Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Elfdart »

aerius wrote: Actually he looks Latino, if someone just showed me this picture I'd say he was one of Mr. Coffee's Mexican workers.

But the mainstream media would have you believe that he's some lily-ass white guy who shot a black kid.
And people still trust what the media is telling you about this case when it's been caught doctoring photos, videos, and emergency call transcripts. Also note how damn near every picture of Trayvon Martin in the press is actually a photo of him as a 12 year old.

It's always this one
Image


Instead of this one
Image
OH NOEZ! NOT TEH MIDDUL FINGURR! :shock:
That is propaganda at work, and most of you don't even know it's happening. You are being led to believe that Martin is some angelic kid who could not possibly have been doing anything suspicious which would've caused Zimmerman to follow him.


No, they see through your witless trolling because smearing the victim of a violent attack is standard operating procedure for thugs, the shyster lawyers who represent them, and fucktards who giggle as they post flamebait. Normally this kind of bullfuckery comes from special pleaders for rapists and pedophiles, who think accusing the victims of being whores and cockteasers and drinking or smoking dope magically absolves the rapist/pedophile.
When in fact the truth is Martin was a fucking thug in training. He'd already been caught for possession of stolen property and burglary tools, not to mention drug paraphernalia and the fact that he was stoned when he was shot.


If the media didn't report it, then how do you know about it, asshole?
Does the media report that? Hell no, but the events were documented and I posted about it in the original thread. It's entirely plausible that Martin was casing out the area looking for homes to burglarize, and that Zimmerman had seen him doing suspicious shit which then led to the events which went down.
Given that George Zimmerman is the one with a track record of being a violent fuckhead, which includes molesting his 6-year-old cousin for a decade (this cousin also told police what a vicious racist he was), a violent scuffle with a police officer and beating his fiancee (who had to get a restraining order against him); it's much more plausible that Zimmerman was casing Martin, seeking to beat, rape or kill him for a perverted thrill -which would also explain why Martin referred to him as "creepy".

Look at how Zimmerman and his equally creepy brother have acted. Between the hysterical claims that Martin was punching Zimmerman 30-40 times, that Zimmerman was about to die when all he had was some scratches, that Martin was "looking to procure firearms", that the Boston bombing was the result of Zimmerman being prosecuted, and other hysterics and it's clear that Amanda Marcotte was onto something last year:
In fact, accusations like these are completely relevant for two major reasons. The first is that, as feminists have been saying for decades now, sexual assault isn't really just a matter of someone's horniness overtaking him and causing him to pig out on a woman's body as if he hasn't eaten all day and she's a piece of cake shoved in front of him. Sexual abuse is a form of bullying, a violent crime whose pleasure for the attacker is far more about enjoying their power and dominance over the victim than it is about sexual urges. Subsequently, sexually violent men tend to be more violent generally, particularly against people they believe are lesser or weaker. If you're trying to establish that Zimmerman had it in him to hunt down and murder a teenager who is much smaller than himself, then a history of sexual assault does help demonstrate this.

Also: A lot of the prosecution's case depends on establishing whether or not Zimmerman is a glib liar who is capable of viciously attacking people and then playing the innocent "who me?" card while insinuating that the victim was asking for it. Pretty much all men who sexually assault women have developed an ability to do this; part of the routine of a rapist is terrifying and hurting someone only to convince the community to embrace him after the fact and write off the victim as hysterical, a liar, or a slut trying to cover her tracks. We know that most sexual assailants are repeat offenders—indeed, this is what the accuser in this case is claiming of Zimmerman—which means they have a lot of opportunities to practice playing innocent and blaming the victim after they've committed the crime. If the prosecution wants to establish that Zimmerman is the kind of guy who is capable of assaulting and even murdering someone and then playing innocent victim, a history of cutting his teeth as a sexual assailant helps establish that narrative.
But it doesn't matter: Trayvon Martin was black, and therefore fair game for whichever lowlife saw fit to attack him. Oh, and because he showed his middle finger.
Losonti Tokash wrote:Edit: I don't know if there's enough irony in the world for someone with a signature linking to yahooka.com saying someone using marijuana makes them a degenerate thug in training who deserved to die.
:lol:
Image
User avatar
mr friendly guy
The Doctor
Posts: 11235
Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by mr friendly guy »

RogueIce wrote:mr friendly guy

I think the main problem in your hypothetical scenario is that the wannabe vigilante is not a police officer which makes quite a bit of difference. Police officers have different rules and standards when it comes to these sorts of things than the general public.

