Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ACLU)   Dear Eric Holder; Your attempts at a federal case against George Zimmerman violates the double-jeopardy clause in the constitution and we will defend him if necessary. Sincerely - The ACLU   (aclu.org) divider line 548
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

15998 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jul 2013 at 12:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



548 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-21 09:53:23 AM  
I know so many people who for Zimmerman with all of the right wing bat guano crazy they can muster. I also know some left Wing bat guano crazy people who hate Zimmerman and love the ACLU.

Hopefully, the ACLU position will cause the crazies heads to explode and we will be done with crazy.

/knows the ACLU takes positions from all sides of the political spectrum
/It was just a hopeless dream.
 
2013-07-21 10:05:06 AM  
  We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."
 
2013-07-21 10:15:08 AM  
Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right
 
2013-07-21 10:15:13 AM  
I did not see in the letter where the ACLU said they would defend him.
 
2013-07-21 10:53:07 AM  
Team Zim!
 
2013-07-21 11:17:33 AM  
Well, DUH.  The whole story is tragic, but George was acquitted.  Let it go man, coz it's GONE.
 
2013-07-21 11:19:01 AM  

Jeep2011: I know so many people who for Zimmerman with all of the right wing bat guano crazy they can muster. I also know some left Wing bat guano crazy people who hate Zimmerman and love the ACLU.

Hopefully, the ACLU position will cause the crazies heads to explode and we will be done with crazy.

/knows the ACLU takes positions from all sides of the political spectrum
/It was just a hopeless dream.


I wasn't a fan of the Federal case in the Rodney King incident either. Bringing someone up on different charges for the same offense seems to me to be at least a violation of the spirit of the double jeopardy clause, and even in the case of an injustice, I've been leery and untrusting of letting the government do that.
 
2013-07-21 11:19:40 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: Team Zim!


If you want to come across as being a Twilight fan, that's your business.
 
2013-07-21 11:20:18 AM  

cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right


Most of the time. Sometimes, they do pick and choose which rights they feel are worth defending.
 
2013-07-21 11:29:28 AM  

RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


The Supreme Court has proven many times over the course of their history that their interpretation of the Constitution isn't always right.
 
2013-07-21 11:32:28 AM  
OJ Simpson
 
2013-07-21 11:33:09 AM  

vygramul: Popcorn Johnny: Team Zim!

If you want to come across as being a Twilight fan, that's your business.


Better a "Twilight" fan than a delusional fan that treats a dead sociopath like a teen heart throb.
 
2013-07-21 11:34:07 AM  
Holder and Obama are incompetent, race baiting morons. Stand your ground and race had not a farking thing to do with the Zim case and yet there they are on TV talking about both of them every chance they get.
 
2013-07-21 11:38:48 AM  

vygramul: cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right

Most of the time. Sometimes, they do pick and choose which rights they feel are worth defending.


Well, of course. They have a certain view as to what "civil liberties" means. What would you expect, that they defend you no matter what your case is if you walk into their office and claim its a 'civil liberties case'?
 
2013-07-21 11:39:27 AM  

Mentat: RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

The Supreme Court has proven many times over the course of their history that their interpretation of the Constitution isn't always right.


Maybe. But, for now, that's the law.
 
2013-07-21 11:42:35 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: Holder and Obama are incompetent, race baiting morons. Stand your ground and race had not a farking thing to do with the Zim case and yet there they are on TV talking about both of them every chance they get.


They aren't morons. While Obama was bearing his soul to the media, the government was getting the FISA court to rubber stamp renewal of domestic surveillance.
 
2013-07-21 12:02:52 PM  

Nabb1: Better a "Twilight" fan than a delusional fan that treats a dead sociopath like a teen heart throb.


I never knew that Trayvon Martin was your patient for you to diagnose him with a psychiatric condition. Why didn't you speak up before this tragic incident? You're the real monster here.

Stop pretending there are any heroes in this situation.
 
2013-07-21 12:21:16 PM  

DamnYankees: vygramul: cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right

Most of the time. Sometimes, they do pick and choose which rights they feel are worth defending.

Well, of course. They have a certain view as to what "civil liberties" means. What would you expect, that they defend you no matter what your case is if you walk into their office and claim its a 'civil liberties case'?


There's a difference between picking which case is relevant to a right, and which case affects a right at all.
 
2013-07-21 12:22:25 PM  
Better a "Twilight" fan than a delusional fan that treats a dead sociopath like a teen heart throb.

better a 50 Shades of Grey fan than whatever the fark sort of hardon you have reminding everyone what a dangerous thug you think Martin was
 
2013-07-21 12:23:00 PM  
was he still a hulking 6' 3" beast or what, I forget
 
2013-07-21 12:24:48 PM  

Nabb1: vygramul: Popcorn Johnny: Team Zim!

If you want to come across as being a Twilight fan, that's your business.

Better a "Twilight" fan than a delusional fan that treats a dead sociopath like a teen heart throb.


I think it's more insane for people to champion either one of these award-winners since no one really knows what actually happened that night. Neither side is willing to accept even the HINT of a flaw. The Martin people don't think the suspicious jewelry reflects on his personality, and the Zimmerman people don't think assaulting a cop reflects on his personality. They're all insufficiently skeptical about the events of that night.
 
2013-07-21 12:33:00 PM  

Jackson Herring: Better a "Twilight" fan than a delusional fan that treats a dead sociopath like a teen heart throb.

better a 50 Shades of Grey fan than whatever the fark sort of hardon you have reminding everyone what a dangerous thug you think Martin was


Oh, yeah, those cell phone pics and texts the prosecution suppressed for so long were clearly indicative of a peaceful, well-adjusted teenager.
 
2013-07-21 12:33:56 PM  

vygramul: Nabb1: vygramul: Popcorn Johnny: Team Zim!

If you want to come across as being a Twilight fan, that's your business.

Better a "Twilight" fan than a delusional fan that treats a dead sociopath like a teen heart throb.

I think it's more insane for people to champion either one of these award-winners since no one really knows what actually happened that night. Neither side is willing to accept even the HINT of a flaw. The Martin people don't think the suspicious jewelry reflects on his personality, and the Zimmerman people don't think assaulting a cop reflects on his personality. They're all insufficiently skeptical about the events of that night.


Oh, I think Zimmerman is definitely flawed, just not a criminal.
 
2013-07-21 12:33:57 PM  
pisces.bbystatic.com
cdn.media.discovermagazine.com
Just getting things prepared for you all.
 
2013-07-21 12:38:19 PM  
People need to stop being butt hurt and realize the Jury has spoken. That is all.
 
2013-07-21 12:38:22 PM  

vygramul: and the Zimmerman people don't think assaulting a cop reflects on his personality.


Zim was a a bar with friends and saw some dude grab one of his peeps. Turns out the guy was a plain clothes undercover cop. The fact that the charges were eventually dropped should be a huge red flag that this wasn't what some of Team Trayvon want to make it out to be. Do you really farking think they'd drop assault on an officer charges if they were valid?
 
2013-07-21 12:40:15 PM  
... and older Mississippi members of the Klu Klux Klan nod in agreement and watch with interest.
 
2013-07-21 12:40:38 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Holder and Obama are incompetent, race baiting morons. Stand your ground and race had not a farking thing to do with the Zim case and yet there they are on TV talking about both of them every chance they get.


Stand your ground had nothing to do with it? You're dumb.
 
2013-07-21 12:40:45 PM  

RexTalionis: Mentat: RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

The Supreme Court has proven many times over the course of their history that their interpretation of the Constitution isn't always right.

Maybe. But, for now, that's the law.


And there's no better way to change the law then to do absolutely nothing.
 
2013-07-21 12:40:56 PM  

vygramul: I wasn't a fan of the Federal case in the Rodney King incident either. Bringing someone up on different charges for the same offense seems to me to be at least a violation of the spirit of the double jeopardy clause, and even in the case of an injustice, I've been leery and untrusting of letting the government do that.


I feel the exact same way about leveling multiple charges hoping one sticks...
I.E. charging someone with murder 2, murder 3, and manslaughter.
 
2013-07-21 12:40:59 PM  
As for the Civil Rights violations suit, they couldn't prove Zimmerman killed Trayvon out of hate.  How are they going to prove he did it specifically because of his race? That would be a complete waste of tax payer money.
 
2013-07-21 12:41:06 PM  

RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


The Supreme Court can't agree among themselves what the Constitution means. How else do you explain all the 5-4 decisions? If you go to your auto dealer and 3 mechanics tell you it's the water pump, and 2 mechanics tell you it's the thermostat, are you going to trust them?
 
2013-07-21 12:41:40 PM  
But ah cain't say no prayers in skool!

blog.jonolan.net
 
2013-07-21 12:42:17 PM  

Nabb1: Jackson Herring: Better a "Twilight" fan than a delusional fan that treats a dead sociopath like a teen heart throb.

better a 50 Shades of Grey fan than whatever the fark sort of hardon you have reminding everyone what a dangerous thug you think Martin was

Oh, yeah, those cell phone pics and texts the prosecution suppressed for so long were clearly indicative of a peaceful, well-adjusted teenager.


If I had a cell phone at that age you'd probably say the same thing.

/and be just as wrong
 
2013-07-21 12:42:31 PM  
Well it would probably be appropriate to accuse the ACLU of racism at this point.
 
2013-07-21 12:42:34 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Stand your ground had nothing to do with it? You're dumb.


Oh boy, here we go. Please enlighten us as to what stand your ground had to do with the case.
 
2013-07-21 12:42:47 PM  
As much as I would like to see him OJ'ed in a civil court or other proceedings, he was found not guilty we need to stop kicking the dead horse.
 
2013-07-21 12:43:40 PM  

Nabb1: vygramul: Popcorn Johnny: Team Zim!

If you want to come across as being a Twilight fan, that's your business.

Better a "Twilight" fan than a delusional fan that treats a dead sociopath like a teen heart throb.


You're going to have to narrow that down.
 
2013-07-21 12:44:34 PM  
There was almost no chance whatsoever that Zimmerman was going to be convicted of homicide or even manslaughter in a fair trial. There just wasn't evidence available to prove it, and the prosecution, unsurprisingly, was terrible. They should have gone after something like reckless endangerment, put him away for a couple of years, and pulled his gun license.

I don't doubt that race was an issue in the altercation -- although absolutely it was an issue in the media and in the trial. I think Zimmerman is an ass, a danger to himself and others, and that he could just as easily and just as likely shot and killed a white kid. If Zimmerman was 'protecting' my neighborhood, you bet I'd be rooting against him.
 
2013-07-21 12:45:10 PM  

See You Next Tuesday: Name one well-adjusted teenager. Go on.


What % of teens are perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?
 
182
2013-07-21 12:47:39 PM  

alaric3: OJ Simpson


yeah, homeboy got hemmed up by the system....why not Zim.
 
2013-07-21 12:48:01 PM  

vygramul: There's a difference between picking which case is relevant to a right, and which case affects a right at all.


... No, I do not think there is much difference there. If a case is relevant to a right, the case affects a right. Unless you mean a case is relevant to interpretation of a right and a case affects a right of an individual but would have no influence on case law since interpretation of the right is well established in the courts. In this latter instance, I would agree the ACLU does this, but I would say the ACLU does this to better utilize resources. As far as I know, though, the ACLU only chooses not to engage in Second Amendment cases because of the stance the Second Amendment is an individual rather than civil liberty and the fact organizations such as the NRA exist for this sole purpose.
 
2013-07-21 12:48:28 PM  
Popcorn Johnny: What % of teens are perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?

If I understand your use of "perusing", I'd say probably somewhere near 50%, at some point during their teen years. That was probably about right back when I was a teen, too.
 
2013-07-21 12:49:35 PM  
You should only have to face criminal or civil charges, not both.  I know that that is not how it is in this country, but that is the way that it should be. It is bullschitt that a criminal court can find you not guilty but then a civil court can find you guilty of the same crime.  How in all of Hades is that not double jeopardy?
 
2013-07-21 12:49:49 PM  
Won't somebody just hurry up and shoot the idiot? It is their 2nd Amendment right after all.
 
2013-07-21 12:50:18 PM  

RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


At the time of Brown v. Board of Education, the matter of school segregation was settled Constitutional law in opposition to Brown. ACLU filed anyway. They won.

There's also an originalist argument that the current double jeopardy interpretation is contrary to original intent.
 
2013-07-21 12:50:46 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: See You Next Tuesday: Name one well-adjusted teenager. Go on.

What % of teens are perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?


Guilty without proof, of course, like all "facts" brought up about Martin to slander him after death.
 
2013-07-21 12:51:13 PM  
Would have been better if it was a letter from the NAACP.
 
2013-07-21 12:51:25 PM  

macadamnut: Won't somebody just hurry up and shoot the idiot? It is their 2nd Amendment right after all.


They should just wait it out like with OJ and see if he goes to jail for another crime.
 
2013-07-21 12:51:45 PM  

RandomAxe: If I understand your use of "perusing", I'd say probably somewhere near 50%, at some point during their teen years.


LOL yeah, okay.
 
2013-07-21 12:52:23 PM  
Dual sovereignty - see US v. Lanza.
 
2013-07-21 12:52:38 PM  
I love the ACLU. They seem to think our rights belong to all of us.
 
2013-07-21 12:52:49 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Stand your ground had nothing to do with it? You're dumb.

Oh boy, here we go. Please enlighten us as to what stand your ground had to do with the case.


One of the jurors said it was a factor influencing her decision in spite of it not being brought up by the lawyers.
 
2013-07-21 12:52:59 PM  
But we have to keep retrying him...

www.at40.com

until we get the verdict we want!
 
2013-07-21 12:53:07 PM  
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Eric Holder the brainchild behind a monumental f*ckup that involved letting guns fall into the hands of Mexican cartel members--in order to track said cartel members--but resulted in the death of a Border Patrol agent and potentially an untold number of Mexican civilians/cops/military?  Which would make him an accessory to the murder of a US Federal officer and X number of citizens of a foreign country.  Which makes AG Holder even so much as looking at a case of enacting justice of gun violence kinda sorta super hypocritical?

Or was that that Neopolitan chick who used to be in charge of the ATF?  Honest question.
 
2013-07-21 12:53:53 PM  

LasersHurt: Guilty without proof, of course, like all "facts" brought up about Martin to slander him after death.


So you're denying the existence of the text messages that show Trayvon having a conversation about wanting to purchase a gun? Perhaps you should exit these threads for a while, study up on the "facts" and then give it another go. It gets really tiring having to educate people such as yourself that choose to be ignorant of what is and isn't known about this whole affair.
 
2013-07-21 12:53:54 PM  
img543.imageshack.us
 
2013-07-21 12:53:55 PM  

Dahnkster: But ah cain't say no prayers in skool!

[blog.jonolan.net image 640x800]


Does anyone notice that she's holding a copy of Aleister Crowley's Magick In Theory And Practice?
 
2013-07-21 12:54:25 PM  
I may not always agree with their positions on individual matters, but this is yet another reminder of why the ACLU is absolutely necessary in a society like ours. Public sentiment can lead to pretty crappy decisionmaking by elected officials, and unaccountable judges have absolutely been wrong in the past, so it's hugely important to have groups that will stand with unpopular citizens whose resources aren't bottomless.
 
2013-07-21 12:55:06 PM  

Kalashinator: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Eric Holder the brainchild behind a monumental f*ckup that involved letting guns fall into the hands of Mexican cartel members--in order to track said cartel members--but resulted in the death of a Border Patrol agent and potentially an untold number of Mexican civilians/cops/military?  Which would make him an accessory to the murder of a US Federal officer and X number of citizens of a foreign country.  Which makes AG Holder even so much as looking at a case of enacting justice of gun violence kinda sorta super hypocritical?

Or was that that Neopolitan chick who used to be in charge of the ATF?  Honest question.


Magic time machine?
 
2013-07-21 12:55:07 PM  

LasersHurt: Popcorn Johnny: See You Next Tuesday: Name one well-adjusted teenager. Go on.

What % of teens are perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?

Guilty without proof, of course, like all "facts" brought up about Martin to slander him after death.


So you're saying all those pictures of him and his text message records are completely fabricated just to make him look bad? Enjoying your first day on Fark, Mr. Sharpton?
 
2013-07-21 12:55:17 PM  
Kalashinator, the 'gunwalking' sting projects, which were all stupid, started in 2006, under W.
 
2013-07-21 12:55:56 PM  

Vangor: vygramul: There's a difference between picking which case is relevant to a right, and which case affects a right at all.

... No, I do not think there is much difference there. If a case is relevant to a right, the case affects a right. Unless you mean a case is relevant to interpretation of a right and a case affects a right of an individual but would have no influence on case law since interpretation of the right is well established in the courts. In this latter instance, I would agree the ACLU does this, but I would say the ACLU does this to better utilize resources. As far as I know, though, the ACLU only chooses not to engage in Second Amendment cases because of the stance the Second Amendment is an individual rather than civil liberty and the fact organizations such as the NRA exist for this sole purpose.


I'll be exlicit: the ACLU has no interest in the second amendment.
 
2013-07-21 12:56:12 PM  
I don't understand why people are going after stand your ground because of this case.  Zimmerman physically couldn't retreat because he was on his back on the ground with a man straddling him who was pounding him in the ground.
 
2013-07-21 12:56:32 PM  

"A jury found Zimmerman not guilty, and that should be the end of the criminal case."


Zimmerman took a life and I had wished he was found guilty. But I agree with the ACLU, he was found not guilty and that's that. It's time to move on. On my facebook people are posting pictures from the Travon marches taking place. I keep thinking what's the point? It's over. If anything, maybe action should now be focused on the "Stand Your Ground" law. Is it really a sensible law as written or should changes be made?

 
2013-07-21 12:56:39 PM  

Kalashinator: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Eric Holder the brainchild behind a monumental f*ckup that involved letting guns fall into the hands of Mexican cartel members--in order to track said cartel members--but resulted in the death of a Border Patrol agent and potentially an untold number of Mexican civilians/cops/military?  Which would make him an accessory to the murder of a US Federal officer and X number of citizens of a foreign country.  Which makes AG Holder even so much as looking at a case of enacting justice of gun violence kinda sorta super hypocritical?

Or was that that Neopolitan chick who used to be in charge of the ATF?  Honest question.


Good question.

On another note, maybe the ACLU is good for something, after all.
 
2013-07-21 12:56:44 PM  
this is like liberal division by zero!

hahahahahhahhahahahhahahahahaa!!
 
2013-07-21 12:56:44 PM  

Kome: One of the jurors said it was a factor influencing her decision in spite of it not being brought up by the lawyers.


That doesn't make it a part of the case. We know for a fact that it didn't apply to Zim's actions, as he was pinned to the ground and unable to flee. Any speculation that Trayvon was standing his ground is not supported by any evidence.

Obama and Holder going on TV and denouncing stand your ground laws when there's not one shred of evidence that they had anything to do with the incident is moronic.
 
2013-07-21 12:57:12 PM  
Another all white organization goes full racist.


I keed.
 
2013-07-21 12:57:21 PM  
One of the interesting aspects of this story is that this is pretty much a complete 180 from what the ACLU said just a few days ago, when they were encouraging the Dept. of Justice to investigate Zimmerman. I'd love to know what kind of conversations took place behind the scenes at the ACLU.
 
2013-07-21 12:57:39 PM  

WizardofToast: macadamnut: Won't somebody just hurry up and shoot the idiot? It is their 2nd Amendment right after all.

They should just wait it out like with OJ and see if he goes to jail for another crime.


Or just wait for him to shoot himself fumbling with his drive-thru Popeye's chicken. Or does he get free Chik-Fil-A for life now?
 
2013-07-21 12:58:00 PM  
holy crap. i'm joining. i'll put the card in my wallet right next to my temple rec and NRA Life Member card.
 
2013-07-21 12:58:37 PM  
img2.timeinc.net
hey guys, whats going on in this thread
 
2013-07-21 12:58:53 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Popcorn Johnny: Holder and Obama are incompetent, race baiting morons. Stand your ground and race had not a farking thing to do with the Zim case and yet there they are on TV talking about both of them every chance they get.

Stand your ground had nothing to do with it? You're dumb.


Actually the jury did receive instruction to the effect Zim could stand his ground.  So to that extent "Stand Your Ground" did have something to do with the case.  However, the prosecution and defense lawyers both had a hand in writing the instructions to the jury.  So it goes.

 http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Ju ry- Instructions

page 12

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent
the commission of a forcible felony. "
 
2013-07-21 12:59:32 PM  

Kome: Popcorn Johnny: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Stand your ground had nothing to do with it? You're dumb.

Oh boy, here we go. Please enlighten us as to what stand your ground had to do with the case.

One of the jurors said it was a factor influencing her decision in spite of it not being brought up by the lawyers.


Yeah, that juror was kind of a nut. She was trying to cash in with a book deal until protests squashed it.
 
2013-07-21 12:59:36 PM  
When will the fed's war on Hispanics end? Leave Zimmerman alone already.
 
2013-07-21 12:59:47 PM  
I've got a better idea.

Why don't they just get some rope and a horse, find a nice tree and get it over with?
 
2013-07-21 01:00:50 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Zim was a a bar with friends and saw some dude grab one of his peeps. Turns out the guy was a plain clothes undercover cop. The fact that the charges were eventually dropped should be a huge red flag that this wasn't what some of Team Trayvon want to make it out to be. Do you really farking think they'd drop assault on an officer charges if they were valid?


He was charged before they realized Daddy was a judge.  That can make a lot of things go away.
 
2013-07-21 01:00:53 PM  

Plant Rights Activist: [img2.timeinc.net image 300x400]
hey guys, whats going on in this thread


the New Black Panthers just put a price on your head. $10k.
 
2013-07-21 01:01:23 PM  

RandomAxe: There was almost no chance whatsoever that Zimmerman was going to be convicted of homicide or even manslaughter in a fair trial. There just wasn't evidence available to prove it, and the prosecution, unsurprisingly, was terrible. They should have gone after something like reckless endangerment, put him away for a couple of years, and pulled his gun license.

I don't doubt that race was an issue in the altercation -- although absolutely it was an issue in the media and in the trial. I think Zimmerman is an ass, a danger to himself and others, and that he could just as easily and just as likely shot and killed a white kid. If Zimmerman was 'protecting' my neighborhood, you bet I'd be rooting against him.


You just summed up the entire situation more correctly than any of the "experts" could ever have done. Zimmerman was then and still is a jackass and will probably end up making more poor choices in the future. But there just wasn't enough evidence to convict him I the crime they chose to charge him with. Their mistake.
 
2013-07-21 01:01:40 PM  

Kalashinator: Correct me if I'm wrong,




You're welcome.

 
2013-07-21 01:01:43 PM  

Kalashinator: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Eric Holder the brainchild behind a monumental f*ckup that involved letting guns fall into the hands of Mexican cartel members--in order to track said cartel members--but resulted in the death of a Border Patrol agent and potentially an untold number of Mexican civilians/cops/military?  Which would make him an accessory to the murder of a US Federal officer and X number of citizens of a foreign country.  Which makes AG Holder even so much as looking at a case of enacting justice of gun violence kinda sorta super hypocritical?

Or was that that Neopolitan chick who used to be in charge of the ATF?  Honest question.


Yes
 
2013-07-21 01:01:57 PM  
I watched a lot of the trial, and my take is that if there had been one reasonable person in that encounter, no one would have been hurt.

I think that Trayvon was cocky kid, who was emulating the thug lifestyle and was sick of the creepy white guy that was giving him a hard time, and maybe too eager to lay hands on someone. I think that it's a shame that no one is discussing the role of popular urban culture in all of this, because it was a contributing factor. Just not PC, I guess. I think that given Holder's and Obama's speeches, that the GOP research teams are going to be working overtime to tarnish Trayvon's halo, and that they're going to find a lot of juicy details that make him look non-innocent.

I think that Zimmerman was suffering from little man with a gun, wanna-be cop syndrome, and was looking for an excuse to project himself. I think that it's a shame that there wasn't more discussion of the role of gun culture in all of this, because it was a contributing factor. Just not PC, I guess.

I think that both parties contributed to the ultimate tragedy. I think that Trayvon threw the first punch, which was a mistake, even if he had been goaded into it, and I think that Zimmerman was a trigger happy, angry individual.

I think that the laws in Florida are crazy, but given them, justice was served. I think that the judge was actually biased against Zimmerman - throwing in manslaughter in the 11th hour would have absolutely allowed a appeal - but that the prosecution was both weak and had a poor case.

I think that both Holder and Obama did, in fact, play the race card to a degree, but that they did show bravery by taking a stance.

And I think that the ACLU should be applauded for standing up to the Feds.

//Agreed, just let this thing go.
 
2013-07-21 01:02:05 PM  

Kriggerel: I've got a better idea.

Why don't they just get some rope and a horse, find a nice tree and get it over with?


and execute Laura Murphy ? goodness, why?
 
2013-07-21 01:02:30 PM  

GentlemanJ: Dahnkster: But ah cain't say no prayers in skool!

[blog.jonolan.net image 640x800]

Does anyone notice that she's holding a copy of Aleister Crowley's Magick In Theory And Practice?


No, because that would mean that we are social misfits.
 
2013-07-21 01:02:44 PM  
Yayy more media race baiting that drives web clicks & raises revenue

Al Sharpton is in his glory, he hasn't had this much exposure since Tawana Brawley
 
2013-07-21 01:02:49 PM  

Kriggerel: I've got a better idea.

Why don't they just get some rope and a horse, find a nice tree and get it over with?


Killing Zimmerman will just render any supporter of Martin as evil and barbaric to the media. It's probably give mud to be thrown at future supporters of other victims of a criminal case. It will just divide the country further.
 
2013-07-21 01:03:04 PM  
Alan Dershowitz has come out and said that he agrees that the DOJ should investigate .........

Angela Corey.

Can't wait for that biatch to go down.
 
2013-07-21 01:03:37 PM  

Useless Destruction of Exergy: ... and older Mississippi members of the Klu Klux Klan nod in agreement and watch with interest.


Black kid and an Hispanic man get into a fight. Black kid killed.

White population is blamed.

That's  your America.
 
2013-07-21 01:04:39 PM  

Kalashinator: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Eric Holder the brainchild behind a monumental f*ckup that involved letting guns fall into the hands of Mexican cartel members-


He borrowed Obama's time machine to start the program in 2006.
 
2013-07-21 01:05:51 PM  

fnordfocus: He was charged before they realized Daddy was a judge.


This is what Team Trayvon actually believes. For the record, he was a magistrate in Virginia, not a judge.
 
rpm
2013-07-21 01:05:54 PM  

Mock26: You should only have to face criminal or civil charges, not both.  I know that that is not how it is in this country, but that is the way that it should be. It is bullschitt that a criminal court can find you not guilty but then a civil court can find you guilty of the same crime.  How in all of Hades is that not double jeopardy?


"Beyond a reasonable doubt" v. "Preponderance of evidence". There's differing levels of standards, and the trials are meant to resolve different things. I don't think the government should be allowed to bring a civil case however.
 
2013-07-21 01:09:22 PM  

Plant Rights Activist: hey guys, whats going on in this thread


We need to retry him now that he wrote "how I did it" book.
 
2013-07-21 01:09:24 PM  

rpm: Mock26: You should only have to face criminal or civil charges, not both.  I know that that is not how it is in this country, but that is the way that it should be. It is bullschitt that a criminal court can find you not guilty but then a civil court can find you guilty of the same crime.  How in all of Hades is that not double jeopardy?

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" v. "Preponderance of evidence". There's differing levels of standards, and the trials are meant to resolve different things. I don't think the government should be allowed to bring a civil case however.


Well the government does have to keep us occupied with things that will divert our attentions away from all the other crap they're doing.
 
2013-07-21 01:10:08 PM  

fjnorton: Plant Rights Activist: hey guys, whats going on in this thread

We need to retry him now that he wrote "how I did it" book.


He's already in prison for another crime. It was just long-term karma.
 
2013-07-21 01:10:21 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: LasersHurt: Guilty without proof, of course, like all "facts" brought up about Martin to slander him after death.

So you're denying the existence of the text messages that show Trayvon having a conversation about wanting to purchase a gun? Perhaps you should exit these threads for a while, study up on the "facts" and then give it another go. It gets really tiring having to educate people such as yourself that choose to be ignorant of what is and isn't known about this whole affair.


So stop. It doesn't matter if Martin smoked weed, said nasty things, wanted a gun, or was a Mexican drug cartel kingpin. All Zimmerman knew about him that night was that he was a stranger. That was enough for him to "investigate".
 
2013-07-21 01:11:07 PM  
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Zimmerman wasn't tried on a civil rights violation, thus if the feds do so, it's not double jeopardy.
 
2013-07-21 01:11:57 PM  
Is anyone else reminded of Egypt? 6 people looked at ALL the facts allowed by the judge, and decided George was not guilty...not innocent, but not guilty. Both of them idiots ARE guilty of pig-headedness. There was guilt on both sides, but the remaining party was within his rights. 6 honest and true citizens said so.
 
2013-07-21 01:13:08 PM  
OPINION: If the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case were backwards (the opposite person was killed), Trayvon would already be on death row
 
2013-07-21 01:13:44 PM  
Following up on my other post, the ACLU went through a similar identity crisis after the acquittal of the cops who beat Rodney King:

After the acquittal of the police officers involved in the Rodney King beating on April 29, 1992, the Southern California chapter of the A.C.L.U. urged the Justice Department to try the officers on federal civil rights charges. The A.C.L.U.'s strict policy opposing double jeopardy was suspended in June, 1992 to consider the impact of the policy on the officers' case. On April 4, 1993, in a close vote, the national board of the A.C.L.U. enacted a resolution opposing any exceptions to the American Constitution's prohibition against double jeopardy. However, all ten of the black members who were present voted to allow for second trials on civil rights grounds after acquittal on local charges. [link]
 
2013-07-21 01:13:45 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Zimmerman wasn't tried on a civil rights violation, thus if the feds do so, it's not double jeopardy.


Wasn't he also part of a 'community watch' group? Try the biatch under the RICO Act!
 
drp
2013-07-21 01:14:11 PM  

vygramul: I think it's more insane for people to champion either one of these award-winners since no one really knows what actually happened that night. Neither side is willing to accept even the HINT of a flaw. The Martin people don't think the suspicious jewelry reflects on his personality, and the Zimmerman people don't think assaulting a cop reflects on his personality. They're all insufficiently skeptical about the events of that night.


Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.

/ but keep farkin' that strawchicken
 
2013-07-21 01:14:35 PM  

jaytkay: Kalashinator: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Eric Holder the brainchild behind a monumental f*ckup that involved letting guns fall into the hands of Mexican cartel members-

He borrowed Obama's time machine to start the program in 2006.


Under Bush the program was done in conjunction with the Mexican government and eventually shut down.  Under Holder they didn't bother to inform the Mexicans and expanded the program when it was reinstated.
 
2013-07-21 01:14:42 PM  

DarknessTigerpaw: OPINION: If the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case were backwards (the opposite person was killed), Trayvon would already be on death row


He very well could be. And that would be wrong.
 
2013-07-21 01:14:45 PM  
OH LOOK... ANOTHER REASON to LOOT and STEAL THE LATEST FLAT PANEL TVs...
 
2013-07-21 01:15:20 PM  
"Name one well-adjusted teenager. Go on."

Now that's one set of extremely re-located goal posts.
 
2013-07-21 01:15:37 PM  

DamnYankees: vygramul: cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right

Most of the time. Sometimes, they do pick and choose which rights they feel are worth defending.

Well, of course. They have a certain view as to what "civil liberties" means. What would you expect, that they defend you no matter what your case is if you walk into their office and claim its a 'civil liberties case'?



They don't defend second amendment cases and believe in far more abuse of the literal definition of it than they do other amendments. Strict constitutionalists on the 1st, 5th, etc, but not the 2nd
 
2013-07-21 01:16:25 PM  

Mambo Bananapatch: Popcorn Johnny: LasersHurt: Guilty without proof, of course, like all "facts" brought up about Martin to slander him after death.

So you're denying the existence of the text messages that show Trayvon having a conversation about wanting to purchase a gun? Perhaps you should exit these threads for a while, study up on the "facts" and then give it another go. It gets really tiring having to educate people such as yourself that choose to be ignorant of what is and isn't known about this whole affair.

So stop. It doesn't matter if Martin smoked weed, said nasty things, wanted a gun, or was a Mexican drug cartel kingpin. All Zimmerman knew about him that night was that he was a stranger. That was enough for him to "investigate".


...he said oversimplifyingly. You're forgetting one major thing: There had been a crime wave in that area. Robberies. All suspects were young black males. If Zimmerman was profiling, he had every right to do so.

Let me ask you something. If there had been previous reports of a pervert spotted in your neighborhood and you happen to catch a stranger sitting on a bench at the playground wearing a trenchcoat and sunglasses, wouldn't be at least a little concerned? Maybe concerned enough to ask him who he was?
 
2013-07-21 01:16:28 PM  

Mambo Bananapatch: Popcorn Johnny: LasersHurt: Guilty without proof, of course, like all "facts" brought up about Martin to slander him after death.

So you're denying the existence of the text messages that show Trayvon having a conversation about wanting to purchase a gun? Perhaps you should exit these threads for a while, study up on the "facts" and then give it another go. It gets really tiring having to educate people such as yourself that choose to be ignorant of what is and isn't known about this whole affair.

So stop. It doesn't matter if Martin smoked weed, said nasty things, wanted a gun, or was a Mexican drug cartel kingpin. All Zimmerman knew about him that night was that he was a stranger. That was enough for him to "investigate".


It just provides mud to sling at Martin for not being perfect. Zimmerman's done crap but that doesn't provide ammo for his lawyer. There was enough evidence of bad behavior from both individuals to start a fight. Although Martin likely started it either in hopes to act tough or out of paranoia from some stranger following him.
 
2013-07-21 01:16:35 PM  
 
2013-07-21 01:17:00 PM  
I'd much rather see an investigation into all of the crimes Obama was committing 35 years ago.
 
2013-07-21 01:18:24 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: I'd much rather see an investigation into all of the crimes Obama was committing 35 years ago.


Such as what? Smoking doobies?
 
2013-07-21 01:18:26 PM  
When has Eric Holder ever given a shiat about our rights, or the laws of the land? He needs to be in jail.
 
2013-07-21 01:18:34 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: fnordfocus: He was charged before they realized Daddy was a judge.

This is what Team Trayvon actually believes. For the record, he was a magistrate in Virginia, not a judge.


That's about as stupid as when a certain Fark cop said that a constable wasn't a Police Officer even though he had a badge and arrest powers.

Magistrates in Virginia issue warrants, decide bail, etc.  These are things that are handled by people called "Judges" in other states, and that's enough to get a bit of professional courtesy for your kid.
 
2013-07-21 01:18:58 PM  

xanadian: George was acquitted.  Let it go man, coz it's GONE.

 
2013-07-21 01:19:02 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Zimmerman wasn't tried on a civil rights violation, thus if the feds do so, it's not double jeopardy.


Yes, it would be allowed under the "separate sovereign" exemption to double jeopardy. However, this exemption is controversial, and has historically been regarded as unjust by civil liberties groups like the ACLU. Many people would like to see the issue brought up again in the Supreme Court.
 
2013-07-21 01:19:30 PM  
Dear World,
If Trayvon did not get himself suspended from school, he would probably be alive today.
If Trayvon had just gone home, he would probably be alive today.
If Trayvon had not assaulted George Zimmerman he would probably be alive today.

Regards,
HS
 
2013-07-21 01:19:46 PM  
Dear ACLU, please look up the definition of "sovereign."
 
2013-07-21 01:19:54 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: I'd much rather see an investigation into all of the crimes Obama was committing 35 years ago.


img837.imageshack.us
 
2013-07-21 01:19:58 PM  

biffstallion: OH LOOK... ANOTHER REASON to LOOT and STEAL THE LATEST FLAT PANEL TVs...


You need a reason? I just want to watch the world burn.
 
2013-07-21 01:20:31 PM  

HectorSchwartz: Dear World,
If Trayvon did not get himself suspended from school, he would probably be alive today.
If Trayvon had just gone home, he would probably be alive today.
If Trayvon had not assaulted George Zimmerman he would probably be alive today.

Regards,
HS


If any of them decided to stop for a sandwich, he'd be alive today. The unfortunate thing is, he isn't.
 
2013-07-21 01:20:34 PM  

hardinparamedic: Nabb1: Better a "Twilight" fan than a delusional fan that treats a dead sociopath like a teen heart throb.

I never knew that Trayvon Martin was your patient for you to diagnose him with a psychiatric condition. Why didn't you speak up before this tragic incident? You're the real monster here.

Stop pretending there are any heroes in this situation.


There are no heroes , only victims.. poor decisions were made by both.. human beings do that occasionally.. my condolences to all involved, may we become wiser in the future.
 
2013-07-21 01:21:07 PM  
So after the Feds Zimm will have Judy and then Wopner and then Simon.
 
2013-07-21 01:21:13 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Mambo Bananapatch: Popcorn Johnny: LasersHurt: Guilty without proof, of course, like all "facts" brought up about Martin to slander him after death.

So you're denying the existence of the text messages that show Trayvon having a conversation about wanting to purchase a gun? Perhaps you should exit these threads for a while, study up on the "facts" and then give it another go. It gets really tiring having to educate people such as yourself that choose to be ignorant of what is and isn't known about this whole affair.

So stop. It doesn't matter if Martin smoked weed, said nasty things, wanted a gun, or was a Mexican drug cartel kingpin. All Zimmerman knew about him that night was that he was a stranger. That was enough for him to "investigate".

...he said oversimplifyingly. You're forgetting one major thing: There had been a crime wave in that area. Robberies. All suspects were young black males. If Zimmerman was profiling, he had every right to do so.

Let me ask you something. If there had been previous reports of a pervert spotted in your neighborhood and you happen to catch a stranger sitting on a bench at the playground wearing a trenchcoat and sunglasses, wouldn't be at least a little concerned? Maybe concerned enough to ask him who he was?


Yes.

Of course, comparing a guy in a trench coat studying children at a playground to a guy walking home would be silly. A better comparison would be if the guy was not wearing a trench coat and leering at children, or otherwise behaving in any way unusually, but just walking past the playground, in which case, no, I would not.
 
2013-07-21 01:21:39 PM  
No they don't,  Mcveigh was charged at both the federal and state level.

The federal charges are stupid and have no basis in reality but they are not unconstitutional.
 
2013-07-21 01:21:41 PM  

ponger: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Popcorn Johnny: Holder and Obama are incompetent, race baiting morons. Stand your ground and race had not a farking thing to do with the Zim case and yet there they are on TV talking about both of them every chance they get.

Stand your ground had nothing to do with it? You're dumb.

Actually the jury did receive instruction to the effect Zim could stand his ground.  So to that extent "Stand Your Ground" did have something to do with the case.  However, the prosecution and defense lawyers both had a hand in writing the instructions to the jury.  So it goes.

 http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Ju ry- Instructions

page 12

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent
the commission of a forcible felony. "


Except that even in the absence of SYG, the defense could have argued equally with merit that this was justifiable homicide. If Zimmerman was indeed on the ground getting his head bashed into the concrete, it wasn't as if he could further retreat into the ground.
 
2013-07-21 01:22:05 PM  
Yet another black  man chimed in in the editorial section of my newspaper this morning.
His idea: We need to meet at public libraries and have a dialogue on slavery, segregation and Jim Crow.
Sorry, that sounds more like a monologue.
 
2013-07-21 01:22:38 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Kome: One of the jurors said it was a factor influencing her decision in spite of it not being brought up by the lawyers.

That doesn't make it a part of the case. We know for a fact that it didn't apply to Zim's actions, as he was pinned to the ground and unable to flee. Any speculation that Trayvon was standing his ground is not supported by any evidence.

Obama and Holder going on TV and denouncing stand your ground laws when there's not one shred of evidence that they had anything to do with the incident is moronic.


You're equivocating. Yes, stand your ground was not brought up by the lawyers, meaning it wasn't part of the prosecution or defense strategy. But because a member of the jury, when interviewed, invoked it as part of her decision making process, it became part of the case. Just a part that no one can do anything about for that case.
 
2013-07-21 01:23:11 PM  

fnordfocus: Magistrates in Virginia issue warrants, decide bail, etc.  These are things that are handled by people called "Judges" in other states, and that's enough to get a bit of professional courtesy for your kid.


Judges preside over trials, magistrates do not. Aside from that, if you think that a magistrate from Virginia could call Florida and get an assault on an officer charge dropped, you're nuts. The case was thrown out because of the evidence, that Zim had no idea he was grabbing an officer.
 
2013-07-21 01:23:57 PM  

RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


Because it is the correct one.

/Zimm got away with manslaughter.
//You go, ACLU.
 
2013-07-21 01:24:55 PM  
i466.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-21 01:25:02 PM  

Jeep2011: Hopefully, the ACLU position will cause the crazies heads to explode and we will be done with crazy.


This. Would be nice.
 
2013-07-21 01:25:50 PM  

RexTalionis: In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


Why not, everyone seems to have their own interpretation of the Constitution these days.
 
2013-07-21 01:25:56 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com

Yeah, Obama was really struggling with racial prejudice 35 years ago.  What a farkin' hack.
 
2013-07-21 01:26:03 PM  

hardinparamedic: biffstallion: OH LOOK... ANOTHER REASON to LOOT and STEAL THE LATEST FLAT PANEL TVs...

You need a reason? I just want to watch the world burn.


Some people....
 
2013-07-21 01:26:15 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: The case was thrown out because of the evidence, that Zim had no idea he was grabbing an officer.


LOL you're joking, right? You know ignorance is no excuse, right? If you assualt an off duty cop, you've still assualted (and will be prosecuted for) assualting a police officer.

Note, I'm not saying you're lying, I just find your version difficult to believe, and...well, you're a goddamned troll.
 
2013-07-21 01:26:34 PM  

RexTalionis: In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


The ACLU  is woefully wont to do that on occasion. It's one of the reasons I don't really support them much, any more. Case in point, see the ACLU's tantrum in response to Heller which made no goddamn sense whatsoever.
 
2013-07-21 01:27:23 PM  
Why no spiffy tag?

Seriously though, he will be put in jail, because that is what America is all about.
 
2013-07-21 01:27:26 PM  

SithLord: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x383]

Yeah, Obama was really struggling with racial prejudice 35 years ago.  What a farkin' hack.


jealous much?
 
2013-07-21 01:27:39 PM  
Screw the aclu! When I was assaulted by police for no reason they did nothing but send me a letter stating their resources are limited and advised me to get an attorney on my own. They do nothing for the little guy.
 
2013-07-21 01:27:49 PM  

lantawa: Some people....


sharetv.org

ARE YOU KIDDING? I'M CRAZY ENOUGH TO TAKE ON BATMAN, BUT NOT CRAZY ENOUGH TO MESS WITH THE IRS!
 
2013-07-21 01:28:08 PM  

cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right


Image a world where we replaced the justice department with the ACLU... you know, people with principles?

Thumbs up for the ACLU.  I don't give 2 shiats about Zimmerman or the kid he killed (and neither, consequently should you... wasting time and energy forming opinions on inane random social happenings half a country away is about as productive as watching American Idol ... bread and circuses, oh how we haz them), but these are the kinds of people I actually want running the country.  Wouldn't we all be better off if folks could step outside their ideologies and do their damn jobs?

Holder is worse than worthless, he's actually damaging to society.  Seriously, Janet Reno was a trainwreck (and John Ashcroft was farking insane), but Holder is such a shill its almost comedic.... or it would be if he wasn't in a position of real power.  He's so busy sucking dick on Wall Street, I'm kind of surprised he came up for air long enough to even be bothered.
 
2013-07-21 01:28:24 PM  
Moral of the story -- don't shoot this guy:

images.travelpod.com
 
2013-07-21 01:28:40 PM  

that bosnian sniper: RexTalionis: In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

The ACLU  is woefully wont to do that on occasion. It's one of the reasons I don't really support them much, any more. Case in point, see the ACLU's tantrum in response to Heller which made no goddamn sense whatsoever.


Yeah, see Scott v. Sanford. Why would you disagree with SCOTUS?
 
2013-07-21 01:29:00 PM  
As the American people argue over a case already determined by a jury, it takes the focus away from:

Benghazi and four dead Americans
The IRS
The NSA
The Patriot Act
NDAA
The Federal Reserve's QE3  propping up the stock market
Congresspersons tacking on pork to various bills, etc.


Keep arguing, people. It's just what our overlords (and the media) were hoping for.
 
2013-07-21 01:29:28 PM  

Plant Rights Activist: [img2.timeinc.net image 300x400]
hey guys, whats going on in this thread


A criminal suit and a civil suit are not the same thing and is not double jeopardy.
 
2013-07-21 01:29:33 PM  

SithLord: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x383]

Yeah, Obama was really struggling with racial prejudice 35 years ago.  What a farkin' hack.


I don't think racists would give a shiat 35 years ago if he was half-white and raised in a good background. They just look to the skin color and then roll with it. I wouldn't be surprised if he got targeted.
 
2013-07-21 01:29:44 PM  

RexTalionis: In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


This has been a long time coming, and I personally know a number of conservative judges who have been waiting for the appropriate case to change this law. Just because the Supreme Court said it works one way a few decades ago, doesn't mean they got it right.

That said, this wouldn't be the right test case in my opinion.
 
2013-07-21 01:30:33 PM  
I just don't know why they're doing it. The feds (FBI) already investigated and found nothing. Oh that's right, they set up a tip line specifically for Zimmerman. I'm sure that will generate tons of truthful stories from people that no one else could seem to find.
 
2013-07-21 01:30:40 PM  

DamnYankees: vygramul: cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right

Most of the time. Sometimes, they do pick and choose which rights they feel are worth defending.

Well, of course. They have a certain view as to what "civil liberties" means. What would you expect, that they defend you no matter what your case is if you walk into their office and claim its a 'civil liberties case'?


I have an old friend who had her public nudity/obscenity case defended by the ACLU and she had to work pretty hard to get them to take the case but once they did they were pretty rabid defenders. She was acquitted and was always thankful for their free help. Yes they are picky about which cases they take and sometimes take rather hopeless cases but left or right wing everyone should be happy that there are people like this who are willing to fight the government tooth and nail no matter how hopeless the case.
 
2013-07-21 01:30:49 PM  

Madbassist1: LOL you're joking, right? You know ignorance is no excuse, right? If you assualt an off duty cop, you've still assualted (and will be prosecuted for) assualting a police officer.


Did I say anything about the charges being filed? People such as yourself want to make this out to be Zim seeing a uniformed officer and attacking and that's flat out ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to think that they would dismiss charges against a person for attacking an officer just because his daddy was an out of state magistrate. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that it was a case of mistaken identity.
 
2013-07-21 01:31:00 PM  
Obama and Holder need to stop propagating divisiveness and work to unify this country as they promised.  A good place to start would be to follow through with the promise to be the most transparent administration instead of the most backhanded and secretive.   They are missing or have already missed the opportunity for greatness.
 
2013-07-21 01:31:38 PM  
What % of teens are perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?

well, subtracting those that live in households that already include a parent's firearm.....? probably still more than you'd suspect
 
pla
2013-07-21 01:32:39 PM  
RexTalionis : In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

Not quite... More like: "Don't think you'll win this by bankrupting the poor bastard, he'll have almost as many resources at his disposal as you will".

Prosecutors often decide whether or not to pursue charges based on knowing that the defendant will break down (financially, emotionally, physically) and cop a plea long before the trial even starts.
 
2013-07-21 01:33:49 PM  

Madbassist1: Yeah, see Scott v. Sanford. Why would you disagree with SCOTUS?


Because  Scott v. Sanford is totally equivalent to  DC v. Heller, am I right?  DERP.

Hint: if there's any analogy at all to be drawn between these cases, the ACLU protesting  Heller would be somewhat akin to the KKK protesting  Scott.
 
2013-07-21 01:34:20 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Madbassist1: LOL you're joking, right? You know ignorance is no excuse, right? If you assualt an off duty cop, you've still assualted (and will be prosecuted for) assualting a police officer.

Did I say anything about the charges being filed? People such as yourself want to make this out to be Zim seeing a uniformed officer and attacking and that's flat out ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to think that they would dismiss charges against a person for attacking an officer just because his daddy was an out of state magistrate. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that it was a case of mistaken identity.


Woah there, slick. I'm not making it out to be anything. You're reading that in all on your own. I'm just saying that if you assault a police officer, it dont matter if you knew the farker was a cop or not. Period.
 
2013-07-21 01:34:32 PM  
 
2013-07-21 01:34:42 PM  
If you dont want Zimmerman tried until he is convicted you are just qa racist. Everybody knows it, even Obama. And he's the president..
 
2013-07-21 01:35:15 PM  
oneofthejonesboys.files.wordpress.com
This thread has mutated into a Free Republic circle jerk.
 
2013-07-21 01:35:18 PM  
Good for them.
 
2013-07-21 01:35:33 PM  

Jeep2011: I know so many people who for Zimmerman with all of the right wing bat guano crazy they can muster.


Wut?
Are you okay?
You sound tired.

Maybe you should lay off the bat guano.
 
2013-07-21 01:35:48 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Holder and Obama are incompetent, race baiting morons. Stand your ground and race had not a farking thing to do with the Zim case and yet there they are on TV talking about both of them every chance they get.



Zimmerman is just your normal everyday guy stalking children after nightfall with a loaded firearm.  Race is the least of his issues...being a dangerous fool that starts confrontations only to end them with lethal force is far more serious.
 
2013-07-21 01:36:11 PM  

RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


They feel the same way about Heller v DC.
 
2013-07-21 01:36:38 PM  

pho75: RexTalionis: In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

This has been a long time coming, and I personally know a number of conservative judges who have been waiting for the appropriate case to change this law. Just because the Supreme Court said it works one way a few decades ago, doesn't mean they got it right.

That said, this wouldn't be the right test case in my opinion.


Well, it looks like there's a chance we could get Roach v. Missouri:

In our brief, CAC demonstrates that the dual sovereignty doctrine is inconsistent with the Constitution's text and history, and we urge the Court to review the case in order to correct this significant error of constitutional interpretation.

It is expected that the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case after it convenes for the start of its October 2013 Term.
 
2013-07-21 01:36:56 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Madbassist1: Yeah, see Scott v. Sanford. Why would you disagree with SCOTUS?

Because  Scott v. Sanford is totally equivalent to  DC v. Heller, am I right?  DERP.

Hint: if there's any analogy at all to be drawn between these cases, the ACLU protesting  Heller would be somewhat akin to the KKK protesting  Scott.


hurr durr. What does one have to do with the other? What's your farking point? My point (which you obviously missed) is that SCOTUS doesnt always get it right, and its nice that people can disagree and fight them.

WTF is your point, HURR DURR?
 
2013-07-21 01:37:31 PM  

pla: RexTalionis : In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

Not quite... More like: "Don't think you'll win this by bankrupting the poor bastard, he'll have almost as many resources at his disposal as you will".

Prosecutors often decide whether or not to pursue charges based on knowing that the defendant will break down (financially, emotionally, physically) and cop a plea long before the trial even starts.


I see you didn't read the letter, because the ACLU said nothing about defending Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-21 01:37:40 PM  

pho75: RexTalionis: In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

This has been a long time coming, and I personally know a number of conservative judges who have been waiting for the appropriate case to change this law. Just because the Supreme Court said it works one way a few decades ago, doesn't mean they got it right.

That said, this wouldn't be the right test case in my opinion.


Actually, it could be a good test case.  One of the elements of 2nd Degree Murder that the prosecutors was going after was the "hatred in heart" aspect of it.  In order to prove a civil rights violation, the Feds would have to prove the exact same element for which Zimmerman has already been acquitted.
 
2013-07-21 01:37:44 PM  

JK47: Zimmerman is just your normal everyday guy stalking children after nightfall with a loaded firearm.  Race is the least of his issues...being a dangerous fool that starts confrontations only to end them with lethal force is far more serious.


You'd be right at home at a J4T rally.
 
2013-07-21 01:38:02 PM  

RexTalionis: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


Implying that the US Supreme Court is never wrong.
 
2013-07-21 01:38:20 PM  
Didnt the president just say it would be impossible for them to do this?

or was I dreaming?

Why dont we, for once, throw an outrage fit AFTER something has happened?
 
2013-07-21 01:38:29 PM  

Nabb1: Popcorn Johnny: Holder and Obama are incompetent, race baiting morons. Stand your ground and race had not a farking thing to do with the Zim case and yet there they are on TV talking about both of them every chance they get.

They aren't morons. While Obama was bearing his soul to the media, the government was getting the FISA court to rubber stamp renewal of domestic surveillance.


This.
 
2013-07-21 01:38:46 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: vygramul: and the Zimmerman people don't think assaulting a cop reflects on his personality.

Zim was a a bar with friends and saw some dude grab one of his peeps. Turns out the guy was a plain clothes undercover cop. The fact that the charges were eventually dropped should be a huge red flag that this wasn't what some of Team Trayvon want to make it out to be. Do you really farking think they'd drop assault on an officer charges if they were valid?


Not only that but a few weeks later the same bad ass undercover agents that assaulted Zimmermans friend pulled the same shenanigans with a real cop and got shot by the real cop.
 
2013-07-21 01:39:46 PM  

RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


For the purposes of the INTENT of the Constitution, the ACLU is correct.  The Supreme Court doesn't always get it right (Citizens United, anyone?).
 
2013-07-21 01:39:54 PM  

Archimedes' Principal: As the American people argue over a case already determined by a jury, it takes the focus away from:

Benghazi and four dead Americans
The IRS
The NSA
The Patriot Act
NDAA
The Federal Reserve's QE3  propping up the stock market
Congresspersons tacking on pork to various bills, etc.



I don't see why we need to focus on the fact that we're a representative democracy.
 
2013-07-21 01:40:58 PM  

macadamnut: Won't somebody just hurry up and shoot the idiot? It is their 2nd Amendment right after all.


Say that about the president....go on...I double dog dare you.
 
2013-07-21 01:41:44 PM  

RexTalionis: In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


Plessy v. Fergeson, Brown v. Board of Education

You get new justices on the court, it's worthwhile to try again.  Some people want to do that with Roe v. Wade.
 
2013-07-21 01:41:53 PM  

baufan2005: As for the Civil Rights violations suit, they couldn't prove Zimmerman killed Trayvon out of hate.  How are they going to prove he did it specifically because of his race? That would be a complete waste of tax payer money.


Not to the race baiters! they get the division they desire
 
2013-07-21 01:41:57 PM  

SithLord: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x383]

Yeah, Obama was really struggling with racial prejudice 35 years ago.  What a farkin' hack.


This post brought to you by the Don Cherry school of fine suits.
cdn.bleacherreport.net
losthatsportsblog.com

cdn.bleacherreport.net

i19.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-21 01:42:13 PM  

Archimedes' Principal: Benghazi and four dead Americans


THE MAGIC WORD WAS SAID!

BENGHAZI!


farm5.staticflickr.com

EVERYBODY TAKE A SHOT!!!!!

resources0.news.com.au
 
2013-07-21 01:42:34 PM  

RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


yeah, cause YOU know the law better than the two senior executive attorneys who signed the letter.
 
2013-07-21 01:43:03 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: You'd be right at home at a J4T rally.



Yes, because amateur policemen taking matters into their own hands resulting in avoidable murder is clearly a problem we can't agree on.
 
2013-07-21 01:43:52 PM  

RandomAxe: Kalashinator, the 'gunwalking' sting projects, which were all stupid, started in 2006, under W.


Which they stopped because they could not track the firearms....then Holder resurrected the program knowing there was no way to track the firearms.

keep smoking the administrations pole...I'm sure they will give you a truncheon, a brown shirt, and maybe some nice boots for your cult like admiration of them.
 
2013-07-21 01:44:01 PM  

jaytkay: Kalashinator: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Eric Holder the brainchild behind a monumental f*ckup that involved letting guns fall into the hands of Mexican cartel members-

He borrowed Obama's time machine to start the program in 2006.


Then shouldn't the ACLU focus on having the schematics of Obama's Time Machine released to the public under the Freedom of Information Act?  Or does that not apply to Kenyan inventions?


/i keed
//seriously was thinking the gunwalking started up in '08
///before November
 
2013-07-21 01:44:18 PM  

Plant Rights Activist: [img2.timeinc.net image 300x400]
hey guys, whats going on in this thread


4.bp.blogspot.com

Not much, chillin'.
 
2013-07-21 01:44:30 PM  

JK47: Yes, because amateur policemen taking matters into their own hands resulting in avoidable murder is clearly a problem we can't agree on.


The only reason Trayvon is dead is because he returned to the scene and began a violent confrontation.
 
2013-07-21 01:44:52 PM  

I sound fat: yeah, cause YOU know the law better than the two senior executive attorneys who signed the letter.


Dude, he spent the night in a Holiday Inn.
 
2013-07-21 01:45:10 PM  

Dahnkster: But ah cain't say no prayers in skool!

[blog.jonolan.net image 640x800]


Welp, that just won my Favorite Demotivational Poster Ever Award.
 
2013-07-21 01:45:53 PM  

drp: vygramul: I think it's more insane for people to champion either one of these award-winners since no one really knows what actually happened that night. Neither side is willing to accept even the HINT of a flaw. The Martin people don't think the suspicious jewelry reflects on his personality, and the Zimmerman people don't think assaulting a cop reflects on his personality. They're all insufficiently skeptical about the events of that night.

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.

/ but keep farkin' that strawchicken


Not just them, you, too.

/not a high bar
 
2013-07-21 01:45:56 PM  

Madbassist1: hurr durr. What does one have to do with the other? What's your farking point? My point (which you obviously missed) is that SCOTUS doesnt always get it right, and its nice that people can disagree and fight them.

WTF is your point, HURR DURR?


And, if you'll notice, my original post was  in no farking way whatsoever a comment on the Supreme Court's fallibility, but rather in what issues the ACLU advocates, the interpretations of those civil liberties the ACLU has chosen to advocate, and the policy positions taken based upon those choices and interpretations. That's especially so, when the ACLU's chosen position (such as endorsing  Miller'sgroup-right construction over  Heller's individual-right construction) facially contradicts their goddamn mission.

But of course, that would require things like "reading comprehension" and "critical thought".
 
2013-07-21 01:46:05 PM  
Oh_Enough_Already:
i179.photobucket.com

'Welcome to Fark'.jpg
 
2013-07-21 01:46:16 PM  

I sound fat: yeah, cause YOU know the law better than the two senior executive attorneys who signed the letter.


http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/260/377/case.html
 
2013-07-21 01:46:23 PM  
George Zimmerman had his name changed to Ben Ghazi so the President and the media never mention him again.
 
2013-07-21 01:46:28 PM  

hardinparamedic: Archimedes' Principal: Benghazi and four dead Americans

THE MAGIC WORD WAS SAID!

BENGHAZI!

[farm5.staticflickr.com image 299x225]

EVERYBODY TAKE A SHOT!!!!!

[resources0.news.com.au image 650x366]


Benghazi? In a Zimmerman thread? What a country website!
 
2013-07-21 01:47:02 PM  

WTFDYW: [pisces.bbystatic.com image 500x500]
[cdn.media.discovermagazine.com image 850x688]
Just getting things prepared for you all.


Why would you make a beer that light?  You might as well just have some apple juice.

hardinparamedic: Stop pretending there are any heroes in this situation.


I think this is the most insightful comment to date on this case.  Everyone involved was an asshole.
 
2013-07-21 01:47:30 PM  

thisisyourbrainonFark: hardinparamedic: Archimedes' Principal: Benghazi and four dead Americans

THE MAGIC WORD WAS SAID!

BENGHAZI!

[farm5.staticflickr.com image 299x225]

EVERYBODY TAKE A SHOT!!!!!

[resources0.news.com.au image 650x366]

Benghazi? In a Zimmerman thread? What a country website!


Benghazi is kind of a Godwin's Law in politics now.
 
2013-07-21 01:48:00 PM  
You know. I found the words of Obama kind of weird. Your country (and mine) profile Muslim or Arab men on a regular basis, based on the idea that they might pose a potential threat to all of society. And everyone accepts that, black or white.
But,
Obama seemed to say (at least from what I read) that blacks are profiled simply because they're black. And that's not acceptable.
So, is profiling black Arab speaking Muslims acceptable or not acceptable?
 
2013-07-21 01:49:25 PM  

indarwinsshadow: You know. I found the words of Obama kind of weird. Your country (and mine) profile Muslim or Arab men on a regular basis, based on the idea that they might pose a potential threat to all of society. And everyone accepts that, black or white.
But,
Obama seemed to say (at least from what I read) that blacks are profiled simply because they're black. And that's not acceptable.
So, is profiling black Arab speaking Muslims acceptable or not acceptable?


Wow. I have not noticed the irony of that.
 
2013-07-21 01:50:08 PM  
The ACLU didn't care about double jeopardy in the case of the police officers sent to jail after the Rodney King riots (which started after they were acquitted of the exact same crime by a jury).

I get the feeling they're only pulling out the "double jeopardy" thing because they know it's won't apply to a civil lawsuit, any more than it did in the OJ case.

/thanks, ACLU, but we have enough enemies without "friends" like you
 
2013-07-21 01:51:27 PM  

SithLord: George Zimmerman had his name changed to Ben Ghazi so the President and the media never mention him again.


Nice!
 
2013-07-21 01:52:20 PM  

RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


Yeah, because it's treasonous to disagree with the Supreme Court.

If that's the case, I guess I'm treasonous.  Kelo?  Raich?  Wickard v Filburn?  (to name a few)

/I'm not sure if the ACLU agreed or disagreed with those decisions, but I know how I feel about them and I think that SCOTUS was wrong
//I don't always agree with the ACLU, but when I disagree with them, it usually involves crosses as war memorials
///not religious
 
2013-07-21 01:52:23 PM  
Obama and Holder have handled this poorly. They seem to be ducking out of doing the right thing by drawing this matter to a close because it would be hard for them, and that just isn't good enough.

Given the absence of conclusive evidence, this should never have been brought to trial first time round. To do it again just to placate people who are now wilfully choosing to be ignorant and butthurt is pathetic.

Move on.
 
2013-07-21 01:52:59 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Judges preside over trials, magistrates do not. Aside from that, if you think that a magistrate from Virginia could call Florida and get an assault on an officer charge dropped, you're nuts. The case was thrown out because of the evidence, that Zim had no idea he was grabbing an officer.

Well except the charges were not dropped they were "deferred" as part of a first time offender program where the offender agrees to go through a diversion program and if successful the charges are then dismissed, they were not dropped for "lack of evidence" as you claim.


Also you do not understand the judiciary legal community and how it works when one of their own has an issue, that is the  reason old no peener Zimmy got  the offender program due to daddies last job!

 
2013-07-21 01:53:09 PM  
DOJ to ACLU: "My mind is made up. DO NOT CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS."
 
2013-07-21 01:53:11 PM  

Kalashinator: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Eric Holder the brainchild behind a monumental f*ckup that involved letting guns fall into the hands of Mexican cartel members--in order to track said cartel members--but resulted in the death of a Border Patrol agent and potentially an untold number of Mexican civilians/cops/military?  Which would make him an accessory to the murder of a US Federal officer and X number of citizens of a foreign country.  Which makes AG Holder even so much as looking at a case of enacting justice of gun violence kinda sorta super hypocritical?

Or was that that Neopolitan chick who used to be in charge of the ATF?  Honest question.


Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
 
2013-07-21 01:53:24 PM  

WTFDYW: I did not see in the letter where the ACLU said they would defend him.


And why didn't they mention Jesus in their letter?

It's because they secretly want to assassinate George Zimmerman and replace him with a 17 year old black kid.

And they hate America.

Because freedom.
 
2013-07-21 01:53:50 PM  
George Zimmerman is a racist, and that is the most important fact in the history of the universe.  He is clearly a racist because he shot Trayvon Martin, who apparently was black.  No non-black person has ever shot, attacked, or even had an argument with a black person for any other reason than racism.  Evil white-people racism.  Trayvon Martin cannot possibly be a racist, because he is black, and there is no such thing as a black racist.  It's impossible, because slavery.

Some white people (i.e. "racists") have tried to characterize Trayvon as racist himself, because he referred to Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker".  They are only doing or saying this because they themselves are racists who hate black people.  He may have used a racial slur, but there is no way he is a racist.  It's impossible.  Racism.
 
2013-07-21 01:54:16 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Stand your ground had nothing to do with it? You're dumb.

Oh boy, here we go. Please enlighten us as to what stand your ground had to do with the case.


Study it out for farks sake!!
/study
//it
///out
 
2013-07-21 01:55:17 PM  
"If you have any additional questions about this issue, please feel free to Jesselyn 
McCurdy, Senior Legislative Counsel at jmccurd­y[nospam-﹫-backwards]ulca­c­d*o­r­g or (202) 675-2307."

um....  maybe its just me, but if you are representing a HUGE legal organization on a public matter and addressing the attorney general, perhaps a proofreader is in order.

unless Jessylen McCurdy is a verb now.  As in "Im going to to totally Jesselyn McCurdy and throw a fit about something that hasnt happened yet."
 
2013-07-21 01:55:23 PM  

Tatterdemalian: The ACLU didn't care about double jeopardy in the case of the police officers sent to jail after the Rodney King riots (which started after they were acquitted of the exact same crime by a jury).


Yes they did. See my previous post:

Skyrmion: On April 4, 1993, in a close vote, the national board of the A.C.L.U. enacted a resolution opposing any exceptions to the American Constitution's prohibition against double jeopardy. [link]

 
2013-07-21 01:55:29 PM  

I sound fat: Didnt the president just say it would be impossible for them to do this?

or was I dreaming?

Why dont we, for once, throw an outrage fit AFTER something has happened?


Once the outrage machine is running, it's very hard to shut off and it burns through fuel like crazy.
 
2013-07-21 01:56:40 PM  

The Numbers: Obama and Holder have handled this poorly. They seem to be ducking out of doing the right thing by drawing this matter to a close because it would be hard for them, and that just isn't good enough.

Given the absence of conclusive evidence, this should never have been brought to trial first time round. To do it again just to placate people who are now wilfully choosing to be ignorant and butthurt is pathetic.

Move on.


Obama mentioned a few days about about how "the jury has spoken" and he could have ended it right there. He could have brought his personal thoughts onto something that wasn't already lost. I could understand how he was when the whole case started because the country couldn't even decide at the time if Zimmerman killed Martin from cold intent, accident or self defense. But the battle's already lost now. The fact he's President made his words swing a lot harder, whether he intended it or not
 
2013-07-21 01:57:43 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: JK47: Yes, because amateur policemen taking matters into their own hands resulting in avoidable murder is clearly a problem we can't agree on.

The only reason Trayvon is dead is because he returned to the scene and began a violent confrontation.



Only if you believe that Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon and obeyed the dispatcher's request to stop and withdraw.  Can't have that both ways.  Not to mention it's self-serving to believe the uncorroborated account of the only survivor of a confrontation.
 
2013-07-21 01:57:48 PM  
But I was told ACLU never defended gun owners!
 
2013-07-21 01:58:58 PM  

Alonjar: Nabb1: Popcorn Johnny: Holder and Obama are incompetent, race baiting morons. Stand your ground and race had not a farking thing to do with the Zim case and yet there they are on TV talking about both of them every chance they get.

They aren't morons. While Obama was bearing his soul to the media, the government was getting the FISA court to rubber stamp renewal of domestic surveillance.

This.


Lately it's just a bait and switch. Or whatever "bearing" means.
 
2013-07-21 02:00:01 PM  

cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right


Seriously, the trial is over.  And I'm sure that there will be a civil trial, but the DOJ needs to step away from this.

Besides, jailing Zimmerman at this point will accomplish nothing.  If they really want justice for Trayvon, they need to get rid of "Stand Your Ground", because cops have a tough enough time without prospective serial killers posing as "protectors of the community".
 
2013-07-21 02:01:00 PM  

indarwinsshadow: ...And everyone accepts that, black or white.


No, just the loudest and most ignorant, who despite being a clear minority are the ones who get attention because their idiocy drives ratings and therefore profit. There's also a clear minority who categorically reject the idea of racial profiling, who get very little attention. The largest subset of Americans are too busy watching  Here Comes Naked Boo-Boo Idol Survival X-Treme Island to really give a damn.
 
2013-07-21 02:01:42 PM  

SithLord: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x383]

Yeah, Obama was really struggling with racial prejudice 35 years ago.  What a farkin' hack.


I know the timing's off... but that looks like the Bush twins. Now THAT would be a story.
 
2013-07-21 02:02:18 PM  

JK47: Only if you believe that Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon and obeyed the dispatcher's request to stop and withdraw.  Can't have that both ways.  Not to mention it's self-serving to believe the uncorroborated account of the only survivor of a confrontation.


Trayvon's fat friend said that Trayvon was all the way home and that he threw the first punch. So, are we believing her or not, seems to change all the time depending on which story Team Trayvon is currently going with.
 
2013-07-21 02:02:26 PM  

The Lone Gunman: Seriously, the trial is over. And I'm sure that there will be a civil trial, but the DOJ needs to step away from this.


There is no civil trial. Florida's laws makes Zimmerman immune to civil lawsuits.
 
2013-07-21 02:03:32 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: Maybe it's a Florida thing when 15-year-old white girls  from there are the only folks standing up to the black thugs Trayvons infesting and terrorizing downtown Chicago.


"He just kept saying, 'We didn't take your phone, you white b------, leave us alone,' '' said Tammy.
"I don't think it was racial. I just think they targeted anyone whose phone they could get.''

No, that doesn't sound racial.
 
2013-07-21 02:05:52 PM  

Jackson Herring: was he still a hulking 6' 3" beast or what, I forget

.

Something like that...

th08.deviantart.net
 
2013-07-21 02:06:35 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: JK47: Only if you believe that Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon and obeyed the dispatcher's request to stop and withdraw.  Can't have that both ways.  Not to mention it's self-serving to believe the uncorroborated account of the only survivor of a confrontation.

Trayvon's fat friend said that Trayvon was all the way home and that he threw the first punch. So, are we believing her or not, seems to change all the time depending on which story Team Trayvon is currently going with.


She said Trayvon threw the first punch?
 
2013-07-21 02:07:30 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: Maybe it's a Florida thing when 15-year-old white girls  from there are the only folks standing up to the black thugs Trayvons infesting and terrorizing downtown Chicago.


Of course, funny enough, the article also mentions the cops were called, who actually arrested people and found  other stolen phones in the process. And, best of all,  nobody got farking shot to death. Amazing how that works, right?

And, indeed, it must be a Florida thing when attractive and successful defendants keep getting denied stand-your-ground protection and convicted  anyways, even when castle doctrine  also applies. Where's the outrage from the Bootstrapply Second Amendment Solutions club when it's black men and women defending themselves as is their legal right under Florida state law?
 
2013-07-21 02:09:00 PM  
I'm missing something here. Is Eric Holder planning to bring charges against Zimmerman that would once again put him in jeopardy of "life or limb," as stated in the Fifth?
 
2013-07-21 02:09:42 PM  

JK47: Popcorn Johnny: You'd be right at home at a J4T rally.

Yes, because amateur policemen taking matters into their own hands resulting in avoidable murder is clearly a problem we can't agree on.


Because trying to see where someone went, so you can tell the real cops to go get them is "taking matters into your own hands".  You act as if Zimmerman tackled Trayvon while waving a gun around, that's not remotely what happened.  Zimmerman stayed in the vicinity of the T intersection for several minutes, it took Trayvon's return to that area to bring them back together.

It's amazing how the J4T crowd is up in arms about Zimmerman getting out of the car, but they don't say a word about Martin returning from his dad's house.  Even his best friend said he was by his father's house.  Get the facts ffs.
 
2013-07-21 02:11:02 PM  

Skyrmion: She said Trayvon threw the first punch?


Yes, she said that she believes Trayvon threw the first punch.
 
pla
2013-07-21 02:13:05 PM  
RexTalionis : I see you didn't read the letter, because the ACLU said nothing about defending Zimmerman.

Believe it or not, you can write something that makes no mention whatsoever of leaking those naughty pictures to the press if you don't pay up - And yet, can quite clearly convey exactly that intent.

The lines - Read between them.
 
2013-07-21 02:13:35 PM  

flondrix: RexTalionis: In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

Plessy v. Fergeson, Brown v. Board of Education

You get new justices on the court, it's worthwhile to try again.  Some people want to do that with Roe v. Wade.



Row v Wade will deal with itself soon enough as the viability clause will become a moot point.

OgreMagi: RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."For the purposes of the INTENT of the Constitution, the ACLU is correct.  The Supreme Court doesn't always get it right (Citizens United, anyone?).

They got CU about as best as they could(from a constitutional perspective) without amendments establishing a separate set of rights for official groups of people from singular people and public funding only campaign law. You might not like the decision, but it's reasoning is sound
 
2013-07-21 02:14:31 PM  

See You Next Tuesday: Popcorn Johnny: See You Next Tuesday: Name one well-adjusted teenager. Go on.

What % of teens are perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?

Did he have one that night?  No.  Had he ever been arrested? No.  Had Fat Mexican? YES.  All three are irrelevant, much like your constant presence on this site.


More relevant:  Did Zimmerman KNOW that Martin was perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?

Basically, it's about what was clear that night.  It was unclear to Zim that Martin was a threat of any kind or had a gun.  It is clear that Martin wasn't committing a crime at the time.  It is clear that Zim had a gun and was well aware that, in all likelihood, he would win a confrontation.  It is clear that Zim was aware that he had a violent past (which Martin was unaware of).

Oddly enough, if Martin was armed and had killed Zim, the law would've been on his side.

Because of "Stand Your Ground".
 
2013-07-21 02:14:35 PM  

that bosnian sniper: And, indeed, it must be a Florida thing when attractive and successful defendants keep getting denied stand-your-ground protection and convicted anyways, even when castle doctrine also applies. Where's the outrage from the Bootstrapply Second Amendment Solutions club when it's black men and women defending themselves as is their legal right under Florida state law?


This Florida thing? You should check out the Tampa Bay Times cataloging of Florida's fatal stand your ground cases:
Black perpetrators: 25 justified, 7 convicted.
White perpetrators: 39 justified, 30 convicted.

I'm not ruling out that there could be a racial bias to the way SYG laws are administered throughout the country. But it doesn't seem to be obviously manifesting in Florida.
 
2013-07-21 02:14:49 PM  

Mentat: The Supreme Court has proven many times over the course of their history that their interpretation of the Constitution isn't always right.


This.
 
2013-07-21 02:15:03 PM  
People will believe anything.

My proof?  Mormonism

Faith is the bane of mankind.
 
2013-07-21 02:15:20 PM  
Has anyone already pointed out the editorial gaffe in this letter from the ACLU:

"If you have any additional questions about this issue, please feel free to Jesselyn McCurdy..."

Mmm'k.
 
2013-07-21 02:15:41 PM  
ACLU?

i have a raging CLU

www.silverfishlongboarding.com
 
2013-07-21 02:16:45 PM  

pla: RexTalionis : I see you didn't read the letter, because the ACLU said nothing about defending Zimmerman.

Believe it or not, you can write something that makes no mention whatsoever of leaking those naughty pictures to the press if you don't pay up - And yet, can quite clearly convey exactly that intent.

The lines - Read between them.


Are you the same pla from metafilter?
 
2013-07-21 02:16:52 PM  
Anyone tried to get through this yet? (just over 35 minutes)
Starts out weak, but then starts listing a lot of stuff that came out in the trial.
For some reason, the MSM failed to mention a lot. Or so it would seem.
Anyway, for those who need more - here 'tis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuH_YuBtH40

Compelling? or Gut Wrenching. You be the judge.
/that's a pun
 
2013-07-21 02:21:34 PM  
I love the fact that Mr. Martin's criminal history has been deliberately swept under the carpet.   The prosecution tried very hard to conceal the fact that Trayvon:

- Conspired to purchase an illegal handgun (felony)
- Was found in possession of stolen property and burglary tools (felony)
- Had child pornography on his cell phone (felony)
- Had a documented history of assault and had announced his intent to commit additional assaults (felony)

I'll give him a pass on pot possession because it's hard to find a high school student who doesn't smoke.

This was not an innocent teenager.   This was a budding young criminal who actively cultivated a 'gangsta' image and was deeply immersed in casual criminality.
 
2013-07-21 02:21:47 PM  

that bosnian sniper: And, indeed, it must be a Florida thing when attractive and successful defendants keep getting denied stand-your-ground protection and convicted anyways, even when castle doctrine also applies. Where's the outrage from the Bootstrapply Second Amendment Solutions club when it's black men and women defending themselves as is their legal right under Florida state law?


That actually hasn't proven to be the case in Florida

• Whites who invoked the law were charged at the same rate as blacks.
• Whites who went to trial were convicted at the same rate as blacks.
• In mixed-race cases involving fatalities, the outcomes were similar. Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free.
• Overall, black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants - a difference explained, in part, by the fact blacks were more likely to kill another black.


From http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/race-plays-complex-role- i n-floridas-stand-your-ground-law/1233152

Which includes data from:http://tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/data
 
2013-07-21 02:21:53 PM  

rpm: Mock26: You should only have to face criminal or civil charges, not both.  I know that that is not how it is in this country, but that is the way that it should be. It is bullschitt that a criminal court can find you not guilty but then a civil court can find you guilty of the same crime.  How in all of Hades is that not double jeopardy?

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" v. "Preponderance of evidence". There's differing levels of standards, and the trials are meant to resolve different things. I don't think the government should be allowed to bring a civil case however.


Yes, there are differing levels of standards, but it still results in being tried twice for the same crime.  Look a OJ Simpson.  Criminal court acquitted him of murder charges, yet a civil court ruled that he was responsible for their deaths.  One crime, two different rulings.  Sorry, but that is bullschitt and should not be happening in this country.
 
2013-07-21 02:22:23 PM  

The Lone Gunman: See You Next Tuesday: Popcorn Johnny: See You Next Tuesday: Name one well-adjusted teenager. Go on.

What % of teens are perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?

Did he have one that night?  No.  Had he ever been arrested? No.  Had Fat Mexican? YES.  All three are irrelevant, much like your constant presence on this site.

More relevant:  Did Zimmerman KNOW that Martin was perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?

Basically, it's about what was clear that night.  It was unclear to Zim that Martin was a threat of any kind or had a gun.  It is clear that Martin wasn't committing a crime at the time.  It is clear that Zim had a gun and was well aware that, in all likelihood, he would win a confrontation.  It is clear that Zim was aware that he had a violent past (which Martin was unaware of).

Oddly enough, if Martin was armed and had killed Zim, the law would've been on his side.

Because of "Stand Your Ground".



Doesn't really matter who had the weapon in an affirmative defense of protecting yourself from harm. Just prove a reasonable person would have felt the same way and you're done.
 
2013-07-21 02:24:21 PM  

clyph: I love the fact that Mr. Martin's criminal history has been deliberately swept under the carpet.   The prosecution tried very hard to conceal the fact that Trayvon:

- Conspired to purchase an illegal handgun (felony)
- Was found in possession of stolen property and burglary tools (felony)
- Had child pornography on his cell phone (felony)
- Had a documented history of assault and had announced his intent to commit additional assaults (felony)

I'll give him a pass on pot possession because it's hard to find a high school student who doesn't smoke.

This was not an innocent teenager.   This was a budding young criminal who actively cultivated a 'gangsta' image and was deeply immersed in casual criminality.


Can you give a citation on points one through three? Getting in a fight on the bus and talking trash doesn't strike me as not-normal teenage behavior for a male.
 
2013-07-21 02:24:21 PM  

The Lone Gunman: It was unclear to Zim that Martin was a threat of any kind or had a gun


Because having your head slammed repeatedly into the pavement isn't something you could reasonably believe would result in death or grievous bodily harm.
 
2013-07-21 02:26:41 PM  

The Lone Gunman: Oddly enough, if Martin was armed and had killed Zim, the law would've been on his side.

Because of "Stand Your Ground".




Its unlikely.
Martin left the initial "stalking" confrontation and returned from safety to confront Zimmerman. Being under age to own a firearm and not able to prove how an older, shorter, heavier Hispanic man was a threat, the law would probably have thrown the book at him.

SYG comes into play as an argument against the duty to retreat. Martin threw that defense when he ended up on top of Zimmerman. So I don't see how givin him a gun would do moe than get a mandatory sentencing for a firearms violation, at the least.
 
2013-07-21 02:28:24 PM  

Giltric: RexTalonis:  In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

They feel the same way about Heller v DC.


I wouldn't get too cocky about Heller, a 5-4 decision based on Scalia cherry-picking definitions from two-hundred-year-old dictionaries, if I were you.
 
2013-07-21 02:28:50 PM  

clyph: Because having your head slammed repeatedly into the pavement isn't something you could reasonably believe would result in death or grievous bodily harm.


I'll take "Distracting Scalp Injuries" for 400, Alex.
 
2013-07-21 02:30:13 PM  

hardinparamedic: clyph: I love the fact that Mr. Martin's criminal history has been deliberately swept under the carpet.   The prosecution tried very hard to conceal the fact that Trayvon:

- Conspired to purchase an illegal handgun (felony)
- Was found in possession of stolen property and burglary tools (felony)
- Had child pornography on his cell phone (felony)
- Had a documented history of assault and had announced his intent to commit additional assaults (felony)

I'll give him a pass on pot possession because it's hard to find a high school student who doesn't smoke.

This was not an innocent teenager.   This was a budding young criminal who actively cultivated a 'gangsta' image and was deeply immersed in casual criminality.

Can you give a citation on points one through three? Getting in a fight on the bus and talking trash doesn't strike me as not-normal teenage behavior for a male.


if getting suspended for fights and doing drugs are "just normal teenage things" I had the most boring childhood ever. I was busy playing sports,  going on dates and playing computer games.
 
2013-07-21 02:32:19 PM  

fnordfocus: Popcorn Johnny: Zim was a a bar with friends and saw some dude grab one of his peeps. Turns out the guy was a plain clothes undercover cop. The fact that the charges were eventually dropped should be a huge red flag that this wasn't what some of Team Trayvon want to make it out to be. Do you really farking think they'd drop assault on an officer charges if they were valid?

He was charged before they realized Daddy was a judge.  That can make a lot of things go away.


Jesus Christ, more lies from the peanut gallery. The alleged assault happen at the University of Central Florida on an undercover officer. Zimmerman's father was a magistrate, in Virgina. A magistrate is NOT a judge, but is a judicial officer.

How do you turds live with yourself for spreading these lies and manipulating opinions with it?

I really want to know how you sleep at night and look yourself in the mirror when you twist the truth like this?

Assholes like you should have their Internet connection banned for life.
 
2013-07-21 02:32:56 PM  

RexTalionis: In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


This isn't an incoherent position. It's perfectly reasonable for people to believe the Supreme Court has incorrectly construed the Constitution. The Pope is infallible. Not the Supreme Court.

But it's also not unthinkable given the evidence adduced at trial that Zimmerman was acting as a police agent at the time he killed Trayvon, filling the state action requirement of a civil rights prosecution. Not only was he working closely with the police in monitoring Trayvon for no reason, but Sanford PD had specifically worked with him through its NW liason.
 
2013-07-21 02:36:52 PM  

Carth: if getting suspended for fights and doing drugs are "just normal teenage things" I had the most boring childhood ever. I was busy playing sports,  going on dates and playing computer games.


Seriously? When I went to a private religious school, I spent almost every day in ISS because I "questioned" and blasphemed. Worst year of my life ever.

Getting in a fight is not unheard of for teenagers. Neither is talking trash to one another, or rebelling against adult authority.

I get that you were a goody-good child who probably got the rod taken to him every time you said something more than "Please, Sir, May I have some more", but you're honestly going to set here and tell me "normal" teenagers are the Leave it to beaver types?

Like I said. There are no innocent sides in this. And there are no heroes. What we have here is a dead teenager who will never get the chance to prove to the world he wasn't the "thug" everyone seems to think he was or to grow up, and we have a man who has had his life destroyed by his decisions, and who will now have to live with the fact that not only did he take another human's life, and that his family has been turned into a media spectacle, but will now have the fact that he destroyed another family on his sholders no matter where he goes.

Zimmerman will NEVER have a normal life.

The blatant polarized idolatry of both these individuals as anything more than people who made very bad decisions that escalated one on top of another throughout the entire episode by either side is the worst part of this whole spectacle.
 
2013-07-21 02:38:14 PM  

bugontherug: But it's also not unthinkable given the evidence adduced at trial that Zimmerman was acting as a police agent at the time he killed Trayvon, filling the state action requirement of a civil rights prosecution.


Technically, that's no longer even a requirement under the 2009 hate crimes law.

That's because the expansion Obama green-lighted in 2009 is under attack by conservative legal activists who contend the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority it now claims to prosecute race-based hate crimes anywhere they occur, even when the events in question have none of the traditional elements used to invoke federal jurisdiction.
 
2013-07-21 02:38:39 PM  

hardinparamedic: Can you give a citation on points one through three?


This was evidence recovered from Martin's cell phone that the Prosecution illegally attempted to conceal, and that only surfaced because of a whistle-blower in the Florida State's Attorney's office came forward.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/26/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense
http://www.inquisitr.com/846743/george-zimmerman-whistleblower-ben-k ru idbos-fired-trayvon-martin-drugs-guns-cell-phone/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-it-firing/index.html
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/2013/07/17/orlando-centinal-trayvon-ma rt in-had-child-porn-on-his-cell-phone/

Additionally, Martin was the beneficiary of a cover-up initiated by the Miami public schools to artificially lower their reported crime rates by treating crimes committed by students as disciplinary in lieu of filing criminal charges.   Martin got a short suspension instead of the felony charges (grand theft and going equipped for burglary) the evidence supported.

http://spectator.org/blog/2013/07/15/trayvon-crime-school-miami
 
2013-07-21 02:40:16 PM  

Misconduc: People need to stop being butt hurt and realize the Jury has spoken. That is all.


Yeah I don't get this. The other thing is that the trial is not about justice for the victim. The masses bring their emotions into this stuff and then shiat gets crazy. I didn't watch the trial and think Zimmerman is a dangerous person who needs therapy or something for his hero complex, but it's likely that the prosecutors simply didn't prove what they set out to prove.

Harassing Zimmerman for the rest of his life(or until the next reality star dangles a shiny object and breaks our collective attention span) isn't going to bring back Trayvon Martin and it certainly isn't going to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.
 
2013-07-21 02:41:42 PM  
I feel bad for Zimmer having to kill that thug.
 
2013-07-21 02:41:44 PM  

cyberspacedout: I'm missing something here. Is Eric Holder planning to bring charges against Zimmerman that would once again put him in jeopardy of "life or limb," as stated in the Fifth?


It's "life, liberty or property." So, yes.
 
2013-07-21 02:41:50 PM  
I doubt the feds will find enough to pursue a federal case against Zimmerman, as shameful as it he will get away with killing an unarmed teenager as far as criminal charges at least.

The state prosecutors bungled things badly and to my mind counted far to much on Zimmerman testifying in his own defense, the defense team sensed this and did not let him testify.
 
2013-07-21 02:42:19 PM  

The Lone Gunman: See You Next Tuesday: Popcorn Johnny: See You Next Tuesday: Name one well-adjusted teenager. Go on.

What % of teens are perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?

Did he have one that night?  No.  Had he ever been arrested? No.  Had Fat Mexican? YES.  All three are irrelevant, much like your constant presence on this site.

More relevant:  Did Zimmerman KNOW that Martin was perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?

Basically, it's about what was clear that night.  It was unclear to Zim that Martin was a threat of any kind or had a gun.  It is clear that Martin wasn't committing a crime at the time.  It is clear that Zim had a gun and was well aware that, in all likelihood, he would win a confrontation.  It is clear that Zim was aware that he had a violent past (which Martin was unaware of).

Oddly enough, if Martin was armed and had killed Zim, the law would've been on his side.

Because of "Stand Your Ground".


Tell us, oh wise one. It's not clear and never has been that Martin wasn't committing a crime that evening, now was it? It is clear that Zimmerman had a weapon, yet, Martin, didn't know this, nor did Zimmerman NOT know if Martin had a weapon or not. Tell us, oh wise one, which of them at the time knew that either one had a weapon? Since this is what you and others want to base so many revelations on. Tell us, how Zimmerman, didn't know that Martin wasn't armed. Apparently Martin, had a seventh sense and he could tell that Zimmerman was armed. Yet, at the same time Zimmerman is expected to have had the same knowledge and know that Martin wasn't armed. Difficulty: facts are out there for you to actually look at and see, and read.
 
2013-07-21 02:42:58 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: vygramul: and the Zimmerman people don't think assaulting a cop reflects on his personality.

Zim was a a bar with friends and saw some dude grab one of his peeps. Turns out the guy was a plain clothes undercover cop. The fact that the charges were eventually dropped should be a huge red flag that this wasn't what some of Team Trayvon want to make it out to be. Do you really farking think they'd drop assault on an officer charges if they were valid?


Wow, And Zimmerman was made out to be such a pussy in court by his own defense team? No wonder they wanted to keep this violent act of him drunkenly attacking an under cover cop, in a bar. Sounds like a guy with a huge chip on his shoulder. Not some doughy panty-boy he his defense team made him out to be in court.
 
2013-07-21 02:43:42 PM  

clyph: I love the fact that Mr. Martin's criminal history has been deliberately swept under the carpet.   The prosecution tried very hard to conceal the fact that Trayvon:

- Conspired to purchase an illegal handgun (felony)
- Was found in possession of stolen property and burglary tools (felony)
- Had child pornography on his cell phone (felony)
- Had a documented history of assault and had announced his intent to commit additional assaults (felony)


I partially agree with you, but:
Using child pornography laws to go after sexing teens is bullshiat.
IMO, the concept of "burglary tools" and "going equipped" is also bullshiat. He had a screwdriver. If he committed burglary (and yeah, he almost certainly did) then charge him with that. I don't see how using a screwdriver in the act makes it worse.
 
2013-07-21 02:44:03 PM  

bugontherug: RexTalionis: In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

This isn't an incoherent position. It's perfectly reasonable for people to believe the Supreme Court has incorrectly construed the Constitution. The Pope is infallible. Not the Supreme Court.

But it's also not unthinkable given the evidence adduced at trial that Zimmerman was acting as a police agent at the time he killed Trayvon, filling the state action requirement of a civil rights prosecution. Not only was he working closely with the police in monitoring Trayvon for no reason, but Sanford PD had specifically worked with him through its NW liason.


Oh, please, give us a break. Acting as a 'police agent' without pay, a license or badge, equipment, backup, or training? Really? What other 'police agents' in this country work this way?

This is just another red herring thrown out but race-baiters who know nothing of the evidence and need some excuse to get more donations from gullible idiots.
 
2013-07-21 02:46:17 PM  

RandomAxe: Popcorn Johnny: What % of teens are perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?

If I understand your use of "perusing", I'd say probably somewhere near 50%, at some point during their teen years. That was probably about right back when I was a teen, too.


I'm sorry, I never saw where Martin was charged and convicted of trying to attain a firearm. And I've been following the case pretty closely. This is news to me. Is there a police report?
 
2013-07-21 02:46:58 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: See You Next Tuesday: Name one well-adjusted teenager. Go on.

What % of teens are perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?


A lot of them. Teens do stupid stuff, and usually the parents have no idea. I helped pull a prank in high school that today would have had me up on hundreds of federal terrorism charges and probably gotten me sentenced to effectively life in prison despite there being no possibility of physical harm to others.

Even back then I could have been charged with at least a few federal crimes and I knew that. Five of my friends were charged with computer crimes, including hacking into the school's computer system and redistributing students to new, fake classes just before report cards were printed. Others repeatedly got busted for receiving stolen property for buying cheap electronics off the street, driving without a license, and vandalism (post-game celebration after the first winning season in our school's history). I was on our school's scholastic bowl team and we got kicked out of a bunch of restaurants around the state.

Teens do stupid criminal stuff. especially smart ones.
 
2013-07-21 02:47:12 PM  
In other news, over 11,000 blacks have been killed by other blacks since the night Trayvon was killed. Where's the outrage over their deaths?
 
2013-07-21 02:48:18 PM  
Zimmerman should move to Dubai
they'd welcome him with OPEN arms
 
2013-07-21 02:49:40 PM  

Nabb1: vygramul: Popcorn Johnny: Team Zim!

If you want to come across as being a Twilight fan, that's your business.

Better a "Twilight" fan than a delusional fan that treats a dead sociopath like a teen heart throb.


So you bought into the smear campaign?
 
2013-07-21 02:51:08 PM  

Mistymtnhop: I'm sorry, I never saw where Martin was charged and convicted of trying to attain a firearm. And I've been following the case pretty closely. This is news to me. Is there a police report?


So in your world, the guy who arranges to meet the 14 year old at McDonald's for sex is innocent, right?
 
2013-07-21 02:52:59 PM  

clyph: This was evidence recovered from Martin's cell phone that the Prosecution illegally attempted to conceal, and that only surfaced because of a whistle-blower in the Florida State's Attorney's office came forward.


Your first link: Martin took pictures of himself flipping people off and was in a bad mood.
Your second link: A person claims there were pictures of a black hand with a gun, and that Martin was texting to arrange a gun deal without actually providing the actual text of the supposed messages.
Your third link: same thing.
Fourth link: Teenager was sexting teenager of equivalent age. Which, again, remind me of the letter of the law versus the spirit.

I do give you credit, though. At least you didn't take this into far right field by pushing the marijuana issue. I felt I was in DARE class in yesterday's thread.
 
2013-07-21 02:53:48 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: In other news, over 11,000 blacks have been killed by other blacks since the night Trayvon was killed. Where's the outrage over their deaths?


Real racists, etc etc.
 
2013-07-21 02:55:05 PM  

Loose_Cannon: bugontherug: RexTalionis: In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

This isn't an incoherent position. It's perfectly reasonable for people to believe the Supreme Court has incorrectly construed the Constitution. The Pope is infallible. Not the Supreme Court.

But it's also not unthinkable given the evidence adduced at trial that Zimmerman was acting as a police agent at the time he killed Trayvon, filling the state action requirement of a civil rights prosecution. Not only was he working closely with the police in monitoring Trayvon for no reason, but Sanford PD had specifically worked with him through its NW liason.

Oh, please, give us a break. Acting as a 'police agent' without pay, a license or badge, equipment, backup, or training? Really? What other 'police agents' in this country work this way?

This is just another red herring thrown out but race-baiters who know nothing of the evidence and need some excuse to get more donations from gullible idiots.


You and I both agree that this is all sensationalist bullshiat designed to distract people from REAL issues.  However, you have to respect the legal argument.  It's interesting that his being on the phone with the dispatcher and the dispatcher saying "What is he doing now?" could lead to acting under color of law.

Yes, it's bullshiat.  But it's a wonderfully inventive legal argument.  Hell of a lot better than child abuse being the predicate felony for felonious murder.
 
2013-07-21 02:55:47 PM  

jonnyh: I watched a lot of the trial, and my take is that if there had been one reasonable person in that encounter, no one would have been hurt.

I think that Trayvon was cocky kid, who was emulating the thug lifestyle and was sick of the creepy white guy that was giving him a hard time, and maybe too eager to lay hands on someone. I think that it's a shame that no one is discussing the role of popular urban culture in all of this, because it was a contributing factor. Just not PC, I guess. I think that given Holder's and Obama's speeches, that the GOP research teams are going to be working overtime to tarnish Trayvon's halo, and that they're going to find a lot of juicy details that make him look non-innocent.

I think that Zimmerman was suffering from little man with a gun, wanna-be cop syndrome, and was looking for an excuse to project himself. I think that it's a shame that there wasn't more discussion of the role of gun culture in all of this, because it was a contributing factor. Just not PC, I guess.

I think that both parties contributed to the ultimate tragedy. I think that Trayvon threw the first punch, which was a mistake, even if he had been goaded into it, and I think that Zimmerman was a trigger happy, angry individual.

I think that the laws in Florida are crazy, but given them, justice was served. I think that the judge was actually biased against Zimmerman - throwing in manslaughter in the 11th hour would have absolutely allowed a appeal - but that the prosecution was both weak and had a poor case.

I think that both Holder and Obama did, in fact, play the race card to a degree, but that they did show bravery by taking a stance.

And I think that the ACLU should be applauded for standing up to the Feds.

//Agreed, just let this thing go.


I keep hearing the whole "thug lifestyle" thing. What exactly does that mean to you?
 
2013-07-21 02:58:34 PM  

RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


Remind me again when the Tea Party infiltrated the ACLU.
 
2013-07-21 02:58:40 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: clyph: I love the fact that Mr. Martin's criminal history has been deliberately swept under the carpet.   The prosecution tried very hard to conceal the fact that Trayvon:

- Conspired to purchase an illegal handgun (felony)
- Was found in possession of stolen property and burglary tools (felony)
- Had child pornography on his cell phone (felony)
- Had a documented history of assault and had announced his intent to commit additional assaults (felony)

I'll give him a pass on pot possession because it's hard to find a high school student who doesn't smoke.

This was not an innocent teenager.   This was a budding young criminal who actively cultivated a 'gangsta' image and was deeply immersed in casual criminality.

You take that back!

This is who he really was, the media TOLD US SO!

[www.timeslive.co.za image 630x400]


HAY!! Look at how innocent Trayvon looks in this sonogram ..



www.theblindcard.com
 
2013-07-21 02:59:20 PM  

hardinparamedic: Carth: if getting suspended for fights and doing drugs are "just normal teenage things" I had the most boring childhood ever. I was busy playing sports,  going on dates and playing computer games.

Seriously? When I went to a private religious school, I spent almost every day in ISS because I "questioned" and blasphemed. Worst year of my life ever.

Getting in a fight is not unheard of for teenagers. Neither is talking trash to one another, or rebelling against adult authority.

I get that you were a goody-good child who probably got the rod taken to him every time you said something more than "Please, Sir, May I have some more", but you're honestly going to set here and tell me "normal" teenagers are the Leave it to beaver types?

Like I said. There are no innocent sides in this. And there are no heroes. What we have here is a dead teenager who will never get the chance to prove to the world he wasn't the "thug" everyone seems to think he was or to grow up, and we have a man who has had his life destroyed by his decisions, and who will now have to live with the fact that not only did he take another human's life, and that his family has been turned into a media spectacle, but will now have the fact that he destroyed another family on his sholders no matter where he goes.

Zimmerman will NEVER have a normal life.

The blatant polarized idolatry of both these individuals as anything more than people who made very bad decisions that escalated one on top of another throughout the entire episode by either side is the worst part of this whole spectacle.


You must have gone to a very different private school. We only had 60 kids in our grade. There was 1 fight in four years and they both got expelled and one was arrested. People would drink on weekends but drug use was very rare. We were allowed to design our own curriculum so 'rebelling' against teachers was pointless since you could drop them and go to another class.

I didn't know fighting and drugs were so endemic among most people's high schools. TIL i guess.
 
2013-07-21 03:01:11 PM  
Charged + arrested + innocent until proven guilty - proven guilty = innocent.

That's math, people. MATH!
 
2013-07-21 03:03:01 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: clyph: I love the fact that Mr. Martin's criminal history has been deliberately swept under the carpet.   The prosecution tried very hard to conceal the fact that Trayvon:

- Conspired to purchase an illegal handgun (felony)
- Was found in possession of stolen property and burglary tools (felony)
- Had child pornography on his cell phone (felony)
- Had a documented history of assault and had announced his intent to commit additional assaults (felony)

I'll give him a pass on pot possession because it's hard to find a high school student who doesn't smoke.

This was not an innocent teenager.   This was a budding young criminal who actively cultivated a 'gangsta' image and was deeply immersed in casual criminality.

You take that back!

This is who he really was, the media TOLD US SO!

[www.timeslive.co.za image 630x400]


Ah but it's not Trevan on trial. Even if the above were true, Zimmerman would have had to have telepathic powers.

As for what happened, you have to rewind backwards :

- Zimmerman shoots Martin

- why? Because Martin pounded him, high on skittles.

- why? Because Martin was creeped out by a loony with a gun.who was stalking him and got afraid, acting in self defense.

- why was Martin being stalked?  Because he was a black dude and Zimmerman wanted to kill one.
 
2013-07-21 03:04:33 PM  
dear aclu.. the double jeopardy clause prevents people for being tried twice for the same crime... if the feds levy a different charge then florida did double jeopardy does not apply..

aka.. stay the hell out of it
 
2013-07-21 03:05:24 PM  
The ACLU somehow manages to be extremely steadfast and extremely fickle at the same time. There was no way they were ever going to stay out of this case once it hit the federal level, but which side would they take? That was a much harder question to answer, with all the grey areas. I have to admit that I'm pleasantly surprised at what that answer appears to be.

The law being cited for this double-jeopardy gambit was intended to be used in cases where a state refused to prosecute clear civil-rights violations, not cases where a state merely prosecutes but fails to achieve the desired verdict. It should never have been used this way, and the SCOTUS should never have held such cases as valid. If the case proceeds, I hope it ends in overturning that decision.
 
2013-07-21 03:06:31 PM  
LOL Trayvon Supporters are calling for a boycott of Disney and Florida - please no stop! don't leave... Don't let the door hit your sorry arses on the way out, and please dont come back.
 
2013-07-21 03:06:39 PM  
Does Obama ever handle a situation correctly?  What a joke he has turned out to be.
 
2013-07-21 03:08:08 PM  
www.theblindcard.com

Earliest know picture of Trayvon.

 
2013-07-21 03:08:33 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Does Obama ever handle a situation correctly?  What a joke he has turned out to be.


You know it's bad when even his most ardent supporters have been reduced to saying, "at least he's better than the other guy".
 
2013-07-21 03:09:16 PM  

Misconduc: LOL Trayvon Supporters are calling for a boycott of Disney and Florida - please no stop! don't leave... Don't let the door hit your sorry arses on the way out, and please dont come back.


Huh? I've had a boycott of Florida going on for years! It's the canker sore of America.
 
2013-07-21 03:10:14 PM  
hey, how did my 'known' turn into 'know' .. that's just farked up

/i'm a good speler
 
2013-07-21 03:11:50 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Nemo's Brother: Does Obama ever handle a situation correctly?  What a joke he has turned out to be.

You know it's bad when even his most ardent supporters have been reduced to saying, "at least he's better than the other guy".


Obama was a fool for thinking his opponents had any shred of human decency or honor, that's for sure.
 
2013-07-21 03:13:04 PM  

coyo: Obama was a fool for thinking his opponents had any shred of human decency or honor, that's for sure.


Obama's supporters were a fool for thinking he was different from any other politician.
 
2013-07-21 03:13:26 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-21 03:13:32 PM  
It is a sad day for our Galaxy.

Yesterday in Mos Eisley, Tatooine, Han Solo, a white man and self proclaimed "defender of the galaxy" shot and killed unarmed Rodian youth Greedo. Solo was later captured by Imperial StormTroopers but was later released when Solo claimed Greedo shot first and he (Solo) was merely acting in self defense. The Greedo family lawyer is attempting to contact a Hutt whose name has not yet been released to the media as it is suspected that it was the last individual to contact Greedo before his death.

I wanted to believe Imperial society had moved past this speciesist bullshiat but I guess we haven't. The Empire is obviously corrupt and we need to make our voices known. I suggest we stage rebellions on Tatooine, Yavin 4, and Hoth to let the Empire know the Galactic Community will not stand for this.

#JusticeForGreedo
i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-21 03:14:24 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: coyo: Obama was a fool for thinking his opponents had any shred of human decency or honor, that's for sure.

Obama's supporters were a fool for thinking he was different from any other politician.


What evidence do you have that they thought that? It's an interesting myth you buy in to, that he was 'worshipped'.
 
2013-07-21 03:15:08 PM  

Mentat: The Supreme Court has proven many times over the course of their history that their interpretation of the Constitution isn't always right.


The Constitution itself has proven many times throughout its history to not be right.
 
2013-07-21 03:15:40 PM  

Autistic Hiker: Giltric: RexTalonis:  In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

They feel the same way about Heller v DC.

I wouldn't get too cocky about Heller, a 5-4 decision based on Scalia cherry-picking definitions from two-hundred-year-old dictionaries, if I were you.



So they used a dictionary that was as old as the document they were interpreting?

That is what you are outraged about?
 
2013-07-21 03:16:16 PM  
Dear ACLU,

Tell that shiat to OJ Simpson. Then go fark yourselves.

Sincerely,

Eric Holder
 
2013-07-21 03:16:33 PM  

Skyrmion: Using child pornography laws to go after sexing teens is bullshiat.


Child pornography is a strict liability crime.  In the eyes of the law, any lascivious image of a person under the age of 18 is child pornography; the law does not distinguish between a lascivious image of a 7 year old and a 17 year old.  The law may be absurd, but until it is changed, the legal standard is that any image that meets the criteria of the Dost test is legally child pornography - regardless of the age of the person who took it or the age of the person who possesses it.   Of course no one will ever change the law (except to make it more draconian) because appearing to defend pedophiles is political suicide.

FYI, Teen girls have been successfully prosecuted on CP charges for taking topless self-portraits.
 
2013-07-21 03:16:52 PM  

simkatu: Mentat: The Supreme Court has proven many times over the course of their history that their interpretation of the Constitution isn't always right.

The Constitution itself has proven many times throughout its history to not be right.


Indeed. Most of it was a compromise. The bill of rights was never only really ever adhered too when it was reasonably convenient to do so.
 
2013-07-21 03:17:01 PM  

Deep Contact: I feel bad for Zimmer having to kill that thug.


Nolan Ryan had it coming.
 
2013-07-21 03:17:07 PM  

coyo: What evidence do you have that they thought that?


http://www.fark.com/politics/
 
2013-07-21 03:18:55 PM  

dapharmer: dear aclu.. the double jeopardy clause prevents people for being tried twice for the same crime... if the feds levy a different charge then florida did double jeopardy does not apply..

aka.. stay the hell out of it


Actually, double-jeopardy prevents people from being tried twice for the same actions. It cannot prevent people from being tried twice for the same crime, because there is no crime until there is a guilty verdict: that's the point of levying charges.

To proceed with a case here, the feds would have to argue that Florida's charges only covered the actual shooting, and not the events that preceded it. That argument could certainly be made, as the only charges brought up at the state level all involve Martin's actual death. But there's a catch: if you do this, then Martin's death becomes irrelevant to the federal case, because it happened after the time span the case covers.

The people calling for federal prosecution will never be satisfied with a case argued that way. They believe that the events of that night need to be treated as a single unit, starting no later than the moment Zimmerman noticed Martin was black, and ending no sooner than the moment Martin died. To be honest, I agree with them on that: I'd even move the clock a little further out on both ends. To proceed with a federal case without violating double-jeopardy, you have to break up that time span.
 
2013-07-21 03:19:16 PM  

zamboni: That actually hasn't proven to be the case in Florida


Funny thing about that, in the  Times analysis there's a pretty big intervening variable that's  also pointed out by the article you linked: instances with a black defender and a black victim are  also accounted for in the "by defendant" analysis. The article points out that stand-your-ground cases with a black victim resulted in acquittal 73% of the time, while cases with a white victim resulted in acquittal 59% of the time, with the discrepancy being explained by the larger number of black perpetrators altogether.

In mixed-race cases, white defendants with a black victim were acquitted at a (marginally) higher rate than black defendants with a white victim.

Of course, as your linked article points out, that still does not excuse inconsistent application, especially in regards to other ethnically- or gender-charged cases such as that of Marissa Alexander (again, where's the outrage from the "Second Amendment Solutions" crowd that a black woman took their advice for once and was convicted despite having SYG and castle doctrine on her side?). Nor, more broadly, does it excuse that stand-your-ground has led to acquittals for repeat offenders or the outright bizarre. The "vampire" case was particularly amusing, as was the case where the victim was a bear.
 
2013-07-21 03:19:43 PM  

Elegy: It is a sad day for our Galaxy.

Yesterday in Mos Eisley, Tatooine, Han Solo, a white man and self proclaimed "defender of the galaxy" shot and killed unarmed Rodian youth Greedo. Solo was later captured by Imperial StormTroopers but was later released when Solo claimed Greedo shot first and he (Solo) was merely acting in self defense. The Greedo family lawyer is attempting to contact a Hutt whose name has not yet been released to the media as it is suspected that it was the last individual to contact Greedo before his death.

I wanted to believe Imperial society had moved past this speciesist bullshiat but I guess we haven't. The Empire is obviously corrupt and we need to make our voices known. I suggest we stage rebellions on Tatooine, Yavin 4, and Hoth to let the Empire know the Galactic Community will not stand for this.

#JusticeForGreedo
[i.imgur.com image 220x281]


Okay. THAT was funny. Bravo, Sir.
 
2013-07-21 03:21:39 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: Given the fact that Obama was the child of a Kenyan who raised by white folks in Hawaii, how on earth - beyond the color of his skin - is he in any way shape or form authentically "black?"


Much can be said for Obama being more from "white" culture than "black", but the simple fact remains that when people see him they see his skin and treat him as a black.
 
2013-07-21 03:21:47 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: coyo: What evidence do you have that they thought that?

http://www.fark.com/politics/


I'm sorry, I forgot specifics were too difficult to do. I'm betting that you would consider. "He doesn't suck" to be evidence of Obama worship.
 
2013-07-21 03:22:09 PM  

Elegy: It is a sad day for our Galaxy.


Let me guess, 4chan?
 
2013-07-21 03:22:31 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Mistymtnhop: I'm sorry, I never saw where Martin was charged and convicted of trying to attain a firearm. And I've been following the case pretty closely. This is news to me. Is there a police report?

So in your world, the guy who arranges to meet the 14 year old at McDonald's for sex is innocent, right?


Either there's proof of this crime or there isn't. Is there proof of the guy meeting a kid for sex? If so then he can be charged with soliciting a minor, right? So, what crime did Trayvon Martin commit, get charged with and plead to? Oh wait, I get it. Innocent until proven guilty is only valid for your dreamy George Zimmerman, amIright? I love you Zimmerman Fanboys, you're nothing if not consistent.
 
2013-07-21 03:23:23 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Elegy: It is a sad day for our Galaxy.

Let me guess, 4chan?


Yeah, blatant copypasta. It was good enough I thought it deserved a repost.
 
2013-07-21 03:23:26 PM  

coyo: - why? Because Martin pounded him, high on skittles.

- why? Because Martin was creeped out by a loony with a gun.who was stalking him and got afraid, acting in self defense.

- why was Martin being stalked? Because he was a black dude and Zimmerman wanted to kill one.


That's your version of events.   One that is not borne out by the evidence.   The jury heard that theory, and unanimously rejected it.

- Martin was casing the neighborhood for burglary, having made a purchase at a nearby store in order to establish an alibi for his presence there.

- Zimmerman reported his suspicious behavior to the police and followed him at a distance in order to direct police to his location.

- Martin evaded observation, hid, and then brutally assaulted the "creepy-ass cracker" who was dissin' him in a surprise blind-side attack.

- As he lay on the ground, bleeding, with Martin standing over him continuing to pound his head into the sidewalk, Zimmerman drew and fired his sidearm in order to protect his own life.
 
2013-07-21 03:23:41 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Of course, as your linked article points out, that still does not excuse inconsistent application, especially in regards to other ethnically- or gender-charged cases such as that of Marissa Alexander (again, where's the outrage from the "Second Amendment Solutions" crowd that a black woman took their advice for once and was convicted despite having SYG and castle doctrine on her side?).


www.mlponline.net

Why do people keep pulling things from their ass about Marissa Alexander. That was never a stand your ground case, either. It was a clear cut case of attempted murder based on the evidence and Alexander's own statements.
 
2013-07-21 03:24:42 PM  

Mistymtnhop: Popcorn Johnny: Mistymtnhop: I'm sorry, I never saw where Martin was charged and convicted of trying to attain a firearm. And I've been following the case pretty closely. This is news to me. Is there a police report?

So in your world, the guy who arranges to meet the 14 year old at McDonald's for sex is innocent, right?

Either there's proof of this crime or there isn't. Is there proof of the guy meeting a kid for sex? If so then he can be charged with soliciting a minor, right? So, what crime did Trayvon Martin commit, get charged with and plead to? Oh wait, I get it. Innocent until proven guilty is only valid for your dreamy George Zimmerman, amIright? I love you Zimmerman Fanboys, you're nothing if not consistent.


Why did Martin confront Zimmerman then? oh I am sorry Let me post the Fetus photo of Martin for you, since he's innocent little fetus who did no harm.
 
2013-07-21 03:26:19 PM  

clyph: coyo: - why? Because Martin pounded him, high on skittles.

- why? Because Martin was creeped out by a loony with a gun.who was stalking him and got afraid, acting in self defense.

- why was Martin being stalked? Because he was a black dude and Zimmerman wanted to kill one.

That's your version of events.   One that is not borne out by the evidence.   The jury heard that theory, and unanimously rejected it.

- Martin was casing the neighborhood for burglary, having made a purchase at a nearby store in order to establish an alibi for his presence there.

- Zimmerman reported his suspicious behavior to the police and followed him at a distance in order to direct police to his location.

- Martin evaded observation, hid, and then brutally assaulted the "creepy-ass cracker" who was dissin' him in a surprise blind-side attack.

- As he lay on the ground, bleeding, with Martin standing over him continuing to pound his head into the sidewalk, Zimmerman drew and fired his sidearm in order to protect his own life.


What exactly was suspicious? Being a black kid and buying stuff? I suppose Floridians take that as suspicious, knowing that state.
 
2013-07-21 03:27:16 PM  

Elegy: Yeah, blatant copypasta. It was good enough I thought it deserved a repost.


I get more lulz from those lovable scamps than from any other website by far.
 
2013-07-21 03:27:26 PM  

Misconduc: Why did Martin confront Zimmerman then? oh I am sorry Let me post the Fetus photo of Martin for you, since he's innocent little fetus who did no harm.


Maybe Martin thought Zimmerman was going to try to rape him, since he was stalking him.
 
2013-07-21 03:27:28 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Does Obama ever handle a situation correctly?  What a joke he has turned out to be.


I would Obama and Holder's words and actions on this particular situation, more than any other,  are pushing middle of the road white voters back to the Republican party.

 It's a catastrophe for the Democrats. I wonder what the leadership of the Democratic party thinks of this.

If there is a white Dem. candidate next time, you are not going to get that 97% black vote. Many will stay home. They'll be left with TV pundits, Jews, Gays, Hispanics, my sister and half the blacks
 
2013-07-21 03:30:36 PM  

Vectron: Nemo's Brother: Does Obama ever handle a situation correctly?  What a joke he has turned out to be.

I would Obama and Holder's words and actions on this particular situation, more than any other,  are pushing middle of the road white voters back to the Republican party.

 It's a catastrophe for the Democrats. I wonder what the leadership of the Democratic party thinks of this.

If there is a white Dem. candidate next time, you are not going to get that 97% black vote. Many will stay home. They'll be left with TV pundits, Jews, Gays, Hispanics, my sister and half the blacks


Study it out!
 
2013-07-21 03:32:09 PM  

Mock26: Look a OJ Simpson. Criminal court acquitted him of murder charges, yet a civil court ruled that he was responsible for their deaths. One crime, two different rulings.


Not one crime. One event, yes, but the second had nothing to do with crime; that's for a criminal court.

For instance, you might be tried, criminally, for destruction of property (we'll say arson). That is a crime with a very specific penalty. That also has nothing to do with the fact that I am now out of a house because of you, and I would like a house again, thankyouverymuch, so I sue you for the loss of my house, possessions, perhaps lost wages, etc. - all things not covered by the law that says "don't set fire to people's homes."

In other words, though they stem from the same event, they are entirely different accusations; this is no different from you being charged criminally for discharging a weapon in city limits as well as attempted murder because you shot someone, despite the fact the two charges stem from exactly the same event (you firing a weapon).
 
2013-07-21 03:33:55 PM  

coyo: Popcorn Johnny: coyo: Obama was a fool for thinking his opponents had any shred of human decency or honor, that's for sure.

Obama's supporters were a fool for thinking he was different from any other politician.

What evidence do you have that they thought that? It's an interesting myth you buy in to, that he was 'worshipped'.


Pretty much every serious politician ever has had their 'worshippers' - those that believe they can do no wrong and will twist reality to maintain that view. It's pretty standard human behavior. Why would Obama be different? Methinks you're a touch too sensitive on this issue.

/He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
 
2013-07-21 03:35:01 PM  

Skyrmion: This Florida thing? You should check out the Tampa Bay Times cataloging of Florida's fatal stand your ground cases:
Black perpetrators: 25 justified, 7 convicted.
White perpetrators: 39 justified, 30 convicted.

I'm not ruling out that there could be a racial bias to the way SYG laws are administered throughout the country. But it doesn't seem to be obviously manifesting in Florida.


There is a racial bias to the way Florida judges SYG. It's biased in favor of black people.
 
2013-07-21 03:41:05 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Elegy: Yeah, blatant copypasta. It was good enough I thought it deserved a repost.

