djones520 wrote: And again, assumptions made on no evidence, WHILE wishing harm on those who'd rather follow the paper trail instead of blindly call for the lynch mob.
I regret nothing.
Zimmerman will regret something if he has a conscience.
ALEC and proponents of laws as flawed as SYG set the ball in motion. The law of unintended consequences is a bitch... too bad it isn't more so for the people who allowed the law to pass. The legislators made assumptions about what situations would be impacted by SYG, and harm has occurred.
SYG was not intended to allow a situation like this, yet here we are. The connection has been made in the mind of the public, and those that see it are disgusted.
Were talking about being profiled. Not being treated as a criminal. Zimmerman followed him. That's it. Regardless of how much bs you think it is, it's easy to say that when you live in a homogenous country. Profiling happens anywhere people are different. Perhaps all the bars in the urban areas Down here should start allowing hats and bandanas again despite their clear and present connections with gang affiliation in the name of being more PC?
Yes, it happens, but it shouldn't. Of course it is worst when it is done by actual authorities. The likelihood of you being stopped by police shouldn't be based on your skin colour.
As for Finland being homogenous country, that's not quite true any more. For example, of the three families that live in the same building as me only one is ethnically Finnish. Others are Russian and Vietnamese.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You can absolutely be responsible without it being required. Texting while driving isn't illegal in many places in the United States, so by your metric text away while you drive. Just because it isn't regulated or tested doesn't mean it is responsible. I use my firearms regularly. I know how to shoot safely. I've shown my wife how to properly use and maintain our firearms. People that ACTIVEY use their firearms are typically very responsible.
It is quite possible that you're actually responsible, you certainly can be without any official courses, but that's not what I meant. This guy thinks he is a responsible gun owner too. There should be a mechanic to establish which people are actually responsible enough to own a gun before they shoot someone.
Why should you have to flee?
Because indignity of having to flee is a much lesser evil than someone being killed, even though they might be a thug. Not to mention that there is a huge possibility of people misjudging the situation and thinking that they're in danger when they actually aren't.
Wait what? So warning shot in a threatening situation is not legal but shooting at people is? (Yes,I know in this specific case she shouldn't have gone back to the house anyway.)
As has been explained in detail unless you are in fear of your life pulling a trigger on a weapon (in a defensive situation) is absolutely a no go, I think I saw something that said her bullets from the warning shots passed through a wall into a room with small children in it, no one was hurt but feth...
The pundits have gone into overdrive to spin this verdict into something it is not. Zimmerman's acquittal is not an endorsement of his actions. It is not a demonization of Trayvon Martin. It is not a vindication of Stand Your Ground (or Concealed Carry) laws, and it is not a call for open season on minorities. It is simply a verdict that stating that the six jurors were unable to find Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter or second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
The various (mostly fringe lunatics) stating that the prosecution threw the case because they are racist, or that the 6 jurors found GZ not guilty because Martin was black are truly despicable though.
It is quite possible that you're actually responsible, you certainly can be without any official courses, but that's not what I meant. This guy thinks he is a responsible gun owner too. There should be a mechanic to establish which people are actually responsible enough to own a gun before they shoot someone.
Crimson your behind the power curve. We already went over this guy like two pages back
Pray tell you don't consider every weapon owner can be outright killers. Exclude the ones that's been in combat
djones520 wrote: And again, assumptions made on no evidence, WHILE wishing harm on those who'd rather follow the paper trail instead of blindly call for the lynch mob.
I regret nothing.
Zimmerman will regret something if he has a conscience.
ALEC and proponents of laws as flawed as SYG set the ball in motion. The law of unintended consequences is a bitch... too bad it isn't more so for the people who allowed the law to pass. The legislators made assumptions about what situations would be impacted by SYG, and harm has occurred.
SYG was not intended to allow a situation like this, yet here we are. The connection has been made in the mind of the public, and those that see it are disgusted.
SYG was not invoked in this case. The defense used a standard self defense clause that is present in all 50 states and in most civilized countries in the world.
Pray tell you don't consider every weapon owner can be outright killers. Exclude the ones that's been in combat
No, but you don't even need to be utter reckless lunatic like that guy to be a danger. People who do not regularly practice with guns are danger to themselves and others if entrusted with a weapon, and even familiarity with weapons do not guarantee that the person is right in their head. And god forbid if some 'regular citizens' decide to 'prevent crime' in some dangerous situation. They're probably just as likely to shoot some random bystander that they're to shoot the real criminal.
I'm not saying that there aren't responsible gun owners, there are. But assumption that all or even most gun owners are responsible is ludicrous.
Pray tell you don't consider every weapon owner can be outright killers. Exclude the ones that's been in combat
No, but you don't even need to be utter reckless lunatic like that guy to be a danger. People who do not regularly practice with guns are danger to themselves and others if entrusted with a weapon, and even familiarity with weapons do not guarantee that the person is right in their head. And god forbid if some 'regular citizens' decide to 'prevent crime' in some dangerous situation. They're probably just as likely to shoot some random bystander that they're to shoot the real criminal.
I'm not saying that there aren't responsible gun owners, there are. But assumption that all or even most gun owners are responsible is ludicrous.
Is not assumption that all or even most gun owners are IRresponsible equally ludicrous though?
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
That is the Florida self defense statute which could have applied, HOWEVER, to invoke SYG successfully is to avoid prosecution:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.— (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
So... SYG really was not what this trial was about, at all. The case went to trial. The SYG portion of the statute would not apply anyway, one cannot retreat when one is flat on his back being pummeled. If you cannot retreat, a law mandating retreat when possible or removing that mandate makes no difference. Even if Florida was not a SYG state, Zimmerman's defense attorneys would have used the strategy they did, and the prosecution would have been stuck with the same lack of evidence to prove Murder 2 that they were stuck with. Note, if it was a successful SYG invocation, Martin's family could bring a civil suit (which it appears they are going to do).
Bottom line, duty to retreat or no duty to retreat, Zimmerman's claim was going to be self defense and the prosecution did not have the evidence to prove murder.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
That is the Florida self defense statute which could have applied, HOWEVER, to invoke SYG successfully is to avoid prosecution:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
So... SYG really was not what this trial was about, at all. The case went to trial. The SYG portion of the statute would not apply anyway, one cannot retreat when one is flat on his back being pummeled. If you cannot retreat, a law mandating retreat when possible or removing that mandate makes no difference. Even if Florida was not a SYG state, Zimmerman's defense attorneys would have used the strategy they did, and the prosecution would have been stuck with the same lack of evidence to prove Murder 2 that they were stuck with.
Bottom line, duty to retreat or no duty to retreat, Zimmerman's claim was going to be self defense and the prosecution did not have the evidence to prove murder.
If the police cannot get enough of a 24/7 presence on the ground of a neighboured with crime trouble and break ins...then the citizenship will need to pick up the mantle or face increasing number of crime and a blatant disregard for the Law. The blood of guilty lives lost is the cost to enforcing the Law to protect the Innocent from the Guilty.
This case definetely provides a sound argument for the delivery of more powers to the police and an up scaling of their equipment to at least military levels to provide a better response time.
It's been really interesting watching this thread, the Florida bashing (only a few comments made) is pretty sad really, I have quite a few views on this case being from here but don't dare even get involved.
I'm glad a few of you guys are knowledgable of the situation.
All ill say is I could have not really cared less either way when the case started, but as it went on it was pretty clear it should have never gone to trial and Zimmerman being found not guilty was the right call in my opinion.
whembly wrote: I'm just sick of all this... this was nothing more than to force fit a narrative, which was all about keeping black voters — and white-guilt liberal voters — in the fold for 2012 and 2014.
Actually we both were laughing our butts off. Afterwards we had a slight chewing out due to the fact we jammed the CROW turret mechanism. Good thing we captured those two. Also wanted to point out we have a 3rd amendment issue about the status of LEO. Would they fall under "soldier" profile or not. I'm banking SCOTUS to make that clarification
As for Finland being homogenous country, that's not quite true any more. For example, of the three families that live in the same building as me only one is ethnically Finnish. Others are Russian and Vietnamese.
White. White. Asian. Diverse nationalities, to be sure, though.
As for Finland being homogenous country, that's not quite true any more. For example, of the three families that live in the same building as me only one is ethnically Finnish. Others are Russian and Vietnamese.
White. White. Asian. Diverse nationalities, to be sure, though.
I'm sorry, I found this statement hilarious.
Carry on, then...
That was one building. Somalis live in the next building...
Note, if it was a successful SYG invocation, Martin's family could bring a civil suit (which it appears they are going to do).
My guess, and opinion is that GZ's defense team felt it more reasonable to go to trial, which, IMO will remove any and all ground for a civil suit to be stood on. Obviously, I don't think a civil suit would be thrown out, I just highly doubt that with the outcome of the trial, that the Martin family will get a penny out of GZ... Now, GZ getting money from NBC on the other hand
Try it before they did all the road construction.....where the main gate was a target for drive by's I was lucky and had Gate 6. Campbell Army Airfield
You Are Not Trayvon Martin His death wasn’t about race, guns, or your pet issue. It was about misjudgment and overreaction—exactly what we’re doing now to the verdict.
Trayvon Martin is dead, George Zimmerman has been acquitted, and millions of people are outraged. Some politicians are demanding a second prosecution of Zimmerman, this time for hate crimes. Others are blaming the tragedy on “Stand Your Ground” laws, which they insist must be repealed. Many who saw the case as proof of racism in the criminal justice system see the verdict as further confirmation. Everywhere you look, people feel vindicated in their bitter assumptions. They want action.
But that’s how Martin ended up dead. It’s how Zimmerman ended up with a bulletproof vest he might have to wear for the rest of his life. It’s how activists and the media embarrassed themselves with bogus reports. The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns. The problem was assumption, misperception, and overreaction. And that cycle hasn’t ended with the verdict. It has escalated.
I almost joined the frenzy. Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling. But I hadn’t followed the case in detail. So I sat down and watched the closing arguments: nearly seven hours of video in which the prosecution and defense went point by point through the evidence as it had been hashed out at the trial. Based on what I learned from the videos, I did some further reading.
The 911 dispatcher who spoke to Zimmerman on the fatal night didn’t tell him to stay in his car. Zimmerman said he was following a suspicious person, and the dispatcher told him, "We don't need you do to that." Chief prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda conceded in his closing argument that these words were ambiguous. De la Rionda also acknowledged, based on witness and forensic evidence that both men “were scraping and rolling and fighting out there.” He pointed out that the wounds, blood evidence, and DNA didn’t match Zimmerman’s story of being thoroughly restrained and pummeled throughout the fight. But the evidence didn’t fit the portrait of Martin as a sweet-tempered child, either. And the notion that Zimmerman hunted down Martin to accost him made no sense. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way. They arrived only a minute or so after the gunshot. The fight happened in a public area surrounded by townhouses at close range. It was hardly the place or time to start shooting.
That doesn’t make Zimmerman a hero. It just makes him a reckless fool instead of a murderer. In a post-verdict press conference, his lawyer, Mark O’Mara, claimed that “the evidence supported that George Zimmerman did nothing wrong,” that “the jury decided that he acted properly in self-defense,” and that Zimmerman “was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self-defense. I’m glad that the jury saw it that way.” That’s complete BS. The only thing the jury decided was that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman had committed second-degree murder or manslaughter.
Zimmerman is guilty, morally if not legally, of precipitating the confrontation that led to Martin’s death. He did many things wrong. Mistake No. 1 was inferring that Martin was a burglar. In his 911 call, Zimmerman cited Martin’s behavior. “It’s raining, and he’s just walking around” looking at houses, Zimmerman said. He warned the dispatcher, “He’s got his hand in his waistband.” He described Martin’s race and clothing only after the dispatcher asked about them. Whatever its basis, the inference was false.
Mistake No. 2 was pursuing Martin on foot. Zimmerman had already done what the neighborhood watch rules advised: He had called the police. They would have arrived, questioned Martin, and ascertained that he was innocent. Instead, Zimmerman, packing a concealed firearm, got out and started walking after Martin. Zimmerman’s initial story, that he was trying to check the name of the street, was so laughable that his attorneys abandoned it. He was afraid Martin would get away. So he followed Martin, hoping to update the cops.
Mistake No. 3 was Zimmerman’s utter failure to imagine how his behavior looked to Martin. You’re a black kid walking home from a convenience store with Skittles and a fruit drink. Some dude in a car is watching and trailing you. God knows what he wants. You run away. He gets out of the car and follows you. What are you supposed to do? In Zimmerman’s initial interrogation, the police expressed surprise that he hadn’t identified himself to Martin as a neighborhood watch volunteer.
They suggested that Martin might have been alarmed when Zimmerman reached for an object that Zimmerman, but not Martin, knew was a phone. Zimmerman seemed baffled. He was so convinced of Martin’s criminal intent that he hadn’t considered how Martin, if he were innocent, would perceive his stalker.
Martin, meanwhile, was profiling Zimmerman. On his phone, he told a friend he was being followed by a “creepy-ass cracker.” The friend—who later testified that this phrase meant pervert—advised Martin, “You better run.” She reported, as Zimmerman did, that Martin challenged Zimmerman, demanding to know why he was being hassled. If Zimmerman’s phobic misreading of Martin was the first wrong turn that led to their fatal struggle, Martin’s phobic misreading of Zimmerman may have been the second.
In court, evidence and scrutiny have exposed these difficult, complicated truths. But outside the court, ideologues are ignoring them. They’re oversimplifying a tragedy that was caused by oversimplification. Martin has become Emmett Till. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using the verdict to attack Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which wasn’t invoked in this case. The grievance industrial complex is pushing the Department of Justice to prosecute Zimmerman for bias-motivated killing, based on evidence that didn’t even support a conviction for unpremeditated killing. Zimmerman’s lawyers have teamed up with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, inadvertently, to promote the false message that Zimmerman’s acquittal means our society thinks everything he did was OK.
It wasn’t OK. It was stupid and dangerous. It led to the unnecessary death of an innocent young man. It happened because two people—their minds clouded by stereotypes that went well beyond race—assumed the worst about one another and acted in haste. If you want to prevent the next Trayvon Martin tragedy, learn from their mistakes. Don’t paint the world in black and white. Don’t declare the whole justice system racist, or blame every gun death on guns, or confuse acquittal with vindication. And the next time you see somebody who looks like a punk or a pervert, hold your fire.
As for Finland being homogenous country, that's not quite true any more. For example, of the three families that live in the same building as me only one is ethnically Finnish. Others are Russian and Vietnamese.
White. White. Asian. Diverse nationalities, to be sure, though.
I'm sorry, I found this statement hilarious.
Carry on, then...
That was one building. Somalis live in the next building...
Dude, please. There are more minorities in any medium sized American city than in your entire country.
Please don't pretend you have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to racial diversity, especially when compared to the United States.
As for Finland being homogenous country, that's not quite true any more. For example, of the three families that live in the same building as me only one is ethnically Finnish. Others are Russian and Vietnamese.
White. White. Asian. Diverse nationalities, to be sure, though.
I'm sorry, I found this statement hilarious.
Carry on, then...
That was one building. Somalis live in the next building...
Dude, please. There are more minorities in any medium sized American city than in your entire country.
Please don't pretend you have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to racial diversity, especially when compared to the United States.
Europe and USA are pretty much equal there, so this pissing match can really stop.
As for Finland being homogenous country, that's not quite true any more. For example, of the three families that live in the same building as me only one is ethnically Finnish. Others are Russian and Vietnamese.
White. White. Asian. Diverse nationalities, to be sure, though.
I'm sorry, I found this statement hilarious.
Carry on, then...
That was one building. Somalis live in the next building...
Dude, please. There are more minorities in any medium sized American city than in your entire country.
Please don't pretend you have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to racial diversity, especially when compared to the United States.
Finland, at least according to Wikipedia, has one of the lowest racial diversities in Europe.
Whembly, I was with that article until the last line, which sort of alludes to Zimmerman shooting Martin because of how he looked, which wasn't the case at al.
He shot him because he was getting his head beat against the ground.
cincydooley wrote: Whembly, I was with that article until the last line, which sort of alludes to Zimmerman shooting Martin because of how he looked, which wasn't the case at al.
He shot him because he was getting his head beat against the ground.
Yeah, had problem with that too...
But the rest of his points are solid. The situation is FUBAR'ed all over...
As for Finland being homogenous country, that's not quite true any more. For example, of the three families that live in the same building as me only one is ethnically Finnish. Others are Russian and Vietnamese.
White. White. Asian. Diverse nationalities, to be sure, though.
I'm sorry, I found this statement hilarious.
Carry on, then...
That was one building. Somalis live in the next building...
Dude, please. There are more minorities in any medium sized American city than in your entire country.
Please don't pretend you have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to racial diversity, especially when compared to the United States.
Europe and USA are pretty much equal there, so this pissing match can really stop.
As for Finland being homogenous country, that's not quite true any more. For example, of the three families that live in the same building as me only one is ethnically Finnish. Others are Russian and Vietnamese.
White. White. Asian. Diverse nationalities, to be sure, though.
I'm sorry, I found this statement hilarious.
Carry on, then...
That was one building. Somalis live in the next building...
Dude, please. There are more minorities in any medium sized American city than in your entire country.
Please don't pretend you have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to racial diversity, especially when compared to the United States.
Europe and USA are pretty much equal there, so this pissing match can really stop.
whembly wrote: I'm just sick of all this... this was nothing more than to force fit a narrative, which was all about keeping black voters — and white-guilt liberal voters — in the fold for 2012 and 2014.
One member of the jury has given an inside peek to the jury room:
A juror in the George Zimmerman trial made her first public appearances since the trial reached its verdict on Saturday, saying race did not play a role in the jury’s decision but admitted she believes Zimmerman went "above and beyond" his role as a neighborhood watch member.
Juror B37, who asked to remain her anonymity, said she did not find the prosecution’s witnesses to be credible and that race did not play a role in the jury’s decision.
However, she also acknowledged her belief that Zimmerman went "above and beyond" in his decision to ignore police direction by confronting Treyvon Martin.
Appearing on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” she said neither she nor any of the other jurors discussed race when reviewing the case.
“I don’t think it did. If there was another person, Spanish, white Asian, if they came in the same situation as Treyvon did, I think George would have reacted the same way,” she said.
“I think all of us thought race did not play a role. We never had that discussion. I think he just profiled him because he was the neighborhood watch and he profiled anyone that was acting strange.”
However, she did acknowledge that the jury was initially split on the decision, saying that two jurors initially pushed for a manslaughter charge and a third pushed for a second-degree murder conviction. Eventually, all settled on not guilty verdict.
And in a revealing moment, the juror said Zimmerman went “above and beyond” acceptable action by confronting Martin.
“[Zimmerman] got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhood and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he should have,” she said. “It just went terribly wrong. I think he’s guilty of not using good judgment. When he was in the car and called 9-1-1 he shouldn’t have gotten out of that car.”
Juror B37 says she wants to maintain her anonymity but she has been willing to speak out on the case. As reported earlier on Monday, juror B37 announced plans to write a tell-all book about her experiences on the jury in the Zimmerman trial .
“Nobody knew exactly what happened,” Juror B37 said when asked about the specific details of the case. “I don’t think anybody knows.”
When asked if she feels sorry for the death of Treyvon Martin, she responded, “I feel sorry for both of them.”
“I think both of them were responsible for the situation they got themselves into,” she added. “I think they each could have made the decision to walk away.”
And in another revealing exchange, the juror said that while agrees with the decision to return Zimmerman’s gun, she at first appeared hesitant when asked if she would want him serving in her own neighborhood watch.
“I think he has every right to carry a gun. I think everyone has a right to carry a gun.”
But Juror B37 paused for several seconds when Cooper asked about serving on a neighborhood watch in her own community.
“If he didn’t go too far,” she said. “He didn’t stop at the limitations he should have stopped at. I would feel comfortable having George, but I think he’s learned a good lesson. I think he didn’t know when to stop.”
Juror B37 said she never wants to serve on a jury again. And admitted she has concerns about her own safety following the verdict.
“I’m not really scared but I want to be cautious,” she said. “We cried over it afterwards. I don’t think any of us could ever do anything like that again.”
And of course, where there is a trial there's someone(s) to make some money from the inevitable book deal
The only defense they have is that they'll claim that Zimmerman is a public figure. Not sure how that'll pass, but you never know.
True. Sorry, I keep forgetting that most of the crimes news companies commit aren't crimes when the news companies are the ones doing them. I'll return to lurking this thread.
The only defense they have is that they'll claim that Zimmerman is a public figure. Not sure how that'll pass, but you never know.
True. Sorry, I keep forgetting that most of the crimes news companies commit aren't crimes when the news companies are the ones doing them. I'll return to lurking this thread.
Naw... S'okay... I'm usually the one carrying the torch crying about media bias. In this case, I think Zimmerman should just focus on NBC and sue them to kingdom come... make it hurt GE's wallet (owner of NBC), such that it puts other media organizations on notice.
Richard A. Jewell (December 17, 1962 – August 29, 2007) was an American police officer who, while working as a security guard for Piedmont College,[1] became known in connection with the Centennial Olympic Park bombing at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, United States. Discovering a backpack filled with three pipe bombs on the park grounds, Jewell alerted police and helped to evacuate the area before the bomb exploded, saving many people from injury or death. Initially hailed by the media as a hero, Jewell was later considered a suspect. Jewell's case is considered an example of the damage that can be done by reporting based on unreliable or incomplete information.[2]
Despite never being officially charged, he underwent a "trial by media" with great toll on his personal and professional life. Eventually he was completely exonerated and Eric Robert Rudolph was later found to have been the bomber.[3][4] In 2006, Governor Sonny Perdue publicly thanked Jewell on behalf of the state of Georgia for saving the lives of those at the Olympics.[5]
There were a lot of soldiers, sailors, marines and air force personnel detailed for security at the Atlanta, Olympics. I was there for a couple days myself before the explosion. When the media started tearing this guy life apart and were portraying him as the "bomber" because he wanted to be a hero did not just didn't fit right with us (military) and the LEO but its the media...
After his exoneration, Jewell filed a series of lawsuits against the media outlets which he claimed had libeled him, primarily NBC News and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and insisted on a formal apology from them. L. Lin Wood was the lead attorney in all of Jewell's libel cases.[1][2][9][10]
In 2006, Jewell said the lawsuits were not about money, and that the vast majority of the settlements went to lawyers or taxes. He said the lawsuits were about clearing his name.[2]
Richard Jewell v. Piedmont College[edit]
Jewell filed suit against his former employer Piedmont College, Piedmont College President Raymond Cleere and college spokesman Scott Rawles.[9] Jewell's attorneys contended that Cleere called the FBI and spoke to the Atlanta newspapers, providing them with false information on Jewell and his employment there as a security guard. Jewell's lawsuit accused Cleere of describing Jewell as a "badge-wearing zealot" who "would write epic police reports for minor infractions."[1]
Piedmont College settled for an undisclosed amount.[11]
Richard Jewell v. NBC[edit]
Jewell sued NBC News for this statement, made by Tom Brokaw: "The speculation is that the FBI is close to making the case. They probably have enough to arrest him right now, probably enough to prosecute him, but you always want to have enough to convict him as well. There are still some holes in this case".[12] Even though NBC stood by its story, the network agreed to pay Jewell $500,000.[9]
Richard Jewell v. New York Post[edit]
On July 23, 1997, Jewell sued The New York Post for $15 million in damages and settled with the newspaper for an undisclosed amount.[13]
Richard Jewell v. Cox Enterprises (d.b.a. Atlanta Journal-Constitution)[edit]
Jewell also sued the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper. According to Jewell, the paper's headline, FBI suspects 'hero' guard may have planted bomb, "pretty much started the whirlwind".[10] In one article, the Atlanta Journal compared Richard Jewell's case to that of serial killer Wayne Williams.[14][15]
The newspaper was the only defendant that did not settle with Jewell. The lawsuit remained pending for several years, after having been considered at one time by the Supreme Court of Georgia, and had become an important part of case law regarding whether journalists could be forced to reveal their sources. The case was dismissed by Judge John R. Mather in December 2007, four months after Jewell's death. The paper claimed this was proof of the accuracy of their coverage.[16]
CNN[edit]
Although CNN settled with Jewell for an undisclosed monetary amount, CNN maintained its coverage was fair and accurate.[17]
How it all got started
In July 1997, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, prompted by a reporter's question at her regular weekly news conference, expressed regret over the FBI's leak to the news media that led to the widespread presumption of his guilt, and apologized outright, saying, "I'm very sorry it happened. I think we owe him an apology. I regret the leak."[18]
Dude, please. There are more minorities in any medium sized American city than in your entire country.
Please don't pretend you have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to racial diversity, especially when compared to the United States.
There are probably more people in a mid sized American city than in my entire country. And I certainly did not claim that Finland would be as multicultural as USA, that is obviously not true. I was merely saying that Finland no longer is quite as homogenous as it used to be. But situation is indeed many ways dissimilar. Most of our ethnic minorities are really recent arrivals,and they're from countries where culture is quite different. Some problems with multiculturalism stem from this, most stem from racist donkey-caves though. That's why it actually seems odd to me how most racial tension in USA is on black-white axis; from my perspective the cultural differences between these groups are generally rather negligible.
Dude, please. There are more minorities in any medium sized American city than in your entire country.
Please don't pretend you have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to racial diversity, especially when compared to the United States.
There are probably more people in a mid sized American city than in my entire country. And I certainly did not claim that Finland would be as multicultural as USA, that is obviously not true. I was merely saying that Finland no longer is quite as homogenous as it used to be. But situation is indeed many ways dissimilar. Most of our ethnic minorities are really recent arrivals,and they're from countries where culture is quite different. Some problems with multiculturalism stem from this, most stem from racist donkey-caves though. That's why it actually seems odd to me how most racial tension in USA is on black-white axis; from my perspective the cultural differences between these groups are generally rather negligible.
We have a long and complicated (and bloody) history stemming ultimately from slavery and the colonization of America. Hence the black-white divide.
As for Finland being homogenous country, that's not quite true any more. For example, of the three families that live in the same building as me only one is ethnically Finnish. Others are Russian and Vietnamese.
White. White. Asian. Diverse nationalities, to be sure, though.
I'm sorry, I found this statement hilarious.
Carry on, then...
That was one building. Somalis live in the next building...
Dude, please. There are more minorities in any medium sized American city than in your entire country.
Please don't pretend you have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to racial diversity, especially when compared to the United States.
Europe and USA are pretty much equal there, so this pissing match can really stop.
Finland /= Europe.
And Cincinnati /= the USA.
It's a pretty fun city though. And there's a Hofbräuhaus just across the river!
We have a long and complicated (and bloody) history stemming ultimately from slavery and the colonization of America. Hence the black-white divide.
Yes, of course. But It was weird how some people seemed to think that my Vietnamese and Russian neighbours really didn't 'count' as minorities as they were not black... Like having black neighbours would be some horrible ordeal that would instantly teach me how racial profiling is OK or something... I hope I seriously misunderstood.
Yes, of course. But It was weird how some people seemed to think that my Vietnamese and Russian neighbours really didn't 'count' as minorities as they were not black...
1. I didn't think that at all, actually. I am fully aware that you were talking about nationality diversity. But a Russian and Finnish dude can stand next to me wearing the same clothes and you'd see 3 white guys. 2. I was mainly picking on you.
1. I didn't think that at all, actually. I am fully aware that you were talking about nationality diversity. But a Russian and Finnish dude can stand next to me wearing the same clothes and you'd see 3 white guys.
