rjquillin


quality posts: 168 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:Maybe not the Martins, but maybe the state? It was a...non-standard road to trial, right?

...with what seemed to be a rather biased judge at that.

CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:...with what seemed to be a rather biased judge at that.



I didn't see that. Not arguing, I just didn't see much of what this judge did at all.

rjquillin


quality posts: 168 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:I didn't see that. Not arguing, I just didn't see much of what this judge did at all.

Directly interrogating Zimmerman before the defense had rested, telling his counsel to shut up, not allowing defense to move to dismiss after prosecution, in some opinions, had failed to prove their case. There are others, but these seem the most egregious and are first to mind.

CT

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:I didn't see that. Not arguing, I just didn't see much of what this judge did at all.



Also allowing GZ's past emails/history in, but excluding TM's tweets/emails/texts.


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
MarkDaSpark wrote:Also allowing GZ's past emails/history in, but excluding TM's tweets/emails/texts.



It was relevant to the "would he have jumped the other guy and pounded on him" question, but I'm not big on the whole try the dead victim thing.

BTW I think they knew exactly what kinda kid he was after seeing Rachel Jeantel on the stand.

ERMD


quality posts: 1 Private Messages ERMD

I guess Norman was correct

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

I've been reading some comments this morning about this racial angle (which perhaps should not exist, but does). The impression I'm getting is that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon and followed him, and that constitutes an attack in the minds of some. At that point, Zimmerman was guilty regardless of what happened in between. I've seen comments where people say they would be justified in shooting a person if they were being followed, because they feel threatened by that.

What do you think about that? I've tried but I don't see a way to twist the law such that following is an attack, or such that profiling (if it was indeed profiling) is an attack. So...are people angry that the law was followed? They sincerely wanted an unlawful conviction?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

There you go, bringing that logic into it chem.

"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

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
chemvictim wrote:I've been reading some comments this morning about this racial angle (which perhaps should not exist, but does). The impression I'm getting is that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon and followed him, and that constitutes an attack in the minds of some. At that point, Zimmerman was guilty regardless of what happened in between. I've seen comments where people say they would be justified in shooting a person if they were being followed, because they feel threatened by that.

What do you think about that? I've tried but I don't see a way to twist the law such that following is an attack, or such that profiling (if it was indeed profiling) is an attack. So...are people angry that the law was followed? They sincerely wanted an unlawful conviction?



I think that's all a load of rubbish.

1) Someone following you would not make a reasonable person think that grievous bodily harm or death is imminent.

The Westboro Baptist Church makes me feel very uncomfortable when they protest, so does Al Sharpton whenever he speaks at a rally. May I run up to them, break their nose, and then smash their heads into the ground?

Can I stop my car and run back and drag the cop from his car and do the same when he follows me on the highway?

Anyhow the fact is that Trayvon did not avoid confrontation with George, and there is at least a chance that as the only witness testified, Trayvon laid in wait for him and then attacked him out of the blue.

2)As to the 'profiling"- I'm not aware that anyone ever passed a law that said private citizens can't profile. The issue is why you profiled someone.

If you profiled him because you don't like n-words that's entirely different than if it's because you've had a string of robberies and even a home invasion committed by unknown suspects who were all black youth. You don't just ignore the physical attributes of a person (except in the Peoples Republic of Bloomberg, and airports).

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother

FWIW What I think everyone is mistaking race with behavioral norms in different socioeconomic circles.

Clearly, if the 17yo was some clean cut blond/blue eyed kid from a solid middle class family in the suburbs, we would all have a much harder time believing he jumped, and then kicked the crap out of George Zimmerman.

I'd feel the same way if he was a clean cut black/red/yellow/whatever kid from the suburbs.
That has NOTHING to do with a persons race.

Trayvon Martin was from the ghetto. If I strapped on a gun and then went to the Bronx and followed some random 17yo kid I should fully expect it to end with me shooting them, and I would probably be guilty of 1st and not 2nd degree murder.

Same as I'd expect to happen if I pulled that crap in the barrio, or 8 mile.

Thugs, white trash, vato's, etc. tend to live in bravado laden cultures with a real dearth of good male role models, where the normal reaction to a slight is violence, and the only thing more manly than violence is a lot of violence. Let's not forget that the prefrontal cortex is still not fully developed at 17- decisions about what is or isn't appropriate and impulse control are particularly suspect at that age. Mix that with a culture that celebrates violence and you have an explosive mix.

Does that mean that everyone from the the hood/barrio/trailer park would react to being followed with a violent attack? No. Does it clearly introduce reasonable doubt? Yes.

chipgreen


quality posts: 176 Private Messages chipgreen

Wow. I guess I don't understand how anyone can attempt to justify why it was perfectly fine to profile, follow (while ignoring the dispatcher's advice), confront and shoot (with a gun that he was prohibited from carrying as part of his watch captain duties) Trayvon Martin who was simply walking home from the store minding his own business.

Only Zimmerman knows what happened for sure afa how they ended up face to face and who threw the first punch, but we know there was a scuffle and we know that Zimmerman shot Martin to death.

Anything Martin tweeted or smoked or what terminology he used or who he hung out with at school or what TV shows he liked to watch have NOTHING to do with whether or not Zimmerman was justified in shooting him. The only thing that matters is what happened THAT NIGHT.

Additionally, saying that Martin, a 17 year old with a 17 year old's brain, had no reason to fear being pursued by an unknown, nearly middle-aged white-ish man (who fits the description of 90% of all serial killers - how's that for profiling?) is ridiculous. And to compare being followed (with clear but unknown purpose) by a stranger down a dark street with being hassled by a Westboro Baptist protester? No words to describe.....

Finally, afa Martin's family filing a civil suit - Georgey's sitting on a pile of cash. He received over $500k in donations from people who wanted to reward him for shooting that little black "thug". Half a MILLION dollars! Maybe he should start his own show - George the Bounty Hunter. I wonder how much money people would have donated to Zimmerman if his victim had been a 17 yr. old white kid?

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chipgreen wrote:Wow. I guess I don't understand how anyone can attempt to justify why it was perfectly fine to profile, follow (while ignoring the dispatcher's advice), confront and shoot (with a gun that he was prohibited from carrying as part of his watch captain duties) Trayvon Martin who was simply walking home from the store minding his own business.

Only Zimmerman knows what happened for sure afa how they ended up face to face and who threw the first punch, but we know there was a scuffle and we know that Zimmerman shot Martin to death.

Anything Martin tweeted or smoked or what terminology he used or who he hung out with at school or what TV shows he liked to watch have NOTHING to do with whether or not Zimmerman was justified in shooting him. The only thing that matters is what happened THAT NIGHT.

Additionally, saying that Martin, a 17 year old with a 17 year old's brain, had no reason to fear being pursued by an unknown, nearly middle-aged white-ish man (who fits the description of 90% of all serial killers - how's that for profiling?) is ridiculous. And to compare being followed (with clear but unknown purpose) by a stranger down a dark street with being hassled by a Westboro Baptist protester? No words to describe.....

Finally, afa Martin's family filing a civil suit - Georgey's sitting on a pile of cash. He received over $500k in donations from people who wanted to reward him for shooting that little black "thug". Half a MILLION dollars! Maybe he should start his own show - George the Bounty Hunter. I wonder how much money people would have donated to Zimmerman if his victim had been a 17 yr. old white kid?



First off, how do you know he wasn't casing the neighborhood for his pals? Just as likely a story as the yarn you just spun.

And "white-ish"? Then our President is also "white-ish", since he's half white as well (Zimmerman is Hispanic/White).


And if only what happened that night matters, then why did the Prosecution get to bring in GZ's past history? Hmmm? It all goes to their frame of mind.


And while GZ's now free, he has to look over his shoulder for all the Gooberss who tweeted that someone should kill him. Lynch Mob tweets


You need to read this: Shapiro: Zimmerman jury’s verdict shines troubling light on prosecutor’s decision-making

My favorite quote: "The State declined to take Dershowitz’ advice and instead filed murder charges without any substantive evidence. Their case proved only one thing beyond a reasonable doubt—that from the very beginning the state did not have a case for murder."


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
chipgreen wrote:Wow. I guess I don't understand how anyone can attempt to justify why it was perfectly fine to profile, follow (while ignoring the dispatcher's advice), confront and shoot (with a gun that he was prohibited from carrying as part of his watch captain duties) Trayvon Martin who was simply walking home from the store minding his own business.


Where the heck do you people come up with this horseshit?

Ignore a CSR? Not according to the only witnesses testimony.
Stop and confront? Not according to the only witnesses testimony, or any of the physical evidence.
Prohibited? No, sorry, pretty sure his permit didn't say "except when patrolling the neighborhood"


Only Zimmerman knows what happened for sure afa how they ended up face to face and who threw the first punch, but we know there was a scuffle and we know that Zimmerman shot Martin to death.


Right, and all the evidence supports his story. Doesn't mean it's true, just means its reasonably possible. If Martin jumped him (remember Georgie was on public property, not committing any wrong act at that point) and was kicking his ass, then he was in fact justified in shooting him.


Anything Martin tweeted or smoked or what terminology he used or who he hung out with at school or what TV shows he liked to watch have NOTHING to do with whether or not Zimmerman was justified in shooting him. The only thing that matters is what happened THAT NIGHT.


HORSECRAP

How he behaved is ENTIRELY relevant if you want to convince people he didn't violently attack Georgie.


Additionally, saying that Martin, a 17 year old with a 17 year old's brain, had no reason to fear being pursued by an unknown, nearly middle-aged white-ish man (who fits the description of 90% of all serial killers - how's that for profiling?) is ridiculous. And to compare being followed (with clear but unknown purpose) by a stranger down a dark street with being hassled by a Westboro Baptist protester? No words to describe.....



Hint: This is a THREAD in a FORUM, Try looking at what I typed and who I was responding to, and about what. Or was that meant as a display of intentional ignorance?

ERMD


quality posts: 1 Private Messages ERMD
MarkDaSpark wrote:First off, how do you know he wasn't casing the neighborhood for his pals? Just as likely a story as the yarn you just spun.

And "white-ish"? Then our President is also "white-ish", since he's half white as well (Zimmerman is Hispanic/White).


And if only what happened that night matters, then why did the Prosecution get to bring in GZ's past history? Hmmm? It all goes to their frame of mind.


And while GZ's now free, he has to look over his shoulder for all the Gooberss who tweeted that someone should kill him. Lynch Mob tweets


You need to read this: Shapiro: Zimmerman jury’s verdict shines troubling light on prosecutor’s decision-making

My favorite quote: "The State declined to take Dershowitz’ advice and instead filed murder charges without any substantive evidence. Their case proved only one thing beyond a reasonable doubt—that from the very beginning the state did not have a case for murder."


I happen to be of acquaintance (son dated his daughter)with Norm Wolfinger,the original State Attorney for our district. Knowing Norm, if there were ANY indication he would have filed the case. There was none. It became a political hotbed, so he was replaced. TOTAL BS all around.
Today in our local news, we have
1)Woman shot during Argument
2)Burglar stabs man in stomach during home invasion
3)Titusville woman stabbed to death in parking lot.
all within 24 hours.
Do you really want to stop all of this violence? Then get to the root cause; its not guns and weapons. Its societies perception of insecurity, and the lack of parental/family involvement in child growth and development.
But isn't it far easier to blame someone else


chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
chipgreen wrote:Wow. I guess I don't understand how anyone can attempt to justify why it was perfectly fine to profile, follow (while ignoring the dispatcher's advice), confront and shoot (with a gun that he was prohibited from carrying as part of his watch captain duties) Trayvon Martin who was simply walking home from the store minding his own business.



I don't think it was perfectly fine to do those things, I just don't think the prosecution proved its case. I think GZ did wrong (and that is just my opinion), but when I read the jury instructions on those charges, it was clear to me that the state did not (could not) prove that. I'm not a legal expert by any means, but although I heard of a lot of people disagree with the verdict, I didn't see anyone actually attempt to explain that the prosecution proved its case. More like they were pissed that he didn't get convicted despite the fact that the prosecution didn't prove its case. That's troublesome.

rjquillin


quality posts: 168 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:More like they were pissed that he didn't get convicted despite the fact that the prosecution didn't prove its case. That's troublesome.

As is the continued piling on and race baiting of those that just won't be happy until they've had more bloodshed, or made their attempt at political gain.

CT

chipgreen


quality posts: 176 Private Messages chipgreen
mother wrote:Hint: This is a THREAD in a FORUM, Try looking at what I typed and who I was responding to, and about what. Or was that meant as a display of intentional ignorance?


You're right, it's a thread in a forum, on a retail wine website so can the vitriol. Your biases come shining through in your posts. I'll leave you to them.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
chipgreen wrote:You're right, it's a thread in a forum, on a retail wine website so can the vitriol. Your biases come shining through in your posts. I'll leave you to them.



Can you tell how biased I am against the intellectually dishonest? :D

chipgreen


quality posts: 176 Private Messages chipgreen
mother wrote:Can you tell how biased I am against the intellectually dishonest? :D


I tried to disagree with you without turning it into a personal attack. I thought that for the most part, I was successful in that endeavor. Apparently that was not a concern for you in your response.

Funny how you chose to pick apart my post and respond to everything except my question at the end - how much money do you think people would have donated to George Zimmerman if he had killed a 17 yr. old white kid?

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
chipgreen wrote:I tried to disagree with you without turning it into a personal attack. I thought that for the most part, I was successful in that endeavor. Apparently that was not a concern for you in your response.

Funny how you chose to pick apart my post and respond to everything except my question at the end - how much money do you think people would have donated to George Zimmerman if he had killed a 17 yr. old white kid?



Chip-

Admittedly I felt that was a rhetorical question.

While I firmly decry the excess vitriol in Mother's response, I do believe be was right on in making arguments as to the CASE. Right or wrong, GZ was not doing anything ILLEGAL following TM. It was not proven, nor was there compelling evidence that GZ started the fight. In the end the Jury did the only thing they could and found him NOT Guilty. Please note that he was not found innocent. Could GZ through his own actions have prevented this? Likely, but the way the laws are written, he has no CRIMINAL fault.

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

chipgreen


quality posts: 176 Private Messages chipgreen
cmaldoon wrote:Chip-

Admittedly I felt that was a rhetorical question.

While I firmly decry the excess vitriol in Mother's response, I do believe be was right on in making arguments as to the CASE. Right or wrong, GZ was not doing anything ILLEGAL following TM. It was not proven, nor was there compelling evidence that GZ started the fight. In the end the Jury did the only thing they could and found him NOT Guilty. Please note that he was not found innocent. Could GZ through his own actions have prevented this? Likely, but the way the laws are written, he has not CRIMINAL fault.


For the record, I don't think the prosecution presented a compelling case for murder 2. My personal belief is that Zimmerman should have been convicted of manslaughter. Zimmerman's actions were not in line with the overly specific wording for a murder 2 conviction even without a weak prosecutorial effort and sketchy witnesses. I didn't see the wording for the definition of manslaughter in FL but if it's anything like the murder 2 definition I wonder if that may have been what caused the jury to acquit altogether.

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
chipgreen wrote:I didn't see the wording for the definition of manslaughter in FL but if it's anything like the murder 2 definition I wonder if that may have been what caused the jury to acquit altogether.



I agree that this is the conundrum. One issue with writing the laws is to try to make them tight enough so as not to snare the innocent. An unfortunate consequence is to let some border cases go.

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

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
chipgreen wrote:I tried to disagree with you without turning it into a personal attack. I thought that for the most part, I was successful in that endeavor. Apparently that was not a concern for you in your response.

Funny how you chose to pick apart my post and respond to everything except my question at the end - how much money do you think people would have donated to George Zimmerman if he had killed a 17 yr. old white kid?



Then why was your reply to my rebuttal an ad hominem? Notice even my reply to you attacking me wasn't attacking your person, just your explicit behavior in this discussion. So lets not pretend I was some blazing asshat and you were calm and righteous. We were both plenty asshatty.

I also did not answer that because I thought it was a rhetorical question. For the record: NO, I don't think people would have donated money, because I don't think the "white community" would have gone ballistic and been hunting him down, putting rewards on his head, and forcing the government to prosecute a case where there wasn't one.

Perhaps I'm just naive and the 3 Musketeers would have been after him like the good Rev. Al Sharpton, the Black Panthers, the NAACP, our president, Eric Holder, etc. were and are.

joelsisk


quality posts: 7 Private Messages joelsisk

From the AP story/interview with a juror, B37, a few key excerpts:

when the jury began deliberations Friday, they took an initial vote. Three jurors— including B37 — were in favor of acquittal, two supported manslaughter and one backed second-degree murder.
When they started looking at the law, the person who initially wanted second-degree murder changed her vote to manslaughter, the juror said. Then they asked for clarification from the judge and went over it again and again. B37 said some jurors wanted to find Zimmerman guilty of something, but there was just no place to go based on the law.
the actions of Zimmerman and Martin both led to the teenager's fatal shooting, but that Zimmerman didn't actually break the law.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
chipgreen wrote:Funny how you chose to pick apart my post and respond to everything except my question at the end - how much money do you think people would have donated to George Zimmerman if he had killed a 17 yr. old white kid?



It's difficult to say. So many what-if's. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that there is no bias in the system, and no racism. However, I think your comment above that people donated to GZ to reward him for killing a black boy...that is...a little much.

I think if TM was white, this case would not have been a big deal. The media (blame the evil media, always) turned this case into a huge mess. They jumped on the racial angle with such glee, because it makes a good story. Then it came out that the media had been manipulating us all. Then the way GZ was charged, after so many days and with such difficulty. I'm sure it looked, to some, like GZ was being railroaded for the sake of a good story and some political points. I'm going to give at least some of his donors the benefit of the doubt and say that's why they donated. None of that would have happened if TM was white.

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman

This about sums it up, it seems. Also goes to Joel's post. http://onion.com/1aJ9k31

Yes, I know it's The Onion, but they can still make good points.

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: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
klezman wrote:This about sums it up, it seems. Also goes to Joel's post. http://onion.com/1aJ9k31

Yes, I know it's The Onion, but they can still make good points.



Only if you buy the far left mindset. I've stopped following the Onion, because far too many times they lean so far left, it's redonkulous. If they were even (make equal fun to both sides) in their entertainment, I would be fine with that. They've become the NY Times of the comedic world.


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
MarkDaSpark wrote:Only if you buy the far left mindset. I've stopped following the Onion, because far too many times they lean so far left, it's redonkulous. If they were even (make equal fun to both sides) in their entertainment, I would be fine with that. They've become the NY Times of the comedic world.



And here I was afraid I was losing my liberal cred by my lack of outrage at the verdict. Apparently I'm still in line with the far left mindset on this one. Whew!

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:And here I was afraid I was losing my liberal cred by my lack of outrage at the verdict. Apparently I'm still in line with the far left mindset on this one. Whew!



Oh you lost that long ago with your support of the 2nd Amendment. They've been tarring and feathering you in effigy ever since!

Come to the Dark Side. We have Cookies!!!



Edit: And it still amazes me that people are still believing the lies out there (that GZ followed against Police orders, etc.). The simple fact is if TM had gone straight to his dad's or called 911, the tragedy could probably have been prevented.


Edit2: The irony is that if TM had instead killed GZ, his lawyers would have used the "Stand Your Ground" defense in all likelihood.


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.

chipgreen


quality posts: 176 Private Messages chipgreen
mother wrote:Then why was your reply to my rebuttal an ad hominem?


Touché

chipgreen


quality posts: 176 Private Messages chipgreen
MarkDaSpark wrote:
Edit: And it still amazes me that people are still believing the lies out there (that GZ followed against Police orders, etc.).


You may or may not have noticed that I took care to say that Zimmerman was "ignoring the dispatcher's advice", as opposed to ignoring an "order" or referring to the dispatcher as "police".

MarkDaSpark wrote:
The simple fact is if TM had gone straight to his dad's or called 911, the tragedy could probably have been prevented.


There are a number of ways in which that tragedy could have been prevented but if that is the one you choose to focus on, so be it. Can't say it isn't true but it's equally true that if Zimmerman had not gotten out of his truck and followed Martin, the tragedy would have been averted.

We know for a fact that Zimmerman started the incident by following Martin and finished it by shooting him to death. Only Zimmerman knows for sure what happened in-between those two acts.

I don't think you should put the onus on Martin as if he had some sort of responsibility to escape from Zimmerman, but again, you're right that it would have prevented the confrontation and ultimate death of Martin.

MarkDaSpark wrote:
Edit2: The irony is that if TM had instead killed GZ, his lawyers would have used the "Stand Your Ground" defense in all likelihood.


If TM had shot GZ to death, do you think he would have walked out a free man the night of the killing like Zimmerman did?

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chipgreen wrote:If TM had shot GZ to death, do you think he would have walked out a free man the night of the killing like Zimmerman did?



First part wasn't about you. Our posts aren't necessarily always about you.

Rather, it was about someone responding to a post on someone's post I made in FB. That was just my venting about the nonsense out there still.


As to your other part, we could go back to the black teenagers who started burglarizing the area. If they hadn't, then GZ wouldn't have had a reason to follow a strange teenager in the area. It's all "What-If" at this point.


And as to your last point, Tootsie Roll.

What if Trayvon had been White and the Shooter Black?

"We know this because in fact, such an event occurred in 2009 in Greece, N.Y., a suburb of Rochester. Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed white teen, Christopher Cervini, whom he believed was burglarizing a neighbor's car, with a licensed .40 cal. handgun."

The shooter was acquitted in that, even though there were two witnesses.


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.

chipgreen


quality posts: 176 Private Messages chipgreen
MarkDaSpark wrote:First part wasn't about you. Our posts aren't necessarily always about you.

Rather, it was about someone responding to a post on someone's post I made in FB. That was just my venting about the nonsense out there still.

As to your other part, we could go back to the black teenagers who started burglarizing the area. If they hadn't, then GZ wouldn't have had a reason to follow a strange teenager in the area. It's all "What-If" at this point.


Yes, I call that "accident logic" but it makes you consider things from a different angle which can sometimes be enlightening.

MarkDaSpark wrote:
And as to your last point, Tootsie Roll.

What if Trayvon had been White and the Shooter Black?

"We know this because in fact, such an event occurred in 2009 in Greece, N.Y., a suburb of Rochester. Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed white teen, Christopher Cervini, whom he believed was burglarizing a neighbor's car, with a licensed .40 cal. handgun."

The shooter was acquitted in that, even though there were two witnesses.


But he was charged with the crime initially, which is the point I was making.

Regardless, I realize that I'm not going to change your opinion and vice versa. I firmly support your right to disagree with me, so CHEERS!

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
chipgreen wrote:There are a number of ways in which that tragedy could have been prevented but if that is the one you choose to focus on, so be it. Can't say it isn't true but it's equally true that if Zimmerman had not gotten out of his truck and followed Martin, the tragedy would have been averted.

We know for a fact that Zimmerman started the incident by following Martin and finished it by shooting him to death. Only Zimmerman knows for sure what happened in-between those two acts.

I don't think you should put the onus on Martin as if he had some sort of responsibility to escape from Zimmerman, but again, you're right that it would have prevented the confrontation and ultimate death of Martin.



TM did not have a responsibility to escape. He had the right to defend himself. The problem here is that it doesn't stop at that point. It's not like GZ has to sit there and take it because TM is defending himself, or vice versa.

If I creepily follow you around the neighborhood, do you have the right to attack me? What if I verbally confront you? If you attack me for that, I can't defend myself? That's basically what GZ said happened, and the prosecution couldn't prove otherwise.

It sucks, but there it is.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee

I hate this case and can't wait for it to stop being news, but this basically sums up my feelings pretty well.

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

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chipgreen wrote:But he was charged with the crime initially, which is the point I was making.

Regardless, I realize that I'm not going to change your opinion and vice versa. I firmly support your right to disagree with me, so CHEERS!



But the point there was that there were TWO EYEWITNESSES to it right there the whole time. There were no eyewitnesses to the actual event with GZ and TM.

You have to have probable cause to arrest someone, which is why the police didn't arrest GZ right away.

If there had been an eyewitness to the whole thing, GZ would have been arrested there.


You are comparing apples to oranges and coming up with racism, which this isn't.


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.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:TM did not have a responsibility to escape. He had the right to defend himself. The problem here is that it doesn't stop at that point. It's not like GZ has to sit there and take it because TM is defending himself, or vice versa.

If I creepily follow you around the neighborhood, do you have the right to attack me? What if I verbally confront you? If you attack me for that, I can't defend myself? That's basically what GZ said happened, and the prosecution couldn't prove otherwise.

It sucks, but there it is.



Creepily? Really? You are showing your bias right there.

If I think someone is following me, I'm going to drive/walk to the police and/or call 911 about it. I'm NOT going to confront them, especially if I don't have a weapon, and they might.


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
MarkDaSpark wrote:Creepily? Really? You are showing your bias right there.



TM perceived the follower as creepy, according to his friend. I would perceive anyone following me as creepy. I don't like to be followed, I don't even like it when someone stands too close to me in the checkout line.

I'm not sure which bias I'm showing. Anti-white hispanic bias? Anti-male bias? Anti-neighborhood watch bias? If anyone thinks they can follow a stranger around in the dark and not be perceived negatively, he needs his head examined.

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
MarkDaSpark wrote:You have to have probable cause to arrest someone, which is why the police didn't arrest GZ right away.



I've largely stayed out of this - the little bit I've read makes me generally agree with bowtie's link. However, I would say this one observation rubs me the wrong way - how on earth can you be there with (essentially) a smoking gun and a dead person who you shot and there not be probable cause for arresting the shooter?

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

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
klezman wrote:I've largely stayed out of this - the little bit I've read makes me generally agree with bowtie's link. However, I would say this one observation rubs me the wrong way - how on earth can you be there with (essentially) a smoking gun and a dead person who you shot and there not be probable cause for arresting the shooter?



they detained him, took his statement, thought it was likely self defense/stand your ground whatever and let him go. Then they turned it over to the DA who didn't go forward because there wasn't a case. Then the world exploded and they got pressured into filing charges. The WRONG charges (likely because if they had just gone manslaughter the world would have gone nuclear, because ya know, 2430970846io2hjelfk;ajh98t277918 people with legal degrees know the law better than the DA's office) and they lost. That's about it.

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

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)