Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
The plot thickens
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 5:34 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:19 AM
M52NICKERSON
DALEK!
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:49 AM
ANTHONYT
Freedom is Important because People are Important
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: I hear now that the original investigator WANTED to arrest Zimmerman because he did not believe his account of what happened, but was overruled. Wonder where that will go? And "not illegal" because ALEC got the "stand your ground" law passed and has allowed so many actual murders to slip in. This case has brought it to light and hopefully (!!!) that law will be changed and/or gotten rid of. There were questions about it at the time because it could be interpreted to allow just what happened here, but nobody was listening, apparently. ]
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 7:37 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Hello, There's nothing wrong with a law that allows people to defend themselves. The problem was with the investigation, not the law. You may not realize this, but before the law changed to allow people to defend themselves, they had to go through an awful lot of trouble to justify doing so. Lots of mental gymnastics required to calculate when you are allowed to provide resistance to an attacker. Now it's simple: If you are attacked, you can defend yourself. It was never intended to allow hunting humans, and if the investigation is pursued properly, that will prove out. --Anthony
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 7:52 AM
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:17 AM
Quote:In 2004, the National Rifle Association honored Republican Florida state legislator Dennis Baxley with a plum endorsement: its Defender of Freedom award. The following year, Baxley, a state representative, worked closely with the NRA to push through Florida's unprecedented "stand your ground" law Since Florida adopted its law, the NRA has aggressively pursued stand-your-ground laws elsewhere as part of a broader agenda to increase gun-carrying rights it believes that citizens are rightly due under the Second Amendment. To gain attention and clout at the state level, the NRA gives money and offers endorsements to legislators from both parties. The NRA and the NRA Political Victory Fund, its political action committee, have donated about $2.6 million to state political campaigns, committees and individual politicians since 2003, according to records compiled by the nonprofit National Institute on Money in State Politics. And ambitious politicians take note that the NRA is heavily invested and involved in congressional races. Following the Florida victory, the "Stand Your Ground" movement accelerated. In July 2006, the NRA posted celebratory news on its website, noting that legislators in eight more states - Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi and South Dakota - already had followed Florida's lead. "This train keeps a rollin' - Castle Doctrine Sweeps America," the NRA's 2006 message said. Since then, a host of other states have passed various laws expanding the Castle Doctrine. Among them: Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington and West Virginia. To spread the word, the NRA said in an Aug. 12, 2005, website posting, it approached the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, which drafts legislation for like-minded state lawmakers. The council adopted model stand-your-ground legislative language in 2005 after Florida's top NRA representative made a presentation. http://www.kansascity.com/2012/03/27/3517168/nra-helped-spread-stand-your-ground.html NRA came up with the idea (ostensibly to sell more guns). They went to ALEC, which is a known conservative organization. ALEC wrote the law and gave it to legislators whose campaigns they have helped finance. The legislators passed the law, pretty much word for word. This may be how it works now, but given the power of the NRA and ALEC, I don't believe it is either right or representative of the democracy we are supposed to be. None but those who had something to gain from it were involved. I have no problem with the concept of self-defense. But there were concerns initially because of its broadness and the possible consequences.Quote:From 2000-04 -- the five full years before "stand your ground" took effect -- law enforcement agencies in Florida reported an average of 12 justifiable homicides a year committed by civilians. From 2060-10 -- the first five full years after "stand your ground" became law -- law enforcement agencies reported an average of 36 justifiable homicides committed by civilians. Average to average, the number of justifiable homicides by civilians is now three times higher than it was in the years before 2005. That’s an increase of 200 percent. (We excluded 2005 from this calculation because the law went into effect part way through the year.) http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/mar/26/christopher-l-smith/sen-chris-smith-claimed-deaths-due-self-defense-fl/] 2000 12 2001 12 2002 12 2003 16 2004 8 2005 18 2006 12 2007 42 2008 41 2009 45 2010 40 First half of 2011 16 Obviously it's more complex than that, one would have to look at the circumstances of each case, but to me it's a disturbing trend.Quote:At first blush, the idea of standing up to threats has a simple appeal that the gun lobby has been able to exploit. Dig a little deeper, though, and the concept is a recipe for tragedy, particularly in places like Florida where it's easy for people to get permits to carry concealed weapons. Fact is, the new law was unnecessary. People have always had a right to self defense, particularly in their own homes or vehicles. Sponsors in the Florida Legislature relied on a vague anecdote about an elderly man who, after the series of hurricanes in 2004, shot an intruder in his trailer. The man was never charged, but he had to wait months before prosecutors made the decision. That's an awfully thin reed for a drastic change in criminal laws. At the time, police and prosecutors warned against the change, and it appears that their fears are being realized. Since 2005, the number of cases classified as justifiable homicides in Florida has more than doubled. "Stand your ground" has been invoked in numerous killings where unarmed people have been shot or stabbed in dubious circumstances. In public places, such as bars and restaurants or parks and neighborhoods, people once had a "duty to retreat" from danger. That legal principle, despite its unfortunate name, doesn't mean you have to turn your back on an armed assailant. It means you can't reflexively use deadly force with little concern about the consequences. Instead, police and prosecutors weigh the circumstances to determine whether the fear of bodily harm was, in fact, reasonable and whether the force used was appropriate. You couldn't just pull out a gun and shoot someone who took a swing at you unless other evidence pointed to more extreme danger. Often, these are close calls. But Florida authorities say their hands now are too often tied by "stand your ground". Sanford's police chief said the law prohibited him from arresting Zimmerman. This despite the fact that Zimmerman had killed an unarmed teen and ignored a 911 operator's instruction not to intervene. He might well have misinterpreted the law, but that only points to risk the law introduces: People will feel free to fire their weapons, and law enforcement will feel its hands are tied. Amid the uproar over the Martin case, Florida ought to keep careful track of instances where "stand your ground" is invoked so that law enforcement, legislators and the public can see how the law is, or isn't, working. At the very least, police and prosecutors should be given more discretion to determine whether a person acted on reasonable or unreasonable fears. Better yet, Florida and other states that rushed to adopt "stand your ground" should go back to the self-defense laws that served them well for decades. Take a place with lots of guns, mix in a law that sends the message you can shoot first and claim self-defense later, and the result is as deadly as it is predictable. If that wasn't apparent before the Feb. 26 killing of an unarmed 17-year-old, it should be today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-03-26/stand-your-ground-trayvon-zimmerman/53795046/1 pretty much expresses my concerns. Now I'm off to exercise my right of free speech to educate people about and protest ALEC. See you later.
Quote:From 2000-04 -- the five full years before "stand your ground" took effect -- law enforcement agencies in Florida reported an average of 12 justifiable homicides a year committed by civilians. From 2060-10 -- the first five full years after "stand your ground" became law -- law enforcement agencies reported an average of 36 justifiable homicides committed by civilians. Average to average, the number of justifiable homicides by civilians is now three times higher than it was in the years before 2005. That’s an increase of 200 percent. (We excluded 2005 from this calculation because the law went into effect part way through the year.) http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/mar/26/christopher-l-smith/sen-chris-smith-claimed-deaths-due-self-defense-fl/] 2000 12 2001 12 2002 12 2003 16 2004 8 2005 18 2006 12 2007 42 2008 41 2009 45 2010 40 First half of 2011 16 Obviously it's more complex than that, one would have to look at the circumstances of each case, but to me it's a disturbing trend.Quote:At first blush, the idea of standing up to threats has a simple appeal that the gun lobby has been able to exploit. Dig a little deeper, though, and the concept is a recipe for tragedy, particularly in places like Florida where it's easy for people to get permits to carry concealed weapons. Fact is, the new law was unnecessary. People have always had a right to self defense, particularly in their own homes or vehicles. Sponsors in the Florida Legislature relied on a vague anecdote about an elderly man who, after the series of hurricanes in 2004, shot an intruder in his trailer. The man was never charged, but he had to wait months before prosecutors made the decision. That's an awfully thin reed for a drastic change in criminal laws. At the time, police and prosecutors warned against the change, and it appears that their fears are being realized. Since 2005, the number of cases classified as justifiable homicides in Florida has more than doubled. "Stand your ground" has been invoked in numerous killings where unarmed people have been shot or stabbed in dubious circumstances. In public places, such as bars and restaurants or parks and neighborhoods, people once had a "duty to retreat" from danger. That legal principle, despite its unfortunate name, doesn't mean you have to turn your back on an armed assailant. It means you can't reflexively use deadly force with little concern about the consequences. Instead, police and prosecutors weigh the circumstances to determine whether the fear of bodily harm was, in fact, reasonable and whether the force used was appropriate. You couldn't just pull out a gun and shoot someone who took a swing at you unless other evidence pointed to more extreme danger. Often, these are close calls. But Florida authorities say their hands now are too often tied by "stand your ground". Sanford's police chief said the law prohibited him from arresting Zimmerman. This despite the fact that Zimmerman had killed an unarmed teen and ignored a 911 operator's instruction not to intervene. He might well have misinterpreted the law, but that only points to risk the law introduces: People will feel free to fire their weapons, and law enforcement will feel its hands are tied. Amid the uproar over the Martin case, Florida ought to keep careful track of instances where "stand your ground" is invoked so that law enforcement, legislators and the public can see how the law is, or isn't, working. At the very least, police and prosecutors should be given more discretion to determine whether a person acted on reasonable or unreasonable fears. Better yet, Florida and other states that rushed to adopt "stand your ground" should go back to the self-defense laws that served them well for decades. Take a place with lots of guns, mix in a law that sends the message you can shoot first and claim self-defense later, and the result is as deadly as it is predictable. If that wasn't apparent before the Feb. 26 killing of an unarmed 17-year-old, it should be today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-03-26/stand-your-ground-trayvon-zimmerman/53795046/1 pretty much expresses my concerns. Now I'm off to exercise my right of free speech to educate people about and protest ALEC. See you later.
Quote:At first blush, the idea of standing up to threats has a simple appeal that the gun lobby has been able to exploit. Dig a little deeper, though, and the concept is a recipe for tragedy, particularly in places like Florida where it's easy for people to get permits to carry concealed weapons. Fact is, the new law was unnecessary. People have always had a right to self defense, particularly in their own homes or vehicles. Sponsors in the Florida Legislature relied on a vague anecdote about an elderly man who, after the series of hurricanes in 2004, shot an intruder in his trailer. The man was never charged, but he had to wait months before prosecutors made the decision. That's an awfully thin reed for a drastic change in criminal laws. At the time, police and prosecutors warned against the change, and it appears that their fears are being realized. Since 2005, the number of cases classified as justifiable homicides in Florida has more than doubled. "Stand your ground" has been invoked in numerous killings where unarmed people have been shot or stabbed in dubious circumstances. In public places, such as bars and restaurants or parks and neighborhoods, people once had a "duty to retreat" from danger. That legal principle, despite its unfortunate name, doesn't mean you have to turn your back on an armed assailant. It means you can't reflexively use deadly force with little concern about the consequences. Instead, police and prosecutors weigh the circumstances to determine whether the fear of bodily harm was, in fact, reasonable and whether the force used was appropriate. You couldn't just pull out a gun and shoot someone who took a swing at you unless other evidence pointed to more extreme danger. Often, these are close calls. But Florida authorities say their hands now are too often tied by "stand your ground". Sanford's police chief said the law prohibited him from arresting Zimmerman. This despite the fact that Zimmerman had killed an unarmed teen and ignored a 911 operator's instruction not to intervene. He might well have misinterpreted the law, but that only points to risk the law introduces: People will feel free to fire their weapons, and law enforcement will feel its hands are tied. Amid the uproar over the Martin case, Florida ought to keep careful track of instances where "stand your ground" is invoked so that law enforcement, legislators and the public can see how the law is, or isn't, working. At the very least, police and prosecutors should be given more discretion to determine whether a person acted on reasonable or unreasonable fears. Better yet, Florida and other states that rushed to adopt "stand your ground" should go back to the self-defense laws that served them well for decades. Take a place with lots of guns, mix in a law that sends the message you can shoot first and claim self-defense later, and the result is as deadly as it is predictable. If that wasn't apparent before the Feb. 26 killing of an unarmed 17-year-old, it should be today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-03-26/stand-your-ground-trayvon-zimmerman/53795046/1 pretty much expresses my concerns. Now I'm off to exercise my right of free speech to educate people about and protest ALEC. See you later.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:34 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: I'm afraid, given the state of our government, who writes laws as well as how they are written is important to me. As I see it, few people pay attention to laws until they impact THEM, but which time it is too late. To know that there is a group out there with an agenda which is writing laws to achieve their agendas, then influencing legislators with indoctrination, access to out-of-state donors, vacations and political pressure to pass those laws word for word as that group writes them, bothers me. A lot. That this same group has gathered together to spend millions to get candidates elected, then does the above with them, bothers me as well.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:40 AM
FREMDFIRMA
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:43 AM
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:11 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: *sigh* You all DO realize that the application of good judgement and common sense is WHY WE HAVE JURY TRIALS, right ? At least, that was the intention... I find it very telling that everyone here seems to finally acknowledge the assumption that if you are arrested and it goes to court you'll get rubber stamp railroaded, which is factually the case most of the time. As Anthony points out, this isn't about laws, or the justice system, or even guns... This is about our legal system NOT WORKING LIKE IT IS SUPPOSED TO, and in response to that, writing and re-writing more laws to work around rather than address a problem just makes it worse. Stop hackin branches, strike for the root. -Frem I do not serve the Blind God.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:13 AM
MINCINGBEAST
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:36 AM
Quote:Originally posted by mincingbeast: The law generally allows folks to use deadly force when they reasonably believe they face imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. This has objective elements (the reasonableness standard) and subjective elements. There is little doubt that Zimmerman feared that he faced death or great bodily harm. The only question is: was his fear reasonable?
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:51 AM
WULFENSTAR
http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:03 AM
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:06 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Wulfenstar: "That being said, the law generaly does not allow the use of deadly force if a person can retreat." Yeah. Run away. Don't stand tall for your family, your community, yourself. Just run, till you can't run anymore. Then, maybe, stand up for yourself. Hopefully, you won't get jammed up. Makes sense. I mean, the alternative is to protect yourself, your family, your community. But thats not political. Run. Its better. "Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:08 AM
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:19 AM
Quote:Originally posted by mincingbeast: The "duty to retreat", in both applicability and scope, varies between jurisdictions, but has been understood as rooted in analysis of the objective reasonableness of deadly force. In other words, if you could have avoided using deadly force by running and leaving a trial of coward's urine behind your yellow-striped bottom, then your fear of imminent death and/or grievous injury isn't reasonable. Still don't think it really applies inasmuch as retreat must be possible, and the Zimmerman narrative suggests he was grounded and getting pounded on. In the instant matter, assume Florida law imposes a duty to be a pussy/retreat when possible. In the narrative most favorable to Trayvon, Zimmerman stalked and shot him and has no right to self-defense. In the narrative most favorable to Zimmerman, there was an attack and Zimmerman had no ability to retreat (he was, apparently, on the ground being pummeled.) So the reasonableness of Zimmerman's fears is the issue, not his duty to be un-American and flee from an opportunity to apply cleansing, virtuous violence.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:23 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Wulfenstar: "Any time you add a gun to a situation you are putting everyone in the area at risk." Then disarm the police. Its not the weapon, its the hand that uses it. And how, and for what purpose.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:27 AM
STORYMARK
Quote:Originally posted by mincingbeast: Grunt grunt. Grrrr. Manly stuff. Grunt.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:28 AM
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:35 AM
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:36 AM
Quote:The thing is that your hand using the gun maybe fine. That does not mean the gun is going to stay in your hand.
Quote:Originally posted by mincingbeast: If the Zimmerman narrative is true, then his self-defense claim would be valid under any common law jurisdiction. A duty to retreat is only relevant if Trayvon were the aggressor, and Zimmerman had the means to escape in complete safety. Simply standing up does not meet that standard. The "stand your ground law" just has no bearing here. I propose that we brief the issue.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:38 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Wulfenstar: Why does Story even bother to post? Hes just a troll that likes to back the other somnambulist posters her. Just a question, but does anyone pay him any mind? In any case. Back to the topic.... "Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:43 AM
Quote:This case is very much about the stand your ground law. Without it Zimmerman has little defence.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:44 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Hello, I have heard this before, and it always mystifies me. One needs the weapon only if their life is in danger. One employs the weapon only if their life is in danger. If you employ the weapon successfully, your life is no longer in danger. If the weapon is taken from you, your life is in danger. Which is exactly as it was before you produced the weapon. A weapon taken from the hand only worsens your situation if you were deploying it unnecessarily to begin with. --Anthony
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:46 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Hello, There are many laws that protect the innocent which are also used to shield the wicked. Zimmerman is protected by many laws. Shall we peel them all away? Or shall we accept 'stand your ground' as we accept other individual rights under the law, and simply recognize that it is possible to obtain evidence for conviction despite it, when conviction is warranted? I continue to feel that the problem is not the law, but rather poor investigation (and initially no real attempt at investigation at all!)
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:56 AM
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:07 AM
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:17 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Hello, Well, this is often the case. An incident occurs where someone has been an ass, and the desire surfaces to modify the law to remove rights from the population. In this case, rights being contested by our forumites now include the right to carry arms at all. As I said, if you want to modify the 'stand your ground' law to say specifically that someone can not provoke an attack and claim self-defense, that's fine. But I also think such a contraindication is self-evident despite the law. I think we are suffering from lazy investigators more than bad laws. And now we've gotten to the 'if there was no gun, nobody would have died' part of the argument, which is where I must respectfully withdraw. Once people start talking about leaving me defenseless in the face of aggression, I begin to feel that those people no longer have my best interests at heart. --Anthony
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:35 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Wulfenstar: Just a question, but does anyone pay him any mind?
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:53 AM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: I think we are suffering from lazy investigators more than bad laws.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 1:58 PM
OONJERAH
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 2:09 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: We'll find out about this when the grand jury convenes. I suspect there is evidence that has not been made public yet. If Mr. Zimmerman's story is correct, there should be a police report on the incident including details of the injuries to both parties. There should probably be an EMT's report of the treatment of Mr. Zimmerman's injuries. There should also be a record of his visit to his doctor to get the back of his head and his nose seen to. There should be a coroner's report on the gunshot wound to Mr. Little. There may very well be an analysis of such information which the police performed before coming to the conclusion the shooting was self-defense. None of this information has been released yet. I surmise that the local D.A. is sequestering any information of this sort (or about its absence or presence) in an attempt to avoid contaminating the jury pool.
Quote:Fucking star chamber, is what it is... Not all so evil as that, over here, I was somewhat amused at not being pitched out on my ear because I am an Anarchist, do not believe in the legitimacy of the court, feel that it violates the constitutional requirement for a fair trial, and consider agents of the State to be untrustworthy... not to mention my annoyance at what I feel amounts to gunpoint conscription in order to be held over folks head as a threat against them (and the judge ADMITTED we were there in part to pressure the putative defendants to plea bargain). After grilling me under oath, despite my comment I'd rather not answer those questions, despite the answers he recieved, the damn judge seats me anyways, stating "Well I presume you have no problem with the basic presumption of innocence, then..." and the DEFENSE attorney throws a hissy and sends me off, it was all I could do not to facepalm - the judge was OBVIOUSLY trying to tank the case (I guess he felt it was bullshit) since by my own statements there's no way in hell I could *possibly* deliver a verdict of guilty if the States trial has failed Constitutional Requirement, and HE KNEW THIS... And the "defense" attorney then goes and sabotages what would have been a slam-dunk walkaway for his client ? (Public Defender, obviously, as I said, professional dive-takers) I consider that somewhere between deliberate negligence and "ineffective assistance of counsel" - the onus to prove guilt is on the State, and the defendant at no time is required to correct errors of the State, no matter how deliberately introduced. So what we had here is a Judge who WANTED to dismiss the case, who likely felt it was all bullshit but had not the ability to dismiss it outright, trying to follow his conscience in a corrupt system which wouldn't ALLOW him to do the right thing directly - and an attorney SUPPOSED to be *defending* his client subverting that and hanging him out to dry. Now, the latter I am used to, one reason I find public 'defenders' so despicable - but this is the first time I've seen a Judge actually allow his conscience to be a factor in his administration of the law - which it SHOULD BE, that's WHY we have human Judges instead of machines, so imma be remembering this guy next time we decide at the ballot box who gets or remains on the bench. Mind you, after being pitched off, I did out of naught more than idle curiosity look over the case, and without sharing details - it *WAS* bullshit, someones designated driver pulled a bonehead move in traffic, and for whatever reason the dickhead cop thought he could shovel a faery story about the guy who was IN THE BACK SEAT THE ENTIRE TIME, supposedly being the one driving the car at the time of the accident, despite statements to the contrary by everyone *but* him, despite airbag residue all over the designated driver - fuck me but that whole matter was a waste of the courts time. And mine. American "Justice" at it's finest, grrr. I did get to see the closest thing to an honest Judge I ever have though, so it wasn't a complete wash.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 4:30 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Average to average, the number of justifiable homicides by civilians is now three times higher than it was in the years before 2005. That’s an increase of 200 percent. (We excluded 2005 from this calculation because the law went into effect part way through the year.) http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/mar/26/christopher-l-smith/sen-chris-smith-claimed-deaths-due-self-defense-fl/ 2000 12 2001 12 2002 12 2003 16 2004 8 2005 18 2006 12 2007 42 2008 41 2009 45 2010 40 First half of 2011 16
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 4:32 PM
RIONAEIRE
Beir bua agus beannacht
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 5:23 PM
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:07 PM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 7:04 PM
Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:50 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: As for your comments in regards to a Jury, M52Nick - it ain't all their fault, not when they are lied to, given illegal instructions and then fed cherry picked evidence or testimony in order to lead them by the nose... On top of which is the fact that Judges can, and often do, threaten Jurors who refuse to convict on demand, or even overrule their verdict via JNOV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: Add in the usual chicanery between most Public Defenders and Prosecutors, throw in Judicial influence, and for most cases that stuff is decided before they even let you in there and the rest is a dog and pony show for the masses to make them think they have a say - believe me, on one occasion I snuck in there early and got to watch this dealmaking go on before they realized I wasn't "one of them" and chased me off...
Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:20 AM
Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:43 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: And I think you're being lazy and disingenious. You would rather ignore the evidence than accept that things may not be as simple, as clean, cut and dried, as you would like them to be. Cause that would revoke the ease of casting blame.
Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:52 AM
Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:21 AM
Quote:Silly, silly, stupid rat creature.
Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:55 AM
Quote:Their daughter had showed up to school one morning drunk and sobbing, and claimed she had been raped the week before. She named her attacker to school officials and the police, but because she was on probation she was arrested for being intoxicated and locked up in juvenile detention. No one offered her counseling and no one asked about the sexual assault until, four days later, the district attorney requested a written affidavit about the attack. She wrote an account by hand while still incarcerated and a month later police arrested the accused man at his apartment on charges of statutory sexual assault, corruption of minors, and furnishing alcohol to minors. The girl, however, remained locked up for two months just waiting for a hearing with a judge named Mark Ciavarella Jr. When the hearing finally took place, Ciavarella summarily sentenced her to a juvenile rehabilitation program called Vision Quest—400 miles away in Franklin County. She had no legal representation at the hearing and her parents were only notified of it afterward. At Vision Quest, which the girl later described to me as a kind of military-style boot camp where they “screamed in your face,” instead of receiving counseling to help her deal with the rape she was given powerful prescription drugs like Zoloft and Prozac. Her parents were never consulted about the medications beforehand or notified when staff doctors decided to change them. The first time they went to visit her they pulled up and saw TV news vans and police cruisers lined up outside the facility. There had been a riot the day before. About 30 girls had filled their socks with rocks and attacked staff members. Some of the girls escaped into the woods amid the fighting but were later caught. The mother became increasingly upset as she breathlessly told me all this. “When we saw her the first time she was real agitated and couldn’t sit still, and she told us the drugs they were giving her were making her angry and depressed, and we asked what they were and she said she didn’t know, so we asked the counselor and he said they were giving her Zoloft. Now I did some research on my own online and I couldn’t believe they gave her something like that without telling us—Zoloft, and we’re her parents. How can they do that?” I was careful to treat what they were telling me as true even though it seemed impossible. I took notes and nodded.
Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:01 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: And I think you're being lazy and disingenuous.
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: You would rather ignore the evidence than accept that things may not be as simple, as clean, cut and dried, as you would like them to be. Cause that would revoke the ease of casting blame.
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: Yes, the people within the system and responsible for it have issues - but when the SYSTEM ITSELF is set up to exploit those flaws instead of mitigate them, when the necessary check and balance is UNABLE to check and balance - then you have a broken system.
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: Case in point: Executive Orders able to bypass and ignore Congressional Approval.
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: Case in point: Congresses ability to ignore the results of a lawful election. (See Also: Victor L Berger)
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: Case in point: Judicial ability to ignore a jury verdict.
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: If the SYSTEM allows checks and balances to be ignored, those checks and balances intended to mitigate human failings ARE A FANTASY. A dog and pony show for the masses, and nothing more. Calling bias does not mitigate the facts, much as you might like it to.
Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:27 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Wulfenstar: "Says the guy who claims Judges threaten Jurors, and then posts a link to something saying pretty much the opposite (the Judgement Notwithstanding page stating it's very limited and rarely used, and the Directed Verdict page stating that a judge can only order acquittals - not convictions). Spoon!" Oh, Story... You going against me, thats one thing. But going against the rest of the gods? Heh, Im Poseidon, and you are going after Ares? Silly, silly, stupid rat creature. "Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:36 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: *sigh* 18 USC § 1503 is violated almost as a matter of course, rarely caught, even more rarely called out, but sufficiently so show there's a problem. It's VERY common for a Judge to "lean on" the Jury, up to and including threatening to cite members for contempt who don't stick to the rails laid down in the often illegal "instructions". Here's two pretty clear examples. http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/09/ninth-circuit-california-judge-improperly-influenced-jury-to-convict-defendant/ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/08/BAVK19K6QV.DTL http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-murder-ruling-overturned-judge-influence-story,0,4627042.story] This is how blind you are, all three of these links show that the system is WORKING. The first two resulted in re-trials and the three in over-turning a conviction. Judges where wrong, and got called for it. That is why the system has the layers it does. Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: There's also a history of deck-stacking via the supposedly "random" jury selection software in Wayne County, although this is done via different means depending on locality, and thus happens to be more of a local issue, although I would prefer at least a pretense of oversight and accountability on it, which there does not appear to be. Good thing the defence has the power to throw out juriers. Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: Not to mention how often The Innocence Project has once clearing the accused via DNA evidence, showed just how rigged and cherry picked the trails in question often were. So there's evidence a-plenty all around... ....and the Innocence Project is doing so throught the very system you are attcking. Using evidence that that was not availible in the past. Now I'm not saying coruption does not happen. The thing is the system at some point will catch it and correct it. Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: AND - Lest you forget I am ALSO including the Juvie Justice System as well, and have you forgotten Judges Ciavarella and Conahan already ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal Or the fact that the charges against them were entirely financial, with NO regard to what they did to those kids and their lives, up to and including the eventual suicide of Edward Kenzakoski ? Also, further investigation reveals this pattern of behavior goes back further than the arrangement between them and Robert Mericle, MUCH further, and involves the notoriously deadly Vision Quest program which killed Tammy Edmiston, Robert Zimmerman, Lyle Foodroy, Leon Anger, John Vincent Garrison, James Lamb, Eric David Schibley, Danny Lewis, Charles Lucas, Carlos Ruiz, Bernard Reefer, Robert Doyle Erwin, Mario Cano, and Dawnne Takeuchi - which are only the ones *I* know about. THIS, was passed to me only a few days ago. That's horrible, charges should be brought against those...oh that's right they have been brought up on charges. Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: I feel for Davidson, I do - but disagree with his decision to veer away from advocacy journalism, for what is the purpose of journalism but to educate and motivate ? I mean, did it never occur to you I have BLOODY GOOD REASONS to call our Justice System on it's flaws and conduct ? That maybe my outrage is in part cause folks would rather deny them, and thus enable continued abuses, rather than set to and put some time and thought into fixing them ? Case in point to that: the wacky way they had to address the wrongful convictions... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal#Victim_lawsuits And initially they weren't going to even try till serious pressure was applied by the Juvenille Law Center and others, who have filed RICO-civil on these bastards. Look, I am *not* just being a dick here, I am presenting known flaws within our system because at this time it is NOT functioning as intended, the checks and balances don't work and the system itself is broken - all too often you have the judge, prosecutor and police all on one "side" trying to convict, if not the public "defender" (at least around here) as well, and this leads to collusion, undue influence, violations of discovery and all manner of chicanery which is rarely if ever punished no matter how blatant or outrageous it is - and that ain't how our courts are supposed to work. And y'all wanna blame the Jury ? Twelve people who are lied to, kept in the dark, weeded out of anyone who might not toe the line (voir dire) and then fed specific instructions and cherry picked evidence and testimony in order to secure a conviction ? I don't hold with that, they're as much victims of a broken system as the defendant, often enough. And yeah, verily, cleaning up the tragic damage and fallout *OF* that broken system has made me something of a freakin hardcase about it, sure... but when you see stuff as horrible as what happened to Aiyanna Jones, or Maryanne Godboldo, day in, day out, it colors your perspective quite a bit. Still, I would ultimately prefer our justice system to work LIKE IT IS SUPPOSED TO, than follow any agenda, because impartial justice based on the law and proveable facts along with common sense is necessary to be worth it's own name - ALL the facts, not just hand-picked ones that make people look guilty, and any prosecutor who violates discovery, any police officer who lies under oath, and judge who leans on the jury, needs to be soundly and publicly excoriated, banned from the public trust and NEVER, EVER hold a position of legal authority again - and can you tell me this is the case ? (See Also: Gypsy cops) But if we PEONS do even one tenth as much they throw us under the prison ? Equal and Impartial ? no. But we ought to MAKE it so, by using our mutual voices to hammer these changes into place, instead of victim-blaming cause it's easy and convenient. Your right to point out flaws, the thing is you are claiming that those flaws indicate that the whole system is in it self flawed. Guess what, there is no perfect system. Yes, changes can be made. Calling into question certian events, such as the investigation of the Martin case is good. Your not doing that. You come off as saying that coruption is the norm and should be expected in every case. Should people within the system be repremanded, absolutly. Should they be banned, yes depending on what they did. Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: But what do I know, I only been doin this shit like forever.... A person that does something wrong for a long time is still wrong. I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: There's also a history of deck-stacking via the supposedly "random" jury selection software in Wayne County, although this is done via different means depending on locality, and thus happens to be more of a local issue, although I would prefer at least a pretense of oversight and accountability on it, which there does not appear to be.
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: Not to mention how often The Innocence Project has once clearing the accused via DNA evidence, showed just how rigged and cherry picked the trails in question often were. So there's evidence a-plenty all around...
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: AND - Lest you forget I am ALSO including the Juvie Justice System as well, and have you forgotten Judges Ciavarella and Conahan already ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal Or the fact that the charges against them were entirely financial, with NO regard to what they did to those kids and their lives, up to and including the eventual suicide of Edward Kenzakoski ? Also, further investigation reveals this pattern of behavior goes back further than the arrangement between them and Robert Mericle, MUCH further, and involves the notoriously deadly Vision Quest program which killed Tammy Edmiston, Robert Zimmerman, Lyle Foodroy, Leon Anger, John Vincent Garrison, James Lamb, Eric David Schibley, Danny Lewis, Charles Lucas, Carlos Ruiz, Bernard Reefer, Robert Doyle Erwin, Mario Cano, and Dawnne Takeuchi - which are only the ones *I* know about. THIS, was passed to me only a few days ago.
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: I feel for Davidson, I do - but disagree with his decision to veer away from advocacy journalism, for what is the purpose of journalism but to educate and motivate ? I mean, did it never occur to you I have BLOODY GOOD REASONS to call our Justice System on it's flaws and conduct ? That maybe my outrage is in part cause folks would rather deny them, and thus enable continued abuses, rather than set to and put some time and thought into fixing them ? Case in point to that: the wacky way they had to address the wrongful convictions... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal#Victim_lawsuits And initially they weren't going to even try till serious pressure was applied by the Juvenille Law Center and others, who have filed RICO-civil on these bastards. Look, I am *not* just being a dick here, I am presenting known flaws within our system because at this time it is NOT functioning as intended, the checks and balances don't work and the system itself is broken - all too often you have the judge, prosecutor and police all on one "side" trying to convict, if not the public "defender" (at least around here) as well, and this leads to collusion, undue influence, violations of discovery and all manner of chicanery which is rarely if ever punished no matter how blatant or outrageous it is - and that ain't how our courts are supposed to work. And y'all wanna blame the Jury ? Twelve people who are lied to, kept in the dark, weeded out of anyone who might not toe the line (voir dire) and then fed specific instructions and cherry picked evidence and testimony in order to secure a conviction ? I don't hold with that, they're as much victims of a broken system as the defendant, often enough. And yeah, verily, cleaning up the tragic damage and fallout *OF* that broken system has made me something of a freakin hardcase about it, sure... but when you see stuff as horrible as what happened to Aiyanna Jones, or Maryanne Godboldo, day in, day out, it colors your perspective quite a bit. Still, I would ultimately prefer our justice system to work LIKE IT IS SUPPOSED TO, than follow any agenda, because impartial justice based on the law and proveable facts along with common sense is necessary to be worth it's own name - ALL the facts, not just hand-picked ones that make people look guilty, and any prosecutor who violates discovery, any police officer who lies under oath, and judge who leans on the jury, needs to be soundly and publicly excoriated, banned from the public trust and NEVER, EVER hold a position of legal authority again - and can you tell me this is the case ? (See Also: Gypsy cops) But if we PEONS do even one tenth as much they throw us under the prison ? Equal and Impartial ? no. But we ought to MAKE it so, by using our mutual voices to hammer these changes into place, instead of victim-blaming cause it's easy and convenient.
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: But what do I know, I only been doin this shit like forever....
Thursday, March 29, 2012 11:08 AM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL