FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: kefkaownsall on March 14, 2012, 12:26:01 am
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01oZP4gCtog
I'll be in my angry universe
-
Saw this on FB. He was basically murdered for being black. Post-racist society my ass.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/trayvon-martin-sanford-state-attorney_n_1343223.html?ref=mostpopular
The police initially told Martin’s family that Zimmerman said he acted in self-defense and that his record was “squeaky-clean.” During a press conference on Monday, Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee echoed that his investigators were unaware of Zimmerman’s prior arrests.
But Zimmerman was arrested in 2005 on charges of resisting arrest. The charges in that case were dropped, according to county clerk records.
Members of the homeowner's association of The Retreat at Twin Lakes gated community, where the shooting occurred, told HuffPost that residents had made several complaints to police and the association about Zimmerman's aggressive tactics.
Squeaky clean, huh? Incompetent asses.
-
I really cant see how this could possibly be anything other than murder. I cannot for the life of me think of any kind of action that would warrant lethal force as self defense. A 17 year old kid shot in the chest, unarmed and of light build, does not pose a threat to anyone.
Chances are Zimmerman accosted the boy, whole like any normal person told him to leave him alone so he could go home, and was shot for "trying to get away" or something. Stories like this are just plain disgusting.
Personally I don't know who I am more upset about, the racist psycho who killed the kid, or the police for doing nothing to said racist psycho.
-
Here's the account of the incident
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/stand-your-ground-and-trayvon-martin/254444/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/stand-your-ground-and-trayvon-martin/254444/)
Whether his life was in danger, I don't know. He certainly must have been getting his ass kicked. But, he was the aggressor in the instance and should be at least taken to trial for inciting this incident
-
Here's the account of the incident
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/stand-your-ground-and-trayvon-martin/254444/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/stand-your-ground-and-trayvon-martin/254444/)
Whether his life was in danger, I don't know. He certainly must have been getting his ass kicked. But, he was the aggressor in the instance and should be at least taken to trial for inciting this incident
Important to note the kid was 100 pounds lighter and had in his pocket skittles
-
No witnesses, so you have to take the shooter’s word? Since when?
Witnesses are the most fucking unreliable evidence there is!
-
No witnesses, so you have to take the shooter’s word? Since when?
Witnesses are the most fucking unreliable evidence there is!
At least bring it to trial
-
No witnesses, so you have to take the shooter’s word? Since when?
Witnesses are the most fucking unreliable evidence there is!
At least bring it to trial
Here's the thing: he should be going to trial right now. Even if it truly was self-defense, it's up to the courts to say if he was guilty of murder, not the police, and the fact that he hasn't been arrested yet is very suspicious.
-
No witnesses, so you have to take the shooter’s word? Since when?
Witnesses are the most fucking unreliable evidence there is!
At least bring it to trial
Here's the thing: he should be going to trial right now. Even if it truly was self-defense, it's up to the courts to say if he was guilty of murder, not the police, and the fact that he hasn't been arrested yet is very suspicious.
Not to mention his record completely contradicts the assertion that it was a clean record
-
Here's the thing: he should be going to trial right now. Even if it truly was self-defense, it's up to the courts to say if he was guilty of murder, not the police, and the fact that he hasn't been arrested yet is very suspicious.
Yes it is. So far the district attorney has not brought charges and they wont unless then think they can get a conviction. With no witnesses and the fact that there was an altercation I doubt they would.
-
Here's the thing: he should be going to trial right now. Even if it truly was self-defense, it's up to the courts to say if he was guilty of murder, not the police, and the fact that he hasn't been arrested yet is very suspicious.
Yes it is. So far the district attorney has not brought charges and they wont unless then think they can get a conviction. With no witnesses and the fact that there was an altercation I doubt they would.
Lets agree the cops are racist.
-
Lets agree the cops are racist.
How so?
-
Lets agree the cops are racist.
How so?
I really hope you're not being serious.
Assuming you are, do you think for a minute that if a 28 year old black man with an arrest record shot a 140 pound white child in the chest (armed only with skittles and arizona iced tea) that the cops would let him go?
-
I really cant see how this could possibly be anything other than murder. I cannot for the life of me think of any kind of action that would warrant lethal force as self defense.
Castle Doctrine. Although the exact details of the doctrine vary from state to state, the basic idea is that there is no requirement to retreat in your "homestead." The most commonly heard example is being allowed to shoot the unarmed person who broke into your home and is robbing you.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, . . . ; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
Fla. Stat. § 776.013 (2012)
Hmm... That's a stretch. A really big stretch. Yeah, OK, too much of a stretch.
Here's the thing: he should be going to trial right now. Even if it truly was self-defense, it's up to the courts to say if he was guilty of murder, not the police, and the fact that he hasn't been arrested yet is very suspicious.
Agreed. Police only need reasonable suspicion to arrest. The only reason I can think of (other than the obvious racism) is that the police have an erroneous assumption of what the Castle Doctrine means and think this scenario fits in it. (That isn't an unreasonable assumption. As I said, the doctrine varies from state to state, and some states are very lenient. My Criminal Law professor - who practiced in Texas - said that there was a case where a guy fell under the Castle Doctrine after he chased the burglar down the block and shot the burglar at the edge of his property.)
I cannot figure out why the State Attorney's Office isn't pursuing charges. At a minimum, why not empanel a Grand Jury and let them decide.
-
with the doctrine even this is pushing t as the kid was not on his property and it was not a formal neighborhood watch
-
with the doctrine even this is pushing t as the kid was not on his property and it was not a formal neighborhood watch
Not to mention Zimmerman called up the police, made racial remarks, and was told not to pursue Martin (whose sole suspicion was the color of his skin). Zimmerman than followed Martin, with a gun, and more than likely (from our limited understanding of the event and the two people) instigated an altercation which resulted in Martin being murdered.
Even if we accept that this lacks the pre-meditation for 1st degree murder, these events would certainly fall under 2nd or 3rd degree murder under Florida law.
For the life of me, I don't see any way that the castle doctrine could even apply to these events.
-
with the doctrine even this is pushing t as the kid was not on his property and it was not a formal neighborhood watch
Not to mention Zimmerman called up the police, made racial remarks, and was told not to pursue Martin (whose sole suspicion was the color of his skin). Zimmerman than followed Martin, with a gun, and more than likely (from our limited understanding of the event and the two people) instigated an altercation which resulted in Martin being murdered.
Even if we accept that this lacks the pre-meditation for 1st degree murder, these events would certainly fall under 2nd or 3rd degree murder under Florida law.
For the life of me, I don't see any way that the castle doctrine could even apply to these events.
Probably cause he's white?
-
with the doctrine even this is pushing t as the kid was not on his property and it was not a formal neighborhood watch
For the life of me, I don't see any way that the castle doctrine could even apply to these events.
As I said above, I agree. I really cannot what is going on here (other than the issue of race)
-
Here's the thing: he should be going to trial right now. Even if it truly was self-defense, it's up to the courts to say if he was guilty of murder, not the police, and the fact that he hasn't been arrested yet is very suspicious.
Yes it is. So far the district attorney has not brought charges and they wont unless then think they can get a conviction. With no witnesses and the fact that there was an altercation I doubt they would.
Exactly. Conviction is assured. He's admitted to killing the guy and there are no witnesses for him to use to prove self-defence. So he's fucked.
-
He was a skinny, 17-year-old black kid minding his own business. If that's not grounds for murder in the South, what is?
-
Here's the thing: he should be going to trial right now. Even if it truly was self-defense, it's up to the courts to say if he was guilty of murder, not the police, and the fact that he hasn't been arrested yet is very suspicious.
Yes it is. So far the district attorney has not brought charges and they wont unless then think they can get a conviction. With no witnesses and the fact that there was an altercation I doubt they would.
You do not need witnesses. Not even for murder charges. Plenty of people are convicted without eyewitness testimony.
-
The police initially told Martin’s family that Zimmerman said he acted in self-defense...
He obviously had to defend himself from a black kid walking down the street who was threatining his life by being black. ::)
-
The police initially told Martin’s family that Zimmerman said he acted in self-defense...
He obviously had to defend himself from a black kid walking down the street who was threatining his life by being black. ::)
He was almost 100 pounds less then him
-
Lets agree the cops are racist.
How so?
I really hope you're not being serious.
Assuming you are, do you think for a minute that if a 28 year old black man with an arrest record shot a 140 pound white child in the chest (armed only with skittles and arizona iced tea) that the cops would let him go?
Just because the guy went free doesn't mean the cops are racist. At least not until you have more to go on. He could be some cop's friend, or the cops could be getting paid off...Racism is a charge that's flung too easily on everything.
Now the guy that did this, possibly. He could also just hate everyone that looks like a punk.
-
In my state in Australia, which is frankly one of the most backward, you cannot use force likely to cause death or Greivous Bodily Harm in self defence unless you are in genuine fear for your life. I suspect the law is the same in Florida. Otherwise it is the Southpark Scenario of yelling, 'he's coming right for us' before shooting whoever you like.
Aside from that, I am absolutely fucking amazed that the Police even mentioned two things:
First - that they respect his background
Second - that his record is squeaky clean.
Neither are in anyway relevant to whether this event was a crime or whether a charge should be laid. Neither would be admissable in a trial.
-
Lets agree the cops are racist.
How so?
I really hope you're not being serious.
Assuming you are, do you think for a minute that if a 28 year old black man with an arrest record shot a 140 pound white child in the chest (armed only with skittles and arizona iced tea) that the cops would let him go?
Just because the guy went free doesn't mean the cops are racist. At least not until you have more to go on. He could be some cop's friend, or the cops could be getting paid off...Racism is a charge that's flung too easily on everything.
Now the guy that did this, possibly. He could also just hate everyone that looks like a punk.
I read somewhere that Zimmerman might have been a police informant. So there's that.
-
Lets agree the cops are racist.
How so?
I really hope you're not being serious.
Assuming you are, do you think for a minute that if a 28 year old black man with an arrest record shot a 140 pound white child in the chest (armed only with skittles and arizona iced tea) that the cops would let him go?
Just because the guy went free doesn't mean the cops are racist. At least not until you have more to go on. He could be some cop's friend, or the cops could be getting paid off...Racism is a charge that's flung too easily on everything.
Now the guy that did this, possibly. He could also just hate everyone that looks like a punk.
The phone conversatons pretty much say kid is suspisicous since he's black
-
Lets agree the cops are racist.
How so?
I really hope you're not being serious.
Assuming you are, do you think for a minute that if a 28 year old black man with an arrest record shot a 140 pound white child in the chest (armed only with skittles and arizona iced tea) that the cops would let him go?
Just because the guy went free doesn't mean the cops are racist. At least not until you have more to go on. He could be some cop's friend, or the cops could be getting paid off...Racism is a charge that's flung too easily on everything.
Now the guy that did this, possibly. He could also just hate everyone that looks like a punk.
The phone conversatons pretty much say kid is suspisicous since he's black
This. They claimed he "walked" suspiciously which given historical connotations, meant he walked with a black jive. So again, the kid was targeted for being black. Also as queenofhearts put it:
I really hope you're not being serious.
Assuming you are, do you think for a minute that if a 28 year old black man with an arrest record shot a 140 pound white child in the chest (armed only with skittles and arizona iced tea) that the cops would let him go?
There has been other incidences where polices ignored a murder because the murderer was white, in similar fashion to this murder.
Also, the kid doesn't really look like a punk. So, yeah I wouldn't say the shooter targeted him for looking a like a punk.
-
Let me say this even if this kid did something bad then the cops must take care of everything vigilanteism/lynching is a step above anarchy
-
I appear to have quoted Queenofhearts twice. :-[
-
I really hope you're not being serious.
Assuming you are, do you think for a minute that if a 28 year old black man with an arrest record shot a 140 pound white child in the chest (armed only with skittles and arizona iced tea) that the cops would let him go?
Assuming the same circumstances, yes.
The police had no one other witnesses other than an injured man who said he was defending himself. At that time they also did not know about his record. Now that it is after the fact it is up to the district attorney to decide to press charges. Even if the cops had arrested him, the district attorney still has the option to not bring charges.
-
Putting race aside. What circumstances here suggest that the shooter should not be charged?
It is still for the police to charge him and then for the State Attorney to indicte and prosecute.
Simply assuming the following circumstances, I would like to know if anyone thinks the shooter should not be charged:
1. Following a suspicious looking character down the street two blocks;
2. Accosting the suspicious looking character;
3. Getting into a physical altercation with suspicious looking character;
4. During altercation shooting suspicious looking character.
5. Suspicious character is unarmed.
6. Shooter does not deny shooting but claims he shot in self-defence;
7. Dead suspicious person was not on/and was never on shooter's property.
Does anyone seriously suggest that in these circumstances the Shooter should NOT be charged?
Because that to put it bluntly is the best possible gloss that Zimmerman could have. In the circumstances I consider the State is obliged to pursue the charges and let a jury determine whether self defence is made out on the facts as claimed and objective circumstances.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wj9YJw8whI
Cops mega wrong
-
You have to remember that the police and districts attorneys in Florida have to deal with the stand you ground law. That law say that if you are in a place you can legal be in you may use force, including deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm, without the need to retreat. That means all the man has to say is that the kid attacked him. It doesn't matter that he was following the kid. With no other witnesses you are not going to prove he did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Plus the law also says that if the state does bring charges and the person is found innocent because of this law they are owed the cost of their defense.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html)
-
You have to remember that the police and districts attorneys in Florida have to deal with the stand you ground law. That law say that if you are in a place you can legal be in you may use force, including deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm, without the need to retreat. That means all the man has to say is that the kid attacked him. It doesn't matter that he was following the kid. With no other witnesses you are not going to prove he did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Plus the law also says that if the state does bring charges and the person is found innocent because of this law they are owed the cost of their defense.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html)
Wait a minute here. It is all good and well to say that a person in a public space can use lethal self defense, but this man first phoned 911 and was advised by them to do nothing and wait for the police. Instead he chose to leave his property into the public space and that resulted in the altercation that cost the boy his life. Now if we assume best possible scenario for the shooter, we can say that the boy saw the man following him and accosted him demanding to know why he was being followed. Still, to pull a gun on an unarmed individual who is 100 pounds lighter, makes no sense.
Also, the state should prosecute regardless of the risk with regards to paying for the defense if he is innocent. If accountants decide the what laws should and should not be tried because of cost it would be a great travesty of the justice system.
-
Dude, the shooter pursued the kid. Zimmerman had no reason to have to “stand his ground.” If anyone had ground to stand, it was Martin.
-
Assuming the same circumstances, yes.
Unbelievable.
The police had no one other witnesses other than an injured man who said he was defending himself.
You've mixed up the onus of proof. The police do not need to prove anything (the shooter has admitted to shooting the kid). He needs to prove self defence, if he wants to use that defence. As you've pointed out, he has no evidence to back him up. So he's dead.
-
You have to remember that the police and districts attorneys in Florida have to deal with the stand you ground law. That law say that if you are in a place you can legal be in you may use force, including deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm, without the need to retreat. That means all the man has to say is that the kid attacked him. It doesn't matter that he was following the kid. With no other witnesses you are not going to prove he did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Plus the law also says that if the state does bring charges and the person is found innocent because of this law they are owed the cost of their defense.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html)
Doesn't matter. He has admitted to a crime, namely shooting someone. He hasn't denied shooting the kid, just said that he had a good reason. He has to be arrested, because he's admitted to a crime. His reasoning behind the shooting doesn't come out before the arrest; it comes after, at the trial. It's not the job of the police to judge whether or not he shot in self-defense: that's a judge's job.
-
You have to remember that the police and districts attorneys in Florida have to deal with the stand you ground law. That law say that if you are in a place you can legal be in you may use force, including deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm, without the need to retreat.
Actually, not quite. I posted FL's Castle Doctrine law on the last page. It requires the victim to actually have been on the shooter's property, among other things.
Also, as an affirmative defense, the defendant has the burden of proof to show the defense is valid. The state still has to prove all the elements of the crime (probably manslaughter here), and the defendant would have to show the Castle Doctrine applied. (IMO, it doesn't in this situation.) There is no reason the State couldn't file charges and start the process. Maybe it turns out that the shooter does have a Castle Doctrine defense. If so, he would be able to put on evidence of it (and remember, the defendant only has to create reasonable doubt) and maybe get acquitted.
Plus the law also says that if the state does bring charges and the person is found innocent because of this law they are owed the cost of their defense.
Not quite. The defendant isn't liable for "costs or fees of the court or any ministerial office, or for any charge of subsistence while detained in custody." They are liable for attorney's fees, and the law does not say the state has to pay the defendant fees. The fees are just waived.
-
I read somewhere that Zimmerman might have been a police informant. So there's that.
So on top of everything else, we might be dealing with a "protect our own" mentality. Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice. >:(
-
You have to remember that the police and districts attorneys in Florida have to deal with the stand you ground law. That law say that if you are in a place you can legal be in you may use force, including deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm, without the need to retreat. That means all the man has to say is that the kid attacked him. It doesn't matter that he was following the kid. With no other witnesses you are not going to prove he did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Plus the law also says that if the state does bring charges and the person is found innocent because of this law they are owed the cost of their defense.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html)
Doesn't matter. He has admitted to a crime, namely shooting someone. He hasn't denied shooting the kid, just said that he had a good reason. He has to be arrested, because he's admitted to a crime. His reasoning behind the shooting doesn't come out before the arrest; it comes after, at the trial. It's not the job of the police to judge whether or not he shot in self-defense: that's a judge's job.
Small nitpick, in your system of 12 good men and women and true, it is the Jury's job. But otherwise I completely agree.
-
You have to remember that the police and districts attorneys in Florida have to deal with the stand you ground law. That law say that if you are in a place you can legal be in you may use force, including deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm, without the need to retreat. That means all the man has to say is that the kid attacked him. It doesn't matter that he was following the kid. With no other witnesses you are not going to prove he did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Plus the law also says that if the state does bring charges and the person is found innocent because of this law they are owed the cost of their defense.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html)
Doesn't matter. He has admitted to a crime, namely shooting someone. He hasn't denied shooting the kid, just said that he had a good reason. He has to be arrested, because he's admitted to a crime. His reasoning behind the shooting doesn't come out before the arrest; it comes after, at the trial. It's not the job of the police to judge whether or not he shot in self-defense: that's a judge's job.
Small nitpick, in your system of 12 good men and women and true, it is the Jury's job. But otherwise I completely agree.
Typically self defense cases you'd want a bench trial
-
I'm surprised the US has an option of Judge only trials. We do but only in very select circumstances and at the discretion of the Court not the accused.
-
You've mixed up the onus of proof. The police do not need to prove anything (the shooter has admitted to shooting the kid). He needs to prove self defence, if he wants to use that defence. As you've pointed out, he has no evidence to back him up. So he's dead.
The state has to prove that the man murdered the kid and was not acting in self defense, and do so beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
You've mixed up the onus of proof. The police do not need to prove anything (the shooter has admitted to shooting the kid). He needs to prove self defence, if he wants to use that defence. As you've pointed out, he has no evidence to back him up. So he's dead.
The state has to prove that the man murdered the kid and was not acting in self defense, and do so beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's simply false.
-
Wait a minute here. It is all good and well to say that a person in a public space can use lethal self defense, but this man first phoned 911 and was advised by them to do nothing and wait for the police. Instead he chose to leave his property into the public space and that resulted in the altercation that cost the boy his life. Now if we assume best possible scenario for the shooter, we can say that the boy saw the man following him and accosted him demanding to know why he was being followed. Still, to pull a gun on an unarmed individual who is 100 pounds lighter, makes no sense.
Also, the state should prosecute regardless of the risk with regards to paying for the defense if he is innocent. If accountants decide the what laws should and should not be tried because of cost it would be a great travesty of the justice system.
According to the "Stand you Ground Law" can shoot an unarmed individual if they are trying to harm you. All the man has to say is that the kid attacked him.
You are not going to get the state to prosecute unless it thinks it has a chance at a conviction. Even if they did not have pay for the man's defense if they lose, it is still a waste of money.
-
Doesn't matter. He has admitted to a crime, namely shooting someone. He hasn't denied shooting the kid, just said that he had a good reason. He has to be arrested, because he's admitted to a crime. His reasoning behind the shooting doesn't come out before the arrest; it comes after, at the trial. It's not the job of the police to judge whether or not he shot in self-defense: that's a judge's job.
Shooting someone in self-defense is not a crime, so unless the police see evidence that it was not self-defense they are not going to arrest the man. Plus arresting the man on the spot is not that important unless they feel he is a flight risk.
-
You have to remember that the police and districts attorneys in Florida have to deal with the stand you ground law. That law say that if you are in a place you can legal be in you may use force, including deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm, without the need to retreat.
Actually, not quite. I posted FL's Castle Doctrine law on the last page. It requires the victim to actually have been on the shooter's property, among other things.
Also, as an affirmative defense, the defendant has the burden of proof to show the defense is valid. The state still has to prove all the elements of the crime (probably manslaughter here), and the defendant would have to show the Castle Doctrine applied. (IMO, it doesn't in this situation.) There is no reason the State couldn't file charges and start the process. Maybe it turns out that the shooter does have a Castle Doctrine defense. If so, he would be able to put on evidence of it (and remember, the defendant only has to create reasonable doubt) and maybe get acquitted.
Plus the law also says that if the state does bring charges and the person is found innocent because of this law they are owed the cost of their defense.
Not quite. The defendant isn't liable for "costs or fees of the court or any ministerial office, or for any charge of subsistence while detained in custody." They are liable for attorney's fees, and the law does not say the state has to pay the defendant fees. The fees are just waived.
Read the link I posted.
"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
This is not the first time this law has caused problems....
http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2012/feb/20/stand-your-ground-law-faces-another-court-test-ar-360570/ (http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2012/feb/20/stand-your-ground-law-faces-another-court-test-ar-360570/)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/double-murder-charges-dismissed-under-fl-stand-your-ground-self-defense-law/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/double-murder-charges-dismissed-under-fl-stand-your-ground-self-defense-law/)
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/01/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-saves-15.html (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/01/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-saves-15.html)
-
I thought everyone who killed someone was arrested, and later they determined whether it was self defense.
The fact that this didn't happen proves something.
-
Ok except this guy wasn't attacked and didn't stand his ground. He chased and pursued this kid.
Oh and to be clear here is the onus.
The state has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot the kid. Done as the guy admits it.
He then has to fairly raise self-defence. Which I would say is arguable here but let's assume it is fairly raised.
Zimmerman then has to establish on the balance of probabilities that he was acting in self defence.
Edited: Because I no engrish
-
According to the "Stand you Ground Law" can shoot an unarmed individual if they are trying to harm you. All the man has to say is that the kid attacked him.
We also believe murderers when they say they didn't do it either.
While I can understand the stand your ground laws, I don't see how they apply to someone who was actively pursuing the victim especially after the person was instructed by authorities not to leave their property. It is pretty obvious that even if the child did actually attack Zimmerman, that attack was provoked by Zimmerman.
The state has a responsibility to arrest Zimmerman because someone is dead, killed by the weapon Zimmerman owns. That is a crime in itself. Secondly Zimmerman has admitted to shooting the child and thus has to stand trial for at least manslaughter. It is here where the judge or jury can decide if he did so in self defense. That is not a call for the police to make.
Lastly, given what is known about this case, the previous conviction of Zimmerman, as well as the conversation on the 911 recording, a pretty solid case can be made for not only murder but also a hate crime. At the very least a straight up manslaughter charge because none of this would have happened if Zimmerman did not pursue the boy and provoke an altercation. The age, weight difference, contents of pockets and witness reports all prove that the boy would just have continued on walking home back from the shops if Zimmerman had done as he was told by the 911 dispatch.
Further, all of what I have stated is still the best case scenario where the boy actually attacked Zimmerman for following him, and not the more likely event that Zimmerman accosted the boy which caused a struggle probably, and resulted in Zimmerman killing the child.
Oh and police are expected to arrest everyone who commits a crime, they then have the option of bail which can be denied by a judge if the person is considered a flight risk. Regardless though they first have to be arrested.
-
Ok except this guy wasn't attacked and didn't stand his ground. He chased and pursued this kid.
Oh and to be clear here is the onus.
The state has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot the kid. Done as the guy admits it.
He then has to fairly raise self-defence. Which I would say is arguable here but let's assume it is fairly raised.
Zimmerman then has to establish on the balance of probabilities that he was acting in self defence.
Edited: Because I no engrish
No the state has to prove that Zimmerman committed a crime. Shooting someone in self defense is not a crime, and because of innocent until proven guilty that state has to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense. Which will be hard since he was bloody from the scuffle he had with the kid.
-
According to the "Stand you Ground Law" can shoot an unarmed individual if they are trying to harm you. All the man has to say is that the kid attacked him.
We also believe murderers when they say they didn't do it either.
While I can understand the stand your ground laws, I don't see how they apply to someone who was actively pursuing the victim especially after the person was instructed by authorities not to leave their property. It is pretty obvious that even if the child did actually attack Zimmerman, that attack was provoked by Zimmerman.
The state has a responsibility to arrest Zimmerman because someone is dead, killed by the weapon Zimmerman owns. That is a crime in itself. Secondly Zimmerman has admitted to shooting the child and thus has to stand trial for at least manslaughter. It is here where the judge or jury can decide if he did so in self defense. That is not a call for the police to make.
Lastly, given what is known about this case, the previous conviction of Zimmerman, as well as the conversation on the 911 recording, a pretty solid case can be made for not only murder but also a hate crime. At the very least a straight up manslaughter charge because none of this would have happened if Zimmerman did not pursue the boy and provoke an altercation. The age, weight difference, contents of pockets and witness reports all prove that the boy would just have continued on walking home back from the shops if Zimmerman had done as he was told by the 911 dispatch.
Further, all of what I have stated is still the best case scenario where the boy actually attacked Zimmerman for following him, and not the more likely event that Zimmerman accosted the boy which caused a struggle probably, and resulted in Zimmerman killing the child.
Oh and police are expected to arrest everyone who commits a crime, they then have the option of bail which can be denied by a judge if the person is considered a flight risk. Regardless though they first have to be arrested.
It does not matter if Zimmerman provoked the kid. You are not allowed to attack someone even when provoked. The law states that Zimmerman had to be someplace he legally was allowed to be, which he was, has to fear for his life or great injury, which is reasonable to believe since he substantiated injuries. With what other people heard during the incident there is little evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story.
As far a it being a hate crime, based on what. Their is no evidence of Zimmerman being a racist. His previous arrest had nothing to do with race.
Now I'm not saying he is innocent, or that I like Florida law, but to look at this and immediately start calling Zimmerman, the police and possible the state attorney racists is jumping the gun.
-
Ok except this guy wasn't attacked and didn't stand his ground. He chased and pursued this kid.
Oh and to be clear here is the onus.
The state has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot the kid. Done as the guy admits it.
He then has to fairly raise self-defence. Which I would say is arguable here but let's assume it is fairly raised.
Zimmerman then has to establish on the balance of probabilities that he was acting in self defence.
Edited: Because I no engrish
No the state has to prove that Zimmerman committed a crime. Shooting someone in self defense is not a crime, and because of innocent until proven guilty that state has to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense. Which will be hard since he was bloody from the scuffle he had with the kid.
Except you're wrong.
He is proven guilty, by his own admission, of shooting someone.
This is all that has to be established first.
Now that he's guilty of shooting someone, by admission, he has to prove that he killed in self-defense.
This is how the process has been explained to you. Several times.
Repeating yourself over and over again in the face of evidence that has been presented to you, while you yourself have presented a lack of evidence, does not a counterpoint make.
-
I believe what Nickerson is trying to point out (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that cops do not always arrest someone de facto just for shooting someone, especially if it's a claim of self-defense. That may seem shocking, but it happens more often than you'd imagine. If someone claims self-defense, the cops don't have enough evidence to believe otherwise, and the cops don't think he's a flight risk, they are not required to arrest him. Even if he admitted it. He did admit to the shooting but said it was self-defense. So unless the cops have evidence to think otherwise, them not arresting him now doesn't mean they won't arrest him later, once they have reason beyond suspicion (and better proof) to think it's other than self-defense.
-
Except you're wrong.
He is proven guilty, by his own admission, of shooting someone.
This is all that has to be established first.
Now that he's guilty of shooting someone, by admission, he has to prove that he killed in self-defense.
This is how the process has been explained to you. Several times.
Repeating yourself over and over again in the face of evidence that has been presented to you, while you yourself have presented a lack of evidence, does not a counterpoint make.
Yes, he is guilty of shooting someone. That is not a crime when done in self-defense. The police found Zimmerman injured. Witnesses heard the struggle and one found came upon Zimmerman still on the ground after he had shot the kid. How is that not enough evidence? Even more so when you remember that Zimmerman had not requirement to try and flee. The police made a decision not to arrest him at that time and turn it over to the state attorney. That does not make them racists.
