kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
mother wrote:But did her hockey bag smell bad enough to respect her?



I don't know, but she did get in a huge fight during a game when one of the other team's guys kept trying to cup-check her.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

Do we need any more proof that bureaucracy is flawed?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
kylemittskus wrote:Do we need any more proof that bureaucracy is flawed?



Or, in this case, legislatures in too much of a hurry to "do something" to pay attention to what they're doing.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

pseudogourmet98


quality posts: 17 Private Messages pseudogourmet98
kylemittskus wrote:Do we need any more proof that bureaucracy is flawed?


I actually had an employee say to me today that they could not work on their computer today due to this. My response:

ERMD


quality posts: 1 Private Messages ERMD
kylemittskus wrote:Do we need any more proof that bureaucracy is flawed?


Ahh my great state...
Rather than close them, should have taxed them per hour of use.

klezman


quality posts: 121 Private Messages klezman
coynedj wrote:Or, in this case, legislatures in too much of a hurry to "do something" to pay attention to what they're doing.



Wait...is this a Republican state government interfering in private business for no real reason? Am I seeing things? A pox on them all?

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
klezman wrote:Wait...is this a Republican state government interfering in private business for no real reason? Am I seeing things? A pox on them all?



Um, it was both. 36 Yeas in Senate, 4 Nays. 108 Yeas in House, 7 Nays.

26 R's and 14 D's in Senate; 76 R's and 44 D's in House.


And it was because a "Charity" was actually a scam being run thru a Web Cafe.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:Um, it was both. 36 Yeas in Senate, 4 Nays. 108 Yeas in House, 7 Nays.

26 R's and 14 D's in Senate; 76 R's and 44 D's in House.


And it was because a "Charity" was actually a scam being run thru a Web Cafe.



Go republicans this time! Another example that shows that both sides are likely insane and quite stupid.

And I love the logic behind it: one charity was being run via a cafe, ergo, close all the cafes. Oh, and accidentally outlaw the entire interent in the mean time.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:Go republicans this time! Another example that shows that both sides are likely insane and quite stupid.

And I love the logic behind it: one charity was being run via a cafe, ergo, close all the cafes. Oh, and accidentally outlaw the entire interent in the mean time.



It's crazy, isn't it? What are they smoking?

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
chemvictim wrote:It's crazy, isn't it? What are they smoking?



Dexter for Senate!

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
bhodilee wrote:Dexter for Senate!



BowTie for Governor!

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

Is Zimmerman going to walk? Trial is almost over.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:Is Zimmerman going to walk? Trial is almost over.



Yeah. And it's going to be horrible for the newly created "race relation" issues.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:Yeah. And it's going to be horrible for the newly created "race relation" issues.



Why?


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:Why?



"They only found him not guilty because he was white and the victim was black." "The jury was all white." "Illegalize racial profiling."

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:"They only found him not guilty because he was white and the victim was black." "The jury was all white." "Illegalize racial profiling."



Except he's hispanic ...


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:"They only found him not guilty because he was white and the victim was black." "The jury was all white." "Illegalize racial profiling."



So many problems. My personal opinion is that this whole thing was Zimmerman's fault, and had he not decided to play cowboy it would not have happened. However, I can't see that the prosecution has proven murder. I don't know about manslaughter...my understanding was that manslaughter was thrown in at the last minute, which I suppose is perfectly legal but seems problematic. Has the jury been informed that they were considering manslaughter all along? Can they properly consider the charge when it's a last minute thing, have they been considering that possibility all along?

This whole thing sucks.

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger

The judge decided today that the jury may consider manslaughter in addition to (or as an alternative to) the second degree murder charge.

A manslaughter conviction is considerably more likely than a murder conviction, given the lack of a witness and the testimony presented.

But the speculation is still centering around the demographics of the jury.

EDIT: cross posted with Chemvictim.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:So many problems. My personal opinion is that this whole thing was Zimmerman's fault, and had he not decided to play cowboy it would not have happened. However, I can't see that the prosecution has proven murder. I don't know about manslaughter...my understanding was that manslaughter was thrown in at the last minute, which I suppose is perfectly legal but seems problematic. Has the jury been informed that they were considering manslaughter all along? Can they properly consider the charge when it's a last minute thing, have they been considering that possibility all along?

This whole thing sucks.



There had been multiple burglaries by teen-aged blacks, he was the watch captain, and instead of going into his dad's house, Trayvon decided to confront Zimmerman.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

klezman


quality posts: 121 Private Messages klezman
kylemittskus wrote:Go republicans this time! Another example that shows that both sides are likely insane and quite stupid.

And I love the logic behind it: one charity was being run via a cafe, ergo, close all the cafes. Oh, and accidentally outlaw the entire interent in the mean time.



But throwing out the baby with the bathwater is always the right answer, isn't it?

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

chipgreen


quality posts: 186 Private Messages chipgreen

n/m

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
moondigger wrote:
A manslaughter conviction is considerably more likely than a murder conviction, given the lack of a witness and the testimony presented.



No, see this is the problem. While I agree the jury is more likely to convict him of manslaughter, I don't think it could possibly do so for legally valid reasons:

The difference between the two (in Flordia at least) comes down to doing something imminent dangerous (starting the confrontation with Trayvon) AND the existence of a"depraved mind" in Zimmerman- ie. he's a racist that was gunna git dat 'boy.

He is innocent of EITHER charge if it was self defense at the point he shot Trayvon, and even the prosecution has admitted that the kid was on top of the guy. Add the fact that the kid had obviously:
-broken his nose
-caused his head to smack the pavement

And many people identified the screams as Zimmermans, and you certainly have reasonable doubt that Zimmerman could have been defending himself when he shot the kid.

What I don't think anyone who would convict Zimmerman of either crime would dispute is that they believe :
1)Zimmerman started the encounter (i.e. following the kid was an imminently dangerous act)
and
2) That he was following him because he was a young black male, and that some prejudice was involved...

The entire thing is tragic for all involved.

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger

Mother, I'm not sure how you're interpreting my post, but I wasn't saying a manslaughter conviction is legally sound. I was only saying it's more likely than a murder conviction, since the bar is lower.

However since typing that post I have done a bit of reading, and I don't think the situation is quite as clear cut as you state. There is a brief discussion of Florida's manslaughter definition >>here<<. If I understand what's being said there correctly, the jury might be convinced that a manslaughter conviction is warranted. The most relevant section is this:

Florida state laws also establish involuntary manslaughter if the prosecutor shows that the defendant used excessive force during self-defense or the defense of another person.


So the self-defense argument isn't automatic immunity from a manslaughter charge.

How will it tilt? That depends on what the jury thinks of everything else. Stuff that might tilt them towards a conviction:

Zimmerman ignored 911 dispatcher's instructions not to pursue Martin;

Zimmerman described Martin (paraphrased) as 'one of those punks who always gets away,' which might lead the jury to believe he was pursuing Martin not because Martin was acting suspiciously but because Zimmerman had profiled him.

Neighborhood watchmen are specifically trained NOT to engage suspicious individuals.

As you mentioned, there are other considerations that might lead a jury to tilt away from a conviction on any of these charges.

I haven't heard all of the testimony, and like everybody else I'm not privy to the discussions that are/will be happening in the jury room. But the only thing that would surprise me at this point would be a murder conviction. Neither an acquittal nor a manslaughter conviction would be shocking.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
moondigger wrote:Mother, I'm not sure how you're interpreting my post, but I wasn't saying a manslaughter conviction is legally sound. I was only saying it's more likely than a murder conviction, since the bar is lower.

However since typing that post I have done a bit of reading, and I don't think the situation is quite as clear cut as you state. There is a brief discussion of Florida's manslaughter definition >>here<<. If I understand what's being said there correctly, the jury might be convinced that a manslaughter conviction is warranted. The most relevant section is this:
So the self-defense argument isn't automatic immunity from a manslaughter charge.

How will it tilt? That depends on what the jury thinks of everything else. Stuff that might tilt them towards a conviction:

Zimmerman ignored 911 dispatcher's instructions not to pursue Martin;

Zimmerman described Martin (paraphrased) as 'one of those punks who always gets away,' which might lead the jury to believe he was pursuing Martin not because Martin was acting suspiciously but because Zimmerman had profiled him.

Neighborhood watchmen are specifically trained NOT to engage suspicious individuals.

As you mentioned, there are other considerations that might lead a jury to tilt away from a conviction on any of these charges.

I haven't heard all of the testimony, and like everybody else I'm not privy to the discussions that are/will be happening in the jury room. But the only thing that would surprise me at this point would be a murder conviction. Neither an acquittal nor a manslaughter conviction would be shocking.



I don't think you and I disagree about the likely outcomes.

In this case I think it's pretty obvious that the self defense argument would automatically provide immunity:
If Trayvon was yelling at him and pulled back to throw a punch and George shot him, then there is something to debate.
That is not the case here, their self-defense argument is that George had his nose broken, was overpowered and thrown to the ground, and then was getting his head driven into the concrete by Trayvon, and finally resorted to saving himself by shooting the kid after it became clear he couldn't extricate himself any other way.

If you buy that story then you can't convict him of manslaughter. If you don't buy that story then you should be convicting him of 2nd degree murder... IMHO

PS The fact that a CSR at a call center tells him something is TOTALLY irrelevant here, and I really question why people get distracted with it... Even so, the theory presented by the defense is that he did follow her instructions and was just looking for a street sign.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
mother wrote:I don't think you and I disagree about the likely outcomes.

In this case I think it's pretty obvious that the self defense argument would automatically provide immunity:
If Trayvon was yelling at him and pulled back to throw a punch and George shot him, then there is something to debate.
That is not the case here, their self-defense argument is that George had his nose broken, was overpowered and thrown to the ground, and then was getting his head driven into the concrete by Trayvon, and finally resorted to saving himself by shooting the kid after it became clear he couldn't extricate himself any other way.

If you buy that story then you can't convict him of manslaughter. If you don't buy that story then you should be convicting him of 2nd degree murder... IMHO

PS The fact that a CSR at a call center tells him something is TOTALLY irrelevant here, and I really question why people get distracted with it... Even so, the theory presented by the defense is that he did follow her instructions and was just looking for a street sign.



The prosecution is saying that Martin was NOT on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. They say it would have been impossible for either man to get the gun unless Martin backed off. They also say that Zimmerman planned the circumstances of the encounter and lied about most everything. I only saw that just now on prosecution rebuttal, I did not see any of the evidence they might have to support the statement.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:The prosecution is saying that Martin was NOT on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. They say it would have been impossible for either man to get the gun unless Martin backed off. They also say that Zimmerman planned the circumstances of the encounter and lied about most everything. I only saw that just now on prosecution rebuttal, I did not see any of the evidence they might have to support the statement.



See, that's something I've never understood ... why the Prosecution gets a "rebuttal". You made your closing arguments, that should be it.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
chemvictim wrote:The prosecution is saying that Martin was NOT on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. They say it would have been impossible for either man to get the gun unless Martin backed off. They also say that Zimmerman planned the circumstances of the encounter and lied about most everything. I only saw that just now on prosecution rebuttal, I did not see any of the evidence they might have to support the statement.



If you believe that, then it wasn't self defense, and it was murder.

PS The evidence about that is Trayvon's mom and brother saying it was his screams, one witness who changed their story once they saw the 17yo Martin (when asked who was on top they were showed a picture of him at 12) and they said they now couldn't tell you which one was on top, and one other witness who made other mistakes (3 shots not 1, etc.).

The prosecution failed badly in it's attempt to show Martin as the aggressor in the fisticuffs portion of the event- numerically more, potentially more credible, witnesses contradicted everything they presented towards that.

Remember the prosecution is the one that has to prove their case beyond a doubt, all the defense needs to do is prove it reasonably could have gone differently.

But again, I digress, since my point is simply that it's either 2nd degree murder or it's nothing.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:See, that's something I've never understood ... why the Prosecution gets a "rebuttal". You made your closing arguments, that should be it.



I don't know. I thought the defense always got the last word, but clearly my knowledge of criminal trials comes from Law & Order episodes.

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
chemvictim wrote:I don't know. I thought the defense always got the last word, but clearly my knowledge of criminal trials comes from Law & Order episodes.


On L&O, I think the prosecutor always got the last word. I watched a lot of the original series, but none of the spinoffs.

I'm pretty sure that's standard, though. "The people" (i.e., the prosecutors) always get the last word.

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger

One minute of Googling tells me that in all states except possibly Minnesota, the prosecutor has the option to offer a rebuttal to stuff the defense says in their closing. So the order is:

1. Prosecutor closing argument
2. Defense closing argument
3. Optional prosecutor rebuttal to stuff the defense said in their closing.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

Does anyone think the prosecutor got a sh*tty deal? He was given a very high profile case that was a loser from the start and everyone knew it.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
kylemittskus wrote:Does anyone think the prosecutor got a sh*tty deal? He was given a very high profile case that was a loser from the start and everyone knew it.


It's a big risk, with a potentially high reward (in terms of his career) in the unlikely event that he gets a conviction.

loveladyelectric


quality posts: 23 Private Messages loveladyelectric

This is not political.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
loveladyelectric wrote:This is not political.



Please explain. Do you mean we shouldn't be discussing it here?

loveladyelectric


quality posts: 23 Private Messages loveladyelectric
chemvictim wrote:Please explain. Do you mean we shouldn't be discussing it here?



Yes.

I feel like we're legitimizing the media's racial spin on things by pretending that this is anything more than a murder trial.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
loveladyelectric wrote:Yes.

I feel like we're legitimizing the media's racial spin on things by pretending that this is anything more than a murder trial.



It is political. It shouldn't be, but it is. And it is racial. It shouldn't be, but it is. We play with the toys we're given.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

Not guilty. I'm not surprised really, after having read the manslaughter guidelines given to the jury again today.

Bring on the civil suits, not that Zimmerman probably has much.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
chemvictim wrote:
Bring on the civil suits, not that Zimmerman probably has much.



I don't know how likely that is. It would be 99% a trial of Trayvon Martin, with ALL of the tweets about his criminal activities,pictures of weed and guns, that he had THC in his system, that he was in a string of trouble at school, etc.

Honestly I think the Zimmermans have a better case to sue the Martins...

And as you note- for what?

mommadeb1


quality posts: 17 Private Messages mommadeb1
chemvictim wrote:Not guilty. I'm not surprised really, after having read the manslaughter guidelines given to the jury again today.

Bring on the civil suits, not that Zimmerman probably has much.



having served on a federal jury, it is amazing how the smallest details of a law, can change what you think...

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
mother wrote:Honestly I think the Zimmermans have a better case to sue the Martins...



Maybe not the Martins, but maybe the state? It was a...non-standard road to trial, right?