As the first thead was closed due to it reaching 1,000 posts, this is a continuation.

Zimmerman has been charged with 2nd Degree murder. Looks like he finally has a decent lawyer. So, plea deal, tossed by the judge on a stand your ground motion, conviction on 2nd degree, conviction on a lesser charge, or acquittal?

My guess right now is acquittal, though I reserve the right to change that as new informaton emerges. It seems the initial investigation may have been sloppy enough for a decent defense lawyer to get an acquittal.

Link to the first thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=455837

Originally Posted by Berzerker
but he was stalking the victim

8.6 STALKING
§ 784.048(2), Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Stalking, the State must prove the following element beyond a reasonable doubt:
(Defendant) willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly [followed] [harassed] [or] [cyberstalked] (victim).
Definitions.
“Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
“Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.

7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE

To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

Definitions.

An ―act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is ―imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind‖ if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death.
Second Degree is what they use when someone ends up dead in a bar fight. And it's kind of a crap shot as the line of Second Degree and manslaughter is a very fuzzy one. But a Second Degree charge does help get someone on manslaughter in a case like this. If you can get the jury to believe the person is guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt, it's easier for the jury to "split the difference" and find in manslaughter, then if it was just manslaughter alone.

Acquittal followed by the stand your ground law being modified.

Hopefully he gets off just to piss off Trayvon's retarded supporters. Of course, being Amerikkka, the judge will probably sentence him to further her own career and to prove that mob justice works.

Hopefully he gets off just to piss off Trayvon's retarded supporters. Of course, being Amerikkka, the judge will probably sentence him to further her own career and to prove that mob justice works.

??? Dude, there kid was shot dead. Of course everyone should be supporters of them.

My guess right now is acquittal, though I reserve the right to change that as new informaton emerges. It seems the initial investigation may have been sloppy enough for a decent defense lawyer to get an acquittal.

You wanted him tried for murder believing the evidence wasn't good enough?

He'll be acquitted because it was self defense and this prosecutor better have something to justify putting him thru a trial

I still dont understand why it aint premeditated murder, the racist bastard was racially profiling and stalking the child.

Hopefully he gets off just to piss off Trayvon's retarded supporters. Of course, being Amerikkka, the judge will probably sentence him to further her own career and to prove that mob justice works.
Guilt will be determined by a jury and if Zimmerman isfound guilty, sentencing is by the judge who must follow a complex statute in determining the sentence.
You wanted him tried for murder believing the evidence wasn't good enough?

He'll be acquitted because it was self defense and this prosecutor better have something to justify putting him thru a trial

I still dont understand why it aint premeditated murder, the racist bastard was racially profiling and stalking the child.
First of all, I was making a prediction and giving the reason for my prediction.

I want him tried for murder because I believe there is probable cause that he committed the crime. I believe that the initial investigation may have been botched enough so as to make it easier for the defense team to establish reasonable doubt. As for 1st degree or 2nd degee murder, to me premeditation means he had the specific intent to kill Martin when he started the stalking - I do not believe that to be the case and it would be very difficult to prove. Under 2nd degree murder, you do not have to prove specific intent - the stalking can be evidence to help meet the depraved mind standard.

I still dont understand why it aint premeditated murder, the racist bastard was racially profiling and stalking the child.

Is this sarcasm? The internets is impossible to tell. If not, what happened to leaning towards Zimmerman's side of the story?

First of all, I was making a prediction and giving the reason for my prediction.

A prediction based on the lack of evidence... Which is apparently enough to put him on trial for murder. Sorry, hate to be a pain in the ass ;)

Is this sarcasm? The internets is impossible to tell. If not, what happened to leaning towards Zimmerman's side of the story?

Yes

A prediction based on the lack of evidence... Which is apparently enough to put him on trial for murder. Sorry, hate to be a pain in the ass ;)

I have indicated that the initial investigation may have been sloppy, not that there is a lack of evidence. OJ Simpson should have been put on trial and Casey Anthony should have been put on trial - but in both of those cases I correctly predicted acquittals.

I have indicated that the initial investigation may have been sloppy, not that there is a lack of evidence. OJ Simpson should have been put on trial and Casey Anthony should have been put on trial - but in both of those cases I correctly predicted acquittals.

You damn liburs and your endless spending!

Honestly, the invasion of nations would cost less if we went with your idea of the justice system.

"May have been sloppy" dont mean much if it doesn't translate into a lack of evidence, whereas the evidence against OJ was quite strong.

I dont even know what they're charging him with... Pulling a gun and shooting somebody or shooting an attacker he shouldn't have shot?

Second Degree is what they use when someone ends up dead in a bar fight. And it's kind of a crap shot as the line of Second Degree and manslaughter is a very fuzzy one. But a Second Degree charge does help get someone on manslaughter in a case like this. If you can get the jury to believe the person is guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt, it's easier for the jury to "split the difference" and find in manslaughter, then if it was just manslaughter alone.

He isnt being charged with manslaughter however (afaik), for him to get manslaughter, wouldnt he have to plea down to that? Or is there something in Florida rules that allows them to convict of a lesser charge if the initial one isnt proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Couple of thoughts:

Where on earth can the guy get a fair trial in Florida?

I see these charges largely as appeasement - its something we in the military call the 'do something' disease.....in other words 'doing something' no matter how meaningless is generally seen as more beneficial that simply doing nothing even if doing nothing is the absolutely correct course of action.

??? Dude, there kid was shot dead. Of course everyone should be supporters of them.

Thousands of kids die each day. Trayvon's death is just overblown media sensation. The best ending for this story would be FEMA busting down the doors of CNN's headquarters and unloading on all of the scum who drove this story so far. ANd as for the rioters themselves? I think it's time for some good old nerve stapling.

He isnt being charged with manslaughter however (afaik), for him to get manslaughter, wouldnt he have to plea down to that? Or is there something in Florida rules that allows them to convict of a lesser charge if the initial one isnt proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Couple of thoughts:

Where on earth can the guy get a fair trial in Florida?

I see these charges largely as appeasement - its something we in the military call the 'do something' disease.....in other words 'doing something' no matter how meaningless is generally seen as more beneficial that simply doing nothing even if doing nothing is the absolutely correct course of action.
Manslaughter would be considered a lesser included offense, so he can be convicted on that.

As for a fair trial in Floriduh, it seems Casey Anthony got an acquittal on the big charges against her, so one can be had.

I don't see the charges as appeasement. I see it as letting a jury decide the facts (assuming the judge doesn't shut it down on a stand-your-ground motion). I'm a bit suprised that you see it as appeasement. If I recall correctly, you were saying that those that were outraged should just let a court decide.
I dont even know what they're charging him with... Pulling a gun and shooting somebody or shooting an attacker he shouldn't have shot?
Killing someone without justification.
Thousands of kids die each day. Trayvon's death is just overblown media sensation. The best ending for this story would be FEMA busting down the doors of CNN's headquarters and unloading on all of the scum who drove this story so far. ANd as for the rioters themselves? I think it's time for some good old nerve stapling.
Neither the media nor the protesters killed Martin.

I feel that all the hype and bias from the media in this case has forced charges to be filed in order to calm things down. Martins parents were quoted as saying all they wanted was at least an arrest...so they got that.

But now, if the facts as they come out support Martins side of the case what will the mantra be of guys like Sharpton and Jackson? If Zimmerman walks, what then?

I feel that all the hype and bias from the media in this case has forced charges to be filed in order to calm things down. Martins parents were quoted as saying all they wanted was at least an arrest...so they got that.

But now, if the facts as they come out support Martins side of the case what will the mantra be of guys like Sharpton and Jackson? If Zimmerman walks, what then?
Sharpton and Jackson will react just like Nancy Grace and her ilk did over Casey Anthony. All I wanted was an arrest and fair trial. If Zimmrman walks, hats off to the defense lawyers so far as I am concerned.

JollyRoger, what do you think of the African warlords who rape, torture and kill thousands of their countrymen every single day of the year? Do you care? If so why do you consider George Zimmerman's case to be so important compared to their vastly more sinister crimes?

JollyRoger, what do you think of the African warlords who rape, torture and kill thousands of their countrymen every single day of the year? Do you care? If so why do you consider George Zimmerman's case to be so important compared to their vastly more sinister crimes?
I think the African warlords have a bit of ground to make up to match some of the European examples in history. Nevertheless, I do not think that Zimmerman's lawyer will be successful with the African warlord defense. American courts do not require a prosecution to be delayed until all the world's more important problems are solved.

And I ask you, why is it so important that you post in this thread when you could be off fighting African warlords or at least starting a thread on that far more important topic?

I think the African warlords have a bit of ground to make up to match some of the European examples in history. Nevertheless, I do not think that Zimmerman's lawyer will be successful with the African warlord defense. American courts do not require a prosecution to be delayed until all the world's more important problems are solved.

This doesn't explain why you devote attention to a single murder in Amerika, when there are so many human rights violations going on in other parts of the world that are ignored.

"First world problems".

And I ask you, why is it so important that you post in this thread when you could be off fighting African warlords or at least starting a thread on that far more important topic?

Unlike you I don't posture and claim to be championing some sort of moral ideal.

Wait, so can I ask a question too?

This doesn't explain why you devote attention to a single murder in Amerika, when there are so many human rights violations going on in other parts of the world that are ignored.

"First world problems".

I agree, being murdered is a trivial 1st world problem, on a par with losing the TV remote or the bus being late.

I agree, being murdered is a trivial 1st world problem, on a par with losing the TV remote or the bus being late.

I guess to elaborate on what I mean by first world problems... basically the first world has few real problems, and so the media has to manufacture problems to fill airtime. In this case they found "problem" that had lots of marketing potential due to the race factor involved and so they ran with it. This problem is nowhere near as important as problems elsewhere, but that doesn't stop the first world media's introverted audience from caring. And so we have first worlders posting their very important threads about random murder cases and celebrity news all over the internets. Not that I have a problem with that, just that I enjoy pointing out how ridiculous it all is from time to time. Carry on with George Zuckersberg - or whoever he is.

This doesn't explain why you devote attention to a single murder in Amerika, when there are so many human rights violations going on in other parts of the world that are ignored.

"First world problems".



Unlike you I don't posture and claim to be championing some sort of moral ideal.
I just assumed you were on it, but perhaps you just fantasize about warlord rape rather than taking action.

Hopefully he gets off just to piss off Trayvon's retarded supporters.

I totally agree !
He killed an unarmed 17 year old boy who he confronted himself after being told by police not to do so, but letting him go free would make a lot of people angry, especially if it becomes more obvious he's guilty.
I hope the judge sees your wisdom.


Of course, being Amerikkka, the judge will probably sentence him to further her own career and to prove that mob justice works.


I hear you man ! Here's one guy who won't stand for 'them' always getting away, but in Amerikka 'they' are basicaly untaouchable. That's a political show trial.


Jesus F. Christ, oh what piece of work is man...

I guess to elaborate on what I mean by first world problems... basically the first world has few real problems, and so the media has to manufacture problems to fill airtime. In this case they found "problem" that had lots of marketing potential due to the race factor involved and so they ran with it. This problem is nowhere near as important as problems elsewhere, but that doesn't stop the first world media's introverted audience from caring. And so we have first worlders posting their very important threads about random murder cases and celebrity news all over the internets. Not that I have a problem with that, just that I enjoy pointing out how ridiculous it all is from time to time. Carry on with George Zuckersberg - or whoever he is.

The media is a shepherd and the people are it's sheep, but not you, you see through it and get to the real issues. My hero :love:.

It looks like I've become the centre of attention. Cute.

That usually happens when you paint yourself pink, dance on a harpsichord and sing: "Those moronic arguments are here again".

That usually happens when you paint yourself pink, dance on a harpsichord and sing: "Those moronic arguments are here again".

says the guy with pink glasses.

I'm not complaining about being in the centre of attention. In fact, I should be complaining not being in the centre of attention despite my pink glasses.

He killed an unarmed 17 year old boy who he confronted himself after being told by police not to do so

Sgt Schlolz on MSNBC keeps pushing that "evidence" but from what I can tell Martin began the exchange of words. Zimmerman had been running around the building to head toward Martin who was walking his way now according to the map in the old thread, and he said he turned back and Martin approached him from behind. Martin's GF was on the phone while this is happening and she confirms Martin began the conversation.

She said Martin saw Zimmerman again (they lost sight of each other as Zimmerman got in front of him bypassing a building) and Martin asked "why are you following me?". That was followed by Zimmerman asking "what are you doing here?". At that point the GF said the phone was moved away from his mouth (she couldn't hear any more of the conversation) and according to Zimmerman, Martin asked "you got a problem?" to which he said no, and then Martin said "you do now". And wham... A punch to the nose and Martin is on top smashing Zimmerman's head into the ground. A struggle for the gun ensues (so says Zimmerman, not that it matters) and bang, Martin is shot and dying.

The prosecutor better have something solid, thats an airtight self defense claim and it dont matter one bit if "stand your ground" is the law. That law protects people who choose to stay and fight rather than make an escape, Zimmerman wasn't given a chance to escape - he was attacked and put on the ground. Anyway, I haven't seen any evidence Zimmerman continued pursuing Martin after the dispatcher told him to break it off.

The paper this morning was speculating that there is likely further evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

Lawyers: Prosecutor must have Zimmerman, Martin evidence not yet revealed (http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/lawyers-prosecutor-must-have-zimmerman-martin-evidence-not-yet-revealed/1224619)

Angela Corey and her team of prosecutors must know something that the rest of us don't.

In order to charge George Zimmerman with second-degree murder, local defense attorneys say, there must be something showing that Zimmerman acted with a "depraved mind" when he shot Trayvon Martin. And, to negate a defense under Florida's "stand your ground" law, there must be evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin first.

"I don't think she can prove that he acted with a depraved mind or an evil intent," said Denis de Vlaming, a Clearwater defense attorney. "That's a tremendously high burden for the facts as I know them."

Nevertheless, de Vlaming said he wasn't surprised Corey went for a murder charge.

In a highly scrutinized case complete with racial overtones and a public outcry for justice, the prosecutor went for the most serious charge she could, de Vlaming said. Even if a jury does not buy murder, they might settle on a lesser charge of manslaughter.

"It gives the jury some options," said Pinellas defense attorney Jay Hebert. "Typically it is difficult to prove a second-degree murder case where the person doesn't know the other person."

While second-degree murder requires prosecutors prove the "depraved mind" standard, manslaughter only requires they prove recklessness — that a defendant must have known the risks associated with his actions and done them anyway.

"In my opinion, it's going to be won or lost on forensics," de Vlaming said. "I would align as much forensic experience as I could possibly find on the issues."

That means finding witnesses — audio experts who can analyze the 911 calls, forensic pathologists who can examine Martin's wounds, and any witnesses who may have seen the attack.

But all the evidence presented publicly thus far has not provided a definitive answer of how the scuffle between Martin and Zimmerman transpired.

"It will be interesting to see what they have," Romine said. "Whatever evidence the prosecutor arrested him on, at some point the rest of the public will see it. What we all have to hope for is that the decisions being made are being made on the evidence and not on the uproar."

What we all have to hope for is that the decisions being made are being made on the evidence and not on the uproar

my $$$ is on the uproar

Because a Republican special prosecutor appointed by a Tea Party Republican governor is frequently influenced by the complaints of blacks of a highly discriminatory justice system, instead of the pursuit of justice for the victim no matter the color?

It's a good thing he isn't a Democrat...

Off to prison for whitey. We don't want to set a precedent where victims of crime think they can defend themselves. Come on, back in your cage with the other slaves - you'll die when we tell you to.


I'm not complaining about being in the centre of attention. In fact, I should be complaining not being in the centre of attention despite my pink glasses.

Stop being funny, it makes it hard to dislike you.

Because a Republican special prosecutor appointed by a Tea Party Republican governor is frequently influenced by the complaints of blacks of a highly discriminatory justice system, instead of the pursuit of justice for the victim no matter the color?

do you see a contradiction there?

if they didn't care about the uproar Zimmerman would still be free

besides, what do they care about Zimmerman? Cheap way to diffuse the uproar, throw him to the crowd of justice seekers.

Off to prison for whitey. We don't want to set a precedent where victims of crime think they can defend themselves. Come on, back in your cage with the other slaves - you'll die when we tell you to.

maybe next time don't stalk and shoot kids

Do we know if Zimmerman gets two bites at the "stand your ground" apple? First, at a hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to throw out the charge and second to convince a jury to aquit if a judge is not willing to throw it out?

Or, if a judge is not willing to throw it out, does Zimmerman lose any chance of self defense and will at that point essentially be looking to avoid second degree versus manslaughter, with added penalties in play due to other factors?

Does anyone have an opinion as to the evidentary value of the 911 recording in regard to who was crying for help? In the real, rather than the CSI world, can forensic science pin down with any certainity whoose voice that was?

maybe next time don't stalk and shoot kids

especially kids armed with only Skittles, who knew they could break your nose

Do we know if Zimmerman gets two bites at the "stand your ground" apple? First, at a hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to throw out the charge and second to convince a jury to aquit if a judge is not willing to throw it out?

Or, if a judge is not willing to throw it out, does Zimmerman lose any chance of self defense and will at that point essentially be looking to avoid second degree versus manslaughter, with added penalties in play due to other factors?

Does anyone have an opinion as to the evidentary value of the 911 recording in regard to who was crying for help? In the real, rather than the CSI world, can forensic science pin down with any certainity whoose voice that was?
Zimmerman is on the 2nd of 3 bites of the apple (not counting the numerous bites available on apeal). The first bite was to convince the prosecutor not to charge him. He lost that. Next is a stand your ground motion decided by the judge. If he loses that, he gets a third bite before the jury.

As for the 911 voice analysis, the best that can be done is expert analysis and giving percentages. Both sides will likely have competing experts if voice analysis is even let into evidence. While it is possible they may be able to give a conclusion that it wasn't likely Zimmerman, without a baseline of Martin's voice, they may not be able to analyze in regards to him - after all - the screaming could have been from a conservative CFC poster in the area that was being persecuted by a flurry of one liners.

especially kids armed with only Skittles, who knew they could break your nose

In utopia, we will all have the chance to be murdered by a kid with skittles.

Based on what is out there now I think Zimmerman should receive a ten year sentence for manslaughter suspended for two years with intensive probation. With permanently suspended priviledges to carry a gun off his dwelling premises.

Zimmerman is on the 2nd of 3 bites of the apple (not counting the numerous bites available on apeal). The first bite was to convince the prosecutor not to charge him. He lost that. Next is a stand your ground motion decided by the judge. If he loses that, he gets a third bite before the jury.

As for the 911 voice analysis, the best that can be done is expert analysis and giving percentages. Both sides will likely have competing experts if voice analysis is even let into evidence. While it is possible they may be able to give a conclusion that it wasn't likely Zimmerman, without a baseline of Martin's voice, they may not be able to analyze in regards to him - after all - the screaming could have been from a conservative CFC poster in the area that was being persecuted by a flurry of one liners.

Jolly, we really need to find Spock's brother and let him put the Vulcan mind mold on you so that you can release all that pain.

In utopia, we will all have the chance to be murdered by a kid with skittles.
Rather than be murdered by a nutcase with a gun?

I'm glad this white guy is in jail. You hear me? I'm calling him a white guy. I'm tired of the media calling him hispanic- which isn't even a race. He's a white man that killed a black man and should be charged with a hate crime because of it.

That said, I still say the liberal media was blowing this out of proportion. There isn't some conspiracy against black boys in this country. Sometimes **** happens.

I would like to see Zimmerman released in the general prison population, and not kept in isolation, but you can't have everything. I am happy that he will finally get a fair trial, and people will stop *****ing that he hasn't been arrested yet.

Although the only place I think he will get a fair trial is Alaska, and they should move it there. It should not be in Florida.

thats right kids, when slamming somebody's head off the concrete make sure they aint crazy and packing heat

It is for the jury to decide whether Zimmerman's claim of having his head slammed holds true.

And given the Casey Anthony trial, Floriduh seems like a place where a defendant can have a shot of winning a trial where public opinion is heaviliy against them.

He's a white man that killed a black man and should be charged with a hate crime because of it.

So every black man that kills a white person should be charged with a hate crime?

So every black man that kills a white person should be charged with a hate crime?

yes.

I know not every one is actually a hate crime. But you know what? I think it would be good. Maybe people would think twice about killing somebody if they knew they'd be charged with a race crime too.

Zimmerman is white, and I wish the media would refer to him as so.

I don't think Zimmerman should be charged with a hate crime.

It is for the jury to decide whether Zimmerman's claim of having his head slammed holds true.

didn't we already establish by that video he wasn't hurt?

or

wasn't hurt enough?

:D

Dude, you're a lawyer... Where's your spidey senses? You know he's gonna walk because its self defense.

Alan Dershowitz is calling the prosecutor's affadavit irresponsible

wow, he's ripping the prosecutor. Accusing her of being unethical if she overcharged to get a plea to manslaughter, and I agree... But that kinda crappola happens all the time.

and he said a good judge should toss this case based on that affadavit. I hope Zimmerman doesn't cop a plea, that would be the biggest injustice in all this mess.

and if he faces a civil suit, he should counter sue. He was the victim, the kid just chose the wrong guy to punch out.

thats right kids, when slamming somebody's head off the concrete make sure they aint crazy and packing heatThen I'm sure there was blood all over the sidewalk and possibly even bits of rock and dirt embedded in his scalp to corroborate it.

There was a rumor they found the bullet embedded in the dirt underneath Martin's body suggesting that he was shot while on his back. But that's just a rumor at this stage.

Whatever evidence there actually is convinced both the Sanford PD and the special prosecutor to charge him with a homicide.

didn't we already establish by that video he wasn't hurt?

or

wasn't hurt enough?

:D

Dude, you're a lawyer... Where's your spidey senses? You know he's gonna walk because its self defense.

Alan Dershowitz is calling the prosecutor's affadavit irresponsible
I think he has a shot a walking because there is quite a bit for the defense lawyer to work with. The video certainly undercuts his claim that he should have been in fear for his life. Of the publically released evidence, that and the very compressed timeline are going to be the toughest things for his defense lawyer to deal with.

As for Alan Dershowitz, his opinion of the prosecutor's affidavit will not make it into evidence, though little Sean Hannity's conversations with Zimmerman might. I look forward to seeing if Hannity has the journalistic integrity to go to jail for contempt in order to keep an off-the-record conversation off the record.

In utopia, we will all have the chance to be murdered by a kid with skittles.

true libertarianism is defending aggressive murder

Do we even know the caliber of the handgun?

If we find a bullet passed through Trayvon and was embedded in the ground, yeah, that would change my perception of the incident.

Do we even know the caliber of the handgun?
The released partial police report claims 9mm.

Well getting him arrested was one thing, but giving him a trial-by-media-and-forum post is something else. Surely it's enough now to let justice take its course?

hello, 911? Can you send the police, I'm stalking a young innocent black child and will be shooting him soon...

embedded in the ground? wouldn't make a difference to me...

if there was a struggle for the gun while these two were on the ground it wouldn't matter who was on top when it went off, just who threw the first punch. If somebody was banging my head off the concrete I'd take whatever opportunity to end the threat I had, including rolling over onto the attacker.

Again, the nature of the confrontation and whether Zimmerman was having his head slammed into the ground when he found his gun and fired the shot are questions of fact for the jury.

Again, the nature of the confrontation and whether Zimmerman was having his head slammed into the ground when he found his gun and fired the shot are questions of fact for the jury.

Yep. What people outside the court think about these things is now completely irrelevant. The problem of course is if the trial itself goes on to become as politicised as the original incident. I wonder if the system will go so far as to try appeasement by verdict.

Yep. What people outside the court think about these things is now completely irrelevant. The problem of course is if the trial itself goes on to become as politicised as the original incident. I wonder if the system will go so far as to try appeasement by verdict.
It depends on how much control the judge has over the process and the attorneys. Some judges are good at this, some are not. If they are not, it can help the defendant (think OJ and Casey Anthony where the judges let their courtrooms get out of hand).

So I've come to thinking that this is mildly less important news than the news about Kim Kardashian's divorce. Why? Well Kim Kardashian's divorce provided insight into Western degeneracy, where as Trayvon Martini only goes to show what we knew all along: first worlders like to complain about petty local affairs.

P.S. please attack this post since doesn't conform to popular consensus.

maybe next time don't stalk and shoot kids

8.6 STALKING
§ 784.048(2), Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Stalking, the State must prove the following element beyond a reasonable doubt:
(Defendant) willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly [followed] [harassed] [or] [cyberstalked] (victim).
Definitions.
“Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
“Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.

Just FYI.

So I've come to thinking that this is mildly less important news than the news about Kim Kardashian's divorce. Why? Well Kim Kardashian's divorce provided insight into Western degeneracy, where as Trayvon Martini only goes to show what we knew all along: first worlders like to complain about petty local affairs.

P.S. please attack this post since doesn't conform to popular consensus.
Does it feel nice to play the rebel?

yes.

I know not every one is actually a hate crime. But you know what? I think it would be good. Maybe people would think twice about killing somebody if they knew they'd be charged with a race crime too.

Zimmerman is white, and I wish the media would refer to him as so.

Wait what?

Lets play find the white male in this photo.

I'm sure Arizona is very happy to find out they were all white the whole time. ...Or are they? ...

I see two white males.

I would like to see Zimmerman released in the general prison population, and not kept in isolation, but you can't have everything.

Why? So he can get stabbed or raped by angry inmates? Is that justice to you?

Surely the resident white supremacist gang will protect him.

Why? So he can get stabbed or raped by angry inmates? Is that justice to you?
He can stand his ground.

Love these anti-racist racists obsessing over race. "Hey guys we aren't racist or anything but it's come to our attention that George Zuckersburg is white *shows photo of black guy* now lets all hold hands and sing praises to our "multicultural"* society!"

*lol yeah this brings up another point - what the heck is with the term multicultural? Ameriklanistan does all it can to assimilate foreigners into it's own culture, so it's anything but multicultural. It's far more accurate to call the 'Stain a multiracial society, since that's all that it is. I guess the word multiracial doesn't lend itself as well to propaganda though:rolleyes:

Did you get lost trying to find Stormfront or something?

I should've added this to my last post:

"P.S. please attack this post since it doesn't conform to popular consensus."

He can stand his ground.

so now you think he's innocent?

Did you get lost trying to find Stormfront or something?

No he didn't. We know something is wrong with society when the anti-racists are equated to fascists.


Keep up the posting attackfighter, we need more like you with independent minds and the ability to speak truth.

Why thank you Ayn Rand.

so now you think he's innocent?
So far I don't think he has committed a crime while in jail - I see he went on a spending spree in the jail commissary - he should have bought some skittles to put his fellow inmates in fear of their lives.

No he didn't. We know something is wrong with society when the anti-racists are equated to fascists.


Keep up the posting attackfighter, we need more like you with independent minds and the ability to speak truth.

No, his posts are so ridiculously trollish that no one is even willing to respond to garbage he's been spewing out all night. I'm just waiting for the cavalry to arrive.

So far I don't think he has committed a crime while in jail - I see he went on a spending spree in the jail commissary - he should have bought some skittles to put his fellow inmates in fear of their lives.

um...kay...but comparing him to the victims of crimes committed in jail means he's a victim now. I agree of course ;)

um...kay...but comparing him to the victims of crimes committed in jail means he's a victim now. I agree of course ;)
He's a "victim" of protective custody right now.

Acquittal followed by the stand your ground law being modified.

From the SYG law:

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 would be about the only part of SYG that the defense could cite, especially the part that I bold-faced. I think it'll be challenging to cite SYG in the defense, so I don't think SYG will be brought up at all. My hunch is a plea bargain and a very quick trial.

So far I don't think he has committed a crime while in jail - I see he went on a spending spree in the jail commissary - he should have bought some skittles to put his fellow inmates in fear of their lives.

What crime can you prove... hell, lets make it easy and say "think" he committed before he "as he claims" acted in self defense and shot Martin?

The crime is shooting Martin.

The crime is shooting Martin.

So we agree that Zimmerman in no way broke any laws before the shooting took place?

He didn't have to break the law for Martin to be justified in standing his ground. He might have commited a civil assault (which does not require physical contact).

He didn't have to break the law for Martin to be justified in standing his ground. He might have commited a civil assault (which does not require physical contact).

So that would be a no? ???

So that would be a no? ???
That would be a I don't know. I wasn't there. Zimmerman could have criminally assaulted Martin.

That would be a I don't know. I wasn't there. Zimmerman could have criminally assaulted Martin.

Fair enough.

If I were sitting on a jury, based on what I have been exposed to, I would think Zimmerman was not justified, but I would probably vote for acquittal as the evidence I am aware of creates reasonable doubt. Of course, we have not seen all the evidence and a jury might not see evidence that we have been exposed to.

What we do know is that Zimmerman initiated the contact, so there was no threat to him until he made it. Whether that would be sufficient under Florida law, particularly since the cops bungled the early investigation, who knows.

Martin initiated the contact, he didn't like being followed and he let Zimmerman know it

and does anyone have proof Zimmerman continued "following" (he wasn't following him at that point, they were walking towards each other) Martin after the dispatcher told him to break it off? He said he turned around to head back the way he came from his truck and Martin came up behind him.

He didn't have to break the law for Martin to be justified in standing his ground. He might have commited a civil assault (which does not require physical contact).

So according to your understanding of the law Martin was standing his ground when Zimmerman asked what he was doing there, but Zimmerman was not "standing his ground" when Martin knocked him down and bashed his head on the concrete?

So according to your understanding of the law Martin was standing his ground when Zimmerman asked what he was doing there, but Zimmerman was not "standing his ground" when Martin knocked him down and bashed his head on the concrete?
My understanding of the law is if Martin felt threatened (remember, stand your ground is pretty subjective here), he was justified in using force. If Zimmerman was being verbally aggressive and in Martin's face, that could qualify, especially given that Zimmerman is a stranger acting very aggressively, outweighing Martin, and possibly armed.

Under stand your ground, we would have had no duty to retreat and was justified in using force.

As for Zimmerman, if his initial actions in the confrontation were over the top, he may have had a duty to retreat as stand your ground would not apply. If he couldn't retreat, then he was justified in defending himself, but not justified in using deadly force. As the initial aggressor, he couldn't "stand his ground", but had a duty to retreat as soon as possible. I find it hard to believe that he retrieved his gun and got a shot off simutaneously with having his head bashed in (and post-killing video suggest he is exaggerating here on the head bashing). At the point he fired the shot, his life was not in danger. Especially given the fact that the cops had told him they were on the way and he had experience in knowing the cops responded to his many past cries of wolf.

Now, it is possible that Zimmerman got ambushed and acted in legitimate self defense, but that is best sorted out by a jury.

I've noticed that in all the threads on this topic, it's the same two or three people saying the same things over and over again.

That's because it's a simple matter and there's nothing substantial to discuss. Someone shoots someone and goes to trial - that's all there is to it. Only first worlders have the luxury of fabricating an "issue" out of it. Non-first worlders are too busy tending to real problems - which is why they are heroes of this age and will hopefully usurp the first world's position of power soon.

That's because it's a simple matter and there's nothing substantial to discuss. Someone shoots someone and goes to trial - that's all there is to it. Only first worlders have the luxury of fabricating an "issue" out of it. Non-first worlders are too busy tending to real problems - which is why they are heroes of this age and will hopefully usurp the first world's position of power soon.

What is it with your tendency to bring up "first-world" in every single post?

People born into industrialized nations aren't allowed to complain about anything. Ever. This is logical because I said so.

What is it with your tendency to bring up "first-world" in every single post?

What a FIRST-WORLD thing to say! You firstworlders sicken me. Become a Darfur war orphan before you have anything else to say.

Non-first worlders are too busy tending to real problems - which is why they are heroes of this age and will hopefully usurp the first world's position of power soon.
If they were so busy fixing their problems then they'd have already usurpped us a long time ago.

If they were so busy fixing their problems then they'd have already usurpped us a long time ago.

No because you don't know how many problems they have or how fast they are solving them.

No because you don't know how many problems they have or how fast they are solving them.

Please, tell us how countries like Syria and Uganda are solving their own problems.

Please, tell us how countries like Syria and Uganda are solving their own problems.

Well for one thing they are eroding obsolete traditions every generation that passes by. And for another their GDPs have been rapidly growing for the past 50 or so years, and many industries that were once dominated by the West have been usurped by the third world. They are growing stronger, while the West descends further into degeneracy.

No because you don't know how many problems they have or how fast they are solving them.

I don't know? They have accumulated 782 problems since August of 1961 and they are solving them at a rate of -2 per year. First world: 1 Non-first world: Zip.

Well, now I'm curious. Which country do you come from attackfighter?

Edit: Doesn't matter, seems you're from Canada. Thought you might be from Brazil or something the way you go on about the 1st world.

while the West descends further into degeneracy.

The % of the world market controlled by the west slipping does not mean that the west is descending to degeneracy. Do you think that in 50 years Western Europe and the US will be the third world? It's probably just that your anti-western sentiment has prevented you from thinking that far ahead.

It's probably just that your anti-western sentiment has prevented you from thinking that far ahead.

Actually, it's his lack of a brain that's done that.

I'm surprised people are still dignifying him with a response tbh.

I'm surprised people are still dignifying him with a response tbh.

Because it's fun and funny. These types hardly ever stick around for long enough in my opinion.

I've noticed that in all the threads on this topic, it's the same two or three people saying the same things over and over again.

I'll say something different and controversial.

I think the jury should convict him even if there is no evidence against Zimmerman. As the saying goes, the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. They should convict him to avoid a race riot.

Martin initiated the contact, he didn't like being followed and he let Zimmerman know it

and does anyone have proof Zimmerman continued "following" (he wasn't following him at that point, they were walking towards each other) Martin after the dispatcher told him to break it off? He said he turned around to head back the way he came from his truck and Martin came up behind him.



So according to your understanding of the law Martin was standing his ground when Zimmerman asked what he was doing there, but Zimmerman was not "standing his ground" when Martin knocked him down and bashed his head on the concrete?



How can Martin have initiated the contact when there would have been no contact at all without Zimmerman's actions of getting out of his car and pursuing Martin?

I'll say something different and controversial.

I think the jury should convict him even if there is no evidence against Zimmerman. As the saying goes, the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. They should convict him to avoid a race riot.

Do the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few?

Do the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few?

Good for you.

I'll say something different and controversial.

I think the jury should convict him even if there is no evidence against Zimmerman. As the saying goes, the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. They should convict him to avoid a race riot.

So basically you think that the many need blood, innocent or guilty, to slake their thirst for vengence?

And do you do you not think the West is falling into degeneracy?

And, are you a Christian, or a Jew, as you seem to advocate a blood sacrifice for remisson of sins, and in this case, as it may be innocent blood, the remisson of collective sin?

The special prosecutor claimed that Zimmerman profiled Martin, and Martin's mother stated that it was her son's voice screaming for help:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57413385/court-affidavit-zimmerman-profiled-trayvon-martin/

Here is the affidavit of probable cause:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Zimmerman_Probable_Cause_Document.pdf

I'll say something different and controversial.

I think the jury should convict him even if there is no evidence against Zimmerman. As the saying goes, the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. They should convict him to avoid a race riot.

Thank you for providing something different.

I'll say something different and controversial.

I think the jury should convict him even if there is no evidence against Zimmerman. As the saying goes, the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. They should convict him to avoid a race riot.

This basically vindicates everything I've said. Subconsciously I think most of you grasshoppers know whats coming for you. You keep pretending to laugh at the ants as they go marching by with food stores, but there is a cold chill in the air and the leaves are falling from the trees. The long night will soon close on you. Goodbye little grasshoppers. Goodbye.

I'll say something different and controversial.

I think the jury should convict him even if there is no evidence against Zimmerman. As the saying goes, the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. They should convict him to avoid a race riot.

And you believe a race riot is going to happen because...?????

Good for you.

Thanks for the condescension, old bean.

And you believe a race riot is going to happen because...?????

1992, maybe you've seen what happened in that year in L.A. (we had a few minor riots in my city as well, but I wasn't here at the time).

I'll say something different and controversial.

I think the jury should convict him even if there is no evidence against Zimmerman. As the saying goes, the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. They should convict him to avoid a race riot.

I was reading an argument about this just earlier - the sum of it was 'would you volunteer to take the blame, to assuage the race riot?' It's all too easy to justify taking away the rights of abstract other people, but thinking about them in relation to yourself brings a better perspective. The man deserves a fair trial, and if guilty, a fair punishment. That's his right as a citizen of a free country.

1992, maybe you've seen what happened in that year in L.A. (we had a few minor riots in my city as well, but I wasn't here at the time).

Except LA was already a powder keg waiting to go up and the Rodney King acquittals was the final straw after decades of LAPD racism, corruption and brutality.

There is some talk of having Zimmerman charged with a hate crime. Should his punishment be based on motivation?

This basically vindicates everything I've said. Subconsciously I think most of you grasshoppers know whats coming for you. You keep pretending to laugh at the ants as they go marching by with food stores, but there is a cold chill in the air and the leaves are falling from the trees. The long night will soon close on you. Goodbye little grasshoppers. Goodbye.

:lol: :popcorn:

There is some talk of having Zimmerman charged with a hate crime. Should his punishment be based on motivation?

I fail to see how you can charge anyone with a hate crime not based on their motivation.

A hate crime? As opposed to those 'really, really like you' crimes?

Is there any way to format that so that 'Life on Mars' is in italics?

I fail to see how you can charge anyone with a hate crime not based on their motivation.
Well, the objection to hate crimes is that they consider motivation.

I see the rub - where it's possible to work out motivation (normally when a crime is planned or when there's evidence of words said during its commission) I see no problem with charging it as a hate crime, although such evidence can be difficult to find.

I reject the notion of hate crimes and believe racial and ethnic labels should be abolished.

Too bad that'll never happen unless the more conservative Americans agree to not hate certain elements of the American populace.

Too bad that'll never happen unless the more conservative Americans agree to not hate certain elements of the American populace.

All Westerners are liberals whether they know it or not.

I reject the notion of hate crimes and believe racial and ethnic labels should be abolished.

We'll get right on that just as soon as racial discrimination stops.

We'll get right on that just as soon as racial discrimination stops.

Racial discrimination doesn't exist and never has. What you really mean is ethnic discrimination, but you're too immersed in propaganda to know that. This is besides the point though. The real question is: do you know how to end ethnic discrimination?

What ethnic group do African-Americans belong?

Is that a joke?

Do you really think most African-Americans identify with supposed common ancestors in Africa instead of thinking of themselves as being Americans?

What ethnic group do Americans who have been here for centuries belong? People whose ancestors are frequently geographically dispersed all over Europe, South America, Asia, and elsewhere?

Do you think racists who feel superior to blacks only feel superior to certain ethnic groups and not others?

Do you think KKK members really care which ethnic group someone belongs as long as they aren't considered by them to be "white"?

Do you think people who profile blacks as criminals really care if their ancestors came from Liberia, Panama, or Ethiopia?

Racial discrimination doesn't exist and never has. What you really mean is ethnic discrimination, but you're too immersed in propaganda to know that. This is besides the point though. The real question is: do you know how to end ethnic discrimination?


That's trying to win with semantics rather than facts. Hint: You don't win.

That's trying to win with semantics rather than facts. Hint: You don't win.

I said it was besides the point so I don't know what you think I'm trying to "win" with it.

My question remains: do you know how to end ethnic discrimination?

nk most African-Americans identify with supposed common ancestors in Africa instead of thinking of themselves as being Americans?

What ethnic group do Americans who have been here for centuries belong? People whose ancestors are frequently geographically dispersed all over Europe, South America, Asia, and elsewhere?

Do you think racists who feel superior to blacks only feel superior to certain ethnic groups and not others?

Do you think KKK members really care which ethnic group someone belongs as long as they a

It would have taken you much less effort to look up the term "ethnicity" than to write this wall of text on a flawed premise.

The only thing that African-Americans have in common from an ethnic standpoint are ancestors. And even then, it is usually quite tenuous given that many of them have varied ancestors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and/or an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.[1][2][3] The concept of ethnicity differs from the closely related term race in that "race" refers to grouping based mostly upon criteria that in the past have been presumed to be biological, while "ethnicity" also encompasses additional cultural factors. However, OMB defines the concept of race as outlined for the US Census as not "scientific or anthropological" and takes into account "social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry", using "appropriate scientific methodologies" that are not "primarily biological or genetic in reference."[4]

As Cutlass pointed out, this is just semantics. As you are using the term to describe blacks, it is just another synonym for race.

It would have taken you much less effort to look up the term "ethnicity" than to write this wall of text on a flawed premise.

Why don't you answer his question then? What ethnic group do black Americans belong to?

The only thing that African-Americans have in common from an ethnic standpoint are ancestors. And even then, it is usually quite tenuous given that many of them have varied ancestors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and/or an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.[1][2][3] The concept of ethnicity differs from the closely related term race in that "race" refers to grouping based mostly upon criteria that in the past have been presumed to be biological, while "ethnicity" also encompasses additional cultural factors. However, OMB defines the concept of race as outlined for the US Census as not "scientific or anthropological" and takes into account "social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry", using "appropriate scientific methodologies" that are not "primarily biological or genetic in reference."[4]

As Cutlass pointed out, this is just semantics. As you are using the term to describe blacks, it is just another synonym for race.

You get your definition from Wikipedia and wikipedia even lists "African-American" as an ethnic group.

Research your facts before using them in arguments. African American is an ethnic group using that definition (and all others).

This is the only thing I feel needs clarification:

As Cutlass pointed out, this is just semantics. As you are using the term to describe blacks, it is just another synonym for race.

Commoners don't know what race means, therefore they're incapable of consciously discriminating based on it. Racial discrimination has never existed, outside of maybe Nazi Germany or whatever. The word "race" is simply a buzzword in Western rhetoric.

Research your facts before using them in arguments. African American is an ethnic group using that definition (and all others).

So black people living in a Louisiana swamp speaking creole belongs to the same ethnic group as urban Chicago black people?

I said it was besides the point so I don't know what you think I'm trying to "win" with it.

My question remains: do you know how to end ethnic discrimination?




Don't let people discriminate. Teach people that it's a bad thing to do.

Don't let people discriminate. Teach people that it's a bad thing to do.

Western nations have been doing this already for 50 years. The "problem" still persists.

Also I'd like to see evidence and hear some reasoning as to why this would work. Otherwise it's just hollow rhetoric.

Western nations have been doing this already for 50 years. The "problem" still persists.

Also I'd like to see evidence and hear some reasoning as to why this would work.


There are many aspects of it that public policy has refused to address.

All Westerners are liberals whether they know it or not.

Riiiiiight. Proof please.

Too bad that'll never happen unless the more conservative Americans agree to not hate certain elements of the American populace.

No offense, but I saw what you did there.

There are many aspects of it that public policy has refused to address.

I take it from the vagueness of your posts that you have no idea what you're talking about and are just spouting off whatever feel-good propaganda you can think of.


All Westerners are liberals whether they know it or not.
Riiiiiight. Proof please.

Western society is liberal, therefore it stands to reason that people raised there will be liberal also.

I take it from the vagueness of your posts that you have no idea what you're talking about and are just spouting off whatever feel-good propaganda you can think of.




And here I was thinking that of you. :crazyeye: Racism is alive and well in the US. But it's not what it was. And eventually it won't be what it is now. Speeding that process along a bit is a really good idea.

And here I was thinking that of you. :crazyeye: Racism is alive and well in the US. But it's not what it was. And eventually it won't be what it is now. Speeding that process along a bit is a really good idea.

Are you ever going to provide evidence or reasoning to back up anything you say?

Are you ever going to provide evidence or reasoning to back up anything you say?

Are you?

Are you?

In every post I've ever made.

Are you ever going to provide evidence or reasoning to back up anything you say?

It's as self evident as saying "water is wet" to anyone who knows anything about America.

It's as self evident as saying "water is wet" to anyone who knows anything about America.

The decline in racism could be attributed to the incline in living standards or the shift in cultural values or a number of things. You can't attribute it to anti-discrimination programs without proof.

The decline in racism could be attributed to the incline in living standards or the shift in cultural values or a number of things. You can't attribute it to anti-discrimination programs without proof.

http://whynationsfail.com/blog/2012/4/5/law-and-force-cannot-change-a-mans-heart.html

George Zimmerman, the Hispanic Floridian who killed black teenager Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26, had a MySpace account whose username was “datniggytb,” The Daily Caller has learned.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/11/zimmermans-myspace-nickname-included-datniggy-family-insists-on-innocent-explanation/

That motto in Latin sure fits his personality profile.

Racial discrimination doesn't exist and never has. What you really mean is ethnic discrimination, but you're too immersed in propaganda to know that. This is besides the point though. The real question is: do you know how to end ethnic discrimination?

Hahaha what trash. You're an idiot, do you know that? Ethnicity and race are separately defined characteristics. Read a god damn book.

Straight out calling someone an idiot is not acceptable here. It falls into the category of 'being a jerk'.

http://whynationsfail.com/blog/2012/4/5/law-and-force-cannot-change-a-mans-heart.html

So what's your take on that article? It just says that Southern discrimination was institutionalized in 1890 and ended in 1965. That doesn't exactly support your case.

Hahaha what trash. You're an idiot, do you know that? Ethnicity and race are separately defined characteristics. Read a god damn book.


I think you need to learn better communication skills. There's a reason I barely ever reply to you, despite you constantly replying to me.

the internet allows people to be impolite anonymously

No it doesn't. Your name is Berzerker.

I think you need to learn better communication skills. There's a reason I barely ever reply to you, despite you constantly replying to me.

I have no tolerance for bad trolls who wander in to threads screaming bloody murder about stuff they know nothing about.

I take it from the vagueness of your posts that you have no idea what you're talking about and are just spouting off whatever feel-good propaganda you can think of.



Western society is liberal, therefore it stands to reason that people raised there will be liberal also.
Take a look at Stormforce forum, please.

You mean Stormfront. And I made that joke already.

No, he means stormforce: http://www.stormforce1.com/

I see nothing notable about it.

As for stormfront... well the views expressed there don't conflict with liberal views, unless you warp the term liberal quite a bit. So it's not proof that Westerners aren't liberals.

No, he means stormforce: http://www.stormforce1.com/

I see nothing notable about it.

As for stormfront... well the views expressed there don't conflict with liberal views, unless you warp the term liberal quite a bit. So it's not proof that Westerners aren't liberals.

:huh: Do you know what the world liberal means in America?

Wait, wait, let me guess. What it means in America doesn't matter, because we're a bunch of first worlders. Right?

Please. I mean Stormfront [sic]

I cannot see how you can stretch the meaning of liberal this far.

Inappropriate content rules apply to this forum too, so inappropriate link removed.

I mean liberal in the most basic sense.

What sense is that? I am intrigued.

I assume I could skip the last few pages has nothing of importance was said.

Well actually you could skip every thread in this forum and still not miss anything important. This forum hasn't contributed anything of artistic, scientific or philosophical value to the world and the chance of it doing so in the future is infinitesimally small.

I beg to differ.

Well actually you could skip every thread in this forum and still not miss anything important. This forum hasn't contributed anything of artistic, scientific or philosophical value to the world and the chance of it doing so in the future is infinitesimally small.

Which brings up the question of why you bother posting here if you believe that.

Which brings up the question of why you bother posting here if you believe that.

Well unlike others I don't posture and claim to be here for anything but my personal amusement.

Well unlike others I don't posture and claim to be here for anything but my personal amusement.

What makes you think the rest of us aren't posting because your particular brand of failure is so amusing?

What makes you think the rest of us aren't posting because your particular brand of failure is so amusing?

Well, personally I'm here to make the world a better place.

Question for Berzerker and others defending Zimmerman.

Is there anything that would convince you that he wasn't justified in killing Trayvon? Is there anything that would make you less certain that he was justified? If yes, what are those things? Would you accept a guilty verdict of murder two? A guilty verdict of a lesser crime?

Is there any way to format that so that 'Life on Mars' is in italics?

Manually.

Originally Posted by DCI Gene Hunt in 'Life on Mars'
A hate crime? As opposed to those 'really, really like you' crimes?

Originally Posted by DCI Gene Hunt in 'Life on Mars'
A hate crime? As opposed to those 'really, really like you' crimes?

of course, if Zimmerman started the fight he's guilty of at least manslaughter... If Martin started the fight, Zimmerman is innocent...

Are you going to accept the jury's decision, even if it's that Zimmerman was wholly at fault?

I will accept the jury's decision on the grounds that it's infallible. If you know anything at all, you will too.

Are you going to accept the jury's decision, even if it's that Zimmerman was wholly at fault?

Well no one did for OJ or Casey.

Are you going to accept the jury's decision, even if it's that Zimmerman was wholly at fault?

Do I have a choice? Whether or not I agree with the jury's decision depends on the facts of the case, but I'm sure a jury will acquit. This is a simple case of self defense...

Well actually you could skip every thread in this forum and still not miss anything important. This forum hasn't contributed anything of artistic, scientific or philosophical value to the world and the chance of it doing so in the future is infinitesimally small.

:lol::lol: Talk about telling it how it really is. How I miss that rare sound of an uncorrupted voice in the wilderness.

Some more Florida nonsense.

HB463 & SB998 - Shall Issue Carry Licenses for Military & Vets:

Those who defend our country overseas should be able to defend themselves and their families at home. There have been too many incidences of violence against our troops who have just returned from overseas deployments and found themselves defenseless at home. Florida Carry authored legislation that will insure that our current troops and honorably discharged veterans can obtain a license to carry regardless of age or duty station. The bill will also require that fingerprint cards be accepted from military police and provost so that service members stationed overseas can complete their applications.

There are over 8,000 adult service members under the age of 21 living in the State of Florida. Countless more resident veterans and annual military visitors who will have their right the bear arms advanced by these bills.

http://www.floridacarry.org/legislation/25-2012-session/41-2012

They'll still go to jail for having a sip of beer though.

Some more Florida nonsense.



http://www.floridacarry.org/legislation/25-2012-session/41-2012

They'll still go to jail for having a sip of beer though.

why is that nonsense?

Because he disagrees with it and anything he disagrees with is nonsense.

Some more Florida nonsense.Speaking of Florida nonsense, here is the real story of how the "stand your ground" law came to be:

Florida's 'stand your ground' law was born of 2004 case, but story has been distorted (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/article1225164.ece)

In 2005, as lawmakers pushed to pass sweeping self-defense legislation that would become known as the "stand your ground" law, critics had one challenge: Show us a case in which someone had been treated unjustly. • Backers of the new bill had an answer: James Workman.

Here was a 77-year-old retiree asleep with his wife in an RV outside their hurricane-damaged home in 2004. And here came a menacing intruder, prowling through the dark, bursting into the trailer. The homeowner shot the intruder, then had to wait months — painful, anxiety-filled months in legal jeopardy — before prosecutors decided the two shots he fired were justified, that what he did was protect himself and his wife.

That's too long, said the senator who introduced the bill.

"You're entitled to protect your castle," Durell Peaden said at the time. "Why should you have to hire a lawyer to say, 'This guy is innocent'?"

The story was repeated again and again, to reporters and in the halls of the Capitol.

It worked. The law passed 39-0 in the Senate and 94-20 in the House, and then it swept across the nation, driven hard by the National Rifle Association, to more than two dozen other states.

But if you really look at the case, you see that the story told by proponents of "stand your ground" is a distortion. And it's being distorted to this day.

What happened on that warm and windy night on the banks of Big Lagoon was a tragedy for everyone involved. But it was not a case that suggested a need for a new law.

The winds tore off the front porch of Workman's house and ruined the roof. Workman, 77 then, and his wife, Kathryn, 56, tried to make do, but a good portion of the house was unlivable. They did what they could to clean up after the storm, then headed to a vacation home in North Georgia for a respite.

A neighbor called while they were gone to report that someone camping across the street had hooked a water hose to the Workmans' home. This concerned them. Thieves and criminals had followed the itinerant cleanup workers, and nerves were frayed. Three weeks before, 100 yards away from their brick house, a growling man with a machete had tried to break into a travel trailer. Deputies had subdued the man with a bean-bag projectile and a Taser.

The day the Workmans returned, Nov. 2, they fell asleep inside an RV parked in their drive. The night was warm and windy, and it was hard to sleep. Sometime after 2 a.m., Kathryn got up to adjust the window.

That's when she saw him.

Through the dark, she saw a man approaching the front door of her damaged home, about 20 feet away.

She woke her husband. He grabbed a .38-caliber handgun, opened the door and stepped outside.

Cox, 35, was a doting father, his family said. He loved to play in the swimming pool with his children and take his son fishing. Cox would leave his home in Asheville, N.C., at a moment's notice and be casting lines and cracking cold beers on the Atlantic in a half-dozen hours.

He played a lot of golf and shot in the high 80s. He listened to Jimmy Buffett and Lynyrd Skynyrd. He never had to study to make good grades in school, his sister said, and he aced the test to get his general contractor's license. His hard work earned him a fishing boat and vacations to Cancun and the Outer Banks.

"He was a good kid," said his uncle, Billy Autry, 56. "I'm not trying to make him sound like an altar boy, but you can search high and low and you won't be able to find a criminal record."

What is on his record are a handful of speeding tickets and traffic infractions, boating without proper lights, fishing without a trout license, and one charge of driving while impaired, to which he pleaded guilty and paid a $100 fine and $90 in court costs.

Cox rode to Florida with a friend, arriving on Nov. 2. He found a place to stay in a camper on private property on Sanchez Lane, in the midst of the destruction, near Gulf Beach Highway. His friend headed back home to fetch more equipment.

The first indication that something may have been wrong with Rodney Cox came at 7:08 that evening. The Escambia County Sheriff's Office received a 911 call from his cellphone. The call kept breaking up.

"What do you need?" the dispatcher asked.

"A sheriff's deputy," Cox said.

"For what?"

"I believe it's domestic," Cox said.

"Domestic what, sir?"

"Violence to myself," he said.

Cox was trying to guide deputies to his location, but he gave them an incorrect street name several times.

At 7:26, Cox called back. He continued to beckon deputies, but again offered an invalid address. Frustrated, he told the dispatcher: "I'm not from here."

He finally offered the correct street. He told the dispatcher he was staying in a camper beside a house and heard what sounded like a fight inside.

"Who lives in the house, sir?" the dispatcher asked.

"I don't know."

"Who let you park your camper there?"

"Ma'am, I'm from North Carolina working the storm. I have no idea. I'm from FEMA. I don't have no clue. …"

"We'll get somebody out there, okay?" the dispatcher said.

The phone call ended. Cox flagged down a deputy a few minutes later. In his report, the deputy noted that Cox "appeared to be intoxicated." He was jumpy and unable to stand still. He was having trouble completing his sentences. He asked Cox if he had any mental disorders or if he was taking any narcotics. Cox said he'd had several beers but was not using drugs. He told the deputy that someone had tried to break into his trailer, but he didn't know who, and that he wanted to check into a hotel.

Another man staying on the property volunteered to take Cox to a hotel nearby. The deputy watched Cox pack his luggage into the man's truck and leave. Then he went on his way.

As the night dragged on, Cox phoned his mother in North Carolina. He said he was on foot, looking for a place to stay. He told her he wanted to come home, but he didn't have a ride. He asked her to come get him the following day.

That was the last his family heard from Rodney Cox. No one knows how he made it a almost a mile and a half from where he was staying to the brick house on Seaglade Drive.

If James Workman and Rodney Cox had met under different circumstances, if the night hadn't been as dark or the tension as thick, if it hadn't been past 2 a.m. in a hurricane-wrecked neighborhood full of jumpy people, if one of them hadn't been trespassing and the other hadn't been armed, there's a good chance they would have found common ground. They could have talked about golf, or fishing, or hunting. They might have been friends.

But when James Workman stepped out of his trailer, he faced the unknown.

"Sheriff's 911. What's going on there?"

"Uh, there's a man that was trying to get in our house," Kathryn Workman said. "We're in a trailer … and I just heard gunshots."

"I got you, I'm trying to get someone. … Did he get inside, ma'am?"

"No, he's out, he's out front and my husband was out front, and we went out and he was trying to get in the house, he is a … and we confronted him and he wouldn't, he just kept walking around and wanted a glass of water. …"

Kathryn Workman described the intruder as "kind of balding," "a little bit chunky" and "shortish." Then she began to scream.

"Ma'am, what do you see, what are you hearing?"

More screaming.

"Ma'am, ma'am, if you're going to scream, tell me why you're screaming."

More screaming.

"Ma'am?"

"Oh, help. Stay there where you are (inaudible). … Are you okay, honey?"

A man shouted in the background.

"Ma'am?"

"Yes, oh, God, oh, please send somebody here."

"Ma'am, you've got to tell me what's going on."

"He came in the house and (inaudible) …"

"You've done what?"

"He's in the trailer, he's in the trailer with us."

She cried, and screamed, and there seemed to be a struggle going on.

"Ma'am, what's he wearing?"

"He's got shorts on, he's got …he's (inaudible) … my husband shot him."

Three months later, on Jan. 30, the Workmans read in the same paper that the State Attorney's Office had ruled the shooting justified, that Workman "was confronted with circumstances and conditions beyond his control that resulted in the unfortunate death of Mr. Cox."

Weeks later, when the "stand your ground" law was introduced in the Legislature, a reporter asked David Rimmer, the assistant state attorney who decided not to charge Workman, for his opinion. He would not comment for this story because he is a judge now, but he told the Pensacola News Journal in 2005, "I think the law's fine as it is."

But on April 5, 2005, lawmakers pointed to Workman as the Florida House debated the bill.

"One of the major reasons I support this bill is for a 72-year-old man laying in bed at night with his 68-year-old wife, trying to sleep, when an intruder came in on them," said Greg Evers, a Republican from Baker. "The man shot the intruder, wounded him, did not fatally kill him. But yet for six months, he wondered if he was going to be charged with shooting the man. Folks, that's not right."

In the various accounts, the politicians erred on several facts, the Workmans' ages, 77 and 56, being the least of them. It was less than three months. Workman went outside to confront Cox and fired a warning shot into the ground before Cox ran into the trailer. When Workman chased Cox into the trailer, Cox didn't strike him. He bear-hugged Workman, pinning his arms to his sides.

The gunshot to Cox's abdomen traveled through his left kidney and large intestine and lodged in his pelvis, and the shot to his thigh went through his left profunda femoris artery and lodged in his right thigh. Hospital staffers noted that he was dead on arrival.

Lawmakers continue to misconstrue the case.

"Original Senate sponsor Durell Peaden said Tuesday it was crafted after an old man from Pensacola shot an intruder who tried to loot his hurricane-ravaged home," reporters from the Times/Herald Tallahassee bureau wrote in March. Peaden couldn't remember the man's name, but he said he had to hire a lawyer to defend himself.

Workman never hired a lawyer. And he never thought he'd become the poster child for a bill he was uncertain about at the time.

"We didn't ask for any of this," said Kathryn Workman, taking a break from mowing the lawn, where red flowers and an American flag line the front walk. "We didn't want any of this to happen."

James Workman doesn't know what brought Rodney Cox to his yard that night, what prompted him to mumble and wander around the property, what made him dart inside the RV. But Workman did what he felt he had to do in an intense and frightening moment. His wife was scared for her life.

"I had his blood on my chest," Workman said. "I hate it."

Workman hesitates to offer an opinion on the "stand your ground" law. In 2005, he told a reporter he was "kind of in favor of it," but that he "can see some pitfalls if you make it too loose."

After a friend identified Rodney Cox's body, after police shipped home his bloody shorts and shirt, his family and friends gathered in North Carolina. They viewed a slideshow of his life and played his favorite music. They went to his mother's house and ate his favorite meal, baked lasagna, and told stories and wondered how this had happened.

They still wonder. What was wrong with Rodney that evening? Why was he acting out of character? The autopsy showed that his skull was fractured. Had he been beaten? Did he run into the trailer in fear for his life?

"It came close to killing my parents," said Cox's sister, Terri Cox Lavery, 44, who still combs through the police reports seven years later, looking for answers. "My mom, just this year, has gotten some of herself back."

Her family, many of them former military, owns guns. Her husband has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. They believe in the right to bear arms and to protect your property.

"But if someone seems disoriented," she said, "I'd like to think that we would, at a distance, first attempt to give some kind of aid and set some boundaries and call for help."

They all agree that it's especially insulting and hurtful that Rodney's death is used by politicians as an example.

"The people who used this incident to pass that law, they're not even on course," said Autry, Cox's uncle. "They're not even close."Only in Florida. This reads like a Carl Hiaasen novel...

So what's your take on that article? It just says that Southern discrimination was institutionalized in 1890 and ended in 1965. That doesn't exactly support your case.



What is says is that racism declined when the economic basis for it, not the cultural basis for it, was suppressed. Racism was never a natural hate of whites for blacks in the US, it was always something that whites were taught because it gave a political, social, and primarily, economic, advantage.

And it still does, just not to as great of an extent. So take away the economic advantage that racism perpetrates, and the social effects will fade as well.

I see no problem with the Stand your Ground law. My state has had it for over 100 years (unofficially) with no problems. Although Florida's law is a bit more forgiving than my state's law. The law doesn't entitle you to stalk someone, therefore the law doesn't apply in Zimmerman's case and he should be charged with 2nd degree murder (which he has).

Do I have a choice? Whether or not I agree with the jury's decision depends on the facts of the case, but I'm sure a jury will acquit. This is a simple case of self defense...

I guess what I'm asking is whether you have faith in the judicial system to come to the right conclusion even if it is at odds with your judgment on the case.

It seems that if the verdict differs from the "facts" as put out by the killer and his family, friends, and lawyers, some will see this as a railroad job.

I guess what I'm asking is whether you have faith in the judicial system to come to the right conclusion even if it is at odds with your judgment on the case.

No, I'm not much for faith and juries can get it wrong and so can I - but the facts as I know them at this point favors a claim of self defense and I'm very confident a jury will acquit based on who they think started the fight - Martin.

It seems that if the verdict differs from the "facts" as put out by the killer and his family, friends, and lawyers, some will see this as a railroad job.

The railroading already happened, the media onslaught of BS is why charges were brought... The jury is Zimmerman's last hope if the judge doesn't toss the case first.

the media onslaught of BS is why charges were brought
The prosecutor's affidavit didn't mention the media onslaught at all.

and you already know which came first

but the affadavit mimics the same story line the media was pushing, so... you gotta believe Zimmerman started punching Martin and not the other way around to call this murder.

But you said Martin showed no evidence of a fight

yeah, he was kicking ass, not getting his ass kicked. Zimmerman was the one with the bashed in head supporting his version of the fight.

Then there's the evidence from Martin's girlfriend where she corroborates part of Zimmerman's statement, the beginning of the conversation the two had just prior to the fight. And she said Martin was the one who began the conversation, not Zimmerman. Y'all have been accusing Zimmerman of initiating contact and that wasn't even true.

And I still dont see anyone showing that Zimmerman continued "stalking" Martin after the dispatcher told him to break it off. So why is Zimmerman guilty of murder? Because he could walk a half hour after the fight? Because you couldn't see cuts on his head on some video? Seriously? I could win this case :)

why is that nonsense?

Because it is a hollow facade intended to buy political points from the military, gun owners or whoever else they believe is starry eyed by this kind of patriotic legislative exploitation.

The 8,000 or so 18-20 year old service members stationed in FL who are affected by this law can't even buy a handgun from an FFL dealer as per federal law which makes it even less likely that more than a handful of them will even bother to obtain a concealed handgun carry permit.

So this law doesn't do anything, there's practically no risk, it scores cheap points and it angers me that a pro-2nd amendment website is proud of this rubbish.

I've seen that FL's stand your ground laws is built on a similar mindset except that it has had some particularly bad consequences in return.

I think you are spot on about this. Those who really care about their rights to possess handguns should be very concerned that the gun nuts are going to eventually cause a huge backlash.

I think you are spot on about this. Those who really care about their rights to possess handguns should be very concerned that the gun nuts are going to eventually cause a huge backlash.
And the gun nuts will probably crush that huge backlash -- they DO have guns, after all, and I doubt they'd hesitate to take matters into their own hands.

They aren't that nuts. The authorities have access to far bigger guns.

I don't understand. I am very ignorant. Please post simple and brief summaries of the issues that concern you.

They aren't that nuts. The authorities have access to far bigger guns.

Which is why I find the argument that the right to bear arms is a defence against tyranny severely lacking. The Chartists knew that armed civilians (if that's not an oxymoron) would be severely destroyed if they tried to take on regular troops, and indeed when they clashed at Newport they were proved right.

Which is why I find the argument that the right to bear arms is a defence against tyranny severely lacking. The Chartists knew that armed civilians (if that's not an oxymoron) would be severely destroyed if they tried to take on regular troops, and indeed when they clashed at Newport they were proved right.

The right to bear arms is (and I chuckle every time I say this) a god given right. Just like all other rights. No argument is needed to have them.

God didn't write the Constitution. :-p

Which is why I find the argument that the right to bear arms is a defence against tyranny severely lacking. The Chartists knew that armed civilians (if that's not an oxymoron) would be severely destroyed if they tried to take on regular troops, and indeed when they clashed at Newport they were proved right.

The problem here is that you're envisioning armed resistance as automatically involving the use of overwhelming force to stop it. Historically, most instances of successful armed resistance to tyranny in the US were on a local level and didn't involve full scale government and military intervention. In fact some didn't even warrant a shot being fired, for instance the rifle toting nature of the Black Panthers kept local police at bay who were otherwise more than willing to beat and attack (and in some cases even murder) other "radical" groups who had the nerve publicly demonstrate.

for instance the rifle toting nature of the Black Panthers kept local police at bay who were otherwise more than willing to beat and attack (and in some cases even murder) other "radical" groups who had the nerve publicly demonstrate.

Source please.

Also protests are something the government doesn't care about. If civilians were severely impeding the government in some way and the only way to disperse them was by force then the government would use force regardless of whether or not the civilians were armed.

I guess what I'm asking is whether you have faith in the judicial system to come to the right conclusion even if it is at odds with your judgment on the case.

I do. If after examining all the evidence they do convict him, i'll have faith that it was indeed the right call.

However, I think a great many will have a problem if there is no finding of guilt, or if they find the 'Stand Your Ground' rule is substantiated and there is no trial at all.

The problem here is that you're envisioning armed resistance as automatically involving the use of overwhelming force to stop it. Historically, most instances of successful armed resistance to tyranny in the US were on a local level and didn't involve full scale government and military intervention. In fact some didn't even warrant a shot being fired, for instance the rifle toting nature of the Black Panthers kept local police at bay who were otherwise more than willing to beat and attack (and in some cases even murder) other "radical" groups who had the nerve publicly demonstrate.
Yep, the pen is mightier than the sword. The long game response to the Whiskey Rebellion was the federal power grab know as the U.S. Constitution.
However, I think a great many will have a problem if there is no finding of guilt, or if they find the 'Stand Your Ground' rule is substantiated and there is no trial at all.
I think the Zimmerman may have a basic self defense claim, but a stand your ground defense is going to be tough given the police dispatch tapes that shows he was tracking Martin's ground. I will be a bit disappoionted if it gets tossed by a judge of a stand your ground motion. As for a jury trial, I expect Zimmerman to win - he has a decent lawyer and that lawyer has some stuff to work with in getting to reasonable doubt (note for the slower-witted {not directed at Mobby} - just because I expect that Zimmerman will be acquitted does not mean that I think he is innocent or think that there should not be a trial - I expected both OJ & Casey Anthony to get acquittals but still think that each did the crimes they were charged with - it was just good defense lawyers doing their job) I would be suprised if he got convicted on second degree murder, not suprised if he got convicted on manslaughter, and not suprised if he gets an acquittal.

Which is why I find the argument that the right to bear arms is a defence against tyranny severely lacking. The Chartists knew that armed civilians (if that's not an oxymoron) would be severely destroyed if they tried to take on regular troops, and indeed when they clashed at Newport they were proved right.

Actually, FP, context is called for. When the framers wrote that, there wasnt such a wide gap between armed citizens (i.e. the militia) and the regular armed service.

Actually, FP, context is called for. When the framers wrote that, there wasnt such a wide gap between armed citizens (i.e. the militia) and the regular armed service.
Not really. The American troops were only able to vaguely hold their own against the British once we hired a possibly Bisexual Prussian to yell at our troops and instill some discipline and training. If we look beyond the colonies into Europe, we can see a vast gulf in capabilities between trained line troops and armied citizens.

I think the Zimmerman may have a basic self defense claim

When did you decide to join the slower witted out on that limb?

but a stand your ground defense is going to be tough given the police dispatch tapes that shows he was tracking Martin's ground.

So this "basic" self defense claim is all he really needs? I said that too... I dont see how stand your ground is even relevant - that was part of the media onslaught of BS (it was a GOP law that many liberals dont like). I dont think a jury will care what the law says, if they believe Martin attacked Zimmerman they wont convict him of murder or manslaughter.

But the 911 tape does not support the media version of a racist "stalker" hunting down a poor black child to shoot. It shows Zimmerman after a sprint being told to break it off and him agreeing. He turned around to head back and Martin came up behind him... Martin's girlfriend said it was Martin who identified him and started a conversation - "why are you following me". But it was Martin who approached Zimmerman from behind just like he said. Look at your map, they were walking toward each other when Zimmerman turned around and Martin saw him and initiated the contact.

I will be a bit disappoionted if it gets tossed by a judge of a stand your ground motion.

I'm praying for it

As for a jury trial, I expect Zimmerman to win - he has a decent lawyer and that lawyer has some stuff to work with in getting to reasonable doubt (note for the slower-witted {not directed at Mobby} - just because I expect that Zimmerman will be acquitted does not mean that I think he is innocent or think that there should not be a trial - I expected both OJ & Casey Anthony to get acquittals but still think that each did the crimes they were charged with - it was just good defense lawyers doing their job) I would be suprised if he got convicted on second degree murder, not suprised if he got convicted on manslaughter, and not suprised if he gets an acquittal.

Did you think he may have a basic self defense claim before starting the 1st thread? Did OJ or Casey ever have a basic self defense claim?

He may or may not have a self defense claim. Best for the jury to decide.

And if you think stand your ground does not apply, you should stop praying for a judge to toss the suit. The judge can toss a case on stand-your-ground, but it it is up to the jury on basic self defense.

He may or may not have a self defense claim. Best for the jury to decide.

No, its not better for a jury to decide... Thats putting the victim thru another ordeal, like putting the rape victim on trial for "enticing" the rapist.

And if you think stand your ground does not apply, you should stop praying for a judge to toss the suit. The judge can toss a case on stand-your-ground, but it it is up to the jury on basic self defense.

Judges can toss cases for lack of evidence, but I said the jury will acquit regardless of the law, not the judge. I'm praying the judge tosses the case before it gets to the jury stage - dont care why if the evidence sucks, and it does so far.

Maybe an acquittal is the only way now for Zimmerman to get part of his name back, I hope he's also shopping for civil lawyers to go after the media for slander. Unfortunately these charges might give the media a loophole to dodge lawsuits...

No, its not better for a jury to decide... Thats putting the victim thru another ordeal, like putting the rape victim on trial for "enticing" the rapist.
Just because a shooter claims self defense doesn't mean it was self defense. It seems there is enough factual dispute here that it should go to the Constitutionally designated fact finder - a jury.

God didn't write the Constitution. :-p

Or did He?
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/images/image_map_images/one_nation_under_God.jpg

Just because a shooter claims self defense doesn't mean it was self defense. It seems there is enough factual dispute here that it should go to the Constitutionally designated fact finder - a jury.

You need evidence first

What is it?

Not really. The American troops were only able to vaguely hold their own against the British once we hired a possibly Bisexual Prussian to yell at our troops and instill some discipline and training. If we look beyond the colonies into Europe, we can see a vast gulf in capabilities between trained line troops and armied citizens.
It's nice that you can pull out meaningless1 factoids about the Continental Army, but the Army that won the Revolutionary War was not the Army that faced down the rebels in western Pennsylvania in 1794, much less the Army that the Framers expected the country to possess in 1789.

Having said that, the badly drilled militia troops that did crush the Whiskey Rebellion did so not out of any sort of technical or tactical superiority but out of sheer numerical force; with over ten thousand men decanting from the Alleghenies into the Ohio Valley, basically all of the rebels decided that discretion was the better part of valor. So, yes, you can't really use the Whiskey Rebellion to draw any particular lessons about the fighting capability of the Army.

1 = Steuben's chief merit was not in bringing "[Prussian] discipline" to the Continental Army; he would have failed miserably if he had tried. Discipline was less relevant than drill to Steuben, and informing the men of why a given action was a good idea was preferable to the lash, a conclusion already reached by others in the Continental Army but never applied to the organization as a whole before Valley Forge. And even after Valley Forge, the tactical fighting ability of the Army was such that Washington didn't seem particularly keen on risking battle for some time afterwards: not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Of more battlefield relevance - let alone institutional relevance - were the developments of excellent light infantry formations and of Henry Knox's superlative artillery arm. It is rare for any tradition to be sustained in any arm of military service for very long, but from Knox on down, American artillery has been consistently among the best in the world, if not totally top notch.

And I really don't see what the man's sexual orientation has to do with anything, but then again, it's not like Steuben himself had anything to do with anything about the Second Amendment anyway.

You need evidence first

What is it?

I don't believe JollyRoger is employed by the prosecution.

he's been calling for the man's arrest and prosecution

why dont you let him answer

he's been calling for the man's arrest and prosecution

Good for him. Of course, the man's already been arrested.

why dont you let him answer

I'm not stopping him.

The right to bear arms was never meant to oppose any US government tyranny. This was made quite clear when the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in 1798. That passage was merely rhetoric against supposed British tyranny.

Armed insurrection against the federal or state goverment has usually met with dire consequences for the practitioners. Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the SLA shootout are a few examples. The Black Panthers didn't stop the Oakland Police Department from engaging in police brutality. It stopped a few racist cops from doing so.

Good for him. Of course, the man's already been arrested.

I'm not stopping him.

what a waste of time

Since the Alien and Sedition Acts are rather infamous for crapping all over the First Amendment, can you really cite them as being contrary to a particular interpretation of the second?

It made the intentions of the US government to deal quite harshly with any armed insurrection quite clear. Treason isn't protected by the First Amendment. You cannot incite people to commit the armed overthrow of the US government.

You need evidence first

What is it?
We have already been around this block a dozen times or so.

We have already been around this block a dozen times or so.

Tell that to the media.

We have already been around this block a dozen times or so.

Can you provide proof for this so-called "block?"

We have already been around this block a dozen times or so.

yeah, a video of Zimmerman walking was your evidence he wasn't attacked and then it was evidence he wasn't hurt that badly in the attack that didn't happen.

where is your evidence to demand this man go on trial for his life?

Sean Hannity thinks he's innocent, so he should get a trial at least. :p

yeah like Sean Hannity knows. Face it, none of us have all the facts. The only person who knows if he is guilty or innocent is Zimmerman himself. I say we administer truth serum, and get it out of him. :D

Hey Form, you mentioned something about Zimmerman looking for an address? Apparently when Zimmerman lost sight of Martin the dispatcher asked him for an address. Zimmerman stopped looking for Martin and started looking for an address before returning to his truck when Martin came up behind him. Martin could have been running home and still approach Zimmerman from behind (if Jolly's map is 'accurate').

What bugs me about this case is how the media and certain segments of society respond to it. One day after the incident the usual suspects had already declared it was a hate crime, that Trayvon Martin was a new version of Jesus Christ and this Zimmerman fellow an evil white card-carrying KKK grand wizard (or whatever the hell KKK people call themselves nowadays).

Wiki has some fun facts on the coverage of the case:

Selective publication
The Associated Press reported that the most widely used photos—showing Martin as a "baby-faced boy" and Zimmerman as a "beefy-looking figure"—were outdated and "may have helped shape initial public perceptions of the deadly shooting."[193]

Reporting on 9-1-1 calls
The special prosecutor's April 11 affidavit of probable cause says that Zimmerman said "punks" (not "coons"). According to the Associated Press, the alleged racial slur "fed growing outrage over the police department's initial decision not to arrest Zimmerman".[194]

Against NBC
NBC News ran a segment with Zimmerman's 9-1-1 call which removed part of Zimmerman's statement and the dispatcher's question. NBC then merged Zimmerman's answer into the previous statement. On the recording played by NBC, Zimmerman was heard saying, "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." In the original 9-1-1 recording, Zimmerman said: "This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about." The 9-1-1 operator then asked: "OK, and this guy, is he black, white or Hispanic?" Zimmerman answered, "He looks black."[173]
The Washington Post wrote that NBC's alteration "would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality's version, Zimmerman simply answered a question about the race of the person whom he was reporting to the police. Nothing prejudicial at all in responding to such an inquiry... it's a falsehood with repercussions... To portray that exchange in a way that wrongs Zimmerman is high editorial malpractice..."[173] NBC apologized for "an error made in the production process that we deeply regret",[195] The New York Times reported that a producer involved in the editing of the audio was fired.[196]

All the crazy racial politics that Tom Wolfe described on the Bonfire of the Vanities in the 80's are still alive and well in the US. From the sanctification of the dead black boy to the insane quest on finding racial motives behind the killing, the vitriolic speeches of "black leaders" and civil rights militants (who have made up their minds without bothering to read about the case), accusing the police of being lenient with the "white" guy (without any evidence on that direction), insisting on a show trial despite lack of evidence, and wanting to decide things on the court of public opinion. It's a sad spectacle all around.

It may have actually been a hate crime, we don't know what was going through his head. Zimmerman is mostly white.

Although I don't think hate crimes should be an actual crime, but the law is there, and I respect the law even if I disagree with it.

.
where is your evidence to demand this man go on trial for his life?

the dead kid?

"but it was self-defense!"

That's up to the jury to decide.

All the crazy racial politics that Tom Wolfe described on the Bonfire of the Vanities in the 80's are still alive and well in the US. From the sanctification of the dead black boy to the insane quest on finding racial motives behind the killing, the vitriolic speeches of "black leaders" and civil rights militants (who have made up their minds without bothering to read about the case), accusing the police of being lenient with the "white" guy (without any evidence on that direction), insisting on a show trial despite lack of evidence, and wanting to decide things on the court of public opinion. It's a sad spectacle all around.

Yeah, white people are definitely victims of systematic persecution. That's why they need more people like Zimmerman to protect their neighbourhoods from dangerous black kids.

It may have actually been a hate crime, we don't know what was going through his head. Zimmerman is mostly white.

Although I don't think hate crimes should be an actual crime, but the law is there, and I respect the law even if I disagree with it.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman is racist. There is considerable evidence that he isn't (he was brought up in a very diverse family with black relatives, he has black friends who like him enough to write letters stating that Zimmerman is not a racist.

And yet, without bothering to learn anything about the case or the defendant, the usual suspects were screaming "hate crime". It's a mockery, a bad soap opera.


Defense of Zimmerman's character
In an open letter, Zimmerman's father, Robert Zimmerman, defended his son against allegations that his actions were racially motivated, stating that Zimmerman was Hispanic, was raised in a multiracial family, and "would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever", saying that the portrayal of his son as a racist "could not be further from the truth". According to his family, some of Zimmerman's relatives are black.[3] Zimmerman's former lawyer Craig Sonner stated that Zimmerman is not a racist, and that he had mentored black youths in the past.[174] Joe Oliver, a former television news reporter who is acquainted with Zimmerman,[175] noted "I'm a black male and all that I know is that George has never given me any reason whatsoever to believe he has anything against people of color."[176]
An anonymous letter to the NAACP, signed "A Concerned Zimmerman Family Member", said that Zimmerman was one of the few that stepped up to take any action to protest the 2010 beating of a black homeless man by the son of a Sanford police officer. Zimmerman reportedly distributed flyers in the black community trying to get others to step up too, and helped organize a city hall meeting to protest the incident.[177] Zimmerman's reported efforts on behalf of the black homeless man were confirmed by Zimmerman's father.[178]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trayvon_Martin#Defense_of_Zimmerman.27s_character

What a nazi!

Yeah, white people are definitely victims of systematic persecution. That's why they need more people like Zimmerman to protect their neighbourhoods from dangerous black kids.

Who said that?

And Zimmerman isn't white. Anyway, you can't really argue with anything I wrote, can you?

I can. The assertion that this case shows that people of other races are being persecuted by black people is ridiculous and makes anyone who advances it look really silly.

I can. The assertion that this case shows that people of other races are being persecuted by black people is ridiculous and makes anyone who advances it look really silly.

Good thing nobody said people of other races are being persecuted by black people, so I take it you're arguing with an invisible poster who lives in your head.

What bugs me about responses like yours is how they portray the public reaction. The usual suspects readily declared that the public reaction was all about racial politics, that Zimmerman is being treated as an evil white card-carrying KKK grand wizard (or whatever the hell KKK people call themselves nowadays) and that the so-called liberal media must be pandering to racial hatred.

Even with the knowledge that Zimmerman had questionable and possibly racially-charged motives (yeah, he has black friends - the typical get-out-of-jail card played by people with racist views), the usual suspects are screaming "racial politics". It's a mockery, a bad conspiracy theory.

Who said that?

And Zimmerman isn't white. Anyway, you can't really argue with anything I wrote, can you?

Zimmerman is white; hispanic isn't a race. Do we need to go over these very basic definitions of ethnicity and race again?

yup, he's white. I'm not going to argue the other facts of the case (because we don't know all the facts), but we can argue whether Zimmerman is white or not. And by my definition, he is. Or can someone prove he's not white?

where is your evidence to demand this man go on trial for his life?
6 feet under.
What bugs me about this case is how the media and certain segments of society respond to it. One day after the incident the usual suspects had already declared it was a hate crime,
One day after the incident, the only media that was aware of the crime was the local crime beat media. This didn't capture attention until Sanford went so long without charging Zimmerman.

Zimmerman is white; hispanic isn't a race. Do we need to go over these very basic definitions of ethnicity and race again?

yup, he's white. I'm not going to argue the other facts of the case (because we don't know all the facts), but we can argue whether Zimmerman is white or not. And by my definition, he is. Or can someone prove he's not white?

Like I said before. I'm sure all those people in Arizona will be very happy to learn that they were all white the whole time. Honestly, who would say someone like me (a white male) and someone like Zimmerman are treated and viewed the same in America?

What bugs me about responses like yours is how they portray the public reaction. The usual suspects readily declared that the public reaction was all about racial politics, that Zimmerman is being treated as an evil white card-carrying KKK grand wizard (or whatever the hell KKK people call themselves nowadays) and that the so-called liberal media must be pandering to racial hatred.

Even with the knowledge that Zimmerman had questionable and possibly racially-charged motives (yeah, he has black friends - the typical get-out-of-jail card played by people with racist views), the usual suspects are screaming "racial politics". It's a mockery, a bad conspiracy theory.

Just because he shot a black kid does not mean there are racial undertones to the story. If he was someone with known links to white supremacist organizations, I'd understand the reaction of the likes of Al Sharpton. But he isn't even white, he is a hispanic with black relatives and friends. Nothing he said to 911 indicates he was racially motivated. He did not volunteer information about Trayvon being black. He didn't mention anything until asked.

And it's a fact that media outlets like NBC deliberately distorted facts in order to make it look like there was racism where there isn't any. So what conspiracy theories are you talking about, since this is a hard fact?

Like I said before. I'm sure all those people in Arizona will be very happy to learn that they were all white the whole time. Honestly, who would say some like me (a white male) and some like Zimmerman are treated and viewed the same in America?

No ones saying that hispanic = white. There are white, brown and black hispanics.

Zimmerman is white; hispanic isn't a race. Do we need to go over these very basic definitions of ethnicity and race again?

What also bugs me is people who think they know more than they do. Zimmerman isn't white, he is a mestizo (mixed european and amerindian heritage). He is not what would be called a criollo in Peru, his mother's home country. The criollos are the folks of spanish extraction born in Spanish America. They look just like the spaniards from Spain. Zimmerman does not. He, like the vast majority of Peruvians, is of mixed extraction.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The whole concept of race is stupid anyway.

No ones saying that hispanic = white. There are white, brown and black hispanics.

And Zimmerman is a mestizo (brown is not very accurate). He looks very much like your average peruvian. People calling him white are doing it to make it look like there are racial undertones to the case. Hispanic-on-black does not meet the US's twisted requirements for racial uproar.

Like I said before. I'm sure all those people in Arizona will be very happy to learn that they were all white the whole time. Honestly, who would say some like me (a white male) and some like Zimmerman are treated and viewed the same in America?

Ethnicity and race are separate concepts. More below!

What also bugs me is people who think they know more than they do. Zimmerman isn't white, he is a mestizo (mixed european and amerindian heritage). He is not what would be called a criollo in Peru, his mother's home country. The criollos are the folks of spanish extraction born in Spanish America. They look just like the spaniards from Spain. Zimmerman does not. He, like the vast majority of Peruvians, is of mixed extraction.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The whole concept of race is stupid anyway.

The whole concept of race can be very stupid and so-on, but sociologically (and we are dealing with a society here) it is an absolutely relevant concept that has actual, tangible impacts. It doesn't matter if the concept of race is stupid because people still act on race and, throughout history, have had their actions shaped by race in certain nontrivial ways.

The point is is that being Hispanic or non-Hispanic is a matter of ethnicity, not race. As far as race goes, he is white. His ethnicity may be different, but hey, that's the difference between Slavs, Poles, and Danes. The question "white or hispanic?" is meaningless.

Different human races do not exist, we now talk of ancestry and ethnicity. There's little point in saying race and ethnicity are different things as race simply does not exist (or rather we all belong to the same race).

Zimmerman is of mixed ancestry, just like Obama. Call him "white" if you will (that's meaningless anyway), but fact is he is not considered a white person in the US. He would be eligible for race-based AA. He would be discriminated by racists.

He would not be considered white even in Peru, which historically has more flexible definitions of whiteness than the US (in the old days someone with 1/8th of indian blood could still be considered a criollo).

So really, why call him white? The US clearly regards "hispanic" as a separate "race" for most intents and purposes. I guarantee if Zimmerman had been shot by a white vigilante we would be talking about the white guy who shot the hispanic kid.

Wow. How can a case like this possibly be debated to the point where it goes into a second thread?

Bottom line: someone who has taken a position of civic responsibility and taken it upon himself to carry a lethal weapon has mishandled a situation to the point where he has killed an unarmed teenager. His incompetence and inappropriate actions amount to criminal negligence resulting in manslaughter. Bang the guy up for 20 years and change the law so this sort of thing cannot be encouraged. Better yet stop encouraging the ownership of guns at all.

The proper way to handle this would have been not to step out of his car. Having failed in that he still had the opportunity when challenged by Trayvon Martin to announce himself as a member of the neighbourhood watch. He failed in his duties and responsibilities every time he had a chance to do the right thing and he should do his time for it.

Different human races do not exist, we now talk of ancestry and ethnicity. There's little point in saying race and ethnicity are different things as race simply does not exist (or rather we all belong to the same race).

That's simply not true. I understand what you're trying to say, but race as it is used in a sociological context is part of a means of classifying humans, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)) for all the ugly social calculus that implies. We are all homo sapiens sapiens to be sure, but race is an idea conceived of and thought of separately from both genetics and ethnicity (later, the eugenics crowd attempted to convince everyone that blacks weren't humans, but that's more like a post-hoc justification for treating the brown people differently).

Zimmerman is of mixed ancestry, just like Obama. Call him "white" if you will (that's meaningless anyway), but fact is he is not considered a white person in the US. He would be eligible for race-based AA. He would be discriminated by racists.

Aha! Actually, no he wouldn't. He's not African American, Pacific Islander, East Asian, Indian, Native American (well, actually he might be if he is mestizo, but that has nothing to do with his Hispanicness), and so on. He'd have to fill out White under race. Now, under ethnicity he could fill out Hispanic. That's typically how we sort this stuff out in America.

In fact, there are generally two categories for ethnicity: Hispanic and Non-Hispanic. In the census this is quite readily apparent. (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39000.html) As you can see from that link, the status of being Hispanic is regarded separately from the status of being White, Black, or Asian.

He would not be considered white even in Peru, which historically has more flexible definitions of whiteness than the US (in the old days someone with 1/8th of indian blood could still be considered a criollo).

I'm not very well-versed in the racial categorization procedures of the Peruvians, so I don't know what to say about this. :dunno:

So really, why call him white? The US clearly regards "hispanic" as a separate "race" for most intents and purposes. I guarantee if Zimmerman had been shot by a white vigilante we would be talking about the white guy who shot the hispanic kid.

Maybe certain US citizens do, but that's certainly not how our government "regards" it.

Much of the confusion stems from the police originally falsely reporting Zimmerman as white, if I recall, which I'm trying to say is not necessarily incompatible with being hispanic. Now if he happens to also be Native American, well, that's a separate issue.

Ethnicity and race are separate concepts. More below!



The whole concept of race can be very stupid and so-on, but sociologically (and we are dealing with a society here) it is an absolutely relevant concept that has actual, tangible impacts. It doesn't matter if the concept of race is stupid because people still act on race and, throughout history, have had their actions shaped by race in certain nontrivial ways.

The point is is that being Hispanic or non-Hispanic is a matter of ethnicity, not race. As far as race goes, he is white. His ethnicity may be different, but hey, that's the difference between Slavs, Poles, and Danes. The question "white or hispanic?" is meaningless.

But we understand that people like me and people like Zimmerman are viewed and treated differently in the US. When someone says "that person is Hispanic, not white", we all understand what they mean, regardless of some text book terminology. To just say "no, he's white" doesn't give a clear picture.

And in this context the distinctions is silly to make. And maybe your right that is silly that it's use incorrectly, but that's the way it's used and viewed in the US.

EDIT: Umm the US census has a place for people who call them selves Hispanic.

Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2010 (b) 3.1% 16.3%
White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2010 81.1% 63.7%

But we understand that people like me and people like Zimmerman are viewed and treated differently in the US. When someone says "that person is Hispanic, not white", we all understand what they mean, regardless of some text book terminology. To just say "no, he's white" doesn't give a clear picture.

And in this context the distinctions is silly to make.

He's white and hispanic. It's not actually correct to say, for example, "that person is Hispanic, not white."

And anyway, if we're talking about public perception, it's probably worth noting that the allegedly, noticeably-enough-to-be-treated-differently-because-of-it Hispanic guy is still talked about as White. Now if this is because of incomplete reporting is one thing or another, but someone had to make that first incorrect judgment - something that is so much less likely to occur if we had been talking about an East Asian or an African-American, for whom the comfort of that ambiguity is not afforded.

Ethnicities can be treated differently as readily as races, but they are nevertheless separate social categories. If you take objection to that, so be it, but the original objection was that Zimmerman wasn't White, therefore it wasn't a racially motivated murder, even though being a different ethnicity wouldn't necessarily imply different feelings about race nor being a different race.

EDIT: Umm the US census has a place for people who call them selves Hispanic.


White persons, percent, 2010 (a) 82.7% 72.4%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2010 (b) 3.1% 16.3%
White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2010 81.1% 63.7%

I am all for considering motivation when deciding the proper sentence after a criminal has been convicted, but I do not support the concept of hate crimes prosecutions that rely on the victims being members of protected classes.

Wait? Is that why people are making such a big deal about labeling him white. So they can claim it was racially motivated murder. ... that's just silly on so many levels.