Video Released by Police Regarding Zimmerman
I have yet to see anything credible debunk Obama's birth certificate.
Do you have proofs.....hopefully not from the "brainwashed with Orly Taitz" crowd...?Oh, there isn't! Anything credible to debunk it, that is.
It doesn't matter if it's credible, though - thousands upon thousands of people believe it to be a fake now. That's what I mean - truth doesn't much matter as people will believe what they wish.
Just to go back to the comparison made to Obama's birth certificate photo. I will agree with you that there were/are groups that came out claiming it was a forgery, but I will also point out that they became an even further minority-fringe group. For most people, it became the final thing that they felt was needed to shut up the others who were spreading their ridiculous birther-secret Islamist agent chain-emails.
I agree that one should be innocent until proven guilty. Yet, when an alleged crime has been committed, there are going to be parties seeking redress, with accusations of guilt. Right? That is a big part of what government is supposed to be for...conflict mediation..and has been going back to ancient times.
I agree that the system here has failed, in numerous ways. I think the fallout of this, again, is going to point to corruption within the Sanford Police Department. Those police reports shape the D.A.'s perspective concerning what rises to the level of arrest and judicial investigation. What the D.A. doesn't see, he/she doesn't act upon. Unless this story gets even worse.
If a current investigation of that department is not underway, I would think that, with the attention being paid, one would happen soon. For the sensationalism that we know commercial media uses, there is a useful sliver in terms of rousing people from apathy.
Media sources have been exaggerating and at times outright lying since they came into existence. But to attack the media is to divert attention from the actual issue, which is why Sanford Police chose not to arrest and the D.A. decided to not seek judicial investigation for Zimmerman.
I see this as a divide and conquer technique used by other opportunists who use their message for profit, for political advantage, and to bring out the ugly side of this nation's identity.
http://gawker.com/5897485/white-suprema … ges-online
I hope these guys will be investigated vigorously as well.
http://incoldblogs.blogspot.com/2012/03 … ed-as.html
The B.P. has been pursued vigorously since this has happened....and I agree that this is good, but, if the judicial/legal system in Sanford would resolve this responsibly...which means to put a process in motion that people can watch...just as was done with the O.J. trial, and let it take its course....let us all become educated...let us all see the evidence..and let us all put this to rest..
Instead, they have enabled what should have been a local event into a national tragedy/firestorm ripping us apart from within.
The media, on all sides of the spectrum fan the flames...for a variety of reasons, including profit...but things didn't have to go this far.
In this way, Zimmerman is a victim in that he hasn't been allowed his day in court (if he is innocent)...he hasn't been provided a forum to clear his name. As much as he could risk at trial, because he has to justify why 1) he was carrying a firearm and 2) why he pursued when told not to.
The argument has been made that he wasn't "officially" a neighborhood watch member, but he identified himself as the captain of the neighborhood watch. It doesn't matter if they were official with the larger association or not, he took responsibility for an identity...he failed to understand what that actually meant. That is his problem now)
Also, Trayvon's family is doubly, actually triply victimized. Their son is dead, the guy they want investigated is free with no hope, at this point, of closure, and there are now people who hate them around the country, who use them as reasons to justify their deranged ideas (referencing the hacking and other related behaviors).
There needs to be a larger inquiry...this cannot be left where it is.I agree with nearly everything you've said here. Nearly.
With something like this there will indeed be those seeking redress or vengeance, but job of govt. most definitely isn't mediation between parties here. The govt. task is to enforce the law, nothing more, and that absolutely doesn't mean cooperating with anything the Martins or anyone else want done to Z, it doesn't mean revenging a death, and it certainly doesn't mean compromising between what the laws says and what someone else wants done.
Eventually we will see all the evidence as I fully expect to see a trial sometime. The biggest problem now is that any evidence given to the public (now or in the future) is heavily tainted by the insinuations and outright lies already produced. If, for instance, absolutely no credible evidence is ever produced that race ever entered K's mind there will still be millions of people that will insist that the killing was entirely racist in origin. We will never erase those images already implanted in peoples mind and that is truly unfortunate.
