Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on June 26, 2013, 09:49:57 AM
-
Haven't seen anything about this, so I will link several pertinent pages.
The Backwards Trial: A George Zimmerman Prosecution Primer
The bizarre trial, in which the prosecution must impeach the police investigation, begins.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-backwards-trial-a-george-zimmerman-prosecution-primer/?singlepage=true
The shooting of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, was an unremarkable event — similar self-defense related shootings occur regularly. In virtually all of those cases, the local police do their work, local prosecutors review it, charges are filed or declined, and only local communities are aware of or care about it. Whereas the Trayvon Martin case is an anomaly that reverses all of the conventions and behaviors normally present in the criminal justice system.
....
As the trial begins, the defense will rely on the police and their investigation — on the facts — and the law. Expect them to move for dismissal at the beginning of the trial, and multiple times during the trial. In an unbiased court, this case would never have been filed. No rational judge would have issued an arrest warrant based on such a badly flawed and inadequate affidavit, and no professional judge would have allowed it to continue.
Zimmerman’s self-defense argument is supported by all the evidence and is not contradicted by any competent evidence. The prosecutor will be put in the unenviable position of arguing against the police, the evidence, and the law. Their case is the narrative, a provably false tale of race and hatred grounded only in a desire to inflame racial passions.
Goes into the primary actors: The Scheme Team, prosecution, defense media, Deedee.
The author is rather incredulous that such an incident would get national coverage or go to trial, given the facts.
Prosecutors admit Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend lied under oath
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/06/prosecutors-admit-trayvon-martins-girlfriend-lied-under-oath/
The murder case against half-Latino neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman was dealt a devastating blow Tuesday, when prosecutors acknowledged that their star witness, the 19-year old former girlfriend of the late Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, lied under oath.
The woman, who also told police she was on the phone with Martin shortly before his death, falsely testified that she was in the hospital on the day of Martin’s funeral — perhaps to garner sympathy.
“In fact, she lied,” defense attorney Don West said. Prosecutors also acknowledged her lie, but were reportedly vague about whether they would charge the woman with perjury.
This is the Deedee above. She or the prosecution also initially lied about her age to shield her from scrutiny (privacy laws WRT minors).
Zimmerman Trial Day 2 – Analysis of State’s Witnesses
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-2-analysis-of-states-witnesses/
Today can only be characterized as an utter debacle for the prosecution in Florida v. Zimmerman. Besides the testimony of a couple of highly professional law enforcement witnesses, the testimony of the the other State witnesses ranged from signing George Zimmerman’s praises, to acknowledging the utility of following a suspicious person from a distance, to being utterly discredited by razor sharp cross-examination of the defense.
Read some of the summaries of the witnesses. The prosecution looks like it is trying to say that GZ was a model citizen and neighborhood watch participant who just snapped in rage. Very odd.
-
I'm not following too closely but I do note that Zimmerman is halfway up the gallows according to all the standard media.
-
A neighbor heard "Martin screaming" but also hear multiple shots fired ;/ :facepalm:
-
A neighbor heard "Martin screaming" but also hear multiple shots fired ;/ :facepalm:
I liked that. "It sounded like a boy screaming, to me." Hmm... odd. Especially since a 17 year old male is just as likely to sound like a "boy" as a 30+ year old...
-
Who shouts "help me" in a deep, throaty male voice?
-
Who shouts "help me" in a deep, throaty male voice?
Chuck Norris would, but he never needs help. =D
-
I'm not following too closely but I do note that Zimmerman is halfway up the gallows according to all the standard media.
His problem is the phone call he made which essentially outlines the crime, not the media.
Again, good self-defense advice is to be had here: if someone is trying to avoid you, don't chase them and force a confrontation while armed. You WILL end up facing consequences for it.
-
If I remember correctly, the judge and jury are all women. Is he going to get a fair trial? I highly doubt that could be called an impartial jury.
-
I'm not following too closely but I do note that Zimmerman is halfway up the gallows according to all the standard media.
So was Casey Anthony. The media doesn't have a great track record.
-
If I remember correctly, the judge and jury are all women. Is he going to get a fair trial? I highly doubt that could be called an impartial jury.
That's what I heard and it makes me very dishearted by the jury selecetion process in this country.
=|
-
His problem is the phone call he made which essentially outlines the crime, not the media.
Again, good self-defense advice is to be had here: if someone is trying to avoid you, don't chase them and force a confrontation while armed. You WILL end up facing consequences for it.
A-S-S-U-M-P-T-I-O-N-S
-
A-S-S-U-M-P-T-I-O-N-S
?? What's the assumption there? That Zimmerman followed someone running away (he said that on tape - a witness at his trial today testified that the victim was on the phone saying he was trying to lose him), or that doing so before a lethal confrontation will land you in court?
Say what you will about Zimmerman, I guarantee you that pursuing a running person and ending in a shooting (no matter what happens in between) will land you in the hot seat.
-
?? What's the assumption there? That Zimmerman followed someone running away (he said that on tape - a witness at his trial today testified that the victim was on the phone saying he was trying to lose him), or that doing so before a lethal confrontation will land you in court?
Say what you will about Zimmerman, I guarantee you that pursuing a running person and ending in a shooting (no matter what happens in between) will land you in the hot seat.
Ah, and, as per usual, you change your terms when called out.
"Followed someone running away.... before a lethal confrontation" is what actually happened.
"Chase them and force a confrontation" is your ASSUMPTION. It's also a nice way of putting responsibility for the confrontation on the person you wish to see hanged without evidence that he initiated the confrontation. Say that it doesn't matter who initiated the confrontation, HE FORCED IT!
It's a very clever switch. Quite lawyerly.
-
Ah, and, as per usual, you change your terms when called out.
"Followed someone running away.... before a lethal confrontation" is what actually happened.
"Chase them and force a confrontation" is your ASSUMPTION. It's also a nice way of putting responsibility for the confrontation on the person you wish to see hanged without evidence that he initiated the confrontation. Say that it doesn't matter who initiated the confrontation, HE FORCED IT!
It's a very clever switch. Quite lawyerly.
Uh, the shootee was running away from Zimmerman by his own account - so in what universe was Zimmerman not forcing a confrontation by pursuing him??? If someone is trying to get away from you, and you insist on getting closer, that's forcing a confrontation...and if you try to pretend otherwise, the jury is only likely to be harder on you.
Like I've said before in these threads, if you doubt me, find yourself a local attorney and give the zimmerman facts to him - see if he'd be willing to say you're within your rights to go after someone who ran away from you, and still be in a position to use lethal force.
-
Uh, the shootee was running away from Zimmerman by his own account - so in what universe was Zimmerman not forcing a confrontation by pursuing him??? If someone is trying to get away from you, and you insist on getting closer, that's forcing a confrontation...and if you try to pretend otherwise, the jury is only likely to be harder on you.
Like I've said before in these threads, if you doubt me, find yourself a local attorney and give the zimmerman facts to him - see if he'd be willing to say you're within your rights to go after someone who ran away from you, and still be in a position to use lethal force.
"Forcing a confrontation" is an interesting term. Quite different from "initiating a confrontation" which is where the issue should be decided. "Forcing a confrontation" is left up to interpretation, precisely the way lawyers like it.
So, if you see someone committing a crime, are you "forcing a confrontation" by observing them? They might not like it and come after you. You "forced" that confrontation by observing them and being in a position to report on them.
-
Uh, the shootee was running away from Zimmerman by his own account - so in what universe was Zimmerman not forcing a confrontation by pursuing him??? If someone is trying to get away from you, and you insist on getting closer, that's forcing a confrontation...and if you try to pretend otherwise, the jury is only likely to be harder on you.
Like I've said before in these threads, if you doubt me, find yourself a local attorney and give the zimmerman facts to him - see if he'd be willing to say you're within your rights to go after someone who ran away from you, and still be in a position to use lethal force.
?? What's the assumption there? That Zimmerman followed someone running away (he said that on tape - a witness at his trial today testified that the victim was on the phone saying he was trying to lose him), or that doing so before a lethal confrontation will land you in court?
Say what you will about Zimmerman, I guarantee you that pursuing a running person and ending in a shooting (no matter what happens in between) will land you in the hot seat.
Yeah... Except he wasn't in the hot seat. The police cleared him.
Getting involved in a national media circus is what landed him in a hot seat.
-
Uh, the shootee was running away from Zimmerman by his own account - so in what universe was Zimmerman not forcing a confrontation by pursuing him??? If someone is trying to get away from you, and you insist on getting closer, that's forcing a confrontation...and if you try to pretend otherwise, the jury is only likely to be harder on you.
Like I've said before in these threads, if you doubt me, find yourself a local attorney and give the zimmerman facts to him - see if he'd be willing to say you're within your rights to go after someone who ran away from you, and still be in a position to use lethal force.
De Selby has been championing an interpretation of events that hangs Zimmerman from day 1. No point in arguing with someone who refuses meaningful discussion.
-
Uh, the shootee was running away from Zimmerman by his own account - so in what universe was Zimmerman not forcing a confrontation by pursuing him??? If someone is trying to get away from you, and you insist on getting closer, that's forcing a confrontation...and if you try to pretend otherwise, the jury is only likely to be harder on you.
If Zimmerman was attempting to do as he claimed, namely observing from a distance and reporting events to police, then he was neither forcing a confrontation nor pursuing (which has a connotation of attempting to catch). Nor is observing from a distance illegal, unethical, immoral or imprudent. In fact, doing so is encouraged by police departments everywhere.
If, however, Zimmerman actually forced a confrontation, pursued Martin with the intent of catching him or if he initiated any sort of physical contact - not the extremely loose De Selby interpretation that comes close to equating getting out of bed in the morning and simple assault, but in the actual definitions of each of those phrases - then he may bear some responsibility.
-
If Zimmerman was attempting to do as he claimed, namely observing from a distance and reporting events to police, then he was neither forcing a confrontation nor pursuing (which has a connotation of attempting to catch). Nor is observing from a distance illegal, unethical, immoral or imprudent. In fact, doing so is encouraged by police departments everywhere.
If, however, Zimmerman actually forced a confrontation, pursued Martin with the intent of catching him or if he initiated any sort of physical contact - not the extremely loose De Selby interpretation that comes close to equating getting out of bed in the morning and simple assault, but in the actual definitions of each of those phrases - then he may bear some responsibility.
This. If he followed at a distance and did not initiate hostile conversation, he's in the clear. If he did cause a confrontation or other hostile actions, he's in the wrong. The level of which is obviously a matter for the courts, but he's in the wrong.
It'll be very hard to find a good impartial jury for this case, I'll say that much.
Uh, the shootee was running away from Zimmerman by his own account - so in what universe was Zimmerman not forcing a confrontation by pursuing him??? If someone is trying to get away from you, and you insist on getting closer, that's forcing a confrontation...and if you try to pretend otherwise, the jury is only likely to be harder on you.
Like I've said before in these threads, if you doubt me, find yourself a local attorney and give the zimmerman facts to him - see if he'd be willing to say you're within your rights to go after someone who ran away from you, and still be in a position to use lethal force.
Not necessarily. Following at a distance is not ipso facto confrontation. Smart or not, it's not directly confrontation if the person following is legally allowed to do so. (ie no restraining orders, public property, or any property which the following person is legally allowed to be on, etc)
Plenty of legal activities are stupid ideas.
-
Zimmerman had not directly confronted Martin at the end of his 911 call. (Q: How often does someone contemplating murder call 911 first?)
Once the 911 call ended, we have no actual evidence of what was happening until an uninvolved eyewitness saw Martin beating the snot out of Zimmerman - a beating that only ended with a single gunshot. Zimmerman's story - admittedly uncorroborated - is that he was returning to his car when Martin circled around and attacked him. Local, state, and Federal law enforcement haven't been able to punch a hole in this story. Unless you think a doofus like Zimmerman is actually a genius criminal mastermind who can fabricate a consistent story that holds up to that level of scrutiny while suffering from a bloody head and nose (not to mention the adrenaline dump of being involved in a shooting), maybe he's telling the truth.
There's lots of inference, speculation, politics, and downright wishful thinking surrounding this case, but given the absence of actual, hard evidence (eyewitnesses, security cam footage, forensics, etc.) contradicting Zimmerman's story, there seems to be an abundance of reasonable doubt in regard to the charges.
-
If you watch the video where he walks through the scene with police it's all very plausible.
-
If you watch the video where he walks through the scene with police it's all very plausible.
Apparently the police thought so too.
-
Apparently the police thought so too.
As well as the DA.
-
This. If he followed at a distance and did not initiate hostile conversation, he's in the clear. If he did cause a confrontation or other hostile actions, he's in the wrong. The level of which is obviously a matter for the courts, but he's in the wrong.
It'll be very hard to find a good impartial jury for this case, I'll say that much.
Not necessarily. Following at a distance is not ipso facto confrontation. Smart or not, it's not directly confrontation if the person following is legally allowed to do so. (ie no restraining orders, public property, or any property which the following person is legally allowed to be on, etc)
Plenty of legal activities are stupid ideas.
Even if, let's say for the sake of argument, he chased Martin. Unless he physically put his hands on Martin first and tried to detain him or assault him, Martin never had a right to put hands on Zimmerman.
Period.
And that right there is where De Selby's argument falls flat.
-
As well as the DA.
You don't think the prosecution of Zimmerman is politically motivated?
-
Even if, let's say for the sake of argument, he chased Martin. Unless he physically put his hands on Martin first and tried to detain him or assault him, Martin never had a right to put hands on Zimmerman.
Period.
And that right there is where De Selby's argument falls flat.
This.
I can follow a suspicious person any damned place I want in my neighborhood. If that person has a legal right to set feet on the ground, then so do I.
The fault starts with whomever initiates the fisticuffs.
-
Listen. A white guy killed a black guy. It's a hate crime. String zimmerman up and be done with it.
-
You don't think the prosecution of Zimmerman is politically motivated?
Of course I do. I meant the original, local, appropriate DA, not the political hacks now persecuting him. (Not a typo.)
-
Listen. A Hispanic white guy killed a black guy. It's a hate crime. String zimmerman up and be done with it.
FIFY.
Why don't I see "Hispanic white" on the selection of checkboxes for race on the census forms? Could it be that the media just made up the term so they could have a "white guy kills black kid" story?
Nah. They wouldn't do that.
-
FIFY.
Why don't I see "Hispanic white" on the selection of checkboxes for race on the census forms? Could it be that the media just made up the term so they could have a "white guy kills black kid" story?
Nah. They wouldn't do that.
Negative.
You see, "hispanic" is white if the victim is black.
The only time hispanic isn't white is when a hispanic is killed by someone white.
Don't you know anything?
-
basically, hispanic is white unless it isn't, in which case it isn't.
Clear now?
-
Negative.
You see, "hispanic" is white if the victim is black.
The only time hispanic isn't white is when a hispanic is killed by someone white.
Don't you know anything?
Right. Come on, Dick. Get with the programming.
-
Uh, the shootee was running away from Zimmerman by his own account - so in what universe was Zimmerman not forcing a confrontation by pursuing him??? If someone is trying to get away from you, and you insist on getting closer, that's forcing a confrontation...and if you try to pretend otherwise, the jury is only likely to be harder on you.
Like I've said before in these threads, if you doubt me, find yourself a local attorney and give the zimmerman facts to him - see if he'd be willing to say you're within your rights to go after someone who ran away from you, and still be in a position to use lethal force.
Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin by the 911 operator and was returning to his car when Trayvon Martin confronted him. At some point the dynamic you mention reversed itself. And Martin had no more right to chase down Zimmerman than Zimmerman had to go after Martin.
I have heard claims that Martin was scared and was defending himself when he confronted Zimmerman. Right. Except he had a cellphone and should have, by this reasoning, called the police rather than acted as a "vigilante" -- which is what the media seem to want to zing Zimmerman for.
This whole thing has devolved into a media driven cluster****.
You know, I have family friends who are lawyers....I should at the nest get-together do as you suggest and provide them with the ..."facts" and ask them.
Uh, once we actually figure out JUST WHAT THOSE FACTS ARE.....that is. [tinfoil] :facepalm: ??? :lol:
-
Yeah... Except he wasn't in the hot seat. The police cleared him.
Getting involved in a national media circus is what landed him in a hot seat.
Apparently the police thought so too.
As well as the DA.
The railroading DA and his folks have the task of arguing against the facts unearthed and examined by the police and local DA.
-
You guys aren't keeping up.
"White Hispanic" was dropped a bit ago as people began to mock how blatant an attempt to continue the "white vigilante / black schoolboy" narrative it was.
If you read closely Zimmerman now "self-identifies as Hispanic." See, the press wasn't misidentifying him, he's simply been "acting brown" to confuse the issue this whole time.
Fun fact, I believe he's 1/8 black (don't think it's African-American origin). Plessy of "separate but equal" Plessy v Ferguson was 1/8 black as well.
Just 50 odd years ago neither Martin nor Zimmerman would likely have been welcome in that neighborhood. But now we've evolved to where even an octoroon can be in such a position of white privilege and power that he can actually be racist in the critical theory sense.
-
Zimmerman would have had a better chance if he'd taken his defense fund money & pulled a Snowden....he's a dead man walking now....
-
his chances are better than some think
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/busted-teen-witness-george-zimmerman-trial-cant-re/
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/we-going-hell-smoke-sunday-twitter-account-scrubbe/
great witness
-
his chances are better than some think
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/busted-teen-witness-george-zimmerman-trial-cant-re/
Indeed, after seeing some of the youtubage and reading some of the reports. Seemed like every state witness had a poison pill for the state. And this Jeantel "star witness"...WTH?
Were I of the tinfoil persuasion, I might think that the prosecution is throwing the case on purpose or it will be used as a rallying cry to get the Dem base riled up for 2014.
How is the MSM covering it? Are they showing what a horrorshow the prosecution's case has become? Or will the acquittal come as a surprise to the low-information voter crowd?
I do wonder about jury deliberation hysterics, though. I think that the prosecution's best bet and wonder if they did some polling beforehand to see what demographics would be most likely to prosecute.
-
Indeed, after seeing some of the youtubage and reading some of the reports. Seemed like every state witness had a poison pill for the state. And this Jeantel "star witness"...WTH?
Were I of the tinfoil persuasion, I might think that the prosecution is throwing the case on purpose or it will be used as a rallying cry to get the Dem base riled up for 2014.
How is the MSM covering it? Are they showing what a horrorshow the prosecution's case has become? Or will the acquittal come as a surprise to the low-information voter crowd?
I do wonder about jury deliberation hysterics, though. I think that the prosecution's best bet and wonder if they did some polling beforehand to see what demographics would be most likely to prosecute.
Everything I've seen has been in this bent. I imagine that an acquittal will result in wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments by the usual suspects who make money from screams of racism.
-
I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that 'hispanic' vs 'white' is determined by if engrish is the first language or not. FWIW, the US government pretty much says that anyone in the western hemisphere that isn't from Canada, the US, Iceland, or Greenland is hispanic.
A good friend of mine's family came from South America a generation ago- he can claim he's hispanic even though he's a heck of a lot whiter and much closer to European descent than I am. :rofl:
-
Wonder if we'll see Rodney King-esque riots if the white Hispanic gets acquitted?
-
Wonder if we'll see Rodney King-esque riots if the white Hispanic gets acquitted?
Look on the bright side: the burning, beating, and looting would be mostly contained in the rioters' neighborhoods, those that aren't are not going to be well received by people who have been stockpiling guns and ammo for the last year in case of such event, the third option is that the rioting spills into lefty enclaves where guns are forbidden.
All of this would happen on Obama's The Messiah's watch.
Win.Win.Win.
-
Wonder if we'll see Rodney King-esque riots if the white Hispanic gets acquitted?
I hope so. The more people get to see the better.
-
Wonder if we'll see Rodney King-esque riots if the white Hispanic gets acquitted?
I'd almost guarantee it. And the race baiters will be fanning the flames the whole way. POTUS probably chief among them.
-
I'm betting against serious riots. Anyone willing to take my bet?
-
What stakes?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
I'm betting against serious riots. Anyone willing to take my bet?
We would have to define terms.
-
burning? death toll?
-
The Nooz has been pushing Zimmerman as a Caucasian from day one. They still are.
I vote riots if acquitted. Serious riots, spreading within a day or two from Florida to NY, LA, Houston, Atlanta, and probably a few other places. Let's just say, I'll be keeping a rifle in the truck from the moment the jury is sent to deliberation to about 3 days after the verdict is read.
-
I vote for riots as well.
http://twitchy.com/2013/06/27/ima-kill-me-a-cracka-death-threats-against-george-zimmerman-random-white-people-explode-during-trial/ (http://twitchy.com/2013/06/27/ima-kill-me-a-cracka-death-threats-against-george-zimmerman-random-white-people-explode-during-trial/)
-
Couple of points I'd like to bring up, from the perspective of someone who sat in that prosecution chair for a long time...
1. You don't get to choose your witnesses in a prosecution. Yes, you may choose which ones testify, but sometimes, you are just plain stuck with the losers who saw things happen. As I was once told, the sins of the devils are rarely witnessed by angels. You have to put devils on the stand sometimes...
2. Jurors cannot be excluded or chosen on the basis of gender or race. That it's an all-female jury means that they were the first six that were not excluded for other reasons. In a media circus like this, I'm sure that the judge made each side explain the basis for its peremptory challenges, to make sure there were no racial/gender issues.
3. The charge is homicide, not murder. Don't know Florida law well, but murder in Ohio means with premeditation. Homicide would cover a situation like this, and basically means that the shooter wrongfully took the life of the other. preplanning and such is irrelevent to this case. Rightfully so.
4. One point that seems to be getting lost in all of this is that the law of self-defense requires that the shooter (I'll use that term because we are all shooters) not be at fault for creating the situation. And I believe that this is where Zimmerman may find himself in deep. He was told not to follow. He did follow. A confrontation occurred. Martin was shot and killed. A jury could conclude that Zimmerman is at fault for creating the situation by following Martin, which would mean that the self-defense argument is gone. I think it's important for all of us to consider as armed citizens that DeSelby has a valid point. If you leave a position of safety and pursue someone, you are going to find yourself under much more scrutiny if you have to shoot in self-defense than if you sit in that safe spot and call it in. We're not cops. We're not armed to protect ourselves while we investigate/pursue/follow/etc. We are armed to protect ourselves and our families. When you start to cross that line, you will start to feel the heat.
-
Couple of points I'd like to bring up, from the perspective of someone who sat in that prosecution chair for a long time...
1. You don't get to choose your witnesses in a prosecution. Yes, you may choose which ones testify, but sometimes, you are just plain stuck with the losers who saw things happen. As I was once told, the sins of the devils are rarely witnessed by angels. You have to put devils on the stand sometimes...
2. Jurors cannot be excluded or chosen on the basis of gender or race. That it's an all-female jury means that they were the first six that were not excluded for other reasons. In a media circus like this, I'm sure that the judge made each side explain the basis for its peremptory challenges, to make sure there were no racial/gender issues.
3. The charge is homicide, not murder. Don't know Florida law well, but murder in Ohio means with premeditation. Homicide would cover a situation like this, and basically means that the shooter wrongfully took the life of the other. preplanning and such is irrelevent to this case. Rightfully so.
4. One point that seems to be getting lost in all of this is that the law of self-defense requires that the shooter (I'll use that term because we are all shooters) not be at fault for creating the situation. And I believe that this is where Zimmerman may find himself in deep. He was told not to follow. He did follow. A confrontation occurred. Martin was shot and killed. A jury could conclude that Zimmerman is at fault for creating the situation by following Martin, which would mean that the self-defense argument is gone. I think it's important for all of us to consider as armed citizens that DeSelby has a valid point. If you leave a position of safety and pursue someone, you are going to find yourself under much more scrutiny if you have to shoot in self-defense than if you sit in that safe spot and call it in. We're not cops. We're not armed to protect ourselves while we investigate/pursue/follow/etc. We are armed to protect ourselves and our families. When you start to cross that line, you will start to feel the heat.
Your last point is unproven and out of order. Zimmerman was following. He was then told "we don't NEED you to do that". You are interpreting the events.
Further, we have no proof that AFTER being told "we don't need you to do that" (your "told not to follow) that he continued to follow.
I have no issue with "much more scrutin.y" I have an issue with "The police applied scrutiny, the DA applied scrutiny and, well, we don't like what they came up with so we're going to apply an even lower standard and charge him with murder.1"
1: Yes, it's murder, not "homicide": http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/11/11147895-second-degree-murder-charge-against-george-zimmerman-in-trayvon-martin-shooting-surprises-legal-experts
-
The Nooz has been pushing Zimmerman as a Caucasian from day one. They still are.
I vote riots if acquitted. Serious riots, spreading within a day or two from Florida to NY, LA, Houston, Atlanta, and probably a few other places. Let's just say, I'll be keeping a rifle in the truck from the moment the jury is sent to deliberation to about 3 days after the verdict is read.
Maybe even in the smaller towns too.
-
. . . And I believe that this is where Zimmerman may find himself in deep. He was told not to follow. He did follow. . . .
When told not to follow, Zimmerman said "OK" . . . that implies agreement and compliance. The rest of the 911 call transcript consists of Zimmerman identifying himself, talking about where he wanted to meet with police, his phone number, etc. It's not clear to me from the rest of the transcript that Zimmerman continued to follow after being told "we don't need you to do that" by the dispatcher.
(One lesson to take from this: If I'm EVER on a neighborhood watch and see someone/something suspicious, I'm going to keep my distance, stay in my car, and make darned sure that's what the recording of my 911 call will make clear!)
And if Zimmerman is acquitted, I expect riots in some places, which will probably sputter out quickly when Holder's justice department comes after Zimmerman for violating the civil rights of the delinquent druggie who was beating on him.
-
4. One point that seems to be getting lost in all of this is that the law of self-defense requires that the shooter (I'll use that term because we are all shooters) not be at fault for creating the situation. And I believe that this is where Zimmerman may find himself in deep. He was told not to follow. He did follow. A confrontation occurred. Martin was shot and killed. A jury could conclude that Zimmerman is at fault for creating the situation by following Martin, which would mean that the self-defense argument is gone. I think it's important for all of us to consider as armed citizens that DeSelby has a valid point. If you leave a position of safety and pursue someone, you are going to find yourself under much more scrutiny if you have to shoot in self-defense than if you sit in that safe spot and call it in. We're not cops. We're not armed to protect ourselves while we investigate/pursue/follow/etc. We are armed to protect ourselves and our families. When you start to cross that line, you will start to feel the heat.
Alan Dershowitz was on the Geraldo radio program this morning and explained that this is wrong, and it is the most misreported "aspect" of the case. In fact he specifically researched Florida law with regards to this point.
Dershowits vs. DeSelby
[popcorn] [popcorn] [popcorn] [popcorn] [popcorn]
:rofl:
That I gotta see...........
but I think I'll put my vote in Dershowitz's favor.
Plus Zimmerman was told "we don't need you to do that" (regarding following Martin) by the 911 operator, but this has no legal authority.
Another point with regard to this; one iteration of the events* Zimmerman IS breaking off the matter and returning to his car, in response to the 911 operator's statement, and it is during this period that Trayvon Martin intercedes and pounces on Zimmerman.
If that is true IMHO I think Zimmerman's self-defense claim remains pretty secure.
*I use this term because IMO this event has been so misreported by both guil and incompetence I cannot be sure exactly what the real timeline of facts is. I am just offering an alternative theory to the above, not necessarily endorsing it.
-
First, I apologize. I'm an Ohio lawyer, so I used Ohio terminology. Didn't realize that he was charged with "Murder" and Florida law included "depraved indifference" in their murder statute.
Second, HankB gets the point I'm trying to make. I'm not arguing that because Zimmerman followed he should be convicted. I'm arguing that because Zimmerman followed he may be convicted, and that is the lesson we should all take from this. I don't believe that it matters that Zimmerman was told to stop. What I am concerned about as an armed citizen is that the jury will be in a position of judging the self-defense claim, and a key component of that is who was at fault for creating the situation. If the jury concludes that Zimmermen was at fault, because he followed Martin, and this created the situation, Zimmermen loses.
HankB said it perfect...
"One lesson to take from this: If I'm EVER on a neighborhood watch and see someone/something suspicious, I'm going to keep my distance, stay in my car, and make darned sure that's what the recording of my 911 call will make clear!"
As for rioting if an acquittal occurs, I believe it is probable in Florida, and possible in large metro areas.
-
@TommyGunn...Don't know what Dershowitz said, but I'll explain it as it was explained to me. Once upon a time, there was a burglary at a home, and the intruder shot and killed the home owner. The intruder was charged with murder. At trial, the intruder claimed self-defense, because the home owner fired on him, and the intruder was reasonably in fear for his life. The court ruled in the common law, that a person may not claim self-defense if he is at fault for creating the situation which led to the use of deadly force. In other words, you can't break into someone's home and claim self-defense when you kill the homeowner in the resulting gunfight.
Again, I'm not saying that Zimmerman should hang because he followed Martin. I'm saying that the act of following Martin was not only tactially bad, but legally bad, in that it put the question of who created the situation in front of the jury. As armed citizens, that is a key lesson to keep in mind.
-
@TommyGunn...Don't know what Dershowitz said, but I'll explain it as it was explained to me. Once upon a time, there was a burglary at a home, and the intruder shot and killed the home owner. The intruder was charged with murder. At trial, the intruder claimed self-defense, because the home owner fired on him, and the intruder was reasonably in fear for his life. The court ruled in the common law, that a person may not claim self-defense if he is at fault for creating the situation which led to the use of deadly force. In other words, you can't break into someone's home and claim self-defense when you kill the homeowner in the resulting gunfight.
Well, I'm not a lawyer myself. IMO I would regard that to be the concept of the "righteous shooting." That is a person commiting a crime cannot claim self defense. If you rob a bank, shoot the teller and a guard, and run out the front and the local SWAT team engages you, you may very well fear that they will shoot you. But that doesn't mean you have a legal right to shoot at them; you don't. In fact the SWAT guys may very well have the legal right on their side if they perceive a threat to themselves.
Again, I'm not saying that Zimmerman should hang because he followed Martin. I'm saying that the act of following Martin was not only tactially bad, but legally bad, in that it put the question of who created the situation in front of the jury. As armed citizens, that is a key lesson to keep in mind.
I get that.
But if Zommerman did turn around when the 911 op told him to I can't regard that as all that bad. It seems to me that if that's true it is even evidence that Zimerman did NOT wish to go outside propriety or become a vigilante, or whatever.
I don't know how this trial is going to turn out myself. I think Zimmerman should be found "not guilty" but that's only because I think that the scenario I outlined above is likely true -- BUT I COULD BE WRONG.
What the jury thinks.....dunno. I even wonder if they could find Zimmerman guilty and throw him to the wolves just to avoid societal unrest or even attacks against them ...
We shall see what happens.
As armed citizens, that is a key lesson to keep in mind.
Absolutly. After Zimmerman there's NO WAY I'm gonna follow anyone around and hopefully I will have the presence of mind not even to allow an action that could cause others to interpret my actions in that light.
-
The Nooz has been pushing Zimmerman as a Caucasian from day one. They still are.
I vote riots if acquitted. Serious riots, spreading within a day or two from Florida to NY, LA, Houston, Atlanta, and probably a few other places. Let's just say, I'll be keeping a rifle in the truck from the moment the jury is sent to deliberation to about 3 days after the verdict is read.
Gee, thanks for pegging my paranoia-o-meter. Or is it thanks for reminding me of my folding stock shotgun ensemble?
Either way, I will do the same with my Rem870.
-
But if Zommerman did turn around when the 911 op told him to I can't regard that as all that bad. It seems to me that if that's true it is even evidence that Zimerman did NOT wish to go outside propriety or become a vigilante, or whatever.
I don't know how this trial is going to turn out myself.
I agree that is key. My concern is that the truth on that issue could get lost in all of the other crap. And that is probably my biggest worry about being involved in a deadly force situation outsde of my home. The "facts" of what happened are going to be dependent on how others percieve the circumstances, and I'll be at the mercy of their judgments. What was I doing at the grocery store at midnight? Why was I carrying a handgun? Everything I do from right before the incident starts to its conclusion will be judged, first by the cops, then by a prosecutor, then maybe a grand jury or a jury.
What scares me the most about all of this Zimmerman case is that I have seen something I thought was suspicious, so I have gone to check out what was going on. There, but for the grace of God, go I...
-
Someone observed. How did a pudgy 30 year old catch a 17 year old.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
Someone observed. How did a pudgy 30 year old catch a 17 year old.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
On a related note: We've all seen the pictures on Zimmerman's injuries. What injuries did the autopsy indicate Martin sustained, beyond the obvious GSW?
-
On a related note: We've all seen the pictures on Zimmerman's injuries. What injuries did the autopsy indicate Martin sustained, beyond the obvious GSW?
Autopsy report:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf
Other than the GSW:
Other Injuries: There is a 1/4 x 1/8 inch small abrasion on the left fourth finger.
There is an illustration that identifies something on the right knuckles too.
-
Day Four:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-end-of-day-analysis-video-of-states-witnesses/
In general:
Once again, it was simply not a very good day at all for the prosecution. The primary State witnesses today were Rachel Jeantel, Jenna Lauer, and Selma Mora. The first had her credibility substantively destroyed, the second was powerfully–almost humiliatingly–co-opted by the defense, and the third provided testimony entirely consistent with the defense’s theory of lawful self-defense. There was also some (I expect temporary) hubbub that O’Mara may have inadvertently opened the door to allow the State to introduce evidence of specific prior bad acts by George Zimmerman, and I address that in detail, as well, below.
Jentel:
There were, of course, other issues with Jeantel’s testimony, but to my mind none of them are anywhere nearly as destructive to the credibility of that testimony than the extraordinarily coercive environment in which it was taken. As West himself put it to the court, this environment allowed the young and unsophisticated Jeantel to be led right down the path to what the several highly experienced and motivated questioners wanted her to say.
Long story short: Jentel said the version most damageing to Zimmerman (of the multiple versions) she gave under oath was a product of her biasing the story so as to soften the blow to Martin's mother, as she was interviewed by the DA while sitting next to the weeping mother and in the same room as the Martin's attorney.
Dear Lord in Heaven, what a train wreck of a witness.
Jenna Lauer, neighbor & earwitness:
On direct examination by de la Rionda, all of Lauer’s testimony was completely consistent with the defense’s theory of lawful self-defense, and to some degree even contrary to some of the State’s theory...
...
Things really got interesting when O’Mara started his cross-examination, however. On direct examination de la Rionda had revealed in questioning that Lauer, as a board member of the HOA, had known Zimmerman personally, if only slightly, because of his work with the Neighborhood Watch Program. At one point of the night of the shooting the police had asked Lauer if she would be willing to see if she could identify the man who had identified himself as the shooter.
Shockingly, she was unable to identify Zimmerman, because of the severity of his injuries. This powerful testimony obviously strongly supported the defense’s theory of the case that Zimmerman had been the subject of a brutal aggravated assault by Martin, against which he had necessarily used deadly force in self-defense. With that statement Lauer had struck a heavy blow against the State’s theory of the case, of an innocent young black boy ruthless murdered, and in favor of the theory of the defense.
...
O’Mara then asked a few questions that will undoubtedly–if incorrectly–become great overnight fodder for the legal pundits. He asked Lauer if in her personal interactions with Zimmerman he had acted appropriately. Yes, she answered. Did he appear to be a hot head? No. A wannabe vigilante? No. Did he seem to be a well-intentioned neighbor trying to help his community? Yes.
The DA used this as an opportunity to try and bring in Zimmerman's past history. May or may not be successful.
Don't miss the prosecutor covering himself in glory with his technical and social media prowess.
Part of Day 5:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-blockbuster-transcript-eyewitness-good-black-guy-in-black-hoodie-on-top-punching-down-mixed-martial-arts-style/
ZIMMERMAN TRIAL BLOCKBUSTER — TRANSCRIPT — Eyewitness Good: Black guy in black hoodie on top punching down Mixed Martial Arts style
The State seems to have suffered the most destructive of its own witnesses to date in calling John Good to the stand.Good was composed, coherent, and direct through his extensive testimony, the entirety of which was entirely consistent with the defense’s theory of lawful self-defense.
Indeed, as has become the pattern in this trial, the longer the State’s witness was in the stand, the more damage he did to the State’s theory of the case. The continually growing climax was realized at the very end of the testimony, when O’Mara held a copy of Good’s initial statement to then-lead Investigator Chris Serino (a transcript of is provided below):
O’Mara (defense lawyer): Just to clarify what was actually talked about with Chris Serino, Investigator Serino, during this, we’re going to call it for the moment the Ground-and-Pound conversation. We have a rule called completeness, so what I want to do is put it in context for you, ask you if this is what you said to Chris Serino. OK?
“Yeah I pretty much heard somebody yelling outside. I wasn’t sure if it was, you know, a fight or something going wrong. So I opened my blinds and I see kind of like a person out there. I didn’t know if it was a dog attack or something. So I open my door. It was a black man with a black hoodie on top of the other, either a white guy or now I found out I think it was a Hispanic guy with a red sweatshirt on the ground yelling out help! And I tried to tell them, get out of here, you know, stop or whatever, and then one guy on top in the black hoodie was pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”
Is that the context in which that happened?
