their actually a law against racial profiling?
Just hate crime law.
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2012, 02:44:21 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2012, 02:25:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2012, 01:41:01 PM
It simply seems more reasonable on its face that this guy caused the confrontation and was not acting in legitimate self-defence when a large and armed man with an attraction to acting as a local vigilante chases down (contrary to 911 instructions), and then guns down, a kid out to buy Skittles*.
The two conclusions are not mutually exclusive. It could be that Zimmerman caused the confrontation to occur by following Martin but yet still acted in self-defense when Martin reacted by using deadly force (not saying this did happen just that it could have). And the question is not which scenario is more likely but whether there is some reasonable basis to believe the Zimmerman story.
Perhaps Florida law is actually that screwed up, that you can chase an unarmed kid down with a gun, blow them away, and claim the kid punched you in the nose and this justifies you - and the cops won't even charge you because, the kid being dead and your nose being bloody, there is no possibility whatsoever of a conviction.
But if so, what is causing the outrage is the absurdity of Florida law. Perhaps people commenting on the story simply do not realize how consequence-free shooting someone in the street is in Florida.
you are mixing metaphors
there is nothing absurd about the law
in any criminal case the state must prove the crime beyond any reasonable doubt
if the prosecuting agencies believe that some piece of evidence will make it difficult to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, they have the discretion to not prosecute the case
here there is evidence from which the investigating agency could conclude that a conviction will be very unlikely
ie, a jury could find zimmerman's injuries consistent with self defense and it is unlikely that the jury will hear some of the more attenuated circumstantial evidence (like he called the police dozens of times about suspiscious behavior)
those injuries create reasonable doubt even if it's possible that he was not acting in self defense
the only thing florida law did here was to do away with the common law duty of retreat
back in those days people who were defending themselves from armed robbery were finding themselves in jail for not retreating instead
I fail to see the societal benefit in making it easier for citizens to blow away other citizens.
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2012, 03:35:45 PM
I fail to see the societal benefit in making it easier for citizens to blow away other citizens.
i can see a reason to allow self defense, but if the florida law works the way it is discribed they really should rethink it.
I wish Ohio had a stand your ground law. I could have shot those teenagers down in the parking lot of a dollar store. :(
Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2012, 12:16:02 PM
Oh I see. It's almost as if the police should have gathered more evidence on the scene and, you know, investigated the incident. I mean, they're obviously not going to find evidence needed for the high standard of conviction if they don't look for it.
This. The police seemingly started with the assumption that this was not a homicide (didn't test Zimmerman for drugs or alcohol, didn't take him into custody, didn't collect ballistics on the weapon) and ignored witnesses who said that it was Taylor who was calling for help.
The police didn't need sufficient evidence to convict before they took Zimmerman into custody and began an investigation. They just needed probable cause to believe that Zimmerman's story might not be correct, and evidence collected from witnesses provided that, I would think.
Whether Zimmerman should have been charged is a different question, and one that should have depended on the homicide investigation that was not conducted.
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2012, 03:35:45 PM
I fail to see the societal benefit in making it easier for citizens to blow away other citizens.
"Conservatives" :rolleyes:
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 22, 2012, 03:38:27 PM
I wish Ohio had a stand your ground law. I could have shot those teenagers down in the parking lot of a dollar store. :(
Don't worry; you'll get your chance when the girls start dating.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 22, 2012, 03:38:27 PM
I wish Ohio had a stand your ground law. I could have shot those teenagers down in the parking lot of a dollar store. :(
Don't worry; you'll get your chance when the girls start dating.
I look forward to seeing how he'll improve over the stereotypical 'cleaning the shotgun' thing when the boys come over to the house. And I'll be taking notes.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 03:48:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 22, 2012, 03:38:27 PM
I wish Ohio had a stand your ground law. I could have shot those teenagers down in the parking lot of a dollar store. :(
Don't worry; you'll get your chance when the girls start dating.
I look forward to seeing how he'll improve over the stereotypical 'cleaning the shotgun' thing when the boys come over to the house. And I'll be taking notes.
I've already done that with the goddaughter's 'boyfriends'. Shoulder holster with a .38 in it makes an impression.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 03:40:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2012, 03:35:45 PM
I fail to see the societal benefit in making it easier for citizens to blow away other citizens.
"Conservatives" :rolleyes:
That's what it says on my membership card. :)
"Republicans" :rolleyes:
"Yes, Mr. A; you wanted to speak with me, sir?"
"I just want you to know that I have, in fact, killed two men in my life. Two. And questions were never asked."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 03:56:53 PM
"Yes, Mr. A; you wanted to speak with me, sir?"
"I just want you to know that I have, in fact, killed two men in my life. Two. And questions were never asked."
:lol:
Actually the first thing I'd ask them was if they wanted a drink while motioning to the wet bar. SAY YES AND YOU FAIL KID.
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2012, 03:55:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 03:40:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2012, 03:35:45 PM
I fail to see the societal benefit in making it easier for citizens to blow away other citizens.
"Conservatives" :rolleyes:
That's what it says on my membership card. :)
"Republicans" :rolleyes:
What-- we're closet monarchists or something? :huh:
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 22, 2012, 03:58:47 PMActually the first thing I'd ask them was if they wanted a drink while motioning to the wet bar. SAY YES AND YOU FAIL KID.
My version of that I'm planning is to be pouring myself a glass of single malt.
I'll have another glass out, and offer him a pour.
Then I'll give him the intensely disapproving look, to let him know he fucked up.
... whether he says yes ("what are you, a fucking drunk?") or no ("what? You turn down my hospitality?")
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 22, 2012, 03:58:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 03:56:53 PM
"Yes, Mr. A; you wanted to speak with me, sir?"
"I just want you to know that I have, in fact, killed two men in my life. Two. And questions were never asked."
:lol:
Actually the first thing I'd ask them was if they wanted a drink while motioning to the wet bar. SAY YES AND YOU FAIL KID.
Want to send him home fast?
"Hey kid, just an FYI: she's a
fantastic kisser." *wink, nudge*
:XD:
I guess I never had to deal with any strong father types with any of the girls I dated. Butted heads with some overbearing mothers, but that's about it.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 03:40:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2012, 03:35:45 PM
I fail to see the societal benefit in making it easier for citizens to blow away other citizens.
"Conservatives" :rolleyes:
Believe it or not, allowing the citizenry to slaughter each other in order to create an atmosphere of fear isn't a bedrock principle of conservatism.
How could you stops gangs using this law?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 22, 2012, 05:01:43 PM
How could you stops gangs using this law?
That is what the local DA argued in front of Alaskan legislature on the proposed state law.
Quote from: Neil on March 22, 2012, 04:43:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 03:40:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2012, 03:35:45 PM
I fail to see the societal benefit in making it easier for citizens to blow away other citizens.
"Conservatives" :rolleyes:
Believe it or not, allowing the citizenry to slaughter each other in order to create an atmosphere of fear isn't a bedrock principle of conservatism.
I don't know; since this law was passed, homicides ruled as justifiable homicides in the state of Florida have tripled. So maybe it is.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 22, 2012, 03:05:04 PM
you are mixing metaphors
there is nothing absurd about the law
in any criminal case the state must prove the crime beyond any reasonable doubt
if the prosecuting agencies believe that some piece of evidence will make it difficult to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, they have the discretion to not prosecute the case
here there is evidence from which the investigating agency could conclude that a conviction will be very unlikely
ie, a jury could find zimmerman's injuries consistent with self defense and it is unlikely that the jury will hear some of the more attenuated circumstantial evidence (like he called the police dozens of times about suspiscious behavior)
those injuries create reasonable doubt even if it's possible that he was not acting in self defense
the only thing florida law did here was to do away with the common law duty of retreat
back in those days people who were defending themselves from armed robbery were finding themselves in jail for not retreating instead
A law that makes it so hard to prosecute someone for murder that the prosecutors don't even try is an absurd law.
"Trayvon"? Guilty. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 22, 2012, 06:37:05 PM
"Trayvon"? Guilty. :)
His resumes were automatically thrown into the trash. :yes:
Quote from: Caliga on March 22, 2012, 06:37:05 PM
"Trayvon"? Guilty. :)
Figures you'd stand with Lettow.
:D
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 22, 2012, 05:01:43 PM
How could you stops gangs using this law?
Presumably this where the police would use their discretion to actually investigate. I suppose that's how the system is suppose to work.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 04:05:49 PM
I guess I never had to deal with any strong father types with any of the girls I dated. Butted heads with some overbearing mothers, but that's about it.
I rarely did either. But then, few girls said yes to me in the first place.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 22, 2012, 06:37:43 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 22, 2012, 06:37:05 PM
"Trayvon"? Guilty. :)
His resumes were automatically thrown into the trash. :yes:
not his fault his parents picked a crappy name*
*I speak from experience :lol:
Heh. Hilario.
I am kind of amazed that anyone would argue that this scenario is a fine, fine idea:
I get a gun.
I go to the local bar.
I wait outside till someone comes out, then I punch them in the face.
When they punch me back, I pull out my gun and blow them away.
ZOMG I WAS STANDING MY GROUND OCCIFER! SEE, LOOK AT THIS HERE BRUISE!
Yep, definitely a bruise. No way we can convict him now, have a nice day!
Does the person in question actually have to fear for their life in some kind of rational or reasonable fashion? What was this dickheads "fear for his life" that justified his shooting that kid? Was he afraid the kid was actually going to beat him to death with his bag of skittles?
That is horseshit. This guy was never in fear for his life, he went out looking for a chance to shoot someone.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 04:04:27 PM
Want to send him home fast?
"Hey kid, just an FYI: she's a fantastic kisser." *wink, nudge*
Creepy CDM is a hoot. :lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2012, 02:25:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2012, 01:41:01 PM
It simply seems more reasonable on its face that this guy caused the confrontation and was not acting in legitimate self-defence when a large and armed man with an attraction to acting as a local vigilante chases down (contrary to 911 instructions), and then guns down, a kid out to buy Skittles*.
The two conclusions are not mutually exclusive. It could be that Zimmerman caused the confrontation to occur by following Martin but yet still acted in self-defense when Martin reacted by using deadly force (not saying this did happen just that it could have). And the question is not which scenario is more likely but whether there is some reasonable basis to believe the Zimmerman story.
Under Polish criminal law if you start a confrontation like this, you are not lawfully allowed to then escalate by using deadly force in self defense if the response you provoked was on par with your original assault.
If you punch someone and they punch you back and then you pull out a gun to shoot them, there is no fucking way you would be regarded as acting in self defense.
Yes but in America, where grownups make the laws, things are a bit different.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 22, 2012, 03:38:27 PM
I wish Ohio had a stand your ground law. I could have shot those teenagers down in the parking lot of a dollar store. :(
:D
Quote from: The Brain on March 23, 2012, 02:42:04 AM
Yes but in America, where grownups make the laws, things are a bit different.
What would be the position in Sweden?
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2012, 02:43:30 AM
What would be the position in Sweden?
Life imprisonment for gun owners.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2012, 02:43:30 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 23, 2012, 02:42:04 AM
Yes but in America, where grownups make the laws, things are a bit different.
What would be the position in Sweden?
Well there's two conflicting Swedish principles at work. On the one hand self defense is pretty much a dirty word in Swedish law but on the other hand murderers hardly get any jail time.
Another case with the same law.
QuoteAs critics assail Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law in the wake of the killing of an unarmed Miami Gardens teen in Sanford, a Miami-Dade judge on Wednesday cited the law in tossing out the case of a man who chased down a suspected burglar and stabbed him to death.
Greyston Garcia was charged with second-degree murder in the slaying of Pedro Roteta, 26, whom he chased for more than a block before stabbing the man.
The case illustrates the difficulty police and prosecutors statewide have experienced since the 2005 law eliminated a citizen's duty to retreat in the face of danger, putting the burden on a judge, not a jury, to decide whether the accused is immune from prosecution.
In Sanford, police have cited the Stand Your Ground law in their decision not to arrest a neighborhood watch volunteer in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, 17. A Seminole County grand jury will decide on whether the man who shot Trayvon, George Zimmerman, 28, should face homicide charges.
Miami police Sgt. Ervens Ford, who supervised the Garcia case, was floored when told Wednesday of the judge's decision. Ford called the law and the decision by Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beth Bloom a "travesty of justice."
"How can it be Stand Your Ground?" said Ford, a longtime homicide investigator who on his off-day on Monday plans to attend a rally in the Trayvon case in Sanford with his two teenage sons. "It's on [surveillance] video! You can see him stabbing the victim . . ."
Bloom granted Garcia, 25, immunity under the 2005 law after she decided that his testimony about self-defense was credible. The judge did not issue a written ruling, but is expected to do so in the next few days.
The Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office is likely to appeal the judge's ruling. Garcia's defense attorney could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
The 2005 law eliminated a citizen's duty to retreat when attacked, leading critics to say the statute fosters vigilante justice and allows criminals to get away with murder on a claim of self-defense.
The law also bestowed immunity from prosecution and civil suits on people who are deemed to have acted in self-defense. The Florida Supreme Court has said that the question of whether the immunity applies in each case should be decided by a judge, not a jury.
"Self-defense should be decided by a jury," Miami-Dade Chief Assistant State Attorney Kathleen Hoague, who trains prosecutors on the law, said after Wednesday's ruling. "To us, that's the flaw in the law."
The incident took place on Jan. 25, when Roteta and another youth were behind Garcia's apartment at 201 SW 18th Ct. According to police, Roteta was stealing Garcia's truck radio.
Garcia, alerted by a roommate, grabbed a large knife and ran downstairs. He chased Roteta, then stabbed him in a confrontation that lasted less than a minute, according to court documents.
The stabbing was caught on video. Roteta was carrying a bag filled with three stolen radios, but no weapon other than a pocketknife, which was unopened in his pocket and which police said he never brandished.
After initially denying involvement in the man's death, Garcia admitted to homicide detectives that he attacked Roteta even though "he actually never saw a weapon."
Garcia claimed Roteta made a move that he interpreted as a move to stab him — so he struck first.
Prosecutors and police have argued since the Stand Your Ground law passed that it would give vigilantes free rein to strike first and ask questions later.
In the Garcia case, prosecutors argued that the law did not apply because the truck was not "occupied" and the suspected burglar had run away.
Once Roteta ran off, prosecutor Jennie Conklin wrote in a motion, Garcia "no longer needed to use deadly force to protect his home or unoccupied vehicle."
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html#storylink=cpy
Guy breaks into your car, you can chase him across the neighborhood and stab him to death. You can even lie to the police about it afterwords! Jesus Christ.
Perhaps Florida will see an influx of "murder tourists" in the future. :)
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 23, 2012, 09:01:42 AM
Perhaps Florida will see an influx of "murder tourists" in the future. :)
Great idea for another reality TV show.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 23, 2012, 09:01:42 AM
Perhaps Florida will see an influx of "murder tourists" in the future. :)
My balls will get too sweaty and the traffic sucks.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 23, 2012, 09:19:14 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 23, 2012, 09:01:42 AM
Perhaps Florida will see an influx of "murder tourists" in the future. :)
Great idea for another reality TV show.
Or a 1980s movie starring Kurt Russell.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 06:07:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 22, 2012, 04:43:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 03:40:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2012, 03:35:45 PM
I fail to see the societal benefit in making it easier for citizens to blow away other citizens.
"Conservatives" :rolleyes:
Believe it or not, allowing the citizenry to slaughter each other in order to create an atmosphere of fear isn't a bedrock principle of conservatism.
I don't know; since this law was passed, homicides ruled as justifiable homicides in the state of Florida have tripled. So maybe it is.
That's not conservatism. That's the American frontier myth at work.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 06:07:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 22, 2012, 04:43:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 03:40:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2012, 03:35:45 PM
I fail to see the societal benefit in making it easier for citizens to blow away other citizens.
"Conservatives" :rolleyes:
Believe it or not, allowing the citizenry to slaughter each other in order to create an atmosphere of fear isn't a bedrock principle of conservatism.
I don't know; since this law was passed, homicides ruled as justifiable homicides in the state of Florida have tripled. So maybe it is.
Wow, those raw numbers must be astronomical. Any idea what they are? Thousands? Tens of thousands?
I always thought Conservatives were supposed to be tough on criminals not make laws enabling them to literally get away with murder.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2012, 10:50:04 AM
I always thought Conservatives were supposed to be tough on criminals not make laws enabling them to literally get away with murder.
If it's truly murder, yeah.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2012, 10:50:04 AM
I always thought Conservatives were supposed to be tough on criminals not make laws enabling them to literally get away with murder.
It's double-edged. On the one hand, they're allowing what might previously have been considered to be a murder to go unpunished, which could be bad (depending on your view of self-defence). On the other hand, they're allowing citizens to slaughter petty criminals (who should definitely be killed, but it might not be a good idea to allow citizens themselves to do it).
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 10:48:50 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 06:07:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 22, 2012, 04:43:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 03:40:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2012, 03:35:45 PM
I fail to see the societal benefit in making it easier for citizens to blow away other citizens.
"Conservatives" :rolleyes:
Believe it or not, allowing the citizenry to slaughter each other in order to create an atmosphere of fear isn't a bedrock principle of conservatism.
I don't know; since this law was passed, homicides ruled as justifiable homicides in the state of Florida have tripled. So maybe it is.
Wow, those raw numbers must be astronomical. Any idea what they are? Thousands? Tens of thousands?
:P You wish, Wyatt Earp.
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 10:52:25 AM
If it's truly murder, yeah.
Eh if I was going to plan to commit a murder I pretty much have the blueprint here: force an altercation and provoke an attack (it seems just a fistfight if sufficient) and then I can legally commit homicide.
Article from the pre-Trayvon Martin days:
QuoteJustifiable homicides rise in Palm Beach County
By Julius Whigham II
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Posted: 7:54 p.m. Monday, Jan. 16, 2012
As a West Palm Beach homeowner confronted two intruders in March, the encounter turned deadly. One intruder was shot and killed.
Weeks later, two men were fatally shot in a dispute aboard a boat near Phil Foster Park in Riviera Beach. Initially charged with murder, the boat's owner, 65-year-old Michael Monahan, was later set free after a judge cited the state's controversial "Stand Your Ground" statute.
And in July, 19-year-old James Fritz was killed after he allegedly broke into a Greenacres home and charged at the homeowner with knives.
Though Palm Beach County's overall homicide rate continued to decline in 2011, authorities say justifiable homicides increased.
"There definitely was an increase in the Stand Your Ground claims in 2011," said Terri Skiles, chief of the Major Violent Crimes Division in the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office.
Not counting three fatal shootings that involved officers, six of the county's 84 homicides last year were either determined to be justifiable or resulted in no charges against the alleged assailant. That is the highest number of justifiable homicides involving private citizens since the Stand Your Ground law went into effect in late 2005, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
There were four justifiable homicides involving private citizens in 2010, and three each in 2008 and 2009, FDLE statistics show.
Law enforcement officials caution that it's too soon to determine whether the increase reflects an emerging trend.
However, the Stand Your Ground law became a topic of contention in September when Circuit Judge Richard Oftedahl dismissed charges against Monahan in the shooting deaths of Raymond Mohlman, 49, and Matthew Vittum, 43. At issue was whether Monahan had reason to fear for his life. Neither man was armed and neither touched Monahan.
The law says people who are attacked on their property have no duty to retreat and can meet force with deadly force to protect themselves.
Palm Beach County State Attorney Michael McAuliffe declined to discuss the judge's decision in the Monahan case, citing a pending appeal .
The county's top prosecutor expressed some concern, however, about how the law might affect investigations in specific circumstances. "The way the law is written, it has proved to be an impediment to certain situations that we believed, on the evidence, supported charges," he said.
The law's proponents say it has resulted in law enforcement investigators and prosecutors examining potential instances of justifiable force more thoroughly before pursuing charges.
"There's no question that law has certainly brought to light the fact that certain situations and certain circumstances, as tragic as they are, often are the product of justifiable shootings and killings, whether it be self-defense, Stand Your Ground or officer-related shootings," criminal defense attorney Michael Salnick said. "I think it goes to law enforcement's credit and to prosecutors who are doing the right thing in looking at the law before making a snap decision to charge someone."
In some situations, such as the Greenacres confrontation, investigators did not file charges. Police said Fritz charged at homeowner Joseph Wagner with knives on July 17 after breaking into the residence .
Fritz "was looking for blood," Wagner's son Joe told The Palm Beach Post in July. "We have guns for protection, and now we know why."
After a Dec. 29 incident in Royal Palm Beach, Palm Beach County sheriff's detectives determined that Damian Niemeyer fired his gun out of fear when he confronted a teen and two others who were allegedly trying to steal his motorcycle. Niemeyer, 37, told detectives that he fired his gun at them after one of the men pointed a gun at him while Niemeyer was shouting at them from his townhouse's second-floor bedroom window.
The shooting left 19-year-old Benjy Young of West Palm Beach dead on the townhouse complex's pavement.
Despite the spike in alleged justifiable homicides last year, the county's overall number continued to drop: There were 11 fewer killings in 2011 than in 2010. The total of 84 marked the third straight year that Palm Beach County had fewer than 100 homicides.
McAuliffe said he believes that efforts by law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to target gangs and repeat offenders have helped to reduce the violent crime rate.
"I think we've seen a stepping down of violent crime in general," McAuliffe said, "and I think homicides are probably part of that larger story."
Citing the recent arrests in the first murder case of 2012, the killing of Belle Glade grocer Jimmy McMillan, McAuliffe stressed that it's important for the community to play a role in bringing violent offenders to justice.
"In the future, the challenge we have is that many homicides depend on the community's cooperation to help solve and to hold the perpetrators accountable," he said. "You saw a perfect example of that play out (in the McMillan case)."
Well once somebody breaks into your home, particularly if they are charging people with knives, I think they are pretty fair game.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2012, 10:57:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 10:52:25 AM
If it's truly murder, yeah.
Eh if I was going to plan to commit a murder I pretty much have the blueprint here: force an altercation and provoke an attack (it seems just a fistfight if sufficient) and then I can legally commit homicide.
So you think I consider that to be self-defense?
QuoteTally of 'stand your ground' cases rises as legislators rethink law
By Ben Montgomery and Connie Humburg, Times Staff Writers
In Print: Friday, March 23, 2012
The controversial law that police have cited in their decision not to charge the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin has been invoked at least 130 times statewide since 2005.
A Tampa Bay Times survey, compiled from 31 Florida newspapers and public records, shows that the number of cases in which "stand your ground" has been invoked has climbed dramatically in the past year and a half. The analysis shows that police and prosecutors continue to apply the law unevenly.
As pressure mounts to charge George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who ignored police advice not to confront the unarmed teen on Feb. 26, Gov. Rick Scott announced he would convene a task force to study the law. No group keeps a tally of cases in which Florida Statute 776.013 (3) — commonly known as the "stand your ground" law — is invoked.
The law expands a citizen's right to use deadly force anywhere that he has a right to be if he "reasonably believes" it is necessary to stop another person from killing or hurting him badly.
The Times analysis shows that more than 70 percent of the 130 cases involved a fatality.
In the majority of the cases, the person who plunged the knife or swung the bat or pulled the trigger did not face a trial.
In 50 of the cases, the person who used force was never charged with a crime. Another nine defendants were granted immunity by a judge, and nine cases were dismissed.
In 10 cases, the defendant pleaded guilty to lesser crimes.
Of the 28 cases that made it to trial, 19 people were found guilty of a crime.
Twenty-two cases are still pending. (The outcomes of two could not be learned by press time.)
The Times analysis also shows that "stand your ground" is being invoked with greater frequency.
In the first five years the law was in effect, it was invoked 93 times. In the last year and a half, it has been invoked at least an additional 37 times.
"Justifiable homicides" reported to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement have increased threefold since the law went into effect.
Proponents say the law is working, allowing citizens to protect themselves from harm without worrying about legalities in the heat of the attack.
But the law has also been used to excuse killings in bar brawls, gang shootouts and road-rage incidents.
And if history serves, it's no wonder Zimmerman has not been arrested. Depending on how a police chief, prosecutor or judge interprets the law, which asks them to consider something as nebulous as a man's state of mind, they may find that under the law Zimmerman was justified in shooting young Martin.
At Wednesday's town hall meeting in Sanford, where more than 400 people sat inside the Allen Chapel AME Church and another 200 or more rallied outside, state Rep. Geraldine Thompson, D-Orlando, said repealing the "stand your ground" law would be a top priority for the Legislature's black caucus.
"What about Trayvon's right to stand his ground and defend himself?" she asked. "How do you claim self-defense when you're in an SUV and you pursue a person on foot? How did Trayvon provoke an attack when he was running away?"
The problem that often hamstrings police and prosecutors is that there are often no witnesses. Two people meet in the dark, one of them kills the other, and the narrative of what happened solely belongs to the person interested in staying out of jail, the analysis shows.
When Arthur Hayhoe, executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, heard about the Martin case, "I went to my files and yanked out all the ones like it," he said. "I found 15."
Among them was a 2010 incident in Town 'N Country in which a man on a jog about 1 a.m. was punched in the face by a teenager. The man thought he was being robbed so he pulled a gun, and the teen started to run. The man fired eight shots. Four hit the teen. The man was not charged with a crime. His court file says "justifiable homicide."
In the Tampa Bay area, the law has been invoked 31 times. Hillsborough County leads the state with 14 such cases.
Several cases have prompted much controversy, including an incident in which a man who stabbed another with an ice pick was cleared of wrongdoing and one in which a man who legally carried a gun to a neighborhood park to shoo away a skateboarder shot and killed a man who confronted him. That case is pending.
Police chiefs and prosecutors have decried the law for years, but it wasn't until the Martin shooting that notable Republicans, including the bill's author, Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, have said the law may need to be reconsidered.
"As far as I'm concerned, that neighborhood watch guy was breaking that law as soon as he started following that kid. He was stalking him. That's not standing your ground," said Rep. Richard "Rich" Glorioso, R-Plant City, who voted for the bill. "If the law is applied right, it's a fine law. But we worried about how people would interpret it, and how it would be applied, when we were discussing it."
Therein lies the problem.
The analysis shows the law is being unevenly applied across the state. A case that's dropped in Tampa might make it to a jury trial in Miami.
Hayhoe said the Martin case shows a clear need for reconsideration.
He's surprised it hasn't happened earlier.
"Most of these cases don't go beyond the local paper," he said. The Martin case is different.
"There's been more dialogue in the last three days than we've gotten for seven years," he said.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2012, 11:00:13 AM
Well once somebody breaks into your home, particularly if they are charging people with knives, I think they are pretty fair game.
Thanks for pointing out that one tree in the entire forest there, Ranger Rick.
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 11:01:20 AM
So you think I consider that to be self-defense?
Can you prove it wasn't in a court of law?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2012, 11:02:10 AM
Thanks for pointing out that one tree in the entire forest there, Ranger Rick.
Um dude you put in an article where there were six cases and the first three mentioned all seemed to involve people being killed after they broke into somebody's property (though I am not clear on the boat incident).
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 11:01:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2012, 10:57:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 10:52:25 AM
If it's truly murder, yeah.
Eh if I was going to plan to commit a murder I pretty much have the blueprint here: force an altercation and provoke an attack (it seems just a fistfight if sufficient) and then I can legally commit homicide.
So you think I consider that to be self-defense?
If you tell the police that it is, that seems sufficient. You can chase a guy down with a knife and stab him to death and that's considered self-defense.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2012, 11:02:12 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 11:01:20 AM
So you think I consider that to be self-defense?
Can you prove it wasn't in a court of law?
If it doesn't make it to a court of law, what's the difference.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2012, 11:03:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2012, 11:02:10 AM
Thanks for pointing out that one tree in the entire forest there, Ranger Rick.
Um dude you put in an article where there were six cases and the first three mentioned all seemed to involve people being killed after they broke into somebody's property (though I am not clear on the boat incident).
I'll remember that when I shoot you in the face for coming after me with a boat. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2012, 10:50:04 AM
I always thought Conservatives were supposed to be tough on criminals not make laws enabling them to literally get away with murder.
Only on non-violent crimes, drug related and such, you can't do anything that could possibly infringe on the rights of gun owners.
Or white people to kill brown people.
Quick stats from the Tampa Bay (read: ST PETERSBURG :mad:) Times:
Quote'Stand your ground' cases
130: The total number of "stand your ground" cases we have identified since the law was passed in 2010. Of those cases, the number of people who have been cleared of wrongdoing is 74.
In Tampa Bay:
Trevor Dooley, 2010, Valrico: Dooley walked to a park to chase away a skateboarder when David James, who was playing basketball with his daughter, confronted him. Dooley produced a gun and fatally shot James. Judge heard testimony in a "stand your ground" hearing and is expected to make a ruling soon.
James Behanna, 2005, Tampa: First Hillsborough case to test the law. Paralegal stabbed man who trespassed on property and then threatened to kill Behanna. He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Granted new trial on appeal, pleaded guilty and got 42 months of probation.
Jacqueline Galas, 2006, Port Richey: Prostitute shot 72-year-old customer in self-defense after he threatened her with a gun. This was the first time prosecutors in Pasco had dropped a murder charge because of the law.
Max Wesley Horn, 2008, Pasco County: Horn fatally shot Joseph Martel after argument at Chasco Fiesta. He was acquitted after two years in jail.
Gregory Allan Stewart, 2009, Wesley Chapel: Shot William Kuch, a drunk, unarmed and confused man, who tried to enter the wrong house. Charged with aggravated battery but charges were later dropped.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2012, 11:06:16 AM
I'll remember that when I shoot you in the face for coming after me with a boat. :lol:
Shall we duel with motor boats in Baltimore harbor?
I can so see Scip shooting and killing one his own clients who dared walk on his property because Scip decided that "Office hours" ended at two in the afternoon that day.
They should set a GTA game in Baltimore.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2012, 11:14:46 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2012, 11:06:16 AM
I'll remember that when I shoot you in the face for coming after me with a boat. :lol:
Shall we duel with motor boats in Baltimore harbor?
I don't fight fair. You'd never make it to the trailer landing. I STOOD MY GROUND
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2012, 11:17:01 AM
I can so see Scip shooting and killing one his own clients who dared walk on his property because Scip decided that "Office hours" ended at two in the afternoon that day.
:lol: Awesome obscure dated reference. STAND YOUR OFFICE HOURS
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2012, 10:57:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 10:52:25 AM
If it's truly murder, yeah.
Eh if I was going to plan to commit a murder I pretty much have the blueprint here: force an altercation and provoke an attack (it seems just a fistfight if sufficient) and then I can legally commit homicide.
I think this mentality that derspiess is exhibiting is rooted in the "outlaw" concept that is pretty much rejected in modern criminal justice system. I.e. he believes that someone who breaks the law (e.g. by stealing something) becomes a fair game for someone to shoot him down or stab to death.
