Slashdot Mirror
Zimmerman Charged With 2nd-Degree Murder
George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who shot Trayvon Martin, was charged with second-degree murder. He faces up to life in prison if convicted in the shooting. From the article: "Special prosecutor Angela Corey announced the charges but would not discuss how she arrived at them or disclose other details of her investigation, saying: 'That's why we try cases in court.'
Second-degree murder is typically brought in cases when there is a fight or other confrontation that results in death and but does [not] involve a premeditated plan to kill.
Corey would not disclose Zimmerman's whereabouts for his safety but said that he will be in court within 24 hours."
Not news for nerds.
I gotta agree.. There are other places for this type of news.
Who's Travoyn Martin?
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
Unless people perjure themselves, that is. Which is a dick move with the exception of being a fully informed juror.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
How is this bullshit rated insightful?
Luckily, no one watches MSNBC.
But did you hear that Davis was wearing a hoodie? JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE!
(Incidentally, if he was wearing Crocs it would also be justifiable homicide.)
You need to read up on what first degree murder is. There's 0 way it applies here. This is the correct charge. I was expecting voluntary manslaughter myself, so yay.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
He was not a neighborhood watch volunteer. He had no affiliation with any organization, no training and this whole tragedy stemmed from his disregard for standard neighborhood watch procedure.
He was an armed vigilante.
TFS isn't tied up well because it's missing a "not".
"Second-degree murder is typically brought in cases when there is a fight or other confrontation that results in death and but does not involve a premeditated plan to kill."
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
He was a minor, so belonged to his parents?
I agree, this is not news for nerds.
Others have already agreed with you, but I wanted to "pile on", in the hopes of influencing the "editors" who select these stories. Yeah, I know, it's silly for me to think this post might make a difference. Most of the time, the "editors" can't be bothered to even read the story; I have no realistic expectation that they might actually read our comments.
I don't know how you can both pursue someone against the advice of a 911 operator and claim self-defense.
Why don't we all calm down, let justice get served legally, and not have any more people wind up dead.
It took time to work out that he could be convicted, this is normal procedure, liek the prosecutor said "we don't prosecute by petition" and that's hwo we want it.
He stayed in touch with authorities and now they are going to prosecute with a 2nd degree murder charge, if convicted he will be in protective custody, which means 23 hours a day in a cell one hour out for the rest of his life.
That's a lot more brutal than you might imagine, and maybe a lot less than his family might want.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Trayvon's family of course, not Zimmermans.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Someone put six bullet holes, last night they shot up, a parked police car that was left near the scene of the shooting. The message being that violence against the police is coming if they don't arrest Zimmerman and charge him with murder. They shot up a cop car. As if that neighborhood didn't need a reason for a neighborhood watch now they have guys firing live rounds into police cars? That's a safe neighborhood?
The amount of media coverage. International press. 24/7 news cycle. The constant lies. "Zimmerman is white". Showing images of Trayvon Martin when he was only 12 and not 17 (and 6'3"). Editing the 911 call from Zimmerman to make him seem racist. The media wants a circus. A race riot. They want another OJ trial, or Rodney King riot, or Casey Anthony or Amanda Knox level ratings. Who cares if the guy is innocent or guilty or whatever. What's most important is getting ratings and possibly causing a race riot.
And now we have the political pressure. Elections. Press. Appealing to the base. Even Obama had to give his opinion. "If I had a son he'd look like Trayon". Please Mr. President throw more gasoline on the fire. This is before Obama knew of the facts of the case. Just like when Obama blurted out an opinion about the cop who arrested the Harvard professor and then ended up having to have beer at the White House with the both of them. Will Obama have a beer with George Zimmerman?
This event is exposing the worst of this country. A perfect storm of all that is wrong with where we are today. The media being anything but objective. The politics doing nothing but making everything racial and partisan. And the overwhelming majority of citizens ignoring the facts and rushing to judgement.
There's 43 murders every day. Do you recall reading 43 stories? No. When things go normal, they are not national stories.
So anyway, since you don't seem to have figured it out, the difference in the two cases is the police response. And that is the racial issue! When the situations are reversed, a black will be charged right away. A white will not always be. (Google Brandon Gotwalt. Almost the same situation, no charge. Now google Daniel Adkins. Big difference.)
The black kids who set the white kid on fire were found right away and charged. Things are working as they should be. There are 100s of hate crimes every year, and only the most egregious situations make national news. What was egregious here was the government not applying the law evenly, and not even charging the guy. It's basically the same thing (not charging) that happened with the Danziger cops in New Orleans during Katrina: Kill a minority, no charge. Plus the cops do it all the time too -- but that's so [sadly] normal it doesn't rise to to the same volume as the Zimmerman case.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Too much politics here creeping on this site.
Preach brother.
Perhaps but I'm very interested, and I'm a law nerd.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
There are a lot of angry people on both sides of the issue that's why, should give you insight into how the media effects issues and how stupid people can be.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
It garnered (not garnished) national media attention because of the way the police and DA ignored it. Zimmerman was allowed to go home, with his weapon, and then the police and DA mostly forgot about it entirely.
If Zimmerman was a black man and Trayvon a white teenager, do you think that would have happened?
He wasn't doing anything wrong when he was harassed by an unknown creep, and his killer had no knowledge of his parent's child rearing skills.
Meanwhile, it was Zimmerman who was rolling around the neighborhood with a gun looking for trouble. Why don't you rant about his parents (his father was a judge, ffs) and his screwed up attitude?
He would be in jail already. And they might be trying him for first degree murder to boot. Of course, he probably knew not to wait around for that to happen.
Well, they both had a cell phone. Maybe this was the first casualty in the Android - iPhone war.
Shit just got real.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
DId you forgive the man that shot your son? If so you get a pass on your comment.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
This does not belong on Slashdot. Please take it off.
- Nerd
You have a pointer for "what first degree murder is"? I don't readily see a mismatch.
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
When two black teens set a white kid on fire, a clear hate crime, it hardly gets a column in the local news.
The reasons for stories like Trayvon's getting out as they do is that there's not just political intervention, but an angry village behind the push. I'm kind of tired of the argument that this is "way overblown", and tit-for-tat crap. When I posted in facebook about how I was going to the nearby Trayvon march, someone asked "Why are they having one here?" I told him that it was a nationwide event in many cities, to which he said it was "overblown" and that "there are issues that no on is doing anything about in the meantime."
My response to him--and to you--is that if you feel passionately about a cause, then DO something about it. If you don't, you one of those nobodies who does nothing you're criticizing. So take your story there and start a petition, or organize a protest that gives the matter serious attention. Whether or not that works, you've done something about it, right?
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
Holy shit am I reading this right? Anonymous Coward just left /. I was getting tired of that guy.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
OH. Trayvon Martin, got it!
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
But the point is he isn't white, he's hispanic.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
No. I spend a day coding, I look up at the screen, and I depend on Slashdot to tell me what's going on in the world.
Wow. Can't help but feed the troll here. Where to start? Let's see... your link to a story that 'hardly gets a column in the local news' is a link to the NY Daily Post about an event in Kansas City. A simple google search shows various other coverage of the case. And a big difference in that case: the police were *actually looking to arrest the perpetrators* (whether they've caught them or not is not clear).
The Trayvon Davis story blew up because of how it was mishandled between the police and the DA. If they had arrested Zimmerman from the start, even if he ended getting off on a self-defense claim, it wouldn't have been as big. It would be a footnote in the list of reasons why an overbroad "Stand Your Ground" law is a bad idea.
And, even if the attack in KC was mishandled similarly, what's that have to do with the Davis case? Outrage would be warranted in both cases.
But yeah, your recent photos of Trayvon (including one fake one) convince me. He flipped the bird at a web cam! And he's black! Death for the hoodlum! Wait, you know what? I need to see a photo of the suspect in a suit. If you can produce one of those, then I'll really be convinced.
I'll give you this though: you really have provided clear support for that Einstein quote in your sig.
If there are no witnesses but Zimmerman, then how do you know it was self defense? Last I heard the drug charge was for pot, not much of a charge when you can buy hard alcohol EVERYWHERE.
There is also something you need to consider, if you fight a person then they say "I stop I don't want to fight any more" you're required by law to stop right then, if you hit them after that it's an A&B charge on you.
The same applies to guns (obviously) you are not required to retreat in most states but if you continue aggression when the other person has stopped you become the criminal...Zimmerman was told not to follow but he did, then shot an unarmed boy.
That much is fact because it was recorded in the 911 call, and it was determined Trayvon was not armed.
Let the peopel that know what they are doing handle this and you go back to CoD... or WoW or whatever.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Zimmerman is as white as Obama. (They are both half white.)
Unlikely that even a Murder 2 conviction gets the SuperMax treatment. Unless it's keep him in protective custody so he doesn't get murdered.
No one's said it was justifiable. On the other hand no one's saying there's even a remote possibility that this guy shouldn't be lynched from a lightpole on national television either. So, good luck with that.
You have a pointer for "what first degree murder is"? I don't readily see a mismatch.
I'm going to presume this is a serious question...
First degree murder requires that you:
1) Wanted to kill someone
2) Planned to do it
3) Executed the plan
If you didn't mean to kill someone and planned to do it, it isn't first degree murder. Even if Zimmerman followed Martin around for a month, it wouldn't be first degree murder if *something* happens and Martin ends up dead. That planning it bit is pretty damned important.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Recent photos of Trayvon: http://i39.tinypic.com/1yvg5h.jpg
So what's your point? If somebody looks like this, he somehow deserves to get shot?
Agreed. Someone commented on the post about Santorum dropping out of the race as being offtopic for this site; I was preparing a rebutal about how politics is nerdy, too, but in the same breath I said you can also get nerdy about cars and sports, neither of which should get reported on day-to-day news here (unless they're car analogies). As I typed that, I realized that the Santorum article indeed had no place on /., even if /. has a politics section; it wasn't nerdy, there were no great debates to lead from it or nitpicking/research to do, just people commenting on how he should have dropped sooner or theorizing on "real" reasons he dropped.
This story, while of great national interest, is not about politics; government, sure, but not politics in the sense of wide-reaching leaders doing this or that, and, similarly to the Santorum article, doesn't appear on the face of it to have any "nerdy" qualities. So it doesn't belong on /. Then again, we've had articles regarding tech use in this case previously, so maybe this could be understood as followup/closure to issues raised in those articles.
But then I begin to wonder: /. has changed much over the years, adding sections like that, perhaps we need to seriously re-evaluate the purpose of /. is. Either it's expanded to be a more inclusive big-news discussion site with extra emphasis on tech/science, in which case we should drop the "News for Nerds" moniker; or, it's still a site just for tech/science-related stories, in which case the "politics" section needs to go unless we limit it to just politics story expressly about tech/science being used or abused by the government (which, yes, happens quite often.)
Consider various postings about the TSA. TSA gained relevance on /. due to their use of body scanners and so forth; however, at least a few of the more recent posts is about the gross ineptitude of the TSA, tech being merely one outlet for set ineptitude. Yet no one complains about TSA articles (that I've seen, anyway). How often do we get posts about censorship in general? Not even blocking the web/text messages, but just about laws regarding arresting people for speaking out by any means. These certainly don't deal with tech/science, but, once again, no outcry against them (again, AFAIK). In fact, those are often the most discussed posts on the site (both the tech and non-tech kind). Certainly, there are important matters outside of tech/science that require long, deep debates, and I've yet to find anywhere on the internet that can facilitate that as well as Slashdot does (take that as you will). The moderating system works well, though it has a serious bias from users.
So I think that we, as a collective site, need to ask ourselves what we want Slashdot to be: A place for news--science, tech, or otherwise--that begs, nay, requires deep discussion and insight? Or a site dedicated explicitly to tech/science (which can still have said discussion about just those issues)? And, if the latter, where do we draw a line about what is a relevant news story?
While we have editors (that we often passively rebel against) that ultimately choose what appears on the front page, the site is driven almost entirely by the community, from posts to comments to moderation, and so I believe it's up to the community to decide what the site should strive for.
Google News with a green and white interface!
Hooray.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Skittles and iced tea?
Yip!
Table-ized A.I.
I am really curious to know what evidence they have to justify a second degree murder charge.
He clearly precipitated the confrontation, and there is no question that subsequently he killed somone. Pretty cut and dry. Whether he will be found guilty remains to be seen.
To say nothing of the reality that since we live in a culture of vengeance and celebrity, and near psychotic levels of bullying which are called civil discourse, I have zero faith that any jury would deliberate for more than 15 minutes before declaring Zimmerman guilty.
If you find MSNBC worth watching you are a fucknut, to begin with. I've never seen anything further from reporting facts and closer to spewing hatred and bullshit. Even Fox which falls into that category can't hold a candle to the bias and vitriol on display at MSNBC. I'm afraid you invalidated your point when you championed them.
"Watch as this comment goes to -1, while any comments that say it is slashdot-worthy get modded up."
It is Slashdot-worthy! Farkdot is no longer News For Nerds, it's Google News with a different interface.
Fuck it, have some Kardashians while we are at it:
http://tinyurl.com/chcppt2
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
"Ignored" is completely inaccurate. Please try again.
You might want to research the meaning of "hispanic". There are "hispanics" of all races (yes, all).
MOD PARENT UP for truthiness!
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
It's not about whether you have "heard of the case". It's whether what you've heard has made you lean one way or the other.
There have been plenty of high-profile cases that went to jury just fine.
You are welcome on my lawn.
First degree murder is when someone plans in advance to murder someone. If he has a grudge against this person and lured him out to the spot he was shot, that would be 1st degree murder.
Since he did not, and likely even thought he was semi justified in shooting him, 2nd degree is not even guaranteed to pass.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Personally I don't care how it ends. I will be amused by the obligatory screaming and outrage either way. Another famous instance of an Al Sharpton lead 'protest' resulted, intentionally, some would say to the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum. And this was precisely the result Sharpton was looking for. Hell, people rioted at the Conrad Murray trial. They're going nuclear over this. It should be interesting to watch the flames.
Happens "frequently"? Please cite five. Actually let's start with one, where the defense worked, and they weren't charged with manslaughter.
If we start accepting news that is for the various sub-nerds then who knows what we will end up with. Slashdot is only for PURE nerds. Do you really want law nerds dating your daughters?
This has no business on Slashdot. This has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with either politics or clicks/ratings.
More to the point, too much IRRELEVANT politics which are AMPLY covered ELSEWHERE polluting this site.
If it's MAINSTREAM, non-computer, non-science, non-nerd news it DOESN'T NEED to be here because posting it here is REDUNDANT.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Enough of all this whining about /. story selection already. Enough nerds were interested in the story to rate it in. If you don't want to click the story, then move on.
You are creating a mini-Zim-situation: causing unnecessary contention by parking your squinting face here to bark up a storm instead of moving on and/or observing from a quiet distance.
Table-ized A.I.
He's an asshole because he ignored the 911 operator's instructions to wait for the cops, and got out of his car with a gun to confront somebody.
(Didn't he think it out? What did he intend to do after he confronted Martin? It had to turn out bad.)
It seems harsh to send somebody to jail for a big part of his life because he's an asshole. I feel sorry for him.
But somebody is dead because he's an asshole. I feel even more sorry for Martin, and Martin's friends and family.
In America we do give people long prison sentences for killing somebody in a street fight.
A lot of black people in Florida go to jail for less.
What else can you do with Zimmerman?
Yes, you do go to jail for being stupid.
Give me a break, guys. I just opened the main page. Before the page refreshes to show more stories on /., there were 14 stories, and 12 of them are entirely devoted to some form of nerdity. A couple sneak in, either political or a more "fun" angle, and everyone starts throwing toys of of their prams. I knew why this article had almost one hundred comments before stepping in, because everyone simply HAD to come in and get all Mr. and Mrs. McBabypants. I suppose I myself am catering to that mindset in complaining as well, but this happens in the science/astronomy/technology/etc. based stories all the time. "This isn't news", "Boring!", "Such-n-such is better than shitty-thingamabob, /. sucks!"... wtf do you want, people?
I expect to be modded down for this, but whatever.
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
There's lots of high-profile cases, yet somehow we find a way to truck on.
If it makes you feel any better, my own mother (who doest watch much TV) didn't know anything about the case.
Personally, I just thought it was pretty obvious the guy should have been arrested and charged, given the basics of the case. He pursued someone, which is not under dispute, and a short time later was engaged in an altercation with said person in which he shot them. Maybe it will turn out there's not enough evidence to convict him, but surely there was probable cause to arrest him, regardless of the "Stand Your Ground" law (persuit and confrontation is not standing one's ground).
First degree murder is premeditated. The fact that Zimmerman called the cops is pretty strong evidence that he didn't set out intending to kill Martin.
OJ sure as fuck got charged with murder. Wanna try again? Or are you just listing all the black people you can think of?
Also, Zimmerman didn't get charged with a hate crime, so nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about.
Also, don't forget the $10,000 bounty - dead or alive - posted on Zimmerman by the "New Black Panther Party".
Too much politics here creeping on this site.
Preach brother.
Hey! We don't want any religion either!
Mod parent up please. Also the relatives of the victim will successfully sue the perp for wrongful death.
A decent gun safety course will teach you that every bullet you send down range has a lawyer attached to
it hoping it damages something it should not.
more cowbell
Well if he's hispanic, then I don't know why it's a news story.
Oh wait, it's because he shot a kid and got away with it.
It became a news story after the 911 recordings were released, and it was revealed the dispatcher told him not to follow the kid; once journalists (presumably liberal) looked into it, they discovered that the police didn't canvass the neighborhood or collect Zimmerman's clothing, or really investigate at all. Zimmerman shot a kid, said "He attacked me first," and the police thought that sounded legit, so they sent him home.
Who the hell is Casey Anthony? At least I've heard of OJ. I just gave my kids a glass of OJ. Should I be concerned?
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
And if he was attacked by Martin first, Martin was only exerting his right to Stand His Ground, no?
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
But why is the president going out and saying "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon"
Or does Obama envision his kid getting kicked out of school and having gang-related tattoos?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
Yes but only the Latino half, the white half has to do hard time... /eyeball roll
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
DId you forgive the man that shot your son? If so you get a pass on your comment.
If my son got shot because he started beating him and slamming his head into the pavement (a potentially lethal move) then there would be nothing to forgive. I would say the other guy acted reasonably. I would then feel ashamed to have raised a son like that and all the waste it represents.
If you are asking me whether I am committed to my principles even in the face of a great deal of emotion, yes I am. It's called being an adult.
This situation is just another young violent black thug-wannabe who finally picked the wrong guy to fuck with. That's all there is. I don't get shot at. You know why? Because I don't go around attacking people. If I think somebody is creepy or whatever I call the police, I don't walk up to the guy and start beating on him.
You guys really cannot see the connection between attacking a stranger and getting shot? Jesus H Fucking Christ people can be so stupid when they badly want a situation to be different. Nobody really wants a 17 year old to get shot and killed. I get that. But to pretend like the way that 17 year old behaved had nothing to do with it? Madness.
Course the media loves that kind of madness and how weak and stupid and blind and emotional everyone is acting. That's why they show photos of Trey when he was 12 years old, not when he was 17 and 6 foot 3 inches tall. That's why they try so badly to make this into a racial issue because immature fucks eat that shit up. Nevermind that Zimmerman tried to mentor black youth (why just the other day I saw the KKK doing that, no wait they'd never do that). The bullshit way all of this is being presented and all of you are being led around by your childish little heartstrings is so fucking pathetic. I am ashamed to be an American.
Thanks sounds good. I don't quite see your list as being authoritative, however there seem to be cases where planning isn't required.
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
Cue the folks who don't want the outside world intruding into their mothers' basements shrieking "This isn't news for nerds!"
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Bread and circuses. Don't discuss anything important, especially if it's complex. Go after something visceral like this case or Kim Kardishiam's bra / toenail / latest sex change operation.
Oh, we just invaded another country? Look! Over there! A breast!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The parent comment is chock-full of racist non sequiturs.
Of course not - the Slashdot mindset requires it's Two Minute Hate. All the TSA articles did was replace FUD about Amazon and Microsoft that was the primary source of the Two Minute Hate before that.
I'd take that as damming Slashdot with faint praise - because long deep debates is something it sucks at.
A good lawyer would exclude anyone who's heard of it, not just someone who claims to be impartial about it. Self-reporting isn't accurate.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
No. I spend a day coding, I look up at the screen, and I depend on Slashdot to tell me what's going on in the world.
Man are you gonna be confused.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Then you must have low reading comprehension or an unwillingness to look things up. This is something I understood as a 7 year old, so you're just going to have to figure it out yourself.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
There is prior evidence that he was predisposed to think black people suspicious, in the 47 pages of 911 calls he made over the year(s) prior to shooting Marton, many of the calls were simply, "Someone is here. And he's black!." The real hate crime was committed by the police, not Zimmerman. I mean, altering the police report with a 2nd draft to say he had injuries? But then the paramedics didn't take him in, and there's not a drop on his shirt when the cops took him in afterward. Will be interesting when those paramedics go to witness stand.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
When the prosecutor took the case out of the hands of the grand jury it guaranteed an "arrest by petition". I agree with your assessment of what he should have been charged with. The fact that he got 2nd degree murder seems to be the State's way of saying we charged him with something, but the bar for it is so high no jury will convict.
After which come the riots....
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
I will bet my left testicle that you have never personally raised a child to adulthood. Rebelion is not a parenting mistake, it's a job discription for young adults.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
In Canada, the first thing the courts would do would call for a media black out until the judgement is rendered, and then likely another black out until sentencing. The idea is to prevent bias in the potential jury pool.
Unfortunately, due to incompetence and delays in deciding to file charges and make an arrest, they're going to have one hell of a time finding a "jury of peers" that isn't tainted by public opinion and forced to recuse themselves from participating.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
"Meant only to protect white people"? What an inflammatory and completely unsupported thing to say. Like so many other people, when you can't actually find evidence for racism, you just fabricate claims of racism.
In the case you cite, the shooter, a black male, was not arrested and was not charged for an entire year. Eventually, under public pressure, the DA did charge the shooter and he was found guilty by a jury.
I don't see how the cases are analogous either. Zimmerman claims to have been attacked by Martin from behind, while walking back to his car, and that's consistent with physical evidence. McNeil seems to have provoked a confrontation. Even if McNeil should have been found innocent, how does one injustice justify another one? Would racially based injustice against black men mean that we need to dismantle our legal system altogether, just to justify the mob?
Not true. If they are actual drug dealers (ie convicted) they can't lawfully have a firearm. If convicted it's up to 15 years.
If possession of fire arm in commission of crime (drug dealing) minimum 10 years.
If fired in commission of crime (drug dealing) minimum 20 years.
If you hit someone in commission of crime (drug dealing) minimum 25 to life.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
At this point, the only way to settle this is for it to go to trial. The facts need to be laid out in court, experts need to testify, and a jury needs to decide.
I think there's a good chance that a jury will find Zimmerman "not guilty". The DA's original assessment was that there wasn't even enough evidence to win a conviction, and that's consistent with the evidence that has come out since.
I hope you have warned your children about moose attacks.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I would miss it, for one.
I am a /. reader of mixed race. I have been watching this story unfold on /. very closely, noting the large number of /.ers who, in my opinion, seem enlightened about the effect of race as it plays out in this case and also noting the significant number of /.ers who seem to have a racial/racist stake in the affair.
Like it or not, race is one of the most important subtexts for employment and achievement in the world of technology and given the underrepresentation of race in the coverage of technology (despite the high prevalence of Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Indian, and other races), the attitude, perceptions, and opinions of race on an issue like the Trayvon Martin case is important to nerds like me.
I am glad to see what other /.ers have to say about this subject, and I have been carefully adding to my freaks and friends list based on some of the opinions I've seen expressed.
blog
It's whether what you've heard has made you lean one way or the other.
There goes ever single black person I know and most, if not all, of the white people I know.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I think the jury will have the option to convict on a lesser crime, at least that's how it worked when my friend was shot. This is like asking for $60K/yr because you want to make $50K/yr.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
If you look up the law in FL it explicitly says it does not apply if you're already in the middle of an illegal activity.
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
Pretty soon police will be confined to being able to do nothing more than asking criminals to stop committing crimes. Ask too harshly and it will be a hate crime.
You come to this conclusion based on the outcry over police doing too little?
he's more hispanic than white
You're confusing ethnicity and race. Hispanics can be black white, brown, yellow or any other colour a human can be.
http://www.wheresgeorge.com/
Oh, this Beta, it is not so good.
Then that's an issue with the police and the DA but somehow they're going to skate. Which is unfortunate.
Confusion is the first step on the road to knowledge.
Please site one incident where that has happened.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The parent comment is chock-full of racist non sequiturs.
What part of GP was racist? While the author sounds immature, and was ranting and exaggerating in places (I agree about some non sequiturs), where does racism enter into it? [S]he didn't even make reference to any race. Is that your shortcut for smearing a debate opponent without the pesky nuissance of having to refute their arguments? So to be more specific, and just guessing here, do you see the phrase "thug culture" as a distinctively black thing? If so, maybe that says something about you more than about GP.
How about http://politics.slashdot.org/
This entire case is a crock of bullshit. When two black teens set a white kid on fire, a clear hate crime, it hardly gets a column in the local news.
May be, it's because the cops didn't start defending the two kids who did this to him, just like the sheriff did with Zimmerman.
Also, the fact that he was told "white boy" by his assaillants didn't come out until a couple of days later (according to the mom herself). The victim had already been interviewed by the police and the mom had already made her statements to the press, but it's only a few days later in the hospital room that the kid told his mother that they had said "white boy".
But when a hispanic guy kills a black teen it garnishes national media attention?
The guy wasn't just hispanic. He was the son of a former judge. He was hoping to become a police officer himself. And the sheriff clearly knew him and liked him already. That's at least one of the reasons the Sheriff jumped in to defend Zimmerman right away.
Did Obama come out and say "If I had a son, he'd look like Coon"?
Why would Obama need to intervene? Third parties should only intervene when the local police isn't doing its job. Why are you jumping to the conclusion that the police isn't doing its job in this case?
I have zero faith that any jury would deliberate for more than 15 minutes before declaring Zimmerman guilty.
Seriously? Have you not seen the vitriol spewing forth from both sides of this issue? Do you honestly think that Zimmerman's lawyers will be so completely incompetent that the prosecution will be able to completely stack the jury?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
The 911 operator told him that he didn't "need to" follow Martin and Zimmerman said "OK" and was going to wait by his car for police. Zimmerman testified that he was returning to his car and it was Martin who confronted him and then punched him. Witnesses saw Zimmerman on the ground, with Martin on top, and Zimmerman's injuries and dirty clothing support that.
I don't know of any actual evidence that support the idea that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's suggestion and followed and attacked Martin. Maybe you can share what evidence you think there is?
There is no evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin.
I don't know whether that's true or not, but if racism causes the justice system to be unreasonably harsh towards black people, then we need to fix that, instead of destroying our justice system for everybody.
With that fair and balanced recitation of events you won't make it into the jury pool.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Nerdy or not, Slashdot has always loved talking about racial issues and politics in general.
I take your point though. Maybe it's time for a sister site aimed at politics. You never know how far that could go in terms of general worldwide political discussion.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds -- Albert Einstein
If my son got shot because he started beating him and slamming his head into the pavement
Allegedly.
Unfortunately, the 'beater' in this case is dead and we only get to hear one side of the story. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together could have predicted this exact outcome from these idiotic "stand your ground" laws that absolve killers as long as they felt *really really* scared at the time they did their killing.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
They raised that to $1,000,000 after three days.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
There is so much misinformation about such laws, and the media is perfectly happy to repeat it without checking facts. Or they just make it up.
Par for the course when it comes to gun-related topics.
When you have a son and he starts thinking that gangsta thug culture is GREAT, that all the rap and hip-hop about how awesome it is to be a career criminal is something more than entertainment, that's your cue to ACT LIKE A PARENT and straighten his ass out before he gets either jailed or shot in the streets.
You know, "acting like a parent" isn't just some magic thing you do and instantly your kid is wearing polo shirts and khakis and has perfect grammar.
I haven't been following the recent reporting on this case; did somebody find some evidence between the time (as his girlfriend reported) this:
“He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on,” she said. “He said he lost the man. I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run. Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for.’ And the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ "
happened, and when Mr. Martin got shot?
I guess I have a hard time understanding how
This situation is just another young violent black thug-wannabe who finally picked the wrong guy to fuck with.
I guess I got trolled...
And the worms ate into his brain.
No.
Actually what frequently happens is that you spend maybe a year in jail, facing enormous pressure to plead guilty, until you have a chance at trial to prove the multi-million-dollar police apparatus wrong. You must really hate yourself and freedom in general if you support that state of affairs.
You're confusing fact and perception. This case could be presented as if the government wasn't applying the law evenly, but whether that was actually the case or not now remains for the courts to determine.
So apparently it's not easy to railroad somebody, even if he appears obviously guilty. And OJ even killed white people!
> Please site one incident where that has happened.
uhmm, sorry I can't. I was simply saying what was mentioned on the PBS News Hour. So maybe there have not been cases like this, or maybe there was. but as nbauman said, "They'd have to hire a lawyer and defend themselves." And wonderboss said, "every bullet you send down range has a lawyer attached to it." Whatever situation, you better be sure someone will kill you before you shoot them dead because will have to face wrath of lawyers, which is a toughie because I also heard firefights are extremely chaotic (i.e. Vietnam vets will tell you bullets flying everywhere, everybody is screaming and much of the time it is all over in less than a minute).
mfwright@batnet.com
Certain aggravating factors can escalate a crime to first-degree. They vary by jurisdiction, but often include murder during rape, killing a member of law enforcement, or being party to a crime such as burglary or robbery where one of the accomplices is killed.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I'm not sure what from the article would even hint that McNeil provoked the confrontation. Epp was in McNeil's son's backyard, ran towards McNeil, and had a knife in his pocket after threatening McNeil's son with the knife.
And if he was attacked by Martin first, Martin was only exerting his right to Stand His Ground, no?
The first person to (reasonably) feel threatened with death or serious violence was justified in defending himself. The person who created that (reasonable) fear can not claim self defense, any more than a convenience store robber can shoot a clerk who pulls a revolver out of the cash drawer in "self defense".
He went into hiding, probably depressed. Didn't stay in touch with his lawyers.
Then, worst mistake, he called the DA and talked to them without a lawyer present.
He's screwed.
"gangsta thug culture"
"all the rap and hip-hop about how awesome it is to be a career criminal"
"being a gangsta thug is not a s glorious as MTV makes it look"
"THUG LIFE YO!"
Reminds me of the time Newt Gingrich called Obama a "food stamp president." No reference to race, but somehow all the racists understand exactly what he's talking about. Look up "dogwhistle" for me.
Is it remotely possible in any of your minds that the police made the call they felt was right(and not necessarily because they're racist) given the information they had at the time? Everyone has decided that the only possible way Zimmerman could have gone uncharged is if everyone involved was a racist. That is possible. It is also possible that there was not sufficient cause to believe that this was much other than a dude being pounded and defending himself with his firearm. All of the nonsense from Eric Holder and Obama and Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson and Anderson Cooper and NBC's tape doctoring... it's all just sensational / opportunist bullshit. Right down to the lovely special prosecutor gloating about how she prayed with Trayvon's "sweet parents." It is a sickening lack of objectivity on display here. Bring the dude to trial, fine, and let a jury weigh the evidence and let's get on with it. The rest of this is just a circus. If this ignites violent race riots, most of us will know that the media and some political figures will be largely responsible for inflaming this situation in the absence of clear facts. Even if this is how it looks, it doesn't need to be a national race-riot inducing episode. Black people are killing each other and white people in droves, too, and nobody is trying to incite a riot.
I am most disgusted by Eric Holder's DoJ ignoring calls to bloody revolution and a bounty being placed on Zimmerman's head by the New Black Panthers. That is TWO strikes against Holder regarding the NBP alone. If you factor in the Fast and Furious gun running, that guy should have been part of the unemployment line a LONG time ago. He's a disgrace to his office.
duke energy has dropped its plans for a new power plant in Atlanta citing the rotational velocity of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Junior has decreased exponentially as of recent.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Too much politics here creeping on this site.
Did someone make you click on the story?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
is this here? seriously, how is this tech news at all?
Stand your ground only protects you from charges due to injuring or killing your attacker. You're still on the hook if you hurt a bystander in any way or if you are the attacker.
The law came into existence due to overzealous prosecutors pressing charges against people who were clearly defending themselves and expecting them, in the heat of the moment with less than 1 second to make the decision, to examine each and every possible avenue of retreat with the same thoroughness that a person hearing the facts afterward (and under no pressure at all) might.
It just means you don't have to give Sir Robin a run for his money.
LOL what exactly do you think "Neighborhood watch" is?
Let's see first you need a neighborhood. Check. Next you need to roll around and look for trouble. Check. The gun was just a bonus.
Of course if he hadn't had it all we would have heard about some teenager asaulting a neighborhood watch captain, and really wouldn't have put much thought to him spending time in jail.
Don't get your hopes up, . . . he'll be back. He always comes back.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
It garnered (not garnished) national media attention because of the way the police and DA ignored it. Zimmerman was allowed to go home, with his weapon, and then the police and DA mostly forgot about it entirely.
It was actually worse than that. Zimmerman's dad, a former state judge, was present when they had him at the police station. The police recommended prosecution, but higher-ups said no.
It reeked very strongly of a miscarriage of justice. No, an abortion of justice.
Yeah, there's been *way* to much spin regarding guilt or innocence in the press, blogs, legislatures, etc. But we should expect the norms of legal procedure to be followed, without regard to skin color, background, or family connections.
And he isn't convicted: he's indicted. Looks to me like the legal system has merely gotten back on the rails. Hopefully no more funny business, or appearances of funny business.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If I were in Zimmerman's position, I would expect to be arrested and not see the outside world again until I was able to make bail.
An adult gunned down an unarmed minor in the street.
Can't even make the usual pretense about self-defense. Although it doesn't stop some people from trying.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Sorry, but you are the only person in this conversation who is claiming that all those things are distinctives of black people. I see the "gangsta thug culture" thing as a trend that transcends race. I think it generally stinks, though I disagree with the hyperbole in the original GP's rants.
So let's talk about your problem a little more and maybe I can help you work through it. How long have you felt like thug culture was specifically a black racial thing? Were you influenced by events in your childhood? Probably if you get out and meet a variety of people (including both some gangsta thug Caucasians and also some perfectly sane and sensibly behaving persons of color) you may be able to get over some of your prejudices. Give it a try, dude; you really should.
Casey Anthony was a woman accused of murdering her 2-year-old daughter.
She was found to be innocent by a jury of her peers. (Though she was found guilty of lying to a police officer.)
There wasn't much controversy, just public outrage. Almost everyone who knew about the case wanted to see her convinced -- or lynched, failing that. Probably because she is an absolutely horrible person. Really. She makes Mephistopheles look like a paragon of virtue.
Required reading for internet skeptics
This is a local matter. Keep the damn politics off of slashdot... unless it involves technology.
Guns and hoodies are technology.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Nerds read comics. A gun happy vigilante is perfect comic book fodder.
Someone else already mentioned Batman and Punisher.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I agree, this is not news for nerds.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't (this nerd finds it interesting), but it could certainly be "stuff that matters".
...in the hopes of influencing the "editors" who select these stories.
Your ~162K userid suggests you've been here for a while, so I, with my ~566K userid shouldn't have to tell you that there's this thing called the Firehose. But, well, here we are.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Please perform the following searches:
"barack obama" thug
"eric holder" thug
"al sharpton" thug
"george bush" thug
"alberto gonzalez" thug
"rush limbaugh" thug
Let me know if you see any patterns.
If my son got shot because he started beating him and slamming his head into the pavement (a potentially lethal move)
That is not an established fact yet, and I seriously doubt that Trayvon's mother, of all people, believes it to be true.
First we have the over-the-top slashvertisement with the Plan****tronix thing last week, and now this not-news-for-nerds news story. I go to other news sources when I want straight-up national, international, or pop-culture news, and I like it that way. Don't get peas in my carrots!
Is slashdot getting this desperate for ad clicks?
No, a good friend of mine was murdered. I just don't like people getting shot.
Stand your Ground laws need to be appended a bit. Here's why. Suppose you get in a random fight at a bar. Most bar fights end pretty quickly when the two realize that getting punched sucks, or when they get ejected. However, with Stand your Ground laws the way they are, you have no duty to retreat and can simply pull out your gun and shoot them as soon as they get the upper hand over you, saying that you fear for your life. Similarly, when you pull your gun, they'll pull their gun, saying they fear for their life. So what you have is both combatants standing their ground and the fight won't end until someone (or both of them) is dead.
It also leads to situations where you could go pick a fight with someone and then shoot them before they even get to you because you feared for your life because you thought they had a weapon.
There's going to be a lot of people using Stand your Ground laws as an excuse to escalate a run of the mill fight into a deadly situation that wouldn't otherwise have turned deadly. Some things might be justified, like if someone is car jacking you or trying to force their way into your home, but other things wouldn't..like someone catching you in bed with their wife and ending up dead because you feared for your life and had no duty to retreat from their home.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
So some people have made reference to Trayvon assaulting Zimmerman, then Zimmerman "stood his ground" justifying the act under Florida law.
Yet I've seen no one say that Trayvon was standing HIS ground under that same law when Zimmerman shot him.
After all, Zimmerman stalked Trayvon. Whether Trayvon took a swing at him first is not relevant if he felt threatened, at least by the above reasoning.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2012/0411/A-tsunami-warning-system-makes-waves
I'd have expected to see something in slashdot about the huge earthquakes near Indonesia and their results. Why do undersea earthquakes sometimes cause catastrophe and sometimes do not?
The Zimmerman arrest poses no such nerdish question.
Bravo! Somebody gets it!
Everybody blames "stand your ground" while conveniently overlooking the fact that Zimmerman was basically stalking this kid, and explicitly told to cease by the dispatcher!
Well, the police chief has stepped down "temporarily", which may become permanent, and the governor appointed a special prosecutor. I wouldn't exactly say the police and DA are skating, although the worst they may face is a tarnished reputation.
Well, you've cared enough to click on the story, and then type an angry comment.
My brain read "Zimmerman" as "Zuckerberg". How alarming.
In my experience with CNN, you don't have to be liberal or conservative, just old and/or moronic. Seriously, they are worse and worse every day, with their segments of reading random tweets on air, or trying to package stories of little note up into cute branded segments.
Jon Stewart's criticisms of CNN, ever since he took on their refitted (and dumbed-down) Crossfire, have never missed. In many ways, it's a sadder state of affairs than anything that happens on Fox News.
Obama, who orders the deaths suspiciously-looking teenagers every single day. It's OK because they aren't black enough.
Of course if he hadn't had it all we would have heard about some teenager asaulting a neighborhood watch captain, and really wouldn't have put much thought to him spending time in jail.
Assuming, of course, that Martin attacked Zimmerman. We only have Zimmerman's word that that's what happened. That's why arrests are generally made in these situations.
Whoa, a single-issue Slashdot reader! ~
Sorry, investigations, including possible arrests. Got distracted.
I'd prefer that we add politics to the mix. There is something about Slashdot culture that won't work in other places. I find more insightful posts here. I also sense that this is the only place where people mod up opinions that we disagree with. I haven't done it much lately, but I do it sometimes.
I heard of Zimmerman outside of Slashdot, but I wanted to see what the community thought about it, and I did listen to both sides. Unless the court presents new evidence and witnesses, I think that I can have a very informed opinion, because the entire community presented a lot of views and a lot of claims and facts, which were very helpful.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think. You can lead a fool to pure facts, but you can't make him think. You can lead a wise man to a pile of crap, but he is still able to sort out the facts.
I say all of this, knowing that I don't know your views on the issue.
That being said, I don't know where to draw the line, but I feel that we can figure that out.
testing out my trending skills
What does an Australian Aboriginal Hispanic look like?
Zimmerman broke the rules of the Neighborhood Watch set by the Sanford Police Department training that you do not approach a stranger you suspect of wrongdoing and you do not carry weapons.
Every cop in america thinks that way, including black cops. I know several and talk to them regularly. One is a detroit police officer and is black. He will tell you to your face that a black kid walking in a neighborhood in the middle of the night is up to no good.
All the cops already feel that way, It is not right, but it is what they see day in and day out.
Why? Because blacks have a higher level of poverty than the whites do. Much higher. Couple that with living in shithole neighborhoods where landlords do not take care of the property and you get a higher proportion of blacks suspected of crime. and guess what, Poverty breeds crime. Your $900 iPad will get them $150 at a pawn shop, and that is a buttload of money to a poor person.
Blacks are also more susceptible to Gangs because it's a form of community that they just dont have. Eeeew poor people! make hem go away! Plus, I dont see police outreach to the poor communities. Cops should be forced to walk their beat, talk to he people in their patrolled neighborhoods. Instead of sitting in the car with the windows up staring and eating doughnuts, or harassing the kids playing in the street.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
They are MEANT to protect anyone who stands their ground. They are horribly mis-used to racist ends far too often, but that is not what was meant.
You can't exclude everyone. Not sure about Florida but generally you only get a limited number of dismissals you can make without giving a reason or having it rejected. Beyond that you need a solid reason to give and opposing counsel can object and the judge has to agree.
Wait, what the fuck? I'm extremely skeptical the guy is anything but a murderer, but fuck no he shouldn't be lynched. If he's found guilty, he should go to jail, but even if you think the death sentence is cool torture should be no part of it. Revenge has absolutely no place in a justice system, not ever.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
I can't speak for the President. What I interpreted his remarks to mean is that, based on the 911 call, Zimmerman judged Davis as a menace based on his appearance, which may have included his skin color, especially since other reports say Zimmerman specifically warned about blacks to his neighbors.
I don't know how to tell if someone was kicked out of school from their appearance. Technically, Davis was suspended, not kicked out. And yeah that probably wouldn't happen to a child of Obama's because, like most upper-class families, if a child of Obama's was caught with trace amounts of marijuana, nobody would care (now that Andrew Breitbart is dead, that is).
As for "gang-related tattoos", you're a more perceptive man than I. Which gang is that apparent tattoo related to? Anyway, I don't remember Zimmerman mentioning any gang-related tattoos to the dispatcher. Maybe that's because it was raining and Davis had a hoodie on, meaning he wouldn't have seen any if they were there. I guess you are a proponent of shoot-first, check for gang-related tattoos and school records later, then? After all, you never know when someone might shoot you with a skittle.
It's funny how we can both listen to the same audio, yet arrive at different conclusions.
When I listen to the audio and the dispatcher says "we don't need you to do that", I don't hear "stop following". Assertive and Passive wording is something that is taught to police. To me it sounds more like a suggestion, instead of an order. If he felt in control of the situation (which he obviously did) he could feel free to ignore the dispatchers suggestion.
If you follow the reasoning that the dispatcher's words were a suggestion, then Zimmerman was not chasing anyone. He was simply doing what he thought was safe enough at the time.
He may still be guilty of 2nd degree murder though, even with that distinction.
If my son got shot because he started beating him and slamming his head into the pavement (a potentially lethal move) then there would be nothing to forgive.
Even assuming this testimony is true - which is a leap, Zimmerman did not go to the hospital so the damage was hardly significant let alone life threatening. At least this evidence should have been documented, which it was not.
Meanwhile, the surveys always show it's the Fox News viewers who are the most misinformed.
Actually, the most recent surveys show MSNBC viewers are just as misinformed on many issues, while the best informed are people who watch Sunday morning talk shows and listen talk radio.
Not to mention many of those surveys reach conclusions based on a completely biased view of what "opinions" people should have. Seriously, check out the details in those "surveys" for once. They are not based on what facts people may know, but whether or not they hold some prevailing opinion. For instance, one survey asked "Do you think now that the American economy is (a) starting to recover, or (b) still getting worse?" and based the "correct" answer -- that the economy has begun to recover -- on the widely accepted judgment of when the last recession ended, as well as gross domestic product estimates and statistics for personal income. But those premises weren't presented as part of the questioning.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I'm not sure where you get the idea that this situation was completely instigated by Martin (or if you're just trolling). According to Martin's girlfriend, who heard the beginning of the interaction between Martin and Zimmerman, Z confronted M, and the cell phone was on the ground, lending credence to the idea that M was defending himself. You seem to trust Z's word, since M smoked pot and flipped off a webcam; I don't believe Z, because I think that there's generally something wrong with someone who drives around his neighborhood with a gun calling 911 all the time.
zimmermans lawyers have jumped ship actually, and in such a high profile case that is in no way a good sign
Which they certainly don't have. The New Black Panther Party is approximately as dangerous as (and not as well-organized as) the Hutaree Militia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree#Michigan_Militia_and_the_Hutaree)
They didn't test the shooter for alcohol or narcotics, they didn't collect his clothing as evidence, they didn't look up the call records on the cell phone found at the scene...
It took time to work out that he could be convicted, this is normal procedure, liek the prosecutor said "we don't prosecute by petition" and that's hwo we want it.
But this time, they did. This prosecution occurred for no other reason than the protests and petitions. Period. For the prosecutor to claim otherwise is a bald-faced lie.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I did the searches, but I'm afraid you're going to have to spell it out for me if you want me to follow your thought process here. I'm not even sure what you're aiming to demonstrate.
I didn't click the link, assuming it leads to goat, the cameraman deserves to be shot, as do you.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Second degree murder does not get you life. Well, could be wrong since this is Florida after all...
What the dispatcher said and what is law are 2 different things.
I could be entirely wrong in my assumption about what happened because I wasn't there to see it.
I am sure about one thing though, Zimmerman is going to suffer at lot, and Trayvon never gets to grow up, never gets to have children, never gets to see another sunrise or eat ice cream, and what a fucking waste for the both of them.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Are you 100% sure this isn't first degree murder?
1) wanted to kill someone
lets say yes to this and see where it goes
2) The number one problem if you want to kill someone, anyone is that you generally get arrested locked up and depending on where optionally executed. how do you avoid these consequences?
How about what Zimmerman actually did?
His victim was largely irrelevant as long as they matched the profile of somebody who could be "lawfully" killed. little old lady walking her dog wouldn't do obviously.
provoke an assault and then
3) carry out the plan.
Yes that bit was done too, he had a window between informing the 911 dispatcher of a "situation" and the Police arriving in which to kill his victim.
so yes murder 1 , but proving murder1 is going to be difficult without witnesses. Maybe he researched the relevant case law online or something.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
A grown ass man shoots a kid. What a piece of shit.
Your source is cherry picking. There are multiple surveys all showing Fox News viewers to be more misinformed than other news channels. And they are asking points of fact.
Even that cherry you picked was a question of fact, though it's true some people might have interpreted it as a call for an opinion. But that was one question out of many, from one survey out of many.
Accept it. Either Fox News misinforms its viewers. Or stupid people watch Fox News.
Actually, it is. Those are the requirements. It may not seem that way because sometimes a prosecutor will inflate the charges even though he knows better.
by the way, zimmermans head is quite clean for being slammed into pavement, his nose is "broken" but miraculously shows no signs of blood, according to zimmerman he shot treyvon while he was on top of him. all of this went on and somehow he got NO BLOOD AT ALL on ANY of his clothing. that or the police allowed him to change clothes in the back of their squad car. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRXhw9Vim7A
I'd assume that the parent post was focused on his safety. Bounties have already been offered on Zimmerman, including at least one "dead or alive". Wouldn't take much for someone already facing life to shank Zimmerman if it came down to it.
The police report states that Zimmerman was treated at the scene by the FD for bleeding from his nose and the back of his head.
Trayvon's mother, and father, may never think poorly of their son's behavior despite any evidence. It is a common failing among parents.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Lots of nerds carry guns, though.
It is documented in the police report that he was treated on the scene by the FD for bleeding from his nose and the back of his head despite your assertion to the contrary.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The Trayvon Davis story blew up because of how it was mishandled between the police and the DA. If they had arrested Zimmerman from the start,
The number of people who keep saying, "they should have arrested him immediately" shows how depressingly few people understand the legal system. If you think police always arrest people immediately, then you need to stop commenting on this story and go learn something because you're spewing ignorance.
It can take years from the time a murder happens until the murderer is arrested. During that time, the police will often say that the perpetrator is not a suspect, even though they are nearly certain he/she is guilty. Think of the Hans Reiser case, were you also complaining they didn't arrest him immediately?
That is what happens. If the person is not a flight risk, you don't need to arrest them immediately. It is not a sign of police incompetence.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Ok, so here's the summary: Bobby Zimmerman, AKA Bob Dylan, shot and killed a black kid for sport. Now there are race riots and half of Jacksonville, MN is on fire.
Not really. It makes for a good talking point, but it's much subtler than that. PolitiFact as a pretty good analysis.
The impression is that some ideology is the driver, when that's demonstrably untrue, given a thorough view of the survey results. But Fox News has by far the highest viewership of the cable news channels (in key demographics, they have a higher viewership than all other cable news channels combined). They also have pretty anchors that wear short skirts, and they keep things moving along to retain the interest of those with even the shortest of attention spans.
I despise the bias of the reporting on Fox News as much as anyone, but these surveys say more about the viewership and entertainment value of mainstream media than the efficacy of information from any particular source.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I'd be interested to see if the law in Florida protects those who use a firearm in the commission of a crime. I would suspect it likely does not, and the person claiming such is more than likely an idiot. I could be wrong though.
Mod parent up please. Also the relatives of the victim will successfully sue the perp for wrongful death. A decent gun safety course will teach you that every bullet you send down range has a lawyer attached to it hoping it damages something it should not.
Normally true, but Florida's Stand Your Ground law explicitly creates immunity for wrongful death suits.
idiotic "stand your ground" laws that absolve killers
Bullshit. The problem here is that police assumed that "stand your ground" law applies to someone who precipitated the confrontation. It really doesn't. (whether the law is good or bad is a different discussion)
If anything, "stand your ground" law should have applied if Trayvon killed Zimmerman. Then we could have had the debate on law's merit.
Is it possible to reasonably feel threatened without anyone reasonably intending to threaten? For instance, could Trayvon have reasonably perceived a threat of death simply by seeing Zimmerman approaching him with a (holstered) gun? Could then Zimmerman reasonably perceive a threat of death after Trayvon punched him (justifiably, due to his own perceived threat). In that case, each person reasonably felt a threat of death without any wrongdoing on the others' part. In that case, could either person successfully claim self-defense (or stand your ground, or whatever)? Or can an entirely reasonably, unintentionally threatening, action void future claims to self-defense? Either way, there seems to be a problem.
Reminds me of the time Newt Gingrich called Obama a "food stamp president." No reference to race, but somehow all the racists understand exactly what he's talking about. Look up "dogwhistle" for me.
More white people are on food stamps than black people, as Gingrich pointed out when he made the comment. The economy has gotten worse for people of every color under Obama (hence requiring more people on food stamps.) So Gingrich was accusing Obama of being bad for the econo-...
Oh, wait. When you said "racist" you meant "anyone who doesn't agree with your crazy world view." Sorry about that.
Asshole.
Anyone can call anyone else a thug on the internet, thug or not. Some people on the list are clearly thugs. (Sharpton starts race riots. Holder sells assault weapons to narco-terroists.) Others are clearly not. (Are Bush or Gonzalez thugs? Why?) All six people have tons of references to them being thugs, despite whether they're actually thugs.
I'm not from the US. A lot of my understanding of current political issues within the US come from this site. I find considerable value in reading the comments of nerds to issues that may not, in themselves, be News _for_ Nerds.
So add my vote to those saying that this _is_ the sort of thing I want to see on Slashdot (within reason, buyer beware, etc.)
First degree murder is premeditated. The fact that Zimmerman called the cops is pretty strong evidence that he didn't set out intending to kill Martin.
Or, to play devil's advocate, knowing he was going to kill Martin, he called the cops to help pre-establish his innocence in the upcoming murder
Actually, I've pretty much only have seen the vitriol spewing forth with idiocy from the usual race baiting crowd. Most reasonable, thinking people have remained silent on the issue, waiting for the wheels to turn.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I think it's very easy to see that the Slashdot community is very interested in topics like this.
Slashdot is about the only place where nerds convene on a regular basic to discuss politics. The editors simply need to look at the comments to see that the majority of people posting here are very interested in political and, especially, topics regarding society in general.
I don't care if I get modded flamebait, people rarely take this much time to argue against political news on Slashdot these days. People (not me) are simply sick of hearing about the case and don't feel that it warrants the attention it's gotten. So they bitch about the relevence here, and on every other news site.
Personally, I find it very disturbing and absurd that self defense laws can be used to justify deadly force against someone you were chasing at 7pm.
---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.
I suggest you review the way Florida handles other shootings. Specifically, look up the incident involving Trevor Dooley and David James. It has many similarities.
Dooley confronted James. Dooley had a gun, but did not pull it out. James initiated a physical altercation to take the gun away from Dooley. James was shot in the process.
Dooley was 69, with fused discs in his neck. James was 41, six inches taller, seventy pounds heavier, and had been in the Air Force. Dooley claims he feared for his life - a claim I find reasonable, given the disparity between the two (much more reasonable than a 28-year old man armed with a gun fearing for his life at the hands of a teenager armed with skittles and iced tea). Eye witnesses saw James go for Dooley's gun, while acknowledging that Dooley initiated the verbal confrontation.
There are, however, two significant differences. The first is that Trevor Dooley was arrested merely two days after the shooting. The second is that Dooley is black and his victim, James, was white.
So yes...declining to file charges that the lead investigator recommended is unusual. The state attorney driving 50 miles on a Sunday night to discuss the incident is unusual. Taking the shooter's word for it that his record was clean is unusual. Making no attempt to notify the parents of a dead teenager and instead waiting for them to file a missing person's report is unusual.
:(){
Never rely on 911 to save you from imminent danger by another person or group of people. It can take anywhere from a few minutes to 30 minutes for a police officer to arrive. All it takes is less than 5 seconds for someone to end your life with a weapon. Perhaps shorter.
911 good for medical emergencies and walk-throughs. That's about it.
Take it from someone whom has been chased in a car and shot at with a bolt action rifle. The guy was on PCP (verified later on). Stopping to say "time out" like a child only to call 911 only puts you in danger.
Life is not for the lazy.
Are you sure?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
After which come the riots....
You think maybe white people,or hispanics in this case, should riot if he is wrongly convicted? Won't happen since white people in the US don't riot, but would be an interesting turn of events.
Zimmerman's Hispanic. Why would a white supremacist cause a hung jury?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
The lead investigator initially wanted to file manslaughter charges. The state attorney drove fifty miles on a Sunday night to over-rule the lead investigator.
As far as the New Black Panthers, if you can point out what law they broke, go for it. Just remember there's that first amendment and all. Trust me, if any NBP had kidnapped or killed George Zimmerman, there would be charges.
:(){
What made this case national news is NOT because a light-skinned guy killed a black guy, or that he was 17 years old, or that he was only holding candy. What made this story news is that the local police dropped the investigation like a hot potato (possibly because of Zimmerman's parents job titles), held onto the body without informing the parents when they had ID and his phone (which family and friends called BTW), then announced that there wouldn't be charges based on spurious coverage under their stand-your-ground law.
All of the false equivalence citations to coverage of other cases where a black guy killed a white guy, how black kids dress, or how Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are "uppity troublemakers" is totally IRRELEVANT!
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
It can take years from the time a murder happens until the murderer is arrested. During that time, the police will often say that the perpetrator is not a suspect, even though they are nearly certain he/she is guilty. Think of the Hans Reiser case, were you also complaining they didn't arrest him immediately?
You should review the case of Trevor Dooley and David James. James went for Dooley's gun and got shot in the altercation. James was much bigger than Dooley, who was elderly. Dooley also claims he feared for his life, and the shooting was in Florida in September 2010 so Stand Your Ground is his defense.
Dooley was arrested two days after the shooting, despite eye witnesses who say that James went for Dooley's gun.
But Dooley was black and James was white, so I guess that may have had something to do with it.
:(){
Yeah that's not the vibe I'm getting. He's been tried convicted sentenced and terminated already. The Judge and the prosecutor aren't going to risk mass mayhem.
No one will remember their names in 2 weeks. And they'll get new jobs no problem.
Yes. Especially if the law nerds are hot, show up in ladies business suits, and wear glasses. A thousand times yes.
Write failed: Broken pipe
The "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thinking?
Trayvon Martin got all the justice he deserved, at a high velocity.
And this is relevant how? Zimmerman was on the phone with 911 well BEFORE the confrontation. He was told to stop stalking Martin. He continued to do so anyway.
Hardly a mention of the kid who was covered in gas and lit on fire in retaliation, nor the beating of a 78 year old man.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
I think some people are interpreting "news for nerds" as "only nerdy news". But I think "news for nerds" means news...for nerds. Which already encompasses the idea that technology is just an emphasis, not a limitation. And this is news, and the readers are all nerds.
How do you know he continued stalking Martin? The reports i have heard say he tried to return to his vehicle.
Doesn't matter. He doesnt work for the Sanford police dept. Besides, what kind of idiot would patrol for crime unarmed? He is allowed to walk his own neighborhood and carry a gun. Unless they have evidence that Zimmermans story isn't true he is going to walk.
This does not preclude Zimmerman pulling the gun first. In fact, I see the following sequence of events to be quite likely:
1. Zimmerman finally decides that Trayvon really is up to no good, and confronts him verbally with a gun in his hand.
2. Trayvon sees the gun, assumes he is being mugged or something, and charges Zimmerman with his fists, managing to knock him back.
3. Zimmerman, believing himself to be assaulted, fires the gun while falling or from the ground.
In which case Trayvon would be the one who have acted in reasonable self-defense, while Zimmerman would be charged with brandishing followed by second degree murder.
Do I know for certain that it happened that way? No, of course not. But neither do you know if your suggested sequence of events is factual, so don't act like it is.
Self defense laws wont' protect you if you start the confrontation, that's why the key to this case is whether Martin did what Zimmerman says.
If they are actual drug dealers (ie convicted)
A person can deal drugs without having being convicted.
OK, I am trying to be nicer on slashdot and not call people names, but you just went full-on idiot mode there, because you jumped to conclusions and showed your lack of understanding about how the world works.
Let me try to follow your logic. In one case, a man was not arrested for many days. In another case, a man was arrested two days later. Therefore, you conclude that it was because of the man's race.
Really? Of all the many reasons the police could delay arresting someone, you pick the one that supports your preconceived ideas? Do you not see a problem with this?
I'll repeat this for those of you who are a bit slower around here: sometimes the police take a long time arrest the perpetrator. This is not in and of itself a sign of police incompetence, nor is it an indication of racism, and jumping to that conclusion only makes you look like an idiot. Yes, your comment does make you look like an idiot. Go think about your life and stop jumping to conclusions.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
how do you know the evidence wasn't documented? Do you really think the police are giving everything they have to the media? It doesn't matter whether the damage was significant. Attempting to smash someones head against the pavement is sufficient grounds to use deadly force.
Good comparison! :) Both are a bunch of asshats.
Do you really want law nerds dating your daughters?
Daughters?! No True Scot... er.. Nerd will ever be in a position to procreate! Unless you live with your parents AND a slob AND single AND an intravert, you have no business calling yourself a pure nerd.
As I read the case, McNeil admitted to taking out his weapon and choosing not to retreat. Am I not reading that correctly? Zimmerman, in contrast, claims to have been attacked by Martin, pinned to the ground and beaten, and that it was Martin who was reaching for his weapon.
I'm not stating an opinion about McNeil's guilt or innocence, simply that the two cases are quite different from one another. Furthermore, keep in mind that McNeil was not charged until a year after the incident, calling into question claims that Zimmerman would have been arrested immediately if he had been black.
Did he serve a sentence for murder? no.
He didn't serve a sentence for murder because he was found not guilty. There were so many mistakes made by the police and the forensics team that the defense used the credibility of the investigation against the prosecution. There were also major issues with the DNA which was relatively new and unheard of, the prosecution did a piss poor job of having DNA explained, some of jurors were so confused that they mixed up DNA with blood type. What was thought to be a open and shut case turned into a nightmare for the prosecution.
This is why the OJ Simpson case is such an important case. So many mistakes were made that they use it in classroom exercises.
That's pretty funny and if only that were true. I also friend and foe (usually friend) on other issues, too. Usually on what I consider to be expressions of great compassion and understanding not limited to issues of race.
blog
I haven't seen this mentioned yet but in the US, the standard for conviction on criminal charges of any kind is "beyond a reasonable doubt" as established by a jury of your peers.
Does ANYONE honestly believe there is no reasonable doubt here? Of course there is. And that is why I think he will be found not guilty.
I don't have a dog in the hunt so I don't have to pick a side. I just call it like I see it and by any measure, it's going to be hard to prove murder 2nd degree "beyond a reasonable doubt".
seriously? KelTec's are butt ugly but they are not unreliable. huge numbers of people carry the P3AT or other small light pistols from KelTec.
You would deny the legitimacy of any criticism of anything self-destructive if you associate it with African-Americans? Yours is a particularly harmful brand of racial stereotyping.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
He may have the right to walk around his own neighborhood with a gun, he doesn't have the right to kill someone with it. I am amazed by the idiots that will defend a murder purely because they think a gun is THE ULTIMATE RIGHT IN THE FUCKING WORLD.
He WAS working with the neighborhood watch. He WAS NOT ALLOWED to carry a weapon while working for them. He WAS NOT ALLOWED to approach someone he was suspected of doing something. He WAS supposed to report things to the police (THE ONLY THING HE DID DO RIGHT). He WAS TOLD TO STOP FOLLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL; HE DIDN'T. Then.. he killed someone.
Anyone who defends that is a sociopathic son of a bitch that needs to put in jail, because they are clearly a threat to society.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
So you are suggesting that the guy who throws the first punch risks death? Good! Most of us don't go around getting into random bar fights. In fact, we actively try to avoid fighting at almost all cost unless absolutely necessary (defense only).
There's a lot of tough guys around and the stand your ground law is aimed at those idiots for a reason. Tough guys should rightfully be fearful of getting shot if they decide to throw that random punch in a bar and start some shit.
However, I will also add that guns and bars don't mix. Period, no exceptions. That's why it's illegal to have a gun in a bar. Even in Texas.
The 911 dispatcher told him the back off and let the real professionals handle it.
That is an established fact.
I think you have just established you aren't competent using many of the words in your statements. Lets review what was said,
So, is that a command to "back off" and "let the real professionals handle it" by the civilian dispatcher who has no authority? No
So, is it an "established fact"? No
These "stand your ground" laws work both ways.
Snark masquerading as "established fact." Something that is more interesting:
More on the Irrelevance of 'Stand Your Ground' to the Trayvon Martin Case
Zimmerman saw Trayvon as a perp and Trayvon probably saw Zimmerman as a sexual predator.
Interesting take. If that is so, why didn't Marin call the police for help? Maybe some hints in the bottom half of this?
Trayvon Martin case heading towards the political abyss
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
PURE nerds don't have daughters. QED.
Your brain is not a computer.
Guilty: Bunch of people bitching about a lynching
Not Guilty: This is where you get your flames, literally, during the murderous riot that will ensue.
See the thing is you don't *know* anymore than the rest of us what happened.
Hmmm, I'm not sure that is true, at least in your case. I actually read from the police report, did you? I think you are going pretty far out on a limb to say the police weren't sure that they saw the FD treating Zimmerman on the scene.
Quit making up your own preferred version of the story.
I made a simple, factual statement. You are the one engaging in flights of fancy.
and if you pull a gun on me and start threatening me with it after clearly following me around the neighborhood I *may* attack you and start trying to pummel your head into the ground.
Instead of using the cell phone, which Martin had, to call the police for help? Of course I'm impressed in some way that you think you would be faster than a bullet if the gun was already out and pointed at you.
Tell you what, why don't you get a few more facts under your belt? The call. Some interesting background.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Even as a white supremacist would get this jury hung (probably by way of arguing against an innocent verdict, against any reason, I think), it's just as likely that what I'll term a "non-white supremacist" will do the same thing. In fact, given the current political climate, I think it's much more likely. I'm sure it's utterly socially/politically incorrect to claim that a person of color can be just as racist as a KKK member (perhaps with less leverage in the lynching department, but with more leverage in the getting-hired-without-credentials department), but in my experience, it's extremely common; they just have less sway among traditionalists, and more among non-traditionalists. I really hate that this sounds like I'm agreeing with hate-mongering jerks like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, but monkeys speaking into a microphone will eventually say something intelligent--if only by (semi-)random chance.
It's really tempting to post this as Anonymous Coward, but for now, I choose to delude myself into thinking that most people will respect my ticking-off extremists from both "sides of the isle."
Anyway, while I'm certain that Zimmerman does, in fact, need to be tried for murder (of some degree), I see this, like some of you seem to, as the start of the next OJ Simpson trial. Hopefully this'll be shorter and a little less idiotic.
*runs for cover*
do you see the phrase "thug culture" as a distinctively black thing?
It's called "code", and the comment in question is peppered with it: "gangsta thug culture"; "rap and hip-hop about how awesome it is to be a career criminal"; "high-crime area"; "gangsta thug"; "thug"; "THUG LIFE YO!"; "violent teenager". The whole scope of the comment is a dismally stereotypical picture of "black" urban life and culture, and to make matters worse, to the extent any of it is true it's completely irrelevant to the case. You're right, though. It doesn't say "nigger", so it can't possibly be racist.
Attention, liberal America: the fascists figured out how to employ innuendo and abstract thought to much success a long time ago, it's time you catch up.
And let me emphasize, this really, really isn't anything new. That's how Jim fucking Crow worked.
But keep on accusing people of racism for calling out racism*. It's a really convenient ignorance indicator.
* Then again, when you said "maybe that says something about you more than about GP", maybe you meant something else.
It's nice how you have convicted him of murder already. Neighborhood watches are voluntary. They may tell you not to carry a gun but it has zero legal weight. As for not being "allowed" to approach someone he suspected of doing something wrong, it's the same deal. He doesn't lose his rights to go wherever he wants in his neighborhood just because he's a member of the neighborhood watch. You don't know whether he continued to follow Martin after the 911 operator told him not to. There are reports that he tried to go back to his car after they told him not to follow, but we don't know whether that is true or not. Nice jump from him following Martin to killing him. You forgot the part where Martin jumps him, breaks his nose and smashes his head against the ground (how convenient for your argument.) Maybe it would be better to wait for the court to decide his guilt or innocence. I suspect that when it is over there will not be sufficient evidence to convict him. I know that may piss you off, but tough shit.
It's also most of the rest of the steps.
They'll kill you first, and never be charged.
ahhh...hedging your bets...are you? ...bet you won't bet both testicals...will ya?
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
previously all white country
I think you're very, very confused.
Conspiracy much?
I normally hesitate to respond in such a way.. but... are you smoking crack?
Your point one presumption is a bloody huge presumption with exactly no evidence to back it up. As to your second point, are you really trying to say that Zimmerman intentionally set out to kill someone and then just hope that he could stand behind the non-existent shield of "Hold your ground"? That is a mind numbing huge gamble, wouldn't you say? Contrary to what some people of limited knowledge and intelligence on the subject say, you can't just shoot a person and then throw up your hands and yell "He was coming right at me!" Nor could you provoke a minor assault and "carry out the plan". No one is going to buy that you were in serious danger of death or grievous injury absent non-trivial wounds to yourself or at the least arms on the part of the other person.
This also fails Occam's Razor.
Which is more likely and simpler?
A) That Zimmerman hatched a complicated plan to allow himself to "legally" kill someone at great risk of serious physical injury and/or jail time.
or
B) Under what could likely be called questionable judgement he decided to follow Martin around the neighborhood, and then for currently unknown/uncertain reasons got out of his car and followed an undetermined distance on foot. At which point either Martin or Zimmerman (facts in dispute) started a physical altercation, of which Zimmerman was getting the worse of. Fearing for his life Zimmerman shot Martin.
At no point am I addressing whether following Martin around was a good idea, what his motivations were beyond being suspicious of him or any of the rest. The fact is, we don't know any of that so anything any of us say is speculation at best. Either way, your scenario is silly and braindead and even if point B isn't the way it went down it damned sure wasn't point A.
Murder Two at best/worst and even that only if it can be proven that Zimmerman attacked Martin and was in no serious danger himself.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Thanks sounds good. I don't quite see your list as being authoritative, however there seem to be cases where planning isn't required.
Correct. As noted by others below there are certain special cases where what would otherwise be Murder Two or some other related charge becomes Murder One due to aggravating factors. I was merely speaking in general and classic terms.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
This has nothing to do with guns being "the ultimate right in the fucking world." It's all about one thing: Did Martin attack Zimmerman as was described the night of the attack. If he did then Zimmerman was within his rights to shoot him. If not, then Zimmerman will be off to prison. >> I am amazed by the idiots that will defend a murder purely because they think a gun is THE ULTIMATE RIGHT IN THE FUCKING WORLD.
It's kind of sick that you would wish for him being murdered in court or that there is a race riot, but i think you will probably get your wish. I expect that he will get off and that there will be riots so enjoy. I don't expect the riots to follow the same progression as those from the Rodney King. It will be a lot more violent and a lot more rioters will be shot.
Well, no, SOME gun nuts will. Others realize it's bullshit and just reccomend you find a weapon you're comfortable with and practice practice practice.
Having a debate on "Stand your ground" isn't really going to work if you don't understand the issues.
More on the Irrelevance of 'Stand Your Ground' to the Trayvon Martin Case
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
But keep on accusing people of racism for calling out racism
Thanks, I will; at least when I feel justified in doing so, as in this case.
:p
I don't feel sorry for calling somebody a racist who automatically thinks "hey, that means black people" when they hear the phrase "gangsta thug culture" without any explicit mention or implication of race, and when they furthermore don't even know the race of the speaker. By pigeonholing all issues into neat little liberal categories, including defining other people's words according to their own preconceived "code", such racism-accusers are simply being arrogant jerks. That's my opinion.
According to the police report, Zimmerman was treated at the scene by the FD for bleeding from the back of his head and from his nose. Simple fact.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I'm not from the US. A lot of my understanding of current political issues within the US come from this site. I find considerable value in reading the comments of nerds to issues that may not, in themselves, be News _for_ Nerds.
I am from the United States and I would like to second that. Between Fox and Huffington Post, I really don't trust many news sources I can find. Everybody has their bias and their axes to grind. At /., I can look at a wide selection of opinions, and while as a group the readers here certainly have their bias, a well written post that provides informative or insightful information that goes against that bias, still gets modded Informative or Insightful despite that. When there is something I don't know much about, I often look forward to an article about it here as, while not perfect, the modding system here is better than any other one I've seen and the same goes for the people who post. Even our Anonymous Coward trolls are more well spoken and seem more intelligent than honest posters over on the Wall Street Journal. I've learned a lot about various issues from both people who show personal knowledge about something as well as just some decent logic.
Drug dealer shoots innocent bystander is not protected by Stand your Ground law. Only the perp's relatives cannot sue. That is assuming the dead person is found to be the perp. Stand Yorur Ground laws say I don't have to retreat from an aggressor, not I'm allowed to be an aggressor and shoot whomever I want.
Show me one case where an aggressor or a felon (drug dealer) shot anyone and got away with it because of a "stand your ground law".
Now, I'm not actually in favor of "Stand your Ground". I think a weapon holder should be required to retreat if possible. But blaming
"Stand Your Ground" laws in this or other cases is silly. As the parent said "cite one case".
Zimmerman is charged. Not because he "stood his ground" but because he initiated the confrontation. 2nd degree murder is
the right charge. The court will decide if he is guilty.
"Florida's Stand Your Ground law explicitly creates immunity for wrongful death suits." from an aggressor or his family or his estate.
Not from anyone else.
more cowbell
Be honest - nobody here reads the fucking articles anyway. We come here for the discussion.
And in general, the discussion you're going to find here on Slashdot is quite different than the character of the discussion you're going to find on many other news sites.
I appreciate seeing discussions like this, because, while I don't always agree with the people I'm discussing the issue with, I can generally rely on finding at least a couple well-informed "opposition viewpoints" that will show me something new, or frame the discussion in a way I hadn't considered before. I find that to be tremendously valuable; and let's be honest - if you're really offended by this type of story showing up - don't click on it, don't post a comment, just ignore it.
I don't get all excited every time Raspberry Pi releases a press release announcing a new delay - so I don't usually click on those articles, I just bypass them.
ah, i see. So you're saying that looking "threatening" is enough to blow your childs or your friends head off, cause i was "threatened". Is that it?
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
Be careful what you don't ask for, you might get it.
http://religion.slashdot.org/
Hmmm..... I sense a disturbance in the force..... as if tens of thousands of atheists cried out and then went silent . . . .
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Of no grand jury indictment. Why not? Getting a grand jury indictment is not hard, the standard for it is pretty low and the grand jury knows the prosecutor. However they are there for a reason: To try and keep the real bullshit cases out of court. So it worries me that they didn't get an indictment. They really should in this case, the 5th amendment stars out with "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." This would seem to qualify to me.
The concern I really have is if they don't think they could even get an indictment then the trial will be nothing but a show trial, one that will further drag shit out. If they could have gotten one, they should have, as I imagine they do in most felony cases.
Are you sure about that? I only see immunity in the version of the law I just looked through in cases where the person killed was the one on whom deadly force was used in self-defense.
I don't see anything about "my stray bullet hit a neighborhood teenager in the head 3 blocks away, but since I was defending myself against another attacker, that kid's death is just a freebie for me."
I'd expect that "acting in self defense" would be a mitigating circumstance and that you would be charged with something more like manslaughter than murder in that situation, but I don't see any clear "you're free from wrongful death suits," except in the specific case of the deceased attacker's family.
Because stand your ground specifically says you must not be involved in unlawful activity.
Drug dealing is typically held to be unlawful. You'd be hard-pressed to say, "Your honor, yes, I was dealing crack, when that guy ran up and tried to beat me down and take my stash. So I shot him in the face, because, you know, gotta protect what's mine."
Such a case would be ineligible for a stand your ground defense.
The facts of the case as I understand them are that Martin was walking along, Zimmerman thought Martin was up to no good, called 911, pursued Martin against the 911 operator's advice with a gun, and stupidly created a situation where one person attacked the other (conflicting reports on who attacked who), and felt he had to use his gun. Does that match your understanding / what you expect an honest jury to find?
Assuming so, I think the jury will just say he's not guilty of second-degree murder. (Presumably the hypothetical white supremacist would go along with that.) They would have been a lot more likely to find him guilty of voluntary manslaughter due to "imperfect self-defense":
"An honest but unreasonable belief that deadly force was necessary" is as good a description of the situation as any. It seems like the prosecutor was overcorrecting the lack of action until now and overreached in going for second-degree murder instead of voluntary manslaughter.
Yes, exactly. All the pro-Zimmerman posts (stretching from the top of the page all the way down) and now the anti-McNeil post make me wonder if Khipu is a member of Zimmerman's family.
- elgo
He is right though, it is alarming to see so many posts by people who are, let's say, openly white about this issue. C'est la Vie. Tribalism dies hard.
- elgo
Yeah, criminally I'm not sure - would need more facts. Sounds like possibly manslaughter.
Civilly, he should be fucked. No matter what happened, it's clear he created the situation. His idiocy led to the death of that kid and he should pay for the rest of his life.
But you don't understand human nature if you think he's going to walk. He won't walk, he will 100% be found guilty. It's simple human nature.
Uhh, ever heard the phrase "don't bring a knife to a gunfight"? Generally when guns are involved one person is shot (or dead) and the other relatively unscathed.
Agreed Zimmerman has to prove self defense, then the prosecutor has to disprove any actual evidence he brings. Sounds like he has signs of a scuffle including possible injuries for evidence, that might actually be enough. Well, it would be if Zimmerman wasn't going to be railroaded regardless of what happened.
I have mixed feelings about that. I hate the circus and the irrationality of it all, but Zimmerman seems a grade A moron and douchebag.
This is exactly why Zimmerman will be found guilty no matter the facts. What juror wants to be labeled racist by a nation full of stupid cunts like you?
Do you have a source for that? What court was he on?
Google for zimmerman magistrate and you'll get lots of hits. (Including some irrelevant ones, such as a judge with that name in California.)
I had read that he had been on the state supreme court, but a look at the first few hits on the above search yields claims all over the map, from Federal judge, to Virginia supreme court judge, to Florida county judge, to ...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I disagree - Santorum was of international interest to those interested in science and technology due to his stand against science. I'm not even in the USA and care little about Republican (or Democrat) blind tribalism but found him of interest.
There were articles like that and this one way back in the first year of Slashdot anyway.
Uhh, ever heard the phrase "don't bring a knife to a gunfight"? Generally when guns are involved one person is shot (or dead) and the other relatively unscathed.
It depends on the circumstances. In a typical self-defense situation, this would be true, because you start shooting as soon as you perceive a threat, which is usually evident before they get up close and personal. On the other hand, if you take the gun out and come up close to threaten someone with it, they just might get a swing at you before you manage to pull the trigger...
Anyway, that's all conjecture. My gut feeling based on Zimmerman's attitude demonstrated during his 911 call is that he was too trigger-happy to be reasonable about assessing the need for self-defense, but of course I don't have all evidence, and neither does anyone in the public at large. That's why I'm glad it's down to a trial now; hopefully they'll do a thorough investigation such that, whatever the outcome is, it's got solid support.
Interesting take. If that is so, why didn't Marin call the police for help? Maybe some hints in the bottom half of this?
Maybe because he was on the phone with someone already (his girlfriend) at the time, and thought he had better chances to run than to call the police that may show up in 15 minutes, when its too late?
What is the guy who throws the first punch is defending himself? Let's say the other guy is threatening to shoot him, but gets close enough for the first person to hit them.
Does shooting still count as self defense?
If Martin should have called the police, what about Zimmerman? Shouldn't he have called the police again after Martin started beating him up?
What is a bigger and more immediate threat to your safety? Someone hitting you, or someone pointing a gun at you?
White supremacist?
This implies that we're talking about something premeditated and primarily racially motivated. This is not the case. As far as we know, it's a matter of someone (Zimmerman) feeling threatened on 'his' property, engaging the intruder and ends up using deadly force which he feels authorized by the "Stand Your Ground" legislation.
The case has the following important issues that needs both a public debate and court evaluation:
1) The "Stand Your Ground" law. It was meant to remove any concerns relating to the defense of your home or property. If there's an intruder and you feel threatened you should be able to use any means, including deadly force without fearing the legal consequences. Does the necessary threat need to be more clearly defined?
2) The signals that appearance sends. Many people from non-ghetto environments feels uneasy or threatened by youths wearing 'gangsta-wear', i.e. hoodies, reversed or askew baseball caps and similar. If you dress like that in areas where it might cause concern, are you essentially 'asking for it'?
3) The behaviour and actions of the intruder. Did he act in ways to make him more suspicious or threatening?
4) The race angle. Would Zimmerman have acted differently if the intruder has been hispanic or white? Does a black youth in a hoodie appear more scary than a similary dressed white or hispanic youth?
5) The possible abuse of the racism angle. Closely connected to 4 but still a separate issue. Every single time someone from one ethnic group harms someone from another ethnic group, racism is immediately claimed. If a hispanic man shoots a black youth, it's without doubt racism it seems. This abuse completely destroys any relevant racism angle by flooding the issue. It doesn't mean it wasn't racially motivated or aggravated but playing the race card all the time not only clouds the real motivation and cause, it also invalidates relevant racism claims because if you always hide behind (and possible is protected by) a claim of racism, people stop taking it seriously. Already, a racist white cop can get away with targeting black drivers simply because black drivers immediately claim racism when they are pulled over (even when the cop is black!), no matter how obvious it is that the cop had plenty of reasons to do so without any knowledge of the occupants of the car.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
There have been plenty of high-profile cases that went to jury just fine.
The O.J. Simpson case for instance.
There was some doubt as to motive and the excessive violence used which normally calls for a crime of passion or a psychopath, a profile that doesn't fit OJ Simpson.
But the core issue that caused the acquittal was the bumbling efforts of the LAPD in this matter, possibly related to the truly bad actions by self-proclaimed racist Mark Fuhrman that wanted to force a conviction and managed to do the exact opposite. But not only did Mark Fuhrman mess things up, the LAPD failed to follow procedure again and again, both at the crime scene and in the lab, losing and contaminating evidence in the process. There was so much doubt that reasonable doubt was inevitable and he was acquitted, exactly as intended to protect the innocent from being railroaded.
Basically we still don't know if he did it. There was countless stab wounds and blood everywhere (the LAPD managed to both step in it and make bloody footprints all over the house and grounds), yet no blood was ever found on OJ Simpson and only two pinhead-sized drops on the white Bronco which could have been deposited a long time prior to the murders. No blood stained clothes were ever found, nor the murder weapon. OJ had no time to wash and dispose of the bloody clothing as he was at the airport only hours later (and transport time from Brentwood to LAX was at least an hour due to congestion). Everything was searched and rewards offered but still nothing. This makes sense if the murderer was someone else as claimed, as only locations relevant to the possible paths OJ could have taken was searched.
No, I personally don't think he did it. Too much doesn't fit or make sense.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Interesting that you refer to 'the intruder' - in this case, the guy who got killed was walking to a house where he was a guest - he wasn't on or even approaching the other guys property.
I don't think this case is clear cut - there are all kinds of grey areas about what happened - but muddying the water with words like 'intruder' doesn't help.
I think it would be fair to say 'supposed intruder', as it does seem that Zimmerman mistakenly believed this to be the case.
Reading Comprehension > You He said nothing about being threatened. He said being attacked. Its fucktards like you, that can twist every last detail without an objective view that have Zimmerman convicted before he stands trial in front of an impartial jury of his peers. Whatever happened to presumption of innocence? Oh right, it was gone the day the news realized sensational stories sell ads. If its found that Zimmerman was the original aggressor, then he deserves whatever the law can throw at him. But we don't know everything that happened, so quit listening to your emotions, look at this situation objectively and realize there's a reason that you are presumed innocent.
The Casey Anthony case was a perfect example of a proper case with the proper outcome. No direct evidence was provided, only circumstantial hints, and the acquittal was the correct verdict.
Sure, she didn't behave as must people would, but that is completely irrelevant. If she didn't kill her daughter (or pay someone to do it), an acquittal is the only valid verdict. It doesn't matter if she wanted the daughter dead or that she was happy that she was gone. That makes her a horrible mother but not a murderer. And absolutely nothing - except her cold pre- and post-behavior - indicated any connection with the crime.
So not a murderer, only an absolutely horrible person/mother.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Touché. Though it IS in the news section. If we interpret that as a topic, it should be news on news, so this might fit the category in what the news is currently obsessing about?
Mod parent down! - It's either trolling or the ramblings of a mentally disturbed loser.
Zimmerman didn't go hunting for blacks to shoot! Martin came to Zimmermans neighborhood looking like a gangsta and behaving like one to some extent. Zimmerman didn't pick up the gun when he saw the color of the intruders skin; he was already carrying. Whether the color of Martins skin had any influence on what happened is yet to be seen, as is whether it is relevant in any way.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Interesting take. If that is so, why didn't Marin call the police for help? Maybe some hints in the bottom half of this?
because he wasn't used to calling 911 for every suspicious dude like a bitch and by the time his phone was on the ground it was too late.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Consider various postings about the TSA. TSA gained relevance on /. due to their use of body scanners and so forth; however, at least a few of the more recent posts is about the gross ineptitude of the TSA, tech being merely one outlet for set ineptitude. Yet no one complains about TSA articles (that I've seen, anyway).
TSA is relevant to geeks, because often nerdy contraptions are mistaken for bombs by screeners. And because geek's general lack of self-confidence may be mistaken for a suicide bomber's anxiousness.
TSA's ineptitude has nothing to do with it (but of course, thrown into the mix, it makes the subject even more interesting).
So not a murderer, only an absolutely horrible person/mother.
Yup. That's what I was trying to get across.
Required reading for internet skeptics
If we start accepting news that is for the various sub-nerds then who knows what we will end up with. Slashdot is only for PURE nerds. Do you really want law nerds dating your daughters?
In short, single, 40+, living in a basement and bitching about how come no playmate wants to bang a fat f'n slob?
From the length and vacuous content I bet you're a real playa with the ladies, eh?
Yes, it is an established fact. You're being way too literal and are misinterpreting the intent and meaning behind the dispatcher's sentence.
In standard English there is a kind of understatement which is very common and universally understood. For example, I encountered a friendly but unintelligent young woman earlier today and mentioned to a friend that "she's not the smartest person in the world". This did not mean that she had an IQ of 215 which would place her just shy of the smartest person. It meant she was dumb. It was a kind of understatement which is understood by everyone.
Similarly, the statement "we don't need you to do that" is a friendly way of saying "don't do it." For example, if my boss observes someone at work doing something pointless or a waste of time, he might say "we don't need you to do that" because it's more polite than outright commanding them to stop. The meaning would be understood by everyone because that kind of understatement is part of standard conversational English.
I'm not from the US. A lot of my understanding of current political issues within the US come from this site. I find considerable value in reading the comments of nerds to issues that may not, in themselves, be News _for_ Nerds. So add my vote to those saying that this _is_ the sort of thing I want to see on Slashdot (within reason, buyer beware, etc.)
Branch out to actual political law sites for real US Law and Political current events. If you think Slashdot is a broad reflection of the US Political landscape it's not surprising so many countries hate our f'n guts.
And this is news that I care about? Get back to fusion, code, tech, etc. I can read about this on CNN.
Whose keeping you from skipping the article? Who made you slashdot neighborhood watch police, anyways? Next you'll be hunting down someone who doesn't agree with your choice of distribution of Linux and choice of FOSS licensing.
This implies that we're talking about something premeditated and primarily racially motivated. This is not the case. As far as we know, it's a matter of someone (Zimmerman) feeling threatened on 'his' property,
Where exactly was Trayvon Martin shot, was it actually on Zimmerman's property? From my reading Zimmerman had been stalking Trayvon for a period before shooting him how does this law apply if you shoot someone not actually on "your" property?
Generally people should follow the instructions of the dispatcher. When the dispatcher said "we", the dispatcher was clearly referring to the police themselves, along with the message to stop following him, implying that they would handle it.
If you were in the dispatcher's shoes, would you trust some individual without the proper training to essentially pursue a suspect or would you want a real LEO to do it instead?
So, yes, it is an established fact that the dispatcher told him to back off and let them handle it.
Zimmerman, being part of the neighborhood watch had instructions to contact the police if he sees anything suspicious and to ALLOW them to handle it. That is his role. Trayvon on the other hand had no requirement to do so. Most men in general do not pull out their phones and call the cops whenever they think someone is following them. Such behavior makes them appear weak, and the typical masculine reaction is to confront their stalker or alternatively, running away to avoid trouble. Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time also btw.
I could have been Phil, that would have been a news for hackers/nerds/geeks
Looking like a gangsta? Do you mean "black"? He was wearing a hoodie, like about 25% of young people at any given time.
Also, how was he behaving like a gangsta? He walked away rapidly from a confrontation ("I won't run but I'll walk real fast").
Zimmerman had the gun in his car and was driving to Target. He saw Trayvon, then called the cops and said "[Trayvon] looks like he's on drugs or something" after just looking at the kid from a distance. Then he got the gun from his car, put it in his belt, and chased down the kid.
There is no way to tell if someone is on drugs by just looking at them from a distance. I have extensive experience with hard drug addicts and I could never tell if someone was on drugs before talking to them. I've known about 10+ severe addicts quite well who held down jobs and worked while doing drugs, and who managed to conceal their addiction from everyone. The only exception is if someone has done alot of meth, in which case they become twitchy, which is obvious from afar. Even in that case, however, the average meth addict is not particularly aggressive and is far less dangerous than the average drunk person.
I think Zimmerman was acting under the influence of stereotypes.
No, a good friend of mine was murdered.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend, yet you are against laws that would have allowed him to defend his life without fear of prosecution. How fascinating people's emotional responses are. Strong protection of self defense does not condone or allow murder. Is your friend's murderer free? If so, on what basis, stand your ground (or other self defense) laws, lack of evidence or some other reason?
I just don't like people getting shot.
I presume you mean you don't like people getting killed. Surely you would be no happier about the situation if a different weapon such as a knife had been used to kill your friend, right?
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Really? A fact ? You have talked to the eyewitnesses then? Zimmerman's claim is that he lost sight of the guy and walked to a street corner to get the location for the police, something they did ask him for when trevan who was physically superior to Zimmerman jumped him and started beating the shit out of him. This is backed up by several eyewitness.
Getting second degree will be tough here unless there is evidence NOT ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC REALM. They might have had a shot at manslaughter.
You do have a constitutional right to fight for self survival and use arms as the means, so unless a jury thinks that Zimmerman with a busted nose and head was in no danger of being killed or further injured through physical means or with his own legally carried sidearm it will be a steep hill for the prosecution.
So if someone follows you and you confront them and ask if they want trouble and they say no and walk away is cool to jump on them then and start beating their head against the pavement? Is it cool to kill them at that point? Do you think if trevan hadn't escalated to physical violence he would have been shot? If someone jumped on you because they thought you were following them and broke your nose and bashed in your head, then got up and turned around to come back and beat you some more would you think that was cool?
the same police that did not even give him a breathalyzer?
Fox News does have the highest viewing numbers. Which just goes to demonstrate there's no shortage of idiots.
You don't get an endless number of exclusions, though. Now if they can't get an impartial person, then there's a problem. Self-reporting is not accurate, but until we have accurate lie detection it's what we've got.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That's the point, genius. The law is supposed to protect a guy who is defending himself. It didn't defend the black guy who was clearly defending himself.
You are fucking-A right it means that. If this system is based on "equal protection under the law" but it has not worked out that way, then it's time to get out pencils and paper, know what I mean?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Which is why when my son who is a dark Hispanic decided to start wearing baggy pants I went into his room and replaced them all with proper fitting pants. Then I told him that if he wants to be a slum rat he can do it after he supports himself. Until then he can dress like someone who might be worth something. That was the end of that. But many parents are too lazy or scared to have even this SMALL confrontation with their kid. This is why black fathers have -got- to step it up for their kids. Kids need a dad to tell them how its gonna be till they are self supporting.
Of course I may have gone too far. Now my son is dressing like Tosh and parroting "high fashion" lol.
You don't get to claim self defense without having to prove it.
I thought it was the government that had to prove their case of murder, so they wouldn't they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was NOT defending himself?
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
You are welcome on my lawn.
And how do you know what was MEANT when ALEC and the NRA cocked up these laws? Since this is the same outfit that is pushing minority voter suppression laws, and school privatization laws, and anti-minimum wage laws, I think you've got the burden of proof for what they MEANT to do with this law.
The fact that so many "Stand Your Ground" laws appear in Southern states, is further reason to doubt what the law MEANT.
You are welcome on my lawn.
911 operators commands are not law, they are mere suggestions. (I've never seen a law making their commands punishable if not followed) He (Zimmerman) had returned to his truck near the end of the call, having lost Martin, and was awaiting the arrival of the officers that were on their way. After the end of the call the two of them (Zimmerman and Martin) met and had a confrontation, who started it is the big question no one can answer. The evidence (at the scene) seemed to back Zimmerman's story enough that he was released without charges (at the time).
Certain aggravating factors can escalate a crime to first-degree. They vary by jurisdiction, but often include murder during rape, killing a member of law enforcement, or being party to a crime such as burglary or robbery where one of the accomplices is killed.
Also, the pre-meditation doesn't have to be lengthy or well in advance, and it doesn't have to be centered around a particular person. All that's required is a split-second decision, not in the heat of the moment, to kill. And, of course, the prosecutor has to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killer made a cold-blooded decision to kill.
Based on what little we know of the evidence, it seems pretty clear to me that even if Zimmerman did pre-meditate the act, there's no proof that he did so. Unless there's a significant piece of evidence we're not aware of, the prosecutor would be foolish to make that charge, especially if Florida law doesn't allow the jury to choose to convict on a lesser charge (I don't know if it does). That might force them to acquit even if they find that Zimmerman did commit murder.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I'm thinking any case this public is going to have more exclusions allowed than usual.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
And how exactly do you know this? The confrontation wasn't over at the back entrance. His claim is that he did stop following him, and was walking to a street sign to get the street name for the operator, something they did ask for, and then was confronted. And where did the operator say "stalking"? Is following someone with the intent to provide information to police, or to question them an aggressive act?
If Martin was being stalked why didn't he use his cell phone to call the police?
3) Executed the plan
And the little fella!
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
Wow. You're a fucking puppet.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
No, it was the truth. The protests and petitions didn't get them to change their minds.
The US Attorney General implying "Arrest and charge Zimmerman, or we'll arrest and charge the lot of you," was what really got them to move.
Zimmerman's daddy was a judge, and got his kid out of most of his troubles, but this is a national issue in an election year.
Are you on crack?
An armed man goes looking for trouble in his neighbourhood streets, what was going to happen once he found it?
If he had no intent on killing someone then why carry the gun in the first place?
He was armed and dangerous and looking for trouble, the facts speak for themselves he killed the boy!
Even if he had been found holding the boy at gunpoint would the Police have said good job Zimmerman thats one more scumbag off the streets or arrested Zimmerman?
When it comes to determining premeditated murder you need hard evidence to convict but as the evidence largely exists in the head of Zimmerman it is unlikely he will admit to it so murder 2 is likely to be the maximum he can reasonably be convicted of. Just because the evidence available is insufficient to gain a conviction doesn't mean the motivation and planning wasn't there.
25 to life is a pretty hefty sentence , murder 1 would only add eventual state sponsored euthanasia assuming you can get the death penalty in florida.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Covered, but not discussed, at least not to the level I'm used to from Slashdot. The discussion is the real value--this is one of the last bastions of comments above the youtube level on the internet.
Side note, averaging more than 1-2 emphasis words per sentence makes you look crazy. Doubly so if you use caps instead of bold/italic/underline.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
Right, because OJ got what he deserved /sarcasm
I'm not sure. What sort of top was the vic wearing?
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
I will bet my left testicle that you have never personally raised a child to adulthood.
As you've raised a child to adulthood, I'm a bit surprised that you didn't double down on that bet.
He was "tailing", not "stalking". It was a mistake, but so was calling the police. As we can see from the media coverage, socialism has gone mainstream, so there is no "neighborhood" anymore, only the "Big Society" collective, and it's every man for himself on the individual level. Install bars on your windows and eat popcorn while watching your neighbors' houses being looted!
Do the newbie mods look at the timestamps? The comments above me are redundant except for the one left at the same time as mine.
When you have a son and he starts thinking that gangsta thug culture is GREAT, that all the rap and hip-hop about how awesome it is to be a career criminal is something more than entertainment, that's your cue to ACT LIKE A PARENT and straighten his ass out before he gets either jailed or shot in the streets. Of course, not deciding to start and raise a family in a high-crime area is a nice touch too.
Do we have any evidence that this describes Treyvon Martin?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Contrary to what you may think, it is not possible for someone to accurately assess the damage one has received as well as practically impossible to accurately assess what damage one will receive in the future. Self defense is usually based on the latter.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
So to follow up, is it also your opinion that Jim Crow laws which didn't mention race were not, in fact, racist?
Really? I can just kill everyone who takes a swing at me?
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
I think the jury will have the option to convict on a lesser crime, at least that's how it worked when my friend was shot. This is like asking for $60K/yr because you want to make $50K/yr.
Make no doubt. A Manslaughter conviction is what the prosecution is seeking. Bringing the higher charge of 2nd degree, which they probably don't have the evidence to secure a conviction, if for two purposes.
1. Plea bargain.
2. Due to people generally trusting authority figures, bringing the 2nd degree charge increases the probability of securing manslaughter through the jury rather than if they brought the manslaughter charge up.
Personally, I despise both of those since neither is seeking justice. They're conviction seeking behaviors.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
It doesn't seem to be working like that in Florida, but if it were, people would think twice about getting into a bar fight or marrying a slut. We already have widespread abuse of "protective orders" for the defense of women, but their strong right to defense against "bad men" promises to have the positive effect of encouraging men to stay away from crazy bitches.
It really doesn't matter at this point whether he's innocent or guilty, or even if he's found innocent or guilty by a jury. Regardless, he's already been tried in the court of media and public opinion, found guilty, and sentenced to a life sentence (or the death penalty if a lynch mob gets to him). All the rest is just for show, really.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Your points are all valid!
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
We know the intent in the case of the Jim Crow laws, because we know who wrote them and why they were written. But you are not entitled to assume just because you see somebody complaining about "gangsta thug culture" that they are specifically targeting another race. You don't know the writer's motives.
I don't think either one of us knows the OP that started this discussion. But since I am fairly knowledgeable about me, let me provide a new specimen:
Gangsta thug culture is a negative influence on our society.
There. That is my true and honest opinion, and I don't think I have exaggerated or used non sequiturs like the OP did. Am I a racist for expressing this view? Is the very phrase "gangsta thug culture" somehow a racially black concept? I'm still bewildered that you seem to think so, given the antics of Eminem and a host of disaffected, youthful Caucasian wannabes.
no, but if they have you down on the ground and are smashing your head against the concrete you probably can.
He'll be back.
I don't know exactly what Dooley's arrest tells us. It might tell us that black people will be arrested more quickly under similar circumstances in Florida. Or, it just may tell us that Trevor Dooley was arrested more quickly under similar circumstances. We don't - well I don't anyway - know how long it typically takes Florida law enforcement to arrest someone under these kinds of circumstances, relative to the race of the killer and killed. As far as I know no one has gone to the trouble of compiling and publishing that information. It may not even be that meaningful if they did. There have been around 40 justified killing each year in Florida for the past 4 years. The number where circumstances match the Zimmerman/Martin case and those that mirror it with race swapped can't be large.
But none of that it to say it wouldn't be informative to do the comparison, or that the comparison can't be done, or that *you* can't do it. Here is a good starting point - the dates, ages, and races for justified civilian homicides in Florida.
http://databases.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/ftlaudjustified/ftlaudjustifiable_list.php
Two final thoughts. When I first started looking at this data I had the expectation that there would be a disproportionate number of blacks killed by whites. That doesn't really seem to be the case, for civilians anyway. And finally, the biggest difference between the two cases you compare is the amount of attention the Zimmerman/Martin case has had from the media and otherwise.
46 & 2
[ Similarly, the statement "we don't need you to do that" is a friendly way of saying "don't do it." ]
911 dispatchers are trained to give orders. They are trained to deal with people in various excited emotional states, and their job is to convey instructions as clearly and loudly as is necessary. "Sir, STOP DOING THAT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? STOP FOLLOWING THE SUSPECT AND WAIT FOR THE ARRIVAL OF THE POLICE".
See how much more effective that is? If you listen to various recordings of 911 calls, you will know that's the language they know how to use and are trained for. This "you don't need to do that" does not convey a directive.
P.S. I'm responding to your comment, not the entire case, by the way.
Mod parent up. There is no way this doesn't come out hung jury.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This.
With all the news coming out apologizing for lying about what happened, editing the 911 call to make Zimmerman look racist, publishing photos of Trayvon when he was 12 rather than the 6'1 17-yr-old he was, fact that Zimmerman was injured that night and the police believed it was self-defense, witnesses saying Trayvon was beating Zimmerman, I really don't think they'll be able to find 12 people to agree Zimmerman's guilty, someone is always going to believe Zimmerman was defending himself.
Unless they have a clear video showing Zimmerman executing Trayvon while he was eating skittles, it's pretty clear they're doing this just to satisfy public outcry.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Yeah, shame his DNA was found at the scene.
No doubt in my mind that he did it.
Also no doubt in my mind that the verdict is the proper one because the prosecutors fucked up. The moment she changed her hair, it went from another murder case to a show for her.
And the glove? I don't know whats more baffling, that they insisted he try it, or that they let him get away with how to tried to put it on. If you can get a video, watch how he scrunches his hand for a brief moment that turns it into theatrics; which his lawyer jumped right on. They where prepared for that.
And the judge should have barred all cameras.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I heard multiple aggressive statements, such as "these people always get away".
Table-ized A.I.
Does DNA come with a timestamp? If not, that's only important if they were strangers. They weren't. (Not saying he didn't do it, just pointing out that one thing. And I agree that once cops mess with evidence, bam, that's reasonable doubt.)
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
She wasn't convicted, but she is a murderer.
She killed her daughter. No doubt. The defense side tracked the case with alleged past sexual abuse.
"If she didn't kill her daughter (or pay someone to do it), an acquittal is the only valid verdict"
incorrect. If her lawyer can defend her then an acquittal is the only valid verdict. Completely separate from whether or not she did it.
You are clearly ill informed of the facts.
The found the girls hair in the trunk. The hair was in a state that happens to hair only after someone is dead.
They found evidence of a decomposing body in her trunk.
They found evidence of chloroform in her trunk.
There is a clear record of her looking up information on how to do this exact same type of murder
Her car smelled like a dead body.
She fabricated a story about a nanny.
They found her hair in the trunk from the girls corpse.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
My guess is Zimmerman's lawyer would argue that his client simply did not understand that statement or that it was unclear. The problem with this argument though is that Zimmerman seemed to be in control of his situation.
Revisionist claptrap. There was no protest prior to the riot, Sharpton marched days later.
The story from the side of Zimmerman was that after he lost Trey, he returned to his car to await the police, Trey approached him at his car, tackled him to the ground and slammed his head into the curb, at this point, Zimmerman was in fear for his life and shot Trey.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Just walked by a TV at work with CNN, aparently there is a witness who say Treyvon attacking Zimmerman before he was shot. The witness's account and Zimmerman's agree that he was on the ground getting beat on, Zimmerman said Treyvon was bashing his head into the ground. Self defense is perfectly legal, if someone is using deadly force on you, you are justified in responding in kind.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
No.
And this whole discussion makes little sense in light of other existing laws. When a person starts or initiates a confrontation using or directly threatening force in the process they are commiting a Felony. In most states any deaths resulting from a Felony offense are the fault of the person(s) committing the felony. Which is how when two conspirators try and rob a gas station ,and one is shot to death by the attendant, the surviving conspirator is charged with murder for the death.
In this case of course the problem is that we, the public, don't know who actually started the physical confrontation. And it might be that no one but Zimmerman and Martin will ever know. But hopefully there is evidence that will allow a jury to make a sound decision one way or the other.
Even if it were a law that came from on high, if the consequences were predictably racially biased, the law is racist, whether it mentions race or not. I don't know, for example, much about the people behind US drug law, but the effects are quite clearly racially biased; the laws are racist.
So if it were determined that one racial group is disproportionately affected by laws against violent crime and/or murder, then we could conclude that laws against violent crime are racist and should not be instituted?
Until you connect some of these dots and come to what is an obvious conclusion to most people, you are not contributing to intelligent discourse on this subject. Accusing people of racism where there is none, and behaving paternalistically toward minorities is not productive.
And what is the obvious conclusion I am suggesting you should come to? That the law of the land should be color blind, and that social critiques such as the OP made should also be color blind as much as possible, and just leave race out of the discussion. Trying to interpret everything in terms of race is often well-meant, but ultimately harmful.
Nice handle. We pretend to work they pretend to pay us. Ever read Koba the Dread?
Barack Obama: he is a thug because he criticized the Supreme Court, he trained ACORN to intimidate (!) banks, he challenged signatures in a primary election. "If Barack Obama had a son, would he be a violent thug like Trayvon Martin?" "Who is the bigger thug: Trayvon Martin or Barack Obama?"
Eric Holder: New Black Panther Party, Al Sharpton. Holder is a thug because the DOJ is investigating the S&P for its role in the runup to the 2008 financial crisis.
Al Sharpton: Black kids beat up an old white man (for some reason Sharpton is mentioned), Sharpton was at the White House Easter breakfast (the comments are full of the word "thug"), Trayvon Martin is a thug.
George Bush: Kanye West criticized George Bush and is a thug, George Bush personally called John Ashcroft while he was in the hospital to get him to sign off on illegal wiretapping.
Alberto Gonzalez: Gonzalez went to the hospital to speak to Ashcroft in the aforementioned incident.
Rush Limbaugh: Obama is a thug, Obama is a thug, Obama is a thug, basketball is a thug sport.
When people call Obama and Holder thugs, it is because of (fairly mild) criticisms they voice, or investigations they perform (as, you know, the goddamn Attorney General). Sharpton is a thug, and he spends all his time talking about thugs.
When people call Bush and Gonzalez thugs, they're generally referring to an incident where they tried to force the then-Attorney General to give them a paper trail to cover for doing something illegal, while the AG was in the hospital recovering from surgery (at the time, Gonzalez was White House Counsel). The only time Limbaugh's name is tied to the word "thug" is when he uses it to describe black people.
You can't just go around having brawls then wimp out and shoot somebody. Even clear self defense should require mandatory charges so a proper complete investigation is performed. Maybe an "innocent" person spends some money, suffers a little, or ends up in jail a few years. That is a small price to pay for one's whole life... assuming the threat was actually real.
Just about everybody would trade a trial and some possible jail time against death. Nobody should be able to leave a murder scene, go home, clean up, add some bruises, leave the country, etc.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Clearly, liberals are the real racists. Like this liberal:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater#Atwater_on_the_Southern_Strategy
"Meanwhile, it was Zimmerman who was rolling around the neighborhood with a gun looking for trouble."
LOL what exactly do you think "Neighborhood watch" is?
In a well-run neighborhood watch you are not allowed to have a gun. This is made extremely clear to you by the police, because if they fail to do so they may be liable when you shoot a kid carrying Skittles.
I have patrolled without a weapon. So has anyone in a legitimate neighborhood watch. It's quite safe. The bad guys who know what they're doing don't mess with you because they know the cops (with real firepower, handcuffs, etc.) would appear in five minutes if one of them actually capped you. Then they'd be on the news. And the criminals on the News get some prestige, but they also get locked up for decades. Their best bet is to walk away and hope you didn't see them doing something that would get them arrested.
Look at it this way:
Under what circumstances could a neighborhood watchman's patrol end with gunfire and not be considered a total failure?
There are lots of valid criticisms of black Americans. (Most of them go back to the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, but I don't think anyone is beyond criticism.) If you just want to talk about "thugs" who run around and beat people up because they think being a thug is great because of rappers on MTV and their parents are terrible for not straightening them out, you're full of shit.
The AC who brought up all this crap doesn't know Martin. We know he smoked pot, flipped off a webcam, put gold on his teeth, and got suspended from school. I grew up with a ton of white kids who acted like that, but nobody ever called them thugs, and nobody ever shot them.
My friend died when some roommates got into an argument and somebody pulled a gun. If there was no gun, he wouldn't have died.
Every time somebody gets killed by a gun, the gun fans claim that if he had a gun, or a bystander had a gun, they could have defended themselves against the shooter. Which is ridiculous. In almost every case, the killings are over too fast to react.
When Gabrielle Giffords was shot, there were people around with guns. They couldn't stop Loughner. By the time they realized what was going on, six people were dead.
There are a few rare cases in which somebody with a gun did or might have stopped a shooter, but they're far outweighed by cases like this in which two people got into a fight, somebody died because of the presence of a gun, and nobody would have died if there was no gun.
Because of the political power of gun owners, it's impossible to get even reasonable restrictions on handgun ownership in this country. There's nothing we can do about it, but it's the cause of something like 50,000 deaths a year.
The other side of the coin is that if you kill somebody with a gun, and the shooting wasn't legally justified, you can go to jail for a long time. Even if the justification was simply unclear, you're liable to spend a long time and a lot of money defending yourself in court.
As it should be. If you kill somebody, the cops should make sure it was justified.
Not if you start the altercation.
I didn't say he was clearly guilty. I said there looks like enough probable cause to arrest and try him. Or at the very least to continue to investigate.
So if it were determined that one racial group is disproportionately affected by laws against violent crime and/or murder, then we could conclude that laws against violent crime are racist and should not be instituted?
Let's explore this, because I think an example like this underscores the way racism can be hidden but still used. So, in a scenario where a law "against violent crime", which mentions no racial bias, effects racially biased punishment, there's a few possibilities:
1. The over-represented population is predisposed to violent crime.
2. Enforcement is selective.
3. Other conditions promote violent crime in the over-represented population.
If we can't agree that the first hypothesis is racist, you can stop reading here and we can stop wasting our time. Likewise the second. In the third case, while it may be that the law itself has a valid goal, clearly there's a broader racial problem that needs to be addressed; it might not be the scope of that law to address it, depends on the law. If the law's purpose is valid and addressing the racial bias is outside the scope of that law, then racism lies at a different level, but there's still racism.
Since you completely side-stepped the question of drug laws, however, I will bring it back into the discussion. Crack cocaine sentencing is much more severe than powder cocaine sentencing.
Simple possession of 28 grams of crack cocaine yields a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for a first offense; it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to prompt the same sentence. (Source)
This quite obviously doesn't specify race, but the fact is that crack use is more likely among blacks than whites, and vice verse for powder. Do you think the authors of the laws didn't know that? The effect, of course, has been predictable: substantial over-representation of black people in prison for drug offenses. The law is racist in its effects; its authors are either dangerously stupid or racist (or both).
you are not contributing to intelligent discourse on this subject
It's possible to disagree and engage in intelligent discourse.
Accusing people of racism where there is none
Your position has shifted from "I don't know" to a definite negative? I think you're further revealing your biases on the subject.
and behaving paternalistically toward minorities is not productive.
I am honestly baffled. What is paternalistic about identifying innuendo? If it were explicit rather than code, would it still be paternalistic to call out? Your reasoning is simply unsound.
That the law of the land should be color blind
So should society. Until we can have both, we can have neither. Choosing to ignore racism isn't color-blindness it's willful blindness.
and that social critiques such as the OP made should also be color blind as much as possible, and just leave race out of the discussion.
Finally, you're being more forthcoming with your motivation. Your problem isn't that an accusation of racism was (you think) misplaced, your problem is that race is even a topic in the discussion in the first place. Well, it's relevant. Racism is alive and well, and one of the major forces in our culture's evolution. Like I said, you can't just choose not to see it and expect it to go away. The consequence of promoting this kind of ignorance is that racism will have a calmer sea in which to swim. And, I have bad news: as that sea becomes more inviting, you can bet your ass the topic will be a lot more prominent.
However, since part of your post is actually relevant to this
Trayvon Martin is a thug.
I would personally not make that statement, because even if Zimmerman's account of the incident is taken as the truth, and Trayvon behaved thuggishly in this incident, "thug" doesn't have to be the sum judgment of Trayvon's life. I have done stupid things in my life, many of them before I was 18. Hopefully the criminal investigation can run its course, the public at large can learn lessons from the incident and not repeat it, and the deceased can be remembered a little more generously, as a human being who could have had a meaningful and fulfilling life if mistakes on both sides hadn't led to this tragic outcome.
Are you on crack?
An armed man goes looking for trouble in his neighbourhood streets, what was going to happen once he found it?
If he had no intent on killing someone then why carry the gun in the first place?
This is yet another huge presumption on your part. I carry a gun every day. I'm damned sure not "looking for trouble". On what basis do you say he was automatically "looking for trouble"? Was it his job to patrol the neighborhood? Probably not. Was it wrong of him to do so? Also, probably not. Looking out for your neighbors isn't inherently evil or bad nor is it "looking for trouble". We don't have any evidence saying he was intending to do anything else. Do you have evidence that says otherwise?
He was armed and dangerous and looking for trouble, the facts speak for themselves he killed the boy!
This is the same presumption as above. Do you have any evidence that he was dangerous as opposed to merely armed? The facts we know are these:
Those are the known facts. Practically everything else is presumption or assumption on our parts. You seem intent on presuming evil intent where there is little to no evidence to support that at the moment. Why is that?
Even if he had been found holding the boy at gunpoint would the Police have said good job Zimmerman thats one more scumbag off the streets or arrested Zimmerman?
Presuming there really was a reason to hold Martin at gun point that would have been vastly preferred by everyone. If it turned out there was no reason to do so, Zimmerman would have been arrested for assault with a deadly weapon.
When it comes to determining premeditated murder you need hard evidence to convict but as the evidence largely exists in the head of Zimmerman it is unlikely he will admit to it so murder 2 is likely to be the maximum he can reasonably be convicted of. Just because the evidence available is insufficient to gain a conviction doesn't mean the motivation and planning wasn't there.
25 to life is a pretty hefty sentence , murder 1 would only add eventual state sponsored euthanasia assuming you can get the death penalty in florida.
Yeah, just because there is no evidence of motivation and planning lets just assume that's what happened and "convict" based on that. Who needs little things like evidence and logic before forming opinions and deciding guilt, right?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
You don't see the pattern? The three black people get called thugs because they criticize people, or because they do their jobs. The others are only called thugs when they try to intimidate someone recovering from surgery; otherwise, their name comes up because they called black people thugs, or someone else called black people thugs for something the black people said about them.
If you don't see the pattern, it's because you don't want to. I don't really know what else to say.
And I'm still wondering how someone didn't end up in jail for communicating a threat or inciting a riot for that one.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Accusing people of racism where there is none
Your position has shifted from "I don't know" to a definite negative? I think you're further revealing your biases on the subject.
Did you forget? I made my own statement that "gangsta thug culture" is a negative influence on society. And you responded that you think I am probably racist, or at least prejudiced. Since we don't know the OP, I think focusing on me in this instance will add clarity.
I am honestly baffled. What is paternalistic about identifying innuendo? If it were explicit rather than code, would it still be paternalistic to call out? Your reasoning is simply unsound.
It is paternalistic to adopt the attitude that "gangsta thug culture" is a distinct feature of the black community, and therefore we should feel sorry for these black people who can't help themselves and be careful never to use the word "gangsta thug culture" because pointing it out as a negative cultural influence would be racist. How about letting each member of society stand on their own feet, and separate the sketchy social phenomenon from the skin color of some (I neither know nor care if most) of its "practitioners".
That the law of the land should be color blind
So should society. Until we can have both, we can have neither. Choosing to ignore racism isn't color-blindness it's willful blindness.
That's a nice sounding statement. If you were more specific, and perhaps describe how our laws should favor one race over a different race, then we'd have opportunity to discuss this. As long as you keep it vague, liberal-sounding and bland, I suppose you are safe from sounding too absurd to many readers, though.
Finally, you're being more forthcoming with your motivation. Your problem isn't that an accusation of racism was (you think) misplaced, your problem is that race is even a topic in the discussion in the first place.
My primary beef was indeed with the "misplaced", which must be a euphemism for "totally bogus and slanderous" accusation of racism. Dragging race into every discussion is an annoyance, but less offensive than the common liberal debate tactic of crying "racist" all the time and hoping to silence your opponent even if [s]he is not a racist at all and hasn't made any references to racism.
....mob rule and public outcry supersede the rule of law. Furthermore this is proof that the public at large is too stupid to manage themselves. This will be a media-circus witch-hunt. I really don't want to live on this planet anymore.
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
In standard English there is a kind of understatement which is very common and universally understood.
The police are often overlooked as masters of understatement, double entendre, and irony. . . . especially irony.
I guess that's why it is so effective for comedy when they depart from it.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
That's not how it works. When you have a guy with a smoking gun and a dead body at his feet, that's all evidence that the slaying actually happened - which would make it manslaughter at best, and murder at worst. Self-defense (and "stand your ground") is an affirmative defense to such charges, meaning that the person being charged has to provide evidence to justify his claim.
You're confusing this with a different situation where there is no "smoking gun" - then the government would have to prove that the person they charge with murder actually did slay the victim. That's where "beyond reasonable doubt" enters into equation. But it's not relevant here, since there's no doubt - not even Zimmerman himself denies that he had pulled the trigger. Now it's up to him to convincingly justify his actions.
OK, but what are you trying to prove? It looks like you are supporting my point. You've successfully demonstrated that sometimes white people get called thugs too. Recall that we're arguing whether criticism of "gangsta thug culture" is itself inherently racist.
You're the one accusing them of a hate crime. That puts the burden of proof on you.
The laws as written certainly are not racist unless unevenly applied in a racist way.
I heard her speaking 'live' at the press conference, answering media questions. Her refusal to answer several questions was explained as necessary under Florida law to assure a fair trial.
I'd far rather the DA requests that people wait for evidence to come out in court than blab about it beforehand to the media, so she has my backing on that.
On its own, no. If we weren't having a conversation about this particular incident, I think we could have a very productive conversation on the negative effects of "gangsta thug culture," both in the black community and in society at large (where I agree it is prevalent). I would say yes, it (specifically the violence and macho posturing that sometimes comes with it) is a negative influence on our society.
The problem with bringing it up in this context is that there's no evidence beyond Zimmerman's statements that Martin did anything that could be construed as "thuggish." Bringing up "thuggish" behavior Martin engaged in previously (smoking pot, flipping off a camera, whatever sort of delinquency he got into) smacks of blaming the victim, in my opinion.
Talking about this incident, I'd say that "neighborhood watch," vigilante behavior and gun fetishism have a far more negative influence on our society. Promoting the idea that guns are necessary for self-defense has the effect of turning the prejudices of individuals into actual violence. The NRA promoting the idea that Obama and Holder are going to come take your guns away leads to increased sales for gun manufacturers and retailers, and a lot of those guns are being sold to paranoid racist lunatics, the last people we ought to encourage to arm themselves.
Bringing up "thug culture" is problematic because it's at best a secondary issue in the case at hand, and it's blown way out of proportion to the actual harm it inflicts on society, to the exclusion of more relevant and damaging issues.
You watch to many TV cop shows.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Bullshit!
White people just riot for different reasons. Like the local college team winning a basketball tournament.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
"Thug" is a word that gets thrown around far more casually when it's being applied to black people. It's used as a shorthand for "blacks behaving badly." When non-black people get called thugs, it's generally warranted; when black people get called thugs, it's because they spoke their minds far more often than for any actually thuggish behavior.
When people throw the word "thug" into a conversation about a young black man getting shot by a neighborhood watch member, they use it to imply that the black guy had it coming. That is why it's racist.
I'm not arguing that it's inherently racist, just that it's generally racist, and especially in this case.
The only thing the OJ case proved was that you can get away with murder if you can afford the lawyers.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I replied to my own comment right after I posted that one. I mistakenly wrote "arrests" when I meant to say "investigations, including possible arrests." The problem is that the police half-assed the investigation, making the supposed lack of probable cause a foregone conclusion.
The First does not cover communicating threats or inciting riots.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Hadn't previously heard of it.. but like those who have come before you, making assumptions regarding my screen name is folly.
Besides, what kind of idiot would patrol for crime unarmed?
AFAIK, carrying a gun is strongly discouraged among neighborhood watch groups. Their role is to watch their neighborhood and report suspicious activity to the police.
The reasons are made obvious by this case. If Zimmerman had followed police instructions, an kid who had his own right to walk through that neighborhood would be alive, and Zimmerman wouldn't be looking at a life spent either in jail or as a pariah.
Once they start slamming my head into the concrete? Yes.
I heard about black parents whining that they had to have a conversation with their children on how to act in certain situations. My white father had a similar conversation with me. He said, "Son, you go sneaking around people's houses at night, and you'll get your ass shot."
Let's review:
You're in a strange neighborhood. A gated community, that has had problems with break-ins and home invasions.
You're walking around in the middle of the night with your head and face concealed.
Someone is watching you.
Do you:
A) try to sneak away and hide in a dark corner?
B) yell, "Hello? Could I help you?"
My dad would say that option A will get your ass shot.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
On its own, no. If we weren't having a conversation about this particular incident, I think we could have a very productive conversation on the negative effects of "gangsta thug culture," both in the black community and in society at large (where I agree it is prevalent). I would say yes, it (specifically the violence and macho posturing that sometimes comes with it) is a negative influence on our society.
So it is actually OK to say that "gangsta thug culture" is a negative influence? Or you can only say it when a person of a different race isn't involved? I thought it was a code word. Is it not a code word when you use it, but is when your debate opponents use it? So many questions.
The problem with bringing it up in this context is that there's no evidence beyond Zimmerman's statements that Martin did anything that could be construed as "thuggish."
There's also no evidence that Zimmerman was the kind of person who would shoot a stranger simply because he was a different race. In fact, the evidence I've seen has suggested that Zimmerman was not a racist. Zimmerman's account should not be taken without question. He's the only living witness, but on the other hand, he may go to jail based on whatever the heck happened that day so he does have a motivation to lie. So while his statement should be investigated fully by law enforcement, I do find it basically credible.
Bringing up "thuggish" behavior Martin engaged in previously (smoking pot, flipping off a camera, whatever sort of delinquency he got into) smacks of blaming the victim, in my opinion.
I agree. I had better not catch my kids engaging in behavior or speech like all the dirt that has been dug up on Trayvon, but I recognize that he's not necessarily an atypical teenager. If talk is cheap, a Twitter feed is about as cheap as talk comes, and doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things.
Talking about this incident, I'd say that "neighborhood watch," vigilante behavior and gun fetishism have a far more negative influence on our society. Promoting the idea that guns are necessary for self-defense has the effect of turning the prejudices of individuals into actual violence.
What would you suggest that a woman do if somebody tries to rape her? Just take it and try to give a good description to law enforcement? I recognize that you may be one of those liberals with a fetish for gun control, so I doubt we will agree on this. But anyway.
The NRA promoting the idea that Obama and Holder are going to come take your guns away leads to increased sales for gun manufacturers and retailers, and a lot of those guns are being sold to paranoid racist lunatics, the last people we ought to encourage to arm themselves.
Oh man. Please don't even go there. Read about "Fast and Furious" sometime. Obama's administration engaged in illegally selling guns to Mexican drug cartels with one of their underhanded motivations being to be able to point to the cartels (armed with American guns) later and say "See, we need more gun control!". Somebody in the Obama administration ought to go to jail over this. It appears that they already have blood on their hands (of a slain border agent) because of it, and the American people deserve better.
Bringing up "thug culture" is problematic because it's at best a secondary issue in the case at hand, and it's blown way out of proportion to the actual harm it inflicts on society, to the exclusion of more relevant and damaging issues.
Well, if we find that "thug culture" promotes the attitude that if somebody disrespects you, you should tackle them and beat them up, then it may be relevant to this case. If Trayvon did that, then it was a mistake that contributed to the tragic outcome. It is possible that Zimmerman is telling the truth, ya know? That still may (or may not) justify his shooting T
You will be able to use acting in self defense as a defense against the injury of a non-participant, but only in the same way that you can use swerving to avoid a head-on collision as a defense against the wrongful death of the child you ran over in the process. The jury will see it completely different if your were speeding (or shooting) next to a playground vs on a country road. In either case, there will/should be a trial to decide the circumstances and culpability.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/crime/zimmerman-dad-worked-as-magistrate
Apparently a Virginia magistrate (not a judge).
ABC was the most reliable source I could find. Not very, I know. Still better then NBC.
Which raises the question. Status as magistrate is not in keeping with the narrative the media wants told, why?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
In NC, the law doesn't even help you if your the one that started the fight. And you can't use the law to stop someone else from being injured/killed, ie. you're not allowed to "save" someone.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
It was Zimmerman's neighborhood, and anyone is allowed to walk the streets. He saw someone he didn't recognize. They had already had a significant amount of crime in the neighborhood. He wasn't told not to follow by police. It was a 911 operator who has as much authority to tell you what to do as I do. You're claiming murder, when you have nothing to support it.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
So it is actually OK to say that "gangsta thug culture" is a negative influence? Or you can only say it when a person of a different race isn't involved? I thought it was a code word. Is it not a code word when you use it, but is when your debate opponents use it? So many questions.
There's a conversation about "thug culture" in general, and there's a very real effort on the part of Zimmerman's defenders to paint Martin as a thug in order to blame him for getting killed. Context matters.
There's also no evidence that Zimmerman was the kind of person who would shoot a stranger simply because he was a different race. In fact, the evidence I've seen has suggested that Zimmerman was not a racist. Zimmerman's account should not be taken without question. He's the only living witness, but on the other hand, he may go to jail based on whatever the heck happened that day so he does have a motivation to lie. So while his statement should be investigated fully by law enforcement, I do find it basically credible.
I think the biggest problem with conversations about race is the trouble we have communicating about the difference between a person being a racist, and a person performing a racist action. The latter does not imply the former. I don't particularly care if Zimmerman is a racist; I don't think he is, I think calling this a hate crime cheapens the term, and I think it's irrelevant anyway. Most of the conversation I've seen is saying that the police failed to fully investigate the shooting because the victim was black.
What would you suggest that a woman do if somebody tries to rape her? Just take it and try to give a good description to law enforcement? I recognize that you may be one of those liberals with a fetish for gun control, so I doubt we will agree on this. But anyway.
The fraction of rapes in which an unknown assailant jumps out of the bushes and grabs the victim is far smaller than you think. Most rapes are perpetrated by acquaintances of the victims, or against a drunk or drugged victim. The idea that giving women guns is a solution to the problem of rape comes totally from this idea that America is an extraordinarily dangerous place and the only way to survive it is with a gun. It's at odds with reality. I don't think gun control laws are constitutional or a solution to the problem, though.
Oh man. Please don't even go there. Read about "Fast and Furious" sometime. blah blah.
I'm aware of Fast and Furious; it sounds like a shitty idea. It wasn't the first operation of its kind, but it appears to have been the biggest. I think more investigation is needed, and I wouldn't be too upset if Holder lost his job, nor if someone with more direct responsibility goes to jail for negligence in the operation's execution. I think the controversy is overblown, and the Obama administration has done far worse.
Well, if we find that "thug culture" promotes the attitude that if somebody disrespects you, you should tackle them and beat them up, then it may be relevant to this case. If Trayvon did that, then it was a mistake that contributed to the tragic outcome. It is possible that Zimmerman is telling the truth, ya know? That still may (or may not) justify his shooting Trayvon based on what was happening right at that moment (was George's head being bashed against concrete? was Trayvon trying to grab his gun?), but it is at least a relevant thought for the living to take to heart in an effort to avoid repeating this incident.
This is what I'm talking about. "Thug culture" is far from the only part of our society that promotes violence against people who disrespect us. We drop bombs on people we think are disrespecting us! Tom Friedman says we had to make Iraq "suck on this." Michael Leeden says we have to "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business,"
He is 50% Hispanic. Also 50% white. So he's "hispanic" only by the same racist logic which claims Barak Obama is "black."
In America, apparently you have to take the label of your darkest ancestor, no matter how small a percentage.
What's amazing is how many otherwise intelligent, tolerant people will still insist vociferously that Obama is black even while being forced to admit that he's just as white as black. It's becaise peopel don't care about race really, they care about labels, stereotypes, and personal identity issues.
Exactly my point. These laws are proved to have been applied unevenly in a racist way, so they are certainly racist. I'm not sure where we disagree.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This is what I'm talking about. "Thug culture" is far from the only part of our society that promotes violence against people who disrespect us. We drop bombs on people we think are disrespecting us! Tom Friedman says we had to make Iraq "suck on this." Michael Leeden says we have to "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business," and he isn't laughed out of the world. The idea that black people invented macho shit like this is preposterous.
OK... I don't claim that black people invented thug-like behavior, and I also deplore when we as a country act like thugs in international affairs. Tracking pretty closely with you here...
The idea that fighting back against some weirdo following you through a neighborhood you don't know well is something only a gangsta thug would do is ridiculous. It's a red herring.
I don't know if I agree here. If I thought somebody was following me, I would be creeped out. I might have words with them. I might use the cell phone I am holding to call the police. But I'm not going to hide, then jump out and tackle them and start knocking their heads against the concrete until they shoot me. However, "gangsta thug" culture would promote more of that latter solution as Zimmerman alleges took place. Without 100% endorsing Zimmerman's alibi until the final legal judgment, I will still contend that we should use this opportunity to dissuade our young people, especially testosterone filled young men (of all races) from engaging in such -- yes -- thuggish behavior as what was alleged by Zimmerman. And we should simultaneously use the opportunity to highlight the importance of whoever is holding a gun to know when is the right circumstance to use it, and the kind of horrible tragedies that can result when a gun is used. I believe it's what the president refers to as a "teachable moment".
That's your opinion; a jury thought differently. And it is your opinion too that the jury verdict would have been different if the defendant had been white.
That's your opinion, not fact. There is little evidence for actual racism in the justice system. It probably does occur to some degree, but it pales in comparison to the much higher actual crime rates among black males. Until the actual crime rate among black males comes down to average levels, it's nearly impossible statistically to even identify racism in the justice system.
But even if you are right and McNeil was convicted unjustly, what bearing does that have on Zimmerman? If black males suffer false convictions and harsh sentences due to racism, the solution would be to address that problem, not to subject more people to the same injustices.
After just being there in that crowd, I'd say that if Zimmerman isn't convicted, there's going to be some kind major race riot. Probably one to put the King riots to shame. I imagine that the black community is already boiling over. You know theyve been the hardest hit with economic problems and now this. I think it could get pretty ugly. Especially in cities with larger black populations....probably not Seattle. I think Zimmerman is in big trouble either way. If he does get off, I wouldn't want to go around without armed guards. Ironic...he was trying to protect himself and the neighborhood, but in doing so, he probably made himself and his neighborhood a hundred times less safe. He's got a lot in common with Bush. Itchy trigger finger and no brain for judgment.
These "Stand Your Ground" Laws that we have thanks to ALEC and the NRA are meant only to protect white people who shoot blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, etc.
Have a look at how "Stand Your Ground" is applied when it's the other way around.
Funny, I didn't hear anything from the NRA and the right-wing media in that Georgia case. But I did hear a right-wing talker today talking about how the increasing American sense that race relations are deteriorating is Barack Obama's fault.
If race relations have any relation to Obama it is only from the perspective of false hope, which is what Obama is all about. When blacks thought one of their own was being elected, they forgot to actually find out how the world works. Obama is not in their social class. It has little to do with the color of their skin. It has everything to do with their pocketbooks. They didn't elect one of their own, they elected another millionaire, who's looking out for the members of his own class and the people who finance his election. Obama isn't racist or anti black or pro white or anything to do with race. He's rich and he's a corporatist. Period. So the false hope that an elected black man might make things better for them is just an ignorant thought and probably a huge disappointment.
"See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist -- it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn't built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist -- just because its anti-human. And race is in fact a human characterstic -- there's no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangable cogs who will purchase all the junk that's produced -- that's their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevent, and usually a nuisance."
I don't think those facts are clear actually. Particularly about pursuing Martin against 911 operator's advice. Z's side hast at least at one point claimed that he was, in fact, returning to his car when M confronted and attacked him.
I do agree that given a charge of 2nd degree murder, a finding of anything other than not guilty seems unlikely, unless the facts as reported by the media are grossly erroneous (a real possibility, given how many conflicting 'facts' have already been reported).
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
You're the self-appointed captain and only member of the "Neighborhood Watch." Do you:
A) Follow the instructions of the police, and the nationwide watch groups, and not carry a gun, call 911, stay in your car, and avoid confrontation?
B) Carry a gun, ignore instructions, get out of your car and confront people who don't know who you are and whether you're out to give them trouble?
Option B will get your ass kicked. If you use your gun, depending on the details, you might be guilty of homicide or murder.
Assuming Zimmerman was heading back to his car when he was attacked, we will then need to know what prompted Martin to follow Zimmerman and attack him. If you sit and think on that, you will come to the conclusion that Martin was somehow intimidated/harassed in one way or another for him to go after someone. If he felt threatened enough, the stand your ground law will apply to Martin because he was not the person who initiated the harassment.
I would certainly agree that Martin cannot be prosecuted for murder due to the stand your ground law.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
You believe the intent of the law was that it be applied in a racist way. I see no evidence for that. I maintain that the law has been abused in a racist way.
The difference is in how far up the chain the racism goes. It also suggests a different corrective action.
Specifically, according to my theory, the racists are in the DAs office and the police dept, and must be weeded out there. Rescind stand your ground and they'll just abuse some other law (possibly including wrongfully prosecuting a minority who dares to defend himself against a racist attacker).
zimmermans lawyers have jumped ship actually, and in such a high profile case that is in no way a good sign
They didn't jump ship, he just went uncommunicative, and they said that if he won't won't contact them, they can't represent them. But if he's willing to contact them again, they'd love to represent him once again.
2) The courts have, more than once, ruled that a woman is not "asking for it (rape)" if she wears short skirts while walking down the street. The notion that Martin would be asking for it by wearing a hoodie is far flimsier.
Please tell me, Mr. Coward, what facts did I "shade"?
I said Dooley initiated the verbal confrontation. I also said James initiated the physical altercation. This is true - Dooley had turned around and was leaving the scene when James assaulted him in an attempt to take control of the gun. Dooley, being older, smaller, and weaker, could reasonably fear for his life when someone bigger, stronger, and younger attacks him. And yet despite his claim of "self defense" he was still arrested in less time than it took for the Sanford police to identify Trayvon Martin.
:(){
Usually, someone doesn't post something that insanely false until they've had time to be around here more than a couple of days.
Our justice system is so racist, that the biggest variable in the length of jail time a defendant gets is the color of his skin, followed only by the color of his victim's skin.
Next to South Africa, I'm not sure there is any developed country with a justice system as racist as the US. In fact, I would not be surprised to learn that South Africa is measurably less racist when it comes to its justice system than the US.
The US was born as a slave state, and the stain will be with us, if not forever, than for a lot longer than it should. I doubt very much that anyone reading this will live to see the US have anything like equality when it comes to race. And considering by all recent studies, the racial divides in the US are getting worse, not better, I'm not sure any of our kids will live to see it either.
Now, I understand that you joined Slashdot to express your sympathy and approval for George Zimmerman. Such astroturf trolling is not unknown. But if you're going to engage in such activities, you might want to learn some comments section manners, like at least pretending to be part of a community before you start beating a drum for your agenda.
You will find that Slashdot users are a pretty tolerant bunch. There are opinions expressed here that are sometimes pretty outside the mainstream, and sometimes expressed in less than civil terms. But political astroturf trolling, especially done as in-artfully as you've done it, is about as welcome as a fart in church.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Hey, Charles Barkeley asked why no one has shot George Zimmerman dead yet this morning...
I'm sure that he'll be dropped by the networks for his hate speech...
In 3..... 2....
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
And the glove? I don't know whats more baffling, that they insisted he try it, or that they let him get away with how to tried to put it on. If you can get a video, watch how he scrunches his hand for a brief moment that turns it into theatrics; which his lawyer jumped right on. They where prepared for that.
A leather glove fits normally. Then you soak it in liquids and let it dry out. Then try to put it on while wearing another (latex) glove. It didn't fit? No shit!
and since when does reading a street sign require leaving one's vehicle?),
Pretty common in many neighborhoods (including mine) to have tiny street signs that are pretty much unreadable from the road during night-time.
Martin came to Zimmermans neighborhood looking like a gangsta and behaving like one to some extent
Looking like a gangsta, so he was black? And wearing a hoodie? I guess I'm safe, I can wear my hoodie since I'm white.
A lot of closeups of Zimmerman in court today. He sure looked clean and unblemished for a guy that allegedly had his nose broken and his head repeatedly slammed into the sidewalk. To tell the truth, I'm ashamed you're an American too.
Because he just shot an unarmed person to death? I'm fairly certainly that a toxicology report is standard practice in those cases.
You are absolutley right, if you wander around looking for trouble you are going to be on your own if something happens.
Zimmerman has a very narrow legal window in which he can defend himself with lethal force without seeing jailtime. We'll see what the prosecution has on him soon.
Verbal threats - no. Verbal threats backed up by 15 other gang members who have surrounded you on the street - Yep, check your targets though. Stop shooting once they flee. Don't want to waste ammo or be accused of being over zealous
Physical threats with a lethal weapon ie baseball bat, knife, a gun, etc - yes. Shoot until the threat is down and not getting back up. Just make sure you didn't start the altercation else you will be in jail.
A drunk taking a swing at you - no. Getting jumped in the middle of the night by an attacker who has you pinned on the ground - yes. Again just make sure you didn't start the altercation or you will see jail time.
All of this will play out on whether or not Zimmerman was truly defending himself from Martin's unprovoked attack or Zimmerman starting a fight with Martin and pulling a gun and shooting Martin after Martin started giving Zimmerman a justified ass whoopin.
Sorry, mis-remembered. It was Mike Tyson, not Chuckles. Still, I'm sure he's being dropped by all his sponsors and ad agencies...
Right?
Right?
(crickets)
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
Late reply, but wanted to address the suggestion
/. is hardly representative, that's actually what I am after. Subject and comments correlate with what interest I have and I prefer a known bias to something that may be better balanced and more comprehensive, but where I am less certain and less able to determine the bias(es).
Thank you - I realise that
That is a blatant misuse of statistics. Just because race is "the biggest variable" doesn't mean that there is racism. Race is simply correlated with a large number of other factors (family structure, income, education, higher rates of recidivism, etc.). Once you take all those other factors into account, most of the differences go away.
The US inherited slavery from European colonial powers. The same powers exterminated the American Indians. The founding of the US was part of the solution. European powers still went on enslaving and committing genocide for centuries, and even today, European nations remain racially and religiously intolerant. The "stain" you speak about is a European stain, not an American stain.
Are you joking? I've been a Slashdot user since long before the Zimmerman case.
Political astroturf trolling? You seriously want to assert that anybody is paying me for taking such a politically unpopular position? Here are some other positions I take: I don't think we should take action on global warming, I don't particularly like Obama's health care plan, and I do believe in a strict separation of church and state. I'm a libertarian. You're obviously some kind of progressive. And like progressives everywhere, since the rational and scientific basis of your ideology falls apart under scrutiny, you exhaust yourself in ad hominems and innuendo.
Trouble is that your irrational and ideologically driven policies end up hurting people. You can accuse the US and its justice system of "racism" as much as you want, it's not going to help African Americans because that's not their problem. Furthermore, if you seriously think that Europe does any better in any of these areas, I suggest you live there for a while as a minority; I have, and I can tell you first hand, whatever may be wrong in the US, it is much worse in Europe.
The evidence that you seem to ignore that he is dangerous is the dead boy. He didn't just carry a gun he used it. Or are you claiming that is in dispute.
"The Orange County Clerk of Courts website shows a man named George Zimmerman, 28, was charged in July 2005 with resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer. The charges appear to have been dropped." I guess that wasn't enough to refuse Zimmerman a gun permit.
Zimmerman could have held the boy at gun point, If someone was pointing a gun at you and you were unarmed, would you resist. I doubt it since you appear to be aware of the damage a bullet can do.
Zimmerman isn't convicted yet however the decision on what to charge him with has been made and presumable that decision is based on supporting Evidence not on a whim.
I started out this conversation by pointing out that it could be the case Zimmerman did want to kill someone and escape the consequences of the law. Where your claiming i am presuming guilt you are presuming innocence. neither conclusion can be reached without examination of the actual evidence.
The 3 statements you made regarding the requirements for murder1 could be met in this case however largely it is a thought crime, without a witness to the killing it is pretty much impossible to prove. Only Zimmerman could say if it was the case or not and he isn't likely to confess.
Zimmerman seems to have seen himself as some kind of vigilante maybe he thought he was Batman or just an arrogant racist with a chip on his shoulder or a wanna be cop. The incident in 2005 realistically would have closed the door to his entry into law enforcement.
Zimmerman had called Police many times before this incident to report incidents of this and that seems to me that you would have to be actively seeking criminal acts in an affluent area to be calling the police so often, How many of these calls actually led to arrests of his suspects we don't know but looking for trouble seems to have been his hobby.
I am sure we can both agree there is a case to answer, and his guilt or innocence will be determined in a court of law.
I am curious
Why do you carry a gun everyday? Are you paid to do so as part of your job? what are you afraid might happen if you didn't carry a gun? Is it an unusual thing to be carrying in your area.
I do know someone who was shot during a robbery over in africa last summer. One of the local gangs thought he was rich and during the robbery he was hit with a hammer and shot. If he had a gun maybe he would have been able to defend himself or perhaps he would have been killed he was out numbered anyway. The bullet wound wasn't as bad as the state of his arm which took the damage that was intended for his head.
I accept that there are area's of the world which are so lawless that a weapon is a necessity is the usa really that bad?
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
If there was no gun, he wouldn't have died.
That's an untested hypothesis. Here in Australia, the highest recorded murder rate was after our gun laws were introduced, although it has since fallen. However, our murder rate was already falling before the gun laws were introduced nationwide and all the mass killings that prompted their introduction happened in states that already had similar laws. Now the most common murder weapon is knives. What makes you so sure that the person who killed your friend would have been unwilling to use a knife? And you didn't originally object to gun laws but to the strength of self defense laws, which operate independently of the weapon used. Did your friend's murderer get let off or not and what self defense laws were in place at the time?
By the time they realized what was going on, six people were dead.
That's a problem of situational awareness, not a failure of gun ownership. If you are armed you ought not walk around oblivious of your surroundings. Well, you shouldn't walk around oblivious of your surroundings even unarmed. This article claims that "everyone hit the ground" after the first shot, which was apparently from a very short distance. Unsurprisingly, if you lie down and make a passive victim of yourself, carrying a weapon won't help you. Even if they were all unarmed if they had rushed him it is unlikely that he could have killed 6 people. It's not that those armed people couldn't have stopped him, they decided not to stop him. In a panic, sure, but a decision nonetheless.
There are a few rare cases in which somebody with a gun did or might have stopped a shooter, but they're far outweighed by cases like this in which two people got into a fight, somebody died because of the presence of a gun, and nobody would have died if there was no gun.
Have violent crime rates gone up or down in American states that have liberalized their gun laws? It is my understanding that violent crime rates have gone down, but if you have evidence to the contrary please let me know.
The other side of the coin is that if you kill somebody with a gun, and the shooting wasn't legally justified, you can go to jail for a long time.
I agree that this is as it should be, but it should be so regardless of what weapon was used. Why should you get of easy for killing with a knife? Murder is murder, no matter how it is done.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
That's not how it works.... You're confusing this with a different situation where there is no "smoking gun"
It's not that I'm confused, that is how it works here in Australia. At least, it does if you're a woman shooting her husband with an illegal handgun.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/susan-falls-not-guilty-of-murder-20100603-x2xv.html
Justice Applegarth took several hours to sum up the case to the jury, beginning his address to them yesterday afternoon and continuing from 10am today.
He told jurors Mrs Falls' defence lawyers did not have to prove she was acting in self defence when she shot and killed Rodney Falls, but rather the prosecution must prove she wasn't acting in self defence at the time.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
You are welcome on my lawn.
Have violent crime rates gone up or down in American states that have liberalized their gun laws? It is my understanding that violent crime rates have gone down, but if you have evidence to the contrary please let me know.
According to the Florida newspapers that have investigated the results of the laws, the rates of justified homicides have tripled. Most of those are cases that the prosecutors would have prosecuted as murder under the old laws, but didn't think they could convict under the new laws. Some of them involved people provoking a fight, getting beaten up, and killing the guy they originally attacked (which is what the prosecutor is charging Zimmerman with). A fair number of them involved drug dealers.
So the result of the laws have been to convert violent crimes to justified homicides, and let people get away with what used to be murder.
The last time I reviewed the literature, the researchers said that data comparing changes in crime associated with changes in gun laws didn't have the statistical power to draw statistically significant conclusions, and it was too difficult to separate the laws from other factors.
The idea that the US revolution was caused by a desire to replace slave trade with Europe is completely untenable. Europe never had any significant slave trade with Africa (otherwise, there would be lots of African blood in Europe today, yet most of Europe is totally white). Europe also didn't need African slaves, since it had its own native system of hereditary human bondage. In fact, many immigrants came to the US fleeing a life of bondage or destitution in Europe.
The reasons and causes of the American revolution are documented in numerous contemporaneous writings, and slavery wasn't a big part of it. Slavery was economically important, and people realized that they couldn't get states together for a revolution and abolish slavery at the same time. But even at the time of the American revolution, a lot of people realized that slavery was morally wrong and that it would eventually have to be abolished.
Oh, sure, they had "abolished slavery" in Europe, but that was a meaningless gesture. Britain and France were enslaving entire nations as "colonies" well into the 20th century. Germany was killing Jews by the millions. Japan was mass murdering Chinese and viciously xenophobic. Debt bondage still existed in many European nations through much of the 19th century. And European nations maintained systems of hereditary nobility and even indentured servitude well into the 19th century. That is what the nations you call "civilized" were doing.
If you look at the statistics, the primary problems of the African American community are broken families (two thirds of black kids grow up in single parent homes), high crime rates (several times as high as among whites and other minorities), poverty, and low levels of education. None of those are caused by contemporary racism (although some are remnants of past discrimination), and the only people able to address these issues at this point are African Americans themselves. Yes, there is still some racism in employment and housing, but not enough to hold anybody back. I guarantee you: if you are an African American and get a college degree in a STEM field, you will do well.
Then you were blind to what was going on around you. European minorities like Turks and Arabs are subject to high levels of job and housing discrimination, high rates of hate crimes, and limits on social mobility. Many racist policies that are illegal in the US are routine in Europe. European nations have explicitly rejected multiculturalism and demand that all minorities fully and completely assimilate into the mainstream culture. And even if you completely assimilate, you will still be subject to racial profiling and prejudice if you look different. And to top it all off, many European nations even refuse to quantify these problems, thinking that it's better to just pretend these problems don't exist.
African Americans tend to have positive experiences in Europe because they aren't a European minority, they are a curiosity and treated as exotic guests. African Americans are particularly welcome by European intellectuals as subjects to demonstrate their moral superiority to the US. That's not a new phenomenon: Nazis and various socialists states basically interacted with African Americans in the same way, while being highly intoleran
You lost me at #2. Only an idiot charges someone holding a gun because they think they are being mugged. Your money or your cell phone is not worth your life. The *ONLY* condition in which one could reasonably act in this fashion is when you are *CERTAIN* to die if you do not act. i.e. Armed individual's motivation is murder, not robbery.
Actually they care about experience. If the common point of discrimination is going to be that you look "black" then that's what you are. It doesn't matter what else you are, because the guy who wants to put some uppity black guy in his place sure as hell doesn't care that your mother is white.
An idiot, or a man that is not thinking rationally - and if you think that you can think rationally when you are verbally assaulted while having a gun pointed at you, you might be just a tad overconfident.
In any case, being idiot is not a crime. And I can also easily imagine Trayvon been indoctrinated by the "gangsta culture" - we've all seen the photos of him posing - to behave like a macho, and all that.
And that is precisely why you lost me at #2 in your "likely" sequence of events in which Martin "acted in reasonable self-defense" manner.
"Reasonable" in this case pertains only to the assessment of being in grave danger - i.e. being threatened by death or bodily harm, or in a commission of a crime such as burglary or rape. In other words, if a reasonable person in Trayvon's position would have assumed that they are being assaulted, it's good enough to justify any force, up to and including lethal, that was directed in response to that threat. There's no requirement that the nature of the application of such force would itself be reasonable.
Therefore not reasonable by ordinary standards. It is not reasonable to attack an armed man while unarmed when cooperation or flight is an option. A healthy dose of machismo does not make it more reasonable. If Zimmerman lost him, which is the case per the 911 recording, why did Martin, who feared death or bodily harm, not rush home? Not reasonable. QED
By the way, I agree with your assertion that Martin was likely indoctrinated in gangsta culture. Besides the *recent* photos, there is evidence from the published purported Twitter postings. I read them. They were disturbing for an innocent, good, mind-your-own-business child.
The evidence that you seem to ignore that he is dangerous is the dead boy. He didn't just carry a gun he used it. Or are you claiming that is in dispute.
No, I'm not ignoring it. I dispute it is evidence that he is dangerous. There is a difference between a person who is dangerous, a more or less constant quality of the person, and what may be a dangerous act. One doesn't prove the other and as such isn't evidence. Side note, at 17 you're within days of being legally a man and am very far away from being a boy. Words mean something. Constantly calling Martin a boy is only logical if you're attempting to paint a particular picture. A more accurate term would be young man, or teenager (at best).
"The Orange County Clerk of Courts website shows a man named George Zimmerman, 28, was charged in July 2005 with resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer. The charges appear to have been dropped." I guess that wasn't enough to refuse Zimmerman a gun permit.
It is possible you don't follow these types of things closely. As such, you may not realize just how ridiculously easy it is to get charged with that in the US these days. A cop approaches me, doesn't like what I'm doing for whatever reason, attempts to arrest me and I shove him. Bam, resisting arrest with violence and battery. Happens all the time to protestors. That he wasn't convicted and charges were dropped both says a lot and answers your question as to his carry (not a gun permit, we don't have those in the US) permit. Some what unrelated, I get the feeling you're not from the US. Is that the case?
Zimmerman could have held the boy at gun point, If someone was pointing a gun at you and you were unarmed, would you resist. I doubt it since you appear to be aware of the damage a bullet can do.
Well, that depends on what is going on. If a person wasn't doing anything wrong and someone else pulled a gun on them, I would absolutely expect them to resist in some manner or other. As to what Zimmerman should have or could have done, we don't really know as we don't really know the circumstances around the time of the shooting. As I've noted before, we are only speculating. The available facts are pretty thin at this point.
Zimmerman isn't convicted yet however the decision on what to charge him with has been made and presumable that decision is based on supporting Evidence not on a whim.
One would hope. That said, it is entirely possible they charged him whether or not they thought they could get a conviction. Right or wrong, absent clear evidence that a conviction was impossible I don't think they had a practical choice the minute this became a (inter)national news story.
I started out this conversation by pointing out that it could be the case Zimmerman did want to kill someone and escape the consequences of the law. Where your claiming i am presuming guilt you are presuming innocence. neither conclusion can be reached without examination of the actual evidence.
Quite right. However, it is more accurate to say that I'm presuming innocence until proven guilty combined with the fact that I have a hard time believing someone would come up with such a convoluted plan to commit such a grievous act. Of course, there's a first time for anything, no?
The 3 statements you made regarding the requirements for murder1 could be met in this case however largely it is a thought crime, without a witness to the killing it is pretty much impossible to prove. Only Zimmerman could say if it was the case or not and he isn't likely to confess.
It could only be met if we presume your original supposition is correct. Either way, you're right in that it cannot be proven either way without a witness or a very unlikely confession. Thus, all we can do is theorize.
Zimmerman seems to have seen himself as some kind o
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
You know what, he could have shot the kid in the foot or the leg and both could have lived. HE DIDNT HAVE TO KILL THE KID - SO FUCK HIM - HE DID IT ANYWAY.
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
It is not reasonable to attack a man with a gun unarmed, yes, but it is not illegal to do so in a situation where attacking in self-defense would be legal in general. And that only requires a reasonable expectation of imminent death or significant bodily harm coming to you. So long as that specific part of Trayvon's reasoning can be demonstrated to agree with that of a "reasonable person" - i.e. that having a gun pointed is you implies a threat of death or bodily harm, which I think you'd agree it does - he could claim SYG.
Why is this even national news?
This is a local community issue.
We have many more things to be worried about than who Zimmerman is, what he is or who he is or what he is doing.
On a national scope this is not appropriate consdering we are on the verge of WWIII, our currency is being destroyed by our fascist/corporatized government and millions of people are on food stamps.
This has to be misdirection to keep our minds on fighting each other rather than worrying about the billions of dollars this fascist government and its minions like Corzine are stealing from the American citizenry on a daily basis.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
According to the Florida newspapers that have investigated the results of the laws, the rates of justified homicides have tripled. Most of those are cases that the prosecutors would have prosecuted as murder under the old laws, but didn't think they could convict under the new laws.
[snip]
So the result of the laws have been to convert violent crimes to justified homicides, and let people get away with what used to be murder.
Of course. It was considered that people were getting unjustly charged and convicted when defending themselves, so the law was changed with the intention of having exactly the effect you've described. People being allowed to defend themselves is a good thing. If it is possible to amend the law to make it more difficult for actual murderers to abuse, then good, let's do so. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater and resume prosecuting genuine cases of self-defense.
Some of them involved people provoking a fight, getting beaten up, and killing the guy they originally attacked (which is what the prosecutor is charging Zimmerman with). A fair number of them involved drug dealers.
I have been unable to find an article in which drug dealers used these laws to escape justice, although I did find a couple of quotes from "Buddy Jacobs, general counsel of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association cited the Stand Your Ground law's unintended effects on cases involving drug killings in calling for its repeal during a task force hearing". It would be good if he gave an example, perhaps he has and I just can't find it. I did find on the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17693084 a case of a gang shootout although they didn't mention drugs.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/03/why_george_zimmerman_trayvon_martin_s_killer_hasn_t_been_prosecuted_.single.html
Why Trayvon Martin’s Killer Remains Free
Florida’s self-defense laws have left Florida safe for no one—except those who shoot first.
By Emily Bazelon
March 19, 2012
(Since Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law was passed in 2005, there have been many cases of people killing unarmed opponents and not being charged. The worst, according to Bazelon, is that the courts gave "true immunity," which means the judge can dismiss the prosecution before the trial begins, and the question of whether the killer was really defending himself doesn't even go to the jury.)
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.ece
Five years since Florida enacted "stand-your-ground" law, justifiable homicides are up
By Ben Montgomery and Colleen Jenkins
October 17, 2010
These are "justifiable" homicides because that's the category the stand-your-ground put them in. Under the old law, most of them would have been murders, if they had happened at all.
You may think that if two people get into a fight and one of them "defends" himself by pulling a gun and killing the other guy, who is unarmed, that's a good outcome. I disagree. These are routine assaults, where nobody would have gotten killed without the gun.
How do you know they were getting unjustly convicted? The juries had more of the facts and obviously disagreed with you.
Even the killer of Yoshihiro Hattori was acquitted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori These laws protect irresponsible shooters, like Rodney Peairs. Somebody rings your bell on Halloween, and you shoot him? These laws protect people who do that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/stand-your-ground-laws-coincide-with-jump-in-justifiable-homicide-cases/2012/04/07/gIQAS2v51S_print.html
Billy Kuch was a troubled kid. As an adolescent, he had bipolar disorder diagnosed and he’d been arrested a couple of times for driving under the influence. He drank too much, and he knew it.
So when he was out at a party that August night on Golden Eagle Drive near the intersection of Gun Smoke Drive, he decided he was too blitzed to drive home. He left the party to lock his keys inside his car so he couldn’t get behind the wheel later that night.
Kuch, then 23, stumbled back toward the party but forgot which beige stucco house was hosting the bash. He knocked on the wrong door, the one belonging to Gregory Stewart, a 32-year-old homeowner who did not appreciate having his wife and baby disturbed by a drunk kid after 4 in the morning. Kuch went away and texted his sister that he was totally confused about what was going on.
Then Kuch found what he thought was the party house and tried the door. But he’d landed at Stewart’s place, again.
This time, after Kuch turned the doorknob, Stewart told his wife to call 911. Then he grabbed his Smith & Wesson semiautomatic and went into his front yard.
Stewart said he kept asking Kuch to leave, but Kuch, thinking the guys at the party were playing a joke on him, stayed.
“Don’t make me shoot you,” warned the 6-foot-1 Stewart, according to police records. “I don’t want to shoot you.”
Kuch, who stands 5-foot-9, raised his hands, asked for a light and lurched toward the homeowner. Stewart fired.
Stewart broke down in tears when police arrived. “I could have given him a light,” he said. But he said he had felt threatened.
Police asked Stewart why he hadn’t just waited inside until officers arrived.
“I don’t know,” replied Stewart. His unwanted visitor, he said, was unarmed.
“If I had a crazy drunk guy at my door,” said Jeanann Kuch, Billy’s mother, “I’d have locked my door and called 911.”
Kuch spent five weeks in a coma. He woke with no recollection of the incident.
Before the shooting, Kuch had supported the Stand Your Ground law, his parents said. Stewart’s view of the law is not known. He did not return repeated calls, and no court ever asked, because Stewart was never brought before a judge.
Stewart was arrested that night, but Assistant State Attorney Manny Garcia concluded that his actions were “justified.”
One, Billy Kuch, mentally ill and drunk, lurched toward someone who had informed him that he was armed and told him to leave his property. Undoubtedly an unfortunate affair, but not sufficient reason to change the law IMO. Simply not getting drunk and screwing around on other people's property at 4 in the morning will protect you from this without changing the law.
Two, Rodney Peairs was acquitted by a jury and found liable in a civil suit, so it appears that stand your ground laws and immunity were not the issue, and
Three, George Zimmerman has been charged, which took some protest but did not require a change in the law.
These [not your examples but the increase in justifiable homicides] are "justifiable" homicides because that's the category the stand-your-ground put them in.
Yes. That's intentional. The law was written specifically with the purpose of moving more homicides into the category of legally justifiable. It has not increased the number of homicides, so what is your complaint? You said it was people getting shot that you didn't like, but what you're complaining about is people not going to prison.
You may think that if two people get into a fight and one of them "defends" himself by pulling a gun and killing the other guy, who is unarmed, that's a good outcome. I disagree. These are routine assaults, where nobody would have gotten killed without the gun.
Here in Queensland, Australia there has been a prolonged government advertising campaign "One punch can kill" trying to make people stop and think before getting into bar fights. This has been prompted by the fact that there have been deaths from one punch, particularly by someone being knocked down and hitting their head. I disagree that any assault should be considered routine or that it can be assumed that it won't result in serious injury or death. To punch someone, particularly in the head, is to put their life at risk.
How do you know they were getting unjustly convicted? The juries had more of the facts and obviously disagreed with you.
I presume the juries were applying the law, and the legislators had unjust prosecutions and convictions brought to their attention so they changed the law. Remember that much of our legal system is based on making it hard to get convictions, based on the idea that it is better for many guilty to go free than for one innocent to be punished.
If we could only choose between:
1 - No murderers going free but some people who were genuinely defending themselves being imprisoned for life, or
2 - Some murderers going free but no people who were genuinely defending themselves being imprisoned for life,
I would choose option 2. How about you?
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
I don't know what happened to my friend's killers. His family was upset enough about it and I didn't want to bother them about it any more.
Billy Kuch did nothing that justified being shot. Gregory Stewart was not in danger. He should have stayed inside his home and waited for the cops to arrive, as he admitted himself. It was an unjustified shooting. Stewart's warning was irrelevant. Billy Kuch was incapable of leaving or following orders. Even the gun nuts don't argue that we should kill mentally troubled people when they disturb other people at night. Why the fuck did he leave the safety of his house to play cowboy? And yet Stewart wasn't prosecuted.
Rodney Peairs was acquitted by a jury because the gun laws in Louisianna are so ridiculous that they allow a homeowner to shoot and kill a stranger who goes to the wrong house even on Halloween (where it's customary for people to go from house to house). He was objectively not threatened at all. All he had to do was say the magic words that he "felt threatened" and he could kill anybody he wants not only in his home but anywhere around it, even on a public sidewalk.
This is irresponsible and negligent. It's likely that they will kill an innocent person under those circumstances, and yet the law permits them to do so merely by claiming that they felt threatened. The prosecutors say it's almost impossible to disprove that defense. The law was designed that way by the National Rifle Association. They were bothered by the fact that when a homeowner shot and killed somebody, that homeowner would be investigated and have to defend his actions. They now have a law in which a homeowner can shoot and kill someone not just in his home but anywhere around his home, and not be investigated at all, even if he wasn't really threatened, even if he left the safety of his home while the cops were on the way.
Nobody has cited cases in the U.S. of people who were genuinely defending themselves being imprisoned for life.
Let me tell you something about political science in the U.S. Laws aren't made by a careful balancing of interests and weighing the dangers of innocent people going to jail against guilty people going free. Laws are made by following the power of lobbying groups. The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying groups. They don't care, beyond crocodile tears, what happens to innocent people who get killed. They're advocates for gun owners. They want gun owners to be able to shoot people with as little restraint or concern for the consequences as possible. They want gun owners to get off, regardless of the circumstances.
If your idea of a weekend's recreation is to go to a bar, get drunk, and get into a frontier fight, yes, if you kill somebody with an unlucky punch and you can't establish self-defense, you might be convicted of homicide or murder, in Australia or the civilized parts of America. That's what homicide is.
This discussion isn't going anywhere. I don't see any rational engagement there.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/09/07/long-island-man-arrested-for-defending-home-with-ak-47/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/20/man-faces-jail-after-protecting-home-from-masked-attackers/
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/07/15/20110715arizona-guns-special-report-self-defense-story.html
If your idea of a weekend's recreation is to go to a bar, get drunk, and get into a frontier fight, yes, if you kill somebody with an unlucky punch and you can't establish self-defense, you might be convicted of homicide or murder, in Australia or the civilized parts of America. That's what homicide is.
You made the point that unarmed people had been shot and that you didn't consider it self defense if someone else used a gun. You consistently want to avoid the implications of your arguments. For many people a gun a reasonable tool to defend themselves from an attacker, even an unarmed one.
The reason stand your ground laws have so much support is because they are just. Self defense is an inalienable right.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Yeah, /. can be good for discussing tech angles of general stories
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Here, 1st Amendment (particularly speech/press) would be a problem with that - I understand other countries (such as Canada) have reasonable exemptions like this.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
It took time to work out that he could be convicted, this is normal procedure, liek the prosecutor said "we don't prosecute by petition" and that's hwo we want it.
No, normal procedure is to arrest and hold someone who killed someone else until proven it was legal. The fact he confessed to homicide and was released is most certainly *not* normal procedure.
Learn to love Alaska
Trayvon's mother, and father, may never think poorly of their son's behavior despite any evidence. It is a common failing among parents.
They'll blame racism for it.
Learn to love Alaska
But there is no FD report of the treatment, nor doctor's assessment of the damage. There's no evidence Zimmerman's nose was broken.
Learn to love Alaska
Zimerman joined the neighborhood watch hoping to hunt the most dangerous game. He stalked black people unknown to him, in hopes one would confront him. One did. He got to feel the rush of the kill. That's 1st degree murder.
Not saying it's what happened, but it's a possibility.
Learn to love Alaska
And if Zimmerman planned on killing someone, planned on killing someone and had the plan of calling 911 first to report the suspicious activity to help build a defense against the murder he was planning on committing?
Learn to love Alaska
If you think police always arrest people immediately, then you need to stop commenting on this story and go learn something because you're spewing ignorance.
Zimmerman confessed to homicide and was immediately released. That's why it is so unusual. Rarely do they kick confessors of homicide out of the Police station.
Learn to love Alaska
Stand your ground doesn't give you the right to stalk someone in a threatening manner, then shoot them when they confront you. When the only other witness is dead.
Learn to love Alaska
Really? In what percentage of cases do they do that?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
At least one, and as far as I've seen, only one.
Learn to love Alaska
That's not very good research.........and you know it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Nobody has posted anything contradictory, so it seems sufficient. The best attack someone can muster is to question me, not actually refute my statements, which is essentially an endorsement.
Learn to love Alaska
Nobody has posted anything contradictory, so it seems sufficient. The best attack someone can muster is to question me, not actually refute my statements, which is essentially an endorsement.
I asked my lawyer friend, so we'll see if he gets back to me. Unfortunately he often ignores me on such questions. If he does, I'll post what he says here (unfortunately such statistics seem hard to find by googling).
But come on, appeal to ignorance is hardly a good reason to hold an opinion, especially one condemning a whole police department in a case where you're likely to have bad data anyway, because of all the media distortion (media distortion, and media not actually caring a whole lot if they get their facts straight).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
But come on, appeal to ignorance is hardly a good reason to hold an opinion, especially one condemning a whole police department in a case where you're likely to have bad data anyway, because of all the media distortion (media distortion, and media not actually caring a whole lot if they get their facts straight).
I've heard of hundreds of murders (most through the media, but some from witnesses of relatives). The only case of someone confessing to homicide who was then released was a case of a old man who stated he fell asleep and killed some college kids on 6th Street in Austin. And there was no outrage over that one, and the police apologized to him for the trauma killing all those people caused. Oh, and he kept his license, as he didn't even get a ticket for illegally parking while parked on the sidewalk on top of dead students. But short of that one, can you name a single homicide where someone confessed to killing and was immediately released? Heck, last time I brought that one up, people asserted it didn't happen, so even that one doesn't exist (according to some here).
Learn to love Alaska
Yeah, I can tell you one where a pastor clearly killed the guy, and had motive. The only question was whether the pastor intended to kill the guy or did it on accident. The police left the pastor free for two years while they collected evidence. I presume they didn't worry about him killing other people. They finally arrested him when it looked like he was a flight risk, traveling to Mexico. Ended up getting life in prison on first degree murder charges.
Now the pastor is in jail for life, and tells people he is doing God's work, converting prisoners.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Here's my brief conversation with my lawyer friend:
Me: It didn't seem strange to you that they didn't arrest him as soon as he confessed to killing the guy?
Lawyer: yes. thats what shows they have serious evidence problems.
So take from that whatever you will. It's not clear to me if he's saying the police have evidence problems because they are incompetent, or they are competent and followed the course of action that police normally do when they have evidence problems.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Well, Trayvon can't. He's dead, and therefore unable to speak.
Where is the damn firehose? I just spent five minutes looking for it to no avail.
Zimmerman owns the public street? I must have missed that bit.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You seem rather keen, almost desperate, to prove her guilty.
Of course the best alibi is that someone else did it...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"Rational" and "reasonable" are two different words. An action can be one or the other, both, or neither.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
So, Mr. White Guy gets the right to follow around people with a gun,
First off, he is a Hispanic man with an interesting history:
Second, he had a concealed carry permit, so he could carry a concealed firearm, period.
Third, are you saying Zimmerman should not have called the police?
Why might Zimmerman have had an interest?
harrass them and finally shoot them for the deadly threat of walking around while black and carrying skittles,
Carrying skittles? Do you think this is the bag? -> Zimmerman Injuries Seen in Exclusive Photo
"Walking around while black" . . . like Zimmermans great grandfather? And one more interesting bit -
while the black boy should have called the police.
Zimmerman did call the police - he spent a considerable amount of time on the phone with them. And yes, it would have been a much better idea for Martin, who had a phone with him and was chatting on it, to have called the police if he was worried, instead of apparently assaulting Zimmerman.
I get it, "standing your ground" is . .
Stand your ground doesn't have anything to do with this.
. . .only for your fellow Stormfront members, you racist fucker. You are so full of it, one day you gonna explode in a quite dramatic crapageddon.
Don't you claim to be a biochemist? Do you have any ability to engage in a rational, fact based discussion on this matter? You certainly haven't demonstrated that you do. You might want to talk to a counselor, you seem to have some issues.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
If you recall, Zimmerman did call the police, that is how the series of events started. Eventually he gave up, ended the call, and headed back.
It was shortly after that Martin allegedly surprised Zimmerman, punched Zimmerman in the face dropping him to the ground, and then started pounding his head into the concrete. There are photos showing Zimmerman's head bleeding, and the police report noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from both his nose and the back of his head. Witnesses have stated that they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.
Now, are you thinking that as Zimmerman lay underneath Martin, having his head pounded into the concrete, that instead of trying to fight back and try to escape, Zimmerman was going to dial the police and call for help that might arrive in, what, 5-10-15 minutes? Really? You think that might be a reasonable option as he faced the immediate threat of severe or fatal injury from continued beating from the 190cm tall Martin? I'll save you the trouble - no, that was not a reasonable option in any way. Of course you can adopt that as your personal survival strategy when you are assaulted if it still seems like a good idea. I'm betting you won't - you'll try to fight back and escape. . . just like Zimmerman. Either that, or you'll be dead or a vegetable.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell