Meanwhile in Vopland [Archive]

Eki

23rd March 2012, 11:12

This thread will probably be closed, but...

Trayvon Martin's death gains national attention | wtsp.com (http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/crime/article/245834/82/Anger-grows-over-death-of-boy-by-neighborhood-watch-volunteer?odyssey=obinsite)

Trayvon Martin's death gains national attention
5:47 PM, Mar 19, 2012

Tampa, Florida -- With no charges yet filed, anger is continuing to grow over the fatal shooting of a 17-year-old boy by a neighborhood watch volunteer near Orlando.

On Monday morning, the mother of Trayvon Martin told NBC's Today Show that the man who shot her son "was reacting to the color of his skin."

Martin was an African-American boy visiting family in Sanford when he was shot by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old white man.

Calls released by police over the weekend reveal Zimmerman was told not to follow the teen. But Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher and later admitted to shooting the teen after an altercation.

Sybrina Fulton, Martin's mom was asked on Monday what she thought Zimmerman was reacting to.

"He was reacting to the color of (my son's) skin." Fulton noted her son had committed no crime and wasn't doing anything wrong -- just walking on the sidewalk.

Zimmerman told the dispatcher, "Something's wrong with him." He also said at one point, "This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something."

Monday college students protested outside the Seminole County criminal courts building, demanding an arrest be made in the case. It's just the latest in a string of protests over Martin's death.

On Thursday civil rights leader Rev. Al Sharpton is scheduled to appear at an event as the case draws more national attention.

Tampa attorney Barry Cohen, who is not representing anyone connected to the case, says Zimmerman could have a difficult time using the state's "stand your ground" law as a defense, if he was told by authorities not to follow the teen.

"That's going to prevent him from getting away with this justifiable homicide foolishness," he said.

Zimmerman, who reportedly wants to be a police officer, says he was acting in self-defense when he shot Martin.

Martin's parents are now calling on the FBI to get involved in the investigation, saying they no longer trust the local police department.

Rudy Tamasz

23rd March 2012, 14:32

This is a tragic story. Is there any specific point you want to make, Eki?

schmenke

23rd March 2012, 14:45

Why would the FBI have any jurisdiction?

Firstgear

23rd March 2012, 15:25

This is a tragic story. Is there any specific point you want to make, Eki?
Check his signature - he's trying to catch a fish (ie trolling)

Gregor-y

23rd March 2012, 15:34

Why would the FBI have any jurisdiction?
It's based on legal workings from he civil rights era where blacks (or whites registering them to vote) would be killed and local municipalities would either ignore the killings, refuse to prosecute based on claims similar to the current self defense explination, or put the killers on trial only to have a sympathetic jury (since jury selection was pretty heavily screened and blacks weren't allowed to serve) acquit them. Because a strict interpretation of the constitution does not prevent this, and because those actions were particularly egregious (though it had been happening for decades at a lower level), the only way to prosecute these crimes at a higher level was to interpret the killing based on a violation of the civil rights law, which was intended to prevent discrimination. In these cases the murders, being racially motivated, amounted to discrimination so federal law enforcement could get involved.

It's a long history spanning age-old local/federal and racial tensions that really hasn't been addressed as much as patched over by successive laws.

schmenke

23rd March 2012, 15:49

Thanks for the explanation :up: .

So in this particular case for the FBI to become involved it’s up to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the victim’s race was a motivating factor in the murder? Not having read much details of the incident, on the surface, it doesn’t sound like this was the case :mark:

Roamy

23rd March 2012, 16:37

It is quite tragic, Certainly two wrongs don't make a right. But I am going to wait for all the facts to come out. One glaring error. Why do people seem to think they can just walk through a gated community at will any hour of the day or night. Not that one deserves to be shot for doing so but it does give the defense a track to run on. In this country everyone is pressing every freedom to the absolute max. It will soon bite their asses. At the same time this is going on a Black teenager was convicted of killing two british tourists in Sarasota Florida. The tourists got drunk and wandered into the "Wrong" neighborhood. Right there is a glaring problem we have "Wrong Neighborhood" As lawmakers try to destroy the Castle Doctrine it will come back stronger that ever. Gun sales in this country are soaring. It is only the beginning of a bloody era coming our way.

Eki

23rd March 2012, 17:36

This is a tragic story. Is there any specific point you want to make, Eki?

Gun control - For or against?

Tazio

23rd March 2012, 17:52

This is all you need to know:

Zimmerman, who reportedly wants to be a police officer

Eki

23rd March 2012, 17:59

This is all you need to know:
Well, I certainly hope he won't become one, or there'll be more blood.

race aficionado

23rd March 2012, 17:59

Racial profiling . . . .

Not a good thing.

Tazio

23rd March 2012, 18:02

If they can get the witness testify in court that he was told not to follow the kid, they can prosecute that in Florida. They may want a change of venue, but Tampa is not a place where whites kill blacks Carte Blanche. This guy is in deep shyte!

schmenke

23rd March 2012, 18:29

I saw this on the news the other day and it beggars belief! How the gunman isn't on a murder charge is beyond me.

What is even more disturbing is that not even an arrest has been made despite a confession.

Tazio

23rd March 2012, 18:34

From what I understand they have already changed the venue to Jacksonville, and the State Attorney has excused herself from the proceedings under pressure from the Governor and the State Attorney General

Tazio

23rd March 2012, 18:43

What is even more disturbing is that not even an arrest has been made despite a confession.
He will face charges don't worry about that. The only thing he has confessed to is self defense, which is not a crime last time I checked. Plus no one actually witnessed the shooting as far as we know

schmenke

23rd March 2012, 18:52

He confessed to shooting in self defence. A homicide has been committed and I would have thought that the confession would be sufficient for an arrest. Instead the shooter is permitted to go freely about about his business, with a concealed weapon to boot!

race aficionado

23rd March 2012, 18:54

He will face charges don't worry about that. The only thing he has confessed to is self defense, which is not a crime last time I checked. Plus no one actually witnessed the shooting as far as we know

Yep, self defense. :dozey:

Assuming he had to defend himself from a soda and some skittles does not warrant the use of deadly weapon to retaliate.

MobileMe Gallery (http://gallery.me.com/emeseditorials#100245/not-a-weapon-full-480x480&bgcolor=black)

donKey jote

23rd March 2012, 19:12

I almost posted about this a couple of days ago after first reading about it here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17438627) but refrained myself :dozey:

"If I had a son he would look like Trayvon" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17492445) says Obama today.
Would Vop's son look like Zimmerman ? :devil:

Tazio

23rd March 2012, 20:11

For starters I don't think this guy shot the kid in self defense and he will pay. However:

Mr Zimmerman was detained and questioned by the local police department, then released without charges. He told police Martin had started the fight and that he shot in self-defence.The 9 mm was legally owned and I bet that yahoo has about 8 or 9 other guns

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17438627

BDunnell

23rd March 2012, 20:43

He will face charges don't worry about that. The only thing he has confessed to is self defense, which is not a crime last time I checked.

Proof, as if it were needed, that while seeking to defend oneself is all very well, put a weapon into the equation and the possibility of a mistaken, unnecessary reaction on the part of the person seeking to defend themselves can bring about a far more tragic result than would otherwise be the case.

tfp

23rd March 2012, 20:44

It's based on legal workings from he civil rights era where blacks (or whites registering them to vote) would be killed and local municipalities would either ignore the killings, refuse to prosecute based on claims similar to the current self defense explination, or put the killers on trial only to have a sympathetic jury (since jury selection was pretty heavily screened and blacks weren't allowed to serve) acquit them. Because a strict interpretation of the constitution does not prevent this, and because those actions were particularly egregious (though it had been happening for decades at a lower level), the only way to prosecute these crimes at a higher level was to interpret the killing based on a violation of the civil rights law, which was intended to prevent discrimination. In these cases the murders, being racially motivated, amounted to discrimination so federal law enforcement could get involved.

It's a long history spanning age-old local/federal and racial tensions that really hasn't been addressed as much as patched over by successive laws.

I dont get it, a black bloke is killed by a white bloke in what sounds like a racially motivated attack, and that zimmerman bloke isn't in jail/a nut house?

Call me daft, but the courts over there sound a little bit out of date!

schmenke

23rd March 2012, 20:49

Proof, as if it were needed, that while seeking to defend oneself is all very well, put a weapon into the equation and the possibility of a mistaken, unnecessary reaction on the part of the person seeking to defend themselves can bring about a far more tragic result than would otherwise be the case.

Indded.

I can’t help but question if the accused would have followed the victim in the first place had the State not permitted the possession of concealed weapons?

Does Florida's “stand your ground” law apply in this case where it is the accused that instigated the confrontation by following then questioning the victim?

Gregor-y

23rd March 2012, 23:03

It's been used to justify actions just as suspect (http://www.wfit.org/post/stand-your-ground-miami-judge-decides-fatal-stabbing-was-self-defense) in the past. The few times I've been involved with the operations of the justice system here in Chicago - in addition to some particularly egregious public flaunting of the law by the police department - make me think these problems exist everywhere to some extent.

Tazio

24th March 2012, 00:09

I don't know, it's just sad.

Garry Walker

24th March 2012, 11:12

Any white kills a black and the whole country goes crazy. They should look at the data for interracial crimes.

donKey jote

24th March 2012, 12:33

Hispanic vigilante donkey persues and ends up shooting unarmed decent black kid. There, interracial crime for you. :dozey:

Roamy

24th March 2012, 18:22

Yep, self defense. :dozey:

Assuming he had to defend himself from a soda and some skittles does not warrant the use of deadly weapon to retaliate.

MobileMe Gallery (http://gallery.me.com/emeseditorials#100245/not-a-weapon-full-480x480&bgcolor=black)

Don't confuse the stated facts:
1. travon was trespassing - my understanding it was a private guard gated community
2. According to Zimmerman, Travon started the altercation.
3. You have to let the case play out because right now they appear to have no case against Zimmerman.
4. I think in most parts of this country if you are attacked you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force.

All you anti gun dudes make it sound like Travon was walking down the street eating skittles and was popped by Zimmerman. Apparently the facts do not
support this. I am sure if they have any case worth taking to court they will arrest Zimmerman.
So far the moral of this story is:
Don't trespass
Don't attack a guy with a gun

Roamy

24th March 2012, 18:28

Roamy

24th March 2012, 18:38

TIREs - Nice guy that I am - I will give you a little hint
Double-Murder Charges Dismissed Under (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/double-murder-charges-dismissed-under-fl-stand-your-ground-self-defense-law/)

Eki

24th March 2012, 19:00

Ok TIREs - little quiz
You are fly fishing up a very remote canyon. Of course you have your 17 shot Glock 10mm in your shoulder holster to prevent it from getting wet.
You are approached by 4 shady looking characters.
At what point to you tell them to stop:
At what point do you pull out the equalizer?
At what point do you reduce the world's population?

Or do you just sit down on a big rock and let them shove that Glock where the sun don't shine.
Shady looking doesn't usually mean the person is up to no good and is not a reason to shoot anyone. I remember when I was in Boston. We were looking for a parking space and saw a sign advertising parking for a fee, so we decided to drive there. A shady looking character came to us and asked for the car keys. Since all parking lots and parking garages in Finland are self service, my first thought was "uh-oh, here goes the car". Turned out that it was his job to park the car for us. When we came back we got the car back in good shape and everything was OK. Luckily I didn't have a gun and shoot him when he asked for the keys.

BDunnell

24th March 2012, 19:15

Don't confuse the stated facts:
1. travon was trespassing - my understanding it was a private guard gated community
2. According to Zimmerman, Travon started the altercation.
3. You have to let the case play out because right now they appear to have no case against Zimmerman.
4. I think in most parts of this country if you are attacked you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force.

All you anti gun dudes make it sound like Travon was walking down the street eating skittles and was popped by Zimmerman. Apparently the facts do not
support this. I am sure if they have any case worth taking to court they will arrest Zimmerman.
So far the moral of this story is:
Don't trespass
Don't attack a guy with a gun

When a trespasser is discovered, I simply do not consider that shooting them dead is a proportionate response.

BDunnell

24th March 2012, 19:16

Roamy

24th March 2012, 21:12

Ben you always try to duck or only pick the part of the conversation where you can protect you leftist beliefs.

Jag_Warrior

24th March 2012, 22:58

I'm not a lawyer. I don't play one on TV. And I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But the one stumbling block that Zimmerman may face in his claim is that it's already a known fact that the 911 dispatcher told him NOT to pursue this kid. I don't know if the 911 tapes have been released to the public. But according to the police, that's what is on them: Zimmerman being instructed NOT to follow or pursue the Martin kid. But Zimmerman dismissed this and continued the pursuit. So it would seem to me that if anyone was entitled to the "stand your ground" defense, it would have been Martin. A man, who was not a law enforcement officer, is pursuing you and acting in a threatening manner. So, the way I read that law, Martin could have made a better case for clipping Zimmerman than the other way around. If you follow me and run up on me asking questions and acting all bad-ass, you better hope that you're a cop... or on good terms with God.

As far as this trespassing claim, as far as I know, that's all it is at this point. In what little I've read, even if Martin was within a private gated community, he was on the common ground (a sidewalk), not on any particular resident's private property... Zimmerman's least of all.

Another thing. As most here know, I am a gun owner and a member of the NRA. But I am not some sort of wingnut (yeah, I am a nut, but not a wingnut :p :) . And I do believe in a person's right to defend himself and his property against imminent threats (not perceived threats). But the way that I was brought up, you don't reach for a gun to solve each and every problem that you have! And that is a primary problem that faces modern day America, IMO. Across all stripes and divides, the first thing many of our citizens want to do is grab a gun and get all John Wayne with somebody. And the worst type of citizen that we have here (even worse than the criminals, IMO) is the cop-wannabe. These are people who, for various reasons, cannot become cops. So they appoint themselves "watch captains" and the like, buy the same types of guns, shoes and even cars that cops use. They buy police radios. They even hang out in cop bars and try to buddy up to them. They're like groupies to cops. My uncle was a Fed. A buddy of mine is a state trooper. They both hate these types of people. And they'll both tell you that when paranoid, wingnut flakes like this get their hands on guns, and go wandering about, sooner or later, the story is bound to end badly for someone.

In my day, ANY grown man that wanted to keep an eye on his land or cattle would probably carry a sidearm or shotgun. But against a 17 year old kid, any man that couldn't handle that situation without grabbing for his gun... well, we had a name for a fellow like that. It's an offensive term, so I won't use it. But I will say, "Here, kitty kitty. Here, kitty. Here, puddy cat." ;) In other words, if Georgie Zimmerman winds up in jail (and I suspect that he will), he better have access to plenty of cigarettes... or KY Jelly.

Jag_Warrior

24th March 2012, 23:08

Indded.

I can’t help but question if the accused would have followed the victim in the first place had the State not permitted the possession of concealed weapons?

Does Florida's “stand your ground” law apply in this case where it is the accused that instigated the confrontation by following then questioning the victim?

No. Only in the case that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation and then withdrew (and was pursued) would he get a pass. These darn kids and their cellphones. Even a dead teenager still has a way to get you hanged these days. :( Sounds like the kid was the one in fear for his life and wanted to be left alone. But we'll see how it plays out. As long as Georgie can get an all White jury (that just came from a Rick Santorum rally), he might skate. Hey, in the American south, stranger things have happened, no?

776.041. Use of force by aggressor

The justification described in the preceding sections of this
chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the
commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself,
unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably
believes that he or she is in imminent danger of
death or great bodily harm and that he or she has
exhausted every reasonable means to escape such
danger other than the use of force which is likely
to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;
or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical
contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the
assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate
the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

BDunnell

24th March 2012, 23:12

Ben you always try to duck or only pick the part of the conversation where you can protect you leftist beliefs.

Which other bits do you wish me to respond to, then? Both of my responses cover the whole of your contributions pretty adequately.

BDunnell

24th March 2012, 23:16

Another thing. As most here know, I am a gun owner and a member of the NRA. But I am not some sort of wingnut (yeah, I am a nut, but not a wingnut :p :) . And I do believe in a person's right to defend himself and his property against imminent threats (not perceived threats). But the way that I was brought up, you don't reach for a gun to solve each and every problem that you have! And that is a primary problem that faces modern day America, IMO. Across all stripes and divides, the first thing many of our citizens want to do is grab a gun and get all John Wayne with somebody.

How nice to see (a) a well-written, (b) a considered and (c) a humane viewpoint from someone who supports the US gun laws, rather than the usual belligerent stuff. What do you think is at the root of this problem? On these forums, I see contributions from individuals whose attitude seems to me to glorify not just the right to bear arms, but also violence itself.

Jag_Warrior

24th March 2012, 23:42

What do you think is at the root of this problem? On these forums, I see contributions from individuals whose attitude seems to me to glorify not just the right to bear arms, but also violence itself.

My wild guess? Fear. I mean, when it comes down to it, we are animals just like any other. How does a dog, cat or rat react when it's fearful? With aggression, right? I'm not making that comparison to p!ss off my fellow citizens. In fact, I have had a tendency to become aggressive in certain situations myself (my username was a "gift" from an old girlfriend many moons ago). So I don't mean to come off as holier than thou.

Years ago I had a carry permit for a certain jurisdiction where I did business. Back then they weren't available state wide. And you had to demonstrate a need to get one. I picked up weekend deposits for a business I had and that's how I got one. And anyway, you can legally carry a sidearm (in plain view) where I live now. But I don't carry a gun. My father didn't carry a gun. My grandfather didn't carry a gun. We always had lots of firearms around. But the way my dad saw it, a man can handle his problems without a gun on his side. And if the only way you can handle a problem is if you have a gun on your side, maybe you're not as much of a man as you pretend to be. I'm not saying that there might not be a situation where you might be better off with one than without one. About the only time I carry a gun now is if I go outside my home late at night. For robbers and meth headed home intruders? Nah. A couple of 300+ pound black bears have been spotted near here recently. I'll fight almost any man. But I ain't fightin' no bear (even a little one)! Nopey!!! Plus, I can't run that fast anymore. :D

But people like this Zimmerman guy strike me as the cop-wannabe type that I mentioned above. It appears to me that he went out looking for a problem and he found one. Unfortunately, some kid who just wanted some candy and a soda paid the price.

Sadly, the fine fellow below would have probably won the GOP nomination by now (if he wasn't dead... and fictional).

http://img225.imagevenue.com/loc850/th_628485212_BarneyFife22826_vt_122_850lo.jpg (http://img225.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=628485212_BarneyFife22826_vt_122_850 lo.jpg)

There are just a lot of scared, angry, paranoid people around these days. I fear that there is no cure for this disease. And it seems to be getting worse, IMO.

BDunnell

25th March 2012, 00:06

Jag_Warrior, I have great respect for your opinions as expressed here, and the way you express them.

I don't carry a gun. My father didn't carry a gun. My grandfather didn't carry a gun. We always had lots of firearms around. But the way my dad saw it, a man can handle his problems without a gun on his side. And if the only way you can handle a problem is if you have a gun on your side, maybe you're not as much of a man as you pretend to be.

And, maybe, is there not an element of the argument that says one should know better than to get oneself into certain situations in the first place?

Jag_Warrior

25th March 2012, 02:20

Jag_Warrior, I have great respect for your opinions as expressed here, and the way you express them.

Thank you. I very much appreciate that.

And, maybe, is there not an element of the argument that says one should know better than to get oneself into certain situations in the first place?That's true in some situations (like Zimmerman's case, I would say), but not always. Sometimes people look for, or get into, situations where they should know better = looking for trouble. But there are those times when it just happens = trouble finds you. The most horrible thing that's happened to me was a drug dealer that took over one of my apartments back in the 80's. I didn't realize he was in there when I knocked on the door. But he came out and right off the bat tried to stab me with a knife. Had he done it "Roman style" (with a straight jab, instead of overhand), he would have likely killed me. But with my cat-like reflexes and lightning speed (in other words, I got lucky ;) ), I was able to catch his hand on the down move. And since I was much bigger than him, I won the wrestling match. I moved him to a stairwell, grabbed his neck as he was kicking me and we both found out that coke might get you high, but it doesn't give you the power of flight.

I was armed with a .38 in an ankle holster. But I had no opportunity to get to it. I would have been totally in the right to shoot him. But only at the beginning of our battle. When I see these John Wayne wannabe types talking sh## about what they would do in violent situations, I roll my eyes. I was in the right. But the sight of that guy laying lifeless on that concrete pad, 20+ feet below where I tossed him, scared the absolute hell out of me. I didn't feel all big & bad or like John Wayne. I thought he was dead. He deserved to be dead, for trying to kill me, but I didn't like the feeling that I might have taken a human life... even a lowlife human's life. IMO, normal people don't feel that way. The cops showed up. My tenants backed up my story. No charges were filed against me, though I did file charges against him. But I will never forget how my heart raced and how bad my kidneys hurt from how scared and hyped up I was that day.

Here's a story that I heard about. This man, I have so much sympathy for. He was forced to do what he clearly did not want to do. This could have been me or my dad or any (sane) friend of mine. And from what I've read, he has been totally devastated by having to do what he did. Sad. Really sad. I feel NO such sympathy for this George "Barney Fife" Zimmerman though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xeDfsRxGnw&feature=related

My attitude toward (good) cops is a respectful one. No wonder so many of them become alcoholics and get divorced. The bad ones, I have no use for. But the people who just want to play cop... carry the gun, the flashlight and wear their little tactical sweaters, they make me sick. It's bad enough that we have a problem here with home invasions and other violent crimes by gangs. But now you have to worry about your kid getting gunned down by some paranoid wingnut while he's getting a bottle of soda and some candy?

We. Are. F###ed. :(

anthonyvop

25th March 2012, 02:50

Considering I was mentioned in the title thread I think it was about time I added something. I have learned over the years a few things. One is to not to jump to conclusions without hearing the whole story. Another is that if Al Sharpton is involved odds are that the truth will be 100% opposite of what he is saying.

Sooooo.........

ORLANDO - A witness we haven't heard from before paints a much different picture than we've seen so far of what happened the night 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.

The night of that shooting, police say there was a witness who saw it all.

Our sister station, FOX 35 in Orlando, has spoken to that witness.

What Sanford Police investigators have in the folder, they put together on the killing of Trayvon Martin few know about.

The file now sits in the hands of the state attorney. Now that file is just weeks away from being opened to a grand jury.

It shows more now about why police believed that night that George Zimmerman shouldn't have gone to jail.

Zimmerman called 911 and told dispatchers he was following a teen. The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to.

And from that moment to the shooting, details are few.

But one man's testimony could be key for the police.

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.

His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.

"When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said.

Zimmerman says the shooting was self defense. According to information released on the Sanford city website, Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when he was attacked by the teen.

Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting.

Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman (http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012)

Jag_Warrior

25th March 2012, 04:09

anthonyvop

25th March 2012, 05:00

According to what I've read in the code, Zimmerman can't just rely on there being a fight between himself and the teen AFTER contact with the teen was initiated. Since Zimmerman (by his own admission) initiated contact (against the directive from the 911 dispatcher), he now has to prove that he actually had withdrawn and that the ensuing battle wasn't just a continuation of what he started. Death during mutual combat can still lead to a manslaughter charge and conviction, at least in my state.

But, you are correct, Anthony... in that a grand jury will decide whether Zimmerman will be indicted. Not you, me, Fox News or Al Sharpton. But what I and many others find extremely bizarre is that Zimmerman was allowed to walk, given the murky circumstances and his defiance of the 911 dispatcher, who told him not to continue his pursuit of the teen.

What most people don't seem to realize is that a 911 operator is not an "Officer" of the law and you are not duty bound to follow their instructions. So to not do so is not a crime.

With an eyewitness and physical evidence corroborating Zimmerman's story the Police and the D/A have no choice but to release him. It all comes down to a presumption of innocence. You and I may not like it but that is the way it is. Casey Anthony 2.0

Roamy

25th March 2012, 08:49

How nice to see (a) a well-written, (b) a considered and (c) a humane viewpoint from someone who supports the US gun laws, rather than the usual belligerent stuff. What do you think is at the root of this problem? On these forums, I see contributions from individuals whose attitude seems to me to glorify not just the right to bear arms, but also violence itself.

The problem is we really don't have all the facts. So we really can't make a logical decision. This story will unfold in the coming weeks. Then we can also make informed opinions rather than shooting from the hip, which most of you think Zimmerman did.

Jag_Warrior

25th March 2012, 09:21

What most people don't seem to realize is that a 911 operator is not an "Officer" of the law and you are not duty bound to follow their instructions. So to not do so is not a crime.

I don't believe anyone suggested or stated that that was a crime. But it does demonstrate that a third party, working within or as an agent of the police department, did give Zimmerman advice on how to handle the matter. He chose not to follow that advice and a homicide took place some time later. Again, it wasn't a crime not to follow the advice. But there is a concept in the law that follows "but for". As I said, I'm not a lawyer and even if I was, I know little about specific Florida criminal laws. But having been in quite a few court rooms in my life over civil matters, the "but for" argument (usually given by the judge) goes something like this: "but for the actions of X, then Y would not have occurred."

Whether or not that plays out in this case, we do not yet know.

With an eyewitness and physical evidence corroborating Zimmerman's story the Police and the D/A have no choice but to release him. It all comes down to a presumption of innocence. You and I may not like it but that is the way it is. Casey Anthony 2.0Not at all similar, since Casey Anthony was arrested, taken into custody, indicted by a grand jury, charged with a crime and THEN found not guilty (not innocent).

It is not the job of the police to determine guilt or innocence in any of the 50 states. In this case, it now seems that the a grand jury will convene and determine if he will or will not be indicted, and what that charge might be. He may not be indicted, or he might be indicted for murder or manslaughter. But in addition to this eyewitness and the girl on the phone with Martin, the 911 call, I believe, may play a role in whether or not he is indicted.

As for my opinion of Zimmerman... just as the jury's verdict in the Anthony case didn't change my opinion of that lowlife piece of filth, I'm not bound by a jury's decision one way or the other in this case either.

People like Zimmerman make people like me look bad. If I read that he was unable to deal with the pressure and stress and ate his gun... oh well. Too bad. So sad. :dozey: Say, wonder what the weather's going to be like next weekend?

Eki

25th March 2012, 17:47

race aficionado

25th March 2012, 18:13

What happened to the good ol' fist fight?

Sent from my iPhone

Roamy

25th March 2012, 19:22

What happened to the good ol' fist fight?

Sent from my iPhone

somebody got glocked out :)

Roamy

25th March 2012, 19:26

Meanwhile in Finland: Two drunken men broke into the home of a third men in the middle of the night. The home owner hit the other intruder in the head with a hammer and then the other intruder in the face with an ice pick. The intruders were hospitalized, but still alive. No firearms were needed.

how touching !! Finland would be better off if he would have shot them. Now you just put a bandaid on the problem. There is NO excuse for home intrusion.

BDunnell

25th March 2012, 19:44

how touching !! Finland would be better off if he would have shot them. Now you just put a bandaid on the problem. There is NO excuse for home intrusion.

It is not a crime that deserves the death penalty.

anthonyvop

25th March 2012, 23:12

Meanwhile in Finland: Two drunken men broke into the home of a third men in the middle of the night. The home owner hit the other intruder in the head with a hammer and then the other intruder in the face with an ice pick. The intruders were hospitalized, but still alive. No firearms were needed.

And that is a good thing?

What is they weren't that drunk and instead were there to torture and rape the 3rd man's family? What if they were armed with Bats or Machetes and quickly disarmed the home owner with the hammer?

Would you be happy that the 2 weren't harmed because the homeowner wasn't allowed to defend himself and his family?

BDunnell

25th March 2012, 23:14

And that is a good thing?

Why do you consider it not a good thing, in practical terms, that no firearm was involved?

markabilly

26th March 2012, 00:19

the news sources are always out with a spin.

Some reports make it seem as though it were very justified. Frankly, given some of the reports, I would have done the same thing. Without question in hindsight from a comfortable chair.

some say just the opposite. Based on what those reports say, my thought is that there is no excuse for the shooting. None. :(

as to being there, in the exact moment, well that is a different question. In those very moments, I think it is very diffficult to say what one would do, because of the stress and the reaction to such makes it difficult to predict what one would do..

There is an excercise done with rookie cops by the better training programs. The rookie holds a gun, empty but cocked and pointed at the other. The other has his empty revolver in a holster. The other pulls his and fires.

The rookie sometimes manages to snap the trigger in a tie. But usually the guy pulling the gun almost always wins by snapping the trigger first. So much for taking the air out of tough guy egos, who think they are tougher than tough, cause they now got a gun and a badge.

well, at least the ones that are not crazy already.

I knew a cop who once told me that "cop" actually stands for contempt of police....

so who to say.......

as to Casey, GUILTY as sin. :(

Rudy Tamasz

26th March 2012, 12:54

Meanwhile in Finland: Two drunken men broke into the home of a third men in the middle of the night. The home owner hit the other intruder in the head with a hammer and then the other intruder in the face with an ice pick. The intruders were hospitalized, but still alive. No firearms were needed.

It's a rare occasion when Eki actually talks about his domestic matters, which is good. I don't quite get the obsession with all things American. Talking something else is good for a change.

Eki

26th March 2012, 17:16

It's a rare occasion when Eki actually talks about his domestic matters, which is good. I don't quite get the obsession with all things American. Talking something else is good for a change.
I don't either, but on an international forum American affairs are something most people know something about. Not many outside Finland know anything about Finnish politics or domestic news, so there wouldn't be much discussion.

BDunnell

26th March 2012, 17:23

And that is a good thing?

What is they weren't that drunk and instead were there to torture and rape the 3rd man's family? What if they were armed with Bats or Machetes and quickly disarmed the home owner with the hammer?

Would you be happy that the 2 weren't harmed because the homeowner wasn't allowed to defend himself and his family?

'What if', 'what if'... What if someone was to break into the hotel room in which I'm currently staying? I don't have a gun with which to defend myself, but I don't believe this constitutes my taking of an unnecessary risk in relation to my personal safety. What if anyone I pass on the street were to attempt to stab me? To be honest, not being paranoid about the nature of my fellow human beings, it's a risk I'm prepared to take.

Tazio

26th March 2012, 17:28

Damn straight!

Roamy

26th March 2012, 19:07

It is not a crime that deserves the death penalty.

Certainly where you and I differ in opinions. I am a firm believer and supporter of the Castle Doctrine and the "Stand your Ground" laws.. Many places in your country and mine are quite safe and a firearm is not prevalent in daily activities. However we also have the extreme opposite as I am sure Euro has also. At my age I am not interested in a knife or bat fights my odds of losing are too high. Without the element of surprise sprung on me, I believe I would do quite well in a gunfight :) Albeit I would be horrified as hell to be in one.

Gregor-y

26th March 2012, 19:16

Unless you're Quickdraw McGraw you're not going to have much chance against anyone intent on robbing you, anyway. You'll note it's always El Kabong that gets the job done.

Roamy

26th March 2012, 19:31

Unless you're Quickdraw McGraw you're not going to have much chance against anyone intent on robbing you, anyway. You'll note it's always El Kabong that gets the job done.

As I mentioned the "Element of Surprise" pretty much eliminates any defense. However in this country I don't think I would want to trip someones infrared monitor inside their house at 3 am

BDunnell

26th March 2012, 21:48

Certainly where you and I differ in opinions. I am a firm believer and supporter of the Castle Doctrine and the "Stand your Ground" laws.

By that doctrine, someone wandering pissed into my garden would be at risk of being shot. I consider this a gross over-reaction.

Many places in your country and mine are quite safe and a firearm is not prevalent in daily activities. However we also have the extreme opposite as I am sure Euro has also.

Yes, the extreme opposite. There's no need to prepare for all extremes in life.

Rudy Tamasz

27th March 2012, 08:35

I don't either, but on an international forum American affairs are something most people know something about. Not many outside Finland know anything about Finnish politics or domestic news, so there wouldn't be much discussion.

Why wouldn't you educate the forum public on what's going on in Finland, then? I'm sure there's plenty of interesting things going on there, both good and bad. Or is it just more convenient to discuss somebody else's problems instead of your own? Otherwise I just don't see how a case of shooting in Florida can be more relevant to Europeans than a case of hammer hitting in Finland.

schmenke

27th March 2012, 22:40

Git off my property!

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6235/6875797100_cda02576fd.jpg

donKey jote

27th March 2012, 22:44

Git off my property!

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6235/6875797100_cda02576fd.jpg
darn you! hands offa me woodchucker missus ! :p

BDunnell

27th March 2012, 22:47

Why wouldn't you educate the forum public on what's going on in Finland, then? I'm sure there's plenty of interesting things going on there, both good and bad. Or is it just more convenient to discuss somebody else's problems instead of your own? Otherwise I just don't see how a case of shooting in Florida can be more relevant to Europeans than a case of hammer hitting in Finland.

I don't believe goings-on in Finland are generally, with respect to the Finns, as important internationally or of as much interest as are those in the USA.

DexDexter

27th March 2012, 23:00

???
I never realized that America, or it's citizens, were of so much international interest. I thought that most Europeans consider us to be dull and uninteresting if not outright boring. More to the point, why would the internal issues of one country be of wider interest than the internal issues of any other country?

Because many of your internal issues/decisions affect our economies and so lives as well.

BDunnell

27th March 2012, 23:06

???
I never realized that America, or it's citizens, were of so much international interest. I thought that most Europeans consider us to be dull and uninteresting if not outright boring. More to the point, why would the internal issues of one country be of wider interest than the internal issues of any other country?

Oh, come on. Do you consider the internal affairs of Luxembourg as important to the rest of the world as those of the USA? If so, you have, if I may say so, a rather curious perspective.

schmenke

27th March 2012, 23:14

I can’t speak for Europe, but there’s a saying in Canada: If the USA catches a cold we sneeze :p :

Rudy Tamasz

28th March 2012, 08:23

I don't believe goings-on in Finland are generally, with respect to the Finns, as important internationally or of as much interest as are those in the USA.

General doesn't work in this case. We are discussing a particular topic, which is gun control or the lack thereof in the U.S. I just don't see how that topic can be of any interest other than idle curiosity to Europeans. Most American guns and gun related crimes never cross the Atlantic.

I don't question the legitimacy of this thread or any other thread. I am just not comfortable with a trend of discussing all things American, some of those uniquely American and having no relation to Europeans whatsoever like the healthcare bill, gun control, religious politics and then using it to badmouth the U.S. and Americans. Everyone's free to do that, but to me it shows some poor judgment and bad taste. I wonder how soon we descend to discussing American Idol, Dancing with Stars and Kim Kardashian.

EuroTroll

28th March 2012, 09:50

It should be.

And why are you picking on poor Luxembourg anyway? :p

Poor? :eek: :p :

Rudy Tamasz

28th March 2012, 13:15

I know an American diplomat who used to work in Luxembourg. She said it was a weird feeling walking past a street cleaner and realizing he earned more than she did.

schmenke

28th March 2012, 16:01

.... I wonder how soon we descend to discussing American Idol, Dancing with Stars and Kim Kardashian.

Don't forget Snooki! :up:

Gregor-y

28th March 2012, 16:02

Git off my property!

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6235/6875797100_cda02576fd.jpg
If he fired that boy wouldn't just put his eye out. He'd put his face out! Happens a lot at shooting ranges.

EuroTroll

28th March 2012, 16:09

Don't forget Snooki! :up:

Is that what you NAm boys call snooker? :p :

I'm watching "snooki" now, a great sport. :up: :p :

schmenke

28th March 2012, 16:19

Is that what you NAm boys call snooker? :p :

I'm watching "snooki" now, a great sport. :up: :p :

Well, I guess both have a rack… :erm:

Roamy

28th March 2012, 18:37

I am very saddened to hear of the violent killings and home invasions along the Algarve. I once thought this to be one of the safest places to go. Now I will have to take this off my list. I better learn how to spell Kiwi and Perth. I am probably going the visit Prague this year and hopefully attend the Spa or Monza race.

donKey jote

28th March 2012, 19:17

cue the snooki puns... :erm:

Eki

28th March 2012, 20:09

Why wouldn't you educate the forum public on what's going on in Finland, then? I'm sure there's plenty of interesting things going on there, both good and bad. Or is it just more convenient to discuss somebody else's problems instead of your own? Otherwise I just don't see how a case of shooting in Florida can be more relevant to Europeans than a case of hammer hitting in Finland.

My thread "Meanwhile in Zealand (the new one)" 1 reply, my thread "Meanwhile in Vopland" 81 replies. I think that speaks volumes.

Eki

28th March 2012, 20:12

cue the snooki puns... :erm:

Nookie with Snooki.

schmenke

28th March 2012, 21:13

she has a younger sister who works as apprentice in a betting office.

...wait for it...

yep, you guessed it...

She's a rookie bookie snooki.

Eki

28th March 2012, 22:35

I'd rather nookie with Snooki than with a wookiee:

Wookiee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wookiee)

airshifter

29th March 2012, 01:17

I'd rather nookie with Snooki than with a wookiee:

Wookiee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wookiee)

That's just racist Eki. What you have against Wookiee's that makes you prefer small orange trolls is hard to understand! :laugh:

As for the Trayvon case, I've seen too much information leading both ways to think that we have ever heard the truth and whole truth. Hard to say how it plays out.

Garry Walker

29th March 2012, 18:28

I think people should want justice for any killing regardless of whether it is concerning a white or black person. I hope you're not suggesting less should be made of this because you feel white people are more tolerant at being unlawfully killed? I am saying I don't understand why this has been made so famous, there are hundreds of homicides of every year. This murder was not even particularly awful compared to other murders (in that there was no torture involved). But we all know what the answer is to why this case is so famous - it was a white man on a black man. You have the other way murders happening every day in far bigger quantity and never does it get so much publicity. Where are Al "****" Sharpton and Jesse Jackson then? Where were those 2 racists when those two english tourists were ordered by a black man to strip down and were then shot?

But of course I think that every homicide should be taken very seriously and punished properly.

Meanwhile in Finland: Two drunken men broke into the home of a third men in the middle of the night. The home owner hit the other intruder in the head with a hammer and then the other intruder in the face with an ice pick. The intruders were hospitalized, but still alive. No firearms were needed.
What if it had been a woman? She would have stood no chance against the men.

donKey jote

29th March 2012, 18:50

What if it had been a woman? She would have stood no chance against the men.

QED: guns are for girlies :andrea: :p

schmenke

29th March 2012, 20:54

Oh I don't know about that. I know a couple of gals I wouldn't want to go up against in a dark alley.

:eek:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5162/5261584124_73c92c5b34.jpg

donKey jote

30th March 2012, 00:45

that, and billy's woodchucker :laugh:

Tazio

12th April 2012, 00:09

George Zimmerman is in police custody after turning himself in. He has been arrested and charged with second degree murder, which carries a maximum of life imprisonment

Dave B

12th April 2012, 00:28

Proof, as if it were needed, that while seeking to defend oneself is all very well, put a weapon into the equation and the possibility of a mistaken, unnecessary reaction on the part of the person seeking to defend themselves can bring about a far more tragic result than would otherwise be the case.

:up:

Hopefully justice will now be done but it can't bring the dead back to life. This case perfectly illustrates the danger of allowing the public to become judge, jury, and quite literally executioner.

Tazio

12th April 2012, 01:36

Dave that is IMO profoundly true. I am a 58 year old American that has never owned a firearm, and never thought it is something I needed.

Edit: Here is the ad that poped up on the botom of this motorsport forum page after I posted this comment. :rolleyes:

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/simgad/13075402823597249153

airshifter

12th April 2012, 05:06

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. It seems some of the media doctored some audio tapes, and all information seems to point different directions. Hopefully the courts can sort out what really happened.

anthonyvop

12th April 2012, 05:55

I feel sorry for Zimmerman now.

He is the victim of institutional, Politically correct, racism and Self-Aggrandizing Media Hogs. Hopefully some people will step up and help finance a good defense.

BTW Did anyone watch the Prosecutor's News Conference when she announced the Charges? She wouldn't shut up and pretty and all but admitted she did it for political reasons.

Eki

12th April 2012, 06:47

ShiftingGears

12th April 2012, 10:13

The guy followed and harrassed a teenager who he thought looked suspicious in his neighbourhood. His intimidation got a reaction from the lad (as you'd expect from most people) to which the nutter opened fire claiming self defence. Had the lad pulled a gun I could understand it but I see no excuse to kill somebody even if it turns out they turned around and swung a punch at the annoyance of being harrassed. Seeing as the teenager was unarmed and this all appears to be a gross overreaction by the gunman, I hope he goes to prison for a very long time. :thumbdown:

I daresay if someone had punched you to the ground and was smashing your head into the pavement (as in, his motive in doing so is to give you severe head injuries or kill you) despite there being screams to stop as reported, I wouldn't call it a gross overreaction to shoot in self defense. No?

ShiftingGears

12th April 2012, 11:37

The fact this was in a society where civilians carry guns makes I even more dangerous, and in this instance the shooter got it spectacularly and tragically wrong it seems.

Well that's why people shouldn't try their luck at initiating a physical confrontation by punching someone and then repeatedly slamming someones head into the pavement. Zimmerman was reportedly had turned around and was walking away before Martin verbally confronted him then started attacking.

I feel much more sympathy for Zimmerman, who I believe still has a bounty on his head by racial hate groups like the New Black Panther Party.

12th April 2012, 12:21

That's so bad. that's really sad.

Dave B

12th April 2012, 12:52

Having read the transcript from the teenagers phone call, I think if I was being followed and intimidated by a man I didn't know and genuinely thought my life was in danger, I may resort to a confrontation that may get physical. That would be a last resort and I would run away as first choice. If the shooter thought this lad was a burglar then the first thing he should have done was ring the police. I certainly wouldn't tackle a suspicious person if other options were available. The fact this was in a society where civilians carry guns makes I even more dangerous, and in this instance the shooter got it spectacularly and tragically wrong it seems.
Quite. There's a reason why we have a police force and a justice system. There's no place for vigilante action, let alone vigilantes with firearms. The law makes mistakes, certainly, but (unless one lives in a backwards region which still imposes the death penalty) mistakes can be corrected and compensated.

Dave B

12th April 2012, 12:53

Tazio

12th April 2012, 15:02

One of the conditions for getting a conviction of 2nd degree murder in the great state of Florida is:
Murder with a Depraved Mind.

Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed by an act evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.

This is not going to be an easy condition to prove. We don't know the particulars of this entire event. My gut feeling is that they will get a conviction or settle with a plea of manslaughter, with a sentence at or near the max, but this is speculation of course.

Mark

12th April 2012, 15:03

I think the point is here that no judgement has yet been made if the accused is guilty or not guilty. That's the purpose of the courts, to assertain the facts of the case.

There seems to be an assumption that it all needs to be neatly wrapped up before we even get to trial.

Certainly I believe the law as it stands in the UK means that any killing requires a trial. Even if it's obvious the defendent will be found not guilty.

anthonyvop

12th April 2012, 15:47

Quite. There's a reason why we have a police force and a justice system. There's no place for vigilante action, let alone vigilantes with firearms. The law makes mistakes, certainly, but (unless one lives in a backwards region which still imposes the death penalty) mistakes can be corrected and compensated.

We have a name for people who rely solely on the police for protection.........Victims.

How many crimes such as assault and murder are foiled by quick police action? Somebody breaks into you home or jumps you on the street with intent to cause bodily harm you can call 911 and take the beating like a European as you wait and wait for the police to arrive or be a individual and defend your rights as one see fits.

anthonyvop

12th April 2012, 15:51

One of the conditions for getting a conviction of 2nd degree murder in the great state of Florida is:
Murder with a Depraved Mind.

This is not going to be an easy condition to prove. We don't know the particulars of this entire event. My gut feeling is that they will get a conviction or settle with a plea of manslaughter, with a sentence at or near the max, but this is speculation of course.

We are looking at a case of another over-reaching prosecutor like the Casey Anthony Trial.

I have no confidence in the prosecutor after listening to her at the press conference when she said:
""We do not prosecute by public pressure or by petition. We prosecute based on the facts on any given case as well as the laws of the state of Florida,"

Does anybody seriously believe her?

Gregor-y

12th April 2012, 16:08

Gotta love the left. Fair and equal justice for all. Unless it's the folks from the other side. Then we'll just railroad them in the court of public opinion.
That's a bit of a stretch since I believe the original issue was local prosecutors were trying to dismiss the entire case despite recommendations from the original investigators. Without the public outcry none of the investigation we've seen in the past few months would have happened.

Roamy

12th April 2012, 16:57

We will have to wait and hear the evidence. However if Zimmerman was the one attacked then this is nothing more than a racial railroad job. You should not go around attacking anyone and if you do - getting your ass shot is a good thing. Several white people have now been beaten severely and some blacks shot dead. There are call for a race war by the black panthers. That at some point in our future seems likely. I don't think you Euros fully comphrend the danger of walking down the wrong street in America. It is sad and it will only get worse. When you are allowed to stand up and proclaim it is time for a race war and put a bounty on ones life then you are much worse than Zimmerman could ever be.

Gregor-y

12th April 2012, 18:03

It may be that the local prosecutors did not believe there was enough evidence to bring charges. We don't know either way. Again, a rush to judgement.
We do know what the investigators recommended and the local prosecutor decided to release him on the same day with no restrictions. That's the rush to judgement and that's what caused the furor in the first place. Now we'll have an actual trial that corrects the initial rush to judgement.

anthonyvop

12th April 2012, 19:21

I do. Unless she proves otherwise.

You actually believe she didn't succumb to any pressure at all?