Funny thing is that if there was one ethnic group Finns might have tensions with due the history, it's the Russians.
We have a long and complicated (and bloody) history stemming ultimately from slavery and the colonization of America. Hence the black-white divide
Not hijacking your Thunder Scruffy
I just want to add expansion towards the west coast to
We didn't start breaking that divide down till WWII Crimson...
I
n 1940 the U.S. population was about 131 million, 12.6 million of which was African American, or about 10 percent of the total population. During World War II, the Army had become the nation's largest minority employer. Of the 2.5 million African Americans males who registered for the draft through December 31, 1945, more than one million were inducted into the armed forces. African Americans, who constituted approximately 11 per cent of all registrants liable for service, furnished approximately this proportion of the inductees in all branches of the service except the Marine Corps. Along with thousands of black women, these inductees served in all branches of service and in all Theaters of Operations during World War II.
During World War II, President Roosevelt had responded to complaints about discrimination at home against African Americans by issuing Executive Order 8802 in June 1941, directing that blacks be accepted into job-training programs in defense plants, forbidding discrimination by defense contractors, and establishing a Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC).
After the war, President Harry Truman, Roosevelt's successor, faced a multitude of problems and allowed Congress to terminate the FEPC. However, in December 1946, Truman appointed a distinguished panel to serve as the President's Commission on Civil Rights, which recommended "more adequate means and procedures for the protection of the civil rights of the people of the United States." When the commission issued its report, "To Secure These Rights," in October 1947, among its proposals were anti-lynching and anti-poll tax laws, a permanent FEPC, and strengthening the civil rights division of the Department of Justice.
In February 1948 President Truman called on Congress to enact all of these recommendations. When Southern Senators immediately threatened a filibuster, Truman moved ahead on civil rights by using his executive powers. Among other things, Truman bolstered the civil rights division, appointed the first African American judge to the Federal bench, named several other African Americans to high-ranking administration positions, and most important, on July 26, 1948, he issued an executive order abolishing segregation in the armed forces and ordering full integration of all the services. Executive Order 9981 stated that "there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed forces without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin." The order also established an advisory committee to examine the rules, practices, and procedures of the armed services and recommend ways to make desegregation a reality. There was considerable resistance to the executive order from the military, but by the end of the Korean conflict, almost all the military was integrated
Though Eisenhower at the also played a part into it to by telling the Generals to "get with it" at the end.
Then Desegregation of the schools. Look up Little Rock, Arkansas. Arkansas Eight if I remember correctly. If not someone please correct me
Civil Rights Movement. Advise be read up on Martin Luther King. Granted Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton are also good read I just feel in today time frame they're a bit tarnish. MLK though I strongly feel will fight the same fight today as he did back then and not use or influence public perception in a negative way like the other two.
cincydooley wrote: I think you underestimate the difference between inner city black culture and suburban white culture in the United States.
Whatever those differences are, I'm quite certain that compared to cultural differences between a Muslim from war torn Somalia and a average Scandinavian, they are rather slight.
Whatever those differences are, I'm quite certain that compared to cultural differences between a Muslim from war torn Somalia and a average Scandinavian, they are rather slight.
Clarify. Somalia was my first combat deployment even though we were swapping C&C Hawks with 10th Mountain due to their aircrafts failing JACE inspections in a bad way. How slight is the difference from your perspective between Somali and a Scandinavian. One big difference off the bat between cultures. Is education.
cincydooley wrote: I think you underestimate the difference between inner city black culture and suburban white culture in the United States.
Whatever those differences are, I'm quite certain that compared to cultural differences between a Muslim from war torn Somalia and a average Scandinavian, they are rather slight.
I think you underestimate how many similarities there are between war torn Somalia and some of the inner city ghettos in the United States.
Poor. Uneducated. Dirty. Surrounded by "militants" engaging in firefights and murder? Am I talking about Somalia or inner city Chicago?
I actually never seen a, lack of words, clarification on when a gun fight happens at what point does it turn into a fire fight? Escaalation of weapons? Amount of rounds going back and forth? Number of individuals involve? Duration of the fight?
Clarify. Somalia was my first combat deployment even though we were swapping C&C Hawks with 10th Mountain due to their aircrafts failing JACE inspections in a bad way. How slight is the difference from your perspective between Somali and a Scandinavian. One big difference off the bat between cultures. Is education.
Those cultures are many way almost as different as they can be. Certainly much more different than American white and black cultures are from each other.
It's a bit hyperbolic, but the similarities are there.
My main point was to point out the stark contrast between that and white suburbia.
I still don't get what this has to do with justification for racial profiling. Why police has to stop LeVar Burton because some black people live in ghettos?
I still don't get what this has to do with justification for racial profiling. Why police has to stop LeVar Burton because some black people live in ghettos?
whembly wrote: I'm just sick of all this... this was nothing more than to force fit a narrative, which was all about keeping black voters — and white-guilt liberal voters — in the fold for 2012 and 2014.
And they commit a disproportionate amount of the crime and and represent a disproportionate amount of the incarcerated population.
And I googled levar burton racial profiling since you mentioned it. That kind of complex is the exact kind of reverse racism that this country tolerates. Get pulled over? Be respectful. It's that fething simple. His "teaching his boys to put their hands on the steering wheel" isnt a good lesson because they're black. It's a good lesson for anyone that gets pulled over.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And in regards to this case, it has no bearing. The FBI and the jury of the case found that Zimmermans following of Martin had nothing to with Martins race, but rather the fact that he had his hoodie up and was wandering the neighborhood scoping out houses.
Racial profiling. How black people, even ones of high social status, get disproportionally often stopped by police, for example.
Let me tell you about Reindeer herding, because I read about it and saw a couple of shows. As a result, I know all there is to know and there's no way someone who lives in Finland 24/7 could have anything beyond the knowledge I picked up.
Those cultures are many way almost as different as they can be. Certainly much more different than American white and black cultures are from each other
.
KK I'm tracking. I agree cultures are different if one individual was pulled out from an area and planted to another area he/she is not use to. Black and white in the US though are similar but follow two paths that are the same almost....start at teenage years. Going to be using the term "both individuals to cover down on Caucasian and African Americans
Both individuals are going to develop "clicks" of friends. Maintain the social bond through out high schools.
Both individuals are about to develop relationship. Chances of a mix relationship is good.
Both individuals are going to active in sports. Looking at Basketball and football
Both individuals going to develop taste of music. One rap one rock. They're going to stick with a certain genre. Later on in life they will broaden their taste.
Both individuals will fight. Maybe each other maybe not. Highly doubt it'll be over race. Our younger generation have not been exposed to 70-80's stigma. D-USA is an example. I do believe his wife an African American. Back in that time it was a taboo.
Both individuals going to get PoV's. I blame Fast and Furious on this one. Every kid it seems want a "Fast and Furious" vehicle
Both individuals are going to smoke dope once. So probably turn into a smoker and dealer or both will. Its quick cash that's luring them
Both individual are going to wear different set of clothes due to cultural difference or maybe the same.
Well that's a good baseline I think. The problem is both individuals are not being influence by the same family.
Both Parents are working or maybe one parent is working. Money is tight
Both sets of Parents might be church goers. Though I do believe the African American parents will have the stronger faith.
The friction is how the parents deal with situation regarding their kids.
I think I do believe I went off topic a bit. in a nutshell. Your individuality, your perception in life, your mindset, your ability to comprehend situational awareness,
Just name a few facet....this is when you develop your personal culture that will be similar but different from everyone else.
Let me tell you about Reindeer herding, because I read about it and saw a couple of shows. As a result, I know all there is to know and there's no way someone who lives in Finland 24/7 could have anything beyond the knowledge I picked up.
Please do, I don't actually know much about that.
And what makes you think that racial profiling does not happen here? I wish it wouldn't, but it does. Recently Ombudsman for Minorities had to remind the police that it is not okay. (The police denied that such thing had ever happened, but that was obviously not true.)
When you actually look at all the facts of the case you can see that the Jury made the correct call.
The police will tell you "We don't need you to do that" any time you call them and tell them you are going to do something because they can not advise you on what to do as they do not want to be held liable.
They will even tell you "We don't need you to do that" if you call about a guy hanging from a bridge and you say that you are going to help him because you think he is going to fall before the police/fire department/paramedics can arrive.
Travon should not have started the fight. George should not have put himself in the position to get attacked. But George, once he was being beaten and having his head smashed on the concrete, had no choice one Travon was beating him and, according to George, said "You’re going to die tonight"
Note, if it was a successful SYG invocation, Martin's family could bring a civil suit (which it appears they are going to do).
My guess, and opinion is that GZ's defense team felt it more reasonable to go to trial, which, IMO will remove any and all ground for a civil suit to be stood on. Obviously, I don't think a civil suit would be thrown out, I just highly doubt that with the outcome of the trial, that the Martin family will get a penny out of GZ... Now, GZ getting money from NBC on the other hand
NO. NO. There was no case to be made for Stand Your Ground. It's not even vaguely involved in this case or trial. I don't care what you thought about the verdict stop repeating this tripe. In ALL 50 U.S. states and most civilized nations if you are pinned to the ground or otherwise have no ability to retreat and are in fear of your life, lethal force in self defense is okay. Stand Your Ground (which removes the duty to retreat in the face of lethal threat) has NO bearing on this case what so freaking EVER.
The law suits Zimmerman is sure to file against NBC and other major networks will be fun to watch though.
Racial profiling. How black people, even ones of high social status, get disproportionally often stopped by police, for example.
Let me tell you about Reindeer herding, because I read about it and saw a couple of shows. As a result, I know all there is to know and there's no way someone who lives in Finland 24/7 could have anything beyond the knowledge I picked up.
Responding to a post about racial profiling with what is essentially national profiling. Good job. How about attacking the argument instead of the poster?
cincydooley wrote: I think you underestimate the difference between inner city black culture and suburban white culture in the United States.
Whatever those differences are, I'm quite certain that compared to cultural differences between a Muslim from war torn Somalia and a average Scandinavian, they are rather slight.
We have them too. And Hmong, and refugees from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Cuba, Ethiopia, and Sudan. We have a lot of different people. Tower of Babel, thine language is English (and Spanish).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: The "all-clear" for rioting was sounded a bit early, I think.
Hopefully the LA situation is resolved in a relatively civilized manner.
Well there are already reports of hispanics being targeted for attacks. Time to send in the Zetas. Viva La Raza!
Frazzled wrote: Well there are already reports of hispanics being targeted for attacks. Time to send in the Zetas. Viva La Raza!
Now, are these the "regular" Hispanics or the "white Hispanics." Oi Vey.
And quite frankly, I don't understand how organizations like the KKK or the New Black Panthers are allowed to publicly exist. They're terror organizations, no different in my mind than Al Quaeda.
@Crimson - I don't know what you want me to say about racial profiling. We have EXTENSIVE laws and provisions in our country in pretty much every avenue of public life that prevent people from doing it. Workplace. Banking, College Admission, etc. You name it, we have provisions in place to help prevent it.
You can prevent human preconceptions in their private life. You seem to be looking for some magical utopia where racial differences don't exist. There's a ride for that at Disneyland and that's about it. And, IMO, it's insulting to try and pretend we live in a colorblind world. We don't, and thats okay. But people will, and do, have prejudices based on experience.
Responding to a post about racial profiling with what is essentially national profiling. Good job. How about attacking the argument instead of the poster?
The point intedended from his comment is about as far away from what you understood it as as the US is from Finland.
His point was that he doesn't live in an area where reindeer herding even exists. He's got no 'real' practical authority to comment on it, regardless of how much he's read about it, or how much TV he's watched about it. The same, quite frankly, goes for anyone in a Scandanavian country trying to comment with authority on racial diversity and culture in the United States and telling those that live it every day they're wrong about how it works in the US.
He wasn't trying to be insulting or "nationally profile."
Frazzled wrote: Wow the Jeantel witness is on Pier Morgan (hate that guy). Pardon, but is she drunk? She acts like I do after I've had about four rums.
Wo.
She was a credible witness....... HAH can't say that with a straight face.
cincydooley wrote: There's a ride for that at Disneyland and that's about it. And, IMO, it's insulting to try and pretend we live in a colorblind world.
I don't. I know that prejudices exist.
We don't, and thats okay.
It is not okay; that was my point! It is one thing to say that prejudices exist, it is quite another to say that having prejudices is OK. You're basically saying that it is OK to be a racist, for feths sake!
It is not okay; that was my point! It is one thing to say that prejudices exist, it is quite another to say that having prejudices is OK. You're basically saying that it is OK to be a racist, for feths sake!
Again, in this instance, Zimmerman was acting on a prejudice (which was substantiated by the FBI..) regarding young men with hoodies on in a gated neighborhood that had previously been victim to a string of break ins.
Serino explained to agents that the local gangs, referred to in the community as “GOONS”, typically dressed in black and wore hoodies.
In other words, Martin was dressed very similarly to the local gangs... I wonder if Zimmerman knew that.
Here another really interesting point:
He listed Sgt AUTHOR BARNS, REBECCA VILLENOVE (phonetic), and TREKELL PERKINS as all pressuring him to file charges against ZIMMERMAN after the incident. Serino did not believe he had enough evidence at the time to file charges. Serino also stated that Barns is friendly with TRACY MARTIN.
Woah... in other words, the Martin’s family had connections with the cops.
You are missing the larger picture - whether it was invoked or not is no longer relevant. SYG is considered by many - like me - to be a contributing factor in this horrible business. If you want to stick to RAW, then you will be disappointed when reality ignores you. The cat is out of the bag, Pandora's box is opened, whatever....
The defense used a standard self defense clause that is present in all 50 states and in most civilized countries in the world.
Again, not the point.
A "Civilized" country should never have allowed a law like SYG without careful consideration of all possible consequences. Zimmerman created the situation where he had to defend himself - he never should have created the situation.
A "Civilized" country should never have allowed a law like SYG without careful consideration of all possible consequences. Zimmerman created the situation where he had to defend himself - he never should have created the situation.
You're right. Poor judgement was used by Zimmerman. Zimmerman didn't 'create' the attack. The only way you can claim that Zimmerman "created the situation" is if you presume that Zimmerman knew that getting out of his car and following Martin would result in him getting attacked. Regardless, that poor judgement didn't necessitate that he be attacked. To remove any culpability from Martin is incredibly irresponsible. Both mens actions led to the final result. With simple changes on either side it could have turned out differently.
And considering that, based on what we know, if Martin kills Zimmerman after calling him a 'creepy ass cracker,' would Martin have been charged with a hate crime?
How did Zimmerman create the situation in which he had his head pounded into the concrete? Because that's the situation in which he had to defend himself.
Oh wow! Prejudice based on race is not racism! No wonder many blatantly racist people manage to think themselves as not racist if that level of cognitive dissonance is possible!
A "Civilized" country should never have allowed a law like SYG without careful consideration of all possible consequences. Zimmerman created the situation where he had to defend himself - he never should have created the situation.
...because?
Protip: if you don't want to get shot, don't break into another person's property.
Oh wow! Prejudice based on race is not racism! No wonder many blatantly racist people manage to think themselves as not racist if that level of cognitive dissonance is possible!
I mean, you have to be intentionally missing the point, right?
Any prejudice towards Treyvon Martin in this instance was due to his clothing and demeanor, not his race. Both the Samford Police and the FBI have come to the same conclusion.
A "Civilized" country should never have allowed a law like SYG without careful consideration of all possible consequences. Zimmerman created the situation where he had to defend himself - he never should have created the situation.
...because?
Protip: if you don't want to get shot, don't break into another person's property.
B and E was never an aspect of the Zimmerman/Martin case.
I mean, you have to be intentionally missing the point, right?
Any prejudice towards Treyvon Martin in this instance was due to his clothing and demeanor, not his race. Both the Samford Police and the FBI have come to the same conclusion.
That may be. But we were speaking about racial profiling in general. You were spamming crime statistics by race.
You are missing the larger picture - whether it was invoked or not is no longer relevant. SYG is considered by many - like me - to be a contributing factor in this horrible business. If you want to stick to RAW, then you will be disappointed when reality ignores you. The cat is out of the bag, Pandora's box is opened, whatever....
The defense used a standard self defense clause that is present in all 50 states and in most civilized countries in the world.
Again, not the point.
A "Civilized" country should never have allowed a law like SYG without careful consideration of all possible consequences. Zimmerman created the situation where he had to defend himself - he never should have created the situation.
You're using the death of TM to further your own agenda. Nice.
A "Civilized" country should never have allowed a law like SYG without careful consideration of all possible consequences. Zimmerman created the situation where he had to defend himself - he never should have created the situation.
...because?
Protip: if you don't want to get shot, don't break into another person's property.
B and E was never an aspect of the Zimmerman/Martin case.
He probably shouldn't of been there, at the least he would of been trespassing.
Also Protip: don't fight people they may have a gun.
You are missing the larger picture - whether it was invoked or not is no longer relevant. SYG is considered by many - like me - to be a contributing factor in this horrible business. If you want to stick to RAW, then you will be disappointed when reality ignores you. The cat is out of the bag, Pandora's box is opened, whatever....
The defense used a standard self defense clause that is present in all 50 states and in most civilized countries in the world.
Again, not the point.
A "Civilized" country should never have allowed a law like SYG without careful consideration of all possible consequences. Zimmerman created the situation where he had to defend himself - he never should have created the situation.
You're using the death of TM to further your own agenda. Nice.
I mean, you have to be intentionally missing the point, right?
Any prejudice towards Treyvon Martin in this instance was due to his clothing and demeanor, not his race. Both the Samford Police and the FBI have come to the same conclusion.
That may be. But we were speaking about racial profiling in general. You were spamming crime statistics by race.
This needs a link to a certain Avenue Q song known titled "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist". But I'm at work and youtube is a no go.
Scott wrote: Zimmerman had the gun, the gun killed Martin, the gun wouldn't have been used had either of these people used slightly more sense.
You think someone is more at fault because they had a firearm?
Whoa whoa whoa. Can we focus on one cause. Is it the firearm's fault, or is it because the White-Hispanic Zimmerman was a racist? Wait, no, It was probably the concrete's fault for having Zimmerman's head bouncin on it.
Frazzled wrote: Wow the Jeantel witness is on Pier Morgan (hate that guy). Pardon, but is she drunk? She acts like I do after I've had about four rums.
Wo.
"Rachel Jeantel called the verdict "BS" and said Martin, 17, was never aggressive."
This statement has been retracted as Rachel Jeantel thought B.S. Stood for Bologna Sandwich
Frazzled wrote: Wow the Jeantel witness is on Pier Morgan (hate that guy). Pardon, but is she drunk? She acts like I do after I've had about four rums.
Wo.
"Rachel Jeantel called the verdict "BS" and said Martin, 17, was never aggressive."
This statement has been retracted as Rachel Jeantel thought B.S. Stood for Bologna Sandwich
I watched her interview with Piers Morgan and my goodness. I'm amazed the prosecution put her on the stand. Although I have to be honest: I get a pretty big kick out of watching stupid people incorrectly use words and phrasing to try and act intelligent. This goes especially for white trash. High comedy.
Frazzled wrote: Wow the Jeantel witness is on Pier Morgan (hate that guy). Pardon, but is she drunk? She acts like I do after I've had about four rums.
Wo.
"Rachel Jeantel called the verdict "BS" and said Martin, 17, was never aggressive."
This statement has been retracted as Rachel Jeantel thought B.S. Stood for Bologna Sandwich
Not sure if serious
Based on how this case has been a colossal circus it honestly wouldn't surprise me if she had "retracted" that statement.
A few other "gems" from her.
"If you were a real man you would have stand on that stage and tell what happened," she said, calling Zimmerman "weak" and "scary."
"It was racial. Let's be honest, racial. If Trayvon was white and he had a hoodie on, would that happen?" she asked.
Jeantel acknowledged that Martin smoked marijuana, but added, "Weed don't make him go crazy, it just makes him go hungry."
I'm a horrible person, I wanted to make a few jokes about this girl, but will refrain from doing so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Scrabb wrote: Something that I did not notice being shown yet.
Frazzled wrote: Wow the Jeantel witness is on Pier Morgan (hate that guy). Pardon, but is she drunk? She acts like I do after I've had about four rums.
Wo.
"Rachel Jeantel called the verdict "BS" and said Martin, 17, was never aggressive."
This statement has been retracted as Rachel Jeantel thought B.S. Stood for Bologna Sandwich
I watched her interview with Piers Morgan and my goodness. I'm amazed the prosecution put her on the stand. Although I have to be honest: I get a pretty big kick out of watching stupid people incorrectly use words and phrasing to try and act intelligent. This goes especially for white trash. High comedy.
Am I wrong though. Didn't she look at least one sheet into the wind?
@Frazz-- She really did. I think with her weird lisp and the fact that she barely speaks English contributed, but man...she didn't really avail herself at all in that interview. I really don't get her "explanation" of the "thuggisms" either; is that supposed to help bolster the general population's opinion of you?
And I nearly lost it when she claimed that "cracka" was supposed to mean someone trying to act like a cop. Gimmeabreak.
Yea thats just (another) lie.
You noticed she slipped up partway through on a discussion about either why he didn't call 911 or she wasn't afraid (I forget) to the effect that he could lay down a beatdown or something (I couldn't understand her all the time). My theory comes true.
She wasn't worried becuase she knew he was going to beat down Z. THATS why she didn't call the cops.
Frazzled wrote: Yea thats just (another) lie.
You noticed she slipped up partway through on a discussion about either why he didn't call 911 or she wasn't afraid (I forget) to the effect that he could lay down a beatdown or something (I couldn't understand her all the time). My theory comes true.
She wasn't worried becuase she knew he was going to beat down Z. THATS why she didn't call the cops.
That last sentence is speculation and full of faulty logic.
But I do agree that Rachel had no place on that stand. They should have made her do a video testimony much like what GZ did. She was unprepared and hostile at the thought of testifying. That makes for a bad witness.
Frazzled wrote: Yea thats just (another) lie.
You noticed she slipped up partway through on a discussion about either why he didn't call 911 or she wasn't afraid (I forget) to the effect that he could lay down a beatdown or something (I couldn't understand her all the time). My theory comes true.
She wasn't worried becuase she knew he was going to beat down Z. THATS why she didn't call the cops.
That last sentence is speculation and full of faulty logic.
It has something in common with the prosecution's case then.
Frazzled wrote: Yea thats just (another) lie.
You noticed she slipped up partway through on a discussion about either why he didn't call 911 or she wasn't afraid (I forget) to the effect that he could lay down a beatdown or something (I couldn't understand her all the time). My theory comes true.
She wasn't worried becuase she knew he was going to beat down Z. THATS why she didn't call the cops.
That last sentence is speculation and full of faulty logic.
But I do agree that Rachel had no place on that stand. They should have made her do a video testimony much like what GZ did. She was unprepared and hostile at the thought of testifying. That makes for a bad witness.
Of course its speculation. I said as such. Faulty? no. She pretty much admitted it.
Besides why else when you hear your BF / friend whatever suddenly get into a fight on the other end with the phone cut off, do you just go off and do you hair? She couldn't do video testimony as she was within travelling distance. Defense would have just subpoenaed (sp) to testify.
Besides why else when you hear your BF / friend whatever suddenly get into a fight on the other end with the phone cut off, do you just go off and do you hair?
L-O-mother- fething-L! Is that what she testified she did?
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: The pundits have gone into overdrive to spin this verdict into something it is not. Zimmerman's acquittal is not an endorsement of his actions. It is not a demonization of Trayvon Martin. It is not a vindication of Stand Your Ground (or Concealed Carry) laws, and it is not a call for open season on minorities. It is simply a verdict that stating that the six jurors were unable to find Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter or second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
The various (mostly fringe lunatics) stating that the prosecution threw the case because they are racist, or that the 6 jurors found GZ not guilty because Martin was black are truly despicable though.
Clutching at straws. It's what happens when you don't actually have an argument, or facts to support your position.
Jihadin wrote: I'm actually looking forward to GZ to take NBC to task. I'm sure a few on here also looking forward to it.
I hope they have their checkbook close to hand
Frazzled wrote: Wow the Jeantel witness is on Pier Morgan (hate that guy). Pardon, but is she drunk? She acts like I do after I've had about four rums.
Wo.
What a combination.....
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The law suits Zimmerman is sure to file against NBC and other major networks will be fun to watch though.
I may need to stock up on popcorn for that before its all sold out
Frazzled wrote: We have them too. And Hmong, and refugees from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Cuba, Ethiopia, and Sudan. We have a lot of different people. Tower of Babel, thine language is English (and Spanish).
You mean he's not a racist? How ever will the poor media cope with that revelation? Still, they managed to ignore the FBI when they said he wasn't motivated by race. Maybe a lawsuit will help them
Despicable. I realize for the HoA it was a risk/reward type situation, but why are they entitled to any money, especially now. And FWIW, I feel the same about the millions of dollars that are about to be doled out to the families at Sandy Hook. It probably sounds really callous, but there are thousands of families every year that lose loved ones to non-natural deaths, but because they're not public, they don't see a dime for their 'pain and suffering.'
Despicable. I realize for the HoA it was a risk/reward type situation, but why are they entitled to any money, especially now. And FWIW, I feel the same about the millions of dollars that are about to be doled out to the families at Sandy Hook. It probably sounds really callous, but there are thousands of families every year that lose loved ones to non-natural deaths, but because they're not public, they don't see a dime for their 'pain and suffering.'
America. Land of the Free, Home of Entitlement.
I love this country, but man.....
That most likely came out of the HOA's insurance liability...
I've been reading the Florida laws on this... I think Zimmerman would be immune to future civil lawsuits.
No wonder Florida is such a popular state in these regards (OJ Simpson moved most of his assets to Florida prior to his civil court).
A Twitter user who launched a social media campaign to stop a juror in the George Zimmerman case from getting a book deal has succeeded in her effort — within six hours.
On Monday, Juror B37, one of six female jurors who made the controversial decision to acquit Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, told Anderson Cooper that she had signed with a literary agent to shop a tell-all book about her experience during the three-week, televised trial.
The agent, Sharlene Martin, told Yahoo News that the juror reached out to her on the advice of a producer from a morning show and that the juror had said she was planning to publish the book anonymously “given the sensitivity of the verdict and the outpouring of mixed reactions by the American public.”
Then came the social media campaign.
Genie Lauren, whose Twitter handle is @MoreAndAgain, tweeted out the agent's contact information, urging fellow users to flood the agency with calls and emails "to stop the book deal from coming to fruition," Uproxx.com reports.
"Hey, @sharlenemartin, please drop juror B37," Lauren wrote. "Do not help the person who let a murderer get away profit from this tragedy."
"Only thing I can think to do is flood Sharlene Martin's phone, email, and snail mail, w/ requests that she drop juror B37," she continued.
Lauren then launched a Change.org petition asking the agency to drop the unnamed juror:
After murdering Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman was acquitted, even though juror B37 admitted (in a CNN interview) that Zimmerman "went too far", and didn't "stop at the limitations he should've stopped at". Now that very juror, who allowed Trayvon Martin's killer to get away, is writing a book. Please don't allow this person to profit off of the injustice that they've served to the American public. We deserve better. Trayvon Martin's family deserves better.
The petition quickly reached 1,000 signatures, and the Martin Literary Agency released a statement late Monday:
After careful consideration regarding the proposed book project with Zimmerman Juror B37, I have decided to rescind my offer of representation in the exploration of a book based upon this case.
Juror B37 then announced she was abandoning the book idea:
I realize it was necessary for our jury to be sequestered in order to protect our verdict from unfair outside influence, but that isolation shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case. The potential book was always intended to be a respectful observation of the trial from my and my husband’s perspectives solely and it was to be an observation that our "system" of justice can get so complicated that it creates a conflict with our "spirit" of justice. Now that I am returned to my family and to society in general, I have realized that the best direction for me to go is away from writing any sort of book and return instead to my life as it was before I was called to sit on this jury.
Roots' drummer Questlove applauded Lauren's efforts, tweeting a thank you note to his 2.6 million followers
A Twitter user who launched a social media campaign to stop a juror in the George Zimmerman case from getting a book deal has succeeded in her effort — within six hours.
On Monday, Juror B37, one of six female jurors who made the controversial decision to acquit Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, told Anderson Cooper that she had signed with a literary agent to shop a tell-all book about her experience during the three-week, televised trial.
The agent, Sharlene Martin, told Yahoo News that the juror reached out to her on the advice of a producer from a morning show and that the juror had said she was planning to publish the book anonymously “given the sensitivity of the verdict and the outpouring of mixed reactions by the American public.”
Then came the social media campaign.
Genie Lauren, whose Twitter handle is @MoreAndAgain, tweeted out the agent's contact information, urging fellow users to flood the agency with calls and emails "to stop the book deal from coming to fruition," Uproxx.com reports.
"Hey, @sharlenemartin, please drop juror B37," Lauren wrote. "Do not help the person who let a murderer get away profit from this tragedy."
"Only thing I can think to do is flood Sharlene Martin's phone, email, and snail mail, w/ requests that she drop juror B37," she continued.
Lauren then launched a Change.org petition asking the agency to drop the unnamed juror:
After murdering Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman was acquitted, even though juror B37 admitted (in a CNN interview) that Zimmerman "went too far", and didn't "stop at the limitations he should've stopped at". Now that very juror, who allowed Trayvon Martin's killer to get away, is writing a book. Please don't allow this person to profit off of the injustice that they've served to the American public. We deserve better. Trayvon Martin's family deserves better.
The petition quickly reached 1,000 signatures, and the Martin Literary Agency released a statement late Monday:
After careful consideration regarding the proposed book project with Zimmerman Juror B37, I have decided to rescind my offer of representation in the exploration of a book based upon this case.
Juror B37 then announced she was abandoning the book idea:
I realize it was necessary for our jury to be sequestered in order to protect our verdict from unfair outside influence, but that isolation shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case. The potential book was always intended to be a respectful observation of the trial from my and my husband’s perspectives solely and it was to be an observation that our "system" of justice can get so complicated that it creates a conflict with our "spirit" of justice. Now that I am returned to my family and to society in general, I have realized that the best direction for me to go is away from writing any sort of book and return instead to my life as it was before I was called to sit on this jury.
Roots' drummer Questlove applauded Lauren's efforts, tweeting a thank you note to his 2.6 million followers
Feth it man. Innocent until proven guilty is long dead
It's like everyone has the "thin skin" syndrome...
o.O
The amount of FB status updates I've seen from people who should know better have been unreal. I'm hiding them rather than even trying to reason with them.
It's like everyone has the "thin skin" syndrome...
o.O
The amount of FB status updates I've seen from people who should know better have been unreal. I'm hiding them rather than even trying to reason with them.
Dear lord, yes. My US profile is flooded with people taking sides in this case -__-
Sigvatr wrote: Dear lord, yes. My US profile is flooded with people taking sides in this case -__-
There were some people that I know to ignore because they have an ideology that they always argue from, but there were others who I was surprised at with some of the things that they posted.
Sigvatr wrote: Dear lord, yes. My US profile is flooded with people taking sides in this case -__-
There were some people that I know to ignore because they have an ideology that they always argue from, but there were others who I was surprised at with some of the things that they posted.
I'm just surprised how obvious it is how many people I see on FB who have barely followed any of the details of the case. That's not to say that I think everyone who followed the case closely would have the same opinion, but so much of it seems to be completely in favor of Martin while claiming that Zimmerman is a murdering racist vigilante and that now SYG laws prove that racist white vigilantes can get away with killing black people whenever they want.
I feel like someone who had actually dug a little bit into the case would have a bit more nuanced view than that.
And interestingly... in Florida, Zimmerman may be immune to any civil lawsuits.
And that's probably for the best, as much as I did not like outcome of the trial it should be respected and harassing Zimmerman with further lawsuits doesn't seem right. But US legal system is a weird anyway, so I'm not sure how any of this works. What is the difference between criminal and civil lawsuits?
Hordini wrote: I'm just surprised how obvious it is how many people I see on FB who have barely followed any of the details of the case. That's not to say that I think everyone who followed the case closely would have the same opinion, but so much of it seems to be completely in favor of Martin while claiming that Zimmerman is a murdering racist vigilante and that now SYG laws prove that racist white vigilantes can get away with killing black people whenever they want.
I feel like someone who had actually dug a little bit into the case would have a bit more nuanced view than that.
Yup. If you're going to spread your views on a subject as far and wide as you can it really doesn't hurt to acquaint yourself with the basic facts about it.
Hordini wrote: Oh no. It was most definitely about her use of one word.
I'm surprised how quiet it's been over Adam Baldwin's homophobic rant
Sigvatr wrote: Dear lord, yes. My US profile is flooded with people taking sides in this case -__-
There were some people that I know to ignore because they have an ideology that they always argue from, but there were others who I was surprised at with some of the things that they posted.
My main issue is that even people not interested in legal stuff suddenly start taking sides, just using the info they got from the media. And really, mass media is an extremely bad source.
Sigvatr wrote: My main issue is that even people not interested in legal stuff suddenly start taking sides, just using the info they got from the media. And really, mass media is an extremely bad source.
Phrases that were a pretty good indicators that the person has no idea what they were talking about;
"The murder of Trayvon Martin"
"Justice for Trayvon"
"He was only carrying Skittles and Iced Tea"
Mum and Dad are over for our wedding and we went out to eat in a wee local place that had Nancy Grace in the background (mercifully muted) railing on about Zimmerman getting his gun back, and they were asking for the run down on the case. We said we'd give them a run down at home about it rather than have someone take that as an invite to join the discussion
xole wrote: Good news everyone! The media's found a comparable* case to Zimmerman's.
Seriously? Seriously? For what? Why not give that money to someone deserving. Not this moron.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh yah. And one of them is only to a Historically Black College. That's not discriminatory at all. And quite frankly, I don't understand how these universities are still allowed to exist.
cincydooley wrote: Oh yah. And one of them is only to a Historically Black College. That's not discriminatory at all. And quite frankly, I don't understand how these universities are still allowed to exist.
They are not black only, though in the past they were when they had to be, they just tend to have a black majority as opposed to most universities that have white majorities.
I'm just going to leave that there for you all.....
.... Yup, you read that right. The DOJ has opened up a "tip line" email address to solicit help from the "public" in their investigation of George Zimmerman
Seriously? Seriously? For what? Why not give that money to someone deserving. Not this moron.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh yah. And one of them is only to a Historically Black College. That's not discriminatory at all. And quite frankly, I don't understand how these universities are still allowed to exist.
So after a racially divisive trial and media witch hunt, a prosecution witness who used racial slurs is being given a full ride scholarship "to any HBCU" which will keep her apart from people of other races?
I'm just going to leave that there for you all.....
.... Yup, you read that right. The DOJ has opened up a "tip line" email address to solicit help from the "public" in their investigation of George Zimmerman
Sounds like they're trying to get him on anything that they can. Like I said earlier, I'm waiting for Zimmerman to be charged with littering for leaving a shell casing and his blood at the scene.
cincydooley wrote: Oh yah. And one of them is only to a Historically Black College. That's not discriminatory at all. And quite frankly, I don't understand how these universities are still allowed to exist.
They are not black only, though in the past they were when they had to be, they just tend to have a black majority as opposed to most universities that have white majorities.
Oh no, I understand why they used to exist. But to pretend that there's not a gakload of passive racism inherent in them now is silly. I mean, I guess it's a good thing that as a whole they're mediocre schools and they're not highly desirably to go to.
Regardless, give the money to someone deserving. In addition to proving herself to be a moron, Jeantel also proved she's an incredible racist in her interviews. Why in the sloppy feth is she deserving of a college scholarship?
cincydooley wrote: Regardless, give the money to someone deserving. In addition to proving herself to be a moron, Jeantel also proved she's an incredible racist in her interviews. Why in the sloppy feth is she deserving of a college scholarship?
Because a White Man White Hispanic murdered that poor sweet child Trayvon Martin who was armed only with Skittles and Iced Tea, and she was so traumatized about what she heard on the phone that she did her hair after. So justice for Trayvon........or something
I'm just going to leave that there for you all.....
.... Yup, you read that right. The DOJ has opened up a "tip line" email address to solicit help from the "public" in their investigation of George Zimmerman
Who was calling it tinfoil hat crazy when it was stated the government was going to do it's best to have Zimmerman convicted a few pages back on this thread?
I feel that people are having a little too much... fun? with this.
Maybe it's just me. I get that it's probably a coping mechanism against some of this stupidity buut...
A lot of this stupidity is a result of people growing up being exposed to stuff that was pretty stupid. There's a lot of crazy messed up stuff people I know have been subjected to because of what they looked like and they have a hard time not seeing things a certain way because that's all they've been given by jerks who are now probably dead.
-'Stupid' can refer here to 'racist' or 'race-baiting' or 'just-plain-wrong-headedness.'
cincydooley wrote: Oh yah. And one of them is only to a Historically Black College. That's not discriminatory at all. And quite frankly, I don't understand how these universities are still allowed to exist.
They are not black only, though in the past they were when they had to be, they just tend to have a black majority as opposed to most universities that have white majorities.
Oh no, I understand why they used to exist. But to pretend that there's not a gakload of passive racism inherent in them now is silly. I mean, I guess it's a good thing that as a whole they're mediocre schools and they're not highly desirably to go to.
Regardless, give the money to someone deserving. In addition to proving herself to be a moron, Jeantel also proved she's an incredible racist in her interviews. Why in the sloppy feth is she deserving of a college scholarship?
It's reality like this that makes the movie "Soul Man" look like an intelligent comment on today's society.
I'm just going to leave that there for you all.....
.... Yup, you read that right. The DOJ has opened up a "tip line" email address to solicit help from the "public" in their investigation of George Zimmerman
I don't have the appropriate picture for it but..... IT'S A TRAP!!!!
Scrabb wrote: I feel that people are having a little too much... fun? with this.
Maybe it's just me. I get that it's probably a coping mechanism against some of this stupidity buut...
A lot of this stupidity is a result of people growing up being exposed to stuff that was pretty stupid. There's a lot of crazy messed up stuff people I know have been subjected to because of what they looked like and they have a hard time not seeing things a certain way because that's all they've been given by jerks who are now probably dead.
-'Stupid' can refer here to 'racist' or 'race-baiting' or 'just-plain-wrong-headedness.'
The sad reality is all the ridiculousness surrounding this verdict. People basically want to turn over the verdict. We have government officials trying to dictate new policy following the outcome. Holder just spoke out against Stand Your Ground and how the Zimmerman showed that the law doesn't work. Only SYG wasn't even in play!! We have people giving unworthy people college scholarships simply because she was on the phone with Martin. And it's not like she availed herself in the trial or thus far on TV.
The absurdity of it all is, to me, just shocking. I'm incredulous. Something like 30 Black Americans were killed in Chicago during the trial in same race crime, and this is wha were talking about? This is what people are protesting about? Seriously?
It's not that we're making light of what was a really unfortunate event (I can't use tragic; tragic is a kid getting hit by a drunk driver and killed. Tragic is not a 17 year old attacking a dude that was following him and getting shot), its just that everything following the trial now is so absurd it's hard to believe. People want their pound of flesh, and their dumping all reason and rationality to get it.
One thing that's coming home to me is to hope nothing really serious happens in this country. If the all idiots, with the government being the top one, come out to play over something like this verdict, it's going to be really jolly in a true national emergency.
I was stuck in the hospital waiting room today (waiting to get a couple boring tests done, nothin serious) and Fox News had GZ's brother on the air.
One of the main things that he said really stuck with me through out the day: The jury found GZ not guilty. That doesn't mean that nothing happened. People that are "protesting" and rioting and whatnot seem to have this belief that a not guilty means that the "guvment" is hiding gak, or makes it as if this never happened. GZ still has to live with what happened, and probably has some regrets about the whole thing, sure he's not guilty of commiting the crimes he was on trial for, but the fact remains, he killed another person, and now has to hang that on his conscience for the rest of his life.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So does she get an A for the first year because her friend died?
Isn't that the premise for a movie?
Yes, It is called Dead man on campus.
Two guys are failing because of their partying habits, and they start interviewing people to be their roommate. They try to find the one person that will kill themselves so they can pass all of their classes.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I was stuck in the hospital waiting room today (waiting to get a couple boring tests done, nothin serious) and Fox News had GZ's brother on the air.
One of the main things that he said really stuck with me through out the day: The jury found GZ not guilty. That doesn't mean that nothing happened. People that are "protesting" and rioting and whatnot seem to have this belief that a not guilty means that the "guvment" is hiding gak, or makes it as if this never happened. GZ still has to live with what happened, and probably has some regrets about the whole thing, sure he's not guilty of commiting the crimes he was on trial for, but the fact remains, he killed another person, and now has to hang that on his conscience for the rest of his life.
That is something that people on both sides are forgetting at times I think.
"Not Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is not the the same as innocent.
For people protesting on the "he should have been found guilty" side that means that nobody is saying that he didn't do anything wrong. He screwed up, the juror that has talked admitted that they all pretty much agreed that Zimmerman made mistakes and had bad judgement. But the prosecution was unable to prove beyond a doubt that what he did was a criminal act that fit within the charges that were filed.
For people speaking for the "he is vindicated" side that means that he was not, in any way, found innocent. The vedict doesn't mean that he didn't do anything wrong. The verdict doesn't mean that he followed all the rules and had good judgement. The verdict doesn't mean that the jurors approved of what, or that they agreed that he should have done it. There is a difference between "not guilty" and "he did nothing wrong".
He is not a criminal, nor is he an innocent blameless victim.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I was stuck in the hospital waiting room today (waiting to get a couple boring tests done, nothin serious) and Fox News had GZ's brother on the air.
One of the main things that he said really stuck with me through out the day: The jury found GZ not guilty. That doesn't mean that nothing happened. People that are "protesting" and rioting and whatnot seem to have this belief that a not guilty means that the "guvment" is hiding gak, or makes it as if this never happened. GZ still has to live with what happened, and probably has some regrets about the whole thing, sure he's not guilty of commiting the crimes he was on trial for, but the fact remains, he killed another person, and now has to hang that on his conscience for the rest of his life.
That is something that people on both sides are forgetting at times I think.
"Not Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is not the the same as innocent.
For people protesting on the "he should have been found guilty" side that means that nobody is saying that he didn't do anything wrong. He screwed up, the juror that has talked admitted that they all pretty much agreed that Zimmerman made mistakes and had bad judgement. But the prosecution was unable to prove beyond a doubt that what he did was a criminal act that fit within the charges that were filed.
For people speaking for the "he is vindicated" side that means that he was not, in any way, found innocent. The vedict doesn't mean that he didn't do anything wrong. The verdict doesn't mean that he followed all the rules and had good judgement. The verdict doesn't mean that the jurors approved of what, or that they agreed that he should have done it. There is a difference between "not guilty" and "he did nothing wrong".
He is not a criminal, nor is he an innocent blameless victim.
I agree for the most part.
This does seem to be becoming a witch-hunt at this point though.
Worry about today's youth and young adults....actually those individuals who are .5 physical ability...you all need to work out more. I'm waiting now on a lawsuit against DoJ for harassment...profiling.....civil rights violation....or whatever they can stick on DoJ for trying to try Z again...
This is one of those times I am sad I called it right when I said that the government was going to do all they can to get him convicted one way or the other.
Relapse wrote: This is one of those times I am sad I called it right when I said that the government was going to do all they can to get him convicted one way or the other.
Relapse wrote: This is one of those times I am sad I called it right when I said that the government was going to do all they can to get him convicted one way or the other.
So don't you trust American legal system then?
I said that the government wanted to see Zimmerman convicted and would go above and beyond to see it happen in order to appease the mob. Lo and behold, they've got a tip line now to continue their vendetta against him. It's too bad they don't go to this effort for all the black on white hate crime.
Relapse wrote: This is one of those times I am sad I called it right when I said that the government was going to do all they can to get him convicted one way or the other.
So don't you trust American legal system then?
The American legal system is an eldritch cabal of cops, lawyers, and people in bathrobes. It is one of the most untrustworthy institutions in the universe that we know of.
rubiksnoob wrote: The American legal system is an eldritch cabal of cops, lawyers, and people in bathrobes. It is one of the most untrustworthy institutions in the universe that we know of.
rubiksnoob wrote: The American legal system is an eldritch cabal of cops, lawyers, and people in bathrobes. It is one of the most untrustworthy institutions in the universe that we know of.
But it is missing horsehair wigs
They lost the wigs so they could hide in plain sight.
The American legal system is an eldritch cabal of cops, lawyers, and people in bathrobes. It is one of the most untrustworthy institutions in the universe that we know of.
I totally agree. It is just funny how people seem to like the system when it delivers results they prefer, but deem it horrible when it does something they don't like.
It's too bad they don't go to this effort for all the black on white hate crime.
Yes, there really is a huge problem of judiciary going easy on blacks who commit violent crimes against whites! Seriously, what the feth man?
See, and here you really express how little you know about our country. He wasn't talking about any judiciary or any common court. He was talking about the DoJ. Further, the murder of whites by blacks, racial implications or not, aren't even remotely covered like this in the media.
I mean, I sort of appreciate your "input" here but your ignorance about a lot of things regarding the United States judicial system and media coverage make it painfully obvious that you don't have a ton to add.
And speaking of morons in America, I had to old man call the cops on two teenage girls that were lying in the middle of a dark street in my neighborhood, just around a dark corner. My wife tried to nicely tell them it was unsafe. The gave her bitch looks. Then I told them I'd call the cops so I'd advise them not to lay back in the street. We walked away no less than 15 feet and they were right back there. So I called dispatch
I'm pretty sure this makes me a cantankerous old man, but what the flying feth.
The American legal system is an eldritch cabal of cops, lawyers, and people in bathrobes. It is one of the most untrustworthy institutions in the universe that we know of.
I totally agree. It is just funny how people seem to like the system when it delivers results they prefer, but deem it horrible when it does something they don't like.
.
Make no mistake: the jury made the right decision here based on the cases presented. Those people should be lauded for actually following the law and the instructions of the court rather than voting with their "hearts."
And like others here have already stated: none of this means Zimmerman is vindicated. Hes not. He's got to live with this for the rest of his life. A young man is dead. Zimmerman didn't rejoice at being acquitted. Hell, he barely looked relieved. But he didn't deserve to go to prison for murder here.
It's too bad they don't go to this effort for all the black on white hate crime.
Yes, there really is a huge problem of judiciary going easy on blacks who commit violent crimes against whites! Seriously, what the feth man?
Just go back a few posts to see examples of what I'm talking about. Aside from that, I all along said if Zimmerman was found innocent, the government wasn't going to let this jury have the final say if it could be helped.
It's too bad they don't go to this effort for all the black on white hate crime.
Yes, there really is a huge problem of judiciary going easy on blacks who commit violent crimes against whites! Seriously, what the feth man?
See, and here you really express how little you know about our country. He wasn't talking about any judiciary or any common court. He was talking about the DoJ. Further, the murder of whites by blacks, racial implications or not, aren't even remotely covered like this in the media.
I mean, I sort of appreciate your "input" here but your ignorance about a lot of things regarding the United States judicial system and media coverage make it painfully obvious that you don't have a ton to add.
And speaking of morons in America, I had to old man call the cops on two teenage girls that were lying in the middle of a dark street in my neighborhood, just around a dark corner. My wife tried to nicely tell them it was unsafe. The gave her bitch looks. Then I told them I'd call the cops so I'd advise them not to lay back in the street. We walked away no less than 15 feet and they were right back there. So I called dispatch
I'm pretty sure this makes me a cantankerous old man, but what the flying feth.
The American legal system is an eldritch cabal of cops, lawyers, and people in bathrobes. It is one of the most untrustworthy institutions in the universe that we know of.
I totally agree. It is just funny how people seem to like the system when it delivers results they prefer, but deem it horrible when it does something they don't like.
.
Make no mistake: the jury made the right decision here based on the cases presented. Those people should be lauded for actually following the law and the instructions of the court rather than voting with their "hearts."
And like others here have already stated: none of this means Zimmerman is vindicated. Hes not. He's got to live with this for the rest of his life. A young man is dead. Zimmerman didn't rejoice at being acquitted. Hell, he barely looked relieved. But he didn't deserve to go to prison for murder here.
Pick up that can Civilian......what?! You did not know?!? The American Legal System has been replaced by UCMJ. Since you disobeyed a lawful order of....."points to the "Do Not Litter" sign you are hearby sentence to 45 days confinement (Restriction), 45 Days of Extra duty (community service) which we are allowed to only grant you four hrs sleep, and $500 dollar fine. Unless you want to take this trial where a lot worse can happen to you.
Make no mistake: the jury made the right decision here based on the cases presented. Those people should be lauded for actually following the law and the instructions of the court rather than voting with their "hearts."
And like others here have already stated: none of this means Zimmerman is vindicated. Hes not. He's got to live with this for the rest of his life. A young man is dead. Zimmerman didn't rejoice at being acquitted. Hell, he barely looked relieved. But he didn't deserve to go to prison for murder here.
I think he may have still qualified for manslaughter. But everything else I agree with, like I said previously.
Of course we have an example of a healthy discourse and disagreement here, and the media can't have that.
And interestingly... in Florida, Zimmerman may be immune to any civil lawsuits.
And that's probably for the best, as much as I did not like outcome of the trial it should be respected and harassing Zimmerman with further lawsuits doesn't seem right. But US legal system is a weird anyway, so I'm not sure how any of this works. What is the difference between criminal and civil lawsuits?
Essentially civil cases are generally brought by private individuals or corporations seeking to collect money owed or monetary damages. The standards to win is generally lower than a criminal case.
A criminal case is brought by the local, state or federal government in response to a suspected violation of law and seeks a fine, a jail sentence or both.
See, and here you really express how little you know about our country. He wasn't talking about any judiciary or any common court. He was talking about the DoJ.
I know.
Further, the murder of whites by blacks, racial implications or not, aren't even remotely covered like this in the media.
Yes, you are right. They just get slightly harsher sentences than whites get for same crimes. Business as usual.
I mean, I sort of appreciate your "input" here but your ignorance about a lot of things regarding the United States judicial system and media coverage make it painfully obvious that you don't have a ton to add.
I'd have to say that is fairly obvious what part of the American media you follow.
Essentially civil cases are generally brought by private individuals or corporations seeking to collect money owed or monetary damages. The standards to win is generally lower than a criminal case.
A criminal case is brought by the local, state or federal government in response to a suspected violation of law and seeks a fine, a jail sentence or both.
Ok, thanks. So it was actually pretty much as I assumed. I can't see how that could apply here.
Essentially civil cases are generally brought by private individuals or corporations seeking to collect money owed or monetary damages. The standards to win is generally lower than a criminal case.
A criminal case is brought by the local, state or federal government in response to a suspected violation of law and seeks a fine, a jail sentence or both.
Ok, thanks. So it was actually pretty much as I assumed. I can't see how that could apply here.
Well... in most states, you can sue in civil court in this scenario... for things like "Wrongful Death / Negligent Homicide". The standard to win is much lower than in criminal court. That's how you got a Not Guilty OJ Simpson in criminal court, but was found Negligent in his wife's death in civil court.
However, in florida, there's statute that if you're found not guilty of murder (for justified defense), then you're immune to further lawsuits AND, if someone did try to sue you, and the court sides with you... then the LOSER would have to pay for your court & attorney fees.
Make no mistake: the jury made the right decision here based on the cases presented. Those people should be lauded for actually following the law and the instructions of the court rather than voting with their "hearts."
And like others here have already stated: none of this means Zimmerman is vindicated. Hes not. He's got to live with this for the rest of his life. A young man is dead. Zimmerman didn't rejoice at being acquitted. Hell, he barely looked relieved. But he didn't deserve to go to prison for murder here.
I think he may have still qualified for manslaughter. But everything else I agree with, like I said previously.
Of course we have an example of a healthy discourse and disagreement here, and the media can't have that.
Oh I totally think he could have qualified for involuntary manslaughter. He was reckless. But his recklessness technically didn't precipitate the shooting. The attack did. Huge grey area there for sure.
Well... in most states, you can sue in civil court in this scenario... for things like "Wrongful Death / Negligent Homicide". The standard to win is much lower than in criminal court. That's how you got a Not Guilty OJ Simpson in criminal court, but was found Negligent in his wife's death in civil court.
Which is crazy. Either you're guilty or you're not.
However, in florida, there's statute that if you're found not guilty of murder (for justified defense), then you're immune to further lawsuits AND, if someone did try to sue you, and the court sides with you... then the LOSER would have to pay for your court & attorney fees.
Makes sense. Apparently not all legislation in Florida is horrible.
Well... in most states, you can sue in civil court in this scenario... for things like "Wrongful Death / Negligent Homicide". The standard to win is much lower than in criminal court. That's how you got a Not Guilty OJ Simpson in criminal court, but was found Negligent in his wife's death in civil court.
Which is crazy. Either you're guilty or you're not.
However, in florida, there's statute that if you're found not guilty of murder (for justified defense), then you're immune to further lawsuits AND, if someone did try to sue you, and the court sides with you... then the LOSER would have to pay for your court & attorney fees.
Makes sense. Apparently not all legislation in Florida is horrible.
A little thing likean innocent verdict, however does not stop the Obama government from currently trying to string Zimmerman up.
Which is crazy. Either you're guilty or you're not.
The OJ trial is different in that its widely believed he did commit the murders and there was plenty of evidence to say he did, way more than there will ever be against Zimmerman. The jury was never able to focus on the case because the judge (this is my opinion here) wanted to use it as a platform for himself. A lot of really stupid stuff was allowed to happen in court that just didn't make any sense. The joke Chewbacca Defense essentially surmises the joke the trial became.
We can all probably rest assured that the Martins will try to sue (they might be waiting to see if the federal government presses civil rights charges right now). If they lose they'll be able to pay the bill through donations.
Well, you linked that crazy Teaparty blog earlier...
Was it a tea party blog? I just googled. It was the first result.
I can't stand any of the news outlets. We get so little unbiased journalism that I take from both sides and find my only truth somewhere in the middle.
A little thing likean innocent verdict, however does not stop the Obama government from currently trying to string Zimmerman up.
Not guilty. He sure as hell isn't innocent!
And while I think that multiple cases on same issue are weird, I also think that Florida's self defence laws are crazy, so I just accept that American legal system as a whole is eldritch and bizarre. DoJ is fully within their rights to pursue the matter if they believe there is a case to be made.
I can't stand any of the news outlets. We get so little unbiased journalism that I take from both sides and find my only truth somewhere in the middle.
Funnily enough, I find that most trustworthy source for USA related news is BBC...
I can't say I like the idea of "Well guys, we tried to convict him of murder and it didn't work. Lets try charging him with a civil rights violation!" Granted the State of Florida and DoJ are separate entities and can each bring their own charges, so it probably doesn't violate the letter of double jeopardy but it sure seems to violate the spirit of it to me.
A little thing likean innocent verdict, however does not stop the Obama government from currently trying to string Zimmerman up.
Not guilty. He sure as hell isn't innocent!
And while I think that multiple cases on same issue are weird, I also think that Florida's self defence laws are crazy, so I just accept that American legal system as a whole is eldritch and bizarre. DoJ is fully within their rights to pursue the matter if they believe there is a case to be made.
Well that's sort of the problem. How can they legitimately think there's a case to be made? Based on what? Something they're going to get from a tip line? Both the FBI and the jury in the trial found that they didn't believe his actions to be racially motivated.
He hesitated when the dispatcher asked what the race of the suspicious person was, indicated he had to check.
He has a documented history of advocating FOR a black homeless man against the police.
What are they possibly basing their "aggressive investigation" on? And why are they going to be wasting more money on it?
I mean, the press release about the "aggressive investigation" and tip line basically says they're doing it to appease all the people angry about the verdict.
A little thing likean innocent verdict, however does not stop the Obama government from currently trying to string Zimmerman up.
Not guilty. He sure as hell isn't innocent!
And while I think that multiple cases on same issue are weird, I also think that Florida's self defence laws are crazy, so I just accept that American legal system as a whole is eldritch and bizarre. DoJ is fully within their rights to pursue the matter if they believe there is a case to be made.
I can't stand any of the news outlets. We get so little unbiased journalism that I take from both sides and find my only truth somewhere in the middle.
Funnily enough, I find that most trustworthy source for USA related news is BBC...
Innocent, not guilty, whatever the wording, the government is trying to lynch him which you seem to be deliberatly ignoring or worse, are totaly fine with.
LordofHats wrote: Civil rights aren't strictly limited to race issues.
So what other civil rights did he violate? His right to life? Sure. But he was already acquitted of that in another court. If new evidence magically appears, I certainly hope the ACLU steps up.
LordofHats wrote: Civil rights aren't strictly limited to race issues.
So what other civil rights did he violate? His right to life? Sure. But he was already acquitted of that in another court. If new evidence magically appears, I certainly hope the ACLU steps up.
Actually the ACLU has been on TM side of the fence.
I think they're taking up the SYG laws in Florida...
I imagine they might go with profiling him for wearing a hoodie but being honest, I don't see the point in making a federal case over a single instance of someone doing that. Maybe if Zimmerman reported 60 people to the police for wearing hoodies there'd be something but even then it seems more like something for a civil court than a federal trial.
Innocent, not guilty, whatever the wording, the government is trying to lynch him which you seem to be deliberatly ignoring..
If there is no evidence then there will be no case or he will be acquitted just like he was in the criminal case. Why should I believe that justice was served in this criminal case but would not in the civil rights case?
LordofHats wrote: Civil rights aren't strictly limited to race issues.
So what other civil rights did he violate? His right to life? Sure. But he was already acquitted of that in another court. If new evidence magically appears, I certainly hope the ACLU steps up.
Actually the ACLU has been on TM side of the fence.
I think they're taking up the SYG laws in Florida...
In many countries there are different levels of courts, and if you're not satisfied with the verdict you can appeal to a higher level court. If the higher level court deems that there are sufficient grounds for an appeal, they re-evaluate the case and might change the verdict. From this perspective state and federal level cases on the same matter do not seem that weird, although the system seems cumbersome and not really intended for this sort of purpose.
LordofHats wrote: Civil rights aren't strictly limited to race issues.
So what other civil rights did he violate? His right to life? Sure. But he was already acquitted of that in another court. If new evidence magically appears, I certainly hope the ACLU steps up.
Actually the ACLU has been on TM side of the fence.
I think they're taking up the SYG laws in Florida...
Oh FFS.
Seriously, SYG wasn't even at play here.
I know... but, IT WILL NOT DIE! (IWND... w00t! a 40k reference!)
Innocent, not guilty, whatever the wording, the government is trying to lynch him which you seem to be deliberatly ignoring..
If there is no evidence then there will be no case or he will be acquitted just like he was in the criminal case. Why should I believe that justice was served in this criminal case but would not in the civil rights case?
So you are totaly fine that in order to appease the mobs, a man who has been proven not only in court but in other instances to be as far from a racist as can be had, and judged not guilty of murder, to have the Federal government goes to extrordinary measures to head a lynch mob?
If there is no evidence then there will be no case or he will be acquitted just like he was in the criminal case. Why should I believe that justice was served in this criminal case but would not in the civil rights case?
Right there... that's dangerous... and, I'll tell you why.
Whenever I hear, "if there's no evidence" or "if you have nothing to hide", it just makes my skin crawl...
That mindset is fine if your government is BOTH trustworthy and competent.
Innocent, not guilty, whatever the wording, the government is trying to lynch him which you seem to be deliberatly ignoring..
If there is no evidence then there will be no case or he will be acquitted just like he was in the criminal case. Why should I believe that justice was served in this criminal case but would not in the civil rights case?
So you are totaly fine that in order to appease the mobs, a man who has been proven not only in court but in other instances to be as far from a racist as can be had, and judged not guilty of murder, to have the Federal government goes to extrordinary measures to head a lynch mob?
Crimson wrote: In many countries there are different levels of courts, and if you're not satisfied with the verdict you can appeal to a higher level court. If the higher level court deems that there are sufficient grounds for an appeal, they re-evaluate the case and might change the verdict. From this perspective state and federal level cases on the same matter do not seem that weird, although the system seems cumbersome and not really intended for this sort of purpose.
Crimson wrote: In many countries there are different levels of courts, and if you're not satisfied with the verdict you can appeal to a higher level court. If the higher level court deems that there are sufficient grounds for an appeal, they re-evaluate the case and might change the verdict. From this perspective state and federal level cases on the same matter do not seem that weird, although the system seems cumbersome and not really intended for this sort of purpose.
In this country we have double jeapordy laws designed to prevent someone from being tried for the same crime multiple times.
Actually, jury was briefed on SYG laws for some reason.
In any case, if this leads getting rid of SYG, that is great.
They were NOT.
Before the case started (and waaaay before the jury selection), the defense briefly considered this. HOWEVER, since Zimmerman was on the ground, SYG doesn't even apply.
Crimson wrote: In many countries there are different levels of courts, and if you're not satisfied with the verdict you can appeal to a higher level court. If the higher level court deems that there are sufficient grounds for an appeal, they re-evaluate the case and might change the verdict. From this perspective state and federal level cases on the same matter do not seem that weird, although the system seems cumbersome and not really intended for this sort of purpose.
In this country we have double jeapordy laws designed to prevent someone from being tried for the same crime multiple times.
What I was referring to is that the appeal courts can review the lower court's rule if there are issues with the case (procedurally, or new evidences, etc...).
Actually, jury was briefed on SYG laws for some reason.
In any case, if this leads getting rid of SYG, that is great.
The were NOT.
Before the case started (and waaaay before the jury selection), the defense briefly considered this. HOWEVER, since Zimmerman was on the ground, SYG doesn't even apply.
It's becoming more clear with each post he makes, Crimson is either clueless or a troll.
So you are totaly fine that in order to appease the mobs, a man who has been proven not only in court but in other instances to be as far from a racist as can be had, and judged not guilty of murder, to have the Federal government goes to extrordinary measures to head a lynch mob?
That is just your (and Fox New's) version of what is happening. You cannot know their motivations for this. Why did you trust that the jury and the judge in the criminal case acted fairly and impartially, but do not trust DoJ to do the same?
So you are totaly fine that in order to appease the mobs, a man who has been proven not only in court but in other instances to be as far from a racist as can be had, and judged not guilty of murder, to have the Federal government goes to extrordinary measures to head a lynch mob?
That is just your (and Fox New's) version of what is happening. You cannot know their motivations for this. Why did you trust that the jury and the judge in the criminal case acted fairly and impartially, but do not trust DoJ to do the same?
Because maybe the DOJ is already not acting fairly and Impartialy? I gotta tell ya guy, you are not worth talking to about this anymore for reasons I just stated.
Crimson wrote: That is just your (and Fox New's) version of what is happening. You cannot know their motivations for this. Why did you trust that the jury and the judge in the criminal case acted fairly and impartially, but do not trust DoJ to do the same?
Lay off the generalization there brah (the foxnews bit).
The Justice System is a separate entity and LARGELY isolated from political pressure.
The DOJ is part of the Execute Branch headed by a political appointee (via Presidential Appointments). If you paid any attention to the shenanigans the DoJ has done, you'd understand our point-of-view of having a healthy dose of skepticism whatever the current DoJ is doing...
I know that SYG was not actually used as defence by Zimmerman.
That was from the Judge.
Yes, the defense didn't use it. (I was getting the two mixed up briefly). And it is interesting that the instructions has the reference, but the defense did invoke it.
Eh... give him a break. Who know's what news he get overseas and how it's filtered/analyzed.
I can read all the same news sites as you guys. Granted, I've not been following how this has been covered in American television.
Also, I've read commentary on this on several forums, not only on Dakka. Reactions here are way more understanding and even supportive of the verdict than they have been on certain other places.
Only thing I can see from Holder side of the fence is to "go along" with looking for any Civil Right violation (while actually not doing a "do or die" search for evidence). DoJ looks bad enough as it is but to take Z to trial after Sanford PD and the FBI investigation didn't come up with any hate or civil right violation would be quite a "up a mountain" battle.
General public scream bloody hell for wasting tax payer money if they do try. Then I can see it being mention that the government wouldn't do the same if a Caucasian was opted out by a African American since its not consider a civil rights violation or something way off the mark.
Bit more on CPT. Carter
Spoiler:
I almost couldn’t believe what I saw happen today in the courtroom.
Maybe I’m the only one who saw it this way, but when George Zimmerman’s former college criminal law instructor was called as a witness for the prosecution this morning, he was ostensibly supposed to give testimony that the state could use to help convict the accused of being a murderer–instead, U.S. Army JAG corps officer and attorney Alexis Carter basically, glibly, unabashedly sent trans-racial “dog-whistle code” to acquit and absolve his former student, right there in front of the jury and everybody.
Captain Carter did something which completely surprised me, and told me and anyone else who heard the whistle: This is a good guy, and he’s no murderer.
A rather dark-skinned, well-dressed black man, Carter presented a very relaxed, amiable demeanor as his testimony got underway. After spending awhile answering probative questions from the prosecutor about his professional background and the criminal litigation course he taught to Zimmerman at Seminole State College, he was asked if he saw Zimmerman there in the courtroom.
Carter’s face immediately began to break into a broad grin as he said “Yes,” and turned to look in the direction of where Zimmerman sat at the defense table. He didn’t even try to conceal his warm affection for his former student as he waved his hand at Zimmerman and greeted him, cutting right through the stuffiness and formality of the proceedings, saying “How ya doin,’ George!”
Translation: I know the Law, I teach the Law; George is my man, and he’s innocent. I vouch for him. Let him go!
In reaction, for the first time since the trial got underway, Zimmerman (who had stood up from his seat in order to be identified by the witness, as is the protocol) was visibly moved by the message sent, and displayed affection in kind–evidence of the special sort of relationship that can develop between student and teacher. His own face showed joy and relief, albeit somewhat forcibly suppressed for the sake of trying to stick to poker-faced decorum, as he fought to suppress his own grin by keeping his briefly smiling lips sealed tightly and contain his realization that his friend, Justice, had just made its principled presence felt. His entire countenance was momentarily awash with relief.
Carter then proceeded to describe further the course contents of criminal procedure which he had transmitted to Zimmerman. Asked in detail about legal theory applied in the state of Florida concerning justifiable use of deadly force as course material, Carter confirmed that Zimmerman not only had been instructed in things like “castle doctrine” and the newer “stand-your-ground” law, but that George had been one of his better, brighter students, and had earned an A in the class.
As the prosecuting attorney went on, querying Carter on a particular aspect of using deadly force in self defense, Carter’s wry, deadpan answer caused most of the courtroom to break into laughter. The live TV camera didn’t miss George joining in the mirth shared among those in attendance, as this time he actually dared let his teeth show for a moment as he fought back a broad grin and a hearty chuckle. Malik Zulu Shabazz must have been throwing furniture at his TV screen.
The intended tactic by the prosecution this morning was to try to show Zimmerman to be a vindictive, power-lusting, frustrated wannabe-cop who not only took the law into his own hands, but used his knowledge of legal theory to carefully craft a huge lie in order to conceal his murderous shooting of the angelic Trayvon Martin.
As with virtually every other witness in this horrible miscarriage of a kangaroo court, the state’s agenda again blew up in their faces–because it should have. Because their agenda is based not on deliberately investigating true probable cause of wrongdoing, but on sacrificing some unfortunate, barely-white-enough neighborhood watch volunteer with a European name, in the interest of malicious racial pandering and politics.
Edit
Captain Alexis Carter: “The fact that there were injuries, have a tendency to show, or support, the individual would feel that there was a ‘reasonable apprehension of fear’, but the fact that there wasn’t an injury at all doesn’t necessarily support that there was not an apprehension of fear”.
Don West - Question: “So,… you don’t have to wait until your almost dead in order to defend yourself”..
Carter - Answer: “No,.. oh no, I would advise… you probably don’t do that”.
Hey Jihadin - I'm actually going to be getting my CCW soon and am looking at carries. I've got my eyes on the beretta px4 storm compact in 40. Thoughts?
What's comfortable in your hand? Which grip can you fully wrap your hand around? The 9mm or .40? Does both grips have removable "grip"? What's your ideal situation if you have to use? What's the worst situation you can think of to use? What type of area are you mostly in? Are you 110% capable of doing one shot to put down the target or multiple rounds to ensure you put down the target?
Before you start throwing answers back at me..
I will not talk you out of owning a weapon. Nor will I advocate for you to own a weapon.
I really want you and I'm dead serious understand Escalation of Force to Deadly Force not "what you think it entails"
I also want you to fully understand that once you squeeze that trigger to remove the human threat your life will change.
I also would like you to seriously do a gut check along with the mental check off are you capable to think, reason, and remain calm with your hand on the weapon while still in a holster while you assess the situation. As in not drawing the weapon and taking it to the next step.
I'm one of the very few on Dakka that has fired back in anger.
I'm one of the very few on Dakka that has combined fire with others to bring down a threat.
I'm one of the very few to have eyeball to eyeball contact with a threat as he opts out.
Me personally I go with the 40 being I want stopping power. Hollow point because I do not want my round to go though and hit someone else. I have never used my 9mm in actual combat. I do not like (possible) when I have to pump a bunch of rounds into a threat making me lose "Situational Awareness"
No PM's keep this open
1. It'll make people think I'm more of a murderer like its mention in my sig made at me
2. Maybe help educate a few more if they're looking to purchase a side arm for either shiats and grins or actual protection
While Jihadin's response was actually really excellent in itself, could you people take this personal weapon discussion elsewhere? It seems rather distasteful her considering the topic of the thread.
I have a sig2022 that I quite like, but its basically a full sized and if I'm going to carry, I'd like it to be a bit smaller. I actually like the 226 a lot, but its a bit more than I want to spend. The 250 compact is closer to what I'm looking to spend, but I don't know much about it. I've fired the Springfield XDS and I'm not a fan of the grip. Same goes for the glock 22. I don't hate the M&P, but I really like how the storm fits my hand
Ideally, I'll only be carrying when we go out to some of the gentrified hood areas in Cincy. There's a lot of walking that goes on, and its not that well lit or safe in all of them. Ideally I'll never have to use it in that capacity, but you know.
Presently, I shoot typically once a week. I usually put 100 rounds through my sig and another 200-300 thru my beretta neos (22). I can consistently get 3" groupings with the sig and 2" with the neos. It's important for me to go regularly so I am comfortable firing them consistently.
Mentally, I like to think I'm perfectly capable of making rational decisions, but I imagine things aways change when the event happens. I've successfully pulled a drowning kid out of a lake and administered CPR (I renew my certification for that every year), so I like to at least pretend I can maintain a cool countenance under pressure.
I was just curious if you had any practical experience with a producer or particular sidearm you'd found particularly reliable. :-). Cheers.
Why distasteful. That JAG instructor would have said the same thing or similar in the class that Z took. Same that is taught me while in the military. Same as taking initiative. Z took the initiative to follow TM. A bad call but he did. A confrontation happen. Z took a beaten. TM says "Someone going to die tonight" when the weapon was exposed. TM is now dead.
He claimed SYG there
He did not use SYG during court
CAPT. Carter literally told Prosecution Zimmerman was in the right for self defense
Not Guilty for 2nd degree.
Not Guilty for Manslaughter.
Yet you Crimson still wants him put in jail. Why? Because he killed someone in Self Defense that he should automatically get the Manslaughter charge? If we start convicting people on manslaughter charges when defending themselves from actual bodily harm or death itself then the law failed us. Like I mention on the Manslaughter rant. I see you Crimson getting the crap beat out of you. I will not assist. I will not risk jail unless its my butt on the line.
edit
Right now Z is mentally screwed in the head. He probably is on Antivan, Celexa, and probably Xanax to till the Celexa is built up in his system. He coming to grips that he himself killed a young adult. He also coming to grips with how easy it was to opt M out.
That self defence defence is bs. Zimmerman provoked the confrontation and then used excessive force. His story is implausible and kept changing. He refused to testify tso that shakiness of his account wouldn't be blatantly exposed. On tape we hear Martin screaming in horror when Zimmerman pulls his gun. At that point, at least, Zimmerman was no longer in danger. He didn't have to shoot.
And Cincudooley discussing what kind of gun he is going to carry in shady neighbourhood is massively disrespectful in this thread.
Crimson wrote: That self defence defence is bs. Zimmerman provoked the confrontation and then used excessive force. His story is implausible and kept changing. He refused to testify tso that shakiness of his account wouldn't be blatantly exposed. On tape we hear Martin screaming in horror when Zimmerman pulls his gun. At that point, at least, Zimmerman was no longer in danger. He didn't have to shoot.
This is some of the most hilariously uninformed gak I've ever read on Dakka, and that's saying something.
Zimmerman's story was so consistent the police investigators testified on the stand that they believed him to be truthful. It was so consistent he told it six different times before even getting a lawyer, including once when it was videotaped. It continues, even now, to match eye witness testimony.
We don't hear Martin "screaming in horror" while Zimmerman pulls his gun. Eye witnesses testified it was Zimmerman screaming. The screaming for help went on for quite some time; unless you're saying that Zimmerman pulled his gun, and Martin then screamed for 45 seconds before Zimmerman actually shot him, you're out of your fething mind.
Seriously, if you want to wade hip-deep into a discussion of this case, it might behoove you to actually learn something about it before commenting it, especially as the trial's been held and all the evidence is pretty easy to get ahold of. Jesus.
That self defence defence is bs. Zimmerman provoked the confrontation and then used excessive force. His story is implausible and kept changing. He refused to testify tso that shakiness of his account wouldn't be blatantly exposed. On tape we hear Martin screaming in horror when Zimmerman pulls his gun. At that point, at least, Zimmerman was no longer in danger. He didn't have to shoot.
Alrighty now
Zimmerman account of the incident jived with what prosecution witness's gave out.
-Detective Serino agreed that Zimmerman account did not change but stayed consistent
-The female LEO Officer agreed the same
-Injuries on Z right after the fight. None of TM but a bullet hole in the chest
-How many walk through did he do on TV with detectives. Also interviews on TV. So he pretty much already gave his testimony.
-Zimmerman pulled his weapon while TM was over him. DO believe it was mention that T went for the weapon while in holster.
-If your both struggling for the weapon then both are in danger. TM was over Zimmerman when the shot went off. The powder burns were on his cloths that was hanging off him hence there were hardly trace powder burn on TM skin.
-Zimmerman was on his back with no where to go.
Now ask yourself this. Are you letting your emotions convict Zimmerman? Is there evidence you think Prosecution didn't use to show Z committed 2nd degree and/or manslaughter.
Also ask yourself. Why did Prosecution not turn over evidence in Martin cell phone?
Do you not accept the fact that Sanford PD and the FBI did not find any evidence linking to a "Hate Crime" or a "Civil Right" violation?
Do you think its fair after the jurors came down with the two not guilty verdict that DoJ going to take a turn at possibly going to trial with Zimmerman?
What part of Zimmerman Self Defense you think he is lying about or changing?
How much of the trial have you watch?
edit
And Cincudooley discussing what kind of gun he is going to carry in shady neighbourhood is massively disrespectful in this thread.
Then you best put me on ignore because I have killed people who are darker skinned then me.
Write this down Dakka. Today I have admitted to actual using the word "killed" instead of my opting out analog
Crimson wrote: That self defence defence is bs. Zimmerman provoked the confrontation and then used excessive force. His story is implausible and kept changing. He refused to testify tso that shakiness of his account wouldn't be blatantly exposed. On tape we hear Martin screaming in horror when Zimmerman pulls his gun. At that point, at least, Zimmerman was no longer in danger. He didn't have to shoot.
And Cincudooley discussing what kind of gun he is going to carry in shady neighbourhood is massively disrespectful in this thread.
I thought you were just ignorant of the case and laws here but after the last few pages I can say I believe your just trolling. Well, have fun with that, what I can't see won't hurt me eh?
Crimson wrote: That self defence defence is bs. Zimmerman provoked the confrontation and then used excessive force. His story is implausible and kept changing. He refused to testify tso that shakiness of his account wouldn't be blatantly exposed. On tape we hear Martin screaming in horror when Zimmerman pulls his gun. At that point, at least, Zimmerman was no longer in danger. He didn't have to shoot.
Have you ever been in that position?
Have you ever had people threatening your life, and had to shoot back?
It is not something I would wish on anyone, and you do not know the full situation, none of us do for certain. You do not know how George Zimmerman felt at the time he was having his head slammed into the ground causing it to bleed.
He was given a verdict of Not Guilty, and I would like to think that the court and legal system did its best to sort the case out in accordance with the laws of the land.
Martin did not have to initiate the attack. if he did not initiate he would still be alive today. Therefore the "self defence defence" is not "BS" The tape is not 100% clear, we can not tell who is screaming on the tape.
And Cincudooley discussing what kind of gun he is going to carry in shady neighbourhood is massively disrespectful in this thread.
Owning a gun is the right of every citizen of the United States of America. This is fact.
It is not Disrespectful to discuss gun ownership for the purposes of personal protection in a thread about a case that had Self Defense at its core...
An Ivy League professor blogged after George Zimmerman was found not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin that the verdict shows God is a “white racist” who stalks “young black men.”
Anthea Butler, an associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Religious Studies, made the unusual comments in a blog post released on Monday on ReligionDispatches.org, where she is a regular contributor.
“God ain’t good all of the time. In fact, sometimes, God is not for us,” she wrote in the post. “As a black woman in an [sic] nation that has taken too many pains to remind me that I am not a white man, and am not capable of taking care of my reproductive rights, or my voting rights, I know that this American god ain’t my god.
“As a matter of fact, I think he’s a white racist god with a problem. More importantly, he is carrying a gun and stalking young black men,” she added.
Butler adds that Trayvon Martin’s killing was the result of racism that was influenced by Christianity.
“As a historian of American and African-American religion, I know that the Trayvon Martin moment is just one moment in a history of racism in America that, in large part, has its underpinnings in Christianity and its history,” she wrote. “Those of us who teach American Religion have a responsibility to tell all of the story, not just the nice touchy-feely parts.”
“When the good Christians of America are some of its biggest racists, one has to consider our moral responsibility to call out those who clearly are not for human flourishing, no matter what ethnicity a person is. Where are you on that scale? I know where I am.”
According to her biography, Butler holds doctorate and masters degrees in religion from Vanderbilt University as well as a masters in theology from Fuller Theological Seminary. She is the author of a 2007 book titled "Women in the Church of God in Christ, Making A Sanctified World," published by University of North Carolina Press.
Butler, who did not respond to requests for comment, is also an associate chair for the school's religious studies department and is a regular contributor and guest on both MSNBC and CNN.
Josiah Ryan, editor-in-chief of Campus Reform, which first reported Butler's comments, said the professor's reaction to the verdict was bizarre.
"No amount of heartbreak over the Zimmerman acquittal justifies these hateful posts," Ryan said. "Professor Butler's remarks were clearly designed to hurt when Americans needed healing and to divide when we needed unity.”
"In tumultuous times students must be able turn to their professors for calm and wisdom. In stoking the flames of hatred, Professor Butler has betrayed her students' trust. UPenn administrators ought not to allow her back in the classroom."
Officials for the University of Pennsylvania declined to comment.
Zimmerman's defence relies us believing his account of events. I don't believe Martin attacked him. Zimmerman was determined to stop the 'suspect.' He stalked Martin and accosted him trying to unlawfully detain him. This provoked the conflict. And yes, Martin was beating Zimmerman (witnesses disagree who was on top and who was screaming help.) But it is totally absurd standard of self defence if you can stalk someone, provoke a fight, and when it turns out that the other guy is better at fighting back than you assumed shoot them. And Zimmerman was not even in danger of being killed. He refused to go to hospital and even one of the police investigators testified that his story of being slammed against concrete didn't fit the evidence.
And it is funny how many of you seem to think my stance is unbelievable or even rolling. I' reading a thread on the matter on another forum, and there your views would be similarly received.
In any case, if this leads getting rid of SYG, that is great.
I don't see that being a good thing unless cops can actually RESPOND to confrontations/disturbances in at least the same amount of time it takes to pull a gun out.
Crimson wrote: Zimmerman's defence relies us believing his account of events. I don't believe Martin attacked him. Zimmerman was determined to stop the 'suspect.' He stalked Martin and accosted him trying to unlawfully detain him. This provoked the conflict. And yes, Martin was beating Zimmerman (witnesses disagree who was on top and who was screaming help.) But it is totally absurd standard of self defence if you can stalk someone, provoke a fight, and when it turns out that the other guy is better at fighting back than you assumed shoot them. And Zimmerman was not even in danger of being killed. He refused to go to hospital and even one of the police investigators testified that his story of being slammed against concrete didn't fit the evidence.
And it is funny how many of you seem to think my stance is unbelievable or even rolling. I' reading a thread on the matter on another forum, and there your views would be similarly received.
But the prosecution was unable to prove that Zimmerman started it. That doesn't mean that the jury believed Zimmerman's account, it just means that the prosecution couldn't prove that he lied.
In any case, if this leads getting rid of SYG, that is great.
I don't see that being a good thing unless cops can actually RESPOND to confrontations/disturbances in at least the same amount of time it takes to pull a gun out.
Or you could just flee, instead of shooting people dead. And if you can't then it wasn't SYG case to begin with.
And there was exactly zero disagreement as to who was on top of the struggle. The one witness who testified it was Zimmerman admitted she simply saw the "bigger" guy on top and concluded that it was Zimmerman from photos she saw on the news. Martin was considerably bigger than Zimmerman, and that changed her opinion of who was on top, as she revealed under cross.
But the prosecution was unable to prove that Zimmerman started it. That doesn't mean that the jury believed Zimmerman's account, it just means that the prosecution couldn't prove that he lied.
Which actually is where the problem seems to be with Florida law. In most places self defence is affirmative defence ie. you have to show that there actually was reason for you to fear for your life. If Florida the prosecutor have to show beyond reasonable doubt that you didn't. If you're the only one living to tell the story this is pretty damn difficult.
another one of those happy feely moments hit me.....
