|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 13 2013 00:31 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 00:13 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2013 00:03 zbedlam wrote:On July 13 2013 00:00 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 23:57 Sermokala wrote:On July 12 2013 23:50 ConGee wrote:On July 12 2013 23:48 aksfjh wrote:On July 12 2013 23:34 ZasZ. wrote:On July 12 2013 23:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2013 23:20 Cheerio wrote:
[quote]when a normal kid is being followed 30 yards away from "home" he doesn't hide in the neighbours bushes, he runs home.
How many "normal kids" do you know that are suspiciously followed by an unannounced person who gets out of their car to chase them? It happened to me walking to school (7th-8th grade) once. Pretty sure it was a pedophile, but my walking route was a pretty public street so I just made sure to walk fast. There are many reasons that Trayvon could assume Zimmerman was following him for, and many people are right in that most of them are malicious in nature. But I don't buy the "he didn't want to lead him to his house" argument. For all intents and purposes, in these situations, you are safe once you reach your destination and get off the street. If Trayvon had just hurried home, he would have been fine. I have no doubt that it was the confrontational, alpha male personality that came to light through the data found on his phone that ultimately led to his death that night, so if people are going to try to hold Zimmerman accountable for shooting him, they need to understand that Trayvon was equally accountable for putting himself in a position where he needed to be shot. WTF man? So certain personality types just need a good shooting to set them straight, or what? Certainly you can't be serious. He proceeded to pound Zimmerman's face into the concrete for a least 40 seconds. If pounding someone's face into concrete for forty seconds isn't opening yourself up to the use of deadly force, I don't know what is. I would say He could use a good tazeing for what he did but theres no reason why anyone deserves to die for being a huge dick. I think all of us can agree it would have been a much different and better situation if any "neighborhood watch" people carry tazers instead of a potential murder weapon. This is what I was trying to say earlier in the thread but got laughed off for being a pansy/delusional. Carrying a gun as a neighborhood watch is kinda overkill. Especially since in a lot of countries the police themselves don't even carry guns. And in America, neighborhood watches certainly don't carry guns themselves. Or follow criminals on foot for that matter. But yeah smashing someone's head into the pavement is a bit more aggressive than simple dickishness. A much better alternative would be not allowing people incapable of defending themselves from an unarmed assailant to go around following potential criminals late at night. Actually better yet, civilians shouldn't be following people around late at night full stop, at least police are well marked AND trained to deal with these kind of encounters. How would you enforce this mythical laws you are talking about? What if I follow someone and prevent a crime without the use of violence? Should I be charged with a crime because I prevented one? This sort of mythical legal-crafting forgets you need to enforce the laws after you write them and make sure they don't do more harm than good. Stalking is considered harassment and intimidation, reporting someone for following you would warrant a response - odds are it would only be a warning if this was your first offense. So following people is already a crime? I don't follow you. All I'm trying to say is, if someone wants to play local police they should be trained to do so, that way they don't have to shoot the first person that fights them. If you follow someone and prevented a crime without the use of violence, odds are you would be considered a hero. However if you are going to go out and specifically look for potential criminals, you should be a cop or at least clearly marked so the person you are following doesn't view it as an act of aggression.
For the record, in terms of this case, what George did wasn't stalking but just following. Stalking is a constant action, so I guess if he kept following him for a long period of time and on many occasions then its stalking. I doubt that's what you were talking about but just a mention.
|
Absolutely excellent point by O'Mara about sympathy in the court room. Couldn't have done that part better imo. Also, he seems a lot more authentic than the prosecutor.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 13 2013 00:33 On_Slaught wrote:
Absolutely excellent point by O'Mara about sympathy in the court room. Couldn't have done that part better imo. Also, he seems a lot more authentic than the prosecutor.