Good: Yes.
O’Mara: And then Investigator Serino said, a word that I have, and the transcripts may differ, ground, couldn’t figure it, maybe he said Ground-and-Pound, and then you said:
“Yeah, like a Ground-and-Pound on the concrete at this point, so at this point I told him I’m calling 911.”
(back & forth between lawyercritters)
O’Mara: OK. And do you stand by that today, that what you saw is was a Ground-and-Pound event?
Good: It looked like that position was a Ground-and-Pound type of position, but I couldn’t tell 100% that there were actually fists hitting faces.
O’Mara: But you did see [reading] “the guy in the top in the black hoodie pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”
Good: Meaning arm motions going down on the person on the bottom. Correct.
O’Mara: You’re’ not going to tell the jury here today that you saw fists hit flesh or face if you didn’t actually see it, right?
Good: I wouldn’t tell them that anyway, because i didn’t actually see it.
O’Mara: Great, thanks very much , no further questions.
BDLR (prosecutor): Not to elaborate but the thing that Mr. O’Mara said from the transcript, the bottom line, you needed to clarify after that to make sure that everybody understood that you did not hear or see fists the guy on the top hitting the guy on the bottom.
This is a witness for the state?
-
@TommyGunn...Don't know what Dershowitz said, but I'll explain it as it was explained to me. Once upon a time, there was a burglary at a home, and the intruder shot and killed the home owner. The intruder was charged with murder. At trial, the intruder claimed self-defense, because the home owner fired on him, and the intruder was reasonably in fear for his life. The court ruled in the common law, that a person may not claim self-defense if he is at fault for creating the situation which led to the use of deadly force. In other words, you can't break into someone's home and claim self-defense when you kill the homeowner in the resulting gunfight.
Again, I'm not saying that Zimmerman should hang because he followed Martin. I'm saying that the act of following Martin was not only tactially bad, but legally bad, in that it put the question of who created the situation in front of the jury. As armed citizens, that is a key lesson to keep in mind.
Pretty big difference between breaking into someone's home and just walking around the neighborhood.
-
@TommyGunn...Don't know what Dershowitz said, but I'll explain it as it was explained to me. Once upon a time, there was a burglary at a home, and the intruder shot and killed the home owner. The intruder was charged with murder. At trial, the intruder claimed self-defense, because the home owner fired on him, and the intruder was reasonably in fear for his life. The court ruled in the common law, that a person may not claim self-defense if he is at fault for creating the situation which led to the use of deadly force. In other words, you can't break into someone's home and claim self-defense when you kill the homeowner in the resulting gunfight.
Again, I'm not saying that Zimmerman should hang because he followed Martin. I'm saying that the act of following Martin was not only tactially bad, but legally bad, in that it put the question of who created the situation in front of the jury. As armed citizens, that is a key lesson to keep in mind.
Which this line of thinking ends at the moment Martin put hands on Zimmerman.
Zimmerman' s story is that he was walking back to his car when Martin doubled back and started the altercation.
-
Zimmerman Defense Fund ... =|
http://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/index.php/updates-2/21-zimmerman-defense-fund-out-of-money
-
Pretty big difference between breaking into someone's home and just walking around the neighborhood.
I would agree there. Following someone is not at all equal to or even on the same planet as breaking and entering. It doesn't matter what a 911 dispatcher said.
I will grant that it doesn't matter what is right or what my opinion is. It only matter what the judgement is of the 6 jurors.
-
Which this line of thinking ends at the moment Martin put hands on Zimmerman.
Zimmerman' s story is that he was walking back to his car when Martin doubled back and started the altercation.
This is the order of events I had always seen. Zimmerman lost Martin and was returning to his car. At that point, the argument about "following" no longer has an validity.
-
What stakes?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
I will vote very simple:
There will not be 'riots in every major city' as people here suggested, lasting for multiple weeks, nothing like the LA Riots will occur.
However because it is impossible for me to guarantee there will not be any riots at all, I would like to forestall the possibility that somewhere in Florida someone will flip a car and people will go 'see, riot'.
I'm going to bet there won't even be massed car-burnings like in the Paris Riots.
-
^^^ I agree.
-
I suspect a couple idiots will be idiots if Zimmerman is acquited. But likely a lot less violent than say, the LAPD is towards pickups.
-
Someone observed. How did a pudgy 30 year old catch a 17 year old.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
If he was a typical 17 year old, he probably tripped over his pants when they fell down to his ankles.
-
I don't understand how following someone creates a situation where you would not be OK to defend yourself. Following someone is not against the law. Not smart of course.
The only way Zimmerman gets convicted is if they prove he started the fight. But the notion of a slightly pudgy somewhat out of shape man attacking someone taller and stronger than him strikes me as unlikely.
My personal theory is that Zimmerman came around a corner not expecting Trayvon to be so close, Trayvon was cooked on purple lean, go aggro and jumped him.
-
HankB said it perfect...
"One lesson to take from this: If I'm EVER on a neighborhood watch and see someone/something suspicious, I'm going to keep my distance, stay in my car, and make darned sure that's what the recording of my 911 call will make clear!"
That's the problem, isn't it? =|
-
That's the problem, isn't it? =|
The key fact here isn't going to see about the unknown - it's attempting to close with someone who is obviously trying to get away - that's what's created the most jeopardy for Zimmerman. The kid was (in Zimmerman's words) about to get away, and Zimmerman went to stop that.
If you're going to force someone to make contact with you who has made clear they don't want you near them, lethal force is off the table.
-
Not according to the phone evidence on both sides. There was more than a minute between Zimmerman losing sight of Martin and their re-encounter. During that time Zimmerman did not leave the path nor proceed further toward Martin's destination. Martin either stayed in the area or returned during that time, even the prosecution isn't alleging Zimmerman actually ran him down.
-
Not according to the phone evidence on both sides. There was more than a minute between Zimmerman losing sight of Martin and their re-encounter. During that time Zimmerman did not leave the path nor proceed further toward Martin's destination. Martin either stayed in the area or returned during that time, even the prosecution isn't alleging Zimmerman actually ran him down.
Except the witness who was on the phone with the victim says otherwise - not that it matters, as the entire confrontation happened far from Zimmerman's car and behind a row of houses where Zimmerman went to in order to follow the victim. Whether Trayvon Martin exacerbated the confrontation is a matter for sentencing - it'll certainly buy Zimmerman a few years back.
Like I said, in terms of self defense in any state, this set of facts WILL land you in hot water. Don't go chasing people who want to get away from you when armed. Going after people who aren't doing anything wrong makes it worse.
-
Except the witness who was on the phone with the victim says otherwise - not that it matters, as the entire confrontation happened far from Zimmerman's car and behind a row of houses where Zimmerman went to in order to follow the victim. Whether Trayvon Martin exacerbated the confrontation is a matter for sentencing - it'll certainly buy Zimmerman a few years back.
The same witness who has been caught in several lies, couldn't read the letter she supposedly wrote, and whose initial deposition took place in Martin's house with his mother sitting right beside her?
Yeah, no, her credibility is completely shot to *expletive deleted*.
-
The same witness who has been caught in several lies, couldn't read the letter she supposedly wrote, and whose initial deposition took place in Martin's house with his mother sitting right beside her?
Yeah, no, her credibility is completely shot to *expletive deleted*.
You can believe that if you like - lots of people are cheerleading the trial and would love for the witnesses to fit their views. I doubt strongly the jury will see it the same way.
-
You can believe that if you like - lots of people are cheerleading the trial and would love for the witnesses to fit their views.
You being the prime example.
There wasn't a single witness the state brought in that didn't end up being essentially a defense witness. They were either loopy and had basic, established and agreed upon facts wrong (such as the lady who testified that she heard three gunshots, when every other piece of evidence says there was only one, and the previously mentioned girlfriend), or essentially ended up supporting Zimmerman's case (such as the guy who testified that he saw the black guy in the dark hoodie on top of the white/hispanic guy doing an "MMA-style ground and pound", his words).
Only someone who has a SERIOUS bias in this case, or who has only caught the shitty national coverage of it, could think that the prosecution has come anywhere NEAR proving its case.
-
Regolith, if the facts were so clear, this would've been disposed of by a pre trial hearing. That the defense didn't even try to do that is instructive - it can only mean they had no chance whatsoever.
The investigating officer, two judges, and several DAs have seen facts supporting a case. Try this experiment if you think my analysis is off: contact an attorney you trust, and tell them that you're on the neighbourhood watch, and that sometimes you see people wandering the sidewalk in your neighbourhood who run away when you follow them slowly in your car. Ask this person what would happen if you ran after them and ended up shooting one - see what advice you get back.
-
Regolith, if the facts were so clear, this would've been disposed of by a pre trial hearing. That the defense didn't even try to do that is instructive - it can only mean they had no chance whatsoever.
The investigating officer, two judges, and several DAs have seen facts supporting a case. Try this experiment if you think my analysis is off: contact an attorney you trust, and tell them that you're on the neighbourhood watch, and that sometimes you see people wandering the sidewalk in your neighbourhood who run away when you follow them slowly in your car. Ask this person what would happen if you ran after them and ended up shooting one - see what advice you get back.
Have you even been following this case? Read any of the articles that Rooster has linked too? Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about, here. The trial has been going for several days, and all of this has come out during the trial. The prosecution has yet to rest, but I'm guessing that the defense is going to move to dismiss after they do, and if the judge has even a shred of integrity*, he'll grant the motion.
The state has to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman confronted and attacked Martin, and they have miserably, utterly, and pathetically failed to do so.
*it's quite possible he has none, or is too scared of the consequences of doing so, given that this trial has been a political lynching from start to finish.
ETA: also, I find the attitude that you're displaying here, that because the prosecution successfully brought this case to trial it means that Zimmerman MUST be guilty or that he WILL be found guilty, to be absolutely disgusting. The trial is supposed to prove guilt, not any *expletive deleted*ing pretrial hearings. I hope to god you picked up that attitude overseas and not in the US, because it is antithetical to everything this country was founded on.
-
Regolith, if the facts were so clear, this would've been disposed of by a pre trial hearing. That the defense didn't even try to do that is instructive - it can only mean they had no chance whatsoever.
The investigating officer, two judges, and several DAs have seen facts supporting a case.
Have you paid any attention to the lead up to this case? Seriously?
-
Have you paid any attention to the lead up to this case? Seriously?
Yes I have, and I doubt you could find a lawyer in America to give these facts to and have him say "yep, you'd be entirely defensible! Get your neighbourhood watch badge polished and get chasing those random people in your neighbourhood!"
But I guess they all hate America. Apparently correctly stating that the law of self defense doesn't favor people who enter into avoidable confrontations is unpatriotic, and if you go by some comments, the only more noble George in the world than George Zimmerman is Washington. Not sure how comforting it is to know tha t so many people think this kind of behaviour while armed is a ok.
Again, on some level his defense seems to have conceded that this case is arguable - they didn't even try for an SYG hearing, which would've resulted in immunity had it been won. There is no imaginable reason to skip a free to at freeing your client unless it's hopeless, which in this case it would have been.
-
DeSelby is convinced Zimmerman is guilty and no amount of reason is going to change his mind.
-
DeSelby is convinced Zimmerman is guilty and no amount of reason is going to change his mind.
No amount of hyperbole about Zimmerman will change the law of self defense, which you don't need to take my word for. There's a veteran prosecutor and judicial officer explaining it to you all on this thread.
-
No amount of hyperbole about Zimmerman will change the law of self defense, which you don't need to take my word for. There's a veteran prosecutor and judicial officer explaining it to you all on this thread.
Let me ask you a question. No lawyerese. No bullshit. Yes, no. No other answers allowed:
Is it reasonable to attack someone who has been following you at a distance?
-
Let me ask you a question. No lawyerese. No bullshit. Yes, no. No other answers allowed:
Is it reasonable to attack someone who has been following you at a distance?
That's an easy one: no.
-
But I guess they all hate America. Apparently correctly stating that the law of self defense doesn't favor people who enter into avoidable confrontations is unpatriotic, and if you go by some comments, the only more noble George in the world than George Zimmerman is Washington. Not sure how comforting it is to know tha t so many people think this kind of behaviour while armed is a ok.
You keep mentioning this. Would the case be somehow different if Zimmerman had choked Martin instead of shooting him? You have seemed obsessed with the fact that he followed Martin with a gun. [/scary voice]
According to the only guy that saw it and survived, there was no confrontation until Martin. started it. As I said way back when this all went down I fail to see how giving up a chase and walking back to your truck justifies an attack. And if Martin's attack wasn't justified, then defense was.
ETA:
and if you go by some comments, the only more noble George in the world than George Zimmerman is Washington.
No one here has said that. Or even close to it. So just stop. The APS consensus (minus you) seems to be that he made some questionable calls, but was still entitled to defend himself when attacked.
-
I have a right to be armed in public.
I also have a right to walk up to someone and speak to them in public.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
-
From one POV, DS is correct.
Talk to pretty much any lawyer about any action and you will get a response along the lines of "If you take that action, you risk legal repercussions." You can be entirely legal, follow the guidelines of major associations, be extremely conscientious, and still find your ass in court. You still risk legal action by the legal lottery players and those with an excess of legal training and a deficit of ethics and morality. BTDT. [Shakespeare was wrong. He should have written, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers...and then their children as an example to the others."]
There is no way to assure you won't find yourself afoul of a lawyer in a civil case or a prosecutor in a criminal case. Any action more vigorous than climbing out of bed increases the chance of being a target. Since the legal system is run by lawyers for their benefit above all else, we see suits and charges run riot much longer than any reasonable system would allow.
=======================
Basing the strength of Z's case on the dearth of pre-trial motions to dismiss or SYG hearings is either ignorant or disingenuous. The local DA and local LEOs saw the set of facts and decided not to charge. After a racial shinola storm that included the POTUS grunting about it, another prosecutor was brought on by the most powerful political figure in the state and ordered to get the right answer. This prosecutor gathered no more evidence than the previous one did before he charged Zimmerman with murder. Also, the original judge was so obviously biased, he was removed. The likelihood that Christ Himself would prevail in a SYG hearing or motion to dismiss given that environment approaches zero. Saying Z has a poor case based on it is ignorant or disingenuous, again.
This far in the Zimmerman trial, the prosecutor has yet to provide a credible witness that challenges Zimmerman's story. Several state witnesses bolster his story. The "star witness" with the most damaging story relative to Z turned out to be a lying, perjuring, resentful, dunk-driving pothead half-wit with a new story for every occasion. And those are her good points. This is the witness DS cites every other post as providing damning testimony.
I thought that perhaps the author whose digests I read was slanting it in Z's favor. See, I, too, had gotten some of the MSM/race-huckster inkcloud in my eyes. Watching the videos set me straight. Great Sex-Positive Cthulhu on roller skates.
Thus far it looks like the prosecution doesn't have squat and is hoping the jury is too scared or intimidated to acquit. If they were looking to posthumously convict Martin of assault, they might have a substantive case.
-
Except the witness who was on the phone with the victim says otherwise - not that it matters, as the entire confrontation happened far from Zimmerman's car and behind a row of houses where Zimmerman went to in order to follow the victim. Whether Trayvon Martin exacerbated the confrontation is a matter for sentencing - it'll certainly buy Zimmerman a few years back.
Like I said, in terms of self defense in any state, this set of facts WILL land you in hot water. Don't go chasing people who want to get away from you when armed. Going after people who aren't doing anything wrong makes it worse.
Did you watch the testimony of this witness?
If so, would you trust this witness to:
1. Ever be up at dawn.
2. Look out the window and tell you the correct direction from which the sun is rising?
-
That's an easy one: no.
Next question:
Do you have the right to physically assault someone who verbally challenged you?
-
Next question:
Do you have the right to physically assault someone who verbally challenged you?
No
-
No
If you're on your back, having your head slammed into the sidewalk repeatedly, would you consider that a risk to your life, or a risk of suffering grave bodily harm?
-
If you're on your back, having your head slammed into the sidewalk repeatedly, would you consider that a risk to your life, or a risk of suffering grave bodily harm?
Yes I would.
-
[popcorn]
-
[popcorn]
You should share.
-
Yes I would.
Oh, Jesus. I listened to some airhead on Hannity on Thursday going on about how Zimmerman was only being punched in the face. It's not like he was in fear for his life, she said.
I've read hundreds, maybe thousands, of stories of people being punched to death. It's not a *expletive deleted*ing bloody lip. You can kill someone punching him in the face, and it happens all the time. As I've mentioned before, I have a condition that would likely blind or kill me if I were punched in the face, but even someone with no physical problems is at risk of great bodily harm or injury from being punched.
In the first defense shooting after Texas passed their shall-issue CCW bill, a driver shot and killed another driver after an accident. The deceased had reached through the window of the shooter's car and was punching him in the face, and was trying to pull the shooter out the window of the car. When the shooter had sustained enough injuries (including a detached retina), he fired, killing his attacker. The DA no-billed him.
According to the man who witnessed the attack (as opposed to talking to Martin on the phone), Martin was on top of Zimmerman, had Zimmerman's arms pinned to the ground with his knees, and was repeatedly punching Zimmerman's face. That sounds like a scenario for some pretty serious damage.
-
You should share.
Sure, its on the house after all [popcorn] [popcorn]
-
Whose testimony has helped (either side) so far?
Ricardo A - Sanford PD Off
Selene B - resident/witness
Wendy D - Sanford PD watch coordinator
Andrew G - 7-11 employee
Jon G - resident/witness
Rachel J - witness
Chad J - Tray M's sort of brother
Jennifer L - resident/witness
Stacy L - Sanford FD firefighter/EMT
Raymond M - T-Mobile exec
Jeannee M - resident/witness
John M - resident/witness
Greg M - offsite security
Sean N - dispatcher
Donald O - HOA president
Anthony R - Sanford PD Sgt
Ramona R - Sheriff's comm office
Diana S - crime scene technician
Timothy S - Sanford PD Off
Jane S - resident/witness
Seems to me that, so far, they've either been useless, lost their credibility, or helped the defense (if anyone).
-
You should share.
Git your own, hippie! [popcorn] :rofl:
-
Would it be reasonable to assume that *if* Zimmerman did not physically assault or threaten Martin that he should have not had an expectation for a physical confrontation to ensure? To that I will include physically blocking Martin from escaping.
-
Would it be reasonable to assume that *if* Zimmerman did not physically assault or threaten Martin that he should have not had an expectation for a physical confrontation to ensure? To that I will include physically blocking Martin from escaping.
Yeah, no - that's where the defense falls apart. You and your counterpart can both be guilty of crimes that invalidate self-defense claims for both of you - it would be entirely reasonable (as Zimmerman explained on tape) for him to assume that Trayvon wanted to get away from him, and hence that Trayvon would take foreseeable (if unreasonable) measures to do so. That much was on tape.
But like I said, don't take my advice, and I'll add to that don't take a veteran prosecutor/judge's advice: ask an attorney where you live how these facts would apply to you. See what that person tells you.
-
Oh, Jesus. I listened to some airhead on Hannity on Thursday going on about how Zimmerman was only being punched in the face. It's not like he was in fear for his life, she said.
I've read hundreds, maybe thousands, of stories of people being punched to death. It's not a *expletive deleted* bloody lip. You can kill someone punching him in the face, and it happens all the time. As I've mentioned before, I have a condition that would likely blind or kill me if I were punched in the face, but even someone with no physical problems is at risk of great bodily harm or injury from being punched.
In the first defense shooting after Texas passed their shall-issue CCW bill, a driver shot and killed another driver after an accident. The deceased had reached through the window of the shooter's car and was punching him in the face, and was trying to pull the shooter out the window of the car. When the shooter had sustained enough injuries (including a detached retina), he fired, killing his attacker. The DA no-billed him.
According to the man who witnessed the attack (as opposed to talking to Martin on the phone), Martin was on top of Zimmerman, had Zimmerman's arms pinned to the ground with his knees, and was repeatedly punching Zimmerman's face. That sounds like a scenario for some pretty serious damage.
Yep, being pulled out of the car in a road rage incident is entirely different from chasing down someone who runs away from you (and doing so on tape) with the intention to "stop that ahole from getting away" (Zimmerman's words).
Get out of your car to chase someone and end up in a lethal force situation, you are going to face hard time.
Remain in your vehicle after simply following traffic and have some road rager come back to attack you? Not so much. The difference between the two is pretty easy to spot.
-
how did zimmerman chase him down again? was the kid on crutches?
wasn't the kid within a minute of his house at one point and somehow ended up on top of zimmerman? instead of home behind locked doors?
-
how did zimmerman chase him down again? was the kid on crutches?
wasn't the kid within a minute of his house at one point and somehow ended up on top of zimmerman? instead of home behind locked doors?
Must be some sort of anomaly in the time space continuim that I am agreeing 100% with CSD on something :lol:
-
Yeah, no - that's where the defense falls apart. You and your counterpart can both be guilty of crimes that invalidate self-defense claims for both of you - it would be entirely reasonable (as Zimmerman explained on tape) for him to assume that Trayvon wanted to get away from him, and hence that Trayvon would take foreseeable (if unreasonable) measures to do so. That much was on tape.
But like I said, don't take my advice, and I'll add to that don't take a veteran prosecutor/judge's advice: ask an attorney where you live how these facts would apply to you. See what that person tells you.
Well, I have. The lawyer friend of mine who is an Appleseed instructor, and who did my NFA trust. He was an ADA before going into private criminal defense practice. And it's his business card that rides behind my CCW permit. Given the facts as we know them through the media, and the conflicting facts as we know them through the prosecution's case so far, even without defense rebuttal, he says even his lefty anti-RKBA/anti-CCW cohorts in the prosecutor's office would have no-billed Zimmerman considering there's simply no way to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
If he's convicted, it will be for larger racial issues period.
Considering what we've seen of the testimony with our own eyes, what high profile Harvard Law attorney Alan Dershowitz has had to say about the case, people here who are judges/magistrates on this board, and everyone here but you in this thread says, I can only conclude one of two things.
You are biased because you have an ulterior motive in favor of Martin to strike a blow for larger cultural issues that are important to you, such as "white privilege" etc., or you simply like to argue, and have been playing Devil's Advocate all this time without announcing you are because it entertains you.
-
Well, I have. The lawyer friend of mine who is an Appleseed instructor, and who did my NFA trust. He was an ADA before going into private criminal defense practice. And it's his business card that rides behind my CCW permit. Given the facts as we know them through the media, he says even his lefty anti-RKBA/anti-CCW cohorts in the prosecutor's office would have no-billed Zimmerman considering there's simply no way to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Considering what we've seen of the testimony with our own eyes, what high profile Harvard Law attorney Alan Dershowitz has had to say about the case, everyone here but you in this thread says, I can only conclude one of two things.
You are biased because you have an ulterior motive in favor of Martin to strike a blow for larger cultural issues that are important to you, such as "white privilege" etc., or you simply like to argue, and have been playing Devil's Advocate all this time without announcing you are because it entertains you.
Well, tell you what - PM me for my details and I'll be happy to contact your ADA/NFA trust attorney directly to discuss how we arrived at this position. "No billing" is something that happens only in Grand Jury states, of which there are a limited number. I'll be pleased to be educated by my betters.
-
Yeah, no - that's where the defense falls apart. You and your counterpart can both be guilty of crimes that invalidate self-defense claims for both of you - it would be entirely reasonable (as Zimmerman explained on tape) for him to assume that Trayvon wanted to get away from him, and hence that Trayvon would take foreseeable (if unreasonable) measures to do so. That much was on tape.
But like I said, don't take my advice, and I'll add to that don't take a veteran prosecutor/judge's advice: ask an attorney where you live how these facts would apply to you. See what that person tells you.
I like how you automatically assume that I somehow support Zimmerman' s choice of following an unknown person in the dark on foot, and go on the attack to change the topic.
You're full of *expletive deleted*it, and your law degree gives you an over inflated sense of the value of your opinion.
Zimmerman is an idiot. But no reasonable person stops and attacks someone who is following them.
-
how did zimmerman chase him down again? was the kid on crutches?
wasn't the kid within a minute of his house at one point and somehow ended up on top of zimmerman? instead of home behind locked doors?
Hey, some clinically obese folks are pretty fast on their feet. Think 300lb offensive lineman.
-
Funny, there is a road in Billings called "Zimmerman Trail" =D
-
Yeah, no - that's where the defense falls apart. You and your counterpart can both be guilty of crimes that invalidate self-defense claims for both of you
And Zimmerman's crime would be what? Following while White*.
*(Hispanic)
-
Hey, some clinically obese folks are pretty fast on their feet. Think 300lb offensive lineman.
Zimmerman was much smaller before the trial. He's been in seclusion and put on a lot of weight since then.
Zimmerman is listed as 5'8" and 200lb on the night of the shooting in the police report. Martin's autopsy is listed at 6'0" and 160lb. So he had 4" of height on Zimmerman, not a huge advantage. Zimmerman seems to have short fat guy build while Martin had tall lanky build, so I promise you he had a good wingspan advantage over Zimmerman. A lot of reach means he could strike before really getting in his face.
-
Yeah, no - that's where the defense falls apart. You and your counterpart can both be guilty of crimes that invalidate self-defense claims for both of you - it would be entirely reasonable (as Zimmerman explained on tape) for him to assume that Trayvon wanted to get away from him, and hence that Trayvon would take foreseeable (if unreasonable) measures to do so. That much was on tape.
Even assuming that under the circumstances that if chasing and so much as speaking to T would invalidate self defense, in this case, the problem for your position is that no currently available evidence or testimony (with the possible exception of a piece of Jeantelle's statement which was modified after she was confronted with T's family) indicates that Z:
1. Intended to catch T rather than observe from a distance and wait for the police to arrive (as police often advise).
2. Did catch up with and confront Z as opposed to turning around and then being approached by T as Z claims.
In short, for you to even have a point we are required to make a series of assumptions not supported by available evidence. That is not to say that we are certain Z didn't hang up with 911 and keep chasing after T with the intent to catch him, just that we have nothing that shows that he did.
Yes, Z made mistakes. Yes, no matter what he will forever regret his decision to get out of bed that morning - to say nothing of his decision to get out of the car. Even so, you and the prosecution have an uphill battle to sell a story (possibly the true one) that lacks supporting evidence.
-
Oh, Jesus. I listened to some airhead on Hannity on Thursday going on about how Zimmerman was only being punched in the face. It's not like he was in fear for his life, she said.
I've read hundreds, maybe thousands, of stories of people being punched to death. It's not a *expletive deleted* bloody lip. You can kill someone punching him in the face, and it happens all the time. As I've mentioned before, I have a condition that would likely blind or kill me if I were punched in the face, but even someone with no physical problems is at risk of great bodily harm or injury from being punched.
In the first defense shooting after Texas passed their shall-issue CCW bill, a driver shot and killed another driver after an accident. The deceased had reached through the window of the shooter's car and was punching him in the face, and was trying to pull the shooter out the window of the car. When the shooter had sustained enough injuries (including a detached retina), he fired, killing his attacker. The DA no-billed him.
According to the man who witnessed the attack (as opposed to talking to Martin on the phone), Martin was on top of Zimmerman, had Zimmerman's arms pinned to the ground with his knees, and was repeatedly punching Zimmerman's face. That sounds like a scenario for some pretty serious damage.
I think this is an important observation. Women do not have practical experience with male/male all out unarmed fights. (Tautological, but stick with me here.) They do not know what it is like to pass out from blows to the back of the head. They do not understand how dangerous a ground and pound is, and why the MMA organizers will call the fight very quickly once that situation develops. They do not understand the absolute fear for your life becomes of being in that position.
This is an all woman jury.
-
I think this is an important observation. Women do not have practical experience with male/male all out unarmed fights. (Tautological, but stick with me here.) They do not know what it is like to pass out from blows to the back of the head. They do not understand how dangerous a ground and pound is, and why the MMA organizers will call the fight very quickly once that situation develops. They do not understand the absolute fear for your life becomes of being in that position.
This is an all woman jury.
Errr... Not nessasrly true, but I see what you're getting at.
(I'm pretty sure plenty of woman know what it's like to get pounded on by a man, from first hand experiance)
-
(I'm pretty sure plenty of woman know what it's like to get pounded on by a man, from first hand experiance)
^^^^^ This.....might work out in Zimmerman's favor.....
-
I think this is an important observation. Women do not have practical experience with male/male all out unarmed fights. (Tautological, but stick with me here.) They do not know what it is like to pass out from blows to the back of the head. They do not understand how dangerous a ground and pound is, and why the MMA organizers will call the fight very quickly once that situation develops. They do not understand the absolute fear for your life becomes of being in that position.
This is an all woman jury.
Hopefully the defense gets an expert witness.
I could have been Zimmerman. 22-23 years old, hopefully dumber than now and I detained a neighborhood smash and grab artist. I certainly had more right to be there than him since I was in front of my house. In the city, me white, him not so much, me an evil assault rifle. First, I realized my tactical Ted limitations. He probably would have stood there until the cops showed up but balked at being proned out. I was smart enough not to initiate contact to force him to and to not shoot him when he declined and walked away. That's all fine and good but when I followed him down the street and tackled him no good was going to come of it. I had ditched the gun, ended up with his jacket that he slipped out of, after having ended up with him on top of me because we rolled when I forcibly introduced him to the ground. I'm really glad that ended well, I don't see me wrongfully shooting the guy, but the utility knife in the guy's pocket might have been a problem for me had the guy been of a different demeanor.
-
(I'm pretty sure plenty of woman know what it's like to get pounded on by a man, from first hand experiance)
No offense, but its just not the same, I'm pretty sure many women will think its the same. They can even point to a video and say, "it looks the same to me". Still not the same level. The number of woman with actual experience with that level of fighting is pretty small *not zero, but relatively small. (If I where to WAG, I'd put it at 1/1000 women and I might be biased high just from growing up in Joliet). Which I think goes to show how different is the experience and perspective.
But I don't just mean taking a beating, I mean the whole experience of giving and taking. Fighting out that male hierarchical order, martial sports, fighting best friends, and just screwing around fighting for fun. The give and take, the sportsmen level to the fight of fury throughout a males life makes him more in tune with what level of seriousness and risk is on the table and how to respond in kind. I am absolutely convinced that most women are not in tune to that landscape.
-
No offense, but its just not the same, I'm pretty sure many women will think its the same. They can even point to a video and say, "it looks the same to me". Still not the same level. The number of woman with actual experience with that level of fighting is pretty small *not zero, but relatively small. (If I where to WAG, I'd put it at 1/1000 women and I might be biased high just from growing up in Joliet). Which I think goes to show how different is the experience and perspective.
But I don't just mean taking a beating, I mean the whole experience of giving and taking. Fighting out that male hierarchical order, martial sports, fighting best friends, and just screwing around fighting for fun. The give and take, the sportsmen level to the fight of fury throughout a males life makes him more in tune with what level of seriousness and risk is on the table and how to respond in kind. I am absolutely convinced that most women are not in tune to that landscape.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs20.postimg.org%2Fjwd7ykid9%2FGreat_shitstorm.jpg&hash=b6866ff331179995212b2ebd4f012b48b52dab0f)
-
No offense, but its just not the same, I'm pretty sure many women will think its the same. They can even point to a video and say, "it looks the same to me". Still not the same level. The number of woman with actual experience with that level of fighting is pretty small *not zero, but relatively small. (If I where to WAG, I'd put it at 1/1000 women and I might be biased high just from growing up in Joliet). Which I think goes to show how different is the experience and perspective.
But I don't just mean taking a beating, I mean the whole experience of giving and taking. Fighting out that male hierarchical order, martial sports, fighting best friends, and just screwing around fighting for fun. The give and take, the sportsmen level to the fight of fury throughout a males life makes him more in tune with what level of seriousness and risk is on the table and how to respond in kind. I am absolutely convinced that most women are not in tune to that landscape.
Eh, I'm a man and I've never been in a real fisticuffs fight in my life and the vast majority of men I know haven't either. So I'm not really sure this is something you can just broadly say that male jury members would "know what it's like" where females wouldn't.
-
Eh, I'm a man and I've never been in a real fisticuffs fight in my life and the vast majority of men I know haven't either. So I'm not really sure this is something you can just broadly say that male jury members would "know what it's like" where females wouldn't.
As I think about it, I would guess that most guys I know haven't been in a serious fight. Maybe there isn't a jury that could be assembled that would understand what was at stake.
-
Eh, I'm a man and I've never been in a real fisticuffs fight in my life and the vast majority of men I know haven't either. So I'm not really sure this is something you can just broadly say that male jury members would "know what it's like" where females wouldn't.
I see where you're coming from. I haven't been in any real fights, either. Still, men are more likely to learn about fighting indirectly, by watching MMA or reading about martial arts, or the "It happened to me" articles in gun magazines. (Not that those are perfectly reliable sources.)
On the other hand, I would guess there are more women than men in the medical field, so they could be more likely to be familiar with the effects of blows to the face and noggin.
Also, women might actually be more likely to think of a punch to the face as particularly harmful, where a lot of men would think it was just something to be shrugged off. Be a man, etc. We watch more action flicks, after all.
-
I like how you automatically assume that I somehow support Zimmerman' s choice of following an unknown person in the dark on foot, and go on the attack to change the topic.
You're full of *expletive deleted*, and your law degree gives you an over inflated sense of the value of your opinion.
Zimmerman is an idiot. But no reasonable person stops and attacks someone who is following them.
In retrospect those comments are a bit personal. My apologies.
-
I like how DS and other keep mentioning the whole "why did they pursue charges/ why wasn't there a syg hearing" angle as "proof"
First of all, they know a SYG hearing would have failed because this is a politically motivated shitshow
Second, the cops and DA weren't going to charge him, as I recall, until the usual suspects started screaming for blood
-
I like how DS and other keep mentioning the whole "why did they pursue charges/ why wasn't there a syg hearing" angle as "proof"
First of all, they know a SYG hearing would have failed because this is a politically motivated shitshow
Second, the cops and DA weren't going to charge him, as I recall, until the usual suspects started screaming for blood
Absolutely, 100% true. He was going to be set free until the racism charges started flying all across the airwaves.
-
On the other hand, I would guess there are more women than men in the medical field, so they could be more likely to be familiar with the effects of blows to the face and noggin.
Also, women might actually be more likely to think of a punch to the face as particularly harmful, where a lot of men would think it was just something to be shrugged off. Be a man, etc. We watch more action flicks, after all.
From my paramedic days, I can assure you that a blow to the head from any impact source is not to be taken lightly. I have seen people killed or worse, significantly neurologically impaired from a single impact, be it by fist, club, crashing a bike or motorcycle, or falling down and striking the head. We just recently had a murder case filed against a 24 year old man who robbed an 85 year old, causing him to fall down and strike his head. The elderly gentleman lingered for a couple of months in the neuro ICU before he expired. Between our recent wars and the NFL, we are learning a lot about traumatic brain injury and the impacts it can have.
-
From my paramedic days, I can assure you that a blow to the head from any impact source is not to be taken lightly. I have seen people killed or worse, significantly neurologically impaired from a single impact, be it by fist, club, crashing a bike or motorcycle, or falling down and striking the head. We just recently had a murder case filed against a 24 year old man who robbed an 85 year old, causing him to fall down and strike his head. The elderly gentleman lingered for a couple of months in the neuro ICU before he expired. Between our recent wars and the NFL, we are learning a lot about traumatic brain injury and the impacts it can have.
Absolutely. Where did we come to the notion that a healthy human male isn't capable of incapacitating/killing another with his hands? Or that a handgun is a force field? If the facts are as presented, Zimmerman is lucky to be alive, possibly due to Martin's inexperience.
-
But they could be educated.
-
Where did we come to the notion that a healthy human male isn't capable of incapacitating/killing another with his hands? Or that a handgun is a force field?
I'm not sure where this notion comes from either. There are frequent enough news stories of it happening, you'd think people would think differently. A example that happened here near me a couple months ago:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/05/us/utah-soccer-death
A single punch to the head was all it took.
-
Wow.
Just wow.
OK, first of all, I don't think Zimmerman and Martian were just having some hearty male fistcuffs in a back ally.
I think Martian was beating Zimmerman. It may have started out due to some masculine bravdo of the stupid tyoe, but based on the photo's of Zimmerman I've seen it escalated to the point of one human being giving another human being a beating that would result in serious injury, if not death, if it didn't get stopped.
My concern with an all female jury is simply that the jururs are not the broad example of Zimmermans American peers that it should be. If bias was something to be concerned with, it would be the continued representation of Martian as the innocent little schoolboy, which would possibly affect the female jury in there capacity as mothers or future mothers.
To be honest, the concept that getting overpowered and beaten (which is what happened, not this hearty masculine barfight of which you speak) is likely to be more effective among a female jury to get them to take Zimmermans side.
-
While channel surfing, I heard some talking heads on one of the networks discussing whether Zimmerman's actual injuries justified shooting the guy on top of him who was administering the "ground-and-pound."
I wanted to ask them how much of a beating they would be willing to absorb before shooting their assailant. :facepalm:
-
I'm not sure where this notion comes from either. There are frequent enough news stories of it happening, you'd think people would think differently. A example that happened here near me a couple months ago:
A single punch to the head was all it took.
One of the nephews of Hizzoner "Baby Dick" Daley was in a bit of hot water (or not but should have been, I may misrecollect by now) for striking a man outside a bar who died from that.
