The plot thickens

POSTED BY: whozit
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:37
VIEWED: 10614
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

WHOZIT

Saturday, March 24, 2012 4:19 PM

http://myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmer
man-03232012

But the fact still remains, the victim was worried about being followed by Zimmerman and was unarmed. Maybe he thought Zimmerman was a mugger and was defending himself by what he thought was a mugging?

AURAPTOR

Saturday, March 24, 2012 4:26 PM

My far away view of this ? Zimmerman was playing billy bad ass night patrol. Saw Martin, didn't like how he ' looked ', and started to follow him. Words were exchanged, things got physical,and Zimmerman ended up on the ground , getting his butt whooped by a skinny black guy.

Then he murdered Trayvon, not out of self defense, but out of embarrassment.

I've not studied the time line, and likely am missing some key points, but that's my thumbnail sketch of the situation.

Am I wrong ? Fill me in. I'll hang up and listen.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

NIKI2

Saturday, March 24, 2012 4:37 PM

I agree with the first part, but if you listen to the tape, one or the other is crying help for quite a long time. I don't think it would be Zimmerman--he had the gun, why would he be crying for help? Given his past of agreesiveness, the fact that Trayvon had NO incidents of violence in his past, that Zimmerman had told people to be on the lookout for Black guys, and that Zimmerman was almost a hundred pounds heavier (and no doubt had previous experience fighting, so was in shape), my money is on Zimmerman being the aggressor.

Nobody has yet said if there were any grass stains on Trayvon or any cuts or bruises. My question is: Given all the national attention paid to this, why did a witness come forward to say Trayvon was the aggressor earlier than this?? The witness doesn't want to be identified, which is understandable, neither did Trayvon's girlfriend who was on the phone.

I'm afraid as far as I'm concerned, Zimmerman was the aggressor from start to finish; if Trayvon hit him, wasn't he acting under the "stand your ground" law anyway? He was obviously threatened, and that's what the law says...

AURAPTOR

Saturday, March 24, 2012 5:25 PM

A cop, a security officer approaches you, it sometimes can be seen as intimidating. To anyone, not just black folk. Add that it's just the two of them, and Zimmerman is a bit larger (yes?), and coming at / after The kid... Easy to see how he'd feel threatened.

Don't know how it went down, but witnesses add more to the story & audio. If that was Zimmerman calling for help, likely he was getting a beat down, as the witnesses said. Or, could be that's not how things went down. Could be Z was pointing the gun @ Trayvon, and taunting him...

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NIKI2

Saturday, March 24, 2012 5:37 PM

Yes, Zimmerman has 90 pounds on Trayvon. I interpreted the elongated period of hollering for help as just what you suggested:

Quote:
Could be Z was pointing the gun @ Trayvon, and taunting him...

Did you listen to the two audios I put up in the "Racism is dead" thread? That might help you figure it out, it's kind of what helped me form my opinion. I just don't see anyone hollering "help" for that LONG if they're engaged in a fist fight...

To the best of my knowledge, Zimmerman wasn't dressed as any sort of authority figure. The police said at one point he was on a personal errand, and nobody's said whether he wears any kind of uniform when he's doing neighborhood watch. So I'm GUESSING he appeared as just a big, burly guy accosting Trayvon.

I'd STILL like to know two things I can't find anywhere:

--Why is nobody mentioning that this "stand your ground" law applied to Trayvon just as much as Zimmerman?

--And why has nobody mentioned whether Trayvon had grass stains or cuts or bruises?

WHOZIT

Saturday, March 24, 2012 5:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Yes, Zimmerman has 90 pounds on Trayvon. I interpreted the elongated period of hollering for help as just what you suggested:
Quote:
Could be Z was pointing the gun @ Trayvon, and taunting him...
Did you listen to the two audios I put up in the "Racism is dead" thread? That might help you figure it out, it's kind of what helped me form my opinion. I just don't see anyone hollering "help" for that LONG if they're engaged in a fist fight...

To the best of my knowledge, Zimmerman wasn't dressed as any sort of authority figure. The police said at one point he was on a personal errand, and nobody's said whether he wears any kind of uniform when he's doing neighborhood watch. So I'm GUESSING he appeared as just a big, burly guy accosting Trayvon.

I'd STILL like to know two things I can't find anywhere:

--Why is nobody mentioning that this "stand your ground" law applied to Trayvon just as much as Zimmerman?

--And why has nobody mentioned whether Trayvon had grass stains or cuts or bruises?

The "Stand your ground law" is the liberals way of dragging Jeb Bush (a Republican) into the story, I'm sure MSNBC is all over that...it's what they do.

NIKI2

Saturday, March 24, 2012 6:22 PM

So NOW I hear the police chief has released a statement saying they didn't arrest Zimmerman because he claimed he had lost track of Trayvon and was "returning to his truck" when Trayvon jumped him. ?!?!?

First off, why didn't this come out before?

Second, this directly contradicts the girlfriend's testimony about being on the phone with Trayvon and hearing him ask "Why are you following me" and Zimmerman saying "What are you doing here?" So who's telling the truth? The logs show she WAS on a call to him just before he was shot, so...?

Third, what 17-year old, walking in the dark with Skittles and an ice tea, jumps a guy almost 100 pounds heavier than him?

Where were the skittles and ice tea found? If they were right there where Trayvon was shot, that's one thing which would indicate to me he wasn't out to jump anyone. If they were further away, like behind a bush or something, it would seem otherwise.

And again, WHY has nobody said anything about the state of Trayvon and his clothes, as to whether there's grass stain or any injuries??

More and more it's looking to me like Zimmerman and police are trying to pad the "facts"--there have been many deaths because of this "stand your ground" law since it went into effect both in Florida and other states...any possibility people like Zimmerman have become pretty complacent that it lets them get away with whatever they want? And this one blowing up in their faces has left them caught red-handed and trying to justify what happened?

I just don't buy this stuff coming out at this late date--even the girlfriend's testimony came out a bit late for my liking, tho' they said she was hospitalized after it happened for shock, so who knows?

Curiouser and curiouser...

(Oh, and by the way, there is at least one other witness who saw Zimmerman on top of Trayvon, so are their memories clouded by their perspective, was one or the other mistaken, or what?)

ETA: Just FYI, I just saw a clip on TV of Jeb Bush saying he still backs the law, but that "this situation does not apply" because Zimmerman followed Trayvon. So we're going after Jeb Bush, eh? I see...

Further, MSNBC doesn't do politics or news (except very early in the morning) on weekends, so they can't get "all over it" until Monday--thus far, I haven't esen much mention of Jeb Bush on MSNBC, only that he and other governors signed the bills into law when they came around.

I also BELIEVER I heard that Jan Whatsername VETOED the "stand your ground" law when it came her way--aren't we supposed to hate her, too?

But go right ahead, keep trying...

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, March 24, 2012 6:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
A cop, a security officer approaches you, it sometimes can be seen as intimidating. To anyone, not just black folk.

This is why....

I DO wear a uniform, and in a more neutral, non-aggressive pattern and color, and make sure it looks professional - as an actual security officer you have no authority beyond what people give you voluntarily and that depends a lot on your appearance and demeanor, initially.

I do NOT (which I suspect Zimmerman did) get into peoples personal space, if I must confront or speak to someone I stop eight to twelve feet away with a friendly expression and polite greeting - this also protects ME cause if someone has to take a couple steps to get close enough to swing on you they have to think about it, good move in dealing with folk who may have poor impulse control.

AND I *deliberately* come off as a slacker hillbilly passing the time - or try to, for some reason this is wholly unconvincing to the people who live here no matter how true it is.

But rolling up on someone, getting in their personal space without properly identifying yourself or your intentions, physically crowding them - that's some seriously threatening conduct, and I would right then-and-there FIRE any of mine who did such a thing.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

MAL4PREZ

Saturday, March 24, 2012 6:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
--Why is nobody mentioning that this "stand your ground" law applied to Trayvon just as much as Zimmerman?

Actually, quite a few people are, both on this site (my first post on the other thread was about exactly this, and other posters have brought it up) and there have been articles about it. Sorry, I don't recall where I read them, but they are certainly out there.

Quote:
--And why has nobody mentioned whether Trayvon had grass stains or cuts or bruises?

This is certainly missing information that's pretty damned important. I assume the Feds who've come into this are looking real hard at the autopsy report.

Raptor - I believe what you posted above was exactly Frem's take on the situation. Wow - you two agree!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NIKI2

Saturday, March 24, 2012 8:27 PM

Thanx, Mal4, I'll look for it. I'm glad it's getting SOME attention, I thought it was so weird. The "stand your ground" thing applies BEST to Trayvon, since he wasn't doing anything and it was Zimmerman who accosted HIM...but nobody seemed to be paying attention to that!

(raise hand) I mostly agreed with Raptor too, hey, hey! ;o)

AURAPTOR

Saturday, March 24, 2012 8:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Yes, Zimmerman has 90 pounds on Trayvon. I interpreted the elongated period of hollering for help as just what you suggested:
Quote:
Could be Z was pointing the gun @ Trayvon, and taunting him...
Did you listen to the two audios I put up in the "Racism is dead" thread? That might help you figure it out, it's kind of what helped me form my opinion. I just don't see anyone hollering "help" for that LONG if they're engaged in a fist fight...

I ran the 1st clip a couple of times. I wasn't even aware of what I was listening for until midway through... I then gave it 2nd listen. For the 911 call by the lady who heard the shouting...I only gave that a once through. I've seen fist fights last for long periods of time, where guys get up, move around, scrap, get into it, get up.... so the length of time for that isn't conclusive. Plus, I don't know what either individual sounds like, but I'm guessing those who know will be able to ID whose voice that is on the audio. I still am leaning toward my initial impression, that Z was holding the gun on Trayvon, and taunting him. Until more comes out, that's how I see it.

Quote:

To the best of my knowledge, Zimmerman wasn't dressed as any sort of authority figure. The police said at one point he was on a personal errand, and nobody's said whether he wears any kind of uniform when he's doing neighborhood watch. So I'm GUESSING he appeared as just a big, burly guy accosting Trayvon.

I'd STILL like to know two things I can't find anywhere:

--Why is nobody mentioning that this "stand your ground" law applied to Trayvon just as much as Zimmerman?

--And why has nobody mentioned whether Trayvon had grass stains or cuts or bruises?

This whole case has been hinky from the very start.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

OONJERAH

Saturday, March 24, 2012 11:16 PM

I think by now, about 97% of people who paid attention
find Zimmerman the aggressor ... and said so.

Zimmerman invaded Martin's ground. Simple to me.

MAL4PREZ

Sunday, March 25, 2012 12:19 AM

Niki, I've avoided all the clips related to this because I know they'll just really upset and anger me, but I listened to the clips with the alleged slur. I don't know. His voice sounds electronic, like it was spliced in there. Doesn't sound like a person talking. I'd have to listen to the whole call.

I think it doesn't really matter if the slur is there or not. The evidence I've seen suggests that the guy hunted and killed an innocent kid. I imagine that with all the evidence available, and with the Feds involved, Zimmerman will pay for what he did.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

OONJERAH

Sunday, March 25, 2012 1:12 AM

Is this a Bad Idea or what?

"Black Panthers offer $10,000 bounty for capture of George Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin homicide"
http://www.chicagonow.com/dennis-byrnes-barbershop/2012/03/black-panth
ers-offer-10000-bounty-for-capture-of-george-zimmerman-the-florida-killer/
blog by Dennis Byrne

ANTHONYT

Sunday, March 25, 2012 2:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:

Is this a Bad Idea or what?

"Black Panthers offer $10,000 bounty for capture of George Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin homicide"
http://www.chicagonow.com/dennis-byrnes-barbershop/2012/03/black-panth
ers-offer-10000-bounty-for-capture-of-george-zimmerman-the-florida-killer/
blog by Dennis Byrne

Hello,

This is a terrible idea.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

GEEZER

Sunday, March 25, 2012 2:14 AM

Zimmerman is pretty obviously the instigator of the confrontation, but I expect there's stuff we haven't heard yet.

It does seem kind'a disproportionate that there's all this national outrage over this one shooting, as tragic as it was, and so little over the young black men getting killed every week by other young black men for pretty much nothing but a perceived slight or a pair of shoes. I wish someone would put the same effort into doing something about that.

1KIKI

Sunday, March 25, 2012 2:37 AM

"... that there's all this national outrage over this one shooting ..."

The outrage is about the fact that it didn't even get an investigation. The outrage is about the police department giving a white man a pass for killing a black boy.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, March 25, 2012 2:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
It does seem kind'a disproportionate that there's all this national outrage over this one shooting, as tragic as it was, and so little over the young black men getting killed every week by other young black men for pretty much nothing but a perceived slight or a pair of shoes. I wish someone would put the same effort into doing something about that.

People do, you just don't hear about it so much, a lot of what Augustus, Jackrabbit, Divine and Malek *DO* relates to that, but it does become especially difficult when the folk who SHOULD be ones allies in such a situation, that being official law enforcement, are often as just as predatory or even more so, and you wind up spending more time trying to protect the neighborhoods from the predation and provocations of their so-called protectors that trying to get them to stop shooting each OTHER winds up at a lower priority - and the stress grinds people up.

Other than Roy and Krings, the officers of both counties seem hell bent on waging war on "competition" like contract security or neighborhood watch of the actual respectable type, than they do working with us, so there's that problem to deal with first and foremost - thankfully Roy and Krings are focusing on the neighborhood across the street from here, and while I cannot offer any official support since it's out of my on-the-job "jurisdiction", on a personal level I'll back them all the way cause they're doing the job right, connecting with the community and working WITH them, instead of the usual war-mindset...

Something that, mind you, was greatly influenced by budget cuts thus depriving them OF those damn war-toys, cause when you've got a big hammer, every problem starts lookin like a nail.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

OONJERAH

Sunday, March 25, 2012 3:56 AM

News say the "New Black Panthers," & they are in Sanford FL showing a bit of ire.
Patience is needed. Not a good time for disturbance. The protest has gone well so far.

KWICKO

Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:

Is this a Bad Idea or what?

"Black Panthers offer $10,000 bounty for capture of George Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin homicide"
http://www.chicagonow.com/dennis-byrnes-barbershop/2012/03/black-panth
ers-offer-10000-bounty-for-capture-of-george-zimmerman-the-florida-killer/
blog by Dennis Byrne

Bad idea. Very bad. They're acting like pretty much what they accuse Zimmerman of acting like: vigilantes, hell bent on "street justice". I foresee no good outcome to this plan of action, and while I can appreciate their frustration, I cannot condone this kind of action.

1KIKI

Sunday, March 25, 2012 5:33 AM

I also think it's a very bad idea. What I've read about them is that they seem to be more interested in grabbing headlines than changing minds. The one mitigating aspect of their statement is that they want to turn Zimmerman in to Federal authorities.

GEEZER

Sunday, March 25, 2012 12:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... that there's all this national outrage over this one shooting ..."

The outrage is about the fact that it didn't even get an investigation. The outrage is about the police department giving a white man a pass for killing a black boy.

But some black people give the black kids who kill other black kids a pass as well.

Check out the various "Stop Snitchin'" and "No Snitch" campaigns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Snitchin%27

http://nosnitches.com/

AURAPTOR

Sunday, March 25, 2012 1:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... that there's all this national outrage over this one shooting ..."

The outrage is about the fact that it didn't even get an investigation. The outrage is about the police department giving a white man a pass for killing a black boy.

But some black people give the black kids who kill other black kids a pass as well.

Check out the various "Stop Snitchin'" and "No Snitch" campaigns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Snitchin%27

http://nosnitches.com/

Which goes to show that it's learned culture, and not 'race' or skin color, that is causing so much of the problems here.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

NIKI2

Sunday, March 25, 2012 3:41 PM

That's a HIDEOUS idea! Just imagine the myriad ways that Black Panther thing could make it worse boggles the mind.

I think this is getting attention because it's kind of, one thing builds on another and somewhere there's a tipping point. This may be it. I hope not. I hope something comes out that gets Zimmerman prosecuted; otherwise it's heaping more on the fire.

Dunno if my post disappeared, but last night apparently the police chief said Zimmerman told them at the time that he had lost sight of Trayvon, was headed back to his truck, when Trayvon jumped him. I find this both incredibly hard to believe, and am very suspicious of it only coming out NOW, a month after the incident and a long time after the nation has been paying attention.

As to the first tape, Zimmerman was whispering, which I thought was why it sounded like it did. I think there's enough hinky stuff in this whole thing that it doesn't matter one way or another; and it certainly won't be considered "evidence" anyway.

Whole things sucks. I hope they sort it out before things get worse. I think Zimmerman belongs in jail; any way you look at it, he instigated the situation, and, sorry to prejudge, but from what I hear this has been going on for a long time now, many deaths have resulted, and I believe people like Zimmerman have come to believe they can get away with anything they want. I think someone finally thought he could get away with it and it blew up in his face, and brought national attention. Now the nation has to deal with the consequences, 'cuz nobody can close their eyes anymore.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, March 25, 2012 6:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
But some black people give the black kids who kill other black kids a pass as well.

Check out the various "Stop Snitchin'" and "No Snitch" campaigns.

Well, a great part of that is because of the police being effectively one more street gang and another set of predators instead of protectors.

Sure, while there's an institutional level of corruption within ghetto culture and community, folks tend to forget there is an equal if not greater level of the same amongst the so-called protectors, and this causes a crapload of needless problems.

So to THEM, it's more like a Crip ratting out his buddies to the Bloods, cause the police are seen as just another faction rather than honest neutrals, which for the most part they ain't - if you ain't watched The Wire, you really ought to.
I didn't just watch it, I had to LIVE it, being in that area during some of the events that show is based on - when you got no honest brokers on the scene, you gotta play the game whether you want to or not, just to survive.

Around here though...
Nobody much cares if you deal, or steal - but you start capping rounds you'll piss EVERYONE off, and they *will* roll your ass, no one likes the idea of bullets whizzing through the neighborhood, although if you handle it phsyically so long as one is discreet and there was some cause any backlash will be limited to their allies and friends.