I don't think it was the cops OR Florida that turned this into a national circus. I'm seeing hints and clues here and there (nothing more) that nearly all of that drive came from Martin's lawyer. They didn't immediately get the arrest they wanted so he took it higher. To congress, to the media, to anyone and everyone that would listen and spread his version. No indication that the Martins actually asked for or authorized it, but he seems to have been the one pushing it. Certainly neither local cops nor the state of Florida made an effort to go national.
I do begin to think, though, that K was actually a member the neighborhood watch. Those earlier reports that he wasn't have been repudiated too many times to ignore and it seems likely that they were simply lies. Someday we may know the actual truth.
I do disagree that K has to "justify" carrying a gun or refusing to stop. There is no possibility of doing either, not to the satisfaction of those demanding vengeance, and he has a legal right to do either. Against the rules of the neighborhood watch or not, he has the legal right to carry. At most he might have a civil contract stating he wouldn't, but even then breaking that contract by carrying anyway isn't a felony. And he certainly has no legal obligation to follow orders from a 911 dispatcher.
We'll get an answer eventually. We might not like what we hear (nothing new there - O.J.'s trial is a prime example), but we'll get one. We just desperately need to calm down, quit posturing and inflaming the public and wait for answers. We're on the right track, I believe, with this special investigator and need to let her do her job. That job won't be finished tomorrow or next week or even this year (I hope - a major trial will take longer than that), but it will finish.
"I don't think it was the cops OR Florida that turned this into a national circus. I'm seeing hints and clues here and there (nothing more) that nearly all of that drive came from Martin's lawyer. They didn't immediately get the arrest they wanted so he took it higher. To congress, to the media, to anyone and everyone that would listen and spread his version. No indication that the Martins actually asked for or authorized it, but he seems to have been the one pushing it. Certainly neither local cops nor the state of Florida made an effort to go national."
The cops didn't want to deal with it at all. They have tried to brush it under the rug. "Immediately" is a tricky word to use. If Trayvon was your son, how long would you wait until you voiced your concern?
A homeless man was killed here in Southern California, Fullerton specifically, not too long back. He was shot by police officers on the street. His parents, and the community, came together and voiced their outrage concerning why the officer was not being punished for killing this man. The officers argue that they were defending themselves. The media was all over the case. I don't know what you heard about it, but it was on CNN, MSNBC, the radio waves...it was all we'd hear about. The trial will be coming up soon.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 … -dead.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/02 … h-20110803
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-21/just … PM:JUSTICE
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local … 85898.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/0 … 17713.html
http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/08/05/280 … e-killing/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/us/ca … lling.html
But I didn't hear anyone talking about how the parents were making this a big deal...I didn't hear any of the complaints I hear now... Though race wasn't a factor here overtly, the lack of negative response towards him and his family (in my opinion) speaks volumes, but there was still the law enforcement vs. the public/the poor.
I disagree with your statement that government mediates disputes.
1) That is why laws exist.
2) That is why courts exist.
When you have a conflict with your neighbor over overhanging branches on a tree, yes, you try to work it out amongst yourselves. That is the first line of mediation. When that doesn't work, however, where does one turn? The courts. This is a longstanding tradition...whether it be the wergeld of Germannics to the codices of the Sumerians.
If you have a problem with a neighbor, a business, a law...you turn to the government.
Trayvon's case absolutely must be mediated by the government...and I am sure both a civil and criminal trial will take place.
I don't know why you are denying the role of government in conflict mediation...if you have something to prove I am wrong, please show it...for as of now all the historical evidence is against you.This mediation thing is two pronged, I think. You say "mediation", I think "compromise" but I don't think that's really what you mean. A semantics and communication error, it other words.
In addition, though, Martin and Zimmerman do not have a conflict. The state and Zimmerman have a conflict; our justice system is set up that way to prevent individuals going for their own brand of "justice". This is intentional; only the state can try such cases.
This case is far different from neighbors arguing over tree branches and the process is far different as well. Individual citizens may not sue (may not go for govt "mediation") in criminal cases - only in civil matters. This is a criminal case and the state is the only complaining entity. We both know this, and it isn't really worth debating. It is mostly, as I say, a matter of semantics.
I might again repeat that I've seen nothing to indicate that the Martins are the ones to have started the media circus. The lawyer they use, playing the justice game, appears to have done that. He is the one who has taken this out of the justice system into the political arena and media insanity. Not the Martins.The Martin family and Zimmerman definitely have a conflict.
How can you say otherwise?
The Martins and their lawyer brought media attention to this event.
The only "circus" I see is the justice system in Sanford.I'm not making myself very clear, I'm afraid. The Martin family and Zimmerman have no conflict in the sense that there is nothing that either can do in the criminal matter of homicide. The Martins can, of course, sue civilly and in that case the state will absolutely mediate their complaint.
The Martins can offer their active assistance in the investigation, but it will almost certainly be turned down. They can offer testimony in a trial, but that will likely be turned down as well as they have nothing to offer but tainted character witness - tainted simply because Trayvon is their son.
The state will do all the work. It will investigate, it will try, it will sentence and it will punish. It will do all of these things as it sees fit, and whether the Martins like it or not. The Martins have no real say in any of this. If they don't like the way the trial is going they can't do much about it. If they don't like the verdict or sentence they can't appeal. They can't fire the judge, they can't fire the prosecutor. They can't even speak unless they can get one of the attorneys to call them to the stand.
Yes, Martins attorney has made political and media moves but he is not a part of the justice system. He cannot force his way to participation in any of those things listed as being done by the state, and if he tries too hard he will be held in contempt and join Z behind bars. He cannot do anything that you or I cannot do as well.
I agree that the system in Sanford is a circus, but I also see the media attention that way. If they had reported the killing, reported the actions and reactions in Sanford, fine. But they don't - they not only report the news; they actively make the news. They are manipulating the information, knowledge and emotions of the whole country and the only reason I can think of is money. One man is dead and anothers future life is in the balance but the only thing NBC can think of is increasing the number of viewers by "properly" editing audio tapes to make it sound like something it wasn't. All of them post photos that are almost totally deceiving, but can't be bothered to mention that they are years old. The online "news" sources are mostly lies and insinuation. Any real information takes hours of checking and verifying before it can be half believed. It's a circus, all right.
Nobody is seeking "vengeance, they are seeking justice. And letting a murderer walk free is not justice. This self-defense claim is really ridiculous, as anyone can see.
You want us to believe that this kid, who called his girl telling her some weirdo was following him....he was hurrying to get away from him.....he went back there--this 120 pd kid, vs a 240 pd man with a gun...he went back and assaulted Zimmerman? smh.....And you people ridicule me!
And the ones who started this crap media campaign were the police..probably after more instructions from the NRA.
They leaked Martin's school records to the media...THE POLICE!!
They are supposed to defend and protect...and here, they are WORKING for the defense to smear a victim!
Stinks to high heaven.BS. People seeking justice don't declare guilt without a trial. They don't declare that a "murderer will walk free" without knowing that he is a murderer and, as you have access to precious little evidence, you cannot make that claim.
I don't want you to believe anything, LMC, except that Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. That seems impossible as your mind is made up already - no doubt exists although you have only your own imaginings to go on. You and I both know that the objective evidence released to date is extremely contradictory, some is patently false and most of what is left is spun horribly in an effort at sensationalism.
Yet you continue to believe and to fan the flames of that same hate and sensationalism anyway. Sure the police started this media campaign - the very same police that are trying desperately to sweep it under the rug. You can't even follow your own twisted reasoning process!OH, so we don't know that Zimmerman is a murderer?? Really?
And I don't know where you are sitting, but from my chair, the one who is getting the hate is me.
And I will ask again: is there any case ever of a black man shooting someone and allowed to walk home with his gun?
If not---why were they not allowed the innocent until proven guilty canard?
btw---From my experience in America these past 10 or so years--it IS guilty until proven innocent....even for a simple traffic stop.No we don't. You have declared multiple times that you do, based on your intuition and your ability to "smell" it but that is pure BS. You have declared it is a hate crime of race based on the fact that one was a mixed race and one was black and that, too, is BS. Or do you not know the definition of the word? "Murder" is a legal term and we discussed it earlier - it is not always the proper or correct term to use for any and all violent death.
You can ask that same question all you want, but you won't get an answer from me. I don't know the answer and I don't care; what has happened in the past can stay there. It is useful only to learn from and anyone that thinks that because there have been racial problems in our past that they have a reason to discriminate again against someone else is a fool, aiming only to promote and encourage that same vile attitude.
If that is what you you have to offer to this thread, I'm not interested. The reawakening and active promotion of racial inequities from the past is not something I care to participate in - there is still far too much of that without encouraging ever more.A LOOOT more people than me!
I believe Zimmy called him a f*ckin c**n. I also believe the neighbors who say he had a problem with black kids. Ergo, I believe Martin was killed for being black.
If all you have to offer is "no he wasn't".....How is that any superior to my feelings?
Based on what?
You are waiting for a trial to see if a dead person was murdered. Ding! Ding! Ding!....DONE DEAL.You believe an electronically edited and modified audio tape. Yet in another thread you said another instance was a terrible thing to do. What's the difference? That this one "proves" what you had already said happened?
You believe the neighbors that claim Zimmerman was a racist, but disregard and ignore the reports that he tried to help, with free tutoring, the same kids. Again, your mind was made up long before any reports from the neighbors. You don't question their statement - you don't question anything that agrees with your opinion and ignore things that don't.
I don't make the claim that Zimmerman isn't racist, even though the only report I've seen (tutoring - I hadn't heard of the neighborhood claims) indicates he isn't. I do claim that your early and maintained claim that he went out solely to kill a black man is BS and it is. There is just no evidence whatsoever (including statements he "had a problem with black kids") that Zimmerman got out of his car with the intent to kill. Even if the neighbors are right and he did have problems with black kids but not white ones (they didn't mention that, did they?), it is not but the tiniest bit of evidence that he would want to kill one. Certainly not enough evidence, by a country mile, to convict him of a hate crime beyond any reasonable doubt.
Ding ding yourself. A homicide is not necessarily murder. That's why we have such charges as manslaughter and/or involuntary manslaughter. It's why we recognize pleas of insanity and self defense. It's why we accept accidental deaths without any such a charge.
To prove a charge of murder, a prosecutor must satisfy certain legal obligations. Otherwise a different charge, such as manslaughter, must be entertained and those other charges are most definitely NOT murder. Zimmerman may be guilty of murder, either first or second degree; he may be guilty under hate crime laws, he may be guilty of manslaughter or Florida equivalent of involuntary manslaughter (if they have one) or he may be guilty of nothing more than self defense. That's what a trial is for and why we require a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. Because we don't accept opinions based on little to nothing as a reason to destroy a life. Civil matters, requiring only $$ from a guilty person require a much lesser burden of proof but if we are to take the freedom from someone we demand that higher standard.
You don't even come close to that "preponderance of the evidence" for a civil matter, let alone the much more difficult to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" required for a criminal case.
Were you on Zimmermans jury, LMC, judging his future or even his life itself, would you be this free with your opinion and judgement? Would you demand that the prosecution jump through every hoop, dot every i, cross every t and absolutely prove his guilt of 1st degree premeditated murder before you voted to destroy his life? Or would you let your own past, with all it's good and all it's struggles dictate that vote? Would you be lazy and accept anything that you wanted to hear or would you actively question every witness statement while holding your own emotions and beliefs in firm check to consider those statements? Would you treat Zimmerman's life with the same identical care if his and Trayvon's color were reversed?
Where would you stand if you were on the jury and given only the conflicting and lying information we have seen to date? Is it enough to declare beyond any doubt that a man should lose his freedom forever?
We're not "declaring guilt before a trial." However, we are suggesting that there's apparently sufficient evidence for an arrest and a trial, and that the stand your ground laws perpetrated by NRA and ALEC are poor public policy because they have brought about a significant increase in needless shootings.
You may not be declaring guilt before a trial, but others have. From LMC's earlier posts:
"In this case, the color was the point of the murder."
"In fact, there is nothing to indicate anything other than an execution style slaying."
"Lunatic with an axe to grind, but has a connected daddy...gets away with MURDER."
"What needs to be determined is what degree of homicide this is.
I vote for 1st degree. Set out with intent to kill"
"OH, so we don't know that Zimmerman is a murderer?? Really?"
This poster hasn't already decided it's murder? And premeditated murder based on race - a hate crime charge to boot? Hogwash.
I tend to agree with you, Ralph. Based on the extremely sketchy evidence to date it would seem to me that a jury could well convict on an involuntary manslaughter charge. Similarly, based on the same evidence, there isn't a chance of a conviction of 1st degree murder. A key word in your post, though, is "apparently". I'm not a lawyer, I've never tried a case or even sat through one. I have TV shows to base my experience on for God's sake! What is absolutely apparent to me may not be a hill of beans to a real prosecutor out there.
Why isn't there a charge? I don't know. I can make guesses - looking for more evidence to sustain a higher charge, hoping Zimmerman will say or do the wrong thing and provide more evidence, special investigator hasn't had time to assimilate all the known facts yet, waiting for lab or medical test results - the list could go on forever. Bottom line is I don't know, and I certainly don't know enough about what the cops know to actually second guess them.
Stand you ground laws are a totally separate issue from this alleged homicide and have nothing to do with the details of this case. They sound good on the surface to me, but just as here there are ramifications that are perhaps only now coming to light. It is possible that the laws have helped in some circumstances and hurt in others - a decrease in severe beatings or stabbings, maybe. I have almost zero knowledge on the subject and can't really provide much to any discussion.
I would have to question, though, your "significant increase in needless shootings". Given that 99% or civilian shootings are needless and at least 50% of cop shootings are as well, what do you call significant? 1/2% over the past few years? 10%? What number are we talking? At the same time how do you attribute these extra shootings to that particular law - what are the criteria to say this shooting is because of stand your ground and this one isn't? Solid questions, I think, that would have to be addressed before I could have an opinion of that law. It's easy to come up with stats like this, but all too often they just kind of disintegrate into thin air when examined critically.
For instance, you may show that homicide is up 10% but homicide rates go up and down all the time. Maybe it's due to a bad economy, maybe there was an extra full moon last year (don't laugh - look at the crime stats on this one), maybe alcohol usage is up as well, maybe a million things.
I don't want to hijack this thread, though - if you have useful information or comments maybe share them on another thread?Ok wilderness...I think your opinion on this case is hogwash too.
They had plenty to arrest and lock this guy up on, with or without racism.
I just happen to believe it was racism that led him to stalk and kill Trayvon.
As usual, people cannot accept that others feel differently than they do. That's their problem, not mine.
"Some people, when they can't convince you of what they believe is true, hold you in contempt."
Of course, the police are using the media...they use it to further the case of Zimmerman, by posting things negative about Martin, and ignoring negatives about Zimmy.
Yeah...the second amendment is the thing that's been twisted.
It's one thing if you are in your home, and defending yourself, your children, etc.
But to get in your truck and follow down a person, who then ends up dead, and you can claim self-defense? And the law let's you??
That is making your right to own a gun more important than the safety of those around you. IMOI don't see this as a 2nd Amendment issue, LMC. This was murder, plain and simple.
Zimmerman was told not to follow Trayvon by the police. He did so anyway, putting himself in a situation where if Trayvon, who was probably scared and feeling fear for his own life, confronted Zimmerman, who had a gun and obviously didn't have a problem using it.
Now a young man is dead and because a "stand your ground" law, will probably get away with it.We got along fine with the English common law "castle doctrine" for hundreds of years. "Stand your ground" laws are causing needless shootings and making it harder to prosecute them.
The way I understand it the police told him NOT to follow Trayvon. He did it anyway, putting himself in a situation to "stand his ground."
To me, once he disobeyed the police dispatcher's direct order not to follow Trayvon, the "stand your ground" law goes out the window. He goes from feeling in fear for his life, if he ever did, to stalker.
We have a "Stand Your Ground" law as well as the "Castle Doctrine" here in Tennessee. I have a permit to carry.
If I walk in on someone in my house and they run out of the house, I CAN NOT pursue that person as I'm not a LEO. All I can legally do is call the police and give them a report.
If that person comes at me, I can then shoot them but that's because my life would be in danger.
Clearly, if Zimmerman had done as the dispatcher ordered, Trayvon would still be alive.
Zimmerman should be in jail and should have been the night of the shooting.I'm confused. You have several times indicated that Zimmerman was ordered to stand down by the 911 operator and seem to indicate that he then has a legal obligation to follow that order.
But a 911 operator isn't a cop and often isn't even paid by the police department. The training they get seems more oriented to handling frantic callers and giving first aid advice - it certainly isn't in law enforcement. How then can they give orders that anyone listening must obey under force of law? That what Zimmerman did was stupid in the extreme isn't debatable - my question is what law requires people to obey orders from a civilian 911 operator? It would be like having the sheriff's secretary or janitor walk out of the office and order me to move along; she can stuff her orders!
I'm also confused about the stand your ground law. I tried to research it but didn't find much - not even a copy of the law (which I assume varies from state to state). I don't really understand how it can apply in this case; Zimmerman was the one moving, following Trayvon. He wasn't standing his ground, he was actively closing the distance. I can see how the law might apply to Trayvon, waiting for Z to catch up, but not to Zimmerman.
Your example of not following an intruder out of your house is the perfect example, with you being Zimmerman. You are not allowed to follow under this law but are not required to run away either. What am I misunderstanding here? Is it that Zimmerman need not run away after Trayvon (allegedly) throws the first punch?The dispatch may not be a LEO but they are trained in what to tell people who call in.
My point is the police had been called. Zimmerman is not a LEO so he should not have followed Trayvon. He should have given the dispatch a description then done as instructed and taken his butt to his own house.
You're right, Zimmerman put himself in a "stand your ground" position by following Trayvon. He'd gone from standing his ground to stalking.
Admittedly, I don't know what Florida's law are on handgun carry. I do know TN law. Here, Zimmerman would be in jail as the pursuer.Then Z did not violate any law by refusing to follow the suggestion of the 911 operator. Just common sense. If he wanted to follow Trayvon until cops got there he should have done it extreme distance, even to the point that he was likely to lose him. Far, far better than what happened.
Do you have a typo in your reply? Z is in a stand your ground position but is stalking? Now I'm really confused! *edit* Nevermind - I read it again and got it this time around. Although Z might be in "stand your ground" after the fight started.
At this point it really does look to me like Z is guilty of involuntary manslaughter (not recognized in Florida, though). He did a stupid thing by following. He accosted Trayvon but, assuming Trayvon started the physical fight, may now fire a gun if he thinks his life was in danger. Even then, though, Z's negligent and stupid actions are the root cause for the death of Trayvon; involuntary manslaughter.
Of course, if investigation and a jury determine that either Zimmerman started the altercation or wasn't being beaten with head slammed into concrete then things change. Second degree murder then seems likely although again, Florida law is a little different.You're right, Wilderness, Zimmerman did not violate any laws by continuing to follow Trayvon. I don't believe I said he did. However, he did exercise great stupidity and exceedingly bad judgment, to say the least, and that little law known as Murphy's Law took over thus Trayvon is now dead and, if things go the right way, Zimmerman will find himself in jail on murder charges.
To me, Zimmerman lost his "stand your ground" position when started following Trayvon. Zimmerman called the police. He should have then gone to his house and let the police handle it. Instead, it sounds like he wanted to play cop and a young man died as a result.
Michigan's "stand your ground law is similar to the Florida law. Both go beyond the "castle doctrine" which is rooted in English common law.
780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
Sec. 2.
(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:
(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.
(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.
(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.
History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006Wow!
If I'm reading and understanding that correctly, one may use deadly force if one thinks they are in great danger.
OK - that's bad enough, but...
One may also throw the first punch if one thinks that someone is going to hit them.
You can start the fight and claim "I thought he was going to hit me!" That's really going overboard.
Applying this to the current case, then, Z approaches Trayvon in an ugly or threatening manner (not hard to do after following him around on a dark and rainy night). Trayvon swings in fear, gets lucky and decks Z, and this law protects that action. Z shoots, claiming the same law, and is again protected.
That's insane!
Thanks, Ralph - don't know why I couldn't find this, but it just didn't come up. Thank you, Google!
Trayvon Martin family lawyers allege secret meeting between Police Chief and State Attorney on night of shooting http://thkpr.gs/HgjRSt
Cover Up for "the Club". I M O
Lead homicide investigator a stand up guy.Did Crump and Rand actually mean poignantly or did they (as I suspect) mean to write pointedly?
What evidence do they have that it was a secret meeting? What is unusual about checking with the prosecutor to determine whether there is, in fact, enough evidence to hold a suspect? I thought that was common procedure. The lead homicide investigator may be the most stand-up guy in the world, but he's not a prosecutor and he doesn't know whether the information he has recorded will hold up in court. That's the prosecutor's job, isn't it?
It is quite possible that the meeting was altogether wrong, procedurally speaking; but so far I haven't seen or read anything that convinces me that it was.Perhaps the meeting wasn't wrong but the advice or decision by the State Attorney not to detain or charge Zimmerman appears to be wrong, based on what I've seen to date.
That's what I've thought, too. That's the prosecutors job; to determine if a case can be made. It's not the call of the cop on the beat.
And Ralph, it's easy to second guess using hindsight. There is more information now that there that night. At that point the prosecutor probably made the right decision - there just wasn't evidence for anything but self defense and outright stupidity.
"What am I misunderstanding here? Is it that Zimmerman need not run away after Trayvon (allegedly) throws the first punch?"
You are mis-understanding the WHOLE thing.Tell me, then - just what is the "stand your ground" law and how is it being applied in this case? That's what my question is, you know - what does that law say and why is being used here to protect Z?
I've read where people are saying that Zimmerman committed no crime following Trayvon Martin-I say yes he did-in this country there are stalking laws and if a woman alone on the street with a stranger following her around every turn she would most certainly have the right to call the police and report a stranger following her.
Status of stalking
http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Compone … ntID=41531
If many of us were in a vehicle and some joker were following us we too would report this stalker.The Events Leading to the Shooting of Trayvon Martin
Tragedy in a Gated Community George Zimmerman, 28, a neighborhood watch coordinator, says that he shot Trayvon Martin, 17, in self-defense after a life-or-death struggle on the night of Feb. 26. Official accounts and interviews with those involved in the case offer a glimpse into what may have happened. Related Article »
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 … tml?ref=usFor crying out loud!! What is going ON here??
"Republican Governor Mitch Daniels has signed Senate Enrolled Act 1 into law in Indiana. The new law allows citizens to use deadly force against police officers they think are illegally entering their homes. Earlier this month, Addicting Info reported that the bill had passed the Senate. Republicans say the bill is designed to keep police safe, but Democrats say the bill will lead to the wanton killing of police officers.
Rep. Craig Fry, a Democrat, says the bill “is going to cause people to die and it’s too late after somebody dies for a jury to sort it out. Somebody’s going to die, whether it’s a police officer or an individual who thinks a police officer is entering their home unlawfully. People are going to die.”
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/23 … -into-law/Laws that allow for lawlessness....the ultimate Orwell.
btw, $19.84 + Tax = $20.12I like that. Doesn't work in my state (It'll take 100 years before the numbers work) but I like it.
I like it too...that's why I didn't bother to see if it worked...the sentiment did!
Have you read that book, LMC? Much truth there, and it's scary watching our country become a distorted reflection of it.
The numbers - that's what hit me first. I play with numbers a lot and it slapped me in the face that it wasn't right. Then the $19.84 came into focus and it was "Wow! Ain't it the truth"?No--I don't remember reading that....or Animal Farm...but I must have? right? I went through the school system??
Well--I remember reading Charlotte's Web...and crying.
But yes--numbers are fascinating. And I've read that the "powers-that-be" rely on numerology HEAVILY. And astrology.
Then they tell us it's all bunk.
Actually, the world is nothing like 1984. There are some aspects like double speak (you know, like if you see racism you must be a racist) but thankfully we are not being watched at home every day, we can basically chooses whichever job we wish and can fall in love with whomever we want.
Sadly, a lot of the world accepts torture as okay. And, we do pick on individuals at times to make them the big bad enemy (the 2 minute hate), many groups want to control people's bodies and only allow certain people to get married. Okay, maybe there are parts of the novel that are true. It's not surprising since it was based on life during the 1940s.Just think about how much Google knows of your life.
Do you ever use a credit/debit card? Carry a cell phone? Your purchases and location are constantly known. Own a car or home? More reams of information about you.
Go to school? Work? More and more information for Uncle Sam.
It's never ending. Big brother is watching...
We read a book once...can't remember the name of it. But it was set in the future. All the sidewalks were automated, and we all just stayed in our homes, living through our computer screens!
errrrrrr......
Related Discussions
- 114
Robert Zimmerman Stirs the Issue of Racism
by SpanStar 11 years ago
Robert Zimmerman brother of George Zimmerman has stirred the issue of racism.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/2 … 79949.htmlClearly listening to Robert Zimmerman he appears to be a educated young man and one can understand a sibling being protective of a family member yet and still...
- 30
Why Did Some people See George Zimmerman As The Victim And Trayvon Martin As The
by VC L Veasey 10 years ago
Why Did Some people See George Zimmerman As The Victim And Trayvon Martin As The Aggressor?Why did they believe and not question his account of how their confrontation started?
- 22
What authority does the neighborhood watch have to observe or direct people to d
by Scott Vehstedt 10 years ago
What authority does the neighborhood watch have to observe or direct people to do something?Much has been made of the fact that when you call the Police, you're not really talking to a cop and therefore don't have to obey a given directive. Neighborhood Watch members are not sworn officers either,...
- 13
As a result of the protest and outcries regarding the George Zimmerman
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
not guilty verdict, the Department of Justice intends to review and decide to further investigate the case in order to determine if Trayvon Martin's civil rights was violated. What is YOUR opinion regarding this?
- 68
The Zimmerman Trial - An apology is offered
by Credence2 10 years ago
Being caught up in the debate, I slept on it and upon awakening realized that I, too, have allowed myself to caught in the hysteria. When I or anyone allows this to overwhelm it shortcircuits one's reasoning ability. 1. We are all guilty of prejudice and pre-conceived attitudes. We get them...
- 75
Liberal thinkers cause another death.
by karl 10 years ago
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … olice.htmlShould we really be letting killers out on day release, innocent people die because liberal thinkers believe scum like this can be rehabilitated.