-
Depends on the woman.
Typical bowhead or hipster chick? Relatively clue-free. Trauma nurse? Understands blows to the cranium are no joke.
I do not know what sort of gals are he jurors.
-
Absolutely. Where did we come to the notion that a healthy human male isn't capable of incapacitating/killing another with his hands? Or that a handgun is a force field? If the facts are as presented, Zimmerman is lucky to be alive, possibly due to Martin's inexperience.
Movies, for one ;/
After taking a potentially fatal blow, the good guy gets up and beats his opponent, and then goes on the save the chick.
-
Movies, for one ;/
After taking a potentially fatal blow, the good guy gets up and beats his opponent, and then goes on the save the chick.
IRL, good guy takes the hit to the melon, falls down with a concussion, and bad guy & his buddies kick him to death in the middle of the street.
Didn't that happen to an actual honors student in a black neighborhood of Chicago? Gang fight, dude tries to go around. Sucker punched & falls like a poleaxed ox, and the other feral "urban youths" beat him to death.
-
stepmom
http://www.theroot.com/buzz/trayvon-martins-stepmom-zimmerman-didnt-profile-him-because-he-was-black?wpisrc=root_more_news
-
Eh, I'm a man and I've never been in a real fisticuffs fight in my life and the vast majority of men I know haven't either. So I'm not really sure this is something you can just broadly say that male jury members would "know what it's like" where females wouldn't.
I don't think I had an above average rough youth. But I guess that is how solipsistic bias works.
Anyway, I'm not trying to say that every man, or most men, gets into a life and death unarmed fight. But just that we are more in tune to that level of combat due to nature and the effects of our environment (everything from rough housing to sports).
-
I don't think I had an above average rough youth. But I guess that is how solipsistic bias works.
Anyway, I'm not trying to say that every man, or most men, gets into a life and death unarmed fight. But just that we are more in tune to that level of combat due to nature and the effects of our environment (everything from rough housing to sports).
And I'm pointing out that your overall conclusion based on that is wrong.
Woman get a diffrent perspective, but are not ignorant of the effects of violent physical force.
-
One thing I was taught real early when I was a prosecutor, you can never count on what a jury will do. That is why the best way to avoid being convicted is to avaoid being tried. I believe that if Zimmerman stays with his car, we don't have a trial to discuss.
As to why the DA is trying this case, he is responding to public opinion. He is an elected official after all.
-
One thing I was taught real early when I was a prosecutor, you can never count on what a jury will do. That is why the best way to avoid being convicted is to avaoid being tried. I believe that if Zimmerman stays with his car, we don't have a trial to discuss.
As to why the DA is trying this case, he is responding to public opinion. He is an elected official after all.
I think that is something we do all actually agree on.
-
And neighborhoods go to heck ... =(
-
I think that is something we do all actually agree on.
I certainly do. If that were me here in Cali....... Well, you wouldn't be seeing me again for a looooooong time, if ever.
-
There's a limit to what you should be doing. Doing something that might just cause the doper you're concerned about to jump you is obviously not wise.
It's a pity the cops weren't a bit swifter on the uptake around there, given how that area had been repeatedly hit.
-
There's a limit to what you should be doing. Doing something that might just cause the doper you're concerned about to jump you is obviously not wise.
I don't know that anyone would have expected that before this incident. =|
Z didn't cause M to attack him. The fact that he did pretty much confirms all of Z's suspicions.
It's a pity the cops weren't a bit swifter on the uptake around there, given how that area had been repeatedly hit.
What's the profit in that?
-
I don't know that anyone would have expected that before this incident. =|
Anyone who wasn't familiar with how dopeheads act. Where I lived up until last december, you figured out fast what was up with those people. Anyone acting really weird was someone to avoid b/c they were either doped or crazy.
Z didn't cause M to attack him. The fact that he did pretty much confirms all of Z's suspicions.
That depends on your point of view, doesn't it? Martin was apparently walking home when Zimmerman started following him. Had he been attempting to break into a car, house, mailbox, or a garage, I'd say yeah, it would. But walking and acting weird? I'd call the cops, but that'd be it. Call me chicken, but the price of possibly escalating a situation that didn't begin in violence is higher than I want to pay.
What's the profit in that?
In what, having the cops do their damned jobs?
-
That depends on your point of view, doesn't it? Martin was apparently walking home when Zimmerman started following him. Had he been attempting to break into a car, house, mailbox, or a garage, I'd say yeah, it would. But walking and acting weird? I'd call the cops, but that'd be it. Call me chicken, but the price of possibly escalating a situation that didn't begin in violence is higher than I want to pay.
He did call the police. Then (according to his story and 911 transcript, anyway) he got out of the car to look for a street sign and house numbers to better direct them. Possibly he wanted to see if he could spot the suspicious dude again. More than that requires a making assumptions not based in evidence at hand. Either way, it turned out to be a very bad decision, but not something I would have expected to lead to conflict, nor would I consider either act an escalation in and of itself. If he actually was yelling "COME ON OUT YOU DIRTY HOODIE-WEARING THUG!" or somehow caught Travon and grabbed him from behind or something - okay, that's escalation. Getting out of his car after Martin had already disappeared down a path? Not so much.
In hindsight we can easily spot times and places he could have done something better that would have completely eliminated the conflict, but assuming Zimmerman is telling something even remotely close to the truth, at the time I don't see that he had any reason to assume his actions would lead to any sort of conflict whatsoever, much less a shooting.
In what, having the cops do their damned jobs?
Out of curiosity, what do you think that entails? If a neighborhood has a number of break-ins, what should the police response look like?
-
If a neighborhood has a number of break-ins, what should the police response look like?
Write more traffic tickets, of course :police:
-
All any of this Monday morning quarterbacking and prosecution of civic-minded folks gets us is a less-involved citizenry. Slap folk about enough for trying to keep up the neighborhood and pretty soon folk don't keep up the neighborhood. Eventually you end up with East MF-ing St Louis.
We are ruled by amoral, psychopathic lawyers. On both sides of the bench. And in the legislatures. And their mindset is soaking into our culture like a poison. (Or, maybe we are lucky and it is like a cancer, something that can be cut out, irradiated, or killed with heavy doses of chemo.)
-
If a neighborhood has a number of break-ins, what should the police response look like?
Do what the cops do (or at least used to do) in the Democrat stronghold of Chicago: grab a random black guy off the street, put him in the wagon, beat the living hell out of him with night sticks, then leave him in an alley. It was a popular pastime for bored cops, and the Chicago machine supported them.
Zimmerman did what we're always told to do: report suspicious activity to the police. He also did what many of us have been told to do by our CCW instructors: don't use your gun unless you believe that you're at risk of great bodily harm. I'm sure there's many who would have pulled a gun the minute that Martin came out of hiding to ambush Zimmerman, and not waited until pinned down and nose broken.
Unless the prosecution has some big surprise, Zimmerman is innocent on all counts. I don't think that's the way it will play out, though. Race politics requires him to serve time for something, anything.
-
He did call the police. Then (according to his story and 911 transcript, anyway) he got out of the car to look for a street sign and house numbers to better direct them. Possibly he wanted to see if he could spot the suspicious dude again. More than that requires a making assumptions not based in evidence at hand. Either way, it turned out to be a very bad decision, but not something I would have expected to lead to conflict, nor would I consider either act an escalation in and of itself. If he actually was yelling "COME ON OUT YOU DIRTY HOODIE-WEARING THUG!" or somehow caught Travon and grabbed him from behind or something - okay, that's escalation. Getting out of his car after Martin had already disappeared down a path? Not so much.
Except we don't actually know what he did. We have what he said. I'm not saying he got physical first or he said racist things and pissed Martin off. I'm just saying, as for myself personally, I would not have done what he did. I would have taken the "good witness" tack UNLESS he was an obvious clear and present threat to someone else. Him bebopping down the street acting doped up/crazy/weird while there's nobody else around? Not gonna try to antagonize him.
Him dragging someone off into the bushes while he's beating on them? Yeah, that's pretty much C&PD for someone right there.
I think I would do something about that.
In hindsight we can easily spot times and places he could have done something better that would have completely eliminated the conflict, but assuming Zimmerman is telling something even remotely close to the truth, at the time I don't see that he had any reason to assume his actions would lead to any sort of conflict whatsoever, much less a shooting.Out of curiosity, what do you think that entails? If a neighborhood has a number of break-ins, what should the police response look like?
For one thing, they should probably have a few more visible patrols. At the very least, they're showing the flag, and who knows? They might catch one of the bastards in the act.
Failing that, I'm not too sure.
-
I like how DS and other keep mentioning the whole "why did they pursue charges/ why wasn't there a syg hearing" angle as "proof"
First of all, they know a SYG hearing would have failed because this is a politically motivated shitshow
Second, the cops and DA weren't going to charge him, as I recall, until the usual suspects started screaming for blood
Fitz, this is something that needs to be clarified - pursuing charges is never proof of a crime. It is, however, an indicator that a case is not complete bs when the investigating officer, the DA, and two judges see enough evidence to put the question to a jury. It just adds to the point when Zimmerman's own defense didn't ask for a dismissal which, if the facts were so clearly missing to support a conviction, would've been an easy win.
The question of guilt is a jury question now. Based on the facts available, I think it's unrealistic that Zimmerman could present a defense that will refute the case for a conviction.
Jamis, I recognise that you acknowledge Zimmerman's decision to follow wasn't smart. The problem is that behaviour which almost everyone would call dumb, if it results in a death, will nearly always put you in jeopardy. Dumb behaviour that results in death is essentially the legal definition of manslaughter. So if you agree that Zimmerman made a dumb move, that itself is half way to the conviction.
Monkey leg, the investigating officers recommended charging Zimmerman with homicide because he started a confrontation that led to a death. It's simply not true to say that Zimmemran was clear before the media - the politicians who disagreed with the actual investigation were what changed, not the police view of Zimmerman's conduct.
All of this business about the judge dismissing and the jury absolutely not believing the evidence against Zimmerman is straight fantasy - but I'm sure once we have a trial outcome someone will be along to include the jury in the conspiracy, along with the two judges, investigating officers, and DA's.
-
Except we don't actually know what he did.
I would not have done what he did.
To summarize: you don't know what he did, but you wouldn't have done it in his shoes?
I would have taken the "good witness" tack UNLESS he was an obvious clear and present threat to someone else. Him bebopping down the street acting doped up/crazy/weird while there's nobody else around? Not gonna try to antagonize him.
According to him and available evidence that is what he did. He may well have done more beyond that, but that is just speculation.
For one thing, they should probably have a few more visible patrols. At the very least, they're showing the flag, and who knows? They might catch one of the bastards in the act.
Failing that, I'm not too sure.
That is pretty typical (around here they call it a PWP or Patrol When Possible). It really doesn't do much more than make the potential victims feel better as a squad car driving through a neighborhood once a shift doesn't change the story much for criminals. So if the department does that, have they "done their damned jobs"?
Jamis, I recognise that you acknowledge Zimmerman's decision to follow wasn't smart. The problem is that behaviour which almost everyone would call dumb, if it results in a death, will nearly always put you in jeopardy. Dumb behaviour that results in death is essentially the legal definition of manslaughter. So if you agree that Zimmerman made a dumb move, that itself is half way to the conviction.
Zimmerman is not being charged with manslaughter and I was under the impression that in Florida the court doesn't have the option to convict of a lesser crime than the defendant is charged with (but I am not certain of that).
Even manslaughter would require us to impeach Zimmerman's account of his actions and rationale without evidence. Nothing that we actually know he did would be something that a reasonable person would expect to lead to violence.
-
Cordex, Phyphor has hit on something important here - intervening in a crime in progress is different from chasing someone who isn't doing anything illegal, and who runs to get away from you. The effort expended to stop the "a holes" who "always get away" (Zimmerman's words - you can see how those tend to refute his story about stopping to check the address) is what got him in hot water.
Depraved heart murder is basically extreme manslaughter, and Zimmerman can be found guilty of manslaughter instead.
Of course Phyphor, it's not just California that would have you in hot water on these facts. Although being a CA lawyer if any client came to me asking if he could chase people who run from him and then use deadly force if they punched, I'd be inclined to suggest he sell the guns until he was prepared to get counselling for the hero fantasies - not legal advice but the rules allow me to give personal advice as well.
Hero fantasies get gun owners jailed, and the neighbour's kids killed.
-
Fitz, this is something that needs to be clarified - pursuing charges is never proof of a crime. It is, however, an indicator that a case is not complete bs when the investigating officer, the DA, and two judges see enough evidence to put the question to a jury. It just adds to the point when Zimmerman's own defense didn't ask for a dismissal which, if the facts were so clearly missing to support a conviction, would've been an easy win.
The question of guilt is a jury question now. Based on the facts available, I think it's unrealistic that Zimmerman could present a defense that will refute the case for a conviction.
Jamis, I recognise that you acknowledge Zimmerman's decision to follow wasn't smart. The problem is that behaviour which almost everyone would call dumb, if it results in a death, will nearly always put you in jeopardy. Dumb behaviour that results in death is essentially the legal definition of manslaughter. So if you agree that Zimmerman made a dumb move, that itself is half way to the conviction.
Monkey leg, the investigating officers recommended charging Zimmerman with homicide because he started a confrontation that led to a death. It's simply not true to say that Zimmemran was clear before the media - the politicians who disagreed with the actual investigation were what changed, not the police view of Zimmerman's conduct.
All of this business about the judge dismissing and the jury absolutely not believing the evidence against Zimmerman is straight fantasy - but I'm sure once we have a trial outcome someone will be along to include the jury in the conspiracy, along with the two judges, investigating officers, and DA's.
Where we diverge, rapidly, is that I don't consider Martin's actions of assaulting Zimmerman (if the facts are as presented by Zimmerman) to be a reasonable response to being followed. If Martin ran and Zimmeran ran to follow still, I still don't find the response of assaulting Zimmerman reasonable. It is only reasonable if A)Zimmerman put his hands on Martin, or B) if he tried to corner or otherwise detain Martin.
You apparently do.
I would find Zimmerman more guilty of causing Martin harm if lets say he chased him and Martin ran in the street and got hit by a bus.
No, the action of assaulting someone who is following you is not reasonable and no amount of doublespeak will make it so.
Zimmerman leaving the car meant he gave up a sound tactical position and put the possibility of becoming in physical contact with an unknown person in the wind.
-
De Selby,
If a woman wears a low-cut shirt and walks through certain parts of town after dark, it's not at all illegal but it is dumb. If someone tries to rape her and she kills them, is that manslaughter because she was doing something inadvisable?
Cordex, Phyphor has hit on something important here - intervening in a crime in progress is different from chasing someone who isn't doing anything illegal, and who runs to get away from you. The effort expended to stop the "a holes" who "always get away" (Zimmerman's words - you can see how those tend to refute his story about stopping to check the address) is what got him in hot water.
Expressing frustration at the inability of police to catch "these a holes" from getting away does not mean he tried to tackle Martin himself. Like any speculation, you might be dead-on, but then again you might not be. From his call to police, it doesn't sound like he gets out of the car until after the dispatcher asks Zimmerman where Martin is running and indeed that is what he claims in his reenactment. Regardless of his true motives for getting out of the car, even intentionally following from a distance and reporting what you see to the police is still not illegal, nor is it something that one would reasonably expect should lead to violence.
Depraved heart murder is basically extreme manslaughter, and Zimmerman can be found guilty of manslaughter instead.
I'll defer to you on that.
Hero fantasies get gun owners jailed, and the neighbour's kids killed.
Agreed.
-
All any of this Monday morning quarterbacking and prosecution of civic-minded folks gets us is a less-involved citizenry. Slap folk about enough for trying to keep up the neighborhood and pretty soon folk don't keep up the neighborhood. Eventually you end up with East MF-ing St Louis.
We are ruled by amoral, psychopathic lawyers. On both sides of the bench. And in the legislatures. And their mindset is soaking into our culture like a poison. (Or, maybe we are lucky and it is like a cancer, something that can be cut out, irradiated, or killed with heavy doses of chemo.)
This. It's almost like our dear leaders want more crime and societal degeneration =|
-
. . . the investigating officers recommended charging Zimmerman with homicide because he started a confrontation that led to a death . . .
When I think "confrontation" I think two men, face to face, exchanging harsh words, which MAY lead to a physical altercation. There's no evidence that Zimmerman actually started such a confrontation; perhaps by his presence he made sucn a confrontation possible, but unless one has evidence of what happened between the end of the 911 call and the eyewitness account of Martin atop Zimmerman administering a beating, asserting that Zimmerman started the confrontation is based on supposition, inference, and wishful thinking.
Now, if a credible witness or previously-undisclosed security cam footage surfaces showing Zimmerman laid hands on Martin first . . . then he's toast. But based on the evidence discussed in the media to date, there's LOTS of reasonable doubt here.
-
When I think "confrontation" I think two men, face to face, exchanging harsh words, which MAY lead to a physical altercation. There's no evidence that Zimmerman actually started such a confrontation; perhaps by his presence he made sucn a confrontation possible, but unless one has evidence of what happened between the end of the 911 call and the eyewitness account of Martin atop Zimmerman administering a beating, asserting that Zimmerman started the confrontation is based on supposition, inference, and wishful thinking.
Now, if a credible witness or previously-undisclosed security cam footage surfaces showing Zimmerman laid hands on Martin first . . . then he's toast. But based on the evidence discussed in the media to date, there's LOTS of reasonable doubt here.
In a civilized society there is no need for physical force over words, unless the words are a threat. Threat of detention being one of those. "You can't leave till the cops get here!" Watch me, I ain't dun nuttin wrong white boy!
Call me names. Insult my heritage. I don't really care.
-
To summarize: you don't know what he did, but you wouldn't have done it in his shoes?
As in, I would not have gotten out of my vehicle and done anything that looked like pursuit.
-
As in, I would not have gotten out of my vehicle and done anything that looked like pursuit.
Fair enough. I agree with that.
-
I think that one point has been lost in this discussion...a self-defense claim is an admission to a criminal act. To assert self-defense, you must first admit that the criminal act of Felonious Assault/Homicide (Ohio terms) occurred. Where self-defense comes into play is as a justification for that criminal act. To prevail, the shooter has to establish that he had done nothing to create the situation, that he reasonably believed that he was in danger of serious physical hamr/death, and in some jurisdictions you still have to establish that you had no means of escape/your back was to the wall. The State doesn't have to disprove these to convict, the shooter must prove them to establish self-defense and avoid the conviction. What DeSelby and I have been trying to point out is that Zimmerman has to prove that he was at no fault in creating this situation. Personally, I don't know what the evidence is on this issue. I've paid cursory attention to the case of late, because I'm busy with my kids and work. But I do know that the jury is going to hear evidence on that issue. Why did he leave the car? Why did he walk between houses? And the jury will be deciding if his actions caused the situation in which he had to resort to the use of deadly force.
And, again, this is the lesson in all of this. And, honestly, I don't understand what all the fighting is about on this issue. No one on this board would advise someone to leave their vehicle, and walk after an unknown subject if you suspect criminal activity. It's tactically dumb.
A question, sincere, because I'm not following the case closely...what did Zimmerman observe Martin do that led him to believe he was up to no good? My understanding was that he saw Martin duck in between houses in the neighborhood. Was there something more?
-
Why did he leave the car? Why did he walk between houses?
We'll never know for certain. All we have are Zimmerman's claims. Here's Zimmerman walking through what he says happened during that time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=X_2NeMrGCvg#t=381s
And, again, this is the lesson in all of this. And, honestly, I don't understand what all the fighting is about on this issue. No one on this board would advise someone to leave their vehicle, and walk after an unknown subject if you suspect criminal activity. It's tactically dumb.
Totally agree. The question for me is whether doing something tactically dumb (like a woman with a low-cut shirt walking around a bad part of town late at night) removes the right to self-defense.
A question, sincere, because I'm not following the case closely...what did Zimmerman observe Martin do that led him to believe he was up to no good? My understanding was that he saw Martin duck in between houses in the neighborhood. Was there something more?
He claims he saw Martin standing around in the rain, looking around houses suspiciously and moving as though he were on drugs, whatever that means. That's why he called the police. Then he claims Martin walked around his truck with his hand in his waistband giving him the evil eye, then walked off and cut between houses.
-
. . . He claims he saw Martin standing around in the rain, looking around houses suspiciously and moving as though he were on drugs, whatever that means. That's why he called the police. Then he claims Martin walked around his truck with his hand in his waistband giving him the evil eye, then walked off and cut between houses.
As it turned out Martin was there because he'd been suspended from school for a minor drug offense, and I believe the tox screen from the autopsy found drugs in his system . . . so it would seem Zimmerman's observations had a basis in fact.
IANAL, but here's a question for the legal eagles: I've read that the prosecution (and Martin's family) didn't want the tox screen results showing Martin was a druggie admitted into evidence; I don't know if the judge ruled on this. However, if the prosecution introduces the 911 call of Zimmerman saying it looked as if the suspicious guy were on drugs, can the defense get the tox screen admitted in order to explore an issue - the appearance of being on drugs - introduced by the prosecution?
-
As it turned out Martin was there because he'd been suspended from school for a minor drug offense, and I believe the tox screen from the autopsy found drugs in his system . . . so it would seem Zimmerman's observations had a basis in fact.
IANAL, but here's a question for the legal eagles: I've read that the prosecution (and Martin's family) didn't want the tox screen results showing Martin was a druggie admitted into evidence; I don't know if the judge ruled on this. However, if the prosecution introduces the 911 call of Zimmerman saying it looked as if the suspicious guy were on drugs, can the defense get the tox screen admitted in order to explore an issue - the appearance of being on drugs - introduced by the prosecution?
Doubtful, unless there is some way to tie the results of the tests to some type of aggressive/violent behavior. If it's just marihuana, it won't come in. Since the relevant questions to self defense are based upon an objective standard, what a reasonable person would believe/do in Zimmerman's position, then it's not very probative since those results weren't learned of until after the autopsy. Can't add information after the shooting occurred. It's what was known/believed at the time.
-
Doubtful, unless there is some way to tie the results of the tests to some type of aggressive/violent behavior. If it's just marihuana, it won't come in. Since the relevant questions to self defense are based upon an objective standard, what a reasonable person would believe/do in Zimmerman's position, then it's not very probative since those results weren't learned of until after the autopsy. Can't add information after the shooting occurred. It's what was known/believed at the time.
Yeah, unless you're a cop. ;)
-
OK, I'm slightly confused but...
Either Martin attacked Zimmerman or Zimmerman attacked Martin.
Zimmerman claims self defense, which Chris says is an admission of guilt and to have reasonable justification, Zimmerman must proove he was at no fault.
But, if Martin turned around and threw the first punch, doesn't that negate Zimmermans fault completly?
Why wouldn't/shouldn't this come down to who made the first physical contact?
???
Since Zimmerman was following or harrassing Martin, and Martin had gotten out of sight and away, Martin could have/should have called the authorities to deal with Zimmerman. Which makes Martin as much at fault for the situation as Zimmerman. Doesn't it?
-
Right now the prosecution seems to be presenting the defense:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/01/scientific-testimony-expected-from-prosecution-as-2nd-week-zimmerman-trial/
=D
-
I swear, folks, I am not making this up.
Zimmerman Trial Day 6 – Analysis & Video – State’s witness Chris Serino seriously undermines charge
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zimmerman-trial-day-6-analysis-video-serino-testimony-challenges-very-foundation-of-states-charge/
Chris Serino, Investigator, Sanford Police Department
I don't think I can do it justice. Mash the link and read, it is not too long. If you were wondering, "Why didn;t they charge GZ earlier and only later under pressure?" Your answer is there.
On the stand was Chris Serino, who was the lead investigator for the Sanford Police Department on the Trayyvon Martin shooting. Defense counsel Mark O’Mara led cross-examination with his usual consummate skill, obtaining responses from this witness–remember, the State’s witness–that all but completely guts the State’s charge in this case.
O’Mara noted that Serino was leading an investigative team, gathering and sharing evidence ,that included all levels of the Sanford Police Department up to the Chief, and even members of the 18 Circuit State Prosector’s office. Asked if there was ANYTHING that Zimmerman had said that contradicted the wealth of evidence possessed by Serino, the Investigator answered, “No, sir.” No physical evidence, no witness evidence, no officer statements, nothing? “No, sir.”
Serino noted that in this particular case he was under quite a lot of external pressure to move the case forward.
At one point Serino was pressured to initiate a “challenge meeting” with Zimmerman, in which he would try to goad Zimmerman to making substantive changes to his testimony or to admit to a substantive omission from his prior testimony.
The trouble, Serino recounted, is that he could really do an effective “challenge meeting” for the simple reason that “I just didn’t have much to challenge him WITH.” In this case, O’Mara asked, you didn’t have much to hit him with? “No sir,” answered Serino, “I did not.”
Nevertheless, the “challenge meeting” was held. In the absence of any real contrary evidence with which to challenge Serino, the Investigator pretended to have some ready to spring. They had discovered, he said, video footage of the events that evening. “And what did Zimmerman say when you told him that?” “He said, Thank God,” Serino answered.
O’Mara asked him:
“Do YOU think George Zimmerman was telling you the truth?”
Serino succinct answer: “Yes.”
IOW, there was no evidence contradicting GZ, GZ was believed by the cops, and GZ appeared relieved and grateful that a video of the incident existed. [Note: video was a ruse by cops to shake GZ's story, if GZ were making his story up. Video did not actually exist.]
Side Note: Pressure
http://lawofselfdefense.com/zimmerman-trial-evidentiary-flashback-investigator-serino-tells-fbi-he-was-pressured-to-bring-charges/
One thing we know for certain, although it’s been little reported in the mainstream media, is the Investigator was receiving considerable pressure from within his own department to bring charges against Zimmerman, charges Serino believed were unwarranted (or he would have recommended them).
How do we know this? The Federal Bureau of Investigation told us. From the March 3, 2012 investigative report produced by Special Agent Elizabeth C. Alexander and Special Agent Matthew R. Oliver, we learn the following:
Serino is concerned that many of the leaks in this case are coming from within the Sanford Police Department. He listed Sergeant AUTHOR BARNS, REBECCA VILLENOVA (phonetic), AND TREKELL PERKINS as all pressuring him to file charges against ZIMMERMAN after the incident. Serino did not believe he had enough evidence at the time to file charges.
Zimmerman Update Exclusive — Mid-Day 6 — Zimmerman recounts fight for his life (recording)
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zimmerman-update-exclusive-mid-day-6-zimmerman-recounts-fight-for-his-life-recording/
Dr. Hirotaka Nakasone, FBI Expert, Speech Identification and Speaker Identification
Essentially makes the point that the audio of the man screaming was not good enough to make any determination.
Police Officer Doris Singeleton, Sanford Police Department
BDLR does his best to get DS to minimize GZ's injuries and talks around the homeowner assoc clubhouse CCTV video.
Next BDLR played the recorded interview that Singleton conducted with Zimmerman the very night of the attack. It can only be described as a chilling recounting of a man in the fight for his life. Truly terrifying. I simply can’t see how playing that recording could have advanced one iota the State’s theory of the case that Zimmerman committed second degree murder, or any other crime that would not be justified as lawful self-defense.
-
Roo ster, that blog is cheerleading, not analysis. This is the same guy who thought the 3 hour, knock knock joke defense opening statement just smashed the case.....uhhh, yeah.
The hyping of trial moments in this case greatly exceeds anything I've seen; maybe Scott Peterson's trial was the only thing close I'm aware of. There'd be a press release exclaiming that this or that expert was definitively shot down by the defense....they continued right up until the releases read "no way state will keep his death penalty conviction on appeal!"
I suspect the conspiracy will be bigger in a couple of weeks time, its supporters baffled at the outcome for Zimmerman and seeing nothing but corruption to explain it.
-
Yeah, the blog has a pre-determined outcome. But what of the video? That's the professional charged with finding evidence of Zimmerman's crime. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Yeah, the blog has a pre-determined outcome. But what of the video? That's the professional charged with finding evidence of Zimmerman's crime. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
The same guy who didn't speak to the person Trayvon Martin was on the phone with at the time of the crime?
-
The same guy who didn't speak to the person Trayvon Martin was on the phone with at the time of the crime?
Good question. Are you talking about the same witness who was deposed while sitting next to the victim's mom on a couch in the victim's home?
-
The same guy who didn't speak to the person Trayvon Martin was on the phone with at the time of the crime?
Hey look, another question that won't be asked in court since the prosecution probably does not want to weaken their own witness.Well, after cross examine they might want to, but too late.
-
Good question. Are you talking about the same witness who was deposed while sitting next to the victim's mom on a couch in the victim's home?
Yes, that's the person whom the phone company verified was talking to Trayvon when the confrontation started.
French, the question was already asked of the witness - they'll probably get to it with the police.
-
Roo ster, that blog is cheerleading, not analysis. This is the same guy who thought the 3 hour, knock knock joke defense opening statement just smashed the case.....uhhh, yeah.
The hyping of trial moments in this case greatly exceeds anything I've seen; maybe Scott Peterson's trial was the only thing close I'm aware of. There'd be a press release exclaiming that this or that expert was definitively shot down by the defense....they continued right up until the releases read "no way state will keep his death penalty conviction on appeal!"
I suspect the conspiracy will be bigger in a couple of weeks time, its supporters baffled at the outcome for Zimmerman and seeing nothing but corruption to explain it.
I wondered about that very thing. The bits of video I watched were in accord with the author's text, both as to content and subjective factors. I have not watched every video, more like 10%, but the author would have to get lucky for me to only have selected video that backed him up. Still possible the author is misrepresenting the testimony, but the probability is shrinking with each video snippet I watch that supports the author's presentation.
I keep waiting for state witnesses to present data that disproves GZ's story or otherwise shows him guilty of 2nd degree murder.
-
I keep waiting for state witnesses to present data that disproves GZ's story or otherwise shows him guilty of 2nd degree murder.
Ahh, but has Z's defense proved him 100% innocent? It appears the only way he will walk is if he can overcome the presumption of guilt.
-
Ahh, but has Z's defense proved him 100% innocent? It appears the only way he will walk is if he can overcome the presumption of guilt.
I've listened to a lot of the trial while I've been working and this is a good point. From what I've seen and heard, the prosecution is at best trying to show that Zimmerman might be guilty - sort of a reasonable doubt of innocence rather than proof of guilt.
Whether or not that leads to a conviction is anyone's guess.
-
I've listened to a lot of the trial while I've been working and this is a good point. From what I've seen and heard, the prosecution is at best trying to show that Zimmerman might be guilty - sort of a reasonable doubt of innocence rather than proof of guilt.
Whether or not that leads to a conviction is anyone's guess.
Probably depends on whether or not Martin's supporters have contacted the families of the jurors . . .
-
Yeah... it does seem the best the prosecution is doing at this point is "Look, he MIGHT have committed murder"
-
We've all read about not-so-good shootings where the bad guy was injured or died, yet the shooter didn't get charged. I remember one from the Milwaukee area several years back. A convenience store owner was being robbed. When the robber left the store, the owner chased him out of the parking lot and shot the robber when he was on the sidewalk. Clearly not a good shoot, but the DA didn't press charges. It happens all the time. Voters don't like DA's who charge people who shoot criminals.
So far I have not read or heard of any evidence that indicates that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after being told not to do so, or that Zimmerman was not being beaten. In any other case, Zimmerman would not be charged. He's only been charged because it's a sexy news story, and we even have a president who's hyped it. If Martin was white, we would never have heard of this case, just as if Obama were white, he would never have made it past the Iowa caucuses. Our "post-racial" society has taken five steps backwards since 2008.
-
I watched some of the trial this morning. The prosecution was questioning the lead investigator, and asked him if during questioning he had tried to bluff Zimmerman by telling him if he knew that Trevon had videoed the entire encounter. Z' answered something like "please God I hope he did". The prosecution brought that up!
-
I watched some of the trial this morning. The prosecution was questioning the lead investigator, and asked him if during questioning he had tried to bluff Zimmerman by telling him if he knew that Trevon had videoed the entire encounter. Z' answered something like "please God I hope he did". The prosecution brought that up!
Doesn't seem the likely reaction of a rage-fueled racist murderer...
-
just as if Obama were white, he would never have made it past the Iowa caucuses.
If 0. were white, he'd have never made it past the Ill-i-noise house.
-
I watched some of the trial this morning. The prosecution was questioning the lead investigator, and asked him if during questioning he had tried to bluff Zimmerman by telling him if he knew that Trevon had videoed the entire encounter. Z' answered something like "please God I hope he did". The prosecution brought that up!
That was on re-re-re-redirect. Defense brought that up yesterday.
-
That was on re-re-re-redirect. Defense brought that up yesterday.
OK, that makes more sense. He was trying (without much success) to make it sound as if Zimmerman would have know the questioner was bluffing because Z would have had to have seen the camera.
-
The same guy who didn't speak to the person Trayvon Martin was on the phone with at the time of the crime?
Regolith, if the facts were so clear, this would've been disposed of by a pre trial hearing. That the defense didn't even try to do that is instructive - it can only mean they had no chance whatsoever.
The investigating officer, two judges, and several DAs have seen facts supporting a case. Try this experiment if you think my analysis is off: contact an attorney you trust, and tell them that you're on the neighbourhood watch, and that sometimes you see people wandering the sidewalk in your neighbourhood who run away when you follow them slowly in your car. Ask this person what would happen if you ran after them and ended up shooting one - see what advice you get back.
Unless, of course, he disagrees with me. Then he's incompetent.
Yes, that's the person whom the phone company verified was talking to Trayvon when the confrontation started.
French, the question was already asked of the witness - they'll probably get to it with the police.
Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.
I wasn't aware the phone company knows the time stamp for the beginning of the confrontation. We know that the phone owned by the young lady was connected to Mr. Martin's at a time that is CLOSE to the time of the confrontation. We don't know, but by her testimony, that she was "talking to Trayvon when the confrontation started."
I've noticed you have a healthy degree of skepticism for an absolute discounting of Mr. Zimmerman's testimony, even though we have no hard evidence to refute it. On the other hand, you accept Ms. Jeantel's testimony as God's own truth.
Thank you for the primer on lawyerly "reasoning".
-
OK, I'm slightly confused but...
Either Martin attacked Zimmerman or Zimmerman attacked Martin.
Zimmerman claims self defense, which Chris says is an admission of guilt and to have reasonable justification, Zimmerman must proove he was at no fault.
But, if Martin turned around and threw the first punch, doesn't that negate Zimmermans fault completly?
Why wouldn't/shouldn't this come down to who made the first physical contact?
???
Since Zimmerman was following or harrassing Martin, and Martin had gotten out of sight and away, Martin could have/should have called the authorities to deal with Zimmerman. Which makes Martin as much at fault for the situation as Zimmerman. Doesn't it?
This is the hard part about the law of self-defense...there are the "no brainer" situations, like the mother in Oklahoma who shot the intruder while on the phone with dispatch. No one questions anything about it. then there are the problem cases, like the Zimmerman case, where there is a whole lot of grey area, and the facts lie somewhere in the middle. When the situation started, who was responsible for creating the violent situation, etc. are all facts that the jury must decide. They may find as you suggested, tyhat Martin started it when he punched and knocked down Zimmerman. They may find that Zimmerman started it by following Martin. Time will tell. This is why the lesson I'm taking from this is "don't follow a suspect away from my car."
-
This is why the lesson I'm taking from this is "don't follow a suspect away from my car."
Fair enough, but do you have a magic force field protecting you in your car?
Just for an example, last fall I drove down the road to get the license number of somebody road hunting just north of my property line. What if they took offense and followed me back to my house? Now I have a problem.
So if I end up shooting somebody in my driveway, was it my fault for just driving by to get a license number ???
-
Just read an article about the trial...and I guess the day started with the prosecution attacking and attempting to impeach the testimony of the investigator they called yesterday...
I would like to take a moment and bow my head with regret and sorrow as the last shred of respect the public had for the criminal justice system has just passed away. After OJ (part 1), Casey Anothony, Jody Arias, and all the other "made for TV" trials had taken place, I swear I spent more time saying "that's not what happens in the real world" than anything else when I said what I do for a living. This clusterf*%^& has now driven a stake right through the heart of it all, killing it dead. How can we hold the system up as a dignified and respected way of seeking justice when we have prosecutors calling witnesses and then having to attack them because they don't like the testimony. And, I know, you can impeach your own witnesses if necessary, but since when does a prosecutor have to impeach a lead investigator in the case at trial!
I weep for the system I have spent 18 years working in and trying to defend. I'd quit and walk out in disgrace, but I still owe on student loans, and I have guns and ammo I want to buy, and maybe I'm respected for the work I do, even if the system sucks.
-
Fair enough, but do you have a magic force field protecting you in your car?
Just for an example, last fall I drove down the road to get the license number of somebody road hunting just north of my property line. What if they took offense and followed me back to my house? Now I have a problem.
So if I end up shooting somebody in my driveway, was it my fault for just driving by to get a license number ???
i think there's a distinction that can be made between your scenario and the trial. In your scenario, the bad guys have now followed you home, you're on your own property, and it will be clear that they attacked. My point is that I won't be leaving a position of apparent safety (i.e. inside my car) to follow someone behind or around a building. Besides making it easier to legally defend if I'm attacked at/in my car, it makes tactical sense.
-
i think there's a distinction that can be made between your scenario and the trial. In your scenario, the bad guys have now followed you home, you're on your own property, and it will be clear that they attacked. My point is that I won't be leaving a position of apparent safety (i.e. inside my car) to follow someone behind or around a building. Besides making it easier to legally defend if I'm attacked at/in my car, it makes tactical sense.
Can you explain the difference between Tallpine's following a car, and Zimmerman's following Martin? I don't understand how one is defensible, and not the other. Both could be blamed for doing something that led to a confrontation. Are you saying Z would be in the clear, if he had made it to his own yard, before being jumped?
-
Can you explain the difference between Tallpine's following a car, and Zimmerman's following Martin? I don't understand how one is defensible, and not the other.
Yeah, I just suggested one possible outcome. What if one of them stepped out in front of me and pointed a hunting rifle through my windshield - would I have been justified in ducking down and running him over ??? (how else would you escape - you could still be shot while backing up)
Maybe I should never leave my house/property/bed ?
In real life, they were across the crick gutting the deer. The FG officer tracked him down some days later.
-
Zimmerman didn't follow someone around or behind a building. Watch the crime scene walkthrough.
He left the car (Point A) to move to a place (B) where he thought he could see where Martin went (D), then told the police "He's gone." he then continued to a place where he thought he could read a street sign to give a location (C), and while returning to his car (A) was attacked at point (B)
D
C B A
-
Fair enough, but do you have a magic force field protecting you in your car?
Just for an example, last fall I drove down the road to get the license number of somebody road hunting just north of my property line. What if they took offense and followed me back to my house? Now I have a problem.
So if I end up shooting somebody in my driveway, was it my fault for just driving by to get a license number ???
That's one of those scenarios the internet commandos would love since they all know that any shooting beyond single digit X number of yards isn't SD. What if road hunter unloads on you from several hundred yards and you have no retreat line that is obscured from his vision?
-
He's only been charged because it's a sexy news story, and we even have a president who's hyped it. If Martin was white, we would never have heard of this case,...
Truth.
I have been listening to Fox News a lot on the trial and one attorney keeps saying that being beaten in not reason for Z to defend himself with lethal force. I dissagree. Of course they challenge the extent of Z's injuries to suggest that he really wasn't as beaten as Z said in his statements.
My only concern about this trial is that Z went a bit too far in his neighborhood watch duties in terms of pursuit.
-
This is starting to feel like law school...answer a question and get a variation right back. ;)
When I was talking about staying with my car, I was saying what I might do if I observed a suspicious person duck behind a building. Stay with my car and call it in. If I am doing that, and the suspicious person comes back to confront and/or attacke me, I am in a better tactical position, as I now have cover and a pretty good means of escape. And I am in a better position legally, because the 911 tape is giing to be a record of the bad guy coming after me. I doubt any jury is going to conclude a person sitting in a car onthe phone wuth 911 is doing something wrong up front. They might conclude that in Zimmerman was doing something wrong up front.
Sometimes people ask about the lawm looking for clear yes and no answers. Those are becoming increasingly rare.
As for someone shooting at me from 100+ yards away with a rifle...I'll be proned out behind anything, praying. No way I could score hits that far away with my EDC piece.
-
As for someone shooting at me from 100+ yards away with a rifle...I'll be proned out behind anything, praying. No way I could score hits that far away with my EDC piece.
Who said that I didn't also have a rifle in the truck? ;) :lol:
Anyway, it seems like that it breaks down into two parts:
1) the cautious thing to do regarding personal safety
2) where you have a right to be without incurring "fault" in the event you are attacked and need to defend yourself
As for #2, where do you draw the line? Did you go out for dinner or a show in a shady part of town while armed ??? You must have just been out looking to cap some poor black kid trying to make a dishonest living >:D
-
This is starting to feel like law school...answer a question and get a variation right back. ;)
When I was talking about staying with my car, I was saying what I might do if I observed a suspicious person duck behind a building. Stay with my car and call it in. If I am doing that, and the suspicious person comes back to confront and/or attacke me, I am in a better tactical position, as I now have cover and a pretty good means of escape.
Tactically, sitting in a parked car is not necessarily better than out walking around. Outside the car, you can hear and see what is around you, and can reach your weapon more easily. The car may offer some resistance to attack, and a means of escape, but there is a trade-off.
Now if you put the car in gear and get out of Dodge, that's another story.
-
Now if you put the car in gear and get out of Dodge, that's another story.
Right, unless you're driving a Dodge, then it can be very dangerous.
-
mark geragos is no deselby.... but
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/2/prosecution-faces-steep-climb-zimmerman-case/
Famous defense attorney Mark Geragos said during a CNN interview Monday night said the case “is close to being over.”
“This prosecution is dead in the water,” he added.
-
Who said that I didn't also have a rifle in the truck? ;) :lol:
Anyway, it seems like that it breaks down into two parts:
1) the cautious thing to do regarding personal safety
2) where you have a right to be without incurring "fault" in the event you are attacked and need to defend yourself
As for #2, where do you draw the line? Did you go out for dinner or a show in a shady part of town while armed ??? You must have just been out looking to cap some poor black kid trying to make a dishonest living >:D
While where you are could come into play, what you are doing is more important. Gotta remember, a jury is going to look at things afterbthe fact. Being in the bad part of town, because you are dropping off food to a soup kitchen is going to look better than following suspicious people in the best part of town.
-
I am too tired for much commentary. The most interesting deal was BDLR tearing into the lead investigator Serino and getting the judge to disallow some of his testimony. Kinda like what Chris wrote about above. Very much a "WTH?" deal.
Also learned that under pressure, Serino was willing to go as far as a manslaughter charge vs GZ, but not back a 2nd degree murder charge. For that, he was demoted from detective and put back on patrol. Gotta like that. I say that both completely straight and with sarcasm. Straight in that we have a LEO who is not willing to back charging someone with a crime he doesn't think they committed. Sarcastically in that he was punished for not drinking the race-baiting political kool-aid.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zimmerman-update-exclusive-mid-day-7-serino-more-ambivalent-osterman-supports-self-defense/
Zimmerman Update Exclusive — Mid-Day 7 — Serino more ambivalent, Osterman supports self-defense
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zimmerman-trial-day-7-wrap-up-prosecution-recovers-a-little-prepared-to-introduce-college-records-2/
Zimmerman Trial Day 7 Wrap Up: Prosecution recovers a little, prepared to introduce college records
I await GZ's college transcript with bated breath. I am sure it holds the key to the prosecution's case. Well, they can't be as adverse as many of their witnesses have been.
-
O'Mara also asked [Detective] Serino, "Did you think there was anything wrong with Mr. Zimmerman following Trayvon Martin?"
Serino replied, "Legally speaking, no."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/03/zimmerman-school-records-at-issue-in-wednesday-hearing/#ixzz2Xzk7Rr3c
-
I am trying to figure out how college transcripts will have any bearing on this case and failing. Any ideas?
-
I am trying to figure out how college transcripts will have any bearing on this case and failing. Any ideas?
I think prosecution wants to paint him out as a wannabe cop on a power trip.
-
I am trying to figure out how college transcripts will have any bearing on this case and failing. Any ideas?
If Zimmerman's school records are admissible, how about Martin's . . . including the fact that at the time of his encounter with Zimmerman, he was on suspension from school on a drug offense?
-
^
Racist!
I think they want to show that GZ was a legal eagle who knew all about FLs self defense laws either to show he knew he was in the wrong, or to paint a picture of a cop pretender.
Ok, maybe he took pertinent classes at CC. If I ever let CC make me an expert on anything, especially law that'll be a sad day.
-
^
Racist!
I think they want to show that GZ was a legal eagle who knew all about FLs self defense laws either to show he knew he was in the wrong, or to paint a picture of a cop pretender.
Ok, maybe he took pertinent classes at CC. If I ever let CC make me an expert on anything, especially law that'll be a sad day.
I think that they want to convict him of using that "not breaking the law" loophole ;/
Prosecutors want to show that Zimmerman aspired to be a police officer and knew about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which says there is no duty to retreat if one is confronted with potentially lethal force. Prosecutors now plan to introduce evidence about a college criminal justice course the defendant took that included course work on Florida's self-defense law. The testimony appears aimed at bolstering the state's claim he acted more aggressively than a civilian watch volunteer ought to.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/03/zimmerman-school-records-at-issue-in-wednesday-hearing/#ixzz2Y1961556
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and knowledge of the law is proof that you are a criminal :facepalm:
-
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and knowledge of the law is proof that you are a criminal :facepalm:
[/quote]
Ain't it grand?
-
I don't understand what knowing or not knowing about the SYG law has to do with anything.
-
A thought crossed my mind... many times judges will start to make evidentiary rulings in favor of the side that is going to lose to minimize appellate issues. Might explain why the judge is ruling in favor of the prosecution on issues that make no sense to me,like this school history crap.
-
Watching Foxnews this afternoon they floated the theory that it was to discredit Zimmerman and paint him as a wannabe cop. Supposedly said he wasn't familiar with Florida's SYG laws during an interview with Hannity, while the professor said it was discussed often and Zimmerman was a participant in them.
Weak sauce, IMO.
-
A thought crossed my mind... many times judges will start to make evidentiary rulings in favor of the side that is going to lose to minimize appellate issues. Might explain why the judge is ruling in favor of the prosecution on issues that make no sense to me,like this school history crap.
Well, that may be the way it looks after being sliced with Ockham's Butterknife.
Ockham's Razor would say that the judge is acting like all the other state gov't officials and looking to put GZ behind bars, by hook or by crook. They have their orders and know who has the power and who makes lucrative gov't appointments. They need their Great White Defendant. No matter if he isn't white.
-
The school records thing doesn't look like much of a play by the prosecution either.
One of his instructors, now a JAG, said "Hi George" to him with a smile when asked if his student (described as excellent and earning an A) was in the classroom and proceeded to once more make the prosecution look idiotic by going through the details of what constitutes legitimate self-defense, and that "degree of injury" isn't relevant, indeed that the whole concept is to react to the threat to -prevent- serious injury. Which undermine's the prosecutions "he over-reacted" to the beating angle.
The DNA was, as expected, a non-player due to the rain and lack of collection (due to the lack of evidence it wasn't self-defense).
So the prosecution is down to Trayvon's mother as a weeping witness, then they rest. It looks like they aren't going to call the actual medical examiner who did the actual autopsy on Trayvon? They called an assistant who wasn't involved in the initial case to give her opinion about photographs but like the rest of the prosecution witnesses didn't deliver anything meaningfully conclusive.
-
I'm actually starting to wonder if the prosecutor was told from on high that there WILL be a murder trial but his heart's not really in it. Maybe not intentionally throwing it, but definitely not killing himself either.
-
I'm actually starting to wonder if the prosecutor was told from on high that there WILL be a murder trial but his heart's not really in it. Maybe not intentionally throwing it, but definitely not killing himself either.
I think they're just using the trial as a very expensive CYA. They know they have a weak case at best, which was why they declined to charge in the first place. Then the media circus got going so they needed to do something to take the heat off and a trial is the obvious solution. If GZ is convicted the spotlight moves on to other things and if he's acquitted they can say they had a trial so it's not racism on their part.
-
"degree of injury" isn't relevant, indeed that the whole concept is to react to the threat to -prevent- serious injury.
Yes, thank you. Of course his wounds weren't that serious. 'Cause he shot the other guy. Duh.
I think they're just using the trial as a very expensive CYA. They know they have a weak case at best, which was why they declined to charge in the first place. Then the media circus got going so they needed to do something to take the heat off and a trial is the obvious solution. If GZ is convicted the spotlight moves on to other things and if he's acquitted they can say they had a trial so it's not racism on their part.
Oh yeah.
-
A minor Correction the medical examiner was not even from that area she hired gun from the area with the prosecutor came from. And she has a very checkered past she lost her job for cause only has her job now as a political appointment
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
I am trying to figure out how college transcripts will have any bearing on this case and failing. Any ideas?
I'm wondering if they'll allow Martin's school records....in order to show Martin as a wannabe gangsta..... ;/
-
A thought crossed my mind... many times judges will start to make evidentiary rulings in favor of the side that is going to lose to minimize appellate issues. Might explain why the judge is ruling in favor of the prosecution on issues that make no sense to me,like this school history crap.
But the prosecution *can't* appeal. (that double jeopardy thing)
-
^^^ Yeah, this is not Italy.
-
My prediction is that Zimmerman gets convicted at trial and has the conviction overturned on eventual appeal. If he lives long enough to see that play out.
This outcome still would not surprize me in the least. Based on what we've seen he should be acquitted. But OJ and Casey Anthony should have convicted.
-
Tom Wolfe explains the Zimmerman case
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/07/tom-wolfe-explains-zimmerman-case.html
One of my relatively few specific successes in the field of Awareness Raising over the last decade has been how much more cognizant a small fraction of the thinking public has become that Tom Wolfe's 1987 bestseller The Bonfire of the Vanities foreshadows many of the racial brouhahas that have consumed the press in the 26 years since. Judge Richard A. Posner's mid-1990s reassessment of Bonfire praised Wolfe's "prophetic insight (the sort of thing we attribute to Kafka)." Wolfe's phrase "Great White Defendant" is now up to 95,600 pages on Google.
With the current Bonfire-style trial of George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin shooting turning into an unsurprising train wreck, it's worth giving you excerpts of a key section from Bonfire (pp. 105-108) that provides the template for understanding much of what you see on the nightly news over the decades:
The language is NSFW...
If you have not read anything by Tom Wolfe, you are doing yourself a disservice. I first read him in his book A Man in Full. I was living in/near Atlanta at the time and he captured it to a T. His style of writing is very engaging. I liken him to a better-read, more hygenic, and sober Hunter S. Thompson.
I have enjoyed his journalism, fiction novels, and nonfiction books.
-
*yawn* Wake me up when the verdict is read and the riots start.
-
Ahh, but has Z's defense proved him 100% innocent? It appears the only way he will walk is if he can overcome the presumption of guilt.
Only one person has ever been 100% innocent -- and he got the death penalty.
-
The most important part of the Zimmerman trial is, be situationally aware. Being legally in the right is only half of self defense. The other half is making sure your trial is as cheap and short as possible. Which means going well beyond the legal necessities.
-
Tom Wolfe explains the Zimmerman case
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/07/tom-wolfe-explains-zimmerman-case.html
If you have not read anything by Tom Wolfe, you are doing yourself a disservice. I first read him in his book A Man in Full. I was living in/near Atlanta at the time and he captured it to a T. His style of writing is very engaging. I liken him to a better-read, more hygenic, and sober Hunter S. Thompson.
I have enjoyed his journalism, fiction novels, and nonfiction books.
He's as good as Larry McMurtry, which is saying a lot. Various pages of my copy of that book have food/drink laughter ejecta stains.
[/quote]
-
the martin camp is unhappy which is good we still have the grieving mothers turn on the stand possibly the brother. both give me hope that martins "character" can be brought into play. if they pitch him as a good boy the defense can rebut
-
the martin camp is unhappy which is good we still have the grieving mothers turn on the stand possibly the brother. both give me hope that martins "character" can be brought into play. if they pitch him as a good boy the defense can rebut
The prosecution wouldn't be so stupid. OK, I can see that happening.
Before the prosecution rests its case, it may manage to posthumously convict TM of a violent assault and hate crime against GZ. Pinning the NSA leaks on TM may be a bit of a stretch, given he was dead at the time, but the state's team seems to have a real talent. Of some sort.
-
If Martin's mother testifies, and sobs her way through a story of her poor boy, her good boy, she'll never get him back, etc., the smartest thing that the defense could do is NOT cross her at all. Why? Beat up the grieving mother and you just look like an a$$ to the jury. I've seen many a case where a jury will take it out on the defendant when they think the defense attorney is an a$$. They don't need to beat her up to prevail. Let her go, rely on the evidence that is already out 9which we've discussed above), and put on a solid self-defense argument.
-
So any bets on him getting off but losing the sure to come civil trial?
-
So any bets on him getting off but losing the sure to come civil trial?
He gets off and there will be no civil trial. FL gives civil immunity to self defense shoots.
-
He gets off and there will be no civil trial. FL gives civil immunity to self defense shoots.
It is my understanding that if you are CHARGED in Florida, even if found to have acted in self-defense, you can then be sued in civil court.
Which was the entire purpose here. That was why the screaming about "We just want a trial!" The "Justice for Trayvon" parents who trademarked his name are interested in the $$$$$$ sort of "justice". That was the entire purpose of stoking racial animus in this case. Their bloodsucking, bottomfeeding, slime-oozing, scum-sucking, self-serving lawyer, of course, included.
-
Don't think so. The law says "uses force". Of course it also says he is immune to criminal prosecution. But my understanding is that if the use of force is found to be justifiable (I.e. not criminal) then the civil immunity kicks in. IANAL and all that.
Here's the law:
http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/fl-776-032%E2%80%83immunity-from-criminal-prosecution-and-civil-action-for-justifiable-use-of-force/
-
Don't think so. The law says "uses force". Of course it also says he is immune to criminal prosecution. But my understanding is that if the use of force is found to be justifiable (I.e. not criminal) then the civil immunity kicks in. IANAL and all that.
Here's the law:
http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/fl-776-032%E2%80%83immunity-from-criminal-prosecution-and-civil-action-for-justifiable-use-of-force/
Unfortunately, that law is unclear as to what happens should "the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it having determined that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful."
It's fairly clear that the agency DIDN'T find that probable cause but arrested him anyway. The question is, then, what happens now that the state have ostensibly found "probable cause."
-
Now that is an interesting statute. The way I read it, if a person is "justified" in using force, he cannot be prosecuted criminally or civilly for that use of force. If he is acquitted on the criminal side, you'll have a jury verdict saying that the use of force was justified. The civil attorney can argue that this statute applies, as the criminal jury found the use of force to be justified, regardless of the arrest. Civil lawyer will argue arrest = unjustified, and Zimmerman's lawyer will argue res judicata.
Apparently the State has rested, and the defense is arguing for dismissal/acquittal for failure to make a prima facie case. Standard procedure in all criminal cases. I imaging the judge will deny the motion, since this is a self-defense case. We'll see how it pans out...
-
Apparently the State has rested, and the defense is arguing for dismissal/acquittal for failure to make a prima facie case. Standard procedure in all criminal cases. I imaging the judge will deny the motion, since this is a self-defense case. We'll see how it pans out...
Interesting.
-
Noted on Legal Insurrection that today began with a sad mother (who didn't actually raise Trayvon most of his recent life, the step-mom did) claiming the screaming voice was her son and is ending with another sad mother (1/4 black / 3/4 Hispanic and dark), who raised her son his whole life, saying the screams were -her- son.
Wonder if NBC will lighten her photos?
-
I liked the csm's testimony
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
Noted on Legal Insurrection that today began with a sad mother (who didn't actually raise Trayvon most of his recent life, the step-mom did) claiming the screaming voice was her son and is ending with another sad mother (1/4 black / 3/4 Hispanic and dark), who raised her son his whole life, saying the screams were -her- son.
Really and truely? Circus.
Wonder if NBC will lighten her photos?
Extra 5 o'clock shadow.
-
I just got an email from my father-in-law and it has Trayvon's photos in it. It could be a fake, so many of them are but the Trayvon the 12yo photo vs. Trayvon the 17yo is an amazing transformation. Trayvon the 12yo I'd invite to dinner or to church, Trayvon the 17yo I wouldn't want to be on the same city block with.
-
I just got an email from my father-in-law and it has Trayvon's photos in it. It could be a fake, so many of them are but the Trayvon the 12yo photo vs. Trayvon the 17yo is an amazing transformation. Trayvon the 12yo I'd invite to dinner or to church, Trayvon the 17yo I wouldn't want to be on the same city block with.
You're profiling ;) :P
-
You're profiling ;) :P
I don't care!!! He wasn't an angel!
-
Lol
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/07/florida-prosecutor-indicted-for-falsifying-arrest-warrant-against-george-zimmerman-2676118.html?fb_action_ids=3249179686177&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=awesm%3Ab5d72b8b4293708bde6ca3767cbcefb5&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%223249179686177%22%3A200465710110580%7D&action_type_map=%7B%223249179686177%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%7B%223249179686177%22%3A%22awesm%3Ab5d72b8b4293708bde6ca3767cbcefb5%22%7D
-
Lol
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/07/florida-prosecutor-indicted-for-falsifying-arrest-warrant-against-george-zimmerman-2676118.html?fb_action_ids=3249179686177&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=awesm%3Ab5d72b8b4293708bde6ca3767cbcefb5&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%223249179686177%22%3A200465710110580%7D&action_type_map=%7B%223249179686177%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%7B%223249179686177%22%3A%22awesm%3Ab5d72b8b4293708bde6ca3767cbcefb5%22%7D
http://www.citizensgrandjury.com/
The guy who runs that site has also "indicted" Holder and Obama.
I bet Corey is positively quaking in her boots waiting to be arrested.
-
Front page of Drudge...
MSM is jumping ship.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi156.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft33%2FAJ_Dual%2Fdrudgezimmerman_zpsea969d96.jpg&hash=7ac85864c168ec280253483ec85f6aafbab59608) (http://s156.photobucket.com/user/AJ_Dual/media/drudgezimmerman_zpsea969d96.jpg.html)
Now it's a matter of seeing if the MSM is going to organically but "unintentionally" through emergent group-think beat the riot drums to at least get some new "it bleeds it leads" drama/disaster/angst to pump ratings.
-
I'm still betting he'll be convicted. While GZ is not the brightest crayon in the box it's my opinion that the shooting was justifiable given what facts we know. Any other verdict will result in race riots so they must convict.
:facepalm:
-
I'm still betting he'll be convicted. While GZ is not the brightest crayon in the box it's my opinion that the shooting was justifiable given what facts we know. Any other verdict will result in race riots so they must convict.
:facepalm:
But it's a jury trial, and the riots won't be in their neighborhoods. It's not like they are up for reelection. ;/
-
I'm still betting he'll be convicted. While GZ is not the brightest crayon in the box it's my opinion that the shooting was justifiable given what facts we know. Any other verdict will result in race riots so they must convict.
:facepalm:
I don't know...
Some have raised the point that the all women jury can be more sensitive to lies and misrepresentation, and the stereotypical "claws come out" especially when they see it or feel it coming from other women. Most of whom were women on the stand who had the worst potential issues with truthfulness during the prosecution's case.
Not saying it is, or it isn't... but I can certainly see it as being possible.
And Mark O'Mara had several more challenges available to him in the voir dire portion of the trial. He must have some theory as to the jury makeup he was happy with.
And for every argument someone makes that the women will be overly empathetic to the "child" that was killed, they could just as easily be swayed by the idea of a tall black male in a hoodie cutting through residential yards on a rainy day, and Zimmerman, tactically right or wrong in some of the particulars, was "just trying to look out for the community".
-
And for every argument someone makes that the women will be overly empathetic to the "child" that was killed, they could just as easily be swayed by the idea of a tall black male in a hoodie cutting through residential yards on a rainy day, and Zimmerman, tactically right or wrong in some of the particulars, was "just trying to look out for the community".
Yep. The blessing and curse of a jury trial. You can truly never predict what point, what little thing, is going to sway the mind of a juror one way or the other. I once prosecuted a burglary case. Woman in her home office in the basement comes upstairs to find a man carrying her television. He carries it to the car and drives off. She watches, and as she's calling 911, she wrote the plate number on her wall. Police trace the plate, find the car at the guy's house. One juror voted not guilty, because the television wasn't at that home, and there was no DNA at the victim's home. Hung jury. Second trial, same evidence. Guilty verdictin 20 minutes.
-
My apologies if this has been posted elsewhere ... ;)
Meet the Zimmerman trial jurors ... http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/meet-the-zimmerman-trial-jurors/
-
Yep. The blessing and curse of a jury trial. You can truly never predict what point, what little thing, is going to sway the mind of a juror one way or the other. I once prosecuted a burglary case. Woman in her home office in the basement comes upstairs to find a man carrying her television. He carries it to the car and drives off. She watches, and as she's calling 911, she wrote the plate number on her wall. Police trace the plate, find the car at the guy's house. One juror voted not guilty, because the television wasn't at that home, and there was no DNA at the victim's home. Hung jury. Second trial, same evidence. Guilty verdictin 20 minutes.
Ahhh, the CSI effect. People watch too many cop shows (especially CSI:wherever) and think that SCIENCE!!! has the answers to every crime.
-
My apologies if this has been posted elsewhere ... ;)
Meet the Zimmerman trial jurors ... http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/meet-the-zimmerman-trial-jurors/
Granted, it probably plays just as well into being "low information voters", as it does "rugged individualist", but I did find the near universal disdain for the MSM in the jury selection refreshing.
-
Ahhh, the CSI effect. People watch too many cop shows (especially CSI:wherever) and think that SCIENCE!!! has the answers to every crime.
Yep. Every crime has DNA and a confession. Right.
Found out after the factbthat the woman had moved into county from Columbus, and she'd voted "not guilty" three times in previous jury service, even with video and a confession. One of those jurors...
-
Interesting how this isn't very big news:
http://billingsgazette.com/news/national/murder-trial-of-federal-agent-begins-in-hawaii/article_07c4cd08-41e5-5aae-a06d-6cb7f19dc02c.html
First time that I've heard of it.
-
Interesting how this isn't very big news:
http://billingsgazette.com/news/national/murder-trial-of-federal-agent-begins-in-hawaii/article_07c4cd08-41e5-5aae-a06d-6cb7f19dc02c.html
First time that I've heard of it.
The defense had hoped for a last-minute decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on a request to move the case from state court to federal court.
I'm surprised that didn't work for them. It worked for Lon Horiuchi. Transfer to federal court, dismiss is, then all the feds have a big laugh at our expense.
-
I dunno, Zimmerman's mom and the other women, one squarely in the jury's demographic, who testified to his
character scream identification look a lot more like the jury than Martin's mom and Dee Dee. Zimmerman's wintnesses were badgered and sworn at to by the prosecution and replied with calm dignity. That can't hurt Zimmerman by association.
-
another day, and I do believe the prosecutions case fell that much more apart.
-
after watching the prosecutions witnesses, i'm surprised the defense called anyone.
-
after watching the prosecutions witnesses, i'm surprised the defense called anyone.
CSI effect. People want to hear the forensics. Seems they covered that quite well, too, what with the shirt's distance from Martin's chest and all.
-
@ Geronimo...You have to put on a casemfor a self-defense claim. The burden is on then defense to prove the homicide was justified.
That said, it doesn't seem like they had to work too hard.
Here's my take on things. I still have concerns that a juror could hang up on Zimmerman following Martin. That said, I think that as an outsider looking at the evidence presented, I think there's a good chance thatt the jury will acquit.
-
@ Geronimo...You have to put on a casemfor a self-defense claim. The burden is on then defense to prove the homicide was justified.
[\quote]
As an aside, the bolded part is not true and in FL. Once he claimed SD the burden is on the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't SD.
I worry a little that this jury will remember the death threats against Casey Anthony's jury and convict from fear. I still think it likely that he will be aquitted
-
@Dogmush, the presumption you speak of applies only to a homeowner who kills an intruder in his/her own home. See section 776.013, Florida's version of the Castle Doctrine. I'd love to claim I was that good with laws in all states, but I called a buddy who was a prosecutor in Florida.
-
kinda seems weird that the burden of proof is on the prosecutions side to convict someone of murder, and on the defendents side when it's self-defense. i guess part of that must stem from gz's statement that he did kill martin. fortunatly there seem to be enough witnesses, who saw/heard what was going on, to back up zimmermans version of events.
-
@Dogmush, the presumption you speak of applies only to a homeowner who kills an intruder in his/her own home. See section 776.013, Florida's version of the Castle Doctrine. I'd love to claim I was that good with laws in all states, but I called a buddy who was a prosecutor in Florida.
I'll defer to your friend. I got my info from a quote from the FLSC and I confess I didn't read the whole case.
-
Just so everyone understands...self-defense is an affirmative defense, in Zimmerman's case it's to the murder charge. Basically, how it works is that the state must still prove the homicide beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof then shifts to the defense to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the homicide was done in self-defense. If the jury finds the homicide was committed in self-defense, basically the rule it was justified, and acquit the defendant.
In reading over some of my last posts, there is one thing I didn't make clear. Zimmerman's defense, and any self-defense argument, basically concedes the homicide occurred, though they believe it was justified (done in self-defense). The defense does not concede the murder. Big difference in those terms. By conceding the homicide, they are saying "Yes, our guy killed that guy, but it was justified." They do not concede the "murder," as that term by its very definition means an unwarranted taking of life, usually with some type of malice.
What dogmush pointed out above is that Florida has passed a law which says that, in your own home, and against an intruder (someone who is unlawfully in your home), any homicide is presumed to be done in self-defense. The state must prove that it was not justified, which would be something very unusual. The "stand your ground" law that everyone wants to bring up in the Zimmerman case doesn't change the burdens of proof, or that Zimmerman must prove he acted in self-defense. It removes from the law of self-defense the burden of proving that you had no way of retreating from the danger. Some jurisdictions require that a person "retreat to the wall" before using deadly force against an attacker. In other words, you couldn't shoot back if there was any way to run from your attacker. (Seems kind of dumb, huh?) This is why I've believed from the beginning that the Zimmerman case has nothing to do with the "stand your ground" law. What it has to do with is whether or not Zimmerman can convince the jury that his shot was fired in self-defense. Did he reasonably believe that he needed to fire to protect himself from grievous bodily injury or death? (Some states have also included reasonable belief that a person was going to be raped in this definition of self-defense.)
That all said, I think that this case has now become a circus of the law. The state and defense are spending so much time now arguing about crap that is completely irrelevant to the facts of the shooting, and putting on a good show for the cameras, that any outcome is going to be problematic for us as armed citizens. An acquittal may mean that a jury may expect us to put on evidence that our attacker was attempting to buy a gun, and bragging about other fights, and had THC in his system. A conviction may mean that shooting may not be deemed a reasonable response to an "unarmed" beating, as I heard some idiot talking head say on CNN last night. "You don't bring a gun to a fist fight" is just a stupid ting to say. IMHO, a smart man brings a gun to any fight.
Rant off.
-
Proving that Martin had THC in his system seems like something that would hurt Zimmerman's case. ;)
-
@ Geronimo...You have to put on a casemfor a self-defense claim. The burden is on then defense to prove the homicide was justified.
Not blaming or doubting you. But it irks me whenever the burden of proof is not on the prosecution. Asset seizure is the same way. With asset seizure, you first have to prove standing and then prove you obtained the property legally. How this is Constitutional or legal, I have no bloody idea. It's outright theft, unless it is obtained under a warrant.
-
Not blaming or doubting you. But it irks me whenever the burden of proof is not on the prosecution. Asset seizure is the same way. With asset seizure, you first have to prove standing and then prove you obtained the property legally. How this is Constitutional or legal, I have no bloody idea. It's outright theft, unless it is obtained under a warrant.
Ayup. Also, that is hardly how it looks like LEOs are treated after a shooting.
And as to doings in the GZ trial, the defense is putting on witnesses that help the defense, unlike the novel approach taken by the prosecution (where they brouht out witnesses that helped the defense, too).
-
Not blaming or doubting you. But it irks me whenever the burden of proof is not on the prosecution. Asset seizure is the same way. With asset seizure, you first have to prove standing and then prove you obtained the property legally. How this is Constitutional or legal, I have no bloody idea. It's outright theft, unless it is obtained under a warrant.
No offense taken at all. I've always thought that asset forfeiture should be a part of the process done only after a guilty verdict. Kind of like "Okay, Mr. Jones was convicted of Crimes X, Y, and Z. The State has proven that the (list of items) were either tools used for committing those crimes, or the products of that criminal activity. As such, those items are forfeit to the State." i agree that this crap of seizing assets without criminal charges in many cases, much less convictions, just doesn't seem right.
-
Agreed. IIRC, part of the reasoning for taking the assets before trial was to prevent the suspect from using those assets to fund their defense.
-
gives his attorney something to work for... ;)
-
Agreed. IIRC, part of the reasoning for taking the assets before trial was to prevent the suspect from using those assets to fund their defense.
It would seem that puts the defendant in a bad spot: state must generally prove guilt. If you're truly innocent, seizure prevents putting up an adequate defense with legitimately acquired assets.....
Great way for the state to transfer wealth....
-
It would seem that puts the defendant in a bad spot: state must generally prove guilt. If you're truly innocent, seizure prevents putting up an adequate defense with legitimately acquired assets.....
Great way for the state to transfer wealth....
In some states the prosecutor will hire unelected, independent lawyers to prosecute asset forfeiture cases for a cut of the seizure.
-
Agreed. IIRC, part of the reasoning for taking the assets before trial was to prevent the suspect from using those assets to fund their defense.
Yea, because we can't have a level playing field, right?
-
Saw video clips of THE JUDGE questioning - badgering, actually - George Zimmerman; she appeared to be prompting him to say he wanted to testify. When his lawyer objected to the judge's questioning, she OVER RULED the lawyer!!
Since when does a judge - or anyone, for that matter - get to question a defendant in a criminal prosecution who's not on the stand and has counsel present to object to the questioning?
Would some of our legal-eagles PLEASE weigh in on this? IANAL, and it seems downright bizzare to me . . .
-
I just watched a video of that exchange.
It gave me a WTF moment.
-
Since when does a judge - or anyone, for that matter - get to question a defendant in a criminal prosecution who's not on the stand and has counsel present to object to the questioning?
Its ok since a federal judge appointment is probably on the line depending if she can get a conviction or not.
Remember, this isn't the America of 20 or even 10 years ago, its the obama America.
-
Saw video clips of THE JUDGE questioning - badgering, actually - George Zimmerman; she appeared to be prompting him to say he wanted to testify. When his lawyer objected to the judge's questioning, she OVER RULED the lawyer!!
Since when does a judge - or anyone, for that matter - get to question a defendant in a criminal prosecution who's not on the stand and has counsel present to object to the questioning?
Would some of our legal-eagles PLEASE weigh in on this? IANAL, and it seems downright bizzare to me . . .
Might be useful on appeal ;)
-
Its ok since a federal judge appointment is probably on the line depending if she can get a conviction or not.
Remember, this isn't the America of 20 or even 10 years ago, its the obama America.
I dunno. Maybe she's aiming at being the next Judge Judy on TeeVee.
-
I see the judge has now told the jurors they can consider manslaughter charges. Not to be putting on the tinfoil, but it sure seems like a surefire way to get Zimmerman on something, and give the "Zimmerman must be found guilty" crowd a bone. Though I think if the jury were to find him not guilty on all counts, the judge having given the jury a ton of leeway to get a guilt verdict, will have created an even more volatile situation with the race baiters if Zimmerman is exonerated.
-
I dunno. Maybe she's aiming at being the next Judge Judy on TeeVee.
Nope. Her strings are firmly in the hands of holder and obama.
-
I can't help but think, given the number of media cynics on the jury, that at least one of them (or more) is reading all the shenanigans going on in this circus and has already made up her mind to acquit just due to procedural malpractice, let alone the facts of the case.
-
I can't help but think, given the number of media cynics on the jury, that at least one of them (or more) is reading all the shenanigans going on in this circus and has already made up her mind to acquit just due to procedural malpractice, let alone the facts of the case.
I thought the jury was sequestered for this trial, without official access to newspapers, internet, radio, or TV?
-
I see the judge has now told the jurors they can consider manslaughter charges. Not to be putting on the tinfoil, but it sure seems like a surefire way to get Zimmerman on something, and give the "Zimmerman must be found guilty" crowd a bone. Though I think if the jury were to find him not guilty on all counts, the judge having given the jury a ton of leeway to get a guilt verdict, will have created an even more volatile situation with the race baiters if Zimmerman is exonerated.
Isn't that contrary to FL law ???
Obviously the judge knows that the trial has been going in favor of Z.
-
I thought the jury was sequestered for this trial, without official access to newspapers, internet, radio, or TV?
I'm sure they are, but there was a juror profile article a few pages back in this thread, highlighting the prosecution/defense interview process for the jurors. A good number of them expressed considerable cynicism for the media during the interview process.
I take this as a sign they understand populist manipulation and pandering techniques, including those the prosecution and judge are attempting to employ in the courtroom.
-
Watching the video of that exchange, I can't help but think it was a deliberate attempt to badger the defense and make them look like they "lost" something in regards to procedural propriety. The judge was helping the prosecution there, purely from a cosmetic and superficial presentability angle to the jury.
The only thing to be seen if if the jury finds that exchange to be distasteful from the perspective of the justice system's own propriety, or Zimmerman's defense.
-
Isn't that contrary to FL law ???
Obviously the judge knows that the trial has been going in favor of Z.
They haven't charged him with child abuse. Not yet.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/justice/zimmerman-trial/index.html
-
I see the judge has now told the jurors they can consider manslaughter charges. Not to be putting on the tinfoil, but it sure seems like a surefire way to get Zimmerman on something, and give the "Zimmerman must be found guilty" crowd a bone. Though I think if the jury were to find him not guilty on all counts, the judge having given the jury a ton of leeway to get a guilt verdict, will have created an even more volatile situation with the race baiters if Zimmerman is exonerated.