Not to mention how it works with this place - sure, we're across the street from a rough place, but stepping on this turf is gonna start something with me, and harming me in any way will then lead to the ENTIRE neighborhood down on them, plus all the folk who prefer the devil they know since so long as you keep your troubles off the property I care nothin about em, so it's just not worth it for the pitiful take you'd wind up with regardless.

Beyond all that, there's the waste of resources on petty ante bullshit, AND the very real possibility that the cops will take their frustrations out on the one who called em instead of doing anything about it, so generally no one is going to take that risk unless the crime in question is worth it, which it mostly ain't - unless you go spraying lead, in which case the 911 switchboard is gonna light up like a damn xmas tree cause NO one likes that.

It's a rough form of detente and diplomacy, but it is there, never think it ain't.

As for outrages, this one landed on my desk this morning, and there's all kind of major suck to it.
El Cajon woman dies after beating earlier in week
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/mar/24/el-cajon-woman-dies-after-b
eating-earlier-week/

Quote:
EL CAJON — An Iraqi immigrant and mother of five died Saturday of injuries from a severe beating in her El Cajon home, where a note warning the family to “go back to your own country” was left next to her.
El Cajon police said they are investigating the possibility of a hate crime.

Intolerance is a special kind of stupid, it really is.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

M52NICKERSON

Monday, March 26, 2012 3:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Thanx, Mal4, I'll look for it. I'm glad it's getting SOME attention, I thought it was so weird. The "stand your ground" thing applies BEST to Trayvon, since he wasn't doing anything and it was Zimmerman who accosted HIM...but nobody seemed to be paying attention to that!

(raise hand) I mostly agreed with Raptor too, hey, hey! ;o)

Actually it would not apply until until you are attacked. Just felling threatened is not enough according to the law. That being said Martin's conversation with his girlfriend seems to indicate that Zimmerman did physically engage Martin first. Which also means Zimmerman's actions do not meet the standard of the law to claim self-defense.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

1KIKI

Monday, March 26, 2012 5:59 PM

When blacks write the laws, run the justice system, and make up the law enforcement, then casually dismiss the stalking and murder of a young white man at the hands of a black man - you will see me just as outraged, just as furious. It's not about giving a pass to blacks, it's about holding police accountable to treat all people as equal under the law.

OONJERAH

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:05 AM

..
. . .Police: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him with one blow then began hammering his head =>
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-
zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager
..
. . ."With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the
Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed
the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George
Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him
bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the
Orlando Sentinel.

"Police have been reluctant to provide details about their evidence."

Oonj: I am well aware that Trayvon's gf overheard something quite different.

OPPYH

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

But some black people give the black kids who kill other black kids a pass as well.

Check out the various "Stop Snitchin'" and "No Snitch" campaigns.

This is why the homicide rate is so high among many young African Americans. They refuse to "snitch" preferring to handle things "street justice" style. In other words, one murder equals a retaliatory murder. Eye for an eye so to speak. It has gotten to a fever pitch around here, damn near Detorit levels.

----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
..
. . .Police: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him with one blow then began hammering his head =>
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-
zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager
..
. . ."With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the
Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed
the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George
Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him
bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the
Orlando Sentinel.

"Police have been reluctant to provide details about their evidence."

Oonj: I am well aware that Trayvon's gf overheard something quite different.

How would Trayvon's gf have overheard something different, when one of the 2 who were there is saying he was jumped ?

Just askin', is all.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

GEEZER

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 12:32 PM

What with all the protests, demonstrations, news coverage, celebrity comments, and general heightened emotions, it's gonna be really difficult to seat an unbiased grand jury on this case.

I'm also seeing it as difficult for the Justice Department to make this a hate crime. Bad judgement, stereotyping and cop wannabe, sure. But when Zimmerman's Black friend is saying (at some risk to himself)that Zimmerman cried about the shooting for days, I'm not seeing the "lynching" some folks are claiming.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:30 PM

Hello,

To invoke a Wulfism which, ironically, he may never understand...

"It's a hell of a thing killing a man..."

Not as much fun as playing Rambo in your head.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 3:36 PM

@NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

---------------------------------------------

" If I had a son, he'd look like him. " - Barack Obama

---------------------------------------------
And Anthony? Stop lying about what I think. TIA.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 4:14 PM

Obama is a pathetic race baiter just like the vile and oft-disgraced race-opportunists Sharpton and Jackson. Funny how the President, once a notable Chicago organizer of sorts, never had a word to say about the 42 BLACK people shot in Chicago's Southside over a recent holiday weekend, including a six-year old girl who died from a drug driveby shooting. I guess Obama didn't think that little dead girl looked like his daughter. In their sick world, black on black crime is to either be ignored or accepted. Only whiteish skin is cause for alarm.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:01 PM

Hope this is a sad, twisted rumor , but I'm hearing the Obama camp is actually selling hoodies with " 2012 " on them.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NIKI2

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:14 PM

"How would Trayvon's gf have overheard something different, when one of the 2 who were there is saying he was jumped ?" Obviously, the point about the phone call is, the girlfriend said one thing, Zimmerman (who is the only "one of the 2) left to say what happened) said another. He said/she said. The fact that the phone logs show she WAS on the phone at that time ("The unarmed teenager carried Skittles and iced tea, and was talking to his girlfriend on the phone, records show." ( http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-tr
ayvon.html) kinda shades who I'll believe at this point, but there's no proof either way of what was said on that phone call.

It's weird to me that I heard, and others here did, two bangs on the tape of the 911 call, but police claim only one: "Two loud bangs can be heard on one 911 call, and family attorneys said last week that that was evidence of two shots, but several witnesses who've spoken publicly about what they heard all describe a single shot." ( http://www.adn.com/2012/03/24/2388488/myths-half-truths-about-the-tray
von.html)

I heard last night that Zimmerman was following Martin around not wearing any uniform and WITH HIS GUN IN A HOLSTER ON HIS BELT. Boy, that would scare the PANTS off me in the middle of the night: A burly guy with a hostered gun (supposedly, we don't even know it was holstered, we just know he had a holster) follows me in the dark, first by car then by foot, and demands to know what I'm doing there. Wow.

And yeah, NOW they're claiming he was headed back to his car, having lost Trayvon. Why weren't they saying this from the first? There's evidence he followed the kid, and the dispatcher told him not to, but we can't know whether he was returning to his car or not, except by his say-so.

The Miami Herald sure has made up their mind, they "leaked" the following to the news. Question: What is the reason behind police department "leaking" information, rather than saying it directly? Fifty points for the person who guesses correctly.

Personally, I don't think we're ever going to know the truth. The MSM is so busy "reporting" one side or the other's "information", and coloring it either pro-Zimmerman or pro-Martin, it's a total mess. Here's one colored one way:

Quote:
With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, then climbed on top of him and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times before Zimmerman shot the unarmed 17-year-old to death, the Orlando Sentinel reported on Monday.

The Sentinel, citing unidentified authorities, said that is the account Zimmerman gave to police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses.

Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened, but on that night, Feb. 26, and in later meetings, he described and re-enacted for police what he says happened.

According to his version of events, the Sentinel said, he had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Martin approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Martin punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him. Zimmerman, 28, told police he shot the teenager in self-defense.

Zimmerman's account became public on the same day the Miami Herald reported that when Martin was shot to death in February, he had been suspended from school for having marijuana residue in his book bag.

According to the Sentinel, here is what police disclosed to the newspaper:

Zimmerman was on his way to a grocery store when he saw Martin walking through his gated community.

Martin was visiting his father's fiancee, who lived there. Zimmerman called police and reported a suspicious person, describing Martin as black, acting strangely and perhaps on drugs.

Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Martin on foot. When a dispatch

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

GEEZER

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Hope this is a sad, twisted rumor , but I'm hearing the Obama camp is actually selling hoodies with " 2012 " on them.

http://www.progressiverags.com/obmi20blho.html

Probably just a coincidence

KPO

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... that there's all this national outrage over this one shooting ..."

The outrage is about the fact that it didn't even get an investigation. The outrage is about the police department giving a white man a pass for killing a black boy.

But some black people give the black kids who kill other black kids a pass as well.

Check out the various "Stop Snitchin'" and "No Snitch" campaigns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Snitchin%27

http://nosnitches.com/

I would suggest that the two problems are not unrelated. Decades of institutionalised discrimination and injustice has cultivated these attitudes in the black community - that the police are against them. And invariably this helps crime to flourish (see the film 'City of God' for a good view of this process from the beginning, in the early days of a Brazilian favela).

That's why the Trayvon Martin case (and others like it) is especially important. The perception in a community that the law is not there to protect them is very corrosive, and damaging.

It's not personal. It's just war.

OONJERAH

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 8:10 PM

Quote Niki: "I guess we can go on arguing about it until the cows
come home (as the rest of the country seems to be doing!), but I
doubt we'll ever know what really happened."

. . .All evidence is to be collected and brought before a grand jury.
Then maybe there'll be a trial. Evidence will be presented; witnesses
and Zimmerman will testify.
Some evidence, Zimmerman's physical condition and sobriety on that
night, has already been lost.

. . .With a trial, people could get closure, and our opinions would be
better informed.

STORYMARK

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Obama is a pathetic race baiter just like the vile and oft-disgraced race-opportunists Sharpton and Jackson. Funny how the President, once a notable Chicago organizer of sorts, never had a word to say about the 42 BLACK people shot in Chicago's Southside over a recent holiday weekend, including a six-year old girl who died from a drug driveby shooting. I guess Obama didn't think that little dead girl looked like his daughter. In their sick world, black on black crime is to either be ignored or accepted. Only whiteish skin is cause for alarm.

You're an idiot. Not even worth further comment, really.

Spoon!

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Funny how the President, once a notable Chicago organizer of sorts, never had a word to say about the 42 BLACK people shot in Chicago's Southside over a recent holiday weekend, including a six-year old girl who died from a drug driveby shooting. I guess Obama didn't think that little dead girl looked like his daughter. In their sick world, black on black crime is to either be ignored or accepted. Only whiteish skin is cause for alarm.

You're an idiot. Not even worth further comment, really.

Spoon!

42 shootings in Chicago, over one weekend, isn't worth any comment, by you OR Obama, huh?

Huh.

ETA - It wasn't 42, it was 49

Quote:

NO OUTRAGE OVER 49 CHICAGO SHOOTINGS?

“Why not be angry about the wholesale murder that goes on in the streets of Newark and Chicago?” he asked. “Why isn’t somebody angry about that six-year-old girl who was killed on her steps last weekend in a cross fire when two gang members in Chicago start shooting at each other? Why is there no outrage about that?”

( Former NAACP Leader, C.L.) Bryant said he worries that “people like Sharpton and those on the left” will make Martin’s death a campaign issue in the presidential race.

He speculated that they will “turn this evolving tragedy of this young man into fodder to say… if you don’t re-elect Obama then you will have unbridled events or circumstances like this happening in the streets to young men wearing hoodies.”

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2012/03/no-outrage-ov
er-st-patricks-day-weekend-chicago-shootings.html

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/former-naacp-leader-accuses-sharpton
-and-jackson-of-exploiting-trayvon-martin/

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

OONJERAH

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:32 PM

. . .What witnesses say in the Trayvon Martin case =>
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/justice/florida-teen-shooting-witnesses/

the section marked "Witnesses" has accounts I haven't seen before.

Above the written story is a video, interview with a prosecutor in the case.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
. . .What witnesses say in the Trayvon Martin case =>
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/justice/florida-teen-shooting-witnesses/

the section marked "Witnesses" has accounts I haven't seen before.

Above the written story is a video, interview with a prosecutor in the case.

This was the initial info the local police had , from the very start. Sad, that the official process will now be viewed with suspicion, should it not point to the conclusion that many are now demanding be found.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 12:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
That's why the Trayvon Martin case (and others like it) is especially important. The perception in a community that the law is not there to protect them is very corrosive, and damaging.

Even more so when it's actually true.
There's reasons why the Detroit PD is under a fistfull of (mostly ignored and unenforced) consent decrees in response to their behavior, which goes on all but unchecked even now.

Just for contrast, this, from Chicago.

Homeowner, 80, charged in shooting of burglar
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-elderly-man-shoo
ts-burglar-in-englewood-both-charged-20120326,0,3175723.story

Quote:
Awakened by his 75-year-old wife, Wright confronted a 19-year-old burglar who had broken through some plywood over a bathroom window in hopes of stealing liquor, according to police. Wright grabbed his 38.caliber pistol, loaded with four rounds, and shot the intruder in the leg.

The suspect was arrested -- but so was Wright.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

STORYMARK

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 12:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Funny how the President, once a notable Chicago organizer of sorts, never had a word to say about the 42 BLACK people shot in Chicago's Southside over a recent holiday weekend, including a six-year old girl who died from a drug driveby shooting. I guess Obama didn't think that little dead girl looked like his daughter. In their sick world, black on black crime is to either be ignored or accepted. Only whiteish skin is cause for alarm.

You're an idiot. Not even worth further comment, really.

Spoon!

42 shootings in Chicago, over one weekend, isn't worth any comment, by you OR Obama, huh?

Huh.

ETA - It wasn't 42, it was 49

Quote:

NO OUTRAGE OVER 49 CHICAGO SHOOTINGS?

“Why not be angry about the wholesale murder that goes on in the streets of Newark and Chicago?” he asked. “Why isn’t somebody angry about that six-year-old girl who was killed on her steps last weekend in a cross fire when two gang members in Chicago start shooting at each other? Why is there no outrage about that?”

( Former NAACP Leader, C.L.) Bryant said he worries that “people like Sharpton and those on the left” will make Martin’s death a campaign issue in the presidential race.

He speculated that they will “turn this evolving tragedy of this young man into fodder to say… if you don’t re-elect Obama then you will have unbridled events or circumstances like this happening in the streets to young men wearing hoodies.”

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2012/03/no-outrage-ov
er-st-patricks-day-weekend-chicago-shootings.html

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/former-naacp-leader-accuses-sharpton
-and-jackson-of-exploiting-trayvon-martin/

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

Just as vapid a response.

Did the men who committed those shootings get sent home, with their guns, and no investigation?

Of course not. But you knew that already.

Spoon!

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 1:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Just as vapid a response.

Did the men who committed those shootings get sent home, with their guns, and no investigation?

Of course not. But you knew that already.

Spoon!

Oh, but there was an investigation. You saying there wasn't doesn't make it so, does it ?

Did the 6 year old girl jump anyone from behind, push their head into the ground and start pummeling them ?

Of course not. But you knew that already.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 1:58 AM

I haven't seen the racist-pointing Left drool so much over a case since their racially charged Duke lacrosse debacle. Same cast of sick characters, same liberal guilt-by-skin-color horseshit. Nice to see the Black Panthers threatening to kill white people again, and just in time for them to get ready to man the poll stations again. It's been too long since we heard that refreshing tome.

1KIKI

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 5:17 AM

How do you spell dumbass?

z.i.m.m.e.r.m.a.n.

Or in the words of Agent Jay: don't start nothing, won't BE nothing!

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Or in the words of Agent Jay: don't start nothing, won't BE nothing!

^This.

From the moment Zimmerman left his car after being explicitly told not to - he was in the wrong, ergo all that follows is on his ass, period.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 12:12 PM

In the wrong, yes. Doing something illegal, no.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NIKI2

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 3:34 PM

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.

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 4:19 PM

The stand your ground law is not bad in theory. It even let a kid defend himself against a bully looking to beat him. The problem is that the law is far to forgiving.

As for ALEC being involved, I judge each law on how it is written, not by who wrote it.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 4:49 PM

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.

]

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

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 5:37 PM

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

Perhaps, but in the end with Zimmerman's injuries and the one young witness that says she say Martin on top of Zimmerman might very well put him within the current law. The way the law is written now if Martin hit Zimmerman first Zimmerman killing Martin was within the law. Everything leading up to that point will not matter.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NIKI2

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 5:52 PM

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.

NIKI2

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:17 PM

Anthony, there already were laws allowing you to act in self-defense. The NRA worked HARD to get this one passed.

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-y
our-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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:34 PM

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.

That's the rub, isn't it? Bad laws can get passed because not enough people pay attention. Many who do only pay half as much attention as they should. People go to media out lets in trying to find out what a bill says and does instead of doing what is hard, and right, and reading the bills.

...for this I have little sympathy.

In the end all the infulence and money only work when people are not paying attention and don't go out and get the facts for themsleves.

"Democracy is not a spectator sport." ~ Lotte E. Scharfman, League of Women Voters

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:40 PM

*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.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:43 PM

Hello Niki,

I used to live in Florida, and the training I received to get my concealed weapons permit was quite explicit about my 'duty to retreat.' In short- if a jury believed that there was any way to avoid the violence, and I didn't take it, I could be convicted of a crime. You *were* literally expected to retreat in the face of danger- or else explain to a jury why you could not- and hope they believed you. You were expected to use proportionate violence, and if your attacker came off worse than you did- to explain to a jury why.

Notably, this sort of explanation could come after you'd been economically and socially broken. It made victims of people who were already victims.

It has always been my philosophy to avoid violence whenever possible, and to use reasonable force, so you wouldn't think this would be a concern. My concern was being placed in the position of proving it to a skeptical audience, and possibly being ruined by the process of prosecution even if no conviction was attained.

Make no mistake that defending yourself was a crime under the law. The victim was often assumed guilty until proven innocent.

So please do not be so quick to dismiss the value of a law that allows a victim the dignity of fighting back without terrible fear of legal consequences. Under the new law, there must be something inherently suspicious about the encounter before a crime can be considered to have occurred.

And there IS such suspiciousness in this case.

However, if you want to amend the law to suggest that actively provoking a confrontation is off limits, I'd support that. Just don't swing the pendulum far the other way and make victims of crime also victims of the state- again.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 7:11 PM

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.

A person might get railroaded, who's fault is that? Well who sits on Juries, those who can't get out of the duty. The vast majority of people see jury duty as a burden, not as a responciblity.

The root of all our problems is...us.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

MINCINGBEAST

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 7:13 PM

This shooting does not implicate a duty to retreat, or Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law. It will be decided under general principles of self-defense.

There are two competing shooting narratives. The first amounts to hagiography: St. Trayvon, an doe-eyed ingenue was stalked and shot by a crazed racist. The second is a restatement of popular attitudes regarding black teens: Zimmerman tried to leave the scene, only to be beat on by Trayvon, a gold-toothed thug who knows the lyrics to Lil' Wayne songs. I offer no opinion as to which narrative is more accurate; that's a jury's job.

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?

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 7:36 PM

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?

If he was being beat, yes his fear was reasonable.

That being said, the law generaly does not allow the use of deadly force if a person can retreat. The stand your ground law does allow the use of force as you discribed.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 7:51 PM

"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"

MINCINGBEAST

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:03 PM

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.

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:06 PM

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"

The duty to retreat is the law in a fair number of states. As I said, I like the idea of the stand your ground law, but not how it is been written. Zimmerman did not need to leave his car to help protect his community, that is the problem. He put himself and others in danger by his actions. Any time you add a gun to a situation you are putting everyone in the area at risk.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

MINCINGBEAST

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:06 PM

The law ought to impose a duty-to-whoop-ass, which is more consistent with American values of rugged individualism, and also John Wayne movies. Under this law, an individual who is presented with an opportunity to use deadly force in a manner which seems likely to be lawful, and does not immediately seize it, will have their nards removed. Note that the penalty is nard specific, because deadly force totally belongs to guys.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:08 PM

"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.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:19 PM

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.

Before we get into this let me make one thing clear. Walking away from a situation, or even running does not make someone a pussy or a coward. You need to tone down the macho bullshit right now.

Yes, if Martin had Zimmerman pinned down when Zimmerman shot he would not have had a way to retreat and would be covered by self-defence law. However if he had gotten to his feet he than would have had the duty to try and get away.

The stand your ground law simply eliminates that duty and says you have the right to stay where you are. That means that if you decide to stay put and are at risk of death or serious injury you can use deadly force. A Florida apeals court has even ruled that the law allows you to use deadly force if your attacker is feeling.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:23 PM

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.

Disarming regular police officers is not a bad idea.

The thing is that your hand using the gun maybe fine. That does not mean the gun is going to stay in your hand.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

STORYMARK

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Grunt grunt. Grrrr. Manly stuff. Grunt.

Very eloquent.

Spoon!

MINCINGBEAST

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:28 PM

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.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:35 PM

Why does Story even bother to post? Hes just a troll that likes to back the other somnambulist posters here.

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"

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:36 PM

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.

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

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:36 PM

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.

He would at least have to try to get away after his get to his feet. It is true that that if Martin kept attacking he than could use force.

The other thing to remember is that under duty to retreat a person must make every effort to avoid confrontation. That means Zimmerman's self-defence claim would be out the window as soon as he approched Martin seeing as he was told not to.

This case is very much about the stand your ground law. Without it Zimmerman has little defence.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:38 PM

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"

You can't troll when you are right!

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:43 PM

Quote:
This case is very much about the stand your ground law. Without it Zimmerman has little defence.

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!)

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:44 PM

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

It's simple, had Zimmerman not had a gun, Martin would not be dead. It is less likley that Martin beats Zimmerman to death, than for what happened to take place.

At the end of the day Zimmerman did nto have to get out of his car. He did not have to follow Martin. Zimmerman is the one that intruduced the gun into the situation by his actions.

...and not everyone is going to deploy a gun successfully.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:46 PM

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!)

Your right, there are.

The issue is that the law as written does not ask people to try and avoid these kind of situations. A persons best defence is not putting yourself in a positions to be harmed.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:56 PM

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

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:07 PM

Anthony,

You have some steel and some sense about you.

Good job.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:17 PM

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

Within the currant law it is not self-evident, and that is the problem. Have you read it?

You are not defenseless without a gun.

I would wonder what part of the investigations you think has been "lazy"?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

STORYMARK

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Just a question, but does anyone pay him any mind?

Many have asked the same about your self-aggrandizing bullshit.

Spoon!

GEEZER

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I think we are suffering from lazy investigators more than bad laws.

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.

OONJERAH

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:58 PM

There's so much unknown here, & my speculation on it is foolish but likely
to continue.

Niki: the girlfriend's testimony about being on the phone with Trayvon
and hearing him ask, "Why are you following me"
and Zimmerman saying, "What are you doing here?"

Then the phone goes dead.

Zimmerman will tell the cops that Trayvon felled him with one blow.
Neighbors see Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, beating him. Z's injuries concur.
Neighbors see Zimmerman standing over lifeless Trayvon.

I have no magic camera to tell me what happened between "What are you doing here?"
and Zimmerman standing over Trayvon's corpse.

But I wonder why Trayvon felt the need to beat Zimmerman after he was down.

Here is what I Do know: Zimmerman is mental, irresponsible. He is not sane
enough to own a gun, and it was his duty to know that.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:09 AM

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.

Again, which is as it should be - sans the need for public outrage to have hoisted the wheels in motion, which should not have been required.

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

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...

That said, we DO have a few decent Judges here, usually I get thrown out on my ear by virtue of being an Anarchist except for the last time they called me up, and THAT was a special kind of screwed up.

From Oct 8th 2011

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 sub

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

GEEZER

Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:30 AM

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

I note you sort'a left something out of this chart. The justifiable homicide by police in the same period.

So here's that column.

2000 20
2001 21
2002 23
2003 16
2004 23
2005 25
2006 21
2007 60
2008 52
2009 60
2010 56
2011 33 (first half)

Looks to me kind of like reporting criteria were changed around 2007, since both figures went up at the same time, but there was no change in laws for police concerning justifiable homicide.