If this case hadn't been blasted all over the world in the media that was manipulated by professional race card dispensers do you really think they would be prosecuting him?

anthonyvop

12th April 2012, 19:26

Investigators are not the ones who have to actually win a case in court. It is the prosecutor's job to do that. It is irresponsible of them to procede with a case they do not think they can win (and I'm not saying that is the case here, we just don't know). First, it's a waste of taxpayer money; Second, it's a waste of the court's time; Third, it's government abuse of power to prosecute someone you are sure you can't convict, with the resulting costs to defend oneself and, probably, jail time in the interim.

Everyone was crying because there wasn't an immediate arrest. There are also many, many situations where charges are not filed until much later when most of the evidence is in. Especially if there is some question as to what actually happened as here.

Let's be real about this. Without the racial overtones, no one would give a rat's patoot about this situation and it certainly wouldn't have lasted more than a day in the media, if it showed anywhere outside of Florida at all.

Many people seem to forget the essence of "Innocent until Proven Guilty"

In most cases they can hold you for up to 24 hours after that they either have to charge you or let you go.

In this case they had nothing to charge him with so they let him go. Now after all these weeks of Media Race Baiting and Professional Race Card holders suddenly the Prosecutor believes there is enough to charge him with 2nd Degree Murder.

Is there some new evidence that brought on the charges? I really doubt it. We all know why he was charged.

Tazio

12th April 2012, 19:31

wrong thread :confused:

schmenke

12th April 2012, 20:00

...In most cases they can hold you for up to 24 hours after that they either have to charge you or let you go.

In this case they had nothing to charge him with so they let him go. ....

Therein is a key distinction between the laws in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Under Canada’s criminal code, for example, merely the discharge of a firearm, whether someone is injured or not, is a criminal offense and subject to immediate arrest. The accused remains in custody during the investigation and is released only if no formal charges are filed.

Eki

12th April 2012, 20:43

We have a name for people who rely solely on the police for protection.........Victims.

Now you also have a name for those who don't..........Murderers.

schmenke

12th April 2012, 21:05

Canadian hunters and target shooters beware - you're going to be doing time.

Indeed! No hunting allowed in Canada!
Thousands of hunters who trudge into the wilderness every fall who shoot game with rifles are in breach of the law. The police lie in ambush waiting to pounce on the illegal hunters, hauling them off to the courthouse, shackled, by the dozen, in the back of truck. Our courts are so congested with cases of these illegal hunters that there is no time for other trials. Our prisons are packed to the rafters with grizzly bearded man in plaid shirts and ball caps, lamenting on their backwoods misdeeds.

Eki

12th April 2012, 21:59

Indeed! No hunting allowed in Canada!
Thousands of hunters who trudge into the wilderness every fall who shoot game with rifles are in breach of the law. The police lie in ambush waiting to pounce on the illegal hunters, hauling them off to the courthouse, shackled, by the dozen, in the back of truck. Our courts are so congested with cases of these illegal hunters that there is no time for other trials. Our prisons are packed to the rafters with grizzly bearded man in plaid shirts and ball caps, lamenting on their backwoods misdeeds.
I thought they were just clubbing seals.

schmenke

12th April 2012, 22:10

Baby seals.

Clubs are used because rifles are illegal :)

schmenke

12th April 2012, 22:54

Nah, it would be a tremendous waste if we kept talent like that locked up :D

airshifter

13th April 2012, 03:57

At the end if the day the killer will have that on his conscience for the rest of his life and I'm sure when the heat of the moment had gone, he regretted his overreaction.

Just an interesting note to this statement. Though in this case we aren't sure of the exact circumstances yet, in the case of most shootings that are determined to have been justified the shooter often deals with a great amount of trauma which is not centered around their actions, but around societies reaction to what they have done.

I'm not about to play mind reader with the facts of the shooting, but by all reports Zimmerman has been in fear for his life since shortly after the shooting, and had a bounty put on him by a racist (IMO) black group. Even if it is found he shot only in self defense in fear for his life or well being, he has already had to deal with a great deal more than most do before reaching court.

anthonyvop

13th April 2012, 04:26

Of course her superiors did - I don't believe it was her call. It would be silly to suggest otherwise. I watched the announcement. She seemed to be very careful to tread the middle ground, which is why I'll withhold judgement on her performance.

State prosecutor of Seminole County of Which Sanford Florida is the County Seat is an Elected Position and she has no superiors. If the Feds wanted to make an issue of it all they had to do was charge him in Federal court.

No...She did it to curry favor of the electorate.

That I don't know. It's possible they have enough evidence to support a prosecution.

Actually the noted and extremely liberal criminal trail lawyer Alan Dershowitz doesn't believe there is any evidence.

Dershowitz called the affidavit justifying Zimmerman’s arrest “not only thin, it’s irresponsible.” He went on to criticize the decision to charge Zimmerman for second degree murder by special prosecutor Angela Corey as being politically motivated.

“You’ve seen the affidavit of probable cause. What do you make of it,” Smerconish asked. “It won’t suffice,” Dershowitz replied without hesitation.

“Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.”

Dershowitz said that the elements that would constitute that crime are non-existent in the affidavit. “It’s not only thin, it’s irresponsible,” said Dershowitz.

Dershowitz went on to strongly criticize Corey’s decision to move forward with the case against Zimmerman. “I think what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged. This case will not – if the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit – this case will result in an acquittal.”

Read the rest here
Harvard Prof. Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-prof-alan-dershowitz-zimmerman-arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/)

race aficionado

13th April 2012, 04:36

I don't know if you guys watch the CSI programs where evidence is found not by hearsay or muffled audio recordings.

If this was the scenario in one of these TV series they would look into the forensic evidence of Trayvon Martin's fists to see how much is true about the "plummeting" given to Zimmerman which is the reason Zimmerman says he shot his gun in self defense. I did read a while ago that the people in charge of prepping Trayvon for his burial did not see any distinct marks in his fists, but again, that is hearsay.
I'm sure many other forensic details will appear that I'm not privy of because I am not a CSI. I'm sure all of that information will start appearing in the next phase of this process.

Roamy

13th April 2012, 18:08

Therein is a key distinction between the laws in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Under Canada’s criminal code, for example, merely the discharge of a firearm, whether someone is injured or not, is a criminal offense and subject to immediate arrest. The accused remains in custody during the investigation and is released only if no formal charges are filed.

Yea what a crock of ***** that rule is. Keep a innocent person locked up while a bunch of jackoffs try and create a case. Well it is not as bad as the laws south of the border where you remain jailed until trial or if you are rich enough you can bribe your way out. In the case of Zimmerman if they don't have a case they will manufacture one just to avoid the "Free shopping Spree" at the local walmart.