Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Martin and Zimmerman (Page 48)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 66 pages: 1  2  3  ...  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  ...  64  65  66   
Author Topic: Martin and Zimmerman
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
Is he within his rights to fire his gun at Martin if he got himself into a fight he couldn't win, and used deadly force to win it?
If the prosecution showed beyond a reasonable doubt that he initiated the physical altercation, by attempting to restrain (illegally) or hit Martin first, then I don't believe he would have been within his rights. That was the job the prosecution had and failed to convince the jury of.
Many still think the case was almost entirely about racism. So why not throw those attorneys under the bus too... They had "an easy case" and still messed up. Thus they are either incompetent, racists, or incompetent racists!! And that clearly means they are AT LEAST 2/3 racist, which can then be rounded up to 100% racist. Wow!! No wonder Zimmerman was acquitted. I will notify CNN now. Harris-Perry needs to know about this!
Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If I kill someone, and do not contest that fact, then I believe that, yes, I have to PROVE that I had a reason to kill that person.
You walk into court after being charged, give no testimony, refuse even a public defender, plea what? No contest? Then you still get your trial. I'm cool with this.

[ July 14, 2013, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca

"I'm curious as to why so many people are brushing off the wounds Martin inflicted on Zimmerman as trivial. People die from single hits to the head all the time."

Like this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2318704/High-school-soccer-coach-coma-player-17-punched-unhappy-calls.html

"A longtime Utah soccer referee is in a coma after being punched by a teenage player unhappy with one of his calls — and his family says their only hope is for a miracle.

Ricardo Portillo, 46, has swelling in his brain and his recovery is uncertain as he remains in critical condition, Dr. Shawn Smith said on Thursday at the Intermountain Medical Center in the Salt Lake City suburb of Murray.

Police say a 17-year-old player in a recreational soccer league punched Ricardo Portillo after the man called a foul on him and issued him a yellow card."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57583517-504083/ricardo-portillo-update-teen-charged-with-homicide-by-assault-in-referee-death-official-says/

"(CBS/AP) SALT LAKE CITY -- A Utah teen accused of punching a soccer referee who later died was charged Wednesday with homicide by assault, a count issued when an attack unintentionally causes death.

Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill announced the charges, saying he will seek to try the teen as an adult.

A homicide by assault charge is less serious than manslaughter. It carries up to five years in prison for adults, but penalties can be less for juveniles."


If George Zimmerman had not shot Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman was unable to say what happened because he was in a coma or dead, would Trayvon Martin have been charged with a crime? Would he have been found guilty? Should he?

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What if Zimmerman had been a woman? Would Trayvon still have had the same right to hit her in the nose, mma ground and pound her, and crack the back of her head open against the concrete just because he caught her following him? Is the law different for men and women?
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
What if Zimmerman had been a woman? Would Trayvon still have had the same right to hit her in the nose, mma ground and pound her, and crack the back of her head open against the concrete just because he caught her following him? Is the law different for men and women?

He had one or more abrasions on his posterior skull, but no fracture there. (It is possible he had a small, nondisplaced fracture of his nose). Gender does matter. But race often trumps gender, and almost always trumps facts. We treat men and women differently, but the law is almost always the same. Altercation between Zim and Trayvon is in disupte, and thus Zim was acquitted. Witnesses saw Martin in "ground and pound" mode shortly before he was shot.

[ July 14, 2013, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: DarkJello ]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
You know nothing about who cared about it at the time
I know I never saw any Ornery thread about it, any Hatrack thread about it, any BBC coverage about it.

quote:
and that's completely irrelevant to the actual discussion at hand anyway.
Really?

You know how "structural racism" works in a society like America whose ideology is (nominally, supposedly) anti-racist? It works by indifference.

Thousands of young black people are being allowed to be killed by other black people (whether followed, following, minding their own business, whatever -- by knives, guns, or fists and feet) -- and there wouldn't be the tiniest sound of interest by the supposed anti-racists. No protests, no calls for action, no president talking about how a victim looked like a son of his would look like, nothing.

Because politicized anti-racism works not by actually helping the lives of the underprivileged, but rather by finding villainous racists to oppose.

And if there are none, you'll manufacture some. Like the Duke Lacrosse case, like the Zimmerman-Martin case.

And in the meantime, while those supposed white racists are being decried, thousands of young black people behaving with Treyvon Martin's attitude will be killing thousands of other black people. And you won't be giving a bloody damn.

And *that's* structural racism; *that's* what's killing thousands of young black people, and ones significantly more innocent than Treyvon too.

But the high-profile cases where a white criminal may be involved, oh joy. How easily you can use them to prove your anti-racist credentials, while not doing an actual bloody damn to save actually innocent black people from being murdered.

And if he's not actually white, like Zimmerman, the great progressives turn him white, so they can pretend to care about race while pretending to care about justice.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
Can we be clear here that the judges instructions plus the verdict says that its ok, in Florida, to go out, kill a person, claim self defense, and be found not guilty, regardless of whether or not the killing was actually in self defense?

(No, Aris, there is no proof that Zimmerman acted in self defense.

Note the totalitarian doublespeak here. If you don't think that Zimmerman had to PROVE that he acted in self-defense, then in lefty-world that means it's "OK" to go kill a person and falsely claim self-defense. You're not allowed to just protect a system where you're innocent until proven guilty.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete: "Note the totalitarian doublespeak here. If you don't think that Zimmerman had to PROVE that he acted in self-defense, then in lefty-world that means it's "OK" to go kill a person and falsely claim self-defense. You're not allowed to just protect a system where you're innocent until proven guilty."

I don't think he is saying that, and since you and Aris have accused me of saying pretty much the same thing (when I haven't, either), let me try one more time.

Zimmerman's claims of self-defense are without proof. Since he survived he can say anything. As long as what he says happened isn't contradicted by other facts (much of it is, but was not proven by the prosecution), and as long as there are gaps that can't be filled with countering evidence, the jury had no choice but to find him Not Guilty.

I (and I assume PSRT) don't know if he really acted in self-defense or was the aggressor. We'll never know, but the trial is over and his guilt was not proven.

Next case.

[ July 14, 2013, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DJ: "Death threats are being made against the 6 female jurors now."

Links, please. This is two sweeping and incendiary claims you've made for which I can't find any online support for. If you're just making this **** up or you're getting it from the right-wing hate blogs, fess up. Either way, back up those statements if you can.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
Given that, reasonable laws should convict Zimmerman of manslaughter.
Prison time should NEVER be the default answer if you can't prove things one way or another. This is just crazy talk.
I agree with this, one hundred percent.
Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkJello:
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Seneca: "In short, it is 100% reasonable for Zimmerman to believe he was going to die at Martin's hands."

What did Martin believe Zimmerman was going to do to him?

Apparently rape him, and then kill all his neighbors. That is what "creepy a$$ crackas" do all the time after all. He profiled Zim and Zim profiled him. We should make that illegal. How dare you look at someone and form ANY judgement whatsoever!!
What would someone who complained about fukcing punks and ******** who always get away while he's watching and following Martin intend to do?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DarkJello,

quote:
That is a lie. Don't succumb to the dark side LR. It is powerful, but not stronger.
See the testimony, the damage that Zimmerman sustained was consistent with a single blow to the nose. The other scratches and cuts were consistent with rolling on the ground, but NOT with having his head struck against concrete.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
D.W.

quote:
If the prosecution showed beyond a reasonable doubt that he initiated the physical altercation, by attempting to restrain (illegally) or hit Martin first, then I don't believe he would have been within his rights. That was the job the prosecution had and failed to convince the jury of.
Since the only witness was Zimmerman, and Zimmerman lied, to me that is proof that it was Zimmerman who initiated things beyond a reasonable doubt. Deliberate deceit is proof of guilt without an explanation being provided.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I agree with this, one hundred percent.
ITs been proven beyond doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. He should be in jail, since what is uncertain is who started the physical altercation.

Period.

Anyone who disagrees with that is dangerous to society.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
cherry,

quote:
What if Zimmerman had been a woman? Would Trayvon still have had the same right to hit her in the nose, mma ground and pound her, and crack the back of her head open against the concrete just because he caught her following him? Is the law different for men and women?
See above, there is no proof of ground and pound - only that Martin was in the mount position, there was no proof of Zimmermans head being hit against the concrete, the evidence strongly suggests it didn't happen. Most of Zimmermans account, with the exception of the actual shot - has been either complete lies (ie directly contradicted by the physical evidence), or extreme embellishments.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
quote:
I agree with this, one hundred percent.
ITs been proven beyond doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. He should be in jail, since what is uncertain is who started the physical altercation.

Period.

Anyone who disagrees with that is dangerous to society.

Well, looks like the jury of 6 women are a huge danger to society!
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
cherry,

quote:
It seems like people are making up some improbable scenario in their own heads wherein Zimmerman would have started the fight.
A quite plausible scenario, supported by the physical evidence is that Zimmerman grabbed Martin by the hood to restrain him (which is assault), and which point Martin punched him to make him let go. If that were the case, Zimmerman started the fight. It is consistent with what we know of both their character and is supported by the physical evidence and the phone call testimony.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, I'm not saying they didn't follow the law and the evidence presented to them, you moron. If you've read my comments... well, no, you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't have wrote what you did, you moron.

The Florida laws suck. I've said that repeatedly. I don't blame a jury for following the law, even when the law sucks.

What sucks MORE are people like you, and Aris, and others in this thread who think that its a good thing when a killer walks loose because no one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's lying when he says he acted in self defense, when a killer walks loose from a confrontation that he initiated with the deceased.

OrneryMod - Personal attacks are not appropriate on these forums. Warning issued.

Please try to remember that we are guests of the Cards' and they have asked us to speak civilly to one another. If you cannot do so, please refrain from posting until you have regained your composure.


[ July 14, 2013, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
Oh, I'm not saying they didn't follow the law and the evidence presented to them, you moron.

Tell us how you really feel, PSRT.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca: "Well, looks like the jury of 6 women are a huge danger to society!"

Don't forget you said a jury of 6 women couldn't render a fair verdict.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the jury did the best it could with the pitiful prosecution they were given. I wonder what this means down the road whenever two people get into a fight and only one survives. If there are no witnesses, it's always self defense. Like I said earlier, two guys go into the woods and only one comes out. It has to be self defense.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What sucks MORE are people like you, and Aris, and others in this thread who think that its a good thing when a killer walks loose because no one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's lying when he says he acted in self defense, when a killer walks loose from a confrontation that he initiated with the deceased
When he "says"? **** you. It's your side that never gave a damn about the evidence or the multiple testimonies and treated this as a game of I-said-you-said. The rest of us DID care about the evidence and the bloody testimonies.

And, no, I'm not gonna debate all the evidence again. Not with you monsters who still seek to summarize the case as "Zimmerman shot the unarmed kid he was following." rather than "Zimmerman shot the person who was violently attacking him". That alone shows how edited is the reality you seek to display, a strange cut where the scene of Zimmerman following Martin immediately goes to the scene of Martin dead in the ground, and somehow completely misses out all the middle parts -- the shouts for help, Zimmerman bleeding from multiple wounds, the timeline and map that shows Martin *must* have walked back to confront Zimmerman.

The delusionally edited scenarios in your minds, the ways you seek to summarize the case by cutting out the middle portion, bear a *glorious* resemblance to the edits on the audio you used to falsely present Zimmerman as racially profiling Martin.

Your amazing edits, with the strangely edited-out middle parts, prove the falseness of your souls.

I will additionally say that it has never been about "reasonable doubt" for me. Let's pretend that the magical number is 50% instead -- that if Zimmerman is more likely to be guilty than not, then he should go to jail.

Well, I'm 99.5% certain that Zimmerman was on the ground shouting for help, and that despite said shouts Martin kept attacking him, which led Zimmerman to fear for his life.

Can you honestly say that you believe this scenario has less than 50% probability?

quote:
What sucks MORE are people like you, and Aris, and others in this thread who think that its a good thing when a killer walks loose because no one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's lying when he says he acted in self defense, when a killer walks loose from a confrontation that he initiated with the deceased.
No, what "sucks more" is that you're saying that a person who's on the ground, shouting repeatedly for help while being pummeled by the fists of a BLOODTHIRSTY SAVAGE, isn't allowed to defend his life, and must indeed sacrifice his life to atone for the mere tactical (not moral) mistake of GETTING OUT OF HIS VEHICLE IN THE PRESENCE OF SAID BLOODTHIRSTY SAVAGE.

OrneryMod - This is the second infraction for personal attacks in this thread. Three-day ban issued. Ban to be lifted in the evening on 7/17/2013.

[ July 14, 2013, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If there are no witnesses, it's always self defense.
Too bad there were witnesses, and they testified Zimmerman was on the ground, shouting for help, while the other guy was pummeling him with fists.

quote:
Like I said earlier, two guys go into the woods and only one comes out. It has to be self defense.
Two guys go into the woods, guy 1 is observed pummelling the other guy with his fists, while guy 2 is shouting for help. Yes, it is self-defense, you delusional reality-editing monster.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris: "Too bad there were witnesses, and they testified Zimmerman was on the ground, shouting for help, while the other guy was pummeling him with fists."