>:D :facepalm: If this wasn't a showtrial before it certainly is now! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
-
Apparently they are charging him with child abuse? After the trial?
What the effing effity eff??
EDIT: The State has brought it to the judge, it hasn't happened yet. She said she'll rule on it "later"
my previous remarks stand.
-
I'm waiting for them to start chanting "Kirk!" repeatedly while General Chang asks Zimmerman if he had been indulging in too much Romulan Ale.
-
Apparently they are charging him with child abuse? After the trial?
What the effing effity eff??
EDIT: The State has brought it to the judge, it hasn't happened yet. She said she'll rule on it "later"
my previous remarks stand.
She ruled: Denied prosecution's bid for felony murder based on child abuse.
-
She ruled: Denied prosecution's bid for felony murder based on child abuse.
Judge is a racist.
-
First decent call she's made this whole trial. I'm honestly surprised she didn't allow it.
-
Sorry. Been busy doing my judicial job.
One the first issue, of the judge questioning Zimmerman about testifying...First the jury was not present. This was done outside the presence of the jury, as many procedural issues are. The reason is that it allows for a discussion, on the record, without concern that anything said can wrongfully influence the jury. So, don't worry about the judge putting on a show here for the jury. Second, some jurisdictions actually require questioning along these lines. Here in Ohio, before a defendant can testify, the judge is required to question the defendant to make sure the defendant understands his right to remain silent, and that choosing to testify means a complete waiver of that right. I've read some appeals which have ruled that a judge should have inquired, as she did here, to make sure that the defendant understands not only his right to remain silent, but also his right to testify. Now, West was just dumb here. He objected the first time. Overruled. Okay, he made his record for appeal on the issue, and the judge overruled him. Second objection, the judge got the point, but again overruled. Third objection in less than two minutes, and you're just pissing off the judge. Not a good move for your client. And, like in A Few Good Men, did he think that strenuously objecting a third time was going to change the judge's mind when it didn't work the first two times 30 seconds ago? Her questions were not out of line. She's asking about time issues, scheduling issues. She's not asking him if he's guilty or anything. Bad move by West.
On the second issue. Again, I don't know Florida law, and I'm too busy right now to research it all, but manslaughter may be a "lesser included offense" to the Murder charge. How it works is the higher offense includes all of the same elements as the lower offense, a jury can choose the lower offense in place of the higher offense. the reason I think this is the case here is that the judge tossed the idea of the other manslaughter charge, because it had the additional element of "child abuse," which was never alleged before the prosecutor threw it out today. Again, nothing remarkable about including it...except that it was the prosecution that asked. In 18 years, I don't think I've ever seen a prosecutor at the close of all evidence suddenly ask for instructions on a lesser included. that would mean they know they missed swinging for the fence, so they're hoping for anything.
-
I'm waiting for them to start chanting "Kirk!" repeatedly while General Chang asks Zimmerman if he had been indulging in too much Romulan Ale.
This is beautiful.
-
Can a prosecutor LIE about testimony in his closing arguments?
The prosecutor told the jury that Zimmerman said to a witness the night of the incident that he'd KILLED someone. He said this was proof that Zimmerman lied when he later told an officer he didn't know Martin was dead.
The actual sworn, in-court testimony of the witness was that Zimmerman said he'd SHOT someone. (Greta on Fox showed clips of both the prosecutor's statement and the witness's sworn, in-court testimony.) This isn't a matter of opinion, this is a matter of FACT.
So . . . can a prosecutor LIE about evidence and sworn testimony in court and get away with it?
And can Zimmerman's defense team effectively use prosecutorial dishonesty to impeach the prosecutor's credibility in front of the jury?
IANAL, but it seems to me effective defense attorneys could use this to pretty thoroughly destroy the prosecution's credibility.
-
So . . . can a prosecutor LIE about evidence and sworn testimony in court and get away with it?
If the prosecutor and the judge are in cahoots, he can get away with anything.
Someone said the prosecution gets the final closing statement to the jury. Are you sure about that? How does that not violate the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment?
-
Apparently they are charging him with child abuse? After the trial?
What the effing effity eff??
EDIT: The State has brought it to the judge, it hasn't happened yet. She said she'll rule on it "later"
my previous remarks stand.
As noted, she ruled against it. (As is appropriate)
However, the DELAY in her ruling is suspicious, as if she took time to call around or consult (DOJ?) to see if there was any way she could rule in favor of it and have it stand. [tinfoil]
-
As noted, she ruled against it. (As is appropriate)
However, the DELAY in her ruling is suspicious, as if she took time to call around or consult (DOJ?) to see if there was any way she could rule in favor of it and have it stand. [tinfoil]
^^^^^This.
She probably talked with a few appeals court judges who told her that they would overturn that conviction PDQ. She may end up throwing the prosecutor under the bus, but she won't take a chance of joining him there.
-
^^^^^This.
She probably talked with a few appeals court judges who told her that they would overturn that conviction PDQ. She may end up throwing the prosecutor under the bus, but she won't take a chance of joining him there.
you have a great imagination
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
An attorney has two options ifbthe other side lie during closing arguments. You can object. Or you wait yournturn and point thenlie out in your close. Final option is to report the lie to the lawyer discipline office, as it is unethical. Ask Nancy Grace. I think it's one of the things she got tagged for.
Closing works like this...state goes first, defense goes, then the state gets rebuttal opportunity. It's not a 6th Amendment issue because it does not count as evidence. It's summary of the evidence.
-
Closing works like this...state goes first, defense goes, then the state gets rebuttal opportunity. It's not a 6th Amendment issue because it does not count as evidence. It's summary of the evidence.
It is if the prosecutor presents new evidence to the jury (his lie) in the final statement.
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/m-president_obama_vs_george_zimmerman_america_loses.html
Good summary.
-
Best quote:
Zimmerman didn't get to be the president's imaginary son. Wrong color. Zimmerman got to be the enemy.
-
Win or lose, I guess every time an Identity is killed by someone of a lesser identity, the case will now go before a grand jury, regardless of the actual circumstances.
-
Glad the jury is still deliberating- made it home from work without being Reginald Denny'd.
-
I was hoping it would come back quickly to avoid giving the race baiters a weekend to prepare.
Tapatalk isn't getting free advertising from me!.... Doh! >.<
-
Are Florida courts open on Saturday? Some of them are here.
What is >.<? Not familiar with that one.
-
Are Florida courts open on Saturday? Some of them are here.
What is >.<? Not familiar with that one.
Squinty / annoyed face
-
Deliberation will continue tomorrow. As I sit in Portsmouth, VA for the weekend...
-
Ahhh, the CSI effect. People watch too many cop shows (especially CSI:wherever) and think that SCIENCE!!! has the answers to every crime.
Well, it might, if you had scientists doing the initial investigation.
-
Wonder if NBC will lighten her photos?
Funny you should mention that; comparing stills from CBS and CNN, it looks like CNN's color balance was off, making her lighter and a bit green. Other shots of other people from CNN don't seem to have the same issue.
-
Are Florida courts open on Saturday? Some of them are here.
What is >.<? Not familiar with that one.
I've always considered it as a wince.
Tapatalk isn't getting free advertising from me!.... Doh! >.<
-
Are Florida courts open on Saturday? Some of them are here.
What is >.<? Not familiar with that one.
The judge seems to want this over asap, so the jury will be in today. Also Sunday if they don't get it done today as I understand it.
-
Glad the jury is still deliberating- made it home from work without being Reginald Denny'd.
If it were me I'd have had Damian Williams for a hood ornament.
-
The jurors are asking for a clarification on manslaughter. Sounds like the verdict might be "compromise" instead of guilty or innocent.
-
edit: wrong thread.
-
The jurors are asking for a clarification on manslaughter. Sounds like the verdict might be "compromise" instead of guilty or innocent.
Saw that elsewhere.... NOT looking good for GZ.
-
not so
that means they are down to that. they have rejected greater charges
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
not so
that means they are down to that. they have rejected greater charges
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
A manslaughter conviction is not exactly ice cream and cookies for Mr. Z.
-
i'm hoping they wait until monday morning for a "not guilty". i am surprised by the amount of deliberation, considering the evidence seemed to back up his story.
-
Newsflash on Foxnews. Jury has a verdict.
-
Not guilty
-
All of this business about the judge dismissing and the jury absolutely not believing the evidence against Zimmerman is straight fantasy - but I'm sure once we have a trial outcome someone will be along to include the jury in the conspiracy, along with the two judges, investigating officers, and DA's.
So, De Selby, do talk to us about the judicial conspiracy.
-
So, De Selby, do talk to us about the judicial conspiracy.
This must be part of it. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-it-firing/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
-
Not guilty
Wow. Shocked, but pleasantly surprised that the jury seemed to have considered all evidence in an unbiased manner. I really thought the manslaughter clarification questions were going to result in some charges.
I guess now we see if tomorrow we wake up to calm or chaos in some big cities. It willk certainly be chaos in the MSM.
-
Not guilty
OK, then.
-
Wow. Shocked, but pleasantly surprised that the jury seemed to have considered all evidence in an unbiased manner. I really thought the manslaughter clarification questions were going to result in some charges.
I guess now we see if tomorrow we wake up to calm or chaos in some big cities. It willk certainly be chaos in the MSM.
Yes, the cloud around the silver lining. We're now surprised when justice is done in America.
-
I am watching a live stream news conference with the AG and the prosecutors. I get the feeling they are trying to incite hate, and possible riots. It is a strange news conference.
bob
-
I am watching a live stream news conference with the AG and the prosecutors. I get the feeling they are trying to incite hate, and possible riots. It is a strange news conference.
bob
If I truly expressed the full weight of my feelings on that bullshit press conference the site would be down for a week while the language filter resets.
I wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm sadly not.
-
So when do the riots start?
-
So when do the riots start?
Patience, young grasshopper.
-
Patience, young grasshopper.
Buzz has to wear off amongst the likely demographic. Note that per twitter it'll be a rainbow coalition, at least the trial is breaking down barriers between different groups of thugs.
-
Just remember, the moral of the story is you have to be beaten worse than this to be able to shoot in self defense.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi156.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft33%2FAJ_Dual%2FZimmerman-injuries1_zpsfea50b83.jpg&hash=acc1abff3bd90775225697783e5ad97b3fb26bd3) (http://s156.photobucket.com/user/AJ_Dual/media/Zimmerman-injuries1_zpsfea50b83.jpg.html)
Oh, and stuff like facts, evidence, and logic are racist products of self-identified white-Hispanic half-Peruvian privilege.
-
Did they ever go over the part on whether or not Zimmerman pursued him after talking to the dispatcher or what it was he said that the media tried to make out as racist?
-
Just remember, the moral of the story is you have to be beaten worse than this to be able to shoot in self defense [against someone of a protected racial caste].
FTFY. Remember, the Left sees blacks as unfit to survive, and so grants them Endangered Species status. White thugs you can shoot with fewer legal complications.
-
Buzz has to wear off amongst the likely demographic. Note that per twitter it'll be a rainbow coalition, at least the trial is breaking down barriers between different groups of thugs.
That would be now-ish. We'll see if these "peace rallies" stay that way.
-
If you weren't watching, go back tomorrow and listen to the attorneys. The defense rips the press one with style.
-
Can Travyon's family sue Zimmerman for wrongful death or something?
-
Can Travyon's family sue Zimmerman for wrongful death or something?
Not here in Florida ... :cool:
In fact a Not Guilty verdict should clear the way for Zimmerman's lawsuit against some of the talking heads ... :rofl:
-
only trick bag is the feds
if some bottom feeder tries a "civil rights" move
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
only trick bag is the feds
if some bottom feeder tries a "civil rights" move
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
How can the feds file a civil rights lawsuit? Federal institutions don't have civil rights.
-
How can the feds file a civil rights lawsuit? Federal institutions don't have civil rights.
They may decide that shooting the violent druggie thug who was getting his knuckles bruised by GZ's face violated the thug's civil rights. But I think it's unlikely . . . unlike the Rodney King stuff, this would be a low-percentage play.
Noticed that Martin was variously called "a child" and "a young child" and even "a little child" by some of the press corps during post-verdict press conferences. :facepalm:
So, De Selby, do talk to us about the judicial conspiracy.
Too bad he wasn't taking bets on the verdict. =D
-
They may decide that shooting the violent druggie thug who was getting his knuckles bruised by GZ's face violated the thug's civil rights.
NAALWCP is calling for the feds to pursue civil rights charges. (http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/13/naacp-calls-on-obama-admin-to-pursue-civil-rights-charges-against-zimmerman/)
I've been scratching my head about that one. Is it is the civil right of unarmed black teenagers to beat white Hispanics? Or is it neighborhood watch guys they have a right to abuse? Or just anybody? ???
-
Listening to the pundits and lawyers my only comment is;
If you don't want to be profiled as a possible criminal that stop Acting like one!
And this has nothing to do with color or hoody.
-
https://twitter.com/allahpundit/status/356249021410582528
"No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
-
Recall that the FBI interviewed 30 of Zimmerman's associates and only found one "Witness 9" who said he "was racist."
Much as the special prosecutor essentially had to criticize the Sanford PD to even bring the indictment, the DOJ will have to dismiss its own agents work to bring a suit.
-
Justice for Darryl? (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/14/17-year-old-Darryl-Green)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FT5o8GWY.jpg&hash=a14546ee4caa1a6aeec1f96763ff53b2302d9ad1)
-
Wow, they really can't let go. Addiction to race-baiting, I guess.
Senate Majority Leader calls for DOJ to investigate Zimmerman. (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/14/Reid-Zimmerman-not-over)
-
Wow, they really can't let go. Addiction to race-baiting, I guess.
Senate Majority Leader calls for DOJ to investigate Zimmerman. (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/14/Reid-Zimmerman-not-over)
This trial was about the 2012 election and regardless of the outcome was always going to be about 2014 for the Dems. Gotta motivate that base.
-
Wow, they really can't let go. Addiction to race-baiting, I guess.
Senate Majority Leader calls for DOJ to investigate Zimmerman. (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/14/Reid-Zimmerman-not-over)
That is absolutely appaling.
-
This trial was about the 2012 election and regardless of the outcome was always going to be about 2014 for the Dems. Gotta motivate that base.
No doubt.
-
Justice for Darryl? (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/14/17-year-old-Darryl-Green)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FT5o8GWY.jpg&hash=a14546ee4caa1a6aeec1f96763ff53b2302d9ad1)
If Obama had a son, he'd look just like Darryl's killer.
-
If Obama had a son, he'd look just like Darryl's killer.
Zing!
-
If DOJ intervenes and files some civil rights action, the precedent is dangerous, as they will be put in a position of having to explain why they didn't filenthe same action in the next homicide. And the one after that. And the next one... Holder is a fool, but I hope even a fool sees the danger in this action...
-
I am pleased that the jury was allowed to come to the natural decision here, and not somehow influenced to come to another one.
Zimmerman's best interests now lay in expatriating from the country. Or, at least, moving to fly-over America at a minimum.
-
If DOJ intervenes and files some civil rights action, the precedent is dangerous, as they will be put in a position of having to explain why they didn't filenthe same action in the next homicide. And the one after that. And the next one... Holder is a fool, but I hope even a fool sees the danger in this action...
It is a possibility, however remote, that the White House decided race riots would be bad for the Democrat Party's platform of white guilt. And for that reason, the DOJ was told to mollify the hoodies and Skittles set by "investigating" Zimmerman for some civil rights mumbo-jumbo. If they put Biden in charge, we'll know for sure.
I was going to suggest that DOJ was doing it because they simply wanted to keep the peace, but I quickly realized that was too absurd a suggestion.
-
Any chance we could maybe merge the Multiple Zimmerman threads?
-
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/14/19467556-obama-honor-trayvon-martin-by-battling-gun-violence (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/14/19467556-obama-honor-trayvon-martin-by-battling-gun-violence)
Um, wha?
The only gun involved was produced within the state it was legally purchased, months prior to its lawful use (for which it was explicitly designed), from an FFL, after a NICs check was passed by its non-prohibited person owner, who then lawfully and responsibly carried it after fulfilling all applicable state permitting standards.
Which of the President's stated goals to address "gun violence" have -any- intersect with this case?
-
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/14/19467556-obama-honor-trayvon-martin-by-battling-gun-violence (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/14/19467556-obama-honor-trayvon-martin-by-battling-gun-violence)
Um, wha?
The only gun involved was produced within the state it was legally purchased, months prior to its lawful use (for which it was explicitly designed), from an FFL, after a NICs check was passed by its non-prohibited person owner, who then lawfully and responsibly carried it after fulfilling all applicable state permitting standards.
Which of the President's stated goals to address "gun violence" have -any- intersect with this case?
Depends. Stated in public or in private and not for the publics ears?
-
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/14/19467556-obama-honor-trayvon-martin-by-battling-gun-violence (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/14/19467556-obama-honor-trayvon-martin-by-battling-gun-violence)
Um, wha?
The only gun involved was produced within the state it was legally purchased, months prior to its lawful use (for which it was explicitly designed), from an FFL, after a NICs check was passed by its non-prohibited person owner, who then lawfully and responsibly carried it after fulfilling all applicable state permitting standards.
Which of the President's stated goals to address "gun violence" have -any- intersect with this case?
Zimmerman used a PF-9... interesting. Had no idea. I assumed it was something bigger, but didn't really hash it over in my mind. Just subconsciously accepted it being a service pistol of some sort.
-
Zimmerman used a PF-9... interesting. Had no idea. I assumed it was something bigger, but didn't really hash it over in my mind. Just subconsciously accepted it being a service pistol of some sort.
That's been know for a while. Yep, just a cheap little Kel Tec.
-
That's been know for a while. Yep, just a cheap little Kel Tec.
He should have saved his money and not purchased a pistol that can't go 2,000 rounds without a malf.
-
How many rounds did he fire in the altercation?
-
How many rounds did he fire in the altercation?
One.
-
One.
But, but, unreliable 2nd tier knockoff!!
-
In Florida could the family of Martin sue for wrongful death?
-
In Florida could the family of Martin sue for wrongful death?
There's some debate over at the Volokh Conspiracy on that. Check out FL s. 760.32. In theory if the killing is justified they can't and in fact may have to pay damages for trying but it hasn't been run through the courts yet on an actual trial I gather.
-
Zimmerman used a PF-9... interesting. Had no idea. I assumed it was something bigger, but didn't really hash it over in my mind. Just subconsciously accepted it being a service pistol of some sort.
Interesting how?
-
How many rounds did he fire in the altercation?
Enough.
-
If DOJ intervenes and files some civil rights action, the precedent is dangerous, as they will be put in a position of having to explain why they didn't filenthe same action in the next homicide. And the one after that. And the next one... Holder is a fool, but I hope even a fool sees the danger in this action...
I thought that only a .gov entity could violate your civil rights? That's why there was Rodney King civil rights trial. They were police officers. Since the state/local came back with the wrong verdict the Feds had to file Civil Rights charges to get the right verdict. Same thing here. But Chris is correct. If the do file Civil Rights, this will set a very, very, very bad precedent.
-
Interesting how?
He was a wanna-be cop remember, he should have had a cop gun.
;)
-
I thought that only a .gov entity could violate your civil rights? That's why there was Rodney King civil rights trial. They were police officers. Since the state/local came back with the wrong verdict the Feds had to file Civil Rights charges to get the right verdict. Same thing here. But Chris is correct. If the do file Civil Rights, this will set a very, very, very bad precedent.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/14/3500052/federal-case-against-zimmerman.html
-
One.
Any documentation on the state of the chamber/slide/extraction when the weapon was surrendered to the police?
Reason I'm curious is as a PF-9 owner, in what appears to have been a very close contact self defense usage.
-
Any documentation on the state of the chamber/slide/extraction when the weapon was surrendered to the police?
Reason I'm curious is as a PF-9 owner, in what appears to have been a very close contact self defense usage.
Touching fabric, about 4" away from his skin. Single round fired ejected and next round loaded. Zimmerman holstered prior to the police arriving. Operated perfectly.
-
What are the odds they try and sue Kel-Tec out of business?
-
One article I read referred to the gun as a "Kel Tec-9" ;/
-
Touching fabric, about 4" away from his skin. Single round fired ejected and next round loaded. Zimmerman holstered prior to the police arriving. Operated perfectly.
This. The PF functioned perfectly.
-
What are the odds they try and sue Kel-Tec out of business?
Small company, not tons of money to fight, odds good. What will the argument be though? There is no "the gun just went off" issue here, no .500 Linebaugh unusually cruel caliber made for people who hate hoodies. Maybe they will try the you made a gun cheap enough for a neighborhood watchmn to buy angle.
-
What are the odds they try and sue Kel-Tec out of business?
Has the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act been overturned?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109s397enr/pdf/BILLS-109s397enr.pdf
-
So who won the riot pool?
-
So who won the riot pool?
More demonstrations on Saturday.
-
Small company, not tons of money to fight, odds good. What will the argument be though? There is no "the gun just went off" issue here
"functions as designed"
-
I just saw Holder announced a confirmation on the civil rights probe for the "unnecessary" shooting of Martin. Because I guess when you're getting your head bashed in and your skin is lighter than the head basher's, it's "unnecessary" for you to do anything about it.
-
I just saw Holder announced a confirmation on the civil rights probe for the "unnecessary" shooting of Martin. Because I guess when you're getting your head bashed in and your skin is lighter than the head basher's, it's "unnecessary" for you to do anything about it.
FBI thinks otherwise.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-trayvon.html#.UeRHc7Eo5aR
-
I just saw Holder announced a confirmation on the civil rights probe for the "unnecessary" shooting of Martin. Because I guess when you're getting your head bashed in and your skin is lighter than the head basher's, it's "unnecessary" for you to do anything about it.
Some animals are more pigmented than others.
-
FBI thinks otherwise.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-trayvon.html#.UeRHc7Eo5aR
Zimmerman still had <newspeak>badthought</newspeak>.
-
Am I the only one in the US who thinks that here and now, in 2013, race is absolutely irrelevant to pretty much anything, and therefore why is anyone talking about it? It's odd. Was all this race talk all over the place back in say 2000-2008 and I just missed it? Seems like race was something people didn't really talk much about, then ZMOG! It's everywhere.
-
Am I the only one in the US who thinks that here and now, in 2013, race is absolutely irrelevant to pretty much anything, and therefore why is anyone talking about it? It's odd. Was all this race talk all over the place back in say 2000-2008 and I just missed it? Seems like race was something people didn't really talk much about, then ZMOG! It's everywhere.
Obama has seriously set back race relations. At every opportunity, he has chosen divisiveness rather than reconciliation.
-
FBI thinks otherwise.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-trayvon.html#.UeRHc7Eo5aR
That was mentioned in the Holder article I read. They are going to have to do some serious tapdancing to get around the previous FBI conclusion, but then they have the MSM to help them with that.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2364493/NAACP-convention-held-just-miles-site-George-Zimmerman-trial-unofficial-Justice-For-Trayvon-rally.html
Modern Day Lynching.
[/size]
No, it's not.
West: A lynching is what happens when the posse captures the outrageously offensive criminal who ran away after committing his act.
South: A lynching is what happens when the spook hats get put on and the latest uppity knee-grow is abducted from his home and hung out in the swamp.
The jury decided in this case, that Martin was the criminal. And Z was the victim. Z avoided Martin's lethal attack by employing lethal force of his own, making it justified homicide. This is what the jury said.
Even if we invert the sentence and consider Z the criminal and Martin the victim (contrary to the verdict), it's still not a lynching. Martin was killed in a violent altercation he willingly engaged in, as evidenced by the bullet in the front of his body (not in the back).
Regardless of western or southern inflection, a lynching needs a rope, a mob or posse, and a captured lynchee. Didn't have any of those.
This is race-baiting on the highest level. At what point does the "Uncle Tom" vernacular start coming out to augment the lynching vernacular? Maybe some Negro Jim talk, too. I'm sure someone, somewhere, has a Sambo doll to throw into the mix. ;/
-
This is race-baiting on the highest level. At what point does the "Uncle Tom" vernacular start coming out to augment the lynching vernacular? Maybe some Negro Jim talk, too. I'm sure someone, somewhere, has a Sambo doll to throw into the mix. ;/
I thought Little Black Sambo was Indian ???
-
I thought Little Black Sambo was Indian ???
Please don't speak factually. That's racist.
-
I thought Little Black Sambo was Indian ???
In the book he comes from South India and has to deal with four hungry tigers.
-
I thought Little Black Sambo was Indian ???
But what about the poor racist tigers?
-
You can download it for free, from Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Story-Little-Black-Sambo-ebook/dp/B002RKSUN0/ref=sr_1_1_bnp_1_kin?ie=UTF8&qid=1373931708&sr=8-1&keywords=little+black+sambo
-
It was one of the 1st books I read as I learned to read. There was a restaurant chain, I remember them for the pancakes, called Sambo's at the time that was themed after the book, including decorations. I think they became Denny's.
-
It was one of the 1st books I read as I learned to read. There was a restaurant chain, I remember them for the pancakes, called Sambo's at the time that was themed after the book, including decorations. I think they became Denny's.
Sambo's was a competitor to Denny's. Food was about the same (i.e., awful). I remember decoration inside the restaurant included pictures depicting the Sambo story. The character looked a lot more east Indian than African to me.
-
The first Sambo's still exists. I go there every once in a while. Breakfast is good, not big on their lunch offerings.
http://www.sambosrestaurant.com/
-
Sambo's was a competitor to Denny's. Food was about the same (i.e., awful). I remember decoration inside the restaurant included pictures depicting the Sambo story. The character looked a lot more east Indian than African to me.
This comports with my childhood memories as well. They had locations in the Seattle area.
-
This comports with my childhood memories as well. They had locations in the Seattle area.
My hometown had one, my parents would take us there for our birthdays until they closed the chain in 81 or 82.
Sambos was on one side of Hwy 61 and Big Boy was right across the thoroughfare. Big Boy closed and the building reopened as Bridgeman's which is similar to Big Boy or Culvers. A casino/motel is on the location of Big Boy and Sambos location became a huge carpet center.
-
There was a Sambo's in Lincoln City, OR up until a few years ago. The restaurant is still there AFAIK, just renamed.
-
Oh, DeSelby ..... where are you? :angel:
-
Oh, DeSelby ..... where are you? :angel:
:lol: Been wonderin' that, myself. Maybe the news-boat hasn't reached Oz yet.
-
CNN/HLN pretty well outs a juror.
However, according to HLN, CNN's sister network, juror B37 has been married 20 years, has two adult children and once had a concealed weapons permit. She has lived in Seminole County, Florida, for 18 years and volunteers for animal rescue groups, according to HLN
Yeah the juror has made the first move but HLN just put a target on every woman that comes close to fitting that description.
-
CNN/HLN pretty well outs a juror.
Yeah the juror has made the first move but HLN just put a target on every woman that comes close to fitting that description.
A lot of old biddies work for animal rescues.
As long as she doesn't wear a CCW badge and sash, she's probably fine. Still bad on CNN's part though. Crass and tasteless.
-
Crass and tasteless
I'm thinking deliberate. The evil juror obviously deserves to be attacked for her vote.
-
It's not like the media hasn't shown the willingness to put out CCW owners personal information before. :mad:
-
That information about B37 has already been made public. We even linked to it in this thread.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=40085.msg816113#msg816113
I guess we're as terrible as CNN. =)
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/15/jeantel_the_jury_they_old_thats_old_school_people_we_in_a_new_school_our_generation.html
:facepalm:
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/15/jeantel_the_jury_they_old_thats_old_school_people_we_in_a_new_school_our_generation.html
:facepalm:
Regarding her, I like this comment in the comment section from fistful's link:
Why are people making excuses for her? It isn't a "black" thing, there were several black witnesses at the trial. The rest acted and spoke like normal people. They used verbs and nouns. She isn't being ridiculed for being black, she is being ridiculed for being an idiot. Idiots come in every color.
-
There is a large liberal mobilization happening across the country right now fueled by ignorance and denial. Reading the "Comments" sections of any websites trying to profit from this case will reveal that the vast majority of those speaking out are incapable of simple fact checking and logical thought processing in regards to law.
Can the country recover from such a sheer amount of misplaced blame and hate?
-
More comments from the jury.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/15/Juror--Zimmerman-had-right-to-defend-himself
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/15/jeantel_the_jury_they_old_thats_old_school_people_we_in_a_new_school_our_generation.html
:facepalm:
The half-wit elicited applause from the nit-wits in the room.
-
Let us not forget the perjury charge against GZ's wife. The one that caused the original judge to go grass-chewing apey to the point where his raving self got tossed off the trial.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/next-up-florida-v-shellie-zimmerman/
Remember, this indictment came from the same group that charged GZ.
The indictment does not mention this tidbit revealed in the comments:
She offered, in court, to contact the person running the site who had control over and knew the sum available. The court declined to have her do that.
Instead, the court insisted on questioning the person who was not running the defense fund.
-
Let us not forget the perjury charge against GZ's wife. The one that caused the original judge to go grass-chewing apey to the point where his raving self got tossed off the trial.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/next-up-florida-v-shellie-zimmerman/
Remember, this indictment came from the same group that charged GZ.
The indictment does not mention this tidbit revealed in the comments:Instead, the court insisted on questioning the person who was not running the defense fund.
I wonder if the judge did that deliberately . Was his rip cord off a turd sandwich case
-
:lol: Been wonderin' that, myself. Maybe the news-boat hasn't reached Oz yet.
He's at the bottom of a smoking hole. He rode that crippled bird all the way down.
-
I wonder if the judge did that deliberately . Was his rip cord off a turd sandwich case
Crazy like a fox.
-
This comports with my childhood memories as well. They had locations in the Seattle area.
# 2 on this slideshow tells about the rise and fall of Sambo's restaurants: http://www.thedailymeal.com/11-biggest-failed-chain-restaurants-slideshow
-
Two things...first, I've heard people saying Zimmerman wasngetting a walk because his daddy was a judge. From what I can tell, he was a magistrate in Virginia 7 years ago. Obviously, that gives him great sway with a Florida judge.. Funny how so many people here thought the judge wasbtaking orders from DOJ, when it was actually from a former magistrate. :lol:
Second, some idiot just said that there needs to be a law that requires half of the jury to be the same race as the victim. Think that will work next time a white person is the victim, and blacks are excluded fromnthe jury pool...
-
The federal/DOJ lynch mob might have some problems getting the verdict they want:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/15/trayvon-martins-family-has-little-chance-for-recou/
Montre Carodine, a law professor at the University of Alabama Law School who specializes in U.S. race relations, says the burden of proof in a federal hate crime prosecution would require the Justice Department to show that Mr. Zimmerman killed Trayvon because of his race, and that such a standard is “higher than what state prosecutors were unable to prove in a second-degree murder case.”
IIRC, I remember reading that Zimmerman grew up with two foster siblings that were black. He also volunteered as a mentor of two black teenagers, in a really bad part of town. He also went all Don Quixote against the Sanford Police Dept after the beating of a homeless black man by the son a SPD officer.
Proving racism is gonna be a tough putt.
-
If .gov argues that Zimmerman shot Martin because the latter was black, I can see the defense asking "So . . . if a white hispanic person were beating the snot out of Zimmerman, breaking his nose and pounding his head against the concrete, you're saying Zimmerman would have held his fire and absorbed the ground-and-pound beating to avoid harming a white hispanic? He only shot to defend himself because his attacker was black?"
-
So here's the real question:
If the DOJ, run by a black man, who's boss is also black, declines to press any kind of federal charges, will the race baiters shut the *expletive deleted*ck up finally? Arguably the two most powerful black men in the world, I might add.
-
So here's the real question:
If the DOJ, run by a black man, who's boss is also black, declines to press any kind of federal charges, will the race baiters shut the *expletive deleted* up finally? Arguably the two most powerful black men in the world, I might add.
Nope. Too much money in it for them to give up their cash cow.
-
Second, some idiot just said that there needs to be a law that requires half of the jury to be the same race as the victim. Think that will work next time a white person is the victim, and blacks are excluded fromnthe jury pool...
Judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character... What's the rest of that again? So here's the real question:
If the DOJ, run by a black man, who's boss is also black, declines to press any kind of federal charges, will the race baiters shut the *expletive deleted* up finally? Arguably the two most powerful black men in the world, I might add.
Fail, we'll just declare them not really black enough.
I'm wondering if Zimmerman has enough meat for a lawsuit of his own against everyone for false arrest. When you have the original police and DA not hauling him in it should be a pretty clear shot that he was a political prisoner. Then there is the former police chief and the It guy, I hope everyone who pressed this case home gets hammered.
The rioting mob of incomplete thought is not demanding justice for Trayvon, they are demanding injustice for Zimmerman. If he had been found guilty I would have took it as further proof you don't go to court to get justice, I have to be exceedingly careful about what I consider self defense, and that the fix was obviously in. Short of griping on APS I don't see myself rioting because a court didn't deliver the right verdict. All the Jamie Foxx types are crying that the fix was in from the start when it is obvious that they only ever saw one outcome.
-
The news keeps referring to Martin as "unarmed." Apparently, if people have weapons, it's OK to shoot them. We should all start carrying throw-downs.
-
He had arms damnit
-
Fail, we'll just declare them not really black enough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFXED_dnZ_Y
-
Another question. Is "he shouldn't have gotten out of the car," a little like, "she shouldn't have been dressed like that, in that neighborhood"?
-
Another question. Is "he shouldn't have gotten out of the car," a little like, "she shouldn't have been dressed like that, in that neighborhood"?
I have silenced a few people on another board I frequent who are using the logic that GZ should have stayed in his car, and this would have never happened, by stating if TM had stayed home on that dark, rainy night, none of this would have happened. Funny, but, I haven't gotten a single reply to that yet. ???
bob
-
Here is an amazing article from huffingtonpost... [barf] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/6-decisions-trayvon_n_3600690.html
At least most of the commentators are tearing it apart.
-
A friend posted this on FB today:
4, count em, FOUR people on the planet, and Cain goes and kills Abel. It's not a race thing, it's a people thing.
-
FOUR people on the planet, and Cain goes and kills Abel. It's not a race thing, it's a people thing
Did Abel jump out of the bushes and knock Cain down and start beating him ???
-
Did Abel jump out of the bushes and knock Cain down and start beating him ???
Jealousy
-
It's getting worse and worse :facepalm:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/16/holder-wades-deeper-into-zimmerman-battle-calls-for-review-stand-your-ground/
My god - what kind of a bizarro world did I walk into ???
Jealousy
Might have turned out different if Abel had a gun :lol:
-
My god - what kind of a bizarro world did I walk into ???
Apparently the kind where the concept of self defense is "senseless".
it's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods," Holder said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/16/holder-wades-deeper-into-zimmerman-battle-calls-for-review-stand-your-ground/#ixzz2ZFJx54di
-
I guess when you're giving machine guns to Mexican drug lords I can see why you'd worry that Americans being able to shoot back could lead to dangerous conflicts.
-
If I didn't know better I'd almost think they are trying to provoke states into standing up and telling the feds to FOAD.
-
Holder can say all he wants. State law issue. Unless he's ready to do what my step-grandmother has been predicting this administration would do, declare the USA to be the First American Empire, and declarenall state laws void to be replaced by the Imperial Code, then he can have a nice day and go away.
-
I thougt Bush was going to do that ???
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1069918_519514354784233_1666919143_n.jpg)
-
What a lovely 'shop. Totally conducive to the racial healing in these troubled times.
-
:rofl:
Wanna talk about cundice to the racial healing in these troubled times? An associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Religious Studies thinks God is a white racist. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/16/upenn-professor-goes-on-blog-rant-over-zimmerman-verdict-claims-god-is-white/?intcmp=trending
Apparently she is as much an associate professor, what is different between an associate professor and a professor?, of religious studies as Obama is on Constitutional law.
:facepalm:
-
At least the picture is humorous, in its own particular, race-baiting way.
As someone said earlier, about Obama, the left is not the least bit interested in racial harmony. They only want more hatred and division.
-
Holder can say all he wants. State law issue. Unless he's ready to do what my step-grandmother has been predicting this administration would do, declare the USA to be the First American Empire, and declarenall state laws void to be replaced by the Imperial Code, then he can have a nice day and go away.
I think that the Obama Junta already think that's the way it is.
-
It's not like they pay much attention to the rule of law as it is.
-
I think that the Obama Junta already think that's the way it is.
I got paid last Friday. Still a county magistrate salary drawn from the county accounts. No federal magistrate levelmpay, damn it. I could use the pay raise. B =D
-
An associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Religious Studies thinks God is a white racist.
You know, there are some Judgments I'd pay to see.
(But for my own sake, I'd really prefer they be done in private.)
-
An attorney has two options ifbthe other side lie during closing arguments. You can object. Or you wait yournturn and point thenlie out in your close. Final option is to report the lie to the lawyer discipline office, as it is unethical. Ask Nancy Grace. I think it's one of the things she got tagged for.
Twice, in fact.
-
Fail, we'll just declare them not really black enough.
Well, its all because of the new math.
Obama is half black and half white, so he's a black man.
Zimmerman is half Hispanic and half white, so he's white.
See, it's all about colors. Both sides of Obama relate to clors, so the media can pick and choose. One half of Zimmerman relates to a color, but the other side relates to an ethnicity, so they have to use the color. Its really simple if you [don't] think about it.