Prosecutor was using intimidation to get them to vote guilty while O'Mara is using facts and at least raising a lot of good points about the wholes of the prosecution's case etc...
|
On July 13 2013 00:33 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 00:31 zbedlam wrote:On July 13 2013 00:13 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2013 00:03 zbedlam wrote:On July 13 2013 00:00 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 23:57 Sermokala wrote:On July 12 2013 23:50 ConGee wrote:On July 12 2013 23:48 aksfjh wrote:On July 12 2013 23:34 ZasZ. wrote:On July 12 2013 23:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
How many "normal kids" do you know that are suspiciously followed by an unannounced person who gets out of their car to chase them? It happened to me walking to school (7th-8th grade) once. Pretty sure it was a pedophile, but my walking route was a pretty public street so I just made sure to walk fast. There are many reasons that Trayvon could assume Zimmerman was following him for, and many people are right in that most of them are malicious in nature. But I don't buy the "he didn't want to lead him to his house" argument. For all intents and purposes, in these situations, you are safe once you reach your destination and get off the street. If Trayvon had just hurried home, he would have been fine. I have no doubt that it was the confrontational, alpha male personality that came to light through the data found on his phone that ultimately led to his death that night, so if people are going to try to hold Zimmerman accountable for shooting him, they need to understand that Trayvon was equally accountable for putting himself in a position where he needed to be shot. WTF man? So certain personality types just need a good shooting to set them straight, or what? Certainly you can't be serious. He proceeded to pound Zimmerman's face into the concrete for a least 40 seconds. If pounding someone's face into concrete for forty seconds isn't opening yourself up to the use of deadly force, I don't know what is. I would say He could use a good tazeing for what he did but theres no reason why anyone deserves to die for being a huge dick. I think all of us can agree it would have been a much different and better situation if any "neighborhood watch" people carry tazers instead of a potential murder weapon. This is what I was trying to say earlier in the thread but got laughed off for being a pansy/delusional. Carrying a gun as a neighborhood watch is kinda overkill. Especially since in a lot of countries the police themselves don't even carry guns. And in America, neighborhood watches certainly don't carry guns themselves. Or follow criminals on foot for that matter. But yeah smashing someone's head into the pavement is a bit more aggressive than simple dickishness. A much better alternative would be not allowing people incapable of defending themselves from an unarmed assailant to go around following potential criminals late at night. Actually better yet, civilians shouldn't be following people around late at night full stop, at least police are well marked AND trained to deal with these kind of encounters. How would you enforce this mythical laws you are talking about? What if I follow someone and prevent a crime without the use of violence? Should I be charged with a crime because I prevented one? This sort of mythical legal-crafting forgets you need to enforce the laws after you write them and make sure they don't do more harm than good. Stalking is considered harassment and intimidation, reporting someone for following you would warrant a response - odds are it would only be a warning if this was your first offense. So following people is already a crime? I don't follow you. All I'm trying to say is, if someone wants to play local police they should be trained to do so, that way they don't have to shoot the first person that fights them. If you follow someone and prevented a crime without the use of violence, odds are you would be considered a hero. However if you are going to go out and specifically look for potential criminals, you should be a cop or at least clearly marked so the person you are following doesn't view it as an act of aggression. For the record, in terms of this case, what George did wasn't stalking but just following. Stalking is a constant action, so I guess if he kept following him for a long period of time and on many occasions then its stalking. I doubt that's what you were talking about but just a mention.