It also does not make the state attorney racist if he thinks that Zimmerman has enough evidence to show he acted in self defense. The state is not going to prosecute if they think the person acted within the law.
Yes, I was wrong about who has the burden of evidence when it comes to an affirmed defense.
-
Except you're wrong.
He is proven guilty, by his own admission, of shooting someone.
This is all that has to be established first.
Now that he's guilty of shooting someone, by admission, he has to prove that he killed in self-defense.
This is how the process has been explained to you. Several times.
Repeating yourself over and over again in the face of evidence that has been presented to you, while you yourself have presented a lack of evidence, does not a counterpoint make.
Yes, he is guilty of shooting someone. That is not a crime when done in self-defense.
As you've pointed out, the accused murderer has no evidence on which to substantiate (as you admit) his responsibility to bear the onus of proof.
-
No the state has to prove that Zimmerman committed a crime. Shooting someone in self defense is not a crime, and because of innocent until proven guilty that state has to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense. Which will be hard since he was bloody from the scuffle he had with the kid.
I explained this on the previous page and I know you saw it since you quoted my post above.
Shooting someone is a crime. Shooting someone in self-defense is not, true, but that is not at issue at this moment.
Police only need reasonable suspicion of a crime to arrest. Dead kid, guy holding a gun and saying "I shot him" is reasonable suspicion. Once he is arrested, the State Attorney's Office can look further into the case to determine if there is enough evidence to prove a crime. At the same time, the defense attorney can talk to the guy and find out if there is enough to argue self-defense.
If this goes to trial, the state puts on the evidence of the crime. They must prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Then the defense puts on their case and tries to prove self-defense. (As I said before, the defense must prove this. However, their burden of proof is lower. The defense only has to create reasonable doubt.) Then the fact-finder (judge in a bench trial, jury in a jury trial) determines if the man is (1) guilty of charged crime, (2) guilty of lesser included crime, or (3) not guilty.
-
As you've pointed out, the accused murderer has no evidence on which to substantiate (as you admit) his responsibility to bear the onus of proof.
His injuries and what witnesses saw as they came up after the shooting is evidence.
-
No the state has to prove that Zimmerman committed a crime. Shooting someone in self defense is not a crime, and because of innocent until proven guilty that state has to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense. Which will be hard since he was bloody from the scuffle he had with the kid.
I explained this on the previous page and I know you saw it since you quoted my post above.
Shooting someone is a crime. Shooting someone in self-defense is not, true, but that is not at issue at this moment.
Police only need reasonable suspicion of a crime to arrest. Dead kid, guy holding a gun and saying "I shot him" is reasonable suspicion. Once he is arrested, the State Attorney's Office can look further into the case to determine if there is enough evidence to prove a crime. At the same time, the defense attorney can talk to the guy and find out if there is enough to argue self-defense.
If this goes to trial, the state puts on the evidence of the crime. They must prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Then the defense puts on their case and tries to prove self-defense. (As I said before, the defense must prove this. However, their burden of proof is lower. The defense only has to create reasonable doubt.) Then the fact-finder (judge in a bench trial, jury in a jury trial) determines if the man is (1) guilty of charged crime, (2) guilty of lesser included crime, or (3) not guilty.
While the police only need a reasonable suspicion to arrest, it does not mean they must on the spot.
-
No the state has to prove that Zimmerman committed a crime. Shooting someone in self defense is not a crime, and because of innocent until proven guilty that state has to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense. Which will be hard since he was bloody from the scuffle he had with the kid.
I explained this on the previous page and I know you saw it since you quoted my post above.
Shooting someone is a crime. Shooting someone in self-defense is not, true, but that is not at issue at this moment.
Actually, according to the police in this case it is.
Sanford Police Chief Billy Lee said there is no evidence to dispute self-appointed neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman's assertion that he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin out of self-defense.
"Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don't have the grounds to arrest him," Lee said.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T2SUSxFmLWg (http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T2SUSxFmLWg)
Now we can dispute the police officers' motivations all we want, but what is being presented at least in the media suggests at least the possibility that the police are building a better case and thus holding off on arrest, given that they don't feel at the moment they have enough evidence to arrest him. At the very least, the assertions many people are making that because he shot someone he must in that moment be arrested are not correct. And the assertions that it's up to him to prove self-defense only at trial, which is what some people also seem to be suggesting, are also not correct. Once someone is arrested, the clock starts ticking in terms of prosecution. There is a possibility that they're holding off on prosecuting the guy until they can solidly prosecute him, particularly given how much media attention this case has already gotten.
Also, and I cannot support this via a source other than hearsay on a blog, so I'm not sure how credible it is, but I'm seeing in several places that Zimmerman might have been a police informant. That would certainly change the way the cops might handle him, but again, I cannot support that at the moment with something I find more credible, though I'm still looking.
-
As you've pointed out, the accused murderer has no evidence on which to substantiate (as you admit) his responsibility to bear the onus of proof.
His injuries and what witnesses saw as they came up after the shooting is evidence.
So: surest way to murder someone and get off on self-defense: Make sure your victim fights back and injures you?
-
As much as we might want to see otherwise in some cases, it's still innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Not everyone who claims self-defense gets to go home jailfree that night. Only those who the cops think they cannot immediately prove it wasn't something like self-defense. As I said earlier, we can certainly dispute the cops' motivations on this case, but we're just speculating. If they arrested him immediately and couldn't make the charge stick and/or he walked at trial, how much more of a travesty would that be? Remember, public outrage is not evidence. Put the man away because we can make it stick, not because we suspect his motives.
-
So: surest way to murder someone and get off on self-defense: Make sure your victim fights back and injures you?
Yes, that is the whole problem with the Florida law. Unfortunately the police, state attorney and the courts have to follow that law. They don't have a choice. So if Zimmerman walks away without any type of charges blame the lawmakers.
-
Question: Does the dead 17 year old actually look like all the pictures that keep getting shown, because he doesn't look threatening, he looks like he is about 13?
-
My home state never ceases to make me proud. :(
-
Well the other disturbing thing is the report from the witness that the Police corrected her.
The witness said "I heard the victim cry for help"
Then the police officer corrected her and said "no Zimmerman cried for help."
That's extraordinarily bad policing.
-
Well the other disturbing thing is the report from the witness that the Police corrected her.
The witness said "I heard the victim cry for help"
Then the police officer corrected her and said "no Zimmerman cried for help."
That's extraordinarily bad policing.
I just found this, be careful though the audio, especially number 3 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/trayvon-martin-911-audio-_n_1354909.html), is shocking. The Martin family identifies the voice yelling for help as Trayvon's. With this, as well as other witness testimony that Trayvon had been yelling for help, this is anything but self-defense.
And at someone a few pages back, yeah, it may not be racism and there could be a host of other explanations for the police's lack of action, but a bit of investigation (google) shows that the same police force has a history of overlooking black victims (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/police-lieutenants-son-investigated-attacking-homeless-man/story?id=12507834#.T2Ww16G1V49). The head officer investigating both Martin and Collisons cases was Anthony Raimodo (http://www.wftv.com/news/news/family-slain-teen-hold-press-conference/nLTxw/). This officer was also previously relieved of duty (with pay, how nice) for perjury and filing a false police report (http://mysanfordherald.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Sanford+sergeant+cleared+of+charge-+returns+to+work%20&id=10065109). I'm sorry, these new discoveries just have me a tad angry. How can any police department be so inept as to retain that guy? The Sanford Police Department's a fucking joke. I'm going to the angry dome (hot shower) to calm down.
-
Okay, so...
I've already raged about the police not doing their job... but...
Why aren't the police who are supposed to police the police doing their job?
Literally, all evidence has come out showing that this was a cold-blooded murder, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the police still do nothing.
Fire the whole lot of them. All of them.
-
Okay, so...
I've already raged about the police not doing their job... but...
Why aren't the police who are supposed to police the police doing their job?
Literally, all evidence has come out showing that this was a cold-blooded murder, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the police still do nothing.
Fire the whole lot of them. All of them.
...or perhaps that is not the case, or they are still investigating.
-
I understand needing enough evidence but it appears the cops are dragging their heels and that is what gets me. The fact that they were misleading that witness tells me something is icky
-
Okay, so...
I've already raged about the police not doing their job... but...
Why aren't the police who are supposed to police the police doing their job?
Literally, all evidence has come out showing that this was a cold-blooded murder, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the police still do nothing.
Fire the whole lot of them. All of them.
...or perhaps that is not the case, or they are still investigating.
Do you really believe that, or are you simply playing Devil's advocate? I'm not sure how anyone can look at the evidence that is now available and still think that this is simply a matter of the police trying to build a better case.
-
Okay, so...
I've already raged about the police not doing their job... but...
Why aren't the police who are supposed to police the police doing their job?
Literally, all evidence has come out showing that this was a cold-blooded murder, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the police still do nothing.
Fire the whole lot of them. All of them.
...or perhaps that is not the case, or they are still investigating.
Do you really believe that, or are you simply playing Devil's advocate? I'm not sure how anyone can look at the evidence that is now available and still think that this is simply a matter of the police trying to build a better case.
Indeed. How much better a case could they possibly get? Where are the honest-to-goodness weak spots in this case? Can this kid really be seen as provided a credible threat to a guy so much bigger than him with just his bare hands? And even if he could: the kid had just as much right to “stand his ground” as Zimmerman. Moreso, since he was the one being accosted.
-
The kid was a credible enough threat to injure Zimmerman. Remember the law in Florida states that a person can use deadly force if they fear sever injury. You also can't say for sure that Zimmerman approached the Martin in a way that signaled he wanted to harm him. Listening to Zimmerman's call he said that Martin approached him first and then suddenly ran.
As for other evidence what do you have? The parents saying that it was their sons voice calling for help. That was before the gun shot. Unless we see evidence from the M.E. report saying Martin also had injuries from the scuffle why would he be calling for help while inflicting damage on someone? The parents of the victim are going to hear what they want to hear on those tapes.
Now as far as witnesses, I have read of one that the police are saying changed their story after the fact. That indeed could be on the police, or it could be on the witness. If the FBI, who are now monitoring the case thinks it is the police they are going to take their time and get evidence that not only Zimmerman murdered.
-
The kid was a credible enough threat to injure Zimmerman. Remember the law in Florida states that a person can use deadly force if they fear sever injury. You also can't say for sure that Zimmerman approached the Martin in a way that signaled he wanted to harm him. Listening to Zimmerman's call he said that Martin approached him first and then suddenly ran.
As for other evidence what do you have? The parents saying that it was their sons voice calling for help. That was before the gun shot. Unless we see evidence from the M.E. report saying Martin also had injuries from the scuffle why would he be calling for help while inflicting damage on someone? The parents of the victim are going to hear what they want to hear on those tapes.
Now as far as witnesses, I have read of one that the police are saying changed their story after the fact. That indeed could be on the police, or it could be on the witness. If the FBI, who are now monitoring the case thinks it is the police they are going to take their time and get evidence that not only Zimmerman murdered.
It was on the police intenal stuff said that the cops told the witness to change her story
-
Their internal stuff? If you have a link please post.
-
1. It wasn't just the parents that identified the victim, it was a witness as well.
2. Unless the kid had a weapon on him, no, he was not a credible threat to Zimmerman. And it's a bit late for the police to plant a weapon on him.
3. There is, at least, enough evidence to take him to trial, right? In which case, they should.
-
Their internal stuff? If you have a link please post.
This was posted earlier in the thread: http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T2a-YhFmLkV
But after the shooting, a source inside the police department told ABC News that a narcotics detective and not a homicide detective first approached Zimmerman. The detective pepppered Zimmerman with questions, the source said, rather than allow Zimmerman to tell his story. Questions can lead a witness, the source said.
Another officer corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help.
The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.
-
1. It wasn't just the parents that identified the victim, it was a witness as well.
Which witness is that? I've seen reports saying a 13 year old witness was not sure, other reports saying he thought it was Zimmerman's and yet other saying it was Martins.
2. Unless the kid had a weapon on him, no, he was not a credible threat to Zimmerman. And it's a bit late for the police to plant a weapon on him.
Why because he was smaller? A smaller person can still do a hell of a lot of damage and even kill a bigger person in a fight.
3. There is, at least, enough evidence to take him to trial, right? In which case, they should.
Really? Remember the Casey Anthony case? The police and state attorney's office spent near a year building a case against her. They had more concrete evidence than this case will ever have. What happened? She was acquitted.
It is not just about taking that case to trial. It is about having enough to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. Martins family says their son was innocent, was a good boy. Zimmerman's father says the same about his son. Not to mention that if Martin had any type of problems in the past it will be brought up by the defense.
I'm not saying Zimmerman did act in self-defence or he didn't. I don't know and neither does anyone else accept him right now.
-
1. It wasn't just the parents that identified the victim, it was a witness as well.
Which witness is that? I've seen reports saying a 13 year old witness was not sure, other reports saying he thought it was Zimmerman's and yet other saying it was Martins.
You... missed the part where the witness said she heard Martin, but then the police actually corrected her. Which is bad bad bad bad and wrong.
It's not that she was in doubt, it's that the police are intentionally trying to make her doubt.
Why because he was smaller? A smaller person can still do a hell of a lot of damage and even kill a bigger person in a fight.
Yes, they can. But not in normal circumstances. Especially not a kid who was found with only skittles in his pocket.
I'm not saying Zimmerman did act in self-defence or he didn't. I don't know and neither does anyone else accept him right now.
Let's see...
1. Police trying to change witness's minds about what they heard
2. Police trying to change stories
3. Zimmerman intentionally disobeying police orders, following kid because he was suspicious because he was black
4. The kid was approached, not Zimmerman. By your own logic, even if the kid attacked first, that means the KID was acting in self-defense, and Zimmerman was not. Thus, the castle doctrine would apply to Martin, not Zimmerman. by your own logic.
Protip: You might want to try reading all of the posts in the thread and actually comprehending them before responding. Half of your talking points have been rebuked by cold hard facts >_>
-
Their internal stuff? If you have a link please post.
This was posted earlier in the thread: http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T2a-YhFmLkV
But after the shooting, a source inside the police department told ABC News that a narcotics detective and not a homicide detective first approached Zimmerman. The detective pepppered Zimmerman with questions, the source said, rather than allow Zimmerman to tell his story. Questions can lead a witness, the source said.
Another officer corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help.
The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.
That is only going to help if that source comes foreword. Regardless those witnesses should be interviewed by the state attorneys office to help decide if there is a case. If there is then the police procedure itself have to be investigated as well.
-
Their internal stuff? If you have a link please post.
This was posted earlier in the thread: http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T2a-YhFmLkV
But after the shooting, a source inside the police department told ABC News that a narcotics detective and not a homicide detective first approached Zimmerman. The detective pepppered Zimmerman with questions, the source said, rather than allow Zimmerman to tell his story. Questions can lead a witness, the source said.
Another officer corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help.
The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.
That is only going to help if that source comes foreword. Regardless those witnesses should be interviewed by the state attorneys office to help decide if there is a case. If there is then the police procedure itself have to be investigated as well.
Yes, and they aren't. This is why it's a problem and this is why we're angry.
-
You... missed the part where the witness said she heard Martin, but then the police actually corrected her. Which is bad bad bad bad and wrong.
It's not that she was in doubt, it's that the police are intentionally trying to make her doubt.
Yes I did until a few seconds ago. She along with the other witnesses should be interviewed by the state attorney.
Yes, they can. But not in normal circumstances. Especially not a kid who was found with only skittles in his pocket.
Yes they can in normal circumstances. One witness said they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. Zimmerman had a blood nose and back of his head.
Let's see...
1. Police trying to change witness's minds about what they heard
2. Police trying to change stories
3. Zimmerman intentionally disobeying police orders, following kid because he was suspicious because he was black
4. The kid was approached, not Zimmerman. By your own logic, even if the kid attacked first, that means the KID was acting in self-defense, and Zimmerman was not. Thus, the castle doctrine would apply to Martin, not Zimmerman. by your own logic.
Protip: You might want to try reading all of the posts in the thread and actually comprehending them before responding. Half of your talking points have been rebuked by cold hard facts >_>
1. The police are saying one thing the witnesses are now saying another. You don't know who is telling the truth.
2. What story? About Zimmerman not having a record, they were not aware of his arrest at the time.
3. He disobeyed the 911 operator not the police, which is not a crime. Also there is nothing to indicate he thought Martin was suspicious because he was black. In the 911 call Zimmerman does not even mention this until after the 911 operator asks him about Martins color.
4. Again listen to Zimmerman's call. He says that Martin was walking up to him "checking him out" and then suddenly took off running. That is when Zimmerman started to follow him. Florida's law would only apply to Martin if you can show he attacked Martin because he feared for his life, even then it would still apply to Zimmerman as well because he was not breaking that law by following Martin. That again is the whole problem with the law.
It seems that what you think are facts would not go far in any type of court.
-
Yes, and they aren't. This is why it's a problem and this is why we're angry.
Then be angry at them. Cause without them coming foreword you can't even know if what they are claiming is true. Hell you don't even know if they are really a credible source of evidence. Anger is fine, just make sure it is pointed in the right direction.
-
Wow...you've totally taken this Devil's Advocate thing that Skyfire used to do and just...ran with it?
-
Yes they can in normal circumstances. One witness said they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. Zimmerman had a blood nose and back of his head.
Oh, no. A bloody nose. Better shoot the kid.
-
Yes they can in normal circumstances. One witness said they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. Zimmerman had a blood nose and back of his head.
Oh, no. A bloody nose. Better shoot the kid.
I also call into question if that witness is telling the truth seeing as the cops told one to change her story.
-
Using excessive force is also murder.
-
Personally I don't know who I am more upset about, the racist psycho who killed the kid, or the police for doing nothing to said racist psycho.
Don't be upset at the cops; this one isn't their fault. While this almost certainly was a case of a racist killing (whether or not it was done in self defense is irrelevant, Zimmerman instigated the confrontation for no reason other than he found a black teenager in his neighborhood "suspicious" and disregarded specific police instructions to not confront), the cops have their hands tied by Florida's asinine "Stand Your Ground" law.
In a nutshell, what this idiotic piece of shit law says is that you are under no legal obligation to back down from any confrontation. The police can do nothing because under the law, the actual shooting likely was not illegal because Zimmerman was under no obligation to stand down. The law says that if he believes that his life was in danger or he was at risk of serious bodily harm, he had every right to use deadly force with his legally carried concealed handgun. According to the law it doesn't matter who started the confrontation or why, neither Zimmerman nor the victim were under any legal obligation or responsibility to back down.
The accounts of the witnesses seem to bear out his story that he was in some kind of physical danger from the kid, he was obviously getting his ass kicked. The police, who must abide by the statue that a person is innocent until proven guilty, can do nothing unless they can invalidate Zimmerman's claim of self-defense, a claim that due to the state of the witnesses in the case and the "Stand Your Ground" law, is nearly impossible to dispute.
The problem is not the police. The problem is the "Stand Your Ground" law that the police are obligated to obey and enforce. It essentially turns Florida in the Old West.
-
Personally I don't know who I am more upset about, the racist psycho who killed the kid, or the police for doing nothing to said racist psycho.
Don't be upset at the cops; this one isn't their fault. While this almost certainly was a case of a racist killing (whether or not it was done in self defense is irrelevant, Zimmerman instigated the confrontation for no reason other than he found a black teenager in his neighborhood "suspicious" and disregarded specific police instructions to not confront), the cops have their hands tied by Florida's asinine "Stand Your Ground" law.
In a nutshell, what this idiotic piece of shit law says is that you are under no legal obligation to back down from any confrontation. The police can do nothing because under the law, the actual shooting likely was not illegal because Zimmerman was under no obligation to stand down. The law says that if he believes that his life was in danger or he was at risk of serious bodily harm, he had every right to use deadly force with his legally carried concealed handgun. According to the law it doesn't matter who started the confrontation or why, neither Zimmerman nor the victim were under any legal obligation or responsibility to back down.
The accounts of the witnesses seem to bear out his story that he was in some kind of physical danger from the kid, he was obviously getting his ass kicked. The police, who must abide by the statue that a person is innocent until proven guilty, can do nothing unless they can invalidate Zimmerman's claim of self-defense, a claim that due to the state of the witnesses in the case and the "Stand Your Ground" law, is nearly impossible to dispute.
The problem is not the police. The problem is the "Stand Your Ground" law that the police are obligated to obey and enforce. It essentially turns Florida in the Old West.
So in Florida it's legal to shoot a guy who looks at you funny. I keep pointing out though that the witnesses could be lying as teh cops did change the story of one witness
witness: I heard a teenager scream
cop: no you heard an adult
-
So in Florida it's legal to shoot a guy who looks at you funny.
No, but you can incite someone to attack you and then shoot them.
-
The thing is, I honestly cannot believe that the suspect in this case just provoked the kid to attack him. I would more likely believe that he grabbed the kid and as a result was knocked off balance and down. Hence the bloody nose and head. Think about it. Only if the kid walked right up to him and threw the first punch would self defense be justified.
However, there is absolutely no reasonable motive for that. Even if the suspect following him creeped him out, he would have no reason to randomly get physical. However, the call notes that the suspect was upset that "they always get away" and promptly pursued the victim. This leads me to believe that the suspect was attempting to apprehend the victim instead of just following.
This altercation would not have happened at all, if the suspect had not pursued and probably accosted the victim. There was absolutely no relation between the victim and the suspect. The victim was on his way back home from the shops and as a result would have paid no attention to suspect had the suspect done nothing. I honestly cannot think of anything other than the suspect either pulling his gun on the kid initially or accosting the kid that would result in any kind of physical action from the victim. These actions of course would invalidate the suspects self defense claim. Similarly, by the hold your ground laws, the victim had as much right to attempt to defend himself from the danger presented by an armed man following or accosting him.
-
The problem is that the way the Stand Your Ground law is worded it doesn't matter who started the conflict. If the shooter claims that they felt their safety or life was threatened and insist it was self defense, the law places the burden of proof on the cops to prove it wasn't.
What sucks is that this asshole racially profiled a kid, refused to follow police instructions, pursued and almost certainly accosted an innocent teenager 70 yards from his home, provoked a conflict, and shot him dead. And the way the law is worded, the police know all that and can't do a damn thing about it unless some witness comes forward to say that Zimmerman was in no danger and the shooting was unprovoked in any way. Short of that, their hands are tied. No prosecutor in Florida will ever walk into a courtroom with a case that essentially boils down to "we say this happened, he says that happened."
-
See, I do blame the cops, at least in part. They have a history of not pursuing cases and should have tested Zimmerman for drugs.
Also, this quote:
(http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html)“We are taking a beating over this,” said Lee, who defends the investigation. “This is all very unsettling. I’m sure if George Zimmerman had the opportunity to relive Sunday, Feb. 26, he’d probably do things differently. I’m sure Trayvon would, too.”
Because it was totally his fault.
-
I need to clarify one issue regarding the law.
Deadly force is NOT authorized in self-defense unless deadly force is used first by the aggressor or to prevent a felony.
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(for home invasion)
Fla. Stat. § 776.012
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(Sub-section 2 lays out exceptions to 1, none of which are applicable here.)
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Fla. Stat. § 776.013
Both statutes have a requirement that deadly force can only be used to prevent death, serious bodily injury, or a forcible felony. (Simple battery, which is what it would be if Martin was actually beating up Zimmerman, is a misdemeanor.) The Castle Doctrine requires that the victim have illegally entered Zimmerman's home. Even if Martin was beating up Zimmerman, that does not give Zimmerman the right to use deadly force. There was no threat of death or serious bodily injury. There was no forcible felony. There is no evidence that Martin was illegally in Zimmerman's home.
Zimmerman had a right to self-defense. (This is assuming Martin was the aggressor.) He did NOT have a right to use deadly force in self-defense.
-
The problem is that the way the Stand Your Ground law is worded it doesn't matter who started the conflict. If the shooter claims that they felt their safety or life was threatened and insist it was self defense, the law places the burden of proof on the cops to prove it wasn't.
What sucks is that this asshole racially profiled a kid, refused to follow police instructions, pursued and almost certainly accosted an innocent teenager 70 yards from his home, provoked a conflict, and shot him dead. And the way the law is worded, the police know all that and can't do a damn thing about it unless some witness comes forward to say that Zimmerman was in no danger and the shooting was unprovoked in any way. Short of that, their hands are tied. No prosecutor in Florida will ever walk into a courtroom with a case that essentially boils down to "we say this happened, he says that happened."
The issue is the cops are not even trying to deal with finding the burden of proof
-
I need to clarify one issue regarding the law.
Deadly force is NOT authorized in self-defense unless deadly force is used first by the aggressor or to prevent a felony.
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(for home invasion)
Fla. Stat. § 776.012
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(Sub-section 2 lays out exceptions to 1, none of which are applicable here.)
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Fla. Stat. § 776.013
Both statutes have a requirement that deadly force can only be used to prevent death, serious bodily injury, or a forcible felony. (Simple battery, which is what it would be if Martin was actually beating up Zimmerman, is a misdemeanor.) The Castle Doctrine requires that the victim have illegally entered Zimmerman's home. Even if Martin was beating up Zimmerman, that does not give Zimmerman the right to use deadly force. There was no threat of death or serious bodily injury. There was no forcible felony. There is no evidence that Martin was illegally in Zimmerman's home.
Zimmerman had a right to self-defense. (This is assuming Martin was the aggressor.) He did NOT have a right to use deadly force in self-defense.
"(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
I don't know how you are reading Section 3 but to me it says that deadly force is allowed as long as a person believes it is needed to prevent death or great bodily harm. It is possible to beat someone to death so being attacked even with bare fist can constitute deadly force.
-
That's the problem. The way the law is worded means that this racist asshole is probably going to get away with murder.
-
"(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
I don't know how you are reading Section 3 but to me it says that deadly force is allowed as long as a person believes it is needed to prevent death or great bodily harm. It is possible to beat someone to death so being attacked even with bare fist can constitute deadly force.
Under FL case law, no. Even the greatest black belt of every martial art in the world is considered to be using non-deadly force if they are only using their hands (feet, etc).
Also note that it requires a "reasonable belief" that death or serious bodily injury is likely. "Reasonable belief" is based on the "reasonable person" standard - what would your average person think, given the circumstances. Martin did not have a weapon. Even if Martin did attack Zimmerman, Zimmerman had only minor injuries.* Under those circumstances, no reasonable person would believe there is a threat of serious bodily harm or death.
* Did he even have injuries? I don't remember.
-
That's the problem. The way the law is worded means that this racist asshole is probably going to get away with murder.
Of course thsi is assuming teh witnesses are not lying.
-
Under FL case law, no. Even the greatest black belt of every martial art in the world is considered to be using non-deadly force if they are only using their hands (feet, etc).
Also note that it requires a "reasonable belief" that death or serious bodily injury is likely. "Reasonable belief" is based on the "reasonable person" standard - what would your average person think, given the circumstances. Martin did not have a weapon. Even if Martin did attack Zimmerman, Zimmerman had only minor injuries.* Under those circumstances, no reasonable person would believe there is a threat of serious bodily harm or death.
* Did he even have injuries? I don't remember.
In the law it does not have to be deadly force to use deadly force. Only enough force to cause great bodily harm. Zimmerman did have injuries to his nose and the back of his head, bleeding from both. If you get someone down and they are hitting the back of their head against the street that is deadly force, or at least enough to cause grave injury.
Hell one Florida Appeals court found that under this law deadly force could be used even when the aggressor is retreating.
-
Look, I generally have a respect for policemen.
However, when they're blatantly trying to cover up evidence, I don't consider anyone who defends them to be thinking clearly.
There's a lot of "the police have their hands tied" and "what if the witnesses are lying?"
But... what if the police are lying? Why aren't you allowing anyone to consider that?
Why do the police get automatically defended in this scenario?
-
Look, I generally have a respect for policemen.
However, when they're blatantly trying to cover up evidence, I don't consider anyone who defends them to be thinking clearly.
There's a lot of "the police have their hands tied" and "what if the witnesses are lying?"
But... what if the police are lying? Why aren't you allowing anyone to consider that?
Why do the police get automatically defended in this scenario?
The police might be lying. If it turns out they are then I hope each one involved is prosecuted. However we have an unnamed informant which in a court of law is equivalent to the passing of gas, and witnesses that had their stories changed or changed their stories.
It's known that over time witnesses accounts of events tend to change as the mind tends to try and fill in gaps. I'm not saying this is what happened, but with the shit-storm of media attention it is possible.
-
What about the part where the police are telling a witness that she was wrong about what she saw?
You keep skipping that part.
-
Why should the police automatically be attacked?
Maybe the cops are lying. Maybe the witnesses are. Maybe they're not. The real problem here is that the law is so badly conceived (especially when combined with Florida's ridiculously lenient concealed carry laws) that shit situations like this were bound to happen. This law DOES tie the hands of law enforcement. Get in a conflict, even if you instigated it, claim a belief of imminent bodily danger, draw your gun and pop one in the other guy's ass, claim self defense and the right to "Stand Your Ground." The law now requires the police to disprove your version of events if they are to have a prayer of a conviction. The law has clearly been interpreted several times to indicate that lethal force is permissible in a "Stand Your Ground" case.
Perhaps the cops are lying about what they know about the situation. If it wasn't for this asinine law, that wouldn't matter; Zimmerman would be in jail right now while prosecutors go over every last detail of the case with a fine tooth comb. Hell, in the state of Ohio (or any other state without a ludicrous "Stand Your Ground" law) Zimmerman would probably already have been assigned a public defender. This law allows the police, if they are so inclined, to say "Hey, Stand Your Ground," and walk away. If they are not misrepresenting what they know about the case, it damn near requires them to.
Plus, you know, it's only started to emerge what the implications of this law are in gang conflicts....
-
What about the part where the police are telling a witness that she was wrong about what she saw?
You keep skipping that part.
It is possible that the cops were correcting her because they had a signed affidavit on record in which she clearly states one thing, and then later in public states another. It would be standard procedure for the police to correct her in that case. I'm not saying that's definitely what this is, and even if it is it certainly looks bad, but it is a distinct possibility.
-
What about the part where the police are telling a witness that she was wrong about what she saw?
You keep skipping that part.
That is if the witness saying that is telling the truth. Even if she is it maybe one or just a few of the officers who did that, unknown to the officers higher up that would make the decision to arrest Zimmerman or not.
-
Still lets agree with that and everything else the cops are very suspisious
-
The cops are very suspicious. They pretty much out an out lied about the situation.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/18/446768/what-everyone-should-know-about-about-trayvon-martin-1995-2012/
As noted they said that Zimmerman didn't follow or provoke the altercation when the 911 calls and witness account in fact stated that he did provoke the fight. Zimmerman was also not tested to see if he was intoxicated. The police said Zimmerman had a clean record, when in fact he did not and neighbors were complaining about his aggressive behavior before hand.
The cops needs to be investigated, too. From the article, it looks like they will be as now the FBI is involved.
-
In the law it does not have to be deadly force to use deadly force. Only enough force to cause great bodily harm.
1) No, the law requires the person to have a reasonable belief that it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury. ("if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so") Also, "serious bodily injury" means serious bodily injury. Broken bones are not enough, unless there are a LOT of broken bones. (To get sufficient broken bones, the assailant would need a club of some sort. Again, bare hands are not enough.)
Zimmerman did have injuries to his nose and the back of his head, bleeding from both. If you get someone down and they are hitting the back of their head against the street that is deadly force, or at least enough to cause grave injury.
No, it isn't. And the phrase is not "grave injury." It is "serious bodily injury." Legally, unless there is a chance of death unless medical treatment is given, it isn't serious enough.
Hell one Florida Appeals court found that under this law deadly force could be used even when the aggressor is retreating.
The issue of "stand your ground" is not under dispute. The issue here is whether there was a threat of death, serious bodily injury, or a forcible felony. Here, there was not.
-
Get in a conflict, even if you instigated it, claim a belief of imminent bodily danger, draw your gun and pop one in the other guy's ass, claim self defense and the right to "Stand Your Ground."
The instigator CANNOT argue self-defense. (The exception is if you start a fist-fight and the other person pulls a knife or a gun. The other person elevated it to deadly force, so the original instigator is then free to use deadly force in defense.)
-
Eric you are simply refusing to see that facts here in Florida. As I said one court ruled that it was still reasonable fear death or serious bodily injury even when the an attacker starts to flee. In that case the attacker was also unarmed. Hell, most of the cases in the state where people have gotten off using this law have been when an unarmed person has been killed or wounded.
Not only that but you can indeed kill someone with your bare hands by bashing there head against the street. Hell, let someone beat you long enough with there fists and it can cause enough internal bleeding to kill you.
This case one man killed another with an ice pick because he was being overpowered. It was ruled self-defense under this law.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-results-in-no-charges-in-fatal-hillsborough/1206945 (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-results-in-no-charges-in-fatal-hillsborough/1206945)
Here is one where a drunk 23 after a fight, the 23 year old was picking himself up and was shot in the side of the head.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/boynton-beach-man-found-not-guilty-of-second-702252.html (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/boynton-beach-man-found-not-guilty-of-second-702252.html)
Here's one where a man said three others tried to run him down with their Jeep. He fired through the windshield five times, than walked up to the side of the vehicle and shot nine more time. The result, you guessed it not-guilty.
This has a number of cases...
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.ece (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.ece)
I understand what you are saying, and that is the way it should be. Thing is under this law it is not that way. It is very close to people only having to say that they feared for their lives and that is that.
-
In the law it does not have to be deadly force to use deadly force. Only enough force to cause great bodily harm.
1) No, the law requires the person to have a reasonable belief that it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury. ("if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so") Also, "serious bodily injury" means serious bodily injury. Broken bones are not enough, unless there are a LOT of broken bones. (To get sufficient broken bones, the assailant would need a club of some sort. Again, bare hands are not enough.)
No offense personally, but that last bit is bullshit. Bare hands aren't enough to cause broken bones? Really? Will come as a surprise to the women I worked with in a domestic violence shelter. Hell, one of my students three weeks ago had his jaw rewired and his teeth slammed into the back of his throat by a pair of fists. My boyfriend has broken bones with fists in gloves in a boxing ring.
The problem is "reasonable belief." If you come at me, how am I to calculate cooly and rationally whether you're going to be able to cause me "serious bodily injury" or not? What do I base that on? One of the vagueries of this law is who gets to decide what is reasonable. I can assure you that if I'm being assaulted, I'm going to have a hard time doing the fast math on how hard it's going to hurt and if/when I get to respond.
Please note, I'm not taking up for Zimmerman here. But to say he should've somehow known that being assaulted would not result in serious bodily injury, well...who among us can judge that in the heat of the thing? Are you all laying there waiting to assess the damage?
-
I'm owed a new irony meter from nickerson asking someone to see facts.
-
I still think saying something like he has a clean record is a fucking terrible reason not to charge someone.
-
Oh and apparently Zimmerman's is now on the run.
Ironbite-yeah clean my ass.
-
I still think saying something like he has a clean record is a fucking terrible reason not to charge someone.
Yeah. Everyone starts out with a clean record.
-
Oh and apparently Zimmerman's is now on the run.
Ironbite-yeah clean my ass.
...or you know protecting himself from the mass of people that have already convicted him in the media. Perhaps people should consider, just for a moment that, that he's telling the truth. Or have we decided that the whole innocent before proven guilty in a court of law does not mean a god damn thing?
-
His behavior doesn't really tell me he's innocent in this nickerson.
Ironbite-oh wait I forgot it's you who I'm talking to...NEVER MIND!
-
What behavior is that? Following a suspicious person? In some other scenario someone follows a person they thing is up to no good and stops a crime they are often called a hero.
What else? Maybe the fact that some people have complained about him be aggressive in his watching the area. Look at some of the stories and you find people who also though he was doing a good job. One women, who happens to be black, said she trusted him with her life.
I know lets turn this around and ask why Martin was out in the rain getting skittles, and doing so in Sanford, FL? It is not like it is known as the friendliest place on earth.
Why would Martin first approach Zimmerman and then suddenly take off running? This is what is described by Zimmerman on the 911 tape.
Here's another question, why would Zimmerman get close enough to Martin at to get into an altercation. If Zimmerman did try and stop him until the police got there why not just point his pistol at him and tell him to stop? Perhaps Martin turned around and attacked Zimmerman.
There are a lot of unanswered questions about this. It seems that people don't care about them and only care that a white man shot a black boy. Nothing else seems to matter.
-
What behavior is that? Following a suspicious person? In some other scenario someone follows a person they thing is up to no good and stops a crime they are often called a hero.
Except that he was specifically told by the police not to pursue him. If he simply spotted Martin, thought he looked suspicious, and called it in, that would be one thing. But no, he decided to go after Martin himself. And what crime was he going to stop? Martin was not doing anything he shouldn't have been.
Why would Martin first approach Zimmerman and then suddenly take off running? This is what is described by Zimmerman on the 911 tape.
Have you considered the possibility that Martin was simply scared of the guy following him around?
Here's another question, why would Zimmerman get close enough to Martin at to get into an altercation. If Zimmerman did try and stop him until the police got there why not just point his pistol at him and tell him to stop? Perhaps Martin turned around and attacked Zimmerman.
Who says that Zimmerman's intention was to stop him until the police got there? He already demonstrated that he had no problem with taking matters into his own hands by following Martin in the first place.
-
Except that he was specifically told by the police not to pursue him. If he simply spotted Martin, thought he looked suspicious, and called it in, that would be one thing. But no, he decided to go after Martin himself. And what crime was he going to stop? Martin was not doing anything he shouldn't have been.
Told by the 911 operator, not the police. Also you don't know if Martin was doing anything wrong or was going to. Nobody does.
Have you considered the possibility that Martin was simply scared of the guy following him around?
The 911 call it sounds very much that Martin started to run before Zimmerman started to chase him. Zimmerman tells the operator that Martin takes off running before he is asked if he is chasing after him. You can here on the call the wind past the phone and Zimmerman start to breath harder. It is possible Martin was scared of Zimmerman, it is also possible he ran for another reason.
Who says that Zimmerman's intention was to stop him until the police got there? He already demonstrated that he had no problem with taking matters into his own hands by following Martin in the first place.
It's a far stretch from following someone to killing them. The whole point is that we don't know. Yet people have decided what happened and that Zimmerman is a racist murderer. They have also decided that the police as a collective are corrupt and covering for Zimmerman because they are racist as well. Next the state attorney will be.
-
In almost all states, Florida included, 911 operators ARE police officers. They have guns, badges, uniforms and everything. They even graduated from the Police Academy. You seem to be under the impression that the 911 operator worked for the phone company or something. I assure they do not.
i assert again that the real problem here is this asinine law.
-
The kid had just as much right to be staring at Zimmerman as Zimmerman had to be staring at the kid. I am betting that Martin approached Zimmerman to ask the guy why he was staring at him. And then he ran when Zimmerman pulled out the phone, because some creepy guy suddenly calling in a friend after watching you get your Skittles on a rainy day is probably not up to any good.
-
His behavior doesn't really tell me he's innocent in this nickerson.
Ironbite-oh wait I forgot it's you who I'm talking to...NEVER MIND!
What purpose does this serve? If you have something to contribute to the discussion, that's one thing. But it seems you only interject to throw some backhand at nick.
Cases are not tried in the media. Reading a few news reported articles doesn't give us the right to try and convict the person. No one is saying the man is fecking innocent. It's just that not all of us are willing to jump on the bandwagon everyone else is. This is a discussion, at least that's how I take it to be. What's the point of trying to veil your insults?
-
In almost all states, Florida included, 911 operators ARE police officers. They have guns, badges, uniforms and everything. They even graduated from the Police Academy. You seem to be under the impression that the 911 operator worked for the phone company or something. I assure they do not.
i assert again that the real problem here is this asinine law.
Agreed. But to the best of my knowledge, no one is legally required to obey a 9-1-1 operator. And in some cases, 9-1-1 operators are actually not allowed to advise you as to what your best interests are. We probably all remember that Oklahoma case where the 9-1-1 operator said "Do what you have to do" to the mom because she wasn't allowed to say "Sure, do shoot his ass." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/mom-kills-intruder_n_1183336.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/mom-kills-intruder_n_1183336.html) Not listening to 9-1-1 is not a crime, regardless of whether they are staff cops or not. Here, at least, they are not. But even if they were, it doesn't seem to carry any obligation to follow their instructions.
-
In almost all states, Florida included, 911 operators ARE police officers. They have guns, badges, uniforms and everything. They even graduated from the Police Academy. You seem to be under the impression that the 911 operator worked for the phone company or something. I assure they do not.
i assert again that the real problem here is this asinine law.
That I'm not so sure of Sandman. I did a quick search and everything I found indicates that a person does not have to be a police officer to a be a 911 operator, in fact far from it.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos343.htm (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos343.htm)
http://agency.governmentjobs.com/dekalbga/default.cfm?action=viewJob&jobID=387103 (http://agency.governmentjobs.com/dekalbga/default.cfm?action=viewJob&jobID=387103)
-
The kid had just as much right to be staring at Zimmerman as Zimmerman had to be staring at the kid. I am betting that Martin approached Zimmerman to ask the guy why he was staring at him. And then he ran when Zimmerman pulled out the phone, because some creepy guy suddenly calling in a friend after watching you get your Skittles on a rainy day is probably not up to any good.
Zimmerman was already on the phone with the 911 operator when he said Martin started to approach him.
-
you don't know if Martin was doing anything wrong or was going to. Nobody does.
I'm genuinely curious, what sort of crimes CAN you do with a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/opinion/blow-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martin.html?_r=2&src=tp&smid=fb-share)?
-
you don't know if Martin was doing anything wrong or was going to. Nobody does.
I'm genuinely curious, what sort of crimes CAN you do with a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/opinion/blow-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martin.html?_r=2&src=tp&smid=fb-share)?
Come on now, this is a bit facetious and you know it. Not sticking up for Zimmerman, but do you truly believe that a person has to have deadly weapons, or something, in their pockets in order to be proof enough that they might have been trying to commit a crime? Continuing to refer to the skittles is pure pathos.
-
In almost all states, Florida included, 911 operators ARE police officers. They have guns, badges, uniforms and everything. They even graduated from the Police Academy. You seem to be under the impression that the 911 operator worked for the phone company or something. I assure they do not.
i assert again that the real problem here is this asinine law.
That I'm not so sure of Sandman. I did a quick search and everything I found indicates that a person does not have to be a police officer to a be a 911 operator, in fact far from it.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos343.htm (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos343.htm)
http://agency.governmentjobs.com/dekalbga/default.cfm?action=viewJob&jobID=387103 (http://agency.governmentjobs.com/dekalbga/default.cfm?action=viewJob&jobID=387103)
Quote from the sites you cite: "Many States require specific types of training or certification from a professional association." That specific training is, in most states, provided by the police academy and results in the dispatcher being a badged officer. (Although not, it must be acknowledged, a patrol or street officer.)
The other site you list is the requirements for a dispatcher in Georgia....not a state known for its high requirements for public service. Hell, in Georgia you can actually qualify for work as a substitute teacher in a high school with no college at all, only a standard high school diploma.
But if you mean that the dispatcher is an officer in the same sense that a partolman is, then no, the dispatcher is not that sort of officer, but they are, at minimum, almost always deputized.
-
you don't know if Martin was doing anything wrong or was going to. Nobody does.
I'm genuinely curious, what sort of crimes CAN you do with a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/opinion/blow-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martin.html?_r=2&src=tp&smid=fb-share)?
Come on now, this is a bit facetious and you know it. Not sticking up for Zimmerman, but do you truly believe that a person has to have deadly weapons, or something, in their pockets in order to be proof enough that they might have been trying to commit a crime? Continuing to refer to the skittles is pure pathos.
I suppose he popped over to the convenience store, thought "hmmm, I should rob a house on my way back," and so decided to rob the house of the neighborhood watch captain?
-
I do remember an incident where police officers shot and killed a man because he had a metallic object in his hand. The officers were all found innocent of any wrongdoing. The metallic object was a foil-wrapped meatball sub. Because the officers perceived a threat, they were fully justified in using deadly force. The fact that their perceptions were wrong was irrelevant. The same argument is being made by Zimmerman.
-
@ Smurfette Principle Because you can totally judge everything, having been there, right? We're getting what is being told to the media. We can try to assume what happened. But we can't be sure. But it's really silly to use skittles as proof of innocence. I mean come on, he was drinking iced tea and he had skittles in his pockets -- how could he possibly be anything other than pure as the driven snow, right? That's all I'm remarking on here. My original comment stands. Do you think he has to be carrying deadly weapons to prove a threat to someone else?
-
@ Smurfette Principle Because you can totally judge everything, having been there, right? We're getting what is being told to the media. We can try to assume what happened. But we can't be sure. But it's really silly to use skittles as proof of innocence. I mean come on, he was drinking iced tea and he had skittles in his pockets -- how could he possibly be anything other than pure as the driven snow, right? That's all I'm remarking on here. My original comment stands. Do you think he has to be carrying deadly weapons to prove a threat to someone else?
No, I think he has to be doing something threatening in order to prove a threat. Please explain how walking past someone's house is threatening.
-
@ Smurfette Principle Because you can totally judge everything, having been there, right? We're getting what is being told to the media. We can try to assume what happened. But we can't be sure. But it's really silly to use skittles as proof of innocence. I mean come on, he was drinking iced tea and he had skittles in his pockets -- how could he possibly be anything other than pure as the driven snow, right? That's all I'm remarking on here. My original comment stands. Do you think he has to be carrying deadly weapons to prove a threat to someone else?
No, I think he has to be doing something threatening in order to prove a threat. Please explain how walking past someone's house is threatening.
That's not what is being alleged. Why reduce the argument to something convenient for one side or the other?
-
Dante's Virgil and Nickerson are also making a judgement about the circumstances of the case. They are stating that we don't know whether or not Zimmerman had justification to use deadly force. In doing so they are ignoring some important points.
1. The shooting did not take place in the store, the place that Zimmerman was supposedly defending.
2. Zimmerman followed his victim out of the store and pursued him prior the point where he proceeded to use deadly force.
It's rather hard to believe that this was a cut and dried case of self defense when the shooter was stalking his victim!
-
Well, hypothetically if I saw someone I did not know, whose face was possibly deliberately obscured by a hood, slowly walking past my house late at night and apparently paying a lot of undue attention to my house, and perhaps walked past it several times....I may well find that threatening. Now, it certainly does not seem like anything along these lines was occurring in this case, but it is hypothetically possible to be threatened by someone walking by ones house. At least in theory. If you were already kinda paranoid.
-
Quote from the sites you cite: "Many States require specific types of training or certification from a professional association." That specific training is, in most states, provided by the police academy and results in the dispatcher being a badged officer. (Although not, it must be acknowledged, a patrol or street officer.)
The other site you list is the requirements for a dispatcher in Georgia....not a state known for its high requirements for public service. Hell, in Georgia you can actually qualify for work as a substitute teacher in a high school with no college at all, only a standard high school diploma.
But if you mean that the dispatcher is an officer in the same sense that a partolman is, then no, the dispatcher is not that sort of officer, but they are, at minimum, almost always deputized.
As I said a quick search.
Here is the job listing for the 911 operator for Orange County FL. It is listed under civilian positions.
http://www.ocso.com/EmploymentInfo/CivilianPositions/tabid/98/Default.aspx (http://www.ocso.com/EmploymentInfo/CivilianPositions/tabid/98/Default.aspx)
I'm just not seeing where 911 operators are police officers.
-
Dante's Virgil and Nickerson are also making a judgement about the circumstances of the case. They are stating that we don't know whether or not Zimmerman had justification to use deadly force. In doing so they are ignoring some important points.
1. The shooting did not take place in the store, the place that Zimmerman was supposedly defending.
2. Zimmerman followed his victim out of the store and pursued him prior the point where he proceeded to use deadly force.
It's rather hard to believe that this was a cut and dried case of self defense when the shooter was stalking his victim!
What case are you talking about? Zimmerman was not defending a store.
-
I guess my comments boil down to the fact that I'm not willing to convict someone because the person who died had Skittles in his pocket. I'm also not willing to say that Zimmerman did the right thing. I intensely dislike when these discussions seem to boil to down to "us" vs. "them." I find that extremely unproductive and somewhat strawman-ish.
This is also the first I've heard of him defending a store. None of the articles/blogs I've read have mentioned a store. But be that as it may, just because the victim didn't get shot in the store itself means exactly nothing with this stupid law in place. And incidentally, I've had people casing my own home -- my boyfriend has most certainly followed them to see what the feck they were about. If that's "stalking" so be it. They "stalked" the place first.
I'm not willing to try this case in the media and I'm not willing to put a man away over iced tea and Skittles. If some of you are, that's not justice either.
-
Well, it does seem that Orange County does not seem to officially deputize its 911 operators, but that doesn't change the fact that when you call 911 you are talking to the police.
But the whole thing is really kind of moot anyway since it seems that Zimmerman was calling a non-emergency number anyway to report the "suspicious" character he was following. In any case, Zimmerman is an ass. Why call the police in the first place if you are just going to ignore what they say?
This whole incident seems like a perfect storm of idiocy and incompetence. Between the racist idiocy of Zimmerman, the (apparently) confrontational reaction of the victim, the incompetence of the police, and the utter idiocy of Florida state law, this entire scenario was fucked from the start.
-
^^ Agreed.
-
Dante's Virgil and Nickerson are also making a judgement about the circumstances of the case. They are stating that we don't know whether or not Zimmerman had justification to use deadly force. In doing so they are ignoring some important points.
1. The shooting did not take place in the store, the place that Zimmerman was supposedly defending.
2. Zimmerman followed his victim out of the store and pursued him prior the point where he proceeded to use deadly force.
It's rather hard to believe that this was a cut and dried case of self defense when the shooter was stalking his victim!
What case are you talking about? Zimmerman was not defending a store.
Ya got me, no store.
But he was pursued before he was shot right? The audio recording bears that out! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/trayvon-martin-911-audio-_n_1354909.html?ref=tw)
-
Yes, that seems to be the case.
-
And incidentally, I've had people casing my own home -- my boyfriend has most certainly followed them to see what the feck they were about. If that's "stalking" so be it. They "stalked" the place first.
There's a world of difference between that and actually running after someone. As I said from the audio recordings (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/trayvon-martin-911-audio-_n_1354909.html?ref=tw) this seems to be what happened.
If you see someone acting suspiciously outside your home and ask them what the fuck they are doing there is a world of difference between that and running after them with the wrath of God in your eyes!
-
I have looked at all the facts available for this case. Every shred of evidence and every link that's been presented. If I was on the jury and the prosecutors made their arguments, the defense made their arguments, I'd argue that Zimmermen is guilty of manslaughter in the very least and murder at the worst. I'm not knee-jerking here. I'm making a very informed decision about what's been presented so far. So far, I see a white(hispanic) man hunt down and murder a black kid because of his race, nothing more, nothing less.
Ironbite-not sure exactly how you can draw any other conclusion.
-
I have looked at all the facts available for this case. Every shred of evidence and every link that's been presented. If I was on the jury and the prosecutors made their arguments, the defense made their arguments, I'd argue that Zimmermen is guilty of manslaughter in the very least and murder at the worst. I'm not knee-jerking here. I'm making a very informed decision about what's been presented so far. So far, I see a white(hispanic) man hunt down and murder a black kid because of his race, nothing more, nothing less.
Ironbite-not sure exactly how you can draw any other conclusion.
Okay, let me ask you which part of the "stand your ground law" did he not meet?
"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
If Zimmerman was acting unlawfully what law did he break?
Was he not attacked?
Was he someplace he had no right to be?
Do you think he did not believe he was going to be harmed?
See that's the whole problem, you have to look at it through this law.
For the most part I agree with Sandman, the whole situation is fucked up. In large part because of this law. Cause of that I can't condemn the cops, nor the state attorney. Plus within this law I can condemn Zimmerman unless more evidence comes out suggesting that at the moment he pulled the trigger he did not fear for his life or that he was the one that attacked Martin.
-
You take that law out and it becomes clear cut. Even with the law the situation is clear.
Ironbite-Florida is fucked up.
-
Listening to the recordings, makes it appear less like a racially motivated hate crime. Zimmerman did not seem to notice the victims colour as much as his clothing. He was concerned that he was hiding a weapon because he had his hands in the front pouch of his hoodie. His 911 call description is that of someone who honestly just seems to be reporting a suspicious person. What bugs me is that he notices the victim looking around, and then the victim starts to run, at which point he pursues. He actively runs after the victim as can be heard by the sound of the wind on the microphone in the phone. However, before the attack actually happens he has stopped running and hangs up the phone.
Now, in the other recording you can hear someone screaming quite loudly in the background, and that is screaming right up until the gunshot sound. Based on the voice of the suspect, I would be inclined to say it was more the victim screaming. However, I don't think it is solid enough as my assessment on the voice is far from good. I am aware that peoples voices sound very different when screaming. The voice in my opinion though sounds of a higher pitch than Zimmermans voice.
As for the suspicious behavior of the victim, it makes sense. He was visiting his father with this brother. They were not where they normally go, as they were at his fathers girlfriends house. Given it was dark and raining it is quite likely that he was a little lost in the complex area, and looking at the houses to find the correct house number. Running away from zimmerman also makes sense because at that point zimmerman is watching him while on the phone and looks pretty suspicious too.
I think I would move towards manslaughter instead of murder. However as has been stated, Florida's messed up laws mean that this guy will walk and open a whole slew op opportunities for this law to be abused.
-
Maybe I just have yet to lose all faith in humanity, but I really hope that this prompts Floridians to pressure their legislators to get rid of the Stand Your Ground law. Or if nothing else, that it gets the validity of the law called into question and maybe the federal government will do something about it, if there's anything they can do.
-
Update
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/world-us-canada-17441277
looks like the FBI is getting involved
-
Even better story
Grand Jury convened (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/trayvon-martin-grand-jury_n_1367491.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003)
Ironbite-dude's screwed.
-
Another link of Trevon's final phone call (http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-killing-friend-phone-teen-death-recounts-063243901--abc-news.html)
From what the articles report and the new witness account, Zimmerman pushed Trevon first, as well as stalk him. Self defense my ass.
(edited for ninja'd)
-
If the phone call claim turns out to be true, I would say that he pretty much is screwed. The story I read said that Martin indicated that he was cornered.
-
Personally I don't know who I am more upset about, the racist psycho who killed the kid, or the police for doing nothing to said racist psycho.
Don't be upset at the cops; this one isn't their fault. While this almost certainly was a case of a racist killing (whether or not it was done in self defense is irrelevant, Zimmerman instigated the confrontation for no reason other than he found a black teenager in his neighborhood "suspicious" and disregarded specific police instructions to not confront), the cops have their hands tied by Florida's asinine "Stand Your Ground" law.
In a nutshell, what this idiotic piece of shit law says is that you are under no legal obligation to back down from any confrontation. The police can do nothing because under the law, the actual shooting likely was not illegal because Zimmerman was under no obligation to stand down. The law says that if he believes that his life was in danger or he was at risk of serious bodily harm, he had every right to use deadly force with his legally carried concealed handgun. According to the law it doesn't matter who started the confrontation or why, neither Zimmerman nor the victim were under any legal obligation or responsibility to back down.
The accounts of the witnesses seem to bear out his story that he was in some kind of physical danger from the kid, he was obviously getting his ass kicked. The police, who must abide by the statue that a person is innocent until proven guilty, can do nothing unless they can invalidate Zimmerman's claim of self-defense, a claim that due to the state of the witnesses in the case and the "Stand Your Ground" law, is nearly impossible to dispute.
The problem is not the police. The problem is the "Stand Your Ground" law that the police are obligated to obey and enforce. It essentially turns Florida in the Old West.
So in Florida it's legal to shoot a guy who looks at you funny. I keep pointing out though that the witnesses could be lying as teh cops did change the story of one witness
witness: I heard a teenager scream
cop: no you heard an adult
This is also the same law that allowed a bullied teen to avoid jail time for stabbing his attacker. I posted a thread about that some time back.
It has its up sides and down sides. Such is any law does.
-
But the whole thing is really kind of moot anyway since it seems that Zimmerman was calling a non-emergency number anyway to report the "suspicious" character he was following. In any case, Zimmerman is an ass. Why call the police in the first place if you are just going to ignore what they say?
Um, for the same reason I would. To at least know there might be some help on the way of some sort
-
Listening to the recordings, makes it appear less like a racially motivated hate crime. Zimmerman did not seem to notice the victims colour as much as his clothing. He was concerned that he was hiding a weapon because he had his hands in the front pouch of his hoodie. His 911 call description is that of someone who honestly just seems to be reporting a suspicious person. What bugs me is that he notices the victim looking around, and then the victim starts to run, at which point he pursues. He actively runs after the victim as can be heard by the sound of the wind on the microphone in the phone. However, before the attack actually happens he has stopped running and hangs up the phone.
Now, in the other recording you can hear someone screaming quite loudly in the background, and that is screaming right up until the gunshot sound. Based on the voice of the suspect, I would be inclined to say it was more the victim screaming. However, I don't think it is solid enough as my assessment on the voice is far from good. I am aware that peoples voices sound very different when screaming. The voice in my opinion though sounds of a higher pitch than Zimmermans voice.
As for the suspicious behavior of the victim, it makes sense. He was visiting his father with this brother. They were not where they normally go, as they were at his fathers girlfriends house. Given it was dark and raining it is quite likely that he was a little lost in the complex area, and looking at the houses to find the correct house number. Running away from zimmerman also makes sense because at that point zimmerman is watching him while on the phone and looks pretty suspicious too.
I think I would move towards manslaughter instead of murder. However as has been stated, Florida's messed up laws mean that this guy will walk and open a whole slew op opportunities for this law to be abused.
Because it's racist, it involved a black guy and a white guy. The white guy complained about the black guy's "walk" which is distinctly different because black guys walk a certain way and no one else could ever do the same thing...as was pointed out before in this thread by another poster to defend why this case was racist.
Personally i hate the wild slinging of the "racism charge" to everything just because someone doesn't like it
-
Because it's racist, it involved a black guy and a white guy. The white guy complained about the black guy's "walk" which is distinctly different because black guys walk a certain way and no one else could ever do the same thing...
To many a racist, that is very true. And in any case, the way one walks is never cause for valid suspicion, no matter the color of one’s skin. When you have to pick on that, you are grasping at straws for an excuse.
-
Did you actually listen to 911 recording, DasFuch? Furthermore, it's already been pointed that the police tends ignores crimes where the victims were not white. So of course this is a race issue.
-
I'm a little surprised and more than a little ashamed that there are people here on Fundies who are defending Zimmerman, the audio and all related evidence points to him ignoring police orders not to pursue an unarmed target who he was only chasing in the first place because he was "black and suspicious" (supposedly the suspicious part came from him wearing a hood, in the rain, because black gangstas wear hoods so hood = gangsta...) he chased him down in spite of having no legal authority whatsoever to do so (he's not an actual neighborhood watch captain, he's "self appointed" in the same way I can declare myself a "self-appointed" time lord).
Boy was unarmed and IF he fought back...wouldn't you? Strange freak of a man comes out of nowhere after stalking you and puts a gun to your face, you'd think it was a mugging, of course you'd fight back to protect your own life. There aren't just one or two calls either, there's NUMEROUS calls from the neighbors where you can hear the murder in the background, AND a call he placed to a female friend RIGHT before Zimmerman attacked him. THEN when the police get involved, as shown above, they actually have the fucking nerve to "correct" a witness - all the more evidence you need to show that the dept is fucked up and ought to be blamed too. No arrest of Zimmy to check his BA levels, which almost every other officer who's listened to th tapes suggest played a part.
My theory, the human garbage had some drinks, saw a black kid who was smaller than him, and decided to play Joe "Move yer Dead" Horne and shoot an unarmed person (of course the comparison isn't 1-1, Horne shot robbers, Trevyon was entirely innocent of ANY wrongdoing, I'm just comparing the mentality).
Basically - I hope the government gives him a botched execution or two, he deserves to suffer a VERY slow and painful death.
-
I don't think anyone was defending him. People including myself were pointing out that things were not clear and with the laws in Florida is was possible that Zimmerman was within the law.
Part of the reason that Zimmerman is being tried in the media is because of descriptions like yours. Such as the fact that Zimmerman never identified Martin as black until he was asked by the 911 operator, or the fact that Zmmerman had suffered injuries, making his claim of self-defense plausible. Of course that was before the call to Martin's girlfriend came out, which was today.
So excuse us for not joining the lynch mob before more of the facts came out.
-
I'm a little surprised and more than a little ashamed that there are people here on Fundies who are defending Zimmerman.
Not a damn person has seriously done that. They've said that, based on the available evidence, Zimmerman's actions appeared to fall within the confines of Florida law. And, based on that evidence, they made a compelling case. It was also demonstrated that the Florida "Stand Your Ground" Law has been used successfully in the past to claim self defense in cases where it could be reasonably argued that excessive force had been applied. When new evidence came to light, one of the people pointing this out reversed their position.
I can't believe that there are people here on Fundies who let their emotional response completely override facts like "what the law states" and "legal precedents".
-
And now the Justice Department is looking at the "Stand Your Ground" Law, and it doesn't look like they're happy. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/us/justice-department-opens-inquiry-in-killing-of-trayvon-martin.html?_r=1)
-
Because it's racist, it involved a black guy and a white guy. The white guy complained about the black guy's "walk" which is distinctly different because black guys walk a certain way and no one else could ever do the same thing...
To many a racist, that is very true. And in any case, the way one walks is never cause for valid suspicion, no matter the color of one’s skin. When you have to pick on that, you are grasping at straws for an excuse.
Tell it to gyeonghwa. That's the reason I bailed thread earlier. Racism was being used to defend this as racismI'm a little surprised and more than a little ashamed that there are people here on Fundies who are defending Zimmerman
Boy have you misread what everyone's been saying. No one's defending him. People are, however, pointing out how the laws, courts and the system works and that everything isn't black and white just because you've determined it is.
-
...He thought that the kid had a gun because he had his hands in his hoodie pocket...!?
Dude, that's like... a default stance if you're wearing a hoodie. It lets you rest your arms. It's comfortable.
Fucking hell!
-
I have never seen Gawker write a full on editorial but I have to say they hit the nail on the head (even quoting Battlestar Galactica):
Like so many other parts of Florida, Sanford is a little place with a little character ringed with the overwhelmingly white suburban crudscape of gated developments named after the beautiful things that were bulldozed to make them—places where local police and Golf Cops automatically view any black person not behind the wheel of a Honda Odyssey as criminally suspicious. Trayvon could have been shot dead in Hillsborough, Duval, Escambia, or Broward County, too.
Then there's local law enforcement's casual indifference to violence against a black person and even the appearance of aiding to legitimize it. And of course you have state law enforcement murmuring about intervention in a case of violence against a black person only after weeks of building outrage—perhaps because they were too busy fiddling with laws that keep those sorts of folk from votin'.
Then you have Zimmerman's account of self-defense. Florida is a Stand Your Ground state, which—apart from the death penalty and the half dozen massive military installations—is one of the things that makes the state's "CHOOSE LIFE" license plates either hilarious or nauseating, depending on your mood. Florida's 2005 Stand Your Ground law allows people to use deadly force if they "reasonably believe" that it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." But unlike Castle Doctrine laws, which amount to "kill the fuck outta anybody who sticks his head in your house," Stand Your Ground doesn't appeal to the primal sense of invasion and self-defense associated with one's own home. Castle Doctrine laws at least rely on the idea that you are confronting someone who has already violated your property or safety, without any input or action from you. Stand Your Ground is a great, legally roving murder bubble.
http://gawker.com/5894872/ (http://gawker.com/5894872/)
-
If this is true, there is little doubt left that this murder was anything but racially motivated. (http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-killing-911-tape-reveals-possible-racial-005007672--abc-news.html)
-
If this is true, there is little doubt left that this murder was anything but racially motivated. (http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-killing-911-tape-reveals-possible-racial-005007672--abc-news.html)
His lawyer claims he was saying "fucking punks."- No link just said it on NBC Today Show. Dunno, doesn't sound like punk.
-
It would depend on tone but punk sounds nothing like coon
If this guy get acquitted be prepared to see a lot of cases where a guy sees some dude he hates then sppoks them so the other guy taps him then the other guy shoots him
-
Goons would have been a more appropriate lie
-
Goons would have been a more appropriate lie
Dont insult something awful.
Also the cops didnt run a drug or booze test on Zimmerman after they arrived instead ran it on Martin.
-
Goons would have been a more appropriate lie
Dont insult something awful.
Something Awful is a forum by elitists, for elitists, that had its beginnings in essentially mocking people on the internet because "they're different from us!", from blatant homophobic mockery of people discovering their sexuality, to mocking a forum for furry foot fetishists just because it exists.
:3
Also, yeah, I'm glad that headway's being made in this case.
...Racists still use the word "coon"? D: They're really stuck in the past...
-
Goons would have been a more appropriate lie
Dont insult something awful.
Something Awful is a forum by elitists, for elitists, that had its beginnings in essentially mocking people on the internet because "they're different from us!", from blatant homophobic mockery of people discovering their sexuality, to mocking a forum for furry foot fetishists just because it exists.
:3
Also, yeah, I'm glad that headway's being made in this case.
...Racists still use the word "coon"? D: They're really stuck in the past...
really they've been better lately
anyways I've seen some RSTDT quotes with coon
-
Goons would have been a more appropriate lie
Dont insult something awful.
Something Awful is a forum by elitists, for elitists, that had its beginnings in essentially mocking people on the internet because "they're different from us!", from blatant homophobic mockery of people discovering their sexuality, to mocking a forum for furry foot fetishists just because it exists.
:3
Also, yeah, I'm glad that headway's being made in this case.
...Racists still use the word "coon"? D: They're really stuck in the past...
really they've been better lately
anyways I've seen some RSTDT quotes with coon
I don't read RSTDT XD
Also, do you still have to pay for membership? If so, then they're pretty much still elitist :P
-
Goons would have been a more appropriate lie
Dont insult something awful.
Something Awful is a forum by elitists, for elitists, that had its beginnings in essentially mocking people on the internet because "they're different from us!", from blatant homophobic mockery of people discovering their sexuality, to mocking a forum for furry foot fetishists just because it exists.
:3
Also, yeah, I'm glad that headway's being made in this case.
...Racists still use the word "coon"? D: They're really stuck in the past...
really they've been better lately
anyways I've seen some RSTDT quotes with coon
I don't read RSTDT XD
Also, do you still have to pay for membership? If so, then they're pretty much still elitist :P
Still do anyways yeah coon is still used also I will point this out, cops didnt run any drug or alcohol screens on zimmerman but did on martin
-
Goons would have been a more appropriate lie
Dont insult something awful.
Something Awful is a forum by elitists, for elitists, that had its beginnings in essentially mocking people on the internet because "they're different from us!", from blatant homophobic mockery of people discovering their sexuality, to mocking a forum for furry foot fetishists just because it exists.
:3
Also, yeah, I'm glad that headway's being made in this case.
...Racists still use the word "coon"? D: They're really stuck in the past...
really they've been better lately
anyways I've seen some RSTDT quotes with coon
I don't read RSTDT XD
Also, do you still have to pay for membership? If so, then they're pretty much still elitist :P
Never knew I was elitist. :/
-
Because it's racist, it involved a black guy and a white guy. The white guy complained about the black guy's "walk" which is distinctly different because black guys walk a certain way and no one else could ever do the same thing...
To many a racist, that is very true. And in any case, the way one walks is never cause for valid suspicion, no matter the color of one’s skin. When you have to pick on that, you are grasping at straws for an excuse.
Tell it to gyeonghwa. That's the reason I bailed thread earlier. Racism was being used to defend this as racism
lolwut. I'm using racism to accuse something of racism? Can you point to where I have done so, or are you done making shit up?
Again, read the links provided beforehand. There is a history of ignoring non-white victims in favor of a white perpetrator. And read the perpetrator's justification for following and inciting the altercation with the victim. If you don't see how it was racially motivated, then I suggest you read up on how race is percieved and performed because the way someone walks is often racialized. (And no, pointing out racist justification is not the same thing as racism.)
-
Goons would have been a more appropriate lie
Dont insult something awful.
Something Awful is a forum by elitists, for elitists, that had its beginnings in essentially mocking people on the internet because "they're different from us!", from blatant homophobic mockery of people discovering their sexuality, to mocking a forum for furry foot fetishists just because it exists.
:3
Also, yeah, I'm glad that headway's being made in this case.
...Racists still use the word "coon"? D: They're really stuck in the past...
really they've been better lately
anyways I've seen some RSTDT quotes with coon
I don't read RSTDT XD
Also, do you still have to pay for membership? If so, then they're pretty much still elitist :P
Never knew I was elitist. :/
There are exceptions, of course :P
-
Because it's racist, it involved a black guy and a white guy. The white guy complained about the black guy's "walk" which is distinctly different because black guys walk a certain way and no one else could ever do the same thing...
To many a racist, that is very true. And in any case, the way one walks is never cause for valid suspicion, no matter the color of one’s skin. When you have to pick on that, you are grasping at straws for an excuse.
Tell it to gyeonghwa. That's the reason I bailed thread earlier. Racism was being used to defend this as racism
lolwut. I'm using racism to accuse something of racism? Can you point to where I have done so, or are you done making shit up?
Again, read the links provided beforehand. There is a history of ignoring non-white victims in favor of a white perpetrator. And read the perpetrator's justification for following and inciting the altercation with the victim. If you don't see how it was racially motivated, then I suggest you read up on how race is percieved and performed because the way someone walks is often racialized. (And no, pointing out racist justification is not the same thing as racism.)
Lets agree the cops are racist.
How so?
I really hope you're not being serious.
Assuming you are, do you think for a minute that if a 28 year old black man with an arrest record shot a 140 pound white child in the chest (armed only with skittles and arizona iced tea) that the cops would let him go?
Just because the guy went free doesn't mean the cops are racist. At least not until you have more to go on. He could be some cop's friend, or the cops could be getting paid off...Racism is a charge that's flung too easily on everything.
Now the guy that did this, possibly. He could also just hate everyone that looks like a punk.
The phone conversatons pretty much say kid is suspisicous since he's black
This. They claimed he "walked" suspiciously which given historical connotations, meant he walked with a black jive. So again, the kid was targeted for being black.
I've seen plenty of people of all colors walking exactly the same. Because you deemed it meant something racist does not make it so, though you sounded rather racist focusing on that.
-
So I'm racists for pointing racism? *LMFAO* If I had a nickle for every time I heard that. No, I'm not being racist by pointing out the racist motivation for the crime. Though I must say I've heard plenty of "I'm not racist, but" type use that to excuse racism. As I pointed out (since you clearly aren't reading), there are racist perceptions (and performances) of how people walk and act. I didn't say these were acceptable, but they exist and it was used as a motive for the killing. And that's why the killing is racially motivated.
I've seen plenty of people of all colors walking exactly the same.
Which means nothing to a racist. They will perceive the person as walking differently. Again, race is a performance and what Zimmerman saw was a performance of blackness.
-
@Dasfuchs
Wow, and I thought I was bad at misreading people's posts...
-
Even the guy who sponsored the damn bill thinks Zimmerman isn't justified in shooting the kid. (http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2012-03-21/Stand-your-ground-defense-may-fall-flat-for-shooter)
-
Sad that it would take this much to get the Justice Dept. and people talking more actively about this sort of a law. :-/
Why does it always seem to come to that?
-
Even the guy who sponsored the damn bill thinks Zimmerman isn't justified in shooting the kid. (http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2012-03-21/Stand-your-ground-defense-may-fall-flat-for-shooter)
Not surprising. I don't think the intent of the law was ever to allow things like this. Unfortunately it has been.
-
Sad that it would take this much to get the Justice Dept. and people talking more actively about this sort of a law. :-/
Why does it always seem to come to that?
Because people, as a whole, are idiots. You can’t get them thinking about consequences in advance without scaremongering. You have to demonstrate the real consequences in some flashy, dramatic fashion. Unfortunately, sometimes it is not sufficiently dramatic until someone dies.
Even the guy who sponsored the damn bill thinks Zimmerman isn't justified in shooting the kid. (http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2012-03-21/Stand-your-ground-defense-may-fall-flat-for-shooter)
Not surprising. I don't think the intent of the law was ever to allow things like this. Unfortunately it has been.
It would be refreshing if more lawmakers knew how to right laws to match their actual intentions, instead of the usual overly-broad, hastily written bullshit that usually gets passed.
-
Given the latest information I wish to change my stance from manslaughter to once again be racially motivated murder. I honestly did not hear the racial slur when he was chasing the victim. However in all fairness it was a bit difficult to pick up. Added to that the call to the girlfriend which shows that indeed the suspect did instigate the assault is quite damning for Zimmerman.
I doubt any jury will see this as anything other than racially motivated murder. I sincerely hope that Zimmerman goes to prison for a very long time.
That said though, Zimmerman is really just a symptom to a larger problem. The roving murder bubbles that is the Stand your ground laws and the completely dismissive attitude of the police regarding this case strongly imply that some house cleaning needs to be done in Florida. These police really need to be taken to task. Their behavior during this case is completely unacceptable.
-
Just going to pop in and say something, if your friend says someone is following them, don't recommend they run. If they mention they've put their hood up to avoid attention, tell them to take it down. Avoid anything which may indicate fear and/or guilt, as when you are being followed either will only egg on those following you.
The best course of action is generally to direct them to someplace public with a lot of people, or a private residence with people in it. Really as many other people as possible being added into the equation is a good bet. Hell, in something like this, when it's a kid being stalked by an adult, recommend they knock on someone's door and ask them if they can go in for a minute and contact police. Yes, even if they have a cell phone, the walls between you and stalker are important. If you're polite and actually frightened you can get into a lot of places.
I'm lucky enough to live within a stone's throw of the woods at just about any given point, relatively easy to lose people in them, but I still tend towards using other people as shelter because it's so much easier to prove yourself innocent when other people see what's going on. And with this law in florida that's exactly what you'd have to do, or at least what your survivors will have to do.
-
Given the latest information I wish to change my stance from manslaughter to once again be racially motivated murder. I honestly did not hear the racial slur when he was chasing the victim. However in all fairness it was a bit difficult to pick up. Added to that the call to the girlfriend which shows that indeed the suspect did instigate the assault is quite damning for Zimmerman.
I doubt any jury will see this as anything other than racially motivated murder. I sincerely hope that Zimmerman goes to prison for a very long time.
That said though, Zimmerman is really just a symptom to a larger problem. The roving murder bubbles that is the Stand your ground laws and the completely dismissive attitude of the police regarding this case strongly imply that some house cleaning needs to be done in Florida. These police really need to be taken to task. Their behavior during this case is completely unacceptable.
The law is one state fuck up, although I believe it is a state fuck up the Sanford Police Department and Sheriff Bill Lee are hiding behind. Remember, they have a history of ignoring crimes in which the victims are black and the assailants white. Examples would include in 2010 when an officers son sucker punched a homeless black man and put him in a hospital or in 2005, predating Stand Your Ground, when two officers shot a black man in the back and the department somehow determined it was reasonable self defense. The law is certainly too broad to serve any reasonable purpose, but I feel the department is grasping at whatever straw they can grab so as to say their hands are tied in the matter and this is the most obvious excuse for them.
Remember, this is the same department that didn't administer a drug/alcohol test on Zimmerman in spite of the fact he did not sound completely sober on the phone and was "investigated," but did find it pertinent to perform a toxicology examination of Martin.
-
Given the latest information I wish to change my stance from manslaughter to once again be racially motivated murder. I honestly did not hear the racial slur when he was chasing the victim. However in all fairness it was a bit difficult to pick up. Added to that the call to the girlfriend which shows that indeed the suspect did instigate the assault is quite damning for Zimmerman.
I doubt any jury will see this as anything other than racially motivated murder. I sincerely hope that Zimmerman goes to prison for a very long time.
That said though, Zimmerman is really just a symptom to a larger problem. The roving murder bubbles that is the Stand your ground laws and the completely dismissive attitude of the police regarding this case strongly imply that some house cleaning needs to be done in Florida. These police really need to be taken to task. Their behavior during this case is completely unacceptable.
The law is one state fuck up, although I believe it is a state fuck up the Sanford Police Department and Sheriff Bill Lee are hiding behind. Remember, they have a history of ignoring crimes in which the victims are black and the assailants white. Examples would include in 2010 when an officers son sucker punched a homeless black man and put him in a hospital or in 2005, predating Stand Your Ground, when two officers shot a black man in the back and the department somehow determined it was reasonable self defense. The law is certainly too broad to serve any reasonable purpose, but I feel the department is grasping at whatever straw they can grab so as to say their hands are tied in the matter and this is the most obvious excuse for them.
Remember, this is the same department that didn't administer a drug/alcohol test on Zimmerman in spite of the fact he did not sound completely sober on the phone and was "investigated," but did find it pertinent to perform a toxicology examination of Martin.
Here's what I wonder did Zimmerman know about the law? Frankly with the slur it's obvious Zimmerman wanted Martin dead (it's really obvious he said coon)
-
My dad said he wished he hadn't heard the recording, and that he'd go back and "unhear" it if he could.
Considering how undisturbed and tough my dad can be, I think I'll pass on listening to it myself. But from what I've heard, it's obviously racially motivated murder.
-
Here's what I wonder did Zimmerman know about the law? Frankly with the slur it's obvious Zimmerman wanted Martin dead (it's really obvious he said coon)
I didn't hear him say coon in the call, I'll go back and check. Anyways, I would assume Zimmerman knows of the law for two reasons. First and foremost, he's a criminal justice major and such laws would be very relevant to learn/know. Second, the Stand Your Ground law looks to be notorious and seems to make several appearances in news stories, one I found from 2010 mentions a man shot in the chest for being drunk and accidentally trying to enter someone's house (who when confronted made no intimidating gestures and actually tried to be friendly with his would-be-shooter about the accident). Not to mention, after the SYG law went into effect November 1st 2005, the NRA for a few months afterwards went on a media campaign informing people traveling to Florida about the law, as well as advertising in Florida, so as to raise awareness not to get aggressive with strangers.
But of course, this is only an assumption and can very well be wrong.
-
The NRA is the major driving force behind the push to get these "stand your ground" laws into as many states as they can. (They are also behind the "castle doctrine" laws, but everyone knows that.)
These "stand your ground" laws fit in perfectly with the essential NRA world-view: that the world is an unspeakably dangerous place with killers, rapists, and thieves lurking inside every shadow and the only way to keep yourself and your family safe is to have a gun on you at all times and shoot anyone who looks sideways at you before they can murder-rape-steal-all-your-stuff, because, of course, the cops are completely useless and the courts will always side with the "rights" of the criminals.
Seriously. I have hears almost that exact quote, word for word, out of the mouths of speakers at NRA meetings and rallies. (I used to be a member until I realized how bugshit insane the official stances of the organization are on handguns, concealed carry laws, and the like.) The last NRA meeting I attended was like a textbook study in paranoid narcissism.
What they don't realize is that you wind up with this equation:
Loose concealed carry laws
"Stand Your Ground" laws
The NRA's 'MERICA!!! bullshit
+ Highly diverse and frequently divisive ethnic population
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A big pile of insane murder dynamite with a lit fuse
-
Eric you are simply refusing to see that facts here in Florida.
OK, I have been avoiding doing this, but looks like I will have to.
I am a law student in FL. I spend all of 2011 interning in a State Attorney's Office in FL. I spent much of that time doing case law research for the attorneys, including at one point, the specific legal definition for "serious bodily injury."
I know the law in FL.
As I said one court ruled that it was still reasonable fear death or serious bodily injury even when the an attacker starts to flee.
I am not questioning the "Stand Your Ground" law. It exists. My point is that it does not apply IN THIS CASE. There are specific requirements for self-defense, and this specific case does not meet them. To be exact, the primary aggressor cannot argue self-defense unless the person attacked escalates. (For example, as I told sandman, you start a fistfight and the other person pulls a knife. The other person escalated to self-defense, so you can now use deadly force and argue self-defense. On the other hand, you cannot start a fistfight, have the person fight back using their fists, then shoot them and claim self-defense,
Not only that but you can indeed kill someone with your bare hands by bashing there head against the street. Hell, let someone beat you long enough with there fists and it can cause enough internal bleeding to kill you.
But that is not the situation here.
There's basically two possible scenarios. 1) Zimmerman chased Martin and attacked him. Martin fought back and Zimmerman shot him. Zimmerman cannot argue self-defense because he was the original aggressor. There is no issue of Martin using deadly force because Zimmerman was not injured enough to even come close to "serious bodily injury." 2) Zimmerman followed Martin and confronted Martin. Martin, for some reason, panicked and attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman shot Martin. Zimmerman still cannot argue self-defense because Martin did not use deadly force. (Zimmerman escalated the encounter.)
The major point is the issue of "serious bodily injury." There was none, and no threat of such injury. Therefore, Zimmerman cannot claim self-defense.
This case one man killed another with an ice pick because he was being overpowered. It was ruled self-defense under this law.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-results-in-no-charges-in-fatal-hillsborough/1206945 (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-results-in-no-charges-in-fatal-hillsborough/1206945)
Even your article points out the need for "threat of death or serious bodily injury."
Here's one where a man said three others tried to run him down with their Jeep.
Vehicles are deadly weapons, so there is no question of "death or serious bodily injury."
-
Threat of serious bodily injury is the grey area here, I would think, and I am speaking in general terms, not particularly about Zimmerman. How do we make that call? A man's fists (or a woman's for that matter) could cause me serious bodily injury. Hitting me in the back of the skull once could cause me serious bodily injury. How does a person make that judgment call in the heat of the moment? I can certainly say I wouldn't be that rational and calculated in the moment, having been in a few of those moments personally. Do we really think someone needs an ice pick or a car to pose a threat of serious bodily injury? That part of the law, I think, is what would lead to a lot of arguments.
-
Update
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/world-us-canada-17441277
looks like the FBI is getting involved
So are the state police.
Even better story
Grand Jury convened (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/trayvon-martin-grand-jury_n_1367491.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003)
Ironbite-dude's screwed.
Much as I want to take this as good news, I can't help but be cynical. We had a section on grand juries in my Advance Criminal Procedure class, and the major take away is "the grand jury will do whatever the prosecutor tells them to do." If the State puts on a case, the grand jury will return an indictment. If the State blows it off and tries to cover it up, there won't be an indictment. This could be real, or it could be a white-wash.
-
Well isn't this cute; Glenn Beck is attacking Martin as being the aggressor. I gotta say, even for Beck, this is a new low.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fgGgamrjUs
-
I actually forgot Glenn Beck existed for a moment.
-
I actually forgot Glenn Beck existed for a moment.
Oh how wonderful that moment must have been.
-
I actually forgot Glenn Beck existed for a moment.
-
Glenn who?
-
Chief temporarily steps down
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17479308
-
Well isn't this cute; Glenn Beck is attacking Martin as being the aggressor. I gotta say, even for Beck, this is a new low.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fgGgamrjUs
Yup, nothing says "I'm gonna kick your ass" like a bag of skittles & a can of iced tea
-
My favorite part was where Glenn Beck listed all the things Martin *might* have been suspended from school for.
-
Well isn't this cute; Glenn Beck is attacking Martin as being the aggressor. I gotta say, even for Beck, this is a new low.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fgGgamrjUs
Yup, nothing says "I'm gonna kick your ass" like a bag of skittles & a can of iced tea
You ever been beaten with an Arizona Tea can? That shit hurts!
Ironbite-and get a skittle in the eye...you could lose one if that happens.
-
Taste the rainbow, motherfucker, 'cause you're never going to see it again. *throws skittles*
-
Apparently Trayvon Martin was suspended for five days (not ten) for excessive tardiness. Sounds like a dangerous kid!
-
Apparently Trayvon Martin was suspended for five days (not ten) for excessive tardiness. Sounds like a dangerous kid!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMtmxi2q05U
-
Apparently Trayvon Martin was suspended for five days (not ten) for excessive tardiness. Sounds like a dangerous kid!
I know this is completely off topic, but isn't suspension the most counterproductive punishment for tardiness?
-
Taste the rainbow, motherfucker, 'cause you're never going to see it again. *throws skittles*
It was only a matter of time this was going to be said...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJajSOKVnzs
-
I don't know if it was mentioned in this thread, I looked back a few pages but didn't read the whole thread...
BUT...
Is Zimmerman actually white? He looks mixed or Latino to me. Now this isn't significant in any way except that if he's not, it's a misleading label that bolsters the myth that only white people are racist.
&: The internets say he's half Jewish and half Hispanic (and Jewish may or may not be caucasoid).
-
I don't know if it was mentioned in this thread, I looked back a few pages but didn't read the whole thread...
BUT...
Is Zimmerman actually white? He looks mixed or Latino to me. Now this isn't significant in any way except that if he's not, it's a misleading label that bolsters the myth that only white people are racist.
&: The internets say he's half Jewish and half Hispanic (and Jewish may or may not be caucasoid).
I think Latino
Sorry initial reports said white how can I change topic title
-
Wouldn't this law pretty much legalize dueling? It doesn't sound like there is any real requirement avoid increasing the violence of the situation when it is safe to do so so what is to stop two people from agreeing to meet out in the street at high noon and settle their differences with lead?
I have to admit, sword duels in the middle of the subdivision would be kinda cool. ;)
-
I don't know if it was mentioned in this thread, I looked back a few pages but didn't read the whole thread...
BUT...
Is Zimmerman actually white? He looks mixed or Latino to me. Now this isn't significant in any way except that if he's not, it's a misleading label that bolsters the myth that only white people are racist.
&: The internets say he's half Jewish and half Hispanic (and Jewish may or may not be caucasoid).
I think Latino
Sorry initial reports said white how can I change topic title
It's not just you, the topic is being labeled with 'white' quite pervasively.
-
I don't know if it was mentioned in this thread, I looked back a few pages but didn't read the whole thread...
BUT...
Is Zimmerman actually white? He looks mixed or Latino to me. Now this isn't significant in any way except that if he's not, it's a misleading label that bolsters the myth that only white people are racist.
&: The internets say he's half Jewish and half Hispanic (and Jewish may or may not be caucasoid).
I think Latino
Sorry initial reports said white how can I change topic title
Go to the original post and edit it.
-
Thx also (http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1cmqxoSsz1qfyo0uo1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1332616901&Signature=BvVCR97oA81hR8xGO2NezfD2ZF0%3D)
Fuck you Geraldo
-
Hoodies now, seriously.
What about white kids wearing hoodies?
It's not like wearing a miniskirt in Palestine. This is in North America where everyone wears hoodies. I wear them. I wear a big black one with a skeletal diagram sketch on it. Nobody has said I look like a criminal. :p
-
But that's were racial imagery comes to play. Hoodies are common enough among all people but when your black you get perceived as "Gangsta" (as Geraldo puts). It's not a fair or accurate portrayal but it's all too prevalent in society.
-
Actually to use your miniskirt in Saudi Arabia example (Palestine is not as bad) it really does seem like saying you got raped for wearing ccertain clothes
-
Welp, rape isn't a good example, IMO, since it doesn't really correlate to clothing or anything else.
It's about being aware that there's a risk. It's wrong, it's unfair, it's sick that such a risk exists, and people should fight against it. But if you cannot personally change that risk; whatever it is, that's imposed on something you should be able to do in a healthy society, then you should be told that the risk is there, and be aware enough to weigh that risk vs. the exercise of a freedom.
In no way do I blame the victim or excuse the perpetrator, I just don't see the point in NOT being cautious until those dangerous people, ideas, policies, etc are stopped.
-
Welp, rape isn't a good example, IMO, since it doesn't really correlate to clothing or anything else.
It's about being aware that there's a risk. It's wrong, it's unfair, it's sick that such a risk exists, and people should fight against it. But if you cannot personally change that risk; whatever it is, that's imposed on something you should be able to do in a healthy society, then you should be told that the risk is there, and be aware enough to weigh that risk vs. the exercise of a freedom.
In no way do I blame the victim or excuse the perpetrator, I just don't see the point in NOT being cautious until those dangerous people, ideas, policies, etc are stopped.
I understand but a hoodie really is so standard and if that is what freaks a racist out get a clue
-
@kefkaownsall - I was only responding to the comment on 'miniskirts in Palestine'. Which I used as a contrast to hoodies, to say the exact same thing you did.
On re-reading I misunderstood your earlier post, and thought you were saying that I was victim-blaming by mentioning wearing mini-skirts in (the middle east).
-
Some more people who are asking to be shot according to Geraldo (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/03/some-other-people-who-geraldos-standards-are-asking-be-shot/50261/). Including Geraldo himself. But seriously, you don't go shot a person for "looking gangster", because you know nothing about them.
-
Some more people who are asking to be shot according to Geraldo (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/03/some-other-people-who-geraldos-standards-are-asking-be-shot/50261/). Including Geraldo himself. But seriously, you don't go shot a person for "looking gangster", because you know nothing about them.
Jedi master Yoda notably absent from list.
Best comment on the page, which is true both Jedi and Sith wear cloaks with hoods on them for the most part... :D
-
I certainly think that there were racist and classist assumptions made by Martin's killer--how else could a person justify believing someone was up to no good just for being black and wearing a hooded sweatshirt? What irks me, however, is that MSNBC and (initially) the Huffington Post were reporting that Zimmerman used the word "coon" to describe Martin in the 911 call.
Maybe I'm wrong in hearing Zimmerman say "fucking punks", so tell me what you hear:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/trayvon-martin-911-tape-racial-slur_n_1368905.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/trayvon-martin-911-tape-racial-slur_n_1368905.html)
-
I certainly think that there were racist and classist assumptions made by Martin's killer--how else could a person justify believing someone was up to no good just for being black and wearing a hooded sweatshirt? What irks me, however, is that MSNBC and (initially) the Huffington Post were reporting that Zimmerman used the word "coon" to describe Martin in the 911 call.
Maybe I'm wrong in hearing Zimmerman say "fucking punks", so tell me what you hear:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/trayvon-martin-911-tape-racial-slur_n_1368905.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/trayvon-martin-911-tape-racial-slur_n_1368905.html)
Nope coon
-
I certainly think that there were racist and classist assumptions made by Martin's killer--how else could a person justify believing someone was up to no good just for being black and wearing a hooded sweatshirt? What irks me, however, is that MSNBC and (initially) the Huffington Post were reporting that Zimmerman used the word "coon" to describe Martin in the 911 call.
Maybe I'm wrong in hearing Zimmerman say "fucking punks", so tell me what you hear:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/trayvon-martin-911-tape-racial-slur_n_1368905.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/trayvon-martin-911-tape-racial-slur_n_1368905.html)
Nope coon
See, 'cause I have no idea how people even hear the word "coon" in that audio.
-
Nope coon
See, 'cause I have no idea how people even hear the word "coon" in that audio.
If it's punk there's a really odd stressing of syllables. That said, his use of 'fucking XXXX' should be plenty to claim he wasn't exactly concerned with self defense prior to starting any fight.
-
Y'know I have heard two versions of that audio clip. The one linked in this thread, and the one on The Young Turks, which had been 'clarified' by making the voice louder and somehow toning down the breathing.
This one in the thread sounds more like 'punks', but the TYT version sounded more like 'coon'. Weird.
-
Same here. The clip on TYT was much clearer, and I clearly heard "coon". In the one that was linked to here, however, I can see how you could possibly hear "punks" instead.
-
Although can someone involved in legal studies tell me if cleaned up sound clips are admissible in court
-
Y'know I have heard two versions of that audio clip. The one linked in this thread, and the one on The Young Turks, which had been 'clarified' by making the voice louder and somehow toning down the breathing.
This one in the thread sounds more like 'punks', but the TYT version sounded more like 'coon'. Weird.
Shit, where's the cleaned up version?
-
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/lawyer-girl-on-phone-with-trayvon-martin-moments-before-he-was-shot/1220972 (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/lawyer-girl-on-phone-with-trayvon-martin-moments-before-he-was-shot/1220972)
Why has this not been posted?!?! Zimmerman is going to apply undue influence to try and save his ass. In addition, he is a lying about never touching a police officer too! I am quite mad about this crap.
Zimmerman, who was born in Virginia and studied criminal justice at Seminole State College, is the son of a retired Virginia Supreme Court magistrate and his wife, a longtime clerk of courts, according to his application to the citizen's academy.
Sanford police released a log of Zimmerman's dozens of calls to police dating back to 2004, which show a pattern of his reporting suspicious people and minor nuisances.
Zimmerman was arrested in a scuffle with an undercover officer in 2005, but the charges were dropped when he entered a pretrial diversion program that allowed him to have a clean record.
When he applied for the citizen's police academy, Zimmerman insisted he did not know the man he scuffled with was a cop.
"I hold law enforcement officers in the highest regaurd [sic] as I hope to one day become one," he wrote in his application. "I would never have touched a police officer."
(http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/stfuconservatives/19806828804/1/tumblr_m1b9wepCSD1qhodu2)
http://weareallafricans.tumblr.com/post/19734782560/and-we-wonder-why-our-parents-are-so-protective (http://weareallafricans.tumblr.com/post/19734782560/and-we-wonder-why-our-parents-are-so-protective)
(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1ao250QJ31qiyqmuo1_500.jpg)
-
Although can someone involved in legal studies tell me if cleaned up sound clips are admissible in court
It may vary state to state since it never hit the Supreme Court, but I have heard examples of "cleaned up audio" being used in criminal convictions (where they alter pitch, breath, timbre, etc of the voice for clarity without altering the intention of what was said).
After the shooting, Zimmerman told police the young man came at him from behind and attacked him
This does it for me. This proves that the Sanford Police department actively participated in a cover-up and every officer should be investigated and all officers found to be involved should be charged by the FBI with any charges that will stick, especially Raimondo and Sheriff Lee. Zimmerman admits on the phone that he is following Martin and you can tell from the wind he is running (not to mention he says Martin is running away and he somehow caught up to Martin). Yet, in spite of this confession which blatantly contradicts the account of "self-defense" he gave to the police, the police still found it reasonable to let him go and accept his 2nd story. This..... just makes me sick.
-
Here's the TYT version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNI5CA5jijw
And that definitely sounded like "fucking coons"!
-
I've listened to the clip countless times since it was released. It definitely sounds more like "coons" than "punks". I'm not 100% certain, being that it's not a terribly clear recording and, realistically, the power of suggestion is at play here, but I'd be confident saying that there's a petty good chance that he did say "coons".
In any case, even without the recording, it's difficult to believe that this wasn't racially motivated.
-
Even if she didn't say coons, he still didn't say punk, because it sounds nothing like punk.
-
Hopefully the audio can be used in court
I know cleaned up images are not allowed
-
Here is one of the 911 calls. You can hear someone screaming for help on the background.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCO1Av5KarI
Now if they could:
a) identify which one of the is shouting for help.
b) use this as an evididence.
It is a pity that no one saw the actual shooting, since as of now Zimmerman is the only one who knows what happened.
There is a police report saying that Zimmerman had blood (or a bloody wound) on his head, and that his back was wet and grassy, which would imply that Martin knocked him down and possibly assaulted him. (whether provoked or not is going to be tough to prove.)
Also some american on a different forum said that since Florida's law approves self defense when in proportion to the attack, if it can be proven that Martin punched Zimmerman this would justify his use of deadly force. (Punch to the head can be fatal and in older cases it has been a justification for retaliating with deadly force...)
Basically if defense can prove that Zimmerman only questioned Martin and the kid threw the first punch then Zimmerman will walk free. hmmm. Actually since the prosecutor has the burden of proof then it might be that they have to prove that Martin did not start the fight...
This whole story is sick.
-
Here is one of the 911 calls. You can hear someone screaming for help on the background.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCO1Av5KarI
Now if they could:
a) identify which one of the is shouting for help.
b) use this as an evididence.
It is a pity that no one saw the actual shooting, since as of now Zimmerman is the only one who knows what happened.
There is a police report saying that Zimmerman had blood (or a bloody wound) on his head, and that his back was wet and grassy, which would imply that Martin knocked him down and possibly assaulted him. (whether provoked or not is going to be tough to prove.)
Also some american on a different forum said that since Florida's law approves self defense when in proportion to the attack, if it can be proven that Martin punched Zimmerman this would justify his use of deadly force. (Punch to the head can be fatal and in older cases it has been a justification for retaliating with deadly force...)
Basically if defense can prove that Zimmerman only questioned Martin and the kid threw the first punch then Zimmerman will walk free. hmmm. Actually since the prosecutor has the burden of proof then it might be that they have to prove that Martin did not start the fight...
This whole story is sick.
Well funny story about that and by funny I mean sick...a witness said she heard a teenager scream and the cops said told her to change her story
-
Here's the TYT version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNI5CA5jijw
And that definitely sounded like "fucking coons"!
That's the same version I heard and the audio wasn't cleaned up at all. Wish WFTV gave more info because they say an audio expert listened to it (http://www.wftv.com/news/news/state-attorney-case-will-be-given-grand-jury-shoot/nLX9c/) and concluded that he said "punks." I still don't hear "coons." At all.
EDIT: Another possibility is I'm completely insane. Which is possible.
-
Well funny story about that and by funny I mean sick...a witness said she heard a teenager scream and the cops said told her to change her story
Yeah, that was brought up earlier in this thread. The initial investigation is not really trustworthy.
But now we got this witness report:
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012
The night of that shooting, police say there was a witness who saw it all.
And what was "all."
"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.
Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.
The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.
His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.
And later:
"When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said.
[snip]
Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting.
Still, this does not reveal who started the fight. (Or whose blood that was on his face.)
-
Here's the TYT version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNI5CA5jijw
And that definitely sounded like "fucking coons"!
That's the same version I heard and the audio wasn't cleaned up at all. Wish WFTV gave more info because they say an audio expert listened to it (http://www.wftv.com/news/news/state-attorney-case-will-be-given-grand-jury-shoot/nLX9c/) and concluded that he said "punks." I still don't hear "coons." At all.
EDIT: Another possibility is I'm completely insane. Which is possible.
Question:
Do you pronounce Punks "Poonks"?
because that's the only way I could possibly conceive that you're hearing punks instead of coons.
-
Here's the TYT version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNI5CA5jijw
And that definitely sounded like "fucking coons"!
That's the same version I heard and the audio wasn't cleaned up at all. Wish WFTV gave more info because they say an audio expert listened to it (http://www.wftv.com/news/news/state-attorney-case-will-be-given-grand-jury-shoot/nLX9c/) and concluded that he said "punks." I still don't hear "coons." At all.
EDIT: Another possibility is I'm completely insane. Which is possible.
Question:
Do you pronounce Punks "Poonks"?
because that's the only way I could possibly conceive that you're hearing punks instead of coons.
I'm not hearing an "oo" in the word he's using. That's why.
-
Here's the TYT version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNI5CA5jijw
And that definitely sounded like "fucking coons"!
That's the same version I heard and the audio wasn't cleaned up at all. Wish WFTV gave more info because they say an audio expert listened to it (http://www.wftv.com/news/news/state-attorney-case-will-be-given-grand-jury-shoot/nLX9c/) and concluded that he said "punks." I still don't hear "coons." At all.
EDIT: Another possibility is I'm completely insane. Which is possible.
Question:
Do you pronounce Punks "Poonks"?
because that's the only way I could possibly conceive that you're hearing punks instead of coons.
I'm not hearing an "oo" in the word he's using. That's why.
I really don't see how you can't hear it.
There's no way that resembles an "un" noise. At all. There isn't even a "k" noise at the end. There is one, however, at the beginning.
Are you listening to the correct part of it?
-
Honestly, I can hear it both ways. It's kind of like that 'which way is the silhouette spinning' illusion. I hear the one I tell myself to hear. The first consonant sound is very hard, it could be a K or a hard spat-out P sound. And the end consonant is soft, ambiguous. The middle u/oo sound is kind of breathy and also ambiguous.
Honestly I think he might have said 'punks'. Just because 'coons' is such an uncommon term unless you're over 80 or a white supremacist.
-
Actually, I was trying to hear punks. I really was.
I plainly heard coons
-
Well funny story about that and by funny I mean sick...a witness said she heard a teenager scream and the cops said told her to change her story
Yeah, that was brought up earlier in this thread. The initial investigation is not really trustworthy.
But now we got this witness report:
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012
The night of that shooting, police say there was a witness who saw it all.
And what was "all."
"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.
Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.
The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.
His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.
And later:
"When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said.
[snip]
Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting.
Still, this does not reveal who started the fight. (Or whose blood that was on his face.)
It also still doesn't give him the right to give chase, when the cops told him not to. But that's the thing with these people, it's like they call the cops wanting permission to play vigilante.
-
Zimmerman's war against black kids doing stuff:
In August 2011, he called to report a black male in a tank top and shorts acting suspicious near the development's back entrance. "[Complainant] believes [subject] is involved in recent S-21s"—break-ins—"in the neighborhood," the call log states. The suspect, Zimmerman told the dispatcher, fit a recent description given out by law enforcement officers.
Three days later, he called to report two black teens in the same area, for the same reason. "[Juveniles] are the subjs who have been [burglarizing] in this area," he told the dispatcher.
From DeLuca:
On April 22, 2011, Zimmerman called to report a black male about “7-9” years old, four feet tall, with a “skinny build” and short black hair. There is no indication in the police report of the reason for Zimmerman’s suspicion of the boy.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/03/23/george_zimmerman_s_long_lonely_war_against_black_youths_doing_things.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/03/23/george_zimmerman_s_long_lonely_war_against_black_youths_doing_things.html)
I ask this in all seriousness, is anyone else starting to think that Zimmerman might not be all together there mentally?
-
Well, and again, not sticking up for Zimmerman, but I've read several articles stating he was part of a neighborhood watch. I have one here in my neighborhood. When you're "on watch" you are looking out for people doing things like hanging around buildings for no reason, especially if there have been break-ins recently, as that quote indicates. I'm not saying he's in the right. But given what he was part of, that's not very unusual to report suspicious activity. That's the whole point of a neighborhood watch -- you're usually setting them up because you don't get much cop patrol in those areas, so the neighbors take up the role of walking around and keeping an eye on things.
And just to reiterate to an earlier post, people are under no legal obligation to obey 9-1-1. It is not the same thing as being told be a cop to do or not do something, and this situation isn't explained any better by making it out as though that's what happened.
-
Well, and again, not sticking up for Zimmerman, but I've read several articles stating he was part of a neighborhood watch. I have one here in my neighborhood. When you're "on watch" you are looking out for people doing things like hanging around buildings for no reason, especially if there have been break-ins recently, as that quote indicates. I'm not saying he's in the right. But given what he was part of, that's not very unusual to report suspicious activity. That's the whole point of a neighborhood watch -- you're usually setting them up because you don't get much cop patrol in those areas, so the neighbors take up the role of walking around and keeping an eye on things.
And just to reiterate to an earlier post, people are under no legal obligation to obey 9-1-1. It is not the same thing as being told be a cop to do or not do something, and this situation isn't explained any better by making it out as though that's what happened.
I thought I heard it was a one man thing
-
Dear Zimmerman:
(http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/rich-tehrani/uploads/monopoly-go-to-jail-card.jpg)
Sincerely,
Humans fed up with other humans getting away with murder
-
I haven't seen anything about it being a one man thing and neighborhood watches usually aren't. On the other hand, it's very possible in a smaller area or community that one guy volunteers to do the walking of the rounds, so I suppose it's possible.
-
Well, and again, not sticking up for Zimmerman, but I've read several articles stating he was part of a neighborhood watch. I have one here in my neighborhood. When you're "on watch" you are looking out for people doing things like hanging around buildings for no reason, especially if there have been break-ins recently, as that quote indicates. I'm not saying he's in the right. But given what he was part of, that's not very unusual to report suspicious activity. That's the whole point of a neighborhood watch -- you're usually setting them up because you don't get much cop patrol in those areas, so the neighbors take up the role of walking around and keeping an eye on things.
And just to reiterate to an earlier post, people are under no legal obligation to obey 9-1-1. It is not the same thing as being told be a cop to do or not do something, and this situation isn't explained any better by making it out as though that's what happened.
I thought I heard it was a one man thing
He was self-appointed Watch Captain, and didn't follow any of the rules of the Neighborhood Watch program. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/trayvon-martin-death-spotlights-neighborhood-watch-groups.html?pagewanted=all)
-
And just to reiterate to an earlier post, people are under no legal obligation to obey 9-1-1. It is not the same thing as being told be a cop to do or not do something, and this situation isn't explained any better by making it out as though that's what happened.
No one is telling them to obey 911, but it really makes no sense in calling 911 first, and then go out and play cop. If you want to be a vigilante, go out a play it, then call 911, because they're not going to give you permission to do so, it's pointless.
He was self-appointed Watch Captain, and didn't follow any of the rules of the Neighborhood Watch program. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/trayvon-martin-death-spotlights-neighborhood-watch-groups.html?pagewanted=all)
But don't you know, its ok for them not to follow the rules, just like it ok for them not to follow 911's advice.
-
Maybe this is a regional thing, but (on a different forum) some of the people who defended Zimmerman (Mostly based on the belief that "Librul media" is always lying and therefore this guy must be a decent red blooded, rebublican.) commented that since he lived in a "gated community," then seeing a "suspicious person" he didn't recognise is a cause for 911 call and confronting him. Since cops are always late.
Based on the comments it seemed that most of these people would have acted much like Zimmerman... Well except for bothering to call the cops... And it's not that they would have definitely shot the kid but they believe that confronting a someone and questioning them with a gun is the proper response to strangers in your turf...
Particurally silly since in this case THE KID LIVED IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD! As for the original case:
Why didn't Martin say that he lived nearby? If he did why didn't Zimmerman
a) believe him
b) go with him to his home for confirmation
-
To recap...
Martin didn't live there. He was visiting family.
Phone records showed Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend right before he was killed. She said Martin told her he was being followed, he thought he lost him, then Zimmerman found him again. She heard Martin ask Zimmerman why he was following him, Zimmerman asked what Martin was doing there, she thinks Martin's headset got knocked off his head, the phone went dead, and she tried to call back. Oh yeah, and she also said Martin told her the guy had him cornered.
Now, we have some guy coming out of nowhere, three(?) weeks after the killing, now claiming he SAW Martin on top of Zimmerman.
I understand why the girlfriend might not want to come forward, because the lunatic might come after her, too. But why did this guy wait to come forward?
-
To recap...
Martin didn't live there. He was visiting family.
Phone records showed Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend right before he was killed. She said Martin told her he was being followed, he thought he lost him, then Zimmerman found him again. She heard Martin ask Zimmerman why he was following him, Zimmerman asked what Martin was doing there, she thinks Martin's headset got knocked off his head, the phone went dead, and she tried to call back. Oh yeah, and she also said Martin told her the guy had him cornered.
Now, we have some guy coming out of nowhere, three(?) weeks after the killing, now claiming he SAW Martin on top of Zimmerman.
I understand why the girlfriend might not want to come forward, because the lunatic might come after her, too. But why did this guy wait to come forward?
Not nowhere, this was reported very early on that a witness had seen this. There are still a lot of people forming very strong opinions about this case without many of the facts.
-
Well, and again, not sticking up for Zimmerman, but I've read several articles stating he was part of a neighborhood watch. I have one here in my neighborhood. When you're "on watch" you are looking out for people doing things like hanging around buildings for no reason, especially if there have been break-ins recently, as that quote indicates. I'm not saying he's in the right. But given what he was part of, that's not very unusual to report suspicious activity. That's the whole point of a neighborhood watch -- you're usually setting them up because you don't get much cop patrol in those areas, so the neighbors take up the role of walking around and keeping an eye on things.
And just to reiterate to an earlier post, people are under no legal obligation to obey 9-1-1. It is not the same thing as being told be a cop to do or not do something, and this situation isn't explained any better by making it out as though that's what happened.
I thought I heard it was a one man thing
He was self-appointed Watch Captain, and didn't follow any of the rules of the Neighborhood Watch program. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/trayvon-martin-death-spotlights-neighborhood-watch-groups.html?pagewanted=all)
No, that's not exactly what your article says. Your article says that he was appointed the group's coordinator by that neighborhood watch group. While she is now saying yes that using a gun is not what the watch group is about, he was not "self appointed." He was part of this group and this group is now coming under fire. I would suspect they're doing a little back peddling about what they did and didn't know he was doing. Watch groups have meetings, and as the coordinator, I'm sure hew as reporting various things to them. As usual with these media releases, probably best to see what else surfaces about this situation.
-
And just to reiterate to an earlier post, people are under no legal obligation to obey 9-1-1. It is not the same thing as being told be a cop to do or not do something, and this situation isn't explained any better by making it out as though that's what happened.
No one is telling them to obey 911, but it really makes no sense in calling 911 first, and then go out and play cop. If you want to be a vigilante, go out a play it, then call 911, because they're not going to give you permission to do so, it's pointless.
No one is saying it's OK to play cop. But I can envision plenty of circumstances where you have to act on your own. I'll remind you of the link I posted earlier in the thread about the Oklahoma mom on the phone with 9-1-1 folks while armed men broke into her home. Had she waited for the cops to show up, she likely would've been dead. It depends on the situation and how fast cops are likely to get there. In any event, I posted that comment because people keep presenting the argument that he "disobeyed the cops" somehow by not following 9-1-1's advice. That's not illegal, and it's not a good argument to keep referring to that as though it's a sign of illegal behavior. That's all.
*edited for grammar
-
Hannity's turn to make words come out of his ass
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hannity-on-travon-martin-killing-is-it-possible-it-was-just-a-horrible-accident/
Accident... Accident.....
-
http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-shooter-couldnt-stop-crying-shooting-112227880--abc-news.html
Excuse me? Couldn't stop crying? Give me a fucking break. I haven't been following this story too closely, but come the fuck on!
EDIT:
oh, and a little child was enough to make Zimmerman call 911 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/25/1077587/-7-to-9-Year-Old-Looked-Suspicious-Enough-to-Zimmerman-to-Call-911).
-
To recap...
Martin didn't live there. He was visiting family.
Phone records showed Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend right before he was killed. She said Martin told her he was being followed, he thought he lost him, then Zimmerman found him again. She heard Martin ask Zimmerman why he was following him, Zimmerman asked what Martin was doing there, she thinks Martin's headset got knocked off his head, the phone went dead, and she tried to call back. Oh yeah, and she also said Martin told her the guy had him cornered.
Now, we have some guy coming out of nowhere, three(?) weeks after the killing, now claiming he SAW Martin on top of Zimmerman.
I understand why the girlfriend might not want to come forward, because the lunatic might come after her, too. But why did this guy wait to come forward?
Not nowhere, this was reported very early on that a witness had seen this. There are still a lot of people forming very strong opinions about this case without many of the facts.
I read this whole thread, but somehow missed that.
-
Also, eyewitness accounts are extremely susceptible to change. Earlier in this thread, someone posted that the police were correcting a witness to change her testimony to protect Zimmerman.
If that's the case, this corruption goes way deeper than just one bad apple.
-
Also, eyewitness accounts are extremely susceptible to change. Earlier in this thread, someone posted that the police were correcting a witness to change her testimony to protect Zimmerman.
If that's the case, this corruption goes way deeper than just one bad apple.
Eyewitnesses are incredibly unreliable especially ones that change
-
Also, eyewitness accounts are extremely susceptible to change. Earlier in this thread, someone posted that the police were correcting a witness to change her testimony to protect Zimmerman.
If that's the case, this corruption goes way deeper than just one bad apple.
Why would it take more than one officer to "correct" a witness?
-
Also, eyewitness accounts are extremely susceptible to change. Earlier in this thread, someone posted that the police were correcting a witness to change her testimony to protect Zimmerman.
If that's the case, this corruption goes way deeper than just one bad apple.
Why would it take more than one officer to "correct" a witness?
The point is that a policeman, possibly more, are "correcting" witnesses - that is, changing their memories and making them unreliable for testimony. I find it equally suspicious that, weeks after the initial shooting and witness reports, suddenly there is a completely new witness who says that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Even though this contradicts the other facts of the case.
-
Eyewitness testimonies are terrible and something I wish could be thrown out. The evidence can speak for itself.
-
The point is that a policeman, possibly more, are "correcting" witnesses - that is, changing their memories and making them unreliable for testimony. I find it equally suspicious that, weeks after the initial shooting and witness reports, suddenly there is a completely new witness who says that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Even though this contradicts the other facts of the case.
Witnesses' stories change over time, even when not corrected by the police. As I said, one of the very early reports stated that a witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. That does not contradict at all with Zimmerman's injuries. Nor does it mean that Zimmerman is innocent of a crime. If he came at Martin first it does not matter if Martin turned the tables and got the advantage, Zimmerman would still not be able to claim self-defense. So the ultimate question is who got physical first?
-
The answer is pretty fuckin' obvious from the evidence. Clearly Zimmerman was stalking Martin, as the cell phone transcripts indicate, and then Martin was shot.
-
Not to mention Martin's phone was probably knocked to the ground.
-
The answer is pretty fuckin' obvious from the evidence. Clearly Zimmerman was stalking Martin, as the cell phone transcripts indicate, and then Martin was shot.
Stalking him, as you put it, will not matter. That action by Zimmerman did not give Martin the right to attack Zimmerman if he did. The the cell phone evidence suggests Zimmerman assaulted Martin first so that will be the key.
-
http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-shooter-couldnt-stop-crying-shooting-112227880--abc-news.html
Excuse me? Couldn't stop crying? Give me a fucking break. I haven't been following this story too closely, but come the fuck on!
EDIT:
oh, and a little child was enough to make Zimmerman call 911 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/25/1077587/-7-to-9-Year-Old-Looked-Suspicious-Enough-to-Zimmerman-to-Call-911).
Yeah, he was crying because he thought cornering the poor kid was going to be his ticket to the Sheriffs academy. I have read in a few places he dreamed of being a cop. I guessing Zimmerman is sure, that he would have found incriminating evidence on Martin.
-
And just to reiterate to an earlier post, people are under no legal obligation to obey 9-1-1. It is not the same thing as being told be a cop to do or not do something, and this situation isn't explained any better by making it out as though that's what happened.
No one is telling them to obey 911, but it really makes no sense in calling 911 first, and then go out and play cop. If you want to be a vigilante, go out a play it, then call 911, because they're not going to give you permission to do so, it's pointless.
He was self-appointed Watch Captain, and didn't follow any of the rules of the Neighborhood Watch program. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/trayvon-martin-death-spotlights-neighborhood-watch-groups.html?pagewanted=all)
But don't you know, its ok for them not to follow the rules, just like it ok for them not to follow 911's advice.
Actually, it does make sense to call 911 first, as I mentioned earlier. Now you know you have backup on the way so if you get in a jam, the cavalry will be there soon to help out.
Kinda like how you see videos of shops being robbed where they hit the panic alarm first and then persue the suspect
-
The answer is pretty fuckin' obvious from the evidence. Clearly Zimmerman was stalking Martin, as the cell phone transcripts indicate, and then Martin was shot.
Stalking him, as you put it, will not matter. That action by Zimmerman did not give Martin the right to attack Zimmerman if he did. The the cell phone evidence suggests Zimmerman assaulted Martin first so that will be the key.
If we can even trust the witnesses who said Martin attacked Zimmerman at some point, it still does not make Zimmerman innocent of murder.
1) Zimmerman stalked Martin. This is solid, clear evidence that cannot be denied.
2) Zimmerman attacked Martin first.
3) Assuming those witnesses are correct, at some point Zimmerman tried to defend himself and gained the upper hand, which is why Zimmerman sustained those injuries.
4) Zimmeman regains the upper hand and shoots Martin, killing him.
What happened at #3, however, is irrelevant because Zimmerman was still the person who started the fight and killed him.
-
Wykked, just to point out, I don't think Nickerson is disagreeing with you at all.
-
He said that the fact that Zimmerman stalked Martin doesn't matter. I think it absolutely does matter to the case - it proves intent. You cannot follow a person on purpose for several blocks and claim "self-defense."
-
He said that the fact that Zimmerman stalked Martin doesn't matter. I think it absolutely does matter to the case - it proves intent. You cannot follow a person on purpose for several blocks and claim "self-defense."
I think potentially, you can follow someone for several blocks because you have as much right to be there as they do. It would really come down to if your actions are considered threatening in a legal sense. If they are deemed threatening, being attacked is your fault, and you can't claim self defense any more than a burglar can. On the other hand, if you are maintaining your distance and not forcing a confrontation it could be argued that you are not posing an immediate threat and therefore any attack on you is unjustified.
-
Lets just agree the stalking calls into question his self defense claims
-
I agree with Canadian Mojo's last statement. Zimmerman stalked Martin, then cornered him. Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him, Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing there, it immediately got physical, and the phone call he was on was ended abruptly.
Martin was stalked and cornered, at night, by a guy who is 100 pounds heavier than he was. If either of them had a reason to fear for his life, it was Martin.
-
If we can even trust the witnesses who said Martin attacked Zimmerman at some point, it still does not make Zimmerman innocent of murder.
1) Zimmerman stalked Martin. This is solid, clear evidence that cannot be denied.
2) Zimmerman attacked Martin first.
3) Assuming those witnesses are correct, at some point Zimmerman tried to defend himself and gained the upper hand, which is why Zimmerman sustained those injuries.
4) Zimmeman regains the upper hand and shoots Martin, killing him.
What happened at #3, however, is irrelevant because Zimmerman was still the person who started the fight and killed him.
If Martin did attack first it will make Zimmerman innocent under the law. Following some is not illegal, and does not giver you the right to assault them. In this case Martin would not be able to claim self-defense because the law specifically said a person must be attacked.
Zimmerman is only guilty if he attacked Martin first. Which by the sounds of the cell phone evidence is what happened. The problem is if a eye witness says Martin was the physical aggressor that may very well trump the cell phone call.
You also have to remember that within Florida law even if you gain the upper hand after attacked you can still use deadly force. One Florida appeals court found that if attacked you can still shoot your attacker if he begins to flee.
-
Well this is incredibly rage-inducing? Remember when Obama commented on the case by saying "If he had a son, it would look like him?" Well...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/people-who-say-president-obama-is-racist
I'm not going back in there. Its just too much. I'm so sorry but these people do not deserve to breathe the air that comes out of Obama's asshole.
-
Well this is incredibly rage-inducing? Remember when Obama commented on the case by saying "If he had a son, it would look like him?" Well...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/people-who-say-president-obama-is-racist
I'm not going back in there. Its just too much. I'm so sorry but these people do not deserve to breathe the air that comes out of Obama's asshole.
I don't understand what's so bad about what Obama said, I don't see how it's "racist".
Also the asshat that makes the comment about the facebook profile reminds me of my brother, who said something similar, in his attempt to try to paint the kid as a "thug", bonus irony points in my brother's case, since I remember when he was in his late teens he had the "thug" look going on.
-
Turns out the "gangsta" FB pic is a fake.
http://www.streetwisepundit.com/wrong-trayvon-martin-photo-on-facebook.html (http://www.streetwisepundit.com/wrong-trayvon-martin-photo-on-facebook.html)
All I have to say is ha ha ha, racist fail...
-
http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-shooter-told-cops-teenager-went-gun-030349812--abc-news.html (http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-shooter-told-cops-teenager-went-gun-030349812--abc-news.html)
More information about the event. Among other pieces of information, some new and some not, is this:
The new information is the most complete version yet of what Zimmerman claims happened on the night of Feb. 26 when he shot and killed the teenager.
In addition, an eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown, told police he saw a man fitting Zimmerman's description lying on the grass moaning and crying for help just seconds before he heard the gunshot that killed Martin.
So, two conflicting stories so far about who was doing the moaning. While the police shouldn't have corrected the other lady who claimed it sounded like a teenager (they should've just written it down and said nothing), this seems to indicate maybe the cops weren't exactly trying to lead the witness just to exonerate Zimmerman. Though they sure had plenty of other screw ups along the way!
The article goes on to say:
ABC News has also learned that Martin was staying in Sanford at the time because he'd been suspended from Krop High School in Miami after school officials found him with a baggy that they suspected contained marijuana. He was staying at his father's fiance's house in Sanford.
Family spokesperson Ryan Julison confirmed to ABC News that Martin was suspended for an "empty baggy that had contained pot."
Though as the article goes on to point out:
"It's irrelevant to what happened on Feb. 26, does not change material facts of the situation, specifically that had George Zimmerman not left his vehicle and heeded the police dispatcher's guidance, we wouldn't be here today," Julison said.
Which is certainly true enough. Zimmerman also alleges in this article that Martin went for his gun, which is why he fired it. That seems new from all the rest of the news reports. Of course, this is the same media that decided he was a white man and a self-appointed neighborhood watchman, so ... idk, maybe they chose not to include that the first time around, who knows? As the article says, though, it still makes no difference. Had he chosen not to pursue, we wouldn't be where we are with this today.
-
Zimmerman is only guilty if he attacked Martin first. Which by the sounds of the cell phone evidence is what happened. The problem is if a eye witness says Martin was the physical aggressor that may very well trump the cell phone call.
The cell phone evidence is much more reliable than any eyewitness testimony could ever be.
I also find it funny that all these "witnesses" who say that Martin attacked first only appear after this story gained national attention. This shooting originally occurred back in February, when Zimmerman was not investigated at all. It only gained attention due to Martin's family hiring a badass lawyer team.
-
Or, the media is finally reporting more of it instead of rushing to just report some of it. That could just as well be the case. The cell phone doesn't reveal much, as there isn't that much said. It confirms Zimmerman was following him, which wasn't in dispute, and it confirms Zimmerman wanted to know what he was doing there, which wasn't inconsistent with his neighborhood watch job, given the article I cited also mentions several burglaries happening in that area prior to this incident. I don't see how the cell phone call shows much more than that?
Anyone else find it weird that the 17 y.o. girlfriend is not named, but the 13 y.o. eye witness was? I thought underage people's names were kept private from the media?
-
The cell phone evidence is much more reliable than any eyewitness testimony could ever be.
I also find it funny that all these "witnesses" who say that Martin attacked first only appear after this story gained national attention. This shooting originally occurred back in February, when Zimmerman was not investigated at all. It only gained attention due to Martin's family hiring a badass lawyer team.
The 13 year old witness was there from the start. It was just one of many things people fucking ignored because they were to busy passing out torches and pitchforks. The cell phone evidence, which unless there is a recording of the call, is no more or less reliable then other witness testimony. Without the that cell call it look every bit that Zimmerman was within Florida law.
-
The cell phone evidence is much more reliable than any eyewitness testimony could ever be.
I also find it funny that all these "witnesses" who say that Martin attacked first only appear after this story gained national attention. This shooting originally occurred back in February, when Zimmerman was not investigated at all. It only gained attention due to Martin's family hiring a badass lawyer team.
The 13 year old witness was there from the start.
Really? She was making a fuss back in February?
-
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/26/452310/what-everyone-needs-to-know-about-the-smear-campaign-against-trayvon-martin-1995-2012/
Hey guys, y'all might want to read the link (or at least those who say Martin attacked)... Jus' sayin'.
-
Oh look at this, Stormfront is posting fake pictures of Trayvon and claiming that they are real to discredit him and say his killing was "justified". http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/26/stormfront-deliberately-shows-wrong-photo-of-trayvon-martin-looking-gangsta-image/
Listen up racists, even if those pictures were real, it still doesn't justify killing him.
-
Zachski, it's "he" not "she" -- and the news links from the first page of this thread do suggest multiple witnesses. They just don't specify who those witnesses are or what they did or didn't report to the cops.
Shane, I haven't read any right wing bloggers. What I linked was ABC news, not a right wing blog, and that information just came out Sunday. Meanwhile, considering how many people here and elsewhere on the net were busy focusing on Skittles and iced tea for the past few days, I doubt right wing bloggers or corrupt cop leaks had much to do with the way Martin was being portrayed up to this point, apart from the usual hate sites that are easily recognizable. Clearly, no one else mentioned it in this post at least up to this point. None of the links I've seen, apart from some hate in the comments section, are trying to smear Martin's reputation. Now that it comes out that Martin may not be as pure as the driven snow, those suggestions reek of backpedaling. In any event, as I said before, it doesn't matter. Martin could've been the next great juvenile delinquent, and it still doesn't make his killing justified.
Additionally, I'm not sure anyone here is necessarily making the case that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Even if that can be construed from what has been posted so far, certainly no one is making the case that Zimmerman is justified. What you might be regarding as the "opposition" is simply trying to say that there seems to be more to the story and it shouldn't be tried in the media. That's really all there is to it, as far as I can see. I don't want to speak for Nickerson, but I don't think he nor me is saying "Go, Zimmerman!" But some of the things in the media aren't exactly accurate, either, and it doesn't help to either propagate false information or ideas or try someone in the court of public opinion.
-
Oh look at this, Stormfront is posting fake pictures of Trayvon and claiming that they are real to discredit him and say his killing was "justified". http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/26/stormfront-deliberately-shows-wrong-photo-of-trayvon-martin-looking-gangsta-image/
Listen up racists, even if those pictures were real, it still doesn't justify killing him.
But don't you know that dressing "ghetto" is crime, unless you're a white.
-
Oh look at this, Stormfront is posting fake pictures of Trayvon and claiming that they are real to discredit him and say his killing was "justified". http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/26/stormfront-deliberately-shows-wrong-photo-of-trayvon-martin-looking-gangsta-image/
Listen up racists, even if those pictures were real, it still doesn't justify killing him.
Even if they were real, it would hardly suggest that he's a gangster. A teenage boy trying to look tough without actually being dangerous is pretty much par for the course. Those kinds of images would only be indicative of one thing: The kid's a teenager indulging himself in pop culture.
-
Oh look at this, Stormfront is posting fake pictures of Trayvon and claiming that they are real to discredit him and say his killing was "justified". http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/26/stormfront-deliberately-shows-wrong-photo-of-trayvon-martin-looking-gangsta-image/
Listen up racists, even if those pictures were real, it still doesn't justify killing him.
Even if they were real, it would hardly suggest that he's a gangster. A teenage boy trying to look tough without actually being dangerous is pretty much par for the course. Those kinds of images would only be indicative of one thing: The kid's a teenager indulging himself in pop culture.
This is very, very true. My son does this and so do his friends. It's totally about pop culture.
-
Zachski, it's "he" not "she" -- and the news links from the first page of this thread do suggest multiple witnesses. They just don't specify who those witnesses are or what they did or didn't report to the cops.
Shane, I haven't read any right wing bloggers. What I linked was ABC news, not a right wing blog, and that information just came out Sunday. Meanwhile, considering how many people here and elsewhere on the net were busy focusing on Skittles and iced tea for the past few days, I doubt right wing bloggers or corrupt cop leaks had much to do with the way Martin was being portrayed up to this point, apart from the usual hate sites that are easily recognizable. Clearly, no one else mentioned it in this post at least up to this point. None of the links I've seen, apart from some hate in the comments section, are trying to smear Martin's reputation. Now that it comes out that Martin may not be as pure as the driven snow, those suggestions reek of backpedaling. In any event, as I said before, it doesn't matter. Martin could've been the next great juvenile delinquent, and it still doesn't make his killing justified.
Additionally, I'm not sure anyone here is necessarily making the case that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Even if that can be construed from what has been posted so far, certainly no one is making the case that Zimmerman is justified. What you might be regarding as the "opposition" is simply trying to say that there seems to be more to the story and it shouldn't be tried in the media. That's really all there is to it, as far as I can see. I don't want to speak for Nickerson, but I don't think he nor me is saying "Go, Zimmerman!" But some of the things in the media aren't exactly accurate, either, and it doesn't help to either propagate false information or ideas or try someone in the court of public opinion.
I'm really not sure your first paragraph (or even your second) should even be directed at me. Alls I did was post a link to clear up a few things. Especially considering the fact that people have been saying false things about the event and making it seem as if they are true. I've seen them. Unless I'm hallucinating things.
Unless of course you're defending yourself under the Suspiciously Specific Denial trope...
Either way, discussing Martin the way he has been discussed is a bit inconsiderate and is by all accounts a circus of sickness.
Also, the article I posted tears to shreds one of your posts about the defense of Zimmerman. Mainly this part:
It confirms Zimmerman was following him, which wasn't in dispute, and it confirms Zimmerman wanted to know what he was doing there, which wasn't inconsistent with his neighborhood watch job, given the article I cited also mentions several burglaries happening in that area prior to this incident.
-
I'm really not sure your first paragraph (or even your second) should even be directed at me. Alls I did was post a link to clear up a few things. Especially considering the fact that people have been saying false things about the event and making it seem as if they are true. I've seen them. Unless I'm hallucinating things.
Unless of course you're defending yourself under the Suspiciously Specific Denial trope...
Either way, discussing Martin the way he has been discussed is a bit inconsiderate and is by all accounts a circus of sickness.
Also, the article I posted tears to shreds one of your posts about the defense of Zimmerman. Mainly this part:
It confirms Zimmerman was following him, which wasn't in dispute, and it confirms Zimmerman wanted to know what he was doing there, which wasn't inconsistent with his neighborhood watch job, given the article I cited also mentions several burglaries happening in that area prior to this incident.
I'm not really sure why you would think the first paragraph was directed at you, since it said Zachski? In any event, you said "hey guys you should read" ...so I took that to mean we should read it and comment on it, not sure what is unusual about that either. The article you posted suggests that this new information is only coming out because people are trying to smear Martin's reputation, particularly right wing bloggers or cops selectively leaking information. I'm not sure how it clears up a few things, unless of course you just accept at face value that the only reason we now know more information is because it's some conspiracy to smear Martin. Lots of sites have been reporting false information, starting with the first media releases that Zimmerman was white and self-appointed watchman.
I'm not sure why it's disrespectful to discuss what is now being mentioned by a prominent news outlet like ABC. Further, given that your article has no mention whatseover of the cell phone call, I have absolutely no idea how you think your article "shreds" my argument you quoted above, given that it was all about the cell phone call. If you're saying your source somehow proves that Zimmerman wasn't following him and that he didn't ask Martin what he was doing there, that makes even less sense.
** edited to fix formatting.
-
Of course, this is the same media that decided he was a white man
He's half-white (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/who-is-george-zimmerman/2012/03/22/gIQAkXdbUS_story.html) and his name is George Zimmerman (as opposed to a more Hispanic or Latino name). The media didn't "decide" he was white. It was inferred from his name (and depending on the tinting of his prior arrest mug shot, he has been portrayed as every skin tone between "white" and "really brown") and the fact that his father is white.
-
Any better descriptions on what exactly the 13 year old saw? I find it kinda hard to believe someone would see what they're saying they did, and promptly turn away in time for a gun to be shot.
Also, don't put the kid on a fucking cross people, he was still a kid and may well have done something stupid. None of it would make it worth shooting him, even if he had attacked someone twice his size out of, ironically, concern for his own life. But I doubt the kid was saint, particularly with that suspension he had going for him.
-
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/man-shot-florida-teen-fears-safety-supporters-053604303.html
This is what Yahoo news is saying about it, but keep in mind I suspect Yahoo is rapidly turning into Faux Jr...
Apparently Zimmerman is claiming now that he had given up the chase, and the kid approached him from behind.
-
Also, don't put the kid on a fucking cross people, he was still a kid and may well have done something stupid. None of it would make it worth shooting him, even if he had attacked someone twice his size out of, ironically, concern for his own life. But I doubt the kid was saint, particularly with that suspension he had going for him.
The bolded is the only part that's important in this entire paragraph.
-
The media most certainly decides how they choose to portray a person. I can assure you my biracial son would bristle at being referred to as a "white man" simply because his mother is white, and frankly, I'm a little surprised anyone would defend the media's right to racially label someone, given the ramifications that can have in the public. Setting the tone in the media right out of the gate as essentially "white man shoots black kid" creates a whole set of racial issues that may or may not be true for this case. But once you label it so, especially in this country, it's thrown out there and you can't take it back. This is particularly critical, since some of the articles indicate that people are thinking of trying Zimmerman for a hate crime. That carries more penalties with it. Shouldn't we get it right, if we're really going to go there? If we want a real trialand real justice -- which is what we want, isn't it? -- these things ought not be tried in the media and the media certainly shouldn't have inflamed things by jumping the gun.
-
I'm really not sure your first paragraph (or even your second) should even be directed at me. Alls I did was post a link to clear up a few things. Especially considering the fact that people have been saying false things about the event and making it seem as if they are true. I've seen them. Unless I'm hallucinating things.
Unless of course you're defending yourself under the Suspiciously Specific Denial trope...
Either way, discussing Martin the way he has been discussed is a bit inconsiderate and is by all accounts a circus of sickness.
Also, the article I posted tears to shreds one of your posts about the defense of Zimmerman. Mainly this part:
It confirms Zimmerman was following him, which wasn't in dispute, and it confirms Zimmerman wanted to know what he was doing there, which wasn't inconsistent with his neighborhood watch job, given the article I cited also mentions several burglaries happening in that area prior to this incident.
I'm not really sure why you would think the first paragraph was directed at you, since it said Zachski? In any event, you said "hey guys you should read" ...so I took that to mean we should read it and comment on it, not sure what is unusual about that either. The article you posted suggests that this new information is only coming out because people are trying to smear Martin's reputation, particularly right wing bloggers or cops selectively leaking information. I'm not sure how it clears up a few things, unless of course you just accept at face value that the only reason we now know more information is because it's some conspiracy to smear Martin. Lots of sites have been reporting false information, starting with the first media releases that Zimmerman was white and self-appointed watchman.
I'm not sure why it's disrespectful to discuss what is now being mentioned by a prominent news outlet like ABC. Further, given that your article has no mention whatseover of the cell phone call, I have absolutely no idea how you think your article "shreds" my argument you quoted above, given that it was all about the cell phone call. If you're saying your source somehow proves that Zimmerman wasn't following him and that he didn't ask Martin what he was doing there, that makes even less sense.
** edited to fix formatting.
No, I'm saying that Zimmerman was not in his rights to ask what Martin was doing there as 'neighborhood watch'. He's not a damn cop, he has no right to ask what a kid is doing around, much less that he should expect an answer just because. Also, this is the same man who called 911 100s of times because he was paranoid and who shouldn't have been given any kind of power, even one that is really title only such as neighborhood watch. As pointed out earlier, he thought a young child was suspicious.
Also, I thought it would be obvious when I said paragraph directed at me that it would be the two paragraphs addressed at me.
No, what is disrespectful is trying to come up with the events to make one party look more at fault for what happened. Mostly, that it was the kid's fault. Which again, I have seen.
The problem with the stand-your-ground law is it is highly up to the claimer to use it and the only one who can actually defend themselves about it is usually dead or incapable of defending themselves. We have a law here in Georgia too that does the same thing. People are already trying to change it here in Georgia cause of the Martin case. However, dad has always told me it only applies in our home or my car. Technically, it doesn't. But it's what he told me.
Also, you can't tell me that there isn't a smear campaign going. You can't. It's a lie otherwise.
-
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/man-shot-florida-teen-fears-safety-supporters-053604303.html
This is what Yahoo news is saying about it, but keep in mind I suspect Yahoo is rapidly turning into Faux Jr...
Apparently Zimmerman is claiming now that he had given up the chase, and the kid approached him from behind.
I think people might have missed this since it was at the bottom of page 20...
-
Any better descriptions on what exactly the 13 year old saw? I find it kinda hard to believe someone would see what they're saying they did, and promptly turn away in time for a gun to be shot.
Also, don't put the kid on a fucking cross people, he was still a kid and may well have done something stupid. None of it would make it worth shooting him, even if he had attacked someone twice his size out of, ironically, concern for his own life. But I doubt the kid was saint, particularly with that suspension he had going for him.
It's quite possible that he said or did something rash, but I'm not sure how a suspension for repeated tardiness can be construed to mean much of anything in regard to what happened that night.
-
I got suspended for protecting myself... so it's not like you always get a suspension for being a troublemaker... sometimes shit outside of your control happens or you get pegged with something you didn't do. Oh, wait.
More linky-ness:
Lead Investigator wanted to arrest and charge Zimmerman (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/27/453123/lead-investigator-wanted-to-arrest-and-charge-zimmerman/)
-
If you want some depressing reads, here is a collection of Fox News comment about Trayvon's case. It really puts a dent in that "post-racist" bullcrap some people are saying. http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/republican-base-exposed-by-davidoatkins.html
-
Any better descriptions on what exactly the 13 year old saw? I find it kinda hard to believe someone would see what they're saying they did, and promptly turn away in time for a gun to be shot.
Also, don't put the kid on a fucking cross people, he was still a kid and may well have done something stupid. None of it would make it worth shooting him, even if he had attacked someone twice his size out of, ironically, concern for his own life. But I doubt the kid was saint, particularly with that suspension he had going for him.
It's quite possible that he said or did something rash, but I'm not sure how a suspension for repeated tardiness can be construed to mean much of anything in regard to what happened that night.
Empty baggie of pot, not tardiness
-
No, I'm saying that Zimmerman was not in his rights to ask what Martin was doing there as 'neighborhood watch'. He's not a damn cop, he has no right to ask what a kid is doing around, much less that he should expect an answer just because. Also, this is the same man who called 911 100s of times because he was paranoid and who shouldn't have been given any kind of power, even one that is really title only such as neighborhood watch. As pointed out earlier, he thought a young child was suspicious.
Since when is someone not within their rights to ask a question? Just because Martin doesn't have to answer doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean that Zimmerman is not allowed to ask. I'll give you another example. Not three or four weeks ago, I was pulling into the parking lot of the Boys and Girls Club where my son goes after school. I saw a younger guy run through the parking lot, darting in front of me, looking over his shoulder, with his hoodie up. He ran right by the club and down their side stairs. When I got out of my car, I noticed that he was hanging around to the side of the club. This is a place where occasionally cops have to bust up people from drinking and making drug trades -- and there are children in that building. I went inside and reported it to the workers there. They're all in their early twenties and that night all of them were young women. So, I went outside with two of them and the guy was hanging around the side. I asked him if he had a kid at the club. He said no. I asked what he was doing there, since kids were here and he had no business here. He started stammering, threw his hands up, and took off. At the base of those stairs were two other guys who took off running too. Did I have a right to ask them what the fuck they were doing there? YES. They could've said nothing. But I had a right and a reason to ask the question, even though I don't own the property.
There is a reason neighborhood watches are formed, and as other articles have mentioned, that neighborhood had experienced several burglaries fitting the age and race of Martin. Zimmerman had a right to ask just like any one of us has a right to ask questions. It's also consistent with what that gated community appointed him to do. There is absolutely nothing illegal about having a neighborhood watch. Frankly, the current incident aside, it's one of the best things that can happen to a community.
Also, I thought it would be obvious when I said paragraph directed at me that it would be the two paragraphs addressed at me.
No, what is disrespectful is trying to come up with the events to make one party look more at fault for what happened. Mostly, that it was the kid's fault. Which again, I have seen.
The problem with the stand-your-ground law is it is highly up to the claimer to use it and the only one who can actually defend themselves about it is usually dead or incapable of defending themselves. We have a law here in Georgia too that does the same thing. People are already trying to change it here in Georgia cause of the Martin case. However, dad has always told me it only applies in our home or my car. Technically, it doesn't. But it's what he told me.
Also, you can't tell me that there isn't a smear campaign going. You can't. It's a lie otherwise.
So the media would likewise be disrespectful by calling Zimmerman a white man who shot a black kid (knowing the turmoil that can cause) as well as calling him "self-appointed" -- right? I don't see investigating why Martin was in the neighborhood is a "smear campaign" and I find the fallacious false choice of "you're lying" or "it's a smear" to be problematic. The answer to why he was in the neighborhood when he didn't live there was because he had been suspended from school -- not for tardiness, but for having a baggie that had marijuana residue in it. Those facts in and of themselves don't make Martin less innocent. But there's nothing wrong with getting all the facts, including why he was there in the first place. There is nothing wrong with complete information -- and that is what we need to wait for before we jump to conclusions.
-
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/man-shot-florida-teen-fears-safety-supporters-053604303.html
This is what Yahoo news is saying about it, but keep in mind I suspect Yahoo is rapidly turning into Faux Jr...
Apparently Zimmerman is claiming now that he had given up the chase, and the kid approached him from behind.
I think people might have missed this since it was at the bottom of page 20...
I saw it. I'm just not sure what to make of it. Too many things are getting revised, added to, changed, etc. Best to see what the hell else gets revealed.
-
Any better descriptions on what exactly the 13 year old saw? I find it kinda hard to believe someone would see what they're saying they did, and promptly turn away in time for a gun to be shot.
Also, don't put the kid on a fucking cross people, he was still a kid and may well have done something stupid. None of it would make it worth shooting him, even if he had attacked someone twice his size out of, ironically, concern for his own life. But I doubt the kid was saint, particularly with that suspension he had going for him.
It's quite possible that he said or did something rash, but I'm not sure how a suspension for repeated tardiness can be construed to mean much of anything in regard to what happened that night.
Empty baggie of pot, not tardiness
My bad. I'd read that it was due to tardiness on a few sites, but it appears they were incorrect.
-
Since when is someone not within their rights to ask a question? Just because Martin doesn't have to answer doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean that Zimmerman is not allowed to ask. I'll give you another example. Not three or four weeks ago, I was pulling into the parking lot of the Boys and Girls Club where my son goes after school. I saw a younger guy run through the parking lot, darting in front of me, looking over his shoulder, with his hoodie up. He ran right by the club and down their side stairs. When I got out of my car, I noticed that he was hanging around to the side of the club. This is a place where occasionally cops have to bust up people from drinking and making drug trades -- and there are children in that building. I went inside and reported it to the workers there. They're all in their early twenties and that night all of them were young women. So, I went outside with two of them and the guy was hanging around the side. I asked him if he had a kid at the club. He said no. I asked what he was doing there, since kids were here and he had no business here. He started stammering, threw his hands up, and took off. At the base of those stairs were two other guys who took off running too. Did I have a right to ask them what the fuck they were doing there? YES. They could've said nothing. But I had a right and a reason to ask the question, even though I don't own the property.
There is a reason neighborhood watches are formed, and as other articles have mentioned, that neighborhood had experienced several burglaries fitting the age and race of Martin. Zimmerman had a right to ask just like any one of us has a right to ask questions. It's also consistent with what that gated community appointed him to do. There is absolutely nothing illegal about having a neighborhood watch. Frankly, the current incident aside, it's one of the best things that can happen to a community.
So the media would likewise be disrespectful by calling Zimmerman a white man who shot a black kid (knowing the turmoil that can cause) as well as calling him "self-appointed" -- right? I don't see investigating why Martin was in the neighborhood is a "smear campaign" and I find the fallacious false choice of "you're lying" or "it's a smear" to be problematic. The answer to why he was in the neighborhood when he didn't live there was because he had been suspended from school -- not for tardiness, but for having a baggie that had marijuana residue in it. Those facts in and of themselves don't make Martin less innocent. But there's nothing wrong with getting all the facts, including why he was there in the first place. There is nothing wrong with complete information -- and that is what we need to wait for before we jump to conclusions.
This....all of this.
I don't live in a gated community, but I so live near the end of a dead end street. If I see someone I've never seen before walking up and down my street I have every right to asked them who they are. Now I don't have to be mean and angry about it, but I can ask them.
-
I don't see investigating why Martin was in the neighborhood is a "smear campaign" and I find the fallacious false choice of "you're lying" or "it's a smear" to be problematic.
The smear campaign is not "why was he in the neighborhood?" but "he probably did drugs," "he looked like a gangsta," "he had gold teeth." (Yes, I have seen that as an excuse for why Zimmerman was afraid of him)
-
The smear campaign is not "why was he in the neighborhood?" but "he probably did drugs," "he looked like a gangsta," "he had gold teeth." (Yes, I have seen that as an excuse for why Zimmerman was afraid of him)
From Zimmerman? Most likely not, which means it is nothing but speculation.
-
The smear campaign is not "why was he in the neighborhood?" but "he probably did drugs," "he looked like a gangsta," "he had gold teeth." (Yes, I have seen that as an excuse for why Zimmerman was afraid of him)
From Zimmerman? Most likely not, which means it is nothing but speculation.
No, from people who are also saying, "He's not the angel everyone portrays him as. (http://jethroq.tumblr.com/post/19848333511/wretchedoftheearth-socialistictendencies)"
And if we're interested in getting all the facts, let's talk about how Zimmerman has been arrested three separate times and never charged. (http://rollingout.com/culture/george-zimmerman-son-of-a-retired-judge-has-3-closed-arrests/)
-
Oh look at this, Stormfront is posting fake pictures of Trayvon and claiming that they are real to discredit him and say his killing was "justified". http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/26/stormfront-deliberately-shows-wrong-photo-of-trayvon-martin-looking-gangsta-image/
Listen up racists, even if those pictures were real, it still doesn't justify killing him.
But I learned from right-wing bloggers (http://moonbattery.com/?p=9786#comments) that he WAS a "gangsta." Because he referred to himself as "nigga." That "implies gang membership." Ergo he deserved being shot, or something ::)
-
See the thing I keep coming back to is that none of this background stuff is relevant. Really the Sanford Police started it when they said in their reasons for not charging Zimmerman that: "he has a clean record" and "we respect his background". At the same time it is not relevant if Zimmerman had been arrested before or even charged or convicted.
Neither of which is relevant to whether the shooting was murder/manslaughter or self-defence. For the same reasons Martin's background is not relevant to whether it was murder/manslaughter or self-defence.
As Kit Walker said in the Worst Comics thread - "What is relevant is what they were doing that night".
I also agree that this should not be tried in the Media and as much information should be obtained without jumping to conclusions. However it seems to me that without the media this was a case that was NEVER going to be tried at all. And it should be. That's what people should be upset about that this wasn't even going to get to a jury until people started complaining about it in the media.
-
The man who has been constantly defending Zimmerman has admitted he didn't know Zimmerman that well at all. I can't find the link now but it's on MSNBC.
-
The man who has been constantly defending Zimmerman has admitted he didn't know Zimmerman that well at all. I can't find the link now but it's on MSNBC.
...so this case is officially a clusterfuck? (I believe that's the correct terminology.)
-
I would say so... *sigh*
-
The man who has been constantly defending Zimmerman has admitted he didn't know Zimmerman that well at all. I can't find the link now but it's on MSNBC.
...so this case is officially a clusterfuck? (I believe that's the correct terminology.)
LOL. Yeah, I think that's the one thing everyone can agree about in this case. :D
-
The smear campaign is not "why was he in the neighborhood?" but "he probably did drugs," "he looked like a gangsta," "he had gold teeth." (Yes, I have seen that as an excuse for why Zimmerman was afraid of him)
From Zimmerman? Most likely not, which means it is nothing but speculation.
No, from people who are also saying, "He's not the angel everyone portrays him as. (http://jethroq.tumblr.com/post/19848333511/wretchedoftheearth-socialistictendencies)"
And if we're interested in getting all the facts, let's talk about how Zimmerman has been arrested three separate times and never charged. (http://rollingout.com/culture/george-zimmerman-son-of-a-retired-judge-has-3-closed-arrests/)
One was pled down through a program, but the details of these things are sealed with an injunction right now. I'm sure more will come out later. As to the first link, if that's an example of what you're referring to, then sure, right wing bloggers are trying to smear him. The mainstream reports of why he was suspended, though, which was what I posted, makes no reference to gansters, gold teeth, or anything else that could be construed as smear tactics. One would assume those who frequent the sort of blog you posted are probably the kind who've already made up their minds. I wouldn't say that the general public is on those sites. They're getting their news through Yahoo, abcnews.com, etc. So in that sense, I don't find reporting the baggie to be a smear campaign.
-
See the thing I keep coming back to is that none of this background stuff is relevant. Really the Sanford Police started it when they said in their reasons for not charging Zimmerman that: "he has a clean record" and "we respect his background". At the same time it is not relevant if Zimmerman had been arrested before or even charged or convicted.
Neither of which is relevant to whether the shooting was murder/manslaughter or self-defence. For the same reasons Martin's background is not relevant to whether it was murder/manslaughter or self-defence.
As Kit Walker said in the Worst Comics thread - "What is relevant is what they were doing that night".
I also agree that this should not be tried in the Media and as much information should be obtained without jumping to conclusions. However it seems to me that without the media this was a case that was NEVER going to be tried at all. And it should be. That's what people should be upset about that this wasn't even going to get to a jury until people started complaining about it in the media.
The backgrounds are marginally important if only because there are no reliable witnesses of the actual event. Thus we have to use available evidence based on personality and background to figure out the most likely scenario. The fact that Zimmerman seems to have a history of causing trouble lends precedence to the notion that he started the confrontation. However, similar background checks need to be made about Martin because it could imply that he started that confrontation and thus Zimmerman was "justified" in his self-defense.
However, you are right in one thing though, I doubt anything would have happened if the media did not step up and cause a stink. I doubt this would have seen justice and to make it worse those within the police department that were happy to just ignore this case would still be free and unchallenged to ignore other cases. Even if Zimmerman is found to be innocent of murder gets off free on self-defense, the fact that the federal government is looking into the conduct of the police department is a good thing.
Unfortunately the media is becoming clogged with lies, opini9ons and falsities. An example is how fox news went on a pro9longed rant about how Martin could have been suspended for everything from theft to fighting. The different media sources are picking sides and that is a problem, they are negatively affecting public opinion and may affect the juries decision when this does go to court.
-
See the thing I keep coming back to is that none of this background stuff is relevant. Really the Sanford Police started it when they said in their reasons for not charging Zimmerman that: "he has a clean record" and "we respect his background". At the same time it is not relevant if Zimmerman had been arrested before or even charged or convicted.
Neither of which is relevant to whether the shooting was murder/manslaughter or self-defence. For the same reasons Martin's background is not relevant to whether it was murder/manslaughter or self-defence.
As Kit Walker said in the Worst Comics thread - "What is relevant is what they were doing that night".
I also agree that this should not be tried in the Media and as much information should be obtained without jumping to conclusions. However it seems to me that without the media this was a case that was NEVER going to be tried at all. And it should be. That's what people should be upset about that this wasn't even going to get to a jury until people started complaining about it in the media.
The backgrounds are marginally important if only because there are no reliable witnesses of the actual event. Thus we have to use available evidence based on personality and background to figure out the most likely scenario. The fact that Zimmerman seems to have a history of causing trouble lends precedence to the notion that he started the confrontation. However, similar background checks need to be made about Martin because it could imply that he started that confrontation and thus Zimmerman was "justified" in his self-defense.
No the backgrounds are of not even marginal importance. They are far more prejudicial than they are probatative. That is why previous convictions are inadmissable in Court (prior to conviction). Moreover the good or bad character of either doesn't make any of the possible outcomes inherently more or less likely. This was a single event. Not a series of events.
But you know what as far as I am concerned it would have been appropriate to charge and try Zimmerman on his own version of events as it seems to me:
I saw suspicious guy.
Called police.
Guy Ran.
I chased him.
Confronted guy.
He attacked me.
I Shot him.
Shot person was unarmed.
For me I would charge him with murder (manslaughter at least here is an alternative verdict) and let the jury decide on self defence. You know let the jury do what it is there for.
-
Also just saw this on the Daily Show his lawyer refused to show up for an interview
-
Also, don't put the kid on a fucking cross people, he was still a kid and may well have done something stupid. None of it would make it worth shooting him, even if he had attacked someone twice his size out of, ironically, concern for his own life. But I doubt the kid was saint, particularly with that suspension he had going for him.
The bolded is the only part that's important in this entire paragraph.
Aside from pointing out the kid didn't posess a fucking halo like a number of people here are implying. At the very least the twat that shot him deserves manslaughter.
And just how damn hard is it to get the statement he gave to police released anyway? They did get one right? Before he had time to start remembering his way to victimhood?
-
Sanford police recommended charging Zimmerman with Martin's death, but chief claimed 'no probable cause (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/28/453675/sanford-police-recommended-charging-zimmerman-with-martins-death/)
The Miami Herald reports that the Sanford Police Department, at the conclusion of its Trayvon Martin investigation, recommended that the prosecutor file charges against the shooter George Zimmerman. Angela Corey, the special prosecutor now assigned to the case, confirmed the report:
“As far as the process I can tell you that the police went to the state attorney with a capias* request, meaning: ‘We’re through with our investigation and here it is for you.’ The state attorney impaneled a grand jury, but before anything else could be done, the governor stepped in and asked us to pick it up in mid-stream.”
*A capias is a request for charges to be filed.
-
Also, don't put the kid on a fucking cross people, he was still a kid and may well have done something stupid. None of it would make it worth shooting him, even if he had attacked someone twice his size out of, ironically, concern for his own life. But I doubt the kid was saint, particularly with that suspension he had going for him.
The bolded is the only part that's important in this entire paragraph.
Aside from pointing out the kid didn't posess a fucking halo like a number of people here are implying.
Really though what 17-year old is a complete angel? I sure as hell wasn't. But if the worst he did was get suspended from school and get caught with weed and a screwdriver in his backpack, he's still better than a lot of teens I know.
-
Wait, who's making the kid out to be a saint?
Aside from the conservative dumbheads erecting liberal strawmen, that is.
-
Aside from being untrue, this conservative smear campaign is such a stupid argument. So what if he wasn't the 'perfect' teenager? So what if he might have tried pot once? You swear like every no other "good" teens do the same. It still doesn't mean you can kill him. I guess the next time I walk to 7 Eleven in a hoodie because it's cold I can expect to be fucking shot and then ignored by the police.
-
Wanna see proof Zimmerman was bloodied and bruised by Martin:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-zimmerman-police-surveillance-16024475 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-zimmerman-police-surveillance-16024475)
This link ain't it. He was fine upon arriving at the cop house.
-
Wanna see proof Zimmerman was bloodied and bruised by Martin:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-zimmerman-police-surveillance-16024475 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-zimmerman-police-surveillance-16024475)
This link ain't it. He was fine upon arriving at the cop house.
Oh, Zimmerman, Zimmerman, Zimmerman.
(http://mangable.com/files/images/www_you_are_so_busted_com/1/2.jpg)
-
Wanna see proof Zimmerman was bloodied and bruised by Martin:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-zimmerman-police-surveillance-16024475 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-zimmerman-police-surveillance-16024475)
This link ain't it. He was fine upon arriving at the cop house.
I can't see any blood or injuries at all. Also, I thought he was fatter.
-
Wanna see proof Zimmerman was bloodied and bruised by Martin:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-zimmerman-police-surveillance-16024475 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-zimmerman-police-surveillance-16024475)
This link ain't it. He was fine upon arriving at the cop house.
Damn was just about to post that. Someone's pants are on fire.
-
(http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/pinocchio.jpg)
-
Many articles do say he was given first aid in the cop car at the scene, obviously prior to this video. The question would obviously then be how much first aid was rendered in the cop car, which might be hard to determine given police mishandling of the whole incident.
-
That's a lot of fucking first aid cause I"m not seeing a speck of blood on his shirt.
Ironbite-like...at all.
-
I admit, he does not look roughed up in that video. However, that video is not very detailed nor does the camera get a great look at him. A wet nap could clean up a bloody nose and if his jacket had been closed at the time of the fight, it could hide any drops of blood on video that quality. Or he could simply not be roughed up at all. I'm not prepared to take a low resolution video on a fixed angle as total refutation of his claims.
On the other hand, (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57405716-504083/trayvon-martin-lead-investigator-wanted-george-zimmerman-arrested-the-night-of-the-fatal-shooting/) I saw this on AOL news today:
(CBS) SANFORD, Fla. - The lead investigator probing the deadly shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin wanted neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman arrested and charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, ABC News reports.
Investigator Chris Serino of the Sanford, Fla. Police Department wanted the 28-year-old Zimmerman behind bars, but the state Attorney's Office said there was not enough evidence to lead to a conviction, sources told ABC.
The New York Daily News reports Serino was uncertain of Zimmerman's account of how the Feb. 26 incident with Martin played out.
-
I admit, he does not look roughed up in that video. However, that video is not very detailed nor does the camera get a great look at him. A wet nap could clean up a bloody nose and if his jacket had been closed at the time of the fight, it could hide any drops of blood on video that quality. Or he could simply not be roughed up at all. I'm not prepared to take a low resolution video on a fixed angle as total refutation of his claims.
On the other hand, (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57405716-504083/trayvon-martin-lead-investigator-wanted-george-zimmerman-arrested-the-night-of-the-fatal-shooting/) I saw this on AOL news today:
(CBS) SANFORD, Fla. - The lead investigator probing the deadly shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin wanted neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman arrested and charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, ABC News reports.
Investigator Chris Serino of the Sanford, Fla. Police Department wanted the 28-year-old Zimmerman behind bars, but the state Attorney's Office said there was not enough evidence to lead to a conviction, sources told ABC.
The New York Daily News reports Serino was uncertain of Zimmerman's account of how the Feb. 26 incident with Martin played out.
It looks detailed enough there would have been a lot more blood
-
That's a lot of fucking first aid cause I"m not seeing a speck of blood on his shirt.
Ironbite-like...at all.
Well, the video is not good enough to show specks, lol, but yeah that's exactly why it raises the question. If they gave him minimal first aid, especially since I don't remember seeing anywhere that an EMT treated him or something, then it stands to reason he probably had minimal injuries (if any) as well.
-
It looks detailed enough there would have been a lot more blood
I confess, I've never seen a nose bloodied by violence but...does it really have to be gushing blood? If his defense is true (seems unlikely, of course) and Tayvon was on top of him, couldn't he have prevented himself from bleeding all over his shirt when he stood up? I honestly don't know.
I do rather hate when people try cases in the court of public opinion, so I'm kind of biased towards "howzabout we wait for his lawyer to present a case in court before we call his whole story bullshit?"
-
It looks detailed enough there would have been a lot more blood
I confess, I've never seen a nose bloodied by violence but...does it really have to be gushing blood? If his defense is true (seems unlikely, of course) and Tayvon was on top of him, couldn't he have prevented himself from bleeding all over his shirt when he stood up? I honestly don't know.
I do rather hate when people try cases in the court of public opinion, so I'm kind of biased towards "howzabout we wait for his lawyer to present a case in court before we call his whole story bullshit?"
It wasnt in a fight but I did break or severely samage my nose in a skiing accident and yeah there was a fair bitt of blood also amnesia from blacking out
-
I admit, he does not look roughed up in that video. However, that video is not very detailed nor does the camera get a great look at him. A wet nap could clean up a bloody nose and if his jacket had been closed at the time of the fight, it could hide any drops of blood on video that quality. Or he could simply not be roughed up at all. I'm not prepared to take a low resolution video on a fixed angle as total refutation of his claims.
On the other hand, (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57405716-504083/trayvon-martin-lead-investigator-wanted-george-zimmerman-arrested-the-night-of-the-fatal-shooting/) I saw this on AOL news today:
(CBS) SANFORD, Fla. - The lead investigator probing the deadly shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin wanted neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman arrested and charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, ABC News reports.
Investigator Chris Serino of the Sanford, Fla. Police Department wanted the 28-year-old Zimmerman behind bars, but the state Attorney's Office said there was not enough evidence to lead to a conviction, sources told ABC.
The New York Daily News reports Serino was uncertain of Zimmerman's account of how the Feb. 26 incident with Martin played out.
Oh wow, no way, so what some people have listed as reasons not to go apeshit over not being charged from the get go are true...who'da thunk?
-
I admit, he does not look roughed up in that video. However, that video is not very detailed nor does the camera get a great look at him. A wet nap could clean up a bloody nose and if his jacket had been closed at the time of the fight, it could hide any drops of blood on video that quality. Or he could simply not be roughed up at all. I'm not prepared to take a low resolution video on a fixed angle as total refutation of his claims.
On the other hand, (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57405716-504083/trayvon-martin-lead-investigator-wanted-george-zimmerman-arrested-the-night-of-the-fatal-shooting/) I saw this on AOL news today:
(CBS) SANFORD, Fla. - The lead investigator probing the deadly shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin wanted neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman arrested and charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, ABC News reports.
Investigator Chris Serino of the Sanford, Fla. Police Department wanted the 28-year-old Zimmerman behind bars, but the state Attorney's Office said there was not enough evidence to lead to a conviction, sources told ABC.
The New York Daily News reports Serino was uncertain of Zimmerman's account of how the Feb. 26 incident with Martin played out.
I already posted about that link... on the previous page.
-
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-shooting-debate-over-photos-escalates-155103512.html
Don't know if anyone's interested, but I thought I'd post it anyway. People are complaining about the use of photo's by the media.
-
Zimmerman's father also insists Trayvon was never on phone w/girlfriend, even though call logs prove he was: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-6CA3JZmsk
-
It looks detailed enough there would have been a lot more blood
I confess, I've never seen a nose bloodied by violence but...does it really have to be gushing blood? If his defense is true (seems unlikely, of course) and Tayvon was on top of him, couldn't he have prevented himself from bleeding all over his shirt when he stood up? I honestly don't know.
I do rather hate when people try cases in the court of public opinion, so I'm kind of biased towards "howzabout we wait for his lawyer to present a case in court before we call his whole story bullshit?"
If he'd been in a fight, a real fight, a fight worthy of pulling a gun, he'd have some fairly distinctive pre-brusing marks. Hell, by the time they'd take his mug shot they'd probably have brusied up. But the mug shot only covers the face. Hell, his clothes should be a little fucked up at least. I've seen 30 second scuffles leave someone more screwed up than he looks there.
If he had any cuts on his head he'd be bleeding like a stuck pig, any significant cuts and he'd have been in need of medical attention to stop the bleeding before it could become a problem. He did claim some serious damage there, and a wet nap isn't going to clean up the mess of a serious cut for very long.
-
Aside from being untrue, this conservative smear campaign is such a stupid argument. So what if he wasn't the 'perfect' teenager? So what if he might have tried pot once? You swear like every no other "good" teens do the same. It still doesn't mean you can kill him. I guess the next time I walk to 7 Eleven in a hoodie because it's cold I can expect to be fucking shot and then ignored by the police.
And for shits and giggles, my point was you can't react to anything negative said about someone as it's a complete lie. Which is roughly what's happened here repeatedly. Regardless of how anyone attempted to phrase a response to the posts.
I don't think anyone here thinks the kid actually did anything to deserve to be shot, but declaring a smear campaign because someone points out that the kid had done a few legitimately dumb things in the past is overkill. Aside from the points where they actually are, like the stormfront/limbaugh class bullshit.
-
Let's also not forget that when he gets out of the cruiser he's walking fine, his shirt is tucked in and he's hanging his head down.
Anyone been in a fight? A tucked in shirt doesn't stay that way. Had a broken nose? If you have, did you ever once think it would be a good idea to keep your eyes on the ground and not the sky?
Also, anyone else notice the cops handling him aren't wearing gloves?
-
Well I will be fair here. Getting a bloody nose in a fight heals really quickly, unless his nose was broken in which case the bleeding stops relatively quickly but you have a very nasty blue green bruise around your nose bridge. As for the injury to the back of his head, that is trickier. I have injured the back of my head a number of times on simple things like merely bumping into a sharp doorknob by accident. You bleed like a stuck pig. All of those minor injuries required stitches and bled like crazy. Simple first aid would not be sufficient for a minor head wound. There are t0o many closely packed blood vessels around the head that just spew blood when you get cut there.
-
Not to mention with a nose break he would be fighting to stop bleeding
-
Also, anyone else notice the cops handling him aren't wearing gloves?
Just realized the significance of this. For those who don't watch cop shows, generally speaking cops will handle bleeding suspects, or much of anyone bleeding, with gloves out of concern for blood borne diseases. May not mean much as it's not a universal thing, but I don't know many cops who'd lead a bleeding suspect around by the hand without them. I also don't know many cops, which could explain it.
-
Oh, aye. The glove thing. Even when we were doing fake crime scenes we were ordered to wear gloves (I had to bring my own by virtue of being allergic to latex, whoooo). But... that's just my one experience and it might be different down in Florida. I don't know their regulations but I would think it might be universal at least in the US to protect yourself from bleeding suspects. Even tight budgets should be able to get you gloves.
-
Well I will be fair here. Getting a bloody nose in a fight heals really quickly, unless his nose was broken in which case the bleeding stops relatively quickly but you have a very nasty blue green bruise around your nose bridge. As for the injury to the back of his head, that is trickier. I have injured the back of my head a number of times on simple things like merely bumping into a sharp doorknob by accident. You bleed like a stuck pig. All of those minor injuries required stitches and bled like crazy. Simple first aid would not be sufficient for a minor head wound. There are t0o many closely packed blood vessels around the head that just spew blood when you get cut there.
I'm not too quick to call on that. While he would bleed a lot from it, many cuts to the head get treated with a bead of medical super glue now days. Had it done to me a year back when I gashed my head on a box dumper at work. Looked like someone was shot and dragged to the first aid office, but a shot of super glue later and a trip to the medical office for a drug test and I was back at work
-
Zimmerman's weapon was illegally owned thanks to Domestic Violence charge (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/29/zimmermannofzinger-fix-now-a-fact/)
Big article, worth the read, tho.
-
Shane: You'd think with a Stand your Ground/Castle Doctrine law, Florida would do a better job with its background checks. And with that revelation, he might well get thrown under the bus (deservedly so, if the facts are of any indication).
That said, the biggest reason for the case should be to get the facts to light. What bothers me the most is that it took weeks to get a proper investigation going, so a lot of the evidence we might normally see isn't there. The Sanford PD could have saved itself a lot of grief if they had investigated the situation properly instead of trying to sweep it under the rug.
-
Shane: You'd think with a Stand your Ground/Castle Doctrine law, Florida would do a better job with its background checks. And with that revelation, he might well get thrown under the bus (deservedly so, if the facts are of any indication).
That said, the biggest reason for the case should be to get the facts to light. What bothers me the most is that it took weeks to get a proper investigation going, so a lot of the evidence we might normally see isn't there. The Sanford PD could have saved itself a lot of grief if they had investigated the situation properly instead of trying to sweep it under the rug.
I'm no expert on law, but unless he's brought to trial along with charges of owning an illegal weapon, it won't have any effect on the case.
-
Shane: You'd think with a Stand your Ground/Castle Doctrine law, Florida would do a better job with its background checks. And with that revelation, he might well get thrown under the bus (deservedly so, if the facts are of any indication).
That said, the biggest reason for the case should be to get the facts to light. What bothers me the most is that it took weeks to get a proper investigation going, so a lot of the evidence we might normally see isn't there. The Sanford PD could have saved itself a lot of grief if they had investigated the situation properly instead of trying to sweep it under the rug.
You might have missed the fact that the lead investigator wanted to charge Zimmerman but was told not to by the State Attorney. That makes it hard to blame the police.
-
Shane: You'd think with a Stand your Ground/Castle Doctrine law, Florida would do a better job with its background checks. And with that revelation, he might well get thrown under the bus (deservedly so, if the facts are of any indication).
That said, the biggest reason for the case should be to get the facts to light. What bothers me the most is that it took weeks to get a proper investigation going, so a lot of the evidence we might normally see isn't there. The Sanford PD could have saved itself a lot of grief if they had investigated the situation properly instead of trying to sweep it under the rug.
You might have missed the fact that the lead investigator wanted to charge Zimmerman but was told not to by the State Attorney. That makes it hard to blame the police.
Thats only one cop but now that you mention it why not charge him save us all some grief
-
Thats only one cop but now that you mention it why not charge him save us all some grief
I think that very argument was used a bunch of time in this tread when people were saying that the police department was corrupt since a witness may have had her story changed.
It was only one cop, but it was the lead investigator, the one that has the say. He consulted with the State Attorney who said no.
They could charge him now. The Special Prosecutor is convening a Grand Jury to present evident to. So it is likely he will be charged after that. You also have to remember that after someone is arrested the prosecution may not have a lot of time to gather more evidence. The cases that take a long time to go to court are the ones were the defendant waves their right to a speedy trial. There is no guarantee Zimmerman would do this.
-
Forensic experts: It wasn't George Zimmerman's screams you heard. (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/01/forensic-experts-say-it-wasnt-zimmerman-screaming-for-help-audio/)
-
Dear Zimmerman,
(http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2010/07/Antoine-Dodson-Dumb.gif)
-
Dear Zimmerman,
(http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2010/07/Antoine-Dodson-Dumb.gif)
Is it wrong that this made me laugh more than it should've?
-
Yes...yes it is.
Ironbite-I'll save you a seat in hell.
-
Many articles do say he was given first aid in the cop car at the scene, obviously prior to this video. The question would obviously then be how much first aid was rendered in the cop car, which might be hard to determine given police mishandling of the whole incident.
Did they also give him a new shirt to wear?
I've had blood stains on clothing before. They are not easy to get out.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/nbc-news-regrets-editing-trayvon-shooting-call-220720073.html (http://news.yahoo.com/nbc-news-regrets-editing-trayvon-shooting-call-220720073.html)
I'm glad they've owned up to the error, tho once it's run in the media, you can't exactly take that back. :-/
-
Wait, Fox News is the one that found the factual error? Are we in some kind of bizzaro universe or something?
-
Wait, Fox News is the one that found the factual error? Are we in some kind of bizzaro universe or something?
Well there was that one time Bill O Riley called birthers idiots.
-
Wait, Fox News is the one that found the factual error? Are we in some kind of bizzaro universe or something?
Well there was that one time Bill O Riley called birthers idiots.
And defended JCPenney during the Ellen DeGeneres thing.
And the time Sean Hannity told off Shirley Phelps.
-
Wait, Fox News is the one that found the factual error? Are we in some kind of bizzaro universe or something?
While some Fox News pundits have done reasonable things, I should point that this particular factual error neatly fits into the "racism isn't a real problem, liberals play it up and therefore actually cause it, and therefore the Trayvon Martin shooting must have had some other cause" narrative the network is putting together.
-
Wait, Fox News is the one that found the factual error? Are we in some kind of bizzaro universe or something?
Even a broken clock is right once a day...
-
Wait, Fox News is the one that found the factual error? Are we in some kind of bizzaro universe or something?
Even a broken clock is right once a day...
Even a broken calendar is right once every fourteen years or so on average~
-
Wait, Fox News is the one that found the factual error? Are we in some kind of bizzaro universe or something?
While some Fox News pundits have done reasonable things, I should point that this particular factual error neatly fits into the "racism isn't a real problem, liberals play it up and therefore actually cause it, and therefore the Trayvon Martin shooting must have had some other cause" narrative the network is putting together.
Maybe so, but my link doesn't come from Fox News. It's also an indication of how media can sometimes make a problem worse by selectively presenting material in a way that makes for a better story. That's really its main point. I keep forgetting that plenty of other media outlets do this frequently. :-/
-
Wait, Fox News is the one that found the factual error? Are we in some kind of bizzaro universe or something?
While some Fox News pundits have done reasonable things, I should point that this particular factual error neatly fits into the "racism isn't a real problem, liberals play it up and therefore actually cause it, and therefore the Trayvon Martin shooting must have had some other cause" narrative the network is putting together.
Maybe so, but my link doesn't come from Fox News. It's also an indication of how media can sometimes make a problem worse by selectively presenting material in a way that makes for a better story. That's really its main point. I keep forgetting that plenty of other media outlets do this frequently. :-/
No, you don't say...
Classic case i remember from high school history was how the press riled everyone into a frothing frenzy over Cuba back in the late 1890's...there was a little skirmish as a result
-
Someone hacked a sign and had it display a slur against Trayvon (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/09/11102214-racial-slur-on-mich-road-sign-targets-trayvon-martin?lite&ocid=todmsnbc11)
-
Someone hacked a sign and had it display a slur against Trayvon (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/09/11102214-racial-slur-on-mich-road-sign-targets-trayvon-martin?lite&ocid=todmsnbc11)
I'm disgusted...but not shocked. The Detroit metropolitan area is segregated and racially tense as all hell (with plenty of blame (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20090301/OPINION03/903010308) to go around).
-
anyone think between this and Tulsa that someone is trying to start a race war?
-
anyone think between this and Tulsa that someone is trying to start a race war?
Did someone say "race war?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHCQA1EJiC0
-
Someone hacked a sign and had it display a slur against Trayvon (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/09/11102214-racial-slur-on-mich-road-sign-targets-trayvon-martin?lite&ocid=todmsnbc11)
I'm disgusted...but not shocked. The Detroit metropolitan area is segregated and racially tense as all hell (with plenty of blame (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20090301/OPINION03/903010308) to go around).