Neil is right in saying that this has very little to do with the principles of conservatism, but everything to do with the frontier mentality of the Wild West. That's why your justice system is so different from pretty much every other Western nation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2012, 11:18:38 AM
:lol: Awesome obscure dated reference. STAND YOUR OFFICE HOURS
Raz strikes gold again. :D
Anyway, the Trayvon Martin thing sounds like it wouldn't even stand up to SYG. The dude was armed with, survey says...
a bag of Skittles. Is SYG so vague that you can be justified by being afraid of a black guy?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 23, 2012, 11:26:53 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2012, 11:18:38 AM
:lol: Awesome obscure dated reference. STAND YOUR OFFICE HOURS
Raz strikes gold again. :D
Anyway, the Trayvon Martin thing sounds like it wouldn't even stand up to SYG. The dude was armed with, survey says... a bag of Skittles. Is SYG so vague that you can be justified by being afraid of a black guy?
QuoteMax Wesley Horn, 2008, Pasco County: Horn fatally shot Joseph Martel after argument at Chasco Fiesta. He was acquitted after two years in jail.
Gregory Allan Stewart, 2009, Wesley Chapel: Shot William Kuch, a drunk, unarmed and confused man, who tried to enter the wrong house. Charged with aggravated battery but charges were later dropped.
I'd say skittles are more dangerous than an argument or a drunk, unarmed and lost man.
You could choke someone if you crammed them down their throat!
Of course if this idiot didnt have a gun in the first place....
In a society that can justify allowing its citizens to carry concealed guns this sort of thing is bound to happen.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 23, 2012, 11:31:22 AM
I'd say skittles are more dangerous than an argument or a drunk, unarmed and lost man.
You could choke someone if you crammed them down their throat!
Jesus tapdancing christ. Sorry, PLJ, but Florida = the USA's armpit.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2012, 11:25:38 AM
Neil is right in saying that this has very little to do with the principles of conservatism, but everything to do with the frontier mentality of the Wild West. That's why your justice system is so different from pretty much every other Western nation.
No, he's not. At least in terms of the Castle Doctrine, it has to do with property rights, which is very much a key principle in Conservatism.
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 11:34:33 AM
No, he's not. At least in terms of the Castle Doctrine, it has to do with property rights, which is very much a key principle in Conservatism.
I dunno, everything I'm hearing makes me think Florida's going Wild West. Hell, as I currently understand SYG, "I Shot the Sheriff" would end after the line "I swear it was in self-defense."
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 11:34:33 AM
No, he's not. At least in terms of the Castle Doctrine, it has to do with property rights, which is very much a key principle in Conservatism.
What is the connection between property rights and gun control laws. They are not linked in Canada.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 23, 2012, 11:37:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 11:34:33 AM
No, he's not. At least in terms of the Castle Doctrine, it has to do with property rights, which is very much a key principle in Conservatism.
I dunno, everything I'm hearing makes me think Florida's going Wild West. Hell, as I currently understand SYG, "I Shot the Sheriff" would end after the line "I swear it was in self-defense."
:lol: This thread is delivering on the references.
'If I Had a Son,' Obama Says, He'd Look Like Trayvon Martin
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/obama-makes-first-comments-on-trayvon-martin-shooting/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/obama-makes-first-comments-on-trayvon-martin-shooting/)
In Kentucky, another castle doctrine state, you can legally kill a trespasser on your own property if you catch them in the act of committing arson. :)
It's not too late Obama! Have your wife murdered and then find a 16-year-old...
ah fuck I have been playing too much CK2.
Quote from: Caliga on March 23, 2012, 11:44:19 AM
In Kentucky, another castle doctrine state, you can legally kill a trespasser on your own property if you catch them in the act of committing arson. :)
How did the castle doctrine enter into this?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 23, 2012, 11:31:22 AM
I'd say skittles are more dangerous than an argument or a drunk, unarmed and lost man.
You could choke someone if you crammed them down their throat!
The "Taste the Rainbow" Doctrine can't touch the sheer lethality and statutory immunity of the "Mentos, the Freshmaker" Doctrine.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2012, 11:46:40 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 23, 2012, 11:44:19 AM
In Kentucky, another castle doctrine state, you can legally kill a trespasser on your own property if you catch them in the act of committing arson. :)
How did the castle doctrine enter into this?
I don't know. :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2012, 11:46:40 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 23, 2012, 11:44:19 AM
In Kentucky, another castle doctrine state, you can legally kill a trespasser on your own property if you catch them in the act of committing arson. :)
How did the castle doctrine enter into this?
It has been mentioned a few times in the thread.
Quote from: Caliga on March 23, 2012, 11:49:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2012, 11:46:40 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 23, 2012, 11:44:19 AM
In Kentucky, another castle doctrine state, you can legally kill a trespasser on your own property if you catch them in the act of committing arson. :)
How did the castle doctrine enter into this?
I don't know. :hmm:
What if they're on your property, yet trying to burn the property of someone else, e.g., a car? What then, Doc Holiday?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 23, 2012, 11:37:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 11:34:33 AM
No, he's not. At least in terms of the Castle Doctrine, it has to do with property rights, which is very much a key principle in Conservatism.
I dunno, everything I'm hearing makes me think Florida's going Wild West. Hell, as I currently understand SYG, "I Shot the Sheriff" would end after the line "I swear it was in self-defense."
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2012, 11:52:20 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 23, 2012, 11:49:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2012, 11:46:40 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 23, 2012, 11:44:19 AM
In Kentucky, another castle doctrine state, you can legally kill a trespasser on your own property if you catch them in the act of committing arson. :)
How did the castle doctrine enter into this?
I don't know. :hmm:
What if they're on your property, yet trying to burn the property of someone else, e.g., a car? What then, Doc Holiday?
Then I suppose it's legal to shoot the arsonist, and the people with the car on your property, especially if the car is there without your permission? :unsure:
Quote from: Phillip V on March 23, 2012, 11:40:55 AM
'If I Had a Son,' Obama Says, He'd Look Like Trayvon Martin
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/obama-makes-first-comments-on-trayvon-martin-shooting/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/obama-makes-first-comments-on-trayvon-martin-shooting/)
Kids ears aren't that big.
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 11:34:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2012, 11:25:38 AM
Neil is right in saying that this has very little to do with the principles of conservatism, but everything to do with the frontier mentality of the Wild West. That's why your justice system is so different from pretty much every other Western nation.
No, he's not. At least in terms of the Castle Doctrine, it has to do with property rights, which is very much a key principle in Conservatism.
We're not talking about the Castle doctrine, and even if we were, that has nothing to do with property rights so much as it does creating a climate of fear.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2012, 11:25:38 AM
I think this mentality that derspiess is exhibiting is rooted in the "outlaw" concept that is pretty much rejected in modern criminal justice system. I.e. he believes that someone who breaks the law (e.g. by stealing something) becomes a fair game for someone to shoot him down or stab to death.
Neil is right in saying that this has very little to do with the principles of conservatism, but everything to do with the frontier mentality of the Wild West. That's why your justice system is so different from pretty much every other Western nation.
I blame Europe. All this mischief is happening because folks who used to be decent Amurricans are importing fancy "doctrines" into statutes and having judges rule on them instead of juries, like a bunch of Romanophile civil law trained Poles.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 23, 2012, 11:37:01 AM
Hell, as I currently understand SYG, "I Shot the Sheriff" would end after the line "I swear it was in self-defense."
It would be worth it if I never had to hear Bob Dylan sing "Hurricane"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2012, 12:28:48 PM
I blame Europe. All this mischief is happening because folks who used to be decent Amurricans are importing fancy "doctrines" into statutes and having judges rule on them instead of juries, like a bunch of Romanophile civil law trained Poles.
I was thinking the same thing. Euros should be happy elites get to make the decisions in this law, rather than plebs. The results suck, but then the results suck there, too.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2012, 12:31:31 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 23, 2012, 11:37:01 AM
Hell, as I currently understand SYG, "I Shot the Sheriff" would end after the line "I swear it was in self-defense."
It would be worth it if I never had to hear Bob Dylan sing "Hurricane"
Sacrilege! :mad:
I hope Denzel knocks you the fuck out.
Quote from: Neil on March 23, 2012, 12:22:45 PM
We're not talking about the Castle doctrine, and even if we were, that has nothing to do with property rights so much as it does creating a climate of fear.
You have it the wrong way around, but it's pointless to argue.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2012, 12:31:31 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 23, 2012, 11:37:01 AM
Hell, as I currently understand SYG, "I Shot the Sheriff" would end after the line "I swear it was in self-defense."
It would be worth it if I never had to hear Bob Dylan sing "Hurricane"
Where is Buddha btw?
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 12:45:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 23, 2012, 12:22:45 PM
We're not talking about the Castle doctrine, and even if we were, that has nothing to do with property rights so much as it does creating a climate of fear.
You have it the wrong way around, but it's pointless to argue.
I think that you can defend property rights without resorting to warlordism.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2012, 12:31:31 PM
It would be worth it if I never had to hear Bob Dylan sing "Hurricane"
What's your knock on Hurricane? :huh:
Quote from: Neil on March 23, 2012, 02:09:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 12:45:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 23, 2012, 12:22:45 PM
We're not talking about the Castle doctrine, and even if we were, that has nothing to do with property rights so much as it does creating a climate of fear.
You have it the wrong way around, but it's pointless to argue.
I think that you can defend property rights without resorting to warlordism.
Fine. Enjoy your Canadianity :)
Quote from: Neil on March 23, 2012, 02:09:33 PM
I think that you can defend property rights without resorting to warlordism.
How? Without that doctrine the only option is to flee your own house when there is a break-in.
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 02:34:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 23, 2012, 02:09:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 12:45:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 23, 2012, 12:22:45 PM
We're not talking about the Castle doctrine, and even if we were, that has nothing to do with property rights so much as it does creating a climate of fear.
You have it the wrong way around, but it's pointless to argue.
I think that you can defend property rights without resorting to warlordism.
Fine. Enjoy your Canadianity :)
With 554 total homicides in the entire country in 2011, I'm sure he is.
The Castle doctrine makes sense to me. You shouldn't be expected to run and hide if someone breaks in. I think there is a difference though between defending your home and running down a guy who was trying to boost your car stereo and killing him with a knife. I don't think that is acceptable.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2012, 02:42:47 PM
The Castle doctrine makes sense to me. You shouldn't be expected to run and hide if someone breaks in.
You're not expected to hide, dummy. That's not extricating yourself from the situation.
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 02:34:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 23, 2012, 02:09:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 12:45:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 23, 2012, 12:22:45 PM
We're not talking about the Castle doctrine, and even if we were, that has nothing to do with property rights so much as it does creating a climate of fear.
You have it the wrong way around, but it's pointless to argue.
I think that you can defend property rights without resorting to warlordism.
Fine. Enjoy your Canadianity :)
I do. It's called 'civilization'.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2012, 02:42:47 PM
The Castle doctrine makes sense to me. You shouldn't be expected to run and hide if someone breaks in. I think there is a difference though between defending your home and running down a guy who was trying to boost your car stereo and killing him with a knife. I don't think that is acceptable.
Is it okay to rough him up a little?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2012, 02:45:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2012, 02:42:47 PM
The Castle doctrine makes sense to me. You shouldn't be expected to run and hide if someone breaks in.
You're not expected to hide, dummy. That's not extricating yourself from the situation.
I can't run very fast. I don't think a person should be having to wonder if he has done his duty to avoid using deadly force while someone is in kicking down your door. I imagine you would have to think and act quickly and wouldn't want the person in the home to die as they try to work out what their legal rights are. On the other hand, I don't think that it's desirable for derspeiss to blow away some girl scouts selling cookies that he thought might be Islamic terrorists come to hijack his deck.
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 02:56:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2012, 02:42:47 PM
The Castle doctrine makes sense to me. You shouldn't be expected to run and hide if someone breaks in. I think there is a difference though between defending your home and running down a guy who was trying to boost your car stereo and killing him with a knife. I don't think that is acceptable.
Is it okay to rough him up a little?
Yeah, that's fine.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2012, 11:17:01 AM
I can so see Scip shooting and killing one his own clients who dared walk on his property because Scip decided that "Office hours" ended at two in the afternoon that day.
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2012, 02:59:40 PM
On the other hand, I don't think that it's desirable for derspeiss to blow away some girl scouts selling cookies that he thought might be Islamic terrorists come to hijack his deck.
I did just stain it 2 weeks ago, FFS.
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 03:37:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2012, 02:59:40 PM
On the other hand, I don't think that it's desirable for derspeiss to blow away some girl scouts selling cookies that he thought might be Islamic terrorists come to hijack his deck.
I did just stain it 2 weeks ago, FFS.
Yeah. With the blood of girl scouts.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2012, 04:08:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 03:37:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2012, 02:59:40 PM
On the other hand, I don't think that it's desirable for derspeiss to blow away some girl scouts selling cookies that he thought might be Islamic terrorists come to hijack his deck.
I did just stain it 2 weeks ago, FFS.
Yeah. With the blood of girl scouts.
He felt threatened and stood his ground. How was he to know they only had cookies in those boxes they were carrying in a threatening manner.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2012, 04:08:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 03:37:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2012, 02:59:40 PM
On the other hand, I don't think that it's desirable for derspeiss to blow away some girl scouts selling cookies that he thought might be Islamic terrorists come to hijack his deck.
I did just stain it 2 weeks ago, FFS.
Yeah. With the blood of girl scouts.
Didn't work. Had to go back over it with some Behr semi-transparent redwood stuff.
Thin Mints are a motherfucker.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2012, 04:20:00 PM
Thin Mints are a motherfucker.
Hell yeah. I remember eating a whole sleeve of them in high school after missing lunch. Played my best ever game of volleyball that afternoon.
I've read a lot about this. I think the police committed some procedural errors and may have acted out of bias, and they have also done a very bad job of handling the parents and the general publicity behind this thing.
However some things that were not accurately repeated in this thread:
1. The investigation did not end at the scene. Zimmerman was taken to the police station, received a mug shot (that is actually the picture of him most people are seeing on the news), and gave a statement to police.
2. The police claim that the witness statements they took right after the incident corroborated Zimmerman's claims.
3. The police claim physical evidence collected at the scene corroborated Zimmerman's claims.
Now, other than that, the initial investigation does seem pretty weak. It seems like they missed some really obvious things, like trying to ascertain whether Zimmerman was drunk. They also didn't check Martin's cell phone records to see if the bluetooth ear piece that fell out of his head right before someone put a hole in his chest was being used to make a phone call and if maybe the person on the other end of that phone call had some relevant information.
We have never received a released, full transcript of the statement Zimmerman gave to police or any of those initial witness statements. We also have never received a full accounting of the physical evidence or the crime scene. That is why there is so much confusion, many witnesses who say they heard things or observed parts of the altercation have come forward to the media after the fact. Some of them are claiming the police never wanted to take their statements initially, if so that's bad. However several of those the police have said they took their statements on the scene, and they were brief and indicated they had seen/heard nothing.
We don't know how far from the start of the altercation the shooting occurred, we don't know what any of the witnesses said in official statements to police. The news has tried to fill those gaps in, and they may have gotten some of it right, but they probably got a lot of it wrong, too.
This case and the police work in terms of press releases has been so confusing that it's very difficult to take anything from anyone at face value. One investigator (quoted but unnamed) said to the Orlando Sentinel that the reason they had not charged is because, after repeated consultations with the local prosecutor, they were told they lacked enough evidence against Zimmerman to secure a conviction. If that's actually what happened I feel the police have gotten a greater share of the brunt than they probably deserve. But if it's also true they missed some of the investigative steps like trying to ascertain if Zimmerman was intoxicated and/or investigating who Martin had potentially been on a phone call with I think they do deserve at least some of the blame.
I also don't know that a grand jury has actually been called for this case, as I'm not sure that is how grand juries in Florida works. Before Norm Wolfinger (a State Attorney in Florida) recused himself from the case and gave it to some woman State Attorney from another part of Florida (to remove implications of bias) he made the statement that he was "going to make use of the grand jury that is being seated on April 10th. That makes it sound like grand juries just randomly get scheduled to meet in Florida for various purposes, and Wolfinger was going to "make use of it for this matter" after reviewing the case against Zimmerman.
The justice department has already made some statements indicating they doubt they can get a hate crime conviction against Zimmerman because it is essentially the "highest burden of proof in criminal law" to convict Zimmerman on those charges; specifically they have to prove he committed an act with specific intent and that the specific intent was based on race.
A lot of legal experts who have weighed in on the case in the national press have actually sided with the view that convicting Zimmerman under Florida law probably will be genuinely very difficult. For one, a lot of the most inflammatory stuff you guys have heard from random witness statements probably won't hold up in court. Apparently many of the witnesses who now condemn or give anti-Zimmerman statements to the press made very brief, uninformed statements to the police who investigated. It seems like initially these witnesses did not want to get involved, so they made statements that kept them from getting involved. That's unfortunate for Trayvon's family, because now at trial any defense counsel worth whatever the county pays him to represent Zimmerman is going to bring up the fact various witnesses gave statements to police that were materially different than what they are now saying. Additionally, the phone call with Trayvon's girlfriend, I've heard, may not be allowed in at trial at all as it is hear say. She would be testifying about what she "heard Trayvon say."
What we're left with is basically Zimmerman's initial statement to police and how plausible it is. If a plausible self defense claim is made then technically under Florida law unless the prosecutor can disprove that claim I don't believe legally Zimmerman can be convicted of any crime (I also believe Florida's stand your ground law insulates him from civil litigation as well.)
Quote from: Berkut on March 23, 2012, 01:17:59 AM
Does the person in question actually have to fear for their life in some kind of rational or reasonable fashion? What was this dickheads "fear for his life" that justified his shooting that kid? Was he afraid the kid was actually going to beat him to death with his bag of skittles?
What I find odd is that, from my understanding, this is something for the judge to decide. So the story I linked to earlier was of a guy whose car was being robbed. He confronted the robber, then chased him down the street and stabbed him to death. The judge ruled that this was standing your ground.
If you're to have this sort of law surely it should be a defence to a crime - not a reason to throw it out or fail to investigate - and surely it should be for the jury? It seems like the sort of things juries are for. English law seems right to me in using the jury to decide. The jury decide if the person honestly believed that they're in danger (or another person and so on) - if they did then it's for the jury to decide if the force used was reasonable. If it was they were justified in committing what would otherwise be a crime. But all of these should be questions of fact for a jury to settle, not for a judge to decide on
QuoteNeil is right in saying that this has very little to do with the principles of conservatism, but everything to do with the frontier mentality of the Wild West. That's why your justice system is so different from pretty much every other Western nation.
I think you're wrong for most of the US. From what I can gather the US had very strong laws on this. There's a duty to retreat, for example, which has been explicitly rejected in English law. In response there's been an overreaction in some states.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2012, 11:52:20 AM
What if they're on your property, yet trying to burn the property of someone else, e.g., a car? What then, Doc Holiday?
The statute relates to arson committed against buildings you own. So a car wouldn't count, no. If some guy is trying to burn your shed down, though...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsinglewhitealcoholicseekssame.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F04%2Frambo-m60.jpg&hash=6d94926b42f640feb66b57fb591dff14ed4dcc12)
You're right generally about juries, but in the United States at least our judges can throw cases out if in the judge's opinion the evidence against the accused is so legally weak that they committed a crime that "no just outcome could lead to conviction." In those circumstances judges can and do throw cases out all the time, that's what a motion to dismiss is seeking, basically you're asking the judge to say "yeah, the prosecution has absolutely no case so there is no legitimate reason for a trial to go on here."
Quote from: Caliga on March 23, 2012, 07:25:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 23, 2012, 11:52:20 AM
What if they're on your property, yet trying to burn the property of someone else, e.g., a car? What then, Doc Holiday?
The statute relates to arson committed against buildings you own. So a car wouldn't count, no. If some guy is trying to burn your shed down, though...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsinglewhitealcoholicseekssame.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F04%2Frambo-m60.jpg&hash=6d94926b42f640feb66b57fb591dff14ed4dcc12)
What if they are on your property and trying to burn down your neighbor's shed?
The shed isn't yours in that case, so no you cannot legally kill them. :(
SOLUTION: Ask your neighbor to kill them. It's Kentucky, so the chance of him having a gun (or ten) is 95% or better. :Canuck:
Raz's article says the Flordia Supreme Court's ruled that the question of whether stand you ground immunity applies should be for judges, not juries. Which seems mad and it's not just a judge dismissing a legally weak case which is fine.
We're talking about theoretical situations in Kentucky, not Oregon.
In case anyone wants to actually see what I'm talking about:
Quote
503.080 Protection of property.
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:
(a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or
(b) Theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used is:
(a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or
(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building in his possession.
edit: my post was in response to one that apparently got deleted. :hmm:
Till I pulled that I had forgotten you can also legally kill someone who is trying to throw you out of your house. :)
I am looking forward to the day when someone here blows a foreclosure agent away because they didn't quite understand the nuances of that statute. :showoff:
Quote from: Caliga on March 23, 2012, 07:42:31 PM
Till I pulled that I had forgotten you can also legally kill someone who is trying to throw you out of your house. :)
I am looking forward to the day when someone here blows a foreclosure agent away because they didn't quite understand the nuances of that statute. :showoff:
I would be fine with that, no matter what color either person was.
I am perfectly fine annihilating an intruder on my property. Or thanks to the amended law, my car.
Quote from: Caliga on March 23, 2012, 07:42:31 PM
Till I pulled that I had forgotten you can also legally kill someone who is trying to throw you out of your house. :)
I am looking forward to the day when someone here blows a foreclosure agent away because they didn't quite understand the nuances of that statute. :showoff:
Or, more likely, the deputy sheriffs. That'll be a real hoot, yeah.
Yeah, SYG being decided by judges is a major common sense no-no. Dismissal means there's not enough to prosecute the case, not that the defendant's defense is valid- as has been said throughout this thread, that's for juries, not judges, to decide.
Silently, DOJ memorandums carry a lot of weight in the court system. I suspect after this has died down, or even concurrently, DOJ's going to issue a memo re-affirming that defenses should be decided by juries and that a failure to indict based on a possible valid defense is unacceptable, which will then wend its way through the Florida court system.
I usually skip over Raz's posts, is there something here saying the indictment itself is going to be decided on by a judge? That begs the question of what Norm Wolfinger's grand jury is going to be doing...my understanding is they can indict if they wish.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 23, 2012, 09:47:48 PM
I usually skip over Raz's posts, is there something here saying the indictment itself is going to be decided on by a judge? That begs the question of what Norm Wolfinger's grand jury is going to be doing...my understanding is they can indict if they wish.
Earlier in the thread, there were links to a couple of cases where judges dismissed cases on SYG grounds. Basically, the brouhaha (and why DOJ's down there in the first place) is because they're investigating whether the
police are hiding behind SYG when they're actually racially profiling.
The 911 logs suggest the guy was known to be a little off when it came to black people in the neighborhood, the vic wasn't armed in any way... if the coroner's report says anything about defensive wounds, this shitstorm's only going to get bigger.
All told, this is Seminole County we're talking about. I hate to say it, but I've come to expect this kind of nonsense from Seminole and Sarasota. They seriously need to put the cops in those two counties on short leashes.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 23, 2012, 06:50:09 PM
I've read a lot about this. I think the police committed some procedural errors and may have acted out of bias, and they have also done a very bad job of handling the parents and the general publicity behind this thing.
However some things that were not accurately repeated in this thread:
1. The investigation did not end at the scene. Zimmerman was taken to the police station, received a mug shot (that is actually the picture of him most people are seeing on the news), and gave a statement to police.
Shame you don't read my posts, cause then you'd find that your statement is incorrect. The photo that is being displayed in the news is from a previous 2005 arrest. I have yet to find any report that indicates that Zimmerman was taken to the police station for this incident rather then giving his statement to the police at the scene.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2012, 11:38:02 PMShame you don't read my posts, cause then you'd find that your statement is incorrect. The photo that is being displayed in the news is from a previous 2005 arrest. I have yet to find any report that indicates that Zimmerman was taken to the police station for this incident rather then giving his statement to the police at the scene.
Then you're an idiot who is uninformed.
He was handcuffed and taken to the police station for questioning. From Reuters:
QuoteA police report made public on Wednesday said Martin's death was originally investigated as a homicide, specifically an "unnecessary killing to prevent an unlawful act."
The report, made by the first two officers to arrive at the scene of the shooting, cited a state law that says someone who unnecessarily kills another person while trying to prevent that person from committing an unlawful act, "shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter."
The report said that when the first officer arrived, Martin was lying "face-down on the ground" with his hands beneath him and that Zimmerman told the officer "that he had shot the subject and he (Zimmerman) was still armed."
The officer said he handcuffed Zimmerman and removed the gun and holster from inside Zimmerman's waistband, and saw that his back was "wet and covered in grass" and that he was "bleeding from the nose and back of his head."
Zimmerman was put in the backseat of a police cruiser, given first aid by paramedics and taken to the police station to be interviewed by investigators.
The first officer at the scene, Timothy Smith, wrote in the report that he did not question Zimmerman at the scene.
But that appeared to be contradicted in a "Dear Citizens" statement posted Wednesday on the city's website by City Manager Norton Bonaparte Jr.. The statement expressed the city's "heartfelt sympathies to the Martin family," and provided a series of answers by Lee abou t the case.
In his answers, Lee explained that when police arrived at the scene, Zimmerman "provided a statement claiming he acted in self-defense, which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony."
Lee quoted Zimmerman as saying that "he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck .... when he says he was attacked by Trayvon."
Lee said that under Florida law police were prohibited from arresting Zimmerman because he said he acted in self-defense.
Please kill yourself.
Doesn't disprove my statement about the photo. :contract:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2012, 11:53:35 PM
Doesn't disprove my statement about the photo. :contract:
True, but I feel on the substantive point I prevailed so I split the exchange 70/30 in my favor.
I suppose that means you have to kill yourself 30% to my 70%.
Maybe we kill you both and make a Frankenstein monster that's 70% Otto, 30% Raz? :hmm:
the mob has won; governor scott appointed the prosecutor of the circuit encompassing jacksonville to oversee the "investigation." Inasmuch as she almost never declines to prosecute, usually doesnt chance things with a grand jury and rarely plea bargins, I suspect the appointment pre-ordains the result
i believe that she will direct file a prosecution and bypass a grand jury enirely within the next week
she will likely try the case and let the chips fall where they may
Does this mean we are not going to get a frankenRazOttostein?
Quote from: Rasputin on March 26, 2012, 12:37:19 PM
the mob has won;
....
Quite a loaded word there, chief. Besides in the south wasn't it vigilantes who used to come in mob-handed ?
Quote from: Rasputin on March 26, 2012, 12:37:19 PM
she will likely try the case and let the chips fall where they may
I have found that in difficult cases that is usually the best course of action.
Seems to me that a trial is the best thing to happen at this point.
I'm getting the sense from this story that in certain cases a grand jury indictment is optional. Can someone confirm or deny that, and if true, what are the circumstances that allow a prosecutor to bypass the grand jury?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2012, 04:30:56 PM
I'm getting the sense from this story that in certain cases a grand jury indictment is optional. Can someone confirm or deny that, and if true, what are the circumstances that allow a prosecutor to bypass the grand jury?
Yeah I do not understand how such a serious crime would not first have an indictment hearing before a Grand Jury. It kind of flies in the face of the whole reason we have a Grand Jury in the first place.
73% of Americans say the police should arrest George Zimmerman.
However, 55% approve of the "Stand Your Ground" laws.
But then, 76% believe that neighborhood watch captains should not be allowed to carry weapons.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/26/justice/florida-teen-shooting-poll/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/26/justice/florida-teen-shooting-poll/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)
Quote from: Phillip V on March 26, 2012, 05:39:25 PM
73% of Americans say the police should arrest George Zimmerman.
However, 55% approve of the "Stand Your Ground" laws.
But then, 76% believe that neighborhood watch captains should not be allowed to carry weapons.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/26/justice/florida-teen-shooting-poll/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/26/justice/florida-teen-shooting-poll/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)
Are you implying those 3 "facts" are related in any way?
This thing have NOTHING to do with Stand Your Ground.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 26, 2012, 05:39:25 PM
73% of Americans say the police should arrest George Zimmerman.
However, 55% approve of the “Stand Your Ground” laws.
But then, 76% believe that neighborhood watch captains should not be allowed to carry weapons.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/26/justice/florida-teen-shooting-poll/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/26/justice/florida-teen-shooting-poll/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)
CNN polls have a 69% inacuracy.
This kid that got killed is just like Obama. The only thing he have going for him is that he is black.
Had this happened to a white kid, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2012, 05:56:20 PM
This kid that got killed is just like Obama. The only thing he have going for him is that he is black.
Had this happened to a white kid, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Yes, because the shooter would be in jail.
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2012, 05:56:20 PM
The only thing he have going for him is that he is black.
President Obama can also speak in complete grammatically correct sentences.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2012, 06:11:38 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2012, 05:56:20 PM
The only thing he have going for him is that he is black.
President Obama can also speak in complete grammatically correct sentences.
He's an elitist, no wonder he thinks he is better than us. :mad:
Quote from: Jacob on March 26, 2012, 01:19:55 PM
Seems to me that a trial is the best thing to happen at this point.
I don't know if I agree with that. Imagine what will happen if Zimmerman isn't convicted?
Quote from: Caliga on March 26, 2012, 06:38:35 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 26, 2012, 01:19:55 PM
Seems to me that a trial is the best thing to happen at this point.
I don't know if I agree with that. Imagine what will happen if Zimmerman isn't convicted?
I'm sure Sharpton is readying the hoi polloi for their race riot.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2012, 04:30:56 PM
I'm getting the sense from this story that in certain cases a grand jury indictment is optional. Can someone confirm or deny that, and if true, what are the circumstances that allow a prosecutor to bypass the grand jury?
Proceeding by way of information rather than indictment. The prosecutor just issues the information (charging someone with crimes), no Grand Jury approval needed. I think it usually at the prosecutor's discretion in a number of states. The defendant can then challenge the information at a preliminary/probable cause hearing. And defendants often waive their right to have the case presented before a Grand Jury to speed things up.
The downside for the prosecutor, especially for more complex cases, is that he doesn't get to examine witnesses (who are under oath, unrepresented by counsel, and possessing limited self-incrimination protection) like he would before a Grand Jury.
At least this is my recollection/more or less how things worked in Tenn.
I was surprised how long it took Big Al to get involved in this case. I figured he would have all but teleported to Sanford as soon as he smelled blood.
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2012, 05:53:09 PM
This thing have NOTHING to do with Stand Your Ground.
Okay make your argument.
Quote from: Neil on March 26, 2012, 06:50:28 PM
I'm sure Sharpton is readying the hoi polloi for their race riot.
I don't think that means what you think it means.
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2012, 05:56:20 PM
This kid that got killed is just like Obama. The only thing he have going for him is that he is black.
Had this happened to a white kid, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The kid was going to graduate Magna Cum Laude at a Harvard Law school and then become a teacher at one of the top law schools in the country? We lost a great deal more then I thought.
