Zimmerman to be charged

[seebs]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I will have to check my Bible but I'm pretty sure the commandment reads "Thou shalt not kill, unless thou seest a dude walking down the sidewalk, then thou shalt pursue and kill him, and that is fine."

What's funny is, this sounds like joking, but if you actually read the OT, that's pretty much spot on.

[Miss Shelby]

I hope none of you are the poor guy's jury. he'd be fried for sure. fo sizzle.

[ChuckF]

Trayvon was not only a reverse vampire dark spirit, he was also an Amalekite!

[Watser?]

Can we just fire all of Florida now and get it over with?

[BrotherMan]

Yeah, when are those people going to learn to stop being ni(CLANG!)s? They got no one to blame but themselves, amirite?

[California Tanker]

But what can you do, right? I mean, other than not getting into an unnecessary confrontation and not resorting to shooting an unarmed teenager dead.

Following someone is not a confrontation. If it were, private investigators would have a serous problem. Neither is asking someone you don't know to stop and talk to you. If that were a crime, I'll be first to cheer when chuggers and poll-takers are arrested.

There is a theory that the confrontation which did result was started by Zimmerman and that he is lying. There is another which states that it was started by Martin, and that Zimmerman is not lying. Why not wait and see what the trial, if any, concludes to have been the case?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Following someone is not a confrontation. If it were, private investigators would have a serous problem. Neither is asking someone you don't know to stop and talk to you. If that were a crime, I'll be first to cheer when chuggers and poll-takers are arrested.

There is a theory that the confrontation which did result was started by Zimmerman and that he is lying. There is another which states that it was started by Martin, and that Zimmerman is not lying. Why not wait and see what the trial, if any, concludes to have been the case?

You seem to have missed the point where the asshole shot him to death. Which of course would never have happened if the self-appointed vigilante hadn't disregarded 9/11 and started following Martin around to show what big balls he had, the defender of his reptilian gated community against a kid armed with -- what? Twizzlers or something was in his pocket? LOL

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Following someone is not a confrontation. If it were, private investigators would have a serous problem. Neither is asking someone you don't know to stop and talk to you. If that were a crime, I'll be first to cheer when chuggers and poll-takers are arrested.

There is a theory that the confrontation which did result was started by Zimmerman and that he is lying. There is another which states that it was started by Martin, and that Zimmerman is not lying. Why not wait and see what the trial, if any, concludes to have been the case?

So far there are a lot of descriptions, and it is indeed not 100% clear what happened. So if you have counter claims to the following please help me out. But here's what I understand so far:
1. Zimmerman followed Martin in his car.
2. Zimmerman got out of the car and began following Martin on foot.
3. Martin was aware that he was being followed, if descriptions of his supposed phone conversation are accurate. As well, he increased his pace, apparently to move away from Zimmerman.

Yes, what exactly it is that happened next is not clear, and open to a lot of rank speculation. But Zimmerman was not a private detective. Zimmerman was not a poll-taker. And last time I checked it is also not a crime to walk down the street, or wear a hoodie, or be black. Zimmerman brought a handgun into a confrontation- one that certainly would not have occurred had he not been following Martin, that much is sure- and then killed Martin with it. And unless one of them was going to beat the other to death with their bare hands, local masonry, or a bottle of ice tea, it is much more likely that both men would now be alive, and we could hear from both Zimmerman and Martin as to what happened about a fight, rather than a killing.

[SR71]

Quote of the Day -

"These assholes always get away."

G. Zimmerman

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

So far there are a lot of descriptions, and it is indeed not 100% clear what happened. So if you have counter claims to the following please help me out. But here's what I understand so far:
1. Zimmerman followed Martin in his car.
2. Zimmerman got out of the car and began following Martin on foot.
3. Martin was aware that he was being followed, if descriptions of his supposed phone conversation are accurate. As well, he increased his pace, apparently to move away from Zimmerman.

I have no counter-claims to those, as they appear to be pretty much the only thing that everyone agrees upon, not counting the whole 'skittles' and 'Martin was shot' bits.

Yes, what exactly it is that happened next is not clear, and open to a lot of rank speculation. But Zimmerman was not a private detective. Zimmerman was not a poll-taker. And last time I checked it is also not a crime to walk down the street, or wear a hoodie, or be black. Zimmerman brought a handgun into a confrontation- one that certainly would not have occurred had he not been following Martin, that much is sure- and then killed Martin with it. And unless one of them was going to beat the other to death with their bare hands, local masonry, or a bottle of ice tea, it is much more likely that both men would now be alive, and we could hear from both Zimmerman and Martin as to what happened about a fight, rather than a killing.

I guess part of it depends on your definition of where the 'confrontation' started. I wouldn't say the 'confrontation' started until the first communication between the two. If the Zimmerman account is correct, then I would submit he didn't bring the gun to the confrontation which actually occurred, Martin brought the confrontation to the guy who had a gun. In which case it, again, all comes down (1) what actually happened, and for the purposes of conviction, (2) what can be proven actually happened. If, on the other hand, the 'confrontation' occurred as soon as Zimmerman spotted Martin, then we have another point of view.

And unless one of them was going to beat the other to death with their bare hands, local masonry, or a bottle of ice tea, it is much more likely that both men would now be alive, and we could hear from both Zimmerman and Martin as to what happened about a fight, rather than a killing.

This is true (though I routinely carry a knife, it's not that uncommon). That said, people carry sidearms precisely in case they get into situations which require their use, to include fights in which they fear for their safety. It's something of a catch-22: The problem is that the fight shouldn't have started to begin with, but if Zimmerman's account is correct, he cannot be blamed for doing exactly what he was licensed to carry a sidearm for. The flipside of the coin is to prohibit people from carrying sidearms in the hope that in a future conflict between otherwise generally law-abiding people both sides can tell their story: Which doesn't help much in the cases where one party is less law abiding anyway. Which is more important overall?

I do wonder how much of an affect his 'neighborhood watch' title has had on how people treat him. It did seem like the cops treated him more like one of their own.

From my relatively limited discussions (and a bit of a stint playing cheap private security), cops have even less tolerance for wannabe-cops than they have for anyone else: If they want to play police, let them survive the Academy and earn the badge.

A poll taker who shot to death a respondent won't be charged in the incident, the authorities said.

Amusing. But only a valid analogy in the case that Zimmerman is lying.

NTM

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

This is true (though I routinely carry a knife, it's not that uncommon). That said, people carry sidearms precisely in case they get into situations which require their use, to include fights in which they fear for their safety. It's something of a catch-22: The problem is that the fight shouldn't have started to begin with, but if Zimmerman's account is correct, he cannot be blamed for doing exactly what he was licensed to carry a sidearm for. The flipside of the coin is to prohibit people from carrying sidearms in the hope that in a future conflict between otherwise generally law-abiding people both sides can tell their story: Which doesn't help much in the cases where one party is less law abiding anyway. Which is more important overall?

If only Martin had also been licensed to carry a sidearm too! Then things would have been even safer.

[SR71]

That said, people carry sidearms precisely in case they get into situations which require their use, to include fights in which they fear for their safety blacks blacking while blackly black.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

I have no counter-claims to those, as they appear to be pretty much the only thing that everyone agrees upon, not counting the whole 'skittles' and 'Martin was shot' bits.

...and all of these discussions and defenses of Zimmerman should be heard in a court of law, which is what most people were asking for.

That's what it comes down to. There isn't an account of events out there that explains their initial failure to investigate the incident and charge Zimmerman with a crime.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by lisarea

There isn't an account of events out there that explains their initial failure to investigate the incident and charge Zimmerman with a crime.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is proposed by Alan Dershowitz, who says the facts alleged in the Affidavit of Probable Cause submitted by the prosecutor don't justify a charge of murder 2.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Following someone is not a confrontation. If it were, private investigators would have a serous problem. Neither is asking someone you don't know to stop and talk to you. If that were a crime, I'll be first to cheer when chuggers and poll-takers are arrested.

Well sure they aren't crimes but they are certainly suspicious in the right circumstances.

Like let's say Zimmerman wasn't a happy poll taker but a self appointed 'neighborhood watch' out on patrol, and let's say he admitted to 911 operators that he was out looking for a confrontation and Martin looked like someone he wanted to get into a confrontation with. While still not crimes, certainly questionable and dangerous behavior.

I do wonder how much of an affect his 'neighborhood watch' title has had on how people treat him. It did seem like the cops treated him more like one of their own.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Following someone is not a confrontation. If it were, private investigators would have a serous problem. Neither is asking someone you don't know to stop and talk to you. If that were a crime, I'll be first to cheer when chuggers and poll-takers are arrested.

Poll Taker Won't Be Charged in Shooting Death of Respondent

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM.COM (Internet News Service) -- A poll taker who shot to death a respondent won't be charged in the incident, the authorities said.

The poll-taker, George Zimmerman, was going door to door in a gated Florida community conducting a survey on voter preferences between President Obama and Mitt Romney for the 2012 presidential race. Encountering Trayvon Martin, a black youth wearing a hoodie and armed with Skittles, Zimmerman immediately grew suspicious and began stalking Martin, demanding answers to his poll questions.