Yeah, if you look at a map of Detroit, there is almost a clear racial divide.
-
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/prosecutor-says-she-wont-trayvon-martin-death-grand-160410903.html
There will be no grand jury, so for sure Zimmerman will not be charged with First Degree Murder, but he could still get charged with manslaughter.
-
Zimmerman post a website patting his back and asking for donations (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/09/461201/breaking-george-zimmerman-launches-website-features-vandalized-black-cultural-center/). He also thinks racist vandalism is a-okay because they support him. That's a real great way to make yourself look good. ::)
-
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/prosecutor-says-she-wont-trayvon-martin-death-grand-160410903.html
There will be no grand jury, so for sure Zimmerman will not be charged with First Degree Murder, but he could still get charged with manslaughter.
Who knows maybe they'll announce they'll go for murder but spend more time investigating. However if man 1 my best advice to avoid the inevitable racist juror who will vote not guilty no matter what I would suggest Man 2 plea bargin
-
Zimmerman post a website patting his back and asking for donations (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/09/461201/breaking-george-zimmerman-launches-website-features-vandalized-black-cultural-center/). He also thinks racist vandalism is a-okay because they support him. That's a real great way to make yourself look good. ::)
Zimmerman fails at public relations forever.
-
And there will be no justice whatsoever for this kid.
Ironbite-WAY TO FAIL FLORIDA!
-
Someone hacked a sign and had it display a slur against Trayvon (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/09/11102214-racial-slur-on-mich-road-sign-targets-trayvon-martin?lite&ocid=todmsnbc11)
I'm disgusted...but not shocked. The Detroit metropolitan area is segregated and racially tense as all hell (with plenty of blame (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20090301/OPINION03/903010308) to go around).
Or more likely it's just someone trolling for a laugh.
These signs get hacked all the time.
-
And now his legal team has withdrawn their counsel. (http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/11825300-418/george-zimmermans-lawyers-withdraw-from-trayvon-martin-shooting-case.html)
-
And now his legal team has withdrawn their counsel. (http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/11825300-418/george-zimmermans-lawyers-withdraw-from-trayvon-martin-shooting-case.html)
It's pretty obvious by now that Zimmerman is a dumbass who fails at planning. If he doesn't get convicted I'm gonna smack a bitch. I wonder if this means that Martin's team can ramp up the charges again to murder?
-
And now his legal team has withdrawn their counsel. (http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/11825300-418/george-zimmermans-lawyers-withdraw-from-trayvon-martin-shooting-case.html)
even the lawyers smell a sinking ship. i try to stay out of this story because it brings out the worst in people i talk to (i work in the sanford area, shit is tense). i watched the press conference his lawyers had today, basically they said without saying that zimmerman is a total mess, and is getting desperate.
-
speshuled67: You be careful out there, man. If what I've heard is any indication, you can cut the tension with a knife out there.
That said, I think the lawyers withdrew because the man wasn't on the level with them. If your life is on the line, you TELL YOUR LAWYER THE TRUTH. Lying to your attorney is a very good way to lose their services, and anyone who represents themselves has a fool for a client. I think the lawyers figured they had a fool for a client.
I'm more "let the courts sort it out."
-
speshuled67: You be careful out there, man. If what I've heard is any indication, you can cut the tension with a knife out there.
i work a block or two away from the courthouse, i feel pretty safe. i live about 15 miles away in a nice orlando suburb where a guy can walk around at night without getting shot, so im ok.
-
speshuled67: You be careful out there, man. If what I've heard is any indication, you can cut the tension with a knife out there.
That said, I think the lawyers withdrew because the man wasn't on the level with them. If your life is on the line, you TELL YOUR LAWYER THE TRUTH. Lying to your attorney is a very good way to lose their services, and anyone who represents themselves has a fool for a client. I think the lawyers figured they had a fool for a client.
I'm more "let the courts sort it out."
For perspective he called Sean Hannity without talking to lawyers
-
kefkaownsall: If the court does move forward, they may want to see if he's competent to stand trial. His actions of late speak of someone who may well be a few cards short of a full deck.
-
Have they actually found Zimmerman again?
-
And now his legal team has withdrawn their counsel. (http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/11825300-418/george-zimmermans-lawyers-withdraw-from-trayvon-martin-shooting-case.html)
It's pretty obvious by now that Zimmerman is a dumbass who fails at planning. If he doesn't get convicted I'm gonna smack a bitch. I wonder if this means that Martin's team can ramp up the charges again to murder?
I doubt it, given that Martin's "team" is the District Attorney, and will only charge Zimmerman with what they feel they can prove based on the evidence they actually have, etc. It's not like his parents or supporters can bring murder charges against Zimmerman, they can only ask the police, etc. to get involved. When a defense suspect drops counsel (or counsel drops them), that does little to change what the D.A. was already in the process of bringing against Zimmerman. After all, client-attorney privilege means they can't exactly depose the former lawyers to see what Zimmerman might've said to them. So it probably just means that Zimmerman's counsel felt that he wasn't being truthful with them and/or they didn't want this case on their reputation.
*Special prosecutor, sorry, not D.A.
-
The attorneys can be charged with obstruction of justice all things considered, though. You know since they lost track of where he is and lied about knowing where he was.
-
It's against the law for them to lose track of him? So if any lawyer's client goes into hiding without telling them, the lawyer can be charged with obstruction of justice?
-
It's against the law for them to lose track of him? So if any lawyer's client goes into hiding without telling them, the lawyer can be charged with obstruction of justice?
The thing is that the lawyers know where he is
-
I missed that part of the article -- I thought it said they dumped him in part because he went missing and wouldn't return their phone calls, etc.? I've read a few other things online that say basically the same thing. How do we know they actually know where he is? I missed that part.
-
It's not that they lost track of him, it's that they lied about losing track of him at first.
-
I'm not trying to be thick, but I didn't catch that part in the article either. How do they know they lied?
-
Welp....they're charging him.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57412535/zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-case/
Ironbite-not sure if he is gonna go to jail though.
-
According to this
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/11/breaking-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-wake-of-trayvon-martin-killing/
He's not even in Florida anymore.
-
According to this
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/11/breaking-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-wake-of-trayvon-martin-killing/
He's not even in Florida anymore.
Fucking goons, they always get away :P
-
zimmerman is in custody. will be charged with 2nd degree murder.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/11837470-418/official-zimmerman-in-custody-to-be-charged-in-teens-shooting.html
the news helicopters are everywhere above my office. everybody is gonna take a break to watch the press conference.
-
zimmerman is in custody. will be charged with 2nd degree murder.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/11837470-418/official-zimmerman-in-custody-to-be-charged-in-teens-shooting.html
the news helicopters are everywhere above my office. everybody is gonna take a break to watch the press conference.
W00t!
-
I'm not trying to be thick, but I didn't catch that part in the article either. How do they know they lied?
Might be because it wasn't in that article... >_> Because I was updating based on live video and thus there wasn't a link. But, here you go (http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/04/george_zimmerman_dropped_by_hi.php).
Craig Sonner and Hal Uhrig, Zimmerman's now-former attorneys, say they have "a pretty good idea where he is" but aren't quite sure because he hasn't answered the phone in two days.
Then later they said 'we haven't heard from him in days' (more than two). Linkie (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/10/462013/where-is-george-zimmerman/).
How can you know where he is one day then lose track of him the next? Then they don't even bother telling anyone that they've lost contact with him until multiple days after he's been able to get quite far from Florida? Obstruction of justice, please with a side salad.
-
Maybe I just have yet to lose all faith in humanity, but I really hope that this prompts Floridians to pressure their legislators to get rid of the Stand Your Ground law. Or if nothing else, that it gets the validity of the law called into question and maybe the federal government will do something about it, if there's anything they can do.
I'm a Floridian and I want the law. Because it can be proven to be good in cases like this (http://forums.fstdt.net/politics-and-government/victim-of-bullying-finally-wins/).
-
Maybe I just have yet to lose all faith in humanity, but I really hope that this prompts Floridians to pressure their legislators to get rid of the Stand Your Ground law. Or if nothing else, that it gets the validity of the law called into question and maybe the federal government will do something about it, if there's anything they can do.
I'm a Floridian and I want the law. Because it can be proven to be good in cases like this (http://forums.fstdt.net/politics-and-government/victim-of-bullying-finally-wins/).
That's kind of the issue though. In that case, the kid repeatedly tried to avoid the confrontation, but was chased down. It was justified in every way.
In this case here, the killer actively chased down his target, and may still get off on a plea of self-defense.
-
I'm not trying to be thick, but I didn't catch that part in the article either. How do they know they lied?
Might be because it wasn't in that article... >_> Because I was updating based on live video and thus there wasn't a link. But, here you go (http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/04/george_zimmerman_dropped_by_hi.php).
Craig Sonner and Hal Uhrig, Zimmerman's now-former attorneys, say they have "a pretty good idea where he is" but aren't quite sure because he hasn't answered the phone in two days.
Then later they said 'we haven't heard from him in days' (more than two). Linkie (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/10/462013/where-is-george-zimmerman/).
How can you know where he is one day then lose track of him the next? Then they don't even bother telling anyone that they've lost contact with him until multiple days after he's been able to get quite far from Florida? Obstruction of justice, please with a side salad.
Personally, I think you're reading into this -- hard. One could just as easily say that not answering the phone in two days and losing all contact with him for more than two days could be mutually exclusive. One does not invalidate the other. Or, one could just as easily say that charging someone with obstruction of justice when they said "days" instead of "a couple of days" is absolutely ludicrous.
What is the reasonable expectation that these lawyers are supposed to keep track of Zimmerman 100% of the time or they should be charged with obstruction of justice or accused of lying? I'm not sure how it's unreasonable to assume once they realized he was busy contacting Sean Hannity and not listening to their instructions (like not contacting the prosecutor), they decided to simply drop him as a client, and that was that. Other articles (including a previously linked one) even indicate that the police basically knew where Zimmerman could be picked up at any time. And since that is exactly what they just did when they settled on what they were going to charge him with, I'm not sure grasping at the sort of straws your comment implies in order to accuse the lawyers of lying or obstruction is in any way justified. You seem to be implying that the lawyers were buying time so Zimmerman could flee from justice. If that were the case, there would be a manhunt right now instead of someone who swiftly went into custody. I'll wait for better proof besides the use of "days" in a statement before I'm willing to believe they're guilty of obstruction of justice.
-
Maybe I just have yet to lose all faith in humanity, but I really hope that this prompts Floridians to pressure their legislators to get rid of the Stand Your Ground law. Or if nothing else, that it gets the validity of the law called into question and maybe the federal government will do something about it, if there's anything they can do.
I'm a Floridian and I want the law. Because it can be proven to be good in cases like this (http://forums.fstdt.net/politics-and-government/victim-of-bullying-finally-wins/).
Maybe I just have yet to lose all faith in humanity, but I really hope that this prompts Floridians to pressure their legislators to get rid of the Stand Your Ground law. Or if nothing else, that it gets the validity of the law called into question and maybe the federal government will do something about it, if there's anything they can do.
I'm a Floridian and I want the law. Because it can be proven to be good in cases like this (http://forums.fstdt.net/politics-and-government/victim-of-bullying-finally-wins/).
That's kind of the issue though. In that case, the kid repeatedly tried to avoid the confrontation, but was chased down. It was justified in every way.
In this case here, the killer actively chased down his target, and may still get off on a plea of self-defense.
That's why I say they need to fix the law rather than outright scrap it. It has the potential and has done good. People were glad. Now it's been abused to possibly let some guilty fucker off, everyone rages against said law and demand it be tossed.
Personally, myself, don't think he's going to be found innocent of anything because he escalated the problem by not only chasing, but confronting the dude. Self defense is one thing, egging it on is completely different.
-
Maybe I just have yet to lose all faith in humanity, but I really hope that this prompts Floridians to pressure their legislators to get rid of the Stand Your Ground law. Or if nothing else, that it gets the validity of the law called into question and maybe the federal government will do something about it, if there's anything they can do.
I'm a Floridian and I want the law. Because it can be proven to be good in cases like this (http://forums.fstdt.net/politics-and-government/victim-of-bullying-finally-wins/).
Then it needs to be fixed so that things like that happen, while things like this don't happen.
Law's kinda borked as it stands.
-
Not sure if I should post this here or in the best political cartoons, but ...
(http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/102/f/9/neighborhood_watchog_by_jhallpokemon-d4vyr22.jpg)
-
Not sure if I should post this here or in the best political cartoons, but ...
(http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/102/f/9/neighborhood_watchog_by_jhallpokemon-d4vyr22.jpg)
Scafty can take it (seriously the lizard has great defense)
-
Scafty can take it (seriously the lizard has great defense)
Well, Scrafty is intimidating (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Intimidate) in that hoodie
-
Scafty can take it (seriously the lizard has great defense)
Well, Scrafty is intimidating (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Intimidate) in that hoodie
Crap, my attack fell one rank!
-
Scafty can take it (seriously the lizard has great defense)
Well, Scrafty is intimidating (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Intimidate) in that hoodie
Crap, my attack fell one rank!
Luckily Rarity is a special attacker.
\On a serious note there is talk that the prosecution might call Hannity.
-
I'm not trying to be thick, but I didn't catch that part in the article either. How do they know they lied?
Might be because it wasn't in that article... >_> Because I was updating based on live video and thus there wasn't a link. But, here you go (http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/04/george_zimmerman_dropped_by_hi.php).
Craig Sonner and Hal Uhrig, Zimmerman's now-former attorneys, say they have "a pretty good idea where he is" but aren't quite sure because he hasn't answered the phone in two days.
Then later they said 'we haven't heard from him in days' (more than two). Linkie (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/10/462013/where-is-george-zimmerman/).
How can you know where he is one day then lose track of him the next? Then they don't even bother telling anyone that they've lost contact with him until multiple days after he's been able to get quite far from Florida? Obstruction of justice, please with a side salad.
Personally, I think you're reading into this -- hard. One could just as easily say that not answering the phone in two days and losing all contact with him for more than two days could be mutually exclusive. One does not invalidate the other. Or, one could just as easily say that charging someone with obstruction of justice when they said "days" instead of "a couple of days" is absolutely ludicrous.
What is the reasonable expectation that these lawyers are supposed to keep track of Zimmerman 100% of the time or they should be charged with obstruction of justice or accused of lying? I'm not sure how it's unreasonable to assume once they realized he was busy contacting Sean Hannity and not listening to their instructions (like not contacting the prosecutor), they decided to simply drop him as a client, and that was that. Other articles (including a previously linked one) even indicate that the police basically knew where Zimmerman could be picked up at any time. And since that is exactly what they just did when they settled on what they were going to charge him with, I'm not sure grasping at the sort of straws your comment implies in order to accuse the lawyers of lying or obstruction is in any way justified. You seem to be implying that the lawyers were buying time so Zimmerman could flee from justice. If that were the case, there would be a manhunt right now instead of someone who swiftly went into custody. I'll wait for better proof besides the use of "days" in a statement before I'm willing to believe they're guilty of obstruction of justice.
You can't just say 'he's absolutely in Florida' then the next say 'oh, we haven't heard from him in days and you should probably look outside of Florida for him'. It's deliberate. The fact that they recused themselves from the case doesn't mean squat either.
They have a few things to answer for, and so does Hannity. Many people are saying he is legally required to testify about what Zimmerman said to him.
It may not be 'buying time' by definition but they definitely lied. Probably out of fear of backlash, which I don't blame them.
However, we have Zimmerman in custody, he's been charged. Now we wait and see about the rest of this fucking case.
-
I guess, but I'm not sure what they have to answer for, exactly. Attorney/client privilege covers a lot. The articles don't seem to indicate they were trying to buy the man time to hide, and unless the prosecutor specifically asked him not to leave Florida, there is nothing particularly wrong with him leaving the state. Since the police picked him up quickly, that's a good indication that no one was hiding his location for any other purpose except from the media, which is understandable no matter what we think of Zimmerman. It simply sounds as though he started giving his counsel the runaround, doing things they had asked him not to do, and then when he went so far as to tell the prosecutor that they were not actually his counsel, they dropped him. Lawyers aren't babysitters, and they're not required to monitor his whereabouts every moment of the day. In any event, I wouldn't think there is nearly enough to charge them with obstruction of justice. I mean, after all...possible jail time? Over a few words in a press statement?
As you mentioned, they have Zimmerman now and he is charged. We will see what unfolds and comes to light.
-
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/george-zimmerman-charged-2nd-degree-murder-trayvon-martin-143832017.html
Some more details, in case anyone's interested. Be warned that some of the comments may be rage worthy.
-
I guess, but I'm not sure what they have to answer for, exactly. Attorney/client privilege covers a lot. The articles don't seem to indicate they were trying to buy the man time to hide, and unless the prosecutor specifically asked him not to leave Florida, there is nothing particularly wrong with him leaving the state. Since the police picked him up quickly, that's a good indication that no one was hiding his location for any other purpose except from the media, which is understandable no matter what we think of Zimmerman. It simply sounds as though he started giving his counsel the runaround, doing things they had asked him not to do, and then when he went so far as to tell the prosecutor that they were not actually his counsel, they dropped him. Lawyers aren't babysitters, and they're not required to monitor his whereabouts every moment of the day. In any event, I wouldn't think there is nearly enough to charge them with obstruction of justice. I mean, after all...possible jail time? Over a few words in a press statement?
As you mentioned, they have Zimmerman now and he is charged. We will see what unfolds and comes to light.
Either obstruction of justice or accessory after the fact. It doesn't matter which. They're still in trouble.
-
How? Zimmerman was swiftly taken into custody when the charges were filed. What, exactly, did they impede about the investigation? It's not against the law for a lawyer to lose contact with a client. I'm not trying to start an argument with you about it, I just truly do not get where you're coming from.
-
Either obstruction of justice or accessory after the fact. It doesn't matter which. They're still in trouble.
You've read what they've said right? They never even met the dude. Then when charges were officially filed dude turns himself in. There's no trouble there, just how the justice system creeps along when things go mildly right.
There's no crime, there's no meddling on their parts, hell, the cops could have found out more than they knew by accessing a few phone records. Legally if he was suspected of running from the charges, thus committing an unarguable crime regardless of what crime he may be going on trial for.
The guy was running from the people he assumed were going to lynch him. Not the law.
-
The guy was running from the people he assumed were going to lynch him. Not the law.
BAHAHAHA, Called it! I knew someone would say this eventually!
-
The guy was running from the people he assumed were going to lynch him. Not the law.
BAHAHAHA, Called it! I knew someone would say this eventually!
I don't know if you're trying to imply this is an apologist's perspective, but if you are, it is kind of confirmed that Zimmerman was not hiding from the law when he turned himself in (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/zimmerman-arrives-jail-turning-16120945).
-
That doesn't confirm a damn thing. It could just as easily mean that he realized that running away made it obvious that he was guilty, so he tried to save face.
-
That doesn't confirm a damn thing. It could just as easily mean that he realized that running away made it obvious that he was guilty, so he tried to save face.
Here are the facts:
1) When there were no charges filed against him but his case faced (well deserved) media scrutiny and public outrage, he hid out.
2) When charges were filed, he turned himself in to police custody almost immediately.
Here are the two theories:
1) He was hiding out trying to avoid the media scrutiny and public outrage, and fully intended to comply with the law.
2) He was hiding out trying to avoid the arrest before charges were filed, but realized after charges were filed that he running away would make him seem guilty so he turned himself in.
We have no way of knowing which theory is correct, but giving it a shave with an Occam Mach-8, one seems far more likely tha the other.
-
That doesn't confirm a damn thing. It could just as easily mean that he realized that running away made it obvious that he was guilty, so he tried to save face.
Oi, hear what happened to the pair of old folks who lived at what Spike Lee 'outed' as being where he was?
The dude is a fucking idiot, paranoid, and rich enough to run like fuck. Given his father's reactions to the situtation I have no doubt in my mind he expected people to lynch him. If that thought was based in reality or not. When actual charges were filed against him, then he turned himself in to proper authorities. The authorities are the ones who have been fucking this up by not charging him, bitch them out. Or better yet, bitch out the people who were out for his blood rather than booting the authorities to do their job.
Not that any of this has the least bit to do with his lawyers being guilty of anything.
And it doesn't prove he was guilty of shit. If he ran from the charges he would be making himself guilty of a crime, as I've already stated. As of now he's taken the legally required steps to prove or disprove his innocence. Which is honestly a lot more than I expected out of him.
And for fucks sake people, stop being such god damn twats that you make me defend this fucker. He wasn't legally required to do a god damn thing up until charges were filed or he was subpoenaed. What it looks like doesn't mean shit when people are willing to harrass a pair of old folks out of their house on the rumor you might be near them. Yes, I think he's guilty as hell too. I'd probably enjoy the chance to knock him around a bit. But legally speaking he's innocent until proven guilty, no matter what any of us think of him.
But as for the trial itself, I've got money that says they can't manage a jury trial due to the media coverage and he walks anyway.
-
And for fucks sake people, stop being such god damn twats that you make me defend this fucker.
No one is forcing you to do a damn thing.
When I mean it doesn't confirm a damn thing, I mean it doesn't confirm ANY damn thing, on either side of the argument. It means he ran away and turned himself in later. That is literally all we know.
-
How? Zimmerman was swiftly taken into custody when the charges were filed. What, exactly, did they impede about the investigation? It's not against the law for a lawyer to lose contact with a client. I'm not trying to start an argument with you about it, I just truly do not get where you're coming from.
Either obstruction of justice or accessory after the fact. It doesn't matter which. They're still in trouble.
You've read what they've said right? They never even met the dude. Then when charges were officially filed dude turns himself in. There's no trouble there, just how the justice system creeps along when things go mildly right.
There's no crime, there's no meddling on their parts, hell, the cops could have found out more than they knew by accessing a few phone records. Legally if he was suspected of running from the charges, thus committing an unarguable crime regardless of what crime he may be going on trial for.
The guy was running from the people he assumed were going to lynch him. Not the law.
Neither of you get what I'm trying to say, it feels like. I read the lawyers' words. They said one thing then backpedaled and went 'oops, wait, no, it's this'. I am also curious if it's even known what I'm saying is. People hear certain terms and they blank out. Happens all the time. Or they jump to something they've heard.
Accessory after the fact isn't that terrible. It isn't what people think it is either. It doesn't have to be malicious to be an accessory after the fact. They could learn that he's disappeared. Okay, cool. They're not really supposed to be his babysitter. I get that. But then you have the fumbling and bumbling worthy of the Three Stooges where they don't report it. They insist he's there in Florida. Okay. But then they say 'oh... wait. No. You should probably look outside of Florida. Yep. Definitely, definitely'. It may not be on purpose. Maybe circumstances changed quickly. He was in Florida one moment then not the next. But you're still throwing things up in the air and making a general circus of the case.
And the fact that they said 'oh we haven't heard from in a few days' but didn't bother saying sooner? Accessory after the fact non-malicious. You're operating under the assumption that lawyers won't do something to protect their clients. It happens, sometimes. Malicious or not it happens.
Oh, and the whole 'ran away from the lynch mob' excuse is kinda adorable. He had his options to keep himself safe during investigation but he ignored his lawyers and everyone else. I don't feel sorry for the fucker for fearing for his life especially when he doesn't even bother taking steps to prove anything either way.
Now are we done with the whole 'are you even reading what is being said in this case' thing? I'd like it to be. Because I've been following it a lot closer than I was wanting to when the news first broke.
It's in the hands of the system. I don't like it, because the system frankly sucks balls, but it's to be handled by the system. Nothing I say or do is going to change the outcome of the case. Nothing anyone outside of the case/investigation will change anything. I can only hope things are handled properly.
-
Accessory to what exactly? And what was the obstruction of justice?
Fuck if every criminal lawyer who lost track of his clients got charged with obstruction of justice there wouldn't be any criminal solicitors left.
-
Exactly, even if his lawyers actively helped him hide until charges were brought against him it would not have been a crime. Once he was charged that is another story.
-
CS, I think you're right that some of us don't get what it is you're trying to say. For me, it appears you've taken a few words, whether bumbling or no, made at a press conference about one of the most high pressure media stories we've seen recently and based on a few words called for obstruction of justice charges. Not on evidence but on speculation. Saying accessory after the fact "isn't that terrible" is a little shocking to me personally. I'm sure none of us would like to be charged with something based on speculation about a few words as opposed to evidence, especially something like obstruction which can carry jail time.
The justice system isn't perfect, but it's all we have. This case has been done to death in the media, probably to the detriment of true justice for all involved. If the lawyers have committed some crime, then they should be punished for it. I don't want to be part of a philosophical lynching, though, based on a few words in a press release. If I've somehow misunderstood what you've written, I'm sorry. I assure you that I am reading with intent to understand, not to simply be the counter argument to your posts.
-
But then you have the fumbling and bumbling worthy of the Three Stooges where they don't report it. They insist he's there in Florida. Okay. But then they say 'oh... wait. No. You should probably look outside of Florida. Yep. Definitely, definitely'. It may not be on purpose. Maybe circumstances changed quickly. He was in Florida one moment then not the next. But you're still throwing things up in the air and making a general circus of the case.
Which specific FL obstruction of justice statute are you saying they broke? (The "obstruction of justice" statutes are Chapter 843 of FL Code (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0843/0843ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2011&Title=-%3E2011-%3EChapter%20843).) That would help in everyone understanding your argument.
-
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1zlc2DvNh1qcskjc.gif)
I give up. If nobody is going to read everything I say... Well, I give up. Just forget it. Everyone is focusing on only half of what I've written. IF THAT!
I have given you all that I can. I have explained as best I can. At this point i'd just be rewording slightly what I have said already.
Oh and PS, obstruction of justice and accessory after the fact aren't synonymous. Not really. So stop interchanging them.
I'm backing out because I'm tired of going around and around, repeating what I've said with more words or slightly different ones.
As I said, all that I can do is sit and watch and wait for this whole case to be over with.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPHcUOHuiFU
-
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1zlc2DvNh1qcskjc.gif)
I give up. If nobody is going to read everything I say... Well, I give up. Just forget it. Everyone is focusing on only half of what I've written. IF THAT!
I have given you all that I can. I have explained as best I can. At this point i'd just be rewording slightly what I have said already.
Oh and PS, obstruction of justice and accessory after the fact aren't synonymous. Not really. So stop interchanging them.
I'm backing out because I'm tired of going around and around, repeating what I've said with more words or slightly different ones.
As I said, all that I can do is sit and watch and wait for this whole case to be over with.
So you aren't going to answer the question but that's everyone else's fault?
-
So far reading thruough this I get the impression CS' stance is "Zim and his lawyers are guilty as sin!" while others are saying "No, not yet, the laws don't support the charges you're making"
Zac, this guy is a fucking conspiracy nut. You're saying for all we know he could have been running from the law and decided it would make him look guilty? That don't fly with me.
On top of the fact you really can't run from the law till the law is actually after you. I stand by what Distind has said. He was in hiding avoiding what he thought were lynch mobs looking for him, and seeing human reactions to things like this, I can see why he did.
-
^^ Exactly. I'm not trying to intentionally misread, and I'm not interchanging obstruction and accessory. In fact, my post specifically differentiated between the two. I've reread the posts, and I'm simply not seeing which part CS thinks is being ignored in favor of other parts. The posts come off to me as though anything about Zimmerman, including his lawyers and their press conferences, must automatically be condemned in some way. And if we don't have evidence for it, heck, let's read into it until we get some. What does it matter if it's accessory after the fact, that isn't "that bad" anyway, so why not level that charge? With all the media/internet attention this case has gotten, I'd be surprised if anyone gets any real justice.
-
http://gma.yahoo.com/warning-graphic-photo-possible-evidence-shows-george-zimmermans-050145810--abc-news-topstories.html (http://gma.yahoo.com/warning-graphic-photo-possible-evidence-shows-george-zimmermans-050145810--abc-news-topstories.html)
His bail hearing is today I think. I think the article is a bit misnamed -- I think the police have had this evidence all along, and as such it's not really "new," just newly released in the media. It's better coverage than the video of his arrival at the police department can provide. I was also surprised to read in the article that apparently denial of bail requires an even higher burden of proof than seeking conviction of someone in a trial does. That seems weird to me.
-
His bail hearing is today I think.
Bail set to $150,000.
I was also surprised to read in the article that apparently denial of bail requires an even higher burden of proof than seeking conviction of someone in a trial does. That seems weird to me.
The first time I did First Appearances (bond hearing) during my internship, I didn't get a chance to talk to one of the attorneys beforehand. I cannot remember what the charge was, but it must have been a serious felony (or long list of charges) because I recommended no bond. The judge (who, of course, knew I am only a student) proceeded to give me a lecture on why the FL constitution does not allow "no-bond" except for violation of probation or first-degree murder. I, sadly, did not follow much of his lecture, but the end result stuck with me.