|
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. |
|
|
On July 14 2013 21:31 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 21:19 Brett wrote:On July 14 2013 18:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing. I never said it was an American thing. On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate. The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous. From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit. If you want to distill this incident down to 'Zimmerman followed and killed a person' whilst ignoring everything else that went on, you can expect people to be pretty uninterested in your opinion on the 'flakiness' of the system. If you have an argument with substance you're free to present one, but a "I don't agree with you, now let me project my feelings of turmoil by speaking for everyone else" isn't going to cut it. Show nested quote +Phone conversation with Standford Police:
Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes, they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and make a left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse.[Note 3, 3rd picture]
Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit, he's running.
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance...fucking [disputed/unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.
After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a violent encounter took place between Martin and Zimmerman, which ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin 70 yards (64 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying.
Perfect. Did it again. Here's the important part for you, extracted so you can concentrate on it:
whilst ignoring everything else that went on
|
On July 14 2013 20:51 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 14:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 13:35 KonekoTyriin wrote:
The verdict may be in accordance with the law, but if so then I disagree quite strongly with the law. From what I understand of the case:
Zimmerman shot Martin with a gun. Because there was no prior intent (probably) and it was in self defense (almost certainly), it's reasonable that he did not intend to kill Martin. This sounds like an open and shut manslaughter conviction- though if testimony had uncovered intent, it could have been murder.
You can get convicted of manslaughter for building a house incautiously if it results in the house falling and killing someone inside. No matter how little you wanted that person to die or how indirectly your actions led to their death, if you kill someone, you at LEAST get manslaughter.
I don't understand how Zimmerman could possibly walk completely free from this. It does not seem consistent with justice as I understand it. if you assume its not self defense then of course you cant understand it. the jury found it was self defense. This has been repeated all thread, and it irritates me. It's half a lie, really, or half a truth -- it's people talking about reasonable doubt when it comes to the verdict, but then using that verdict to make statements of a much more absolute nature... I got banned earlier arguing about this, and I can see people are just going to keep repeating it, even the lawyers... It was not proven to be self-defense -- rather nothing was proven at all. There is simply enough reasonable doubt to suggest it may have been self-defense. It is reasonable doubt that gave Zimmerman a "Not Guilty" verdict. It wasn't proof or evidence that let Zimmerman shoot an unarmed teenager without being convicted of a crime, it was the lack thereof -- and that is what disturbs people. Several times in this thread, more than I could care to count really, people have said that self-defense has somehow been "proven", or in this case, that "the jury found it was self-defense". That's not really true, though, is it? We don't know if this was self-defense, and the jury's decision does not say anything with certainty -- there is a reason they call it "not guilty" instead of "innocent". It's just a matter of not knowing. What this verdict says is that it simply MAY have been self-defense. That's enough to avoid murder, as well manslaughter charges to my surprise, but I still feel that Zimmerman's irresponsible behavior in pursuing somebody by himself, with a weapon, should carry at least some charge of negligence. Shooting an unarmed man under pretenses of self-defense is one thing, but when you admittedly were following this person, by yourself, and had all the time to wait for police or even a friend but didn't, then you're being reckless with people's lives. A lot of half-truths in this thread from all sides.
Well acutally The defense had much more evidence to prove it was self defense then Anyone expected. If you acutally watch the trial. alot of the expert witness testimony favored zimmermans story. At the beginning of the trial the proscution Had insisted that GZ was on top but by the end they pretty much conceded that trayvon was on top but were trying to show scenarios where George could still be the aggressor. So To say all the defense did was provide a reasonable doubt would be incorrect. They may not have 100 percent proven his innocents but they proved enough of it that I don't think he will even be held liable in civil court nor can u say he was lucky to be found not guilty
I would also like to add it is embarrassing to see organazations such as the NAACP saying they want the justice depart to investigate the trail to see why he was found not guilty. I think the state prosecutors and the judge did everything possible to make sure George Zimmerman and his defense would NOT get off easy. The judge was fair but I think ultimately sided against Zimmerman in every motion that could have went either way
|
On July 14 2013 21:37 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 21:31 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 21:19 Brett wrote:On July 14 2013 18:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing. I never said it was an American thing. On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate. The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous. From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit. If you want to distill this incident down to 'Zimmerman followed and killed a person' whilst ignoring everything else that went on, you can expect people to be pretty uninterested in your opinion on the 'flakiness' of the system. If you have an argument with substance you're free to present one, but a "I don't agree with you, now let me project my feelings of turmoil by speaking for everyone else" isn't going to cut it. Phone conversation with Standford Police:
Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes, they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and make a left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse.[Note 3, 3rd picture]
Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit, he's running.
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance...fucking [disputed/unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.
After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a violent encounter took place between Martin and Zimmerman, which ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin 70 yards (64 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying.
Perfect. Did it again. Here's the important part for you, extracted so you can concentrate on it: whilst ignoring everything else that went on
This claim is entirely unsubstantiated, and you've yet to make an argument that has a body and isn't a content-less blanket statement directed at me. If you have evidence that contradicts "Zimmerman chased Trayvon at night" then feel free to present it, but the transcripts are pretty clear.
|
On July 14 2013 17:08 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 17:03 Sabu113 wrote:
Reading facebook so disappointed by my college. Likewise. To be expected, given how much of the student body is idealistic political activists, but seeing graduates talk about how they hope to fight injustice like this once they get into the legal field makes me wonder what quality of education I'm actually supposed to be getting here. I'm not so much annoyed by them having a different view as the complete lack of factual knowledge about the case and blatant sensationalization of news reports/assumptions they use.
These are smart people. They're being fucking intellectually lazy. They should feel bad because they can do better. Pisses me off. Can't yell at them either because racial things are hugely moral issues that people cannot cooly think about.
|
On July 14 2013 21:41 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 21:37 Brett wrote:On July 14 2013 21:31 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 21:19 Brett wrote:On July 14 2013 18:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing. I never said it was an American thing. On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate. The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous. From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit. If you want to distill this incident down to 'Zimmerman followed and killed a person' whilst ignoring everything else that went on, you can expect people to be pretty uninterested in your opinion on the 'flakiness' of the system. If you have an argument with substance you're free to present one, but a "I don't agree with you, now let me project my feelings of turmoil by speaking for everyone else" isn't going to cut it. Phone conversation with Standford Police:
Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes, they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and make a left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse.[Note 3, 3rd picture]
Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit, he's running.
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance...fucking [disputed/unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.
After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a violent encounter took place between Martin and Zimmerman, which ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin 70 yards (64 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying.
Perfect. Did it again. Here's the important part for you, extracted so you can concentrate on it: whilst ignoring everything else that went on This claim is entirely unsubstantiated, and you've yet to make an argument that has a body and isn't a content-less blanket statement.
I don't have to write paragraphs full of content to critique your post in this particular circumstance; It's a very simple point, if you can't understand it then that's your problem.
You are calling the system 'flaky' because the only factors you are considering are that a person was followed and a person was shot. Of course if you consider those factors in isolation you are likely to be questioning the verdict... Unfortunately for your argument, this incident didn't happen in a vacuum. They were not the sole factors at play here. Suggesting otherwise, or alternatively suggesting that they are the only factors of any weight, is intellectually dishonest.
Do you seriously not understand this? If not, then I'm not going to bother responding to you any further.
|
On July 14 2013 21:49 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 21:41 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 21:37 Brett wrote:On July 14 2013 21:31 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 21:19 Brett wrote:On July 14 2013 18:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing. I never said it was an American thing. On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate. The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous. From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit. If you want to distill this incident down to 'Zimmerman followed and killed a person' whilst ignoring everything else that went on, you can expect people to be pretty uninterested in your opinion on the 'flakiness' of the system. If you have an argument with substance you're free to present one, but a "I don't agree with you, now let me project my feelings of turmoil by speaking for everyone else" isn't going to cut it. Phone conversation with Standford Police:
Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes, they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and make a left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse.[Note 3, 3rd picture]
Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit, he's running.
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance...fucking [disputed/unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.
After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a violent encounter took place between Martin and Zimmerman, which ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin 70 yards (64 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying.
Perfect. Did it again. Here's the important part for you, extracted so you can concentrate on it: whilst ignoring everything else that went on This claim is entirely unsubstantiated, and you've yet to make an argument that has a body and isn't a content-less blanket statement. You are calling the system 'flaky' because the only factors you are considering are that a person was followed and a person was shot.
That wasn't the reason; the actual reason(s) are abundantly clear in the post where I went over that. Furthermore
I didn't call the system flaky myself I only agreed with edlover420's sentiment. So this is completely off the mark.
If you missed the general message of "justice rulings being decided by arbitrary factors/semantics in the sense of how students preparing for the SAT not only have to study math and writing, but also have to study 'taking the SAT'" hence paralleling to justice system then there's not much for me to say.
|
On July 14 2013 21:53 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 21:49 Brett wrote:On July 14 2013 21:41 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 21:37 Brett wrote:On July 14 2013 21:31 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 21:19 Brett wrote:On July 14 2013 18:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing. I never said it was an American thing. On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate. The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous. From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit. If you want to distill this incident down to 'Zimmerman followed and killed a person' whilst ignoring everything else that went on, you can expect people to be pretty uninterested in your opinion on the 'flakiness' of the system. If you have an argument with substance you're free to present one, but a "I don't agree with you, now let me project my feelings of turmoil by speaking for everyone else" isn't going to cut it. Phone conversation with Standford Police:
Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes, they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and make a left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse.[Note 3, 3rd picture]
Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit, he's running.
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance...fucking [disputed/unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.
After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a violent encounter took place between Martin and Zimmerman, which ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin 70 yards (64 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying.
Perfect. Did it again. Here's the important part for you, extracted so you can concentrate on it: whilst ignoring everything else that went on This claim is entirely unsubstantiated, and you've yet to make an argument that has a body and isn't a content-less blanket statement. You are calling the system 'flaky' because the only factors you are considering are that a person was followed and a person was shot. That wasn't the reason; the actual reason(s) are abundantly clear in the post where I went over that. Furthermore I didn't call the system flaky myself I only agreed with edlover420's sentiment. So this is completely off the mark.
Ok, so you mentioned snowden, which is rather irrelevant to this discussion and.... nothing. Nothing but those two factors in isolation.
Oh and if we're going to play semantics, I think you forgot your own post, friend:
On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes.
I didn't call the system flaky [i]myself[/i] I only agreed with edlover420's sentiment.
What?
|
On July 14 2013 21:41 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 21:37 Brett wrote:On July 14 2013 21:31 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 21:19 Brett wrote:On July 14 2013 18:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing. I never said it was an American thing. On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate. The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous. From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit. If you want to distill this incident down to 'Zimmerman followed and killed a person' whilst ignoring everything else that went on, you can expect people to be pretty uninterested in your opinion on the 'flakiness' of the system. If you have an argument with substance you're free to present one, but a "I don't agree with you, now let me project my feelings of turmoil by speaking for everyone else" isn't going to cut it. Phone conversation with Standford Police:
Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes, they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and make a left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse.[Note 3, 3rd picture]
Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit, he's running.
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance...fucking [disputed/unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.
After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a violent encounter took place between Martin and Zimmerman, which ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin 70 yards (64 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying.
Perfect. Did it again. Here's the important part for you, extracted so you can concentrate on it: whilst ignoring everything else that went on This claim is entirely unsubstantiated, and you've yet to make an argument that has a body and isn't a content-less blanket statement.
It is not illegal to follow someone. It is not illegal here in florida to carry a gun (I own one). The stand your ground law is there. The moment of confrontation is the part where there is doubt and lack of evidence.
The problem here is that the prosecution had some kind of brain cancer and chose to aim high (due to the media pressure) instead of focusing on the manslaughter charge (notice how the jury asked about the manslaughter while deliberating but failed to get an answer). Is the system flaky? Maybe. However what are you supposed to do when there is a lack of evidence? Who should we favor? These are difficult questions.
|
On July 14 2013 22:00 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 21:53 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 21:49 Brett wrote:On July 14 2013 21:41 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 21:37 Brett wrote:On July 14 2013 21:31 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 21:19 Brett wrote:On July 14 2013 18:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing. I never said it was an American thing. On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate. The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous. From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit. If you want to distill this incident down to 'Zimmerman followed and killed a person' whilst ignoring everything else that went on, you can expect people to be pretty uninterested in your opinion on the 'flakiness' of the system. If you have an argument with substance you're free to present one, but a "I don't agree with you, now let me project my feelings of turmoil by speaking for everyone else" isn't going to cut it. Phone conversation with Standford Police:
Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes, they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and make a left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse.[Note 3, 3rd picture]
Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit, he's running.
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance...fucking [disputed/unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.
After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a violent encounter took place between Martin and Zimmerman, which ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin 70 yards (64 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying.
Perfect. Did it again. Here's the important part for you, extracted so you can concentrate on it: whilst ignoring everything else that went on This claim is entirely unsubstantiated, and you've yet to make an argument that has a body and isn't a content-less blanket statement. You are calling the system 'flaky' because the only factors you are considering are that a person was followed and a person was shot. That wasn't the reason; the actual reason(s) are abundantly clear in the post where I went over that. Furthermore I didn't call the system flaky myself I only agreed with edlover420's sentiment. So this is completely off the mark. Ok, so you mentioned snowden, which is rather irrelevant to this discussion
Snowden's situation is completely relevant to the point I was making; as I said last time don't bother to respond to this discussion until you understand what it's about. The prior posts contain plenty of details.
On July 14 2013 22:00 Brett wrote:and.... nothing.
It's impossible to mention nothing.
On July 14 2013 22:00 Brett wrote:Oh and if we're going to play semantics, I think you forgot your own post, friend: Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. Show nested quote +I didn't call the system flaky [i]myself[/i] I only agreed with edlover420's sentiment. What?
The pronoun in the first sentence clause is directly referring to the subject of the second sentence clause; in other words "the justice system" and what follows is being referenced as his point. At this point I'm starting to doubt if you're actually being serious, because this is rather embarrassing.
|
I would probably never learnt much about this case if it weren't for TL and that would be a pitty, because I find it extremely interesting in how difficult to grasp it is for me. I did not watch the trial, but I tried to read what I could from the sources given here - still there are things that are confusing and to which it is difficult to find a clear answer and without them, the whole picture is incomplete. Would there be some people willing to illustrate a few things for a European?
What I would realy like to understand is, how common is the "neighbourhood watch" phenomenon in the US? How is it viewed by the rest of the society? Are the "watchers" being greeted with thanks and respect by their peers, or considered freaks? I mean, if someone started to "play police" like this in my country, they would certainly be subject to curiosity, probably media atention and also a great deal of either distrust or outright negativity from the rest of the society, which would consider it either funny, stupid or despicable (as snitching), likely depending on the level and way of media coverage. This is not me attempting to loathe the activities of neighbourhood watchers, I just state what the atmosphere here is to illustrate my difficulties in imagining the perceprtion of this phenomenon in the US.
The other question is less tangible: it seems to me that there is a certain tension in the US when it comes to security. The sole fact that somebody who is just walking around seems suspicious to at least one person is very discomforting. Is this a local thing, a thing particular to a group of people (who then have a tendency to become neighbourghood watchers) or is this widespread? Yes, I can pull up crime rates and such, but they don't really tell much - honestly, most of the US seems pretty safe when it comes to numerical statistics. What I would really like to know is, what is the feeling of ordinary people? Do Americans (or at least those living in certain parts) feel generally unsafe? Do they think about security regularly?
I aplogize if this could be considered OT, but I think that the unclarity of these points can significantly distort the perception of the situation to non-americans and I just haven't find a better way to look for the answers than to just ask in a place where there are a lot of Americans ...
|
Embarassing for you perhaps? You're adopting his position in proclaiming the legitimacy of it. You made a positive statement: "The justice system can be flaky sometimes". This is the same as saying it yourself.
You're missing a colon if you want to make the pronoun argument, I'm afraid. The way you wrote it gives it a different meaning.
|
Good for Zimmerman. Now someone needs to camp in front of his house with a giant picture of Trayvon for the rest of his life.
|
So, to the extent of the law he obviously can't be convicted and it's pretty reasonable to believe he was assaulted. I still hope his life is ruined for what he did though, You don't go around policing the neighborhood with a gun unless you actually are the police.
|
On July 14 2013 22:35 nttea wrote:
So, to the extent of the law he obviously can't be convicted and it's pretty reasonable to believe he was assaulted. I still hope his life is ruined for what he did though, You don't go around policing the neighborhood with a gun unless you actually are the police.
It's America. Lots of people have guns. It's not entirely unlikely anyone you are going around protecting your neighbour hood from might have a gun themselves.
|
Does anyone know if the amount of break in's in George Zimmerman's gated community went down after this incident? I remember hearing about how there was a lot of crime before hand, and that's one of the reasons GZ was suspicious.
|
On July 14 2013 22:17 opisska wrote:
The other question is less tangible: it seems to me that there is a certain tension in the US when it comes to security. The sole fact that somebody who is just walking around seems suspicious to at least one person is very discomforting. Is this a local thing, a thing particular to a group of people (who then have a tendency to become neighbourghood watchers) or is this widespread? Yes, I can pull up crime rates and such, but they don't really tell much - honestly, most of the US seems pretty safe when it comes to numerical statistics. What I would really like to know is, what is the feeling of ordinary people? Do Americans (or at least those living in certain parts) feel generally unsafe? Do they think about security regularly?
A person just walking around is not suspicious, but if you add in facts like he may be walking back and forth in an area where there is really no reason to just stand around. He may have been peering in windows. He may have be appearing to conceal his face, and look away from cars. If you couple stuff like this together you can appear suspicious without doing anything really other than walking around. Especially if you do it in an area that has been plagued by burglaries.
This is certainly not exclusive to the US. I live in Denmark and I have reported such a case once to the police non-emergency line because someone was walking around outside our house and I didn't recognize him (I know everyone who lives close by, and you only enter the area in front of the houses to leave or enter a house, and he was just going back and forth seemingly glancing at windows for like 15min at 11PM). I never confronted the person and let the police deal with it, but I wouldn't consider it crazy to go ask the person what he was doing. He may just have been waiting for his girlfriend to sneak out the back of her parents house, or maybe he was invited to someone's house and couldn't find it, but the behavior was highly unusual and could very well be a guy about to break into a house. One of my neighbors did go confront a person like that once and it turned out he was selling some kind of drugs and quickly left without a confrontation after being told he wasn't welcome and the police would be called if he stayed.
|
|
|
A lot of he said she said. The bottom line is the defense did an outstanding job proving there was reasonable doubt as to what happened. Good job by them. Still a complex case.
|
Haha, omg! Don't listen to this, it's really funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