KS can correct me if I'm wrong, but if the police reasonably believe they are trailing a potentially armed and dangerous suspect, they are allowed to draw down on said suspect to affect an arrest. Your average citizen can not draw their gun on somebody who has not shown an imminent threat to said citizen or others. That would be an illegal act in and of itself, and also potentially deadly force from the perspective of the "suspect" so their responding in kind would likely be justified, so if the "vigilante" shot they'd get in trouble. Police officers who show their badges, draw their weapons and yell, "POLICE, GET DOWN/HANDS UP/[whatever]!" is a different situation than a civilian, who has no badge to show (if they did it'd be impersonation of a police officer, also a crime) and could only yell get down, hands up, etc. It's an entirely different standard the two parties operate under.
I see a few problems with this.

1. What is to stop the vigilante from lying? No seriously. I followed him to get a better look and it looked like he was going to draw a gun. I didn't try to arrest him and I didn't draw the gun on him until it looked like he was going to do that, ie became an imminent threat. No sirree, I never tried to arrest the suspect.

2. In fact, what happened if he didn't try to arrest the suspect. Just went to confront them and get a better look and the situation played out exactly like that. No need to lie then (at least about trying to affect an arrest).

3. But lets go all the way. Lets say the Vigilante did try to arrest the suspect and had to use lethal force. Is the person allowed to resist arrest with lethal force? If not the defense lawyer claims his client broke the law in trying to affect an arrest, but not in shooting the victim, as that was still self defense.

@KS

I will skip the first couple of parts, because you finally caught on that I not having the vigilante claim he was affecting an arrest (although he may have been, but he aren't going to admit that).
Kamakazie Sith wrote: I was thinking along the lines of you trying to apprehend. Not just follow. Of course, you don't really mean follow. That's the excuse you would tell the police investigators. So, you'd say "I thought I saw this guy who matches this description of this really bad guy that is known to carry firearms so I went and followed him. He spotted me and then confronted me. He went for his waistband and I thought he was going for a gun so I shot him".
I am glad we got all those other objections out the way, such as you need to know if the suspect matches a person known to carry firearms etc. Because frankly it wasn't hard to circumvent these objections (although likely time consuming). One just needed to know that such objections would exist which you kindly provided.
Kamakazie Sith wrote: So, your basic plan is to memorize some wanted poster and then wander the area he is believed to be operating in and confront someone that matches his description and face because you're looking at a wanted poster and not just a vague "white male, 6ft, brown hair blue eyes". You're going to need to find a person that looks like the actual wanted person...

...and you wonder why I think you've watched too many movies.
Just one detail you kind of missed. A wannabe vigilante might very well know of these wanted posters, and he confronts this person not out of a sense of, I will use this defense as premeditated murder and kill him (as you imply), but as a case of MISTAKEN IDENTITY. I trust I don't need to explain how that happens. I mean Diallo got mistaken for a serial rapist, Martin got mistaken for a hood, fuck old people get mistaken for paedophiles in the UK after tabloids released the names of pedos.

Now you might say, well you need to get a reasonable approximation. Perhaps. But if a White Brazillian gets mistaken by an anti-terrorist unit from men of middle eastern appearance, I am going to say that I got a bit of leeway in this. Not to mention the "I was trying to get a closer view" excuse.
Kamakazie Sith wrote: Good luck. If you did manage to pull that off then yeah I could see that it is possible you would get off with a self defense claim. I also find it just as likely that you'd would run into the actual wanted person. In which case you may just as likely end up as another victim.
Yeah well Zimmerman ran into a kid buying skittles instead of a burglar, NY police ran into an innocent man instead of a serial rapist... I am going to say that the chance of running into the actual wanted person doesn't seem so great. But thanks for admitting that the self defence laws could be construed in such a fashion.
Kamakazie Sith wrote: The lack of information hurts the reasonableness of your decision. The less data you have the more reckless your actions become.

We do release information to the media which includes pictures. Now all you need to do is find someone that looks like that person and then kill them. Good luck.
Firstly as far as I am concern, its the same logic used in Zimmerman's case. That is his decision to follow was not reasonable, but in the end it didn't negate his right to self defense. In fact there doesn't seem to be any legal ramification for acting like an ass leading to the death of an innocent person. I am quite happy to admit my hypothetical vigilante was unreasonable (if it wasn't clear that I don't subscribe to vigilantism, except in fiction of course). But again so what? He can still claim self defence.

Secondly mistaken identity definitely played a part in those real life scenarios discussed, eg the Diallo and Zimmerman case? Why is it suddenly unlikely in a hypothetical. Wouldn't your scenario that he just happened to find the right wanted person more unlikely?
Kamakazie Sith wrote: Maybe we need to compare. Will you cite the self defense laws of your country.
Let me tell you a story. When I was in high school I remember all these cases where self defense meant jack and shit, and we would admire how America actually allowed people to defend themselves unlike in my country. I don't remember the cases, but I remember a sense that the law seemed to favour the criminals more than the victims (I admit it could be coloured by the fact I was a teenager at that time). But generally my friends admired how America at least let you defend yourself.

Now I find its swinging the other way. Its also quite clear that its not just the non Americans (Bobalot, myself, Edi etc) who see this ruling as a way to escalate conflict / get away with it, some Americans see it as well, Simon Jester, Cenk Uyghur from TYT etc. So its not wah I hate America wah.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
User avatar
mr friendly guy
The Doctor
Posts: 11235
Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by mr friendly guy »

aerius wrote:
So yes, hypothetically speaking we could have some Frank Castle types offing "undesirable characters" and getting away with it. But I don't see the Zimmerman verdict opening up the floodgates and unleashing an army of Punishers in the US.
I was thinking more of a bunch of dumbfucks who mistaken some innocent person as <insert wanted person here> and killing them and getting away with it. The Punisher is at least smart.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
User avatar
General Mung Beans
Jedi Knight
Posts: 854
Joined: 2010-04-17 10:47pm
Location: Orange Prefecture, California Sector, America Quadrant, Terra

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by General Mung Beans »

Some disturbances following a protest turned ugly over the verdict in LA:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... 6139.story
L.A. officials urge calm, vow to crack down on protesters

By Robert J. Lopez, Andrew Blankstein and Ruben Vives
July 16, 2013, 12:08 a.m.
Los Angeles officials late Monday night commended police in their response to violence following a protest of the George Zimmerman verdict and vowed to crack down on similar actions beginning Tuesday.

About 350 Los Angeles Police Department officers swarmed the Crenshaw district after groups of youths broke away from a peaceful protest in Leimert Park and stomped on cars, broke windows, set fires and attacked several people. Among those attacked were a television reporter and his cameraman, according to law enforcement authorities.

Late Monday, at least 13 people were arrested on suspicion of committing various offenses, the LAPD said. Reporter Dave Bryan and his cameraman, both of whom work for Channels 2 and 9, were attacked and one of them was taken to a hospital with a possible concussion, Lt. Andy Neiman told The Times.

Police estimated that about 150 people took part in the violence after the peaceful vigil at Leimert Park following the acquittal of Zimmerman, 29, on Saturday in Florida on second-degree murder and manslaughter in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year.

At a late-night news conference, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti blamed the violence on a "a small group [that] has taken advantage of this situation."

He said that protesters have the right to voice their disagreement with the verdict. "But people also deserve to be safe on the streets and in their cars."

PHOTOS: Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman: The controversial case

LAPD Chief Charlie Beck put the public on notice that officers would be taking a more aggressive posture toward protesters beginning Tuesday. "This will not be allowed to continue," Beck said.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who represents the area, said the LAPD has made significant strides in improving community relations since the deadly 1992 riots in South Los Angeles and other parts of the city following the verdict in the trial of the LAPD officers charged with beating Rodney King.

The LAPD, he said, "has taken a posture of respecting the constitutional rights of those who choose" to peacefully protest.

Ridley-Thomas said the violence that erupted Monday "does not advance the cause of Trayvon Martin or his memory."

Late Monday night, a number of streets in the area had been cleared. The LAPD declared an unlawful assembly shortly before 10 p.m.

The chaos created a nightmare for area commuters as cars were trapped around Leimert Park and bus service was cancelled on Crenshaw and Martin Luther King Jr. boulevards, Metro said.

Earlier Monday, several protesters made their way into a Wal-Mart on Crenshaw Boulevard as guards scrambled to close security gates. A short time later, Los Angeles Police Department officers wearing helmets and carrying batons swarmed the store as others marched through the parking lot.

In Oakland, hundreds of protesters stormed Interstate 880 near downtown Monday evening and blocked traffic in southbound and northbound lanes. The protesters were cleared from the freeway and made their way downtown, authorities said.

By late Monday night, multiple arrests had been made in the downtown area as officers from neighboring jurisdictions responded to the chaos, the Oakland Police Department said.
El Moose Monstero: That would be the winning song at Eurovision. I still say the Moldovans were more fun. And that one about the Apricot Tree.
That said...it is growing on me.
Thanas: It is one of those songs that kinda get stuck in your head so if you hear it several times, you actually grow to like it.
General Zod: It's the musical version of Stockholm syndrome.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Flagg »

On my iPad, but the LAPD and media affiliates are reporting on shit that essentially didn't happen.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Kamakazie Sith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7555
Joined: 2002-07-03 05:00pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Kamakazie Sith »

mr friendly guy wrote: I am glad we got all those other objections out the way, such as you need to know if the suspect matches a person known to carry firearms etc. Because frankly it wasn't hard to circumvent these objections (although likely time consuming). One just needed to know that such objections would exist which you kindly provided.
No, these objections are still valid. The elements that you'd have to meet in order to have chance of defending yourself with a self defense claim are significant. Keep in mind that people are still convicted of crimes even after they claim self defense.

Specifically here Source

and here Source

and here Source
Just one detail you kind of missed. A wannabe vigilante might very well know of these wanted posters, and he confronts this person not out of a sense of, I will use this defense as premeditated murder and kill him (as you imply), but as a case of MISTAKEN IDENTITY. I trust I don't need to explain how that happens. I mean Diallo got mistaken for a serial rapist, Martin got mistaken for a hood, fuck old people get mistaken for paedophiles in the UK after tabloids released the names of pedos.
Oh, I would expect that a vigilante would have the wanted poster memorized. It still doesn't change my opinion that the odds of meeting the elements for this scenario are very high and therefore not worth being concerned about self defense laws.
Now you might say, well you need to get a reasonable approximation. Perhaps. But if a White Brazillian gets mistaken by an anti-terrorist unit from men of middle eastern appearance, I am going to say that I got a bit of leeway in this. Not to mention the "I was trying to get a closer view" excuse.
I'm not going to give you any because you can probably chalk that one up to the approval of questionable tactics, failing to follow a procedure for identification, and then later government corruption. A vigilante would not have this benefit.
Yeah well Zimmerman ran into a kid buying skittles instead of a burglar, NY police ran into an innocent man instead of a serial rapist... I am going to say that the chance of running into the actual wanted person doesn't seem so great. But thanks for admitting that the self defence laws could be construed in such a fashion.
Yeah. Two incidents spread out over a decade. The New York incident took place in 1999. Martin in 2012. The UK incident in 2005. I'm sure you can find more but what standard are we going to use to determine that something is likely to take place or is that not the standard you're concerned about? Are you just concerned that it is possible that this could happen?
Firstly as far as I am concern, its the same logic used in Zimmerman's case. That is his decision to follow was not reasonable, but in the end it didn't negate his right to self defense. In fact there doesn't seem to be any legal ramification for acting like an ass leading to the death of an innocent person. I am quite happy to admit my hypothetical vigilante was unreasonable (if it wasn't clear that I don't subscribe to vigilantism, except in fiction of course). But again so what? He can still claim self defence.
You're taking some liberties there. The evidence and witness testimony supports that Zimmerman was assaulted. We don't know who started the fight but because we don't know that you can't call Trayvon an innocent person. Zimmerman was found not guilty because a reasonable doubt still existed.


Secondly mistaken identity definitely played a part in those real life scenarios discussed, eg the Diallo and Zimmerman case? Why is it suddenly unlikely in a hypothetical. Wouldn't your scenario that he just happened to find the right wanted person more unlikely?
I'm not going to agree that the shooting of Martin was a case of mistaken identity. Zimmerman wasn't following Trayvon because of who he thought he was but because of what he thought he might be doing.

Diallo is one incident. Again, it's about balance. The system isn't perfect and it will never be. You take away self defense and you have the concerns that you apparently have about your country.
Kamakazie Sith wrote: Let me tell you a story. When I was in high school I remember all these cases where self defense meant jack and shit, and we would admire how America actually allowed people to defend themselves unlike in my country. I don't remember the cases, but I remember a sense that the law seemed to favour the criminals more than the victims (I admit it could be coloured by the fact I was a teenager at that time). But generally my friends admired how America at least let you defend yourself.

Now I find its swinging the other way. Its also quite clear that its not just the non Americans (Bobalot, myself, Edi etc) who see this ruling as a way to escalate conflict / get away with it, some Americans see it as well, Simon Jester, Cenk Uyghur from TYT etc. So its not wah I hate America wah.
If you're trying to call for an adjustment of the laws so that we can avoid tragedies like this then just say so. Stop coming up with contrived situations. But also keep in mind that no law is going to be perfect. It's an issue about balance and the standards for finding a person guilty of a crime. I personally would like to see legislation that makes a person civilly and criminally liable for following a "suspicious person" if things go wrong. Keep in mind I'm not talking about someone following a person that they watched commit a crime or reasonable suspect of committing a crime.

Of course that doesn't address the possibility of your very determined vigilante. So, what's your suggestion?
Milites Astrum Exterminans
User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Terralthra »

aerius wrote:When in fact the truth is Martin was a fucking thug in training.
Ah, yes, a classic thug in training with a full scholarship to college, a 3.2 GPA, 600+ volunteer hours. Well, since he was a thug in training, clearly Zimmerman was right to follow him around to prevent any property crime he might have been thinking of committing. That he ended up shooting him was tragic, but hey, at least he'll never graduate from college with a degree in thuganomics, right?
aerius wrote:He'd already been caught for possession of stolen property and burglary tools,
Said burglary tools being...a flathead screwdriver.
aerius wrote:not to mention drug paraphernalia and the fact that he was stoned when he was shot.
Oh, no, marijuana! Clearly he was a thug in training! And iced tea was found on his person too! He must have been planning a tea party to incite a violent revolution! George Zimmerman was a patriotic hero!
aerius wrote:Does the media report that?
Really? Because it's pretty easy to find "the media" reporting just that fact. I wonder how you found out about it, since "the media" didn't report on it.
Aerius wrote:Hell no, but the events were documented and I posted about it in the original thread. It's entirely plausible that Martin was casing out the area looking for homes to burglarize, and that Zimmerman had seen him doing suspicious shit which then led to the events which went down.
It's also entirely possible he was returning to his father's fiancée's house, where he was staying at the time. That would require believing the testimony of his father, his fiancée, and her son, though, so I can understand your dismissal of that idea.
User avatar
Borgholio
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6297
Joined: 2010-09-03 09:31pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Borgholio »

aerius wrote:For the record, despite what the media and other race baiters such as Jesse Jackson would have you believe, George Zimmerman IS NOT WHITE. Mr. Zimmerman is in fact Hispanic.
Didn't stop the mob from playing the race card at every possible turn. If you're not black and you're committing violence against a black person, it's auto-racist.
You will be assimilated...bunghole!
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

The one thing prosecutors hate more than black people in America is losing. If Angela Corey can bring sexual molestation charges against Zimmerman, it will happen.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Flagg »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The one thing prosecutors hate more than black people in America is losing. If Angela Corey can bring sexual molestation charges against Zimmerman, it will happen.
Assuming he did it and they can prove it then they need to nail him for it. But not just because they lost to a bunch of idiot famewhores on the jury in the murder case.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