Did Martin attack Zimmerman? You sure? Or did he get the upper hand? You sure?

Aris: "Two guys go into the woods, guy 1 is observed pummelling the other guy with his fists, while guy 2 is shouting for help. Yes, it is self-defense, you delusional reality-editing monster."

I've told Pete and I'll tell you, don't use pet names to address me. The best you can say is that this is like a guy goes into the woods to take a shortcut home at night in the rain and another guy follows him. Witnesses hear bits and pieces but can't be sure which voice belongs to which one. Other witnesses see things but aren't in total agreement about who they see doing what. Later the second guy comes out of the woods alive and the first guy who just was walking home is dead. Clear case of self defense. You sure about that?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How did Florida turn from voting Obama last year, to total racists in such a short time? They were correct last year, but now the same people vote for laws they want/hope/wish will be used by 1/2 white 1/2 latino men to gun down innocent blacks that refuse to share skittles? Take me through the logic please. Prove that Florida law is the problem, and that Zimmerman would have fried in almost every other state.
Avoiding the strawman argument that Florida is "total racists", in 2010 Florida had more than twice as many Republican Congressmen as Democrats, and even after the 2012 election Republicans had 17 Congressional seats in Florida as compared to 10 for the Democrats. So how is it that Florida's representation gives more power to to a conservative minority than it does to Obama voters? Maybe that's sort of like the country as a whole, where most voters have been voting for Democrats, but Republicans have acted for five years not only in opposition to Obama and the Democrats, but as if they do not recognize Obama's policies as reflecting the legitimate will of the majority of voters for the Presidency, Senate, and House of Representatives.

Florida law relevant to killing is made by the state legislature, which is even more subject to conservative business interests disproportionate spending.

We actually don't know for certain exactly what happened from the perspectives of Zimmerman and Martin, and whether a great wrong was committed or not, they are still only two people out of millions (the odds favor that there have been more injustices of whatever type you believe occurred here, elsewhere in Florida and in the rest of the country). Personally, I believe in the process of law and juries whether I agree with the reult or not. If he had been convicted and appealed, that would be his right as part of the process as well.

My hope (and even mild expectation) is that those who see this as a great injustice will be motivated not to Glenn Beck fantasy of racial war, but rather to political action. Just as efforts to disenfranchise non-whites led to higher minority turn-out, events of this sort raise awareness of what is being done to stack the laws. The right response to what appears to some to be an unjust system should be to change the system.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Like I said earlier, two guys go into the woods and only one comes out. It has to be self defense.

Well, if you can't prove anything you can't prove anything. If two guys go into the woods and one comes out and he claims self defense, and you can't prove otherwise, how can you find him guilty of anything? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? What happened to burden of proof?

Are you really saying that if two guys go into the woods and one comes out, the guy who comes out is automatically guilty of something? I know you're not saying that. You can't be.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You sure?
Yes, I'm sure.

quote:
and the first guy who just was walking home is dead.
Since you're being so very cautious about which things we're sure of, you should stop saying that Martin was "just walking home", since we have less evidence for *that* than for all the things that you've just claimed we aren't sure of.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris,

quote:
Yes, I'm sure.
Why are you sure? Why have you dismissed the entirely sound theory, one supported by the physical evidence, that Zimmerman grabbed Martin by the hoodie?

This is what is bizarre to me - how can you, or anyone else be 'sure' that Martin attacked Zimmerman, when there is no evidence to suggest such. Why do you believe Zimmerman when stuff we do have physical evidence for shows the he lied to the police?

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LetterRip, as I've already said, I'm done discussing evidence.

But tell me what numerical percentage of certainty you're talking about when you talk of being "sure". A specific number please. 95%? 99%? 99.9%?

[ July 14, 2013, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
quote:
How did Florida turn from voting Obama last year, to total racists in such a short time? They were correct last year, but now the same people vote for laws they want/hope/wish will be used by 1/2 white 1/2 latino men to gun down innocent blacks that refuse to share skittles? Take me through the logic please. Prove that Florida law is the problem, and that Zimmerman would have fried in almost every other state.
Avoiding the strawman argument that Florida is "total racists", in 2010 Florida had more than twice as many Republican Congressmen as Democrats, and even after the 2012 election Republicans had 17 Congressional seats in Florida as compared to 10 for the Democrats. So how is it that Florida's representation gives more power to to a conservative minority than it does to Obama voters? Maybe that's sort of like the country as a whole, where most voters have been voting for Democrats, but Republicans have acted for five years not only in opposition to Obama and the Democrats, but as if they do not recognize Obama's policies as reflecting the legitimate will of the majority of voters for the Presidency, Senate, and House of Representatives.

Florida law relevant to killing is made by the state legislature, which is even more subject to conservative business interests disproportionate spending.

We actually don't know for certain exactly what happened from the perspectives of Zimmerman and Martin, and whether a great wrong was committed or not, they are still only two people out of millions (the odds favor that there have been more injustices of whatever type you believe occurred here, elsewhere in Florida and in the rest of the country). Personally, I believe in the process of law and juries whether I agree with the reult or not. If he had been convicted and appealed, that would be his right as part of the process as well.

My hope (and even mild expectation) is that those who see this as a great injustice will be motivated not to Glenn Beck fantasy of racial war, but rather to political action. Just as efforts to disenfranchise non-whites led to higher minority turn-out, events of this sort raise awareness of what is being done to stack the laws. The right response to what appears to some to be an unjust system should be to change the system.

How would we change the system? The NAACP is running around saying repeal SYG laws, but they weren't used for this case...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Too bad there were witnesses, and they testified Zimmerman was on the ground, shouting for help, while the other guy was pummeling him with fists.
Just a quibble: not one witness testified that Zimmerman was being pummeled while they observed him.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Are you really saying that if two guys go into the woods and one comes out, the guy who comes out is automatically guilty of something? I know you're not saying that. You can't be."

No, I'm saying that you need a serious investigation to do the best possible job of figuring out what happened. Usually, if there are no witnesses and the evidence is not obvious, you will probably have a long one and very likely a trial, just to be sure.

In this case, the CoP overruled the lead detective on the scene and Zimmerman was not detained, was not tested for drugs or alcohol, the body was not properly secured, the evidence mismatched the killer's explanations, the witnesses contradicted each other. After all that and an arrest is made and the killer is brought to trial, a lot of people (me included) think the prosecution was extremely weak, and a better case for manslaughter could have been made.

If every time two guys go into the forest and one comes out this team is called to handle it, I don't know anyone could be found guilty of anything.

[ July 14, 2013, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrt:
quote:
Zimmerman did to something wrong. He followed a kid around just for walking down the street until he provoked a defensive response from his target. That kind of behavior shouldn't be permissible without explicit legal authorization, particularly if a Stand Your Ground law exists, since the combination of the two end up being a direct hunt and kill license. A manslaughter charge would at least have given some not to the fact that Zimmerman was the one responsible for for provoking the incident through the rather explicit threat communicated by following someone the way he did.
Hmm.

I don't know what Zimmerman actually did that night--therefore I don't actually think a trial like this is really an appropriate backdrop against which to frame policies debates like the one you're making.

In general, though, I can see situations in which a guilty manslaughter verdict should be reached in a case where someone kills someone in apparent self-defense, if it can be proved that they initiated the conflict by acting unreasonably toward the victim.

But here's the thing: I think that individuals have a right to keep an eye on strangers in their neighborhood. I think that individuals have a right to approach strangers in their community to ask what they're doing. (Though I don't think that a concerned citizen has any right to use force or direct threats of force to cause the stranger to comply with his/her agenda in such a situation).

When I was younger (though not as young as Trayvon), I used to sell and install cable services. The job had me wandering around neighborhoods (sometimes crime-ridden ghettoes) after dark on a frequent basis. As such, I've actually been watched and followed by strangers who considered my presence in their neighborhood suspicious--literally countless times. I've been approached and verbally accosted by aggressive wannabe-cop busybodies, and by thuggish strangers who addressed me with racial epithets and thinly veiled threats, letting me know that my kind wasn't welcome in their neighborhood. Once, as I was looking through the bushes of a resident, trying to locate the cable utilities box (at the resident's request, of course), a neighbor glowered at me from his doorway long enough to make me nervous, then exited his house toting a raised (but not leveled) AK-47, approached me, and asked what the hell I thought I was doing.

I was an adult when I experienced all this. I look quite Caucasian, and I realize that my experiences of racial prejudice are not necessarily directly comparable to structurally similar experiences of individuals who appear to belong to other races. I had a badge and a logo on my shirt I could use to identify myself and justify my presence and activity. I wouldn't pretend that my perception of my options in response to the fear I felt in such situations aligned perfectly with the perceptions of a person whose experience was clearly different than my own.

But I have felt very threatened by strangers who have watched/followed and then approached me as I was going about my business. And by no means do I believe that I had a right to "defend myself" by physically attacking such people, even though their actions frequently felt very threatening to me.

I don't pretend to know what really happened in the Martin case. I'll reiterate that I think it's a bad example to try to use to examine potential policy changes. But in a more generalized application, I think that the construction you used above is a bit misleading. In my experience, being watched, followed and approached by another individual can feel quite threatening, but I think you're wrong to suggest that "stand your ground" means I have a right to "defend" myself against such a perceived threat by using physical violence, unless their actions constitute an unlawful threat to my safety. It's simply not illegal for someone to watch, follow and approach me, and no matter how scary it may feel to me, I don't have a right attack someone for approaching me and call it "self-defense."

People have a right to approach strangers without it being socially understood that the stranger has a right to use physical violence against them for the acts of watching and approaching them alone.

That would be an absurd policy, and it's not at all what "Stand Your Ground" laws seem to suggest.

I don't know what really happened that night. And I do think that our justice system seems to screw over black males to an unacceptable degree.

But people can keep an eye on strangers in their neighborhood. They can approach them without this act alone constituting a legal justification for a violent response. If a person does get physically attacked for the acts of watching and approaching a stranger, they should have a right to defend themselves.

And again: this appears to be a pretty dumb case for folks to be using as an impetus to fix legitimate social issues like racism and gun control.

Maybe Zimmerman's a liar, and a racist, and his account of events is hiding things he did that legitimately provoked a violent defensive response from Martin. But the point of a trial is to prove that in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And if it doesn't happen, it doesn't mean that we need to make new laws that you can't approach a suspicious person in your neighborhood...

[ July 14, 2013, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris,


quote:
But tell me what numerical percentage of certainty you're talking about when you talk of being "sure". A specific number please. 95%? 99%? 99.9%?
Here are standard words as probabilities

Virtually certain -99%
extremely likely - 95%
very likely - 90%
likely - 66%
more like than not - 50%
very unlikely - 10%
extremely unlikely - 5%

I'd put 'sure' at 80% probability as a minimum.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's pretty clear where the discourse here is. Apparently people who accept the facts and the jury's verdict are racists, morons, cowboy-lovers, self-delusional, etc.

Am I missing any other insults?

[ July 14, 2013, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Dumb," "irrational," or "narrow-minded" might work too. But they should only apply to people who think that conclusions based on complex, uncertain assumptions can be labeled "facts."

Right?

[ July 14, 2013, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
"Dumb," "irrational," or "narrow-minded" might work too. But they should only apply to people who think that conclusions based on complex, uncertain assumptions can be labeled "facts."

Right?

Absolutely, why should we ever label the idea that we don't know something (reasonable doubt) as a fact?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
DJ: "Death threats are being made against the 6 female jurors now."

Links, please. This is two sweeping and incendiary claims you've made for which I can't find any online support for. If you're just making this **** up or you're getting it from the right-wing hate blogs, fess up. Either way, back up those statements if you can.

I already have. People hope they die, are recommending all of them committ suicide, and other such drivel because they must be "racist".

You should not solely read left-wing hate blogs.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
DarkJello,

quote:
That is a lie. Don't succumb to the dark side LR. It is powerful, but not stronger.
See the testimony, the damage that Zimmerman sustained was consistent with a single blow to the nose. The other scratches and cuts were consistent with rolling on the ground, but NOT with having his head struck against concrete.
Per one witness. Several OTHER witnesses gave different accounts. Again, be honest please.

quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
quote:
I agree with this, one hundred percent.
ITs been proven beyond doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. He should be in jail, since what is uncertain is who started the physical altercation.

Period.

Anyone who disagrees with that is dangerous to society.

I think confabulating out the yang is dangerous to society.

[ July 14, 2013, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: DarkJello ]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Absolutely, why should we ever label the idea that we don't know something (reasonable doubt) as a fact?
I don't know why we might do it, just that people do, in fact, seem to apply the term erroneously on occasion...
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
People hope they die, are recommending all of them commit suicide...
Are these death threats, now?
I'm not saying they're polite conversation, mind, but "I hope you die" is not, to my mind, a threat.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 66 pages: 1  2  3  ...  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  ...  64  65  66   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1