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.

 LordofHats wrote:
What does that even have to do with anything?

The details of the case are far from straight forward and its almost like the author thinks judges are supposed to take turns with their rulings.

Basically, the author has decided that inside their own head there's no case to answer and that this case is no different to some unknown & unstated number of other cases that weren't tried, and because that's their opinion it must be true and anyone acting like this shooting might warrant a trial or commentary in the media is in on some manipulative scam.

Which is bonkers crazy, of course, but unfortunately it's about par for the course in media commentary on trial cases these days. One side of the case or the other must be utterly bankrupt and completely wrong, and the final verdict must be an absolute outrage or a final, complete vindication of the power of truth. The idea of complex events that are in part unknowable and must be deduced by the court and jury in a very difficult process just isn't there.

 Seaward wrote:
Cute. Potentially hilariously inaccurate, but cute.

You think a sign by the highway that says "Trayvon Martin is a " is cute? I know you are trying to be glib but even for you that is a pretty odious sentiment.

Seaward wrote:
I think the point is that this case should have been no different. And it wasn't. The event occurred, local police investigated, local prosecutors declined to charge, and nobody cared for over a month until somebody from the national media heard about it and saw a ratings bonanza if they just slanted the story right. Then we got misleadingly edited 911 tapes, pictures of Martin as a fetus, and racist organizations putting bounties on Zimmerman, and here we are.

And my point was that none of that is relevant to the question of Zimmerman's guilt. A lot can be said for the media's handling of the case and the extreme reactions that have resulted on all sides, but none if it is a vindication of Zimmerman or a reason not to prosecute him.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Cute. Potentially hilariously inaccurate, but cute.

You think a sign by the highway that says "Trayvon Martin is a " is cute? I know you are trying to be glib but even for you that is a pretty odious sentiment.

No, I think the apparently psychically-inferred statement that Martin committed no crime and did absolutely nothing wrong and it's all Zimmerman's fault and everyone should rally around Martin because HE HAD ICED TEA AND A BAG OF SKITTLES YOU GUYS is cute.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

And my point was that none of that is relevant to the question of Zimmerman's guilt. A lot can be said for the media's handling of the case and the extreme reactions that have resulted on all sides, but none if it is a vindication of Zimmerman or a reason not to prosecute him.

I think if the local police and the local prosecutor didn't see enough to prosecute him, that's a pretty good reason not to prosecute him.

 Seaward wrote:
I think if the local police and the local prosecutor didn't see enough to prosecute him, that's a pretty good reason not to prosecute him.

And people do so love reminding me that the police aren't infallible. Local cops also didn't seem to initially feel the need to prosecute the Stubbenville rape case. Just because local authority didn't persue a case doesn't mean there isn't one.

They're very far from infallible. But this didn't wind up in a courtroom because a fresh investigation turned up new evidence that changed the apparent circumstances of the case, it wound up in a courtroom because media and interest groups started applying pressure. You might almost say it's political.

And if you're opening with Stuebenville, I'm raising you Duke lacrosse.

There's nothing left to be mad about with this case. There's a trial with a jury and everything. They were wrong not to charge him to begin with, but it's understandable that they were confused as to whether or not the overbroad stand your ground was in effect. Now that it's in a courtroom and stand your ground is not in play, the actual news story is over. The rest of this is just a dumb media circus. The jury will decide and we will move on.

That joke was not funny.

I demand funny in the court room.

Someone find that dude from My Cousin Vinny. What's his name?

Oh yeah, Vinny. Someone find that guy.

 kronk wrote:
That joke was not funny.

I demand funny in the court room.

Someone find that dude from My Cousin Vinny. What's his name?

Oh yeah, Vinny. Someone find that guy.

I saw that movie for the first time like four weeks ago... 21 years later, that film still holds up pretty well

Well might as well go ahead and commit. Two idioits off the street. One a future gangbanger that's setting up for the life and the trigger happy adult Hispanic that killed a teen that was kicking his adult ass.