I get more lulz from those lovable scamps than from any other website by far.


It's the only reason I put up with the rest of their shiat - they generate funnier material, faster, than anywhere else on the Internet.
 
2013-07-21 03:42:24 PM  

Elegy: Popcorn Johnny: Elegy: Yeah, blatant copypasta. It was good enough I thought it deserved a repost.

I get more lulz from those lovable scamps than from any other website by far.

It's the only reason I put up with the rest of their shiat - they generate funnier material, faster, than anywhere else on the Internet.


I've found Freeper land is good for that. But the terror comes in when you realize these people aren't trying to be funny.
 
2013-07-21 03:42:44 PM  
I think the Zimmerman verdict was correct and want people to get over it and move on.  There's no justification for a Civil Rights case.
That said, the ACLU's reasoning is bogus.  It's a different charge in a different court and isn't double jeopardy.  That's also how wrongful death suits get around double jeopardy, since they're civil and not criminal cases.
 
2013-07-21 03:43:19 PM  

Elegy: It's the only reason I put up with the rest of their shiat - they generate funnier material, faster, than anywhere else on the Internet.


They've done a good job getting rid of the cheese pizza. I wish they had a separate board for gore and all would be well.
 
2013-07-21 03:43:57 PM  

Deedeemarz: RandomAxe: There was almost no chance whatsoever that Zimmerman was going to be convicted of homicide or even manslaughter in a fair trial. There just wasn't evidence available to prove it, and the prosecution, unsurprisingly, was terrible. They should have gone after something like reckless endangerment, put him away for a couple of years, and pulled his gun license.

I don't doubt that race was an issue in the altercation -- although absolutely it was an issue in the media and in the trial. I think Zimmerman is an ass, a danger to himself and others, and that he could just as easily and just as likely shot and killed a white kid. If Zimmerman was 'protecting' my neighborhood, you bet I'd be rooting against him.

You just summed up the entire situation more correctly than any of the "experts" could ever have done...


This comes as no surprise. RandomAxe tends to do that.
 
2013-07-21 03:44:38 PM  
There are dueling rallies planned for 4pm in Houston.

Link
 
2013-07-21 03:45:05 PM  

Millennium: To proceed with a case here, the feds would have to argue that Florida's charges only covered the actual shooting, and not the events that preceded it.


The state case involved the preceding events. 2nd degree murder is a "depraved heart" case, so the preceding actions were part of the state case.
 
2013-07-21 03:45:59 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Mock26: Look a OJ Simpson. Criminal court acquitted him of murder charges, yet a civil court ruled that he was responsible for their deaths. One crime, two different rulings.

Not one crime. One event, yes, but the second had nothing to do with crime; that's for a criminal court.

For instance, you might be tried, criminally, for destruction of property (we'll say arson). That is a crime with a very specific penalty. That also has nothing to do with the fact that I am now out of a house because of you, and I would like a house again, thankyouverymuch, so I sue you for the loss of my house, possessions, perhaps lost wages, etc. - all things not covered by the law that says "don't set fire to people's homes."

In other words, though they stem from the same event, they are entirely different accusations; this is no different from you being charged criminally for discharging a weapon in city limits as well as attempted murder because you shot someone, despite the fact the two charges stem from exactly the same event (you firing a weapon).


I the criminal court finds me not guilty of arson then that has everything to do with you being out of a home, because I am not guilty of setting your house on fire!
 
2013-07-21 03:53:11 PM  

hardinparamedic: I've found Freeper land is good for that. But the terror comes in when you realize these people aren't trying to be funny.


I like to pop my head in there from time to time for a laugh and to see what they are posting about. The scary thing about the Zimmerman trial has been that the articles they have been posting have contained a higher quotient of truth than the articles in HLN and MSNBC news. It makes me cringe, but stopped clocks, etc.

Popcorn Johnny: They've done a good job getting rid of the cheese pizza. I wish they had a separate board for gore and all would be well.


I try to stay out of the cancer containment unit known as /b/ unless I've been drinking heavily. Gore is only one of the many reasons.
 
2013-07-21 03:56:40 PM  

Elegy: I try to stay out of the cancer containment unit known as /b/ unless I've been drinking heavily. Gore is only one of the many reasons.


I don't go to /b/ much, I spend most of my time on /pol/ /sp/ and /tv/.
 
2013-07-21 03:58:04 PM  
ACLU Defends Zimmerman
Heads ASSPLODE natiowide


www.planetcalypsoforum.com
 
2013-07-21 03:58:46 PM  

BolloxReader: Popcorn Johnny: See You Next Tuesday: Name one well-adjusted teenager. Go on.

What % of teens are perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?

A lot of them. Teens do stupid stuff, and usually the parents have no idea. I helped pull a prank in high school that today would have had me up on hundreds of federal terrorism charges and probably gotten me sentenced to effectively life in prison despite there being no possibility of physical harm to others.

Even back then I could have been charged with at least a few federal crimes and I knew that. Five of my friends were charged with computer crimes, including hacking into the school's computer system and redistributing students to new, fake classes just before report cards were printed. Others repeatedly got busted for receiving stolen property for buying cheap electronics off the street, driving without a license, and vandalism (post-game celebration after the first winning season in our school's history). I was on our school's scholastic bowl team and we got kicked out of a bunch of restaurants around the state.

Teens do stupid criminal stuff. especially smart ones.



This is true, teens do stupid criminal stuff. Some of them even assault people. "Whoop Ass" I believe they call it.
 
2013-07-21 04:00:15 PM  
Not a constitutional lawyer but I was wondering about the Double Jeopardy thing rearing it's "ugly" head.
I mean we all agreed on that right?  And we've been using it for at least a while now so it's not new.
So I would think that even as lousy as it is, we have to eat it, right?

Remember -
"Life's a Schtt Sandwich son.
The more bread you have, the less Schtt you have to eat.


No, I don't think the verdict was right.
Yes, I think the AG screwed the case
Yes I think we have to obey the law.
Better 100 guilty go free than ONE innocent be convicted.
FWIW, do not believe in death penalty either - so THERE 8-D
 
2013-07-21 04:00:55 PM  
Stand your ground logic:
The killer was always the most afraid... Not Guilty.
The killed was, well, not standing his ground (or lacked the responsibility to carry a gun). Guilty.
The one that shots a warning shot not so much... Guilty.
 
2013-07-21 04:03:47 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Elegy: I try to stay out of the cancer containment unit known as /b/ unless I've been drinking heavily. Gore is only one of the many reasons.

I don't go to /b/ much, I spend most of my time on /pol/ /sp/ and /tv/.


Yeah, I'm on /pol/, /int/, /v/, and /vr/ mostly. Video games and politics, that's me.
 
2013-07-21 04:04:47 PM  
It's hilarious this mockery continues.  I will predict no federal case, possible civil trial that will be dismissed.  I will also continue to laugh at the uninformed, as should we all.  They deserve our derision.
 
2013-07-21 04:05:17 PM  

The Numbers: coyo: Popcorn Johnny: coyo: Obama was a fool for thinking his opponents had any shred of human decency or honor, that's for sure.

Obama's supporters were a fool for thinking he was different from any other politician.

What evidence do you have that they thought that? It's an interesting myth you buy in to, that he was 'worshipped'.

Pretty much every serious politician ever has had their 'worshippers' - those that believe they can do no wrong and will twist reality to maintain that view. It's pretty standard human behavior. Why would Obama be different? Methinks you're a touch too sensitive on this issue.

/He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.


The only people I've ever heard refer to him as 'the messiah' are Republicans. As for being 'naughty', and a 'boy', he's the most adult politician in the room. The Republican caucus is a bunch of nasty, destructive children and the Democratic leadership in general is spineless and cowardly. I suppose you can call the Republicans cowardly as well, as they've been too spineless to put any substantial ideas of their own out there and are scared to death of the TealibanTeahadists.
 
2013-07-21 04:05:43 PM  

WTFDYW: I did not see in the letter where the ACLU said they would defend him.



By publicly biatch-slapping Holder and the Race-Baiters, they are effectively "defending" not only Zimmerman, but the rights of all Americans.
 
2013-07-21 04:05:51 PM  

Abuse Liability: It's hilarious this mockery continues.  I will predict no federal case, possible civil trial that will be dismissed.  I will also continue to laugh at the uninformed, as should we all.  They deserve our derision.


It gets better, Jesse Jackson has said that the United Nations needs to investigate.
 
2013-07-21 04:06:51 PM  

Pharque-it: Stand your ground logic:
The killer was always the most afraid... Not Guilty.
The killed was, well, not standing his ground (or lacked the responsibility to carry a gun). Guilty.
The one that shots a warning shot not so much... Guilty.


Pretty much. As the law was written, the jury probably came to the letter of the law decision. That law is among the many reasons we have a Florida tag here. Maybe the sun bakes their brains.
 
2013-07-21 04:09:20 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Abuse Liability: It's hilarious this mockery continues.  I will predict no federal case, possible civil trial that will be dismissed.  I will also continue to laugh at the uninformed, as should we all.  They deserve our derision.

It gets better, Jesse Jackson has said that the United Nations needs to investigate.


Well if Jesse Jackson says it, I bet the United Nations will be all over it.

/snert
 
2013-07-21 04:09:21 PM  

Amos Quito: WTFDYW: I did not see in the letter where the ACLU said they would defend him.


By publicly biatch-slapping Holder and the Race-Baiters, they are effectively "defending" not only Zimmerman, but the rights of all Americans.


Looks in the republican dictionary :

Race Baiter :  Anyone who looks in the history books and notices racism perpetrated by whites (specifically) and actually talks about it. Also, anyone who claims that racism exists today.

Well, friggen sign me up and give me my 'race baiter' badge.
 
2013-07-21 04:10:39 PM  
Dear ACLU,

He's not being charged for the same crime. He was charged with manslaughter, now he is likely to be charged with violating the civil rights of the deceased on the pretext of his race, age and sex. And you didn't put your answer in the form of a question. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR YOU.

Love, Brantgoose
 
2013-07-21 04:11:39 PM  

coyo: Amos Quito: WTFDYW: I did not see in the letter where the ACLU said they would defend him.


By publicly biatch-slapping Holder and the Race-Baiters, they are effectively "defending" not only Zimmerman, but the rights of all Americans.

Looks in the republican dictionary :

Race Baiter :  Anyone who looks in the history books and notices racism perpetrated by whites (specifically) and actually talks about it. Also, anyone who claims that racism exists today.

Well, friggen sign me up and give me my 'race baiter' badge.


Oh please. That's just white guilt talking.
/sarcasm
 
2013-07-21 04:12:12 PM  

brantgoose: Dear ACLU,

He's not being charged for the same crime. He was charged with manslaughter, now he is likely to be charged with violating the civil rights of the deceased on the pretext of his race, age and sex. And you didn't put your answer in the form of a question. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR YOU.

Love, Brantgoose


Know how we all know you know nothing about this case.
/We know.
//know know know
 
2013-07-21 04:16:56 PM  

SithLord: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x383]

Yeah, Obama was really struggling with racial prejudice 35 years ago.  What a farkin' hack.


No shiat, try growing up WHITE in Hawaii all those years ago. I'm not sure if it got any better but growing up there in the 70's and 80's (looking like a kid from the village of the damned) was interesting and difficult at times. I got to experience racial hatred and intolerance personally and so I generally know that all races of people can be assholes and screaming about racism is racism more often than not.

Now I hate everyone equally.
 
2013-07-21 04:16:59 PM  

The Lone Gunman: cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right

Seriously, the trial is over.  And I'm sure that there will be a civil trial, but the DOJ needs to step away from this.

Besides, jailing Zimmerman at this point will accomplish nothing.  If they really want justice for Trayvon, they need to get rid of "Stand Your Ground", because cops have a tough enough time without prospective serial killers posing as "protectors of the community".


Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with the case.  The defense didn't even bring it up in the trial.
 
2013-07-21 04:17:57 PM  
Why are we still focused on this case when there are real things going on that actually matter?
 
2013-07-21 04:21:08 PM  

Skyrmion: One of the interesting aspects of this story is that this is pretty much a complete 180 from what the ACLU said just a few days ago, when they were encouraging the Dept. of Justice to investigate Zimmerman. I'd love to know what kind of conversations took place behind the scenes at the ACLU.


My guess:  A lawyer experienced in such matters advised the ACLU leadership that a federal civil rights case against Zimmerman would be a losing proposition (and based on the absence of evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin because he was black, it would be).  Since it would have looked bad for the ACLU to admit that it was mistaken on this point, it had to find some other way to come out against a civil-rights based prosecution of Zimmerman.  I think a Fifth Amendment argument against prosecuting Zimmerman is bullsh*t; back in the '60s, the Johnson administration successfully prosecuted several murderers of civil/voting rights workers in the South under civil rights statutes after the latter were acquitted by local courts of their murders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viola_Liuzzo?oldid=0
 
2013-07-21 04:22:01 PM  

vbob: Anyone tried to get through this yet? (just over 35 minutes)
Starts out weak, but then starts listing a lot of stuff that came out in the trial.
For some reason, the MSM failed to mention a lot. Or so it would seem.
Anyway, for those who need more - here 'tis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuH_YuBtH40

Compelling? or Gut Wrenching. You be the judge.
/that's a pun


Ah. The self proclaimed Philosopher who builds his strawmen and knocks them down.
 
2013-07-21 04:24:48 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Zimmerman wasn't tried on a civil rights violation, thus if the feds do so, it's not double jeopardy.


Precedent says you're right.  Look up Viola Liuzzo.
 
2013-07-21 04:30:29 PM  

tirob: Precedent says you're right.  Look up Viola Liuzzo.


Are you being serious right now?
 
2013-07-21 04:35:31 PM  
I think "Dual Soveringty Doctrine" applies to this. Am I wrong?
 
2013-07-21 04:35:39 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Skyrmion: She said Trayvon threw the first punch?

Yes, she said that she believes Trayvon threw the first punch.


Not in court.
 
2013-07-21 04:38:28 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Popcorn Johnny: Holder and Obama are incompetent, race baiting morons. Stand your ground and race had not a farking thing to do with the Zim case and yet there they are on TV talking about both of them every chance they get.

Stand your ground had nothing to do with it.  ? You're dumb.


FIFY

/idiot
 
2013-07-21 04:38:55 PM  

tirob: Not in court.


Of course not, her court testimony was all spun to make it look like Trayvon was just trying to get home.
 
2013-07-21 04:39:08 PM  

OgreMagi: The Lone Gunman: cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right

Seriously, the trial is over.  And I'm sure that there will be a civil trial, but the DOJ needs to step away from this.

Besides, jailing Zimmerman at this point will accomplish nothing.  If they really want justice for Trayvon, they need to get rid of "Stand Your Ground", because cops have a tough enough time without prospective serial killers posing as "protectors of the community".

Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with the case.  The defense didn't even bring it up in the trial.


Was the jury not told that as long as Zimmerman felt that his life was threatened at any time during the incident that he would nit have been found guilty?

This has echos of bernard Goetz, but even Goetz wasn't looking for trouble.

Zimmerman was acting foolishly and caused someone's death. He will have to live with that for the rest of his life. I am sure there are those hear who cheer and revel Martin's death, but, well, there are no monsters like people can be.
 
2013-07-21 04:41:11 PM  
Zimmerman's life will never be the same. He has to ALWAYS look over his shoulder. He needs to change his name and get plastic surgery. The line to kill him is very long and it's a line packed with patient people.
 
2013-07-21 04:42:06 PM  

Abuse Liability: brantgoose: Dear ACLU,

He's not being charged for the same crime. He was charged with manslaughter, now he is likely to be charged with violating the civil rights of the deceased on the pretext of his race, age and sex. And you didn't put your answer in the form of a question. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR YOU.

Love, Brantgoose

Know how we all know you know nothing about this case.
/We know.
//know know know


Please explain why you feel his argument, which correctly stated Zimmerman was charged with manslaughter in its assertion of historical fact, and which relies on an accurate if simplified understanding of a doctrine of constitutional law governing successive prosecutions, reveals he knows "nothing about this case."
 
2013-07-21 04:42:38 PM  

coyo: Zimmerman was acting foolishly and caused someone's death.


Zimmerman was reporting a suspicious person to the police and attempting to provide that persons location. What a moron, right?
 
2013-07-21 04:44:11 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: coyo: Zimmerman was acting foolishly and caused someone's death.

Zimmerman was reporting a suspicious person to the police and attempting to provide that persons location. What a moron, right?


And following him around against Sanford PD's own NW protocol, of which Zimmerman was personally aware.
 
2013-07-21 04:44:22 PM  

RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


It works for extrajudicial executions and universal surveillance, so why not?

Democracy's been dead here for a while, rule of law is following.
 
2013-07-21 04:46:12 PM  

xanadian: Well, DUH.  The whole story is tragic, but George was acquitted.  Let it go man, coz it's GONE.


If everyone let it go then the race pimps like Jackson, Sharpton and all of their wannabes wouldn't be able to make a living.
 
2013-07-21 04:48:56 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: tirob: Precedent says you're right.  Look up Viola Liuzzo.

Are you being serious right now?


Yes.  Look up Viola Liuzzo.  I linked the Wiki article on her further up the page.
 
2013-07-21 04:49:11 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: coyo: Zimmerman was acting foolishly and caused someone's death.

Zimmerman was reporting a suspicious person to the police and attempting to provide that persons location. What a moron, right?


What did the police tell him, and what was suspicious that he had seen?
 
2013-07-21 04:49:46 PM  

youncasqua: Abuse Liability: brantgoose: Dear ACLU,

He's not being charged for the same crime. He was charged with manslaughter, now he is likely to be charged with violating the civil rights of the deceased on the pretext of his race, age and sex. And you didn't put your answer in the form of a question. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR YOU.

Love, Brantgoose

Know how we all know you know nothing about this case.
/We know.
//know know know

Please explain why you feel his argument, which correctly stated Zimmerman was charged with manslaughter in its assertion of historical fact, and which relies on an accurate if simplified understanding of a doctrine of constitutional law governing successive prosecutions, reveals he knows "nothing about this case."


No
 
2013-07-21 04:50:23 PM  

youncasqua: And following him around against Sanford PD's own NW protocol, of which Zimmerman was personally aware.


Zim wasn't out patrolling as a NW, he was on his way to the store. Even if he was, he did noting in violation of any law when he exited his vehicle in an attempt to remain in sight of Trayvon after the Skittles kid took off running.
 
2013-07-21 04:50:26 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Oh boy, here we go. Please enlighten us as to what stand your ground had to do with the case.


Travon Martin stood his ground against a guy who was stalking and intimidating him, however this defence was rejected and he was sentenced to execution by lethal shooting.
 
2013-07-21 04:50:40 PM  

RexTalionis: In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


Actually, there is some reason to  believe the ACLU is more correct on that than the current "dual-sovereign" doctrine.

Apparently, that doctrine wasn't part of English common law, nor was it understood to be permissible by early American courts, but was pretty much made up out of whole cloth in 1852 by the infamous Taney court (you know, the same one that gave us Dred Scott).

That link is to a cert petition asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 'dual sovereign' doctrine, under the idea that originalism trumps stare decisis, when the two are at odds with each other.
 
2013-07-21 04:50:54 PM  

OgreMagi: The Lone Gunman: cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right

Seriously, the trial is over.  And I'm sure that there will be a civil trial, but the DOJ needs to step away from this.

Besides, jailing Zimmerman at this point will accomplish nothing.  If they really want justice for Trayvon, they need to get rid of "Stand Your Ground", because cops have a tough enough time without prospective serial killers posing as "protectors of the community".

Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with the case.  The defense didn't even bring it up in the trial.


The judge included it in her charge to the jury.
 
2013-07-21 04:50:54 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Skyrmion: She said Trayvon threw the first punch?

Yes, she said that she believes Trayvon threw the first punch.


And four other jurors have distanced themselves from her statements.

But it's irrelevant anyway, because the jury wasn't asked to issue a special verdict on the question of whether or not Trayvon threw the first punch. Zimmerman's neither proves Zimmernan's actual innocence, nor proves Trayvon's guilt. And when you objectively evaluate the evidence, there is less reason to believe Trayvon threw the first punch than that Zimmerman did.

A rational person may believe the state failed to prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No rational person may simultaneously acquit Zimmerman, and convict Trayvon.
 
2013-07-21 04:51:54 PM  

tirob: Yes.  Look up Viola Liuzzo.  I linked the Wiki article on her further up the page.


Yes, I refreshed my memory by reading the Wiki. You can't possibly be comparing that case to this one.
 
2013-07-21 04:52:02 PM  

hardinparamedic: Why do people keep pulling things from their ass about Marissa Alexander. That was never a stand your ground case, either. It was a clear cut case of attempted murder based on the evidence and Alexander's own statements.


First, yes, there was a stand-your-ground hearing; immunity for her was denied. And, yes, I completely agree about your assessment of the case, but therein lies my point about stand-your-ground laws in general, and in particular Florida's, and the inconsistency with its application: which is the problematic nature of imposing no duty no retreat, and unfettered right to use force up to and including but not necessarily lethal force, if  at any time during an altercation a defendant reasonably fears for their life, largely regardless of context.

That's the point: it's too broad, and inconsistencies in its application even before you consider racial issues shows it. As those articles I mentioned listed, repeat violent offenders have been acquitted under stand-your-ground. People who blatantly  started altercations but lost the upper hand have been acuitted under it. I mean, the chick who claimed to be a vampire was denied immunity under stand-your-ground, but then again she claimed to be a vampire (and she tried to claim an elderly paraplegic was trying to rape her).
 
2013-07-21 04:52:48 PM  

youncasqua: And four other jurors have distanced themselves from her statements.


They've distanced themselves from a statement Trayvon's friend made in an interview after the trial?
 
2013-07-21 04:53:38 PM  

AcneVulgaris: Democracy's been dead here for a while, rule of law is following.


Oh, rule of law will still continue.  They had the rule of law in the old Soviet Union, and in Maoist China, and in Nazi Germany.  They just re-write and re-interpret the laws, but they are still living under the rule of law.

"Rule of law", in and of itself, isn't necessarily a positive thing.  At best, it's neutral.
 
2013-07-21 04:53:48 PM  

youncasqua: And when you objectively evaluate the evidence, there is less reason to believe Trayvon threw the first punch than that Zimmerman did.


Sure there is, if you're ignorant of the facts.
 
2013-07-21 04:54:22 PM  

youncasqua: Popcorn Johnny: Skyrmion: She said Trayvon threw the first punch?

Yes, she said that she believes Trayvon threw the first punch.

And four other jurors have distanced themselves from her statements.

But it's irrelevant anyway, because the jury wasn't asked to issue a special verdict on the question of whether or not Trayvon threw the first punch. Zimmerman's neither proves Zimmernan's actual innocence, nor proves Trayvon's guilt. And when you objectively evaluate the evidence, there is less reason to believe Trayvon threw the first punch than that Zimmerman did.
.

There was no evidence on this point at trial.
 
2013-07-21 04:56:19 PM  

that bosnian sniper: That's the point: it's too broad, and inconsistencies in its application even before you consider racial issues shows it. As those articles I mentioned listed, repeat violent offenders have been acquitted under stand-your-ground. People who blatantly  started altercations but lost the upper hand have been acuitted under it. I mean, the chick who claimed to be a vampire was denied immunity under stand-your-ground, but then again she claimed to be a vampire (and she tried to claim an elderly paraplegic was trying to rape her).


I think I see what you're saying now.
 
2013-07-21 04:56:52 PM  
That the ACLU is willing to defend him proves Zimmerman isn't white.
 
2013-07-21 05:00:15 PM  

tirob: The judge included it in her charge to the jury.


Because it was part of the standard jury instructions for self-defense cases.
 
2013-07-21 05:01:32 PM  

RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


True but not necessarily correct. SCOTUS are made up of human beings either. The ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution can just be as valid as SCOTUS's.
Case in point.... how many times have we seen even the individual justices have disagreed amongst themselves on their interpretation of the constitution!
 
2013-07-21 05:03:01 PM  

tirob: Skyrmion: One of the interesting aspects of this story is that this is pretty much a complete 180 from what the ACLU said just a few days ago, when they were encouraging the Dept. of Justice to investigate Zimmerman. I'd love to know what kind of conversations took place behind the scenes at the ACLU.

My guess:  A lawyer experienced in such matters advised the ACLU leadership that a federal civil rights case against Zimmerman would be a losing proposition (and based on the absence of evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin because he was black, it would be).  Since it would have looked bad for the ACLU to admit that it was mistaken on this point, it had to find some other way to come out against a civil-rights based prosecution of Zimmerman.


I don't know, I doubt it's that arbitrary. As I posted upthread, the ACLU has a history of standing against this kind of double-jeopardy and maintained it vocally even through the Rodney King trials. I'm sure the ACLU was internally divided.
 
2013-07-21 05:03:54 PM  

that bosnian sniper: People who blatantly  started altercations but lost the upper hand have been acuitted under it.


That can happen under standard self-defense laws.  In fact, if you start an altercation, that doesn't mean you give up your right to defend yourself.  You are limited, though, in that you must retreat if you possibly can, but George Zimmerman, according to his testimony and that of eyewitnesses, couldn't retreat.

Even if you believe Zimmerman started the fight, and even if you tried him under state laws where you have a duty to retreat, he still would have been acquitted.
 
2013-07-21 05:04:55 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: tirob: Yes.  Look up Viola Liuzzo.  I linked the Wiki article on her further up the page.

Yes, I refreshed my memory by reading the Wiki. You can't possibly be comparing that case to this one.


The facts of the two cases are completely different.  The precedent of a federal prosecution for civil rights violations (prospective in Zimmerman's case) after a state court acquittal on murder charges is the same.
 
2013-07-21 05:05:25 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

True but not necessarily correct. SCOTUS are made up of human beings either. The ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution can just be as valid as SCOTUS's.
Case in point.... how many times have we seen even the individual justices have disagreed amongst themselves on their interpretation of the constitution!


Wait... so you mean people have to get before them and argue their point? They must convince others that their interpretation is the correct one? People should do this for a living.
 
2013-07-21 05:06:06 PM  

coyo: This has echos of bernard Goetz, but even Goetz wasn't looking for trouble.


Don't forget that Bernie Goetz was acquitted of all charges except unregistered possession of a handgun.
 
2013-07-21 05:08:00 PM  

ReverendJynxed: SuperNinjaToad: RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

True but not necessarily correct. SCOTUS are made up of human beings either. The ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution can just be as valid as SCOTUS's.
Case in point.... how many times have we seen even the individual justices have disagreed amongst themselves on their interpretation of the constitution!

Wait... so you mean people have to get before them and argue their point? They must convince others that their interpretation is the correct one? People should do this for a living.


No wai! We should settle this via social media. Like for guilty, comment for guilty. And share with your friends!
 
2013-07-21 05:09:30 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Oh_Enough_Already: Maybe it's a Florida thing when 15-year-old white girls  from there are the only folks standing up to the black thugs Trayvons infesting and terrorizing downtown Chicago.

Of course, funny enough, the article also mentions the cops were called, who actually arrested people and found  other stolen phones in the process. And, best of all,  nobody got farking shot to death. Amazing how that works, right?

And, indeed, it must be a Florida thing when attractive and successful defendants keep getting denied stand-your-ground protection and convicted  anyways, even when castle doctrine  also applies. Where's the outrage from the Bootstrapply Second Amendment Solutions club when it's black men and women defending themselves as is their legal right under Florida state law?


Here is your outrage

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/tim-mcnabb/black-man-shoots- w hite-teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/
 
2013-07-21 05:09:31 PM  

dittybopper: tirob: The judge included it in her charge to the jury.

Because it was part of the standard jury instructions for self-defense cases.


Is there any record of whether the prosecution moved to have this part of the charge struck because they believed it to be inapplicable to the case?    ;-)
 
2013-07-21 05:10:23 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: And following him around against Sanford PD's own NW protocol, of which Zimmerman was personally aware.

Zim wasn't out patrolling as a NW, he was on his way to the store.


Oh, well that makes the choice to follow Trayvon around a responsible one! Because when you're not on patrol, it makes more sense to follow people around than when you are.

Terrific argument.

GZ declined an opportunity to join a citizens patrol group. To my knowledge he never officially patrolled. But the point of NW is that everyone monitors the neighborhood all the time.

Even if he was, he did noting in violation of any law when he exited his vehicle in an attempt to remain in sight of Trayvon after the Skittles kid took off running.

Wait a second. Zimmerman said he didn't run, but that he merrily skipped away, evincing no fear of Zimmerman whatsoever.

Oh wait. That's his amended version of events, not what he said on the phone. I'm sorry, it's hard for me to keep up.

The fallacy in your argument is that it accords Zimmerman's words probative value, of which they have none. We've no credible reason to believe Zimmerman followed Trayvon to keep him in sight. The credible evidence shows Zimmerman followed Trayvon with an aggressive purpose.

And anyway, it's less than clear he wasn't committing a crime. Florida statute specifically defines stalking as two incidents of following a person with malicious purpose. It further defines "course of conduct" as:

"a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose."

We may permissibly infer Zimmerman's malicious purpose from his apparent assumption of Trayvon's criminality, his use of epithets to describe him, and his chambering of a round in his gun while on the phone with police.

By analogy to the statute's "course of conduct" definition, we may argue that two instances of "following" a person may happen over any period time, "however short," and which evinces continuity of purpose.

Here, Zimmerman lost track of Trayvon, and started following him again more than once. Hence, Zimmerman was criminally stalking Trayvon within the meaning of Florida law.

I'm sorry, you don't just get to decide someone is a criminal, and follow him around with a loaded gun. It is reckless, aggressive, and often criminal.
 
2013-07-21 05:15:46 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: coyo: Zimmerman was acting foolishly and caused someone's death.

Zimmerman was reporting a suspicious person black teenager in a hoodieto the police and attempting to provide that persons location. What a moron, right?



Are you seriously trying to suggest that Zimmerman knew what he was doing when he profiled Martin as a criminal threat?   You do understand that is this the heart of the matter, right?  That black parents all over country are terrified that their teenage son could be the next Trayvon Martin?

Whatever else might be said about George Zimmerman, there is no debating that he was acting like a moron that night.
 
2013-07-21 05:15:50 PM  

Mistymtnhop: RandomAxe: Popcorn Johnny: What % of teens are perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?

If I understand your use of "perusing", I'd say probably somewhere near 50%, at some point during their teen years. That was probably about right back when I was a teen, too.

I'm sorry, I never saw where Martin was charged and convicted of trying to attain a firearm. And I've been following the case pretty closely. This is news to me. Is there a police report?


The evidence obtain from Martin's cell phone included a text message exchange involving the illegal sell of a firearm.  He was not charged because he was dead.  If you want to read it for yourself, just search for transcripts of the trail.  Or you might get lucky if you search on something more specific.  But if you had actually been following the case closely, you would already know this.  I suspect that your definition of "following the case closely" is limited to swallowing whole the filtered information provided by the main stream media.
 
2013-07-21 05:16:06 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: And four other jurors have distanced themselves from her statements.

They've distanced themselves from a statement Trayvon's friend made in an interview after the trial?


Pardon me. I thought you referred to the publicity seeking juror's statements. But if you're referring to Jeantel's statements, they have roughly the same probative value as Zimmerman's. They should be treated similarly, which means accorded no weight.
 
2013-07-21 05:18:18 PM  

tirob: The facts of the two cases are completely different.  The precedent of a federal prosecution for civil rights violations (prospective in Zimmerman's case) after a state court acquittal on murder charges is the same.


It's nowhere close to the same. Those juries and trials were obviously tainted by racism, there's no evidence of that in the Zim proceedings and verdict.
 
2013-07-21 05:19:20 PM  

Government Fromage: ReverendJynxed: SuperNinjaToad: RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

True but not necessarily correct. SCOTUS are made up of human beings either. The ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution can just be as valid as SCOTUS's.
Case in point.... how many times have we seen even the individual justices have disagreed amongst themselves on their interpretation of the constitution!

Wait... so you mean people have to get before them and argue their point? They must convince others that their interpretation is the correct one? People should do this for a living.

No wai! We should settle this via social media. Like for guilty, comment for guilty. And share with your friends!


i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-21 05:19:38 PM  

coyo: The Numbers: coyo: Popcorn Johnny: coyo: Obama was a fool for thinking his opponents had any shred of human decency or honor, that's for sure.

Obama's supporters were a fool for thinking he was different from any other politician.

What evidence do you have that they thought that? It's an interesting myth you buy in to, that he was 'worshipped'.

Pretty much every serious politician ever has had their 'worshippers' - those that believe they can do no wrong and will twist reality to maintain that view. It's pretty standard human behavior. Why would Obama be different? Methinks you're a touch too sensitive on this issue.

/He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.

The only people I've ever heard refer to him as 'the messiah' are Republicans.


People in cults are always the least likely to refer to themselves as being part of a cult. Doesn't mean they aren't.in a cult. Same applies here.

As for being 'naughty', and a 'boy', he's the most adult politician in the room.

Did you not get the reference?
 
2013-07-21 05:20:26 PM  

Skyrmion: tirob: Skyrmion: One of the interesting aspects of this story is that this is pretty much a complete 180 from what the ACLU said just a few days ago, when they were encouraging the Dept. of Justice to investigate Zimmerman. I'd love to know what kind of conversations took place behind the scenes at the ACLU.

My guess:  A lawyer experienced in such matters advised the ACLU leadership that a federal civil rights case against Zimmerman would be a losing proposition (and based on the absence of evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin because he was black, it would be).  Since it would have looked bad for the ACLU to admit that it was mistaken on this point, it had to find some other way to come out against a civil-rights based prosecution of Zimmerman.

I don't know, I doubt it's that arbitrary. As I posted upthread, the ACLU has a history of standing against this kind of double-jeopardy and maintained it vocally even through the Rodney King trials. I'm sure the ACLU was internally divided.


I did qualify what I said as conjecture.  My main point was that I don't buy the idea that a civil rights prosecution of Zimmerman would be a Fifth Amendment violation, at least based on the precedent that I know of, and of which the ACLU is certainly aware.  However, even a summer law intern with one year of law school under his belt would have enough sense to know that a civil rights prosecution of Zimmerman would crash and burn on the merits.
 
2013-07-21 05:21:04 PM  
Funny to see all the Black Racist / White Guilt Liberal assplosion over the ACLU siding with Zimmerman

Even the ACLU sees the stupidity of White Guilt Liberals over this case

Fact is....Trayvon Martin racially and sexually profiled Zimmerman before he assaulted him. Martin got capped in self defense
 
2013-07-21 05:22:37 PM  

Autistic Hiker: Are you seriously trying to suggest that Zimmerman knew what he was doing when he profiled Martin as a criminal threat?   You do understand that is this the heart of the matter, right?  That black parents all over country are terrified that their teenage son could be the next Trayvon Martin?


Are you seriously trying to suggest that if a non-black sees a black acting suspiciously and reports it to police, they're being racist? Race has nothing to do with this case and you and the rest of the racists out there need to get your head out of the stand and try to understand that.
 
2013-07-21 05:22:56 PM  

coyo: OgreMagi: The Lone Gunman: cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right

Seriously, the trial is over.  And I'm sure that there will be a civil trial, but the DOJ needs to step away from this.

Besides, jailing Zimmerman at this point will accomplish nothing.  If they really want justice for Trayvon, they need to get rid of "Stand Your Ground", because cops have a tough enough time without prospective serial killers posing as "protectors of the community".

Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with the case.  The defense didn't even bring it up in the trial.

Was the jury not told that as long as Zimmerman felt that his life was threatened at any time during the incident that he would nit have been found guilty?

This has echos of bernard Goetz, but even Goetz wasn't looking for trouble.

Zimmerman was acting foolishly and caused someone's death. He will have to live with that for the rest of his life. I am sure there are those hear who cheer and revel Martin's death, but, well, there are no monsters like people can be.


Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was straddling him on the ground and punching the shiat out of him and slamming his head into the concrete (the forensics back this up).  That is not a stand your ground situation.  That pure self defense.
 
2013-07-21 05:24:34 PM  

Autistic Hiker: That black parents all over country are terrified that their teenage son could be the next Trayvon Martin?


They should be more terrified of their black children being killed by other blacks.  94% of murdered blacks are killed by blacks.
 
2013-07-21 05:24:35 PM  

dittybopper: tirob: The judge included it in her charge to the jury.

Because it was part of the standard jury instructions for self-defense cases.


This is Professor Jonathan Turley's essay on that:  I am not  a lawyer, I understood little of it, but yes, essentially he goes through point by point to say what you just said. But it is interestingly nuanced in that Professor Turley does not like SYG, but explains how what seems to be its use in the jury instructions is not.

http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/20/the-stand-your-ground-law-and-t he -zimmerman-trial/
 
2013-07-21 05:24:38 PM  

Autistic Hiker: Popcorn Johnny: coyo: Zimmerman was acting foolishly and caused someone's death.

Zimmerman was reporting a suspicious person black teenager in a hoodieto the police and attempting to provide that persons location. What a moron, right?


Are you seriously trying to suggest that Zimmerman knew what he was doing when he profiled Martin as a criminal threat?   You do understand that is this the heart of the matter, right?  That black parents all over country are terrified that their teenage son could be the next Trayvon Martin?

Whatever else might be said about George Zimmerman, there is no debating that he was acting like a moron that night.


The only reason they are terrified their children will be the next Trayvon Martin is that they don't know the facts of the case.

Don't want your child to be the next Trayvon Martin? Give him a talking to, and tell him that if he holds someone down on the ground and continues to assault that person, he might get shot when the person he is beating pulls a gun and fires it in self-defense. Tell him not to get I fights for no better reason than a "creepy ass cracker" is looking at them funny.

Problem solved.
 
2013-07-21 05:25:13 PM  
youncasqua:
.

The fallacy in your argument is that it accords Zimmerman's words probative value, of which they have none. We've no credible reason to believe Zimmerman followed Trayvon to keep him in sight. The credible evidence shows Zimmerman followed Trayvon with an aggressive purpose.

And anyway, it's less than clear he wasn't committing a crime. Florida statute specifically defines stalking as two incidents of following a person with malicious purpose. It further defines "course of conduct" as:

"a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose."

We may permissibly infer Zimmerman's malicious purpose from his apparent assumption of Trayvon's criminality, his use of epithets to describe him, and his chambering of a round in his gun while on the phone with police.

By analogy to the statute's "course of conduct" definition, we may argue that two instances of "following" a person may happen over any period time, "however short," ...


Hey look everyone, this guy was able decipher everything in a way that would have given TM his due justice.
I wonder why the prosecution didn't realize all this from the get-go?
 
2013-07-21 05:27:20 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Autistic Hiker: Are you seriously trying to suggest that Zimmerman knew what he was doing when he profiled Martin as a criminal threat?   You do understand that is this the heart of the matter, right?  That black parents all over country are terrified that their teenage son could be the next Trayvon Martin?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that if a non-black sees a black acting suspiciously and reports it to police, they're being racist? Race has nothing to do with this case and you and the rest of the racists out there need to get your head out of the stand and try to understand that.


i.imgur.com
Click to embiggen
 
2013-07-21 05:28:02 PM  

youncasqua: Pardon me. I thought you referred to the publicity seeking juror's statements. But if you're referring to Jeantel's statements, they have roughly the same probative value as Zimmerman's. They should be treated similarly, which means accorded no weight.


I'll agree that her testimony shouldn't be given any weight, I've felt that way all along. As for Zim's statements, considering they're backed up with evidence, they have to be considered. Could he be lying about some of the details? Sure he could, but considering the evidence, we know he's telling the truth about much of what occurred.
 
2013-07-21 05:29:18 PM  

youncasqua: We may permissibly infer

...

I think you are at least deserving of some kudos for your persistence in continuing with this line of reasoning thread after thread, given how spectacularly wrong it is.

You don't get to infer, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
2013-07-21 05:30:45 PM  

OgreMagi: Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was straddling him on the ground and punching the shiat out of him and slamming his head into the concrete (the forensics back this up). That is not a stand your ground situation. That pure self defense.


Unless Zimmerman started the fight by grabbing Trayvon to keep him from being another "asshole" to get away--which is probably what really happened.

In that case, Trayvon was attacked by a lethally armed adult aggressor. Zimmerman's possession of a firearm gave Trayvon the moral and legal right to use any and all force, including lethal force, to protect his life. And to seek to disarm the man.

Zimmerman's injuries were inflicted by a panicking boy fighting for his life against a man with a gun.
 
2013-07-21 05:32:46 PM  

Doom MD: Here is your outrage

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/tim-mcnabb/black-man-shoots- w hite-teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/


Oh look, conservatives are outraged that a black man shot a white teen, who actually had a record, and was high on pot and meth  and drunk at his time of death, who was seen actually committing crimes, on his own property.

This is my shocked face. Really, I'm speechless.
 
2013-07-21 05:33:14 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: tirob: The facts of the two cases are completely different.  The precedent of a federal prosecution for civil rights violations (prospective in Zimmerman's case) after a state court acquittal on murder charges is the same.

It's nowhere close to the same. Those juries and trials were obviously tainted by racism, there's no evidence of that in the Zim proceedings and verdict.


However true that may be, it is irrelevant for the purposes of my point.  Did you actually read what I wrote?
 
2013-07-21 05:33:59 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Oh look, conservatives are outraged that a black man shot a white teen, who actually had a record, and was high on pot and meth  and drunk at his time of death, who was seen actually committing crimes, on his own property.  And, was acquitted in a state with a much more rigorous standard of self-defense than Florida.

This is my shocked face. Really, I'm speechless.


Whoops, missed a bit. Fixed that right up for myself. I guess I was so shocked and outraged I missed that bit.
 
2013-07-21 05:35:37 PM  

OgreMagi: Autistic Hiker: That black parents all over country are terrified that their teenage son could be the next Trayvon Martin?

They should be more terrified of their black children being killed by other blacks.  94% of murdered blacks are killed by blacks.


For a very graphic demonstration of that principle, see Hood Life 3: The Documentary Continues (VERY NSFW)*, which was filmed in West Palm Beach, Fl and Belle Glades, Fl.

*I am not responsible for loss of sleep due to viewing this documentary
 
2013-07-21 05:35:44 PM  

youncasqua: Unless Zimmerman started the fight by grabbing Trayvon to keep him from being another "asshole" to get away--which is probably what really happened.

In that case, Trayvon was attacked by a lethally armed adult aggressor. Zimmerman's possession of a firearm gave Trayvon the moral and legal right to use any and all force, including lethal force, to protect his life. And to seek to disarm the man.

Zimmerman's injuries were inflicted by a panicking boy fighting for his life against a man with a gun.


How did Trayvon end up back at the T intersection in a fight with Zimmerman? Since you're so good at figuring out what happened, I'm sure you know that as well.
 
2013-07-21 05:36:42 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: Pardon me. I thought you referred to the publicity seeking juror's statements. But if you're referring to Jeantel's statements, they have roughly the same probative value as Zimmerman's. They should be treated similarly, which means accorded no weight.

I'll agree that her testimony shouldn't be given any weight, I've felt that way all along. As for Zim's statements, considering they're backed up with evidence, they have to be considered. Could he be lying about some of the details? Sure he could, but considering the evidence, we know he's telling the truth about much of what occurred.


First off, very little of what Zimmerman said corroborates with the evidence.

Second off, the lies you suggest he told give enough basis to convict, because they show his own belief that the true facts of the case incriminate him.

Third off, the issue now really is less whether there is enough evidence to convict Zimmerman--there is, it just wasn't presented in a persuasive way--the issue is whether there is enough to convict Trayvon.

A rational person may permissibly find the state failed to meet its burden of proof to convict Zimmerman. No rational person can simultaneously acquit Zimmerman, and convict Trayvon. The case that Trayvon was the aggressor is thin thin thin.
 
2013-07-21 05:37:46 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Doom MD: Here is your outrage

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/tim-mcnabb/black-man-shoots- w hite-teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/

Oh look, conservatives are outraged that a black man shot a white teen, who actually had a record, and was high on pot and meth  and drunk at his time of death, who was seen actually committing crimes, on his own property.

This is my shocked face. Really, I'm speechless.


They're not outraged. Read the comments section, they're applauding the guy for defending himself.
 
2013-07-21 05:38:29 PM  

Elegy: OgreMagi: Autistic Hiker: That black parents all over country are terrified that their teenage son could be the next Trayvon Martin?

They should be more terrified of their black children being killed by other blacks.  94% of murdered blacks are killed by blacks.

For a very graphic demonstration of that principle, see Hood Life 3: The Documentary Continues (VERY NSFW)*, which was filmed in West Palm Beach, Fl and Belle Glades, Fl.

*I am not responsible for loss of sleep due to viewing this documentary


I think I'll take your word for that and skip the video.  I don't like watching snuff films.
 
2013-07-21 05:40:21 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: Unless Zimmerman started the fight by grabbing Trayvon to keep him from being another "asshole" to get away--which is probably what really happened.

In that case, Trayvon was attacked by a lethally armed adult aggressor. Zimmerman's possession of a firearm gave Trayvon the moral and legal right to use any and all force, including lethal force, to protect his life. And to seek to disarm the man.

Zimmerman's injuries were inflicted by a panicking boy fighting for his life against a man with a gun.

How did Trayvon end up back at the T intersection in a fight with Zimmerman? Since you're so good at figuring out what happened, I'm sure you know that as well.


I'm not reading all your derp in this thread, but do you ever go outside? You're consistently in these threads, why are you so obsessed?

I mean... Tatsuma at least has a dog in his fight.
 
2013-07-21 05:44:29 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: Unless Zimmerman started the fight by grabbing Trayvon to keep him from being another "asshole" to get away--which is probably what really happened.

In that case, Trayvon was attacked by a lethally armed adult aggressor. Zimmerman's possession of a firearm gave Trayvon the moral and legal right to use any and all force, including lethal force, to protect his life. And to seek to disarm the man.

Zimmerman's injuries were inflicted by a panicking boy fighting for his life against a man with a gun.

How did Trayvon end up back at the T intersection in a fight with Zimmerman? Since you're so good at figuring out what happened, I'm sure you know that as well.


He either lingered in the area, or went home and came back. But Trayvon's mere presence in the area proves only as much as does Zimmerman's. Trayvon may have:

1) lingered in the area because, if we believe Zimmerman's revised Hannity account, he felt he had nothing to fear, was enjoying the rain and the evening, and was in no hurry to get home. So he paused to talk on the phone for a few minutes.

2) lingered in the area because he didn't want to lead the dangerous stalker back to his home to endanger his family.

3) lingered in the area because he wanted to observe the suspicious character stalking him through his own neighborhood.

4) gotten home and come back out for the same reason.

The case that Trayvon started the fight relies on:

1) Statements from history's least credible witnesses,

2) Trayvon's mere presence in the area--while overlooking Zimmerman's presence in the area,

3) Zimmerman's injuries, which may have been inflicted by a panicking boy fighting for his life against a lethally armed adult aggressor,

4) Trayon's lack of injuries, which indicate no more than that Trayvon got the better of the fight, because Zimmerman may have--and probably did--start the fight by grappling the boy to keep him from being another "asshole" to get away.
 
2013-07-21 05:45:48 PM  

youncasqua: First off, very little of what Zimmerman said corroborates with the evidence.

Second off, the lies you suggest he told give enough basis to convict, because they show his own belief that the true facts of the case incriminate him.

Third off, the issue now really is less whether there is enough evidence to convict Zimmerman--there is, it just wasn't presented in a persuasive way--the issue is whether there is enough to convict Trayvon.

A rational person may permissibly find the state failed to meet its burden of proof to convict Zimmerman. No rational person can simultaneously acquit Zimmerman, and convict Trayvon. The case that Trayvon was the aggressor is thin thin thin.


First off, everything he said matches the available evidence.

Secondly what Team Trayvon considers lies are minor changes, mostly in particular words used when retelling his story four different times.

Thirdly, there wasn't one piece of evidence to convict him. An eyewitness places Trayvon on top of Zimmerman and there was no evidence that Zim initiated the physical exchange. There is no evidence that this was anything other than self defense, no matter how much you like to claim there is.

Feel free to give specific details of the evidence that Zim committed a crime.
 
2013-07-21 05:46:00 PM  

The Numbers: coyo: The Numbers: coyo: Popcorn Johnny: coyo: Obama was a fool for thinking his opponents had any shred of human decency or honor, that's for sure.

Obama's supporters were a fool for thinking he was different from any other politician.

What evidence do you have that they thought that? It's an interesting myth you buy in to, that he was 'worshipped'.

Pretty much every serious politician ever has had their 'worshippers' - those that believe they can do no wrong and will twist reality to maintain that view. It's pretty standard human behavior. Why would Obama be different? Methinks you're a touch too sensitive on this issue.

/He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.

The only people I've ever heard refer to him as 'the messiah' are Republicans.

People in cults are always the least likely to refer to themselves as being part of a cult. Doesn't mean they aren't.in a cult. Same applies here.

As for being 'naughty', and a 'boy', he's the most adult politician in the room.

Did you not get the reference?


Now I do. That was embarrassing. It's just that I'm not an individual
 
2013-07-21 05:46:34 PM  

OgreMagi: Elegy: OgreMagi: Autistic Hiker: That black parents all over country are terrified that their teenage son could be the next Trayvon Martin?

They should be more terrified of their black children being killed by other blacks.  94% of murdered blacks are killed by blacks.

For a very graphic demonstration of that principle, see Hood Life 3: The Documentary Continues (VERY NSFW)*, which was filmed in West Palm Beach, Fl and Belle Glades, Fl.

*I am not responsible for loss of sleep due to viewing this documentary

I think I'll take your word for that and skip the video.  I don't like watching snuff films.


Nobody dies, no graphic shootings. The worst part is a kid rather viciously getting his arm broken by a guy in a fight, which was something I had to fast forward through myself; it was pretty brutal and I'm squeamish when it comes to gore.

Lots of fights though, so there is a high level of violence.
 
2013-07-21 05:47:10 PM  

Autistic Hiker: Popcorn Johnny: coyo: Zimmerman was acting foolishly and caused someone's death.

Zimmerman was reporting a suspicious person black teenager in a hoodieto the police and attempting to provide that persons location. What a moron, right?


Are you seriously trying to suggest that Zimmerman knew what he was doing when he profiled Martin as a criminal threat?   You do understand that is this the heart of the matter, right?  That black parents all over country are terrified that their teenage son could be the next Trayvon Martin?

Whatever else might be said about George Zimmerman, there is no debating that he was acting like a moron that night.


As much as I hate to do so, now that I have seen and heard the evidence (that which was given in court and that which was made public outside the courtroom), I now believe that Zimmerman may have had adequate reason to report Martin to the police as a suspicious person.  In going over the shooting scene in the days just after Martin's death, police found what I saw described as either a jimmy or a burglar's tool in the bushes nearby.  I believe that Chris Serino made tangential mention of this in court.  If this tool was Martin's--and it may have been, given the time and place where it was found--it would explain to me several things about Martin's behavior that night--why he walked over to Zimmerman's SUV to check Zimmerman out, why Zimmerman reported that Martin reached into his waist, and why Martin took off running for no explicable reason.  If Martin thought that Zimmerman was either a cop or that Zimmerman was calling the cops, he would have wanted to get the hell out of there and ditch his tool instanter, as he would have faced certain arrest and possible jail time if a cop had found it on him.  Martin had already been caught with a screwdriver (and some jewelry whose provenance was suspect) at school.
 
2013-07-21 05:48:07 PM  

OgreMagi: coyo: OgreMagi: The Lone Gunman: cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right

Seriously, the trial is over.  And I'm sure that there will be a civil trial, but the DOJ needs to step away from this.

Besides, jailing Zimmerman at this point will accomplish nothing.  If they really want justice for Trayvon, they need to get rid of "Stand Your Ground", because cops have a tough enough time without prospective serial killers posing as "protectors of the community".

Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with the case.  The defense didn't even bring it up in the trial.

Was the jury not told that as long as Zimmerman felt that his life was threatened at any time during the incident that he would nit have been found guilty?

This has echos of bernard Goetz, but even Goetz wasn't looking for trouble.

Zimmerman was acting foolishly and caused someone's death. He will have to live with that for the rest of his life. I am sure there are those hear who cheer and revel Martin's death, but, well, there are no monsters like people can be.

Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was straddling him on the ground and punching the shiat out of him and slamming his head into the concrete (the forensics back this up).  That is not a stand your ground situation.  That pure self defense.


You can argue then, that they were both acting in self defense, duh!
 
2013-07-21 05:48:17 PM  

Doom MD: that bosnian sniper: Doom MD: Here is your outrage

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/tim-mcnabb/black-man-shoots- w hite-teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/

Oh look, conservatives are outraged that a black man shot a white teen, who actually had a record, and was high on pot and meth  and drunk at his time of death, who was seen actually committing crimes, on his own property.

This is my shocked face. Really, I'm speechless.

They're not outraged. Read the comments section, they're applauding the guy for defending himself.


This is what people don't seem to get - the foundation for supporting Zimmerman is based on self-defense, not race.

Same goes for Roderick Scott.
 
2013-07-21 05:52:11 PM  

Elegy: Doom MD: that bosnian sniper: Doom MD: Here is your outrage

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/tim-mcnabb/black-man-shoots- w hite-teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/

Oh look, conservatives are outraged that a black man shot a white teen, who actually had a record, and was high on pot and meth  and drunk at his time of death, who was seen actually committing crimes, on his own property.

This is my shocked face. Really, I'm speechless.

They're not outraged. Read the comments section, they're applauding the guy for defending himself.

This is what people don't seem to get - the foundation for supporting Zimmerman is based on self-defense, not race.

Same goes for Roderick Scott.


Common sense would indicate they were both fighting for their lives. If Zimmerman had been the one killed, would Martin deserve the same verdict?
 
2013-07-21 05:52:36 PM  

tirob: dittybopper: tirob: The judge included it in her charge to the jury.

Because it was part of the standard jury instructions for self-defense cases.

Is there any record of whether the prosecution moved to have this part of the charge struck because they believed it to be inapplicable to the case?    ;-)


It's legal boilerplate.  If the judge struck it out of the jury instructions, that would be automatic grounds for appeal by the defense simply because the jury wasn't fully informed of Zimmerman's rights under state law.
 
2013-07-21 05:53:09 PM  

Elegy: the foundation for supporting Zimmerman is based on self-defense, not race.


It doesn't help that argument when a lot of the comments that have been made have not been on self-defense, but have been racial in nature, and highly inflammatory at that.

What people SHOULD be pointing out is that there are no heroes in this. At all.
 
2013-07-21 05:55:08 PM  

youncasqua: lingered in the area because he didn't want to lead the dangerous stalker back to his home to endanger his family.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yes, a terrified for his life kid is going to be thinking like a master spy. Of all the ridiculous Team Trayvon talking points, this is the most hilarious. Lets also remember that he never called 911, ran through the neighborhood screaming for help or pounded on doors looking for somebody to save him.

One thing that's certain from what we know, Trayvon was not afraid that night.
 
2013-07-21 05:56:09 PM  

coyo: OgreMagi: coyo: OgreMagi: The Lone Gunman: cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right

Seriously, the trial is over.  And I'm sure that there will be a civil trial, but the DOJ needs to step away from this.

Besides, jailing Zimmerman at this point will accomplish nothing.  If they really want justice for Trayvon, they need to get rid of "Stand Your Ground", because cops have a tough enough time without prospective serial killers posing as "protectors of the community".

Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with the case.  The defense didn't even bring it up in the trial.

Was the jury not told that as long as Zimmerman felt that his life was threatened at any time during the incident that he would nit have been found guilty?

This has echos of bernard Goetz, but even Goetz wasn't looking for trouble.

Zimmerman was acting foolishly and caused someone's death. He will have to live with that for the rest of his life. I am sure there are those hear who cheer and revel Martin's death, but, well, there are no monsters like people can be.

Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was straddling him on the ground and punching the shiat out of him and slamming his head into the concrete (the forensics back this up).  That is not a stand your ground situation.  That pure self defense.

You can argue then, that they were both acting in self defense, duh!


Nope.  If Martin started the fight (which the evidence all suggests), he would not have been able to invoke self defense.  All the evidence pointed to Martin starting the fight, so Zimmerman was justified in acting in self defense.

An important point you may have missed.  Zimmerman was walking BACK to his truck.  He was no longer following Martin.
 
2013-07-21 05:57:40 PM  

youncasqua: Zimmerman's possession of a firearm gave Trayvon the moral and legal right to use any and all force, including lethal force, to protect his life. And to seek to disarm the man.


Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman was armed.

If he did, he probably wouldn't have doubled back to confront him.
 
2013-07-21 05:58:09 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: lingered in the area because he didn't want to lead the dangerous stalker back to his home to endanger his family.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yes, a terrified for his life kid is going to be thinking like a master spy. Of all the ridiculous Team Trayvon talking points, this is the most hilarious. Lets also remember that he never called 911, ran through the neighborhood screaming for help or pounded on doors looking for somebody to save him.

One thing that's certain from what we know, Trayvon was not afraid that night.


Young men trend to think they are immortal, but seriously, his behavior was very consistent with fight or flight. Of the things you have said, your last statement is the least credible.
 
2013-07-21 05:58:14 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: One thing that's certain from what we know, Trayvon was not afraid that night.


Really? You were there? Or you psychically remote viewed his mind?
 
2013-07-21 05:59:11 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: lingered in the area because he didn't want to lead the dangerous stalker back to his home to endanger his family.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yes, a terrified for his life kid is going to be thinking like a master spy. Of all the ridiculous Team Trayvon talking points, this is the most hilarious. Lets also remember that he never called 911, ran through the neighborhood screaming for help or pounded on doors looking for somebody to save him.

One thing that's certain from what we know, Trayvon was not afraid that night.


Sorry, but that's pretty much the same level of bull as youncasqua is peddling. It is far from certain what Trayvon was actually feeling.
 
2013-07-21 06:00:01 PM  

dittybopper: youncasqua: Zimmerman's possession of a firearm gave Trayvon the moral and legal right to use any and all force, including lethal force, to protect his life. And to seek to disarm the man.

Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman was armed.

If he did, he probably wouldn't have doubled back to confront him.


We can't know what Martin knew. Zimmerman could have threatened him our even brandished the weapon.
 
2013-07-21 06:00:16 PM  

Mock26: I the criminal court finds me not guilty of arson then that has everything to do with you being out of a home, because I am not guilty of setting your house on fire!


Not at all. Their may not be enough evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) to prove you set the house aflame, but their may be sufficient cause/evidence to claim you took part in its destruction (by being there with another who could have been the one to set fire to the house, or by securing blueprints of the house that we claim were used in the plan to set fire). Lots of ways the civil case can be brought even with failure of the criminal.

One (the criminal) seeks to determine guilt or non-guilt for purposes of meting punishment. The other (civil) is designed to seek redress for loss. You are more than welcome to say, "But a criminal court found me innocent" as your defense for the latter, but the two are entirely separate "charges" (as noted above) despite stemming from the same event, just like the murder/gun thing above.

To go with the gun thing: maybe you didn't fire the gun. Maybe you handed your gun to your friend, who shot the victim. In that case, yeah, you could be found innocent of firing the weapon but still culpable for the murder. Or perhaps you are found innocent of the murder (not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt) but the family still sues you for loss because your actions resulted in his death (there is a preponderance of evidence to show you gave the gun to the guy who did kill the victim).
 
2013-07-21 06:00:19 PM  

Amos Quito: ACLU Defends Zimmerman
Heads ASSPLODE natiowide

[www.planetcalypsoforum.com image 399x155]


The only heads assploding are those of people who are ignorant, uneducated, and/or just plain stupid.
 
2013-07-21 06:00:36 PM  

hardinparamedic: Elegy: the foundation for supporting Zimmerman is based on self-defense, not race.

It doesn't help that argument when a lot of the comments that have been made have not been on self-defense, but have been racial in nature, and highly inflammatory at that.
What people SHOULD be pointing out is that there are no heroes in this. At all.


Zimmerman is far from being a hero, but Trayvon is hardly the only victim in this farce, especially with the actions of the state & the Feds.

And if the J4T protestors want to be stupid, that's fine. I don't have to sympathize with their stupidity, however. They're part of the problem of racism in this country, and certainly not the victims in this situation.

It's just a horrible situation. One that the President has consistently gotten on the wrong side of, time after time, IMO. The ACLU at least had the sense to change directions on it.

At least it's opened up the floodgates on the racism debate. Everyone, not just white folk, need to take a good look at what's being called "Racism" in this country, and then figure out why things are farked up from their perspectives.

So, in that regard, I don't care if the Team Zim people are treading on the racist line when it comes to the hyperbole in this shiatty situation, mainly because the racism bogeyman had nothing to do with the case at all until the race baiters in the Black community had to make it about race.
 
2013-07-21 06:01:29 PM  

The Numbers: Sorry, but that's pretty much the same level of bull as youncasqua is peddling. It is far from certain what Trayvon was actually feeling.


He was chit chatting on the phone with a buddy, not something you do when scared. All the evidence shows that Trayvon was anything but scared.
 
2013-07-21 06:01:50 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: First off, everything he said matches the available evidence.


1/10. Try at least.

Secondly what Team Trayvon considers lies are minor changes, mostly in particular words used when retelling his story four different times.

Actually, of the three lies I always discuss, two of them were made in the same statement, and disprovable by objective evidence. The third one was made on Hannity, and is also disprovable by objective evidence.

1) Zimmmerman said the dispatcher instructed him to follow Trayvon,
2) Zimmerman said he asked the dispatcher to have an officer meet him at the clubhouse,
3) Zimmerman told Hannity he'd "never heard" of SYG.

Another one came up today:

4) Zimmerman also said on Hannity that Trayvon didn't run away from him but skipped, and that Trayvon wasn't afraid. Which means either his statement on the 911 tape was false, or his statement on Hannity was false.

Thirdly, there wasn't one piece of evidence to convict him.

You know I'm playing along because I'm bored, right. Your clown shoes, man. They're showing from beneath those curtains.

An eyewitness places Trayvon on top of Zimmerman and there was no evidence that Zim initiated the physical exchange. There is no evidence that this was anything other than self defense, no matter how much you like to claim there is.

Evidence suggesting Zimmerman started the fight:

1) "assholes," "punks,"
2) presumption of Trayvon's criminality.
3) reckless, aggressive choices to follow Trayvon against Sandford NW protocol
4) minute and a half gap between when Zimmerman says the fight started, and when phone records indicate it did.
5) Zimmerman's materially false statements, from which we may permissibly infer deception, consciousness of wrongdoing, and consequent guilt.

Feel free to give specific details of the evidence that Zim committed a crime.

No longer really the issue.
 
2013-07-21 06:02:08 PM  

dittybopper: tirob: dittybopper: tirob: The judge included it in her charge to the jury.

Because it was part of the standard jury instructions for self-defense cases.

Is there any record of whether the prosecution moved to have this part of the charge struck because they believed it to be inapplicable to the case?    ;-)

It's legal boilerplate.  If the judge struck it out of the jury instructions, that would be automatic grounds for appeal by the defense simply because the jury wasn't fully informed of Zimmerman's rights under state law.


Even legal boilerplate can be struck from a charge if one or another side objects to its being read and the judge rules in that side's favor.  Furthermore, neither of us knows whether the Stand Your Ground language in the charge influenced the jury's verdict.  I think that under such circumstances it is inaccurate to say that the Stand Your Ground provisions didn't form part of this case.
 
2013-07-21 06:02:19 PM  

legion_of_doo: I don't care if the Team Zim people are treading on the racist line when it comes to the hyperbole in this shiatty situation, mainly because the racism bogeyman had nothing to do with the case at all until the race baiters in the Black community had to make it about race.


Uh, from the first moment this story broke on the right-wing blogosphere, it's been made about race.
 
2013-07-21 06:02:36 PM  
Why would being scared preclude talking to a friend?
 
2013-07-21 06:03:58 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: The Numbers: Sorry, but that's pretty much the same level of bull as youncasqua is peddling. It is far from certain what Trayvon was actually feeling.

He was chit chatting on the phone with a buddy, not something you do when scared. All the evidence shows that Trayvon was anything but scared.


Outward displays of bravado do not provide certainty as to inner feelings.
 
2013-07-21 06:05:35 PM  

youncasqua: Popcorn Johnny: First off, everything he said matches the available evidence.

1/10. Try at least.

Secondly what Team Trayvon considers lies are minor changes, mostly in particular words used when retelling his story four different times.

Actually, of the three lies I always discuss, two of them were made in the same statement, and disprovable by objective evidence. The third one was made on Hannity, and is also disprovable by objective evidence.

1) Zimmmerman said the dispatcher instructed him to follow Trayvon,
2) Zimmerman said he asked the dispatcher to have an officer meet him at the clubhouse,
3) Zimmerman told Hannity he'd "never heard" of SYG.

Another one came up today:

4) Zimmerman also said on Hannity that Trayvon didn't run away from him but skipped, and that Trayvon wasn't afraid. Which means either his statement on the 911 tape was false, or his statement on Hannity was false.

Thirdly, there wasn't one piece of evidence to convict him.

You know I'm playing along because I'm bored, right. Your clown shoes, man. They're showing from beneath those curtains.

An eyewitness places Trayvon on top of Zimmerman and there was no evidence that Zim initiated the physical exchange. There is no evidence that this was anything other than self defense, no matter how much you like to claim there is.

Evidence suggesting Zimmerman started the fight:

1) "assholes," "punks,"
2) presumption of Trayvon's criminality.
3) reckless, aggressive choices to follow Trayvon against Sandford NW protocol
4) minute and a half gap between when Zimmerman says the fight started, and when phone records indicate it did.
5) Zimmerman's materially false statements, from which we may permissibly infer deception, consciousness of wrongdoing, and consequent guilt.

Feel free to give specific details of the evidence that Zim committed a crime.

No longer really the issue.


You can be convicted if manslaughter (which I believeZimmerman is guilty of) if you cause someones death sure to your negligence.
 
2013-07-21 06:07:41 PM  
If the only thing that made Martin suspicious was his race and his wearing a hoodie, this is certainly about race.
 
2013-07-21 06:09:16 PM  

hardinparamedic: Elegy: the foundation for supporting Zimmerman is based on self-defense, not race.

It doesn't help that argument when a lot of the comments that have been made have not been on self-defense, but have been racial in nature, and highly inflammatory at that.

What people SHOULD be pointing out is that there are no heroes in this. At all.


A lot of comments made from the J4T have been racist and inflammatory in nature.

Just because there are SOME idiots that you happen to despise saying despicable racist things, doesn't mean that we get to throw out things like reasons, facts, and the law.
 
2013-07-21 06:10:22 PM  

youncasqua: 5) Zimmerman's materially false statements, from which we may permissibly infer deception, consciousness of wrongdoing, and consequent guilt.


You know, I'm actually starting to get the impression you genuinely believe this to be true and aren't just one of Fark's more committed (and successful) trolls.
 
2013-07-21 06:10:49 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: The Numbers: Sorry, but that's pretty much the same level of bull as youncasqua is peddling. It is far from certain what Trayvon was actually feeling.

He was chit chatting on the phone with a buddy, not something you do when scared. All the evidence shows that Trayvon was anything but scared.


If Martin was carrying a burglar's tool that evening, as I conjectured in my post at 5:47, he may have indeed been scared--of getting arrested.
 
2013-07-21 06:11:02 PM  

Mrs.Sharpier: I'm not reading all your derp in this thread, but do you ever go outside? You're consistently in these threads, why are you so obsessed?


i39.tinypic.com
 
2013-07-21 06:14:29 PM  

youncasqua: Another one came up today:

4) Zimmerman also said on Hannity that Trayvon didn't run away from him but skipped, and that Trayvon wasn't afraid. Which means either his statement on the 911 tape was false, or his statement on Hannity was false.


You're just not very bright. Zimmerman has always said that Trayvon was running. When he did the interview with Hannity, he used the word "skipping" as a way of attempting to show that Trayvon wasn't running away at full speed, but was being more casual about it. Not finding the right word or way of getting your point across is a hell of a long ways away from lying.

You stay gold though, Pony Boy.
 
2013-07-21 06:15:11 PM  

coyo: dittybopper: youncasqua: Zimmerman's possession of a firearm gave Trayvon the moral and legal right to use any and all force, including lethal force, to protect his life. And to seek to disarm the man.

Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman was armed.

If he did, he probably wouldn't have doubled back to confront him.

We can't know what Martin knew. Zimmerman could have threatened him our even brandished the weapon.


And your evidence for this is, what?

I could be a hot 21 year old nymphomaniac with huge breasts and no gag reflex for all you know.
 
2013-07-21 06:15:25 PM  

hardinparamedic: legion_of_doo: I don't care if the Team Zim people are treading on the racist line when it comes to the hyperbole in this shiatty situation, mainly because the racism bogeyman had nothing to do with the case at all until the race baiters in the Black community had to make it about race.

Uh, from the first moment this story broke on the right-wing blogosphere, it's been made about race.


If you're looking for a first cause for injecting the racial narrative into this case, look no further than Melissa Harris-Perry, who played loose and fast with the facts to sensationalize this story into a narrative about a white supremacist hunting and killing a white child. Edited non-emergency tapes, "farking coons," making a white supremacist out of a Hispanic that was a poster boy for racial tolerance before all this happened, etc.

Just because you happen to agree with MHP's brand of racism more than the conservative brand, doesn't make either of them more right than the other.

Facts make one side more right than the other, racist bullshiat aside.
 
2013-07-21 06:16:47 PM  

dittybopper: coyo: dittybopper: youncasqua: Zimmerman's possession of a firearm gave Trayvon the moral and legal right to use any and all force, including lethal force, to protect his life. And to seek to disarm the man.

Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman was armed.

If he did, he probably wouldn't have doubled back to confront him.

We can't know what Martin knew. Zimmerman could have threatened him our even brandished the weapon.

And your evidence for this is, what?

I could be a hot 21 year old nymphomaniac with huge breasts and no gag reflex for all you know.


Further expanding on this, Martin was on the phone with Rachel Jeantel right up to the physical confrontation, and he apparently didn't mention anything about a gun to her.

Oh, and I'm blond, too.  And I shave.
 
2013-07-21 06:16:52 PM  

coyo: If the only thing that made Martin suspicious was his race and his wearing a hoodie, this is certainly about race.


Then it's a good thing he was concerned about the fact that Martin was walking unusually slowly and looking into people's houses.
 
2013-07-21 06:18:28 PM  

Elegy: Just because you happen to agree with MHP's brand of racism more than the conservative brand, doesn't make either of them more right than the other.


You've got to be shiatting me.
 
2013-07-21 06:31:31 PM  

Wyalt Derp: Popcorn Johnny: Oh boy, here we go. Please enlighten us as to what stand your ground had to do with the case.

Travon Martin stood his ground against a guy who was stalking and intimidating him, however this defence was rejected and he was sentenced to execution by lethal shooting.


Please demonstrate that Mr. Martin faced a reasonable fear of imminent grievous bodily injury or death at the time that he physically attacked Mr. Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-21 06:32:25 PM  

Alleyoop: But we have to keep retrying him...



until we get the verdict we want!


Amboolance chaser.
 
2013-07-21 06:33:48 PM  

youncasqua: OgreMagi: Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was straddling him on the ground and punching the shiat out of him and slamming his head into the concrete (the forensics back this up). That is not a stand your ground situation. That pure self defense.

Unless Zimmerman started the fight by grabbing Trayvon to keep him from being another "asshole" to get away--which is probably what really happened.

In that case, Trayvon was attacked by a lethally armed adult aggressor. Zimmerman's possession of a firearm gave Trayvon the moral and legal right to use any and all force, including lethal force, to protect his life. And to seek to disarm the man.

Zimmerman's injuries were inflicted by a panicking boy fighting for his life against a man with a gun.


Have you considered a career as a state prosecutor? I am certain that you could establish an impressive conviction rate by building cases based upon what "could have" happened, and stating baseless hypothetical scenarios as what "probably" occurred.
 
2013-07-21 06:34:48 PM  

dittybopper: coyo: dittybopper: youncasqua: Zimmerman's possession of a firearm gave Trayvon the moral and legal right to use any and all force, including lethal force, to protect his life. And to seek to disarm the man.

Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman was armed.

If he did, he probably wouldn't have doubled back to confront him.

We can't know what Martin knew. Zimmerman could have threatened him our even brandished the weapon.

And your evidence for this is, what?

I could be a hot 21 year old nymphomaniac with huge breasts and no gag reflex for all you know.



Yea, but huge breasts aren't so attractive on a guy...

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-21 06:35:58 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Mock26: I the criminal court finds me not guilty of arson then that has everything to do with you being out of a home, because I am not guilty of setting your house on fire!

Not at all. Their may not be enough evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) to prove you set the house aflame, but their may be sufficient cause/evidence to claim you took part in its destruction (by being there with another who could have been the one to set fire to the house, or by securing blueprints of the house that we claim were used in the plan to set fire). Lots of ways the civil case can be brought even with failure of the criminal.

One (the criminal) seeks to determine guilt or non-guilt for purposes of meting punishment. The other (civil) is designed to seek redress for loss. You are more than welcome to say, "But a criminal court found me innocent" as your defense for the latter, but the two are entirely separate "charges" (as noted above) despite stemming from the same event, just like the murder/gun thing above.

To go with the gun thing: maybe you didn't fire the gun. Maybe you handed your gun to your friend, who shot the victim. In that case, yeah, you could be found innocent of firing the weapon but still culpable for the murder. Or perhaps you are found innocent of the murder (not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt) but the family still sues you for loss because your actions resulted in his death (there is a preponderance of evidence to show you gave the gun to the guy who did kill the victim).


I fully understand the difference.  I just think that it is wrong.  Regardless of the technical differences you are still trying a person twice for the same crime.  The "technical differences" are nothing more than a convenient excuse to justify double jeopardy.

And back to the arson example.  If I am not guilty of setting your house on fire (from the criminal case) then you should have absolutely no grounds to file a civil suit, because the courts have already found me not guilty.  If I was there but did not set the fire then charge me as an accessory.  If the court determines I am innocent then that should trump everything else and render me immune to civil charges.

Even your gun example is, in my opinion, severely flawed.  If I was not the triggerman but merely provided the gun and if the court finds me not guilty as an accessory then there should be no civil suit.  Couch it in as many terms as you want, but if a criminal court finds me not guilty and the family then takes me to civil court I am still being tried twice for the same crime.  The rulings of the criminal courts can only be fair and just if they override civil charges.  In other words, if the criminal court finds me innocent/not guilty then I should be immune from a civil case.  I am, legally speaking, innocent.  That should trump everything.  If I am found guilty I see no problem with the family seeking monetary compensation in addition to whatever sentence the government imposes, but again, if i am innocent of all criminal charges then that should be the end of it.

And, once again, call it anything you want, quote any technical difference you want, when you boil it all down you are trying someone twice for the same crime.
 
2013-07-21 06:36:22 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: Another one came up today:

4) Zimmerman also said on Hannity that Trayvon didn't run away from him but skipped, and that Trayvon wasn't afraid. Which means either his statement on the 911 tape was false, or his statement on Hannity was false.

You're just not very bright. Zimmerman has always said that Trayvon was running. When he did the interview with Hannity, he used the word "skipping" as a way of attempting to show that Trayvon wasn't running away at full speed, but was being more casual about it. Not finding the right word or way of getting your point across is a hell of a long ways away from lying.

You stay gold though, Pony Boy.


How could he not have found the right word when Hannity asked him directly? Did he not hear Hannity ask:

HANNITY: So he wasn't actually running?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

By contrast, on the 911 tape--when Zimmerman wanted to paint Trayvon as a suspicious character, Zimmerman said:

Zimmerman: He ran.

At least one of those statements is necessarily false. Now, you claim his purpose was to convey Trayvon wasn't running fast. But the full exchange dealt with the question of whether or not Trayvon was afraid--another material issue in the homicide investigation.

get it through your head:

Zimmerman wants to paint Trayvon as suspicious: "He ran."
Zimmerman trying to exculpate himself, knowing Trayvon's fear hurts him legally: "So he wasn't actually running?" "No sir."
 
2013-07-21 06:37:21 PM  

hardinparamedic: Elegy: Just because you happen to agree with MHP's brand of racism more than the conservative brand, doesn't make either of them more right than the other.

You've got to be shiatting me.


Confused about what I would be shiatting you about.

Both sides have exhibited quite a bit of racism in the media circus surrounding this trial. For outright racist conservatives, it is the blanket assumption that Martin was a thug and "got what he deserves."

For outright racist liberals, it was immediately injecting race as a factor into this case when there was no reason to do so, running with the narrative that Zimmerman was a racist when all of the evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion, and basing claims of Zimmerman's racism on nothing more than the fact that Zimmerman's skin was lighter than Martin's. The evidence, in fact, points to zero racism in Zimmerman's part, and quite a bit of racism on Martin's part, but Zimmerman MUST be the racist because "light skinned privilege."

The assumption that Martin was a thug who deserved what he got, based on nothing more than the color of Martin's skin, is racist.

The assumption that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, based on nothing more than the color of Zimmerman's skin, is racist.

Just because you disagree with the conservative brand of racism doesn't mean they haven't gotten the substantive facts of this case correct.

And just because conservative media has gotten the substantive facts of this case correct doesn't somehow legitimate their racism.
 
2013-07-21 06:39:23 PM  

Elegy: Confused about what I would be shiatting you about.


Uh.

Elegy: Just because you happen to agree with MHP's brand of racism more than the conservative brand, doesn't make either of them more right than the other.


stuartreviewsstuff.files.wordpress.com

What the hell is that, man?
 
2013-07-21 06:39:24 PM  

youncasqua: How could he not have found the right word when Hannity asked him directly? Did he not hear Hannity ask:

HANNITY: So he wasn't actually running?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.


Post the rest of the exchange, you disingenuous hack.
 
2013-07-21 06:39:39 PM  

Doom MD: They're not outraged. Read the comments section, they're applauding the guy for defending himself.


Then why the hell is that link and article flying around conservative websites and social media, framed around "why aren't liberals (insert stupid point here)?" JAQ'ing off complete with false equivalencies to George Zimmerman? Liberals can google too, you know, and guess what pops right up on a search for Scott's name  and the article's title.
 
2013-07-21 06:42:10 PM  
HANNITY: You don't think -- why do you think he was running then?

ZIMMERMAN: Maybe I said running but he was more --

HANNITY: You said he was running?

ZIMMERMAN: He was like skipping, going away quickly. He wasn't running out of fear.

HANNITY: You could tell the difference?

ZIMMERMAN: He wasn't running.

HANNITY: He wasn't actually running?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir. HANNITY: That's what you said to the dispatch that you thought he was running. At that point, we could hear the unbuckling of the seat belt and then dispatch asks you at that point, and this became a very key moment that everyone in the media focused on, and the dispatcher asked you are you following him and you said yes. Explain that.

ZIMMERMAN: I meant that I was going in the same direction as him to keep an eye on him so I could tell the police where he was going. I didn't mean that I was actually pursuing him.

HANNITY: This moment where someone suggested you were out of breath on that tape, you were not running?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.
 
2013-07-21 06:45:34 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: How could he not have found the right word when Hannity asked him directly? Did he not hear Hannity ask:

HANNITY: So he wasn't actually running?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

Post the rest of the exchange, you disingenuous hack.


I linked to it, you clod. And I described the context fairly and accurately.

1) Zimmerman wants to paint Trayvon as suspicious: "He ran."
2) Zimmerman trying to exculpate himself, realizing Trayvon's fear of him hurts him legally: "So he wasn't actually running?" "No sir."
 
2013-07-21 06:48:23 PM  

hardinparamedic: Elegy: Confused about what I would be shiatting you about.

Uh.

Elegy: Just because you happen to agree with MHP's brand of racism more than the conservative brand, doesn't make either of them more right than the other.



What the hell is that, man?


Again:

Just because you happen to agree with MHP's brand of racism more than the conservative brand, doesn't make either of them more right than the other about the facts of this case; knowing the facts of the case makes you more right about the facts if this case.

I'm not talking about general assumptions of racism, I'm talking about the specific reporting on this case.
 
2013-07-21 06:50:00 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: HANNITY: You don't think -- why do you think he was running then?

ZIMMERMAN: Maybe I said running but he was more --

HANNITY: You said he was running?

ZIMMERMAN: He was like skipping, going away quickly. He wasn't running out of fear.

HANNITY: You could tell the difference?

ZIMMERMAN: He wasn't running.

HANNITY: He wasn't actually running?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir. HANNITY: That's what you said to the dispatch that you thought he was running. At that point, we could hear the unbuckling of the seat belt and then dispatch asks you at that point, and this became a very key moment that everyone in the media focused on, and the dispatcher asked you are you following him and you said yes. Explain that.

ZIMMERMAN: I meant that I was going in the same direction as him to keep an eye on him so I could tell the police where he was going. I didn't mean that I was actually pursuing him.

HANNITY: This moment where someone suggested you were out of breath on that tape, you were not running?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.


Doncha think the information that he's skipping merrily away, evincing no fear of Zimmerman whatever, is something a dutiful citizen would report about the so-called "suspicious character" he's encountered?
 
2013-07-21 06:55:37 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Doom MD: Here is your outrage

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/tim-mcnabb/black-man-shoots- w hite-teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/

Oh look, conservatives are outraged that a black man shot a white teen, who actually had a record, and was high on pot and meth  and drunk at his time of death, who was seen actually committing crimes, on his own property.

This is my shocked face. Really, I'm speechless.


I get more grumpycatgood.jpg out of the article that the scum got shot in that case, too.  Just pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in our current system.

From my point of view, I'm glad the guy shot the punk charging him.  That's how it should be.
 
2013-07-21 06:57:50 PM  

The Numbers: youncasqua: 5) Zimmerman's materially false statements, from which we may permissibly infer deception, consciousness of wrongdoing, and consequent guilt.

You know, I'm actually starting to get the impression you genuinely believe this to be true and aren't just one of Fark's more committed (and successful) trolls.


How many does it take?

1) dispatcher told me to follow Trayvon--covers Zimmerman's motive for following Trayvon.

2) I asked to have an officer meet me at the clubhouse--covers inference he intended to follow Trayvon.

3) I've never heard of SYG--covers possibility he knew exactly what story to cook up to justify lethal force.

4) He ran/He wasn't running--material in the first instance, because "the wicked flee when no man pursueth." Material in the second instance because it covers inference Trayvon feared Zimmerman.

How many materially false statements does a man have to make in a homicide investigation before you conclude he's lying?

You can make up excuses for any given one of these. But the conjunction of so many objectively provable false statements cannot plausibly be attributed to faulty perception and memory.
 
2013-07-21 07:04:30 PM  

youncasqua: Doncha think the information that he's skipping merrily away, evincing no fear of Zimmerman whatever, is something a dutiful citizen would report about the so-called "suspicious character" he's encountered?


What I think is that when people retell a story, they often change the words used to describe what occurred. Like I said before, Zim's story didn't change, the occasional word did. Write one of your long winded posts and then lets see if you can recite it word for word a few weeks later.
 
2013-07-21 07:06:34 PM  
Another one:

Zimmerman wants to paint Trayvon as suspicious: "He looks like he's in his late teens."
Zimmerman trying to exculpate himself, now that he knows he's a child killer: "I'm sorry, I didn't know how old he was."

Now, it is fair to say there's no necessary contradiction in these two statements. You can simultaneously believe a fact without knowing it.

It is also fair to say this is consistent with Zimmerman's overall pattern of saying whatever he needs to say to portray what he wants in any given moment.
 
2013-07-21 07:07:37 PM  

youncasqua: The Numbers: youncasqua: 5) Zimmerman's materially false statements, from which we may permissibly infer deception, consciousness of wrongdoing, and consequent guilt.

You know, I'm actually starting to get the impression you genuinely believe this to be true and aren't just one of Fark's more committed (and successful) trolls.

How many does it take?

1) dispatcher told me to follow Trayvon--covers Zimmerman's motive for following Trayvon.

2) I asked to have an officer meet me at the clubhouse--covers inference he intended to follow Trayvon.

3) I've never heard of SYG--covers possibility he knew exactly what story to cook up to justify lethal force.

4) He ran/He wasn't running--material in the first instance, because "the wicked flee when no man pursueth." Material in the second instance because it covers inference Trayvon feared Zimmerman.

How many materially false statements does a man have to make in a homicide investigation before you conclude he's lying?

You can make up excuses for any given one of these. But the conjunction of so many objectively provable false statements cannot plausibly be attributed to faulty perception and memory.


Seeing as your entire argument is a joke, I'm finding it incredibly difficult to discern why people are not 1) laughing and 2) treating you as the joke you are.

10/10
 
2013-07-21 07:11:35 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: What I think is that when people retell a story, they often change the words used to describe what occurred. Like I said before, Zim's story didn't change, the occasional word did. Write one of your long winded posts and then lets see if you can recite it word for word a few weeks later.


He was asked directly, using the exact word he used before. He didn't "forget" the word "ran." He specifically denied the previous statement--twice. With motives to explain why he lied too.

Anyway, that's one of four you've come up with an excuse for. What about:

1) dispatcher told me to follow Trayvon
2) i asked to have officer meet me at the clubhouse
3) i've never heard of SYG.

I eagerly await your excuses for Zimmerman's numerous materially false statements. They'll be entertaining reading if nothing more.
 
2013-07-21 07:12:38 PM  

youncasqua: Another one:


Can you offer up any actual evidence to show that Zim started the confrontation?
 
2013-07-21 07:17:51 PM  

youncasqua: How many materially false statements does a man have to make in a homicide investigation before you conclude he's lying?


I love how you people vacillate between Zimmerman being "a bumbling racist who picked a fight and couldn't even land a single punch, and wound up getting lucky in saving his own life" , and "a criminal mastermind who saw an opportunity to murder a black kid as a side trip on his way to getting groceries, allowing himself to get beaten severely, so he'd have a good story to tell".  It's rather entertaining.
 
2013-07-21 07:19:41 PM  

youncasqua: I eagerly await your excuses for Zimmerman's numerous materially false statements. They'll be entertaining reading if nothing more.


I'll be sitting here waiting for you to tell me how Zimmerman saying he had never heard of SYG proves that he wasn't acting in self defense. Being that you think he's lying about everything, it sure is a lucky break that his story matches the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, wouldn't you say?
 
2013-07-21 07:19:49 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: Another one:

Can you offer up any actual evidence to show that Zim started the confrontation?


He speculated it, and he stated that it probably happened. Is that not sufficient?
 
2013-07-21 07:21:44 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: Another one:

Can you offer up any actual evidence to show that Zim started the confrontation?


Let me recount it again.

1) presumption of Trayvon's criminality
2) "punks," "assholes"
3) frustration about assholes "getting away."
4) reckless, aggressive choices to follow Trayvon against protocol.
5) numerous materially false statements ruling out plausibility of faulty perception or memory,
6) proving deception to any person with a lick of common sense
7) giving rise to strong inference of awareness of wrongdoing
8) and an equally strong inference therefrom of underlying guilt.

Once you conclude Zimmerman lied, that allows us to resolve all other evidentiary ambiguities against him.
 
2013-07-21 07:24:22 PM  

youncasqua: Once you conclude Zimmerman lied, that allows us to resolve all other evidentiary ambiguities against him.


Which is why the lead investigator said he believed Zim's account of the events.
 
2013-07-21 07:26:04 PM  

youncasqua: Popcorn Johnny: What I think is that when people retell a story, they often change the words used to describe what occurred. Like I said before, Zim's story didn't change, the occasional word did. Write one of your long winded posts and then lets see if you can recite it word for word a few weeks later.

He was asked directly, using the exact word he used before. He didn't "forget" the word "ran." He specifically denied the previous statement--twice. With motives to explain why he lied too.

Anyway, that's one of four you've come up with an excuse for. What about:

1) dispatcher told me to follow Trayvon
2) i asked to have officer meet me at the clubhouse
3) i've never heard of SYG.

I eagerly await your excuses for Zimmerman's numerous materially false statements. They'll be entertaining reading if nothing more.


I don't know about 1 being a "lie". If I tell someone to keep an eye on a person and report back to me I mean to follow them.

It isn't surprising Zimmerman would interpret the 911 operator telling him to keep her advised on Martin's movements as follow him until she said they didn't need him to do that.
 
2013-07-21 07:38:43 PM  

hardinparamedic: Elegy: Confused about what I would be shiatting you about.

Uh.

Elegy: Just because you happen to agree with MHP's brand of racism more than the conservative brand, doesn't make either of them more right than the other.

[stuartreviewsstuff.files.wordpress.com image 500x375]

What the hell is that, man?


weed

t3.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-21 07:42:50 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: Once you conclude Zimmerman lied, that allows us to resolve all other evidentiary ambiguities against him.

Which is why the lead investigator said he believed Zim's account of the events.


The police were in on it.

[It'sAConspiracy.jpg]
 
2013-07-21 07:51:42 PM  
Hey, youncasqua, question for you. Soon after this became national news, Trayvon's parents and attorney said he was suspended from school for attendance when in fact it was drug related. What does that blatant lie mean?
 
2013-07-21 08:14:26 PM  
Wow. FarkLibtard-assplode in 3...2...
 
2013-07-21 08:14:26 PM  
I would be a life time member of the ACLU if they defended all of our rights.
 
2013-07-21 08:19:29 PM  
Jeep2011:

Hopefully, the ACLU position will cause the crazies heads to explode and we will be done with crazy.

Shiat. Beat me to it in one.
 
2013-07-21 08:24:10 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Are you seriously trying to suggest that if a non-black sees a black acting suspiciously and reports it to police, they're being racist? Race has nothing to do with this case and you and the rest of the racists out there need to get your head out of the stand and try to understand that.


No, dumbass, I'm suggesting that Zimmerman profiling of Martin was incompetent, and basically had to do with Martin being a young black man wearing a hoodie.  His clear inability to correctly identify a true threat, coupled with his wannabe cop overreaction of jumping out of his car and following Martin in a visible and threatening way, are the root cause of this incident, which you and others like you have been desperately trying to explain away ever since, in my view because you want Zimmerman to have been justified in his initial profiling.  The distortion of my remarks into a race specific generalization I did not make is a) a lie on your part, and b) very revealing.
 
2013-07-21 08:29:24 PM  

Autistic Hiker: No, dumbass, I'm suggesting that Zimmerman profiling of Martin was incompetent, and basically had to do with Martin being a young black man wearing a hoodie.


You have not one shred of evidence that Martin being black had anything to do with Zimmerman finding him suspicious. You know what making assumptions based on race makes you?

Ding! We have a winner!!!

Nice name calling by the way.
 
2013-07-21 08:34:20 PM  

Autistic Hiker: Popcorn Johnny: Are you seriously trying to suggest that if a non-black sees a black acting suspiciously and reports it to police, they're being racist? Race has nothing to do with this case and you and the rest of the racists out there need to get your head out of the stand and try to understand that.

No, dumbass, I'm suggesting that Zimmerman profiling of Martin was incompetent, and basically had to do with Martin being a young black man wearing a hoodie.  His clear inability to correctly identify a true threat, coupled with his wannabe cop overreaction of jumping out of his car and following Martin in a visible and threatening way, are the root cause of this incident, which you and others like you have been desperately trying to explain away ever since, in my view because you want Zimmerman to have been justified in his initial profiling.  The distortion of my remarks into a race specific generalization I did not make is a) a lie on your part, and b) very revealing.


His inability to correctly identify a true threat?  What about the makeshift slim jim hidden around where the altercation took place.  I mean, it was kinda shot-in-the-dark lucky, but it lends credence to the statement that he appeared as though he was "on drugs" and "looking around rapidly".  I don't trust any kid in a hoodie after sunset in any neighborhood.  Sometimes they're looking to rob people, and other times they just want to "roll" a house.  I remember being seventeen and its pretty rare that they'll be doing anything productive after dark.  I don't give a shiat enough about my neighbors to call the police, but I know a shady teenager when I see one (hint: all of them wandering around after dark, especially in groups).
 
2013-07-21 08:41:18 PM  

Autistic Hiker: No, dumbass, I'm suggesting that Zimmerman profiling of Martin was incompetent, and basically had to do with Martin being a young black man wearing a hoodie.


Zimmerman's racism is all in your mind.  Have you ever bothered looking at all the good work Zimmerman has done in his life that was for the benefit of black people?

Autistic Hiker: His clear inability to correctly identify a true threat,


Actually, it turns out that Trayvon was indeed a thief, and a violent thug based on the information we've received from his school, and his friend's testimony.

Autistic Hiker: coupled with his wannabe cop overreaction of jumping out of his car and following Martin in a visible and threatening way


Wannabe cops don't call the police, or look to see where a criminal went so they can tell the police.
 
2013-07-21 08:42:24 PM  
Let me get this straight,

Martin hopped up on Skittles and Watermelon drank, confronted Zimmerman who was following him, got into a scuffle and got killed. Black people demanded justice, so Zimmerman goes to Trial. The star witness lied countless times in the meanwhile the Media painted Martin a baby boy while Zimmerman was the KKK member who was White. Mean while the Jury found him not guilty (with the state having nearly NO case at all, use nothing but WHAT IF scenarios - what if Zimmerman Stayed in his car? Not to mention nobody asked "Why didnt Martin run home instead? or be respectful in the confrontation?. Fact is Martin is dead, so now Rev Al and jesse want JUSTICE! for martin, disregarding the Jury, they want him convicted anyway. In the mean time looting and riots are breaking out in revenge.

I guess its acceptable behavior, take a tragedy and go loot some stores while your at it. maybe its just me but I see a different picture painted here, and its totally racist but maybe because I simply hate everyone.
 
2013-07-21 08:44:58 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Autistic Hiker: No, dumbass, I'm suggesting that Zimmerman profiling of Martin was incompetent, and basically had to do with Martin being a young black man wearing a hoodie.

You have not one shred of evidence that Martin being black had anything to do with Zimmerman finding him suspicious. You know what making assumptions based on race makes you?

Ding! We have a winner!!!

Nice name calling by the way.


Now Johnny, you know only people with "light skinned privilege" can be racist.
 
2013-07-21 08:55:24 PM  

OgreMagi: Autistic Hiker: That black parents all over country are terrified that their teenage son could be the next Trayvon Martin?

They should be more terrified of their black children being killed by other blacks.  94% of murdered blacks are killed by blacks.


They are.  It's a major focus of news reporting, community policing, and political activism in every major urban area in the United States.  The problem is that here, a nonblack wannabe cop pursued a black kid for no good reason, the black kid ends up dead, there's no accountability until a massive public outcry, half the country takes the wannabe cop's side and tries to paint the kid as somehow deserving it, and there's nothing in the law from preventing it happening again.   Those optics are not good for people whose recent ancestors were subject to lynchings.  I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying that's what this is about.
 
2013-07-21 08:58:39 PM  

Autistic Hiker: pursued


You use that word but obviously have no idea what it means.
 
2013-07-21 09:07:26 PM  

Abuse Liability: His inability to correctly identify a true threat?  What about the makeshift slim jim hidden around where the altercation took place.  I mean, it was kinda shot-in-the-dark lucky, but it lends credence to the statement that he appeared as though he was "on drugs" and "looking around rapidly".  I don't trust any kid in a hoodie after sunset in any neighborhood.  Sometimes they're looking to rob people, and other times they just want to "roll" a house.  I remember being seventeen and its pretty rare that they'll be doing anything productive after dark.  I don't give a shiat enough about my neighbors to call the police, but I know a shady teenager when I see one (hint: all of them wandering around after dark, especially in groups).


Why, you seem to be proving several of my points at once.  Please proceed, governor.
 
2013-07-21 09:14:44 PM  

Skyrmion: cameroncrazy1984: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Zimmerman wasn't tried on a civil rights violation, thus if the feds do so, it's not double jeopardy.

Yes, it would be allowed under the "separate sovereign" exemption to double jeopardy. However, this exemption is controversial, and has historically been regarded as unjust by civil liberties groups like the ACLU. Many people would like to see the issue brought up again in the Supreme Court.


If this was called double jeopardy, then would federal and state prosecutors have to flip a coin on who got to try the case? Let's say someone shoots an eagle within city limits. The city or state will want to convict for the illegal weapons discharge and whatever else, while the feds uniquely will want to charge for the killing of a federally protected bird. How do we convict the person for everything they did if only one of these jurisdictions can try him?
 
2013-07-21 09:18:56 PM  
Elegy:  Ding! We have a winner!!!Nice name calling by the way.

Now Johnny, you know only people with "light skinned privilege" can be racist.


hm, I seem to have hit a nerve, but sorry guys, my thinking Zimmerman based his profile on "young black man with a hoodie" doesn't make me racist.  Says a lot about you guys though.  And he's still a bad profiler, unless you want to keep trying to place alleged makeshift burglary tools in Martin's dead hands.
 
2013-07-21 09:21:46 PM  

Autistic Hiker: my thinking Zimmerman based his profile on "young black man with a hoodie" doesn't make me racist.


Yes it does, case closed.
 
2013-07-21 09:24:03 PM  

Autistic Hiker: Elegy:  Ding! We have a winner!!!Nice name calling by the way.

Now Johnny, you know only people with "light skinned privilege" can be racist.

hm, I seem to have hit a nerve, but sorry guys, my thinking Zimmerman based his profile on "young black man with a hoodie" doesn't make me racist.  Says a lot about you guys though.  And he's still a bad profiler, unless you want to keep trying to place alleged makeshift burglary tools in Martin's dead hands.


You making racist assumptions without reading the facts about the case makes you racist. You're the same kind of racist as Sharpton & Jesse Jackson.

And "profiling" might be a problem if he were a cop & if he profiled based on skin color, but he isn't & he didn't.
 
2013-07-21 09:26:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Zimmerman wasn't tried on a civil rights violation, thus if the feds do so, it's not double jeopardy.


The US being a different jurisdiction than Florida is the reason double jeopardy would not apply under the current rule, which ACLU opposes.  If jeopardy attaches the first time and the same jurisdiction wants to charge you again, the charges can't be based on the same alleged acts as underlay the first set of charges, even if the state has a different theory of criminal liability the second time around.  Some people are charged with crimes the commission of which arguably occurred in multiple jurisdictions.  If State A fails to convict, State B or the feds can then try.

The directors of national ACLU met and voted on how the organization should respond to the Zimmerman verdict: stand on principle opposing the weakened double jeopardy rule, but at the same time call for an end to racial profiling, suggesting the organization believes racial profiling and the killing of Martin are connected.
 
2013-07-21 09:33:25 PM  

Autistic Hiker: OgreMagi: Autistic Hiker: That black parents all over country are terrified that their teenage son could be the next Trayvon Martin?

They should be more terrified of their black children being killed by other blacks.  94% of murdered blacks are killed by blacks.

They are.  It's a major focus of news reporting, community policing, and political activism in every major urban area in the United States.  The problem is that here, a nonblack mixed race wannabe cop neighborhood watch member pursued a black kid for no good reason acting suspicious, the black kid ends up dead, there's no accountability until case, but a massive public outcry, half the country takes the wannabe cop's side and tries to paint the kid as somehow deserving it him as a racist thug, and there's nothing in the law from preventing it happening again.   Those optics are not good for people whose recent ancestors were subject to lynchings.  I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying that's what this is about.


Fixed that to match actual facts.
 
2013-07-21 09:41:02 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Autistic Hiker: No, dumbass, I'm suggesting that Zimmerman profiling of Martin was incompetent, and basically had to do with Martin being a young black man wearing a hoodie.

Zimmerman's racism is all in your mind.  Have you ever bothered looking at all the good work Zimmerman has done in his life that was for the benefit of black people?


let me be clear, I don't think Zimmerman was a cross-burning racist with a capital R. I think he engaged in incompetent profiling that boiled down to "young black man with a hoodie".  The group of people who have done that at some point in their lives includes the Rev. Jesse Jackson.  Jackson, however, didn't start a chain of events that led to someone's death.

Autistic Hiker: His clear inability to correctly identify a true threat,

Actually, it turns out that Trayvon was indeed a thief, and a violent thug based on the information we've received from his school, and his friend's testimony.


all of which is an irrelevant attempt to tar the victim, who went to the store and was walking back home.  it is simply not credible that Martin was taking skittles and tea to a break-in. The point is that Zimmerman jumped to a set of conclusions regarding Martin's intent and demeanor that he had no right to make -- and again, I find it hugely revealing the number of people who are working overtime to do so for him, after the fact.

 Autistic Hiker: coupled with his wannabe cop overreaction of jumping out of his car and following Martin in a visible and threatening way

Wannabe cops don't call the police, or look to see where a criminal went so they can tell the police.


That's just semantics, but OK, we can call Zimmerman a wannabe mall cop if you prefer that term.
 
2013-07-21 09:41:10 PM  

youncasqua: Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: Another one:

Can you offer up any actual evidence to show that Zim started the confrontation?

Let me recount it again.

1) presumption of Trayvon's criminality
2) "punks," "assholes"
3) frustration about assholes "getting away."
4) reckless, aggressive choices to follow Trayvon against protocol.
5) numerous materially false statements ruling out plausibility of faulty perception or memory,
6) proving deception to any person with a lick of common sense
7) giving rise to strong inference of awareness of wrongdoing
8) and an equally strong inference therefrom of underlying guilt.

Once you conclude Zimmerman lied, that allows us to resolve all other evidentiary ambiguities against him.


It may be possible for *us* to conclude that Zimmerman lied.  However, while your points are all arguable, they were all effectively irrelevant from the jury's standpoint, as Zimmerman decided not to take the stand on his own behalf.  Which prevented the prosecution from asking him questions about *any* of these points.  If I recall correctly juror B37 or whatever her name was conceded that some of Zimmerman's statements that he gave during the course of his interviews with detectives may have been exaggerations.  But they weren't, so she said, serious enough exaggerations to call into question the basics of Zimmerman's self-defense claim.

I can't help but concur with B37's analysis, at least as I understand Florida law.  The prosecution just didn't have enough evidence to overcome Zimmerman's self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt, and given the facts of the case I don't know how the prosecution could have gotten around John Good's testimony that he saw someone dressed in dark or black clothing on top of and straddling (and appearing to punch repeatedly) someone dressed in red or white--who called for help--in the seconds before Zimmerman shot Martin.
 
2013-07-21 09:45:14 PM  

Autistic Hiker: Elegy:  Ding! We have a winner!!!Nice name calling by the way.

Now Johnny, you know only people with "light skinned privilege" can be racist.

hm, I seem to have hit a nerve, but sorry guys, my thinking Zimmerman based his profile on "young black man with a hoodie" doesn't make me racist.  Says a lot about you guys though.  And he's still a bad profiler, unless you want to keep trying to place alleged makeshift burglary tools in Martin's dead hands.


Can't place a burglar's tool on Martin by any stretch of the imagination, but if he had one, it would sure explain why Zimmerman reported Martin reaching into his waist just after the two first saw each other.
 
2013-07-21 09:51:03 PM  
legion_of_doo:
You making racist assumptions without reading the facts about the case makes you racist. You're the same kind of racist as Sharpton & Jesse Jackson.

you keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.  And I have read the facts of the case, and the facts that Martin was walking peacefully home from the store, and that Zimmerman jumped to an entirely wrong conclusion and him that led to his visibly pursuing him, are not in doubt.

And "profiling" might be a problem if he were a cop & if he profiled based on skin color, but he isn't & he didn't.


I don't think you know what that word means, either.  "farking punks, they always get away."
 
2013-07-21 09:54:42 PM  

tirob: Autistic Hiker: 

hm, I seem to have hit a nerve, but sorry guys, my thinking Zimmerman based his profile on "young black man with a hoodie" doesn't make me racist.  Says a lot about you guys though.  And he's still a bad profiler, unless you want to keep trying to place alleged makeshift burglary tools in Martin's dead hands.

Can't place a burglar's tool on Martin by any stretch of the imagination, but if he had one, it would sure explain why Zimmerman reported Martin reaching into his waist just after the two first saw each other.


I find the explanation that Zimmerman, who lied to a judge about his financial condition, would also lie about this, to be the more persuasive explanation.
 
2013-07-21 09:59:50 PM  

Autistic Hiker: Elegy:  Ding! We have a winner!!!Nice name calling by the way.

Now Johnny, you know only people with "light skinned privilege" can be racist.

hm, I seem to have hit a nerve, but sorry guys, my thinking Zimmerman based his profile on "young black man with a hoodie" doesn't make me racist.  Says a lot about you guys though.  And he's still a bad profiler, unless you want to keep trying to place alleged makeshift burglary tools in Martin's dead hands.


Assuming that Zimmerman "racially profiled" Martin, simply because Martin had darker skin than Zimmerman, is stupid. It's also a racist assumption.

Of course, we now know that out of the two people involved in the confrontation that night, one of them was blatantly racist and using racial slurs.

If anyone was racially profiling in this whole situation, it wasn't Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-21 10:06:47 PM  

Autistic Hiker: tirob: Autistic Hiker: 

hm, I seem to have hit a nerve, but sorry guys, my thinking Zimmerman based his profile on "young black man with a hoodie" doesn't make me racist.  Says a lot about you guys though.  And he's still a bad profiler, unless you want to keep trying to place alleged makeshift burglary tools in Martin's dead hands.

Can't place a burglar's tool on Martin by any stretch of the imagination, but if he had one, it would sure explain why Zimmerman reported Martin reaching into his waist just after the two first saw each other.

I find the explanation that Zimmerman, who lied to a judge about his financial condition, would also lie about this, to be the more persuasive explanation.


That's your privilege.  If this were the only evidence that Martin was carrying a jimmy when Zimmerman first saw him, I might even agree with you.  But I don't think it is, as I mentioned in an earlier reply to you.  I was a warm advocate of prosecuting Zimmerman for a long time before this trial started, and I still think that the state of Florida did right to bring charges.  But one of the things I have acquired from the evidence that has come out over the past 17 months is a strong suspicion, based on circumstantial evidence, that the reason for most of Martin's actions during the last ~5 minutes of his life resulted from a desire he had to avoid being arrested for possession of a burglar's tool.
 
2013-07-21 10:13:49 PM  

Mock26: You should only have to face criminal or civil charges, not both.  I know that that is not how it is in this country, but that is the way that it should be. It is bullschitt that a criminal court can find you not guilty but then a civil court can find you guilty of the same crime.  How in all of Hades is that not double jeopardy?


Because the constitution clearly states "Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb".
 
2013-07-21 10:19:53 PM  

hardinparamedic: Nabb1: Better a "Twilight" fan than a delusional fan that treats a dead sociopath like a teen heart throb.

I never knew that Trayvon Martin was your patient for you to diagnose him with a psychiatric condition. Why didn't you speak up before this tragic incident? You're the real monster here.

Stop pretending there are any heroes in this situation.


Trayvon suffered from IamaChildWithNoDadatHomeThrombosis
 
2013-07-21 10:29:27 PM  

Autistic Hiker: all of which is an irrelevant attempt to tar the victim, who went to the store and was walking back home.


omitting evidence that TM attacked GZ.

Autistic Hiker: it is simply not credible that Martin was taking skittles and tea to a break-in.


Assumes criminals never carry objects not related to a crime to the reconnaissance of a crime.

AutisticHiker: he point is that Zimmerman jumped to a set of conclusions regarding Martin's intent and demeanor that he had no right to make


jumping to a conclusion is not a crime.
 
2013-07-21 10:37:50 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Autistic Hiker: all of which is an irrelevant attempt to tar the victim, who went to the store and was walking back home.


Really? He could of ran home - I mean the evidence shows against it - he didn't run home, instead he confronted Zimmerman. If he was scared as the media wants you to believe, he would of ran home, after all he wasn't shot in the back.
 
2013-07-21 10:41:09 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Popcorn Johnny: Holder and Obama are incompetent, race baiting morons. Stand your ground and race had not a farking thing to do with the Zim case and yet there they are on TV talking about both of them every chance they get.

Stand your ground had nothing to do with it? You're dumb.


When you are trying to troll for comments, it is best to also try to double up on the dumb ass-ery.

So what you want to say is this:

Stand your ground had nothing to do with it?  Your dumb.
 
2013-07-21 10:47:35 PM  

Misconduc: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Autistic Hiker: all of which is an irrelevant attempt to tar the victim, who went to the store and was walking back home.

Really? He could of ran home - I mean the evidence shows against it - he didn't run home, instead he confronted Zimmerman. If he was scared as the media wants you to believe, he would of ran home, after all he wasn't shot in the back.


I think you quoted the wrong person.
 
2013-07-21 10:58:36 PM  

Nem Wan: Skyrmion: cameroncrazy1984: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Zimmerman wasn't tried on a civil rights violation, thus if the feds do so, it's not double jeopardy.

Yes, it would be allowed under the "separate sovereign" exemption to double jeopardy. However, this exemption is controversial, and has historically been regarded as unjust by civil liberties groups like the ACLU. Many people would like to see the issue brought up again in the Supreme Court.

If this was called double jeopardy, then would federal and state prosecutors have to flip a coin on who got to try the case? Let's say someone shoots an eagle within city limits. The city or state will want to convict for the illegal weapons discharge and whatever else, while the feds uniquely will want to charge for the killing of a federally protected bird. How do we convict the person for everything they did if only one of these jurisdictions can try him?


That's a good question, and I just don't know enough law to know the answer. Historically, with the state / federal cases it has always been the state getting first crack at it, but I don't know why it would have to be that way. As for state / state cases like someone getting shot across a state border, I did some googling but couldn't find an actual case where it came up.
 
2013-07-21 11:01:53 PM  
I am starting to believe there will be a lot of farkers whose gravestone inscriptions will be an argument about this case.
 
2013-07-21 11:28:41 PM  

This text is now purple: Millennium: To proceed with a case here, the feds would have to argue that Florida's charges only covered the actual shooting, and not the events that preceded it.

The state case involved the preceding events. 2nd degree murder is a "depraved heart" case, so the preceding actions were part of the state case.


I didn't say it was a very good argument, just that it could be made.

Murder (of any degree) is about malice aforethought, of which "depraved heart" is only one specific type. I think the prosecution did in fact try to argue this type, though. In any event, they could argue that while the preceding events certainly served as evidence for that argument, they were not, in and of themselves, the actions for which Zimmerman was being tried. The weakness in this argument is that it leads to the question of why he wasn't tried for them before.
 
2013-07-21 11:54:56 PM  

youncasqua: We may permissibly infer Zimmerman's malicious purpose from his apparent assumption of Trayvon's criminality, his use of epithets to describe him, and his chambering of a round in his gun while on the phone with police.


First I've heard anybody claim Zimmerman chambered a round in his gun while on the phone with the police.  Citation?
 
2013-07-21 11:56:31 PM  

vygramul: cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right

Most of the time. Sometimes, they do pick and choose which rights they feel are worth defending.


Let me guess, your problem is that they don't really defend the 2nd amendment.  With their limited resources why should they when there's the NRA with it's single issue and huge resources that can do it.
 
2013-07-22 12:03:54 AM  

Latinwolf: vygramul: cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right

Most of the time. Sometimes, they do pick and choose which rights they feel are worth defending.

Let me guess, your problem is that they don't really defend the 2nd amendment.  With their limited resources why should they when there's the NRA with it's single issue and huge resources that can do it.


If that was their position, it would be an understandable and even admirable position.
 
2013-07-22 12:30:42 AM  

ChicagoKev: youncasqua: We may permissibly infer Zimmerman's malicious purpose from his apparent assumption of Trayvon's criminality, his use of epithets to describe him, and his chambering of a round in his gun while on the phone with police.

First I've heard anybody claim Zimmerman chambered a round in his gun while on the phone with the police.  Citation?


You won't find one. People have mistaken the sound of him unlatching his seatbelt as the sound of him chambering a round. There was a always a round in the chamber as evidenced by the fact that Zimmerman had a full magazine AND a round in the chamber to begin with. The facts just do not support J4T, so their arguments are completely based on emotion and sheer speculation.
 
2013-07-22 12:35:42 AM  
Zimmerman, fark yeah! I hope he sues Florida and wins big. Fools.
 
2013-07-22 12:39:13 AM  

Latinwolf: Let me guess, your problem is that they don't really defend the 2nd amendment.  With their limited resources why should they when there's the NRA with it's single issue and huge resources that can do it.


That's what most claim, sure, right up until the point  Heller was handed down and the ACLU had a fit over it. Which was, mind you, the point I'd had enough of it and ceased to be a member on the local, state, and federal level.  Heller's individual-right construction should have been the ACLU's position to begin with, since an individual-right construction is both stronger and broader, and more resilient against casual infringement. Under  Miller's group-right construction, for example, a federal law banning women from owning and using firearms actually would pass constitutional muster, interestingly enough.

Now, for the fact the ACLU's nominal position is to support  any decision or policy position that strengthens and broadens civil liberties, and prevents potential policy abuses and infringements (especially unequal protection),  and the fact any ACLU member worth their salt will tell you it's against not  merely actual abuses but also the  potentialfor abuse that must be safeguarded, the organization's decision to advocate  Miller'sconstruction over  Heller's is contradictory to their stated mission and ideals, but at least in my opinion hypocritical.
 
2013-07-22 12:45:20 AM  

RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


Wait, they called Zimmerman shooting Trayvon a "transaction?" That may be as wrong about that as they are about your point.
 
2013-07-22 12:51:58 AM  

ChicagoKev: youncasqua: We may permissibly infer Zimmerman's malicious purpose from his apparent assumption of Trayvon's criminality, his use of epithets to describe him, and his chambering of a round in his gun while on the phone with police.

First I've heard anybody claim Zimmerman chambered a round in his gun while on the phone with the police.  Citation?


Zimmerman's buddy testified that not only did he keep one in the chamber, he kept his clip full. He would have had to fire a shot(or just eject a bullet for the hell of it?[if that's a thing]) to "chamber a round".
 
2013-07-22 12:58:32 AM  

kortex: Zimmerman, fark yeah! I hope he sues Florida and wins big. Fools.


Zimmerman, with the first of his settlement checks.

i232.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-22 01:44:05 AM  

coyo: Amos Quito: WTFDYW: I did not see in the letter where the ACLU said they would defend him.


By publicly biatch-slapping Holder and the Race-Baiters, they are effectively "defending" not only Zimmerman, but the rights of all Americans.

Looks in the republican dictionary :

Race Baiter :  Anyone who looks in the history books and notices racism perpetrated by whites (specifically) and actually talks about it. Also, anyone who claims that racism exists today.

Well, friggen sign me up and give me my 'race baiter' badge.



Nah, your definition is totally off.

A "race-baiter" is any person or entity who intentionally and surreptitiously  creates, manipulates, exaggerates, or amplifies a given event or circumstance with the goal of creating or intensifying interracial / interethnic strife, tension, resentment, mistrust and hatred in order to capitalize on the on the ensuing chaos and societal division for political or financial gain, or other ulterior motives.

Race-baiters can be of any race or ethnicity, and oftentimes are not even members of the group(s) whose "causes" they pretend to champion.

Of course, the strife need not be racial or ethnic. There is no shortage of charlatan hucksters who line up to profiteer from any form of social unrest and division, whether it be related to gender, sexuality. religion, culture, nationality, class, or other forms of socially contrived tribalism. If there is political or financial profit to be gained via societal division, they will exploit it.

Obviously, the only reason these strategies "work" is because "the people" are demonstrably gullible, and human nature is, sadly, all too predictable.

Race-baiters are like tree shakers: They don't care which tree they shake, they're only interest is in reaping the harvest - the fallout of the the tumult. Some of these "shakers" are lowly grifters seeking to gain fame, recognition or money, while others are bright enough to see that any society that is divided can be easily manipulated to achieve larger, often nefarious political goals - the latter being far more pernicious.

The attacks of 9-11-2001 are a fine example of the latter, as these events were used as capitai to build a crescendo of irrational animosity among Americans against peoples and nations that had little or nothing to do with these events, yet we were mesmerized by the carefully orchestrated "us vs them" illusion, and conned into supporting and financing unjust slaughter and conquest .

Are you old enough to remember the blatant lies that were fed to us in order to achieve the artificially induced emotional public support required to prosecute these politically contrived crimes?

Manipulation through misdirection.

And back to the case at hand: Was this really a "racial" issue? Did the events that transpired that night REALLY hinge on the RACES of the parties involved? Or is that merely an illusion being pounded into the collective psyche by those that seek to divide us - AS A PEOPLE - for political advantage and societal manipulation?

Do you still want to wear that "race-baiter" badge?
 
2013-07-22 02:13:18 AM  

Piestar: transaction


It's lawyer shorthand for "facts and circumstances underlying the original charge"
 
2013-07-22 02:27:56 AM  
Geez, everyone, especially black people should just forget the whole Zimmerman thing and go back to killing black people, which they do extremely well.  Way better than white, Hispanic or any other people.
 
2013-07-22 02:42:01 AM  
Best to drop it. Let Zimmerman look over his shoulder for a while in fear everywhere he goes, only to one day have a black man provoke a fight with him and shoot him because he 'feared for his life'. The heavy sentence his killer receives (assuming he is even apprehended alive) would remove any doubts about the joke that is Florida 'justice'.