I'm just saying that if there's even the slightest shred of evidence behind those charges, a prosecutor who just saw an acquittal of the same suspect will be all over them like tweakers at a sudafed sale. Not for reasons of justice or punishing him for an actual crime, though. If he's actually guilty, well, good, but that's almost incidental. I'm really damned cynical about American public prosecutors.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Meest
Jedi Master
Posts: 1429
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:04am
Location: Toronto

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Meest »

The juror interview on CNN was disturbing, this lady was practically getting wet at the thought of supporting someone who stood their ground.
"Somehow I feel, that in the long run, Thanos of Titan came out ahead in this particular deal."
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Elfdart »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I'm just saying that if there's even the slightest shred of evidence behind those charges, a prosecutor who just saw an acquittal of the same suspect will be all over them like tweakers at a sudafed sale. Not for reasons of justice or punishing him for an actual crime, though. If he's actually guilty, well, good, but that's almost incidental. I'm really damned cynical about American public prosecutors.
That would depend on the statute of limitations in Florida for child molestation.

On a lighter note, here's the official George Zimmerman Neighborhood Watch:

Current TV
Image
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Simon_Jester »

Elfdart wrote:OH NOEZ! NOT TEH MIDDUL FINGURR! :shock:
That is propaganda at work, and most of you don't even know it's happening. You are being led to believe that Martin is some angelic kid who could not possibly have been doing anything suspicious which would've caused Zimmerman to follow him.
No, they see through your witless trolling because smearing the victim of a violent attack is standard operating procedure for thugs, the shyster lawyers who represent them, and fucktards who giggle as they post flamebait. Normally this kind of bullfuckery comes from special pleaders for rapists and pedophiles, who think accusing the victims of being whores and cockteasers and drinking or smoking dope magically absolves the rapist/pedophile.
Personally, I think Martin was most likely innocent in the legal sense, as in "innocent of any criminal wrongdoing" that could possibly have justified a neighborhood watchman in going after him. On the other hand, it's still a bit dishonest to portray him as a 12-year-old boy, especially since one of the issues in question is whether he was capable of threatening Zimmerman in an unarmed fight. It would be better to use some picture of Martin from the past few years in which he is NOT flipping off the camera and trying to posture to look tough.

I assume there is one.
Given that George Zimmerman is the one with a track record of being a violent fuckhead, which includes molesting his 6-year-old cousin for a decade (this cousin also told police what a vicious racist he was), a violent scuffle with a police officer and beating his fiancee (who had to get a restraining order against him); it's much more plausible that Zimmerman was casing Martin, seeking to beat, rape or kill him for a perverted thrill -which would also explain why Martin referred to him as "creepy".
Zimmerman can go play hopscotch in a minefield and never be seen again for all I care; personally I think the real issue in this case is Zimmerman acting on a stereotype about blacks, not whether Zimmerman is 'white' or 'Hispanic' himself.

It may be more honest to present Zimmerman as Hispanic rather than white, but either way he's perfectly capable of being racist against blacks. Hell, there are all too many black people who act on negative stereotypes about black people. And it's not like Afro-Hispanic relations in America have a history of being stellar.
In fact, accusations like these are completely relevant for two major reasons. The first is that, as feminists have been saying for decades now, sexual assault isn't really just a matter of someone's horniness overtaking him and causing him to pig out on a woman's body as if he hasn't eaten all day and she's a piece of cake shoved in front of him. Sexual abuse is a form of bullying, a violent crime whose pleasure for the attacker is far more about enjoying their power and dominance over the victim than it is about sexual urges. Subsequently, sexually violent men tend to be more violent generally, particularly against people they believe are lesser or weaker. If you're trying to establish that Zimmerman had it in him to hunt down and murder a teenager who is much smaller than himself, then a history of sexual assault does help demonstrate this.

Also: A lot of the prosecution's case depends on establishing whether or not Zimmerman is a glib liar who is capable of viciously attacking people and then playing the innocent "who me?" card while insinuating that the victim was asking for it. Pretty much all men who sexually assault women have developed an ability to do this; part of the routine of a rapist is terrifying and hurting someone only to convince the community to embrace him after the fact and write off the victim as hysterical, a liar, or a slut trying to cover her tracks. We know that most sexual assailants are repeat offenders—indeed, this is what the accuser in this case is claiming of Zimmerman—which means they have a lot of opportunities to practice playing innocent and blaming the victim after they've committed the crime. If the prosecution wants to establish that Zimmerman is the kind of guy who is capable of assaulting and even murdering someone and then playing innocent victim, a history of cutting his teeth as a sexual assailant helps establish that narrative.
But it doesn't matter: Trayvon Martin was black, and therefore fair game for whichever lowlife saw fit to attack him. Oh, and because he showed his middle finger.
Actually, this is a very interesting point I simply hadn't heard before- that it presents a major character issue on Zimmerman.

On the other hand, if the result of those charges hasn't been resolved, I'm not sure they're admissible in court. You really shouldn't be able to say "the defendant has been accused of A" to get him convicted of B and use "the defendant has been accused of B" to get him convicted of A.

I'm all for nailing rapists and child molestors, but making a major practice of that that could backfire against a lot of innocent people.
mr friendly guy wrote:Let me tell you a story. When I was in high school I remember all these cases where self defense meant jack and shit, and we would admire how America actually allowed people to defend themselves unlike in my country. I don't remember the cases, but I remember a sense that the law seemed to favour the criminals more than the victims (I admit it could be coloured by the fact I was a teenager at that time). But generally my friends admired how America at least let you defend yourself.

Now I find its swinging the other way. Its also quite clear that its not just the non Americans (Bobalot, myself, Edi etc) who see this ruling as a way to escalate conflict / get away with it, some Americans see it as well, Simon Jester, Cenk Uyghur from TYT etc. So its not wah I hate America wah.
This is a tricky line to walk in US self-defense law. Even the "you can start a fight then kill the other guy when it escalates in self-defense" clause can be justified from a certain point of view- say, if one party says something like "yes, I insulted him, yes, I pushed him to get him to back off from my face, that doesn't give him a right to come after me with a knife!" You could sympathize with that in some cases.

But the consequences of making it legal... well, we just saw. They get disgraceful fast.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Terralthra »

Simon_Jester wrote:
Elfdart wrote:OH NOEZ! NOT TEH MIDDUL FINGURR! :shock:
That is propaganda at work, and most of you don't even know it's happening. You are being led to believe that Martin is some angelic kid who could not possibly have been doing anything suspicious which would've caused Zimmerman to follow him.
No, they see through your witless trolling because smearing the victim of a violent attack is standard operating procedure for thugs, the shyster lawyers who represent them, and fucktards who giggle as they post flamebait. Normally this kind of bullfuckery comes from special pleaders for rapists and pedophiles, who think accusing the victims of being whores and cockteasers and drinking or smoking dope magically absolves the rapist/pedophile.
Personally, I think Martin was most likely innocent in the legal sense, as in "innocent of any criminal wrongdoing" that could possibly have justified a neighborhood watchman in going after him. On the other hand, it's still a bit dishonest to portray him as a 12-year-old boy, especially since one of the issues in question is whether he was capable of threatening Zimmerman in an unarmed fight. It would be better to use some picture of Martin from the past few years in which he is NOT flipping off the camera and trying to posture to look tough.

I assume there is one.
Image
User avatar
Losonti Tokash
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2916
Joined: 2004-09-29 03:02pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Losonti Tokash »

This is even from just a few weeks before his murder, around his birthday:

Image

Thug lyfe, yo
User avatar
Korto
Jedi Master
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2007-12-19 07:31am
Location: Newcastle, Aus

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Korto »

Here's some stuff for you, KS.
Australian self-defence laws in criminal matters A basic go-over.
Current Law on Self Defence Some more intense stuff from NSW (although Friendly is actually from WA, so there may be differences). This pretty much made me dizzy, but points I got from it:

1) The Prosecution must deal with and disprove self-defence. It's not a "Special Defence", it's a first automatic step, and they have to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt, the defence doesn't have to prove it.

2) The steps of self defence are (all this has to be DISPROVEN, beyond reasonable doubt, by the prosecution)
.... i) Did the accused, from the accused state of mind and the conditions he found himself in, have reasonable cause to feel threatened? IMPORTANT! It's from the accused's state of mind and subjective view, NOT a hypothetical "Reasonable Person"
If no, then self-defence does not apply. If yes, then:
.... ii) Were the actions of self defence reasonable from the accused's viewpoint, considering his state of mind?
If no, then self-defence does not apply. If yes, then:
.... iii) Were the actions of self defence reasonable from a "reasonable person's" viewpoint, objectively?
If no, then it is manslaughter. If yes, then it is self defence.

3) Voluntarily diminished capacity (eg drunk, high) is taken into account when appraising the accused's state of mind. This is as opposed to if you cause a car accident and whine "But I was drunk", where the only effect of that, I believe, is they find you guilty of drink driving too. Basically, being impaired is a defence if someone attacks you, and fair enough, too.

4) While not relevant to the case in question, you cannot claim self defence if using lethal force in defence of property.

Zimmerman may (or may not) have been found guilty of manslaughter, based on the "Reasonable man" test, but not murder.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Simon_Jester »

Perfect choice, as is the other one- emphasizes his humanity and decency while not totally misrepresenting his physical size and fitness.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Saxtonite
Padawan Learner
Posts: 385
Joined: 2008-07-24 10:48am
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Saxtonite »

aerius wrote: I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
RaHoWa - Racial Holy War
"Opps, wanted to add; wasn't there a study about how really smart people lead shitty lives socially? I vaguely remember something about it, so correct me if I'm wrong. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that I'd rather let the new Newton or new Tesla lead a better life than have him have a shitty one and come up with apple powered death rays."
-Knife, in here
User avatar
Metahive
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2795
Joined: 2010-09-02 09:08am
Location: Little Korea in Big Germany

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Metahive »

These attempts to paint Martin as some sort of public menace, what purpose do they serve? Even if all the insinuations are true, they still do not warrant him getting stalked by a Dirty Harry wannabe with a deadly weapon when all he was currently engaged in was going home.
People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)

Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula

O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer
User avatar
Aaron MkII
Jedi Master
Posts: 1358
Joined: 2012-02-11 04:13pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Aaron MkII »

Metahive wrote:These attempts to paint Martin as some sort of public menace, what purpose do they serve? Even if all the insinuations are true, they still do not warrant him getting stalked by a Dirty Harry wannabe with a deadly weapon when all he was currently engaged in was going home.
They validate and reinforce the opinions of racists like aerius, it lets them know that they are not alone. That their behaviour is acceptable.

Whats the term you guys use? "Racist dog whistle"
User avatar
TimothyC
Of Sector 2814
Posts: 3793
Joined: 2005-03-23 05:31pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by TimothyC »

Metahive wrote:These attempts to paint Martin as some sort of public menace, what purpose do they serve? Even if all the insinuations are true, they still do not warrant him getting stalked by a Dirty Harry wannabe with a deadly weapon when all he was currently engaged in was going home.
They go to the narrative that Martin was a violent individual who, after having disengaged from Zimmerman, re-engaged and attacked him. That's important because it helps Zimmerman's case that following his losing track of Martin, the only actions he took were those of self defense.
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev
User avatar
Metahive
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2795
Joined: 2010-09-02 09:08am
Location: Little Korea in Big Germany

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Metahive »

Zimmermann is the one who deliberately brought deadly force into the confrontation with no justification. That's the dealbreaker for me. I don't get to stalk strangers and blow them away just because they freak out that a creeper with a gun is following them around. For all Martin knew Zimmermann was a criminal who was scouting out a new target to rob or about to mug him. There's so much talk about Zimmerman, his injuries and him acting in self-defense when it is much more likely that Martin was the only one truly acting in self-defense.
This verdict is a shame.
Aaron MkII wrote:Whats the term you guys use? "Racist dog whistle"
Dog whistle? It's more like a foghorn.
People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)

Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula

O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Thanas »

This whole situation is so utterly alien to me and makes me thankful that I don't live in a society with guns. (And yes, I know gun control in the USA is impossible).
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Metahive
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2795
Joined: 2010-09-02 09:08am
Location: Little Korea in Big Germany

Re: Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

Post by Metahive »

Heinlein once said that an armed society is a polite society. I however think an armed society is a lethal society. This case shows what can happen when deadly weapons are used without the appropriate care and maturity.
People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)

Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula

O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer
Post Reply