Convince myself after I google images on both

Gene pool much cleaner

 Rented Tritium wrote:
At this point, I don't really care what happens. My complaints stopped when he went to actual trial. I'll be fine with whatever result a fair trial produces.

My sentiments in a nutshell.

The thing that bothers me is why didn't zimmerman just take down IDing infomation gave it to the 911 dispatcher and let the police do their work? Martin wasn't comiting a crime. This whole case is going to come down to who struck who first.

 tigonesskay wrote:
The thing that bothers me is why didn't zimmerman just take down IDing infomation gave it to the 911 dispatcher and let the police do their work? Martin wasn't comiting a crime. This whole case is going to come down to who struck who first.

Because he was a cowboy.

 Seaward wrote:
They're very far from infallible. But this didn't wind up in a courtroom because a fresh investigation turned up new evidence that changed the apparent circumstances of the case, it wound up in a courtroom because media and interest groups started applying pressure. You might almost say it's political.

And yet, still irrelevant to whether or not a crime was committed. Just because a case was given special attention doesn't mean its baseless and just because politicians are involved doesn't mean there isn't a crime. Two different prosecutors can look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions about whether charges are warranted, and just because a prosecutor is politically motivated doesn't mean the charges are fake or trumped up (they might be but when I see Zimmerman proponents I see lots of tinfoil hats and whining about stuff that doesn't really matter).

 tigonesskay wrote:
The thing that bothers me is why didn't zimmerman just take down IDing infomation gave it to the 911 dispatcher and let the police do their work? Martin wasn't comiting a crime. This whole case is going to come down to who struck who first.

This is like asking a hunter "Why didn't you just take a photograph of the deer?". He isn't out there to document stuff, he's out there to shoot.

 LordofHats wrote:
(they might be but when I see Zimmerman proponents I see lots of tinfoil hats and whining about stuff that doesn't really matter).

Fortunately the pro-Martin side isn't remotely composed of individuals making baseless, evidence-free claims about their personal knowledge of Zimmerman's private motivations as though they were absolute fact. Like the guy who posted right after you.

The rest of your post basically boils down to, "It's alright as long as it's a mob-motivated political prosecution, because as long as it gets a conviction, we'll know justice was served."

 tigonesskay wrote:
The thing that bothers me is why didn't zimmerman just take down IDing infomation gave it to the 911 dispatcher and let the police do their work? Martin wasn't comiting a crime. This whole case is going to come down to who struck who first.

I'm honestly not even sure it'll come down to that. Here's the irony of Zimmerman proponents citing stand your ground. Following Martin with no provocation and pursuing him as Zimmerman did is inherently threatening. Martin, had he killed Zimmerman, could have claimed the same defense especially when it would be revealed after the fact Zimmerman was armed and could have told whatever story he wanted much like Zimmerman can to justify his actions.

At the end of the day who struck who first should be irrelevant to the law (now what I don't know is if the law actually reflects this). From where I stand Zimmerman incited the incident by behaving recklessly, pursued another human being with no provocation and through whatever following events killed him. Had Zimmerman not chased Martin in the first place no one would have died and no crimes would likely have been committed. It all goes back to Zimmerman's questionable conduct and imo what he did was vigilantism and should be illegal by law and Martin's subsequent death should be some kind of murder or manslaughter charge.

I do not know if the law in Florida however actually considers what Zimmerman did a crime. If it isn't it should be, but that won't effect Zimmerman. Also, 911 dispatchers need some new regulations. That whole thing about how the operator can't issue orders to a caller is complete crap. The operator should have ordered Zimmerman to stay where he was and await police.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
The rest of your post basically boils down to, "It's alright as long as it's a mob-motivated political prosecution, because as long as it gets a conviction, we'll know justice was served."

No. My post is basically "The media and political motivations are irrelevant to whether or not a crime was committed and are not a valid defense against prosecution." Take the Bill Clinton sex scandal. That was all politics. But he did technically purger himself. That the Republicans were pursuing the President with zeal for political reasons had no baring on the fact he lied under oath which is a crime.

 LordofHats wrote:
Also, 911 dispatchers need some new regulations. That whole thing about how the operator can't issue orders to a caller is complete crap. The operator should have ordered Zimmerman to stay where he was and await police.

"911 Dispatcher sued and targeted after issuing an order to someone that led them to being shot"

Nope.


Edit: Also my whole stance on the thing will be decided by the jury. Just like Casey Anthony is innocent no matter what you say.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Also, 911 dispatchers need some new regulations. That whole thing about how the operator can't issue orders to a caller is complete crap. The operator should have ordered Zimmerman to stay where he was and await police.

"911 Dispatcher sued and targeted after issuing an order to someone that led them to being shot"

Nope.

There was a recent federal case about this... from what I remember, it was ruled that 911 dispatcher (or police office) can't issue orders that can be punishable if refused over the phone to civilian. Which was a really weird case. Lemme see if I can find it.

Edit: Also my whole stance on the thing will be decided by the jury. Just like Casey Anthony is innocent no matter what you say.

Yup. Even further, not sure if you can convict Zimmerman beyond reasonable doubt.

Well they certainly can in a jury trial. It's all about convincing the jury something is true, not actually proving it to be true.

 LordofHats wrote:
It all goes back to Zimmerman's questionable conduct and imo what he did was vigilantism and should be illegal by law and Martin's subsequent death should be some kind of murder or manslaughter charge.

Funny thing is? I can follow you around all day long if I want. I can even run up on you in my neighborhood and ask you what the hell you're doing in it. Neither gives you leeway to assault me.

No. My post is basically "The media and political motivations are irrelevant to whether or not a crime was committed and are not a valid defense against prosecution." Take the Bill Clinton sex scandal. That was all politics. But he did technically purger himself. That the Republicans were pursuing the President with zeal for political reasons had no baring on the fact he lied under oath which is a crime.

Not really an apt analogy, as he only lied under oath during the course of the investigation. He hadn't committed a crime before the investigation began, something we may wind up being able to say about Zimmerman also.

A prosecution that only occurs due to pressure from political groups after the agency with initial authority has declined to bring the case does not speak to serving justice. It speaks to satisfying biases.

 Seaward wrote:

Funny thing is? I can follow you around all day long if I want. I can even run up on you in my neighborhood and ask you what the hell you're doing in it. Neither gives you leeway to assault me.

But it does qualify as harassment which while not a criminal offense is threatening by its very nature. Stand Your Ground doesn't dictate that I feel someone is doing something illegal, merely that I fear for my safety. A big guy following me around in the middle of the night with a phone to his ear qualifies. EDIT: Also following people around and demanding they leave just because they don't live in your neighborhood is straight up douche territory.

Perhaps by irony had Zimmerman not pursued Martin, and the police arrived and stopped him they would have been wide open for a profiling lawsuit. There's no way of looking at the situation that Zimmerman's conduct is proper.

A prosecution that only occurs due to pressure from political groups after the agency with initial authority has declined to bring the case does not speak to serving justice. It speaks to satisfying biases.

It can achieve both.

LordofHats wrote:From where I stand Zimmerman incited the incident by behaving recklessly, pursued another human being with no provocation and through whatever following events killed him. Had Zimmerman not chased Martin in the first place no one would have died and no crimes would likely have been committed. It all goes back to Zimmerman's questionable conduct and imo what he did was vigilantism and should be illegal by law and Martin's subsequent death should be some kind of murder or manslaughter charge.

My sentiments exactly. I fail to understand how "stand your ground" / "no duty to retreat" can be extended to "pursue the offender".

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:Edit: Also my whole stance on the thing will be decided by the jury. Just like Casey Anthony is innocent not guilty no matter what you say.

Fixed that for you. There is a significant difference there; never forget that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
It all goes back to Zimmerman's questionable conduct and imo what he did was vigilantism and should be illegal by law and Martin's subsequent death should be some kind of murder or manslaughter charge.

Funny thing is? I can follow you around all day long if I want. I can even run up on you in my neighborhood and ask you what the hell you're doing in it. Neither gives you leeway to assault me.

If you're open-carrying or making it known that you're concealed-carrying, there's a pretty solid argument that you're menacing LordofHats. Which, I believe, may even give LordofHats the legal right to shoot you dead under the Stand Your Ground law. Which I think just goes to show how poorly-written the Stand Your Ground law is. And why one should never mess with LordofHats.

 LordofHats wrote:
But it does qualify as harassment which while not a criminal offense is threatening by its very nature. Stand Your Ground doesn't dictate that I feel someone is doing something illegal, merely that I fear for my safety. A big guy following me around in the middle of the night with a phone to his ear qualifies. EDIT: Also following people around and demanding they leave just because they don't live in your neighborhood is straight up douche territory.

Perhaps by irony had Zimmerman not pursued Martin, and the police arrived and stopped him they would have been wide open for a profiling lawsuit. There's no way of looking at the situation that Zimmerman's conduct is proper.

"Proper" is irrelevant. I'm confused why you guys continue to try and determine the legality of something based on its perceived morality rather than the actual law. A private citizen can profile 'til the cows come home.

Similarly, "douche territory" is neither illegal, nor does it grant you the right to assault said douche.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:Edit: Also my whole stance on the thing will be decided by the jury. Just like Casey Anthony is innocent not guilty no matter what you say.

Fixed that for you. There is a significant difference there; never forget that.

Eh, same thing in my noggin.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm confused why you guys continue to try and determine the legality of something based on its perceived morality rather than the actual law.

We're not. I even stated in a post that I wasn't sure what he did was illegal (merely that I felt it should be). However that doesn't mean that he can't be prosecuted under the current laws for his conduct. It's not unheard of for a person to be convicted while standing in 'gray' legal territory.

Similarly, "douche territory" is neither illegal, nor does it grant you the right to assault said douche.

Didn't say it was. But 'not being from the neighborhood' isn't a valid reason to harass someone.

 LordofHats wrote:
We're not. I even stated in a post that I wasn't sure what he did was illegal (merely that I felt it should be). However that doesn't mean that he can't be prosecuted under the current laws for his conduct. It's not unheard of for a person to be convicted while standing in 'gray' legal territory.

It very well might, actually, and the actual prosecutor seemed to think so before NBC started doctoring tapes.

Didn't say it was. But 'not being from the neighborhood' isn't a valid reason to harass someone.

You appear to have an extraordinarily liberal definition of harassment. Asking someone who they are and what they're doing in a given area isn't harassment.

In a public space a private citizen has no business or right to ask why I am anywhere let alone to call the cops on me or pursue me when all I am doing is walking down the street in a hoodie. That is disturbing behavior and if I were Martin I'd most definitely feel threatened.

And I can say this from personal experience as this has happened to me before. Someone following you down a street in the middle of the night with no one else around is an extremely dangerous situation to be in. I should have the right to defend myself in that situation if I feel threatened and the person following me should most definitely not have the right to then pull a gun and shoot me and proclaim self defense. That's twisted in so many ways.

A gated community is private property, it is not a public space.

 djones520 wrote:
A gated community is private property, it is not a public space.

Zimmerman is not the owner of the property and Martin was staying in that community at the time. He had every right to be there and Zimmerman had no grounds on which to suspect him of anything. EDIT: Martin on the other hand imo had a very reasonable and legally justifiable reason to fear Zimmerman.

In the end it really does come down to Zimmerman's questionable reaction toa guy just walking down the street.