My apologies, technical inaccuracy there. Point still stands though, if you feel as though someone is following you with malicious intent, you have every right to call the police.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 13 2013 00:36 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 00:33 BigFan wrote:On July 13 2013 00:31 zbedlam wrote:On July 13 2013 00:13 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2013 00:03 zbedlam wrote:On July 13 2013 00:00 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 23:57 Sermokala wrote:On July 12 2013 23:50 ConGee wrote:On July 12 2013 23:48 aksfjh wrote:On July 12 2013 23:34 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
It happened to me walking to school (7th-8th grade) once. Pretty sure it was a pedophile, but my walking route was a pretty public street so I just made sure to walk fast. There are many reasons that Trayvon could assume Zimmerman was following him for, and many people are right in that most of them are malicious in nature. But I don't buy the "he didn't want to lead him to his house" argument. For all intents and purposes, in these situations, you are safe once you reach your destination and get off the street. If Trayvon had just hurried home, he would have been fine. I have no doubt that it was the confrontational, alpha male personality that came to light through the data found on his phone that ultimately led to his death that night, so if people are going to try to hold Zimmerman accountable for shooting him, they need to understand that Trayvon was equally accountable for putting himself in a position where he needed to be shot. WTF man? So certain personality types just need a good shooting to set them straight, or what? Certainly you can't be serious. He proceeded to pound Zimmerman's face into the concrete for a least 40 seconds. If pounding someone's face into concrete for forty seconds isn't opening yourself up to the use of deadly force, I don't know what is. I would say He could use a good tazeing for what he did but theres no reason why anyone deserves to die for being a huge dick. I think all of us can agree it would have been a much different and better situation if any "neighborhood watch" people carry tazers instead of a potential murder weapon. This is what I was trying to say earlier in the thread but got laughed off for being a pansy/delusional. Carrying a gun as a neighborhood watch is kinda overkill. Especially since in a lot of countries the police themselves don't even carry guns. And in America, neighborhood watches certainly don't carry guns themselves. Or follow criminals on foot for that matter. But yeah smashing someone's head into the pavement is a bit more aggressive than simple dickishness. A much better alternative would be not allowing people incapable of defending themselves from an unarmed assailant to go around following potential criminals late at night. Actually better yet, civilians shouldn't be following people around late at night full stop, at least police are well marked AND trained to deal with these kind of encounters. How would you enforce this mythical laws you are talking about? What if I follow someone and prevent a crime without the use of violence? Should I be charged with a crime because I prevented one? This sort of mythical legal-crafting forgets you need to enforce the laws after you write them and make sure they don't do more harm than good. Stalking is considered harassment and intimidation, reporting someone for following you would warrant a response - odds are it would only be a warning if this was your first offense. So following people is already a crime? I don't follow you. All I'm trying to say is, if someone wants to play local police they should be trained to do so, that way they don't have to shoot the first person that fights them. If you follow someone and prevented a crime without the use of violence, odds are you would be considered a hero. However if you are going to go out and specifically look for potential criminals, you should be a cop or at least clearly marked so the person you are following doesn't view it as an act of aggression. For the record, in terms of this case, what George did wasn't stalking but just following. Stalking is a constant action, so I guess if he kept following him for a long period of time and on many occasions then its stalking. I doubt that's what you were talking about but just a mention. My apologies, technical inaccuracy there. Point still stands though, if you feel as though someone is following you with malicious intent, you have every right to call the police.
no worries. I agree, you should call the police if you feel you are in harm's way.
|
Interesting, he said "following someone with the intention to report them to the police is legal." I am unclear if following someone without the intention of reporting their position to the police legal?
|
O'Mara calling out the prosecutor for relying on anger and emotion 
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 13 2013 00:42 On_Slaught wrote:
O'Mara calling out the prosecutor for relying on anger and emotion :o
haha it's great. I've never seen them mention it but they needed to imo and he did it perfectly!
wow, he actually got part of a sidewalk :O
|
I like that O'Mara is highlighting some of the rather 'questionable' ethical practices of the prosecution in this case. Not much different than what was discussed in this thread. Talking about the states lack of pursuit of justice, dramatics, and the fact they are doing things typically done by a defense attorney when they have the burden lol.
|
Saying that Trayvon was unarmed, and that the sidewalk wasn't a deadly weapon is "disgusting" while looking over a piece of concrete in the court room. Love it.
|
lmao @ the concrete.
This is pretty brutal for the prosecution.
|
On July 13 2013 00:44 On_Slaught wrote:
Saying that Trayvon was unarmed, and that the sidewalk wasn't a deadly weapon is "disgusting." Love it.
great line indeed.
|
I really want to see the prosecution's rebuttal now.
|
I never thought stuff like this could be interesting, but its actually just plain delicious.
|
O'Mara just told the jury how they can go home this afternoon if they want.
|
On July 13 2013 00:31 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 00:13 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2013 00:03 zbedlam wrote:On July 13 2013 00:00 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 23:57 Sermokala wrote:On July 12 2013 23:50 ConGee wrote:On July 12 2013 23:48 aksfjh wrote:On July 12 2013 23:34 ZasZ. wrote:On July 12 2013 23:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2013 23:20 Cheerio wrote:
[quote]when a normal kid is being followed 30 yards away from "home" he doesn't hide in the neighbours bushes, he runs home.
How many "normal kids" do you know that are suspiciously followed by an unannounced person who gets out of their car to chase them? It happened to me walking to school (7th-8th grade) once. Pretty sure it was a pedophile, but my walking route was a pretty public street so I just made sure to walk fast. There are many reasons that Trayvon could assume Zimmerman was following him for, and many people are right in that most of them are malicious in nature. But I don't buy the "he didn't want to lead him to his house" argument. For all intents and purposes, in these situations, you are safe once you reach your destination and get off the street. If Trayvon had just hurried home, he would have been fine. I have no doubt that it was the confrontational, alpha male personality that came to light through the data found on his phone that ultimately led to his death that night, so if people are going to try to hold Zimmerman accountable for shooting him, they need to understand that Trayvon was equally accountable for putting himself in a position where he needed to be shot. WTF man? So certain personality types just need a good shooting to set them straight, or what? Certainly you can't be serious. He proceeded to pound Zimmerman's face into the concrete for a least 40 seconds. If pounding someone's face into concrete for forty seconds isn't opening yourself up to the use of deadly force, I don't know what is. I would say He could use a good tazeing for what he did but theres no reason why anyone deserves to die for being a huge dick. I think all of us can agree it would have been a much different and better situation if any "neighborhood watch" people carry tazers instead of a potential murder weapon. This is what I was trying to say earlier in the thread but got laughed off for being a pansy/delusional. Carrying a gun as a neighborhood watch is kinda overkill. Especially since in a lot of countries the police themselves don't even carry guns. And in America, neighborhood watches certainly don't carry guns themselves. Or follow criminals on foot for that matter. But yeah smashing someone's head into the pavement is a bit more aggressive than simple dickishness. A much better alternative would be not allowing people incapable of defending themselves from an unarmed assailant to go around following potential criminals late at night. Actually better yet, civilians shouldn't be following people around late at night full stop, at least police are well marked AND trained to deal with these kind of encounters. How would you enforce this mythical laws you are talking about? What if I follow someone and prevent a crime without the use of violence? Should I be charged with a crime because I prevented one? This sort of mythical legal-crafting forgets you need to enforce the laws after you write them and make sure they don't do more harm than good. Stalking is considered harassment and intimidation, reporting someone for following you would warrant a response - odds are it would only be a warning if this was your first offense. So following people is already a crime? I don't follow you. All I'm trying to say is, if someone wants to play local police they should be trained to do so, that way they don't have to shoot the first person that fights them. If you follow someone and prevented a crime without the use of violence, odds are you would be considered a hero. However if you are going to go out and specifically look for potential criminals, you should be a cop or at least clearly marked so the person you are following doesn't view it as an act of aggression.
Everything you said is reasonable, but there is no way to reasonablely enforce such laws. What GZ was doing in this case was not stalking and having poor judgment is not illegal(it is cause for a civil action, but not a criminal offense).
I understand people's desire to try to stop the problem before it starts, but you can't make laws trying to stop poor judgment with stuff like this. The laws end up being overly broad and not specific enough for enforce or they end up prohibiting actions that would be helpful.
Sometimes we need to accept that we can't fix everything. We can't make laws trying to stop people with poor judgment from attempt to prevent crimes from happening, because we will also stop people with good judgment from preventing crimes.
|
Do you think the jury can go home before the weekend?
Give a nice weekend of rioting before we have to go back to work?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 13 2013 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
O'Mara just told the jury how they can go home this afternoon if they want.
lol he's right XD All they have to do is sit and talk for 30 minutes or so if there is enough evidence to convict him and if not, well, they are done. There is absolutely no way they can say 100% he killed him out of malice for 2nd degree imo.
|
I don't even think the jury will even consider 2nd degree murder. They will probably go straight to manslaughter and simply debate that.
|
On July 13 2013 00:50 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
O'Mara just told the jury how they can go home this afternoon if they want. lol he's right XD All they have to do is sit and talk for 30 minutes or so if there is enough evidence to convict him and if not, well, they are done. There is absolutely no way they can say 100% he killed him out of malice for 2nd degree imo.
i thought they dropped the 2nd degree murder for manslaughter? Is that bad info?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
