|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. |
On March 25 2012 09:23 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:09 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:00 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 08:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 08:31 stokes17 wrote:And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with: . + Show Spoiler +776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler +(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself" Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you meet the requirements of the self-defense statute (.013(3) and .012)), you are immune from arrest/prosecution. That appears to be a correct reading of the statutes. However, there is nothing saying that the police have to take your word for it. If the police do not believe your story and they have probable cause that you committed an unjustified killing irrespective of your claim of self defense, they can still arrest you and try you in court. I think the main effect of this statute is putting the burden on the prosecution to come up with evidence of an unjustified killing before they arrest you, rather than arresting you first (after sufficient evidence of a killing) and then having you defend yourself in court (i.e., an affirmative defense of self-defense that you have to prove). I have to caveat this though, because in California this isn’t how it works, so this is news to me. Seems to me like the law is allowing the police to pick and choose which murders they want to bother investigating. Because imo Zimmerman's story was pretty weak (complete shit) and the police took his word for it. Do you support such a statute? and if so could you explain to me why it isn't as awful as I believe it to be. (assuming you aren't a person who supports awful things ^^) I simply don't see how it serves justice. MAYBE in a home invasion situation only would I want to give a person the amount of protection granted by the Florida SYG law. But if you kill someone in public, I certainly think its on you to defend your actions. i still think there was enough to arrest him despite his claim of self defense. i do not support statutes that dont require you to retreat. you should always be required to retreat if you can safely do so. i dont give a fuck if your ego is hurt, which is what these laws protect in my opinion. walk away, call the police and have them arrested for assault, battery, whatever they did. (of course, if you cant walk away safely that is a different story.) as for immunities, i dont really know enough to make an informed opinion. i think the defendant should have to prove their self defense theory in a court of law. anything that takes it away from the jury, i dont really like. So we were in agreement at a conceptual level the whole time? You just HAD to pick at every tiny error in my posts? You certainly quelled any possible doubts I had as to whether or not you are actually a lawyer!! - :D sorry. occupational hazard. =( at the beginning i thought he was most likely guilty, but was holding judgment until i heard from him. after i learned about the "John" testimony, i was less convinced of his guilt, but still felt there was enough for him to be arrested. "john" who won't allow his name or face to be released? I don't give much to it. I just don't buy 140 lb martin who was on the phone w/ his gf, terrified, would be able to somehow overcome and end up pummeling a 240lb armed man who was actively pursuing him. I don't buy it. For all I know "john" is Zimmerman's buddy, or father, or a Sanford Cop, or a Schizophrenic. At the end of the day, I just want his story (that I think is Bullshit) brought before a jury of his peers. Not swept under the rug and covered up. Police and DAs are paid by my tax dollars to prevent and investigate crime, not cover it up.
I don't buy that Martin was 140lbs, the man was 6'2/6'3 and while skinny had some tone on him and is an athletic football player, going off his facebook pictures, I would put him closer to 165-170lbs. While Zimmermann is an nonathletic 5'2/5'3 and is obese at 240lbs. In a fight my money would be on Martin 10 out of 10 times. Martin would have a massive advantage in reach for striking and with his football background I think it's safe to say he has some experience in how to tackle bigger men.
Something big is missing here, cause there is no way in hell Zimmermann could have chased down Martin if he attempted to run. There is no witness any where with word of a gun being seen at any point, so it's unlikely that it was drawn until after Zimmermann was on the ground with Trayvon on top of him.
|
Man, I saw that headline and I thought back on my own experience in Miami FL, and let me tell you there's a whole different Black Male Code there. It starts with carrying a big chip on your shoulder, and acting like it's all dog-eat-dog on the street, even when nobody is actually threatening you. Even simple business becomes all watch your back all the time. And then always being uptight around white people (like me) just in case they say something you can take offense about. Because of course white people are always looking to put down blacks, they can't help themselves, those ugly racists. Oh, wait, maybe it's not so different after all.
|
On March 25 2012 09:53 NotSorry wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:23 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:09 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:00 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 08:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 08:31 stokes17 wrote:And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with: . + Show Spoiler +776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler +(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself" Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you meet the requirements of the self-defense statute (.013(3) and .012)), you are immune from arrest/prosecution. That appears to be a correct reading of the statutes. However, there is nothing saying that the police have to take your word for it. If the police do not believe your story and they have probable cause that you committed an unjustified killing irrespective of your claim of self defense, they can still arrest you and try you in court. I think the main effect of this statute is putting the burden on the prosecution to come up with evidence of an unjustified killing before they arrest you, rather than arresting you first (after sufficient evidence of a killing) and then having you defend yourself in court (i.e., an affirmative defense of self-defense that you have to prove). I have to caveat this though, because in California this isn’t how it works, so this is news to me. Seems to me like the law is allowing the police to pick and choose which murders they want to bother investigating. Because imo Zimmerman's story was pretty weak (complete shit) and the police took his word for it. Do you support such a statute? and if so could you explain to me why it isn't as awful as I believe it to be. (assuming you aren't a person who supports awful things ^^) I simply don't see how it serves justice. MAYBE in a home invasion situation only would I want to give a person the amount of protection granted by the Florida SYG law. But if you kill someone in public, I certainly think its on you to defend your actions. i still think there was enough to arrest him despite his claim of self defense. i do not support statutes that dont require you to retreat. you should always be required to retreat if you can safely do so. i dont give a fuck if your ego is hurt, which is what these laws protect in my opinion. walk away, call the police and have them arrested for assault, battery, whatever they did. (of course, if you cant walk away safely that is a different story.) as for immunities, i dont really know enough to make an informed opinion. i think the defendant should have to prove their self defense theory in a court of law. anything that takes it away from the jury, i dont really like. So we were in agreement at a conceptual level the whole time? You just HAD to pick at every tiny error in my posts? You certainly quelled any possible doubts I had as to whether or not you are actually a lawyer!! - :D sorry. occupational hazard. =( at the beginning i thought he was most likely guilty, but was holding judgment until i heard from him. after i learned about the "John" testimony, i was less convinced of his guilt, but still felt there was enough for him to be arrested. "john" who won't allow his name or face to be released? I don't give much to it. I just don't buy 140 lb martin who was on the phone w/ his gf, terrified, would be able to somehow overcome and end up pummeling a 240lb armed man who was actively pursuing him. I don't buy it. For all I know "john" is Zimmerman's buddy, or father, or a Sanford Cop, or a Schizophrenic. At the end of the day, I just want his story (that I think is Bullshit) brought before a jury of his peers. Not swept under the rug and covered up. Police and DAs are paid by my tax dollars to prevent and investigate crime, not cover it up. I don't buy that Martin was 140lbs, the man was 6'2/6'3 and while skinny had some tone on him and is an athletic football player, going off his facebook pictures, I would put him closer to 165-170lbs. While Zimmermann is an nonathletic 5'2/5'3 and is obese at 240lbs. In a fight my money would be on Martin 10 out of 10 times. Martin would have a massive advantage in reach for striking and with his football background I think it's safe to say he has some experience in how to tackle bigger men. Something big is missing here, cause there is no way in hell Zimmermann could have chased down Martin if he attempted to run.
I think the police reports put Martin at 160 and Zimmerman as 5'9 , which is much more believable for his 240 pounds. According to the girlfriend of Martin, she told him to run, but he instead just walked faster and didn't run.
|
On March 25 2012 09:57 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:53 NotSorry wrote:On March 25 2012 09:23 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:09 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:00 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 08:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 08:31 stokes17 wrote:And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with: . + Show Spoiler +776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler +(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself" Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you meet the requirements of the self-defense statute (.013(3) and .012)), you are immune from arrest/prosecution. That appears to be a correct reading of the statutes. However, there is nothing saying that the police have to take your word for it. If the police do not believe your story and they have probable cause that you committed an unjustified killing irrespective of your claim of self defense, they can still arrest you and try you in court. I think the main effect of this statute is putting the burden on the prosecution to come up with evidence of an unjustified killing before they arrest you, rather than arresting you first (after sufficient evidence of a killing) and then having you defend yourself in court (i.e., an affirmative defense of self-defense that you have to prove). I have to caveat this though, because in California this isn’t how it works, so this is news to me. Seems to me like the law is allowing the police to pick and choose which murders they want to bother investigating. Because imo Zimmerman's story was pretty weak (complete shit) and the police took his word for it. Do you support such a statute? and if so could you explain to me why it isn't as awful as I believe it to be. (assuming you aren't a person who supports awful things ^^) I simply don't see how it serves justice. MAYBE in a home invasion situation only would I want to give a person the amount of protection granted by the Florida SYG law. But if you kill someone in public, I certainly think its on you to defend your actions. i still think there was enough to arrest him despite his claim of self defense. i do not support statutes that dont require you to retreat. you should always be required to retreat if you can safely do so. i dont give a fuck if your ego is hurt, which is what these laws protect in my opinion. walk away, call the police and have them arrested for assault, battery, whatever they did. (of course, if you cant walk away safely that is a different story.) as for immunities, i dont really know enough to make an informed opinion. i think the defendant should have to prove their self defense theory in a court of law. anything that takes it away from the jury, i dont really like. So we were in agreement at a conceptual level the whole time? You just HAD to pick at every tiny error in my posts? You certainly quelled any possible doubts I had as to whether or not you are actually a lawyer!! - :D sorry. occupational hazard. =( at the beginning i thought he was most likely guilty, but was holding judgment until i heard from him. after i learned about the "John" testimony, i was less convinced of his guilt, but still felt there was enough for him to be arrested. "john" who won't allow his name or face to be released? I don't give much to it. I just don't buy 140 lb martin who was on the phone w/ his gf, terrified, would be able to somehow overcome and end up pummeling a 240lb armed man who was actively pursuing him. I don't buy it. For all I know "john" is Zimmerman's buddy, or father, or a Sanford Cop, or a Schizophrenic. At the end of the day, I just want his story (that I think is Bullshit) brought before a jury of his peers. Not swept under the rug and covered up. Police and DAs are paid by my tax dollars to prevent and investigate crime, not cover it up. I don't buy that Martin was 140lbs, the man was 6'2/6'3 and while skinny had some tone on him and is an athletic football player, going off his facebook pictures, I would put him closer to 165-170lbs. While Zimmermann is an nonathletic 5'2/5'3 and is obese at 240lbs. In a fight my money would be on Martin 10 out of 10 times. Martin would have a massive advantage in reach for striking and with his football background I think it's safe to say he has some experience in how to tackle bigger men. Something big is missing here, cause there is no way in hell Zimmermann could have chased down Martin if he attempted to run. I think the police reports put Martin at 160 and Zimmerman as 5'9 , which is much more believable for his 240 pounds. According to the girlfriend of Martin, she told him to run, but he instead just walked faster and didn't run.
Okay, haven't been able to find any full body pics of Zimmermann so was going off of someone else's post.
Still the reach advantage in a fight would have been massive.
|
On March 25 2012 09:51 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:48 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:46 screamingpalm wrote:On March 25 2012 09:40 Defacer wrote:On March 25 2012 09:39 screamingpalm wrote:What I think? Sounds very similar to this garbage: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/23/10830530-geraldo-rivera-blames-hoodie-for-trayvons-death-critics-tell-him-to-zip-it-up?GT1=43001People always try to tell me; we live in a different age, times have changed, etc- even just from when I was a kid. The truth is: BULLSHIT... human nature hasn't (especially American culture which de-humanizes groups of people because of race). I couldn't imagine being black and having to make exceptions/ live in this type of fear and profiling. You can be damn sure that the prison camps that Japanese Americans were subjected to would be alive today for Arab Americans if not for technology and the ability to spy on individuals. So, your basically agreeing that its true but it fucking sucks? The important thing is that the masses don't get too complacent with fascism and just suck it up. Are you comparing Toure's article to Rivera's comments? Or saying Riveras' comments are an example of what Toure was talking about? I completely agree with the second interpretation (it was fucking raining Geraldo. gtfo) I feel like both go [unneccessarily] out of the way to act as an apologist to racism/fascism.
I think Toure just wants to stop seeing innocent black men dead. If that means he has to accept racism as a fact of life, then at least in his opinion (it seems) life with racism> death. I'd say it is a realist view over an apologist.
|
On March 25 2012 10:03 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:51 screamingpalm wrote:On March 25 2012 09:48 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:46 screamingpalm wrote:On March 25 2012 09:40 Defacer wrote:On March 25 2012 09:39 screamingpalm wrote:What I think? Sounds very similar to this garbage: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/23/10830530-geraldo-rivera-blames-hoodie-for-trayvons-death-critics-tell-him-to-zip-it-up?GT1=43001People always try to tell me; we live in a different age, times have changed, etc- even just from when I was a kid. The truth is: BULLSHIT... human nature hasn't (especially American culture which de-humanizes groups of people because of race). I couldn't imagine being black and having to make exceptions/ live in this type of fear and profiling. You can be damn sure that the prison camps that Japanese Americans were subjected to would be alive today for Arab Americans if not for technology and the ability to spy on individuals. So, your basically agreeing that its true but it fucking sucks? The important thing is that the masses don't get too complacent with fascism and just suck it up. Are you comparing Toure's article to Rivera's comments? Or saying Riveras' comments are an example of what Toure was talking about? I completely agree with the second interpretation (it was fucking raining Geraldo. gtfo) I feel like both go [unneccessarily] out of the way to act as an apologist to racism/fascism. I think Toure just wants to stop seeing innocent black men dead. If that means he has to accept racism as a fact of life, then at least in his opinion (it seems) life with racism> death. I'd say it is a realist view over an apologist.
True, it is certainly a pragmatic view> idealist view. I for one, could never live like that in those shoes and can't expect anyone else to. It feels like an attempt to quell an anger that is justified (in my opinion). And just like in every other aspect of American society, does more harm than good.
|
On March 25 2012 10:00 NotSorry wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:57 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 25 2012 09:53 NotSorry wrote:On March 25 2012 09:23 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:09 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:00 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 08:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 08:31 stokes17 wrote:And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with: . + Show Spoiler +776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler +(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself" Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you meet the requirements of the self-defense statute (.013(3) and .012)), you are immune from arrest/prosecution. That appears to be a correct reading of the statutes. However, there is nothing saying that the police have to take your word for it. If the police do not believe your story and they have probable cause that you committed an unjustified killing irrespective of your claim of self defense, they can still arrest you and try you in court. I think the main effect of this statute is putting the burden on the prosecution to come up with evidence of an unjustified killing before they arrest you, rather than arresting you first (after sufficient evidence of a killing) and then having you defend yourself in court (i.e., an affirmative defense of self-defense that you have to prove). I have to caveat this though, because in California this isn’t how it works, so this is news to me. Seems to me like the law is allowing the police to pick and choose which murders they want to bother investigating. Because imo Zimmerman's story was pretty weak (complete shit) and the police took his word for it. Do you support such a statute? and if so could you explain to me why it isn't as awful as I believe it to be. (assuming you aren't a person who supports awful things ^^) I simply don't see how it serves justice. MAYBE in a home invasion situation only would I want to give a person the amount of protection granted by the Florida SYG law. But if you kill someone in public, I certainly think its on you to defend your actions. i still think there was enough to arrest him despite his claim of self defense. i do not support statutes that dont require you to retreat. you should always be required to retreat if you can safely do so. i dont give a fuck if your ego is hurt, which is what these laws protect in my opinion. walk away, call the police and have them arrested for assault, battery, whatever they did. (of course, if you cant walk away safely that is a different story.) as for immunities, i dont really know enough to make an informed opinion. i think the defendant should have to prove their self defense theory in a court of law. anything that takes it away from the jury, i dont really like. So we were in agreement at a conceptual level the whole time? You just HAD to pick at every tiny error in my posts? You certainly quelled any possible doubts I had as to whether or not you are actually a lawyer!! - :D sorry. occupational hazard. =( at the beginning i thought he was most likely guilty, but was holding judgment until i heard from him. after i learned about the "John" testimony, i was less convinced of his guilt, but still felt there was enough for him to be arrested. "john" who won't allow his name or face to be released? I don't give much to it. I just don't buy 140 lb martin who was on the phone w/ his gf, terrified, would be able to somehow overcome and end up pummeling a 240lb armed man who was actively pursuing him. I don't buy it. For all I know "john" is Zimmerman's buddy, or father, or a Sanford Cop, or a Schizophrenic. At the end of the day, I just want his story (that I think is Bullshit) brought before a jury of his peers. Not swept under the rug and covered up. Police and DAs are paid by my tax dollars to prevent and investigate crime, not cover it up. I don't buy that Martin was 140lbs, the man was 6'2/6'3 and while skinny had some tone on him and is an athletic football player, going off his facebook pictures, I would put him closer to 165-170lbs. While Zimmermann is an nonathletic 5'2/5'3 and is obese at 240lbs. In a fight my money would be on Martin 10 out of 10 times. Martin would have a massive advantage in reach for striking and with his football background I think it's safe to say he has some experience in how to tackle bigger men. Something big is missing here, cause there is no way in hell Zimmermann could have chased down Martin if he attempted to run. I think the police reports put Martin at 160 and Zimmerman as 5'9 , which is much more believable for his 240 pounds. According to the girlfriend of Martin, she told him to run, but he instead just walked faster and didn't run. Okay, haven't been able to find any full body pics of Zimmermann so was going off of someone else's post. Still the reach advantage in a fight would have been massive.
It doesn't matter if Martin had some sort of advantage in a fight. Picking a fight with an unarmed kid then shooting him once he beats you up is still murder. Still warrants an arrest and a day in court.
All I was trying to say was that Zimmerman's story is not iron clad and deserves scrutiny in a court of law. Something the Sanford PD in conjuncture with the SYG law prevented.
|
On March 25 2012 10:07 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 10:00 NotSorry wrote:On March 25 2012 09:57 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 25 2012 09:53 NotSorry wrote:On March 25 2012 09:23 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:09 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:00 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 08:51 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you meet the requirements of the self-defense statute (.013(3) and .012)), you are immune from arrest/prosecution. That appears to be a correct reading of the statutes.
However, there is nothing saying that the police have to take your word for it. If the police do not believe your story and they have probable cause that you committed an unjustified killing irrespective of your claim of self defense, they can still arrest you and try you in court. I think the main effect of this statute is putting the burden on the prosecution to come up with evidence of an unjustified killing before they arrest you, rather than arresting you first (after sufficient evidence of a killing) and then having you defend yourself in court (i.e., an affirmative defense of self-defense that you have to prove).
I have to caveat this though, because in California this isn’t how it works, so this is news to me.
Seems to me like the law is allowing the police to pick and choose which murders they want to bother investigating. Because imo Zimmerman's story was pretty weak (complete shit) and the police took his word for it. Do you support such a statute? and if so could you explain to me why it isn't as awful as I believe it to be. (assuming you aren't a person who supports awful things ^^) I simply don't see how it serves justice. MAYBE in a home invasion situation only would I want to give a person the amount of protection granted by the Florida SYG law. But if you kill someone in public, I certainly think its on you to defend your actions. i still think there was enough to arrest him despite his claim of self defense. i do not support statutes that dont require you to retreat. you should always be required to retreat if you can safely do so. i dont give a fuck if your ego is hurt, which is what these laws protect in my opinion. walk away, call the police and have them arrested for assault, battery, whatever they did. (of course, if you cant walk away safely that is a different story.) as for immunities, i dont really know enough to make an informed opinion. i think the defendant should have to prove their self defense theory in a court of law. anything that takes it away from the jury, i dont really like. So we were in agreement at a conceptual level the whole time? You just HAD to pick at every tiny error in my posts? You certainly quelled any possible doubts I had as to whether or not you are actually a lawyer!! - :D sorry. occupational hazard. =( at the beginning i thought he was most likely guilty, but was holding judgment until i heard from him. after i learned about the "John" testimony, i was less convinced of his guilt, but still felt there was enough for him to be arrested. "john" who won't allow his name or face to be released? I don't give much to it. I just don't buy 140 lb martin who was on the phone w/ his gf, terrified, would be able to somehow overcome and end up pummeling a 240lb armed man who was actively pursuing him. I don't buy it. For all I know "john" is Zimmerman's buddy, or father, or a Sanford Cop, or a Schizophrenic. At the end of the day, I just want his story (that I think is Bullshit) brought before a jury of his peers. Not swept under the rug and covered up. Police and DAs are paid by my tax dollars to prevent and investigate crime, not cover it up. I don't buy that Martin was 140lbs, the man was 6'2/6'3 and while skinny had some tone on him and is an athletic football player, going off his facebook pictures, I would put him closer to 165-170lbs. While Zimmermann is an nonathletic 5'2/5'3 and is obese at 240lbs. In a fight my money would be on Martin 10 out of 10 times. Martin would have a massive advantage in reach for striking and with his football background I think it's safe to say he has some experience in how to tackle bigger men. Something big is missing here, cause there is no way in hell Zimmermann could have chased down Martin if he attempted to run. I think the police reports put Martin at 160 and Zimmerman as 5'9 , which is much more believable for his 240 pounds. According to the girlfriend of Martin, she told him to run, but he instead just walked faster and didn't run. Okay, haven't been able to find any full body pics of Zimmermann so was going off of someone else's post. Still the reach advantage in a fight would have been massive. It doesn't matter if Martin had some sort of advantage in a fight. Picking a fight with an unarmed kid then shooting him once he beats you up is still murder. Still warrants an arrest and a day in court. All I was trying to say was that Zimmerman's story is not iron clad and deserves scrutiny in a court of law. Something the Sanford PD in conjuncture with the SYG law prevented. The issue is we still have no way of knowing how the fight started. He is well in his rights to ask him what he is doing or keeping an eye on him til police arrive. You're making it sound like him jumped out of his truck with gun drawn then picked a fight then after losing shot him in cold blood.
|
You don't need an iron-clad story. You only need a reasonable doubt.
|
On March 25 2012 10:10 NotSorry wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 10:07 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 10:00 NotSorry wrote:On March 25 2012 09:57 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 25 2012 09:53 NotSorry wrote:On March 25 2012 09:23 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:09 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:00 stokes17 wrote:
[quote]
Seems to me like the law is allowing the police to pick and choose which murders they want to bother investigating. Because imo Zimmerman's story was pretty weak (complete shit) and the police took his word for it.
Do you support such a statute? and if so could you explain to me why it isn't as awful as I believe it to be. (assuming you aren't a person who supports awful things ^^)
I simply don't see how it serves justice. MAYBE in a home invasion situation only would I want to give a person the amount of protection granted by the Florida SYG law. But if you kill someone in public, I certainly think its on you to defend your actions. i still think there was enough to arrest him despite his claim of self defense. i do not support statutes that dont require you to retreat. you should always be required to retreat if you can safely do so. i dont give a fuck if your ego is hurt, which is what these laws protect in my opinion. walk away, call the police and have them arrested for assault, battery, whatever they did. (of course, if you cant walk away safely that is a different story.) as for immunities, i dont really know enough to make an informed opinion. i think the defendant should have to prove their self defense theory in a court of law. anything that takes it away from the jury, i dont really like. So we were in agreement at a conceptual level the whole time? You just HAD to pick at every tiny error in my posts? You certainly quelled any possible doubts I had as to whether or not you are actually a lawyer!! - :D sorry. occupational hazard. =( at the beginning i thought he was most likely guilty, but was holding judgment until i heard from him. after i learned about the "John" testimony, i was less convinced of his guilt, but still felt there was enough for him to be arrested. "john" who won't allow his name or face to be released? I don't give much to it. I just don't buy 140 lb martin who was on the phone w/ his gf, terrified, would be able to somehow overcome and end up pummeling a 240lb armed man who was actively pursuing him. I don't buy it. For all I know "john" is Zimmerman's buddy, or father, or a Sanford Cop, or a Schizophrenic. At the end of the day, I just want his story (that I think is Bullshit) brought before a jury of his peers. Not swept under the rug and covered up. Police and DAs are paid by my tax dollars to prevent and investigate crime, not cover it up. I don't buy that Martin was 140lbs, the man was 6'2/6'3 and while skinny had some tone on him and is an athletic football player, going off his facebook pictures, I would put him closer to 165-170lbs. While Zimmermann is an nonathletic 5'2/5'3 and is obese at 240lbs. In a fight my money would be on Martin 10 out of 10 times. Martin would have a massive advantage in reach for striking and with his football background I think it's safe to say he has some experience in how to tackle bigger men. Something big is missing here, cause there is no way in hell Zimmermann could have chased down Martin if he attempted to run. I think the police reports put Martin at 160 and Zimmerman as 5'9 , which is much more believable for his 240 pounds. According to the girlfriend of Martin, she told him to run, but he instead just walked faster and didn't run. Okay, haven't been able to find any full body pics of Zimmermann so was going off of someone else's post. Still the reach advantage in a fight would have been massive. It doesn't matter if Martin had some sort of advantage in a fight. Picking a fight with an unarmed kid then shooting him once he beats you up is still murder. Still warrants an arrest and a day in court. All I was trying to say was that Zimmerman's story is not iron clad and deserves scrutiny in a court of law. Something the Sanford PD in conjuncture with the SYG law prevented. The issue is we still have no way of knowing how the fight started. He is well in his rights to ask him what he is doing or keeping an eye on him til police arrive. You're making it sound like him jumped out of his truck with gun drawn then picked a fight then after losing shot him in cold blood.
The fucking guy was told not to pursue. That is enough for me- there should be some measure of responsibility that falls on the jackass if he ignores the 9-11 operator's advice and takes matters into his own hands like some Fox News Hero.
|
Being told, "you don't need to do that sir" isn't the same as being told not to, he was well with in his rights to do so
Your opinion of what "should be" isn't what the law operates on. Now if there was a law that says you must always follow polite suggestions from an operator then you would be right.
|
On March 25 2012 10:27 NotSorry wrote:
Being told, "you don't need to do that sir" isn't the same as being told not to, he was well with in his rights to do so
Yeah, he didn't need to. But he felt compelled to. Why? Showing a little restraint and humility would have prevented the whole mess in the first place. Yeah, it's not illegal (ie. within his rights) to do so but certainly not a display of good judgement. We have to always consider the responsibility against rights, especially when it can infringe on someone else's rights. The kid was well within his rights to walk around the neighbourhood.
Ultimately, innocent or not, that is some massive incompetence to let the situation turn into a fist fight.
Two things happened, he either started the fight or he didn't. But without a doubt, he caused the fight by unnecessarily following the kid for simply 'looking' suspicious. Not behaving in a way that would rouse suspicion, like climbing over someone's fence or peering into someone else' home, etc. Just walking around. Great detective work there.
/edit
How do you 'look' suspicious if you are a young, black male? Apparently, you walk to the store to buy some candy. :S
|
On March 25 2012 10:27 NotSorry wrote:
Being told, "you don't need to do that sir" isn't the same as being told not to, he was well with in his rights to do so
Your opinion of what "should be" isn't what the law operates on. Now if there was a law that says you must always follow polite suggestions from an operator then you would be right.
Lawful doesn't mean right. Whether he was within his rights to go looking for trouble is not the point. Not his job... he's not Judge Dredd.
I could give two shits what the law says.
|
|
|
On March 25 2012 09:52 Chessz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:48 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:46 screamingpalm wrote:On March 25 2012 09:40 Defacer wrote:On March 25 2012 09:39 screamingpalm wrote:What I think? Sounds very similar to this garbage: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/23/10830530-geraldo-rivera-blames-hoodie-for-trayvons-death-critics-tell-him-to-zip-it-up?GT1=43001People always try to tell me; we live in a different age, times have changed, etc- even just from when I was a kid. The truth is: BULLSHIT... human nature hasn't (especially American culture which de-humanizes groups of people because of race). I couldn't imagine being black and having to make exceptions/ live in this type of fear and profiling. You can be damn sure that the prison camps that Japanese Americans were subjected to would be alive today for Arab Americans if not for technology and the ability to spy on individuals. So, your basically agreeing that its true but it fucking sucks? The important thing is that the masses don't get too complacent with fascism and just suck it up. Are you comparing Toure's article to Rivera's comments? Or saying Riveras' comments are an example of what Toure was talking about? I completely agree with the second interpretation (it was fucking raining Geraldo. gtfo) agreed with the latter. I almost feel like Rivera is a victim to the same racial stereotyping he's trying to somehow combat. I'm white and I wear a hoodie all the time, I felt like tweeting him a pic of me saying "do I look suspicious? no? so basically hoodies look suspicious only if you're black. so basically you affirm being black leads to suspicion. im sure minority moms appreciate it.. right"
This reminds me of a funny thing that happened to me during my university years.
First off, I'm 5'7, Chinese. At the time, I was skinny, 120 pounds.
During college, I was living in a pretty shitty neighborhood. Not the ghetto, but there were your fair share of drug dealers, addicts wandering around, etc.
I was walking to 7/11 late at night, wearing a big hoodie I had gotten at a thrift store. I noticed that a car was slowly following me. Eventually it pulled up beside me. Inside, there was an older white guy, probably in his 50's. Rather than run, I decided to approach the car, because hey -- maybe he's lost and needs directions. I figured I could bolt anyways.
The man rolls down the window, and asks, "Are you looking for a friend?"
I wasn't sure at first what-the-fuck he meant, but I said, "No, I'm getting a slushie from 7/11."
The man was annoyed. "Well, you look like you are."
And he sped off.
So I learned my lesson. Apparently wearing a hoodie in the middle of the night makes me look like a crack addict or male prostitute. That's my Trayvon moment and I never wore that hoodie again.
|
Yea that sounds like a pretty bullshit suit there
|
Sounds pretty reasonable to me that the strata would be responsible for the actions of the idiot neighborhood watchman but once again the two disgusting apologists in this thread will bury the truth will bullshit and hearsay
User was warned for this post
|
On March 25 2012 10:37 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:52 Chessz wrote:On March 25 2012 09:48 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 09:46 screamingpalm wrote:On March 25 2012 09:40 Defacer wrote:On March 25 2012 09:39 screamingpalm wrote:What I think? Sounds very similar to this garbage: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/23/10830530-geraldo-rivera-blames-hoodie-for-trayvons-death-critics-tell-him-to-zip-it-up?GT1=43001People always try to tell me; we live in a different age, times have changed, etc- even just from when I was a kid. The truth is: BULLSHIT... human nature hasn't (especially American culture which de-humanizes groups of people because of race). I couldn't imagine being black and having to make exceptions/ live in this type of fear and profiling. You can be damn sure that the prison camps that Japanese Americans were subjected to would be alive today for Arab Americans if not for technology and the ability to spy on individuals. So, your basically agreeing that its true but it fucking sucks? The important thing is that the masses don't get too complacent with fascism and just suck it up. Are you comparing Toure's article to Rivera's comments? Or saying Riveras' comments are an example of what Toure was talking about? I completely agree with the second interpretation (it was fucking raining Geraldo. gtfo) agreed with the latter. I almost feel like Rivera is a victim to the same racial stereotyping he's trying to somehow combat. I'm white and I wear a hoodie all the time, I felt like tweeting him a pic of me saying "do I look suspicious? no? so basically hoodies look suspicious only if you're black. so basically you affirm being black leads to suspicion. im sure minority moms appreciate it.. right" This reminds me of a funny thing that happened to me during my university years. First off, I'm 5'7, Chinese. At the time, I was skinny, 120 pounds. During college, I was living in a pretty shitty neighborhood. Not the ghetto, but there were your fair share of drug dealers, addicts wandering around, etc. I was walking to 7/11 late at night, wearing a big hoodie I had gotten at a thrift store. I noticed that a car was slowly following me. Eventually it pulled up beside me. Inside, there was an older white guy, probably in his 50's. Rather than run, I decided to approach the car, because hey -- maybe he's lost and needs directions. I figured I could bolt anyways. The man rolls down he window, and asks, "Are you looking for a friend?"I wasn't sure at first what the fuck he meant, but I said, "No, I'm getting a slushie from 7/11." The man was annoyed. "Well, you look like you are." And he sped off. So I learned my lesson. Apparently wearing a hoodie in the middle of the night makes me look like a crack addict or male prostitute. That's my Trayvon moment and I never wore that hoodie again.
LOL nice 
I've been out at night with friends drinking and we were in a construction area down the hill away from town where I live in a pretty nice area in a pretty nice town with pretty much no homeless (only 2 of them...) barely any crime in the city and the only drug dealing is weed and weed is every where in bc anyway and most dealers are pretty cool lol. There was 5 of us just hanging out having a few beers and some huge truck rolled up on top of the hill and threw on its high beams on us. (Keep in mind this is after a string of kids getting the shit kicked out of them by brown kids in the bad part of Surey so we were a bit paranoid) and we started to walk down this path through a little forest between the streets and the truck hauled ass to the other side of the path and people started piling out of the truck and running at with bats and boards and shit so we turned around and ran away as fast as we could and got into a town house complex with the them running after us. Once we got in there they stopped and went back to the truck and drove off... Needless to say we got a buddy to come get us we stopped going down there :/. Another time on Halloween we were in a school yard and some guy drove up and ran at us with a bat... Another time some kid came up to us and told us to give him all the money we had and we just told him no money brah and we walked off when we called the non emergency number and the cops found him the guy maced one of the cops in the face. I find cars slowly rolling by at night something to be watched and be scared of.
I can totally understand if Martin thought something similar (strange car following, at night, alone, etc) was going down and Zimmerman being aggressive even more defensivly when he walked up and shit went from there. No one one will know what actually happened that night except Zimmerman and Martin and dead men don't talk unless a witness comes from no where.
I'm more angry about how the police fucked the investigation and made any trial much harder by doing their job so fucking poorly. Some shake ups need to be done with the police it's getting to a point where being a shitty cop is fine and getting a cop convicted is so much harder because they are all "brothers". The self defence course in BC always ends with the Instructor forcing the Officers to sign a waiver that basically says he is not responsible if the officer is harmed and do a really shitty job of training them and the Police dont even need to do well in the course to get through. So lots of cops in BC at least don't how to do anything but taze and shoot people who resist like the polish man who died in YVR. One of the cops who was involved in that btw got into a serious accident while driving drunk and then went home and did a bunch of shots of booze so he couldnt be charged with the more severe drunk driving laws. The mens requirements to get in like stamina, strength, etc etc all got lowered when womens standards were implemented and men bitched about them being lower. It really is a shame that the bad apples make the good cops look so bad.
|
Seems they changed attorneys too. Beforehand it was Crump, now this article says Parks is their attorney. Maybe the civil case has something to do with Zimmerman not being an official neighborhood watchman. It does sound like it's probably a bullshit suit though.
|
On March 25 2012 11:03 tokicheese wrote:
I'm more angry about how the police fucked the investigation and made any trial much harder by doing their job so fucking poorly. Some shake ups need to be done with the police it's getting to a point where being a shitty cop is fine and getting a cop convicted is so much harder because they are all "brothers". The self defence course in BC always ends with the Instructor forcing the Officers to sign a waiver that basically says he is not responsible if the officer is harmed and do a really shitty job of training them and the Police dont even need to do well in the course to get through. So lots of cops in BC at least don't how to do anything but taze and shoot people who resist like the polish man who died in YVR. One of the cops who was involved in that btw got into a serious accident while driving drunk and then went home and did a bunch of shots of booze so he couldnt be charged with the more severe drunk driving laws. The mens requirements to get in like stamina, strength, etc etc all got lowered when womens standards were implemented and men bitched about them being lower. It really is a shame that the bad apples make the good cops look so bad.
I agree, it's the way the Florida police handled their investigation that bothers me the most.
That's fucking hilarious, the area I was living in was around Broadway and Fraser in Vancouver.
It was the RCMP that tazed that poor Polish dude. But yeah, the BC police force is a joke. Don't start reading about how the police botched the Pickton investigation, it will just make you sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