-
This has got to be a hoax. =|
Jimmy Carter: Jury made the right decision. (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/jimmy-carter-george-zimmerman-verdict-94320.html)
-
Interesting article my judge sent to me about the verdict and teh law of self-defense...
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?action=post;topic=40085.450;num_replies=455
I'll start by saying that I have studied Ohio law quite a bit on the issue of self-defense. Makes sense. It's where I work and live. Haven't done much study of other states. But I've been assuming all along that most states were similar, in that self-defense is an affirmative defense. If ABC got this correct, then I was wrong in my assumption. Not sure that I do agree with this interpretation of the law, but hey, I've been wrong lots of times...
-
Ah Chris, your link it to the current thread here at APS.
-
oops...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/07/why-george-zimmerman-might-have-been-found-guilty-in-ohio/
-
Which of you hacked Slate.com?
You Are Not Trayvon Martin (http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html?original_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetruthaboutguns.com%2F2013%2F07%2Fdaniel-zimmerman%2Fquote-of-the-day-blame-all-around-edition%2F)
-
In the Buckeye State, rather than forcing the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense, the defendant adopts that legal burden. It is the defense that has to prove it’s more likely than not that self defense was justified (unless it occurs in your home).
This bothers me. With the IANAL caveat, I don't understand how that meshes with "innocent until PROVEN guilty". If the defendant takes on the legal burden, aren't they also taking on the burden of having to prove innocence, the opposite of what our legal system states?
-
Uh-oh: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/
-
Which of you hacked Slate.com?
You Are Not Trayvon Martin (http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html?original_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetruthaboutguns.com%2F2013%2F07%2Fdaniel-zimmerman%2Fquote-of-the-day-blame-all-around-edition%2F)
Hating on Zimmerman is too mainstream now.
-
Hating on Zimmerman is too mainstream now.
:lol:
-
This bothers me. With the IANAL caveat, I don't understand how that meshes with "innocent until PROVEN guilty". If the defendant takes on the legal burden, aren't they also taking on the burden of having to prove innocence, the opposite of what our legal system states?
First off, the article is badly written. Big surprise. The way it really works is that the prosecution still has to prove that the defendant committed the crime. the defense has the option of raising an affirmative defense, like self-defense. If you can prove the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence (probable cause > 50%; preponderance of the evidence >75%; beyond a reasonable doubt > 99.99%), then the charge fails. I never thought of it as that unusual. Other examples I can think of are insanity pleas and statute of limitation arguments. i'll try some research and see if somehow this is unique to Ohio, though I suspect it isn't.
-
First off, the article is badly written. Big surprise. The way it really works is that the prosecution still has to prove that the defendant committed the crime. the defense has the option of raising an affirmative defense, like self-defense. If you can prove the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence (probable cause > 50%; preponderance of the evidence >75%; beyond a reasonable doubt > 99.99%), then the charge fails. I never thought of it as that unusual. Other examples I can think of are insanity pleas and statute of limitation arguments. i'll try some research and see if somehow this is unique to Ohio, though I suspect it isn't.
Not exactly.
The way it works in a self defense case is that the defendant acknowledges that he did the deed (took another human life, a.k.a. "homicide"). He then goes on to assert that, even though he admits he did the deed, because of the circumstances the deed was not a crime. So, rather than having to prove that the defendant committed "the" crime, in reality what the prosecution has to prove is that the act was a crime.
It's more or less a polar opposite of the O.J. Simpson case. With Zimmerman, he acknowledged that he shot the kid, but he asserted that he did so because he was in fear for his life. Self defense defense. In the O.J. Simpson case, there was never any suggestion that the late Mrs. Simpson or her male escort had assaulted or threatened anyone. The deed was clearly a murder, but the prosecution had to prove that the deed was committed by O.J. Simpson. As we know ... they failed.
-
Just got home from Scouts, helping boys prep for a Philmont trip. Hawk, do you know if this type of "self defense defense" is common outside of Ohio?
-
Uh-oh: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/
But approximately one third of Florida “Stand Your Ground” claims in fatal cases have been made by black defendants, and they have used the defense successfully 55 percent of the time, at the same rate as the population at large and at a higher rate than white defendants, according to a Daily Caller analysis of a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times. Additionally, the majority of victims in Florida “Stand Your Ground” cases have been white.
Very interesting. I'm assuming Holder will back off as soon as this information crosses his desk. :rofl:
-
Very interesting. I'm assuming Holder will back off as soon as this information crosses his desk. :rofl:
Indubitably.
-
Uh-oh: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/
How dare those protected, disenfranchised, underprivledged, minorities defend themselves without direct government intervention!
This cannot be allowed to continue.
-
My take-away from the Zimmerman fiasco:
There's legal, and there's right. They don't always intersect. Often times, legal will hijack right and rape it into submission.
That's the Zimmerman verdict.
The lefty, pro-black angle of this thing is basically summed up as... Trayvon was not engaged at crime at that moment. He had legitimate reason to be in the neighborhood. He felt threatened by the "creepy-a$$ cracka" following him around, with one friend on the phone suggesting he might be a child molester. Trayvon chose to confront this person that might have been a threat, and the person gave evasive answers.
The righty, pro-defense angle of this thing is summed up as... Zimmerman spotted inappropriate and suspicious behavior and reported it while surveiling the suspect. He left his vehicle and continued on foot, then was told he didn't need to pursue any more by the dispatcher. He complied and headed back to his car. A verbal altercation started, initiated by Trayvon, then a physical confrontation where Zimmerman was bested physically until he produced his gun and shot Trayvon.
SYG is being claimed by both sides.
And the collision of SYG caused an escalation of force.
Zimmerman was lucky that Martin was not well trained in fighting. Had Martin been a boxer or martial artist, 2-3 good quick hits is all it takes to incapacitate or kill a man (or even just 1).
Who here doesn't feel that it's appropriate to turn the tables on a stalker and give them fair warning to eff off right now?
Who here doesn't feel that it's appropriate to shoot someone that is in the act of pummeling your face, and that person initiated the fight?
The lefty, black community also feels that Trayvon's "sentence" doesn't fit his "crime." He's dead. He committed assault and battery in a confusing SYG situation, and his penalty is death. They're saying that if Zimmerman just stopped fighting, justice could have been pursued after the altercation.
Part of me that yearns for a more old-fashioned approach to this world of ours agrees with the lefty black community. How many westerns have you watched where a fight starts off and both men have pistols and knives, but the fight goes on to decide its victor and neither man draws the weapons? My understanding is that tradition carried on well into the 20th century, talking with my grandparents and others of older generations.
In a way, I think we've lost something as a society by culling our ability to fight honorably to settle disputes.
Yes, God made man and Sam Colt made them equal. I get it. But not everything is a life and death altercation.
Learning to fight is important. Learning to win a fight is important. Learning to lose a fight is important. Learning when to stop fighting is important. And learning when to never stop fighting is important.
People need to know how to take a punch. People need to know when they've won a fight and stop it graciously before the pounding results in more than a swollen face and cracked ribs, and results in something life threatening or altering.
I think this fight (Z&M) was more about territorialism and chest-thumping than real self defense. As such, it actually could have been handled as a fight. Z got his butt whipped. M might have been winding down (or not... who knows?) and delivered his last punch, about to de-straddle Z. That might have given Z his opening to produce his pistol, essentially when the fight was over but Z didn't know it.
Yes, it's highly speculative and monday morning quarterbacking. No, it doesn't stand up to legal scrutiny for prosecution to use. That's not the point of this argument.
I'm just saying that in a world with honor, this would have just been a fight between two men and left at that.
In this world, where the rules of fighting between men as a means of dispute resolution are lost to the passage of time, it means that M is dead.
My verdict is that we as a society have lost this case, due to overlegislation of human interaction and the culling of the thousands-year-old tradition of fisticuffs as a means of dispute resolution.
-
[popcorn]
-
Oh, for cryin' out loud, I don't even know where to begin.
Know how to take a punch when you're ground-pounded and then pinned while getting your face smashed? Yeah, that's really the American tradition of fair fighting.
Stand Your Ground laws? Zimmerman's attorney and the prosecutor both said that law had nothing to do with this case. Zimmerman had no means of escape, as he was pinned to the ground.
This was simply about a young guy who never learned that assaulting someone could get him shot, and a guy who at some point decided that the pounding he was taking might do him some serious harm, and he'd better end it the only way he could. There's no John Wayne or Gary Cooper in this story.
-
And I'm sick of the post trial moral equivalence game, it was just a tragedy, Martin had a right to be there, etc.
Zimmerman made tactical mistakes, not moral ones. He had a right to be in his neighborhood and history suggests that he gave a crap about it. Martin was a guest in that neighborhood. In countless cities and foreign countries I have conducted myself in accordance with local norms despite what I may want to do. If I don't belong I can feel it and I act accordingly. Let's call a thug a thug.
-
Stand Your Ground was specifically waived during this trial by the defense during the pre-trial immunity hearing.
The case proceeded purely as a self-defense trial.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/30/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense
This was not a Stand Your Ground case.
Jeebus...
-
And I'm sick of the post trial moral equivalence game, it was just a tragedy, Martin had a right to be there, etc.
Zimmerman made tactical mistakes, not moral ones. He had a right to be in his neighborhood and history suggests that he gave a crap about it. Martin was a guest in that neighborhood. In countless cities and foreign countries I have conducted myself in accordance with local norms despite what I may want to do. If I don't belong I can feel it and I act accordingly. Let's call a thug a thug.
Brilliant and succinct. Precisely the point.
-
*snip*
Not sure if serious ???
-
In a way, I think we've lost something as a society by culling our ability to fight honorably to settle disputes.
Yes, God made man and Sam Colt made them equal. I get it. But not everything is a life and death altercation.
Learning to fight is important. Learning to win a fight is important. Learning to lose a fight is important. Learning when to stop fighting is important. And learning when to never stop fighting is important.
People need to know how to take a punch. People need to know when they've won a fight and stop it graciously before the pounding results in more than a swollen face and cracked ribs, and results in something life threatening or altering.
'Honor fighting' is for clowns.
What we really need more than drivel you wrote above is for people to stuff their egos and machismo and walk away because of a very good possibility of a death if physical aggression begins.
-
I'm just saying that in a world with honor, this would have just been a fight conversation between two men and left at that.
Fixed. =D
-
'Honor fighting' is for clowns.
Honor-fighting clowns. Now that I'd like to see.
-
Let's call a thug a thug.
What makes you call him a thug? Trial comments, or things that have come out since the shooting? Just curious, really, I am.
bob
-
I'm just saying that in a world with honor, this would have just been a fight between two men and left at that.
In a world with honor, this would have just been a polite conversation between two men and left at that.
I'm not black, but I'm very aware that there might be times when something innocent that I'm doing might appear suspicious. Just stand up straight, speak friendly like and explain if necessary.
What makes you call him a thug? Trial comments, or things that have come out since the shooting? Just curious, really, I am.
bob
Walking up to somebody and beating on them with no provocation :facepalm:
-
Hey, Florida. The next time the outrage industry tries to shame you into doing something, tell them to jump from a bridge. Cause you appeased it, and it still hates you.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/07/18/Jesse-Jackson-Calls-To-Boycott-Florida-as-Apartheid-State
-
Wonder if we would have heard much about the trial of Trayvon Martin for beating a mexican guy to death? =| ;/
Oh, and speaking of thugs - I just found this:
http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/07/17/thoughts-about-saint-trayvon/
-
Honor-fighting clowns. Now that I'd like to see.
Cream pies at 15 paces!
-
Just got home from Scouts, helping boys prep for a Philmont trip. Hawk, do you know if this type of "self defense defense" is common outside of Ohio?
Everything I know on the subject (which is very little) I cribbed from Frank Ettin, who is a moderator at M1911.ORG and The Firing Line. Frank is a California attorney who teaches the legal part of the course when Massad Ayoob is doing classes in California. Frank knows his stuff. Better to ask someone like him.
My understanding is that Ohio's position is pretty much unique.
-
Very interesting. I'm assuming Holder will back off as soon as this information crosses his desk. :rofl:
I guess the info hasn't yet reached his desk. Holder has told the Sanford PD not to return Zimmerman's gun, because the DOJ wants all evidence held while they pursue their investigation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2369592/Justice-Department-places-hold-Trayvon-Martin-trial-evidence-including-George-Zimmermans-gun--Florida-law-says-returned-him.html
That doesn't mean Zimmerman can't buy another gun. (Unless the DOJ has put a hold on him in the NICS system which would be a violation of his rights since he is now officially innocent* of the crime charged, and is not under indictment or charge for any other crime.)
* Yes, I am aware that people like to say "He isn't innocent, he's not guilty." However, the foundation of our legal system does not provide for any such status as "not guilty." We are legally presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Zimmerman was NOT proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, ergo he is innocent. As an innocent man, not convicted of any disqualifying offenses and not under indictment, he has a RIGHT to purchase a firearm in accordance with the laws of the federal and Florida governments.
-
Wonder if we would have heard much about the trial of Trayvon Martin for beating a mexican guy to death?
Interesting point.
And I suspect you onto something. If Zimmerman had lost (and died) I'll bet he would have been Mexican or Hispanic, not "white."
-
George is welcome to move into my neighborhood. He can take his shotgun out and profile coyotes anytime he wants :P
-
For those who think Zimmerman shouldn't have profiled Martin for wearing a hoodie, did you see the news today about Monday's robbery of a Dollar Store in Milwaukee? The guy in the hoodie goes in, waves at the camera because he knows he won't be recognized, shoots the manager, kidnaps the female assistant manager, and they find her body two miles away.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2369039/Breanna-Machus-Body-just-miles-missing-woman-20-abducted-deadly-dollar-store-heist.html
The surprising thing is what I discovered when I googled to find a link to the story for this post. Apparently, among hoodie wearing thugs, robbing Dollar Stores is a favorite pastime. Out of 10 results on the first page, in addition to the story about the Milwaukee robbery, there were these other 6 separate robbery articles.
http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20130617/NEWS01/306170027/Jackson-police-seek-men-who-robbed-two-Dollar-General-Stores
http://wtvr.com/2012/03/30/police-women-in-hoodies-arrested-for-family-dollar-store-robbery/
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/215269601.html
http://hillsandheights.org/2013/01/30/armed-robbery-at-jahnke-dollar-store/
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/05/armed_robbers_hold_up_family_d.html
http://www.9news.com/news/article/194916/188/Employee-shot-after-robbery-at-dollar-store-
Of those who rob, a very high percentage are wearing hoodies. Many others wear hoodies because they're emulating thugs or they want to be thugs.
When I see someone with a hoodie up over their head and it's not a blizzard then I watch for the worst. It's not racial; it's behavioral.
-
In other news, did anyone see the interview between Piers Morgan and Ms. Jeantel, the prosecution's "star" witness in the Zimmerman trial? In the interview, she stated that "cracka" (she insists it's spelled with an 'a' rather than 'er') doesn't mean "white people," it means "the police."
That's news to me, and I suspect it's probably news to just about everybody. IMHO, she lied ... trying to put a different spin in the story after the fact, because what the trial showed clearly is that it was Trayvon Martin who was both the aggressor AND the racist, not George Zimmerman. So Ms. Jeantel is now working at ex post facto damage control.
-
My tummy is too delicate to watch it, but I've heard a lot of the content. What really cracks me up is that she has Martin saying he thought Z was a cop or security guard ("cracka"). Which is funny, because part of Martin's defense used to be that he didn't know who Z was. Then she covers for that with this alleged concern about Z being a pederast on the hunt.
I've never heard her definition of "cracka" before, but I can imagine it being used that way. A lot of people think that "cracker" refers to those who cracked the whip on slaves, and they might think of police or security guards in that way.
-
Don't you people realize? The jury is old skool people, she is part of the new skool.
-
She ain't part o no skool. She kant evinn reed.
-
* Yes, I am aware that people like to say "He isn't innocent, he's not guilty." However, the foundation of our legal system does not provide for any such status as "not guilty." We are legally presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Zimmerman was NOT proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, ergo he is innocent. As an innocent man, not convicted of any disqualifying offenses and not under indictment, he has a RIGHT to purchase a firearm in accordance with the laws of the federal and Florida governments.
Two different things people conflate. He remains an innocent man found not guilty of a particular criminal charge.
Even if convicted he would remain innocent of every other charge he wasn't convicted on. For all its faults, our system is pretty merciful by intent.
-
Uh-oh: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/
The critical race theory response took about 5 minutes to hit the 'net.
Blacks get off more because they kill more blacks.
See, racist non-black juries are willing to forego their normal impulse to convict black killers as long as the victim is black. Then the black killer gets honorary non-black status for doing the job.
I'm summarizing, but that is the absurd logic stripped bare of its critical theory trappings.
-
We actually have a system in place for "honor fighting" in Western society, have for well over a century. Both men meet in a ring, with witnesses and dispassionate referees to intervene if necessary and obey the Marquis de Queensbury rules on pain of dishonor and/or criminal charges.
That isn't a street fight, it's a sporting contest. Ironically, I believe Trayvon's phone contained a video and discussion of him fighting one.
What he did in the dark had nothing to do with honor.
-
What makes you call him a thug? Trial comments, or things that have come out since the shooting? Just curious, really, I am.
bob
Let's see, being expelled from school for infractions that should have got him a free squad car ride, facebook endorsement of drug use and irresponsible weapons ownership, and oh yeah, assault and battery on a creepy cracker. It was February, he was 200 miles from where he should have been attending school. Sounds like a young manreally on his way up in the world.
-
Honor fights
What a joke
-
In other news, did anyone see the interview between Piers Morgan and Ms. Jeantel, the prosecution's "star" witness in the Zimmerman trial? In the interview, she stated that "cracka" (she insists it's spelled with an 'a' rather than 'er') doesn't mean "white people," it means "the police."
I see no reason to ever watch Mr. Morgan, but that is interesting. In Ms Jeantel's sworn testimony she said that the term Cracker (they didn't cover the spelling) did mean white person. Here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sJZw5-nDWg
In this instance, and others, she apparently has a rather fluid interpretation of facts, truth, and what words actually mean.
-
Let's see, being expelled from school for infractions that should have got him a free squad car ride, facebook endorsement of drug use and irresponsible weapons ownership, and oh yeah, assault and battery on a creepy cracker. It was February, he was 200 miles from where he should have been attending school. Sounds like a young manreally on his way up in the world.
That's "cracka." ;/
-
Honor fights
What a joke
Now, I agree with your overall sentiment, but not this particular phrasing.
As Carberry has pointed out, we do have opportunities for honor fights. On the street in the middle of the night is not the place for it.
Further, I think AZRedHawk has a mistaken idea of the old west from the movies just as the anti-gunners do. However, even given his example, the reason such a fight like that can work is because there are witnesses there who both men can trust to prevent the fight from turning into a murder: should either pull a gun or a knife, the crowd would be expected to enforce the rules.
I think the idea of fights over honor is a bad idea because it necessarily favors the young over the old and the large over the small. Were we to have such a system in place, I'm fairly certain Fitz here would be free to insult me with impunity and were I to insult him back, he could challenge me to an "honor fight." At which point I could either demur and be called a coward or give him an opportunity to beat me. (Only to a point, of course, but any physical injury is no joke and permanent damage is sustained even in refereed fights. Sometimes even death.)
The sentiment is understandable though: there is something... mythical, I suppose... to having to back up your word with your fists ("honor fights") or your life (duels). I'd prefer to live in a more civilized age.
Having said all that, I now must say: I completely support this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k
Cut to about 1:30 or so for the point.
So what's my point? Not sure, except it is satisfying to see someone immediately get their just desserts. Note that this wasn't done in a back alley in the dark.
-
I'd prefer to live in a more civilized age.
An elegant weapon, for a more civilized age
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi149.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs54%2FBitFreakazoid%2Fyour_fathers_lightsaber_zpsaed7c7b1.jpg&hash=c4523909a0629b580fad3709d81ac8c615d6e080)
-
She ain't part o no skool. She kant evinn reed.
Yet someone offered her a full scholarship after the Morgan interview.
-
Now, I agree with your overall sentiment, but not this particular phrasing.
As Carberry has pointed out, we do have opportunities for honor fights. On the street in the middle of the night is not the place for it.
Further, I think AZRedHawk has a mistaken idea of the old west from the movies just as the anti-gunners do. However, even given his example, the reason such a fight like that can work is because there are witnesses there who both men can trust to prevent the fight from turning into a murder: should either pull a gun or a knife, the crowd would be expected to enforce the rules.
I think the idea of fights over honor is a bad idea because it necessarily favors the young over the old and the large over the small. Were we to have such a system in place, I'm fairly certain Fitz here would be free to insult me with impunity and were I to insult him back, he could challenge me to an "honor fight." At which point I could either demur and be called a coward or give him an opportunity to beat me. (Only to a point, of course, but any physical injury is no joke and permanent damage is sustained even in refereed fights. Sometimes even death.)
The sentiment is understandable though: there is something... mythical, I suppose... to having to back up your word with your fists ("honor fights") or your life (duels). I'd prefer to live in a more civilized age.
Having said all that, I now must say: I completely support this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k
Cut to about 1:30 or so for the point.
So what's my point? Not sure, except it is satisfying to see someone immediately get their just desserts. Note that this wasn't done in a back alley in the dark.
My point is, there's no reason to fight over *expletive deleted* like this, and if someone DOES physically assault me over something like this, or in Zimm's case, being concerned about his neighborhood, then they take their life into their own hands at that point. I'm not gonna get into a fist fight and risk serious injury. Beat me about the head and whatnot, I'm drawing and firing. Honor be damned
-
My point is, there's no reason to fight over *expletive deleted* like this, and if someone DOES physically assault me over something like this, or in Zimm's case, being concerned about his neighborhood, then they take their life into their own hands at that point. I'm not gonna get into a fist fight and risk serious injury. Beat me about the head and whatnot, I'm drawing and firing. Honor be damned
I agree with Fitz on this. Has anybody read The Ayoob Files in the latest American Handgunner? If not it is an interesting read (http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMGPublications/AmericanHandgunner/AHSO13/) (starts on page 32). The article deals with a case that Mas testified in for the defense and it happened in the same county as the NRA t-shirt kid.
From the banner of the article:
Situation: The big man has threatened to beat you to death, and you have reason to believe he's capable of doing it. Now he shows up at your house, and begins to beat you...
Lesson: Not everyone who violently attacks you will be a stereotypical criminal, and the justice system still has trouble recognizing your attacker doesn't need a weapon to kill you.
-
...In this instance, and others, she apparently has a rather fluid interpretation of facts, truth, and what words actually mean.
This describes our post modernist USA.
Objective truth is a dead man walking.
-
Honor fights
What a joke
I'll say this for you, Thornton, you fought a good fight. My sister - your widow - could have done a lot worse.
:lol:
I'm not totally sure of Florida terminology, but white ranchers/homesteaders in Florida are sometimes self described as "crackers" =|
-
I'll say this for you, Thornton, you fought a good fight. My sister - your widow - could have done a lot worse.
:lol:
I'm not totally sure of Florida terminology, but white ranchers/homesteaders in Florida are sometimes self described as "crackers" =|
My favorite John Wayne movie. Homeric!
-
Now, I agree with your overall sentiment, but not this particular phrasing.
As Carberry has pointed out, we do have opportunities for honor fights. On the street in the middle of the night is not the place for it.
Further, I think AZRedHawk has a mistaken idea of the old west from the movies just as the anti-gunners do. However, even given his example, the reason such a fight like that can work is because there are witnesses there who both men can trust to prevent the fight from turning into a murder: should either pull a gun or a knife, the crowd would be expected to enforce the rules.
I think the idea of fights over honor is a bad idea because it necessarily favors the young over the old and the large over the small. Were we to have such a system in place, I'm fairly certain Fitz here would be free to insult me with impunity and were I to insult him back, he could challenge me to an "honor fight." At which point I could either demur and be called a coward or give him an opportunity to beat me. (Only to a point, of course, but any physical injury is no joke and permanent damage is sustained even in refereed fights. Sometimes even death.)
The sentiment is understandable though: there is something... mythical, I suppose... to having to back up your word with your fists ("honor fights") or your life (duels). I'd prefer to live in a more civilized age.
Having said all that, I now must say: I completely support this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k
Cut to about 1:30 or so for the point.
So what's my point? Not sure, except it is satisfying to see someone immediately get their just desserts. Note that this wasn't done in a back alley in the dark.
You're right, fights like that usually either have witnesses to keep it reasonably civil and the reason for the dispute is well known. Also, the parties usually know each other already.
No, what I posted earlier ain't perfect.
And Fitz is right that Martin had absolutely no grounds to just jump Z out of the blue.
Reflecting more on it, when you don't know if you're in the process of being pummeled to death or just in the process of losing a fight, because you don't know your aggressor, I can see the self defense argument and progression to pistol.
-
You're right, fights like that usually either have witnesses to keep it reasonably civil and the reason for the dispute is well known. Also, the parties usually know each other already.
No, what I posted earlier ain't perfect.
And Fitz is right that Martin had absolutely no grounds to just jump Z out of the blue.
Reflecting more on it, when you don't know if you're in the process of being pummeled to death or just in the process of losing a fight, because you don't know your aggressor, I can see the self defense argument and progression to pistol.
Yeah. Which, in my mind, is anytime I'm fighting with anyone other than a good friend and fellow soldier. Been in some brawls with marines. Never felt the need to use deadly force.
Some random ahole who gets mad cuz I 'disrespect' him?
Yeah. Soon as I start losing, I'm firing. Because I know NOTHING about him and whether or not he will stop.
-
Yeah. Which, in my mind, is anytime I'm fighting with anyone other than a good friend and fellow soldier. Been in some brawls with marines. Never felt the need to use deadly force.
Some random *expletive deleted* who gets mad cuz I 'disrespect' him?
Yeah. Soon as I start losing, I'm firing. Because I know NOTHING about him and whether or not he will stop.
I won't even go as far as 'losing' before ratcheting up the force continuum. I'm going to 'win' one way or another or die trying.
I have kids back home that i need to take care of and provided for. Losing my ability to do my job because of broken bones, brain damage, or death because some randon jackass attacks me is an unacceptable outcome.
You being a 'big dude' like me, its probably crossed your mind that the only people who are going to attack you are going to be:
A: psychos
B: under the influence of an alternative pharmaceutical
C: Armed
and/or
D: in a large group
None of these catagories point to anything less than taking the appropriate response to 'stop' the attack by any means necessary.
-
I won't even go as far as 'losing' before ratcheting up the force continuum. I'm going to 'win' one way or another or die trying.
I have kids back home that i need to take care of and provided for. Losing my ability to do my job because of broken bones, brain damage, or death because some randon jackass attacks me is an unacceptable outcome.
You being a 'big dude' like me, its probably crossed your mind that the only people who are going to attack you are going to be:
A: psychos
B: under the influence of an alternative pharmaceutical
C: Armed
and/or
D: in a large group
None of these catagories point to anything less than taking the appropriate response to 'stop' the attack by any means necessary.
Yup. The psychological state of anyone who attacks me is immediately called into question
-
I won't even go as far as 'losing' before ratcheting up the force continuum. I'm going to 'win' one way or another or die trying.
I have kids back home that i need to take care of and provided for. Losing my ability to do my job because of broken bones, brain damage, or death because some randon jackass attacks me is an unacceptable outcome.
You being a 'big dude' like me, its probably crossed your mind that the only people who are going to attack you are going to be:
A: psychos
B: under the influence of an alternative pharmaceutical
C: Armed
and/or
D: in a large group
None of these catagories point to anything less than taking the appropriate response to 'stop' the attack by any means necessary.
Yep, got family & kids to support. I work pretty damned hard to stay out of such stupid confrontations. If someone works hard enough to get me where I can not avoid a violent confrontation, I am not going to play around.
-
Yet someone offered her a full scholarship after the Morgan interview.
True.
And more proof that racism is alive and well in the U.S., and not being perpetuated by white people. The radio host, Tom Joyner, offered to pay her tuition at an HBCU, which is an acronym for "historically black colleges and universities." Can you imagine the outcry if someone were to offer Zimmerman a scholarship to a "historically white college or university"? We have an NAACP and a UNCF (United Negro College Fund). Why don't we have a NAAWP and a UWCF? We have the New Black Panthers ... why don't we have the New White Panthers?
Because that would be racist, of course. But it's NOT racist when black people voluntarily separate themselves based on race?
-
Honor fight? Screw that. The last time I was in a fist fight was in high school. I'm now 55.
Got two bum knees. I don't fight. If I'm ever in a fight it will have brought to me. I'm ending it ASAP. Whether a pen, chair, computer monitor, knife or gun is used. And if possible before receiving the first punch.
Fist fight? I'm out on that crap.
-
True.
And more proof that racism is alive and well in the U.S., and not being perpetuated by white people. The radio host, Tom Joyner, offered to pay her tuition at an HBCU, which is an acronym for "historically black colleges and universities." Can you imagine the outcry if someone were to offer Zimmerman a scholarship to a "historically white college or university"? We have an NAACP and a UNCF (United Negro College Fund). Why don't we have a NAAWP and a UWCF? We have the New Black Panthers ... why don't we have the New White Panthers?
Because that would be racist, of course. But it's NOT racist when black people voluntarily separate themselves based on race?
Yeah, it's not as if black people faced particular challenges due to racial discrimination, or anything.
-
I'll say this for you, Thornton, you fought a good fight. My sister - your widow - could have done a lot worse.
:lol:
I'm not totally sure of Florida terminology, but white ranchers/homesteaders in Florida are sometimes self described as "crackers" =|
Yes, the only state I've ever been to where a historical explanation of "Cracker" is offered up. Last time I saw such in southwest FL it was perhaps revisionist historied to have derived from the cracking of the whips that hte mule droving original settlers used.
On the notion of honorable fisticuffs, that derives from the same place in popular misremembrance as does "a jury of our peers." Hey, that phrase isn't in our legal system because we supposedly eliminated class. ;/ Back in the old days there may have been an "honorable" fight between two gentleman, but you can predict the result if one of these bluebloods was jumped by some serflike riff-raff. Or, honorable fights are impossible with a party devoid of honor.
Now I'm a larger than average individual, until of course you use the Fitz average, then I am puny mortal. I have the same problem, anyone who just attacks me has already overcome the psychological barrier of hey, that's a large guy! So, their judgement is suspect. And then when I get to court the sentiment is going to be that I was big, I should have defended myself without the mag dump. Well gee your honor, I have zero experience with hand to hand combat because most people leave me alone. I was much tougher as a 40lb undersized first grader, because then everyone wanted a shot at me.
-
http://www.adn.com/2013/07/18/2979363/injured-man-found-unconscious.html
There is a pay thing pop-up but you can read around it.
Basically one punch knocked the 40 year old guy down and his head hit the concrete. He's still unconscious in critical condition, the 23 year old man who hit him is in jail on an assault charge with no bail. Undoubtedly pending the guy's status improving or worsening.
Not a lot of reexamination of beliefs by the anti-Zimmerman crew in the comments even though it has been pointed out this result is fairly common.
As a good-sized 42 year old, even as a former Marine, I'm not trading punches with some overly aggro knucklehead, teen or geezer. I won't start anything but I feel no moral impetus to "fight fair" if they use poor victim selection skills.
-
Yeah, it's not as if black people faced particular challenges due to racial discrimination, or anything.
Many of the challenges they face are self-imposed, as a result of their inherent racism. The Civil War was more than 200 years ago, yet the blacks persist in thinking and referring to themselves as "blacks" or "black Americans" rather than as "Americans." They brag about not getting an education. A few years ago I parked at the fringe of a public housing complex to attend a meeting at a local university. On the way back to my car I was trailing three black teenage females. One of the three was laying out her life plan:
"Soon'z ah gets ta be 16 Ah'm gonna quit skool and start havin' babies."
Yes, young lady, that's quite a plan.
Take the lovely Ms. Jeantel. It doesn't take a college degree to be a receptionist, but it does usually require being moderately personable and being able to speak clearly and write notes about phone calls (although that last part is disappearing thanks to voicemail). Would you hire Ms. Jeantel to be the receptionist at your company? If not ... why not?
I rest my case.
-
Basically one punch knocked the 40 year old guy down and his head hit the concrete. Unconscious in critical condition, the 23 year old man who hit him is in jail on an assault charge with no bail. Undoubtedly pending the guy's status improving or worsening.
I see one of those just about every month in the newspaper, 1/2 the time the guy dies.
-
You just rested MY case, by outlining why black people still have a need to help themselves, by means of private organizations focused on bettering the race (or improving the culture, to put it another way). Sadly, groups like the NAACP have gone way off the rails in that department. Still, there's a reason why minority groups band together to help one another in difficult circumstances. It isn't necessarily for the sinister ends you describe.
-
The key letter in that acronym is "historically". They aren't segregated anymore, anyone can apply to Morehouse and Howard. In the time frame of their founding pretty much any university that wasn't "historically" black was "historically" white in practice if not intent, the label is implicit.
Anyway, there are better things to criticize in the host's actions than him putting his money where his sentiments are. Like why she deserves a free ride for being a -bad- witness for the prosecution.
Most defendants are aware enough to moderate their speech and courtroom demeanor in front of a jury. Dee Dee held most of the crappy cards the prosecution had and she didn't even bother to do as much for her "friend" when she had months to prepare.
-
In this instance, and others, she apparently has a rather fluid interpretation of facts, truth, and what words actually mean.
Or, more accurately:
In this instance, and others, she, and others, apparently has a rather fluid interpretation of facts, truth, and what words actually mean.
-
For those who think Zimmerman shouldn't have profiled Martin for wearing a hoodie,
Everyone profiles. It's called making judgments based on limited data. Only one is omniscient, and I ain't him. I don't know Hoodie Boy's name, his family, the sunday school his grandma took him to when he was 4, or anything else about him. I que on things I do see, and make judgments based on personal experience and other information available. Everyone does it, and it's not evil.
Not doing it is dangerous.
-
Yet someone offered her a full scholarship after the Morgan interview.
Really? You're not kidding?
-
Many of the challenges they face are self-imposed, as a result of their inherent racism. The Civil War was more than 200 years ago, yet the blacks persist in thinking and referring to themselves as "blacks" or "black Americans" rather than as "Americans."
One objection here, Mr. Ezra Klein, we just recognized the 150th anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg. Not 200 years. ~150 years. Otherwise, point taken.
I believe I even saw an article that immigrant Hispanics are integrating into American culture while native blacks have been balkanizing.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/politics/obama-zimmerman/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Well, this will surely help
-
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/998558_10151528019335911_2129935287_n.png)
-
You just rested MY case, by outlining why black people still have a need to help themselves, by means of private organizations focused on bettering the race (or improving the culture, to put it another way).
They don't need racism-perpetuating organizations like the NAACP to better themselves. They go to the same schools white, red, and yellow skinned children go to. Why is it that only the black students don't learn to speak English? Why is it that only the black students are illiterate (either functionally or completely) after twelve grades of public education? The NAACP isn't helping reverse that. The reason black kids don't learn is that black kids won't learn. They're still stuck 200 150 years in the past, believing that "whitey" owes them something for nothing.
The only people perpetuating racism in the United States today are the blacks themselves.
-
One objection here, Mr. Ezra Klein, we just recognized the 150th anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg. Not 200 years. ~150 years. Otherwise, point taken.
You're right.
I blame it on the heat frying my circuits ...
-
Some of Obama's Deep Thought internal commentary that occured to him as he lectured us all about race, today.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/07/obamas-statement-on-zimmerman-martin.html
You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son.
Yeah, I know it was kind of cheesy, but Michelle loved that line.
Of course, if I'd married my old girlfriend, Genevieve, our son would have looked more like George Zimmerman, but, then, Genevieve and I never would have allowed our son to live in some crime-ridden exurban sticksville, so that's irrelevant.
Still, I wonder what Genny's up to? I saw in the Times where she married that Egyptian guy, but that couldn't have lasted, could it?
Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.
When I was preppy at Punahou and a liberal arts major at Oxy, I was quite the badass.
And when you think about why, in the African- American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that -- that doesn’t go away.
It used to white Southerners like Faulkner who said things like, "The past is never dead. It's not even past." Should I cite Faulkner for the literary cred, or is it too obvious?
There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.
Note to self: include a searing chapter in my post-presidential memoir on that security guard at the State Street Marshall Field's who eyeballed me in a suspicious manner while I was in the scarf section. (My agent says an 8 figure advance is possible. Note to self: Find a new agent who will take on the ex-President for the prestige and a 2.5% commission.)
And there are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars.
As you'll recall, Zimmerman Got Out of the Car After Though the Police Ordered Him Not To. But locking yourself in your car is also racist ...
That happens to me, at least before I was a senator.
Have I ever mentioned how fascinating the young me found the ice machine in motels? I did? Hmmhhmm, my next book about me is going to be a struggle. I should have tried to lead a more interesting pre-Presidential life.
Added bonus: no math allowed in the forthcoming blame-whitey fest dialog about race.
-
They don't need racism-perpetuating organizations like the NAACP to better themselves.
Don't bother responding, if you won't read the whole post.
You're saying that black people have problems that other groups don't have. Can't you see how that would lead to groups of black people trying to solve those problems? I'm not saying the NAACP is doing a good job of that lately. But you would expect some group to do it.
-
Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.
Am I a bad person for thinking what a better place the world would be?
-
Barry was a drug using thug at 17 ?
-
Barry was a drug using thug at 17 ?
How much do you believe his official biography?
-
Now, I'm finally pissed off. El Presidente can have absolutely no other intentions than:
1) Fan the flames so FedGov in general, and Himself in particular, can play at firefighter
2) Push his gun-control agenda
People are going to get hurt, maybe get killed, for no other reason than that sanctimonious jackass is trying to further a political agenda. This goes double for Eric "My People" Holder. I'm waaaaay past the "reasonable people can reasonably disagree" stage in my estimation of Himself. "Tawana" Sharpton, Jesse "apartheid" Jackson and Stevie "Boycott" Wonder can all go straight to hell with the afore-mentioned.
-
Now, I'm finally pissed off. El Presidente can have absolutely no other intentions than:
1) Fan the flames so FedGov in general, and Himself in particular, can play at firefighter
2) Push his gun-control agenda
People are going to get hurt, maybe get killed, for no other reason than that sanctimonious jackass is trying to further a political agenda. This goes double for Eric "My People" Holder. I'm waaaaay past the "reasonable people can reasonably disagree" stage in my estimation of Himself. "Tawana" Sharpton, Jesse "apartheid" Jackson and Stevie "Boycott" Wonder can all go straight to hell with the afore-mentioned.
Yeah, if they thought "racism" was bad before ... ;/ :facepalm:
-
Don't bother responding, if you won't read the whole post.
You're saying that black people have problems that other groups don't have. Can't you see how that would lead to groups of black people trying to solve those problems? I'm not saying the NAACP is doing a good job of that lately. But you would expect some group to do it.
I read the whole post and I understand your point, but the blacks don't need an organization. All they need is for black parents (although that may be somewhat of an oxymoron) to pay attention to what Bill Cosby has been telling them for many years.
-
Barry was a drug using thug at 17 ?
Didn't you read above? Barry was quite the badass.
-
I read the whole post and I understand your point, but the blacks don't need an organization. All they need is for black parents (although that may be somewhat of an oxymoron) to pay attention to what Bill Cosby has been telling them for many years.
Gun owners don't need an organization. They just need to pay attention to what Wayne LaPierre has been telling them for years.
-
Gun owners don't need an organization. They just need to pay attention to what Wayne LaPierre has been telling them for years.
Do you really think that is an apt analogy?
-
Why not? To organize or not to organize is not the question. If the organization were pushing the correct agenda, it would be fine. Good agendas, like gun rights, should be supported by some sort of organization. There are black groups pushing a good agenda. We are not worried about them. The fact that the NAACP is a bad organization doesn't invalidate the idea of organizing.
This whole idea that "they have BET, we should get to have WET," is unrealistic. The races may be equal. Their history and circumstances are not. Whites do not have, and should not have, racially-based organizations in America; because we are the historical majority, and still the largest group. Racial self-help is not relevant to our situation. It could be relevant to minority groups.
-
I agree with fistful.
-
decide
you want to be included do what it takes to make that happen
you wanna play apartheid interupptus quit whining
the things that plague black society can only be fixed from within. exploiting white guilt helps no one
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.
They are just trying to find a way to have Holder pin an assassination on a future president charge on Zimmerman. ;)
bob
-
Didn't you read above? Barry was quite the badass.
Hasn't changed a whole lot, has he? ;)
-
Why not? To organize or not to organize is not the question. If the organization were pushing the correct agenda, it would be fine. Good agendas, like gun rights, should be supported by some sort of organization. There are black groups pushing a good agenda. We are not worried about them. The fact that the NAACP is a bad organization doesn't invalidate the idea of organizing.
This whole idea that "they have BET, we should get to have WET," is unrealistic. The races may be equal. Their history and circumstances are not. Whites do not have, and should not have, racially-based organizations in America; because we are the historical majority, and still the largest group. Racial self-help is not relevant to our situation. It could be relevant to minority groups.
Voluntary organizations are part of what made this country great, not libertarian atomism. Gawk at Democracy in America for a while and folk will have a bit more understanding of their role in civic society. Everything from churches, to rotaries, to temperance leagues, to homeowners associations, to (yes), neighborhood watches. They are the glue which holds this country together as something more than just an economy and government.
In short, fistful is correct in that a voluntary organization is not a bad thing, though organizations that push bad ideas can be.
OTOH, fistul has swallowed the leftist twaddle about how explicitly white/western/european/otherwise organizations are illegitimate(1). It is kind of pathetic how many in the right and center are willing to give their avowed enemies the veto over what is acceptable. I call bullshit. If organizing to better the lives, circumstances, and culture of black men and women is a good & legitimate thing, it is just as good and legitimate to do the same for white men & women(2).
Given that western culture has been under assault for over a century on the North American continent alone, it is of greater importance, since without the political and cultural innovations generated by whites & europeans since the Magna Carta, all these minorities would still be suffering under their own particular color of despotism. The vast majority of their brethren still are.
(1) Oddly enough, explicitly white organizations such as those run by urban Irish and Italians are acceptable to the leftists...because they and their members support the Democrat Party. And the KKK was also legitimate when it was a tool of the Democrat Party and voted en mass for Democrats from the time of Wilson through Truman.
(2) I also get a whiff of condescension toward minorities from the "It is OK for minorities, but not the majority," crowd. GHWB called something similar "the soft bigotry of low expectations." When it comes to behavior and legitimacy, I have the same standard for all.
-
Really? You're not kidding?
Sadly, no.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trayvon-witness-accepts-college-offer-article-1.1401857
-
The silver lining being,if we're lucky, maybe we won't pay for it...
-
If organizing to better the lives, circumstances, and culture of black men and women is a good & legitimate thing, it is just as good and legitimate to do the same for white men & women(2).
Given that western culture has been under assault for over a century on the North American continent alone, it is of greater importance, since without the political and cultural innovations generated by whites & europeans since the Magna Carta, all these minorities would still be suffering under their own particular color of despotism. The vast majority of their brethren still are.
Sure, let's organize the honkeys. But in so doing, there's no reason to make such groups race-centric. Western culture is better for everybody, of every color. There are plenty of good organizations that are pushing the fruit of Western culture, but without having to single out one race or another.
(2) I also get a whiff of condescension toward minorities from the "It is OK for minorities, but not the majority," crowd. GHWB called something similar "the soft bigotry of low expectations." When it comes to behavior and legitimacy, I have the same standard for all.
Again, the races may be equal, but their history and present circumstances are not. Don't give me the condescension business. There's nothing condescending about recognizing that certain minorities face certain challenges, and could benefit from racially-based organizations in a way that the unminority do not.
-
Sure, let's organize the honkeys. But in so doing, there's no reason to make such groups race-centric. Western culture is better for everybody, of every color. There are plenty of good organizations that are pushing the fruit of Western culture, but without having to single out one race or another.
Why?
Again, the races may be equal, but their history and present circumstances are not. Don't give me the condescension business. There's nothing condescending about recognizing that certain minorities face certain challenges, and could benefit from racially-based organizations in a way that the unminority do not.
And most of that is due to the exact thing you are saying is fine and dandy, beneficial even. It promotes the "I'm a victim of my skin color" bullscat. And every single one of those race based organizations i can think of promotes being victims of their skin color rather than facing reality. What challenges? Every single black person who wants to get off his ass, work for something, and not act like a thug from the hood has just as much chance of getting somewhere as anyone else. The only thing holding him back is himself and the race baiters who tell him he's a victim of...something.
As for "they had a bad history!" I call, quite simply, bull. Look in history and EVERYONES ancestors have been enslaved raped and pillaged and some point. Pull on your big boy panties, pull up your pants along with them, learn to read and be an intelligent human being, get a job and apply yourself, and you'll be fine.
I don't care if your people were enslaved hundreds of years ago or grand daddy was whacked upside the head by the police or sprayed with a water hose at some point. That's got absolutely nothing to do with current reality and the fact that Rayray and Shequena can't get a better job than fry cook at McDonalds because they insist on being lazy idiots, choose to speak some made up bastardized form of the English language, most of the time in some whispered mumbled monotone that no one can hear or understand, and refuse to show up on time without looking like absolute slobs. That's got nothing to do with race, that has to do with culture and blaming your shortcomings on someone else.
-
Sure, let's organize the honkeys. But in so doing, there's no reason to make such groups race-centric. Western culture is better for everybody, of every color. There are plenty of good organizations that are pushing the fruit of Western culture, but without having to single out one race or another.
Again, the races may be equal, but their history and present circumstances are not. Don't give me the condescension business. There's nothing condescending about recognizing that certain minorities face certain challenges, and could benefit from racially-based organizations in a way that the unminority do not.
You are getting the "condescension business" because it fits. You have absorbed the reigning progressive attitude. In absolute numbers there are as many poor whites as poor blacks who could use an organization to focus their political clout. Denying them such, while allowing others, is exhibiting hostility toward them and their kind. They are no better or worse than black men & women, so why should they be denied the benefits of focused, race-based organization?
Race-neutral organizations promoting western civilization are grand, but condoning race-conscious organizing for some but not others is a betrayal of those very principles that underlie western civ.
After working at a housing project I no longer take that "historical circumstances" business as an excuse. I saw families coming into the USA from the bowels of Hell on Earth who didn't speak English (and had zero local family & ethnic ties) make visible improvements to their circumstances in as little as three months. Their history was prostrate oppression at the hands of despots going back to pre-history, spiced up with a recent history of mass slaughter. A Jim Crow-like regime would have been an occasion for joyous celebration. Yet, they did not call on that as an excuse to rot in place.
Waving "historical circumstances" around is just an attempt to avoid thinking clearly on these issues. Crisp thought can make one feel uncomfortable, as it challenges current progressive orthodoxy, and might make your more conformist acquaintances uncomfy, too.
Lupinus made the point that history has, at one point or another, slapped all of us around. But being the very last to be slapped around, in the world's most prosperous and upwardly-mobile society, is somehow an excuse for cultural degradation? Any other place in history, such a reaction would occasion the utter destruction of the cultural group by starvation and slaughter. But, because the majority has provided (those so self-degraded) with sustenance and opportunity, the majority is precluded from looking out for their own interests in an organized fashion? Baloney.
Perhaps a different tack...
If explicitly white race based organizations are illegitimate, why(1)? Can you list the objective reasons? How many of those reasons might apply to explicitly black race-based organizations? How many and what sort of excuses must be made to square that circle?
OK, here's one, just to get the ball rolling:
1. All such race-based organizations are nothing more than in-groups seeking to wrest via political pressure what they can not capture via legitimate means.
2. ...
[If you are getting the feeling that I am not really so hot for race-based organizations in general, you might be right. But, if we are going to legitimize them for one race, we ought to legitimize them for all races. If this is to be a country ruled by men and not by law, it is foolish to unilaterally stay disorganized, as the reigning ethos will be "take what you can, as much as you can, while you still can."]
(1) I am willing to entertain reasons, but I would then be a right SOB and apply them to all such organizations.
-
You are getting the "condescension business" because it fits. You have absorbed the reigning progressive attitude. In absolute numbers there are as many poor whites as poor blacks who could use an organization to focus their political clout. Denying them such, while allowing others, is exhibiting hostility toward them and their kind. They are no better or worse than black men & women, so why should they be denied the benefits of focused, race-based organization?
Race-neutral organizations promoting western civilization are grand, but condoning race-conscious organizing for some but not others is a betrayal of those very principles that underlie western civ.
After working at a housing project I no longer take that "historical circumstances" business as an excuse. I saw families coming into the USA from the bowels of Hell on Earth who didn't speak English (and had zero local family & ethnic ties) make visible improvements to their circumstances in as little as three months. Their history was prostrate oppression at the hands of despots going back to pre-history, spiced up with a recent history of mass slaughter. A Jim Crow-like regime would have been an occasion for joyous celebration. Yet, they did not call on that as an excuse to rot in place.
Waving "historical circumstances" around is just an attempt to avoid thinking clearly on these issues. Crisp thought can make one feel uncomfortable, as it challenges current progressive orthodoxy, and might make your more conformist acquaintances uncomfy, too.
Lupinus made the point that history has, at one point or another, slapped all of us around. But being the very last to be slapped around, in the world's most prosperous and upwardly-mobile society, is somehow an excuse for cultural degradation? Any other place in history, such a reaction would occasion the utter destruction of the cultural group by starvation and slaughter. But, because the majority has provided (those so self-degraded) with sustenance and opportunity, the majority is precluded from looking out for their own interests in an organized fashion? Baloney.
Perhaps a different tack...
If explicitly white race based organizations are illegitimate, why(1)? Can you list the objective reasons? How many of those reasons might apply to explicitly black race-based organizations? How many and what sort of excuses must be made to square that circle?
OK, here's one, just to get the ball rolling:
1. All such race-based organizations are nothing more than in-groups seeking to wrest via political pressure what they can not capture via legitimate means.
2. ...
[If you are getting the feeling that I am not really so hot for race-based organizations in general, you might be right. But, if we are going to legitimize them for one race, we ought to legitimize them for all races. If this is to be a country ruled by men and not by law, it is foolish to unilaterally stay disorganized, as the reigning ethos will be "take what you can, as much as you can, while you still can."]
(1) I am willing to entertain reasons, but I would then be a right SOB and apply them to all such organizations.
Well said
-
A white eurocentric organization that promotes western culture would actually be silly as western idealism recognizes that all people have the possibility to hold an equal stake in society. race centric organizations like naacp, la raza , mecha,aryan nation and others all have a reason to exist and all are based on communist/socialist ideologies which are the antithesis of western society.
Rooster: your outstanding post is outstanding.
-
Education and a willingness to work is the key. Some of the US minority groups fall short on Education because of many reasons. The orientals as a group seem to do very well. But central to this are PARENTS (yes, plural) that care about raising their children properly. It is still possible to overcome potential deficiencies that home life does not provide, but that takes a personal willingness to learn and work work work!
-
Rayray and Shequena can't get a better job than fry cook at McDonalds
Actually that would be a great step upward for most of them ;/
-
I think most of what is interpreted as racism towards blacks, is actually distaste towards what is typically a collectivist effort to get something "free as in beer" rather than "free as in liberty."
Show me a black guy just working towards improving his lot in life just like I am, and I'll like him fine.
Show me a group of a hundred people, with 30 or so blacks in it who believe in whatever the group as a whole is working towards, and I'll respect them fine as long as when you peel back the group and examine the issue, the issue better damned well be something that people of all colors are bettered by.
But when you put a group of X number blacks, all blacks, together, the issue strays from freedom and often moves to the planks of the FSA. Especially if the NAACP or Democrats get involved in it.
And the same distaste is evident towards MeCHA, AZTLAN, La Raza, etc. But you don't see that same movement evident in Asian immigrants, and therefore they assimilate better into US society.
-
Actually that would be a great step upward for most of them ;/
I was giving them the benefit of the doubt
-
The media just can't let up. From Ben's link about Ms. Jeantel accepting the college offer (referring here to Zimmerman's attorneys):
Meanwhile, lawyer Don West — who aggressively questioned Jeantel — and his colleague Mark O’Mara celebrated their victory on behalf of George Zimmerman in the case, dining at a swanky New York restaurant.
The legal team ate Wednesday at Nello, the Madison Ave. eatery, where main courses start at $40.
They HAVE to be joking (or figuring that the majority of readers across the country have never been to NYC). $40 as the price of the entree at a restaurant in NYC is nothing. In fact, it doesn't even have to be NYC. I don't live anywhere near NYC. My wife, daughter and I just came back from dinner at a diner. A DINER! Entrees started at $15 and most were over $20. I'm supposed to think that a $40 entree on Madison Avenue in NYC is expensive?
Sorry -- that's a non-starter.
-
Yeah most steak places or Red Lobster the average price is $20-$30 ;/
-
Hmmm. That's odd. I don't think you guys have ever objected to JFPO before. ???
And every single one of those race based organizations i can think of promotes being victims of their skin color rather than facing reality.
How shocking that people only know the racially-based organizations the media promotes. I'm just stunned that you've never heard of Project 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_21), Republicans for Black Empowerment, The John Langston Forum, the National Black Republican Association, the Tenth Cavalry Gun Club (http://mdtcgc.wildapricot.org/), or B.O.N.D. (http://www.bondinfo.org/.).
What challenges? Every single black person who wants to get off his ass, work for something, and not act like a thug from the hood has just as much chance of getting somewhere as anyone else. The only thing holding him back is himself and the race baiters who tell him he's a victim of...something.
As for "they had a bad history!" I call, quite simply, bull. Look in history and EVERYONES ancestors have been enslaved raped and pillaged and some point. Pull on your big boy panties, pull up your pants along with them, learn to read and be an intelligent human being, get a job and apply yourself, and you'll be fine.
I don't care if your people were enslaved hundreds of years ago or grand daddy was whacked upside the head by the police or sprayed with a water hose at some point. That's got absolutely nothing to do with current reality and the fact that Rayray and Shequena can't get a better job than fry cook at McDonalds because they insist on being lazy idiots, choose to speak some made up bastardized form of the English language, most of the time in some whispered mumbled monotone that no one can hear or understand, and refuse to show up on time without looking like absolute slobs. That's got nothing to do with race, that has to do with culture and blaming your shortcomings on someone else.
Well, looky there; you have answered your own question. I'm unaware of anyone telling white people that speaking good English and dressing for success in the job market is a betrayal of their race. Like I told Hawkmoon, you point out problems specific to black Americans, then you're offended that they would form groups to correct those problems. You rightly point out that the problems are in the hearts and minds of black people, but you pretend that cultural problems are not, ya know, problems. Cultural problems don't just go away. They are real problems that have to be countered.
-
Like I told Hawkmoon, you point out problems specific to black Americans, then you're offended that they would form groups to correct those problems. You rightly point out that the problems are in the hearts and minds of black people, but you pretend that cultural problems are not, ya know, problems. Cultural problems don't just go away. They are real problems that have to be countered.
And that's what the NAACP and the Southern Poverty Law Center are doing? I'll give you United Negro College Fund, but when is the last time you heard anything from them?
-
George Zimmerman needs to change his name to Ben Ghazi so Obama and his media (ABCNBCCBSMSNBCCNN) never mention him again
-
You are getting the "condescension business" because it fits. You have absorbed the reigning progressive attitude. In absolute numbers there are as many poor whites as poor blacks who could use an organization to focus their political clout. Denying them such, while allowing others, is exhibiting hostility toward them and their kind. They are no better or worse than black men & women, so why should they be denied the benefits of focused, race-based organization?
I'm not denying them anything. If there are any benefits to a group focused solely on the majority race, go ahead and start such a group. I just don't think you'll find any benefits.
Also, the distinction I'm making isn't between races, as such, it is between minority groups and majority groups. Again, the races may be equal, but their circumstances are not.
Race-neutral organizations promoting western civilization are grand, but condoning race-conscious organizing for some but not others is a betrayal of those very principles that underlie western civ.
See above.
-
And that's what the NAACP and the Southern Poverty Law Center are doing?
No. Already dealt with that one. See above.
-
I think most of what is interpreted as racism towards blacks, is actually distaste towards what is typically a collectivist effort to get something "free as in beer" rather than "free as in liberty."
Show me a black guy just working towards improving his lot in life just like I am, and I'll like him fine.
Show me a group of a hundred people, with 30 or so blacks in it who believe in whatever the group as a whole is working towards, and I'll respect them fine as long as when you peel back the group and examine the issue, the issue better damned well be something that people of all colors are bettered by.
But when you put a group of X number blacks, all blacks, together, the issue strays from freedom and often moves to the planks of the FSA. Especially if the NAACP or Democrats get involved in it.
And the same distaste is evident towards MeCHA, AZTLAN, La Raza, etc. But you don't see that same movement evident in Asian immigrants, and therefore they assimilate better into US society.
i had to read it twice but i do agree totally
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
How shocking that people only know the racially-based organizations the media promotes. I'm just stunned that you've never heard of Project 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_21), Republicans for Black Empowerment, The John Langston Forum, the National Black Republican Association, the Tenth Cavalry Gun Club (http://mdtcgc.wildapricot.org/), or B.O.N.D. (http://www.bondinfo.org/.).
You are still missing (or avoiding) the issue. So there's a Republicans for Black Empowerment; should there not then also be a Republicans for White Empowerment, and a Republicans for Yellow Empowerment, and a Republicans for Red Empowerment? Oh ... but Republicans for White Empowerment would be racist, wouldn't it?
When is the next meeting of the National White Republican Association? What? There ISN'T a National White Republican Association? Why not? (Because that would be racist, wouldn't it?)
-
You are still missing (or avoiding) the issue. So there's a Republicans for Black Empowerment; should there not then also be a Republicans for White Empowerment, and a Republicans for Yellow Empowerment, and a Republicans for Red Empowerment? Oh ... but Republicans for White Empowerment would be racist, wouldn't it?
When is the next meeting of the National White Republican Association? What? There ISN'T a National White Republican Association? Why not? (Because that would be racist, wouldn't it?)
Racist, no. Pointless, yes.
And no, I'm not missing or avoiding the issue. I've answered your questions. Go back and read what I've said.
-
Still looking for that denunciation of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. [scratches head]
-
Well, looky there; you have answered your own question. I'm unaware of anyone telling white people that speaking good English and dressing for success in the job market is a betrayal of their race. Like I told Hawkmoon, you point out problems specific to black Americans, then you're offended that they would form groups to correct those problems. You rightly point out that the problems are in the hearts and minds of black people, but you pretend that cultural problems are not, ya know, problems. Cultural problems don't just go away. They are real problems that have to be countered.
I'm not offended by race based organizations. I'm offended that so many of the "top tier" ones- NAACP, UNCF, BET, etc. basically promote the stereotypical "black lifestyle", that that lifestyle is perfectly OK and has nothing to do with their troubles, that they aren't responsible for themselves because Great Great Great Great Grandpa and Grandma were slaves (oddly, we never seem to hear about it when they were the ones that owned slaves or sold their neighbors into the slave trade...but I digress), that they still aren't responsible because 50 years ago Grandpa was whacked by a baton or sprayed by a water hose, so it of course all has to do with the man! These problems aren't specific to blacks. The problem is specific to culture, a culture that has plenty of Asians, Hispanics, and White people caught up in it too. A white boy walks in looking like a slob with his pants down around his ass speaking the same bastardized english isn't getting any further than his black neighbor just because he is white. Likewise a black guy that shows up on time, speaks reasonably good English, follows instructions, and works hard has just as equal a chance as anyone else.
There is a staggering number of black only organizations; NABHOOD, NABA, NABCJ, BCA, NAMD, NSBE, NBNA to name a few. These are all professional organizations, geared towards business owners and folks with advanced degrees. What special challenges do black nurses with a minimum 2 year, often a 4+ year if they are supervisors, face that they need their own exclusively black organization? How about hotel owners, who obviously have some capital and presumably a lick of sense? Oh, how about the black engineers, do they as black folk have troubles engineering things that their white or asian colleague's don't? I'm not offended they exist. I'm offended that it's somehow celebrated ok OK for one racial group to have them, but that via some twisted logic someone starting the exact organization and replacing the B with a W would instantly be branded racist and run out of town.
I'm not denying them anything. If there are any benefits to a group focused solely on the majority race, go ahead and start such a group. I just don't think you'll find any benefits.
Also, the distinction I'm making isn't between races, as such, it is between minority groups and majority groups. Again, the races may be equal, but their circumstances are not.
And just about every single one of those circumstances that I can think of are a byproduct of those race based organizations promotion, and ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room that is the real issue.
-
A white boy walks in looking like a slob with his pants down around his ass speaking the same bastardized english isn't getting any further than his black neighbor just because he is white. Likewise a black guy that shows up on time, speaks reasonably good English, follows instructions, and works hard has just as equal a chance as anyone else.
QFT.
-
Until they both retired, my doctor and my dentist were both black. My doctor, being Nigerian, had a heavy accent (and when he got excited, you could barely understand him - was hysterical to hang out with him watching a soccer match! :D). However both were well spoken, well dressed, respectful of others and respected. We've had some good discussions over the years, and neither ever complained about racism.
I'll agree that yes, racism does still exist in this country. I would also argue that it's not nearly as prevalent as the race baiters would want us to believe that it is.
The simple fact is that if you dress and act like a thug, don't get all butt-hurt when you're treated like a thug.
-
Is LadySmith still hanging around here? Haven't seen anything from her in a while. If we haven't run her off again it would interesting to get her take on this topic.
-
The problem with the ethnic and nationality-based groups, and the separatist attitudes they represent, is that such separatism is counter to the evolution of a successful, cohesive society. A Balkanized country cannot exist for long, as each group will scapegoat the other and use the others for their own gain. E Plurbis Unum becomes Ex Uno Plures ("Out of one, many").
With the hyphenating of identities, groups give their allegiance to the former first and the -American last ("African-American", "Hispanic-American", "Icelandic-American").
I don't believe that historically there's ever been an incohesive society that has survived. Each group eventually has wanted to be an autonomous nation. That appears to be the direction we're headed, both ethnically as well as politically.
The race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson, and the politicians (Obama, for example) who enable them, grow their power and wealth, but they destroy the country in the process.
-
Racist, no. Pointless, yes.
And no, I'm not missing or avoiding the issue. I've answered your questions. Go back and read what I've said.
No more pointless than the orgs for other races.
-
Why?
And most of that is due to the exact thing you are saying is fine and dandy, beneficial even. It promotes the "I'm a victim of my skin color" bullscat. And every single one of those race based organizations i can think of promotes being victims of their skin color rather than facing reality. What challenges? Every single black person who wants to get off his ass, work for something, and not act like a thug from the hood has just as much chance of getting somewhere as anyone else. The only thing holding him back is himself and the race baiters who tell him he's a victim of...something.
As for "they had a bad history!" I call, quite simply, bull. Look in history and EVERYONES ancestors have been enslaved raped and pillaged and some point. Pull on your big boy panties, pull up your pants along with them, learn to read and be an intelligent human being, get a job and apply yourself, and you'll be fine.
I don't care if your people were enslaved hundreds of years ago or grand daddy was whacked upside the head by the police or sprayed with a water hose at some point. That's got absolutely nothing to do with current reality and the fact that Rayray and Shequena can't get a better job than fry cook at McDonalds because they insist on being lazy idiots, choose to speak some made up bastardized form of the English language, most of the time in some whispered mumbled monotone that no one can hear or understand, and refuse to show up on time without looking like absolute slobs. That's got nothing to do with race, that has to do with culture and blaming your shortcomings on someone else.
Yes, except its worse then you think.
They do not work or wish to work at legal jobs, ghetto culture teaches reliance on gov't subsidies - to get ahead means you sling crack or something else on the black market - hence the "welfare mom with a caddilac" syndrome - cars can be bought with cash and fly under the radar - as do clothes ... you can have cash/dress well I mean expensively and still "qualify" for gov't subsidies.
Fry cooks, mcdonalds workers, minimum wage earners are all working class and paying for Rayray and Shequena
they are also paying for USA foriegn aid to Europe so their version of "Rayray and Shequena" can be on the dole and sling crack etc ( I witnessed this first hand living with hippies in Ireland )
-
I don't believe that historically there's ever been an incohesive society that has survived. Each group eventually has wanted to be an autonomous nation.
Not to be a smartass, but historically what societies have survived?
-
Not to be a smartass, but historically what societies have survived?
There's a whole bunch of them in Europe, Scandinavia and the Far East that have been around for many hundreds of years.
-
There's a whole bunch of them in Europe, Scandinavia and the Far East that have been around for many hundreds of years.
That requires a rather loose definition of society, doesn't it? And by that definition, people and groups which choose to remain aloof from the base society are in fact defending their own social group from destruction.
-
Is LadySmith still hanging around here? Haven't seen anything from her in a while. If we haven't run her off again it would interesting to get her take on this topic.
I think I saw a post from her a day or two ago.
-
That requires a rather loose definition of society, doesn't it? And by that definition, people and groups which choose to remain aloof from the base society are in fact defending their own social group from destruction.
OK, which societies would you say have survived, or not? ("Not" meaning in the last 100-200 years, just for the sake of example).
-
OK, which societies would you say have survived, or not? ("Not" meaning in the last 100-200 years, just for the sake of example).
I'm not sure I can do that since it really depends on what you mean by society and how far you are willing to stretch the definitions. Also, social cohesiveness gets to be a slippery concept too.
-
I never listen to talk radio but was taking a long drive today and nothing was on XM (don't get me started about the lack of 60's and 70's classic rock). I ended up listening to the Patriot channel and it had Breitbart radio on.
I'd never listened to Breitbart radio but they did advertise themselves as the conservative standard in radio. A guest caller quoted some guy in Houston that said, "hoodies are not allowed in my neighborhood." The guest caller said, and the "conservative standard" host agreed, that the quoted statement was clearly racist.
No wonder our rights are going down the tube. Not even supposed conservatives can understand the logic or basic reasoning. When the conservatives are caving to public opinion rather than the facts, we have no one looking out for us, for our nation, and for our Constitution.
Unless, of course, someone can prove that only black people wear hoodies. But, we know that all colors and races wear them and, while wearing them, do bad stuff. Wearing a hoodie is just like wearing a ski mask for the bad guy. If a good guy is wearing one, he's emulating bad guy idols. If your idols are bad guys then you're a bad guy.
If I saw someone in my neighborhood walking around in a ski mask or in a hoodie I would be checking them out, too.
When groups stage hoodie walks in honor of Trayvon Martin, those who are tired of having homes burgled in their neighborhoods should respond with hoodie following parties and keep an eye on all those in hoodies. It's not a crime. It's not a threat. It's not racist.
-
FWIW, I sometimes wear a hoodie when it's cold and/or raining. I have two, one from SVTP (A car forum) but usually I'm just wearing a plain Black one that says "OIF" on the right breast.
So I'm a bad guy when it hits 40 degrees in FL?
Don't get too caught up in hoodies (or other possesion) when what we really object to is the actions of some people. The clothes are not criminal.
-
I used to wear hoodies- but they don't work well with the cowboy hat I got for Christmas - once I get my motorcycle working again though I'll be wearing them - they're just dandy under a helmet and are toasty for chilly nights.
-
Been thinking about analogies.
The use of deadly force is an "affirmative defense", in effect the victim is required to prove they weren't "asking for it." The "duty to retreat" takes the victim-blaming a step further, the victim -also- has to prove they "couldn't get away" from their attacker to actually get justice.
-
Don't get too caught up in hoodies (or other possesion) when what we really object to is the actions of some people. The clothes are not criminal.
Not criminal, per se, but grounds for suspicion (legitimate, healthy suspicion) in many circumstances and conditions.
-
???
Maybe it depends on where people live, but I've never connected the wearing of a hood with criminal behavior, or any particular race. It may be a little strange when it's warm outside, but no stranger than people being stupid enough to wear stocking caps indoors. For that matter, wearing sweatsuit material at all, in any weather, is questionable. Nasty, non-breathing stuff. It says "sweat" right in the name. Why would anyone wear that? And then, using the term "hoodie" calls one's intelligence into question.
Rant off.
-
I used to wear zip front hooded sweatshirts a lot for in-between and changeable weather.
But I've found stuff like that doesn't wear well for "ranch" work, plus I've become a natural fabric snob.
-
FWIW, I sometimes wear a hoodie when it's cold and/or raining. I have two, one from SVTP (A car forum) but usually I'm just wearing a plain Black one that says "OIF" on the right breast.
So I'm a bad guy when it hits 40 degrees in FL?
Don't get too caught up in hoodies (or other possesion) when what we really object to is the actions of some people. The clothes are not criminal.
Great post.
I own a couple of warm sweatshirts with hoods on them as well.
Heck, I'll even wear one of these when riding my motorcycle and it's cold out:
http://www.superflysunglasses.com/product/WT114
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.superflysunglasses.com%2Ffiles%2F1693811%2Fuploaded%2FWT114.jpg&hash=b9263ab9084b65ecee05360b5babe3f4958535f6)
It can be a full face covering, beanie hat, scarf tube, balaclava, or whatever else you can twist it up into.
-
does the fact that gz descibed tm as wearing a hoodie make him biased against people wearing hoodies, or was he just describing the person he was following?
-
does the fact that gz descibed tm as wearing a hoodie make him biased against people wearing hoodies, or was he just describing the person he was following?
It makes him a homicidal, racist cracka. Haven't you been paying attention?
-
So I'm a bad guy when it hits 40 degrees in FL?
No, just a wimp for wearing a hoodie in 40deg weather. :P =D
I have one of those flannel shirts with the sweatshirt hoodie that Big5 sells. I keep it at the folks farm and will wear it in the Winter when I'm riding my ATV. I put my hat in my lap and don the hoodie while driving, then when I get where I'm going, remove the hoodie and put my hat back on. I hate walking around with a hoodie or anything similar on unless it's just so cold, that I need it to protect my ears (though if it's that cold, I will wear my mad bomber hat) because they make me feel restricted.
It goes back to common sense and not jumping to conclusions if someone is wearing a hoodie and it's cold out. Where I live, it's rarely cold enough for one, but I see people wearing them even in the Summer. Often the other clothes they have on, and their mannerisms, cause me to switch my situational awareness mode. Other times I can see that they're wannabe punks or hipster fashionistas and I ignore them. My 86 year old dad has a hoodie like mine that he sometimes puts on in the Winter when out and about around the farm because he can't take any cold around his ears anymore. I don't believe he's ever worn it to town, or to rob a house.
-
Yeah, the sweatshirt-fabric hood has become so ubiquitous for all demographics, I don't see how anyone could identify it with race or criminal intent. It's like the ball cap: popular with inner-city criminals, but just as popular with everybody else.
-
Yeah, the sweatshirt-fabric hood has become so ubiquitous for all demographics, I don't see how anyone could identify it with race or criminal intent. It's like the ball cap: popular with inner-city criminals, but just as popular with everybody else.
But some of us know which way the brim goes :lol:
-
But some of us know which way the brim goes :lol:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffunnyasduck.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2Ffunny-breaking-news-man-stupid-had-baseball-cap-backwards-hand-sun-pics.jpg&hash=60bb5c011fdea053b547b908aef19a2e9b321c79)
-
Heck, I'll even wear one of these when riding my motorcycle and it's cold out:
http://www.superflysunglasses.com/product/WT114
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.superflysunglasses.com%2Ffiles%2F1693811%2Fuploaded%2FWT114.jpg&hash=b9263ab9084b65ecee05360b5babe3f4958535f6)
It can be a full face covering, beanie hat, scarf tube, balaclava, or whatever else you can twist it up into.
I've got one of them. It's very nice for bicycling in the winter. The packaging pictured it being worn by a young black male.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffunnyasduck.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2Ffunny-breaking-news-man-stupid-had-baseball-cap-backwards-hand-sun-pics.jpg&hash=60bb5c011fdea053b547b908aef19a2e9b321c79)
What do you expect from an Aggie?
-
What do you expect from an Aggie?
I was thinking the same thing. The photo has been around awhile; I don't remember seeing the A&M logo before now.
-
Yep, definitly a 'shop.
-
1) He's at a Cubs game, so he's a idiot to begin with.
2) "The NAACP made me the success I am today" said no black person ever. In fact if you talk to blacks who have been very successful; Herman Cain, Charles Payne, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas; they all basically turned their backs on the NAACP and the other race baiters/victimizers and went they own way.
3) I have two hoodies. One (gray) from the 2005 White Sox world series win and a nice bright yellow one I bought at IGOLD (Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day) a few years back. I where then when it's in the 40's outside or around the house in the winter to keep warm. I guess I'm not a racist.
-
Why is it that only the black students don't learn to speak English? Why is it that only the black students are illiterate (either functionally or completely) after twelve grades of public education?
I've known a loootttttt of white folks who can't speak English properly, and graduate high school as functional illiterates. They often (shockingly!) are from poor white trash families who place no cultural value on education or bettering oneself. Also, compare the results of the English welfare state, and all of the (white) illiterate hooligans it has spawned.
So, yeah. I know folks on the right get falsely accused of racism for every thing we believe, but that isn't helped by the, you know, actual racism on display above.
-
I've known a loootttttt of white folks who can't speak English properly, and graduate high school as functional illiterates. They often (shockingly!) are from poor white trash families who place no cultural value on education or bettering oneself. Also, compare the results of the English welfare state, and all of the (white) illiterate hooligans it has spawned.
So, yeah. I know folks on the right get falsely accused of racism for every thing we believe, but that isn't helped by the, you know, actual racism on display above.
I grew up in a small town in the middle of the country. There are former classmates who would qualify for your statement. Heck, I have FAMILY who would qualify. (Though, even given that, the VAST majority of what I refer to as the ne'er-do-well side of the family are self-supporting, even if not well-educated.)
I will ask one pertinent question: What's the percentage breakdown of illiterate inner-city (read: black) graduates and illiterate rural (read:white) graduates?
I would venture to guess that at best (for your argument) the raw numbers may be equivalent. What does that say about the percentage breakdown?
-
I've known a loootttttt of white folks who can't speak English properly, and graduate high school as functional illiterates. They often (shockingly!) are from poor white trash families who place no cultural value on education or bettering oneself. Also, compare the results of the English welfare state, and all of the (white) illiterate hooligans it has spawned.
So, yeah. I know folks on the right get falsely accused of racism for every thing we believe, but that isn't helped by the, you know, actual racism on display above.
Every once in a great while, I agree with Balog.
I agree with Balog.
The issue here is confusing a socio economic thing and a sub culture thing with a race thing.
The examples of those who take pride in poverty and ignorance at the expense of the nation as a whole is not limited to race. You want proof of that, just drive through the more impoverished rural areas in the south.
If you want to accuse Zimmerman of a prejudice, I think the only one that could apply is class prejudice, and, sad to say, some of it would be justifiable, as it is true that in those socioeconomic based subcultures, criminal behavior is much more prevalent.
I don't think this wouldn't have happened had Martin been white. I just think we wouldn't have heard about it.
-
Profiling based on class: applied statistics.
Sucks, but it is what it is.
-
I grew up in a small town in the middle of the country. There are former classmates who would qualify for your statement. Heck, I have FAMILY who would qualify. (Though, even given that, the VAST majority of what I refer to as the ne'er-do-well side of the family are self-supporting, even if not well-educated.)
I will ask one pertinent question: What's the percentage breakdown of illiterate inner-city (read: black) graduates and illiterate rural (read:white) graduates?
I would venture to guess that at best (for your argument) the raw numbers may be equivalent. What does that say about the percentage breakdown?
What percentage of whites are part of white trash culture? What percentage of blacks are part of ghetto culture? Do you think those numbers are solely the result of race, or could other factors (like say, moving from oppression and slavery into a world of perverse incentives) play a role in the formation of that culture? When you have generational, cultural problems with white folks, that's an irrelevant data point having nothing to do with race. When you have the same thing with blacks, it's because of their genetic inferiority. Funny how that works innit? I guess the multi-generational British welfare sponge families must all be secretly black.
It's easy to conflate race and culture since they are so often highly correlated, but they really aren't the same thing. Nonsensical “but twin studies elventyone!!1!” notwithstanding.
Now, it has been correctly pointed out that almost all of the most successful cultures (wherein “success” is defined as preserving the base culture for a long time) have been racially homogenous. This is an undeniably true, historic fact. The interesting corollary that I never really see brought up is that those same cultures were also almost all some form of hereditary monarchy with limited mobility outside one’s born class, extremely limited freedoms etc.
-
What percentage of whites are part of white trash culture? What percentage of blacks are part of ghetto culture? Do you think those numbers are solely the result of race, or could other factors (like say, moving from oppression and slavery into a world of perverse incentives) play a role in the formation of that culture? When you have generational, cultural problems with white folks, that's an irrelevant data point having nothing to do with race. When you have the same thing with blacks, it's because of their genetic inferiority. Funny how that works innit?
It's easy to conflate race and culture since they are so often highly correlated, but they really aren't the same thing. Nonsensical “but twin studies elventyone!!1!” notwithstanding.
Now, it has been correctly pointed out that almost all of the most successful cultures (wherein “success” is defined as preserving the base culture for a long time) have been racially homogenous. This is an undeniably true, historic fact. The interesting corollary that I never really see brought up is that those same cultures were also almost all some form of hereditary monarchy with limited mobility outside one’s born class, extremely limited freedoms etc.
I did not and do not claim it was genetic and I also don't think that the person you originally called a racist was claiming that genetics determined black illiteracy. Further I believe that the successes blacks achieved prior to the Great Society rather prove that it is clearly not a genetic failing. The black population as a whole has regressed on many cultural factors since that time, which belies the claim that slavery is the cause of current ills.
My problem was that you took his clearly true statistical point and immediately cried racism.
Now, unless math is racist (and I've actually heard arguments that it is), his point is not racist. Had he suggested that blacks were genetically inferior and therefore are destined to be illiterate welfare dwellers, I'd agree that was racist. But he didn't say that.
You also point out that race and culture are not the same. This is clear. However, there is also clearly a "Black Culture" as blacks have increasingly rejected "White Culture" and become more balkanized. To try to claim that "Black Culture" is not the product of the choices of a majority of the black population is infantilizing the population.
-
My problem was that you took his clearly true statistical point and immediately cried racism.
Why is it that only the black students don't learn to speak English? Why is it that only the black students are illiterate (either functionally or completely) after twelve grades of public education?
You claim this is "clearly statistically true." Feel free to provide evidence that no white/hispanic/asian students are functionally illiterate post high school. I'll wait.
-
Zimmerman helps rescue family from overturned vehicle, police say :O
ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - George Zimmerman, who was acquitted earlier this month of murder and manslaughter in the death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, helped rescue a family from an overturned vehicle in Florida last week, authorities said on Monday.
Zimmerman, 29, helped get them out of the overturned sport utility vehicle last Wednesday, barely four days after the not-guilty verdict, the Seminole County Sheriff's Office in central Florida said.
http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-helps-rescue-family-overturned-vehicle-police-182100652.html
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/07/22/no-way-george-zimmerman-emerges-from-hiding-torescue-truck-crash-victim-n1646406
-
Also, you'll note I placed the blame on the perverse incentives ie .gov programs post slavery, not on slavery.
Which is why I keep bringing up the British welfare state. People of all races generally prefer whatever is the lowest effort path to an acceptable (in their view) standard of living. Just human nature.
-
Found the article interesting by the Washington Post. Two Americas? I think there may well be two or three Americas relative to the kinds of break down they give. The damning statement was that people felt that if the tables were turned and Z had been killed by M, that M would have been found guilty. Food for thought.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/07/22/how-the-trayvon-martin-case-reveals-our-two-political-americas/?wpisrc=nl_pmpol
Few nationally would have even heard of the case if it wasn't a white on black "crime". The same goes if it was black on black, or white on white self defense. So, from a media point of view, race places a huge part. But from a legal point of view, it should play no role what so ever.
-
Few nationally would have even heard of the case if it wasn't a white on black "crime".
It really wasn't.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffunnyasduck.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2Ffunny-breaking-news-man-stupid-had-baseball-cap-backwards-hand-sun-pics.jpg&hash=60bb5c011fdea053b547b908aef19a2e9b321c79)
Well, he IS an Aggie, after all. :facepalm:
-
I've never seen a A&M hat with the logo in that spot. It's also crooked. (it's still funny, and it might be an Aggie, but it's been 'shopped)
-
Now, it has been correctly pointed out that almost all of the most successful cultures (wherein “success” is defined as preserving the base culture for a long time) have been racially homogenous.
Imperial Rome?
-
Do we know how Zimmerman was carrying his pistol? IWB, shoulder holster, ect.?
-
Do we know how Zimmerman was carrying his pistol? IWB, shoulder holster, ect.?
Iwb according to one of the witnesses.
-
I heard he was aiming it from a helicopter, like Sarah Palin.
-
Iwb according to one of the witnesses.
Cheap floppy IWB:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWzXcH3q.png&hash=c80c2fd1885f79cf93455526cc4ad1b7d821034e)
-
Do PF9s barrels normally look like that?
-
Do PF9s barrels normally look like that?
Yes, it's a common Keltec design element. My P32 looks just like it, save for the diameter of course.
-
Yes, it's a common Keltec design element. My P32 looks just like it, save for the diameter of course.
I think the Ruger LCP has a barrel similar, and I have a Sig Sauer P-290 that has a large "bell" shaped end...a sort of "bushing" I guess; helps it fit very well and flush in the barrel.
-
Do PF9s barrels normally look like that?
Modified for extra killing-ness.
-
Yes, it's a common Keltec design element. My P32 looks just like it, save for the diameter of course.
Looks just like my P3AT
-
You claim this is "clearly statistically true." Feel free to provide evidence that no white/hispanic/asian students are functionally illiterate post high school. I'll wait.
Sorry, I didn't notice his hyperbole. However, I, too, would like to see the numbers of functionally illiterate who graduate high school. My impression is that the inner city schools (black and hispanic) are far more likely to graduate students who can't read. The white illiterates tend to be drop-outs, in my experience.
The hyperbolic point you are arguing against may be damning the public school system for failing the black graduates, not claiming a genetic component for the failure.
-
I've never seen a A&M hat with the logo in that spot. It's also crooked. (it's still funny, and it might be an Aggie, but it's been 'shopped)
Damn. A Tide fan falls for the head fake.
-
Sorry, I didn't notice his hyperbole. However, I, too, would like to see the numbers of functionally illiterate who graduate high school. My impression is that the inner city schools (black and hispanic) are far more likely to graduate students who can't read. The white illiterates tend to be drop-outs, in my experience.
The hyperbolic point you are arguing against may be damning the public school system for failing the black graduates, not claiming a genetic component for the failure.
Words like "only," "all," and the like generally paint one into a statistically untenable corner. Only need one counterexample to show the statement to be false. Which is why I avoid them. OTOH, such use of an absolute may be true for the writer/speaker if the sample of crimes he has witnessed were such that he only saw the one sort of perpetrator. For instance, we had a business owner locally whose business and home was in a rough neighborhood, mostly hispanic & black. But, it turns out that the only tweakers he had to kill with his shotgun were white. Three of them in two weeks before the word got out and tweakers stopped busting into his home/business. For him, the "only" criminals he had to kill were "all" white trash.
Every once in a while you see a quantifiable situation with a large sample size where such absolutes might be used, depending on how one wants to round the numbers and speak somewhat sloppily. For example, "In 2008 the 'only' black & white interracial rapes were between black rapists and white victims." (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0842.pdf Table 42 Percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, by type of crime, race of victim, and perceived race of offender)
The table shows 0.0%* for white on black rapes, showing fed.gov rounds to the nearest tenth of a percent. If you read the "*" note, it indicates 10 or fewer white on black rapes reported. Doing the math shows that the proportion to be from 0.0000117 or 0.00117% (assumed # victims =1) to 0.000117 or 0.0117% (assumed # victims =10). Of course, if "10 or fewer" happens to actually be zero, the percentage is zero and an absolute sort of term would be factual. Frankly, rounding to the nearest tenth of a percent is legitmate in this case
Doing a bit more math, there were 19293 black on white rapes in 2008. Assuming the largest number of white on black rapes indicated (10), that shows that there were 1929 times more black on white than white on black rapes in 2008. Or 19293x if we assume the number of white on black rapes to be one. Or infinitely more if we assume the number of white on black rapes to be zero.
The "0.0%*" of white on black rapes has been replicated over several years until recently...when fed.gov stopped giving out the numbers under the Obama administration. "If thy number offends thee and causes thee discomfort, pluck it out."
As with any social science data, there are some squishy factors that can be bandied about. In lots of data tables, fed.gov conflates hispanic and white data, driving up white crime rates. The offender's race is that perceived by the victim, not some sort of genetic test of "blue ribbon race determination panel" like they had in South Africa. (I don't really mind that we don't have such panels, as they are creepifying.)
FTR, most violent black on white / white on black crime rate differences are not the ~2000x range. Most are in the 40x to 8x range, depending on the crime. For some others (especially white collar crimes), the rates are flipped and whites commit more.
-
Sorry, I didn't notice his hyperbole.
Around here it isn't hyperbole, it's reality. In the cities, none of the schools are anywhere near as good as the schools in the surrounding 'burbs, but kids who want can at least learn to read and write, and speak like a human being. It's only the black sub-culture that insists on speaking "Ebonics" and wondering why they can't get a job.
My church runs a free tutoring session on Saturdays, with VERY qualified people there to help students with whatever subject they need help in -- mostly math and English. The majority of the kids who attend are Hispanic, with a sprinkling of whites. There are very few blacks, and many of those who are black also happen to be Hispanics, and they are there because they attend our Spanish-language mass, not because they are black.
Do I have hard statistics? Nope. Just observations of what's happening in real life right in front of my eyes.
-
Do PF9s barrels normally look like that?
In the white, belled like that. Yes, that's what they look like.
-
Looks just like my P3AT
ditto the lcp.
-
Larry Correia interacts with our President's remarks (https://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/on-profiling-and-stand-your-ground/)
There are very few African American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me — at least before I was a senator.
Don’t flatter yourself. Nobody has ever been physically intimidated by somebody wearing mom jeans.
-
There are very few African American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me — at least before I was a senator.
Don’t flatter yourself. Nobody has ever been physically intimidated by somebody wearing mom jeans.
:rofl:
-
There are very few African American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me —at least before I was a senator.
Don’t flatter yourself. Nobody has ever been physically intimidated by somebody wearing mom jeans.
Do we need to pull up the pics of Rosie O'Donnell today?....
-
Another gem: "I’m so big and ugly that if I got into an elevator with Barack Obama he’d hold his breath and clutch his purse."
-
I've known a loootttttt of white folks who can't speak English properly, and graduate high school as functional illiterates.
And a lot of them post here or other gun forums I have visited.
They often (shockingly!) are from poor white trash families who place no cultural value on education or bettering oneself. Also, compare the results of the English welfare state, and all of the (white) illiterate hooligans it has spawned.
So, yeah. I know folks on the right get falsely accused of racism for every thing we believe, but that isn't helped by the, you know, actual racism on display above.
A lot of them also come from well-to-do or at least middle-class homes. And even here, we'll likely get criticized for mentioning it by those who think our concern about the language is unfounded. As society and civilization collapse, as Americans become less bound together by virtue of being Americans and more tied to those who speak the same dialect or foreign language as do they, we keep turning a blind eye to the importance of knowing, speaking, reading, and writing, in a common national language.
-
FWIW, I sometimes wear a hoodie when it's cold and/or raining. I have two, one from SVTP (A car forum) but usually I'm just wearing a plain Black one that says "OIF" on the right breast.
So I'm a bad guy when it hits 40 degrees in FL?
Don't get too caught up in hoodies (or other possesion) when what we really object to is the actions of some people. The clothes are not criminal.
When you're wearing them out of place, with the hood up and your face hidden, that's reason for high suspicion. When you're wearing them outdoors in the cold, with the hood up, that's less suspicious but still warrants caution.
When I was a kid in Idaho we had heavy fur trimmed coats with fur trimmed hoods (fake fur, of course; we were much too poor for the real thing). When it was 30 below zero, no one thought a thing of seeing us in a hood. But in Los Angeles it is never that cold. It's never cold enough to cover your face. In places like LA, a covered face means trouble - period.
-
When you're wearing them out of place, with the hood up and your face hidden, that's reason for high suspicion. When you're wearing them outdoors in the cold, with the hood up, that's less suspicious but still warrants caution.
When I was a kid in Idaho we had heavy fur trimmed coats with fur trimmed hoods (fake fur, of course; we were much too poor for the real thing). When it was 30 below zero, no one thought a thing of seeing us in a hood. But in Los Angeles it is never that cold. It's never cold enough to cover your face. In places like LA, a covered face means trouble - period.
And yet, the place where Trayvon was wearing a hoodie is less then an hour and a half drive from my house, in the weather I would have worn one.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending TM. He was "profiled" as a possible criminal 25 min before committing a violent felony so Zimmerman might have been on to something there. I just take issue with any broad brush statement like "Hoodies are for criminals" because it's both bigoted horseshit and it keeps the real issues from being discussed. In this case the hoodie (and race) of TM don't matter for jack, because the actual issue is that TM's parents raised someone that thought a beating was an appropriate response to a slight.
That upbringing, more then anything else, is what got him killed. If it hadn't been Zimmerman it would have been some other night that he picked the wrong fight.
-
. . . Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending TM. He was "profiled" as a possible criminal 25 min before committing a violent felony so Zimmerman might have been on to something there . . .
And as part of what the media claims is "profiling," GZ said it looked as if TM was " . . . on drugs or something."
Post mortem tox screen found THC in TM's system, and it turned out he was suspended from school for a drug offense, so . . . it is profiling, or is it an accurate observation?
-
And as part of what the media claims is "profiling," GZ said it looked as if TM was " . . . on drugs or something."
Post mortem tox screen found THC in TM's system, and it turned out he was suspended from school for a drug offense, so . . . it is profiling, or is it an accurate observation?
Sometimes the two are not mutually exclusive.
-
Martin fit the suspect description of guys who had broken into homes in the community weeks prior.
Cops do this "profiling" all the time when they see someone who matches a suspect description. What's the alternative? Walk up to people at random and politely ask if they've committed any crimes lately?
-
When did profiling become a bad thing?
-
Martin fit the suspect description of guys who had broken into homes in the community weeks prior.
Cops do this "profiling" all the time when they see someone who matches a suspect description. What's the alternative? Walk up to people at random and politely ask if they've committed any crimes lately?
Strip search everyone at the airport :facepalm:
-
Post mortem tox screen found THC in TM's system, and it turned out he was suspended from school for a drug offense, so . . . it is profiling, or is it an accurate observation?
Given the levels of THC in his system, I seriously doubt it was effecting his behavior to any observable extent. We are talking pot here, not PCP, and pot taken some time beforehand. A trained cop could probably spot someone with that much THC in their system by carefully looking at their eyes, but not from across the street.
I think that was just a lucky guess.
-
Given the levels of THC in his system, I seriously doubt it was effecting his behavior to any observable extent. We are talking pot here, not PCP, and pot taken some time beforehand. A trained cop could probably spot someone with that much THC in their system by carefully looking at their eyes, but not from across the street.
I think that was just a lucky guess.
I know we've been over the Lean thing here before, and it's not vital to the case--but if he was high on lean, the ambling, random behavior would fit.
-
Given the levels of THC in his system, I seriously doubt it was effecting his behavior to any observable extent. We are talking pot here, not PCP, and pot taken some time beforehand. A trained cop could probably spot someone with that much THC in their system by carefully looking at their eyes, but not from across the street.
I think that was just a lucky guess.
Or he was casing the houses. Mr. Zimmerman put out drugs as a possible explanation ("like he's on drugs or something"), but loitering in an unfamiliar neighborhood on a cold, rainy night is suspicious, all by itself.
-
Here we go again
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659
He 'Got Away With Murder'
When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, "I don't think so."
Cognitive dissonance?
Apparently, as we feared, the jury wasn't that bright.
-
Here we go again
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659
Cognitive dissonance?
Apparently, as we feared, the jury wasn't that bright.
It took 9 hours of discussion for the rest of the jury to finally convince her that she couldn't convict him based on her feelings.
God help this country, and God bless those other jurors.
-
Here we go again
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659
Cognitive dissonance?
Apparently, as we feared, the jury wasn't that bright.
How come she gets to be Puerto Rican, but Zimmerman is still a "white hispanic"?
-
Because she asserts that he is a murderer, of course.
-
I just saw that article. I wonder how truthful she was being when she said, "You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty, ..." But then she goes on to say that she was the one who was going to create a hung jury, suggesting that the other five jurors weren't so convinced "in their hearts" that he was guilty of murder.
This woman is not very bright, and hopelessly conflicted. First she says he's a murderer even though she admits the evidence didn't prove that he committed murder, then she says the case shouldn't even have gone to trial.
"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."
When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, "I don't think so."
"I felt like this was a publicity stunt. This whole court service thing to me was publicity," she said.
She also said they were "trying" to find him guilty. That right there is wrong. A jury is not supposed to try to find a defendant either guilty or not guilty, they are supposed to try to decide whether or not the evidence supports the charge(s). Nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks be to the deity of your choice that the other five jurors were able to convince this baby machine to just suck it up and follow the law.
-
Your right Hawkmoon. Yet, I think that is the purpose of the jury, so that the verdict does not hang on one person's biases, judgements, and feelings. In this case, I would say the system worked.
-
Luckily most bleeding hearts don't have strength in their convictions.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
-
She also said they were "trying" to find him guilty. That right there is wrong. A jury is not supposed to try to find a defendant either guilty or not guilty, they are supposed to try to decide whether or not the evidence supports the charge(s). Nothing more, nothing less.
Actually, where I wrote "nothing more, nothing less" above, I should have included an exception: Jury Nullification.
Especially in this day of zealous over-charging (see earlier comments on this topic), it may in fact be appropriate for a jury to "try" to find a defendant not guilty despite what a law says -- or what a judge says the law says. Those interested in learning more about this concept should look up FIJA - the Fully Informed Jurors Association. Not all laws are good laws, and some laws may technically apply to a particular defendant and a particular set of circumstances yet morally and practically it would be a miscarriage of justice (albeit not of the law) to convict.
In such cases, the jury has every right to refuse to convict -- regardless of what the law (or the judge) says. And, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to this effect. Sadly, they later (100 years later, in fact) ruled that judges don't have to inform jurors that they have a right (or a duty) to decide whether or not a law is just and fair. In fact, judges routinely tell jurors that they are NOT allowed to interpret the law, that they (the jury) must accept what the judge tells them the law says.
That's a lie.
Way, way back, in the early days of the U.S. a case came before the Supreme Court. The case was Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1 (1794). In that case, John Jay, the very first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote that
It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.
In 1895 in Sparf v. United States, the Court said that courts need not inform jurors of their de facto right of juror nullification although jurors' inherent right to judge the law remains unchallenged.
I have posted before (though perhaps not on this forum) that I was once rejected for jury duty over this very issue. During voir dire, which was being carried out by groups rather than individually as I had always encountered during previous calls to jury duty, one of the attorneys asked if anyone would have a problem following the judge's instructions on the law. Normally, I would have kept my mouth shut, but ... we were under oath, so I had to raise my hand and acknowledge that if I disagreed with what a judge said, i would indeed have trouble following his or her instructions.
That threw the process into a furor. The other prospective jurors were quickly removed from the room. BOTH attorneys ganged up on me and tried to brow-beat me into acknowledging that jurors must follow the judge's instructions. When I refused to knuckle under, they scoured the courthouse until they found a judge who wasn't in a hearing, and brought me before her. She took up the inquisition right where the attorneys had left off. When I mentioned the old Supreme Court precedent (I didn't recall the case name then), the judge told me I was wrong, and that I should go home and study my history better. She then dismissed me.
So I went home, looked up the case, verified the exact language used by the Chief Justice, and wrote a letter to the judge providing her with the case name and citation, and the exact quotation from John Jay.
She never acknowledged my letter. Judges don't like it when the serfs get uppity.
-
Imagine the jury being the first 6 (or twelve) audience members of the Jerry Springer show.
-
Imagine the jury being the first 6 (or twelve) audience members of the Jerry Springer show.
BLEACH! I need brain bleach, STAT!
-
Roo ster, that blog is cheerleading, not analysis. This is the same guy who thought the 3 hour, knock knock joke defense opening statement just smashed the case.....uhhh, yeah.
The hyping of trial moments in this case greatly exceeds anything I've seen; maybe Scott Peterson's trial was the only thing close I'm aware of. There'd be a press release exclaiming that this or that expert was definitively shot down by the defense....they continued right up until the releases read "no way state will keep his death penalty conviction on appeal!"
I suspect the conspiracy will be bigger in a couple of weeks time, its supporters baffled at the outcome for Zimmerman and seeing nothing but corruption to explain it.
=D
That is all.
-
Where has De Selby been since the verdict?
-
Where has De Selby been since the verdict?
Good question....
-
Where has De Selby been since the verdict?
Down under the weather, I think.
-
He's probably busy, maybe traveling. Most likely, he's assisting DOJ with their hate crimes investigation. =)
-
I think he burned his law degree and is living out in the bush with the aborigines. :lol:
-
Where has De Selby been since the verdict?
He certainly hasn't been caught speeding in Texas....
-
Name: De Selby
Posts: 4,759 (1.872 per day)
Position: friend
Date Registered: August 21, 2006, 03:55:18 PM
Last Active: August 06, 2013, 09:17:40 PM
-
My intuition about what happened that night and my position based upon the reports/known evidence (or lack thereof) against GZ has been confirmed by a jury. Hurray for me.
Truth be told I figured it was going to go down as DeSelby incorrectly prognosticated.
Having said that, I completely understand why DeSelby isn't posting. There is a long line of members here just waiting to shove his words back in his face, gloat and even demean him. Fistfull may be the official scapegoat but DeSelby is the unofficial whipping post. Members frequently are allowed to treat them differently due to their vocal and often differing positions.
-
I'll certainly admit to being rather harsh with De Selby in the past. That said, in this case at least I would not pile on unless he got snarky.
-
Actually Ron you made me feel a little bad.
I'll say something nice about De Selby, he has passion for his positions.
*********
"...Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:..."
-
I think DeSelby comes here at least in part just to argue, to keep his skills honed. There's nothing to hone now. He'd just have to eat crow.
-
He's not the the only one who called it wrong. Before the trial, I was fairly sure Zimmerman would be convicted. When the prosecution rested, I had switched to predicting an acquittal. By the time the defense had rested and the prosecution rebutted, I was expecting at best a hung jury.
I did NOT expect an acquittal at the end, and I certainly didn't expect a verdict as quickly as it came in.
-
I think DeSelby comes here at least in part just to argue, to keep his skills honed. There's nothing to hone now. He'd just have to eat crow.
Yep.
-
My intuition about what happened that night and my position based upon the reports/known evidence (or lack thereof) against GZ has been confirmed by a jury. Hurray for me.
Truth be told I figured it was going to go down as DeSelby incorrectly prognosticated.
Having said that, I completely understand why DeSelby isn't posting. There is a long line of members here just waiting to shove his words back in his face, gloat and even demean him. Fistfull may be the official scapegoat but DeSelby is the unofficial whipping post. Members frequently are allowed to treat them differently due to their vocal and often differing positions.
Pfft...
"Polite Society" and the TOS only goes so far in tolerating someone who's beliefs and political leanings are among the root causes of the decline of Western Civilization in general, and America in particular.
I think DeSelby comes here at least in part just to argue, to keep his skills honed. There's nothing to hone now. He'd just have to eat crow.
That and his own chosen name here is of a literary character who's used intentionally as a foil and a buffoon...
-
Pfft...
"Polite Society" and the TOS only goes so far in tolerating someone who's beliefs and political leanings are among the root causes of the decline of Western Civilization in general, and America in particular.
Oh, so you feel free to abuse me, then? That's it, I'm outta here! :mad:
-
Okay it's not the "beat up on ds" post. Move along folks. Nothing to see here.
So has the DOJ announced anything about charges?
-
Okay it's not the "beat up on ds" post. Move along folks. Nothing to see here.
So has the DOJ announced anything about charges?
I don't think so. I predict they will announce charges next (election) year. If they don't, I'll return to this thread for my helping of crow.
-
So has the DOJ announced anything about charges?
No, but they did say that if Obama had sons, they would resemble these three youths:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/07/florida-school-bus-beatdown-goes-unnoticed-by-self-styled-civil-rights/?test=latestnews
-
The bus driver, 64-year-old John Moody, can be heard frantically calling a radio dispatcher for help, although he was criticized in some quarters for not physically intervening.
...
Pinellas County school policy does not require a driver to intervene and prosecutors have said Moody will not face charges, but Gulfport Police Chief Robert Vincent told WFLA that Moody should have stepped in.
"There was clearly an opportunity for him to intervene and or check on the welfare of the children or the child in this case, and he didn't make any effort to do so," Vincent said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/07/florida-school-bus-beatdown-goes-unnoticed-by-self-styled-civil-rights/?test=latestnews#ixzz2bODYBTCz
Well at least the bus driver wasn't a wannabe cop like Z ... :P
-
Well at least the bus driver wasn't a wannabe cop like Z ... :P
And who can blame him? One of the reasons i posted that is because I wonder how many other people will now "walk away", when they would have otherwise helped pre-Zimmerman/Martin.
-
And who can blame him? One of the reasons i posted that is because I wonder how many other people will now "walk away", when they would have otherwise helped pre-Zimmerman/Martin.
Even before Zimmerman, I'm quite certain the bus driver would be crucified were he to step in physically and stop the youths. (By this I mean even grabbing them by the arm and pulling them away.) The schools have made it clear that no one is to even TOUCH a "child".
His livelihood, at least, would be instantly gone. Likely the state or the families would sue him afterwards.
-
The fact the little white snitch is still alive is proof of his white privilege.
The three victims that beat him up never stood a chance and are now being persecuted by the state.
-
And who can blame him? One of the reasons i posted that is because I wonder how many other people will now "walk away", when they would have otherwise helped pre-Zimmerman/Martin.
I don't think I can buy that. In a lot of other cases, I would, but the bus driver is not some passerby. He's responsible for the well-being of the kids.
I'm not second-guessing him. I just don't think we can blame the followers exploiters of St. Trayvon the Innocent for what happened in a completely different sort of incident.
-
64 year old man, on the verge of retirement against three 15 year old thugs...assuming these thugs are what I see around the courthouse, grown up bodies with 15 year old brains, the driver would have been lucky if he tried to intervene and didn't end up on the floor next to the victim. For some reason, people equate "juvenile" with kid. The Zimmerman case sure showed us that a young male is capable of fighting, violently and effectively. I don't blame him much for calling for help instead of jumping in.
-
Men in their mid to late teens have been doing hard labor and fighting in wars for all of recorded human history. The infantilizing of people into their late teens (early 20's/30's these days) is one of the worst things about Western society.
-
I don't think I can buy that. In a lot of other cases, I would, but the bus driver is not some passerby. He's responsible for the well-being of the kids.
I think the morality and the ethics of people here are not the societal norm, especially in urban areas. Chris also makes a good point. With the age of the bus driver, unless he had at the very least something like pepper spray, he would have ended up in as bad of or worse shape than the kid that got beat up. Had he used pepper spray, I'm betting he would have been fired.
I agree that as a school bus driver he has a responsibility to the kids, but unless he's given (and allowed to use) the proper tools and training needed to protect them in a situation like this, his options are limited.
-
With the age of the bus driver, unless he had at the very least something like pepper spray, he would have ended up in as bad of or worse shape than the kid that got beat up. Had he used pepper spray, I'm betting he would have been fired.
Pepper spray + enclosed bus + loaded with kids = yeah, probably fired.
-
If the driver - disarmed by policy AND probably the law - had intervened, he may well have been another victim.
Assuming he wasn't fired, but left on the job, either the perps or their homies would have targeted him, knowing his route, his schedule, and the fact that he was disarmed.
If Trayvons 1, 2, or 3 had an injury - real or imagined - civil suits against the driver would result. And the school district would fall over themselves throwing him under the bus - he'd be entirely on his own.
Being given "responsibility to the kids" is meaningless unless it includes both the authority and the means to exercise that responsibility. In the case of a school bus driver, that means safe driving. Period.
It's a sad commentary on our society, but I have a hard time faulting him when every likely consequence to his intervention would be negative.
-
...It's a sad commentary on our society, but I have a hard time faulting him when every likely consequence to his intervention would be negative.
Every day I am reminded why I live as far from society as possible.
-
64 year old man, on the verge of retirement against three 15 year old thugs...assuming these thugs are what I see around the courthouse, grown up bodies with 15 year old brains, the driver would have been lucky if he tried to intervene and didn't end up on the floor next to the victim. For some reason, people equate "juvenile" with kid. The Zimmerman case sure showed us that a young male is capable of fighting, violently and effectively. I don't blame him much for calling for help instead of jumping in.
Men in their mid to late teens have been doing hard labor and fighting in wars for all of recorded human history. The infantilizing of people into their late teens (early 20's/30's these days) is one of the worst things about Western society.
All of this. "Drummer boys" and "Powder Monkeys" and such were very young. 15YO sons of the aristocracy could get commissions as ensigns and serve on ships or in the Brit army.
-
Every day I am reminded why I live as far from society as possible.
Preach it brother!
-
I think the morality and the ethics of people here are not the societal norm, especially in urban areas. Chris also makes a good point. With the age of the bus driver, unless he had at the very least something like pepper spray, he would have ended up in as bad of or worse shape than the kid that got beat up. Had he used pepper spray, I'm betting he would have been fired.
I agree that as a school bus driver he has a responsibility to the kids, but unless he's given (and allowed to use) the proper tools and training needed to protect them in a situation like this, his options are limited.
Like I said, I'm not second-guessing his decision, unless he himself is saying that the Zimmerman case influenced his decision. I don't see the two situations as being all that similar.
-
64 year old man, on the verge of retirement against three 15 year old thugs...assuming these thugs are what I see around the courthouse, grown up bodies with 15 year old brains, the driver would have been lucky if he tried to intervene and didn't end up on the floor next to the victim. For some reason, people equate "juvenile" with kid. The Zimmerman case sure showed us that a young male is capable of fighting, violently and effectively. I don't blame him much for calling for help instead of jumping in.
Quoted for truth.
The job of a school bus driver is to drive the bus. He is NOT a security guard, and senior citizens and/or women (who make up the predominance of school bus drivers) should not and cannot be expected to be capable of intervening against even a single teen-age thug, let alone a small gang.
-
And who can blame him? One of the reasons i posted that is because I wonder how many other people will now "walk away", when they would have otherwise helped pre-Zimmerman/Martin.
I think this is a good summation of the effect the trial had on people who might otherwise intervene
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2013/07/and-media-has-delivered-lesson.html
-
And the stupidity continues ...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/10/mural-of-george-zimmerman-shooting-trayvon-martin-unveiled-in-florida-state-capitol/
Mural supposedly depicts Zimmerman shooting Martin. Problem: it bears no resemblance to what actually occurred.
-
Poor headline. By definition, a "mural" is painted on a wall. This is a painting, not a mural. It's a poor paiting at that, and (as already noted) does not even attempt to depict the incident as it occurred.
-
And the stupidity continues ...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/10/mural-of-george-zimmerman-shooting-trayvon-martin-unveiled-in-florida-state-capitol/
Mural supposedly depicts Zimmerman shooting Martin. Problem: it bears no resemblance to what actually occurred.
There are people.....even those with "power", who think that Zimmerman literally executed Martin.
-
Nah, the painting is just sideways. Turn it so Z is on his back, and it almost makes sense.
Well, no, it's still totally wrong.
-
And the stupidity continues ...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/10/mural-of-george-zimmerman-shooting-trayvon-martin-unveiled-in-florida-state-capitol/
Mural supposedly depicts Zimmerman shooting Martin. Problem: it bears no resemblance to what actually occurred.
That is utterly reprehensible.
I wonder if Zimmerman has grounds to sue? Probably not as he's almost really a public figure now. But I think I'd sue ... or try.
Geeeeesh .....
-
Poor headline. By definition, a "mural" is painted on a wall. This is a painting, not a mural. It's a poor paiting at that, and (as already noted) does not even attempt to depict the incident as it occurred.
So is that libel or slander? I too lazy right now to Google the distinction.
even attempt to depict the incident as it occurred
Georg Zimmerman, all in black, standing, in a half Weaver stance, shooting some hand cannon with huge muzzle flash. Yeah, thas' exactly what happen'.
-
George looks happy and thinner than last we saw.
http://www.tmz.com/2013/08/22/george-zimmerman-shotgun-kel-tec-trayvon-martin-shop-gun/
-
Oh, God. Wait until the media sees that scary-looking gun.
-
Nathan Futrell, (1773-1829) was said to have been the youngest drummer boy in the American War of Independence; he joined the North Carolina Continental Militia at the age of 7.
Twelve-year old drummer boy William Black was the youngest recorded person wounded in battle during the American Civil War. John Clem, who had unnoficially joined a Union Army regiment at the age of 9 as a drummer and mascot, became famous as the ""The Drummer Boy of Chickamauga" where he played a "long roll" and shot a Confederate officer who had demanded his surrender. An 11 year-old drummer in the Confederate Orphan Brigade, known only as "Little Oirish", was credited with rallying troops at the Battle of Shiloh by taking up the regimental colors at a critical moment.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F4%2F44%2FChild_soldier_in_the_US_Civil_War.jpg&hash=aa0814d31a69bc6abe518201f1844844e774da2c)
Drummer boy John Clem during the American Civil War.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F4%2F44%2FChild_soldier_in_the_US_Civil_War.jpg&hash=aa0814d31a69bc6abe518201f1844844e774da2c)
Drummer boy John Clem during the American Civil War.
ARG! That BOY has a GUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [popcorn] :rofl:
-
And he used it to shoot a Confederate* officer in the face.
*And NRA member 7 years before the NRA was founded. ;) >:D :rofl:
-
And he used it to shoot a Confederate* officer in the face.
*And NRA member 7 years before the NRA was founded. ;) >:D :rofl:
Well, in that case, it was the first Life membership.
-
64 year old man, on the verge of retirement against three 15 year old thugs...assuming these thugs are what I see around the courthouse, grown up bodies with 15 year old brains, the driver would have been lucky if he tried to intervene and didn't end up on the floor next to the victim. For some reason, people equate "juvenile" with kid. The Zimmerman case sure showed us that a young male is capable of fighting, violently and effectively. I don't blame him much for calling for help instead of jumping in.
What can teenage boys do? They're just boys.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/23/20145461-teen-charged-second-sought-in-beating-death-of-wwii-vet-88-in-spokane-wash?lite
-
What can teenage boys do? They're just boys.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/23/20145461-teen-charged-second-sought-in-beating-death-of-wwii-vet-88-in-spokane-wash?lite
Racist!
-
Racist!
This is what's racist:
http://scaredmonkeys.com/2013/08/20/three-teens-two-black-one-white-murder-white-australian-baseball-player-in-oklahoma-they-were-bored-so-they-decided-to-kill-somebody/
Believe me, all three of those boys were black, as were the mothers. It's racist to say they're not just because of their skin color.
-
Levant, if you wanted to ruminate, or see what folk had to say about those stories, I'm pretty sure both cases were discussed in other threads.