The Politifact article considers Sen. Smith's statement "Half True".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RIONAEIRE

Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:32 AM

My opinion on this case continues to evolve, its got so many pieces to it and there are things that we probably won't know. Right now my working theory is a mixture of Frem's cop wannabe gone wrong thing and the fact that Trayvon decided to beat the guy up, not that I blame him for being scared of being followed in the night, but he definitely wasn't a defenseless wussy and unschooled individual. So between Zimmerman initiating the conflict and Trayvon continuing it, the endresult was a tragedy and should never have happened. Zimmerman started it but Martin continued it. I can't blame Martin for continuing it exactly, but Martin did continue it and bring it up a notch. Even so he doesn't deserve what happened to him, he's so young and obviously was not out to cause trouble or anything, just going to visit.

I assume you're my pal until you let me know otherwise. "A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NIKI2

Thursday, March 29, 2012 3:23 AM

Yes, it keeps evolving. See my post of the video that just came out showing Zimmerman arriving at the police station with no sign of any injury, blood or grass stains on him.

Everyone seems to have accepted Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon beat him up, which has concerned me, given that we only have Zimmerman's word (and there's more on the "witness" who was said to have claimed he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, too). I posted those and more in the thread; this has gone so back and forth and around, I thought the new developments deserved a new thread. JMHO.

1KIKI

Thursday, March 29, 2012 4:07 AM

I'm completely satisfied that at least NOW it's getting an investigation.

I can see how Martin may have thought he was defending himself against danger. We'll never know what he was thinking though.

But the person who comes across as being a real doofus is Zimmerman.

This is the story I have in my head.

First of all Zimmerman saw a young black male in a hoodie and automatically assumed he was up to no good. B/c he was black, and male, in a hoodie, and he was WALKING, which is a VERY suspicious thing to do. And swelled with the unearned self-confidence of the untrained and untested, he figured that he, Zimmerman, with his trusty gun, was just the person to save the neighborhood from the lurking menace. Only when it came to it, he was overmatched. He started something and found he was in over his head. So he shot his way out of a jam.

The right-wing media is spreading the gossip manure. Zimmerman is such a nice guy he went home and cried for hours. Martin was a troubled (black) punk so OF COURSE Zimmerman was right to be suspicious.

As I see it, there's only one problem with that. If what you think about what happened depends on the (supposed) personality of the players, then you are not thinking lawfully. If you can't substitute a 240 lb armed rapist for Zimmerman and a 160 pound athletic unarmed woman for Martin into the same sequence of events, and come up with the same questions, then you're thinking with bias. You're excusing, and justifying.

In any case, no one said Zimmerman is a cold blooded racist killer. And no one ever said that Martin was a boy scout. But the fact remains that Zimmerman shot an unarmed Martin, who was doing nothing worse than walking home with snacks. And that at least deserves an investigation.

NIKI2

Thursday, March 29, 2012 5:04 AM

Check the thread I put up about the new surveillance video of Zimmerman arriving at the police station. Again and again his attorney has said he got a "gash" at the back of the head because Martin slammed his head "repeatedly" into the sidewalk...a gash his attorney said probably would have required stitches. The video shows Zimmerman quite clearly, especially the back of his head, which shows no injury at all. The video, as contrasted to what his attorney has claimed (which can only be what Zimmerman told HIM) says a lot, to me.

M52NICKERSON

Thursday, March 29, 2012 11:50 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

Of course the prosicutions cherry picks evidence, just as the defence does, both sides are trying to lead the jury. Yes, Judges can overrule juries, in civil cases. The Jury may feel sorry for one side and go against the letter of the law.

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...

Fremfirma in the future you can spare me your personal antodotes. I think you are so bias against athority that you will see and hear what your expect no matter what is said.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:20 PM

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.

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.

Case in point: Executive Orders able to bypass and ignore Congressional Approval.

Case in point: Congresses ability to ignore the results of a lawful election.
(See Also: Victor L Berger)

Case in point: Judicial ability to ignore a jury verdict.

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.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

STORYMARK

Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:43 PM

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.

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!

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:52 PM

"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"

NIKI2

Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:21 PM

Quote:
Silly, silly, stupid rat creature.

Oh, let's DO remember that one next time someone stands up for Wulf!

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:55 PM

*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-im
properly-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-judg
e-influence-story,0,4627042.story

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.

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 - 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.

The Demands of Cold Blood
http://www.themorningnews.org/article/the-demands-of-cold-blood?mid=53
5

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 bre

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

M52NICKERSON

Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

And I think you're being lazy and disingenuous.

Okay. So I'm being lazy by really looking at things and trying to understand them, and not throwing my hands up and saying that the whole system is against me so there is no a fucking thing I can do about it.

HA!

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.

Yes, because it is so much easier to blame everyone than just a few people, got it. See the easy way is blaming the system and thinking that everyone in it is somehow in on something. Sorry, that is not reality. There are people who will try and do good and others who will not. Those are the people who make up the system.

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.

This will be good....

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Case in point: Executive Orders able to bypass and ignore Congressional Approval.

Which are also not law! Did you somehow miss that part? Many Executive Orders merely direct how certain government agencies will run. Congress was never meant to run agencies. Congress can limit their power with legislation that is your check.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Case in point: Congresses ability to ignore the results of a lawful election.
(See Also: Victor L Berger)

Yes they do. A group of elected official have the power not to seat someone if they feel that person should not be there. That is in the constitution. That in it self is a check of power. In this case it is a check that ensures communities can't place certain types of people in Washington. They have only done it a handful of times.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Case in point: Judicial ability to ignore a jury verdict.

In civil trials, and most of the time it is done it is clearly moving the verdict to within the law. Juries are made up of people and as such can make mistakes.

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.

The problem is that they are not using the checks as you want them to. The checks are there, and they will work. The issue it that you have such a hate for any type of authority that you see all of them as corrupt. I don't think I have heard you talk about anything without some type of conspiracy being attached to it.

You may not serve the Blind God, but your whole outlook has made you bind yourself.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

STORYMARK

Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:27 PM

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"

Equating yourself to Gods now - and here I thought you couldn't be any more of an idiot jackass.

And yet, you sure showed me.

Spoon!

M52NICKERSON

Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:36 PM

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-im
properly-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-judg
e-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 thi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:08 PM

"ETA; Wulf ? Stop smokin dope, it makes you even stupider than you already are..."

Learn to take a compliment you angry crip.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE