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."
More like, still not news for nerds.
How many fucking Treyvon/Zimmerman articles do I have to read here?
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."
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
Perhaps but I'm very interested, and I'm a law nerd.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
None, but stand your ground on this issue.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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."
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.
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.
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?
Too much politics here creeping on this site.
Preach brother.
Hey! We don't want any religion either!
Slashdot's firehose is sorta like the national primaries. No one takes part in them to get rid of the crap, then everyone complains about the results.
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.
So I see:
The people at the Retreat at Twin Lakes had been missing bikes, grills and a few times thought strangers were casing their town houses.
When the homeowners association wanted to start a neighborhood watch, only one man stepped up: George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old who admitted to shooting an unarmed Miami Gardens teenager and who is now the focal point of a race-related scandal of national proportions.
Interviews with neighbors reveal a pleasant young man passionate about neighborhood security who took it upon himself to do nightly patrols while he walked his dog.
Licensed to carry a firearm and a student of criminal justice, Zimmerman went door-to-door asking residents to be on the lookout, specifically referring to young black men who appeared to be outsiders, and warned that some were caught lurking, neighbors said. The self-appointed captain of the neighborhood watch program is credited with cracking some crimes, and thwarting others.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/trayvon-martin-shooter-a-habitual.html#storylink=cpy
It's not always been there, I see:
"Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters"
at the top of my browser.
No "and"
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.
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?
Why is it so hard for people to understand that Slashdot is "News for Nerds" AND "Stuff that Matters". Really, it's always been there, and it's hardly a long motto.
I've always assumed that "Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters" meant that articles would be "News for Nerds" OR "Stuff that Matters", not AND.
I've never nitpicked grammar before, but I'll be damned before I allow poor boolean logic to be applied to this site.
Plus I get to write two sentences in this post that end with "and". Life doesn't get better than this.
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
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.)
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 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.
:(){
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
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) --