Now Siege, I know the boys in your unit have been a bad influence on you, making you more conservative and such, but don't start hating blacks as well.
New info backing Zimmerman's story?
QuoteThousands of people streamed through the streets of Sanford, Fla., on Monday to demand that authorities prosecute the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin one month ago.
The protesters were on their way to a special meeting of the City Commission at the town's Civic Center that began at 5 p.m. ET, where members were to hold a hearing on the killing of Martin, who was unarmed, by George Zimmerman, 28, a neighborhood watch volunteer. (Among the marchers and the speakers was the Rev. Al Sharpton, host of MSNBC-TV's "PoliticNation.")
The shooting of Martin, who was black, by Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, has led to similar rallies across the country. Martin's family has made multiple media appearances pushing for Zimmerman's arrest.
Tracy Martin, the young man's father, addressed the hearing Monday, accusing police of trying to "sweep another dead black male under the rug."
To loud cheers and applause, Tracy Martin said Zimmerman "needs to be arrested. He needs to be put on trial. He needs to be given a sentence by a jury of his peers."
Tracy Martin said he was anguished at "the slander of my son," referring to leaked details of Zimmerman's account of the shooting to police, which suggested that Trayvon Martin intitiated the incident, and news reports revealing that the younger Martin had been suspended from his high school for possessing an empty marijuana bag.
"We consider ourselves strong black parents and we take pride in our kids," Tracy Martin said, pounding his fist in the air for emphasis. "We're not asking for an eye for an eye. We're asking for justice, justice, justice!"
Zimmerman's account emerged for the first time Monday in a report by The Orlando Sentinel. Quoting unidentified "law enforcement authorities," the Sentinel reported that Zimmerman told police that Trayvon Martin knocked him down with a single punch and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times before the shooting — an account that police said witnesses have corroborated.
Zimmerman said he was walking back to his SUV when Martin approached him from behind, according to the Sentinel's report, which Sanford police confirmed Monday afternoon.
The two exchanged words before Martin decked him with a punch to the nose and began beating him, Zimmerman told police. He said he then shot Martin in self-defense.
Witnesses said they heard someone cry out in distress, some of them telling NBC News and other news organizations that it was Martin. But police sources told the Sentinel their evidence indicated it was Zimmerman.
Dateline NBC interviews woman who saw aftermath
One witness told police he saw Martin pounding Zimmerman on the ground. This witness was certain it was Zimmerman who was crying for help, the Sentinel reported.
When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and had a swollen lip and bloody lacerations to the back of his head, the newspaper reported. Police said Zimmerman wasn't badly injured and didn't seek treatment until the next day.
ABC News reported separately that Zimmerman told police that Martin also tried to take his gun.
In a statement, Sanford police said the Sentinel's report was "consistent with the information provided to the State Attorney's office by the police department." It didn't address the ABC report.
Zimmerman's attorney, Craig Sonner, has said he could invoke Florida's "stand-your-ground" law, which provides significant leeway for people to use deadly force if they feel their lives are in danger.
Meanwhile, Angela Corey, the special prosecutor, told ABC News that means "the state must go forward and be able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. ... So it makes the case in general more difficult than a normal criminal case."
Other new information that emerged Monday also appeared to complicate the case. Although toxicology tests on Martin's body were still pending, a spokesman for his family confirmed to NBC News that Martin was suspended for 10 days from Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School in Miami for possession of an empty marijuana baggie.
The disclosures added up an attempt to assassinate Martin's character, said Ben Crump, an attorney for Martin's family.
At a news conference, Crump alleged that police were "attempting to demonize and blame the victim by releasing bits and pieces of an ongoing investigation to build Zimmerman's claim up."
"Very clearly, whatever Trayvon Martin was suspended for had absolutely no bearing on what happened on the night of February 26," he said, adding that Martin "wasn't suspended for anything violent or criminal."
"If he and his friends experimented with marijuana, it's still completely irrelevant," Crump said.
As the City Commission hearing approached, there were these other developments:
•The Smoking Gun, a website that tracks criminal cases and document filings, reported Monday afternoon that Martin's mother, Sabrina Fulton, filed two applications last week for trademarks on her late son's name.
Fulton is seeking marks for the phrases "I Am Trayvon" and "Justice for Trayvon," according to filings with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In both instances, Fulton is seeking the trademarks for use on "Digital materials," namely, CDs and DVDs featuring Trayvon Martin," and other products.
•Sanford City Manager Norton Bonaparte announced that Capt. Darren Scott would serve as interim police chief during the investigation, NBC station WESH of Orlando, Fla., reported. Police Chief Bill Lee stepped aside last week as criticism over the lack of an arrest mounted across the country.
Following is the full text of the statement Monday confirming The Orlando Sentinel's report by the Sanford, Fla., Police Department:
In response to the recent article in the Orlando Sentinel, the information was not provided to the media through an authorized source at the Sanford Police Department, but possibly by a leak from within the department. The information in the article is consistent with the information provided to the State Attorney's office by the police department.
"We do not condone these unauthorized leaks of information," said City Manager, Norton Bonaparte, Jr. "Acting Chief Scott will be doing an internal investigation within the Sanford Police Department as this type of action compromises the integrity of the law enforcement agency which has pledged to uphold the law".
Mr. Bonaparte stated that disciplinary action including possible termination will be taken against anyone found to have leaked the information.
When will the autopsy report be released?
Quote from: Kleves on March 26, 2012, 07:14:38 PM
New info backing Zimmerman's story?
Too late... Al Sharpton's involved now, so it's RACISM whether you like it or not. :mad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsone.com%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F09%2Fal_sharpton.jpg&hash=de9a26d59f68eae03da1b0660755be03e0b3be71)
"I'M WATCHING YOU, WHITE PEOPLE."
The kid, had an empty bag at school that once had marijuana in it. Clearly that means he attacked Zimmerman first.
Cal:
Duke Lacrosse showed Al's lvl 18 racism incantation is not invincible.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 07:21:20 PM
The kid, had an empty bag at school that once had marijuana in it. Clearly that means he attacked Zimmerman first.
Didn't you ever watch Reefer Madness? Marijuana (which was named by MEXICANS!) makes you mad, bad, and dangerous to know! :o
Boy I bet jury selection will be a barrel of laughs.
Noticed a lot of conservatives bringing the Duke LaCrosse thing up. Seeing the "Black agenda" thwarted must have been a day to remember amongst conservatives.
The shooter wasnt white, though.
Anyway, for some reason I have a compulsion to buy some more guns and many more thousands of rounds of ammunition lately. :hmm:
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 07:25:09 PM
The shooter wasnt white, though.
He wasn't black, either. CHECK and MATE. :(
Quote from: Caliga on March 26, 2012, 07:25:52 PM
Anyway, for some reason I have a compulsion to buy some more guns and many more thousands of rounds of ammunition lately. :hmm:
Did you see a kid with skittles in the neighborhood recently?
Quote from: Caliga on March 26, 2012, 07:25:52 PM
Anyway, for some reason I have a compulsion to buy some more guns and many more thousands of rounds of ammunition lately. :hmm:
Good man :cheers:
Quote from: Caliga on March 26, 2012, 07:23:46 PM
Didn't you ever watch Reefer Madness? Marijuana (which was named by MEXICANS!) makes you mad, bad, and dangerous to know! :o
Indeed. MJ even comes in a special bag (clearly identified as a "marijuana baggie" even when empty) that is only carried by the most depraved of people.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 07:26:48 PM
Did you see a kid with skittles in the neighborhood recently?
We don't allow blacks in my neighborhood. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 07:24:46 PM
Noticed a lot of conservatives bringing the Duke LaCrosse thing up. Seeing the "Black agenda" thwarted must have been a day to remember amongst conservatives.
Which begs the question of why only conservatives bring it up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2012, 07:28:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 07:24:46 PM
Noticed a lot of conservatives bringing the Duke LaCrosse thing up. Seeing the "Black agenda" thwarted must have been a day to remember amongst conservatives.
Which begs the question of why only conservatives bring it up.
Maybe they don't like black people?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 07:31:13 PM
Maybe they don't like black people?
Exactly my point. Why is antipathy towards blacks (or as DGuller would say, "the blacks") a necessary precondition to be bothered by a prosecutor trying to railroad a conviction and Al triumphantly throwing down the racism card?
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 07:34:09 PM
That doesnt matter. What is the news calling him? I havent really followed this.
I saw Reuters call him "white-hispanic" in a recent article. I don't think I've ever seen that until this particular story.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 07:34:09 PM
That doesnt matter. What is the news calling him? I havent really followed this.
Hispanic and white. You can be both you know.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 07:34:09 PM
That doesnt matter. What is the news calling him? I havent really followed this.
Everything I've seen has him as beaner/Wonder Bread combo plate.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 26, 2012, 07:38:40 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 07:34:09 PM
That doesnt matter. What is the news calling him? I havent really followed this.
I saw Reuters call him "white-hispanic" in a recent article. I don't think I've ever seen that until this particular story.
Technically he is white.
Technically he is white?
Glad you folks have your race identification down. I cant make head or tale of it.
I've never seen them combine the two in news reports. Mostly because no one who isn't a weirdo does that except on the census forms, and as mentioned, that has caused problems.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2012, 07:37:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 07:31:13 PM
Maybe they don't like black people?
Exactly my point. Why is antipathy towards blacks (or as DGuller would say, "the blacks") a necessary precondition to be bothered by a prosecutor trying to railroad a conviction and Al triumphantly throwing down the racism card?
Prosecutor's railroad people all the time. Ditto with Al Sharpton. The guy will fold if any of the cards in his had aren't either spades or clubs. Why are conservatives so smug about that particular case? Duke Lacross has been tossed around several times by conservatives, which is odd since this isn't a rape case. People are found to be unfairly convicted of crimes (including murder) all the time. Yet conservatives seem to fixate on the Duke LaCrosse. Why?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 07:39:44 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 07:34:09 PM
That doesnt matter. What is the news calling him? I havent really followed this.
Hispanic and white. You can be both you know.
Nope. Once you get a drop of Mediterranean blood in you, you're permanently inferior.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 07:40:34 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 26, 2012, 07:38:40 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 07:34:09 PM
That doesnt matter. What is the news calling him? I havent really followed this.
I saw Reuters call him "white-hispanic" in a recent article. I don't think I've ever seen that until this particular story.
Technically he is white.
So the shooter wasn't actually white but merely technically white?
Zimmerman's father is a white non-Hispanic (German-American), and his mother is a white Hispanic (Peruvian-American).
In another half-century or less, Latinos will become "normal whites" in America like the Irish and Italians eventually did.
Quote from: Neil on March 26, 2012, 07:46:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 07:39:44 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 07:34:09 PM
That doesnt matter. What is the news calling him? I havent really followed this.
Hispanic and white. You can be both you know.
Nope. Once you get a drop of Mediterranean blood in you, you're permanently inferior.
Mediterranean is a sea. It doesn't really have blood.
Quote from: Caliga on March 26, 2012, 07:25:52 PM
Anyway, for some reason I have a compulsion to buy some more guns and many more thousands of rounds of ammunition lately. :hmm:
Don't worry, Cal. You're in Kentucky, you'll be able to shoot yourself a nigger for no reason and get away with it soon enough. Don't see what the rush is.
Wait, does that mean your head of state is not white?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 07:46:06 PM
Prosecutor's railroad people all the time. Ditto with Al Sharpton. The guy will fold if any of the cards in his had aren't either spades or clubs. Why are conservatives so smug about that particular case? Duke Lacross has been tossed around several times by conservatives, which is odd since this isn't a rape case. People are found to be unfairly convicted of crimes (including murder) all the time. Yet conservatives seem to fixate on the Duke LaCrosse. Why?
I've never met a conservative who fixates on Duke Lacrosse so I can't really say. If you see one, ask him.
Okay, why did you bring it up?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 07:58:10 PM
Okay, why did you bring it up?
To disprove Cal's assumption that Al's lvl 18 racism incantation is invincible.
Does that mean lvl 19 is invincible?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2012, 07:43:04 PM
Technically he is white?
Glad you folks have your race identification down. I cant make head or tale of it.
race or ethnicity?
Quote from: katmai on March 26, 2012, 08:04:47 PM
Does that mean lvl 19 is invincible?
:rolleyes: The only way I could know that is if life were a game and I had the Spell Results table. Since it's not a game we have to wait for a lvl 19 Racism Mage to come along and watch his results.
Can someone make Yigory stop? :weep: :bleeding:
Why is it that Raz call racist anyone that does not agree with his liberal agenda?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2012, 08:02:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 07:58:10 PM
Okay, why did you bring it up?
To disprove Cal's assumption that Al's lvl 18 racism incantation is invincible.
And that was the first thing to come to your mind? A rape case? I've seen other conservatives elsewhere on the net bring up Duke Lacrosse with this. Some where quite explicit with their opinions of African Americans.
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2012, 08:29:19 PM
Why is it that Raz call racist anyone that does not agree with his liberal agenda?
My agenda anti-racist. What would you call someone who opposes that agenda?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 08:31:36 PM
And that was the first thing to come to your mind? A rape case? I've seen other conservatives elsewhere on the net bring up Duke Lacrosse with this. Some where quite explicit with their opinions of African Americans.
It was the only thing to come to my mind. Al has a pretty awesome track record.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2012, 08:34:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 08:31:36 PM
And that was the first thing to come to your mind? A rape case? I've seen other conservatives elsewhere on the net bring up Duke Lacrosse with this. Some where quite explicit with their opinions of African Americans.
It was the only thing to come to my mind. Al has a pretty awesome track record.
Apparently it was the only thing to come to mind with many conservatives. Funny that.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 08:37:18 PM
Apparently it was the only thing to come to mind with many conservatives. Funny that.
Yeah, I almost peed my pants when you first brought it up.
Raz, STFU about Duke lacrosse, please.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2012, 08:43:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 08:37:18 PM
Apparently it was the only thing to come to mind with many conservatives. Funny that.
Yeah, I almost peed my pants when you first brought it up.
That sounds like a medical problem.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2012, 07:37:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 07:31:13 PM
Maybe they don't like black people?
Exactly my point. Why is antipathy towards blacks (or as DGuller would say, "the blacks") a necessary precondition to be bothered by a prosecutor trying to railroad a conviction and Al triumphantly throwing down the racism card?
The insult noted. :mad:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 26, 2012, 08:44:41 PM
Raz, STFU about Duke lacrosse, please.
I didn't bring it up. Yi did.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 08:49:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 26, 2012, 08:44:41 PM
Raz, STFU about Duke lacrosse, please.
I didn't bring it up. Yi did.
Fuck does he know, he only sees black people on television these days. So stop falling for his Burmese Negro Traps, please.
He hasn't gotten me yet, Seedy.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2012, 07:43:04 PM
Technically he is white?
Glad you folks have your race identification down. I cant make head or tale of it.
race or ethnicity?
What ethnicity is white?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2012, 08:53:00 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2012, 07:43:04 PM
Technically he is white?
Glad you folks have your race identification down. I cant make head or tale of it.
race or ethnicity?
What ethnicity is white?
All the european ethnicities west of the old iron curtain.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 26, 2012, 08:50:01 PM
Fuck does he know, he only sees black people on television these days. So stop falling for his Burmese Negro Traps, please.
Al contrario. Bus loads of blacks are moving from South Side Chicago to eastern Iowa.
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2012, 08:54:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2012, 08:53:00 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2012, 07:43:04 PM
Technically he is white?
Glad you folks have your race identification down. I cant make head or tale of it.
race or ethnicity?
What ethnicity is white?
All the european ethnicities west of the old iron curtain.
So there are a number of white ethnicities. Interesting. So you would call a Frenchman with black skin white? He is undoubtedly ethnically French after all. I suppose I should applaud your unamerican approach to race relations.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2012, 08:58:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 26, 2012, 08:50:01 PM
Fuck does he know, he only sees black people on television these days. So stop falling for his Burmese Negro Traps, please.
Al contrario. Bus loads of blacks are moving from South Side Chicago to eastern Iowa.
I think that's called an away game.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 26, 2012, 09:00:06 PM
I think that's called an away game.
I think it's called People Who Want to Live Getting the Fuck Out of the Ghetto.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2012, 08:53:00 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2012, 07:43:04 PM
Technically he is white?
Glad you folks have your race identification down. I cant make head or tale of it.
race or ethnicity?
What ethnicity is white?
What race is hispainic?
Quote from: Caliga on March 26, 2012, 06:38:35 PM
I don't know if I agree with that. Imagine what will happen if Zimmerman isn't convicted?
I guess I see nothing happening. What do you imagine happening?
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 10:01:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2012, 08:53:00 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2012, 07:43:04 PM
Technically he is white?
Glad you folks have your race identification down. I cant make head or tale of it.
race or ethnicity?
What ethnicity is white?
What race is hispainic?
Being a shifty lot, you can never tell!! :menace:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2012, 08:58:27 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2012, 08:54:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2012, 08:53:00 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2012, 07:43:04 PM
Technically he is white?
Glad you folks have your race identification down. I cant make head or tale of it.
race or ethnicity?
What ethnicity is white?
All the european ethnicities west of the old iron curtain.
So there are a number of white ethnicities. Interesting. So you would call a Frenchman with black skin white? He is undoubtedly ethnically French after all. I suppose I should applaud your unamerican approach to race relations.
and I applaud your Canadianism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2012, 07:37:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 07:31:13 PM
Maybe they don't like black people?
Exactly my point. Why is antipathy towards blacks (or as DGuller would say, "the blacks") a necessary precondition to be bothered by a prosecutor trying to railroad a conviction and Al triumphantly throwing down the racism card?
"Railroad a conviction"? :yeahright:
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2012, 08:54:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2012, 08:53:00 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2012, 07:43:04 PM
Technically he is white?
Glad you folks have your race identification down. I cant make head or tale of it.
race or ethnicity?
What ethnicity is white?
All the european ethnicities west of the old iron curtain.
Nonsense. That would mean Wops and porkchops are white, while slavs are not.
Even a cursory look will show you that slavs are white, while mediterranean peoples like Italians, Greeks, Arab or Jews are not.
I guess your beloved queen is not white. :(
Quote from: Barrister on March 26, 2012, 10:37:16 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2012, 08:54:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2012, 08:53:00 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2012, 07:43:04 PM
Technically he is white?
Glad you folks have your race identification down. I cant make head or tale of it.
race or ethnicity?
What ethnicity is white?
All the european ethnicities west of the old iron curtain.
Nonsense. That would mean Wops and porkchops are white, while slavs are not.
Even a cursory look will show you that slavs are white, while mediterranean peoples like Italians, Greeks, Arab or Jews are not.
What's a porkchop?? :huh:
Portuguese.
Quote from: Barrister on March 26, 2012, 10:37:16 PM
Nonsense. That would mean Wops and porkchops are white, while slavs are not.
Even a cursory look will show you that slavs are white, while mediterranean peoples like Italians, Greeks, Arab or Jews are not.
Slavs are subhuman, Neil has taught me so.
Quote from: katmai on March 26, 2012, 11:16:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 26, 2012, 10:37:16 PM
Nonsense. That would mean Wops and porkchops are white, while slavs are not.
Even a cursory look will show you that slavs are white, while mediterranean peoples like Italians, Greeks, Arab or Jews are not.
Slavs are subhuman, Neil has taught me so.
I thought Slavs were Gypsies.
I think it's funny Cal's only wigging out now over the Most Reverend Al getting involved.
If he watched MSNBC like every other Lean Forward-thinking American, he'd know the Most Reverend Al has been all up in this case for a while.
Fair and balanced my ass
MSNBCLOL
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 26, 2012, 11:41:04 PM
MSNBCLOL
Rachel Maddow is my liberal dreamboat. :wub:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 26, 2012, 11:43:35 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 26, 2012, 11:41:04 PM
MSNBCLOL
Rachel Maddow is my liberal dreamboat. :wub:
MSNBC is good for only two things:
1) Laughing at Chris Matthews' giant fat head
2) Rachel Maddow's smile :wub:
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 10:48:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 10:47:24 PM
Portuguese.
Never heard that.
HVC has insisted he be slurred that way from way back in 2003 so it is at least a Languish thing.
Oh, is that why we do it? I never understood it.
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2012, 11:59:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 10:48:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 10:47:24 PM
Portuguese.
Never heard that.
HVC has insisted he be slurred that way from way back in 2003 so it is at least a Languish thing.
I started it, lumping all the Portuguese in with Black Dragon into an eggplant casserole. So blame me.
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2012, 04:33:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2012, 04:30:56 PM
I'm getting the sense from this story that in certain cases a grand jury indictment is optional. Can someone confirm or deny that, and if true, what are the circumstances that allow a prosecutor to bypass the grand jury?
Yeah I do not understand how such a serious crime would not first have an indictment hearing before a Grand Jury. It kind of flies in the face of the whole reason we have a Grand Jury in the first place.
the prosecutor can always direct file an "information" in florida which is a charging ducument that bypasses the need for an indictment
Quote from: Caliga on March 26, 2012, 06:38:35 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 26, 2012, 01:19:55 PM
Seems to me that a trial is the best thing to happen at this point.
I don't know if I agree with that. Imagine what will happen if Zimmerman isn't convicted?
and if they try him in your typical sanford type community he likely won't be
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 26, 2012, 07:38:40 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2012, 07:34:09 PM
That doesnt matter. What is the news calling him? I havent really followed this.
I saw Reuters call him "white-hispanic" in a recent article. I don't think I've ever seen that until this particular story.
the racism angle doesn't work if the media use the more traditional "latino", "hispanic", "latin american", or "chicano"
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 08:33:02 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2012, 08:29:19 PM
Why is it that Raz call racist anyone that does not agree with his liberal agenda?
My agenda anti-racist. What would you call someone who opposes that agenda?
your agenda is trolling to dispell your ennui
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 07:48:34 AM
and if they try him in your typical sanford type community he likely won't be
Do you know something about this case I don't? The evidence presented hardly makes it look that clear. What about the 911 calls and the testimony of the people who heard it? Some people might find it convincing.
I do not get the ability to bypass the Grand Jury at all. If you do not need the Grand Jury...why would you need a Grand Jury? Or is that common? I thought this was rather an important part of our legal system.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 07:54:36 AM
your agenda is trolling to dispell your ennui
But really are we not all here for our own entertainment?
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 07:52:36 AM
the racism angle doesn't work if the media use the more traditional "latino", "hispanic", "latin american", or "chicano"
I am not so sure about that. Weren't the Rodney King beating cops Latinos? The anger will get focussed on the legal system which does not take the death of black people as crimes or something. But I think most reasonable people will be satisfied with an investigation that suits the severity of the situation.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2012, 08:10:56 AMI do not get the ability to bypass the Grand Jury at all. If you do not need the Grand Jury...why would you need a Grand Jury? Or is that common? I thought this was rather an important part of our legal system.
I gave a half-assed explanation above. The Grand Jury clause in the Constitution was never incorporated against the states, so it only binds the federal government. And even they have understood it to mean that no GJ in misdemeanor prosecutions is OK.
I'd also say I sense that by and large defendants don't feel very protected by a Grand Jury requirement... the amount of times they return a "No True Bill" is exceedingly small -- the feeling is that they generally just rubberstamp the charges presented by the DA. As well they should, I guess, since they only get the government's case (the defendant isn't there to cross-examine anyone), and the standard of proof is very low [probable cause, the same as for a police officer making an arrest in the first place]).
EDIT: Though in this case, it does seem like there'd be a much higher likelihood of the GJ refusing to issue an indictment than in your everyday shooting in claimed self-defense.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 27, 2012, 08:19:56 AM
I'd also say I sense that by and large defendants don't feel very protected by a Grand Jury requirement... the amount of times they return a "No True Bill" is exceedingly small -- the feeling is that they generally just rubberstamp the charges presented by the DA. As well they should, I guess, since they only get the government's case (the defendant isn't there to cross-examine anyone), and the standard of proof is very low [probable cause, the same as for a police officer making an arrest in the first place]).
I am aware of this I served on a Grand Jury. I still think it can be useful for preventing abuses by the state. But as these are somewhat rare occasions one might expect the amount of "No True Bill" to be small. I guess I can see a defendent not wanting 'indicted murderer' or whatever to get out there in a high profile case like this. But likewise in a case like this the Grand Jury is more likely to carefully consider its options.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 10:41:44 PM
I guess your beloved queen is not white. :(
Are you sure you aren't confusing Liz with her Greek husband? :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2012, 08:26:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 10:41:44 PM
I guess your beloved queen is not white. :(
Are you sure you aren't confusing Liz with her Greek husband? :hmm:
Hey! Prince Philip is a god! On Vanuatu anyway
I told you all before, get the fuck off my lawn.
Damn kids hanging around smoking cigarettes telling each other how cool they are. Boot camp for the lot of you.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2012, 08:26:13 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 27, 2012, 08:19:56 AM
I'd also say I sense that by and large defendants don't feel very protected by a Grand Jury requirement... the amount of times they return a "No True Bill" is exceedingly small -- the feeling is that they generally just rubberstamp the charges presented by the DA. As well they should, I guess, since they only get the government's case (the defendant isn't there to cross-examine anyone), and the standard of proof is very low [probable cause, the same as for a police officer making an arrest in the first place]).
I am aware of this I served on a Grand Jury. I still think it can be useful for preventing abuses by the state. But as these are somewhat rare occasions one might expect the amount of "No True Bill" to be small. I guess I can see a defendent not wanting 'indicted murderer' or whatever to get out there in a high profile case like this. But likewise in a case like this the Grand Jury is more likely to carefully consider its options.
In Canada we do not have Grand Juries, but we do have the preliminary inquiry before we can file an indictment in superior court. It's similar to a grand jury in that the prosecution must show that there is some evidence which would convict the accused (a very low threshhold). It's different in that the accused's lawyer is present and gets to cross-examine witnesses, and there's a judge not a jury, but it is still a pre-hearing of the government's case.
As a prosecutor I see very little benefit to the grand jury / preliminary inquiry. You have to present all the same evidence you woud at a trial, so it isn't any faster than moving straight through to trial. Really all it does in Canada is give defence a "free" whack at our witnesses.
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2012, 08:37:57 AM
As a prosecutor I see very little benefit to the grand jury / preliminary inquiry. You have to present all the same evidence you woud at a trial, so it isn't any faster than moving straight through to trial. Really all it does in Canada is give defence a "free" whack at our witnesses.
Well yeah it is not really set up to benefit the prosecutors.
Quote from: PDH on March 27, 2012, 08:37:15 AM
I told you all before, get the fuck off my lawn.
When did you get a lawn?
Rocks are a lawn.
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2012, 08:37:57 AM
In Canada we do not have Grand Juries, but we do have the preliminary inquiry before we can file an indictment in superior court. It's similar to a grand jury in that the prosecution must show that there is some evidence which would convict the accused (a very low threshhold). It's different in that the accused's lawyer is present and gets to cross-examine witnesses, and there's a judge not a jury, but it is still a pre-hearing of the government's case.
As a prosecutor I see very little benefit to the grand jury / preliminary inquiry. You have to present all the same evidence you woud at a trial, so it isn't any faster than moving straight through to trial. Really all it does in Canada is give defence a "free" whack at our witnesses.
For a US prosecutor in a complex racketeering or white collar case, the Grand Juries are immensely useful from what I can tell. You can subpoena tons of witnesses, ask them questions while they are under oath, not allowed to have a lawyer, and have narrow self-incrimination privileges. You can demand the production of literally hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. And you can use GJ testimony at trial to impeach unfavorable witnesses.
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2012, 08:26:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 10:41:44 PM
I guess your beloved queen is not white. :(
Are you sure you aren't confusing Liz with her Greek husband? :hmm:
Nope. Queen Liz has Portuguese, Greek and even Arab blood.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 07:54:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 08:33:02 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2012, 08:29:19 PM
Why is it that Raz call racist anyone that does not agree with his liberal agenda?
My agenda anti-racist. What would you call someone who opposes that agenda?
your agenda is trolling to dispell your ennui
What is your agenda?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2012, 08:26:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 10:41:44 PM
I guess your beloved queen is not white. :(
Are you sure you aren't confusing Liz with her Greek husband? :hmm:
Nope. Queen Liz has Portuguese, Greek and even Arab blood.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 27, 2012, 08:42:56 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2012, 08:37:57 AM
In Canada we do not have Grand Juries, but we do have the preliminary inquiry before we can file an indictment in superior court. It's similar to a grand jury in that the prosecution must show that there is some evidence which would convict the accused (a very low threshhold). It's different in that the accused's lawyer is present and gets to cross-examine witnesses, and there's a judge not a jury, but it is still a pre-hearing of the government's case.
As a prosecutor I see very little benefit to the grand jury / preliminary inquiry. You have to present all the same evidence you woud at a trial, so it isn't any faster than moving straight through to trial. Really all it does in Canada is give defence a "free" whack at our witnesses.
For a US prosecutor in a complex racketeering or white collar case, the Grand Juries are immensely useful from what I can tell. You can subpoena tons of witnesses, ask them questions while they are under oath, not allowed to have a lawyer, and have narrow self-incrimination privileges. You can demand the production of literally hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. And you can use GJ testimony at trial to impeach unfavorable witnesses.
And I'm not quite sure how I feel about that.
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2012, 08:53:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2012, 08:26:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 10:41:44 PM
I guess your beloved queen is not white. :(
Are you sure you aren't confusing Liz with her Greek husband? :hmm:
Nope. Queen Liz has Portuguese, Greek and even Arab blood.
:rolleyes:
It's true. Don't look at me, like that. It was your countrymen who said that one drop disqualifies you from being white. Take it up with the Ethnic Albertan.
If we are going to get that ridiculous I guess nobody is white.
Indeed.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2012, 08:10:56 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 07:48:34 AM
and if they try him in your typical sanford type community he likely won't be
Do you know something about this case I don't? The evidence presented hardly makes it look that clear. What about the 911 calls and the testimony of the people who heard it? Some people might find it convincing.
I do not get the ability to bypass the Grand Jury at all. If you do not need the Grand Jury...why would you need a Grand Jury? Or is that common? I thought this was rather an important part of our legal system.
The grand jury is a political tool for prosecutors to use in controversial cases in Florida where our head prosecutors are elected officials. This prosecutor likes to charge and I doubt she will chance a grand jury refusing to indict.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2012, 08:11:20 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 07:54:36 AM
your agenda is trolling to dispell your ennui
But really are we not all here for our own entertainment?
:D
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 08:45:12 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 07:54:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 08:33:02 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2012, 08:29:19 PM
Why is it that Raz call racist anyone that does not agree with his liberal agenda?
My agenda anti-racist. What would you call someone who opposes that agenda?
your agenda is trolling to dispell your ennui
What is your agenda?
Maximizing my chances for strange pussy. I have a very clear and well established track record on this.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 08:56:52 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2012, 08:53:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2012, 08:26:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 10:41:44 PM
I guess your beloved queen is not white. :(
Are you sure you aren't confusing Liz with her Greek husband? :hmm:
Nope. Queen Liz has Portuguese, Greek and even Arab blood.