"These assholes always give the wrong answer," Zimmerman said. "Fucking coons." Zimmerman said he was afraid that Martin would skew the poll results in favor of Barack Obama, so the armed poll-taker whipped out his gun under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law and blew away both Martin and his potentially damaging vote for another black man.

"Poll taking isn't a crime," the police authorities said in a statement explaining why Zimmerman wasn't arrested.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by davidm

"These assholes always give the wrong answer," Zimmerman said. "Fucking coons." Zimmerman said he was afraid that Martin would skew the poll results in favor of Barack Obama, so the armed poll-taker whipped out his gun under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law and blew away both Martin and his potentially damaging vote for another black man.

Despite his last name, Zimmerman doesn't even look white. He looks Hispanic. And, in some photos, he resembles Barack Obama in appearance.

zimmerman_hearing.jpg

Maybe he was a gang banger in his earlier days? And, while more a matter of "Get off my turf!" l suppose it could still be described as racially motivated.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Despite his last name, Zimmerman doesn't even look white. He looks Hispanic. And, in some photos, he resembles Barack Obama in appearance.

Maybe he was a gang banger in his earlier days? And, while more a matter of "Get off my turf!" l suppose it could still be described as racially motivated.

looool moar Iacchus casual racism itt

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

looool moar Iacchus casual racism itt

don't forget coon!!

[davidm]

I wonder whether yshit has ever agreed with anything else that Dershowitz ever said?

Yes, yshit, we know the evidence is thin, as it must be in a case like this. We also know that your anti-black hero deliberately instigated a confrontation with an unarmed kid after being advised to back off by the 9/11 that he called.

But that's OK, ain't it, yshit, because the kid was black. Right?

Hey, yshit, if you had a brain, what would you do with it?

Or, more pertinently, if you had a heart, what would you do with it?

[seebs]

So far as I can tell, yguy is desperately afraid that it's blasphemous to be nicer than God, and that God is an asshole.

[Watser?]

Earlier:

[livius drusus]

Actually, that last panel should be something like "ARREST THAT MAN AND JAIL HIM FOR LIFE EVEN THOUGH I'M CARRYING A KNIFE AND THREATENING HIM."

Stand Your Ground’s Hideous Double Standard of Prosecuting African-Americans

John McNeil of Georgia, an African American man was at his home and defended himself from great bodily harm and is in prison for the rest of his life.

In early 2005, McNeil hired Brian Epp’s construction company to build a new home and after many heated confrontations with Epp decided to end the increasingly threatening business relationship. Epp and the McNeil’s agreed that the contractor would finish the work within ten days and then stay away from the property. Epp did not keep the agreement and in December of 2005, McNeil’s 15-year-old son called his father and told him an unrecognizable man was “lurking in the backyard,” and after the son told the man to leave, Epp pulled out a knife, pointed at the teen’s face and said, “why don’t you make me leave?” Mr. McNeil was still on the phone and recognized Epp’s voice and told his son to go inside and wait while he called 911 to report the incident. McNeil arrived home and Epp went to his truck to get something he concealed in his pants and came at him prompting McNeil to grab a gun and fire it at the ground insisting that Epp stop his advance. Epp continued approaching McNeil “really fast” while reaching for his knife and a shot in the head stopped Epp.

A neighbor corroborated Mr. McNeal’s story about his deadly encounter with Epp and police initially determined the shooting was a case of self-defense and did not charge him. A year later the district attorney decided to prosecute Mr. McNeil after a rash of letters and emails demanded the prosecutor investigate and charge McNeil with murder. Most of the letters were written anonymously and one was from Epp’s widow.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Actually, that last panel should be something like "ARREST THAT MAN AND JAIL HIM FOR LIFE EVEN THOUGH I'M CARRYING A KNIFE AND THREATENING HIM."

Stand Your Ground’s Hideous Double Standard of Prosecuting African-Americans

I'm not sure I get the discrepancy here...

In one case, a man was shot, police took no significant immediate action, then what appears could be a politically motivated trial took place to feed the baying mob.

In another case, a man was shot, police took no significant action, then what appears could be a politically motivated trial will take place to feed the baying mob.

So far, we seem to be batting a thousand.

More interestingly, though Mr McNeil was charged with a number of offences, the jury acquitted him of malice murder and voluntary manslaughter, but found him guilty of aggravated assault and thus felony murder (Mr McNeil made a couple of errors, to include stating a willingness to 'whip his [Epp's] ass' whilst on a recorded call to the dispatcher). Judgement upheld upon appeal. It remains to be seen what will happen to Mr Zimmerman.

Watser's second cartoon continues to perpetrate the myth of the stand your ground law even being relevant here.

NTM

[SR71]

Yeah, I mean who gets all excited about somebody threatening their son with a knife or coming to their door armed with one. Some people are so sensitive.