Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:I am happy that the entire thing is getting a trial, all the evidence will be made public, and 12 people will decide instead of just one DA or ADA. I know that there are people that will be upset no matter what the outcome of the trial will be, but I am just happy that this came to trial irregardless of the outcome. If nothing else it may help set precedent for similar situations in the future. As a gun owner I prefer if there is a clear ruling instead of a backroom decision by a DA.

You really would prefer Zimmerman go to trial than a decision by a DA not to prosecute?

If you shoot someone and it's an absolutely clear case of self defense, would you rather go to trial to "clear things up" and "set precedent," or would you rather stay out of jail, not have your name dragged through the press, and not have the next 25+ years of your life in the hands of people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty?

Even if you're completely innocent, a criminal trial is a life altering event. Often not for the better.

You're assuming that this definitely a case of self defense, which is very much in dispute.

Hazardous Harry wrote:You're assuming that this definitely a case of self defense, which is very much in dispute.

No I'm not.

I'm proposing an alternative set of facts: in a clear case of self defense with yourself as the shooter, would you rather have "a clear ruling instead of a backroom decision by a DA"? I wonder if d-usa's (and others who may have the same argument) preference for trials over decisions not to prosecute is motivated by the facts of the case or an actual desire for judicial clarity over prosecutoral discretion.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:I am happy that the entire thing is getting a trial, all the evidence will be made public, and 12 people will decide instead of just one DA or ADA. I know that there are people that will be upset no matter what the outcome of the trial will be, but I am just happy that this came to trial irregardless of the outcome. If nothing else it may help set precedent for similar situations in the future. As a gun owner I prefer if there is a clear ruling instead of a backroom decision by a DA.

You really would prefer Zimmerman go to trial than a decision by a DA not to prosecute?

If you shoot someone and it's an absolutely clear case of self defense, would you rather go to trial to "clear things up" and "set precedent," or would you rather stay out of jail, not have your name dragged through the press, and not have the next 25+ years of your life in the hands of people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty?

Even if you're completely innocent, a criminal trial is a life altering event. Often not for the better.

You're assuming that this definitely a case of self defense, which is very much in dispute.

Yes but that was my point in the first place mate, essentially there are thousands of crimes and non crimes each and every year that dont go to court. The authorities look at the case and say "No need to charge this guy, its not conjunctive to the public good" or what have you, and as I said in the first place, you and your pals half informed "rage" should be directed at the other tens of thousands of people that dont get charged in a year, but Spike Lee didnt play the race card for them.

As I said, maybe its because I'm good at following orders, but there is a system for a reason. The system works. If this is the way you want to play it, then you have to say that's the way its got to go for every crime that ever gets committed and could be in any way ambiguous. Old lady shoots a burglar but the burglar said he didnt deserve it and the legal professionals say she shouldn't be tried? feth them what do they know, Harry and Shuma said to drag her raggety auld ass off to court.

I got arrested for being pissed whilst on my mates 8 year old brothers fold up electric go-ped once.. the bobby saw me larking about and said "have you been drinking?" and when I said "Aye, ive had about 8 pints" I got arrested. When I got to the cop shop, I told the desk sergeant that the "vehicle" in question wasn't an electrically operated vehicle, and was classed as a toy and he basically gave me a caution and said "on your way" but no no, I should have got stuck in orange overalls and dragged to jail because what do legal professionals know? People on the internet might have been angry if they heard about it, and they know everything.

We have a system, my life is good, I trust the system. We don't know what happened, I don't, you don't, random outraged people on TV don't and Spike Lee doesn't. Only the legal professionals that actually sat at their desk and looked at all the available evidence do, and they decided not to prosecute.

I'm not saying that occasionally you don't get a bad apple (corruption) but you don't put everything to the torch because of that. In 99% of cases, if a law suit isn't brought against someone, its because it was pointless to do so. Throwing everything out of the window because celebrities and the internet say so, and then it goes "viral" and every fething numbskull with no knowledge of the facts suddenly has an opinion is totally fething stupid.

Needless to say, I stand by my judgement (I trust the guys at the top of the legal tree) and no doubt the guy will get off with it, and the state just wasted a million bucks on a trial because Spike Lee said so. If Im wrong, Ill happily say so, I don't care about Zimmerman one way or the other, but common sense tells me that the way we have always done things makes more sense than the outraged teenager from Leeds who read a bit about it on the internet.

Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

d-usa wrote:Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

Doesn't matter. Do you really want a country ruled by the mob? Who cares what "a DA" thinks? It's the DA in Sanford that matters. That DA in Sanford, Florida may think George Zimmerman is guilty as feth, but decided not to prosecute because there isn't enough evidence.

Anyway, Zimmerman will stand trial, and as far as I know (not much at all) it seems a tall task for the prosecutors to prove reasonable doubt. They may get a sympathetic jury, but assuming objectivity on the jury's part, I don't see him getting convicted. If Zimmerman is found not guilty, it will be quite interesting to see reactions.

d-usa wrote:Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

What DA?

AustonT wrote:

d-usa wrote:Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

What DA?

Sorry, I was talking about State Attorney/Special Prosecutor. My mistake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

d-usa wrote:Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

Doesn't matter. Do you really want a country ruled by the mob? Who cares what "a DA" thinks? It's the DA in Sanford that matters. That DA in Sanford, Florida may think George Zimmerman is guilty as feth, but decided not to prosecute because there isn't enough evidence.

Anyway, Zimmerman will stand trial, and as far as I know (not much at all) it seems a tall task for the prosecutors to prove reasonable doubt. They may get a sympathetic jury, but assuming objectivity on the jury's part, I don't see him getting convicted. If Zimmerman is found not guilty, it will be quite interesting to see reactions.

This country is ruled by mobs, moreso every year, but that would be a different discussion for a different thread.

I also don't see a special prosecutor reviewing a case and finding that there is evidence to charge somebody "mob rule".

horse gak. its all political now. When did aspecial prosecutor not find something? This farce might not even make it past the summary hearing the way the evidence is trending.

I'm loading the 870 in anticipation of antics in response.

d-usa wrote:

AustonT wrote:

d-usa wrote:Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

What DA?

Sorry, I was talking about State Attorney/Special Prosecutor. My mistake.

Elected official caves to public pressure. Say it ain't so.

AustonT wrote:

d-usa wrote:

AustonT wrote:

d-usa wrote:Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

What DA?

Sorry, I was talking about State Attorney/Special Prosecutor. My mistake.

Elected official caves to public pressure. Say it ain't so.

Isn't that how democracy is meant to work?

d-usa wrote:Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

And the point of this sentence is what exactly? That was the crux of my entire post!

a) There is a system.
b) The system works pretty well

Do you want to add a

c) Change the system when someone from Hollywood puts it on the internet?

You are quite correct, I did know that. I know it all, nothing I wrote contradicts anything. I didn't say I think Zimmerman is a nice guy or even innocent, I didn't say I have formed an opinion one way or the other because all I know about the case is heresy and speculation. I said surely the guys who work at the top of the tree should be the ones make the decisions, not a graphic designer from Poland who is outrages because he reads the internet.

Its a very simple statement. Its not even remotely unreasonable, do you agree with it or not?

And if your answer is no, when there are tens of thousands of arrests made each year in the US alone that don't result in prosecution, I want to know if you are also outraged about them, and if you think that you should have the facts from all of them as well? What's your solution? Scrap the current system, put each and every individual that has been arrested but escaped prosecution on a big TV show like X-Factor, and let people vote on if they think it should go to trial?

I'm not even joking, im being entirely reasonable and saying let the system do its job, your shouting your mouth off while sitting on the fence and making no effort to provide an alternative! If you think what I have said regarding allowing the law to work how the law works is ridiculous/pig ignorant/stupid, give me a reasonable working idea for a replacement system.

d-usa wrote:Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

I can't imagine this is directed at my question, because I clearly stated that I don't think the Zimmerman case is a clear cut case of self defense.

But just out of curiosity, are you going to answer my question? Would you prefer a jury to prosecutor discretion?

Except the special prosecutor is part of the system and nothing was changed? The system is currently working the way it is supposed to work. Charges were not filed, case was reviewed, charges were filed.

They didn't even have to scrap the current system and invent a new one or anything. What are the chances of having a system already in place to a handle this situation? It's almost as if what is happening now is the way the system is supposed to work.

Stop the presses! Florida followed the law!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

I can't imagine this is directed at my question, because I clearly stated that I don't think the Zimmerman case is a clear cut case of self defense.

But just out of curiosity, are you going to answer my question? Would you prefer a jury to prosecutor discretion?

You asked me if I preferred a "clear cut case of self defense" go to trial instead of being dismissed by a DA.

I replied that this is no a clear cut case of self defense.

I am not talking about hypothetical scenarios of self defense here, if you want to do that feel free to argue with hypothetical people. As far as I was aware we were talking about a specific case that is not clear and will benefit from going to trial.

Matty, get off your Spike Lee kick. I don't give a damn what he thinks and neither do 99%+ of the people who want a trial.

Sure, I think most of the time the system works okay. It does have lapses and some systemic flaws, though. I don't think anyone in the US who knows anything about our criminal justitice system thinks it's entirely fair to black people, for example.

In this instance, based on the evidence we, and the regular, decent, non-celebrity people in Sanford had and have, it didn't look like the police and DA in Sanford made the right call. It looked like they did a superficial investigation, and that a dead teenager didn't get the justice of having that killing properly investigated. It took over a month of regular people being upset and calling for it for the investigation to get restarted.

I'm under the opinion (and it's only an opinion) that this "go-ahead" to prosecute was not made by the DA's office, but was "requested" further up the chain, maybe even the White House.

And not for the reason you just leapt to.

Charging him puts a lid on this race issue to keep from boiling over until November. Who wants to take bets that after election this will all disappear?

As far as public reaction, I would imagine it would be the polar racial opposite of Simpson's trial, but if second term has already been obtained, what does He care?

culsandar wrote:I'm under the opinion (and it's only an opinion) that this "go-ahead" to prosecute was not made by the DA's office, but was "requested" further up the chain, maybe even the White House.

And not for the reason you just leapt to.

Charging him puts a lid on this race issue to keep from boiling over until November. Who wants to take bets that after election this will all disappear?

As far as public reaction, I would imagine it would be the polar racial opposite of Simpson's trial, but if second term has already been obtained, what does He care?

Only took this long for the "It's Obama's fault!" post?

d-usa wrote:

culsandar wrote:I'm under the opinion (and it's only an opinion) that this "go-ahead" to prosecute was not made by the DA's office, but was "requested" further up the chain, maybe even the White House.

And not for the reason you just leapt to.

Charging him puts a lid on this race issue to keep from boiling over until November. Who wants to take bets that after election this will all disappear?

As far as public reaction, I would imagine it would be the polar racial opposite of Simpson's trial, but if second term has already been obtained, what does He care?

Only took this long for the "It's Obama's fault!" post?

Which as much as I love to blame Obama is not the case.

Mannahnin wrote:Matty, get off your Spike Lee kick. I don't give a damn what he thinks and neither do 99%+ of the people who want a trial.

Sure, I think most of the time the system works okay. It does have lapses and some systemic flaws, though. I don't think anyone in the US who knows anything about our criminal justitice system thinks it's entirely fair to black people, for example.

In this instance, based on the evidence we, and the regular, decent, non-celebrity people in Sanford had and have, it didn't look like the police and DA in Sanford made the right call. It looked like they did a superficial investigation, and that a dead teenager didn't get the justice of having that killing properly investigated. It took over a month of regular people being upset and calling for it for the investigation to get restarted.

In contrast, to those who have an actual knowledge of self defense laws and stare decisis, it DID look like the police and DA in Sanford made the right call. I'm betting this gets poured out at the summary hearing. If there's a trial Zimmerman's life is over but he walks free, as he should.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

culsandar wrote:I'm under the opinion (and it's only an opinion) that this "go-ahead" to prosecute was not made by the DA's office, but was "requested" further up the chain, maybe even the White House.

When you have the President of the United States siding with the shootee, the Black Panthers putting out bounties, and random attacks now occurring nationwide "for Trayvon!" yea, thats exactly right.

culsandar wrote:I'm under the opinion (and it's only an opinion) that this "go-ahead" to prosecute was not made by the DA's office, but was "requested" further up the chain, maybe even the White House.

And not for the reason you just leapt to.

Charging him puts a lid on this race issue to keep from boiling over until November. Who wants to take bets that after election this will all disappear?

As far as public reaction, I would imagine it would be the polar racial opposite of Simpson's trial, but if second term has already been obtained, what does He care?

Uh-huh. Well I'm under the opinion that the dropping of the investigation the first time was a result of political pressure from above as a trial would bring into question Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, something their Governor would rather not have dividing public opinion as it would lead to them alienating potential voters no matter which way they sided.

See? Conspiracy theories are easy to come up with.

d-usa wrote:Only took this long for the "It's Obama's fault!" post?

You'll notice I didn't use Obama directly, and that was on purpose. But possibly a cabinet member, aide, or maybe POTUS himself makes mention in an off record comment to A.G. Holder (first black man to hold that office btw, possibly important) "You know this Martin/Zimmerman thing is gonna play hell on us come reelection time. We wish there was a way we could quiet the media frenzy down for a couple of months." Maybe Holder takes action and starts down the chain, not giving orders mind you nothing official, but making suggestions. That's just one "theory," as some call it.

But maybe the call didn't come from that high up. Maybe the Gov. Scott said "We really don't need violence on the streets over this, or any more blood shed." Perhaps he makes such a suggestion.

I don't have a fly on the wall, but I'd be willing to bet my 40k collection that the D.A.'s decision to prosecute was changed on such a "suggestion."

The trial would be very interesting to watch to say the least. The woman who is now lead prosecutor is considered by some a zealot, and is said to prosecute some cases with what she believes to be right, instead of evidence. It is the same woman that got Marissa Alexander convicted for 20 years in prison for, and I quote, "the bullet she fired could have ricocheted and hit any of them (her estranged husband and two sons)." Whether you side with Zimmerman or not, do you really believe he will receive a fair trial?

culsandar wrote:

d-usa wrote:Only took this long for the "It's Obama's fault!" post?

You'll notice I didn't use Obama directly, and that was on purpose. But possibly a cabinet member, aide, or maybe POTUS himself makes mention in an off record comment to A.G. Holder (first black man to hold that office btw, possibly important) "You know this Martin/Zimmerman thing is gonna play hell on us come reelection time. We wish there was a way we could quiet the media frenzy down for a couple of months." Maybe Holder takes action and starts down the chain, not giving orders mind you nothing official, but making suggestions. That's just one "theory," as some call it.

Some people don't bother to understand the way the system works.

AustonT wrote:

culsandar wrote:

d-usa wrote:Only took this long for the "It's Obama's fault!" post?

You'll notice I didn't use Obama directly, and that was on purpose. But possibly a cabinet member, aide, or maybe POTUS himself makes mention in an off record comment to A.G. Holder (first black man to hold that office btw, possibly important) "You know this Martin/Zimmerman thing is gonna play hell on us come reelection time. We wish there was a way we could quiet the media frenzy down for a couple of months." Maybe Holder takes action and starts down the chain, not giving orders mind you nothing official, but making suggestions. That's just one "theory," as some call it.

Some people don't bother to understand the way the system works.

I may not agree with you on a lot of things about this case, but when we do agree on something we are probably onto something

d-usa wrote:

AustonT wrote:

culsandar wrote:

d-usa wrote:Only took this long for the "It's Obama's fault!" post?

You'll notice I didn't use Obama directly, and that was on purpose. But possibly a cabinet member, aide, or maybe POTUS himself makes mention in an off record comment to A.G. Holder (first black man to hold that office btw, possibly important) "You know this Martin/Zimmerman thing is gonna play hell on us come reelection time. We wish there was a way we could quiet the media frenzy down for a couple of months." Maybe Holder takes action and starts down the chain, not giving orders mind you nothing official, but making suggestions. That's just one "theory," as some call it.

Some people don't bother to understand the way the system works.

I may not agree with you on a lot of things about this case, but when we do agree on something we are probably onto something

The Contemporary Union of Noble Tobacco Smokers approves

culsandar wrote:

The trial would be very interesting to watch to say the least. The woman who is now lead prosecutor is considered by some a zealot, and is said to prosecute some cases with what she believes to be right, instead of evidence. It is the same woman that got Marissa Alexander convicted for 20 years in prison for, and I quote, "the bullet she fired could have ricocheted and hit any of them (her estranged husband and two sons)." Whether you side with Zimmerman or not, do you really believe he will receive a fair trial?

Any prosecutor will do that. It is their job to get a prosecution. It is the defences job to point out lack of evidence and the jury's job to recognise it. If you have no faith in the defence or your peers making up the jury to prevent wrongful prosecutions based on little evidence then you pretty much have no faith in the system as a whole.