:rolleyes:
It's true. Don't look at me, like that. It was your countrymen who said that one drop disqualifies you from being white. Take it up with the Ethnic Albertan.
Take it up with Neil, not me. He says a half dozen ridiculous things before breakfast every single day,so I'm hardly going to defend them.
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 26, 2012, 11:52:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 26, 2012, 11:43:35 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 26, 2012, 11:41:04 PM
MSNBCLOL
Rachel Maddow is my liberal dreamboat. :wub:
MSNBC is good for only two things:
1) Laughing at Chris Matthews' giant fat head
2) Rachel Maddow's smile :wub:
Not sure I've ever seen Madcow smile. She's a bit too butch for my likings anyway.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 09:10:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 08:45:12 AM
What is your agenda?
Maximizing my chances for strange pussy. I have a very clear and well established track record on this.
I'm pretty sure he means when you're posting on Languish.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 09:10:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 08:45:12 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 07:54:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 08:33:02 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2012, 08:29:19 PM
Why is it that Raz call racist anyone that does not agree with his liberal agenda?
My agenda anti-racist. What would you call someone who opposes that agenda?
your agenda is trolling to dispell your ennui
What is your agenda?
Maximizing my chances for strange pussy. I have a very clear and well established track record on this.
Spending time on Languish would seem to have a ratehr low chance of success to further your agenda... :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2012, 09:26:54 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 09:10:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 08:45:12 AM
What is your agenda?
Maximizing my chances for strange pussy. I have a very clear and well established track record on this.
I'm pretty sure he means when you're posting on Languish.
The answer doesn't change.
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2012, 09:27:18 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 09:10:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 08:45:12 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 07:54:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 08:33:02 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2012, 08:29:19 PM
Why is it that Raz call racist anyone that does not agree with his liberal agenda?
My agenda anti-racist. What would you call someone who opposes that agenda?
your agenda is trolling to dispell your ennui
What is your agenda?
Maximizing my chances for strange pussy. I have a very clear and well established track record on this.
Spending time on Languish would seem to have a ratehr low chance of success to further your agenda... :hmm:
When you can snatch this pebble from my hand...
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2012, 09:27:18 AM
Spending time on Languish would seem to have a ratehr low chance of success to further your agenda... :hmm:
Maybe he's learning what *not* to do or say.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 09:10:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 08:45:12 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 07:54:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 08:33:02 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2012, 08:29:19 PM
Why is it that Raz call racist anyone that does not agree with his liberal agenda?
My agenda anti-racist. What would you call someone who opposes that agenda?
your agenda is trolling to dispell your ennui
What is your agenda?
Maximizing my chances for strange pussy. I have a very clear and well established track record on this.
Psst. Most of us are guys here. You are barking up the wrong tree.
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 09:25:01 AM
Not sure I've ever seen Madcow smile. She's a bit too butch for my likings anyway.
That thing she does where her mouth assumes the vertical is her smile.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 09:46:01 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 09:10:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 08:45:12 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 07:54:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 08:33:02 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2012, 08:29:19 PM
Why is it that Raz call racist anyone that does not agree with his liberal agenda?
My agenda anti-racist. What would you call someone who opposes that agenda?
your agenda is trolling to dispell your ennui
What is your agenda?
Maximizing my chances for strange pussy. I have a very clear and well established track record on this.
Psst. Most of us are guys here. You are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes, but most guys are lousy at it.
I think you missed the point. You won't find strange pussy, here.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2012, 08:58:20 AM
If we are going to get that ridiculous I guess nobody is white.
You don't even need to be ridiculous at all. People are "white" when they say they are "white," just like identifying all the other "races."
"Race" is a social/identity issue, not a biological one. Biology says we are all brown.
Maybe you should just get your glasses cleaned. Then everything won't be so brown.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2012, 08:12:49 AM
I am not so sure about that. Weren't the Rodney King beating cops Latinos? The anger will get focussed on the legal system which does not take the death of black people as crimes or something. But I think most reasonable people will be satisfied with an investigation that suits the severity of the situation.
Yeah. I don't get the race angle on this case from Zimmerman's perspective. But I do think the investigation as far as I can see was a sham that reeks of the worst of Southern justice. The justifications afterwards seem, as an Economist blogger put it, 21st century race-baiting. Any time a black person mentions the word 'black', 'skin' or anything similar and there are cries of outrage by some that they're trying to turn something into a racial issue while provoking and stoking white resentment for their broadcast or political needs. The degree that race is involved - with the exception of the investigation - seems to me to be the extraordinary way that any mention of racism, or race, is seen as 'playing the race card' and that that's somehow as bad as racism itself.
I agree though I think an investigation that is sufficient to a dead, unarmed child would suffice.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 10:53:24 AM
Maybe you should just get your glasses cleaned. Then everything won't be so brown.
The world would be a much better place if people spent less time trying to divide others according to rather arbitrary criteria such as race.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2012, 11:40:53 AM
Yeah. I don't get the race angle on this case from Zimmerman's perspective. But I do think the investigation as far as I can see was a sham that reeks of the worst of Southern justice. The justifications afterwards seem, as an Economist blogger put it, 21st century race-baiting. Any time a black person mentions the word 'black', 'skin' or anything similar and there are cries of outrage by some that they're trying to turn something into a racial issue while provoking and stoking white resentment for their broadcast or political needs. The degree that race is involved - with the exception of the investigation - seems to me to be the extraordinary way that any mention of racism, or race, is seen as 'playing the race card' and that that's somehow as bad as racism itself.
I agree though I think an investigation that is sufficient to a dead, unarmed child would suffice.
wut?
I hadn't been watching the news for a couple days, but it sounds like it's turning out that Trayvon wasn't quite the choir boy we had originally been led to believe he was, and was not in fact a 17-year old who still looked like he was 12. Veddy intedesting...
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 12:28:22 PM
I hadn't been watching the news for a couple days, but it sounds like it's turning out that Trayvon wasn't quite the choir boy we had originally been led to believe he was, and was not in fact a 17-year old who still looked like he was 12. Veddy intedesting...
And I bet you're just loving it. Toss in some Oxi-Clean with the hood and cloak this morning?
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 12:28:22 PM
I hadn't been watching the news for a couple days, but it sounds like it's turning out that Trayvon wasn't quite the choir boy we had originally been led to believe he was, and was not in fact a 17-year old who still looked like he was 12. Veddy intedesting...
What do you mean?
Also I don't think anyone's argued that the kid's necessarily a saint, or that that matters.
Even people who look older than 12 and are not entirely saints have the right to go to the convenience store to buy skittles without being shot.
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 12:28:22 PM
I hadn't been watching the news for a couple days, but it sounds like it's turning out that Trayvon wasn't quite the choir boy we had originally been led to believe he was, and was not in fact a 17-year old who still looked like he was 12. Veddy intedesting...
Not really. Nobody ever said anything about him being a choir boy so this seems to be a strawman to me. Why is it interesting? I mean unless they uncovered a pattern of systematic deadly assaults how is it relevent?
I'll see if I can dig up what I read a week or so ago that painted him as the ideal all-American kid.
Anyway, why is it relevant? It's relevant because we don't have all the facts of the incident and everyone has decided to try to figure out on their own what happened. If we're going to play that game, it helps to know more about the character of both people involved.
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:00:52 PM
Anyway, why is it relevant? It's relevant because we don't have all the facts of the incident and everyone has decided to try to figure out on their own what happened.
I think that's inevitable when the police don't seem to establish all the facts or properly figure out what happened :mellow:
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2012, 12:43:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 12:28:22 PM
I hadn't been watching the news for a couple days, but it sounds like it's turning out that Trayvon wasn't quite the choir boy we had originally been led to believe he was, and was not in fact a 17-year old who still looked like he was 12. Veddy intedesting...
Not really. Nobody ever said anything about him being a choir boy so this seems to be a strawman to me. Why is it interesting? I mean unless they uncovered a pattern of systematic deadly assaults how is it relevent?
It is useful to blame the victim. Like Matthew Shepard deserving to die because he used drugs. Or that woman for wearing
that skirt.
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:00:52 PM
If we're going to play that game, it helps to know more about the character of both people involved.
One person was a wanna-be cop that made himself a Neighborhood Watch for a Neighborhood that didn't even have a Watch, who called 911 on a regular basis on darkies, had a gun and used it--and who the cops didn't even put through the very basics of an investigation, or even take the gun for ballistic tests to see if it was used in any other crimes like a real police department, for fuck's sake.
One person is dead with an iced tea in one hand, and a bag of Skittles in the other.
So yeah, let's play that game, derimperialwizard. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2012, 01:03:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:00:52 PM
Anyway, why is it relevant? It's relevant because we don't have all the facts of the incident and everyone has decided to try to figure out on their own what happened.
I think that's inevitable when the police don't seem to establish all the facts or properly figure out what happened :mellow:
Or if people want to jump to a particular conclusion.
Anyway, here is the main article I alluded to earlier:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1221425.ece
Quote
Trayvon Martin, a typical teen with dreams of flying or fixing planes
By AUDRA D.S. BURCH and LAURA ISENSEE, Miami Herald
In Print: Friday, March 23, 2012
This photo provided by the Martin family shows Trayvon Martin on a snowboarding trip, an experience beyond South Florida.
[Associated Press]
ADVERTISEMENT
Join the Languish branch of the New Black Panther Party! Contact Raz for details.
Trayvon Martin spent his 17th birthday, which would be his last, with his family. He ate a home-cooked meal followed by cake, opened presents that included Levis jeans, Adidas sneakers and a bottle of Issey Miyake cologne.
He would be 17 for 21 days. He died Feb. 26, a bullet in his chest, shot by a neighborhood crime watch captain patrolling a suburban gated townhouse community in Sanford, 250 miles from his home, where he had gone with his father.
George Zimmerman, the shooter, has not been arrested, sparking a growing wave of outrage manifested in daily rallies, petitions, speeches and media scrutiny.
"He had been so looking forward to going to his junior prom, and he had already started talking about all the senior activities in high school,'' his mother, Sybrina Fulton, 46, said in a voice hollowed and somber. "He will never do any of those things.''
As the nation grapples with the killing of an unarmed black teenager wearing a hoodie, his parents patiently offer the simple details of Martin's life, painting the portrait of a typical teenager who would end up in a casket, buried in a white suit with a powder blue vest.
Trayvon Martin was 6-foot-3, 140 pounds, a former Optimist League football player with a narrow frame and a voracious appetite. He wanted to fly or fix planes, struggled in chemistry, loved sports video games and went to New York for the first time two summers ago, seeing the Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty and a Broadway musical, The Addams Family. He hoped to attend the University of Miami or Florida A&M University, enamored by both schools' bright orange and green hues.
Also known as "Slimm," he had a girlfriend and spent endless hours talking or texting on his cell phone. Other times he was quiet, listening to the soundtrack of R&B, reggae, rap and gospel music flowing through his ear buds or watching half-hour re-runs of Martin, his favorite show.
Martin's parents — his mother is a Miami-Dade government employee and his dad is a truck driver — divorced in 1999 but lived near each other in Miami Gardens, working hard to raise Martin with family values and lift him above the statistics. They tried to make sure he was exposed to experiences beyond South Florida: skiing, snowboarding and riding snowmobiles. Mother and son went horseback riding for her birthday, 13 days after his.
"Tray was a beautiful child. He was raised to have manners and be respectful. He was a teenager who still had a lot of kid in him," his father, Tracy Martin, 45, said. "He still loved to go to Chuck E. Cheese with his cousins and would bake them chocolate chip cookies when he was babysitting them."
Still, Martin had non-violent behavioral issues in school, and on the day he was killed, he had been suspended for 10 days from Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School in North Miami-Dade.
"He was not suspended for something dealing with violence or anything like that. It wasn't a crime he committed, but he was in an unauthorized area (on school property)," Tracy Martin said, declining to offer more details.
Before that, Martin attended Miami Carol City High School near his mother's home in Miami Gardens.
"He was doing average in school, a little bit better when he was at Carol City and then I had him transferred,'' she said this week. "I thought Krop was a better school and I wanted a different environment for him. My oldest son has graduated from there.''
Martin's older brother, Jhavaris Fulton, 21, is a junior at Florida International University.
When he was a child, Martin saved his father's life.
"That was my main man. That was my hero. He saved my life, actually pulled me out of a house fire. He was 9 years old at the time. A 9-year-old kid saved his dad's life. And I wasn't there to save his life,'' Tracy Martin said in an MSNBC interview broadcast Thursday. "As a dad, that makes me feel bad because I know my son was depending on me to be his savior. And I couldn't save his life at that time."
Martin spent his freshman year and much of his sophomore year at Carol City, where on Thursday, more than 1,000 students walked out to honor him and fight for justice in the case.
His first year there, Martin would spend mornings at the high school — a roomy campus of cream buildings in Miami Gardens — and then go to George T. Baker Aviation School for the rest of the school day. Inspired by his uncle, Ronald Fulton, who had a brief career in aviation, Martin saw his future in planes.
"He loved flying and working with his hands. Barrington Irving took him on his plane at the Opa-Locka Airport. He got a chance to sit in the cockpit and that did it for him,'' said Fulton, referring to the youngest person and first black person to pilot a plane around the world solo in 2007. "He wanted to be a pilot or work as a mechanic in aviation. He was mechanically inclined and could fix just about anything.''
Math was his favorite subject, according to one of his Carol City teachers, Ashley Gantt. She taught his sophomore year English honors class where the curriculum included works such as The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Sometimes he would come to the second-period class looking exhausted. Gantt would call out his name.
"I'm sorry, Ms. Gantt. I'm not asleep. I'm listening," he would reply, she said.
He would often wear a hoodie at school — just like the one he was wearing the day he was killed in Sanford.
"Once he came in wearing a UM hoodie. I'm a Florida Gator," Gantt said. "I'm like, 'You can't come into my class with that.' "
Gantt said she never saw Martin behave aggressively or show disrespect.
"He was just a sweet kid, she said. "He got A's and B's. If he received a C on an assignment, it was because he was just being a kid that day. He was very smart."
Students at Carol City, some who now wear Trayvon Martin memorial buttons, have compared his death to that of Emmett Till, the 14-year-old African-American boy from Chicago, who went to visit family in Mississippi and never returned. Emmett Till was pulled from his bed, beaten to death and dumped in a river for allegedly whistling at a white woman, one of the nation's most infamous civil rights cases.
"The injustice (is the same) in both situations — Zimmerman is still free and the killers of Emmett Till, they went free eventually," Gantt said.
For Gantt, Martin's death has become a teachable moment, telling her students: "You have to know what your rights are. You can wear a hoodie and walk into a gated community ... you have the right to do that and not be profiled."
At Krop, a sprawling campus near the county line, home to some 2,700 students, a few of the students recalled the days they shared with Martin in middle school. He attended both Norland Middle and Highland Oaks Middle schools, both also in North Miami-Dade.
Dominique Clarke, 17 who knew him from Highland Oaks, said he was very quiet and kept to himself. The friends took Spanish together.
"He wasn't perfect. But he was someone who was very respectful," she said. "He did have a bright future and everyone who knew him liked him.''
One day at Krop last year, Brian Paz, 16, opened the door by the vending machine and he saw Martin. They had been good friends at Highland Oaks, but went to separate high schools.
"I was like, 'What's up man?' I was happy to see him again," Paz recalled.
They became close friends. When Paz's mother, who is from Colombia, called her son, "he would say my name in a funny way. I'll never forget the way he said it. 'Brrrian,' '' Paz remembered, rolling his 'r' and laughing at the memory before becoming more serious.
He wants people to know something about his childhood friend: "He wasn't threatening. There was no reason for George Zimmerman to pull out a gun and kill him. He was too peaceful for that."
Martin left the Sanford townhouse on a rainy Sunday night nearly a month ago to walk to a nearby convenience store. As Martin walked back, Skittles and canned ice tea in hand, Zimmerman decided he looked suspicious. He called police who advised him not to follow the boy.
Questions remain about what happened next, but Martin was shot, his body found face down on the ground, 70 yards from the back door of the townhouse.
Zimmerman has not been charged. He told police he felt threatened and that Martin jumped him. He responded, he said, by taking out a 9mm handgun and shooting in self-defense.
Trayvon Martin was buried six days later.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 01:07:50 PM
One person was a wanna-be cop that made himself a Neighborhood Watch for a Neighborhood that didn't even have a Watch, who called 911 on a regular basis on darkies, had a gun and used it
Yeah, we knew all that shit from the get-go.
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2012, 01:05:07 PM
It is useful to blame the victim. Like Matthew Shepard deserving to die because he used drugs. Or that woman for wearing that skirt.
Always blame the victim, especially when the victim is dead. Dead victims can't testify.
Hell, even Ide learned that in lulz school.
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:10:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 01:07:50 PM
One person was a wanna-be cop that made himself a Neighborhood Watch for a Neighborhood that didn't even have a Watch, who called 911 on a regular basis on darkies, had a gun and used it
Yeah, we knew all that shit from the get-go.
Then let's keep things in perspective, shall we?
This shows that America is a freer land than the UK.
In the UK, the police jails you for posting an offensive tweet about a black man. In the US, you go free despite shooting a black man to death. :P
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2012, 01:17:42 PM
This shows that America is a freer land than the UK.
In the UK, the police jails you for posting an offensive tweet about a black man. In the US, you go free despite shooting a black man to death. :P
Well, if it were the other way around and the black man had the gun and shot the wanne-be cop in Florida, I think someone would be in jail right now. Just a guess.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 01:16:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:10:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 01:07:50 PM
One person was a wanna-be cop that made himself a Neighborhood Watch for a Neighborhood that didn't even have a Watch, who called 911 on a regular basis on darkies, had a gun and used it
Yeah, we knew all that shit from the get-go.
Then let's keep things in perspective, shall we?
I think that's advice we can all follow.
edit: I'm actually pulling an Obama here & mean "you" when I say "we"
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:09:37 PM
Or if people want to jump to a particular conclusion.
Anyway, here is the main article I alluded to earlier:
You know, it is a very real statistical probability that not all black teens are gangsta-thug wanna-bes with 4 children and extensive arrest records. I mean, they're actually out there. :lol:
Okay.
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:09:37 PM
Or if people want to jump to a particular conclusion.
Anyway, here is the main article I alluded to earlier:
Shooting somebody in public under suspicious circumstances, in my mind, warrants a full investigation and a trial. I hope that is not too radical a conclusion to jump to.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2012, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:09:37 PM
Or if people want to jump to a particular conclusion.
Anyway, here is the main article I alluded to earlier:
Shooting somebody in public under suspicious circumstances, in my mind, warrants a full investigation and a trial. I hope that is not too radical a conclusion to jump to.
Martin came after Zimmerman with a fetus.
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:09:37 PM
Anyway, here is the main article I alluded to earlier:
That's a bit of puff. It doesn't say he's an angel so much that he's a 17 year old. It mentions the suspension.
But I'm still not sure what you're talking about that shows him to not be a choirboy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2012, 01:30:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:09:37 PM
Anyway, here is the main article I alluded to earlier:
That's a bit of puff. It doesn't say he's an angel so much that he's a 17 year old. It mentions the suspension.
It mentions his most recent suspension, yes. The version I read last week (this article was updated yesterday) said it was for tardiness, which was incorrect.
QuoteBut I'm still not sure what you're talking about that shows him to not be a choirboy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-shooting-details-emerge-facebook-twitter-accounts-180103647.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html
:lol: C'mon, man. You need to do better than this. Contrary to the daily emails you're receiving from the NRA, arresting Zimmerman will not result in taking all your guns away.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 01:28:55 PM
Martin came after Zimmerman with a fetus.
Unwise to bring a fetus to a gunfight.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 01:47:26 PM
:lol: C'mon, man. You need to do better than this. Contrary to the daily emails you're receiving from the NRA, arresting Zimmerman will not result in taking all your guns away.
I have no problem with him being arrested and convicted if evidence clearly supports that conclusion.
FWIW, I do get the NRA emails on an account I don't check very frequently. They tend to be repetitive. I've just been too lazy to change my preferences.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2012, 11:40:53 AM
Yeah. I don't get the race angle on this case from Zimmerman's perspective.
Maybe because he says "fucking coons!" (or something much like that) under his breathe while on the phone with the dispatcher and talking about the fact that the "suspicious person" has disappeared?
It is possible that "coons" isn't the second word, but that's what I heard even before someone pointed it out in some comments on the tape.
There may not be a legit "race" angle on this, but there are at least two possible racism angles.
Zimmerman's actions are justified I suppose. He saw the kid and recognized him as someone with multiple suspensions. Martin was suspended because of having a screwdriver ( apparently that's a burglary tool), and Zimmerman had no other option but to shoot him.
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2012, 01:17:42 PM
This shows that America is a freer land than the UK.
In the UK, the police jails you for posting an offensive tweet about a black man. In the US, you go free despite shooting a black man to death. :P
A few of my Facebook friends have been circulating this Will Smith pic with a quote about how the chick who dumped flour on Kim Kardashian was immediately arrested while Zimmerman was let free. :bleeding:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 03:19:04 PM
Zimmerman's actions are justified I suppose. He saw the kid and recognized him as someone with multiple suspensions. Martin was suspended because of having a screwdriver ( apparently that's a burglary tool), and Zimmerman had no other option but to shoot him.
Weak.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 03:19:04 PM
Zimmerman's actions are justified I suppose. He saw the kid and recognized him as someone with multiple suspensions. Martin was suspended because of having a screwdriver ( apparently that's a burglary tool), and Zimmerman had no other option but to shoot him.
I got suspended for having a screwdriver in my backpack back in grade school. It's a "weapon." My argument that the pencil on the principal's desk would have been more effective didn't exactly fly. :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 03:28:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 03:19:04 PM
Zimmerman's actions are justified I suppose. He saw the kid and recognized him as someone with multiple suspensions. Martin was suspended because of having a screwdriver ( apparently that's a burglary tool), and Zimmerman had no other option but to shoot him.
Weak.
No shit. The question is 'why did you post it, in the first place?'
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 03:30:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 03:28:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 03:19:04 PM
Zimmerman's actions are justified I suppose. He saw the kid and recognized him as someone with multiple suspensions. Martin was suspended because of having a screwdriver ( apparently that's a burglary tool), and Zimmerman had no other option but to shoot him.
Weak.
No shit. The question is 'why did you post it, in the first place?'
And the answer is 'because I did not post that', dipshit.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 27, 2012, 03:29:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 03:19:04 PM
Zimmerman's actions are justified I suppose. He saw the kid and recognized him as someone with multiple suspensions. Martin was suspended because of having a screwdriver ( apparently that's a burglary tool), and Zimmerman had no other option but to shoot him.
I got suspended for having a screwdriver in my backpack back in grade school. It's a "weapon." My argument that the pencil on the principal's desk would have been more effective didn't exactly fly. :lol:
Heh. Who knew it could be used for more then one thing. Sounds like a zero policy thingy. I began taking an umbrella with me everywhere I went in high school. One of the assistant principles, told me to stop because it was a weapon. I asked him if he was going to ban umbrellas from the school. He just glared at me and said, nothing. So I told him that I had more important things to do then stand around talking to him and left. Funny thing was, I was fully intending to use it as a weapon. Which I did. :menace:
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:44:28 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2012, 01:30:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:09:37 PM
Anyway, here is the main article I alluded to earlier:
That's a bit of puff. It doesn't say he's an angel so much that he's a 17 year old. It mentions the suspension.
It mentions his most recent suspension, yes. The version I read last week (this article was updated yesterday) said it was for tardiness, which was incorrect.
QuoteBut I'm still not sure what you're talking about that shows him to not be a choirboy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-shooting-details-emerge-facebook-twitter-accounts-180103647.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html
Really? You didn't post this? Well it looks like you posted it.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 03:35:59 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:44:28 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2012, 01:30:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:09:37 PM
Anyway, here is the main article I alluded to earlier:
That's a bit of puff. It doesn't say he's an angel so much that he's a 17 year old. It mentions the suspension.
It mentions his most recent suspension, yes. The version I read last week (this article was updated yesterday) said it was for tardiness, which was incorrect.
QuoteBut I'm still not sure what you're talking about that shows him to not be a choirboy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-shooting-details-emerge-facebook-twitter-accounts-180103647.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html
Really? You didn't post this? Well it looks like you posted it.
That doesn't say what you're trying to make it say. Especially since you're apparently ignoring my other post:
QuoteAnyway, why is it relevant? It's relevant because we don't have all the facts of the incident and everyone has decided to try to figure out on their own what happened. If we're going to play that game, it helps to know more about the character of both people involved.
Never argue with Raz. He will drag you down to his level then beat you with his umbrella.
Quote from: PDH on March 27, 2012, 03:53:48 PM
Never argue with Raz. He will drag you down to his level then beat you with his umbrella.
That's what derSpiess wants. That way he can shoot Raz and get away with it.
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 12:28:22 PM
I hadn't been watching the news for a couple days, but it sounds like it's turning out that Trayvon wasn't quite the choir boy we had originally been led to believe he was, and was not in fact a 17-year old who still looked like he was 12. Veddy intedesting...
Wow. I'm sort of glad now that the Hispanic guy with a Jewish name put an end to Trayvon's rampage.
Quote from: Jacob on March 27, 2012, 04:00:36 PM
Quote from: PDH on March 27, 2012, 03:53:48 PM
Never argue with Raz. He will drag you down to his level then beat you with his umbrella.
That's what derSpiess wants. That way he can shoot Raz and get away with it.
Only if he can somehow lure Raz to some basement in Florida. Which is unlikely since there are no basements in the South.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2012, 04:03:59 PM
Only if he can somehow lure Raz to some basement in Florida. Which is unlikely since there are no basements in the South.
He need only lure Raz to a store where candy and pop are sold.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2012, 04:03:59 PM
Only if he can somehow lure Raz to some basement in Florida. Which is unlikely since there are no basements in the South.
House I lived in in Alabama when I was 8 had a basement.
QuoteThe lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.
But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.
Police brought Zimmerman into the station for questioning for a few hours on the night of the shooting, said Zimmerman's attorney, despite his request for medical attention first. Ultimately they had to accept Zimmerman's claim of self defense. He was never charged with a crime.
Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events.
Zimmerman, 28, claimed he shot Martin, 17, in self defense.
One complicating factor in the investigation was that the first detective to interview Zimmerman about the shooting was a narcotics officer rather than a homicide detective.
The State Attorney's office said only "no comment" when asked about the affidavit today.
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 03:50:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 03:35:59 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:44:28 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2012, 01:30:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:09:37 PM
Anyway, here is the main article I alluded to earlier:
That's a bit of puff. It doesn't say he's an angel so much that he's a 17 year old. It mentions the suspension.
It mentions his most recent suspension, yes. The version I read last week (this article was updated yesterday) said it was for tardiness, which was incorrect.
QuoteBut I'm still not sure what you're talking about that shows him to not be a choirboy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-shooting-details-emerge-facebook-twitter-accounts-180103647.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html
Really? You didn't post this? Well it looks like you posted it.
That doesn't say what you're trying to make it say. Especially since you're apparently ignoring my other post:
QuoteAnyway, why is it relevant? It's relevant because we don't have all the facts of the incident and everyone has decided to try to figure out on their own what happened. If we're going to play that game, it helps to know more about the character of both people involved.
I'm not clear why a kid with a screw driver important information on the character. Why is that "Veddy intedesting"?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 01:19:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2012, 01:17:42 PM
This shows that America is a freer land than the UK.
In the UK, the police jails you for posting an offensive tweet about a black man. In the US, you go free despite shooting a black man to death. :P
Well, if it were the other way around and the black man had the gun and shot the wanne-be cop in Florida, I think someone would be in jail right now. Just a guess.
:rolleyes:
being prejudiced about southern race relations (or at least north florida ones) is about as helpful or informed as any other prejudices
jacksonville, which is every bit the deep south as sanford is, has an elected black mayor and recently had an elected black sherriff despite a minority population that only makes up 25% of the electorate
having lived in baltimore and in jacksonville, without any equivocation, baltimore is the far more racist and race conscience place
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 03:32:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 03:30:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 03:28:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 03:19:04 PM
Zimmerman's actions are justified I suppose. He saw the kid and recognized him as someone with multiple suspensions. Martin was suspended because of having a screwdriver ( apparently that's a burglary tool), and Zimmerman had no other option but to shoot him.
Weak.
No shit. The question is 'why did you post it, in the first place?'
And the answer is 'because I did not post that', dipshit.
dont feed the troll; raz gets off on changing what you actually post so he can defeat the straw man
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 05:23:14 PM
QuoteThe lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.
But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.
Police brought Zimmerman into the station for questioning for a few hours on the night of the shooting, said Zimmerman's attorney, despite his request for medical attention first. Ultimately they had to accept Zimmerman's claim of self defense. He was never charged with a crime.
Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events.
Zimmerman, 28, claimed he shot Martin, 17, in self defense.
One complicating factor in the investigation was that the first detective to interview Zimmerman about the shooting was a narcotics officer rather than a homicide detective.
The State Attorney's office said only "no comment" when asked about the affidavit today.
How the fuck is the fact the first detective to interview Zimmermam a nacotics officer a "complicating factor"? It's not at all uncommon for the first officer on scene to be a front line cop.
And while interesting, how much does it matter what the lead investigator thought? Ultimately it is the prosecution who, well, prosecutes.
So, will this be Rodney King v2 when Zimmerman gets acquitted?
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2012, 05:48:44 PM
How the fuck is the fact the first detective to interview Zimmermam a nacotics officer a "complicating factor"? It's not at all uncommon for the first officer on scene to be a front line cop.
And while interesting, how much does it matter what the lead investigator thought? Ultimately it is the prosecution who, well, prosecutes.
What is interesting is that it appears that there was, indeed, a homicide investigation, contrary to the impressions left by the earlier reports.
While it may be true that most prosecutors (like any professional who accepts government salary levels) are probably not very good lawyers, they still should get the benefit of the doubt; an informed decision by the prosecutor (absent evidence of malice or malfeasance) is good enough for me.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 27, 2012, 06:00:45 PM
So, will this be Rodney King v2 when Zimmerman gets acquitted?
Lesser order of magnitude but I would expect some wilding.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 05:40:10 PM
having lived in baltimore and in jacksonville, without any equivocation, baltimore is the far more racist and race conscience place
I've tried to explain this sort of thing to this lot, but they refuse to accept it. It seems that a lot of people around here are bigots. :(
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 05:42:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 03:32:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 03:30:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 03:28:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 03:19:04 PM
Zimmerman's actions are justified I suppose. He saw the kid and recognized him as someone with multiple suspensions. Martin was suspended because of having a screwdriver ( apparently that's a burglary tool), and Zimmerman had no other option but to shoot him.
Weak.
No shit. The question is 'why did you post it, in the first place?'
And the answer is 'because I did not post that', dipshit.
dont feed the troll; raz gets off on changing what you actually post so he can defeat the straw man
Oh noes! The Objectivist is mad!
Quote from: Caliga on March 27, 2012, 06:45:39 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 05:40:10 PM
having lived in baltimore and in jacksonville, without any equivocation, baltimore is the far more racist and race conscience place
I've tried to explain this sort of thing to this lot, but they refuse to accept it. It seems that a lot of people around here are bigots. :(
In Kentucky? Rasputin is right on this one. I have spent alot of time in Baltimore and DC and man the black-white relations are tense there. I was always glad to get back to Texas where black people are nice. Plus the Latinos (and there are zillions of various Asians as well) are by far the largest minority group so it changes the dynamic.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2012, 10:40:03 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 27, 2012, 06:45:39 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 05:40:10 PM
having lived in baltimore and in jacksonville, without any equivocation, baltimore is the far more racist and race conscience place
I've tried to explain this sort of thing to this lot, but they refuse to accept it. It seems that a lot of people around here are bigots. :(
In Kentucky? Rasputin is right on this one. I have spent alot of time in Baltimore and DC and man the black-white relations are tense there. I was always glad to get back to Texas where black people are nice. Plus the Latinos (and there are zillions of various Asians as well) are by far the largest minority group so it changes the dynamic.
That's because down in the South they know their place. Up here, they're all uppity.
And it's hot in the South. Makes them slower.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2012, 10:40:03 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 27, 2012, 06:45:39 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 05:40:10 PM
having lived in baltimore and in jacksonville, without any equivocation, baltimore is the far more racist and race conscience place
I've tried to explain this sort of thing to this lot, but they refuse to accept it. It seems that a lot of people around here are bigots. :(
In Kentucky? Rasputin is right on this one. I have spent alot of time in Baltimore and DC and man the black-white relations are tense there. I was always glad to get back to Texas where black people are nice. Plus the Latinos (and there are zillions of various Asians as well) are by far the largest minority group so it changes the dynamic.
People tend to feel less threatened by minorities when there are less of them in the area.
Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2012, 06:01:36 PM
While it may be true that most prosecutors (like any professional who accepts government salary levels) are probably not very good lawyers,
:rolleyes:
I am wise to your jedi mind tricks.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2012, 12:18:23 AM
People tend to feel less threatened by minorities when there are less of them in the area.
:yes: I tend to feel less threatened when the minorities are smaller than me. Thank God Katmai doesn't live around here.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2012, 04:03:59 PM
Which is unlikely since there are no basements in the South.
:unsure:
Quote from: Habbaku on March 28, 2012, 12:30:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2012, 12:18:23 AM
People tend to feel less threatened by minorities when there are less of them in the area.
:yes: I tend to feel less threatened when the minorities are smaller than me. Thank God Katmai doesn't live around here.
I feel really bad that I laughed at this. Kat really isn't that big.
No but Habbaku is really small.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 28, 2012, 12:30:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2012, 12:18:23 AM
People tend to feel less threatened by minorities when there are less of them in the area.
:yes: I tend to feel less threatened when the minorities are smaller than me. Thank God Katmai doesn't live around here.
Just for that I'm trying to get on Walking Dead season 3. :mad:
That would be a step up, you'd be filming a show where zombies are a bad thing instead of one trying to create them.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2012, 12:18:23 AM
People tend to feel less threatened by minorities when there are less of them in the area.
Well then we must be really threatened in Texas since we are a minority majority state.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2012, 01:22:00 AM
That would be a step up, you'd be filming a show where zombies are a bad thing instead of one trying to create them.
:huh:
Quote from: katmai on March 28, 2012, 01:28:02 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2012, 01:22:00 AM
That would be a step up, you'd be filming a show where zombies are a bad thing instead of one trying to create them.
:huh:
You work on reality shows, correct? :P
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 26, 2012, 07:44:19 PM
I've never seen them combine the two in news reports. Mostly because no one who isn't a weirdo does that except on the census forms, and as mentioned, that has caused problems.
:mad:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 28, 2012, 02:05:41 AM:mad:
^_^
Sorry buddy, but I've never called or heard anyone actually call themselves "white Hispanic" before, and I've never seen it anywhere else, aside from the census, that I can recall until this story about this guy. The super light ones, my sister in law for example (blond hair blue eyes), usually end up just being called "white," while the brown ones, like Zimmerman or my buddy who is 50/50 and probably a little darker than Zimmerman here (but who is named like a stereotypical whiteboy frat bro lulz), tend to just be "Hispanic." Self identification seems to be whatever they want on whatever forms. When talking, the actual place they're from seems to be the thing. (e2: Oh there's also "Latino/a" and such, can't forget those)
Oh and the ones driving around in their Ferraris on their way to the mall to buy a bunch of shit, such as the one I encountered today going fiftyfuckinfive on the highway in his 360 while jabbering on the phone, get called "Nationals." Or "Fucking Nationals." :P
But I would be interested in seeing a news story that doesn't involve this dude Zimmerman where they call them that instead of just the usual "Hispanic" if you've got some links. This dude apparently called himself Hispanic though, so the addition is rather odd.
E: What's this about Spike Lee posting some old lady's address on Twitter and saying it was Zimmerman's house?
http://now.msn.com/now/0327-spike-lee-tweet.aspx
OOPS
So if you're German, Irish, and Scottish, what do you put down.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Master Race?
More info on Zimmerman's character, veddy interestink.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer
QuoteCourt documents obtained by msnbc.com on Tuesday evening show that George Zimmerman, who fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, went to court in 2005 and 2006 for accusations of domestic violence, tussling with a police officer and speeding.
The three incidents took place in Orange County, Fla.
In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer," both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to "resisting officer without violence" and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Contemporaneous accounts indicate he shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar.
In August 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman counterfiled for a restraining order against Zuazo. The competing claims were resolved with both restraining orders' being granted.
In December 2006, Zimmerman was charged with speeding. The case was dismissed when the officer failed to show up in court.
:o :angry: A speeder!
Quote from: 11B4V on March 28, 2012, 02:32:14 AM
So if you're German, Irish, and Scottish, what do you put down.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Master Race?
Cracker
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2012, 01:45:01 AM
Quote from: katmai on March 28, 2012, 01:28:02 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2012, 01:22:00 AM
That would be a step up, you'd be filming a show where zombies are a bad thing instead of one trying to create them.
:huh:
You work on reality shows, correct? :P
Amongst other things. Do feature films as well. Just happens Alaska is flush with reality programs.
Quote from: katmai on March 28, 2012, 04:25:12 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 28, 2012, 02:32:14 AM
So if you're German, Irish, and Scottish, what do you put down.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Master Race?
Cracker
But, I dont want to be a Cracker :cry:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 28, 2012, 03:49:26 AM
More info on Zimmerman's character, veddy interestink.
As interesting as Martin's suspension.
Quotewent to court in 2005 and 2006 for accusations of domestic violence,
:lol: And he still had a handgun permit. God Bless the NRA.
We need more restrictions on who can get a gun.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 28, 2012, 05:27:43 AM
We need more restrictions on who can get a gun.
accusations of domestic violence not
convicted
Quote from: 11B4V on March 28, 2012, 05:31:51 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 28, 2012, 05:27:43 AM
We need more restrictions on who can get a gun.
accusations of domestic violence not convicted
He might have a bad credit score.
:yes: Dunno about Florida, but here if you are convicted of any felony or certain misdemeanors (including any misdemeanor involving domestic violence) you lose your CCDW if you have one.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 28, 2012, 05:31:51 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 28, 2012, 05:27:43 AM
We need more restrictions on who can get a gun.
accusations of domestic violence not convicted
So what happened?
Quote from: Caliga on March 28, 2012, 05:35:01 AM
:yes: Dunno about Florida, but here if you are convicted of any felony or certain misdemeanors (including any misdemeanor involving domestic violence) you lose your CCDW if you have one.
Maryland has a piggyback law that, while the case is open, your weapon is seized IF it was observed at the residence, or was used during the course of the alleged threat.
Then, you get it back when if the case is adjudicated in your favor.
It was never a criminal case per the article. They just got restraining orders against each other.
QuoteIn 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer," both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to "resisting officer without violence" and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program.
As an officer who took more than one trip to the Emergency Room, watching the prosecutor reduce my injuries to "never happened" still pisses me off to no end. Fucking lawyers. And yeah, that means you too, BB. You fucking whores.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2012, 05:40:29 AM
It was never a criminal case per the article. They just got restraining orders against each other.
All restraining orders are civil matters.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 05:36:48 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 28, 2012, 05:31:51 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 28, 2012, 05:27:43 AM
We need more restrictions on who can get a gun.
accusations of domestic violence not convicted
So what happened?
Phillip was stating more gun control off of accusations. When convicted stops them from getting a gun.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 05:41:20 AM
QuoteIn 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer," both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to "resisting officer without violence" and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program.
As an officer who took more than one trip to the Emergency Room, watching the prosecutor reduce my injuries to "never happened" still pisses me off to no end. Fucking lawyers. And yeah, that means you too, BB. You fucking whores.
Just had this happen to one of my officers.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 28, 2012, 05:44:37 AM
Phillip was stating more gun control off of accusations.
And there's a bona fide reason to do that. More than one DV suspect has been released, just to go get the handgun and blow the bitch away for calling the cops the night before.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 05:47:50 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 28, 2012, 05:44:37 AM
Phillip was stating more gun control off of accusations.
And there's a bona fide reason to do that. More than one DV suspect has been released, just to go get the handgun and blow the bitch away for calling the cops the night before.
Not disagreeing. Was not aware if he knew.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 28, 2012, 05:51:39 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 05:47:50 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 28, 2012, 05:44:37 AM
Phillip was stating more gun control off of accusations.
And there's a bona fide reason to do that. More than one DV suspect has been released, just to go get the handgun and blow the bitch away for calling the cops the night before.
Not disagreeing. Was not aware if he knew.
Well, this is Florida. If it involved the Sanford PD, sounds like he could have 4 DV convictions, and they'd still let him have his gun to stalk negroes in the dark.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 07:00:24 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 27, 2012, 05:42:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 03:32:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 03:30:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 03:28:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 03:19:04 PM
Zimmerman's actions are justified I suppose. He saw the kid and recognized him as someone with multiple suspensions. Martin was suspended because of having a screwdriver ( apparently that's a burglary tool), and Zimmerman had no other option but to shoot him.
Weak.
No shit. The question is 'why did you post it, in the first place?'
And the answer is 'because I did not post that', dipshit.
dont feed the troll; raz gets off on changing what you actually post so he can defeat the straw man
Oh noes! The Objectivist is mad!
:D not at all, I am making a very objective statement of my observations
I don't get any more mad at your silliness than I get any other silliness I hear throughout the day
Quote from: Caliga on March 28, 2012, 05:35:01 AM
:yes: Dunno about Florida, but here if you are convicted of any felony or certain misdemeanors (including any misdemeanor involving domestic violence) you lose your CCDW if you have one.
Yup
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 05:47:50 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 28, 2012, 05:44:37 AM
Phillip was stating more gun control off of accusations.
And there's a bona fide reason to do that. More than one DV suspect has been released, just to go get the handgun and blow the bitch away for calling the cops the night before.
While the restraining order is in effect, you lose the license as well despite its being a civil order
Quote from: Phillip V on March 28, 2012, 05:27:43 AM
We need more restrictions on who can get a gun.
If restrictions were looser, then Martin could have had a gun and defended himself.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 28, 2012, 07:55:47 AM
If restrictions were looser, then Martin could have had a gun and defended himself.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 05:41:20 AM
QuoteIn 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer," both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to "resisting officer without violence" and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program.
As an officer who took more than one trip to the Emergency Room, watching the prosecutor reduce my injuries to "never happened" still pisses me off to no end. Fucking lawyers. And yeah, that means you too, BB. You fucking whores.
Typical whiney cop. :rolleyes:
Rub some dirt on it kid. That's what you're getting paid for.
Quote from: Barrister on March 28, 2012, 08:46:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 05:41:20 AM
QuoteIn 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer," both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to "resisting officer without violence" and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program.
As an officer who took more than one trip to the Emergency Room, watching the prosecutor reduce my injuries to "never happened" still pisses me off to no end. Fucking lawyers. And yeah, that means you too, BB. You fucking whores.
Typical whiney cop. :rolleyes:
Rub some dirt on it kid. That's what you're getting paid for.
And you're getting paid to prosecute charges, not rewrite them. Pogue.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 05:21:52 AM
Quotewent to court in 2005 and 2006 for accusations of domestic violence,
:lol: And he still had a handgun permit. God Bless the NRA.
He was serving in a Militia of One.
Quote from: Barrister on March 28, 2012, 12:30:09 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2012, 06:01:36 PM
While it may be true that most prosecutors (like any professional who accepts government salary levels) are probably not very good lawyers,
:rolleyes:
I am wise to your jedi mind tricks.
:lol: Didn't expect you to fall for it. Hoped, but didn't expect.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 05:47:50 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 28, 2012, 05:44:37 AM
Phillip was stating more gun control off of accusations.
And there's a bona fide reason to do that. More than one DV suspect has been released, just to go get the handgun and blow the bitch away for calling the cops the night before.
Well, Trayvon said it himself:
Quote2 glock 40's... bitch you got 80 problems
Although I think he was paraphrasing Lil Wayne.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 05:21:52 AM
Quotewent to court in 2005 and 2006 for accusations of domestic violence,
:lol: And he still had a handgun permit. God Bless the NRA.
What's a "handgun permit"? :unsure:
Fuck that lil wayne bitch.
"I'm on my way to Chino, rollin on the grey goose. Shackled from head to toe 25 with an izzl, with nowhere to gizzo"
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 10:40:11 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 05:21:52 AM
Quotewent to court in 2005 and 2006 for accusations of domestic violence,
:lol: And he still had a handgun permit. God Bless the NRA.
What's a "handgun permit"? :unsure:
CCW????
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 10:40:11 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 05:21:52 AM
Quotewent to court in 2005 and 2006 for accusations of domestic violence,
:lol: And he still had a handgun permit. God Bless the NRA.
What's a "handgun permit"? :unsure:
The permit that permits him to carry a handgun. Weather permitting.
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 10:40:11 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 05:21:52 AM
Quotewent to court in 2005 and 2006 for accusations of domestic violence,
:lol: And he still had a handgun permit. God Bless the NRA.
What's a "handgun permit"? :unsure:
It's a Possession and Acquisition License that is valid for Restricted Weapons. :bowler:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 10:59:30 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 10:40:11 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 05:21:52 AM
Quotewent to court in 2005 and 2006 for accusations of domestic violence,
:lol: And he still had a handgun permit. God Bless the NRA.
What's a "handgun permit"? :unsure:
The permit that permits him to carry a handgun. Weather permitting.
You don't need a "handgun permit" to carry in Florida.
You do need a license for concealed carry, however ;)
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 11:56:09 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 10:59:30 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 10:40:11 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 05:21:52 AM
Quotewent to court in 2005 and 2006 for accusations of domestic violence,
:lol: And he still had a handgun permit. God Bless the NRA.
What's a "handgun permit"? :unsure:
The permit that permits him to carry a handgun. Weather permitting.
You don't need a "handgun permit" to carry in Florida.
You do need a license for concealed carry, however ;)
Whatever, DerLaPierre. Fact is, he still had one, even after all his run-ins with the gendarmes.
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:44:28 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-shooting-details-emerge-facebook-twitter-accounts-180103647.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html
Again I still don't see what this indicates in relation to his death. All I've learned is that he smoked pot and was a teenager with Twitter.
I'm not sure what to make of the 'burglary tool 'story which just seems odd.
Here's some histrionics that derspiess will appreciate:
QuoteThe hoodie protests have arrived on the floor of the United States Congress.
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) was chided and escorted from the House floor Wednesday morning for wearing a gray hoodie and sunglasses while delivering a rousing speech about the need for a full investigation into the shooting death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin.
"I applaud the young people, all across the land who are making a statement about hoodies, about the real hoodlums in this nation, specifically those who tread on our law wearing official or quasi-official cloaks," Rush said on the House floor.
"Racial profiling has got to stop," he said. "Just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum."
As he spoke those words, he removed his suit jacket and lifted the hood over his head. Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.), presiding over the floor as Rush delivered his remarks, began to gavel almost immediately. Shouting over Rush, who began to recite Bible versus, Harper said that Rush was out of order for wearing the hood. A long prohibition has barred House members from wearing hats on the floor. Rush was then escorted from the House floor.
Martin was wearing a hooded sweatshirt when he was shot and killed by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, and the clothing item has become a symbol of support for Martin and his family. Zimmerman has said he acted in self-defense when he shot the unarmed 17-year-old, but the lack of charges in the case has sparked nationwide protests.
Later, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) took the gavel to remind House members of rules governing appropriate floor attire. "You know who you are," he added, drawing some laughs from members in the chamber.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) declined to criticize House leadership for ruling the sweatshirt display out of order—she noted that House rules have changed over time, recalling that when she first arrived, rules forbade women from wearing pantsuits on the House floor. She said she is more concerned about Republican policies on Medicare and the middle class than the clothing debate.
"I'm more concerned about actions taken, words spoken and the impact on the American people," she said.
And veteran Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said it is the duty of the House Speaker to make rules regarding chamber decorum.
"If the Speaker had allowed it, I would have considered it appropriate. If the Speaker does not allow it, I agree with the Speaker that it's not appropriate. And, of course, when our colleague walked down into the well, he didn't know whether it would be appropriate or inappropriate himself," Conyers said of Rush's action.
"I do believe the Speaker has the authority and the duty to caution members about proper apparel. And he did," Conyers said.
The video! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trayvon-martins-parents-commend-rep-rushs-actions-148/2012/03/28/gIQAAAehgS_video.html)
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 28, 2012, 02:09:15 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:44:28 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-shooting-details-emerge-facebook-twitter-accounts-180103647.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html
Again I still don't see what this indicates in relation to his death. All I've learned is that he smoked pot and was a teenager with Twitter.
I'm not sure what to make of the 'burglary tool 'story which just seems odd.
If that's all you see, then I'll just say "Good day, sir" and leave it at that.
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:44:28 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html
QuoteThe Daily Caller, says it has published 152 pages of tweets downloaded from Trayvon's account. The site says Trayvon went by the Twitter handle NO_LIMIT_N***A.
A few of the messages make reference to using drugs including one that says: 'Finna (I'm fixing to) smoke 1 wit my dawg wayne.'
'PLZZ EXERCISE YO RIGHT 2 REMAIN SILENT.. DAM,' he says.
Another says: '2 glock 40's... b**** you got 80 problems
He was taken too soon; think of all he could have taught us. :cry:
Though I imagine most people come off looking like morons if you examine their twitter accounts.
The parents should blame themselves for having a failed marriage.
Quote from: Kleves on March 28, 2012, 03:45:06 PM
He was taken too soon; think of all he could have taught us. :cry:
Assuming that this statement is sarcastic, what are you implying? That he was taken at the right time? It took too long for him to be taken?
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 03:33:26 PM
If that's all you see, then I'll just say "Good day, sir" and leave it at that.
What is it that you see in those articles?
I'm guessing he's seeing a liberal media conspiracy.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 28, 2012, 04:01:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 03:33:26 PM
If that's all you see, then I'll just say "Good day, sir" and leave it at that.
What is it that you see in those articles?
I see a different Trayvon than the choirboy image we were originally presented with.
Quote from: Kleves on March 28, 2012, 03:45:06 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 01:44:28 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html
QuoteThe Daily Caller, says it has published 152 pages of tweets downloaded from Trayvon's account. The site says Trayvon went by the Twitter handle NO_LIMIT_N***A.
A few of the messages make reference to using drugs including one that says: 'Finna (I'm fixing to) smoke 1 wit my dawg wayne.'
'PLZZ EXERCISE YO RIGHT 2 REMAIN SILENT.. DAM,' he says.
Another says: '2 glock 40's... b**** you got 80 problems
He was taken too soon; think of all he could have taught us. :cry:
Though I imagine most people come off looking like morons if you examine their twitter accounts.
I wonder if "NO LIMIT CRACKA" is taken :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 04:15:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 28, 2012, 04:01:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 03:33:26 PM
If that's all you see, then I'll just say "Good day, sir" and leave it at that.
What is it that you see in those articles?
I see a different Trayvon than the choirboy image we were originally presented with.
And?
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 04:15:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 28, 2012, 04:01:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 03:33:26 PM
If that's all you see, then I'll just say "Good day, sir" and leave it at that.
What is it that you see in those articles?
I see a different Trayvon than the choirboy image we were originally presented with.
Rhetoric aside, what is it that you see in those articles that is any different from what Sheb described?
I don't recall ever being presented with a choir boy.
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2012, 04:20:01 PM
I don't recall ever being presented with a choir boy.
Agreed, but Derspiess insists he has, which is why I put the question differently.
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 03:33:26 PM
If that's all you see, then I'll just say "Good day, sir" and leave it at that.
I'm still interested in your point, I just don't get it from those articles unless you explain what you mean.
QuoteThough I imagine most people come off looking like morons if you examine their twitter accounts.
Yeah. As I say he's a teenager with Twitter. If you looked at my 17 year old nephew's Facebook you'd have the same.
QuoteI don't recall ever being presented with a choir boy.
I agree. And the issue seems irrelevant. He could've been far worse than those articles suggest and, on the facts we have about the night, he still shouldn't be dead.
I think the facts being leaked about Trayvon are virtually meaningless and the ones being leaked about Zimmerman are much less favorable. I say this as a person marginally sympathetic to Zimmerman.
I'm shocked, shocked that Yi is sympathetic to Zimmerman.
My mind is boggled beyond words that Raz is still stalking me.
Can I stalk you? I am a member of the Languish Watch.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2012, 06:06:41 PM
My mind is boggled beyond words that Raz is still stalking me.
I'm afraid that if I don't keep an eye on you, you might hit me from behind and I'll have to shoot you.
Quote from: PDH on March 28, 2012, 06:22:50 PM
Can I stalk you? I am a member of the Languish Watch.
There are plenty of other posters that don't have a single stalker. Don't you think it would be more equitable to share the wealth?
Too true. I will go back to stalking PDH.
To get a better idea what Derspeiss was going on about I checked the website he used to link us to. Breitbart. Wow. Take a gander at the comments. And people wonder why I suspect Republicans of harboring racists in their midst.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2012, 06:25:44 PM
Quote from: PDH on March 28, 2012, 06:22:50 PM
Can I stalk you? I am a member of the Languish Watch.
There are plenty of other posters that don't have a single stalker. Don't you think it would be more equitable to share the wealth?
How many posters do you think we have here who post regularly? 50?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2012, 06:06:41 PM
My mind is boggled beyond words that Raz is still stalking me.
Don't go there, Bro.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2012, 05:52:14 PM
I think the facts being leaked about Trayvon are virtually meaningless and the ones being leaked about Zimmerman are much less favorable. I say this as a person marginally sympathetic to Zimmerman.
I'm not really sympathetic to either party-- not at this point, anyway. I'm sorry that Trayvon is dead and I feel bad for his family, but I don't feel like I have a dog in this race.
Before some of the more recent stuff came out about Trayvon, I found it less likely that he acted aggressively. Knowing what we now know about his character/personality (which, Shielbh, I don't think is limited to simply being "a teenager with a Twitter account"), I find it more likely that Trayvon acted aggressively in some way towards Zimmerman. Whether Trayvon was provked in any way, I don't know.
Maybe it would be nice to wait for more actual details of the incident before we make up our minds as to what the hell happened.
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 07:00:25 PM
Knowing what we now know about his character/personality (which, Shielbh, I don't think is limited to simply being "a teenager with a Twitter account"), I find it more likely that Trayvon acted aggressively in some way towards Zimmerman.
I don't. Smoking ganja doesn't incline one to aggression or violence. More like the opposite in my experience.
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 07:00:25 PMMaybe it would be nice to wait for more actual details of the incident before we make up our minds as to what the hell happened.
Yeah. I'm not of the "lynch Zimmerman" party either. It is possible that Zimmerman in fact acted reasonably when he shot and killed Martin. On the balance, I think that he didn't act reasonably, but I agree that we - or at least the justice system - should investigate and look at the facts to determine what likely happened and judge accordingly.
My real outrage about this is that the local PD responded to the call about Zimmerman shooting someone, and didn't investigate further on Zimmerman's say-so. Whether it's individual racists in the PD department, institutional racism, a bad combination of laws or some other causes, the end result is clearly injust; the shooting of an unarmed teenager minding his own business should at the very least result in a thorough investigation of the facts. That it didn't is a travesty.
Now, I suspect that after a thorough investigation Zimmerman is likely to be found to be in the wrong and basically a murderer (or maybe a manslaughterer, whatever the proper term is), but that is something that should be determined by a thorough investigation and proper legal process. It's the whole "blood on your nose, grass stains on your shirt? Yeah, obviously self defence; case closed" thing that's galling.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2012, 07:12:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 07:00:25 PM
Knowing what we now know about his character/personality (which, Shielbh, I don't think is limited to simply being "a teenager with a Twitter account"), I find it more likely that Trayvon acted aggressively in some way towards Zimmerman.
I don't. Smoking ganja doesn't incline one to aggression or violence. More like the opposite in my experience.
I dunno... I've found that long term pot users tend to be mellow most of the time, but when they fly off the handle they do so more intensely than average.
But I doubt a 17 year old has smoked enough pot to get to that point.
Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2012, 07:17:12 PM
I dunno... I've found that long term pot users tend to be mellow most of the time, but when they fly off the handle they do so more intensely than average.
But I doubt a 17 year old has smoked enough pot to get to that point.
They fly off the handle and rant about conspiracy theories to people who have already heard them a thousand times. They don't fly off the handle and pick fights.
In my experience.
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 07:00:25 PMBefore some of the more recent stuff came out about Trayvon, I found it less likely that he acted aggressively. Knowing what we now know about his character/personality (which, Shielbh, I don't think is limited to simply being "a teenager with a Twitter account"), I find it more likely that Trayvon acted aggressively in some way towards Zimmerman. Whether Trayvon was provked in any way, I don't know.
What do you mean by what we know about his character/personality that's beyond being a boastful kid on social media?
QuoteMaybe it would be nice to wait for more actual details of the incident before we make up our minds as to what the hell happened.
My opinion's based on the confirmed facts.
Zimmerman followed Martin in his truck.
He got out and followed him on foot. At this point in my opinion a 17 year old kid being followed by an older man has legitimate fears and it's reasonable for them to try and get out of there. I mean imagine if it was a girl being followed. Or if Zimmerman was likely to be a pedarest, say he wore a dogcollar and crucifix.
There's then a fight of some sort, there's different accounts. Some have said Martin repeatedly slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground, the 911 tape and some witnesses apparently have a shot being fired in an altercation and someone pleading. But, in my view, as I say, I think by following someone Zimmerman's started a confrontation and the law should protect the person who's trying to get away from him.
Zimmerman shoots Martin.
Based on those facts I think there should be a full investigation - not this sham that seemed to have happened so far.
But if there is an investigation and Zimmerman is in the wrong but can't be prosecuted because of this law then, in my opinion, the law's wrong and Florida should move to letting juries decide what's reasonable self-defence. As I say, on the facts that we have, in my view Martin should be the one who's legally protected to get away from the guy who's following him using a reasonable amount of force.
The fact that Martin smoked pot and posted stuff on Twitter doesn't alter that one bit.
@ Yi: Yeah... maybe those potheads also used a lot of coke, so maybe you're right.
Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2012, 07:17:12 PM
I dunno... I've found that long term pot users tend to be mellow most of the time, but when they fly off the handle they do so more intensely than average.
But I doubt a 17 year old has smoked enough pot to get to that point.
And based on what we know of Zimmerman's behaviour that night it's enough to see someone really spinning out over it. But I don't know if Martin had smoked that night and, as you say, I doubt he'd reached that point.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2012, 07:12:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 07:00:25 PM
Knowing what we now know about his character/personality (which, Shielbh, I don't think is limited to simply being "a teenager with a Twitter account"), I find it more likely that Trayvon acted aggressively in some way towards Zimmerman.
I don't. Smoking ganja doesn't incline one to aggression or violence. More like the opposite in my experience.
I guess we should increase the supply to inner-city gangbangers, then. Because apparently they're not getting enough of it.
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2012, 07:21:50 PM
I guess we should increase the supply to inner-city gangbangers, then. Because apparently they're not getting enough of it.
Hear hear.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 28, 2012, 07:21:37 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2012, 07:17:12 PM
I dunno... I've found that long term pot users tend to be mellow most of the time, but when they fly off the handle they do so more intensely than average.
But I doubt a 17 year old has smoked enough pot to get to that point.
And based on what we know of Zimmerman's behaviour that night it's enough to see someone really spinning out over it. But I don't know if Martin had smoked that night and, as you say, I doubt he'd reached that point.
I basically completely agree with your view of what's important in this case, as you set out in your previous post.
The whole "are potheads peaceful or not" thing isn't really related to this case from my POV, it's just a side tangent. The "chronic potheads are not that mellow" observation is a long term thing that has little to do with whether the person in question has recently smoked pot, it's more an observation that people who are chronic pot smokers tend to be less patient and occasionally prone to angry outbursts later in life (like after decades of use) and is not related to whether they've smoked up recently or not... and it's an anecdotal observation to boot :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 28, 2012, 05:38:16 PM
Yeah. As I say he's a teenager with Twitter. If you looked at my 17 year old nephew's Facebook you'd have the same.
Oh Sarah Palin's future son-in-law. IMMA FUCKIN REDNECK ILL KILL YOU
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 28, 2012, 07:20:10 PM
Or if Zimmerman was likely to be a pedarest, say he wore a dogcollar and crucifix.
OCN!
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 28, 2012, 07:21:37 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2012, 07:17:12 PM
I dunno... I've found that long term pot users tend to be mellow most of the time, but when they fly off the handle they do so more intensely than average.
But I doubt a 17 year old has smoked enough pot to get to that point.
And based on what we know of Zimmerman's behaviour that night it's enough to see someone really spinning out over it. But I don't know if Martin had smoked that night and, as you say, I doubt he'd reached that point.
The evidence is plain: Skittles and iced tea. He obviously had not ingested any marijuana that evening.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 07:34:12 PM
The evidence is plain: Skittles and iced tea.
So it was a sugar high rampage that made Zimmerman act in self defense.
Quote from: katmai on March 28, 2012, 07:40:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 07:34:12 PM
The evidence is plain: Skittles and iced tea.
So it was a sugar high rampage that made Zimmerman act in self defense.
This shooting would've been righteous if only Mentos were involved.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 07:34:12 PM
The evidence is plain: Skittles and iced tea. He obviously had not ingested any marijuana that evening.
True enough. No Cheetos :(
I believe they said that corner's report found no drugs in the kid's system. I still fail to see why these suspensions are relevant. They can't damage the credibility of Martin's story since he has no story. He's dead. The kid had a screw driver ( I have one in my desk right next to me), he also was found with a bag that might have had marijuana in it. Neither of these indicate a tendency to sneak up behind people and punch them. Is there something I'm missing here?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2012, 08:04:39 PM
I believe they said that corner's report found no drugs found in the kid's system. I still fail to see why these suspensions are relevant. They can't damage the credibility of Martin's story since he has no story. He's dead. The kid had a screw driver ( I have one in my desk right next to me), he also was found with a bag that might have had marijuana in it. Neither of these indicate a tendency to sneak up behind people and punch them. Is there something I'm missing here?
Yup.
Video of Zimmerman at the police station in the aftermath of the shooting. Don't look like he's been in a fight to me.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/46887730/#46887730
'A security video that shows neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman being led in handcuffs from a police car after he fatally shot Trayvon Martin is adding to the debate over whether the shooting was a case of self-defense.
An attorney for the teen's family said it looks to him that Zimmerman doesn't have injuries to his face and head in the video as Zimmerman's supporters have said.'
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.i.com.com%2Fcnwk.1d%2Fi%2Ftim%2F2012%2F03%2F28%2Fzimmerman_youtube_424x318.jpg&hash=61af520fb73b2b20a7b320fc69b03c6e01a5f834)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fzennie62blog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2Fgeorge-zimmerman-clean-back2.jpg&hash=0fa4964c573421502950ac5a99494ed259e282b9)
Surveillance video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc0fQhGDxRo
He's not white! <_<
Quote from: 11B4V on March 29, 2012, 05:46:54 AM
He's not white! <_<
Nor is the back of his head red. Where's all the blood from the repeated smashing of the back of his head onto the concrete?
Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2012, 07:15:40 PM
My real outrage about this is that the local PD responded to the call about Zimmerman shooting someone, and didn't investigate further on Zimmerman's say-so. Whether it's individual racists in the PD department, institutional racism, a bad combination of laws or some other causes, the end result is clearly injust; the shooting of an unarmed teenager minding his own business should at the very least result in a thorough investigation of the facts. That it didn't is a travesty.
As more facts come out, it isn't clear to me that the initial assertions that there was no investigation are correct. Have you found a source that flat-out states that there was no thorough investigation?
I agree 100% that a thorough investigation was called for. I don't agree that we currently know such an investigation never happened, and so we should be outraged.
There are investigations, and then there are investigations.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 29, 2012, 05:46:54 AM
He's not white! <_<
No one in those videos is white. They are all kinda beige. It's not high-quality imaging, though, so the colors may be off.
The police car is white, though, so maybe the colors are not so off.
Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2012, 06:44:04 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 29, 2012, 05:46:54 AM
He's not white! <_<
No one in those videos is white. They are all kinda beige. It's not high-quality imaging, though, so the colors may be off.
The police car is white, though, so maybe the colors are not so off.
Looks like the auto-iris is off a bit on the cameras. Everybody looked flesh-colored.
Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2012, 06:44:04 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 29, 2012, 05:46:54 AM
He's not white! <_<
No one in those videos is white. They are all kinda beige. It's not high-quality imaging, though, so the colors may be off.
The police car is white, though, so maybe the colors are not so off.
Color blind old man. Those cops are def. crackers.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 29, 2012, 06:53:08 AM
Color blind old man. Those cops are def. crackers.
Grandpa, "def. crackers" isn't a color.
grumbler was thrown for a moment because he didn't see any call boxes.
Kind of figured he might be a bit more blood splattered. What with shooting a guy who was on sitting him and beating his head into the pavement.
So, when did he get bloodied? During police interview at the station?
Quote from: DGuller on March 29, 2012, 07:21:21 AM
So, when did he get bloodied? During police interview at the station?
Well, that is the traditional time for a suspect to get bloody.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2012, 06:37:51 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 29, 2012, 05:46:54 AM
He's not white! <_<
Nor is the back of his head red. Where's all the blood from the repeated smashing of the back of his head onto the concrete?
Haymitch sent him a parachute.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 29, 2012, 01:16:18 AM
Video of Zimmerman at the police station in the aftermath of the shooting. Don't look like he's been in a fight to me.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/46887730/#46887730
What would you know about fighting?
If there was a fight, I wonder if it was started by Martin acting in self defense, or in fear of his life. He was being followed by Zimmerman, and expressed his fears to his girlfriend. Plus, Zimmerman was a self-appointed Neighborhood Watch officer - the neighborhood had no watch. So Zimmerman approaches Martin after stalking him, maybe claiming to be a watch officer (or maybe not), and starts making demands and acting tough. He gets up in Martin's face, Martin pushes Zimmerman down, Zimmerman pulls a gun, Martin pleads, Zimmerman shoots him.
Total conjecture, of course.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2012, 06:37:51 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 29, 2012, 05:46:54 AM
He's not white! <_<
Where's all the blood from the repeated smashing of the back of his head onto the concrete?
Are you blind? Most of his hair has been scraped away.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 29, 2012, 10:46:25 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2012, 06:37:51 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 29, 2012, 05:46:54 AM
He's not white! <_<
Where's all the blood from the repeated smashing of the back of his head onto the concrete?
Are you blind? Most of his hair has been scraped away.
I am being slowly beaten to death. :(
Malthus, in your case it is involuntary. Not to worry.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 29, 2012, 08:07:05 AM
He was being followed by Zimmerman, and expressed his fears to his girlfriend.
All we have is the girlfriend's word on that, right? I'm not saying she's not credible, but she has the most reason (other than Zimmerman) to alter her testimony.
Oh. Huh. I just watched the video. There actually looks to be something on the back of his head. You can see it between 1:00 and 1:08 or so of the ABC video. Looks like either a nice sized gash or his dome has a weird line on the back of it.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-zimmerman-police-surveillance-16024475
Made a little screenshot of one of the times you can see it:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi42.tinypic.com%2F2duman7.jpg&hash=7709eca88af59a8c044b9ff4328403ccc0029ca6)
Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2012, 06:37:55 AMAs more facts come out, it isn't clear to me that the initial assertions that there was no investigation are correct. Have you found a source that flat-out states that there was no thorough investigation?
Yeah, it appears that there was at least an initial investigation, which is good. Seems like the decision not to pursue the case came later. It may even have been that under Florida law, that was the correct decision, though that rather points to a problem with Florida law.
QuoteI agree 100% that a thorough investigation was called for. I don't agree that we currently know such an investigation never happened, and so we should be outraged.
You may be right.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 29, 2012, 07:16:49 AM
Kind of figured he might be a bit more blood splattered. What with shooting a guy who was on sitting him and beating his head into the pavement.
You watch too many movies. But as to why we don't see any of his own blood on him, I'm guessing a paramedic would have treated/cleaned up any wounds before they took him in.
That said, I'm not sure I see what MBM sees on the back of his head, but it's not exactly a high quality video.
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2012, 11:51:13 AM
That said, I'm not sure I see what MBM sees on the back of his head, but it's not exactly a high quality video.
Hold on, I'll zoom in on it for you. The image quality is going to suck though since as you say, it isn't high quality to begin with.
Quote from: Kleves on March 29, 2012, 11:02:08 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 29, 2012, 08:07:05 AM
He was being followed by Zimmerman, and expressed his fears to his girlfriend.
All we have is the girlfriend's word on that, right? I'm not saying she's not credible, but she has the most reason (other than Zimmerman) to alter her testimony.
We've only got his girlfriend's testimony that he was afraid. We've the 911 tape that he was being followed.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 29, 2012, 11:55:12 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2012, 11:51:13 AM
That said, I'm not sure I see what MBM sees on the back of his head, but it's not exactly a high quality video.
Hold on, I'll zoom in on it for you. The image quality is going to suck though since as you say, it isn't high quality to begin with.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi41.tinypic.com%2Fkb7pm0.jpg&hash=15a53653a896e7ef6689bc69bed34df414b43da1)
I thought it was a weird reflection at first, but it looks to stay in the same place as his head moves around and the light changes on it. You can actually see it a little better at a different point, but I don't seem to be quick enough with the clicks. :( One of the cops does take a look at the back of his grape earlier in the video too.
I gotta say though: Man, the last time I got blasted in the nose (not broken), I had blood all over the front of my shirt. I guess he could have changed or he just didn't gush blood like I did or something.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 29, 2012, 12:00:04 PM
I gotta say though: Man, the last time I got blasted in the nose (not broken), I had blood all over the front of my shirt. I guess he could have changed or he just didn't gush blood like I did or something.
Yeah, I had my nose broken once during a basketball practice. There was blood everywhere. My practice jersey was toast.
It is possible he got cleaned up and changed though. I can see what you are talking about on the back on the top back of the head. But I cant find a reference to the orginal claim of where his head made contact with the ground.
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2012, 11:51:13 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 29, 2012, 07:16:49 AM
Kind of figured he might be a bit more blood splattered. What with shooting a guy who was on sitting him and beating his head into the pavement.
You watch too many movies. But as to why we don't see any of his own blood on him, I'm guessing a paramedic would have treated/cleaned up any wounds before they took him in.
That said, I'm not sure I see what MBM sees on the back of his head, but it's not exactly a high quality video.
And you've shot lots of people who were sitting on you?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 29, 2012, 01:42:03 PM
And you've shot lots of people who were sitting on you?
No. But I have watched a lot of hunting shows :ph34r:
QuoteNancy Pelosi applauds Bobby Rush's 'courage' for wearing a hoodie on House floor
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/nancy-pelosi-applauds-bobby-rush-courage-wearing-hoodie-163102922.html
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2012, 01:47:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 29, 2012, 01:42:03 PM
And you've shot lots of people who were sitting on you?
No. But I have watched a lot of hunting shows :ph34r:
Did they make it a point to shoot deer that are standing people?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 29, 2012, 04:13:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2012, 01:47:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 29, 2012, 01:42:03 PM
And you've shot lots of people who were sitting on you?
No. But I have watched a lot of hunting shows :ph34r:
Did they make it a point to shoot deer that are standing people?
May I mambo dogface to the banana patch?
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2012, 04:35:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 29, 2012, 04:13:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2012, 01:47:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 29, 2012, 01:42:03 PM
And you've shot lots of people who were sitting on you?
No. But I have watched a lot of hunting shows :ph34r:
Did they make it a point to shoot deer that are standing people?
May I mambo dogface to the banana patch?
Er sorry. Did they shoot any deer that were standing on top of people?
No.
George Zimmerman lost job as party security guard for being too aggressive
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-lost-job-party-security-guard-aggressive-ex-co-worker-article-1.1053223
Quote from: Phillip V on March 30, 2012, 07:00:34 AM
George Zimmerman lost job as party security guard for being too aggressive
Imagine that.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 30, 2012, 07:00:34 AM
George Zimmerman lost job as party security guard for being too aggressive
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-lost-job-party-security-guard-aggressive-ex-co-worker-article-1.1053223
You know there's a reason why courts do not consider character evidence as a general rule - it doesn't tell us a damn thing about what happened on the specific night in question.
So all these stories about "ZOMG Zimmerman was fired from a job seven years ago!" and "WTF Martin was suspended for having a pot bag" are worse than useless.
Quote from: Barrister on March 30, 2012, 08:57:54 AM
You know there's a reason why courts do not consider character evidence as a general rule - it doesn't tell us a damn thing about what happened on the specific night in question.
Obviously the police that night didn't think so, either.
Quote from: Barrister on March 30, 2012, 08:57:54 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 30, 2012, 07:00:34 AM
George Zimmerman lost job as party security guard for being too aggressive
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-lost-job-party-security-guard-aggressive-ex-co-worker-article-1.1053223
You know there's a reason why courts do not consider character evidence as a general rule - it doesn't tell us a damn thing about what happened on the specific night in question.
So all these stories about "ZOMG Zimmerman was fired from a job seven years ago!" and "WTF Martin was suspended for having a pot bag" are worse than useless.
... unless it amounts to similar fact evidence. Which admittedly is a reasonably narrow enquiry.
Dude yelling for help on the 9/11 audio was not Zimmerman. I wonder who it could be? :hmm:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10963191-trayvon-martin-case-audio-screams-were-not-george-zimmermans-2-experts-say
Jaron?
Looks like NBC sorta apologized for the "error" in the way they edited Zimmerman's 911 call tape.
http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/04/04/trayvon-martin-nbc-apologizes/
QuoteTrayvon Martin: NBC apologizes for misleading edit of 9-1-1 call
by Associated Press
NBC News has admitted it erred and has apologized for editing a recording of George Zimmerman's call to police the night he shot Trayvon Martin.
In a news report last week, NBC's Today show aired its edited version of Zimmerman's call. The recording viewers heard was trimmed to suggest that Zimmerman volunteered to police, with no prompting, that Martin was black. But the portion of the tape that was cut out had the 911 dispatcher asking Zimmerman if the person who had raised his suspicion was "black, white or Hispanic," to which Zimmerman responded, "He looks black."
Later that night of Feb. 26, the 17-year-old Martin was fatally shot by Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Fla. Though Martin was unarmed, Zimmerman told police he fired in self-defense after Martin attacked him. Questions have arisen over whether Zimmerman had been racially profiling the youth, a theory the edited version of the tape seemed to support.
In a statement on Tuesday, NBC said its investigation turned up "an error made in the production process that we deeply regret." It provided no details.
The network promised "necessary steps" would be taken "to prevent this from happening in the future," and apologized to viewers.
I thought you liked it when people edited videos.
Any evidence the call showing martin was the only one calling for help was edited?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 11:59:02 AM
I thought you liked it when people edited videos.
Did I?
Yeah, with that Breitbart guy.
So did you guys hear about the marine vet who got shot by police in his own home because his medical alert bracelet malfunctioned?
Seems outlandish: http://boingboing.net/2012/04/03/black-marine-veteran-68-shot.html
Is there a more credible source reporting this? What is Boing Boing?
Not sure about boing boing... I've seen them before.
In any case, they link to a New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/nyregion/fatal-shooting-of-ex-marine-by-white-plains-police-raises-questions.html?_r=2
Quote from: Jacob on April 04, 2012, 03:18:25 PM
So did you guys hear about the marine vet who got shot by police in his own home because his medical alert bracelet malfunctioned?
Seems outlandish: http://boingboing.net/2012/04/03/black-marine-veteran-68-shot.html
The incident happened all right. At least according to snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/chamberlain.asp
What the boingboing article fails to mention, of course, is the cop's side of the story - that the guy attacked them with a knife and a hatchet when they responded to a call triggered by his medic alert.
Which may well be total bull - but allegedly, the incident was all caught on tape, so presumably all will out.
Yeah, the Boingboing article makes it sound like the guy was asleep when the police entered. Also the NY Times articles certainly implies the person shot was suffering from some kind of mental illness/distress and the upshot is the police should have de-escalated the situation.
Boingboing seems to be a bust.
Quote from: Malthus on April 04, 2012, 03:32:17 PM
What the boingboing article fails to mention, of course, is the cop's side of the story - that the guy attacked them with a knife and a hatchet when they responded to a call triggered by his medic alert.
Which may well be total bull - but allegedly, the incident was all caught on tape, so presumably all will out.
Well the case is about to be presented to the Grand Jury so it seems like the authorities are on top of it. I find it hard to believe tazers couldn't take down a 68 year old with heart problems.
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2012, 03:43:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 04, 2012, 03:32:17 PM
What the boingboing article fails to mention, of course, is the cop's side of the story - that the guy attacked them with a knife and a hatchet when they responded to a call triggered by his medic alert.
Which may well be total bull - but allegedly, the incident was all caught on tape, so presumably all will out.
Well the case is about to be presented to the Grand Jury so it seems like the authorities are on top of it. I find it hard to believe tazers couldn't take down a 68 year old with heart problems.
Hey, he was a Marine. He laughed off their wimpy tazers and shotgun beanbags. ;)
I remember you squealing with joy about that edited Wikileaks video of the attack helicopter Speesh.
You are: BUSTED.
Why is the stand your ground thing relevant to this? Seems like it's either a justifiable homicide (self-defense) or it's a homicide.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 04, 2012, 04:44:33 PM
Why is the stand your ground thing relevant to this? Seems like it's either a justifiable homicide (self-defense) or it's a homicide.
I think Yakie's connection was the black victim thing.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 04:34:35 PM
Dead man who edited videos. Such as the Shirley Sherrod thing and the Acorn video.
I'll admit that I liked the Acorn video (did Breitbart edit those??). But tell me more about how I liked the Shirley Sherrod thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 04:15:00 PM
I remember you squealing with joy about that edited Wikileaks video of the attack helicopter Speesh.
You are: BUSTED.
Who me? You remember incorrectly if that's a case. I was very critical of the whole thing. I didn't like the editorializing, the editing, and quickly came to dislike the head guy.
Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 04:47:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 04:34:35 PM
Dead man who edited videos. Such as the Shirley Sherrod thing and the Acorn video.
I'll admit that I liked the Acorn video (did Breitbart edit those??). But tell me more about how I liked the Shirley Sherrod thing.
Yes, breitbart edited them. You linked us to breitbart more then once, so I assumed you liked what he did.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 04:50:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 04:15:00 PM
I remember you squealing with joy about that edited Wikileaks video of the attack helicopter Speesh.
You are: BUSTED.
Who me? You remember incorrectly if that's a case. I was very critical of the whole thing. I didn't like the editorializing, the editing, and quickly came to dislike the head guy.
Is your name Speesh?
It ain't always about you, honey :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 04:51:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 04:47:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 04:34:35 PM
Dead man who edited videos. Such as the Shirley Sherrod thing and the Acorn video.
I'll admit that I liked the Acorn video (did Breitbart edit those??). But tell me more about how I liked the Shirley Sherrod thing.
Yes, breitbart edited them. You linked us to breitbart more then once, so I assumed you liked what he did.
I don't believe he did. IIRC it was O'Keefe.
Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 04:47:36 PM
I'll admit that I liked the Acorn video (did Breitbart edit those??).
It was hilarious seeing that pale prep school young Republican trying to act like a pimp.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 04:50:11 PM
Who me? You remember incorrectly if that's a case. I was very critical of the whole thing. I didn't like the editorializing, the editing, and quickly came to dislike the head guy.
Not you, Speesh.
Breitbart edited the Sherrod video, Breitbart was a right winger, ergo Speesh, who is a right winger loves edited videos. Therefore he loved the Wikileaks video. He likes Michael Moore "documentaries" too. All right wingers love them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 04:53:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 04:50:11 PM
Who me? You remember incorrectly if that's a case. I was very critical of the whole thing. I didn't like the editorializing, the editing, and quickly came to dislike the head guy.
Not you, Speesh.
Breitbart edited the Sherrod video, Breitbart was a right winger, ergo Speesh, who is a right winger loves edited videos. Therefore he loved the Wikileaks video. He likes Michael Moore "documentaries" too. All right wingers love them.
If he enjoyed one video edited for political gain, why not another?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 04:56:13 PM
If he enjoyed one video edited for political gain, why not another?
Indeed. He enjoys all edited videos.
I would assume so.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 05:02:55 PM
I would assume so.
No need to assume anything. The iron-clad laws of deduction tell us unequivocally that he does.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 05:05:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 05:02:55 PM
I would assume so.
No need to assume anything. The iron-clad laws of deduction tell us unequivocally that he does.
Which makes him taking exception to one doctored tape all the more puzzling. Why would he be unhappy with one and not the other?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 06:09:22 PM
Which makes him taking exception to one doctored tape all the more puzzling. Why would he be unhappy with one and not the other?
:o Damn, good point. Maybe we discard the entire hypothesis and start from scratch.
Have we already established that he was happy with one doctored video?
Quote from: Jacob on April 04, 2012, 03:18:25 PM
So did you guys hear about the marine vet who got shot by police in his own home because his medical alert bracelet malfunctioned?
Seems outlandish: http://boingboing.net/2012/04/03/black-marine-veteran-68-shot.html
The cops certainly took care of that medical emergency.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 06:20:09 PM
:o Damn, good point. Maybe we discard the entire hypothesis and start from scratch.
Have we already established that he was happy with one doctored video?
:lol: Best turned-tables exchange here in a long, long time.
Bravo.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2012, 06:49:07 PM
The cops certainly took care of that medical emergency.
Yeah, it is a weird story. We don't have many facts that count when it comes to possible police misconduct, though.
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2012, 06:53:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2012, 06:49:07 PM
The cops certainly took care of that medical emergency.
Yeah, it is a weird story. We don't have many facts that count when it comes to possible police misconduct, though.
This is the problem with police Omerta. A cop can line up a random person on the street against a wall, execute him with a shot to the back of the head, and his colleagues on the scene would all claim that the executed guy was grabbing for the cop's gun or something. Therefore, you can't ever trust a police account, even though I'm sure (or I sincerely hope) that the vast majority of the time, nothing fishy happened. I can't ever recall a case of uncovered police misconduct, whether it involved killing someone or roughing the person up, that didn't include a number of false statements by cops that intended to cover it up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 06:20:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 06:09:22 PM
Which makes him taking exception to one doctored tape all the more puzzling. Why would he be unhappy with one and not the other?
:o Damn, good point. Maybe we discard the entire hypothesis and start from scratch.
Have we already established that he was happy with one doctored video?
Indeed.
Quote
I'll admit that I liked the Acorn video (did Breitbart edit those??). But tell me more about how I liked the Shirley Sherrod thing.
So yes. We have.
I do remember something about 10 seconds being cut from the ACORN video, but I thought most people agreed that those missing 10 seconds didn't affect much of anything.
QuoteThe videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O'Keefe's and Ms.Giles's comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts2 to the released videos confirms that large portions of the
original video have been omitted from the released versions. To date, the videographers have declined or ignored our interview requests
http://www.proskauer.com/files/uploads/report2.pdf
I can post other links as well, but this should be sufficient. Now why do you suppose derspeiss was okay with one and not another?
Yeah, a report from a PR firm hired by ACORN is pretty damning.
Speesh: BUSTED.
I think it was a law firm hired to do an internal investigation. Would you like more sources or do you want to concede the point and move on?
If you have any impartial sources I wouldn't mind seeing them.
QuoteEver since it first debuted in September — the James O'Keefe video attacking ACORN, along with the community organizing group itself — has been unraveling. ACORN finally shuttered last month, and the video was ruled by a Brooklyn judge to be heavily edited to the point of being willfully misleading, and no charges were filed against the group. So just how edited was the film, in which it appeared that ACORN employees advised O'Keefe and his "prostitute" friend on how he, as her pimp, could hide wages from the government?
Even though in portions of the video O'Keefe appears dressed as a pimp, full-length tape obtained by the California Attorney General's Office (in exchange for immunity from privacy-violation charges for O'Keefe, who taped ACORN employees without their knowledge) shows that he not only did not dress that way at the ACORN offices, he never even claimed to be a pimp. From a press release from the office of California Attorney General Edmund Brown:
Videotapes secretly recorded last summer and severely edited by O'Keefe seemed to show ACORN employees encouraging a "pimp" (O'Keefe) and his "prostitute," actually a Florida college student named Hannah Giles, in conversations involving prostitution by underage girls, human trafficking and cheating on taxes. Those videos created a media sensation.
Evidence obtained by Brown tells a somewhat different story, however, as reflected in three videotapes made at ACORN locations in California. One ACORN worker in San Diego called the cops. Another ACORN worker in San Bernardino caught on to the scheme and played along with it, claiming among other things that she had murdered her abusive husband. Her two former husbands are alive and well, the Attorney General's report noted. At the beginning and end of the Internet videos, O'Keefe was dressed as a 1970s Superfly pimp, but in his actual taped sessions with ACORN workers, he was dressed in a shirt and tie, presented himself as a law student, and said he planned to use the prostitution proceeds to run for Congress. He never claimed he was a pimp.
"The evidence illustrates," Brown said, "that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor."
Oh, the old playing-along-with-a-gag mistake. Those ACORN employees should have known that doing that would not only get them fired, but would get their entire national organization shut down. Man.
Here is New Yorker Magazine article. http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/03/damaging_brooklyn_acorn_sting.html
Here is Attorney general of California's office.
Quoteideotapes secretly recorded last summer and severely edited by O'Keefe seemed to show ACORN employees encouraging a "pimp" (O'Keefe) and his "prostitute," actually a Florida college student named Hannah Giles, in conversations involving prostitution by underage girls, human trafficking and cheating on taxes. Those videos created a media sensation.
Evidence obtained by Brown tells a somewhat different story, however, as reflected in three videotapes made at ACORN locations in California. One ACORN worker in San Diego called the cops. Another ACORN worker in San Bernardino caught on to the scheme and played along with it, claiming among other things that she had murdered her abusive husband. Her two former husbands are alive and well, the Attorney General's report noted. At the beginning and end of the Internet videos, O'Keefe was dressed as a 1970s Superfly pimp, but in his actual taped sessions with ACORN workers, he was dressed in a shirt and tie, presented himself as a law student, and said he planned to use the prostitution proceeds to run for Congress. He never claimed he was a pimp.
http://oag.ca.gov/news/press_release?id=1888
Is this sufficient, Yi? Can we move on?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 08:07:28 PM
and said he planned to use the prostitution proceeds to run for Congress. He never claimed he was a pimp.
So how exactly is he getting money off other people's prostitution if he's not a pimp? :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 04, 2012, 08:11:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 08:07:28 PM
and said he planned to use the prostitution proceeds to run for Congress. He never claimed he was a pimp.
So how exactly is he getting money off other people's prostitution if he's not a pimp? :huh:
[/quote]
Being a lawyer?
A lawyer who manages prostitutes and takes their money for it is still a pimp.
:lol: @ everything
Filiming an opening and closing in Superfly gear then changing to suit and tie for the meeting is misleading in my book and something that I did not know.
As Pedro already mentioned, asking about opening a brothel but not expressly using the word pimp is utterly meaningless.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 04, 2012, 08:13:36 PM
A lawyer who manages prostitutes and takes their money for it is still a pimp.
Lawyers are magical creatures that don't live by the same rules as the rest of us. Still it's irrelevant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 08:16:46 PM
Filiming an opening and closing in Superfly gear then changing to suit and tie for the meeting is misleading in my book and something that I did not know.
As Pedro already mentioned, asking about opening a brothel but not expressly using the word pimp is utterly meaningless.
That's still irrelevant. I was only meaning to prove that the tapes were edited. Which I think I did. Is SPEESH still BUSTED?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 08:20:02 PM
That's still irrelevant. I was only meaning to prove that the tapes were edited. Which I think I did. Is SPEESH still BUSTED?
It's common knowledge that the tapes were edited. The question is whether they were edited in such a way as to lead viewers to a false conclusion (as the Sherrod tapes were). I think they still show ACORN staff giving advice to a man on how to operate a brothel. The effect is diminished by the knowledge that the dude was not wearing a fur cape, but doesn't totally negate the actions of the staff.
Perhaps not, but no charges were filed. More was edited then just the ending and beginning. Compare this to MSNBC editing out one statement which so upset Derspeiss. They are both edited to give false impressions. Why is one okay and not the other?
Soooooo what's goin on in here?
I cannot tell you how upset I am.
Hey Speesh, how do you feel about editing in the pimp and ho montage at the beginning and ending?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 08:37:28 PM
Hey Speesh, how do you feel about editing in the pimp and ho montage at the beginning and ending?
A little misleading, I guess. But not the hoax of the century.
What happened to the girl from those videos? IIRC she was pretty hot. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 04, 2012, 08:51:08 PM
What happened to the girl from those videos? IIRC she was pretty hot. :)
Beat up mug, nice pooper.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 08:37:28 PM
Hey Speesh, how do you feel about editing in the pimp and ho montage at the beginning and ending?
Also that O'Keefe had the policed called on him by ACORN employees (the one who he talked to about human trafficking). Or one employee who thought it was a practical joke and played along was edited to it give a sinister air. And some were just plain lies. Besides that, it was on the up and up. There's a reason why Nobody at ACORN was charged.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 09:16:48 PM
Also that O'Keefe had the policed called on him by ACORN employees (the one who he talked to about human trafficking). Or one employee who thought it was a practical joke and played along was edited to it give a sinister air. And some were just plain lies. Besides that, it was on the up and up. There's a reason why Nobody at ACORN was charged.
Sure, the fact that several ACORN offices gave him the shine is common knowledge.
This is an indictment of O'Keefe if you think his video gives the false impression that 100% of ACORN staffers give advice on tax avoidance to pimps opening brothels filled with underage illegal immigrants.
It's also a defense of ACORN if you think that giving advice on tax avoidance to pimps opening brothels filled with underage illegal immigrants only one fourth of the time is pretty good.
Is it? Is it common knowledge? You said earlier that you thought only 10 seconds or so had been edited out. O'Keefe talked to a guy about human trafficking, and video taped this conversation. He used that conversation as proof that ACORN was willing to help human traffickers when in fact as soon as he was out of the office the ACORN employee called the police on him. That strikes me as extremely dishonest. Before it the edited tapes were made known, the guy helping with human trafficking was the only story out there.
I think it's common knowledge.
I've never heard about or seen the human trafficking tape.
Does anyone not get that this O'Keefe guy was a slimy political operative? I thought that was pretty obvious from day one. Didn't he end up doing jail time for breaking into some Senator's office?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 09:33:16 PM
I think it's common knowledge.
I've never heard about or seen the human trafficking tape.
It's common knowledge and you don't know about it?
Quote from: Caliga on April 04, 2012, 09:34:14 PM
Does anyone not get that this O'Keefe guy was a slimy political operative? I thought that was pretty obvious from day one. Didn't he end up doing jail time for breaking into some Senator's office?
Nah, I think he got away with it.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 09:37:27 PM
It's common knowledge and you don't know about it?
Yes. There is something that is common knowledge and there is something I don't know about.
I can not prove or disprove if something is "common knowledge". I can demonstrate that the videos were heavily edited sometimes to give the opposite impression of what actually happened. I know at least some people don't know about it, cause you made me post a bunch of sources before you would accept it. If you want a more in depth look, here is the government report http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_report.pdf You compare the San Diego incident with the videos of O'Keefe made that can easily be found on the net.
Since you have taken it upon yourself to speak for Derspeiss with your iron clad deductions and such, why is one editing bad and the other not so bad?
Can you two please give it a rest? This back and forth is so inane that it's not the least bit entertaining in any capacity.
:lol:
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2012, 10:27:35 PM
Can you two please give it a rest? This back and forth is so inane that it's not the least bit entertaining in any capacity.
I'm *This* close to a gottcha moment! We've gone around and around and each circle I close in a little more. Each new fact established forces Yi further into the corner. And you would rob me of it. :weep: Just cause I cracked that I might kill you. You know I wouldn't kill you DG, who else would laugh at my jokes?
I think DG is saying get a life. ;)
Quote from: 11B4V on April 04, 2012, 11:19:01 PM
I think DG is saying get a life. ;)
I can take a life. If that's what he means. :ph34r:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 09:58:14 PM
Since you have taken it upon yourself to speak for Derspeiss with your iron clad deductions and such, why is one editing bad and the other not so bad?
Speesh and I agree that the editing in of the pimp scenes is bad. I think it's less bad than the MSNBC editing because even if you subtract the pimp scenes it's still makes ACORN look like shit. If you subtract MSNBC editing you've got nothing.
I don't think either's bad unless they're hiding the full version or deliberately trying to distort the truth - and even that can be justified if there's a greater truth they're pointing out or artistic merit.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2012, 07:04:42 PM
This is the problem with police Omerta. A cop can line up a random person on the street against a wall, execute him with a shot to the back of the head, and his colleagues on the scene would all claim that the executed guy was grabbing for the cop's gun or something. Therefore, you can't ever trust a police account, even though I'm sure (or I sincerely hope) that the vast majority of the time, nothing fishy happened. I can't ever recall a case of uncovered police misconduct, whether it involved killing someone or roughing the person up, that didn't include a number of false statements by cops that intended to cover it up.
You watch too many movies.
There are, in fact, actual law enforcement professionals that don't like to see their coworkers break the law. No, really.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2012, 07:04:42 PM
This is the problem with police Omerta. A cop can line up a random person on the street against a wall, execute him with a shot to the back of the head, and his colleagues on the scene would all claim that the executed guy was grabbing for the cop's gun or something. Therefore, you can't ever trust a police account, even though I'm sure (or I sincerely hope) that the vast majority of the time, nothing fishy happened. I can't ever recall a case of uncovered police misconduct, whether it involved killing someone or roughing the person up, that didn't include a number of false statements by cops that intended to cover it up.
This is the problem with conspiracy thinking; it takes real facts and then makes them less credible by adding in phraseology like "police Omerta." While I agree that "you can't ever trust a police account," I would say the same about lawyers, accountants, teachers, and any person in sales or administration... in fact, pretty much everyone you don't know personally (and not all of them). Are police less reliable as witnesses against other police than, say, lawyers against other lawyers? Yes. Does it mean that cops will all allow colleagues to get away with murder? No.
God knows I ratted out enough of them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 06:46:01 AM
God knows I ratted out enough of them.
But you edited out the part of this post where you changed your name and left the police force under threat of death, Serpico. :glare:
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2012, 06:56:48 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 06:46:01 AM
God knows I ratted out enough of them.
But you edited out the part of this post where you changed your name and left the police force under threat of death, Serpico. :glare:
The threat of death was due more to fears of incompetence than anything else. (Idiots in BPD)# of guns + cars with lights and sirens = % of death. No fucking thanks :lol:.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 05:08:40 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2012, 07:04:42 PM
This is the problem with police Omerta. A cop can line up a random person on the street against a wall, execute him with a shot to the back of the head, and his colleagues on the scene would all claim that the executed guy was grabbing for the cop's gun or something. Therefore, you can't ever trust a police account, even though I'm sure (or I sincerely hope) that the vast majority of the time, nothing fishy happened. I can't ever recall a case of uncovered police misconduct, whether it involved killing someone or roughing the person up, that didn't include a number of false statements by cops that intended to cover it up.
You watch too many movies.
There are, in fact, actual law enforcement professionals that don't like to see their coworkers break the law. No, really.
ya, but those are the ones most likely to get "shot by the suspect". it keeps their numbers down :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 12:44:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2012, 09:58:14 PM
Since you have taken it upon yourself to speak for Derspeiss with your iron clad deductions and such, why is one editing bad and the other not so bad?
Speesh and I agree that the editing in of the pimp scenes is bad. I think it's less bad than the MSNBC editing because even if you subtract the pimp scenes it's still makes ACORN look like shit. If you subtract MSNBC editing you've got nothing.
What about the human trafficking thing? You keep ignoring this one. If we remove the MSNBC editing we still have Zimmmerman using a racial slur. Also him shooting someone. All they removed was that police question of ethnicity.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 05:08:40 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2012, 07:04:42 PM
This is the problem with police Omerta. A cop can line up a random person on the street against a wall, execute him with a shot to the back of the head, and his colleagues on the scene would all claim that the executed guy was grabbing for the cop's gun or something. Therefore, you can't ever trust a police account, even though I'm sure (or I sincerely hope) that the vast majority of the time, nothing fishy happened. I can't ever recall a case of uncovered police misconduct, whether it involved killing someone or roughing the person up, that didn't include a number of false statements by cops that intended to cover it up.
You watch too many movies.
There are, in fact, actual law enforcement professionals that don't like to see their coworkers break the law. No, really.
I'm not basing it on movies (though I do find it disturbing the lengths to which not ratting out your partner is generally glorified in them). I'm basing it on the news coverage, like the coverage of New Orleans police shooting, or the various cases of assaults on officers or resisting of arrest that later turn out to be unprovoked attacks by cops, after a security camera footage or cell phone camera footage surfaces.
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2012, 08:52:33 AM
(though I do find it disturbing the lengths to which not ratting out your partner is generally glorified in them).
Maybe if there wasn't such an adversarial relationship between law enforcement and the public, there wouldn't be such a blue wall mind-set.
But, just like the military and combat, it's just something you wouldn't understand unless you've been there. It is what it is.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 09:00:15 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2012, 08:52:33 AM
(though I do find it disturbing the lengths to which not ratting out your partner is generally glorified in them).
Maybe if there wasn't such an adversarial relationship between law enforcement and the public, there wouldn't be such a blue wall mind-set.
But, just like the military and combat, it's just something you wouldn't understand unless you've been there. It is what it is.
Agreed if cops weren't such dicks, the public might like them better.
Howard Morgan, Black Off-Duty Cop Shot 28 Times By White Chicago Officers, Faces Up To 80 Years In Prison :hmm:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/howard-morgan-ex-cop-shot_n_1399834.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/howard-morgan-ex-cop-shot_n_1399834.html)
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 09:45:58 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 09:00:15 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2012, 08:52:33 AM
(though I do find it disturbing the lengths to which not ratting out your partner is generally glorified in them).
Maybe if there wasn't such an adversarial relationship between law enforcement and the public, there wouldn't be such a blue wall mind-set.
But, just like the military and combat, it's just something you wouldn't understand unless you've been there. It is what it is.
Agreed if cops weren't such dicks, the public might like them better.
:lol: Goes both ways there, Sunshine.
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2012, 06:40:19 AM
This is the problem with conspiracy thinking; it takes real facts and then makes them less credible by adding in phraseology like "police Omerta." While I agree that "you can't ever trust a police account," I would say the same about lawyers, accountants, teachers, and any person in sales or administration... in fact, pretty much everyone you don't know personally (and not all of them). Are police less reliable as witnesses against other police than, say, lawyers against other lawyers? Yes. Does it mean that cops will all allow colleagues to get away with murder? No.
The problem is that unlike teachers, cops have a monopoly on violence. Their testimonies are also a crucial part of their civil service, and often is the only piece of evidence in more minor cases, which means that the rights of citziens often hang on their word. In light of that, I think it's not at all unreasonable to hold them to higher standard of integrity than teachers.
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2012, 10:20:01 AM
The problem is that unlike teachers, cops have a monopoly on violence. Their testimonies are also a crucial part of their civil service, and often is the only piece of evidence in more minor cases, which means that the rights of citziens often hang on their word. In light of that, I think it's not at all unreasonable to hold them to higher standard of integrity than teachers.
I don't disagree with you in theory. Cops
should be held to a higher standard. They are hired, in essence, to be the eyes and ears of the public in places where bad guys might be trying to do the public harm. The public hires them, in essence, to be honest about what is happening.
The public doesn't get its money's worth in this regard, but it can't. Cops are human beings, and they are loyal to those whose loyalty they need to even stay alive, which means fellow cops. They identify with fellow cops, and want fellow cops to be innocent in any case where innocence is possible, just as they want fellow cops to believe them innocent in any case where innocence is possible. They'll burn fellow cops they think are genuine bad guys, but it will take a lot of evidence to convince them that the fellow cop is bad. Cops have a sense of duty to the public, but it pales compared to the sense of duty they feel for each other. I don't think that is avoidable except in a police department wherein the cops hate each other, and that's a worse police force than a normally-corrupt one.
I think that constant automatic video and audio monitoring (with police unable to turn off the monitors) is the only way the public is going to get their moneys' worth, and cops will be able to get away from the need to lie to cover up possible mistakes by fellow cops.
It bothers me to discover that the police apparently deliberately turned off the video camera in the tazer gun in the moments before Chamberlain was shot (apparently you hear the cop in charge order the cop with the tazer to turn off the camera just before the shots were fired). All of the reasons that a reasonable person would imagine for such an act are ungood for the cops.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 05, 2012, 09:47:58 AM
Howard Morgan, Black Off-Duty Cop Shot 28 Times By White Chicago Officers, Faces Up To 80 Years In Prison :hmm:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/howard-morgan-ex-cop-shot_n_1399834.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/howard-morgan-ex-cop-shot_n_1399834.html)
28 times? At least one of those cops had been watching too many action movies. That's half a clip each, or at least one of them emptied his clip.
We had a case here recently where the police fired at least 24 bullets at a suspect in a trailer park. 24 bullets were found in the side of some guy's trailer. Apparently the suspect was trying to kill himself.
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2012, 10:39:45 AM
It bothers me to discover that the police apparently deliberately turned off the video camera in the tazer gun in the moments before Chamberlain was shot (apparently you hear the cop in charge order the cop with the tazer to turn off the camera just before the shots were fired). All of the reasons that a reasonable person would imagine for such an act are ungood for the cops.
Yeah, that case stinks to high heaven.
Unfortunately, it happened at 5am, which means the cops were interrupted from their downtime at the IHOP. Leaving pancakes for a call will get you deader than shit.
And turning off the camera or mic on
any device out in the field is a major chain of custody no-no. That's why the duty sergeant back at HQ has the keys to the VCR lock box in the trunk for the dashboard cameras. Patrol officers never touched the tapes from their own tour, never ever ever. Same goes with belt mics; you think something's wrong with your mic, you come off the street immediately.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2012, 10:50:44 AM
We had a case here recently where the police fired at least 24 bullets at a suspect in a trailer park. 24 bullets were found in the side of some guy's trailer. Apparently the suspect was trying to kill himself.
Hopefully he was shot before he succeeded.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2012, 08:38:43 AM
What about the human trafficking thing? You keep ignoring this one.
No I don't. I said I've never heard of it till now. What O'Keefe did with the human trafficking video enters as much in to the conversation about the Maryland video as MSNBC's coverage of Plamegate does to the Zimmerman 911 clip.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 05:08:40 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2012, 07:04:42 PM
This is the problem with police Omerta. A cop can line up a random person on the street against a wall, execute him with a shot to the back of the head, and his colleagues on the scene would all claim that the executed guy was grabbing for the cop's gun or something. Therefore, you can't ever trust a police account, even though I'm sure (or I sincerely hope) that the vast majority of the time, nothing fishy happened. I can't ever recall a case of uncovered police misconduct, whether it involved killing someone or roughing the person up, that didn't include a number of false statements by cops that intended to cover it up.
You watch too many movies.
There are, in fact, actual law enforcement professionals that don't like to see their coworkers break the law. No, really.
I missed DG's post at the time, and haven't had time to respond until now.
So DG - how many internal police investigations have you been a part of? Have you read any academic articles? What precisely is your opinion based on?
I have done about a half dozen opinion files on police complaints, and have talked to numerous colleagues who have run similar opinions - and even ran trials against cops.
So based on that experience... I've never seen cops fabricate evidence for their colleagues. Not once.
Now I think Grumbles was kind of on the right path. No group likes to tattle on their colleagues. Lawyers are particularily bad for this IMO. What I have seen is that when the outside investigator comes in suddenly a room full of cops had their backs turned (though even this is pretty rare). Colleague told me of a file he was reviewing where the other cops involved declined to give a statement. A call to the inspector tuned them up to the fact that when you are on duty and in uniform providing a statement about what happened is not optional, but rather part of your damn job.
That being said - the huge majority of complaints of police brutality are complete BS. They're made by a person under the influence, or with a really obvious axe to grind.
I love the ideas of video and audio recordings on police officers (hey - my every word in court is being recorded, so why shouldn't theirs). But you have to be able to turn it off. Cops have to use the bathroom too. But yes - if you're turning it off in the middle of something that's a problem.
Quote from: Barrister on April 05, 2012, 03:30:53 PM
(hey - my every word in court is being recorded, so why shouldn't theirs).
Heh, touche'.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 02:55:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2012, 08:38:43 AM
What about the human trafficking thing? You keep ignoring this one.
No I don't. I said I've never heard of it till now. What O'Keefe did with the human trafficking video enters as much in to the conversation about the Maryland video as MSNBC's coverage of Plamegate does to the Zimmerman 911 clip.
It's on the same video! It's all part of his montage! He went to several offices and spliced together responses.
CNN now seems to doubt Zimmerman used a racial slur, after filtering out some background noise from the tape.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2012, 05:03:40 PM
It's on the same video! It's all part of his montage! He went to several offices and spliced together responses.
OK. I still haven't seen it and can't comment on it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 06:32:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2012, 05:03:40 PM
It's on the same video! It's all part of his montage! He went to several offices and spliced together responses.
OK. I still haven't seen it and can't comment on it.
You were able to comment on it earlier.
Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 06:31:49 PM
CNN now seems to doubt Zimmerman used a racial slur, after filtering out some background noise from the tape.
What, from the original 911 phone call? Quite frankly, I didn't think that was what he said the first time I heard it.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2012, 08:09:03 PM
You were able to comment on it earlier.
I commented on it earlier in the bellief that it was one of the "no-event" sessions (such as the one where the ACORN lady said she had killed her husband) that O'Keefe left off the released version.
Now that you've told me O'Keefe included the trafficking footage on the video he released, that raises the issue of whether that portion of the tape was edited to lead viewers to an incorrect conclusion. I haven't seen it so I can't judge if it was or it wasn't.
That's okay. I can wait.
But you probably won't.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 08:12:40 PM
What, from the original 911 phone call? Quite frankly, I didn't think that was what he said the first time I heard it.
Yeah, who says "coon"?
QuoteSanford, Florida (CNN) -- George Zimmerman told his lawyers that he whispered "punks," not a racial slur, in the moments before he shot Trayvon Martin, his attorneys told CNN on Thursday.
Some people interpreted the police recording of Zimmerman's call to 911 as evidence the fatal shooting was racially motivated.
Zimmerman attorneys Hal Ulrig and Craig Sonner told CNN their client told them that he said, "F---ing punks."
Forensic audio expert Tom Owen, who analyzed 911 recordings, agreed the garbled word that raised controversy was "punks," not the racial slur some people said they heard
When Owen, chairman emeritus of the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used a computer application to remove cell phone interference, the word became clearer, he said. After discussions with linguists, he said he became convinced that Zimmerman said "punks."
He provided CNN with a copy of the newly processed audio.
CNN also enhanced the sound of the 911 call, and several members of CNN's editorial staff repeatedly reviewed the tape but could reach no consensus on whether Zimmerman used a slur.
Martin's family and supporters say Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, profiled Martin, who was black, as "suspicious" and ignored a police dispatcher's request not to follow him. Martin did not live in Sanford, Florida, but he was there with his father, whose fiancee lives in Zimmerman's neighborhood.
Zimmerman, 28, fatally shot Martin, 17, on February 26. The case has triggered a nationwide debate about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, race and racial profiling.
While Zimmerman's attorneys may welcome Owen's analysis of their client's 911 call, they disagree with his conclusions about what is heard on another 911 recording.
Zimmerman has said he was yelling for help, according to his family members and his account to authorities, as first reported by The Orlando Sentinel and later confirmed by Sanford police.
But Martin's relatives, including his cousin Ronquavis Fulton, have said they are certain the voice heard on the 911 call is Martin's.
Owen and another audio expert, Ed Primeau, analyzed the recording for the Sentinel using different techniques, and they said they don't believe it is Zimmerman who is heard yelling in the background of one 911 call. They compared the screams with Zimmerman's voice, as recorded in a 911 call he made minutes earlier describing a "suspicious" black male.
"There's a huge chance that this is not Zimmerman's voice," said Primeau, a longtime audio engineer who is listed as an expert in recorded evidence by the American College of Forensic Examiners International.
"After 28 years of doing this, I would put my reputation on the line and say this is not George Zimmerman screaming."
Owen also said he does not believe the screams came from Zimmerman.
He does not have a sample of Martin's voice for comparison, he said.
He cited software that is widely used in Europe and has become recently accepted in the United States that examines characteristics such as pitch and the space between spoken words to analyze voices.
Using it, he found a 48% likelihood the voice is Zimmerman's. At least 60% is necessary to feel confident that two samples are from the same source, he told CNN on Monday -- meaning it's unlikely it was Zimmerman who can be heard yelling.
The experts, both of whom said they have testified in cases involving audio analysis, stressed that they cannot say who was screaming.
Quote from: Kleves on April 05, 2012, 09:02:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2012, 08:12:40 PM
What, from the original 911 phone call? Quite frankly, I didn't think that was what he said the first time I heard it.
Yeah, who says "coon"?
People down Caliga's way, not metro Florida.
I thought he said "punks" as well first time I heard it.
Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 06:31:49 PM
CNN now seems to doubt Zimmerman used a racial slur, after filtering out some background noise from the tape.
Some people did and some people didn't, personally I never heard him say 'coon'. But whether he's a bit racist or not seems a side issue, unless it was the only route for a decent investigation (I think the DoJ can step in then?).
DG is a Russian. Magical thinking is his forte.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 06, 2012, 12:58:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 06:31:49 PM
CNN now seems to doubt Zimmerman used a racial slur, after filtering out some background noise from the tape.
Some people did and some people didn't, personally I never heard him say 'coon'. But whether he's a bit racist or not seems a side issue, unless it was the only route for a decent investigation (I think the DoJ can step in then?).
I wasn't 100% sure what it sounded like, but of to me it sounded more like "coons" than any other word-- which would have been pretty damning IMO if that had been the case. In the cleaned-up audio it sounds more like "cold", but Zimmerman's lawyers are claiming he said "punks".
Quote from: Neil on April 06, 2012, 08:56:38 AM
DG is a Russian. Magical thinking is his forte.
:huh:
Quote from: derspiess on April 06, 2012, 08:59:55 AM
I wasn't 100% sure what it sounded like, but of to me it sounded more like "coons" than any other word-- which would have been pretty damning IMO if that had been the case. In the cleaned-up audio it sounds more like "cold", but Zimmerman's lawyers are claiming he said "punks".
Still, its a pyrrhic victory for Zimmerman if it turns out that Martin is the one screaming for help during the call.
Pyrrihic victory for Martin either way.
Quote from: Kleves on April 06, 2012, 12:36:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 06, 2012, 08:59:55 AM
I wasn't 100% sure what it sounded like, but of to me it sounded more like "coons" than any other word-- which would have been pretty damning IMO if that had been the case. In the cleaned-up audio it sounds more like "cold", but Zimmerman's lawyers are claiming he said "punks".
Still, its a pyrrhic victory for Zimmerman if it turns out that Martin is the one screaming for help during the call.
Sure, but whatever happens to him I don't see any solid evidence now to pin any hate crime charges on him.
You can only get the hate crime bonus if you're convicted of a vanilla crime first, right? Seems like hate crime is the least of Zimmereman's worries.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2012, 04:35:48 PM
You can only get the hate crime bonus if you're convicted of a vanilla crime first, right? Seems like hate crime is the least of Zimmereman's worries.
I think they can charge him for denying the use of a public facility based on race. I don't know if a sidewalk counts.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 05, 2012, 09:47:58 AM
Howard Morgan, Black Off-Duty Cop Shot 28 Times By White Chicago Officers, Faces Up To 80 Years In Prison :hmm:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/howard-morgan-ex-cop-shot_n_1399834.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/howard-morgan-ex-cop-shot_n_1399834.html)
What the hell?
QuoteThe same jury that cleared him of opening fire on the officers, however, deadlocked on a charge of attempted murder
Yup. He's now serving 40 years.
America. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2012, 04:35:48 PM
You can only get the hate crime bonus if you're convicted of a vanilla crime first, right? Seems like hate crime is the least of Zimmereman's worries.
But can't the Feds step in if they think there's a hate crime angle that isn't being properly investigated locally?
Quote from: Zoupa on April 07, 2012, 12:19:35 AM
Yup. He's now serving 40 years.
America. :)
The guy was a sociopath, man.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2012, 01:03:07 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2012, 04:35:48 PM
You can only get the hate crime bonus if you're convicted of a vanilla crime first, right? Seems like hate crime is the least of Zimmereman's worries.
But can't the Feds step in if they think there's a hate crime angle that isn't being properly investigated locally?
They'll take it from a civil rights angle.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2012, 06:22:24 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 07, 2012, 12:19:35 AM
Yup. He's now serving 40 years.
America. :)
The guy was a sociopath, man.
From the article:
QuoteHoward Morgan's van was crushed and destroyed without notice or cause before any forensic investigation could be done.
...
Howard Morgan was never tested for gun residue to confirm if he even fired a weapon on the morning in question.
The State never produced the actual bullet proof vest worn by one of the officers who claimed to have allegedly taken a shot directly into the vest on the morning in question. The State only produced a replica.
GEEZ I WONDER WUT HAPPEND???
Someone got some shitty draaws on that one. :lol:
No grand jury.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2012, 06:22:57 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2012, 01:03:07 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2012, 04:35:48 PM
You can only get the hate crime bonus if you're convicted of a vanilla crime first, right? Seems like hate crime is the least of Zimmereman's worries.
But can't the Feds step in if they think there's a hate crime angle that isn't being properly investigated locally?
They'll take it from a civil rights angle.
I guess that's what I was thinking about when I said "hate crime".
Ah. Well there is a difference.
No Grand Jury. Southern Justice rides again!
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 12:35:00 PM
No Grand Jury. Southern Justice rides again!
Thanks for copying my post. :)
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2012, 12:41:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 12:35:00 PM
No Grand Jury. Southern Justice rides again!
Thanks for copying my post. :)
Sorry, I was thinking about all the skiing I was planning to do and didn't notice you.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 12:54:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2012, 12:41:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 12:35:00 PM
No Grand Jury. Southern Justice rides again!
Thanks for copying my post. :)
Sorry, I was thinking about all the skiing I was planning to do and didn't notice you.
Doubtful. The kind of skiing that I was talking about can't take place in a house.
Zimmman's lawyers have quit, or whatever it is that lawyers call quitting. He hasn't been returning their calls, he's been talking to the press, and he tried to talk to the prosecutor were the things they mentioned.
I think Ide said that lawyers can fire their clients. In Scips case he just sics his dogs on them. Maybe in Florida they can shoot the client in self defense.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 07:44:48 PM
In Scips case he just sics his dogs on them.
He rolls back the hour hand on the "Be Back By" sign first.
So, anybody been following the Tulsa thing where another pseudo-white (Native American) guy, plus a bona fide white guy, went around shooting random black people on the street, after the first guy's father pursued a black guy who had tried to break into his car, attacked him, got shot and killed by the black guy, and then the black guy never faced charges because of Okla.'s "Stand Your Ground" type law?....
Yeah, I heard about that.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 08:48:20 PM
Yeah, I heard about that.
I heard some white Okies were shooting up blacks but I hadn't heard the motive before now.
Quote from: sbr on April 10, 2012, 08:53:02 PM
I heard some white Okies were shooting up blacks but I hadn't heard the motive before now.
Same. Perfect example of why a SYG law is a bad idea, though.
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2012, 01:47:44 PM
Doubtful. The kind of skiing that I was talking about can't take place in a house.
Even if you have a really long staircase?
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2012, 01:47:44 PM
Doubtful. The kind of skiing that I was talking about can't take place in a house.
Do you have skiing supplies and/or know where Tina is at?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 10, 2012, 06:19:17 PM
Zimmman's lawyers have quit, or whatever it is that lawyers call quitting. He hasn't been returning their calls, he's been talking to the press, and he tried to talk to the prosecutor were the things they mentioned.
The leading case in Canada on lawyers ceasing to act for their clients was a SCC decision that started out in Yukon. :cool:
Apparently, he's going to be charged later today.
My guess: loitering.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 01:22:05 PM
Apparently, he's going to be charged later today.
My guess: loitering.
Who? Zimmerman or Martin?
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2012, 08:53:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2012, 08:26:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 10:41:44 PM
I guess your beloved queen is not white. :(
Are you sure you aren't confusing Liz with her Greek husband? :hmm:
Nope. Queen Liz has Portuguese, Greek and even Arab blood.
:rolleyes:
Burke's Peerage: Queen Elizabeth II Descended from the Prophet Muhammad (http://www.juancole.com/2008/02/burkes-peerage-queen-elizabeth-ii.html)
Quote from: Viking on April 11, 2012, 03:16:49 PM
Burke's Peerage: Queen Elizabeth II Descended from the Prophet Muhammad (http://www.juancole.com/2008/02/burkes-peerage-queen-elizabeth-ii.html)
In that case I am also descended from the Prophet Mohammed along with virtuallly everybody from Europe.
Obey me Shi'ites! I am your rightful leader!
But the claim that the line traces through Edward IV is weird. What is so Spanish about Edward IV? I figured they would have traced it through Edward I since his wife was Castillian.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 06, 2012, 12:58:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 06:31:49 PM
CNN now seems to doubt Zimmerman used a racial slur, after filtering out some background noise from the tape.
Some people did and some people didn't, personally I never heard him say 'coon'. But whether he's a bit racist or not seems a side issue, unless it was the only route for a decent investigation (I think the DoJ can step in then?).
I think you can still be a racist without having to use a specific word.
Just because he may have said punk, doesn't exonerate him.
Quote from: Valmy on April 11, 2012, 03:25:17 PM
But the claim that the line traces through Edward IV is weird. What is so Spanish about Edward IV? I figured they would have traced it through Edward I since his wife was Castillian.
Maybe the Yorkist line had links to Castille or something? :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2012, 03:39:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 11, 2012, 03:25:17 PM
But the claim that the line traces through Edward IV is weird. What is so Spanish about Edward IV? I figured they would have traced it through Edward I since his wife was Castillian.
Maybe the Yorkist line had links to Castille or something? :mellow:
His great-grandmother:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_of_Castile,_Duchess_of_York
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 03:48:39 PM
His great-grandmother:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_of_Castile,_Duchess_of_York
Far more impressive than some Welshman up the Lancastrian tree.
Ugh, this special prosecutor is annoying as shit.
Edit: This woman is the most annoying Florida bitch since Katherine Harris.
Charged with Murder, 2nd degree.
No charges for Martin. At this time.
Prediction: Will be found not guilty.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 05:03:57 PM
Edit: This woman is the most annoying Florida bitch since Katherine Harris.
:bleeding: Her expressionist makeup was horrifying.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 10, 2012, 06:19:17 PM
Zimmman's lawyers have quit, or whatever it is that lawyers call quitting. He hasn't been returning their calls, he's been talking to the press, and he tried to talk to the prosecutor were the things they mentioned.
The fact they talked about all this shit on TV is astoundingly unethical.
Given the fact that they were representing him at all and were doing it pro bono, I think you have to assume that they're enormous attention whores. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on April 11, 2012, 07:36:07 PM
Given the fact that they were representing him at all and were doing it pro bono, I think you have to assume that they're enormous attention whores. :hmm:
I met Casey Anthony's lawyer. :) He seemed like a nice guy, if a little socially awkward.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 11, 2012, 07:32:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 10, 2012, 06:19:17 PM
Zimmman's lawyers have quit, or whatever it is that lawyers call quitting. He hasn't been returning their calls, he's been talking to the press, and he tried to talk to the prosecutor were the things they mentioned.
The fact they talked about all this shit on TV is astoundingly unethical.
I'm SHOCKED that a lawyer was unethical.
Quote from: Caliga on April 11, 2012, 07:36:07 PM
Given the fact that they were representing him at all and were doing it pro bono, I think you have to assume that they're enormous attention whores. :hmm:
Yeah. Like the saying goes, "he who has an attention whore for a lawyer is a fool as a client."
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 11, 2012, 07:39:02 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 11, 2012, 07:36:07 PM
Given the fact that they were representing him at all and were doing it pro bono, I think you have to assume that they're enormous attention whores. :hmm:
I met Casey Anthony's lawyer. :) He seemed like a nice guy, if a little socially awkward.
He kinda looked like Scip.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 11, 2012, 07:39:02 PM
I met Casey Anthony's lawyer. :) He seemed like a nice guy, if a little socially awkward.
Did he get any action in exchange for his help? :)
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2012, 08:08:08 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 11, 2012, 07:39:02 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 11, 2012, 07:36:07 PM
Given the fact that they were representing him at all and were doing it pro bono, I think you have to assume that they're enormous attention whores. :hmm:
I met Casey Anthony's lawyer. :) He seemed like a nice guy, if a little socially awkward.
He kinda looked like Scip.
:hmm: A beardless, Puerto Rican Scip crossed with Eliot Spitzer, maybe.
Quote from: Caliga on April 11, 2012, 08:40:53 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 11, 2012, 07:39:02 PM
I met Casey Anthony's lawyer. :) He seemed like a nice guy, if a little socially awkward.
Did he get any action in exchange for his help? :)
Somehow, it didn't come up. :huh:
Oh, I also met DSK's non-Brafman defense lawyer for a second. :showoff:
:lol: Jose Baez: 'The way these attorneys handled this situation was nothing short of a train wreck'
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 11, 2012, 08:42:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2012, 08:08:08 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 11, 2012, 07:39:02 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 11, 2012, 07:36:07 PM
Given the fact that they were representing him at all and were doing it pro bono, I think you have to assume that they're enormous attention whores. :hmm:
I met Casey Anthony's lawyer. :) He seemed like a nice guy, if a little socially awkward.
He kinda looked like Scip.
:hmm: A beardless, Puerto Rican Scip crossed with Eliot Spitzer, maybe.
Really? I thought he had a beard.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2012, 09:00:02 PM
Really? I thought he had a beard.
You tell me how much this looks like AmScip:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcrimegalsblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F03%2Fjose-baez-3.jpg&hash=6c69041eee76b0d93a592968068b40c5e606bf83)
They're both fat white dudes.
On further reflection, that's a really odd pocket square.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 11, 2012, 09:17:15 PM
On further reflection, that's a really odd pocket square.
How so? It matches the pattern of his shirt in contrast.
Sheesh.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 11, 2012, 09:12:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2012, 09:00:02 PM
Really? I thought he had a beard.
You tell me how much this looks like AmScip:
I must have confused him for someone else.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 09:22:06 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 11, 2012, 09:17:15 PM
On further reflection, that's a really odd pocket square.
How so?
The fold and the seersucker element, mainly. But I defer to your sartorial judgment, of course. :worthy:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 11, 2012, 09:45:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 09:22:06 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 11, 2012, 09:17:15 PM
On further reflection, that's a really odd pocket square.
How so?
The fold and the seersucker element, mainly. But I defer to your sartorial judgment, of course. :worthy:
Straight fold has been back in fashion for a while.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 11, 2012, 09:45:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 09:22:06 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 11, 2012, 09:17:15 PM
On further reflection, that's a really odd pocket square.
How so?
The fold and the seersucker element, mainly. But I defer to your sartorial judgment, of course. :worthy:
Indeed. You won't win in a fashion-contest against the most high-functioning of the forum gays.
Here's the Zimmerman blood some of you guys were looking for: http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-case-exclusive-photo-shows-bloodied-back/story?id=16177849#.T5F2F7OvjlB
More on Zimmerman's background: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425
Makes him look a lot more sympathetic than the "black people hating racist" picture we've seen in the media.
Meh, still a cop-wannabe with anger management issues. That's a problem when guns are involved.
Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 04:50:15 PM
More on Zimmerman's background: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425
Makes him look a lot more sympathetic than the "black people hating racist" picture we've seen in the media.
Damn. :(
Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 04:50:15 PM
More on Zimmerman's background: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425
Makes him look a lot more sympathetic than the "black people hating racist" picture we've seen in the media.
Wow, that is one hell of an article.
However, while the more calm information that comes out about Zimmerman leads to me being much more sympathetic towards him, it doesn't change the fact that the police, at the time, sure seemed to give at best a cursory examination to the killing of a young black man. If a more thorough investigation makes it clear this is really just a rather depressing tragedy, than so be it - but it seems like that investigation would never have occurred except for the intervention of the media.
And someone being shot to death should never be treated callously or with the apparent indifference shown initially.
And "Stand Your Ground" laws are fucking stupid. They should be called "Wave Your Gundick" laws, because that is what they are about.
The idea that there was some kind of terrible problem with innocent people not being able to defend themselves in legitimate circumstances such that a law that will inevitable result in giving people a license to shoot first rather than evade trouble is pretty damn hard to buy, IMO.
Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2012, 08:32:18 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 04:50:15 PM
More on Zimmerman's background: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425
Makes him look a lot more sympathetic than the "black people hating racist" picture we've seen in the media.
Wow, that is one hell of an article.
However, while the more calm information that comes out about Zimmerman leads to me being much more sympathetic towards him, it doesn't change the fact that the police, at the time, sure seemed to give at best a cursory examination to the killing of a young black man. If a more thorough investigation makes it clear this is really just a rather depressing tragedy, than so be it - but it seems like that investigation would never have occurred except for the intervention of the media.
And someone being shot to death should never be treated callously or with the apparent indifference shown initially.
Why is it "one hell of an article"?
Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2012, 08:32:18 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 04:50:15 PM
More on Zimmerman's background: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425
Makes him look a lot more sympathetic than the "black people hating racist" picture we've seen in the media.
Wow, that is one hell of an article.
However, while the more calm information that comes out about Zimmerman leads to me being much more sympathetic towards him, it doesn't change the fact that the police, at the time, sure seemed to give at best a cursory examination to the killing of a young black man. If a more thorough investigation makes it clear this is really just a rather depressing tragedy, than so be it - but it seems like that investigation would never have occurred except for the intervention of the media.
And someone being shot to death should never be treated callously or with the apparent indifference shown initially.
I thought I read that the cops thought they had enough evidence to arrest him but prosecutors said no.
I have a huge gundick.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2012, 09:11:36 PM
Why is it "one hell of an article"?
It manages not to contradict the headline in the first few paragraphs, which puts it above some we've seen lately.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 25, 2012, 09:31:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2012, 09:11:36 PM
Why is it "one hell of an article"?
It manages not to contradict the headline in the first few paragraphs, which puts it above some we've seen lately.
"George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting" I didn't know this was a opera.
I dont find him very sympathetic after reading that article. It paints a picture of a guy who thinks he can take the law into his own hands because he views the police as ineffectual. Vigilantism isnt very sympathetic. It leads to honest people getting shot or held at gun point as they try to change the locks on their new home.
Guns dont kill people, just the idiots who buy them...
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2012, 03:36:27 PM
I dont find him very sympathetic after reading that article. It paints a picture of a guy who thinks he can take the law into his own hands because he views the police as ineffectual.
:huh:
just look at Seedy
OK, now what?
Realize that Zimmerman has valid concerns about the police forces in America!
Quote from: katmai on April 26, 2012, 04:46:22 PM
Realize that Zimmerman has valid concerns about the police forces in America!
CdM had the good mind to leave. So really, the cops left behind are actually worse then him :ph34r: :P
Quote from: HVC on April 26, 2012, 05:27:13 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 26, 2012, 04:46:22 PM
Realize that Zimmerman has valid concerns about the police forces in America!
CdM had the good mind to leave. So really, the cops left behind are actually worse then him :ph34r: :P
That's goddamned right.
:lol: all kidding aside I like cops. I only ever met one cop who deserved disdain (and I met a lot of cops, my parents owned a bar in welfare central). And I think being a cop was just incidental to being an overall bitch.
Quote from: HVC on April 26, 2012, 07:17:02 PM
And I think being a cop was just incidental to being an overall bitch.
Much like other douchebaggy careers, like lawyers, doctors and MBAs, it's the profession that attracts the personality.
No cop has ever given me trouble. I guess I just look law abiding. I have met cops that shouldn't have been cops, but they never gave me any trouble.
I haven't had any trouble with any of the cops I have had official interactions with.
Back years ago when I was in college I stayed home to study on Halloween while my friends went out to party. They got home and wanted food so I drove everyone to Denny's. Everyone in the restaurant was in costume, except me and a couple of on duty cops. They walked past our table on the way out and I said, "Hey nice costumes!". They were not amused at ALL. Luckily I was sober.
A cop caught me driving on the wrong side of the street once. Didn't even give me a ticket. :D
Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 08:38:52 PM
A cop caught me driving on the wrong side of the street once. Didn't even give me a ticket. :D
Modern law enforcement is trained regarding sensitivity for the handicapped.
:pinch:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 08:38:52 PM
A cop caught me driving on the wrong side of the street once. Didn't even give me a ticket. :D
I would be surprised if that gets ticketed often. I would imagine that doing it is such an obvious and stupid mistake that embarassment is enough of a punishment.
Quote from: DGuller on April 26, 2012, 11:25:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 08:38:52 PM
A cop caught me driving on the wrong side of the street once. Didn't even give me a ticket. :D
I would be surprised if that gets ticketed often. I would imagine that doing it is such an obvious and stupid mistake that embarassment is enough of a punishment.
The DWI charge is usually enough.
Quote from: HVC on April 26, 2012, 07:17:02 PM
:lol: all kidding aside I like cops. I only ever met one cop who deserved disdain (and I met a lot of cops, my parents owned a bar in welfare central). And I think being a cop was just incidental to being an overall bitch.
Meanwhile, I think I've only met one cop who was worthy of respect. And I think being a cop was just incidental to being worthy of respect. ;)
I've worked with cops and they have been great.
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2012, 11:54:01 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 26, 2012, 07:17:02 PM
:lol: all kidding aside I like cops. I only ever met one cop who deserved disdain (and I met a lot of cops, my parents owned a bar in welfare central). And I think being a cop was just incidental to being an overall bitch.
Meanwhile, I think I've only met one cop who was worthy of respect. And I think being a cop was just incidental to being worthy of respect. ;)
I work with more cops than anyone but Seedy - and even his experience was only in a past life.
I have met a handful of cop assholes. But the very large majority were conscientious and caring.
As a general rule though, dealing with cops is a matter of how do you deal with them.
I don't. :)
The plot: thickens.
QuoteThe day after George Zimmerman fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, a family physician wrote in a report obtained by ABC News that Zimmerman had a broken nose, "a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury."
The three-page medical report is part of the discovery -- stacks of documents and CDs – currently being examined by the prosecution and the defense, ABC News reported.
The doctor wrote that Zimmerman, 28, made an appointment to make sure he could return to work, ABC News reported. Zimmerman, an insurance underwriter at the time, told the doctor that his lower back hurt; photos show that he also had bruising on his upper lip.
The report also notes that Zimmerman had been prescribed mood medications Adderall and Temazepam before the shooting, ABC News reported. The doctor added that Zimmerman refused to go to the hospital the night of the shooting and added that it was "imperative" that he see his psychologist.
On the night of the shooting, police officials from Sanford, Fla. said that Zimmerman told them he had used the gun in self-defense.
After more than a month of legal handwringing, during which the case was being intensely scrutinized by the media, Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder for Martin's death on Feb. 26. The prosecution contends that Zimmerman tracked the teen, who was returning to the gated community, where his father's girlfriend lived, after buying snacks at a corner store.
He was charged on April 11; he was released from jail 12 days later on $150,000 bail.
Since the shooting, debate has raged over whether Martin attacked Zimmerman before being shot, punching him in the face and hitting his head against the pavement.
Martin's family, pointing to surveillance video from the police station, note that Zimmerman didn't have any apparent wounds. Zimmerman's attorney argued that the footage was of too-low quality to determine whether he had been injured.
Can't be bothered anymore. Old news.
WTF!? :wacko:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2Frs%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2Fwkmg_trayvon_target_120511c-615x345.jpg&hash=161c112127ce2058252536de9d7541274ab783b5)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/11/trayvon-martin-gun-range-targets-sold-out-in-two-days/
Quote'Trayvon Martin' gun range targets sold out in two days
By David Edwards
Friday, May 11, 2012 13:24 EDT
A person selling gun range targets modeled after slain Florida teen Trayvon Martin says that their "main motivation was to make money off the controversy."
WKMG's Mike DeForest reported on Friday that the unidentified seller told him that the targets "sold out in 2 days."
"The response is overwhelming," the seller said.
While the item appears to have been removed from GunBroker.com, a cached version of the page was still available at the time of publication.
Photos of the item, which was titled "10 Pack Trayvon Martin Targets," showed crosshairs over a hoodie similar to the one Trayvon Martin was wearing when he was shot by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman in February. The figure has a bag of Skittle in his pocket and is holding what appears to be a can of iced tea, similar to what Martin had purchased before being gunned down. The pack of 10 targets was being sold for $8.
"Everyone knows the story of Zimmerman and Martin," a description on the targets reads. "Obviously we support Zimmerman and believe he is innocent and that he shot a thug. Each target is printed on thick, high quality poster paper with a matte finish! The dimensions are 12″x18″ ( The same as Darkotic Zombie Targets) This is a Ten Pack of Targets."
The seller's ID was listed as "hillerarmco" from Virginia Beach, Virginia. A website by the same name is registered to Hiller Armament Company in Virginia Beach, but the associated phone number had been disconnected.
Zimmerman attorney Mark O'Mara told WKMG that this type of "hatred" just makes his client's defense even more problematic.
"This is the highest level of disgust and the lowest level of civility," O'Mara said. "It's this type of hatred — that's what this is, it's hate-mongering — that's going to make it more difficult to try this case."
"I hope there is a crime that we can charge that person who made that with," he added. "I'm not sure what it is, but we need to come up with one because that's disgusting."
Watch this video fro WKMG, broadcast Mat 11, 2012.
:lol:
The next logical step is to sell Zombie Trayvon Martin targets.
Both sides of this seem to have good points here. :hmm:
Quote
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/16/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=us_c2
(CNN) -- A medical report by George Zimmerman's family doctor shows the neighborhood watch volunteer was diagnosed with a fractured nose, two black eyes and two lacerations on the back of the head after his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin.
The medical exam, which was taken a day after Zimmerman's February 26 altercation with the unarmed 17-year-old, says Zimmerman suffered a "closed fracture" of his nose, according to two sources who have detailed knowledge of the investigation.
Zimmerman, 28, is accused of killing Martin on February 26 as the African-American teenager walked back to the Sanford, Florida, house where he was staying, after visiting a convenience store. Prosecutors have said Zimmerman, who is a white Hispanic, killed Martin unjustly after profiling him.
Zimmerman, who acknowledges shooting Martin but claims self-defense, has entered a not guilty plea in the case, which has not yet been scheduled for trial.
New evidence in Trayvon Martin killing
New medical report may help Zimmerman
Why Zimmerman apologized in court
George Zimmerman leaves jail
Zimmerman faces a second-degree murder charge in the case, which has gripped the country, caused nationwide protests and has shined a light on race relations and gun laws in Florida.
After the shooting, Zimmerman told police that Martin rushed him after they exchanged words, knocked him to the ground and repeatedly hit his head against a concrete sidewalk.
The medical report appears to lend support to Zimmerman's claims. It also mirrors earlier statements made by Zimmerman's father, brother and lawyer.
Zimmerman's brother spoke of the medical reports in a March interview with CNN's Piers Morgan.
"We're confident the medical records are going to explain all of George's medical history," Robert Zimmerman Jr. said at the time. "You return force with force when somebody assaults you. George was out of breath, he was barely conscious. George (would have been) dead if he had not acted decisively and instantaneously in that moment."
The Martin family has questions about the medical report, said Benjamin Crump, the family attorney.
"The family has very strong positions about this family physician's report that was done the next day," Crump said. "What we do know is on February 26, the ER personnel did not believe his injuries were significant enough for him to go to the hospital. They didn't even put a Band-Aid on his head. That's important."
Also Tuesday, CNN affiliate WFTV reported that Martin's autopsy showed the teen had injuries to his knuckles when he died.
That evidence could also support the theory that Martin and Zimmerman fought.
Crump also responded to that report Tuesday night.
"He was fighting for his life," he told Anderson Cooper. "Let's not forget that Trayvon Martin was fighting a man with a 9-millimeter gun. We also have to remember that he didn't start this fight. George Zimmerman got out his car and pursued Trayvon Martin."
On the night of the shooting, Zimmerman had called 911 to complain about a suspicious person in the neighborhood, according to authorities.
In the call, Zimmerman said he was following Martin after the teen started to run, prompting the dispatcher to tell him, "We don't need you to do that."
Zimmerman apparently disregarded that advice.
A timeline of the case against George Zimmerman
Sanford police initially declined to arrest Zimmerman, saying there was no evidence to contradict his claim of self-defense under Florida's "stand your ground" law, which allows people to use deadly force anywhere they feel a reasonable threat of serious injury or death.
After weeks of protests demanding his arrest, a special prosecutor appointed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott filed the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman.
He was arrested on April 11 and briefly jailed. He has returned to hiding after his release on $150,000 bond.
The wounds aren't a good point if they weren't present until the next day. :D
Quote from: garbon on May 16, 2012, 05:19:03 PM
The wounds aren't a good point if they weren't present until the next day. :D
I think some videos of Zim in the police station that night showed wounds on his head, and maybe elsewhere. But not trying to rehash things, with all the back and forth in news reports. I just thought this was kind of new info.
The bolded bit would not seem to bode well for Mr. Zimmerman. What do they mean by intermediate range?
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/16/11736208-trayvon-martin-killed-by-single-gunshot-fired-from-intermediate-range-autopsy-shows?lite
QuoteBy NBC News and msnbc.com
Florida teenager Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from "intermediate range," according to an autopsy report reviewed Wednesday by NBC News.
The official report, prepared by the medical examiner in Volusia County, Fla., also found that the 17-year-old Martin had one other fresh injury – a small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size – on his left ring finger below the knuckle.
Separately, a medical report on Martin's alleged killer, 28-year-old George Zimmerman, prepared by his personal physician the day after Martin's shooting in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, found that the Neighborhood Watch volunteer suffered a likely broken nose, swelling, two black eyes and cuts to the scalp. That report, first reported Tuesday by ABC News, also was reviewed by NBC News.
Both documents are part of a mountain of evidence – up to 300 pages and 67 CDs of witness statements, surveillance videos and other material-- expected to be made public soon in connection with the second-degree murder case against Zimmerman.
Zimmerman allegedly shot Martin during a confrontation inside the gated community in Sanford where Zimmerman was a neighborhood volunteer and where Martin was visiting his father's fiancée.
After first reporting a suspicious person in the neighborhood in a phone call to Sanford police, Zimmerman followed the teenager before a fatal confrontation that remains shrouded in mystery.
When police arrived at the scene to find Martin dead on the sidewalk, Zimmerman claimed he shot the teen in self-defense. Zimmerman was treated at the scene for cuts and a bloody nose, then questioned by police for hours before being released without being arrested. Authorities said at the time that they had no evidence challenging Zimmerman's account and that his conduct appeared to be justified under Florida's so-called Stand Your Ground law.
But after questions about possible racial motivation for the slaying – Martin was black; Zimmerman is a white man of Hispanic heritage – a special prosecutor took over the case and, on April 11, Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder. He was released on April 23 on a $150,000 bond and has been out of the public eye since then.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 16, 2012, 08:35:51 PM
The bolded bit would not seem to bode well for Mr. Zimmerman. What do they mean by intermediate range?
An intermediate range gunshot wound is one in which the muzzle of the weapon is held away from the body at the time of discharge yet is sufficiently close so that powder grains expelled from the muzzle along with the bullet produce "powder tattooing" of the skin. Or something.
Quote from: derspiess on May 16, 2012, 10:34:29 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 16, 2012, 08:35:51 PM
The bolded bit would not seem to bode well for Mr. Zimmerman. What do they mean by intermediate range?
An intermediate range gunshot wound is one in which the muzzle of the weapon is held away from the body at the time of discharge yet is sufficiently close so that powder grains expelled from the muzzle along with the bullet produce "powder tattooing" of the skin. Or something.
Oh, that doesn't sound bad for him then. That's a lot closer than I imagined "intermediate range" to be.
Well it was a pistol wasn't it Tim? Not like he was shooting from 20 feet away.
I woke up from a dream this morning, I and people I didn't know were trapped in this huge old house pursued by zombies, and we had to fall back room by room, barricading doors in a tactical withdrawal. Only had a pump action shotgun and some handguns. Fucking 870s have such atrocious rates of fire and reload times when you're dealing with multiple waves of zombies. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 06:12:45 AM
I woke up from a dream this morning, I and people I didn't know were trapped in this huge old house pursued by zombies, and we had to fall back room by room, barricading doors in a tactical withdrawal. Only had a pump action shotgun and some handguns. Fucking 870s have such atrocious rates of fire and reload times when you're dealing with multiple waves of zombies. :rolleyes:
Whats with the zombie mania in america these days?
Quote from: Octavian on May 17, 2012, 09:52:49 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 06:12:45 AM
I woke up from a dream this morning, I and people I didn't know were trapped in this huge old house pursued by zombies, and we had to fall back room by room, barricading doors in a tactical withdrawal. Only had a pump action shotgun and some handguns. Fucking 870s have such atrocious rates of fire and reload times when you're dealing with multiple waves of zombies. :rolleyes:
Whats with the zombie mania in america these days?
I don't even know why I had that dream, it's not like I was watching any films or shows about them lately, not since The Walking Dead season ended. Must've been last night's tilapia.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 09:54:51 AM
Quote from: Octavian on May 17, 2012, 09:52:49 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 06:12:45 AM
I woke up from a dream this morning, I and people I didn't know were trapped in this huge old house pursued by zombies, and we had to fall back room by room, barricading doors in a tactical withdrawal. Only had a pump action shotgun and some handguns. Fucking 870s have such atrocious rates of fire and reload times when you're dealing with multiple waves of zombies. :rolleyes:
Whats with the zombie mania in america these days?
I don't even know why I had that dream, it's not like I was watching any films or shows about them lately, not since The Walking Dead season ended. Must've been last night's tilapia.
:hmm:
Did uncles come into your room when you were little?
CD's dreams are cooler than mine. :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 17, 2012, 11:38:35 AM
CD's dreams are cooler than mine. :(
I used to have a recurring dream of being some sort of secret agent on the run (from whom, I'm not 100% sure-- I guess Cuban gov't. agents) in Havana.
I want ice cream.
MY GOD HE DESERVED IT AFTER ALL
QuoteAutopsy: Evidence of marijuana found in Trayvon Martin's urine and blood
By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, May 17, 8:00 PM
ORLANDO, Fla. — Trayvon Martin's autopsy shows he had marijuana in his system the night he was killed by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, and a gunshot to his chest came from close range, according to nearly 200 pages of previously undisclosed documents released Thursday.
At least one investigator wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter but was overruled, according to the documents, which are shedding new light on a case that has raised questions about racial profiling and "stand your ground" laws. The investigator, who was on the scene after the shooting, wrote on March 13 that the confrontation should have been avoided. That report came nearly a month before Zimmerman was arrested.
The documents, photos and video were turned over by prosecutors to defense attorneys earlier this week before they were released to the media. Included in the many witness interviews were accounts by an acquaintance of Zimmerman's who said he's racist and a co-worker who said Zimmerman bullied him and mocked him with an exaggerated Middle Eastern accent.
The autopsy says medical examiners found THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, when they tested Martin's blood and urine. A police report shows the 17-year-old had been shot once in the chest and had been pronounced dead at the scene. The autopsy says the fatal shot was fired from no more than 18 inches away.
Also in the package is a photo showing Zimmerman with a bloody nose on the night of the fight. A paramedic report says Zimmerman had a 1-inch laceration on his head and forehead abrasion.
"Bleeding tenderness to his nose, and a small laceration to the back of his head. All injuries have minor bleeding," paramedic Michael Brandy wrote about Zimmerman's injuries in the report.
Whether Zimmerman was injured in the Feb. 26 altercation with Martin has been a key question. The 28-year-old Zimmerman has claimed self-defense and said he only fired because the unarmed teenager attacked him.
Zimmerman was not arrested for weeks because he invoked the Florida's law that does not require a person to retreat in the face of a serious threat. He was released on bail and is in hiding while he awaits trial on a second-degree murder charge. He has pleaded not guilty.
The investigator who called for Zimmerman's arrest, Christopher Serino, told prosecutors in March that the fight could have been avoided if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement. He said Zimmerman, after leaving his vehicle, could have identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and talked to him instead of confronting him.
He said there is no evidence Martin was involved in any criminal activity.
The lawyer for Martin's parents seized on the investigator's recommendation.
"The police concluded that none of this would have happened if George Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his car," said attorney Ben Crump. "If George Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his car, they say it was completely avoidable. That is the headline."
A separate report written by Serino at the crime scene says Martin had $40.15, Skittles candy, a red lighter, headphones and a photo pin in his pocket. A single 9mm shell casing was found near Martin's body.
New witness accounts also emerged Thursday. A witness, whose name is redacted, told investigators he saw "a black male, wearing a dark colored hoodie," on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help.
The witness, who was looking out the sliding glass door at his home about 30 feet away, said he saw the black male throwing punches "MMA (mixed martial arts) style."
He said he told the fighters he was calling the police. He said that as he was making the call, he heard a shot. He looked outside and saw the person who had been on top laid out on the grass as if he had been shot. He said the other fighter was standing on the sidewalk, talking to another person with a flashlight.
The case has become a national racial flashpoint because the Martin family and supporters contend Zimmerman singled Martin out because he was black.
Two acquaintances paint an unflattering picture of Zimmerman in police interviews.
A distraught woman tells an investigator that she stays away from Zimmerman because he's racist and because of things he's done to her in the past, but she didn't elaborate on what happened between them.
"I don't at all know who this kid was or anything else. But I know George, and I know that he does not like black people. He would start something. He's very confrontational. It's in his blood. We'll just say that," the unidentified woman says in an audio recording.
A man whose name was deleted from the audio told investigators that he worked with Zimmerman in 2008 for a few months. It wasn't clear which company it was.
The man, who described his heritage as "Middle Eastern," said that when he first started many employees didn't like him. Zimmerman seized on this, the employee said, and bullied him.
Zimmerman wanted to "get in" with the clique at work so he exaggerated a Middle Eastern accent when talking about the employee, the man said. The employee told investigators that Zimmerman made reference to terrorists and bombings when talking about him.
"It was so immature," said the employee, who ended up writing a letter to management about Zimmerman.
Quote"The police concluded that none of this would have happened if George Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his car," said attorney Ben Crump. "If George Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his car, they say it was completely avoidable. That is the headline."
This.
Neighborhood watch observes and reports.
Did you guys miss this yesterday, or do you just don't care anymore?
QuoteJudge revokes bail for George Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin case
By NBC's Jamie Novogrod
A Florida judge on Friday revoked the bail for George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case, saying he had misled the court about his finances, and ordered him to present himself to the court within 48 hours.
Prosecutors alleged in a court filing that Zimmerman, 28, hid from the court the fact that he had raised $135,000 on a website he set up before he was granted $150,000 bail on April 20. Zimmerman is facing second-degree murder charges in the shooting death of Martin, 17, in February.
In a hearing in Sanford, Fla., that Zimmerman did not attend, Judge Kenneth Lester said Zimmerman engaged in a "material falsehood" about his finances.
Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda said Zimmerman's wife, Shelly, led the court to believe they were penniless, which he called a "blatant lie."
De la Rionda said the Zimmermans spoke in "code" about moving finances around during telephone calls while George Zimmerman was in custody.
The state also alleged Zimmerman held a second passport after surrendering one to the court when bail was granted. In revoking bail, Lester said he was not swayed by arguments about the second passport, often routinely obtained by people who lose their passports.
Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, said it was his fault the court did not have the second passport earlier.
Trayvon Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump said Lester's finding that "Zimmerman was dishonest is very important because his credibility is the most important thing in this entire case."
"Credibility is the issue and we think it is the most important ruling so far in this entire case," Crump said.
The revocation motion was filed as a hearing opened on the confidentiality of evidence in the case, including Zimmerman's statement to police.
A consortium of more than a dozen media groups is asking the judge not to seal records in the case. Prosecutors and Zimmerman's attorney fear witnesses will be harassed if their names are publicized, but the media consortium says that's not a good enough reason to keep what is usually a public record from being released.
On Friday, De la Rionda asked that the names of witnesses be sealed. Lester said it would take several weeks to review evidence before unsealing any.
O'Mara said he concurred with the state's request to seal the identities of witnesses, because witnesses would be subject to ongoing requests for information from the media, he said, and their stories could change during retellings published in the press. He added that he does not "deny" freedom of press, but wants "one trial" before a jury in a case that has enormous pressure from the "blogosphere."
Regarding Zimmerman's statements to police, O'Mara said he would like 30 days to review them before a decision is made on making them public. O'Mara said if Zimmerman's statements were not made voluntarily, he could file a motion to prevent them from being shown at trial. He added that a delay is "not unreasonable."
"I would suggest that this case is months and months and months away from a trial date," he said, adding, "We're six months out from finishing discovery."
Zimmerman is accused of killing Martin as he walked through a gated residential community in Sanford, Fla., near Orlando, on Feb. 26.
Police initially declined to arrest Zimmerman, who claimed self-defense, but a special prosecutor who was subsequently appointed charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder.
I didn't care when it happened. :homestar:
I'm interested in the case, but not that sort of stuff.
QuoteShellie Zimmerman, wife of George Zimmerman, charged with murdering Trayvon Martin, was arrested Tuesday on one count of perjury, the Seminole County, Fla., Sheriff's Department said.
Deputies arrested Shellie Zimmerman, 25, about 3:30 p.m. ET, after they were advised by the office of State Attorney Angela Corey that a warrant had been issued.
She was booked into John E. Polk Correctional Facility and released on $1,000 bond, officials said.
George Zimmerman, 28, was charged with second-degree murder in the Feb. 26 shooting of Martin. He pleaded not guilty. Police say that he claimed on the night of the shooting that he acted in self-defense.
His $150,000 bond was revoked after allegations that during an April 20 bail hearing he and Shellie Zimmerman misled the court about their finances, neglecting to disclose they had raised at least $135,000 in a PayPal account.
The order issued Tuesday by Assistant State Attorney John Guy charged Shellie Zimmerman with knowingly making false statements during the April hearing.
Speaking outside the Seminole County Jail late Tuesday evening, George Zimmerman's attorney Mark O'Mara said his client is worried about his wife after learning of the arrest.
"Now that she's being charged with a crime he's worried about her," O'Mara said, adding that George Zimmerman is concerned because she is "out in the public eye."
O'Mara also said that the prosecution surprised him with Tuesday's arrest, complaining the surprise fell short of professional courtesy. "I didn't actually get a phone call until after the arrest, and I had asked for one before that," O'Mara said.
Also Tuesday, the court released Seminole County Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester's order revoking George Zimmerman's bond.
"There are several factors that weigh against his release ... Most importantly, though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process."
Woman Accuses Zimmerman of Molesting'An Orlando woman now in her mid-20s told investigators that George Zimmerman, who is charged with second-degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin, molested her over a decade, beginning when they were both young children, according to an audio tape released on Monday.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/us/george-zimmerman-accused-of-molesting.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/us/george-zimmerman-accused-of-molesting.html)
QuoteThe woman, whose parents were close to the Zimmerman family, talked to investigators on March 20. Identified only as Witness 9, she said she had come forward now, a decade after her last encounter with Mr. Zimmerman, 28, because, after his arrest, she was no longer afraid of him.
It is unclear how, or whether, prosecutors plan to use the allegations in their case against Mr. Zimmerman, who is free on $1 million bond. Mark O'Mara, Mr. Zimmerman's lawyer, tried unsuccessfully at the last minute to block the special prosecutor from releasing the tape, which he said was irrelevant and prejudicial. He also sought to block the release of another tape in which the same witness describes Mr. Zimmerman's family as routinely disparaging black people.
The witness said that Mr. Zimmerman, who is about two years older than she is, first molested her when she was 6. She was staying in the Zimmermans' Virginia home while her mother and father were moving from Louisiana to Orlando, Fla. The woman said Mr. Zimmerman had groped her with his hands while they lay under a blanket as they watched television with a group of children.
Other groping episodes followed, she said. She visited the family "at least once a year" and she was molested during some of those visits, she said, including once behind a curtain when she was 7 or 8 and another time on a bunk bed when she was around 12.
"Before we left the room or left any place, he would say we weren't doing anything – we were just laying there or we were just playing hide-and-seek," said the woman, whose voice cracked as she recounted the events." He would always make sure that he told me that. And I didn't know. I was a kid. I didn't know any better."
The acts typically involved "a lot of kissing, groping. He would put his hands under my shirt and just rub and grab my chest and put his hands down my pants again," the woman said.
The woman said that she had been traumatized by what happened and that she had blocked much of it from her mind. She said she had been too ashamed to tell anyone, including her parents. But she said she also feared that no one would believe her because Mr. Zimmerman came across as so likable.
"He just sucked up to my dad," she said. "He was like the son he never had. He was always very charming and personable with everyone in the family and would always just laugh and entertain everybody. But he was different behind closed doors with me."
The last encounter, and the only one that took place in Florida, occurred shortly after Mr. Zimmerman arrived in Lake Mary, not far from where she lived with her family, the woman said. She was 16 and Mr. Zimmerman was 18. He had invited her to a housewarming gathering, she said. When she arrived inside, he was alone. Frightened, she said, she followed his instructions and lay down on the bed, and he started groping her again. At that point, she said, she got up, ran out and jumped into her car. He followed her to the door but no farther, she said.
:wacko:
Sounds like someone wants a slice of that PayPal money.